Who holds the clockers in the mornings and odds makers accountable?

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by kgar311

Here's the point im trying to make with this thread.

I am a life long track and horse enthusiast, I was born a stones throw away from Saratoga Racecourse, i've never missed a Travers in my life. Ive owned a couple horses in my life, worked at a racetrack for 10 years, been gambling since I was 8 and prob have put damn near 6 figures through the windows. At this point in my life I dont follow racing as close as I used to in the past so I dont have the luxury to watch TVG and hear them tout this horse or know that Mcpeek points all his bombs to win at keeneland or think about watching rolling doubles to see if there are odds discrepancies . So this weekend I was in the Miami area and decided to pop in Calder for a few. I still stop at the local simulcast once and a while too. But I rely on the info provided to me in the program on that day and I expect it to be correct. When I see stuff like this it makes me want to bet the horses less and less. Now why do you think horse racing is a dieing sport? I would bet on 2 ants crossing the street but now you have someone like me that is completely fed up with betting the horses because of crap like this. What do you think its doing to new people that come to the track and see this? They are running for the hills.
Im just sick of making donations to my local betting parlor everytime I walk in.

If you are only using "the info provided to me in the program", maybe you should stop gambling. Only using the program and betting on tracks, horses and connections that are unfamiliar to you, puts you in the passing lane to the poor house. Looking at the M/L and using it as a tool gauge firsters, seals the deal.

As Steve already stated, this filly was not a stretch at all.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by kgar311

Here's the point im trying to make with this thread.

I am a life long track and horse enthusiast, I was born a stones throw away from Saratoga Racecourse, i've never missed a Travers in my life. Ive owned a couple horses in my life, worked at a racetrack for 10 years, been gambling since I was 8 and prob have put damn near 6 figures through the windows. At this point in my life I dont follow racing as close as I used to in the past so I dont have the luxury to watch TVG and hear them tout this horse or know that Mcpeek points all his bombs to win at keeneland or think about watching rolling doubles to see if there are odds discrepancies . So this weekend I was in the Miami area and decided to pop in Calder for a few. I still stop at the local simulcast once and a while too. But I rely on the info provided to me in the program on that day and I expect it to be correct. When I see stuff like this it makes me want to bet the horses less and less. Now why do you think horse racing is a dieing sport? I would bet on 2 ants crossing the street but now you have someone like me that is completely fed up with betting the horses because of crap like this. What do you think its doing to new people that come to the track and see this? They are running for the hills.
Im just sick of making donations to my local betting parlor everytime I walk in.

The crap you are talking about has been happening since you have been betting.

The ML means squat, it is one person's opinion, and that person can't be right ever single race. Hell, I have seen 20/1 ML's open up at 6/5, stay at 6/5 and win by 10 lengths

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by kgar311

Im not relying on the odds maker but 12-1 is basically dismissing the horse and it didnt warrant me to look past the 101 and 103 works that were posted in the program. A 6 or 8-1makes you think a little bit, ok good trainer, good jockey maybe there's something to this horse. But when the oddsmaker who LIVES at the track dismisses the horse its kind of hard to spend extra time looking at the horse in a large field.

Ok, I 100% disagree. I don't think the morning-line should have anything to do with handicapping. I think it's MY job to see Ken McPeek, Kent D., some solid back works, and know that the wide draw is no real roadblock to Keeneland success for a trainer who excels with baby runners and thrives at that meet.

That's the point at which I see what seems like a pretty bad line like 12-1, cross my heart and thank Mike B., and go for it.

I didn't play the race, FWIW, but this kind of situation is happening somewhere every day.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by kgar311

Im not relying on the odds maker but 12-1 is basically dismissing the horse and it didnt warrant me to look past the 101 and 103 works that were posted in the program. A 6 or 8-1makes you think a little bit, ok good trainer, good jockey maybe there's something to this horse. But when the oddsmaker who LIVES at the track dismisses the horse its kind of hard to spend extra time looking at the horse in a large field.

