Mountaineer Pick 3

[6furlongs]

After the 6th race is done, Peter Berry annouces that 4 Snuck in the Dance is scratched out of the 8th race. Snuck in the Dance was to be ridden by Deshawn Parker. After the 7th race is run, Peter Berry comes on and says Deshawn Parker will now be riding #6 Ride The Range in the 8th race.

I think this is wrong when a pick 3 has already begun, and the handicapping is over. Now the variables change a 1/3 of the way through, and 2/3 of the way through. What gives here?

[Peter Berry]

I just asked the stewards about this. When Snuck in the Dance was scratched the owners of Ride the Range requested a rider switch from Loveberry to Parker. This does happen here on occasion.

[cj]

I just asked the stewards about this. When Snuck in the Dance was scratched the owners of Ride the Range requested a rider switch from Loveberry to Parker. This does happen here on occasion.

It may happen, but it is dead wrong. Things like this will keep Mnr way down on the food chain.

And many horsemen wonder why we discount their "alleged" respect for bettors.

[Igeteven]

It may happen, but it is dead wrong. Things like this will keep Mnr way down on the food chain.

And many horsemen wonder why we discount their "alleged" respect for bettors.

As we all notice, the supers are a dollar, when four long shots come in, some one always has it.

Someone tell me, how they do it. :confused:

[cj]

As we all notice, the supers are a dollar, when four long shots come in, some one always has it.

Someone tell me, how they do it. :confused:

I'd rather talk more about this specific situation. A horse that people have been able to bet on (or against) for hours was suddenly switched to the by far dominant jockey of the colony, replacing an average/mediocre rider. The switch was made not out of necessity due to injury or illness, but just because an owner wanted a newly available jockey. That in itself is a pretty sad testimony to racing at Mountaineer.

At least when they pulled this crap at Santa Anita they had the common courtesy to make up a lie.

[affirmedny]

As we all notice, the supers are a dollar, when four long shots come in, some one always has it.

Someone tell me, how they do it. :confused:

Speaking of Mountaineer supers, is only the last race super 50 cents? Meadowlands and NJ bets will not let you bet the 5th race super for 50 cents. Seems silly if that's the case. If not can someone at the mountain inform Meadowlands of their mistake? It's amazing to me that this kind of info is not automatically disseminated to the simulcast facilities.

[BombsAway Bob]

Speaking of Mountaineer supers, is only the last race super 50 cents? Meadowlands and NJ bets will not let you bet the 5th race super for 50 cents. Seems silly if that's the case. If not can someone at the mountain inform Meadowlands of their mistake? It's amazing to me that this kind of info is not automatically disseminated to the simulcast facilities.
ONLY the 10th race is a fifty-cent super race, except recently on a few Saturdays, when EVERY race had a fifty-cent super. WHY? not sure...

[Igeteven]

ONLY the 10th race is a fifty-cent super race, except recently on a few Saturdays, when EVERY race had a fifty-cent super. WHY? not sure...

to both of you, I notice that supers are 50 cents, thanks for the correction

however, pools run around 5,000 dollars with a ten horse field

what I did notice, if one get 4- 99 to one shots in, someone will always have the super.

Impossible, not at this track.

[Peter Berry]

Mountaineer will have 50-cent superfectas on every race starting May 31.

[BombsAway Bob]

Mountaineer will have 50-cent superfectas on every race starting May 31.
That's good news... Peter, do you know what will the minimum number of starters be in order to offer them? NYRA is Seven, Cali is Six, some states offer it with a minimum of Five runners!

[cj]

This is pretty sad. Bettors get ignored, even screwed over, and all the people in this thread want to talk about is how they can bet that very track in other denominations.

[Peter Berry]

That's good news... Peter, do you know what will the minimum number of starters be in order to offer them? NYRA is Seven, Cali is Six, some states offer it with a minimum of Five runners!

I'll find out today and let you know.

[BombsAway Bob]

This is pretty sad. Bettors get ignored, even screwed over, and all the people in this thread want to talk about is how they can bet that very track in other denominations.
to Quote from 'MY NAME IS EARL'..
"Chickens gotta poop... people gotta bet!"
I need to watch something on Monday & Tuesday Nights,
& I grew up betting on low-level claimers @ Suffolk & Rock!
(Seriously..i still bet EVG., even after a TrainerObjection/DQ for 4th in '08 cost me big $$)

[cj]

Good luck to you is all I can say.

