Trainers who SANDBAG

[PriceAnProbability]

Anyone else ever notice that some trainers seem to be able to pull five-length improvements out of a hat with their horses (at a price of course)? This is done not by juicing them, but by sandbagging.

[Bruddah]

However, it also might be referred to as training them up to the race. Especially, if it is a race to which they are better suited or a higher purse. If that's the case, I call them Professional Horse Trainers and finding the right spots. I think more of this is the case, than sand bagging. Just more of the handicapping puzzle to know when. JMHHO :bang:

[kenwoodallpromos]

Conserving energy for another race, if the sandbagger has a wide post.

[Show Me the Wire]

Trainers that sandbag......are on the same level as trainers that rely on performance enhancing drugs. Sandbagging is intentionally cause a horse to run poorly.

Starting from an unfavorable post and losing all chance at the start resulting in the jockey conserving the horse's energy for the next out is not sandbagging. It is the result of poor racing luck.

[Fastracehorse]

Anyone else ever notice that some trainers seem to be able to pull five-length improvements out of a hat with their horses (at a price of course)? This is done not by juicing them, but by sandbagging.

I think most sandbag at least some of the time.

fffastt

PS,

How 'bout good sandbagging jocks??

[Fastracehorse]

However, it also might be referred to as training them up to the race. Especially, if it is a race to which they are better suited or a higher purse. If that's the case, I call them Professional Horse Trainers and finding the right spots. I think more of this is the case, than sand bagging. Just more of the handicapping puzzle to know when. JMHHO :bang:

Some trainers make their horse look dang ugly in the PP's - U have to consider horses with more than terrible lines just bacause it might be a set-up.

fffastt

[Fastracehorse]

Trainers that sandbag......are on the same level as trainers that rely on performance enhancing drugs. Sandbagging is intentionally cause a horse to run poorly.

Starting from an unfavorable post and losing all chance at the start resulting in the jockey conserving the horse's energy for the next out is not sandbagging. It is the result of poor racing luck.

Some trainers don't want the public betting their charge.

Have U noticed how many low % trainers have gotten their horses cranked at Aqu??

fffastt

[ELA]

Interesing question. Unfortunately, I think "sandbagging" per se exists on a spectrum, and a wide ranging one perhaps. I have often viewed this as similar to the uneducated, been to the track a couple of times, people saying that a race or the races are fixed. Is a race fixed when an educated professional, a clocker, or someone who knows what they are looking at -- knows that a particular favorite is a false or bad favorite? How about if they see that the horse is off, or lame? Take it a step further -- there is a monster track bias that casual bettors don't see or understand.


Anyway, in the claiming game, sandbagging or whatever you want to call it becomes part of the game and has to be taken into consideration in one's handicapping. Where a horse fits now, in this book, the next book, etc. -- that comes into play.

Think about it from a trainer's point of view. During a race -- yes, I know during this race is a different issue -- if a horse cannot win or finish 2nd, there is some edge, even if it's just "perceived", in finishing last. While it's some part of the game -- unfortunate as it is, it is a factor.

Eric

[PlanB]

Also, let's not forget, that trainers fear losing their claimers via the claim, but not to the degree that could exist; there's a CODE OF HONOR among trainers, that only the SCUM claim horses. I can't recall their names but one trainer-owner combo that didn't honor that code got largely "banned" at most tracks.
It was Gill + someone, I just can't recall their names. They were very active claimers.

[ELA]

Also, let's not forget, that trainers fear losing their claimers via the claim, but not to the degree that could exist; there's a CODE OF HONOR among trainers, that only the SCUM claim horses. I can't recall their names but one trainer-owner combo that didn't honor that code got largely "banned" at most tracks.
It was Gill + someone, I just can't recall their names. They were very active claimers.

Yes, certain people won't claim from others -- friends, or something of the like, etc. I am in the claiming game and my horses are there just like everyone else's. Don't get me wrong, if a friend of mine claimed one from me, especially because he knew I was laying a horse in there so to speak, I wouldn't be happy, but that is the game. Trainers claim from each other all the time and they see each other on the backstretch, in the track kitchen, at the trainers stand, etc.

People place their horses across the spectrum. They are there and can be taken and that's the name of the game.

Eric

[Dan H]

Hollywood Park, Sunday, December 3rd, in race 2, 3, or 4, Victor Espinoza (in my opinion) eased his horse from 4th to 6th in the final furlong - killing my superfecta. I can only hope he had cause, and was not SANDBAGGING (at the trainer's direction) to darken the horse's form.

At Hollywood Park, the path from the paddock to the track is lined with bushes about chest-high. I was standing at those bushes that same Sunday as the horses left the paddock. The guy next to me makes a 'cick-cick' sound towards Victor, parading his horse up the ramp. The jockey turns, makes eye contact and shakes his head back and forth (indicating 'no'). Again, I can only hope the singal was innocent or meaningless, and not an indication of the horse's chances in that race (finished out to the money). I made it a point to stay at those bushes and witnessed no other such transactions.

I realize these are serious allegations, especially from a novice with a monetary and emotional investment - but I saw what I saw - and - whether it's SANDBAGGING - or INSIDER'S INFORMATION - I felt like all the Past Performance handicapping and computer programs in the world can't measure what you don't see.

Pardon my rant!

[dylbert]

Hollywood Park, Sunday, December 3rd, in race 2, 3, or 4, Victor Espinoza (in my opinion) eased his horse from 4th to 6th in the final furlong - killing my superfecta. I can only hope he had cause, and was not SANDBAGGING (at the trainer's direction) to darken the horse's form.

