Coupled Entries Poll

[pandy]

Has anyone on this board ever taken a poll to determine whether or not coupled entries should be banned? I'm curious how the majority feel about it.

[Karakiozis]

Has anyone on this board ever taken a poll to determine whether or not coupled entries should be banned? I'm curious how the majority feel about it.

I understand racing secretaries have problems filling races but IMO uncoupled entries by the same trainer should not be allowed, gives trainers another way to screw the bettors,take a look at yesterdays 2nd race at Monmouth, Pletcher who has numerous drug violations has the #5 the 2-1 favorite w/ Bravo, and # 8 @ 18-1w/ Decarlo, #8 wins and the 5 never lifts a hoof, it's no big deal that the 8 won the horse was very well bred, what irks me is that the #5 never got involved in the race as to make it as easy as possible on #8, watch the replay if you like.

[pondman]

I understand racing secretaries have problems filling races but IMO uncoupled entries by the same trainer should not be allowed, gives trainers another way to screw the bettors,take a look at yesterdays 2nd race at Monmouth, .

I'd be careful about offering a conspiracy when things don't go as expected. If Pletcher had his way, his horses would run 1 and 2.

As to the OP: I don't see a big issue with entries. The rules are well spelled out. You either play it or you don't. What's the issue?

[DJofSD]

Let the horses run regardless of there being the same owner or trainer. And, let them run uncoupled for betting purposes.

If you feel there's some funny business being attempted, don't bet the race.

Coupled entries is just a form of bettor welfare.

[pandy]

I don't know how to post a poll. Can someone post a poll asking Should Coupled Entries be eliminated yes or no.

[therussmeister]

If you feel there's some funny business being attempted, don't bet the race.


Or better yet, bet the longer priced horse.

[DJofSD]

Or better yet, bet the longer priced horse.
BTDT. And, exactas/perfectas with the two runners.

[Karakiozis]

I'd be careful about offering a conspiracy when things don't go as expected. If Pletcher had his way, his horses would run 1 and 2.

As to the OP: I don't see a big issue with entries. The rules are well spelled out. You either play it or you don't. What's the issue?

You just like everybody else in the USA are entitled to your opinion,but if you think that trainers don't use the uncoupled entries rule to their advantage you are dreaming, as for the (things don't go as expected) I had no dog in that fight.

[DJofSD]

You just like everybody else in the USA are entitled to your opinion,but if you think that trainers don't use the uncoupled entries rule to their advantage you are dreaming, as for the (things don't go as expected) I had no dog in that fight.
So what if they enter uncoupled entries? If they're not breaking any rules then what is the problem?

[Saratoga_Mike]

I understand racing secretaries have problems filling races but IMO uncoupled entries by the same trainer should not be allowed, gives trainers another way to screw the bettors,take a look at yesterdays 2nd race at Monmouth, Pletcher who has numerous drug violations has the #5 the 2-1 favorite w/ Bravo, and # 8 @ 18-1w/ Decarlo, #8 wins and the 5 never lifts a hoof, it's no big deal that the 8 won the horse was very well bred, what irks me is that the #5 never got involved in the race as to make it as easy as possible on #8, watch the replay if you like.

So you think Pletcher wasn't trying with #5? If so, why not?

[Karakiozis]

So you think Pletcher wasn't trying with #5? If so, why not?

Hello my friend,I knew you will chime in,
IMO the only reason the the #5 was in the race was to inflate the odds on the #8.

[duncan04]

Hello my friend,I knew you will chime in,
IMO the only reason the the #5 was in the race was to inflate the odds on the #8.

If you knew it, I hope you cashed with the #8. :rolleyes: It happens that sometimes the higher odds uncoupled entry horse wins. There is nothing criminal about it.

[Karakiozis]

If you knew it, I hope you cashed with the #8. :rolleyes: It happens that sometimes the higher odds uncoupled entry horse wins. There is nothing criminal about it.

It's criminal because they know and you the public doesn't,they cash big at your expense,all the racing commissions have to do to stop the manipulation is not allow uncoupled entries.

