NYRA approves uncoupling of entries

[Grits]

http://www.drf.com/news/article/114185.html

This is a good thing!

[FantasticDan]

In a change that should give handle a significant boost, the New York State Racing and Wagering Board on Wednesday approved a rule that would uncouple same-trainer, different-owner entries in all races at state tracks.

I assume this affects Finger Lakes too, then..?

[DeanT]

The good news: NYRA got this done!

THe bad news: It took four years. "NYRA first proposed the rule change in May 2006."

For a sport that races fast horses, we move like turtles.

[the little guy]

The good news: NYRA got this done!

THe bad news: It took four years.

For a sport that races fast horses, we move like turtles.


Just curious, Dean, are you suggesting it took NYRA four years to get this done?

[DeanT]

Just curious, Dean, are you suggesting it took NYRA four years to get this done?

Geez Andy, of course not.

I know your political system there. If NYRA had the lone power to make decisions they would probably take 30 days. They surely would not have 26% takes on some bets. If they did, someone would need to be canned, because he/she does not fit with the association; let alone has never probably even bet a race.

[Greyfox]

http://www.drf.com/news/article/114185.html

This is a good thing!

Agreed. This is a great thing!:ThmbUp:

[jeebus1083]

A few people on another board that I frequent suggest that this new rule opens up the potential for tomfoolery and tag-teaming, where the "wrong" half of the entry wins while the odds-on chalk half tanks.

The flip side to the argument: how many times did you like a horse, and thought that it would easily go off at 10-1 or 20-1, yet the horse was coupled with an imposing animal and the entry was bet down to 2-1? The "wrong" half that you like romps and pays $6, when it would have likely paid $20-$30 alone.

[Robert Goren]

I don't know how many betting stables are left. I would have been a lot more worried 40 years ago when betting stables were common.

[the little guy]

A few people on another board that I frequent suggest that this new rule opens up the potential for tomfoolery and tag-teaming, where the "wrong" half of the entry wins while the odds-on chalk half tanks.

The flip side to the argument: how many times did you like a horse, and thought that it would easily go off at 10-1 or 20-1, yet the horse was coupled with an imposing animal and the entry was bet down to 2-1? The "wrong" half that you like romps and pays $6, when it would have likely paid $20-$30 alone.


This kind of thinking is really just.....wrong.

The other day I teased a top trainer about running an entry where I loved the " wrong " half. He laughed at me at said my horse could never beat the other one.

My horse won by the length of the stretch at 3:1....instead of 8:1. Had they been uncoupled people would have suggested chicanery. Nothing would have been farther from the truth.

I did win $1 from him.

[Robert Goren]

This kind of thinking is really just.....wrong.

The other day I teased a top trainer about running an entry where I loved the " wrong " half. He laughed at me at said my horse could never beat the other one.

My horse won by the length of the stretch at 3:1....instead of 8:1. Had they been uncoupled people would have suggested chicanery. Nothing would have been farther from the truth.

I did win $1 from him.You have never run across the Von Humels who race in the midwest. They are known for having the "wrong" horse win in uncoupled entries among other things.

[cj]

This is a good thing for the bettor in my opinion. There may a few small negatives, but the positives greatly outweigh those.

[DeanT]

Betfair has been doing this since they started. Because bettors want it.

More action and better betting races.

It is fun to watch the difference and how neat an uncoupled race is versus a coupled one. Often times you will get 8-1 or 10-1 on POE that you want, while the other one is 4-1. On the board they are probably 6-5 or even lower.

[Grits]

You have never run across the Von Humels who race in the midwest. They are known for having the "wrong" horse win in uncoupled entries among other things.

I love those VonHemmel boys. They always cause me to take a closer look. If I see anything--even if its five, six races back, I keep digging. Those boys are sneaky good at raising the dollars in the +plus+ column! They've brought a smile many times.

[therussmeister]

A few people on another board that I frequent suggest that this new rule opens up the potential for tomfoolery and tag-teaming, where the "wrong" half of the entry wins while the odds-on chalk half tanks.

I have no respect for people that claim this happens, but don't bet it. You don't have to be right that often to turn a profit. I strongly suspect the complainers don't notice the uncoupled entry until after the race.

For the record, I think this tomfoolery almost never happens. It would be very rare for a trainer to have the right two horses in his barn. One that looks like he could win, and one who can win, yet looks like he can't. And they have to be owned by two different people.

[thespaah]

I think this is a good idea. Obviously it increases the number of betting interests. That's a good thing.
In the unlikely event a trainer is caught screwing around as a result of uncoupling he should be banned for life and horses tossed off the grounds.
Just one time the authority in charge of security makes an example of a trainer who breaks the rules and that's that....