At Hollywood Park, the path from the paddock to the track is lined with bushes about chest-high. I was standing at those bushes that same Sunday as the horses left the paddock. The guy next to me makes a 'cick-cick' sound towards Victor, parading his horse up the ramp. The jockey turns, makes eye contact and shakes his head back and forth (indicating 'no'). Again, I can only hope the singal was innocent or meaningless, and not an indication of the horse's chances in that race (finished out to the money). I made it a point to stay at those bushes and witnessed no other such transactions.

I realize these are serious allegations, especially from a novice with a monetary and emotional investment - but I saw what I saw - and - whether it's SANDBAGGING - or INSIDER'S INFORMATION - I felt like all the Past Performance handicapping and computer programs in the world can't measure what you don't see.

Pardon my rant!Dan H -- are you really Oliver Stone?

My favorite misconception is jockey checking board to see if he should or should not race to win. Jerry Bailey states in his Inside Track DVD -- he was simply trying to find out minutes to post so he could best warmup his mount for that specific race. Another favorite is jockey waving to some one on grandstand apron. Usually, just acknowledging crowd in general. Some jockeys are friendly with patrons; others, stoic. Neither is "signalling" inside information...

Hopefully, you will enjoy better results with next superfecta wager...

[Kelso]

However, it also might be referred to as training them up to the race.

To this novice, anything short of trainer and jockey doing everything they can to (legally) win every race they enter is taking a dive.

They want more people, such as me, to bet more money on races they enter ... so that they can earn more money from purses ... but they're unwilling to give 100% to winning every time they're in a race on which I'm betting? That's fraud and they should be banned ... if not jailed.

This thread makes clear that race fixing doesn't have to be a group effort. How anyone can tolerate it under any circumstance ... much less endorse it ... is beyond rational discourse.

[Overlay]

I wish it could be assumed that every horse were entered in every race with the primary intent of winning (although I'm also not saying that horses are entered with the express intention of losing). I think any trainer will take a win in any race if he can get it, but the economics of racing (from the perspective of both the stable and the track), the added benefit of a race from a conditioning standpoint as compared to working out, and the physical limitations of horses, mean that every horse in every race cannot or will not have a realistic expectation of winning. Some players attempt to make the distinction between who's "trying" and who isn't through analysis of betting action. I think the key to addressing this is to consider a sufficient, properly-weighted blend of fundamental performance factors in your handicapping, so that you can develop a probability of winning for every horse in a field as a basis for judging when a horse is worth the risk of a wager and when it isn't.

[kroebuck67]

I like to pick tri wheels & boxes, and come primarily from a trip handicapper slant... so, does anyone have suggestions on identifying these "sandbag" instances? 'Cause they're murder on my picks, but knowledge of them could be quite useful in filling out my picks (it's harder to pick who's going to show than who's going to win or place, no?)

[Kelso]

the economics of racing (from the perspective of both the stable and the track), the added benefit of a race from a conditioning standpoint as compared to working out, and the physical limitations of horses, mean that every horse in every race cannot or will not have a realistic expectation of winning.

Some players attempt to make the distinction between who's "trying" and who isn't through analysis of betting action.

Of course not every horse will "have a realistic expectation of winning." But the only questions ... for every race on which wagering is managed by a track ... should be about the abilities of the animals that are running, not the designs of the humans controlling them. There should be now question, whatsoever, of who is "trying" and who is not.

Those in a race with any intent other than to have the horse finish as well as it possibly (and safely/legally) can should be required to identify themselves as such and removed from participation in the purse. Then they can train/condition to their hearts' content. That's the only fair and honest way to treat the bettors.

[Bruddah]

those horses whose PP's seemed to indicate they were not going to be at their best for today's contest. Whether they were morning line favorites or longshots. Once those are eliminated from my consideration, it makes finding the best horse for today's competition easier. Certainly, I am not always successful but I have eliminated many more 'dogs' than those who won. (JMHHO) By the way, I think this a process most good handicappers do. Eliminate and then concentrate.

[PriceAnProbability]

I wish it could be assumed that every horse were entered in every race with the primary intent of winning (although I'm also not saying that horses are entered with the express intention of losing). I think any trainer will take a win in any race if he can get it, but the economics of racing (from the perspective of both the stable and the track), the added benefit of a race from a conditioning standpoint as compared to working out, and the physical limitations of horses, mean that every horse in every race cannot or will not have a realistic expectation of winning. Some players attempt to make the distinction between who's "trying" and who isn't through analysis of betting action. I think the key to addressing this is to consider a sufficient, properly-weighted blend of fundamental performance factors in your handicapping, so that you can develop a probability of winning for every horse in a field as a basis for judging when a horse is worth the risk of a wager and when it isn't.

Which factors should be weighted, and to what extent, to arrive at these probabilities that I, working alone, can use to outsmart the betting public and the backstretch?

I understand the appeal to narcissism in telling people they can do a better job than the market, but in reality, few can.

[kenwoodallpromos]

If I were a cheatring trainer I would try for 2nd or 3rd to avoid drug testing.

[44PACE]

I used to be in partnerships in owning race horses if ever a trainer would do anything to prevent one of my horses from winning I assure you he would have been Fired immediately. I just do not buy the idea a trainer will cheat to lose ( for a future bet ) if anything the only time they would cheat is to win. Owners will dump trainers who do not win.


Who knows if the horse improved 5 lenghts or your figures are off by 5 lenghts or the rest of the horses declined or were hindered by either a negative bias or a negative pace situation.

