NYRA's lame excuse

[cj]

Does anyone really believe this business about a shoe problem that cause a horse that would have been 1 to 10 maximum to run for purse money only yesterday? Seems to me they carded a pathetic race, then took the easy out to avoid a minus pool.

[twindouble]

Does anyone really believe this business about a shoe problem that cause a horse that would have been 1 to 10 maximum to run for purse money only yesterday? Seems to me they carded a pathetic race, then took the easy out to avoid a minus pool.

What ever they do only validates how they think when it comes to the general public, the dummies will be back anyway. I don't know how many times horses that had shoe problems, with a delay it was fixed and then off and running. I would rather see them cut off the wagering when a horse is close to a minus pool than just plain lie about it. When there no credibility in what they say, the feeling I get is how far would they go?


T.D.

[saratoga guy]

Does anyone really believe this business about a shoe problem... ?

I do.

Take a look at the 3rd race from the day before. It was a five-horse alw race somewhat similar to the race in question (as far as betting opportunity and placement on the card). Because there were five betting interests in that race there was trifecta wagering -- and a tri pool of $134K. The exacta pool was $293K.

Yesterday, with only four betting interests, there was no tri. The exacta pool was $175K.

That's about a quarter of a million dollar difference in pools (and those are the higher takeout gimmick wagers) between the four-horse field and the five-horse field -- which would help mitigate (if not comlpetely wipe-out) any potential minus show pool loss.

[twindouble]

I do.

Take a look at the 3rd race from the day before. It was a five-horse alw race somewhat similar to the race in question (as far as betting opportunity and placement on the card). Because there were five betting interests in that race there was trifecta wagering -- and a tri pool of $134K. The exacta pool was $293K.

Yesterday, with only four betting interests, there was no tri. The exacta pool was $175K.

That's about a quarter of a million dollar difference in pools (and those are the higher takeout gimmick wagers) between the four-horse field and the five-horse field -- which would help mitigate (if not comlpetely wipe-out) any potential minus show pool loss.

Are you saying there can't be a minus win pool, or place? I wouldn't beting that race anyway.

[saratoga guy]

Are you saying there can't be a minus win pool, or place?

No, I'm not.

Are you saying that you think there would have been a minus win and place pool on that horse -- as well as a minus show pool?

Because, while there can be minus win and place pools -- I've never actually seen a minus win pool, and I can't remember ever seeing a minus place pool, but it's probably happened. I don't think Sunday's race would have produced one though.

[twindouble]

No, I'm not.

Are you saying that you think there would have been a minus win and place pool on that horse -- as well as a minus show pool?

Because, while there can be minus win and place pools -- I've never actually seen a minus win pool, and I can't remember ever seeing a minus place pool, but it's probably happened. I don't think Sunday's race would have produced one though.

Can't say for sure on the minus pools win or place, like I said I would be betting those races like that, so I have no recollection of it happening. I do think there reason for running for purce only, just threw up a lot of doubt. Like I said, fix the shoe.

[TravisVOX]

I heard the scratch was an accident, mis-communication or something like that. Who knows.

[saratoga guy]

NY Daily News:

Khalila, the 2-5 morning line favorite in yesterday's third race at Belmont, won but ran for purse money only. The 3-year-old filly threw a shoe while in the detention barn and after repeated attempts to put a new shoe on failed, the decision was made to run her for purse money only, protecting the betting public.

===

They tried to fix the shoe. When they couldn't they decided to allow the horse to run for purse-money only.

Which is preferred: Do what they did -- and have the horse win, which might upset people who wanted to play the horse, or, allow the horse to run and, because of the shoe problem, it falters and runs off the board? To me the latter scenario is less attractive to bettors.

And the idea that the shoe problem was a cover-up to avoid a minus pool means you have to believe that Kiaran McLaughlin and a farrier -- at least -- are part of the conspiracy.

[twindouble]

I don't read the NY Daily News:

Why not just scratch the horse? That happens a lot, who would think anything of it if the horse had problems? A sound horse running with three shoes just throws up a flag.

[Tom]

The problem was the horse was not "scratched!" He ran in the race and he affected the pace. Whether or not he was a betting interest is not relevant.
This was not communicated well at all - many - inlcuding some I was playing with - did not know he was running FPMO.

"Scratched" has got to be limited to not in the race. They need to come with a term that means a horse is still in the race but not bettable. NYRA needs to understand that their on track audience is only a small fraction of those putting money down and come up with some adequate communication steps to ensure TRUE information is relayed to satellite betting arenas. Most that I have ever been to have any kind of audible sound and one has to rely on the screen graphics. In this case, that was not good enough. A glance at the odds for the race showed the horse as a scratch.

Frankly, IMHO, this whole practice of allowing a horse to run in a race, affect the pace, and not be a betting interest is ridiculous. It is time to look out for the bettor's interest, not the horsemen's. End this stupid situation once and for all.

And just a layman's observation - is running a horse on three shoes a good idea? And is running a horse on three shoes when he so agitated and fractious that for hours it cannot be shoed a good idea?

Maybe guys like Tom McShell can chime in with professional advice?

[saratoga guy]

Why not just scratch the horse?

What's the difference -- to you, the bettor? The horse ran -- for purse-money only. For betting purposes, he was scratched.

A sound horse running with three shoes just throws up a flag.

I'm confused. You say that you -- probably like a lot of bettors -- wouldn't play this type of race anyway. So what kind of "flags" were thrown up for you?

Are you really upset that NYRA might have prevented some chuckleheads from jumping into the show pool in order to make a quick 5% on their money?

I really don't think that happened (NYRA covering up the desire to avoid a minus pool) -- and I think a reasonable look at the situation backs that up.

[saratoga guy]

The problem was the horse was not "scratched!" He ran in the race and he affected the pace. Whether or not he was a betting interest is not relevant.
This was not communicated well at all

That's a different problem altogether. If the fact that the horse was running for purse money only was not properly communicated to bettors then that is a problem.

Frankly, IMHO, this whole practice of allowing a horse to run in a race, affect the pace, and not be a betting interest is ridiculous. It is time to look out for the bettor's interest, not the horsemen's.

Owenrs are just as important to the game as bettors. Running for purse-money only is a viable solution to many situations and should be seen as a reasonable compromise between the needs of owners and bettors.

[twindouble]

What's the difference -- to you, the bettor? The horse ran -- for purse-money only. For betting purposes, he was scratched.



I'm confused. You say that you -- probably like a lot of bettors -- wouldn't play this type of race anyway. So what kind of "flags" were thrown up for you?

Are you really upset that NYRA might have prevented some chuckleheads from jumping into the show pool in order to make a quick 5% on their money?

I really don't think that happened -- and I think a reasonable look at the situation backs that up.

No,no don't go adding to what I'm saying. I have no hot irons in the fire on the subject. The horse wasn't scratched and like Tom said, he's still a factor in the race. It brings about questionable dicisions in the public's eyes, that's the flag I was referring to. An out right scratch would have prevented that, plus I was looking for your opinion when I said, why not scratch the horse.

It's called conversation and giving opinions, not go to war on the subject. Besides, it don't happen that often to begin with so I'm not concerned about it at all. Like I said, just something to talk about, that's why threads are started.

[cj]

Tom hit the nail on the head. It was a very confusing situation for simulcast players. And if you think the fact they could avoid a minus show pool didn't play a big part in the decision, I would think that is a bit naive.

[Valuist]

What's the difference -- to you, the bettor? The horse ran -- for purse-money only. For betting purposes, he was scratched.





But he affected the running of the race. NYRA must be the only place where horses run for purse money only. They really need to re-think their rules on this one. Scratch the horse. I'm sure they could find another spot for the animal. And like Tom said, the ontrack audience and handle is only a fraction of the total pie, even in New York.

[saratoga guy]

It's called conversation and giving opinions, not go to war on the subject.

I'm am just discussing. If it sounded like "war", it wasn't.

[saratoga guy]

Tom hit the nail on the head. It was a very confusing situation for simulcast players. And if you think the fact they could avoid a minus show pool didn't play a big part in the decision, I would think that is a bit naive.

What Tom pointed out is quite different than your original question.

And as I pointed out -- a five-horse field would likely increase the betting pools enough to mostly mitigate any possible minus pool.

[Indulto]

Hard to detect any rodent odor here. Legitimate issues were raised, but they can’t be resolved based on the circumstances of this race alone.

Good call, NYRA and SG.

[saratoga guy]

But he affected the running of the race.

Not communicating the change properly (if that is in fact what happened) is a problem, I would agree.

However, running a horse for purse-money only is not a problem. As I said, in many situations it's a reasonable compromise to suit both the owners and bettors.

Certainly a horse running for purse-money only might affect the outcome of the race. But so might plenty of other horses in any given field that you have no intention of wagering on. If the situation is properly communicated to the bettors then there shouldn't be a problem factoring it into your handicapping.

[cj]

And as I pointed out -- a five-horse field would likely increase the betting pools enough to mostly mitigate any possible minus pool.