[lamboguy]

old not parimutal wagering rules in nevada was that you had to name the correct part of the entry to win even if the other half was the winner. on balance the de-coupling should be good for the bettor unless you are a minus pool show bettor where the lesser horse sometimes bailed you out. on the otherside of the coin it will offer more win betting value on the lesser horse. also it will be better for pick 4 and pick six players so it takes away some of the possibilities of winding up with racetime favorite incase of scratch. often times one plays multiple race wagers because they don't want the favorite.

[slewis]

This kind of thinking is really just.....wrong.

The other day I teased a top trainer about running an entry where I loved the " wrong " half. He laughed at me at said my horse could never beat the other one.

My horse won by the length of the stretch at 3:1....instead of 8:1. Had they been uncoupled people would have suggested chicanery. Nothing would have been farther from the truth.

I did win $1 from him.


NO, his kind of thinking is really just.......correct.

You wouldn't like to lose a finger for everytime Gasper Moschera used to enter two horses, one looked like 3-5...the other 35-1....

He'd scratch the 3-5 shot and the other would win by 5...

They'd be calling you "The digitless guy"... and dont come back with a silly remark like "and where's Gasper now".....

There are a number of trainers willing to take his place....

Look, If NYRA was going to do this, they should have opted for :

1) All stake races... (I have no problem with that)

2) All NW1. ...NW2...NW3.... etc ..(Not starter allowances)

3) NEVER MAIDEN RACES...

4) NEVER ANY CLAIMING RACE......


Then go from there........ But then again Andy...like I've been saying... the guys upstairs could care less about the suckers betting.....

AND BTW.... I questioned one of the stewards about this and he told me he was 100% against it but didn't have a say in the process...

Lets just hope they dont burn Aqueduct to the ground the first time some clever guy puts a horse over at 25-1 while his 4-5 shot gargles at the back of the pack.....At least not before they put the VLT's in anyway...:rolleyes:

[Cardus]

NO, his kind of thinking is really just.......correct.

You wouldn't like to lose a finger for everytime Gasper Moschera used to enter two horses, one looked like 3-5...the other 35-1....

He'd scratch the 3-5 shot and the other would win by 5...

They'd be calling you "The digitless guy"... and dont come back with a silly remark like "and where's Gasper now".....

There are a number of trainers willing to take his place....

Look, If NYRA was going to do this, they should have opted for :

1) All stake races... (I have no problem with that)

2) All NW1. ...NW2...NW3.... etc ..(Not starter allowances)

3) NEVER MAIDEN RACES...

4) NEVER ANY CLAIMING RACE......


Then go from there........ But then again Andy...like I've been saying... the guys upstairs could care less about the suckers betting.....

AND BTW.... I questioned one of the stewards about this and he told me he was 100% against it but didn't have a say in the process...

Lets just hope they dont burn Aqueduct to the ground the first time some clever guy puts a horse over at 25-1 while his 4-5 shot gargles at the back of the pack.....At least not before they put the VLT's in anyway...:rolleyes:

I questioned the other two stewards and they told me that they were fine with it.

[slewis]

A better Choice


A better choice would be for NYRA and other tracks to limit trainers that have "5000" horses training at "50" tracks... (you know of those whom I'm talking about) to "1000" horses.......by limiting the number of stalls they are allotted...which would in turn mean more horses enteres...... but again...that idea..(which had been brought to attention when some trainers started requesting huge numbers of stalls) was shot down..... I wonder why??? hummmm...


Of course that might mean that some of the elitist might have to use different trainers...and we wouldn't want to ruin their "private playground" now, would we...

Bettors beware...you're being had ...again...

[slewis]

I questioned the other two stewards and they told me that they were fine with it.



Listen tough guy...you know where to find me....

[Cardus]

A better Choice


A better choice would be for NYRA and other tracks to limit trainers that have "5000" horses training at "50" tracks... (you know of those whom I'm talking about) to "1000" horses.......by limiting the number of stalls they are allotted...which would in turn mean more horses enteres...... but again...that idea..(which had been brought to attention when some trainers started requesting huge numbers of stalls) was shot down..... I wonder why??? hummmm...


Of course that might mean that some of the elitist might have to use different trainers...and we wouldn't want to ruin their "private playground" now, would we...

Internet posters beware...you're being had ...again...

My interpretation.

[Cardus]

Listen tough guy...you know where to find me....

No, I don't know where to find you. Tell me which tenement.

[exiles]

Lets just hope they dont burn Aqueduct to the ground the first time some clever guy puts a horse over at 25-1 while his 4-5 shot gargles at the back of the pack.....At least not before they put the VLT's in anyway...:rolleyes:


You think there will be enough people in the place to start a fire? the littleguy will be there, but for sure he 'll like the 25-1,so why start a fire.:lol:

[Cardus]

You think there will be enough people in the place to start a fire? the littleguy will be there, but for sure he 'll like the 25-1,so why start a fire.:lol:

The dope smokers will see to it that there is sufficient fire-lighting capability, don't you worry.