[cnollfan]

I love betting the higher price of uncoupled entries, and don't see anything unethical about it from the trainer's point of view. By running the two horses against each other, the trainer is more or less telling you that these horses are of comparable ability. Why not take the higher price in that case?

My gripe is with NYRA when one half of a coupled entry is scratched, leading to a refund on the entire entry and the other half racing for purse money only. Unless they have made a recent change that I missed, the odds board will show both 1 and 1A as scratched, giving no hint to the fact that one of them is still in the race and can affect how the race unfolds. I would like to see PMO appear in place of the blanked-out odds if a horse is still going to compete. Sure, they announce it once or twice and it's on the crawl, but who is going to read through five minutes of overweights on the crawl to see that?

[Skanoochies]

Hundreds of uncoupled enties have both run out of the money, and many have run 1,2. It`s simply bettor beware or don`t bet. :confused:

[horses4courses]

There seems to be no shortage of conspiracy theorists when the higher odds horse wins out of two, or more, from the same stable.

Heck, an Irish trainer won a classic in England today, and had five uncoupled horses in the race. He won with a 20-1 shot. Was the fix in?
B.S.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Hello my friend,I knew you will chime in,
IMO the only reason the the #5 was in the race was to inflate the odds on the #8.

I don't remember debating this issue with you previously, so you must have a better memory than me or you're prescient.

I think your claim's absurd. Todd Pletcher doesn't need to waste a race in order to manipulate the odds.

[castaway01]

We all remember the few times the longer shot of two uncoupled entries won (and yes a few trainers do like to pull this move) but forget the hundreds of times one part of a coupled entry figured and the other half had no shot and ran like it. As far as conspiracies go, this one is down the list. If anyone wants to point them out before the race, go for it---there's a Selections forum.

[Karakiozis]

I don't remember debating this issue with you previously, so you must have a better memory than me or you're prescient.

I think your claim's absurd. Todd Pletcher doesn't need to waste a race in order to manipulate the odds.

My friend,years ago when horse racing was the king of all gambling games horse players used to start fires and riot for incidents not as serious as the one Mr Pletcher pulled off the other day @ Monmouth, and don't forget how many times Toddy boy has been suspended for drugging horses.

[PaceAdvantage]

My friend,years ago when horse racing was the king of all gambling games horse players used to start fires and riot for incidents not as serious as the one Mr Pletcher pulled off the other day @ Monmouth, and don't forget how many times Toddy boy has been suspended for drugging horses.How many?

[Karakiozis]

How many?

Several times I don't have the exact count.

[PaceAdvantage]

Several times I don't have the exact count.Surely someone must know...he's one of the top trainers in the land...

Who has more? Baffert or Pletcher?

[Marlin]

Any time you restrict variables the puzzle becomes less complex. Strictly from a handicapping and wagering perspective, I am for uncoupled entries and against coupled entries.

[Skanoochies]

Any time you restrict variables the puzzle becomes less complex. Strictly from a handicapping and wagering perspective, I am for uncoupled entries and against coupled entries.
...I agree. The more possible combinations there are the better chance of a larger hit. It`s up to me to figure it out, and if I`m wrong thats my tough luck. :ThmbUp:

[maclr11]

He has had 4 since 2004
Not a lot for sure
Trainers screw up
All four of those violations were theraputic
Sometimes it doesnt clear the system
When you give it to a horse 40 hours out, and its supposed to clear in 36
Pletcher has never been caught with anything serious
Just cause he wins dont assume hes cheating

[duncan04]

Just cause he wins dont assume hes cheating

Shhh you're making sense and that will hurt his conspiracy claims! :rolleyes: :bang:

[Karakiozis]

He has had 4 since 2004
Not a lot for sure
Trainers screw up
All four of those violations were theraputic
Sometimes it doesnt clear the system
When you give it to a horse 40 hours out, and its supposed to clear in 36
Pletcher has never been caught with anything serious
Just cause he wins dont assume hes cheating