I seriously doubt it. NYRA doesn't get all of the takeout, but they do pay all of the minus pool. And if any huge bet was made somewhere off track, which it almost assuredly would be, they sure aren't getting a whole bunch of it.

Side note: Minus place pools are pretty common, though you say you've never noticed one. Of course, only in spots where there is no show wagering.

[twindouble]

I seriously doubt it. NYRA doesn't get all of the takeout, but they do pay all of the minus pool. And if any huge bet was made somewhere off track, which it almost assuredly would be, they sure aren't getting a whole bunch of it.

Side note: Minus place pools are pretty common, though you say you've never noticed one. Of course, only in spots where there is no show wagering.

How often does the minus pool happen on the win or place? I've seen the in the show pools.

[saratoga guy]

I seriously doubt it. NYRA doesn't get all of the takeout, but they do pay all of the minus pool. And if any huge bet was made somewhere off track, which it almost assuredly would be, they sure aren't getting a whole bunch of it.

I'd have to check NY law, but in many racing jurisdictions any bets that come into a minus pool wind up as the responsibility of the outlet that sent them in (at least as far as covering the minus pool aspect).

Side note: Minus place pools are pretty common, though you say you've never noticed one. Of course, only in spots where there is no show wagering.

You're right. I should have been more specific. When there is win, place, and show wagering win or place minus pools are unlikely -- why go for $2.10 in the place pool when you can get it in the show pool?

But it does happen when wagering is further limited. Last year I'm pretty sure there was a minus win pool when Lost in the Fog only faced three out in NoCal (win betting only).

[point given]

But he affected the running of the race. NYRA must be the only place where horses run for purse money only. They really need to re-think their rules on this one. Scratch the horse. I'm sure they could find another spot for the animal. And like Tom said, the ontrack audience and handle is only a fraction of the total pie, even in New York.

What happened was that the trainer McLaughlin, wanted to keep everything on the up and up. He notified the Stewards of the matter, and the stewards said, thats a first on us ! The trainer wanted to run the horse though and not scratch, so the stewards did what they thought best.

I personally don't like it and if I had a wager going in the event or in a multi race wager, I would have run to the window to cancel my tickets. Online though you're toast .

[speedking]

Last year Richard Niemienski ran a horse with no front shoes. Highly unusual, but no big deal to the stewards then. They made the announcement and allowed him to race. He finished back in the field. This past week, Levine ran a horse with a bar shoe and an aluminum pad. It was noted and he was allowed to race. I know he did not win, but I'm unsure where he finished although he did take a LOT of money.

At my simulcast center I was not aware that he was racing for PMO until the 3rd race came up. I had already placed substantial P3 and P4 wagers involving the 3rd race and handicapped believing the 2 had been scratched. Without the 2, the 4 was a lone speed horse and had to be given a chance. With the 2 in the race I would have eliminated the 4 and used the 5. This cost me both wagers and quite a bit of money.

speedking

[the little guy]

The host track does NOT pay for the minus pool. As an example, if there's a minus pool on a race at NYRA, and Phili Park ( say ) takes $100K to show on a horse in that race, they are responsible for their portion of the minus pool.

[cj]

That makes sense. I know some states have a minimum 2.20 payoff still, so there is no a host track is going to cover that.

[the little guy]

That's an interesting point. I will have to look into that.

[PurplePower]

That makes sense. I know some states have a minimum 2.20 payoff still, so there is no a host track is going to cover that.CJ - In this day of common pool wagering it was my understanding that all simulcast outlets pay whatever the host track pays. There may be some states that require a $2.20 payoff even on simulcast wagering, but I am not aware of any. When Texas required $2.20 payoffs (before April 1, 2001) they still only paid $2.10 on NYRA races and other states that only paid $2.10.

I guess the law we have to look at is the Interstate simulcast law. I am of the opinion that just like the positive pools are paid by the host track, so are the negative pools. The money is all put into the host tracks pool, so the host track will be the one responsible for paying it back. If Philly Park takes a $100,000 show wager they do not hold onto that money, but co-mingle it with the host tracks wagering pools. The only time a guest track would have to pay the minus pool is if they are not co-mingling with the host track.

Tom, classy stakes winning race horses can run and win even if they lose a shoe during a race. The loss of a shoe can, however, create a problem for some horses as they may not feel as confident of their footing, or they may experience more sensation of concussion (on a hard track for example) and not be as comfortable at full speed. Horses that I trained that lost shoes while racing all seemed to be of the latter variety!!

The agrument over whether to scratch the horse or run FPO is arguable. When I was training I wanted my horses to run unless my rider said the horse was not feeling right for one reason or another. Race expenses will range from $150 to $300 on a cheap horse and a fourth or fith will recoup those expenses for that owner. In the case of the NYRA horse, there was a lot of confusion over the problem with getting the shoe on. The first decision the stewards made was whether to let the horse run or not. Once they made THAT decision then I think the correct decision was to run FPO. The powers that be should definitely make it clear that the horse is still in the race. Like Speedking stated, the P3 and P4 players are definitely at a disadvantage. AND, racing still has not embraced the importance of making sure that simulcast land gets news as soon as (if not even a few seconds BEFORE) the ontrack players.

[cnollfan]

The problem was the horse was not "scratched!" He ran in the race and he affected the pace. Whether or not he was a betting interest is not relevant.
This was not communicated well at all - many - inlcuding some I was playing with - did not know he was running FPMO.

"Scratched" has got to be limited to not in the race. They need to come with a term that means a horse is still in the race but not bettable. NYRA needs to understand that their on track audience is only a small fraction of those putting money down and come up with some adequate communication steps to ensure TRUE information is relayed to satellite betting arenas. Most that I have ever been to have any kind of audible sound and one has to rely on the screen graphics. In this case, that was not good enough. A glance at the odds for the race showed the horse as a scratch.


I agree completely. It sounds like Kirian and the NYRA were on the up and up, and I don't believe they were using the shoe scam to avoid a minus pool, but in the process of "protecting" some bettors they harmed other bettors via the lack of communication.

This was a couple of years ago and I don't remember the horses' names but I'll never forget what happened. There was a turf race in New York with an entry, 1 and 1A. 1A is a late scratch, so they decide to run #1, a speed horse, for purse money only. I look up at the simulcast screen a few minutes before post time, no sound, and see blank odds by 1 and 1A, so I assume they are scratched. There is only one other speed horse in the race and he is a longshot, so I unload on him. I'm all set to watch the race and excited about the great situation, and they put #1 in the gate! WTF? The race starts and #1 flies out of there like Native Diver, cooking my horse's goose in no time flat. I was steamed.

One simple solution -- on the odds graphics, instead of SCR after the number, they should put PMO for purse money only. That way the simulcast bettors would know the horse was still in the race, with whatever pace effect that might have, and bet accordingly.

cnollfan

[Ron]

We just don't like how a non-betting interest affects the outcome of a race.

[cj]

Maybe tee can chime in. I know when I was in Wyoming, several times I bet into races with bridgejumpers, say $10 to show on 4 other horses. The times the heavily bet horse came in, all but once I think, the horses all paid 2.10 of course at the host track. I am pretty sure they were all in SoCal. I do remember mentioning the first time that I was paid too much on those bets for the two that hit the board, and tee explaining minimum payout in Wyo was 2.20.

One question for TLG concerning the minus pools. In the situation you describe, does Philly Park have the option of denying show betting if it is not cancelled in New York? It would seem simo tracks would not want to be put in this position just because the Belmont racing secretary (or whatever track it was) carded a horrible race with a huge standout.

[speedking]

We just don't like how a non-betting interest affects the outcome of a race.

Ron, I only wanted to be aware of the fact that he was running. He was a major pace factor and if he was in or out made a big difference when handicapping.

speedking

[the little guy]

They might, and I would guess there are instances where tracks do, but I'm not sure they would publicize it.

I'll try to get a further clarification, and more examples, if not this week, as I'm pretty busy, then next week.

[KingChas]

We just don't like how a non-betting interest affects the outcome of a race.

What happens if this PMO horse breaks down in front of or fouls multiple horses?
Ok he loses the purse money but we get screwd...correct :confused:

[ryesteve]

If the horse remained a betting interest with 3 shoes and lost, there'd be just as many people complaining that the bettors screwed (and they'd probably be some of the same people who are complaining that he ran PMO). Given that there's no shoe rule that would have given the stewards the authority to force the horse to scratch, I don't understand the basis for all this criticism. Given the two options available, this sure seems like the lesser of two evils.

[the little guy]

I think we're getting a little carried away here. Believe me, I'm all for protecting the bettor as much as possible, but the owners also have rights, because they, like us, pay money to put the show on. Kiaran McKlaghlin informed NYRA that the horse was going to be missing a shoe, but still wanted to run, which is certainly his right. NYRA made the decision, at a certain cost to themselves in creating a four horse betting field, to do what they felt would be MOST fair to ALL concerned parties.