[Show Me the Wire]

I used to be in partnerships in owning race horses if ever a trainer would do anything to prevent one of my horses from winning I assure you he would have been Fired immediately. I just do not buy the idea a trainer will cheat to lose ( for a future bet ) if anything the only time they would cheat is to win. Owners will dump trainers who do not win.


Who knows if the horse improved 5 lenghts or your figures are off by 5 lenghts or the rest of the horses declined or were hindered by either a negative bias or a negative pace situation.

The above may be your experience. However, I have contrary experiences. Most owners do not have a clue what is going on with their horse. Most trainers treat owners like mushrooms, you know keep them in the dark and feed them fertilizer (the raw unprocessed type).

Additionally, there are the owners that do not care if they win. They like having a pet a very expensive pet.

Plenty of ways to sandbag a horse without the jockey knowing. Two easy ways, not an inclusive list, withhold feed from the horse or let the horse drink lots of water prior to the race and there are more.

Or how about, using an unwitting jockey. Tell the jockey the horse is sore, see what type of ride you will get. Mostly a wide ride toward the back of the pack away from trouble if the horse breaks down. Wide trip in the back is a great conditioning tool and an effective form darkener.

[ELA]

If I were a cheatring trainer I would try for 2nd or 3rd to avoid drug testing.

I am not sure of the current/up to date numbers, but in many jurisdictions they test more than the winner (ie: beaten favorite). Also, you wouldn't be in business very long trying for 2nd and 3rd.

Eric

[Show Me the Wire]

Some more insights from trainers about owners. Listening to the At The Races broadcast a trainer, Chuck Simon, (I believe that was his name) stated owners should not expect to win or make money, but should be happy for the experience and fun of owning a horse.

What fun is owning a horse, paying training and vet bills and not winning and making some money? This is the trainer mindset, give me your money and enjoy the thrill of not winning, while notreceiving a return on your investment.

The best one is when the trainer bets the horse, because it is ready to win and fails to tell the owner. The owner who pays the bills doesn't even get the benefit of inside information on his own horse :bang:

Oh, that is right the trainer does not want to prejudice his odds on the horse through the owner telling all of his friends and the friends telling their friends to bet the horse :lol:

[Overlay]

Which factors should be weighted, and to what extent, to arrive at these probabilities that I, working alone, can use to outsmart the betting public and the backstretch?

I understand the appeal to narcissism in telling people they can do a better job than the market, but in reality, few can.

Quirin gave an example of this with his computer-generated sprint and route multiple regression formulas on pages 272-285 of Winning at the Races. To quote him, "The factors used must strike a reasonable balance among the major handicapping categories. To insure this, the computer was given its choice of two or three different factors in each of the seven major handicapping categories (class, speed figures, consistency, distance, early speed, recent form, and recent action)), together with the option of including or excluding jockey and post position factors."

The best sprint formula the computer produced utilized days since last race (weight of +2); number of "good races" (by Quirin's definition of that term) in last ten starts (weight of -40); number of "failures" (again, by Quirin's definition) (weight of +37); speed-point percentage (weight of -14); average earnings-per-start rank (weight of +93); average speed rating in last two "good races" (weight of +116); and a numerical rating of the ability of the jockey (weight of +250).

Routes employed post position (weight of +74); number of wins in last ten starts (weight of -11); jockey rating (weight of +228); average earnings-per-start (weight of +115); and average speed rating from last two "good races" (weight of +110).

Each horse started with a base rating of 3,000, and had points added or subtracted based on its performance on the above factor sets, depending on the distance of the race in question. The lower each horse's overall rating, the better the horse's chance of winning.

The probability of winning for horses in sprints was calculated according to the formula: 1.54 - (.07 x RATING) + (.0008 x RATING x RATING). The probability of winning for horses in routes was: 1.46 - (.06 X RATING) + (.0006 x RATING x RATING). Fair odds for each horse were calculated by dividing the horse's individual probability by the sum of the probabilities for all the horses in the race field, and expressing the resulting percentage in terms of its corresponding odds.

Sprint top-rated underlays won at a rate of 36.9%, with a $NET of $1.99 (a loss of $ .01 on each $2.00 bet).

Sprint top-rated overlays won at a rate of 18.9%, with a $NET of $2.36.

Route top-rated underlays won at a rate of 35.4%, with a $NET of $2.07.

Route top-rated overlays won at a rate of 16.7%, with a $NET of $2.24.

In addition to their diversity, the factors that Quirin used shared the characteristics of smooth impact-value flows from top to bottom, and wide value ranges in differentiating horses with top ratings from those with lower ratings.

[PriceAnProbability]

Those percentages held up over time?

[44PACE]

I just do not buy the trainers darkening a horses form to set up some future bet, I just feel this is more myth than reality. A trainer canno't see into the future that there is some race out there that he will be able to make a huge bet on becouse he darkened the horses form. I spent 1 summer working the backstretch at Canterbury Park, horses suffered injuries during training between races. All it takes is for some stupid cat to enter the shedrow and spook your horse that you are walking to cause an injury.


The truth is that people canno't take the responsibilty that they made a poor wager this is why they seek to find blame. Horses are not machines sometimes they make dramatic swings in their level of perfomance.

[Overlay]

Those percentages held up over time?

Later data that I am aware of has not indicated a decrease in the effectiveness of those factors in predicting winning probabilities or developing odds.

[PriceAnProbability]

Later data that I am aware of has not indicated a decrease in the effectiveness of those factors in predicting winning probabilities or developing odds.

