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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Karakiozis

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]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

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

Or better yet, bet the longer priced horse.

[DJofSD]

Originally Posted by therussmeister

Or better yet, bet the longer priced horse.

BTDT. And, exactas/perfectas with the two runners.

[Karakiozis]

Originally Posted by pondman

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]

Originally Posted by Karakiozis

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]

Originally Posted by Karakiozis

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]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

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]

Originally Posted by Karakiozis

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. It happens that sometimes the higher odds uncoupled entry horse wins. There is nothing criminal about it.

[Karakiozis]

Originally Posted by duncan04

If you knew it, I hope you cashed with the #8. 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.