[Dahoss9698]

This is pretty sad. Bettors get ignored, even screwed over, and all the people in this thread want to talk about is how they can bet that very track in other denominations.

I agree. And people wonder why bettors are in the situation we are in.

[Peter Berry]

That's good news... Peter, do you know what will the minimum number of starters be in order to offer them? NYRA is Seven, Cali is Six, some states offer it with a minimum of Five runners!

No definitive decision has been made at this time.

[cj]

No definitive decision has been made at this time.

Thank goodness.

[GlenninOhio]

This is pretty sad. Bettors get ignored, even screwed over, and all the people in this thread want to talk about is how they can bet that very track in other denominations.

I had a situation last year at Hawthorne that I'm going to reconstruct here because it might help move this topic along and might also be educational for me.

I had a horse entered in a turf stakes race, and in large part because I was a shipper all the top riders were taken even though my entry was very live. We therefore secured the services of what I'd call a "B" rider.

The race came off the turf a couple of hours before post time, and we were informed that an "A" rider who had been named on a horse that was now scratched was available. We declined the switch because we wanted to honor our original rider commitment.

I was not aware of any restrictions on my ability to change riders in that situation, though I guess if I tried to pursue the rider change I would have found out for sure. And I'm not necessarily proud to admit that I never thought about the implications for the bettors.

I'd appreciate any feedback on this, whether or not related to the Mountaineer situation under discussion. Does this lose importance because an off the turf situation is going to be chaotic for handicappers regardless of rider changes?

Thanks.

Glenn

[cj]

I guess the rules clearly allow, at least at Mountaineer, but it really stinks for anyone that had bet on that race in advance or bet the P3 that had already started. It is just typical of the sport to not consider the bettor.

I guess thinking about this in retrospect, it is tough to blame the owner. The people that should be blamed are the stewards for allowing it to happen.

[trying2win]

It may happen, but it is dead wrong. Things like this will keep Mnr way down on the food chain.

And many horsemen wonder why we discount their "alleged" respect for bettors.

CJ:

Right on! :ThmbUp: It's nice to see someone else speaking out about the arrogance, greed, and lack of respect by horsemen shown to bettors.

In my opinion, horse racing in most cases, is one of the few industries that has the customer (the bettor) at the bottom of the totem pole in terms of importance. There are a few exceptions of course. Racetracks such as TAMPA BAY, KEENELAND, and TIOGA DOWNS on the harness side, are shining lights trying to put the customers first on things like lowering takeouts. That puts more money in the bettors pockets when they win a race. That's the way it should be. Part of the universal law...i.e. "GIVE AND YOU SHALL RECEIVE". Bettors should support tracks showing these kind of initiatives.

Frivolously changing jockeys after a PICK 3 has started in this example, is wrong. The powers that be at a racetrack shouldn't allow this.

T2W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
~"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

-- Dante Alighieri

[rrpic6]

This is pretty sad. Bettors get ignored, even screwed over, and all the people in this thread want to talk about is how they can bet that very track in other denominations.

When Mountaineer's management decided to fire the 3 simulcast managers last year and replace them with a slots host, my mind was made up to rarely bet there again. I'm sure they don't mind much since I didn't play the slots anyways. They even took me off their mailing list even tho I put 200K thru the totes a few years back. If there are less horseplayer friendly tracks out there, I have not seen one yet.

RR

[6furlongs]

Mountaineer was one of my favorite tracks. But, the gargbage that has gone on there the last 2 nights has made me almost not want to make a wager there again. Several of these races are looking more and more like BOAT races!

Several of these riders are doing everything in their power to make sure that their mount doesn't win, or even finish for that matter.
Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

[6furlongs]

I just asked the stewards about this. When Snuck in the Dance was scratched the owners of Ride the Range requested a rider switch from Loveberry to Parker. This does happen here on occasion.

And that is absolutely garbage that they would allow it!

[Dahoss9698]

This is probably a stupid question, but is HANA looking into this?

[duncan04]

I can see where you all are coming from. So you will punish the owners and connections for wanting to help their chances of winning by preventing them for getting a better jockey for their horse?? Honestly its a no win situation.

[6furlongs]

I can see where you all are coming from. So you will punish the owners and connections for wanting to help their chances of winning by preventing them for getting a better jockey for their horse?? Honestly its a no win situation.

How are the owners punished here? They had their jockey named. The pick3 began. You can't change the rider now! You don't think people buying pick 3's might play it differently if they know Parker is onboard? Come on man!