As far as many bettors not knowing the horse was not actually scratched out of the race, I can understand the frustration, and don't completely disagree that it was somewhat unfair, however this is an unfortunate risk a player takes when he is playing many tracks. When you do this it is highly likely you will miss a subtle ( not that this was a particularly subtle situation ) change like this. Like everything in life there are plusses and minuses for the decisions you make. If you focus only on NYRA, like me for instance, you are likely to have understood the situation. Of course, I may miss out on many good betting opportunities at other tracks.

I started a thread last year about what I felt was a questionable late rider change, Rudy Rodriguez was named on a Dutrow horse and Mike Luzzi was switched, in what I felt was a slightly deceptive move and certainly a BIG change, and many people here chimed in that it was the bettors problem to be aware of late changes. I thought this was a slightly different kind of situation, as one could easily say Sunday's was, but all in all I agree that it is the bettor's responsibility to be up on ALL late changes when he ( or she ) is wagering.

[samyn on the green]

I was tuned into the live track feed and paying full attention to this card as any player should. The information was clearly disseminated many times about the FPMO run. Those not monitoring the live feed and recklessly betting at half attention will find that they are at great dissadvantage to those that are vigilant. The paramutuel game is like nature, it is survivial of the fitest. Not survivial of the biggest whiner. Something to think about next time you are not paying attention and another paramutuel carnavoire pounces on your score. This horse was announced as running for FPMO before the card, then again after the 1st and again after the 2nd.

Then before the race Jan conducted a lenthy interview with trainer McLaughlin in the paddock and he thouroughly explained the situation. They wanted to run the horse but she lost a shoe. Due to the nasty disposition of the filly they could not get a shoe on her. They wanted to run here as a stepping stone to bigger and better. Maybe a spot might not have come up for weeks as she was ready to roll today. (this race barely filled maybe another would not for weeks) Given the fact that the owner has a right to run the horse and she was going to be 1-5 it was the smart thing to do to have her run FPMO. FPMO protects the players from a horse that may be compromised and protects the right of the conx to run. Did anybody know how this horse would react to running in three shoes?

Should NYRA destroy its relationship with owners and horsemen by forcing sratches and penalizing those that are honest with the stewards? Should they really penalize honesty and create a climate of fear and secrecy? Also what if the conx let her run, and do not tell anyone about the missing shoe for fear of a forced scratch? Then she is up the track at 1-5 and the missing shoe info comes out after the race? How would that look? Would the players complain? You bet they would, they would have a complain-o-orgy. Isn't it better to foster an honest relationship with the horsemen to so they feel comfortable communicating with the stewards?

The problem for those that deal with the public like NYRA is that the publics feminine nature of unsatisfaction does not allow it to be happy. Here is a lose lose situation resolved with a win win compromise and the public still can find fault and not be able to handle honesty. This is a game that is mirrors life. Like everyday life there are complicted situations that must be resolved with multi-party compromises. The feminine nature of cranky horseplayers does not allow these compromises to be accepted without pissing and moaning. Just the nature of the horseplaying beast.

By the way the horse that won was the PCR leader by a 41 points and paid $27. Why is there not a pre-race thread on that overlay?

[luckyguy]

of course had they not told you about the shoe and you bet and lost you would be crying like a stuck pig!

[alysheba88]

Only race fans could be angry about being protected from betting a 2-5 shot

[point given]

Maybe tee can chime in. I know when I was in Wyoming, several times I bet into races with bridgejumpers, say $10 to show on 4 other horses. The times the heavily bet horse came in, all but once I think, the horses all paid 2.10 of course at the host track. I am pretty sure they were all in SoCal. I do remember mentioning the first time that I was paid too much on those bets for the two that hit the board, and tee explaining minimum payout in Wyo was 2.20.

One question for TLG concerning the minus pools. In the situation you describe, does Philly Park have the option of denying show betting if it is not cancelled in New York? It would seem simo tracks would not want to be put in this position just because the Belmont racing secretary (or whatever track it was) carded a horrible race with a huge standout.

In answer to your question about tracks having the ability/right to not have show pool wagering for a simulcast race. The Meadowlands does this all the time. They will have a graphic on TV sets with the track changes and list any races that day that they will not take show wagering on. They are one of the biggest simulcast betting venues in the USA and they also have a large player incentive program.

[Tom]

Reid, thanks. I knew horses threw shoes during races, but actually sending them to post sans slippers seemed odd to me.

KingChas - good point.

TLG....I don't really agree that the owner's interest should be protected - not as long as there is betting alowed, but we will have differ on that one. To me, it seems like a casino tapping of the "13" on a roulette wheel because they just re-painted the slot!:lol:

But I do think all tracks need to really be more concerned about the betting public, especially off site ones, who make up the majority of thier handle. The whole idea of having a scratched hore run is really pretty ludicrous - he is NOT scratched, he is entered, he is running, he has a number, he will affect the pace, he can trip the timers, he can interfer with other horses. Call it what it is - a non-betting entry.
This is not a hard thing to do - in fact, I would fire any track execturive who could not come with a workable solution by lunch time.

Using this logic, what is next, public workouts within actual races, just non-betting runners? Horses 2,5,8,11, will run for work outs only?

[speedking]

In answer to your question about tracks having the ability/right to not have show pool wagering for a simulcast race. The Meadowlands does this all the time. They will have a graphic on TV sets with the track changes and list any races that day that they will not take show wagering on. They are one of the biggest simulcast betting venues in the USA and they also have a large player incentive program.

Point Given, do you know what the max rebate % is through the Sports Authority? Last summer the most they would offer me was 1.25% on simulcast races and 1.75% on MTH/MED events. This was for a quite substantial daily handle. I've heard that a few guys are getting much bigger rebates, but their attitude was so poor that I never pursued it further.

speedking

[KingChas]

What happened was that the trainer McLaughlin, wanted to keep everything on the up and up. He notified the Stewards of the matter, and the stewards said, thats a first on us ! The trainer wanted to run the horse though and not scratch, so the stewards did what they thought best.

.

The ruling on this needs to be etched in stone.If it's ok for 1 trainer/owner it should be ok for all (PMO).

What happens one day when a trainer isn't on the Up and Up?

Sounds like a future episode for the Sopranos! ;)

[Tee]

Maybe tee can chime in. I know when I was in Wyoming, several times I bet into races with bridgejumpers, say $10 to show on 4 other horses. The times the heavily bet horse came in, all but once I think, the horses all paid 2.10 of course at the host track. I am pretty sure they were all in SoCal. I do remember mentioning the first time that I was paid too much on those bets for the two that hit the board, and tee explaining minimum payout in Wyo was 2.20.


I'm not 100% certain, but I believe the minimum payout is down to $2.10.

I'll try to find out for sure during the week.

[WINMANWIN]

I quickly glanced over this thread, What happened in that race was horrible :ThmbDown: Did anyone mention about PICK 3'S AND 4 BETS ? There was no consolation PAYOUTS in the PICK 3'S AND 4'S to my knowledge. The
race changed completely, with the FOR PURSE MONEY ONLY Nonsense :mad:
I didn't wager on the PICKS, but N.Y.R.A must address this SHORTLY. :blush:

[CryingForTheHorses]

The problem was the horse was not "scratched!" He ran in the race and he affected the pace. Whether or not he was a betting interest is not relevant.
This was not communicated well at all - many - inlcuding some I was playing with - did not know he was running FPMO.

"Scratched" has got to be limited to not in the race. They need to come with a term that means a horse is still in the race but not bettable. NYRA needs to understand that their on track audience is only a small fraction of those putting money down and come up with some adequate communication steps to ensure TRUE information is relayed to satellite betting arenas. Most that I have ever been to have any kind of audible sound and one has to rely on the screen graphics. In this case, that was not good enough. A glance at the odds for the race showed the horse as a scratch.

Frankly, IMHO, this whole practice of allowing a horse to run in a race, affect the pace, and not be a betting interest is ridiculous. It is time to look out for the bettor's interest, not the horsemen's. End this stupid situation once and for all.

And just a layman's observation - is running a horse on three shoes a good idea? And is running a horse on three shoes when he so agitated and fractious that for hours it cannot be shoed a good idea?

Maybe guys like Tom McShell can chime in with professional advice?


IMO...The horse should have been scratched period..Its a trainers responsiblty to have each and every horse they race in top form for the betting public.The horse may have been fractious and kicked of a shoe BUT thats not the betting publics fault.IF this horse didnt conform to how a horse should be when he gets to the races, The horse shouldnt have the chance to win the purse as the public wasnt getting the real deal.This is the strangest thing that I have ever heard..Here in Florda the horse would have been scratched.

[Tom]

Thanks, Tom....it just seemed very strange to me that a horse could not be controlled for normal horse maintenance, yet was allowed to run. Like in football, if can't do normal football moves with the ball, it is not a catch.
I'm no horse person, and I don't always know a horse's ass when I see one but this just struck me as odd.

[ryesteve]

IMO...The horse should have been scratched period..Its a trainers responsiblty to have each and every horse they race in top form for the betting public.The horse may have been fractious and kicked of a shoe BUT thats not the betting publics fault.IF this horse didnt conform to how a horse should be when he gets to the races, The horse shouldnt have the chance to win the purse as the public wasnt getting the real deal.
So where do you draw the line? If a horse is washy in the post parade, should the stewards scratch him too?