A horse debuted at Keeneland the other day for the Cannon Shell barn that was 20/1 ML and went off at 34/1. Said horse never had a work past 101 and Cannon Shell said the horse was working well.

The horse ran a good 2nd, but by your theory, I should have never played him, or the exacta with the McPeek horse because he had slow worked and was 20/1 ML

[Round Pen]

Originally Posted by kgar311

Im not relying on the odds maker but 12-1 is basically dismissing the horse and it didnt warrant me to look past the 101 and 103 works that were posted in the program. A 6 or 8-1makes you think a little bit, ok good trainer, good jockey maybe there's something to this horse. But when the oddsmaker who LIVES at the track dismisses the horse its kind of hard to spend extra time looking at the horse in a large field.

First thing 12-1 Morning Line on a first time starter is not dismissing him.

I know Clockers are not on the Up and Up but your argument here holds NO water
The Work in 103.1 on Sept 24th Was in the Slop Plus 19 of the 24 horse who worked that morning Went In 103 or Slower. THere were works that day in 104, 105 and 106 and Change. THe fastest 3/8's that day was 38 and change Plus the Majority of the Horses that worked A 1/2 on the 24th went in 51 or 52. Face it the Track was slow that Day.

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by Scav

The crap you are talking about has been happening since you have been betting.

The ML means squat, it is one person's opinion, and that person can't be right ever single race. Hell, I have seen 20/1 ML's open up at 6/5, stay at 6/5 and win by 10 lengths

Of course its not the first time its happened nor will it be the last.

Im still completely confused and need an answer to my question. Why if they are sitting on a monster in this filly did they feel the need to conceal her talent to the betting public? What did they gain? She still opened up even money.

Im just going to chalk this up to two things.

It was a well conceived plan to hide her talent from the people not in the know and a poorly conceived plan to hide it from people in the know.

And the reason why they did this is unknown

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Ok, I 100% disagree. I don't think the morning-line should have anything to do with handicapping. I think it's MY job to see Ken McPeek, Kent D., some solid back works, and know that the wide draw is no real roadblock to Keeneland success for a trainer who excels with baby runners and thrives at that meet.

That's the point at which I see what seems like a pretty bad line like 12-1, cross my heart and thank Mike B., and go for it.

I didn't play the race, FWIW, but this kind of situation is happening somewhere every day.

Well im not a professional handicapper and it not my JOB to know im being duped by the oddsmaker. So I have to 100% disagree with you.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by kgar311

Well im not a professional handicapper and it not my JOB to know im being duped by the oddsmaker. So I have to 100% disagree with you.

"Duped" or not, "professional" or not, it's YOUR job to decide if YOU like the horse. Battaglia putting an "8-1" instead of a "12-1" shouldn't change your opinion of the horse. A morning-line is nothing more than a guess of what the linemaker thinks the public will do.

If you're betting or not betting a horse because of what Battaglia or any other morning-line maker puts next to it, you're not even getting off on the right foot for handicapping, let alone the kind of headstart you're going to need to have any chance to make money at the track.

And as a horizontal player, I have incredible empathy for bad beats in multi-race wagers, incredible understanding of how hard they can be to hit and how tough it can be to go 3 of 4 and miss a horse that doesn't turn out the way you think it will, but no sympathy whatsoever for blaming a ML maker for the fact that you didn't do your homework and overlooked EVERY relevant angle on this horse's page.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by kgar311

Of course its not the first time its happened nor will it be the last.

Im still completely confused and need an answer to my question. Why if they are sitting on a monster in this filly did they feel the need to conceal her talent to the betting public? What did they gain? She still opened up even money.

Im just going to chalk this up to two things.

It was a well conceived plan to hide her talent from the people not in the know and a poorly conceived plan to hide it from people in the know.

