Jockey shenanigans mar BC prep races

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but one can bet him, or not, accordingly. it's there in the pp's to see he's a speedster.however, no one is going to know by reading pp's that the longshot will be ridden so as to impede another horse, and then be pulled up and not bothered to finish. bettors have no way to act accordingly, because they don't know ahead of time.
but i guess we're 'supposed' to know which longshots are live, and which are just there to be a traffic cone. how we're supposed to know that i'm not sure.
so, bettors get told tough and nothing is done, and bettors are just whiners.
but, hey, keep betting tho!

You also can see that there is a trainer who has two horses entered and one is clearly superior to the other. While one's intention may be more evident than the other, there is a choice you can make to bet accordingly as you put it.

It doesn't change the fact that in both cases there is a possibility that your money is lost before the race begins.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

You also can see that there is a trainer who has two horses entered and one is clearly superior to the other. While one's intention may be more evident than the other, there is a choice you can make to bet accordingly as you put it.

It doesn't change the fact that in both cases there is a possibility that your money is lost before the race begins.

Again, why should I waste my money on this game if I have to figure stuff like that out?

This is why it was a big deal, to protect the betting public on something I think most people will agree, never happens.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

You also can see that there is a trainer who has two horses entered and one is clearly superior to the other. While one's intention may be more evident than the other, there is a choice you can make to bet accordingly as you put it.

It doesn't change the fact that in both cases there is a possibility that your money is lost before the race begins.

everyone knows that it could be lost before each race.
yes, trainers enter more than one horse sometimes, and sometimes the less highly thought of horse wins-so, again, not sure how to figure out who is entered because he has a shot, or who is entered to run interference.
but, i guess bettors know now that it's another turd in the punchbowl to worry about...
and then we all wonder why people move their gambling to other venues.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

Again, why should I waste my money on this game if I have to figure stuff like that out?

This is why it was a big deal, to protect the betting public on something I think most people will agree, never happens.

nope, not a big deal at all. it's all good, keep forking over the money. something happens you raise a brow at? that's just whining. have a question because you see something that makes you go hmmm? nothing to see here, move along.
but keep forking over the money.

they need to go back to coupling these entries.

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by Danzig

nope, not a big deal at all. it's all good, keep forking over the money. something happens you raise a brow at? that's just whining. have a question because you see something that makes you go hmmm? nothing to see here, move along.
but keep forking over the money.

they need to go back to coupling these entries.

This is the answer to the issue of protecting the betting public from wagering on a hopeless longshot. It won't change what happened in the race. Being that I was playing devil's advocate only on the issue of uncoupled entries, I understand the tactics of Espinosa were more dangerous than the tactics employed by a rabbit, and I think that really should be the issue here.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Danzig

nope, not a big deal at all. it's all good, keep forking over the money. something happens you raise a brow at? that's just whining. have a question because you see something that makes you go hmmm? nothing to see here, move along.
but keep forking over the money.

they need to go back to coupling these entries.

Your new avatar is creeping me out, please advise.

[pointman]

The difference is really simple. Running a rabbit, or to simplify it to its core, running a horse as fast as they can for as long as the horse can go is simply within the rules of the game.

Herding is against the rules and is something that drives the bettors crazy because it is giving a horse an unfair advantage over an opponent.

BTW, I did not bet Sky Kingdom and frankly thought he had no shot on paper.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Your new avatar is creeping me out, please advise.

lol
you're not familiar with bitch pudding from robot chicken?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

This is the answer to the issue of protecting the betting public from wagering on a hopeless longshot. It won't change what happened in the race. Being that I was playing devil's advocate only on the issue of uncoupled entries, I understand the tactics of Espinosa were more dangerous than the tactics employed by a rabbit, and I think that really should be the issue here.

that's another issue, and one worth considering as well-and can be much more serious. several jocks have had careers ended, or worse, due to an idiot jockey.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

Again, why should I waste my money on this game if I have to figure stuff like that out?

This is why it was a big deal, to protect the betting public on something I think most people will agree, never happens.

Never happens? Really?

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Never happens? Really?

Please show me the races where a horse was intentionally floated that wide in the first turn?

Last time I can remember was Borel doing that to Life at Ten on RA only to lose at the end, it was a horrendous ride by my book.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

Please show me the races where a horse was intentionally floated that wide in the first turn?

Last time I can remember was Borel doing that to Life at Ten on RA only to lose at the end, it was a horrendous ride by my book.