Weekend Stakes Beyers

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Please, don't even try and use simple logic. It was a putover of the worst kind. Battaglia needed to get out for the meet so he and McPeek conspired and ended up with a fat 5/2. Now the "voice" Battaglia was seen carrying bags of money to the local credit union with "Connie and Michael" written on the outside. They, of course, had Ben Huffman, Racing Secretary involved so that he would card this as Race 8, the 2nd leg of the Pick 4, leaving the poor, mis-guided public to assume the 12-1 morning line meant Connie and Michael was a goat. It was a disgrace and scourge against Keeneland and the entire sport.
NT

:

Originally Posted by kgar311

The only, ONLY
reason they got 5/2 on the horse was because of the 12-1 morning line. If she had been 5-1/11-2 like Steve suggested she would of went off 3/5. Money went elsewhere late because of info provided in the program(odds and works). 5/2 was HUGE for this horse.

LOL, at least you're consistent in how far off base you are in the face of overwhelming evidence and explanations that you are in fact, horribly, and now almost comically, wrong.

[Scav]

I like how said person went to a different thread to sneak some comments in

[Scav]

FYI, there is a first time starter by McPeek today at Keenaland, probably have some steam

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Scav

I like how said person went to a different thread to sneak some comments in

Well look, until we get to the bottom of who this McPeek guy is and what on Earth he's ever done with a 2yo, let alone a first-timer, in the fall at Keeneland, riding some Desormeaux guy he's never used before from the flagrantly unfair 12-hole going one turn, I think we still have an awful lot to talk about and a list of mysteries that need solving.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by kgar311

The only, ONLY
reason they got 5/2 on the horse was because of the 12-1 morning line. If she had been 5-1/11-2 like Steve suggested she would of went off 3/5. Money went elsewhere late because of info provided in the program(odds and works). 5/2 was HUGE for this horse.

I know that everyone else thinks he's crazy but to me, whether or not this happened, this is a very legitimate argument. Maybe a lot of the professional gamblers on here don't pay attention to the m/l odds when assessing a horse's chances but a lot of people going to the windows do. To say that what's listed in the program doesn't influence people at all is wrong, IMO. To what extent it does, I don't know. I remember when I first started playing, I would start off by looking at the m/l and I paid more attention to the horses that were the lowest odds since I assumed those were the ones given the best chances to win. Now, I don't look at the odds until after I've gone over each horse's pps. But I do think kgar is right here. If that horse had been listed at 7/2 or 4/1 on the m/l, she might have ended up at 1/2 odds. When you think of it that way, 5/2 was a great price to end up with on an "open secret" horse. I don't know that anyone was doing anything on purpose but just from reading the comments from all of the sharp players on here, even they know that the horse shouldn't have been 12/1 on the m/l. It's easy to say that Battaglia just blew it on that one and there's every chance that that's the case. I just think that this is not the kind of situation that's going to make people feel good about playing the races.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I just think that this is not the kind of situation that's going to make people feel good about playing the races.

Seriously, I'm not trying to be snarky, but this is the kind of thing that makes me feel GREAT about playing the races.

The morning-line is one of the few items in the program that actually has NO effect on the horse at all. The horse will run the same whether it's 5-1 or 20-1, she doesn't know the difference. So if someone is deliberately choosing to ignore the items that ACTUALLY have to do with the horse, and are instead relying on the morning-line to do their handicapping for them, then it creates great prices for everyone doing their homework. It's not like every angle here listed by people was not right there on paper. The slow works angle has been debunked several times, the 12 post is no hindrance, and it's not like the horse was listed as trained by Jamie Sanders (and really, thought experiment, QUICK what is Ken McPeek known for? If your first answer isn't 2-year olds in the fall, it's South American imports....and then 2-year olds in the fall) and someone missed a late change announcement. Absolutely all of the relevant information needed to peg this horse a contender was listed right there in black and white, and if someone is relying on a morning-line to make their assessment and blaming that when they lose, rather than the fact that they seemingly overlooked EVERY pertinent angle on the horse’s page, it’s an awfully tough call to ask for that to pull at the heartstrings.