So I just follow the directions and let the money roll in? Or are the factors not fully explained?

Say, how much money did you make betting on horses in 2006?

[Show Me the Wire]

I just do not buy the trainers darkening a horses form to set up some future bet, I just feel this is more myth than reality. A trainer canno't see into the future that there is some race out there that he will be able to make a huge bet on becouse he darkened the horses form. I spent 1 summer working the backstretch at Canterbury Park, horses suffered injuries during training between races. All it takes is for some stupid cat to enter the shedrow and spook your horse that you are walking to cause an injury.


The truth is that people canno't take the responsibilty that they made a poor wager this is why they seek to find blame. Horses are not machines sometimes they make dramatic swings in their level of perfomance.

The trick about looking into the future is performed with a condition book.

All that you posted about injuries is true also.

If you choose to believe sandbagging is a myth, so be it. I am certainly not going to try and change your mind.

[Robert Fischer]

A clear full-fledged sandbagging is a rare event. It happens. Small operations. Minor league. There are some crooks in and around gambling.

More often you have to be aware of subtleties involving intent. I've noticed some big time trainers who only deal with top class pedigrees, and they don't kill the horse training up to its debut. Were the 103's in 5/8 a lack of speed?, or are they trying to rate the horse? (where are those clocker's notes...) In the first race of a huge investment, they might have similar instructions to the jockey. Horse is maybe a little green. The gradual continuing growth is more important than the difference in money between 5th and 3rd... As opposed to the $1,000 gelding who will get a hard ride today.
Maybe a horse is a work in progress... Today they move the claimer up to allowancenx1 and they will spend him on the front end to "put a little speed in him", for the next race. The horse had a problem or layoff, and maybe today's race is a public work?

[PriceAnProbability]

A clear full-fledged sandbagging is a rare event. It happens. Small operations. Minor league. There are some crooks in and around gambling.

More often you have to be aware of subtleties involving intent. I've noticed some big time trainers who only deal with top class pedigrees, and they don't kill the horse training up to its debut. Were the 103's in 5/8 a lack of speed?, or are they trying to rate the horse? (where are those clocker's notes...) In the first race of a huge investment, they might have similar instructions to the jockey. Horse is maybe a little green. The gradual continuing growth is more important than the difference in money between 5th and 3rd... As opposed to the $1,000 gelding who will get a hard ride today.
Maybe a horse is a work in progress... Today they move the claimer up to allowancenx1 and they will spend him on the front end to "put a little speed in him", for the next race. The horse had a problem or layoff, and maybe today's race is a public work?

Then let the trainer make a formal statement to this effect before the race!

Sandbagging is very common. Lots of horses who appear clearly outclassed wind up romping for no legitimate reason.

[Overlay]

So I just follow the directions and let the money roll in? Or are the factors not fully explained?

The pages I referenced in Winning at the Races contain the full descriptions of the multiple-regression formulas, as well as examples applying them to races. The terms involved are defined and discussed in the text of the book.

[PriceAnProbability]

The pages I referenced in Winning at the Races contain the full descriptions of the multiple-regression formulas, as well as examples applying them to races. The terms involved are defined and discussed in the text of the book.

So you don't use this method to find your overlays? That's what I was asking you.

Finding overlays is a lot more difficult than TALKING ABOUT their value.

[Dan H]

I checked my records ... and still maintain that the jockey "eased" entry #5 for no visible reason from fourth to sixth place at Hollywood Park in the 4th race on Sunday 12/3/2006. The horse was WORLD NEWS, trained by J. Canani, ridden by V. Espinoza.

If anybody (who shares my concern) has the resources, can you help me with three things:

1. Paraphrase the race summary from that race's charts.

2. View the replay and offer your opinion on the jockey's performance.

3. View the replay and note any problems with the horse's physicality.

I am actually hoping the experienced members here will see no cause for SANDBAGGING and restore my faith in trainers/jockeys/owners intent.

Thanks,

Dan H

(working my way out of the novice ranks two dollars at a time)

[TonyK@HSH]

Price,

Sandbagging is very common. Lots of horses who appear clearly outclassed wind up romping for no legitimate reason.[/QUOTE]

What evidence do you have to support this claim? Could Mr Fischers comments not be accurate? My personal beliefs are more in line with those of Mr. Fischer but I could be swayed. Present evidence to support your position, maybe affidavids from trainers who sandbag. I'm sure you would not make a claim and not be prepared to prove it's veracity. I'll hold my breath...

Tonyk

[Overlay]

So you don't use this method to find your overlays? That's what I was asking you.

Finding overlays is a lot more difficult than TALKING ABOUT their value.

Your question doesn't follow. You asked whether you could follow the directions (by which I assumed you meant my summary of them), and whether the factors were fully explained. Although my summary was an accurate one (as far as I'm aware), I was indicating where you could find a fuller description of the formulas and the terms used in them in Dr. Quirin's book, rather than reproducing them verbatim in this thread. The calculations described in the formulas are designed to indicate those specific horses that are overlaid, and the degree to which they are overlaid -- not to just "talk about their value". Do I believe those methods can still be effective? Absolutely. Do I follow them? No. I've developed my own handicapping model through a long process of gathering more recent data, using larger samples, discovering combinations of variables with greater predictive power, and devising a variety of more streamlined approaches to odds calculation.

[Show Me the Wire]

Dan H.

Unfortunate fact, whenever there is a large amount of money to be made some people will cheat to acquire the money.

