"They" Knew Again

[SuperPickle]

So I've posted in the past that every couple weeks at NYRA there's a race where a horse takes a TON of suspicious money and jogs. In the past during the Belmont spring meet these included a Wesley Ward horse who jogged in a NX1 after being put up via a double DQ in his maiden. 12-1 ml, opened 8/5, off 7-2 won by 5. Also there was a Pletcher filly also in a NX1 this time on the turf. 4-1 ml off a maiden breaker sprinting on the turf. Stretching out to a mile on the turf. Opened 4/5 off 6/5 and won by about 10.

Both horses had the distinction of looking ordinary on paper, getting bet like they can't lose and jogging. Andy Serling has tweeted extensively on this occurring. There's probably been about five other occurencies of it at the spring Belmont meet.

So fast forward to today. Steve's Image in the third. 15-1 ml. He has one start. It's a DNF against state bred msw at 45-1 on the turf. Taking a slight drop to state bred $50K maidens on dirt.

Goes off 9-2 off 15-1 ml. Breaks bad. Rushes up. Clears. Jogs.

Here's your kicker. Take a look at the double money he took late courtesy of Ed Derosa on Twitter...

https://mobile.twitter.com/EJXD2/status/636609824680210432/photo/2

And exacta...

https://mobile.twitter.com/EJXD2/status/636610115970428929/photo/1

They knew! And in this case "they" appears to be a lot of people.

[v j stauffer]

So I've posted in the past that every couple weeks at NYRA there's a race where a horse takes a TON of suspicious money and jogs. In the past during the Belmont spring meet these included a Wesley Ward horse who jogged in a NX1 after being put up via a double DQ in his maiden. 12-1 ml, opened 8/5, off 7-2 won by 5. Also there was a Pletcher filly also in a NX1 this time on the turf. 4-1 ml off a maiden breaker sprinting on the turf. Stretching out to a mile on the turf. Opened 4/5 off 6/5 and won by about 10.

Both horses had the distinction of looking ordinary on paper, getting bet like they can't lose and jogging. Andy Serling has tweeted extensively on this occurring. There's probably been about five other occurencies of it at the spring Belmont meet.

So fast forward to today. Steve's Image in the third. 15-1 ml. He has one start. It's a DNF against state bred msw at 45-1 on the turf. Taking a slight drop to state bred $50K maidens on dirt.

Goes off 9-2 off 15-1 ml. Breaks bad. Rushes up. Clears. Jogs.

Here's your kicker. Take a look at the double money he took late courtesy of Ed Derosa on Twitter...

https://mobile.twitter.com/EJXD2/status/636610115970428929/photo/1

They knew! And in this case "they" appears to be a lot of people.

Maybe "they" liked him last time as well? Should have been treated like a well bet 1st time starter. We all had more than enough time to react to the big action.

[SuperPickle]

Maybe "they" liked him last time as well? Should have been treated like a well bet 1st time starter. We all had more than enough time to react to the big action.

Not at 45-1 they didn't like him. But today at 9-2 they couldn't get enough.

I didn't bet the race. Just saw it on Twitter.

My point is every couple weeks there's one race at NYRA someone or some people are VERY right about their "handicapping."

[no breathalyzer]

Not at 45-1 they didn't like him. But today at 9-2 they couldn't get enough.

I didn't bet the race. Just saw it on Twitter.

My point is every couple weeks there's one race at NYRA someone or some people are VERY right about their "handicapping."

honestly i don't think this was impossible to come up with.. i didn't play the race but will say the horse isn't even a turf runner top that with a trainer that doesn't win first out and a trainer that excels with the old turf to dirt angle. I wish i didn't step away from the computer when they pulled the heist with about 2mins to post. cause that kind of $$ at nyra is always correct. It was i guess a perfect storm as there were several factors that came together that made this one a winner. Some people fault the ML but i think it was correct.

[Redboard]

I don’t see anything strange here. It only happens about a hundred times a day in racetracks around the country. Trainers know when they have a bullet that’s ready to fire. It’s their job, isn’t it? It's not like they're not allowed to bet. Besides Steves Image dropped from msw to mdclm, the steepest drop in the business, according to most experts.