You can make all the excuses you want for the cheat
It always is the same lame excuses for the drug cheats (((theraputic
Sometimes it doesn't clear the system and and on and on))) 4 violations that's 4 too many, how come trainers like Shug Mcgaughay Graham Motion, C.Christophe and many others have no positives,it's always the same characters Drug O'neil, Tricky Dick Dutrow, Pletcher, Asmussen, Vladimir Syringe,and many others, IMO if horse racing commissions had any b@@##s these cheats would've been suspended for life years ago. I forgot cobra venom Biancone he was banned for life from France and Hong Kong but in the old U.S.A he is allowed to hold a training license, INCREDIBLE!!!

[PaceAdvantage]

You can make all the excuses you want for the cheat
It always is the same lame excuses for the drug cheats (((theraputic
Sometimes it doesn't clear the system and and on and on))) 4 violations that's 4 too many, how come trainers like Shug Mcgaughay Graham Motion, C.Christophe and many others have no positives,it's always the same characters Drug O'neil, Tricky Dick Dutrow, Pletcher, Asmussen, Vladimir Syringe,and many others, IMO if horse racing commissions had any b@@##s these cheats would've been suspended for life years ago. I forgot cobra venom Biancone he was banned for life from France and Hong Kong but in the old U.S.A he is allowed to hold a training license, INCREDIBLE!!!You could just admit your mistake...the fact that you put Pletcher's name on the same line as Dutrow, et al. speaks volumes on your objectivity.

And where is Baffert's name? I seem to recall a study posted here in the last couple of weeks that showed Baffert with WAY MORE positives (in 2010) than Pletcher...magnitudes of order MORE...

[Karakiozis]

You could just admit your mistake...the fact that you put Pletcher's name on the same line as Dutrow, et al. speaks volumes on your objectivity.

And where is Baffert's name? I seem to recall a study posted here in the last couple of weeks that showed Baffert with WAY MORE positives (in 2010) than Pletcher...magnitudes of order MORE...

IMO Drug cheats are drug cheats, and they all belong in the same line regardless of how many positives each has.

[PaceAdvantage]

IMO Drug cheats are drug cheats, and they all belong in the same line regardless of how many positives each has.So then, you'd put Bill Mott's name on that line then? He has had at least one that I know of...

[Saratoga_Mike]

You could just admit your mistake...the fact that you put Pletcher's name on the same line as Dutrow, et al. speaks volumes on your objectivity.

And where is Baffert's name? I seem to recall a study posted here in the last couple of weeks that showed Baffert with WAY MORE positives (in 2010) than Pletcher...magnitudes of order MORE...

I can't speak to 2010, but your overall point is exactly right. The study I saw put Baffert second only behind Rick Dutrow for positives per 1,000 starters among leading trainers.

And the poster Karak used to post here under another name (Exiles), just an observation.

[Saratoga_Mike]

My friend,years ago when horse racing was the king of all gambling games horse players used to start fires and riot for incidents not as serious as the one Mr Pletcher pulled off the other day @ Monmouth, and don't forget how many times Toddy boy has been suspended for drugging horses.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Pletcher wasting a horse's race to set up a bet. On the drug issue, I support much stronger penalties, but that wasn't the main issue you raised.

[Karakiozis]

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Pletcher wasting a horse's race to set up a bet. On the drug issue, I support much stronger penalties, but that wasn't the main issue you raised.

Just my opinion but T.PLETCHER must be your favorite trainer, or you must be very naive about horse racing and gambling in general, as for your post above about I being someone who used to post as Exile you got some imagination.

[maclr11]

Almost every trainer in the game has had some sort of ruling
99 percent of these horses train on something
and the ones at don't are have such poor trainers they cannot afford it
I'm not saying I condone cheating but these horses train on it and there are stakes winners I can think of who would never make the races without joints being tapped or ankles drained or bute to train on.