But to clear up the confusion let me state the following. Wrapping up on a horse is not sandbagging. Wrapping -up means a jock knows he could not win so he does not use the horse up completely. This is a common practice. Watch enough races and you will see several ocurrences of jocks not perservering through the finish wire.

A hint, if a rider is not flat on his belly, while pushing the horse's neck forward or whipping the horse, the jock is not asking the horse for its all. Of course there are many reasons a jock does not ask for a horse's all. The horse simply does not have any more to give, the horse does not feel right to the jock, the jock heard a popping or other unnatural sound come from the horse, as well as having no chance to win.

Wrapping-up a horse is part of the sport. In your quest to learn, through observation, which jocks are more inclined to wrap-up a horse, when they defermine they have no chance to win or run an easy second.

The scenario you are painting is the jock wrapped-up the horse because he could not win, the horse itself could no longer perservere, or the jock cheated. Which one do you think happened?

[gjones6794]

Some trainers will place their horses in races for the benefit of getting them into condition and not to win that particular race. Trainers also bet on their horses. If jockeys manipulate races, why wouldn't trainers. Trainers are willing to administer all kinds of illegal drugs to get their horse to win, why wouldn't they give the jockey instructions to that would darken the horses form. Then cash out big latter on. This is just human nature. Cheating trainers win races with illegal drugs. Even if they get caught, they usually keep the purse money. Unfortunately, this is all part of horse racing. It always has been. You have to factor this into your handicapping. If you want an honest race to bet on, you are probably better off betting on the greyhounds. At least jockeys are not a factor. The dogs are isolated in a special holding area many hours before the race. There is probably drug testing for the winners. And a dog doesn't really care what the trainer says.

[Show Me the Wire]

Dog races :lol: Some favorite tricks to make a dog run poorly, buff the pooches paw pads with Brillo pads or some generic type steel wool, give the dog something to give it the runs before it runs. :bang:

Only positive, no jriders involved to complicate matters.

[Dan H]

Show Me the Wire,

Thanks for your explanation.

Which do I think happened ??? I felt he wrapped-up the horse because he could not win.

But my point is ... he could have come in 4th ... to the benefit of superfecta bettors.

[dav4463]

Isn't it possible that a good horse can just have an off day because he or she doesn't feel good that day? Maybe a headache or something that affects the ability to give 100%.

Or, couldn't a horse get off to a bad start and the jockey realizing the bad start doesn't want to kill the horse trying to get back into the race?

[Show Me the Wire]

Dan H.

I understand your point and believe me I embrace your point. However, the jockey does not care about your superfecta ticket. He or she is usually thinking about their safety first, winning if possible, if not, then their next ride for the trainer ( depends how they ride today's mount) and no trainer in his right mind or owner wants his horse used up if the horse can't win.

Racing is a business first and foremost, owners and trainers have large amounts of money invested in their commodities, so they do not want jocks wasting the commodity, in a hard non-winning effort.

The protection of a valuable commodity is at odds with the idea of public wagering on a tri or a super. You could also conclude the same reasoning applies to MSW races.

[Show Me the Wire]

Isn't it possible that a good horse can just have an off day because he or she doesn't feel good that day? Maybe a headache or something that affects the ability to give 100%.

Or, couldn't a horse get off to a bad start and the jockey realizing the bad start doesn't want to kill the horse trying to get back into the race?

Yes. I do not know whom the question is directed to, but I will answer since it seems most of my posts, in this thread, tended to be cynical and jaded.

[Kelso]

Dan H.

no trainer in his right mind or owner wants his horse used up if the horse can't win.

so they do not want jocks wasting the commodity, in a hard non-winning effort.


I'm sure what you say is true. I say "tough s**t" to those owners and trainers.

If they want to take home purses which, for the most part, are funded by the betting public, then they OWE that public a 100% effort (horse WELFARE conceded) for the best finish their horse can achieve in every race.

Yes, this is a business for the connections. (Wagering is a primary business, as well, for some people. For many others, it is a part-time business.) But if they put their future financial welfare ahead of fairness to the bettors, they have perpetrated a fraud and should be sanctioned accordingly. With this standard, jeopardizing future wins by their admittedly delicate assets - in order to earn a 4th place finish today - will become simply another cost of doing business.

[Suff]

Despite whats published, many, if not most, of whats in the barn goes out to the track for a gallop a few times a week. The reason I say this, is that these guys don't need to wink at the jockey in the paddock, or a jockey does'nt need to gauge his chances by looking at the tote board. They are on these horses virtually everyday.

They know what kind of shape they are in, They know if they are being pointed to a two turn event, they know if they are being pointed for a grass effort, they know if they are being pointed to a big race..........They diagnose the horse for and with the trainer everyday....or often. More often than whats published....That much I can promise you.

If there are factors that would piss off the gambler if he knew, its all done long before the horse is saddled or brought out for the post parade.


Of course horses are sent out with the knowledge that this is not the spot they expect to win in. Look at the PP's of most grass horses. They have at least one, if not two 6F dirt races that show nothing. Then they jump up and go gang busters on grass. Those first two races, were in fact, training races.


You can go get public statements from trainers that express disappointment that a horse they have broke thier maiden in thier debut. They had, and have a lot more work they wanted to do with the horse before they were forced to start racing against winners, or burn up the conditions.

[betchatoo]

I'm sure what you say is true. I say "tough s**t" to those owners and trainers.

If they want to take home purses which, for the most part, are funded by the betting public, then they OWE that public a 100% effort (horse WELFARE conceded) for the best finish their horse can achieve in every race.