[thespaah]

So I've posted in the past that every couple weeks at NYRA there's a race where a horse takes a TON of suspicious money and jogs. In the past during the Belmont spring meet these included a Wesley Ward horse who jogged in a NX1 after being put up via a double DQ in his maiden. 12-1 ml, opened 8/5, off 7-2 won by 5. Also there was a Pletcher filly also in a NX1 this time on the turf. 4-1 ml off a maiden breaker sprinting on the turf. Stretching out to a mile on the turf. Opened 4/5 off 6/5 and won by about 10.

Both horses had the distinction of looking ordinary on paper, getting bet like they can't lose and jogging. Andy Serling has tweeted extensively on this occurring. There's probably been about five other occurencies of it at the spring Belmont meet.

So fast forward to today. Steve's Image in the third. 15-1 ml. He has one start. It's a DNF against state bred msw at 45-1 on the turf. Taking a slight drop to state bred $50K maidens on dirt.

Goes off 9-2 off 15-1 ml. Breaks bad. Rushes up. Clears. Jogs.

Here's your kicker. Take a look at the double money he took late courtesy of Ed Derosa on Twitter...

https://mobile.twitter.com/EJXD2/status/636609824680210432/photo/2

And exacta...

https://mobile.twitter.com/EJXD2/status/636610115970428929/photo/1

They knew! And in this case "they" appears to be a lot of people.
I do spend part of my handicapping time reading the tote board.
And I can tell you with no degree of uncertainty that if I had spotted this 9/2 horse ( off a 15-1 ML late in the betting period)getting hammered in the exotics, I would have at least used the horse as a saver or even used the number in my exotics.
I do not view this as anything other than "opportunity". The tote board is just another tool. As long as "those who know" place bets I can see, I consider it my advantage.
One other thing. I don't rely on just PP's. That is just one tool.

[Stillriledup]

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123509&highlight=Paper

[cj]

Not at 45-1 they didn't like him. But today at 9-2 they couldn't get enough.

I didn't bet the race. Just saw it on Twitter.

My point is every couple weeks there's one race at NYRA someone or some people are VERY right about their "handicapping."

This has been happening for a long time. Andy Serling frequently uses words like "they knew" and "betting him like the race has already been run" for these kinds of runners. They rarely disappoint.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

...They knew! And in this case "they" appears to be a lot of people.

Or a few people betting large.

How is this different than any other circuit in the country? In the world, for that matter?

Unless the win odds are dramatically cut on the last flash, I don't see a problem. It appears to me you're singling out NYRA for failure to provide the players a fair chance.....

[Robert Fischer]

http://www.iconexperience.com/_img/v_collection_png/256x256/shadow/ufo.png

Unexpected Odds Behavior


What is UOB, and why does it make your expected ML important?

When the Odds Behave differently from what you Expected, this is telling you in real time, that YOU WERE WRONG. :D

Safest thing to do at that point is 'fold em'.
Pass the race and move on.

OR
there are more advanced ways to 'read' that hand.


When the Odds behave unexpectedly, there are 3 primary reasons:


Randomness (some guy made a big bet on his birthday etc.., a 'high roller' went on 'tilt', significant 'dumb' money, etc...)


Errors (We made a bad line! WE made a mistake. We were Wrong!!)


Inside Information (Trainer loves this horse today, etc..)
Beginners should always pass, except for fun/practice.


Advanced horseplayers should usually pass, but also attempt to read their ERRORS and why they screwed up and misjudged the odds and how they can learn from it.
Once in a while they can adapt on the fly and re-calculate their bet.
Once in a blue moon, they realize that word is out, and the horse is being bet much higher up in the hierarchy of contenders than expected, and the player is sharp enough to tell the difference between a screwup, and a horse that is UNEXPECTEDLY Hot-on-the-board and that may be a live horse to hammer or key or single on a few tickets or whatever.

[burnsy]

Not at 45-1 they didn't like him. But today at 9-2 they couldn't get enough.

I didn't bet the race. Just saw it on Twitter.

My point is every couple weeks there's one race at NYRA someone or some people are VERY right about their "handicapping."