And given that the horse won by over 10 lengths anyway, asserting that the trainer was somehow remiss in not having the horse prepared to run her best race is a shaky argument.

[PaceAdvantage]

I've seen horses racing without shoes every now and again (usually it's either no front shoes or no rear shoes that I can remember)....It's not common, but it does happen. To my knowledge, there is no law that prevents a horse from running without shoes.

So, why did this horse have to run PMO? Why not just announce he will be running minus a shoe? I don't get it....

If this happened in the detention barn, there was ample time to announce the equipment change, correct?

[point given]

Point Given, do you know what the max rebate % is through the Sports Authority? Last summer the most they would offer me was 1.25% on simulcast races and 1.75% on MTH/MED events. This was for a quite substantial daily handle. I've heard that a few guys are getting much bigger rebates, but their attitude was so poor that I never pursued it further.

speedking

Sorry Speed, I can't help you on that one. The program was being changed before I left there, with much consternation by club members. there were 5 different levels of rebates. I believe it went from 1% to 5%. The upper levels have quite high handle requirements. I think they also changed it from monthly handle to weekly handle, but could be wrong there. You got more credit for live racing there, than simulcast wagering too. The woman to speak to is Connie. They also have 3 private simo rooms, by invitation only based on wagering level, . You can bring a friend, but the other person must bet on SAM machines and not tellers. They also had some rules regarding what wagers qualified for points, IE not big show wagers. Hope this helps you !

[saratoga guy]

This is a strange thread because I think of horseplayers as being grounded in logic and, for the most part, the criticism of what happened on Sunday is just irrational.

First, there are two issues being discussed:

1) Are changes like this adequately conveyed to the betting public?

That's a legitimate discussion. There are two differing experiences shared here -- one bettor didn't see the changes, another did. An article from the DRF seems to back-up the fact that the change was made early and was announced, "After a brief discussion, the stewards permitted the filly to run, but for purse money only. The announcement came before the first race, but at least 30 minutes after wagering had begun for the card" (From "Sunriver targets the Belmont Stakes" by Grenig). But I think it’s a perfectly good suggestion that the simulcast signal odds board could display some symbol when a horse is running for purse money only in order to help ensure that this info gets to the maximum numbers of bettors possible.

2) Should a horse run for purse money only (FPMO)?

This isn’t the first time it has happened. Some posters seemed shocked by the idea. When half of an entry is a late scratch the other half runs for purse money only -- this protects bettors from scratching into the weak half of an entry.

In this particular case there were two extreme possibilities:
A) What happened -- the horse runs FPMO, and wins.
B) The horse runs as a betting interest and an announcement is made that the horse acted up in the detention barn and will now be running with only three shoes -- and that horse, a probable chalky favorite, runs out of the money.


In scenario A bettors can handicap the race as they usually would -- taking into account that the horse is running FPMO.

In scenario B bettors can handicap the races as they usually would -- except for the fact that there simply aren’t any stats, in general or pertaining to this particular horse, regarding running in three shoes. How do I factor that in?

So between the two scenarios, "A" seems obviously preferable.

Why not just scratch the horse altogether?

This wouldn’t have changed the wagering outcome that some people are upset about. Scratching the horse would have had all the same wagering outcomes -- with “pick” players getting the posttime favorite etc.

Some folks are complaining that having the horse race FPMO affected the outcome of the race. But, as I said in a previous post, there are many races where there’s a horse in the field you wouldn’t bet, but you have to consider them in your handicapping. Cheap speed for instance. A horse that has a tendency to pop-and-stop and you simply conclude he’s a throw-out, but you have to consider that he’ll be a pace factor -- and yes, he might bump other horses and affect the outcome. A FPMO only entrant just offers a similar situation to the handicapper.

Going back to the DRF quote -- this change was made and announced before the 1st race. Betting had been open for only 30 minutes. The first “pick” bet this change would have affected started in the 2nd race. Given that most betting occurs in the last five or ten minutes before a race you have to assume that the number of “pick” bettors affected by this was small.

For the game to survive it needs both owners and bettors. Decisions should be made taking both into account. This decision was a compromise. But I really think the outrage is misplaced.

[WINMANWIN]

[QUOTE=saratoga guy]
Why not just scratch the horse altogether?

This wouldn’t have changed the wagering outcome that some people are upset about. Scratching the horse would have had all the same wagering outcomes -- with “pick” players getting the posttime favorite etc.

To my knowledge, N.Y.R.A 'S POLICY with Pick 3 wagering, you get a CONSOLATION PICK 3, If you have a late scratch in the MIDDLE or LAST LEG'S
IF the horse scratches. You DO NOT get the Post TIME Favorite. They pay CONSOLATION PICK 3'S......... You get the post time favorite, if your horse Scratches with PICK 4 WAGERING.......

[saratoga guy]

If you have a late scratch...

For wagering purposes a FPMO entrant is a scratch.

According to the NYRA website: "Pick 3 wagering closes at post time of the first leg of the bet. In the event of a late scratch before the first leg of the Pick 3, the bettor receives a refund. In the event of a late scratch after the running of the first leg of the wager, a consolation payoff is paid to bettors with winners in the other two legs. NYRA tracks offer Pick 3 wagering on all races - Rolling Pick 3's - beginning with the first race."

From the NYS rules pm Pick 3 wagers: "(g) Scratches and consolations. (1) Refunds. In the event a betting entry is scratched (which hereinafter includes being declared a non-starter or a non-betting starter) from any leg of the WIN-3 prior to the start of the first leg, all bets containing such scratched betting entry shall be refunded..."

According to the DRF article: "Those who bet on Khalila early in the pick four that began in race 2 and were unable to change their bets, got the post-time favorite, Chili Cat, who finished a well-beaten third."

So Pick 3 bettors should have gotten a refund. Pick 4 bettors should have had the option to change or cancel. I haven't heard anything that leads me to believe this isn't how it played out on Sunday.

[Ron]

Would they have done that in the 4th race and the start of the pick 6? Who knows.
I can understand if half an entry gets scratched and the other half runs for purse money only. That's being fair to bettors, although I still don't like that either.
I also hate when a horse drops a jockey at the gate and then gets involved with the pace. I think the whole race should be refunded.
Bitching here will get us nowhere, but at least its a place to vent.

[KingChas]

Not gonna go to far with this and open a "large can of worms".Where do you draw the line?
But please do tell me how does this benefit anyone exept the owner/trainer?
As stated a lot of things can happen in a race like this / nothing beneficial to the bettor.

I agree with PA run the horse for betting purposes with an announced equipment change. :eek:

This race turned out as expected...like they all do :liar: ...so everything's just peachy..... huh?

[WINMANWIN]

[QUOTE=saratoga guy]For wagering purposes a FPMO entrant is a scratch.

According to the NYRA website: "Pick 3 wagering closes at post time of the first leg of the bet. In the event of a late scratch before the first leg of the Pick 3, the bettor receives a refund. In the event of a late scratch after the running of the first leg of the wager, a consolation payoff is paid to bettors with winners in the other two legs. NYRA tracks offer Pick 3 wagering on all races - Rolling Pick 3's - beginning with the first race."

N.Y.R.A offers pick 3 wagers starting with the 2nd race, not the 1st race. :bang: The bottom line with this is, If I wagered on this 1 to 10 shot and had a good Idea He was my SINGLE in that race, And the horse WON FOR FUN, and I get the post time FAVORITE in the pick 4's, I moan and live with the BALONEY RULE, BUT according to the N.Y.R.A. rules which probably dont stipulate this RIP-OFF, They should have paid OFF CONSOLATION PICK 3'S. Horrible THIEVERY again to the BETTING PUBLIC. Rule change needed.

[Tom]

SG wrote:
"Some folks are complaining that having the horse race FPMO affected the outcome of the race. But, as I said in a previous post, there are many races where there’s a horse in the field you wouldn’t bet, but you have to consider them in your handicapping. Cheap speed for instance."

Exactly - the problem was, not everyone knew he would run at all. Had they known, they would have figured the race differently. I speak from firsthand knowledge - it was discussed in real time in a chat room.

Do they allow non-competitors race in NASCAR? For experience only?
To me, it just insane to have runners in a race that are not betting interests. It is just another example of how the betting public - who foot the bills - are slighted.

Without the gambling, horse racing would not exist. With half the owners out of the game - it would continue.

[Ron]

[QUOTE=saratoga guy]For wagering purposes a FPMO entrant is a scratch.

According to the NYRA website: "Pick 3 wagering closes at post time of the first leg of the bet. In the event of a late scratch before the first leg of the Pick 3, the bettor receives a refund. In the event of a late scratch after the running of the first leg of the wager, a consolation payoff is paid to bettors with winners in the other two legs. NYRA tracks offer Pick 3 wagering on all races - Rolling Pick 3's - beginning with the first race."

