The Greatest of All Time - Bob Baffert

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I disagree. IMO, these are suits brought on by people who are justifiably enraged with the outright cheating that's going on in the game, and who have the means and the inclination to voice that frustration in a more public manner than we do here. The lawsuits are more visible to the general public, and have a better chance of bringing about some eventual positive change...whereas our never-ending bickering on forums such as this clearly serves no purpose at all.

Your assertion that Baffert's cheating could somehow be "properly weighed" in our handicapping process is too ridiculous to deserve a reply...and it reveals your ignorance in all matters of a "handicapping" nature. Stop pretending to be a real handicapper, and stick to the law...and to limit holdem.

I am enraged by cheating. But PED 's are part of handicapping and, FOR BETTORS, an assumed risk.

[Plain Steve]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I disagree. IMO, these are suits brought on by people who are justifiably enraged with the outright cheating that's going on in the game, and who have the means and the inclination to voice that frustration in a more public manner than we do here. The lawsuits are more visible to the general public, and have a better chance of bringing about some eventual positive change...whereas our never-ending bickering on forums such as this clearly serves no purpose at all.

Your assertion that Baffert's cheating could somehow be "properly weighed" in our handicapping process is too ridiculous to deserve a reply...and it reveals your ignorance in all matters of a "handicapping" nature. Stop pretending to be a real handicapper, and stick to the law...and to limit holdem.

Profound!

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I agree with what you are saying if you include the word "properly".

The issue is that we often don't know when or why a horse jumps up. We just know that a lot of them do for certain trainers and we should try to build it into our thinking. This problem goes back decades for me and I still struggle with it. Some people have access to information and know WHEN to bet. The rest of us are using stats and darts making very inexact guesses.

A few months back I was part of long discussion about a certain Baffert horse that everyone thought was overbet. Even after she lost I kept saying she was more likely to move up than everyone appreciated. I wasn't just thinking of great training and hay and oats at the time. I was including other possibilities. I don't know exactly what's going on and when. But I have data and experience.

I don't disagree with what you say here. What I vehemently disagree with is the notion that the horseplayer somehow "agrees" to accept the cheating inherent in the game simply because he chooses to place a bet. If Dilanesp agrees with the "let the customer beware" concept...then, how come he also agrees when a casino files suit to recover losses against a gambler who is accused of using some "unfair" advantage against the HOUSE? Doesn't the "accept the risk" concept cut both ways?

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Doesn't the "accept the risk" concept cut both ways?

Nothing more needs to be said....The casinos cheat more than the customer and get away with it....The customer suffers a different fate unless they don't get greedy in an obvious way.

Subterfuge is always at play on both sides of the coin.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I don't disagree with what you say here. What I vehemently disagree with is the notion that the horseplayer somehow "agrees" to accept the cheating inherent in the game simply because he chooses to place a bet. If Dilanesp agrees with the "let the customer beware" concept...then, how come he also agrees when a casino files suit to recover losses against a gambler who is accused of using some "unfair" advantage against the HOUSE? Doesn't the "accept the risk" concept cut both ways?

Here's why.

Legal gambling can only occur within certain rules and parameters. There is plenty of illegal gambling, but when it is done for high stakes, people have to bring their guns or the mob has to be involved. Legal gambling is better.

But what legal gambling provides you with is set procedures, which allow you to assess risk as a player and decide whether you want to bet. Nobody forces you, and many bets are bad. You will not catch me betting as much as $1 on a typical Vegas roulette wheel or the propositions in the center of the board at a craps table. The odds are bad and you are giving away your money.

So yes, the house has an edge on you. And you have to stay within the house's rules. Those things are both true. If you don't like it, well, go to the extra-legal game that has the guns or the mob, or don't gamble at all. It's fine. This is an optional activity.

Efforts to overcome the house's edge through subterfuge in games where the house always wins long term are illegitimate, because the casino has the right to set the rules of the game and you agree to abide by them when you decide to sit down and bet. If the casino wants to make it against the rules for Phil Ivey to cheat at Baccarat, the casino has the right to do that. If Ivey cheats anyway, they can refuse to pay him his winnings.

This, however, is different. This is a claim that a participant in a sports event owes a duty to bettors. That is not reciprocal to the Phil Ivey situation. You want to know what IS reciprocal? The duty the house owes to you.

Here's an example. If Phil Ivey discovered that the casino stacked the Baccarat deck against him, he could sue the casino and win. Just like the casino can take his winnings when he cheats. Totally reciprocal. You have to follow the rules with the casino, and the casino has to follow the rules with you. Either one of you can go to court if the other one violates the contract.