Seeing as the ML in no way influences the horse or her talent, it would be similar to me capping the races, seeing tons of relevant angles on a horse called GONNAWINONFRIDAY and then tossing the horse because it’s a Thursday afternoon, before crying to everyone that it was a putover because the horse was obviously not meant to run well on Thursday….because you know, it was right there in the program.

Please.

[kgar311]

King I just dont think these people have the mental capacity to see where im coming from in this, so maybe I should put this in elemntary terms for them.

-ME, average to below average horse player maybe go to track couple times a month
I in Maimi and decide to go to track at 1 in afternoon
I dont watch tvg or am in know of trends
I quick handicap pik 4 along with pal who handicap night before and know of trends
I use program and form and see nothing special about a certain horse
I hit first leg of pik 4
second leg odds flash, 12 even money
I look and I know I get f*cked
I leave track mad with sour taste in mouth after going 3of4 in pik
fools on here think everyone who go to track should know every single detail and every angle or else they big dummy
I go to track for entertainment not to be screwed royally

Oh yea PS: the swarm of people in the winners circle with all the stupid smirks on their face because they all just cashed on a sure thing didnt make me feel better about getting screwed either,
Now another casual better feels slighted and will think twice about going to the track next time and people wonder why horse racing is a dieing game, but its all good because racing can afford to lose more patrons,RIGHT?

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by kgar311

King I just dont think these people have the mental capacity to see where im coming from in this, so maybe I should put this in elemntary terms for them.

-ME, average to below average horse player maybe go to track couple times a month
I in Maimi and decide to go to track at 1 in afternoon
I dont watch tvg or am in know of trends
I quick handicap pik 4 along with pal who handicap night before and know of trends
I use program and form and see nothing special about a certain horse
I hit first leg of pik 4
second leg odds flash, 12 even money
I look and I know I get f*cked
I leave track mad with sour taste in mouth after going 3of4 in pik
fools on here think everyone who go to track should know every single detail and every angle or else they big dummy
I go to track for entertainment not to be screwed royally

I hear ya dude.

Perhaps, though, you should find entertainment from getting screwed.
Royally.

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Seriously, I'm not trying to be snarky, but this is the kind of thing that makes me feel GREAT about playing the races.

The morning-line is one of the few items in the program that actually has NO effect on the horse at all. The horse will run the same whether it's 5-1 or 20-1, she doesn't know the difference. So if someone is deliberately choosing to ignore the items that ACTUALLY have to do with the horse, and are instead relying on the morning-line to do their handicapping for them, then it creates great prices for everyone doing their homework. It's not like every angle here listed by people was not right there on paper. The slow works angle has been debunked several times, the 12 post is no hindrance, and it's not like the horse was listed as trained by Jamie Sanders (and really, thought experiment, QUICK what is Ken McPeek known for? If your first answer isn't 2-year olds in the fall, it's South American imports....and then 2-year olds in the fall) and someone missed a late change announcement. Absolutely all of the relevant information needed to peg this horse a contender was listed right there in black and white, and if someone is relying on a morning-line to make their assessment and blaming that when they lose, rather than the fact that they seemingly overlooked EVERY pertinent angle on the horse’s page, it’s an awfully tough call to ask for that to pull at the heartstrings.

Seeing as the ML in no way influences the horse or her talent, it would be similar to me capping the races, seeing tons of relevant angles on a horse called GONNAWINONFRIDAY and then tossing the horse because it’s a Thursday afternoon, before crying to everyone that it was a putover because the horse was obviously not meant to run well on Thursday….because you know, it was right there in the program.

Please.

I will say one more thing about this then leave it alone.

Hindsight is 20/20 and reading what everyone has said about McPeek and what he does and how he points his horses I cannot disagree with anything here that has been said. Now that being said I only believe that backs up everything ive said about being screwed. If there is so much overwhelming evidence that this horse had a great shot of winning why did it "slip" past the person that gets paid to know this kind of stuff. Here I am a casual bettor it gets by me ok but slips by Mike B too and im the fool for not catching it?