N.Y.R.A offers pick 3 wagers starting with the 2nd race, not the 1st race. :bang: The bottom line with this is, If I wagered on this 1 to 10 shot and had a good Idea He was my SINGLE in that race, And the horse WON FOR FUN, and I get the post time FAVORITE in the pick 4's, I moan and live with the BALONEY RULE, BUT according to the N.Y.R.A. rules which probably dont stipulate this RIP-OFF, They should have paid OFF CONSOLATION PICK 3'S. Horrible THIEVERY again to the BETTING PUBLIC. Rule change needed.

I can't follow what happened from the charts, or I'm not see what I expect to see...they gave the post time favorite (Chili Cat) in that race instead of paying out two consolation pick 3s? And Chili Cat could have possibly won if Khalila wasn't in the race?

[Ron]

Do they allow non-competitors race in NASCAR? For experience only?
To me, it just insane to have runners in a race that are not betting interests. It is just another example of how the betting public - who foot the bills - are slighted.

What if that happened in cards? Would it be okay to the other players at the table if I was playing but not actually wagering any money?

[KingChas]

[QUOTE=saratoga guy] Horrible THIEVERY again to the BETTING PUBLIC. Rule change needed.

Horseracing Dictionary

Horseracing Rules=All rules will be handled on an individual basis! :eek:

Guess we have all seen that before! :lol:

[KingChas]

Do they allow non-competitors race in NASCAR? For experience only?
.

Yes Tom, Kyle Petty :D

Sorry enough jokes! :ThmbDown:

[WINMANWIN]

[

I can't follow what happened from the charts, or I'm not see what I expect to see...they gave the post time favorite (Chili Cat) in that race instead of paying out two consolation pick 3s? And Chili Cat could have possibly won if Khalila wasn't in the race?

Yes Ron, they got over again on the BETTING PUBLIC. Think about it, You
possibly SINGLE A 1 TO 10 SHOT, IN the pick 3's or 4's The longest shot on
the board runs 2nd, to your 1 to 10 shot that wins for FUN, and these slimes want to give you the POST TIME FAVORITE in the pick 4, and no consolation
PAYOUTS in the PICK 3, BECAUSE your 1 to 10 shot who WON FOR FUN, WAS DECLARED TO RUN FOR PURSE MONEY ONLY. :blush:

[saratoga guy]

But please do tell me how does this benefit anyone exept the owner/trainer?

Here's the benefit to the bettor:

Before the race the stewards became aware of an unusual situation that might adversely affect the running of a horse. In this case that horse was a likely short-priced favorite and would have taken a lot of money in all of the pools. They used their discretion and made the right decision to protect the bettors from playing a horse that had the potential to run in a way that would have been impossible to determine from the PPs or any announcement that was made.

Critics of the decision are looking at it through "20-20 hindsight glasses". The stewards have to make their decision before the race.

This is an unusual circumstance and any decision they make has a "worst-case" outcome. As happened, the "worst-case" did happen for the decision they made: The FPMO entrant won off by ten.

But the flip-side of the coin is running the horse as a betting interest, making an announcement that the horse acted up and lost a shoe, and then having it run off the board.

Then we would be reading threads ranting, "How could they let that horse run?!?" "1-5 and they allow it to run without a shoe?!?" Heck, even if the horse won you would hear people complaining, "Once they said the horse threw a shoe and acted up I decided not to use it! Should have beeen scratched!"

Between the two situations I think the choice they made was the correct one.

[Tom]

You need a three sided coin - the third option is not let the horse run.
That truly benefits the betters.

[saratoga guy]

The bottom line with this is, If I wagered on this 1 to 10 shot and had a good Idea He was my SINGLE in that race, And the horse WON FOR FUN, and I get the post time FAVORITE in the pick 4's, I moan and live with the BALONEY RULE

You're not reading this correctly.

Pick Four bettors should have had the opportunity to change their bets.

BUT according to the N.Y.R.A. rules which probably dont stipulate this RIP-OFF, They should have paid OFF CONSOLATION PICK 3'S. Horrible THIEVERY again to the BETTING PUBLIC. Rule change needed.

Pick Three bettors should have recieved a refund. Not a conso. A refund. At this point, I have no reason to believe this didn't happen.

"Pick 3 wagering closes at post time of the first leg of the bet. In the event of a late scratch before the first leg of the Pick 3, the bettor receives a refund. In the event of a late scratch after the running of the first leg of the wager, a consolation payoff is paid..."

They're talking about what happen before and after the "first leg" of the bet, not the first race of the day -- and this happened well before the "first leg".

[KingChas]

Here's the benefit to the bettor:


Between the two situations I think the choice they made was the correct one.

I do see your point.Tough situation.My point is as Tom and others have stated.One horse (Longshot or Favorite) does affect every race.I'm not trying to piss you off.But what if this horse with 3 shoes -ran erratic and just totally screwed up the entire race?Like I said everything turned out fine.(Except WinMans point on the P3/P4 rule)..The question is for the future of this kind of thing (PMO)....What If ? :confused:

PS; "Nothing affects anyone until it happens to affect them"-KC 2006

[saratoga guy]

Exactly - the problem was, not everyone knew he would run at all. Had they known, they would have figured the race differently. I speak from firsthand knowledge - it was discussed in real time in a chat room.

As I've said a few times now -- these are two different issues. I agree, the information needs to be presented to the public adequately. I think it's a good idea to put some kind of symbol on the simulcast video odds board indicating a "for purse money only" entrant.

But beyond that you seem to simply feel that FPMO entrants shouldn't be allowed. That's where we disagree.

It is just another example of how the betting public - who foot the bills - are slighted.

Again, the game needs both owners and bettors. A lot of owners would disagree that bettors solely "foot the bills". Since most owners lose money, it can be argued that they are subsidizing the game. This decision was a compromise that -- rightly -- took both sides into account.


Do they allow non-competitors race in NASCAR? For experience only?

Comparisons to others sports really don't apply. And Khalila was not a "non-competitor" -- she went home with the $27K first-prize.

[saratoga guy]

You need a three sided coin - the third option is not let the horse run.
That truly benefits the betters.

As I said earlier, this option wouldn't have changed the wagering outcomes at all.

Sure, you can argue that the horse affected the outcome and you didn't know he was in the race -- but again, that's a different issue.

[KingChas]

SG , In closing I have nothing against Kirian.Like him.Just seems as I joked about earlier they (stewards) did him a little favor.And being an old schooler I think this should apply to every trainer/owner who needs it (big/small/NY based/shipper).Thus the statement "opening a large can of worms".I can't see anything good coming out of this event in the future.Maybe I'm wrong-Maybe I'm right. ;)

[saratoga guy]

But what if this horse with 3 shoes -ran erratic and just totally screwed up the entire race?...The question is for the future of this kind of thing (PMO)....What If?

Again, there are plenty of races where you have a complete toss-out in the race. A horse you simply aren't considering for wagering purposes -- but one which you have to consider in your handicapping. And one which might run erraticly and screw up the race. Why is this any different?

One is a horse you won't consider betting on -- the other is a horse you can't bet on. But they're the same when it comes to handicapping and running the race.

Like I said everything turned out fine.(Except WinMans point on the P3/P4 rule)...

I don't think he correctly stated the rules situation...

[Tom]

Again, the game needs both owners and bettors. A lot of owners would disagree that bettors solely "foot the bills". Try running without betting. Purse money doesn't come out of vet bill or feed bills. The only thing that keeps racing going is betting - period. It is not a sport, it is a gambling game.

Comparisons to others sports really don't apply. Yes, it does.Other sports have more sense than racing does, obviously. And Khalila was not a "non-competitor" -- she went home with the $27K first-prize. Exactly my point - scratched should mean scratched - not there, not running.

FPMO must be used in place of scratched - how many years to you think it will take NYRA to figure this one out? how long did it take them to adopt common color saddle cloths, another thing to help the bettors? NYRA is awfully slow on many simple things. Do thier people wear helmuts? :lol:

[KingChas]

Again, there are plenty of races where you have a complete toss-out in the race. A horse you simply aren't considering for wagering purposes -- but one which you have to consider in your handicapping. And one which might run erraticly and screw up the race. Why is this any different?
...

How do you DQ a PMO horse?
What does that do for me?
Do I lose the purse money?
No My Horse Got Screwed and I lost the bet.
That's how it differs. :faint:

Don't be so naive thinking a grudge wouldn't come into play in a future event as this one. ;) Ever claimed a horse off Scott Lake?

[saratoga guy]

Try running without betting.

Try running without horses. We need both bettors and owners willing to support the game. No way around that equation.

Yes, it does.Other sports have more sense than racing does, obviously.

Other sports don't allow legal wagering. This wouldn't be a discussion in other sports because there is no thought in NASCAR, for example, of protecting the bettor.

Exactly my point - scratched should mean scratched - not there, not running. FPMO must be used in place of scratched - how many years to you think it will take NYRA to figure this one out?

I'm confused. Maybe you are too. The horse ran "For Purse Money Only". It was not scratched. According to everything I've read on the subject the horse was announced as running "For Purse Money Only" before the first race of the day. Not "scratched".

