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

Taking nothing away from what was an ultra impressive performance by Connie and Micheal in the 8th at Keeneland on Saturday my question is, are there any penalties for these guys trying to hide a freak of a horse by slapping 101 and 103 works on a first time starter and then throwing 12-1ml on her?

This was a clear cut case of trying to screw the betting public to try and get a price on a horse that, by looking at the opening odds (even money) and the contingent in the winners circle after race(about 50 deep), obviously everybody(on track) knew was going to win by the length of the track.

If you didnt see the race this was a 2yr old filly, first time starter breaking from the 12 hole going 7f. She had to work for the lead a little but once clear went 22, 45, 110 and finished up 122.3 winning by over 7 lengths under a hand ride.

The reason why it makes me mad is because it was the second leg of the pick 4 and if you didnt have the inside info there's no way you could put this horse in your pik, in which I did not and it ended up costing me.

I'm not going to comment on the 12-1ML because I don't know the rest of the field that well, but why do you think there is an automatic correlation between morning works and afternoon peformances?

The horse was an absloute freak monster and NO WAY was throwing out shitty workouts like they put down in the form. And that was made very clear by the horse opening up even money. This was a clear case of cheating on the clockers part, now the odds maker im not sure but this seems too planned out for me.

Sometimes it is the barn hiding workouts and the clocker is only reporting the actual workout time. Maybe the filly wasn't asked to do too much so as not to tip their hand in the morning with the hopes of cashing a bet.

I don't know the specifics with the horse you're talking about so I'm not insinuating this is what happened...but to blame the clocker and morning line maker isn't really justified. Really is nothing new...it has happened many times before at just about every race track in the country at one time or another.

Im calling foul, if your horse is really working 103 and change in the mornings how do you know what you have? When every one unloaded on this horse where they simply guessing that this might be a good horse? Not one work justified that this horse open up even money especially a first time 2year old filly starter coming out of the 12 hole.

You sometimes know. It is also the other way around. They can work lights out and then throw duds in the afternoon.

Works on paper mean absolutely NOTHING. I only look at the progression if that is even there.

A perfect example is something that is happening at Keeneland. There has been a bunch of horses that have been coming off layoffs and they have had only one work on the page, it is because they have been working on the guys farm or a layup facility, and those places don't have to give times.

I'm not going to justify some of the backstretch shenanigans that go on (this is another area where a Trackus-like system would help in terms of transparency), but if the race is the second leg of the pic-4 and the track has rolling doubles (Keeneland does), they will often provide a better clue than the morning line. Of course, if the race is the third or fourth leg of the sequence, you are really betting "on the blind."

Looking at the horse and it's prior workouts...back to back bullets going 4 furlongs at Churchill in September would give somewhat of a hint of talent.

I totally understand where kgar is coming from. There was simply nothing to indicate that horse should have been even money to open up. She was the co-sixth choice on the m/l (with three other horses) yet she opened at even money and ended up as the 5/2 favorite. Your first thought was that someone has come and put some money on her. Maybe they've been tipped that she's better than her m/l and is really live. When she ran away and hid from them, I was surprised but not really questioning it. These things happen, especially with firsters when nobody really knows what to expect. Then you see that winner's circle and think about those odds and you realize that everyone and their mother knew what to expect. I don't know that the clockers did their job incorrectly because those might have been actual work times. But, IMO, the odds maker did not do their job properly. Whether it was on purpose or an honest mistake, I couldn't say but there clearly was a strange feeling, and I'd even say it was a negative feeling, about the whole thing.

If they were trying to 'hide' something they didn't do a good job as the filly opened at even money. And Battaglia ( think he makes the ML ) can't be responsible for knowing every horse on the grounds.

How many times have we seen a DT horse open up at real short odds off of a high M/L? Lots.

So, given your mention of 50 people in the photo, you kind of solved your own conspiracy - large groups bet their horses, and they usually make most of their bets before the horse even enters the paddock.

Sometimes betting is not just about the horses but also about knowing the owners.....

The funny part about the whole thing was all the people in the winners circle just made the win bet. They were obviously there to make a win bet on a sure thing and get their picture taken.

Check out the Pick4 payoff

5/2 5/2 8-1 3-1
$2 ticket paid $4624.40

I'm trying to folow your logic, but you can't mean that because they had a large group of people, they expected to win? Obviously there was some knowledge of this horse based on what it opened at, but you have too many slipperly slopes about this, IMO.

As far as the Pick 4 payoff, it was high without question based on a win parlay but remember that two huge favorites were beaten in the sequence and I don't think Hot Cha Cha played like 8-1 in the multi-race plays.

There were certainly not a great deal of Pick 4 players who chose to beat both Warrior's Reward and Gozzip Girl.

NT

Im glad that you think everything is on the up and up here Bob. Lets just chalk this up to good handicapping by the betting public and not letting those 103 workouts by a 2yr old filly staring for the first time out of the 12 hole get by them.
I will never underestimate the smarts of the betting public again and never ever will I bet against a favorite as long as I live.:wf

The filly made the ticket PERIOD, Warriors Reward is a rat and I thought GG was huge bet against. I bet Hot Cha Cha to win but needed GG for second for a large ex ticket.

hmmmmm.... I really should just stay out of this thread... but I will say that the time of a workout is much less important than how it is accomplished... what were the splits??... slow early then fast late???... under a strangle hold or being urged to give all by the rider???... in company or working alone??.... if in company with whom???... how was the gallop out for the next furlong or two???

There is a saying about making assumptions.....