Linda Rice has a violation
Richard Mandella
Neil Drysdale
John Sadler
Thomas Amoss
James Jerkens

These aren't exactly trainers who are known as chemists

Christophe Clement has a positive too btw
Way to do your research, genius

Bob Baffert has two violations in ten years

[Saratoga_Mike]

Just my opinion but T.PLETCHER must be your favorite trainer, or you must be very naive about horse racing and gambling in general, as for your post above about I being someone who used to post as Exile you got some imagination.

No, he isn't my favorite trainer.

Naive? I've been called a lot of things, but naive isn't one of them. I just know more about this matter than you do.

And you're absolutely Exiles. See, there's a thing called a search function on this forum. I remembered having this same exact discussion with someone before. I put in "uncoupled" into the search function and within 30 seconds I found our past interaction. Everything was the same from "my friend" to your immediate topic change (i.e., pointing to Pletcher's drug violations).

[PaceAdvantage]

Bob Baffert has two violations in ten yearsDid they both happen in 2010?

[Saratoga_Mike]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/sports/04racing.html?_r=1

Here's a link to a table listing the top earners in 2010 and their drug violations/per starter. Note as of the article date (11/3/10), Clemente had ZERO violations. Did he receive one since? Also, do the math on Baffert. It works out to 20 violations. So he accumulated 18 of those pre-2002? Hard to believe.

[Karakiozis]

No, he isn't my favorite trainer.

Naive? I've been called a lot of things, but naive isn't one of them. I just know more about this matter than you do.

And you're absolutely Exiles. See, there's a thing called a search function on this forum. I remembered having this same exact discussion with someone before. I put in "uncoupled" into the search function and within 30 seconds I found our past interaction. Everything was the same from "my friend" to your immediate topic change (i.e., pointing to Pletcher's drug violations).

1-IMO Trainers and their connections including T.PLETCHER take advantage of the rule.
2-I said naive about gambling in general,concerning other topics and subjects you could be the smartest and most knowledgeable poster on this board.
3- You will never make it as a cyber detective because you are wrong about Exile.

[Saratoga_Mike]

1-IMO Trainers and their connections including T.PLETCHER take advantage of the rule.
2-I said naive about gambling in general,concerning other topics and subjects you could be the smartest and most knowledgeable poster on this board.
3- You will never make it as a cyber detective because you are wrong about Exile.

We just disagree. I've bet on thousands of races. You're Exile. I could also compare the syntax of your sentence structures, but who really cares.

[Karakiozis]

We just disagree. I've bet on thousands of races. You're Exile. I could also compare the syntax of your sentence structures, but who really cares.

Since 1971 can count the # of times that I've missed or not bet on the races in the fingers of one of your hands. I know for a fact that trainers take advantage of the uncoupled entries rule, again your detective work is wrong.

[duncan04]

Since 1971 can count the # of times that I've missed or not bet on the races in the fingers of one of your hands. I know for a fact that trainers take advantage of the uncoupled entries rule, again your detective work is wrong.

You don't know anything. You are just one of the "conspiracy" theorists who post to this board. Or maybe it is just you under different names?? If you do think it's crooked then why keep betting? :rolleyes:

[Dahoss9698]

We just disagree. I've bet on thousands of races. You're Exile. I could also compare the syntax of your sentence structures, but who really cares.

I believe him. It's probably just a weird coincidence both he and Exiles spoke greek AND had the EXACT same thoughts on uncoupled entries and Pletcher.

Wanna buy a bridge?

[thaskalos]

We just disagree. I've bet on thousands of races. You're Exile. I could also compare the syntax of your sentence structures, but who really cares.
I don't think he is exiles.

I have communicated in Greek with both here...and there is no similarity between the two.

[davew]

Do many big name trainers actually bet on races / their horses?

or is it mainly owners that do the betting?


Either way, they are running for purse, so it would be like a freeroll.



Percentagewise, it sure seems that half of the entry is early scratched more often than other random horses in the race.

[maclr11]

I stand corrected, Baffert has one medical violation according to thourghbred rulings
Flunixin in 2010
The other one was a late lasix requiring a scratch.
Im sure a lot of his violations were early in his career when he was learning and figuring out the formula for his training drugs and such.