Now i wouldnt be as mad if the horse won going by some collapsing speed or certain things happened to give the horse an advantage. BUT THIS WAS ONE OF THE MOST SENSATIONAL PERFORMANCES BY A 2YR OLD FILLY IVE EVER SEEN. For Mike to not take everything into consideration about McPeek and not know of any of the buzz going around about this horse is hard for me to fathom. I just dont believe he had no knowledge about this horse.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Seriously, I'm not trying to be snarky, but this is the kind of thing that makes me feel GREAT about playing the races.

The morning-line is one of the few items in the program that actually has NO effect on the horse at all. The horse will run the same whether it's 5-1 or 20-1, she doesn't know the difference. So if someone is deliberately choosing to ignore the items that ACTUALLY have to do with the horse, and are instead relying on the morning-line to do their handicapping for them, then it creates great prices for everyone doing their homework. It's not like every angle here listed by people was not right there on paper. The slow works angle has been debunked several times, the 12 post is no hindrance, and it's not like the horse was listed as trained by Jamie Sanders (and really, thought experiment, QUICK what is Ken McPeek known for? If your first answer isn't 2-year olds in the fall, it's South American imports....and then 2-year olds in the fall) and someone missed a late change announcement. Absolutely all of the relevant information needed to peg this horse a contender was listed right there in black and white, and if someone is relying on a morning-line to make their assessment and blaming that when they lose, rather than the fact that they seemingly overlooked EVERY pertinent angle on the horse’s page, it’s an awfully tough call to ask for that to pull at the heartstrings.

Seeing as the ML in no way influences the horse or her talent, it would be similar to me capping the races, seeing tons of relevant angles on a horse called GONNAWINONFRIDAY and then tossing the horse because it’s a Thursday afternoon, before crying to everyone that it was a putover because the horse was obviously not meant to run well on Thursday….because you know, it was right there in the program.

Please.

I get where you are coming from and I understand it. I just don't think that everyone is the most experienced of horseplayers and knows what angles to look for. Sure, it can be argued that if they don't know what they are doing, they shouldn't be putting their money in but if that's the case, the sport will be dead really soon because no new people will come in. You have to start somewhere. Think back to when you first started. Did you know all of the trends and angles? It didn't take me long but when I first started, I didn't know that Mayberry/Siegal (sp) were a lock in 2yo races in Southern Cal. I didn't know that Lukas horses usually needed a race before they showed anything. I didn't know that Frankel was magic with Europeans off the layoff. You learn as you go and now, you know to look for certain things. But most of us, when we are fairly new, don't know those things.

I agree with you 100% that odds don't affect a horse's talent or how he's going to run. But I think you underestimate how they affect how people wager. Say you have a race with Easy Goer, Sunday Silence, Alysheba, Cigar, Unbridled, and Tiznow. You might feel like Sunday Silence and Alysheba are the two likeliest to win the race and have about the same chance of doing so. But you see Sunday Silence at 2/5 and Alysheba at 8/1 on the m/l. Seeing the odds will surely affect the way you bet the race. Or if you see them both start off at 6/1 then as the betting progresses, you see SS start drifting down to 3/2 an Alysheba up to 12/1. You are going to wonder if somebody knows something or if there's something you missed. I think m/l odds and watching the toteboard has a much bigger impact on betting than it seems most of you do. As I said, most people on here are professionals, at least in their own minds if not for real. But you've got to think of it from the viewpoint of the novice. I think it should at least be brought into discussion as to why every single person on here seems to know that the horse should have been much lower than 12/1 and seemingly everyone at the track knew it too......well everyone but the person who's job it is to know. If setting the proper morning line would have meant the horse goes off at 3/5 instead of what she went off at, that's going to make a lot of the professionals happy that he made a mistake that they can take advantage of but leave a sour taste in the mouths of some that trying to get into the game.

[cakes44]

Originally Posted by kgar311

I will say one more thing about this then leave it alone.

Hindsight is 20/20 and reading what everyone has said about McPeek and what he does and how he points his horses I cannot disagree with anything here that has been said. Now that being said I only believe that backs up everything ive said about being screwed. If there is so much overwhelming evidence that this horse had a great shot of winning why did it "slip" past the person that gets paid to know this kind of stuff. Here I am a casual bettor it gets by me ok but slips by Mike B too and im the fool for not catching it?