I think Battaglia blew the morning line and at most, they didn't ask the horse for much in the mornings. Someone pointed to the bullet at CD earlier so there was some indication about his talent. I just think to have this grassy knoll theory involving clockers is giving them too much credit. If anything, blame the trainer..or give him his creds for getting the horse to the race on top of his game and not wasting energy going .58 in the AM.

Wait, a first-time starter took unexpected early money (while being owned by a huge group of people) and then ran well?

I don't think that has ever happened before!

Easy way to avoid this problem, don't bet firsters or races involved with them....Tough to make a line on baby races.

I think she was doing 58 in the morning

Sounds like you got smoked on the race and you are feeling the pain.

I haven't seen any other track do this, but Keeneland is offering clocker's comments:
http://ww2.keeneland.com/racing/Lists/copy/intoday.aspx

As far as this particular filly goes, they had commented on TVG that the word was out that she was a runner and McPeek is obviously having a fantastic meet this fall.

It was a McPeek horse also??

This gets better and better.

The guy points all his horses for the Keeneland meets, specifically. Every single one of his horses has been live. And the ones that are the most dangerous are the ones that show absolutely nothing first out at another track, 20/1 ML and they open up at 10/1..

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.

:rolleyes:

It's called gambling for a reason.

Yup. :) I think he has a good chance to do well with his juvies in the BC too.

Also, I'd be more pissed if I bet on that McLaughlin hyped because of pedigree horse in this race....

Not to mention that lots of folks see early money as "smart money" on unraced horses. So, either way, if she's owned by as gigantic a group as you say, then naturally they're going to bet her.

They bet her hard, she opens at low odds.

Others with no information at all see a firster with solid back works, breaking from the 12 for a competent conditioner, open as the heavily bet chalk and say "hey, someone knows something."

In a race like that, a horse like that taking lots of early money marked her as a contender, so she continued to get bet. Big deal.

Plus, it's not like this "post 12" thing is some giant conspiracy....considering that this Spring, from limited starters in one-turn main track races, it was the 4th most advantageous post as far as percentage of winners....and get this -- last fall? The MOST advantageous post for one-turn main track races, when runners breaking from that wild hellhole won an almost unfathomable 23% of their races.

Not everyone.

Yeah, ok...From a trainer who never works his horses fast, points for the Keeneland meet, and all, and I mean ALL his horses are getting bet off the board, you must never score on an Assmussen first timer either.....

FTS's ... ya gotta love em... :$: :$:

That ownership crap has nothing to do with it now that it is out it was a McPeek horse.

And trust me, there is only a few owners out there that mess with the odds, Averil is one of them, all his horses get pounded because he is a maniac.

This strikes me as having a little post of the year potential.

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.

So you have never profited from these "deceptive" practices that are so prevalent in racing? If you had figured out on your own that this was a live one, you wouldn't have bet it because you wouldn't have wanted to be a party to the deception, right?

kgar,

Understand the frustration missing the play, but it wasn't a tremendous stretch to include the McPeek firster on any multi-race play Saturday. You say you rely on the program info available, well there was a variety of info that was out there, including the lead DRF capper for Keeneland who picked Connie and Michael 2nd. I included her 4th in my selections and on the P4 ticket as well.

This wasn't some hidden horse that was a devious put-over.

STEVE KLEIN'S FORM ANALYSIS:

1. Star Recruit
2. Connie and Michael
3. Cactus Cadillac

STAR RECRUIT broke slowly, then rallied from 10th to finish third against maiden specials going six furlongs at Presque. She shows an impressive work tab on this track with a half-mile breeze in :47.20, and five furlongs in :59.00. Trainer Eric Reed has won with 24 percent of his maidens making their second career start, with a $2.23 ROI. This filly should like the extra furlong she'll be asked to cover today. CONNIE AND MICHAEL debuts for Ken McPeek, who has won with 16 percent of his first-time starters with a $2.00 ROI. The McPeek/Desormeaux combination has a 24 percent win rate since 2008. This filly owns a nice work tab, and should be ready to roll at first asking. CACTUS CADILLAC finished third at Ellis and a close second at Turfway, but the first-time starters in this field will probably make this a tougher task.

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.

Seriously maybe I'm missing the point of this post, but you're saying that if Battaglia had made the horse 6-1 or 8-1 you maybe would have bet the horse?

That essentially means you're relying on the morning-line maker to do your handicapping for you, doesn't it? All the same information would have been there. Would the "slow" works have looked more appealing with an 8-1 next to them than a 12-1?

Maybe it's just me and some people around here that I know -- but a ML overlay in the middle of the sequence is a blessing for most multi-race players I know...for reasons exactly like this. If people are relying on the ML maker to help guide them in their handicapping once they cap and survive the first leg, and you can pluck a ridiculous overlay at 12-1 on the ML when you know the horse should be 5-2 or 9-2 or whatever it is, then you're almost always going to get an overlay in the multi-race payouts too.

Me? I'm perfectly happy with that happening, and as a horizontal player, am indebted to line-makers who totally blow lines on horses I like by pegging them much higher than they should be...exactly because of things like this, and the payouts are inflated because of it.

That's fair about the ML. I take them at face value and I think Battaglia is generally thought of as a very good oddsmaker. You're well within rights to cite 12-1 as a bad line on the filly though. Personally, I thought Star Recruit, Cast Call and Elarose all 'looked' better with debuts under their belts then her, and tabbed them 1-2-3. Indeed, the first FTS I considered was McPeek's, so I guess if there was a line attached to that, 5-1/11-2 would be about right.

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.