But when you bet on a horse race, you are not in privity of contract with any of the participants in the race. If you bet Shared Belief in the Breeders' Cup Classic and Martin Garcia eliminates the other speed horse that was going to go out with Bayern and set it up for your horse, you can't sue Martin Garcia. Martin Garcia owes you no obligation whatsoever not to do that. He MAY owe an obligation to the State of California, which can suspend him for careless riding. But he doesn't owe an obligation to you. Why? Because bad trips are part of the risk you assume when you bet a horse race, and if you lose because of a bad trip, the sport treats you, correctly, as a loser. If you try to sue in court, you will just be a sore loser- and out your attorney's fees when your butt gets thrown out of court.

It's harsh to call such a person a loser, but anticipating what the jockeys might do is actually part of betting on horse races. We all do it all the time. And when we are wrong, we are losers. We don't get to relitigate it.

Anticipating what trainers are doing is the same thing. It is part of handicapping. Bob Baffert owes the sport and the government many duties, but he has no legal duty whatsoever to the bettors who are trying to figure out his doping practices and cash in on them. The bettors who make the smartest plays win; the ones who don't read the situation well are losers. And they don't get to relitigate their claims in court, because then they would be sore losers- and out their attorney's fees when their butts get thrown out.

And as I said, you guys should really be careful about this. The fix for this is to delay paying out on your bets until drug tests come in. I would totally support that if you guys think it is so important that the PED issue be taken out of handicapping and you be fully protected in this situation. Obviously, that's the way to go, right? It can't be that you guys are trying to have it both ways- to cash immediately when you get the BENEFIT of doping and to sue if you are harmed by it, right?

[Vinnie]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I am enraged by cheating. But PED 's are part of handicapping and, FOR BETTORS, an assumed risk.

They aren't supposed to be an assumed risk. On what planet can a bettor supposedly be able to properly ascertain at what level a specific individual is cheating when compared to the next individual? Plzzzzzz. What a bunch of nonsense. The entire situation makes a travesty out of this beautiful sport.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Here's an example. If Phil Ivey discovered that the casino stacked the Baccarat deck against him, he could sue the casino and win. Just like the casino can take his winnings when he cheats. Totally reciprocal. You have to follow the rules with the casino, and the casino has to follow the rules with you. Either one of you can go to court if the other one violates the contract.

But when you bet on a horse race, you are not in privity of contract with any of the participants in the race. If you bet Shared Belief in the Breeders' Cup Classic and Martin Garcia eliminates the other speed horse that was going to go out with Bayern and set it up for your horse, you can't sue Martin Garcia. Martin Garcia owes you no obligation whatsoever not to do that. He MAY owe an obligation to the State of California, which can suspend him for careless riding. But he doesn't owe an obligation to you. Why? Because bad trips are part of the risk you assume when you bet a horse race, and if you lose because of a bad trip, the sport treats you, correctly, as a loser. If you try to sue in court, you will just be a sore loser- and out your attorney's fees when your butt gets thrown out of court.

It's harsh to call such a person a loser, but anticipating what the jockeys might do is actually part of betting on horse races. We all do it all the time. And when we are wrong, we are losers. We don't get to relitigate it.

Anticipating what trainers are doing is the same thing. It is part of handicapping. Bob Baffert owes the sport and the government many duties, but he has no legal duty whatsoever to the bettors who are trying to figure out his doping practices and cash in on them. The bettors who make the smartest plays win; the ones who don't read the situation well are losers. And they don't get to relitigate their claims in court, because then they would be sore losers- and out their attorney's fees when their butts get thrown out.

And as I said, you guys should really be careful about this. The fix for this is to delay paying out on your bets until drug tests come in. I would totally support that if you guys think it is so important that the PED issue be taken out of handicapping and you be fully protected in this situation. Obviously, that's the way to go, right? It can't be that you guys are trying to have it both ways- to cash immediately when you get the BENEFIT of doping and to sue if you are harmed by it, right?

To me...this only proves that you are allowed to cheat the other participants in a gambling game...but you can't cheat the house. If these cheating trainers took money out of the racetrack's pocket...then you can be sure that they would be shown the door posthaste. But the racetracks take their money off the top, and the cheaters only cheat the other game participants...so, the game doesn't mind this as much. In fact...it's to the game's advantage to keep such cheating "on the q.t."...in order to preserve the game's reputation. The Las Vegas poker rooms were doing this for many years. The casino personel would allow cheaters to operate at the poker tables...while beating the shit out of the card-counters who were plying their trade in the blackjack pit. See the difference?