Now i wouldnt be as mad if the horse won going by some collapsing speed or certain things happened to give the horse an advantage. BUT THIS WAS ONE OF THE MOST SENSATIONAL PERFORMANCES BY A 2YR OLD FILLY IVE EVER SEEN. For Mike to not take everything into consideration about McPeek and not know of any of the buzz going around about this horse is hard for me to fathom. I just dont believe he had no knowledge about this horse.

I thought the morning line was his prediction as to what odds the horse would go off at? What does what Mike B knows about the horse's chances have to do with this?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Think back to when you first started. Did you know all of the trends and angles?

Of course not. But then again, at the age of 17, I also never had the audacity to blame the Arlington Park linemaker when I lost. What I did, which seemed second nature to me then, and still does, is learn from it. Learn that fields with first-timers are notoriously dangerous anywhere in a sequence, and equip myself with as much information as possible to get through those legs...or SIT IT OUT. Sour grapes over getting beat by a first-timer from the McPeek barn at Keeneland in the fall is never going to land anywhere but on deaf ears. You don't need to know "all the angles" to know that...you just have to be paying even the slightest bit of attention. Asking people who want to be taken seriously when critiquing the game to do even that little bit beforehand doesn't strike me as too tough a request. We call PETA out when they complain about horse racing for just that reason, right?

My mom is exactly the kind of bettor Kgar is. She goes from time to time when she's in the area, loves the sport, watches on TV, casually plays, and cashes on occasion. She, too, would never blame the morning-line maker for her loss, despite the fact that she doesn't know all the angles, or even most of them for the matter.

Like I said in the other thread, I have all kinds of sympathy for bad beats. I know how they feel. I know how it feels to see HUGE potential pick-4 payoffs and then get beat in the last leg by a horse who winds up with an uncontested lead that never figured even close to getting that trip on paper. Things like that. There are a million ways to lose in this game, and I'm sympathetic to probably more of them than I should be.

Blaming the oddsmaker for your having left a horse out, however, is not one of them.

[Scav]

The best thing about all this is that this guy thinks that these people knew they had a sure thing with a FIRST TIME STARTER.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Of course not. But then again, at the age of 17, I also never had the audacity to blame the Arlington Park linemaker when I lost. What I did, which seemed second nature to me then, and still does, is learn from it. Learn that fields with first-timers are notoriously dangerous anywhere in a sequence, and equip myself with as much information as possible to get through those legs...or SIT IT OUT. Sour grapes over getting beat by a first-timer from the McPeek barn at Keeneland in the fall is never going to land anywhere but on deaf ears. You don't need to know "all the angles" to know that...you just have to be paying even the slightest bit of attention. Asking people who want to be taken seriously when critiquing the game to do even that little bit beforehand doesn't strike me as too tough a request. We call PETA out when they complain about horse racing for just that reason, right?

My mom is exactly the kind of bettor Kgar is. She goes from time to time when she's in the area, loves the sport, watches on TV, casually plays, and cashes on occasion. She, too, would never blame the morning-line maker for her loss, despite the fact that she doesn't know all the angles, or even most of them for the matter.

Like I said in the other thread, I have all kinds of sympathy for bad beats. I know how they feel. I know how it feels to see HUGE potential pick-4 payoffs and then get beat in the last leg by a horse who winds up with an uncontested lead that never figured even close to getting that trip on paper. Things like that. There are a million ways to lose in this game, and I'm sympathetic to probably more of them than I should be.

Blaming the oddsmaker for your having left a horse out, however, is not one of them.

I haven't taken it as him having blamed the oddsmaker for his decision. I didn't have a dime on the race but I also don't feel good about what happened. I guess it's just a matter of what's important to you. I'll leave it alone.

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Of course not. But then again, at the age of 17, I also never had the audacity to blame the Arlington Park linemaker when I lost. What I did, which seemed second nature to me then, and still does, is learn from it. Learn that fields with first-timers are notoriously dangerous anywhere in a sequence, and equip myself with as much information as possible to get through those legs...or SIT IT OUT. Sour grapes over getting beat by a first-timer from the McPeek barn at Keeneland in the fall is never going to land anywhere but on deaf ears. You don't need to know "all the angles" to know that...you just have to be paying even the slightest bit of attention. Asking people who want to be taken seriously when critiquing the game to do even that little bit beforehand doesn't strike me as too tough a request. We call PETA out when they complain about horse racing for just that reason, right?