[cj]

I can see where you all are coming from. So you will punish the owners and connections for wanting to help their chances of winning by preventing them for getting a better jockey for their horse?? Honestly its a no win situation.

So any time there is a scratch there should be a jockey free for all?

[hansend]

So any time there is a scratch there should be a jockey free for all?

I can see it now...
Announcer: "They are all in the gate...".
<1 horse gets fracticious in gate and throws jockey>
Announcer: "Late scratch on the 1"
Annoucher: "At the request of the owners and approval from the stewards, due to the late scratch the jockey on the 1 is now on the 2, the jockey on the 2 is now on the 4, the jockey on the 4 ...."

[PaceAdvantage]

There is absolutely no excuse for this kind of disrespect for those who have already put their money on the line in the Pick 3s.

The sad fact is that nobody even THINKS about this angle (certainly not anyone in charge like the stewards...and certainly not the owners/trainers or jockeys).

It doesn't even OCCUR to anyone that this might be a problem.

For crying out loud, the NFL caters to gamblers in a more respectful manner then some racetracks, and betting on football is only supposed to be legal in Nevada!! :lol: :(

[cj]

And yet this thread turned into a discussion of why a bush league track only has 50 cent P4s or superfectas or whatever on some races. No wonder we are taken for granted.

[menifee]

I usually respect your opinions CJ and Pace Advantage, but I disagree with you here and I'm a handicapper not an owner.

The owner wants to win the race, why shouldn't he be able to switch to the the jockey of his choices? There's purse money on the line. It's the trainer's and the owner's job to get the horse to win.

Jockey changes happen all the time in sequences. Sometimes a rider doesn't want to ride a horse for whatever reason and there is a jockey change at the gate. Should the stewards prevent a jockey from doing this so that you can have your pick 3 intact? Or what if a jockey gets hurt, should his horse in the next leg of your pick 3 be automatically scratched because you didn't know this would happen when you bet the sequence?

Things happen in a pick 3 sequence. Horses scratched, jockey changes, track bias changes, track surface changes, etc. Sometimes they work to your benefit, sometimes they work to your detriment. If you can't account for this risk when making your bet, that don't play multirace wagers. But to tell an owner he can't have a better jockey and a better chance at winning the race is like telling an NFL coach that he can't play Payton Manning in a meaningless last game of the season because the bettor has anticipated that he will not be playing.

[CBedo]

This is pretty sad. Bettors get ignored, even screwed over, and all the people in this thread want to talk about is how they can bet that very track in other denominations. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: One track minds? Yikes.

[proximity]

But to tell an owner he can't have a better jockey and a better chance at winning the race is like telling an NFL coach that he can't play Payton Manning in a meaningless last game of the season because the bettor has anticipated that he will not be playing.


i wouldn't want to arrive at the stadium wearing my peyton manning colts jersey only to find that he'll actually be playing for the texans though.

[PaceAdvantage]

Jockey changes happen all the time in sequences. Sometimes a rider doesn't want to ride a horse for whatever reason and there is a jockey change at the gate. Should the stewards prevent a jockey from doing this so that you can have your pick 3 intact? Or what if a jockey gets hurt, should his horse in the next leg of your pick 3 be automatically scratched because you didn't know this would happen when you bet the sequence?Things happen...yes...BUT, this isn't one of those THINGS...

This wasn't an injury or something that couldn't be helped. This was deliberate, for starters.

And just because jockey changes happen all the time in sequences (do they really happen all the time? At NYRA, I can't recall this kind of thing happening), doesn't make it right.

[Dahoss9698]

Things happen...yes...BUT, this isn't one of those THINGS...

This wasn't an injury or something that couldn't be helped. This was deliberate, for starters.

And just because jockey changes happen all the time in sequences (do they really happen all the time? At NYRA, I can't recall this kind of thing happening), doesn't make it right.

I know because it was me asking it, it was ignored. But, does anyone know if HANA has looked into this at all?

[6furlongs]

I usually respect your opinions CJ and Pace Advantage, but I disagree with you here and I'm a handicapper not an owner.

The owner wants to win the race, why shouldn't he be able to switch to the the jockey of his choices? There's purse money on the line. It's the trainer's and the owner's job to get the horse to win.

Jockey changes happen all the time in sequences. Sometimes a rider doesn't want to ride a horse for whatever reason and there is a jockey change at the gate. Should the stewards prevent a jockey from doing this so that you can have your pick 3 intact? Or what if a jockey gets hurt, should his horse in the next leg of your pick 3 be automatically scratched because you didn't know this would happen when you bet the sequence?

