Coupled Entry Scratches

[BMeadow]

When one part of an entry is a late scratch, the New York rule of having the remaining half run for purse money only protects bettors and should be the rule everywhere.

Let's look at three possible scenarios--one in which you like one half of the entry far more than his partner, one where you like them evenly, and one where you don't like the half that is scratched.

1. An entry that is 4-5 consists of two horses. One should be 4-5 while the other should be 99-1. As the horses load into the gate, the 4-5 "good" half acts up and has to be scratched. Would you want to be stuck with the 99-1 shot in all your exactas, pick 3's, pick 6's, etc.?

2. An entry that is 3-2 consists of two evenly assessed horses. Each would be 4-1 by itself (20% of a round book), but because they are an entry, the entry's odds are determined by adding their chances (20% + 20%). When one is scratched at the gate, you are left with the lone 20% chance at 3-2; his new odds, given the scratch, should be a tad lower than 4-1, but certainly the 3-2 odds make him a severe underlay.

3. An entry that is 7-2 consists of one horse you would like by himself at 5-1 and his throw-in partner who should be 15-1. The longer-priced horse, whom you didn't like anyway, is scratched. So now you're getting a tad less than 7-2 for a horse who should be 5-1. Again, an underlay.

Yes, on rare occasions the half of the entry you like be scratched, your pick in the pick 3 is then switched to the favorite, and the horse you wanted will win. But, 99% of the time, the rule prevents you from being stuck with a bad underlay--no matter which part of the entry you liked.

[Imriledup]

But Barry, Can't you make the case that this late scratch scenario is already factored into the price? If the rule stated that a late scratch means you get stuck with the other horse, you would have to factor that into your handicapping. If one horse was a heavy chalk that was coupled with a no hoper, you have to wager on the favorite knowing that if he got scratched at the gate, you are going to lose your money.

I feel that as long as players know the rules in advance and can factor that stuff into their plays, there's no unfair situations.

Lets look at this from the other point of view.

Lets say you had a big edge on a horse that was really good but showed nothing on paper. That 'sneaky' horse was coupled with someone else who got late scratched. Why should the guy who wants to play that particular horse have to watch it run (and get exposed as a good thing) without being able to capitalize on it?

Also, lets say that the late scratched part of the entry was a pace factor. Lets also say that you handicapped the race thinking there would be a speed duel and you bet on a deep closer. Now, with the pace presser scratched, you want your money back also. But, you don't get your money back, the only people who get a refund are the people who are on the other half of the entry. You, get stuck with a closer that has less of a shot to win because now, the pace factor is scratched and that was your edge, that there was going to be a duel (or at least an honest pace). If you want to protect the public from getting an entrymate they don't want, you also have to protect the public who bet on a race thinking there would be one pace scenario and now there's something totally different. Since there's really no time to delay the race 10 mins to give everyone time to get a refund, you have to make it fair and just run the race as is.

I feel that as long as the public knows the rules (assuming the rules are that you get stuck with the other part) they can't complain about getting stuck with a horse they don't want because they know this going in and can bet accordingly.

[Tread]

Why do we EVER have ANY coupled entries? Fine, its great for the owners, but as horse players, each horse should be it's own betting interest. The idea of handicapping/wagering is to pick the best horse, not the best owner. The idea of coupled entries is absolute nonsense, and thats why the Breeders Cup and Kentucky Derby have done away with it. If everyone else would follow suit, then we wouldn't even need to worry about complicated rules like this.

[oddsmaven]

Why do we EVER have ANY coupled entries? Fine, its great for the owners, but as horse players, each horse should be it's own betting interest. The idea of handicapping/wagering is to pick the best horse, not the best owner. The idea of coupled entries is absolute nonsense, and thats why the Breeders Cup and Kentucky Derby have done away with it. If everyone else would follow suit, then we wouldn't even need to worry about complicated rules like this.
I would rather not have entries either, but I believe the reason for them is to avoid potential larcency by a trainer. For instance, if a trainer entered two separate betting enties, feeling that what "appeared" to be his lesser horse was sitting on a big effort, he could bet that one & boost his price by having the suposedly good horse, be ill prepared or instructed not to be ridden to win.

[strapper]

I would like to see everyone do away with coupled entries which would pretty much eliminate the problem. For now, NY does it the correct away and saves the bettors a lot of grief. Time for all tracks to get on the same page on this issue!

[magwell]

I would like to see everyone do away with coupled entries which would pretty much eliminate the problem. For now, NY does it the correct away and saves the bettors a lot of grief. Time for all tracks to get on the same page on this issue! I agree do away with coupled entries is the best way to go, but to get all tracks on same page thats like getting peace in the middle east never going to happen..... just look what happened in N.Y. with late scratch of of Mullins horse Saturday. Just think.... you can use one thing on west coast but not on east coast,owners put up all expenses to ship from Cal. to run in a race and people with no clue of the game say we dont play that and you cant run, it could have been the derby fav. if that race came up first. When I first came around, people use to say racing was thirty years behind the times and its been proven that way to be true constantly.