Speaking of Phil Ivey...he never touched the playing cards, nor did he ever collude with either the dealers or the playing-card manufacturer. He asked the casino management to have the cards dealt in a particular way, and the casino management agreed...with the full knowledge of who Phil Ivey was, and what he did for a living. IMO, the casino took a shot at Ivey...and placed him in the classic "no-win situation". They KNEW that Ivey had some sort of "edge" in the game, but dealt to him anyway, figuring that they'd take his money if he lost...and beat him in a court of "law" if he won. That was infinitelly more shameful a practice than the "cheating" that Phil Ivey perpetrated...court ruling notwithstanding.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Vinnie

They aren't supposed to be an assumed risk. On what planet can a bettor supposedly be able to properly ascertain at what level a specific individual is cheating when compared to the next individual? Plzzzzzz. What a bunch of nonsense. The entire situation makes a travesty out of this beautiful sport.

Cheating has been a part of horse racing forever. It is not a new phenomena. I doubt it would disappear if all drugs were somehow eradicated and could never be used. I am all for policing drugs in the game but also understand that I need to adapt to the realities or avoid the game altogether.


As someone who is a big follower of trainer patterns, I put cheating right in the mix. Cheaters are usually not one-offs. A successful cheater will return to the act sometimes creating a pattern that will tip off a bettor.

[Vinnie]

I understand what you are saying AndyC. I can't disagree with that. It's just the fact that you think of all of these horses that have run out of their skin for a time and so many of these unearthly performances were run in the past by Baffert horses. One has to wonder when and where he has been legit. I am not complaining. Other than on the big days (T.C. and such), I rarely play a circuit where his horses are running.

[airford1]

When all is said and done, BOB BAFFERT is the GREATEST Dirt Trainer EVER.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

To me...this only proves that you are allowed to cheat the other participants in a gambling game...but you can't cheat the house. If these cheating trainers took money out of the racetrack's pocket...then you can be sure that they would be shown the door posthaste. But the racetracks take their money off the top, and the cheaters only cheat the other game participants...so, the game doesn't mind this as much. In fact...it's to the game's advantage to keep such cheating "on the q.t."...in order to preserve the game's reputation. The Las Vegas poker rooms were doing this for many years. The casino personel would allow cheaters to operate at the poker tables...while beating the shit out of the card-counters who were plying their trade in the blackjack pit. See the difference?

Speaking of Phil Ivey...he never touched the playing cards, nor did he ever collude with either the dealers or the playing-card manufacturer. He asked the casino management to have the cards dealt in a particular way, and the casino management agreed...with the full knowledge of who Phil Ivey was, and what he did for a living. IMO, the casino took a shot at Ivey...and placed him in the classic "no-win situation". They KNEW that Ivey had some sort of "edge" in the game, but dealt to him anyway, figuring that they'd take his money if he lost...and beat him in a court of "law" if he won. That was infinitelly more shameful a practice than the "cheating" that Phil Ivey perpetrated...court ruling notwithstanding.

I won't go deep into Ivey, which is OT, but what he could have done was not play Baccarat at all rather than attempting to scam several casinos. He is a very smart man, and yet failed to calculate the possibility that casinos might refuse to pay him or obtain legal advice on what would happen if they did.

You seem to think gamblers should not have to make such calculations. I don't see why not.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by airford1

When all is said and done, BOB BAFFERT is the GREATEST Dirt Trainer EVER.

More like the Dirtiest trainer ever.

[PhantomOnTour]

Originally Posted by airford1

When all is said and done, BOB BAFFERT is the GREATEST Dirt Trainer EVER.

And Barry Bonds is the greatest home run hitter ever...???

[Vinnie]

Originally Posted by pandy

More like the Dirtiest trainer ever.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I won't go deep into Ivey, which is OT, but what he could have done was not play Baccarat at all rather than attempting to scam several casinos. He is a very smart man, and yet failed to calculate the possibility that casinos might refuse to pay him or obtain legal advice on what would happen if they did.

You seem to think gamblers should not have to make such calculations. I don't see why not.

Ivey is a degenerate gambler, who has lost many millions of dollars in irresponsible gambling of all sorts, so...it's no surprise to me that he failed to "make such calculations". A person can be a genius in one thing...and a moron in everything else. I'm not defending what Ivey did...what I am saying is that the casinos have done far worse. And they always get away with it...because the "law" always blows their way. There is a reason why the lawyers have the reputation that they do, Mr. Dilanesp.