[DeltaLover]

I can see the general categories of opponents when I am placing a bet in a horse race:

The casual horseplayer
The seasoned handicapper who happens to be a middle size bettor
The whales
The insider bettors mainly represented by trainers, jockeys and owners

The last two groups have a clear advantage over the other two.

The whales mainly due to higher rebates and the insiders due to access to hidden info comparable to the advantage a CEO or other insider has for an IPO or any other publicly traded stock.

Anyone diminishing the betting interest of a trainer (ANY TRAINER) in the outcome of a race, simply has not been around long enough....

The trainer (ANY TRAINER) and his owners are trying to cash a ticker at LONG ODDS and will try anything to deceive the horseplayer and the handicapper. ANYTHING...

They will try to hide workouts, if possible they will use inferior jockeys, they will even use equipment changes as a means to increase the odds of their starter,,, Simple as that... They are not only in the betting business but most of the time (even the most sound names) maintain close relationships with bookmakers and whales...

Having the ability to enter multiple runners in the same race is another powerful weapon in their arsenal that they routinely use as they try to influence the outcome of a race. More than this almost all t he trainers form alliances with others so they exchange favors that clearly have an impact to the outcome of a race (all the racing secretaries are aware of that but they do not care of course)..

The most typical example of such an alliance is the Dutrow – Rodriguez team that is usually doing good something that can be easily proven from the odds of their winners.

[therussmeister]

Anyone diminishing the betting interest of a trainer (ANY TRAINER) in the outcome of a race, simply has not been around long enough....

The trainer (ANY TRAINER) and his owners are trying to cash a ticker at LONG ODDS and will try anything to deceive the horseplayer and the handicapper. ANYTHING...


Jamie Ness must not have a clue what he's doing. Not only hasn't he had a LONG ODDS winner in years, he hasn't even had a LONG ODDS loser. You'd think he'd learn a few things from the other trainers.

It is easy to find other owner/trainers who, like him, don't often get winners at a price. There is probably a handful at every track.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Since 1971 can count the # of times that I've missed or not bet on the races in the fingers of one of your hands. I know for a fact that trainers take advantage of the uncoupled entries rule, again your detective work is wrong.

I'm sure you're a wonderful handicapper Exile. I'm not. You just don't know what you're talking about in this specific case.

[Karakiozis]

I'm sure you're a wonderful handicapper Exile. I'm not. You just don't know what you're talking about in this specific case.

See DELTALOVER'S post above maybe that will make you see the light.

[Saratoga_Mike]

See DELTALOVER'S post above maybe that will make you see the light.

Thanks - we just disagree.

[Karakiozis]

Thanks - we just disagree.

No problem,no hard feelings,and good luck @ the races.

Karakiozis

[castaway01]

DeltaLover, your post sounds good, but if you have ever talked to any jockeys or trainers and heard their handicapping opinions---even of their own horses---you'd realize they're not nearly as clever as you think they are. Even if they're trying to get a price on their horses, they can't control the fitness or ability of other horses in the race---and that's where the theories go wrong. Yes, I know this is Racing 101, but after some posts in this thread I feel like I have to point it out. Yes, I follow trainer moves myself, but the idea that they're all cleaning up at the windows is simply not true. In fact, I wish I could book their bets because aside from the occasional "secret everyone knows about" that wins by 12 lengths, these people are losing like most handicappers.

As far as the uncoupled entries, since some of you are so convinced it's this genius move, just list ALL of the times it happens and point out the big profits. That means actually listing all the times the longer shot of the two loses, not just the one a month that wins and pays $19.80. Go ahead, this vast conspiracy by these genius trainers should be easy to demonstrate.

[Saratoga_Mike]

DeltaLover, your post sounds good, but if you have ever talked to any jockeys or trainers and heard their handicapping opinions---even of their own horses---you'd realize they're not nearly as clever as you think they are. Even if they're trying to get a price on their horses, they can't control the fitness or ability of other horses in the race---and that's where the theories go wrong. Yes, I know this is Racing 101, but after some posts in this thread I feel like I have to point it out. Yes, I follow trainer moves myself, but the idea that they're all cleaning up at the windows is simply not true. In fact, I wish I could book their bets because aside from the occasional "secret everyone knows about" that wins by 12 lengths, these people are losing like most handicappers.