And the reason why they did this is unknown

First of all this was not a strong group of horses. Why that isnt obvious at a quick glance at the program is telling. Secondly, trainers are trying to get their horses ready to run and obviously McPeek did his job. The horses work pattern was certainly good enough to show that something was there as she had two bullets at CD and was always one of the quickest workers every morning she worked. 101 is a very good work for a 2 yo filly btw and Round pen pointed out the 103 was on a slow, sloppy track. Not to mention that she had only worked on the dirt and was racing on the polytrack.

You can say a lot of things about McPeek, but the thought that this was some put over horse is ludicrous.

I do agree the M/L was pretty bad but certainly not for the reasons that you think.

[Scav]

And McPeek bought Curlin!!

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Scav

And McPeek bought Curlin!!

And Einstein.

NT

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

"Duped" or not, "professional" or not, it's YOUR job to decide if YOU like the horse. Battaglia putting an "8-1" instead of a "12-1" shouldn't change your opinion of the horse. A morning-line is nothing more than a guess of what the linemaker thinks the public will do.

If you're betting or not betting a horse because of what Battaglia or any other morning-line maker puts next to it, you're not even getting off on the right foot for handicapping, let alone the kind of headstart you're going to need to have any chance to make money at the track.

And as a horizontal player, I have incredible empathy for bad beats in multi-race wagers, incredible understanding of how hard they can be to hit and how tough it can be to go 3 of 4 and miss a horse that doesn't turn out the way you think it will, but no sympathy whatsoever for blaming a ML maker for the fact that you didn't do your homework and overlooked EVERY relevant angle on this horse's page.

Well said.

[brianwspencer]

Just for good measure, here’s another example:

Friday night I was doing an OTB gig in Chicago and played Hawthorne’s early Pick-4. I was stupid and let my bankroll dictate what combinations I played rather than vice versa.

I really, really loved Inscript because her older brother freaked out on real dirt, and she was making her first start on the stuff that night in the first leg of the pick-4.

I singled the second leg, which was in and of itself, a bad idea, because nobody in their right mind singles a horse with Brandon Meier up. Still, I used Shaquita, because I figured she’d get a soft lead and have plenty left turning for home. Ansong was the obvious other play despite it being her first time on the dirt thanks to her form and her wet track breeding, but I cut her so I could afford the other legs I wanted.

I went deeper in the next two legs trying to catch a price, but both races produced reasonable winners, each of whom was on my ticket.

Now, because I singled Shaquita in the second leg and didn’t use Ansong, I missed out on the Pick-4, even though I knew full well that Ansong was a huge threat.

However, because the minimum wager was $1 on this Pick-4, I lost, whereas I could have included Ansong in the second leg and spent the same amount of money that fit within my bankroll if Hawthorne offered $0.50 Pick-4s.

They don’t, and I made the decisions based on my handicapping that I thought were best given the way I set myself up for the night.

But at the end of the day, it’s not Hawthorne’s fault that my ticket lost. It’s mine, because I handicapped the races based on what I saw and constructed a ticket that I thought gave me the best chance to win from a risk v. reward perspective, given the seemingly wide-open nature of legs three and four. Now I’ve given you a perfectly legitimate scenario in which I would have hit that bet, and it’s quite clear that all I needed was for Hawthorne to offer $0.50 Pick-4s.

If Hawthorne offered $0.50 Pick-4s, I hit that bet.

http://equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/HAW101609USA.pdf

The logic you’re using would give me free license to blame them for the fact that I didn’t punch the right ticket to win. But you know what? It’s still my fault. Not Hawthorne’s. I’m responsible for constructing the ticket given the circumstances. They’re not responsible for tailoring the circumstances to ensure I construct a winning ticket.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Just for good measure, here’s another example:

Friday night I was doing an OTB gig in Chicago and played Hawthorne’s early Pick-4. I was stupid and let my bankroll dictate what combinations I played rather than vice versa.

I really, really loved Inscript because her older brother freaked out on real dirt, and she was making her first start on the stuff that night in the first leg of the pick-4.

