Rider collusion with non coupled same trainer horses

[exiles]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

So I assume you don't ever bet? Do you even follow the sport anymore? If so, why bother as you seem to think jocks are stiffing horses left and right (inference) and most top trainers are cheats (past posts)? I guess you must just post on this board, which is fine. With your beliefs, to do anything else would make you look foolish.

My friend I bet w/ both hands and I do very well, but foolhardily think like you do, ( no cheats, no uncoupled entrie games and so on ) no way, for every G. Motion there are 5 Tricky Dicks.

[turninforhome10]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

This coming from a man who admitted - in the book "The Racing Maxims Of Pittsburgh Phil" - that he got so disgruntled with jockeys not "trying" to win...he actually went as far as paying certain jockeys out of his own pocket, in order to make sure that they would do their best on the horses they rode.

Of course, he made that money back by enthusiastically backing those jockeys at the windows...

Is it the right thing to do? Willie Shaw did very well for him
Link to old article
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...DE405B818CF1D3

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by turninforhome10

Is it the right thing to do? Willie Shaw did very well for him
Link to old article
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...DE405B818CF1D3

I am not debating whether or not it proved beneficial to them...

I am questioning the validity of the Pittsburgh Phil comment you quoted.

If there was so little "dishonesty" in the game back then...why pay jockeys out of your own pocket so they could do "the right thing"?

[turninforhome10]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I am not debating whether or not it proved beneficial to them...

I am questioning the validity of the Pittsburgh Phil comment you quoted.

If there was so little "dishonesty" in the game back then...why pay jockeys out of your own pocket so they could do "the right thing"?

I have come to the point in my dealings with some many different types of people in so many different situations from securing mounts for live horses, to working hand in hand with doctors in trauma situations and have come to the conclusion, you get what you pay for. IMO most jockeys only really "ride" the mounts that they have shot on. Giving incentive to ride to the point of complete fatigue seemed the motive of Phil. "The right thing" for a jockey is to get home safe and put food on the table. Getting them to play into your "right thing" either comes from the talent of the horse to which they are riding, or loyalty to the stable for which they are riding.
If not giving 100% each time is dishonest, then the world is overflowing with liars. We put our hard earned money out everyday into situations that are only benefiting the house. I guess I have become a bit cynical in that I handicap the races now with this in mind.
I guess I feel there is a difference in being dishonest and being lazy in the sense that being dishonest actually takes work and most horseman have enough to do to find to plan great schemes, and jockeys, well there is a reason they are called "pinheads", if you want to look at the brains of the whole situation look to the agents. If someone really wanted to make "the killing" the agents would be the first to know.
Why pay jockeys to do "the right thing"? To insure "the right thing" is common between parties.
Why was this quote applicable. If we handicap with the corruption method, the number of times we would show a profit compared to using our normal methods would be significantly less. This is to say that in a nine race card the amount of fixed races should be statistically low in the big picture.
Yes there is corruption in the sport, find anything without corruption that involves large amounts of money exchanging hands between parties of different information levels. The sport is not nearly as corrupt as our own stock market or even our political system. I think of the races much as a large chain store would think of shoplifting, they have an indicies for adding this into their books. When a race looks fishy invest at your own risk.

[turninforhome10]

Since this thread and most of what strdu brings up is corruption.
How many of us in this forum would answer this question.
If you had the inside dope that a 20-1 shot was getting his leg nerved in the 1st race at your local track and will win like a thief with no doubt
You have the ability to report the infraction.
Do you bet with both fists or do you report the trainer?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by exiles

My friend I bet w/ both hands and I do very well, but foolhardily think like you do, ( no cheats, no uncoupled entrie games and so on ) no way, for every G. Motion there are 5 Tricky Dicks.

There are cheats in every walk of life. I just don't think it's as prevelant in racing as you imply.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by turninforhome10

I have come to the point in my dealings with some many different types of people in so many different situations from securing mounts for live horses, to working hand in hand with doctors in trauma situations and have come to the conclusion, you get what you pay for. IMO most jockeys only really "ride" the mounts that they have shot on. Giving incentive to ride to the point of complete fatigue seemed the motive of Phil. "The right thing" for a jockey is to get home safe and put food on the table. Getting them to play into your "right thing" either comes from the talent of the horse to which they are riding, or loyalty to the stable for which they are riding.
If not giving 100% each time is dishonest, then the world is overflowing with liars. We put our hard earned money out everyday into situations that are only benefiting the house. I guess I have become a bit cynical in that I handicap the races now with this in mind.
I guess I feel there is a difference in being dishonest and being lazy in the sense that being dishonest actually takes work and most horseman have enough to do to find to plan great schemes, and jockeys, well there is a reason they are called "pinheads", if you want to look at the brains of the whole situation look to the agents. If someone really wanted to make "the killing" the agents would be the first to know.
Why pay jockeys to do "the right thing"? To insure "the right thing" is common between parties.
Why was this quote applicable. If we handicap with the corruption method, the number of times we would show a profit compared to using our normal methods would be significantly less. This is to say that in a nine race card the amount of fixed races should be statistically low in the big picture.
Yes there is corruption in the sport, find anything without corruption that involves large amounts of money exchanging hands between parties of different information levels. The sport is not nearly as corrupt as our own stock market or even our political system. I think of the races much as a large chain store would think of shoplifting, they have an indicies for adding this into their books. When a race looks fishy invest at your own risk.

Here is the thing though...

This sport is so heavily taxed - takeoutwise - and is so chaotic by nature, that it cannot really tolerate ANY "corruption".