As far as the uncoupled entries, since some of you are so convinced it's this genius move, just list ALL of the times it happens and point out the big profits. That means actually listing all the times the longer shot of the two loses, not just the one a month that wins and pays $19.80. Go ahead, this vast conspiracy by these genius trainers should be easy to demonstrate.

Great post

[Karakiozis]

Great post

I thought DELTALOVER'S post was great.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I thought DELTALOVER'S post was great.

Proves we disagree, right?

[pondman]

Do many big name trainers actually bet on races / their horses?

or is it mainly owners that do the betting?



Many of the high end connections, especially the breeders, refrain from wagering. They avoid the image of impropriety towards future clients. They make it when their stock wins, not by manipulating the public. Pletcher doesn't need to do what is being claimed by the OP.

[Karakiozis]

DeltaLover, your post sounds good, but if you have ever talked to any jockeys or trainers and heard their handicapping opinions---even of their own horses---you'd realize they're not nearly as clever as you think they are. Even if they're trying to get a price on their horses, they can't control the fitness or ability of other horses in the race---and that's where the theories go wrong. Yes, I know this is Racing 101, but after some posts in this thread I feel like I have to point it out. Yes, I follow trainer moves myself, but the idea that they're all cleaning up at the windows is simply not true. In fact, I wish I could book their bets because aside from the occasional "secret everyone knows about" that wins by 12 lengths, these people are losing like most handicappers.

As far as the uncoupled entries, since some of you are so convinced it's this genius move, just list ALL of the times it happens and point out the big profits. That means actually listing all the times the longer shot of the two loses, not just the one a month that wins and pays $19.80. Go ahead, this vast conspiracy by these genius trainers should be easy to demonstrate.


Nobody said it was a genius move by the trainers, and nobody said that trainers are smart and good handicappers, by allowing uncoupled entries you give them another option to screw you, the public.

[horses4courses]

I can see the general categories of opponents when I am placing a bet in a horse race:

The casual horseplayer
The seasoned handicapper who happens to be a middle size bettor
The whales
The insider bettors mainly represented by trainers, jockeys and owners

The last two groups have a clear advantage over the other two.

The whales mainly due to higher rebates and the insiders due to access to hidden info comparable to the advantage a CEO or other insider has for an IPO or any other publicly traded stock.

Anyone diminishing the betting interest of a trainer (ANY TRAINER) in the outcome of a race, simply has not been around long enough....

The trainer (ANY TRAINER) and his owners are trying to cash a ticker at LONG ODDS and will try anything to deceive the horseplayer and the handicapper. ANYTHING...

They will try to hide workouts, if possible they will use inferior jockeys, they will even use equipment changes as a means to increase the odds of their starter,,, Simple as that... They are not only in the betting business but most of the time (even the most sound names) maintain close relationships with bookmakers and whales...

Having the ability to enter multiple runners in the same race is another powerful weapon in their arsenal that they routinely use as they try to influence the outcome of a race. More than this almost all t he trainers form alliances with others so they exchange favors that clearly have an impact to the outcome of a race (all the racing secretaries are aware of that but they do not care of course)..

The most typical example of such an alliance is the Dutrow – Rodriguez team that is usually doing good something that can be easily proven from the odds of their winners.

There is sense to what you say.
However, when you say "Any Trainer" I beg to differ.

In businesses and all walks of life, the abilities of those involved vary.
Some are sharper than others. Horse racing is no different.

[castaway01]

[/color]
[/left]

Nobody said it was a genius move by the trainers, and nobody said that trainers are smart and good handicappers, by allowing uncoupled entries you give them another option to screw you, the public.
[/center]

But more specifically you ranted in 10 posts about HOW the public was screwed...I asked for examples of HOW, not just rambling incoherence.

