HANA, where you at?

[Scav]

Are 2% takeout increases in a location where they were already below par the only thing that HANA is concerned about?

What about the ridiculousness that happened at Gulfstream yesterday in race 5?

Sr Henry was said to be running, yet he never showed up in the paddock and people with multi race bets in that ultra low takeout got screwed with Carson Hall, who was the lesser of the entry?

Come on HANA, where you at?

[BillW]

Originally Posted by Scav

Are 2% takeout increases in a location where they were already below par the only thing that HANA is concerned about?

What about the ridiculousness that happened at Gulfstream yesterday in race 5?

Sr Henry was said to be running, yet he never showed up in the paddock and people with multi race bets in that ultra low takeout got screwed with Carson Hall, who was the lesser of the entry?

Come on HANA, where you at?

Please pass along documentation of any e-mails you have sent or phone calls you have made and we will be glad to follow up.

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by Scav

Sr Henry was said to be running, yet he never showed up in the paddock and people with multi race bets in that ultra low takeout got screwed with Carson Hall, who was the lesser of the entry?

What would you propose as a worthwhile change to the current policy?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

The only solution to this type of problem (and it doesn't happen enough times that a change will be deemed necessary) is to either get rid of horizontal wagers or don't have coupled entries.

[JohnGalt1]

Or in this case, have the remaining horse run for purse only.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Originally Posted by JohnGalt1

Or in this case, have the remaining horse run for purse only.

But then what happens to horizontal bets? You get the fave? Or a consolation ticket if you hit the other parts?

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by JohnGalt1

Or in this case, have the remaining horse run for purse only.

Where I am stuck is - what if the 1A is scratched and he was the part of the entry that was 90-1, and the 1 is the 3-1 fair odds horse everyone wanted in the first place? You'd have to scratch him out of it, if the 1A is scratched. Then if the 1 won, and you got the chalk (you liked the 1 that is why you picked him but he won and you dont have him), I think we'd see a lot of players pissed about it.

If you scratch him out of the race for horizontals as well, it makes the race a bad betting race for people, because you eliminated a 3-1 shot.

I wonder if this might not be one of those weird situations that is pretty hard to account for, and make right.

I have not played a race in a week this week, so I do not know all the particulars of this situation, so I could be off anyway.

[cj]

The fairest answer is to have the horse run for purse money only. Nobody says you have to get stuck with the favorite. There should be a refund.

[chickenhead]

the strange thing about entries -- is I generally fail to see really any real life case where they actually protect any bettors, from anything. It seems like in the few cases we end up seeing rabbit-like entries, they are generally uncoupled.

Just do away with entries all together, imo. They cause more problems than they solve.

Then, also give refunds. Let me bet whatever combo I want, and if it doesn't exist, give me my refund.

[cj]

I should say the obvious answer to the thread title is between the 'a' and the 't'.

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by chickenhead

the strange thing about entries -- is I generally fail to see really any real life case where they actually protect any bettors, from anything. It seems like in the few cases we end up seeing rabbit-like entries, they are generally uncoupled.

Just do away with entries all together, imo. They cause more problems than they solve.

Then, also give refunds. Let me bet whatever combo I want, and if it doesn't exist, give me my refund.

It's a concept built for another age. I agree, they should all be done away with.

When betfair asked their players if they wanted coupled or uncoupled, they spoke loud and clear in huge numbers: Uncoupled.

[Stillriledup]

There should be no coupled entries.

The 'logic' behind coupled entries is to prevent 'shenanigans' from an owner who might 'manipulate' the race with two different betting interests. HERE'S a novel idea, why don't the 'judges' watch carefully and if any shenanigans go on, act accordingly. Why punish the bettors and put the onus on them?

Coupling horses is the lazy man's way to 'prevent' two horses acting as a 'tagteam' while being seperate betting interests. Just uncouple them and pay attention and fine/suspend anyone who appears to be 'working together'. This way, the bettors can actually pick and choose who they want to bet on, instead of being forced to accept a horse they might not want.

The Breeders Cup uncouples everything, it CAN be done.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by BillW

Please pass along documentation of any e-mails you have sent or phone calls you have made and we will be glad to follow up.

This is exactly the kind of arrogant and snide response that customers have sadly received from too many racetrack executives over the years. Congratulations.

[chickenhead]

Yeah if horseplayers are in some rough consensus about how they want this handled, from soup to nuts, then I support HANA adding it as a plank.

For whatever reason (valid or not) around this particular issue I pick up a strong undercurrent of various other things that apparently NYRA figures strongly in...nobody reasonable cares anything about the track involved.

Come up with one model policy that everyone agrees is ideal -- that is something worth talking about and spending time on.

To me, part of 1 of that is that coupled entries themselves are FAR from ideal. Eliminate them.

Part 2 for me would be refunds, but there are downsides to that as well.

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by chickenhead

Yeah if horseplayers are in some rough consensus about how they want this handled, from soup to nuts, then I support HANA adding it as a plank.

For whatever reason (valid or not) around this particular issue I pick up a strong undercurrent of various other things that apparently NYRA figures strongly in...nobody reasonable cares anything about the track involved.

Come up with one model policy that everyone agrees is ideal -- that is something worth talking about and spending time on.

To me, part of 1 of that is that coupled entries themselves are FAR from ideal. Eliminate them.

Part 2 for me would be refunds, but there are downsides to that as well.

It's amazing when you watch the uncoupled odds on BF, when looking at the tote. With a 1, 1A and 1B race and five entries (which happens of course), where the 1 is 5-2 on BF, the 1A is 4-1 and the 1B is 9-1, those horses are 3-5 or 1-2 on the board. The race is a total cross out and no one will look at it, but when you split them and eliminate the entry, it turns out is a very good betting race.