Is there anything worse than a gambling game which features BOTH...a high takeout AND corruption?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Here is the thing though...

This sport is so heavily taxed - takeoutwise - and is so chaotic by nature, that it cannot really tolerate ANY "corruption".

Is there anything worse than a gambling game which features BOTH...a high takeout AND corruption?

I think racing at the highest levels, for the most part, is honest enough. I think that there are 2 main ways for corruption to present itself. The first way is for a trainer to stick an illegal chemical into a horse to make him go slower or faster and then bet accordingly. The second way is for a jockey to manipulate the race by not giving full effort to finish as high on the board as he can.

There are other smaller ways the races can get corrupt by accident. One is a trainer can mistakenly or unknowingly give a horse something that shouldnt be in his system. That trainer and the connections arent going to capitalize gambling-wise, but that altered performance still hurts the bettor.

The other way is for a jockey to just not feel like giving full effort for whatever reason. Some riders, and we know the usual suspects, just dont ride every horse like its their last mount on earth. This also hurts the bettor because they don't know when a jock is going to feel like busting his rear end and when he's not in the mood.

As far as the original topic goes, jockeys will routinely help out a runner from the same stable even if they're not coupled in the wagering. Baffert had a nice horse yesterday named Coli and he had another runner in the race named Awesome Patriot. On the backstretch, with Coli pinned in along the inside, the rider of Bafferts other horse moved over and let Coli get a 'dream run' up the rail. Was this collusion that should not have taken place? If you bet Awesome Patriot, would you have wanted Coli to slip inside of you on the backstretch and into the far turn? I don't think you would. I guess you have to ask yourself if this is 'acceptable' or its just part of racing.

I think the stewards never question riders if they 'move out of the way' to help out a stablemate of the horse they're riding, so, i guess if the stewards feel this is acceptable behavior by riders, than they're really saying to the fans "this is just part of handicapping" and even if the horses are uncoupled, you have to factor in that one guy will probably be helping out the other.

[exiles]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Here is the thing though...

This sport is so heavily taxed - takeoutwise - and is so chaotic by nature, that it cannot really tolerate ANY "corruption".

Is there anything worse than a gambling game which features BOTH...a high takeout AND corruption?

Right on the money again THASKALOS bravo!!!!!

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Baffert had a nice horse yesterday named Coli and he had another runner in the race named Awesome Patriot. On the backstretch, with Coli pinned in along the inside, the rider of Bafferts other horse moved over and let Coli get a 'dream run' up the rail. Was this collusion that should not have taken place? If you bet Awesome Patriot, would you have wanted Coli to slip inside of you on the backstretch and into the far turn? I don't think you would. I guess you have to ask yourself if this is 'acceptable' or its just part of racing.

I think the stewards never question riders if they 'move out of the way' to help out a stablemate of the horse they're riding, so, i guess if the stewards feel this is acceptable behavior by riders, than they're really saying to the fans "this is just part of handicapping" and even if the horses are uncoupled, you have to factor in that one guy will probably be helping out the other.

QUESTION FOR YOU AND ALL OF THE BOARD: should we ever have uncoupled entries??

personally I don't like uncoupled entries. Some of these races, you may have a trainer with 3 horses entered.

there are times I have a bet, but uncoupled entries throw me off:

For example TRAINER A has HORSES1,2.

• HORSE2 is a bet, HORSE1 is competitive = I pass unless the price is right

or TRAINER A has HORSES1,2

• HORSE2 is a bet, HORSE1 has a leading jockey or even picks up HORSE2's jockey = I pass unless the price is right

thoughts?






EDIT - HERES ANOTHER QUESTION - (UNCOUPLED INTERFERENCE) ---if an uncoupled ENTRY
(horses1,2) run and horse2 interferes(lets say he lugs in @ the break and takes out the rail horse favorite)! Horse1 wins for fun...

SHOULD HORSE 1 BE DISQUALIFIED AS WELL?

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

I think the stewards never question riders if they 'move out of the way' to help out a stablemate of the horse they're riding, so, i guess if the stewards feel this is acceptable behavior by riders, than they're really saying to the fans "this is just part of handicapping" and even if the horses are uncoupled, you have to factor in that one guy will probably be helping out the other.

agree and something like that sounds tough to actually incorporate into your capping.
You'd have to have a situation where u predicted that traffic would ensue with the stablemate holding the position... 2 complicated 4 me

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

QUESTION FOR YOU AND ALL OF THE BOARD: should we ever have uncoupled entries??

personally I don't like uncoupled entries. Some of these races, you may have a trainer with 3 horses entered.

there are times I have a bet, but uncoupled entries throw me off:

For example TRAINER A has HORSES1,2.

• HORSE2 is a bet, HORSE1 is competitive = I pass unless the price is right

or TRAINER A has HORSES1,2

• HORSE2 is a bet, HORSE1 has a leading jockey or even picks up HORSE2's jockey = I pass unless the price is right

thoughts?






EDIT - HERES ANOTHER QUESTION - (UNCOUPLED INTERFERENCE) ---if an uncoupled ENTRY
(horses1,2) run and horse2 interferes(lets say he lugs in @ the break and takes out the rail horse favorite)! Horse1 wins for fun...

SHOULD HORSE 1 BE DISQUALIFIED AS WELL?






agree and something like that sounds tough to actually incorporate into your capping.
You'd have to have a situation where u predicted that traffic would ensue with the stablemate holding the position... 2 complicated 4 me

If i feel there will be 'collusion' i bet much less on the race or avoid it altogether.

Its a guessing game. THEY know and YOU'RE (we're) guessing.