[castaway01]

[/color]
[/left]

Nobody said it was a genius move by the trainers, and nobody said that trainers are smart and good handicappers, by allowing uncoupled entries you give them another option to screw you, the public.
[/center]

Explain how, give examples. As I asked, don't just give the one example a month that wins at $19, but the 20 examples that lose as well. Thanks. Also let us know how we can use our psychic powers to figure out that one that will win instead of the 20 that lose and how can make profit on this huge money-loser. Thanks again.

[Karakiozis]

Explain how, give examples. As I asked, don't just give the one example a month that wins at $19, but the 20 examples that lose as well. Thanks. Also let us know how we can use our psychic powers to figure out that one that will win instead of the 20 that lose and how can make profit on this huge money-loser. Thanks again.

You said the magic word you have to use psychic powers, they don't, they know when,that's how you get screwed, and who told you that this was a system?

[duncan04]

You said the magic word you have to use psychic powers, they don't, they know when,that's how you get screwed, and who told you that this was a system?

Love how you avoid giving examples. How can you be so sure of something and then avoid giving proof? For one that wins a few more lose. I guess you can't figure out you are full of it!

[Karakiozis]

Love how you avoid giving examples. How can you be so sure of something and then avoid giving proof? For one that wins a few more lose. I guess you can't figure out you are full of it!



Monmouth 5-28-12 - 2nd race

[fmolf]

this is a very interesting thread.I still cannot figure out why people would play a gambling game if they feel it is unfairly rigged against them?Casino games are tilted towards the house but the games are fair and everyone is aware of the "house edge".Personally I feel that coupled entries should be allowed if they have the same trainer and different owners.Entries from the same owners with different trainers should run coupled.

[Karakiozis]

this is a very interesting thread.I still cannot figure out why people would play a gambling game if they feel it is unfairly rigged against them?Casino games are tilted towards the house but the games are fair and everyone is aware of the "house edge".Personally I feel that coupled entries should be allowed if they have the same trainer and different owners.Entries from the same owners with different trainers should run coupled.

You hit the nail on the head,the games are fair, imagine what would happen to the casinos if the games were not fair? it would be a dying game just like horse racing is, why give the crooks an other option to screw the players?

[duncan04]

You hit the nail on the head,the games are fair, imagine what would happen to the casinos if the games were not fair? it would be a dying game just like horse racing is, why give the crooks an other option to screw the players?

So if you think it's crooked, then why keep playing?

[thaskalos]

So if you think it's crooked, then why keep playing?

All of us readily acknowledge that this game is not completely "honest"...and yet, we all continue to play.

We invent phrases like "the game is mostly honest"...as if this makes any sense. A gambling game is either honest or it's not; "mostly honest" doesn't cut it.

Especially when they are charging a price of admission between 17% and 30%.

I am amused when I hear people say that "only some of the trainers cheat, but most do not."

That's quite a testament to the honesty of the game.

I wonder what our reaction would be if we ventured into a poker room...and were told that "only some of the poker players there cheated...but most did not."

I would safely guess that we would all run for the exit...

This question you asked Karakiozis should be directed to us all...

[Karakiozis]

All of us readily acknowledge that this game is not completely "honest"...and yet, we all continue to play.

We invent phrases like "the game is mostly honest"...as if this makes any sense. A gambling game is either honest or it's not; "mostly honest" doesn't cut it.

Especially when they are charging a price of admission between 17% and 30%.

I am amused when I hear people say that "only some of the trainers cheat, but most do not."

That's quite a testament to the honesty of the game.

I wonder what our reaction would be if we ventured into a poker room...and were told that "only some of the poker players there cheated...but most did not."

I would safely guess that we would all run for the exit...

This question you asked Karakiozis should be directed to us all...

Amen Mr THASKALOS , imagine how much better and popular horse racing would be if they made examples of all the drug cheats and crooks and banned them from the sport, instead of a slap on the wrist.