Again, if that can be conveyed to the bettors more efficiently, great! If someone said "scratched" without being clear that it was FPMO, that's a mistake. But that doesn't change the fact that the concept of running FPMO is perfectly valid.

[saratoga guy]

How do you DQ a PMO horse?
What does that do for me?
Do I lose the purse money?
No My Horse Got Screwed and I lost the bet.
That's how it differs.

You DQ a FPMO horse just the same way you DQ any other horse.

A FPMO horse stands as much chance of "screwing you up" as any other horse that you didn't bet on in any other race.

[KingChas]

You DQ a FPMO horse just the same way you DQ any other horse.

A FPMO horse stands as much chance of "screwing you up" as any other horse that you didn't bet on in any other race.

Correct Sir....until there is purpose!

You are looking at this race with tunnel vision.
I am looking at the wide array of race results this decision could cause.
If the rules are consistant.Thats a big If ;)

IMHO-NYRA fumbled the ball on this one!Setting themselves up for future problems (litigation)!

Guess there won't be any need for legit rabbits- etal...anymore just PMO's

[saratoga guy]

You are looking at this race with tunnel vision.
I am looking at the wide array of race results this decision could cause.
If the rules are consistent... IMHO-NYRA fumbled the ball on this one!Setting themselves up for future problems!

I'm not looking at it with tunnel vision at all...

I'm more than willing to look at and consider any likely future negative scenario you might pose as arising from this decision.

[KingChas]

I'm not looking at it with tunnel vision at all...

I'm more than willing to look at and consider any likely future negative scenario you might pose as arising from this decision.

Great debate SG loved it.I do see your point(s).The only thing about this situation that scares me.Does this set up problems for track vet..etc.. scratches when the wealthy owner/trainer dispute it? :confused: :sleeping:

[cj]

I'm confused. Maybe you are too. The horse ran "For Purse Money Only". It was not scratched. According to everything I've read on the subject the horse was announced as running "For Purse Money Only" before the first race of the day. Not "scratched".


The problem is the horse was listed as a scratch on all the usual outlets, such as BRIS SuperTote, Equibase, and even the NYRA site, which of course links to Equibase. Unless you watched the live simo, which most people don't until a minute to post or so, you wouldn't have known the horse was running.

How hard would it be to list a horse as running FPMO instead of SCR?

[samyn on the green]

The problem is the horse was listed as a scratch on all the usual outlets, such as BRIS SuperTote, Equibase, and even the NYRA site, which of course links to Equibase. Unless you watched the live simo, which most people don't until a minute to post or so, you wouldn't have known the horse was running.

How hard would it be to list a horse as running FPMO instead of SCR?The NYRA site does not link to equibase, that is completely wrong. NYRA maintains its own information on its own page on its own website. The FPMO was listed clearly on the NYRA website scratch page since before the first race. This information also announced clearly before the first race, before the second race and finally before the third race. Then a interview with trainer McLaughlin was conducted in the paddock while the horses were being saddled. The entire scenario is clearly explained. I can not beleive that people are wagering real bankroll at half attention while complaining at full speed. It is time to shut down the complain machine and take responsibility for your paramutuel failures/successes. The information is there if you are diligent and are at full alert.

For those that want to take responsibility for their own wagering the NYRA live feed audio and scratch page is free and can be found at

www.nyra.com (http://www.nyra.com)

[WINMANWIN]

You're not reading this correctly.

Pick Four bettors should have had the opportunity to change their bets.



Pick Three bettors should have recieved a refund. Not a conso. A refund. At this point, I have no reason to believe this didn't happen.

"Pick 3 wagering closes at post time of the first leg of the bet. In the event of a late scratch before the first leg of the Pick 3, the bettor receives a refund. In the event of a late scratch after the running of the first leg of the wager, a consolation payoff is paid..."

They're talking about what happen before and after the "first leg" of the bet, not the first race of the day -- and this happened well before the "first leg".

Let me get this straight, The bettors were Aware prior to the DAY'S races, THAT THIS HORSE WOULD BE RUNNING FOR PURSE MONEY ONLY ? Thanks for the Clarification. To be honest, N.Y.R.A'S POLICY with pick bets are FAIR compared to other Racing circuits. They have different rules THAT APPLY at other tracks and you have to get screwed over to realize them. :mad:

[samyn on the green]

Let me get this straight, The bettors were aware prior to the 2nd race, the start of the PICK 3'S AND PICK 4'S THAT THIS HORSE WOULD be RUNNING FOR PURSE MONEY ONLY ? If thats the case, an the public was aware this horse was running for PMO, before the start of the 2nd race, I thank you for clarifying. To be honest, N.Y.R.A'S POLICY with pick bets are FAIR compared to other Racing circuits. They have different rules THAT APPLY at other tracks and you have to get screwed over to realize them. :mad:I was listening to the live feed and FPMO was anounced before the first race at noon with the rest of the scratches.

[samyn on the green]

Anyone claiming to get the PTF on pick 3/4 bets is telling a lie as they would have recieved a refund. This horse was annouced as a FPMO well before the start of the 2nd race and the pick 3/4 bets would have been refunded. Not only do we have people complaining like menstrual nags now we have liers too.

[CryingForTheHorses]

So where do you draw the line? If a horse is washy in the post parade, should the stewards scratch him too?

And given that the horse won by over 10 lengths anyway, asserting that the trainer was somehow remiss in not having the horse prepared to run her best race is a shaky argument.

Im wondering why they didnt pull the other shoe?.The horse was that fractious?? .I know for a fact this same trainer wouldnt send his horse out in the morning missing a hind shoe.. I wouldnt.. I would pull the other shoe so the horse had equal traction on both hind legs. , Granted the horse won by 10. The thing is hopefully the horse didnt pull a stifle or blow a hock maybe slipping as he ran or changed leads.

[turffan]

I played the Pick 4 at 12:45, singling the FPMO. I absolutely did NOT receive a refund.

[twindouble]

I played the Pick 4 at 12:45, singling the FPMO. I absolutely did NOT receive a refund.

In the pick 4 after the first leg on a scratch, you get consolation payoff if you have the other three legs. I think the same would apply on a horse that's running FPMO if it's announced after the first leg. Never happened to me but I would say that's how it is.


T.D.

[Tom]

The problem is the horse was listed as a scratch on all the usual outlets, such as BRIS SuperTote, Equibase, and even the NYRA site, which of course links to Equibase. Unless you watched the live simo, which most people don't until a minute to post or so, you wouldn't have known the horse was running.

How hard would it be to list a horse as running FPMO instead of SCR?

Apparently, it is monumental for SG - he can't grasp the idea that people got screwed.

[Tom]

For those that want to take responsibility for their own wagering the NYRA live feed audio and scratch page is free and can be found at

www.nyra.com (http://www.nyra.com)

Problem with this - NTRA doen'st put its scratches up until late - people driving off ot a track of other simo outles DO NOT HAS ACCESS to the NYRA website info. If you wait for NYRA to get around to putting up scratches, you miss the first half of the cards.

Perhaps it would be nice if the tracks took responsibility for running a gambling operation.

[Tom]

Anyone claiming to get the PTF on pick 3/4 bets is telling a lie as they would have recieved a refund. This horse was annouced as a FPMO well before the start of the 2nd race and the pick 3/4 bets would have been refunded. Not only do we have people complaining like menstrual nags now we have liers too.

As opposed to being loud mouthed bore like YOU? For 29 posts, you sure have a lot a nerve coming here and calling people liars (hint - you spell bad, too!) And menstrual nags? Where were YOU brought up, in a barn? You always put down women like that, chowderhead? Wassup - small penis? :lol:

And when you have under 30 posts, the "WE" is really "US", not "YOU."

[saratoga guy]

Apparently, it is monumental for SG - he can't grasp the idea that people got screwed.

Wow, Tom, kind of a cheap shot. And totally unwarranted because, as I have said, pretty clearly, in any number of posts in this thread (and which you continue to ignore -- and which cj seems to have missed as well), I completely agree that this type of information needs to be made public as efficiently and effectively as possible. If that's the gripe here, I agree (Of course, although I wasn't watching the simulcast signal, I tend to believe Samyn's outline of how the information was presented. Could it be handled better? Probably. But NYRA certainly didn't ignore it.)

But the thing is -- that isn't your gripe.

Let me ask you, Tom, if NYRA could guarantee that the majority (you're never going to reach everyone with any piece of information) was made aware before the race that the horse was running "for purse money only", would you be OK with it then? From what you've posted earlier, I'm assuming you wouldn't. So your gripe is with the concept of running FPMO altogether. And -- yet again -- that's where we disagree.

Let's take a look at how people got "screwed."

Pick Three bettors should have gotten a refund. Pick Four bettors should have had the opportunity to change their bets. I have no reason to believe these options didn't occur.

According to your solution -- scratching the horse from running altogether -- the very same options would have played out.

Your gripe is that, because the horse ran, it affected the outcome of the race -- and some bettors might not have been aware it was running. OK. As I've said, getting that FPMO-starter info out to the bettors is imperative.