[Robert Goren]

I have no respect for people that claim this happens, but don't bet it. You don't have to be right that often to turn a profit. I strongly suspect the complainers don't notice the uncoupled entry until after the race.

For the record, I think this tomfoolery almost never happens. It would be very rare for a trainer to have the right two horses in his barn. One that looks like he could win, and one who can win, yet looks like he can't. And they have to be owned by two different people.Earth to therussmeister.;)

[SMOO]

I think this is a good idea. Obviously it increases the number of betting interests. That's a good thing.
...

:ThmbUp:

Plus now I won't bet the wrong number because I went by the post position off the advance entries list (which I prefer because there is also no morning line)

[lamboguy]

A better Choice


A better choice would be for NYRA and other tracks to limit trainers that have "5000" horses training at "50" tracks... (you know of those whom I'm talking about) to "1000" horses.......by limiting the number of stalls they are allotted...which would in turn mean more horses enteres...... but again...that idea..(which had been brought to attention when some trainers started requesting huge numbers of stalls) was shot down..... I wonder why??? hummmm...


Of course that might mean that some of the elitist might have to use different trainers...and we wouldn't want to ruin their "private playground" now, would we...

Bettors beware...you're being had ...again...you have proven to me without a doubt that you are very aware of the pitfalls in this sport, that is why i root for each and every one of your horses to do well in the game. i never want to see this game frustrate you to the point where it chases you away from it. the game needs more knowlegeable good people like yourself to fight the establishment.you know every bit as much if not more than myself about this game, and you carry far more clout than i have.

[slewis]

you have proven to me without a doubt that you are very aware of the pitfalls in this sport, that is why i root for each and every one of your horses to do well in the game. i never want to see this game frustrate you to the point where it chases you away from it. the game needs more knowlegeable good people like yourself to fight the establishment.you know every bit as much if not more than myself about this game, and you carry far more clout than i have.

Well Lam,

I appreciate the fact that you root for horses I'm associated with..we were just a few middle class kids who fell in love with racing in our teens and stuck with it and got lucky enough to play in the big show.

But the one thing my father drummed into my head as a kid was to stand up for what you think is fair and right and NOT to be bullied (or bullshitted) by those in position to try and do just that.

So while I'm called a silly "NYRA basher" and my posts explaining the continued downward spirialing of NY racing labeled "laughable", I (and others) deep inside know I'm absolutely correct in my assertions.

For example, I statistically proved in NY that toe grabs and mud calks have no greater incidence of injury than plain shoes. It's been over 1 1/2 years since NYRA joined the rest of the "duped" racing world and implemented their silly rule in the name of "safety"...
Over that timeframe...NYRA, to my understanding, has kept records to compare, (so they can reaffirm statistically what we all knew) whether the number of fatalities has actually declined....

The truth, to my understanding, is that the numbers are FLAT.. That there is NO change...(of course this is something I already proved over a 10 yr period).
So I ask the question??? Why no transperency? Why hasn't this been made public?

You need to look no farther than those running the "private country club" to have your answer.

Now with Saratoga just around the corner, the start of the steeplechase season is again upon us..(like the betting public really cares).

Now I ask Mr. Haywood and Mr. Handel.... can we get statistics regarding the number of fatalities and serious injuries in jump races compared to flat racing over a five yr period?

And if those numbers are not REASONABLY in line with flat racing injury/fatality statistics, are you prepared to implement your "house rule" of banning jump races, a tradition at Saratoga, the same way you implemented the banning of toe grabs and mud calks? (all for the safety of the Thoroughbred, of course)...LOL

Transparency....... is not in the elitist vocabulary...

[PaceAdvantage]

Look, If NYRA was going to do this, they should have opted for :

1) All stake races... (I have no problem with that)

2) All NW1. ...NW2...NW3.... etc ..(Not starter allowances)

3) NEVER MAIDEN RACES...

4) NEVER ANY CLAIMING RACE......The uncoupled entry rule has been in place for stakes races for years now...

[lamboguy]

the betting pulic may not bet much on the steeple chase racing, but those people that like the game show up in droves to watch the sport and have a social event. from what i understand they get 50,000 people at fairhill for those events without betting windows. there are a few bookmakers that they allow on the grounds though. i have no idea why they made specifications to toe grabs and mud calks, it seems to be safer to have them on the horses that need them. what they should have done was get rid of bad blacksmiths that cause horses to bow and other injuries. as you guys probably know their are some brutal farriors out there walking the backstretch of racetracks throughout america they should be arrested for impersonating a blacksmith.

[samyn on the green]

Uncoupled entries opens the door (http://gregcalabrese.blogspot.com/2010/06/uncoupled-approved-entries-in-new-york.html)to intramural racing and insider betting coups. While this may seem innocent at first it is one of those things that slowly destroys the quality of the product. Al it takes is one insider betting coup in some piss any $7.5K claimer over the inner to completely blow the games credibility out of the water.