Yes, this is a business for the connections. (Wagering is a primary business, as well, for some people. For many others, it is a part-time business.) But if they put their future financial welfare ahead of fairness to the bettors, they have perpetrated a fraud and should be sanctioned accordingly. With this standard, jeopardizing future wins by their admittedly delicate assets - in order to earn a 4th place finish today - will become simply another cost of doing business.

Then if a jockey feels that his own safety is in jeopardy or that the horses health is at risk, he should push that horse anyway so you might get your superfecta? Because your bet is more important than the jockey's health or the horses safety?

[alysheba88]

You mean cheating and defrauding the public don't you? Thats the reality of the polite word of "sandbagging"

[Kelso]

Then if a jockey feels that his own safety is in jeopardy or that the horses health is at risk, he should push that horse anyway so you might get your superfecta? Because your bet is more important than the jockey's health or the horses safety?
I have stessed in each of my posts that the horse's safety - which incorporates legal issues - is paramount. I did not say the same about jockeys, but it does apply as well. You have found NOTHING in ANY of my posts to suggest otherwise.

I demand an honest, 100% effort by all involved in racing for a purse. That certainly leaves all the room required for legitimate safety exigencies. (That doe not mean safety RATIONALIZATIONS.)

Often, it pays to comprehend what one reads prior to pompously shooting off one's mouth. You should try it.

[alysheba88]

I'm sure what you say is true. I say "tough s**t" to those owners and trainers.

If they want to take home purses which, for the most part, are funded by the betting public, then they OWE that public a 100% effort (horse WELFARE conceded) for the best finish their horse can achieve in every race.

Yes, this is a business for the connections. (Wagering is a primary business, as well, for some people. For many others, it is a part-time business.) But if they put their future financial welfare ahead of fairness to the bettors, they have perpetrated a fraud and should be sanctioned accordingly. With this standard, jeopardizing future wins by their admittedly delicate assets - in order to earn a 4th place finish today - will become simply another cost of doing business.

Agreed. Racing needs to crack down on this much more. In other countries severe fines are given to fraud-like jockeys not trying- or trainers with inexplicable form reversal

[betchatoo]

I have stessed in each of my posts that the horse's safety - which incorporates legal issues - is paramount. I did not say the same about jockeys, but it does apply as well. You have found NOTHING in ANY of my posts to suggest otherwise.

I demand an honest, 100% effort by all involved in racing for a purse. That certainly leaves all the room required for legitimate safety exigencies. (That doe not mean safety RATIONALIZATIONS.)

Often, it pays to comprehend what one reads prior to pompously shooting off one's mouth. You should try it.

Since you expect horses and horsemen to act on your orders, it comes as no surprise to me that you feel fellow posters should also fall into line. (make note to yourself: it isn't going to happen on this site) And I'm the pompous one.

Frankly, anyone who's studied trainer patterns is aware that not every trainer brings their horses at their best for every race. And the good handicappers use that to their advantage. Is it right to stiff a horse? No it's criminal. Is it going to happen? Yes. Unless you can find a way to change something that's been happening since the advent of racing, your choices are to use that information or quit betting

[alysheba88]

Since you expect horses and horsemen to act on your orders, it comes as no surprise to me that you feel fellow posters should also fall into line. (make note to yourself: it isn't going to happen on this site) And I'm the pompous one.

Frankly, anyone who's studied trainer patterns is aware that not every trainer brings their horses at their best for every race. And the good handicappers use that to their advantage. Is it right to stiff a horse? No it's criminal. Is it going to happen? Yes. Unless you can find a way to change something that's been happening since the advent of racing, your choices are to use that information or quit betting


Why is it either or?

Why cant you use that information and still decry the practice and call for change.

I despise the rampant drugging and cheating that goes on. People think if you complain about that you are a loser. That its sour grapes. Well yeah you can prosper from that too, its not hard at all, to take advantage of the cheating and druggin. But does that make the practice right? Does that mean one should be silent and not want things improved?

Horseplayers are used to getting kicked in the ass. So much so they expect it and think they deserve it. If someone moves their ass and say hey there has got to be different way here, they are told to get in line. Sad state of affairs

[44PACE]

Every race someone cashes a ticket, how many of these people believe that before they placed this bet that it was only going to be cashed becouse some of the other runners were going to get stiffed.

[Kelso]

Since you expect horses and horsemen to act on your orders, it comes as no surprise to me that you feel fellow posters should also fall into line.
Twice, conseculatively, you have displayed a determined and quite juvenile propensity for reading into my posts that which is clearly not there ... at least not to anyone possessing of more pronounced intellectual acuity than you have displayed.

I do not advocate wreckless treatment of either horses or jockeys, and ... as I am in no position to do so ... I do not give orders to anyone in either the business of racing horses or the habit of mischaracterizing posts.

I do, however, state without reservation my opinion on matters involving fraud, fairness and, in your instance, rhetorical flatulance. I recommend, again, that you work on the comprehension thing.



And I'm the pompous one.

Correct!!! (See how easy that was? Now, keep at it!)

[singunner]

Isn't that the fundamental nature of the parimutuel betting system? If you are uncomfortable taking money from others who are less lucky or less skilled than yourself, I believe you have entered the wrong game.

[betchatoo]

Twice, conseculatively, you have displayed a determined and quite juvenile propensity for reading into my posts that which is clearly not there ... at least not to anyone possessing of more pronounced intellectual acuity than you have displayed.