So, if we solve that problem, if we put some symbol on the simulcast odds board indicating FPMO -- then how would anyone be "screwed" any differently than if the horse was scratched?

The wagering outcomes would be exactly the same. And everyone would be able to take into account the FPMO horse into their handicapping.

[saratoga guy]

Hey Tom,

Let me throw a new scenario out there... Chew on this one and see what you think:

We have a race with an entry, 1A and 1B.

1A shows plenty of early speed. Your handicapping projects 1A to duel early with the only other early speed in the race, the #3. You (and many other bettors) think they'll burn each other out and so you select a come-from-behind horse to win.

Now, as the horses enter the gate, 1B acts up, flips over, and gets scratched.

Current rules says that 1A will now run FPMO.

Under your solution, 1A would be scratched.

In other words, under your rules, because of the scratch the pace scenario would change completely -- leaving the #3 as the lone speed and the come from behind horses would be up against it.

And if this was a later leg in the "pick" bets, many bettors would wind up being "screwed" in that situation.

[Tom]

SG, the problem is that people thought theywere handicapping a race with "X" horses i it, but when they left the gate, "X+1" horses were on the track. If you have figures one other horse to be lone speed, and suddenly he was in a speed duel with a "phantom horse."

If a horse has an accident at the gate, and has to be scratched, two things come to mind - one, that scenario occurred wtih little time left to do anything intellignet. Two, when this happens af FL, they normally allow a few extra minutes - back all the horses out, move post time 5 minutes, and let people chage/make new bets. Is that so wierd?

The porblem is, this horse was known for HOURS to be a FPMO and NYRA relied on a faulty system to notify people. Hey, crap happens, but the bottom line is what is done to fix it. I'll bet you dollars to dounuts, NYRA has not even had a discussin on this topic and will do nothing. THAT is my grip, and for all the industry - take care of your customers - the bettors.
A problem has been identifed, suggestion made, ball's in NYRA's court now. My bet is they drop it.

And I didn't mean that as a low blow - just sarcasm. sorry if you took it that way. When I mean something, it will sound more like my reply to King 29 above;)

[KingChas]

And I didn't mean that as a low blow - just sarcasm. sorry if you took it that way. When I mean something, it will sound more like my reply to King 29 above;)

Thanks Tom now they gonna think its me!
Not "sammi 29 on the gween" :lol:

[toetoe]

A scratch is in order. That or PA's idea to announce "rear shoes only," etc. Too many things can go wrong otherwise:

* Horse affects pace or bothers other horses

* People will not be informed of the PMO status

* Lots of other stuff I've already forgotten :bang:

The owner's-benefit argument is lame in the extreme. Shall we overrule a vet scratch because the owner and his pals want to see the horse "run"?

A positive remedy to this problem is to do away with couplings. The status of one horse will never affect his stablemate. It will also increase field sizes. It's impossible to know whether part of an entry is scratched without seeing it online, or on the crawl at the bottom of the feed's monitor. A late scratch can easily be missed when I'm betting at home.

[saratoga guy]

SG, the problem is that people thought theywere handicapping a race with "X" horses i it, but when they left the gate, "X+1" horses were on the track. If you have figures one other horse to be lone speed, and suddenly he was in a speed duel with a "phantom horse."

And in my scenario, players handicap a race for "X" horse and then "X-1" leave the gate.

Two, when this happens af FL, they normally allow a few extra minutes - back all the horses out, move post time 5 minutes, and let people chage/make new bets. Is that so wierd?

Not weird at all -- and that's probably what NYRA would do -- but unless it was the first leg, people with "pick" bets would be stuck in the same way whether it was a scratched, or an FPMO, runner. But bettors would be better served by having the horse run FPMO.

A problem has been identifed, suggestion made, ball's in NYRA's court now. My bet is they drop it.

Unless someone tells NYRA I can almost guarantee nothing will change. Because it was an issue at the local OTB parlor -- or on an internet forum -- doesn't mean it hit NYRA's radar screen. If you haven't contacted them with your concern -- then the ball's really still in your court...

[KingChas]

A positive remedy to this problem is to do away with couplings. The status of one horse will never affect his stablemate. It will also increase field sizes. It's impossible to know whether part of an entry is scratched without seeing it online, or on the crawl at the bottom of the feed's monitor. A late scratch can easily be missed when I'm betting at home.

I like that idea myself.
But the bad thing about the uncoupled entry is the foul situation.
Using the lesser entry to possible take out a better horse in the race?
Not in the rabbit kind of way - I mean physically.
Probably the main reason coupled entries started.Don't forget there are a lot of "bush track/trainers/jockeys" around that would abuse this.

[toetoe]

Maybe they have their own version of DRF Marc, with his finger on the pulse of the on-line public?

[toetoe]

Chazz,

A fair question. That would be race tampering, and punishable by the same penalties as any other race fixing. The deterrent should be as effective as anything I see now. In fact, I've never seen a horse taken down for the actions of his entrymate. It seems we're too worried about the APPEARANCE of impropriety, and not worried enough about impropriety itself.

[saratoga guy]

A scratch is in order. That or PA's idea to announce "rear shoes only," etc.

Yeesh. This is kind of weird, like my posts are invisible. But, again, how do you factor into your handicapping that the horse acted up and is only wearing three shoes?

If the horse runs poorly you're going to have an outraged thread on here demanding to know why the horse wasn't running for purse money only!

* Horse affects pace or bothers other horses

There are horses you have no intention of betting in many, many races that can affect the pace or bother others. How is this different?

* People will not be informed of the PMO status

How about the scenario I outlined above? Should that horse be scratched? Or run FPMO? Or should they just announce, "Half of the entry scratched -- you're stuck with the other half -- even if it's the half you don't want..."? (Note: They put in this rule because people griped -- rightly -- about just that possibility happening.)

The owner's-benefit argument is lame in the extreme. Shall we overrule a vet scratch because the owner and his pals want to see the horse "run"?

The two situations aren't remotely comparable.

A positive remedy to this problem is to do away with couplings.

You're worried about things going wrong for bettors and you're advocating doing away with entries?... Let's revisit this down the road when that rule change is made and one day trainer X has horse A and horse B in a race and both are mid-pack stalkers. But today horse A blazes out of the gate and sets an insane pace, setting up the closing kick of horse B. After the race trainer X explains, "Well, we knew that B would need some pace today so we sacrificed A."

Yeah, that's a plus for bettors...

[KingChas]

toetoe
"In fact, I've never seen a horse taken down for the actions of his entrymate."

ToeToe, didn't something happen years ago in a big race with Julie Krone involved as a coupled entry in the back or middle of the field.I vaguely remember something like this,anyone recall?

[toetoe]

Toga Guy,

A circumspect bettor such as yourself might just pass the races with uncoupled entries. I distinguish between giving the poor betting schmuck an even break via full disclosure, without chaotic last minute changes; and protecting him from himself. The latter is a fool's errand.

[saratoga guy]

I distinguish between giving the poor betting schmuck an even break via full disclosure

Without employing a mind-reader, how do we guarantee full disclosure with uncoupled entries, particularly in a "for instance" situation like I presented?

...without chaotic last minute changes...

For better or worse, we're dealing with living, breathing horses and unforeseen circumstances will occur. Some will be chaotic. Some will be last minute. The goal is to come up with the best solution possible. In the instance this thread is devoted to I think the stewards did just that.

...and protecting him from himself.

I'm not sure what you're referring to...

[KingChas]

Yeesh. This is kind of weird, like my posts are invisible. ...

SG, We the bettors pay the bills believe it or not,and since you are so emphatic speaking on NYRA's (employee?) behalf,we pay your salary also.

I respect your opinion, but you and a few other's are coming across on our opinions like Jeff Mullins! ;)

[saratoga guy]

SG, We the bettors pay the bills believe it or not,and since you are so emphatic speaking on NYRA's (employee?) behalf,we pay your salary also.

A) I'm not a NYRA employee.

B) I'm certainly not speaking on NYRA's behalf -- and I'm really not defending them per se. I've already said that I think it would be a good idea to put a FPMO symbol on the TV tote screen. On the other hand, I do think the stewards made a perfectly acceptable decision in this matter.

I respect your opinion, but you and a few other's are coming across on our opinions like Jeff Mullins! ;)

I guess I find it frustrating that people are making their arguments against -- and then I offer up a reasonable rebuttal and, rather than address that, the next post just states the original criticism again.

I've tried to reasonably address all the criticisms:

Why not just announce the horse lost a shoe and let him run? I contend that would just open up a worse can of worms if that horse runs poorly (especially at 1-5).

Why not just scratch him then? Yeah, sure, that's an option, and I'm sure they considered it. But what purpose does it serve? The wagering outcomes are all the same.

But the horse could affect the race. Yep, and I've agreed that the FPMO information needs to be announced in as effective a way as is reasonably possible. Once that is done however, then how does allowing the horse to run negatively affect the race in a way that's not possible in any other race?