The trick is figuring out when "they" are wrong. This is funny because my friend was talking about this yesterday. 3 races later (6th) "they" could not send in enough on Send It In, 6-5 off a state bred maiden win facing open company including a horse that was 3rd to Stanford in a 100k race and a horse that was second in an open Str 50000cnd to Special Ops. Send It In beat a total of two horses in the race. For the life of me I could not see 6-5 on this horse...Pletcher maybe? The "money" and the "word" are often just as wrong as they are right. That's the thing with gambling, "they" can be just as wrong as anyone else....the trick is sniffing it out when "they" are going to be wrong. I would not of bet Send It In with money I found on the ground at 6-5 off the race he barely won.

[Garrigan]

He may play the NYRA circuit mostly, and is familiar with the players.
But yes, this goes on everywhere.

[Grits]

The trick is figuring out when "they" are wrong. This is funny because my friend was talking about this yesterday. 3 races later (6th) "they" could not send in enough on Send It In, 6-5 off a state bred maiden win facing open company including a horse that was 3rd to Stanford in a 100k race and a horse that was second in an open Str 50000cnd to Special Ops. Send It In beat a total of two horses in the race. For the life of me I could not see 6-5 on this horse...Pletcher maybe? The "money" and the "word" are often just as wrong as they are right. That's the thing with gambling, "they" can be just as wrong as anyone else....the trick is sniffing it out when "they" are going to be wrong. I would not of bet Send It In with money I found on the ground at 6-5 off the race he barely won.

100% agree, Burnsy. This is simply a non issue from which one can move on.

[Garrigan]

Horses get pulled up for reasons that have nothing to do with their soundness, or exhaustion.
The New York circuit has arguably some of the best, most talented jockeys in the game.
A good jockey can pull a horse out of a race, and make it look like there was something wrong with the horse.
Goes with the territory

[Kash$]

According to Crist-"They doesnt exist"

[Robert Fischer]

The trick is figuring out when "they" are wrong. This is funny because my friend was talking about this yesterday. 3 races later (6th) "they" could not send in enough on Send It In, 6-5 off a state bred maiden win facing open company including a horse that was 3rd to Stanford in a 100k race and a horse that was second in an open Str 50000cnd to Special Ops. Send It In beat a total of two horses in the race. For the life of me I could not see 6-5 on this horse...Pletcher maybe? The "money" and the "word" are often just as wrong as they are right. That's the thing with gambling, "they" can be just as wrong as anyone else....the trick is sniffing it out when "they" are going to be wrong. I would not of bet Send It In with money I found on the ground at 6-5 off the race he barely won.

The difference between Steve's Image and Send it In is that everyone knew Send it In was going to be the favorite as soon as the race was carded and either agreed or disagreed (I had a nice $8 double on 2Total Joint to the 1entry in the following race).

Send it In was expected to be the favorite.
Steve's Image was not expected to be a well-bet 3rd choice taking significant doubles and exacta moneys in his race. That was unexpected money.

[Robert Fischer]

Horses get pulled up for reasons that have nothing to do with their soundness, or exhaustion.
The New York circuit has arguably some of the best, most talented jockeys in the game.
A good jockey can pull a horse out of a race, and make it look like there was something wrong with the horse.
Goes with the territory

Must have been a 'ghost rider' who was pulling Steve's Image out of the race and making it look like something was wrong with the horse, because Steve's Image shied-in at the break, and lost the rider @ 50-1 odds in his only previous race, which was his debut on August 15.

[Dave Schwartz]

I would say that much (most?) of what has been described in this thread falls under the category of "legal cheating."

We live in a world where "clouding the form" of a horse being made ready for a win is just an acceptable behavior.

There are a lot of reasons why horse racing is not thriving. This is one of them. Those in charge do not even think that integrity is an issue, except for obvious drugging and the use of buzzers.

Try to name any sport that is truly succeeding financially where:

1) There is betting
2) The integrity of the participants is regularly in question
3) The odds on your bets are not even known when you place your wager

Even the horsemen want to tell us that this racing is "entertainment."


Smart people just choose another sport to get interested in.

That's why we're a dying breed.

[Redboard]

I would say that much (most?) of what has been described in this thread falls under the category of "legal cheating."Even the horsemen want to tell us that this racing is "entertainment."

.........................

Smart people just choose another sport to get interested in.

That's why we're a dying breed.

I remember reading an interview of one of the top jockeys: "... don't just come for the gambling, come for the pageantry."