Things happen in a pick 3 sequence. Horses scratched, jockey changes, track bias changes, track surface changes, etc. Sometimes they work to your benefit, sometimes they work to your detriment. If you can't account for this risk when making your bet, that don't play multirace wagers. But to tell an owner he can't have a better jockey and a better chance at winning the race is like telling an NFL coach that he can't play Payton Manning in a meaningless last game of the season because the bettor has anticipated that he will not be playing.

This is tantamount to letting owners trade jockeys at the gate. Unreal how people can rationalize this sort of thing.

[menifee]

This is tantamount to letting owners trade jockeys at the gate. Unreal how people can rationalize this sort of thing.

No it is not. Not even close. He did not trade him at the gate. Parker's mount got scratched. He became available to ride. If you are the owner of that horse, trying to run a profitable ownership group, I think you have the right to switch to Parker once his mount scratches. I also think a p3 or p4 ticket, should have the right to change their ticket, seek a refund, etc. But right now tracks don't offer that option. Accordingly, I'm wary of multirace wagers for that very reason. If you don't like that an owner can switch like that, that don't play the ticket. You won't lose any money or be prejudiced in any way.

But I'd rather allow the owner the best opportunity to win the race and win the purse rather than preserving your some bettor's $6 pick 3 ticket. Furthermore, any bettor who won't use a horse in a sequence without Parker, but would have used him with Parker better check his ROI. Parker's good and the leading rider, but give me a break.

BTW, it should be noted that Parker's ride did not win the 8th race so for all those bettors that would have used him in the pick 3 sequence if they had known that there was going to be a switch, that lack of knowledge actually saved you money.

[Dahoss9698]

But I'd rather allow the owner the best opportunity to win the race and win the purse rather than preserving your some bettor's $6 pick 3 ticket.

You are a bettor and typed this? The bettors $6 ticket (as if the amount of the ticket matters) means nothing. Apparently those purses get funded by the tooth fairy.

[menifee]

You are a bettor and typed this? The bettors $6 ticket (as if the amount of the ticket matters) means nothing. Apparently those purses get funded by the tooth fairy.

No, at the Mountain they really get funded by the tooth fairy playing the slots. I think the racing world will survive if those whopping midday Monday night pick 3 pools at the Mountain take a hit due to the outrage of the bettor over this issue.

[Dahoss9698]

No, at the Mountain they really get funded by the tooth fairy playing the slots. I think the racing world will survive if those whopping midday Monday night pick 3 pools at the Mountain take a hit due to the outrage of the bettor over this issue.

To each his own. Considering the way gamblers are treated I don't think we can take this stuff for granted. Excuse it all you want, but it was unfair to the bettors that played that sequence. The $6 bettor and the $600 bettor. They are all important.

[menifee]

How about the owner that is trying to get that $5,100 winner's share?

[Dahoss9698]

How about the owner that is trying to get that $5,100 winner's share?

What about them? How is it unfair to the owner to make he/she keep the jockey that they named on their horse midway through a card?

[PaceAdvantage]

No, at the Mountain they really get funded by the tooth fairy playing the slots. I think the racing world will survive if those whopping midday Monday night pick 3 pools at the Mountain take a hit due to the outrage of the bettor over this issue.And it's exactly this kind of attitude that leads to absolutely nothing getting done...the attitude of "well, they're just gamblers, they'll gamble on anything...F**K THEM!"

You're another who might need their handicapping card revoked or at least suspended for a little while.

[PaceAdvantage]

What about them? How is it unfair to the owner to make he/she keep the jockey that they named on their horse midway through a card?Excellent point.

[menifee]

And it's exactly this kind of attitude that leads to absolutely nothing getting done...the attitude of "well, they're just gamblers, they'll gamble on anything...F**K THEM!"

You're another who might need their handicapping card revoked or at least suspended for a little while.

I'm just expressing my opinion. You are going to revoke or suspend me for that?

[6furlongs]

BTW, it should be noted that Parker's ride did not win the 8th race so for all those bettors that would have used him in the pick 3 sequence if they had known that there was going to be a switch, that lack of knowledge actually saved you money.

Absolutely out to lunch here. Whether Parker actually won or not makes absolutely no difference. Again, a very goofy rationalization of what went on here.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm just expressing my opinion. You are going to revoke or suspend me for that?It was a comical (at least I thought so) figure of speech...lighten up...