[Imriledup]

I would rather not have entries either, but I believe the reason for them is to avoid potential larcency by a trainer. For instance, if a trainer entered two separate betting enties, feeling that what "appeared" to be his lesser horse was sitting on a big effort, he could bet that one & boost his price by having the suposedly good horse, be ill prepared or instructed not to be ridden to win.

But that's why they call it handicapping. Its up to you, the horseplayer, to take every and all factors into your head when making your decision.

As far as larceny goes, i don't think you are talking about a jockey who's physically restraining a runner so another half can win. There's nothing wrong with a trainer entering two horses and winning with the longer price. As a handicapper, its your job to sniff that out.
If you can't sniff it out, than you lose your money to more informed players and that's what the handicapping process entails in the first place.

[gillenr]

I think North America is the only area that has coupled entries - never seen them elsewhere & I play a lot of foreign races.

[oddsmaven]

But that's why they call it handicapping. Its up to you, the horseplayer, to take every and all factors into your head when making your decision.

As far as larceny goes, i don't think you are talking about a jockey who's physically restraining a runner so another half can win. There's nothing wrong with a trainer entering two horses and winning with the longer price. As a handicapper, its your job to sniff that out.
If you can't sniff it out, than you lose your money to more informed players and that's what the handicapping process entails in the first place.
I'm not talking about the handicapping part of it...yeah, i believe things are mostly on the up & up but I guess this rule is intended to try and keep it that way (such as a held horse)...and even if a trainer sees something about his horse that no one could read off of the paper, it's not a good thing for him to build the price by entering someone else that's only known to him as not being ready...that said, I'd rather have them separate and live with it.

[SMOO]

Why do we EVER have ANY coupled entries? Fine, its great for the owners, but as horse players, each horse should be it's own betting interest. The idea of handicapping/wagering is to pick the best horse, not the best owner. The idea of coupled entries is absolute nonsense, and thats why the Breeders Cup and Kentucky Derby have done away with it. If everyone else would follow suit, then we wouldn't even need to worry about complicated rules like this.

:ThmbUp:

[Valuist]

I've got another solution: if one have of the entry scratches, the other half MUST ALSO SCRATCH. None of this nonsense of running for purse money only. None of this crap of playing games at the entry box

[John]

Simply, ... don't bet on entrys

[cj]

I've got another solution: if one have of the entry scratches, the other half MUST ALSO SCRATCH. None of this nonsense of running for purse money only. None of this crap of playing games at the entry box

I agree, that would be a great solution. Entries are of no good to anyone other than trainers. Why should they benefit when half scratches late?

[misscashalot]

Why do we EVER have ANY coupled entries? Fine, its great for the owners, but as horse players, each horse should be it's own betting interest. The idea of handicapping/wagering is to pick the best horse, not the best owner. The idea of coupled entries is absolute nonsense, and thats why the Breeders Cup and Kentucky Derby have done away with it. If everyone else would follow suit, then we wouldn't even need to worry about complicated rules like this.

I think it was in the early 90's when the NYRA revised the rule to make all runners uncoupled no matter the trainer or owner or class of race. Within the first month Zito had 2 races where one runner of his was the fav and the other double digit odds. Both times the bomb won which pissed everyone off so the NYRA revised the revised. Coincidence? Maybe. That's why.

[Hosshead]

I would rather not have entries either, but I believe the reason for them is to avoid potential larcency by a trainer. For instance, if a trainer entered two separate betting enties, feeling that what "appeared" to be his lesser horse was sitting on a big effort, he could bet that one & boost his price by having the suposedly good horse, be ill prepared or instructed not to be ridden to win.
That's exactly why they have entries !
To give the connections less chance for ripping off the public.

I know that "No Coupled Entries" would create a tradeoff between larger fields vs. larceny, and most bettors would be willing to make that trade (especially if they didn't realize it).
But with a (select) few of the (betting) connections, it's like holding crack in front of an addict.
And even one bad apple can spoil the barrel.

Handicapping horses is one thing, but handicapping cheating (by the connections) is something else.
Coupled entries is just an attempt to diminish the temptation for the latter.
And we know that whenever there is a way, ... there is a will.

I agree with the New York Rule (and BMeadow) on this one.

[andymays]

That's exactly why they have entries !
To give the connections less chance for ripping off the public.

I know that "No Coupled Entries" would create a tradeoff between larger fields vs. larceny, and most bettors would be willing to make that trade (especially if they didn't realize it).
But with a (select) few of the (betting) connections, it's like holding crack in front of an addict.
And even one bad apple can spoil the barrel.