:D

[EMD4ME]

Must have been a 'ghost rider' who was pulling Steve's Image out of the race and making it look like something was wrong with the horse, because Steve's Image shied-in at the break, and lost the rider @ 50-1 odds in his only previous race, which was his debut on August 15.

My notes on him 1st out were, broke in, spooked by horse next to him, jock lost balance, fell off.

I saw nothing of chicanery in that 1st race. Horse probably needed 1, they placed on him on turf as a prep.

Nothing wrong with this scenario. I agree Robert.

[Dave Schwartz]

I remember reading an interview of one of the top jockeys: "... don't just come for the gambling, come for the pageantry."

:ThmbUp:

And we'd all do that... once or twice a year.

They rest of the time.

[Robert Fischer]

My notes on him 1st out were, broke in, spooked by horse next to him, jock lost balance, fell off.

I saw nothing of chicanery in that 1st race. Horse probably needed 1, they placed on him on turf as a prep.

Nothing wrong with this scenario. I agree Robert.

Yup...
I'm guessing the trainer (and maybe an owner who likes to bet, and maybe just the trainer), knew this was a decent horse all along, and after the disaster in the debut race, knew he could safely drop to 40kmclm or whatever it was , and knew he wouldn't get claimed.

Wasn't much opposition in the mclm race. 7 and 9 were interesting because they had good trainers who tend to do well 2nd time with a horse and mdn-mclm... Those were 2 'angle favorites', rather than big talents(or they wouldn't be dropped in for a tag).

Steve's trainer/owner were probably who made the score, and I don't think it was chicanery either. Sometimes 'smart money' just knows better information. When a horse is either live or dead on the board, and you don't know the reason, I simply advise acknowledging that before betting your hard earned money.

[Robert Fischer]

In race 4 today there is another one.

:2: Stone Supplier is being bet heavily in lead-in doubles and pick3s.

In this case the money is logical. You have a horse who got a great setup last time, but that also flattered his closing kick in that race, and you had Eric Cancel up with the horse swerving in the stretch, and today you get Johnny V up. So the connections and the wise-guys feel this horse can run a little , and has a big jockey upgrade.

I'm not betting the horse, but I can see why he's taking some heavier than expected action.

[classhandicapper]

Many horses that seemingly take a lot surprising money actually have some trainer pattern, trip, or bias associated with them that was missed by whoever is complaining. Everyone is not looking at the same information. But it's close to impossible to come up with any reason this one was taking a lot of money. Someone knew this horse was going to run well despite going off long 1st time.

[thaskalos]

IMO...this is the biggest psychological hurdle that the serious player has to overcome. Developing the ability to cope with the realization that, no matter how "advanced" a player he may get to be...there will always be other players who will have more pertinent information than what is available to him.

[classhandicapper]

IMO...this is the biggest psychological hurdle that the serious player has to overcome. Developing the ability to cope with the realization that, no matter how "advanced" a player he may get to be...there will always be other players who will have more pertinent information than what is available to him.

This is the kind of thing that argues against pure line making.

What appear to be an underlay or overlay may actually be you working with incomplete or inaccurate information.

The alternative is looking for horses you have "have something on" that you believe won't be fully reflected in the odds. Then you can bet them when they are spotted where they can win or at least be part of the vertical exotics if the price does look good.

[thaskalos]

This is the kind of thing that argues against pure line making.

What appear to be an underlay or overlay may actually be you working with incomplete or inaccurate information.

The alternative is looking for horses you have "have something on" that you believe won't be fully reflected in the odds. Then you can bet them when they are spotted where they can win or at least be part of the vertical exotics if the price does look good.

It's also one of the main reasons why I favor the vertical exotics over the horizontals.

[Stillriledup]

IMO...this is the biggest psychological hurdle that the serious player has to overcome. Developing the ability to cope with the realization that, no matter how "advanced" a player he may get to be...there will always be other players who will have more pertinent information than what is available to him.

The pertinent information is much more damaging if it prevents you from being a long-run winner.

The key is to know enough about the equine talents to be able to sniff out legit money from bingo money.

When im handicapping the night before there are horses ill see who dont show enough for me on paper/tape but i will address it in my own mind and be watching certain runners to see if they get 'bet' mkre than they should from the info thats publicly available.