[fmolf]

Amen Mr THASKALOS , imagine how much better and popular horse racing would be if they made examples of all the drug cheats and crooks and banned them from the sport, instead of a slap on the wrist.
Yes well now the thread is off topic.Manipulating the odds thru coupled entries,darkening a horses form(sending him out in a race when he is only working out)entering a rabbit to ensure a quick pace.In my opinion these are things,perhaps unethical in nature, that we as seasoned handicappers should be able to spot and either exploit or avoid if necessary.Drug cheats on the other hand offer the handicappers no clues as to why or when a particular horse is drugged.Some may be drugged to improve performance and though far less common some may be drugged to hinder performance.The behavior of certain trainers in this regard relegates the game to a game of chance!

[castaway01]

You said the magic word you have to use psychic powers, they don't, they know when,that's how you get screwed, and who told you that this was a system?
Well, I read your posts about how the trainers have this all set up for you to lose because they're such geniuses and keep putting over these uncoupled entries...since you rambled on about how it's all a big conspiracy against the bettor, I was hoping you'd offer more proof than "Todd Pletcher is evil". Guess not.

[Karakiozis]

Yes well now the thread is off topic.Manipulating the odds thru coupled entries,darkening a horses form(sending him out in a race when he is only working out)entering a rabbit to ensure a quick pace.In my opinion these are things,perhaps unethical in nature, that we as seasoned handicappers should be able to spot and either exploit or avoid if necessary.Drug cheats on the other hand offer the handicappers no clues as to why or when a particular horse is drugged.Some may be drugged to improve performance and though far less common some may be drugged to hinder performance.The behavior of certain trainers in this regard relegates the game to a game of chance!

Very well said, there is nothing anybody can do but try to figure or spot certain things that trainers do to manipulate the form of horses,it's part of handicapping, but having trainers and their connections manipulate the odds thru uncoupled entries is very easy to avoid don't allow them.

[Karakiozis]

Well, I read your posts about how the trainers have this all set up for you to lose because they're such geniuses and keep putting over these uncoupled entries...since you rambled on about how it's all a big conspiracy against the bettor, I was hoping you'd offer more proof than "Todd Pletcher is evil". Guess not.


You better go back and read those posts again.

[Meunuco]

This is an interesting hypothesis. Trainers that can't get horses to comfortably run on the inside or consistently change leads in the stretch or stay on righty lead on the run to the 1st turn or the backstretch, do, however, have the ability to obscure form and put their horses over whenever they want. I'm going to think about this the next time I see a jock take a horse off the inside, on turf or AWS even, giving up a perfect suckup drafting trip, for a 5 wide special without cover because he and/or the trainer believe this is how the horse wants to run. Of course, this trip does work with Pletcher's horses -- when he has the good stuff, that is.

So many things can go wrong in a race. So many things need to go right for a horse to win. So many horses that are best still lose because of unfavorable circumstances. YET, these great manipulators always seem to get over on the betting public.

Like a friend of mine would say " I believe it but it is amazing.":rolleyes:

[fmolf]

This is an interesting hypothesis. Trainers that can't get horses to comfortably run on the inside or consistently change leads in the stretch or stay on righty lead on the run to the 1st turn or the backstretch, do, however, have the ability to obscure form and put their horses over whenever they want. I'm going to think about this the next time I see a jock take a horse off the inside, on turf or AWS even, giving up a perfect suckup drafting trip, for a 5 wide special without cover because he and/or the trainer believe this is how the horse wants to run. Of course, this trip does work with Pletcher's horses -- when he has the good stuff, that is.

So many things can go wrong in a race. So many things need to go right for a horse to win. So many horses that are best still lose because of unfavorable circumstances. YET, these great manipulators always seem to get over on the betting public.

Like a friend of mine would say " I believe it but it is amazing.":rolleyes:
I doubt very much Pletcher is trying to manipulate the odds.He may run a horse as a means of getting a fast workout into him or to fill the race.I think baffert fills races at hollywood so he can win some races.I have seen 5 horse fields where he has 2 runners and 6 horse fields where he had three runners.This would give me cause for concern!