I do not advocate wreckless treatment of either horses or jockeys, and ... as I am in no position to do so ... I do not give orders to anyone in either the business of racing horses or the habit of mischaracterizing posts.

I do, however, state without reservation my opinion on matters involving fraud, fairness and, in your instance, rhetorical flatulance. I recommend, again, that you work on the comprehension thing.



Correct!!! (See how easy that was? Now, keep at it!)

Well, golly, Sarge. I hadn't realized how smart you are and that I needed to bow to your intellectual superiority (except for all those misspelled words). Hint: if you're going to use big words you should spell them right.

You are always entitled to your opinion. However, as you actually learn handicapping you may find not everything is in black and white. For example, I think you will find many horsemen who believe it is perfectly all right to race a horse into shape rather than having them ready first race after layoff. I doubt even the most stringent stewards would consider this cheating, but the horse isn't ready to give his best. If a trainer decides to use a less competent jockey, is that dishonest? How about if he runs a horse at a distance where he is unlikely to be successful?

Concentrate less on being righteous and more on learning nuances and you'll have a better chance of beating the game.

Oh, and Merry Christmas!

[Suff]

Q. When a horse leaves the gate, how soon do you know if he wants to race that day?

A. Usually within the first 100 yards you know whats underneath you.

Q. How distinct are the signs? Meaning can you tell clearly the horse does'nt want to run?

A. Its as distinct as you driving a car with a flat tire.


Thats a Q and A I had a couple of years ago, in a bar, with a leading rider with 30 years around the game.


I guess anyone is entitled to thier opinion what a Jockey should do to a horse that comes out with a flat. Its a debatable point from both sides.

[JPinMaryland]

You mean cheating and defrauding the public don't you? Thats the reality of the polite word of "sandbagging"

Defrauding perhaps, since I guess the public expects a full out performance every time no matter what.

But cheating? HOw can you say that? Is there a rule that says they have to go full out every race? I doubt that there is.

suff: would it be giving away too much to ask: who was the rider?

[Dan H]

This thread began 5 days ago with PriceAnProbability questioning the motives of five length improvements pulled out of a hat by some trainers.

Since then:

Some called it SandBagging.
Some called the prior race a public workout.
Some called the prior race a form darkening effort.
Some called the prior race potential poor racing luck.
Some called the series of races a factor in handicapping.
Some called each other some pretty wicked names.

One of the positive side effects of this forum is that it allows lurkers, like me, to gain from the more experienced handicappers - folks willing to opine.

I am a better handicapper than I was 5 days ago.

Thanks to all, even the pompous ones, Dan H

[Kelso]

Well, golly, Sarge. I hadn't realized how smart you are and that I needed to bow to your intellectual superiority

There you go again, Gomer; reaiding what isn't there. If you must bow to anyone, it isn't because of anything written by me ... however much your intellectual superior I might be. (Most kind - and astute - of you, btw.)




(except for all those misspelled words). Hint: if you're going to use big words you should spell them right.

First, I presume you mean spell them correctly.

Next, if there is anything at which I am less accomplished than handicapping horse races, it is correctly spelling English words and manifesting them accurately by means of a keyboard. But, since you were able to recognize the misspellings, it appears that my message was not seriously hindered thereby. (As well, your seeming understanding of my intent strongly suggests that the words were not all that "big" ... how quaint ... after all.)

Nevertheless, since you were compelled to comment critically, I regret whatever distress my poor spelling and typographical errors might have caused you.



You are always entitled to your opinion.

Ever so big of you, old man.



I think you will find many horsemen who believe it is perfectly all right to race a horse into shape rather than having them ready first race after layoff. I doubt even the most stringent stewards would consider this cheating, but the horse isn't ready to give his best. If a trainer decides to use a less competent jockey, is that dishonest? How about if he runs a horse at a distance where he is unlikely to be successful?

I have not objected to entry of either horses out of form or jockeys short on ability. Both circumstances are self-evident and their potential consequences are easily understood by the betting public. Why do you insert these issues here?

My insistance has been only that, once entered, trainers and jockeys work the horse to his maximum cabability ... SAFETY AND LEGALITY CONCEDED (reminder). In other words, both the trainer and the jockey should try their absolute best to have the horse win. Stewards should, indeed, determine anything less than such effort to be "cheating."

And, while on the subject, do you consider it cheating if a jockey holds back his mount after the trainer has told him to try to win? If so, then why is it not cheating when a trainer instructs his jockey to take a dive? If not, then what does the phrase "race fixing" really mean to you?

The alternative, as has been suggested more than once, is for a trainer to announce, upon entering a horse in a race, that the horse is running for only training ... not purse or wagering ... purposes.



And the very merriest of Christmases to you and all the Betchas in Tooville.

[betchatoo]

Kelso:

Trainer intent is one of the most interesting and profitable areas of handicapping. But since you have all the answers, I'm sure you knew that. I'm shocked you aren't already a successful handicapper

Good luck to you

[bigmack]

Here's an interesting angle. Keep movin' em up in class even though their form is abysmal. Sandbag Central or juiced beyond belief?

http://www.equidaily.com/images/2006/outofchp.jpg

[Tom]

Often, it pays to comprehend what one reads prior to pompously shooting off one's mouth. You should try it.


Good advice. A corralary to that is have more than 21 posts before you start insulting people. Shazaam! ;)

[Kelso]

Kelso:
Trainer intent is one of the most interesting and profitable areas of handicapping. But since you have all the answers, <<<yadda, yadda, yadda>>>


Answers are generally responses to questions. What you have read from me is opinion which, and in spite of your tag line, you have failed to rationally refute; i.e., in every race in which wagers can be placed on their horses, trainers and jockeys owe to the betting public the best efforts contemporaneously possible .