I offered up a scenario with a scratch at the gate. Does anyone disagree that in that scenario it's preferable to have the entrymate run FPMO? And if it's OK to run FPMO in that scenario -- then why is it not OK in a situation like what happened on Sunday (provided the information is effectively announced)?

[toetoe]

SG,

I've come to agree with you that the presence of the horse, per se, is not an issue, PMO or not.

Protecting the schmuck from himself involves eliminating any chance that he'll see, only after the race, that the trainer's longer shot won the race; and this might lead him to blow his brains out. I guess, and I'm only half-joking (for a change), that an advisory can be given when a trainer has multiple entries.

You argue persuasively that the PMO option is the least of evils. However, it's only a straw we can cling to when consequences of the coupling rule leave the bettors in the lurch. It's still an avoidable evil.

On Desormeaux's bad days, can we have a PMS advisory? Maybe he's coupling-deprived? :D

[Tom]

Maybe they have their own version of DRF Marc, with his finger on the pulse of the on-line public?
:lol::lol::lol:...that's not my pulse!

[Tom]

It just happened at Belmont Race 6 - gate scratch of the 2 - one of the speeds. Now Lone speed, 1 goes out alone, and gets nailed by....1a.

[toetoe]

Tom,

That's my finger. No, really it is. Honest. :lol:

[Tom]

A problem has been identifed, suggestion made, ball's in NYRA's court now. My bet is they drop it.

;)

Yup. Same ole crap today - late scratch, mte runs for purse money only, but NYRA lists BOTH as scratched.
Another lack of concern for their customers. This time, the PMO horse ran second.
Two issues here - people betting at off track sites ( many more that bet on track) see 2 and 2B as scratched. If the PMO horse is part of the early pace, they DO NOT KNOW that this guy is running. Period. NO VOICE announcements at most off track facilities.
Today, the plug runs second, an issue - people who bet the winner and third horse do not know the 2 is not counted in the exacta think they lost when in fact they won!
What th ehell is so damned difficult to understand - DO NOT call a horse scratched if he is in the race - call it PMO so people will know.
Now I send emails outlineing this very simple solution to NYRA a while ago, when this thread first started - first off, got zero reply - nice way to treat customers, NYRA JERKS. Second - it is obvious to me you are either too stupid to understand, or just don't care.

Perhaps it is past time to re-award the franchise to some people who might be a bit more capable than this bunch of dolts. I certainly hope so

[KingChas]

Happened again yesterday in race 7 with the 1 & 1A entry.Even though I am still up in the air about this I benefitted, luckily.I was alive with the 1-4-9 in the third leg of the pick-3.
I actually made out on the deal with a higher payout and the consi/PK3.Without the PMO,Pure Incentive(9) was not going to beat Carnera (1A) as seen.
Which would have returned approx $250 compared to $600 recieved for PMO rule.
In closing not intending to redboard just stating how some benefit from this and some don't. ;)

[PaceAdvantage]

Just for the record, the PMO rule has been around forever in NY....

I don't think the debate is really about PMO vs. no PMO. I think the debate centers around NYRA's inability to effectively convey to those off-track that the half of the entry which APPEARS scratched on the tote is actually RUNNING in the race.

Even though it is running for PMO, it still has a handicapping IMPACT on the race. Lots of simulcast players are at a disadvantage because they are left clueless about the PMO situation. I don't know why NYRA couldn't just put a PMO in place of where the odds would be for the half of the entry that is still running in the race. That would solve the misinformation problem.

You would think with all the knowledgeable players currently at the top of NYRA's company ladder (Hayward and Nader immediately come to mind), this would be a no-brainer.

[RXB]

If you're watching the NYRA feed you're okay. They use - to indicate a non-starter and SCR to denote a horse running for purse money only.

But if you're not watching the feed, then you might not be aware of the situation because on the odds services it will just show up as a scratched entry.

[PaceAdvantage]

If you're watching the NYRA feed you're okay. They use - to indicate a non-starter and SCR to denote a horse running for purse money only.

You'll have to admit that the current way of doing things, even if you're watching the NYRA feed, can easily create confusion.

[Tom]

It shows, to me, a lack or respect for the betters.
But then, how many years did it take NYRA to adopt uniform simulcasting saddle cloths? :rolleyes:

I think the term NO BRAINER says a lot about this whole industry - not just NYRA, You cannot run a business with politcal hacks, favors, and nephews.
You need, at some point, hire people who know what they are doing.....few
tracks have done this so far.

I'm not fromthe city, but could this be where all the "squeegie poeple" disappeared to? :lol:

[KingChas]

Just for the record, the PMO rule has been around forever in NY....

I don't think the debate is really about PMO vs. no PMO.

From Crist's Spa Journal 8\5\06:
Race 7: "Speaking of the Lexington, runner-up Carnera returns here to win the $70k A In Sociology by a length in a fine performance lost amid justifiable outrage over late-scratch rules in multirace wagers. Carnera, Kieran McLaughlin trainee coupled in wagering with Eoin Harty-trained no-hoper Changing Weather because of common Darley ownership, runs for purse money only because Changing Weather is scratched before the start. Intrarace bettors get refunds but pick-six and even first-leg pick-four bettors are switched to post-time favorite Yankee Master, so they get to watch the horse they were betting win but lose their bets because Yankee Master fades to third behind Carnera and tough-to-like Biancone filly Pure Incentive($14.80), the official pari-mutuel winner. Pick-four players should have received a refund rather than a switch since this was the first leg of the sequence. NYRA officials say they will work to change that rule; given the past performances of the state Racing and Wagering Board, that should take about a year."

PA;"I don't think the debate is really about PMO vs. no PMO." :confused:
I disagree with you on this one PA .Big Time ;)

[ryesteve]

Are you saying Carnera should have been allowed to run as a wagering interest? Do you really want to leave it up to the stewards to decide when the remaining half of a scratched entry is "good enough" to let bets placed on both horses stand as-is?

[Tom]

How about getting rid of ALL entries once and for all?

If I was on track and watched the horse I bet win and then have thme tell me I lost - I would be lighting trash cans all the way out of the place.
If it was at Saratoga, I'd be chopping down trees and peeing in the "waters."

[KingChas]

Are you saying Carnera should have been allowed to run as a wagering interest? Do you really want to leave it up to the stewards to decide when the remaining half of a scratched entry is "good enough" to let bets placed on both horses stand as-is?

Steve, read the thread were I stated how lucky I was (pick-3). This Time.I threw Yankee Master out.Why,because I didn't want him.Now if I just bet the 1 entry,I would have been forced to take him.I got a refund on a hefty 1-9 exacta big deal. I'm talking pik 3's\4's\ and 6's.How would you have liked to had 5 of 6 on the pick 6 because of this.I hope you or I never have to wear those boots. ;) We'd of been hotter than a couple of two-peckered roosters. :D


Eliminate entry's with different trainers.Or as Tom said eliminate them entirely period.

PS ; I think Mr. Crist is saying that.

[ryesteve]

I understand people got screwed... I'm just trying to figure out what the best solution is. How does eliminating entries with different trainers fix the problem? Most entries do have the same trainer, so this will still continue to happen almost as often as it does now.

And I'm not sure that getting rid of entries is a good idea either. The rule is in there to protect bettors in the first place. I remember when NY first went to the "uncoupled entry" rule, there was a flood of articles pointing out how the longer-priced horse of the two seemed to be winning an awful lot. Whether true or not, and whether it was coincidence or not wasn't really the point... the point was that there was the appearance that the public was getting screwed... on a far more regular basis than on the odd occasion when half an entry gets late scratched.

[samyn on the green]

Saratoga Race 4 17AUG

Had the #1 entry singled on 1 pick 4 ticket and had a 4 horse spread including on another both live. The 1A gets loose at the gate and SCR leaving me with the #1 only. I wanted both not just one and that why I bet it. Since it was an entry the 1 goes for PMO and I get the PTF instead.

The 1 ends up completely up the track and the PTF #10 romps to a commanding victory. Did I have the 10 on any tickets? No but that thanks to PMO both tickets are live and I am protected and on my way to a nice score. NYRA protects bettors and is the industry leader.

[Valuist]

I have an easy solution to this problem that they've created: eliminate all entries. I don't want to hear bitching or complaining about "higher price of uncoupled entries winning" because its ALWAYS been a great angle. I think most sharp players know that angle is always dangerous and would prefer to get beat that way than seeing themselves getting put on a post time favorite they didn't like, when the lesser half of the entry withdraws late.

[saratoga guy]

I have an easy solution to this problem that they've created: eliminate all entries.

That's a "solution" that brings its own set of problems.

Scenario: Owner has two entered. Neither show much early speed, in fact one is a confirmed closer. Let's call them Horse A and Horse B (the confirmed closer).

Gates open and Horse A zips out to challenge for the lead through fast fractions. Turning for home the speed collapses and Horse B closes to win.

After the race the owner says Horse A was entered as a "rabbit" to set things up for Horse B.

We all know what comes next: These message boards get filled with complaints that bettors were screwed because Horse A never was meant to win...

[Murph]

I suspect Valuist would be one of the first to complain.

"Some men you just can't reach"
Murph