My mom is exactly the kind of bettor Kgar is. She goes from time to time when she's in the area, loves the sport, watches on TV, casually plays, and cashes on occasion. She, too, would never blame the morning-line maker for her loss, despite the fact that she doesn't know all the angles, or even most of them for the matter.

Like I said in the other thread, I have all kinds of sympathy for bad beats. I know how they feel. I know how it feels to see HUGE potential pick-4 payoffs and then get beat in the last leg by a horse who winds up with an uncontested lead that never figured even close to getting that trip on paper. Things like that. There are a million ways to lose in this game, and I'm sympathetic to probably more of them than I should be.

Blaming the oddsmaker for your having left a horse out, however, is not one of them.

The only reason I blame the oddsmaker on this one is because I believe he had prior knowledge that she was some sort of freak. You cannot have a drove of people in the winners circle and everyone and their mother hammering this horse and be an "inside" guy and not have any knowledge about this horse. Believe me he wasn't the ONLY person on that track that didn't have the word about this horse, too many people knew to keep this a secret from him.
My OPINION is that he had the info, didnt think as many people had the info as actually did and over compensated on the odds as to not piss the trainer or the owner or who ever gave him the info off(maybe a high roller) so she wouldn't go off 1/2 and not give him any info ever again. That 5/2 made someone a ton of money along with a single for the pik 4 that paid 1100 and change for 50 cents.

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by Scav

The best thing about all this is that this guy thinks that these people knew they had a sure thing with a FIRST TIME STARTER.

ARE YOU F-ING KIDDING ME????????????????? DID YOU SEE THE RACE????????? THIS WAS AS SURE AS YOU COULD EVER GET

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by kgar311

The only reason I blame the oddsmaker on this one is because I believe he had prior knowledge that she was some sort of freak. You cannot have a drove of people in the winners circle and everyone and their mother hammering this horse and be an "inside" guy and not have any knowledge about this horse. Believe me he wasn't the ONLY person on that track that didn't have the word about this horse, too many people knew to keep this a secret from him.
My OPINION is that he had the info, didnt think as many people had the info as actually did and over compensated on the odds as to not piss the trainer or the owner or who ever gave him the info off(maybe a high roller) so she wouldn't go off 1/2 and not give him any info ever again. That 5/2 made someone a ton of money along with a single for the pik 4 that paid 1100 and change for 50 cents.

Well all that is a little too much conspiracy theoriest talk for my tastes...but to each his own.

I'd sooner just take responsibility for constructing a losing ticket while leaving off a blindingly obvious horse.

There's no winning on this for anyone so I'll let it go unless some other crazy angle comes up in subsequent posts, because you're convinced that Keeneland, Mike Battaglia, and Brooklyn Boyz were out to get you, and everyone else is convinced that reading the form is the best way to handicap. Again, to each his own.

[tector]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Real obscure looking pedigree - but his 2nd dam is the Iron New York Bred millionaire mare Lottsa Talc .

Agreed. The pedigree is weak. However, the races have been impressive enough. It would not surprise me to see him purchased out of here.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by kgar311

ARE YOU F-ING KIDDING ME????????????????? DID YOU SEE THE RACE????????? THIS WAS AS SURE AS YOU COULD EVER GET

No, I am not kidding you. You have no idea about first time starters and how they are going to run, EVER. Trust me, those people were out there becuase their horse was running and they were enjoying the day, I am guessing not a single one thought she would run like that.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by tector

the races have been impressive enough. It would not surprise me to see him purchased out of here.

I agree. Stumbling at the start, being hung out wide on the first turn, and still running a 100 as a 2yo trying two turns for the first time sure impressed me.
The pedigree is obviously not strong, but the fact that he is already "proven" around two turns - along with the fact that the dam's only other foal is a two-time stakes winner at a mile and a mile-70 - might alleviate some of the concerns of a potential buyer hoping to purchase him as a TC-trail horse. I expect they'll get some nice offers......(depending on what his ML-odds were for that race).