 |
|
06-25-2010, 08:46 AM
|
#1
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 7,656
|
NYRA approves uncoupling of entries
|
|
|
|
06-25-2010, 11:52 AM
|
#2
|
|
gelding
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,883
|
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..?
|
|
|
|
|
06-25-2010, 11:54 AM
|
#3
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,962
|
The good news: NYRA got this done!
THe bad news: It took four years.
Quote:
|
"NYRA first proposed the rule change in May 2006."
|
For a sport that races fast horses, we move like turtles.
|
|
|
|
|
06-25-2010, 11:55 AM
|
#4
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 7,334
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DeanT
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?
|
|
|
|
06-25-2010, 11:58 AM
|
#5
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,962
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by the little guy
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.
|
|
|
|
|
06-25-2010, 12:01 PM
|
#6
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,962
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grits
|
Agreed. This is a great thing! 
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2010, 12:42 PM
|
#7
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 875
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2010, 12:47 PM
|
#8
|
|
Racing Form Detective
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lincoln, Ne but my heart is at Santa Anita
Posts: 16,316
|
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.
__________________
Some day in the not too distant future, horse players will betting on computer generated races over the net. Race tracks will become casinos and shopping centers. And some crooner will be belting out "there used to be a race track here".
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2010, 01:16 PM
|
#9
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 7,334
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2010, 01:24 PM
|
#10
|
|
Racing Form Detective
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lincoln, Ne but my heart is at Santa Anita
Posts: 16,316
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by the little guy
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.
__________________
Some day in the not too distant future, horse players will betting on computer generated races over the net. Race tracks will become casinos and shopping centers. And some crooner will be belting out "there used to be a race track here".
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2010, 01:25 PM
|
#11
|
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,830
|
This is a good thing for the bettor in my opinion. There may a few small negatives, but the positives greatly outweigh those.
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2010, 01:38 PM
|
#12
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,962
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2010, 01:49 PM
|
#13
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 7,656
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Robert Goren
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.
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2010, 10:07 PM
|
#14
|
|
Out-of-town Jasper
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,364
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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.
__________________
“If you want to outwit the devil, it is extremely important that you don't give him advanced notice."
~Alan Watts
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2010, 10:39 PM
|
#15
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,510
|
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....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