I singled the second leg, which was in and of itself, a bad idea, because nobody in their right mind singles a horse with Brandon Meier up. Still, I used Shaquita, because I figured she’d get a soft lead and have plenty left turning for home. Ansong was the obvious other play despite it being her first time on the dirt thanks to her form and her wet track breeding, but I cut her so I could afford the other legs I wanted.

I went deeper in the next two legs trying to catch a price, but both races produced reasonable winners, each of whom was on my ticket.

Now, because I singled Shaquita in the second leg and didn’t use Ansong, I missed out on the Pick-4, even though I knew full well that Ansong was a huge threat.

However, because the minimum wager was $1 on this Pick-4, I lost, whereas I could have included Ansong in the second leg and spent the same amount of money that fit within my bankroll if Hawthorne offered $0.50 Pick-4s.

They don’t, and I made the decisions based on my handicapping that I thought were best given the way I set myself up for the night.

But at the end of the day, it’s not Hawthorne’s fault that my ticket lost. It’s mine, because I handicapped the races based on what I saw and constructed a ticket that I thought gave me the best chance to win from a risk v. reward perspective, given the seemingly wide-open nature of legs three and four. Now I’ve given you a perfectly legitimate scenario in which I would have hit that bet, and it’s quite clear that all I needed was for Hawthorne to offer $0.50 Pick-4s.

If Hawthorne offered $0.50 Pick-4s, I hit that bet.

http://equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/HAW101609USA.pdf

The logic you’re using would give me free license to blame them for the fact that I didn’t punch the right ticket to win. But you know what? It’s still my fault. Not Hawthorne’s. I’m responsible for constructing the ticket given the circumstances. They’re not responsible for tailoring the circumstances to ensure I construct a winning ticket.

It's your fault for betting Hawthorn in the first place

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It's your fault for betting Hawthorn in the first place

Hey man, a little bit of real dirt with horses I know has been striking me as particularly formful so far.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by kgar311

Everyone got smoked on the race.
And why shouldn't I be mad? Wouldn't you be mad if someone punched you in the face, stuck their hand in your pocket, took a couple hundred bucks and walked away with your money? or would you be cool with it.
I see no difference between that and what happened with this race. I along with thousands of other people were criminally robbed by what transpired.

the horse did scr in for this spot..and was pounded at the windows..why the big deal..

[philcski]

This whole thread is LOL. People who bet based on ML's are why yesterday's late P4 at KEE paid $1865 when in reality it should have paid around half that because a 15-1 ML horse (trained by PLETCHER!) who won a wide open, mile and a half turfer first leg at 7-1. The other winners were 2nd choice, 4th choice (2nd ML), and heavy favorite.

Battaglia missed on the ML. The horse should have been 6-1 ML or so, and as Hooves said scratched Friday for this spot. Big deal, it's a firster, he generally does a good job at making morning lines (whereas he should have retired from calling races long ago)

[JDank34]

Originally Posted by kgar311

Goes back to my point, seems like everyone knew something about this horse except the odds maker. How can that be? Shouldnt Mike know that this is the case and maybe made him 6 or 8-1 or is he that oblivious to trends at his own track that he couldnt recognize this?
Im happy for all the handicappers that picked this horse and Joe blows grandma had her. I as an average horse player believe he was duped by the clocker and the odds maker by false information provided to me by the program provided to me by the track.

kgar311.....thats why its PARI-MUTAL wagering and not betting NFL with a bookie...the public makes the real odds not the oddsmaker.....now Battaglia is certainly never going to be confused with the sharpest oddsmaker in the biz, but you need to relax and admit you left out a hot horse, hot trainer, hot jockey, etc, at your own peril.....your mistake not Battaglia's.....

[GPK]

Dude, you need to play Tampa Bay Downs for an entire meet. You will learn that ML odds mean nothing.

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by GPK

Dude, you need to play Tampa Bay Downs for an entire meet. You will learn that ML odds mean nothing.