[thaskalos]

The pertinent information is much more damaging if it prevents you from being a long-run winner.

The key is to know enough about the equine talents to be able to sniff out legit money from bingo money.

When im handicapping the night before there are horses ill see who dont show enough for me on paper/tape but i will address it in my own mind and be watching certain runners to see if they get 'bet' mkre than they should from the info thats publicly available.

IMO...you have to respect the betting action that goes contrary to conventional handicapping principles. The past-performances and the replays only reveal PART of what is really going on with these horses that we obsess over. The bottom line is that these past-performance lines and replays that we analyze took place a month+ ago...and many things could have happened in the life of the horse since then.

[Stillriledup]

IMO...you have to respect the betting action that goes contrary to conventional handicapping principles. The past-performances and the replays only reveal PART of what is really going on with these horses that we obsess over. The bottom line is that these past-performance lines and replays that we analyze took place a month+ ago...and many things could have happened in the life of the horse since then.

Totally true.

[Stillriledup]

Interesting 'they knew' situation in race 2 today at Spa. Pletcher horse who 'could have been' 3-5 takes no money at all and predictable, runs like he has cement in his shoes.

[cj]

Interesting 'they knew' situation in race 2 today at Spa. Pletcher horse who 'could have been' 3-5 takes no money at all and predictable, runs like he has cement in his shoes.

2-1 (on a firster no less) in a loaded maiden race with a who's who of Saratoga trainers is not taking money? Come on.

[Stillriledup]

2-1 (on a firster no less) in a loaded maiden race with a who's who of Saratoga trainers is not taking money? Come on.

I guess no TAP Firster has ever been under 2-1 before? Also it's not a loaded race, horses in here were struggling to run beyers in the 80s.

[cj]

I guess no TAP Firster has ever been under 2-1 before? Also it's not a loaded race, horses in here were struggling to run beyers in the 80s.

It was a 3yo debuting in late August, hardly the kind that go to the gate at 3 to 5. And you know I don't care about Beyers, but even so 80s aren't bad these days for MSWs. G1s barely crack a 100.

[Stillriledup]

It was a 3yo debuting in late August, hardly the kind that go to the gate at 3 to 5. And you know I don't care about Beyers, but even so 80s aren't bad these days for MSWs. G1s barely crack a 100.

He was bet as if he was a plodding closer, 'they' knew he wasn't going to be zipped into the pace and 'they' knew he would be given an education race.

Pletcher horses who are ML faves rarely go off the 2nd choice, especially fancy firsters w top jocks.

[Track Phantom]

He wasn't being bet like he was live.

There were some bad signs alongside him. Pletcher is now 0 for 8 with only 2 ITM with debut 3YO+ firsters at Saratoga. Andy Serling made a good point. He worked 10 and change as a 2YO but waited another 14 months to make a start.

I started a pick 4, went 4 deep and tossed him mainly due to the negative info combined with no "steam" money.

[cj]

He was bet as if he was a plodding closer, 'they' knew he wasn't going to be zipped into the pace and 'they' knew he would be given an education race.

Pletcher horses who are ML faves rarely go off the 2nd choice, especially fancy firsters w top jocks.


9/5 to 2/1.

I'm not saying he was being bet like a sure thing, but hardly dead on the board. That is just silly. Feel free to keep ignoring the other points being made...3yo in late August, flashy sales work, no races. He was overbet if you ask me, not dead on the board.

[Stillriledup]

[QUOTE=cj]9/5 to 2/1.

I'm not saying he was being bet like a sure thing, but hardly dead on the board. That is just silly. Feel free to keep ignoring the other points being made...3yo in late August, flashy sales work, no races. He was overbet if you ask me, not dead on the board.[/

. He was as dead as a doornail on the board, we can agree to disagree.

[lamboguy]

how about PEPPI THE HUNTER in the 3rd at Delaware this afternoon

[cj]

[QUOTE=cj]9/5 to 2/1.

I'm not saying he was being bet like a sure thing, but hardly dead on the board. That is just silly. Feel free to keep ignoring the other points being made...3yo in late August, flashy sales work, no races. He was overbet if you ask me, not dead on the board.[/

. He was as dead as a doornail on the board, we can agree to disagree.