Handicapping horses is one thing, but handicapping cheating (by the connections) is something else.
Coupled entries is just an attempt to diminish the temptation for the latter.
And we know that whenever there is a way, ... there is a will.

I agree with the New York Rule (and BMeadow) on this one.


I like doing the "uncoupled entry" thing. As long as people can see in the form and the program that owners or trainers have two or more horses in the race I'm fine with that.

I know most people think that Trainers are somehow "cheating" when the longer price of an uncoupled entry wins but the truth is that Trainers or Owners may think one entry has more ability than the other but they really don't know who's going to win because of the variables that happen during a race.

I know that more often than not the so called "connections" bet on the loser and not the winner!

[Imriledup]

Funny thing about people who think the longer priced runner means cheating, they don't seem to understand how the Pari-Mutuel system works. Pari means, "amongst ourselves" or something like that. If the longer prices runner was the 'well meant' one, why would the well meant horse BE the longer price? Wouldn't the connections pound that runner down with tens of thousands of dollars? You would see 'action' on the tote board.

I think the opposite is true. If the SHORTER price wins, you can make the case that they stiffed the longshot and bet on their 'favorite'.

Either way you look at it, the information that you glean by seeing this situation will help you going forward. Instead of being upset that a trainer won with a longer price, if you feel they are 'cheating' and you are right, than its in your best interest to stick that in your notepad and the next time said trainer has an entry, you can pound the longer price and cash in yourself.

That is, of course, if you really believe the BS you keep telling yourself.

I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that all these people who are crying about conspiracy aren't even betting one dollar on the same trainers next uncoupled situation even though they are screaming from the mountaintops that they have uncovered some type of scandalous situation.

My advice to the people who think they know when they see a 'fixed' situation? You don't. You don't know the fix. If someone fixes a race, you ain't going to be privy to it. Just stick to real handicapping and stop worrying about shenanigans that you can't ever sniff out in the first place.

[John]

Funny thing about people who think the longer priced runner means cheating, they don't seem to understand how the Pari-Mutuel system works. Pari means, "amongst ourselves" or something like that. If the longer prices runner was the 'well meant' one, why would the well meant horse BE the longer price? Wouldn't the connections pound that runner down with tens of thousands of dollars? You would see 'action' on the tote board.

I think the opposite is true. If the SHORTER price wins, you can make the case that they stiffed the longshot and bet on their 'favorite'.

Either way you look at it, the information that you glean by seeing this situation will help you going forward. Instead of being upset that a trainer won with a longer price, if you feel they are 'cheating' and you are right, than its in your best interest to stick that in your notepad and the next time said trainer has an entry, you can pound the longer price and cash in yourself.

That is, of course, if you really believe the BS you keep telling yourself.

I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that all these people who are crying about conspiracy aren't even betting one dollar on the same trainers next uncoupled situation even though they are screaming from the mountaintops that they have uncovered some type of scandalous situation.

My advice to the people who think they know when they see a 'fixed' situation? You don't. You don't know the fix. If someone fixes a race, you ain't going to be privy to it. Just stick to real handicapping and stop worrying about shenanigans that you can't ever sniff out in the first place.


Very good read, Honest and informative. This man knows his game.

:) :) :)

[Greyfox]

When one part of an entry is a late scratch, the New York rule of having the remaining half run for purse money only protects bettors and should be the rule everywhere.

.

I don't play New York often, so I'm a little confused on your terminology here.
First of all, every horse is running for purse money only. Or am I missing something?

I'm guessing you are saying by the remaining entrant running for purse money only also means that all bets on that coupled pair are sent to the favorite?

[Steve 'StatMan']

In NY, when either half of a couple entry scratches, for parimutuel purposes the entire entry is a scratched - the remaining runner(s) in that coupled entry still race for purse money but are no longer a part of the wagering. The rest of the field races, as usual, for purse and parimutuel purposes.

The part about a switch to the betting favorite applies for the legs in the multi-race wagers only (pick-X bets, but not DD). Not sure if the scratch is in the first leg of a multi-race bet if it is a refund or switched to the favorite (it is scratched from the DD.) All single-race bet combinations on the coupled entry are refunded (WPS, Exa, Q, Tri, Super)

[misscashalot]

In NY, when either half of a couple entry scratches AFTER BETS HAVE BEEN TAKEN, for parimutuel purposes the entire entry is a scratched - the remaining runner(s) in that coupled entry still race for purse money but are no longer a part of the wagering. The rest of the field races, as usual, for purse and parimutuel purposes.