An ability to handicap dishonesty should be without standing, or honor.

[Kelso]

A corralary to that is have more than 21 posts before you start insulting people. Shazaam! ;)


Then if a jockey feels that his own safety is in jeopardy or that the horses health is at risk, he should push that horse anyway so you might get your superfecta? Because your bet is more important than the jockey's health or the horses safety?

<<Post #46, this thread.
12-21-06 08:04:04 AM
Post #1144, or thereabouts, by betchatoo>>

Tell me, Tom. How many prior posts must one have before he has your approval to issue baseless, irrelevant and unprovoked assaults on one's motivations or character .... all free from exposure to response in-kind?

Serious question, Tom.

[Tom]

Not until he kows the difference between dicussion and personal attacks.
I'll give you a clue, Betcha's post was NOT and attack.

Or eighth grade, whichever comes first. :lol:

[Kelso]

I'll give you a clue, Betcha's post was NOT and attack.

A response as easy as it is uninformed ... for one at whom the attack was not directed. (BTW, is there a corollary for minding one's one business in the presence of a dispute to which one has not been party?)

[PaceAdvantage]

No more personal attack discussions from this point on in this thread. Any further personal attack comments will be either edited or deleted.

[PlanB]

Here's an interesting angle. Keep movin' em up in class even though their form is abysmal. Sandbag Central or juiced beyond belief?

http://www.equidaily.com/images/2006/outofchp.jpg

That 6/22 race when that horse was bet to 5:50 to 1, showed early zip.
Now that's the kind of pick I want a system to put on top.

[skate]

as i see it

out of... was up against 2year olds, the reason for added 2#

[Fastracehorse]

Also, let's not forget, that trainers fear losing their claimers via the claim, but not to the degree that could exist; there's a CODE OF HONOR among trainers, that only the SCUM claim horses. I can't recall their names but one trainer-owner combo that didn't honor that code got largely "banned" at most tracks.
It was Gill + someone, I just can't recall their names. They were very active claimers.

It was what they did after the claim.

Gill was simply interested in winning an Eclipse Award for most wins as an owner. So he would claim a horse for 50k and drop it to 25k next out - just to get a win.

Also, alot of their horses broke down.

The claiming game is great. That is why there is pari-mutuel horse racing in the first place. And why racing secretary's give weight break incentives for entering horses at lower tags - to encourage claims.

fffastt

[Fastracehorse]

Thanx for posting that.

I thought the x was a little on the small side :)

fffastt

[Fastracehorse]

A clear full-fledged sandbagging is a rare event. It happens. Small operations. Minor league. There are some crooks in and around gambling.

More often you have to be aware of subtleties involving intent. I've noticed some big time trainers who only deal with top class pedigrees, and they don't kill the horse training up to its debut. Were the 103's in 5/8 a lack of speed?, or are they trying to rate the horse? (where are those clocker's notes...) In the first race of a huge investment, they might have similar instructions to the jockey. Horse is maybe a little green. The gradual continuing growth is more important than the difference in money between 5th and 3rd... As opposed to the $1,000 gelding who will get a hard ride today.
Maybe a horse is a work in progress... Today they move the claimer up to allowancenx1 and they will spend him on the front end to "put a little speed in him", for the next race. The horse had a problem or layoff, and maybe today's race is a public work?

U can list hundreds of reasons why a trainer didn't crank his charge for 'today's' race. But sandbagging is still a reality.

U are probably aware of a recent investigation printed by DRF.

fffastt

[The_Suppositionist]

Wow Bigmack, I didn’t know they held walking races for horses at Delta. 1:24.1 for 6 ½ furlongs???? I realize Delta is a bullring but when they run that slow everybody is live.



I can’t say I would have ever played this horse but it is interesting in hind sight to look at the positives this horse shows. Obviously this horse had some sort of problem which was finally recognized after the 7-20 race and they decided to lay her off. By the end of October they apparently felt she had made sufficient progress to test her so they worked her on the twenty-forth and she worked OK but apparently they still didn’t feel she was ready. Back for another work six weeks later on 12-9, and that work would apparently only qualify as a mediocre work but it does looks a little better when you look more closely and notice it was a gate work. This fact, coupled with them entering her in a race for slightly higher claiming price than they opened her at back in May tells me that they are getting serious with this horse.



Now given that the time of the race was so slow, that only one of the early pace horses stayed on and that it was so late in the year, this all tells me that this was a real dog race and or that the track was speed killing. We don’t know a lot of things, like what the other starters looked like on paper. We do know one horse had a problem at the start although we don’t know if it was the favorite or another long shot and how much that horse affected the way the race shaped up. I would imagine the inexperience of the trainer and jock, the lousy record on paper and questions of handling the bull ring all contributed to this horse going off at so long of odds and like I said, I can’t say I would have necessarily bet her but in this day and age I rarely see a horse go off that long so I think I would have at least given her extra scrutiny.

I try to make a case for every horse in a race and then assign a probability to it. Given the positives I’m seeing in her past performances and my experience, I’m pretty sure I would have given her at least a small chance although it’s likely I would have given her a race to see how she did. But at 99-1 she may have sucked me in, especially given it was a maiden race, the fact that she did show some early foot in one race and it was the first race of the card when my pockets are full. Maidens always produce some of the longest shots and it’s rare when I can make this good of a case for a long shot running better even if it is in hind sight.


The_Suppositionist