4,000,000 posts and you can't get the Quote thing down yet?

Anyway, I thought he was way overbet and made others in the race value. That is the opposite of dead on the board. We can agree to disagree of course. You're wrong and I'm right. :)

[Stillriledup]

[QUOTE=Stillriledup]

4,000,000 posts and you can't get the Quote thing down yet?

Anyway, I thought he was way overbet and made others in the race value. That is the opposite of dead on the board. We can agree to disagree of course. You're wrong and I'm right. :)

What are you the spelling and quote police today? Geez, give it a rest, that's a tired act.

As far as me being wrong, I guess I was due to be wrong at some point even if just by accident.

[cj]

[QUOTE=cj]

What are you the spelling and quote police today? Geez, give it a rest, that's a tired act.

As far as me being wrong, I guess I was due to be wrong at some point even if just by accident.

Yes, I am the spelling police particularly when I'm guessing it was done intentionally in your case.

If you don't like my moderating you can always apply for the position. It isn't as glamorous as you might think.

[bks]

I guess no TAP Firster has ever been under 2-1 before? Also it's not a loaded race, horses in here were struggling to run beyers in the 80s.

Every horse in the race was either a $100K + yearling buy or sired by a stud with an $85K+ fee. I got 10-1 on a Flower Alley firster out of a Captain Bodgit Mare with a recent Belmont bullet and Clemente. It was a deep field, come on.

[Robert Fischer]

Nobody betting well-meant serious money was going heavy on the 5 in race 2, unless they personally loved the horse's workouts.

He was a huge 2yo buy, and then was not seen until age 3. He was entered the other day and scratched in the gate as well.

This race was a bad example. CJ is correct, he was an underlay @ 2-1.

He (5) did some internal running and probably runs much better next time out. As will the 2.


The actual example race for "they knew" today was the 4th race.
:7: Roll Tide Roll was bet like a lower-stakes horse to open at around 9/5 on a 5-1 line , and :2:Tennessee was like 4-1 to open. A guy actually had to go in and defrost the totalizator.
The same people who wasted money on the 5 in race 2, eventually made Tenessee go off at about 5-2. Roll Tide ran well enough and will be tough going forward.

[Stillriledup]

Nobody betting well-meant serious money was going heavy on the 5 in race 2, unless they personally loved the horse's workouts.

He was a huge 2yo buy, and then was not seen until age 3. He was entered the other day and scratched in the gate as well.

This race was a bad example. CJ is correct, he was an underlay @ 2-1.

He (5) did some internal running and probably runs much better next time out. As will the 2.


The actual example race for "they knew" today was the 4th race.
:7: Roll Tide Roll was bet like a lower-stakes horse to open at around 9/5 on a 5-1 line , and :2:Tennessee was like 4-1 to open. A guy actually had to go in and defrost the totalizator.
The same people who wasted money on the 5 in race 2, eventually made Tenessee go off at about 5-2. Roll Tide ran well enough and will be tough going forward.

"Unless they loved the workouts"

But they didnt, thus, cold on board.

The horse raced and was ridden not like a typical TAP Firster, he was a big goof, he wasn't an underlay because TAP horses who are pricey yearlings at ML fave w top riders don't go off 2nd choice all that often. There was no insider money on this horse it was all public money.

[Robert Fischer]

We'll just have to disagree here. Maybe you are right. :ThmbUp:

[Robert Fischer]

In addition to the race you have pointed out, the 4th race with the flip/flopping odds is also interesting. ;)

[Stillriledup]

In addition to the race you have pointed out, the 4th race with the flip/flopping odds is also interesting. ;)

Both Pletchers and both bet hard. I liked the 7 better than the 2, but my main play in there was this: tri part wheel 47/4567/3 and 4567/47/3.

The 3 looked nice on far turn, I think he moved too soon.

[Garrigan]

Sad, but true.

[cj]

We'll just have to disagree here. Maybe you are right. :ThmbUp:


He isn't...dead on the board horses don't create overlays on other horses. There didn't have to be any inside info on the horse. It was there for all to see. They didn't wait to race the horse until he was almost 4 to put one over on a Spa Monday crowd. He was bet below his morning line if I remember right. Anybody that expected him to be bet to even money or less was delusional.