I added AFTER BETS HAVE BEEN TAKEN

[Steve 'StatMan']

I added AFTER BETS HAVE BEEN TAKEN

Ah, Thanks! That is important. If no bets have been taken yet (early scratch, before betting pool is opened) then what is left of the coupled entry stays a part of the betting pool. Only if the makeup of the coupled betting entry changes after bets are taken does the entire coupled entry get scratched for betting purposes only, with the reminder of the 'entry' running for purse money only.

[Greyfox]

Thanks fellows, that's clearer.

[Track Phantom]

In my opinion there is an easy way to address the scratch of half of an entry. First of all, when half of an entry scratches, anyone that bet "same race" wagers (i.e., non pick 3, 6's etc), should have at least 5 minutes to cancel their bets and re-wager, if desired.

So, we are basically talking about multi-race wagers. The easiest way to address it is to have the bettor select one or both halves of the entry in their wager. If they select both, they get the remaining horse in case of a scratch. If they only select one half of the entry, they would get the post time favorite if that runner is scratched.

While I don't like scratching into a post time favorite, it beats getting left with a pig in case of a scratch.

This would require some technological upgrades to add this feature. However, based on how slowly the industry does anything to help the bettor (ie, races off the turf are not indicated on the screen leading up to post time), I would envision this problem to remain at the expense of the bettor.

[misscashalot]

In my opinion there is an easy way to address the scratch of half of an entry. First of all, when half of an entry scratches, anyone that bet "same race" wagers (i.e., non pick 3, 6's etc), should have at least 5 minutes to cancel their bets and re-wager, if desired.

So, we are basically talking about multi-race wagers. The easiest way to address it is to have the bettor select one or both halves of the entry in their wager. If they select both, they get the remaining horse in case of a scratch. If they only select one half of the entry, they would get the post time favorite if that runner is scratched.

While I don't like scratching into a post time favorite, it beats getting left with a pig in case of a scratch.

This would require some technological upgrades to add this feature. However, based on how slowly the industry does anything to help the bettor (ie, races off the turf are not indicated on the screen leading up to post time), I would envision this problem to remain at the expense of the bettor.

your cure is worse than the illness

[Imriledup]

In my opinion there is an easy way to address the scratch of half of an entry. First of all, when half of an entry scratches, anyone that bet "same race" wagers (i.e., non pick 3, 6's etc), should have at least 5 minutes to cancel their bets and re-wager, if desired.

So, we are basically talking about multi-race wagers. The easiest way to address it is to have the bettor select one or both halves of the entry in their wager. If they select both, they get the remaining horse in case of a scratch. If they only select one half of the entry, they would get the post time favorite if that runner is scratched.

While I don't like scratching into a post time favorite, it beats getting left with a pig in case of a scratch.

This would require some technological upgrades to add this feature. However, based on how slowly the industry does anything to help the bettor (ie, races off the turf are not indicated on the screen leading up to post time), I would envision this problem to remain at the expense of the bettor.

You wouldn't need 5 minute delays, or selecting one half or the other if you just uncoupled every horse in every race regardless of connections.

Its up to the racing commission to make sure there's no hanky panky going on. They can monitor betting patterns, watch videotape to make sure jocks aren't helping each other and just in general, really pay attention to manipulation of any kind. Why should the bettors have to suffer and deal with entries? Because the commission doesn't want to do its job? The reason horses are coupled is because of potential scandal......why not have the racing officals just deal with scandal in another way? Why force the bettors to bet on horses they don't want to bet on?

[Track Phantom]

Miss...

your cure is worse than the illness
__________________
---------------------
Unless I say otherwise, all my data is from the NYRA circuit and
if I use the term wired it means no worse than 2nd at any fraction according to chart



Right....and your solution to this problem is?

[Track Phantom]

You wouldn't need 5 minute delays, or selecting one half or the other if you just uncoupled every horse in every race regardless of connections.

Its up to the racing commission to make sure there's no hanky panky going on. They can monitor betting patterns, watch videotape to make sure jocks aren't helping each other and just in general, really pay attention to manipulation of any kind. Why should the bettors have to suffer and deal with entries? Because the commission doesn't want to do its job? The reason horses are coupled is because of potential scandal......why not have the racing officals just deal with scandal in another way? Why force the bettors to bet on horses they don't want to bet on?


Agree but it doesn't appear that will happen.

[misscashalot]

Miss...

your cure is worse than the illness
__________________
---------------------
Unless I say otherwise, all my data is from the NYRA circuit and
if I use the term wired it means no worse than 2nd at any fraction according to chart



Right....and your solution to this problem is?

There's no problem. Granted it's not the best element about racing, but, at best, it's a minor annoyment. If it strikes you as being major, then just by-pass every race having an entry if you can't alter your bet when it happens (granted you'd be passing about 3 races a day if you're betting NYRA). For other reasons I don't bet every race. The bottom line is: It (Running for purse money only) happens in NY about once a month (about 180 races) If that often.