[Garrigan]

Sorry, I should've made it a bit more clear; I was not referring to that specific race.
I agree Send It In was not a good bet at all.

[Robert Fischer]

He isn't...dead on the board horses don't create overlays on other horses. There didn't have to be any inside info on the horse. It was there for all to see. They didn't wait to race the horse until he was almost 4 to put one over on a Spa Monday crowd. He was bet below his morning line if I remember right. Anybody that expected him to be bet to even money or less was delusional.

I thought 5, and 1 were both underlays in that race. I had the 6 in a pick3 that busted, but I mostly leaned on the 2 while using the 5 on some light tickets. The 2 got pinched at the break and looked fundamentally solid late. He didn't amaze me, but he's solid.

In retrospect I probably should have done better in that race trouble or not with two horses that I felt were over-bet...

[Garrigan]

Have to agree, also the horse looked a bit foot sore in the paddock, I'm thinking TAP would not have run him at all, looking like he doesn't if the owner hadn't perhaps put in the request.
Yes, I noted TAP's record with 3yo maidens

[no breathalyzer]

You want to talk about '' they knew '' as a trainer how do you not know you're horse is gonna run like it did in the last race today. Rock hard turf or not that's a pretty remarkable form reversal there. :eek:

[chenoa]

What about the 9th race at Delaware. Looks like the :6: wasn't played in the pick 3 but got hammered late to go off at 2/1 and the exacta returned $58.60 for horses that were 15-1 and 12-1 in the morning line and there was a :1: :1a: in the race to boot. Smells fishy. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Stillriledup]

'They' were at it again at the Big A, regulus, didnt look like a 1-2 shot on paper, yet, took huge bets, appeared to be in a bit of trouble at the top of the lane, but found another gear to win.

1-2, "they' knew, you don't bet that kind of money on a guess.

[cj]

'They' were at it again at the Big A, regulus, didnt look like a 1-2 shot on paper, yet, took huge bets, appeared to be in a bit of trouble at the top of the lane, but found another gear to win.

1-2, "they' knew, you don't bet that kind of money on a guess.

Looked like a 1-2 shot on paper to me. The horses most likely to be his closest competition were on negative trainer changes. He didn't win like a 1-2 shot though.

[Track Phantom]

'They' were at it again at the Big A, regulus, didnt look like a 1-2 shot on paper, yet, took huge bets, appeared to be in a bit of trouble at the top of the lane, but found another gear to win.

1-2, "they' knew, you don't bet that kind of money on a guess.

Bad example. Made a ton of sense today.

However, reading the original poster accompanied by the double and exacta payoffs each minute prior to post were quite compelling. The winning exacta combo dropped from 83 to 33 from the 3mn mark to the 2mn mark. How much money had to be wagered on this combo to drop it to that payoff? And, it had to be one way because big wagers on other combos would have made this winning payoff higher.

This doesn't concern me if there are 5x the amount of scenarios with this odd betting pattern that resulted in losers. If this happens 1 in 5 times correctly, I am not overly concerned. For some reason, I think this correctly happens 9 in 10 times. That is a problem.

[Cholly]

Bad example. Made a ton of sense today.

However, reading the original poster accompanied by the double and exacta payoffs each minute prior to post were quite compelling. The winning exacta combo dropped from 83 to 33 from the 3mn mark to the 2mn mark. How much money had to be wagered on this combo to drop it to that payoff? And, it had to be one way because big wagers on other combos would have made this winning payoff higher.

This doesn't concern me if there are 5x the amount of scenarios with this odd betting pattern that resulted in losers. If this happens 1 in 5 times correctly, I am not overly concerned. For some reason, I think this correctly happens 9 in 10 times. That is a problem.

Wow, that's quite a drop.

[Track Phantom]

OK-- the race the original poster referenced got me interested enough to research it some.

The winner ended up going off as the third favorite (down from 15-1 ML). The runner-up was the 2nd favorite.

The actual favorite in the race had this running line:
THREESKILLS struck the left side of the gate with some force while being released from it, darted into the two path, wandered outward from upper to midstretch in two stages until the widest of all, made no impact.

What intrigued me about this obvious "in the know" bet was how could they make this bet without knowing the actual favorite wouldn't beat them. When you read this running line of the favorite, it looks pretty fishy when combined with the betting on the winning combination.

Not at all say this was some kind of conspiracy. I have absolutely no idea. But when I see betting like that (3rd favorite and 15-1 morning line over the 2nd favorite) in an exacta that would drop the payoff from $83 to $33 at the 2mn to post mark, I am looking for an explanation. When the favorite in the race runs like he did, it does raise some eyebrows.

[whodoyoulike]

Bad example. Made a ton of sense today.

However, reading the original poster accompanied by the double and exacta payoffs each minute prior to post were quite compelling. The winning exacta combo dropped from 83 to 33 from the 3mn mark to the 2mn mark. How much money had to be wagered on this combo to drop it to that payoff? And, it had to be one way because big wagers on other combos would have made this winning payoff higher.

This doesn't concern me if there are 5x the amount of scenarios with this odd betting pattern that resulted in losers. If this happens 1 in 5 times correctly, I am not overly concerned. For some reason, I think this correctly happens 9 in 10 times. That is a problem.

I try to observe these changes on the horses I'm interested in but, usually I can't remember as you do.

How do you do it?

[Track Phantom]

I try to observe these changes on the horses I'm interested in but, usually I can't remember as you do.

How do you do it?
This comes from a screen shot from the original poster. Looks like he has some way to retroactively track the payoffs minute by minute.

[SuperPickle]

Yeah this is not a "they knew."

It was Rudy off the claim, his main rival scratch and there were 2-3 other horses on negative trainer changes. 1-2 was a little light but this was horse was probably a legit event money/4-5 shot.

However this brings up another NYRA phenomenon... the pile on.

This happens at all tracks but NYRA is probably he worst. You'll see a 8-5, 7-5 shot and with 90 seconds to go they'll hammer him down 4-5, 3-5. It generally happens when there's a clear favorite and no clear second choice/alternative. They'll go WAY over board on the favorite.

It happened in the 5th race Saturday with the Mott NY bred maiden horse. He was probably a legit 8-5, 9-5 shot, but 3-5 was insane and he ran up the track.

[menifee]

Anybody see the #2 in race 7? Bet from 30-1 down to 11-1. Just did not make sense to me at all. Andy Serling had it so maybe that explains the odds drop.

[Stillriledup]

Yeah this is not a "they knew."

It was Rudy off the claim, his main rival scratch and there were 2-3 other horses on negative trainer changes. 1-2 was a little light but this was horse was probably a legit event money/4-5 shot.

However this brings up another NYRA phenomenon... the pile on.

This happens at all tracks but NYRA is probably he worst. You'll see a 8-5, 7-5 shot and with 90 seconds to go they'll hammer him down 4-5, 3-5. It generally happens when there's a clear favorite and no clear second choice/alternative. They'll go WAY over board on the favorite.

It happened in the 5th race Saturday with the Mott NY bred maiden horse. He was probably a legit 8-5, 9-5 shot, but 3-5 was insane and he ran up the track.

But you're agreeing with me by saying the horse was overbet. This was not a 1-2 shot no matter how you slice it, he's a stalker/closer sort from post 1, it's a bad post for this style of runner, he was in traffic which was predictable, so forgetting about everything else about the horse as an individual, being in post 1 with his running style made him overbet at 1-2 and that's not even discussing that the 5 had faster beyers in his last 3 on average.

You just can't make a case that 1-2 was the "proper price" for this runner.

[cj]

Anybody see the #2 in race 7? Bet from 30-1 down to 11-1. Just did not make sense to me at all. Andy Serling had it so maybe that explains the odds drop.


Think it was more a bad morning line. Andy picked him and David picked him as the TimeformUS Highlight Horse today.

http://timeformusblog.com/2015/11/09/monday-aqueduct-highlight-horse-the-stars-are-aligning-for-301-snake-oil-charlie/

[Track Phantom]

Think it was more a bad morning line. Andy picked him and David picked him as the TimeformUS Highlight Horse today.

http://timeformusblog.com/2015/11/09/monday-aqueduct-highlight-horse-the-stars-are-aligning-for-301-snake-oil-charlie/

I thought the same thing when I saw it at 11-1. I thought he looked almost identical to half of the field and that 30-1 was a little over the top in that race.