"Inside" information & misguided public?

Holland Hacker · #1 03-11-2007, 08:03 PM

I was at Aqueduct today but it could have been happened anywhere. There was a first time starter listed at something like 8-1 in the ML and went off at close to 2-1. As my friend was walking away from the windows he over heard some one saying that the trainer had put $$$ down on the horse. He also said that the he heard someone say that the morning clocker was given the wrong name for the horse when this horse worked out in the morning. There was no way this horse would have been bet down with the published works 1:03 +/- for the last two work.

I guess I wouldn't have cared or bothered to post this if the horse didn't win but it actually won and and won for fun, I think the horse drew off by 8 - 10 lengths.

My questions to you guys are:

Do you think this is a common practice among certain trainers and is it unaoivdable?

Should we basically ignore the published work outs horse in the mornings?

paisjpq · #2 03-11-2007, 08:07 PM

I am suspicious enough to think that it goes on...how often is anyone's guess.
But because of that I always take workout times with a healthy grain of salt...more important than the time (for me anyway) is the regularity of the works, it means more to me that the horse has been getting to the track on a regular basis than the horse having a bunch of fast (or slow) works, which may or may not be accurate.

robfla · #3 03-11-2007, 08:21 PM

reminds me of Gulfstream and a trainer Guiseppe Iandisernia, "training" for THE BIG STABLE. They ran another one today that won at about 7-1. ( GP Race 1 )They started off the meet with some $100+ winners. The public is starting to get hip to this stable, and the 12-1 morning line went to 7-1. two weeks ago they had a 20-1 morning line win @ 9-2 ( after two speed scratches made the MSW drop down lone speed ). I can assure you the people that own the horses are sending it in. I went to the winner's circle 2 weeks ago and recognized the owners and they have many other horses with another trainer, so they probably just set this guy up to get great value, as he is an unknown.

Prior to today's race jockey AO Stanley's ROI for the trainer was $12.04. Not too shabby, eh?

are situations like this good for the game?

blackthroatedwind · #4 03-11-2007, 08:57 PM

It's a horseplayer's job to understand money being bet on first time starters.

To start with the Bush horse at Aqueduct today....Tom Bush shows a 3% win percentage ( in his case 1-34 ) with first time starters in DRF. Yet, this horse was bet like IRON. That's all you need to know. His workouts ( which, yes, I don't trust ) don't matter. You see plenty of horses making their first starts with fast works, sometimes from good trainers, that take no money at the windows and they rarely win. When a trainer like Tom Bush, who's a good trainer but has done poorly with firsters, gets bet like today you, the horseplayer, are at fault for not using him. The board is WAY more telling than workouts will ever be...at least printed works that is. Even if they are accurate, unless you or someone you know sees them, you have no idea what conditions they were earned under.

The bottom line.....horseplayers are MUCH better off getting to know what kind of action trainers take on their firsters ( live and dead ) and following the board from there. Some trainers are dead at 4-1....while others are live at 12-1.

Now, the Big Stable.....when they won with their first firster of the meet ( they won with one more ) I called Beyer right after the race and said the putover horse of the year just won. A trainer we never heard of, a jockey we never heard of, and the horse aired. It did NOT seem random. Now, luckily for me, Beyer noted this better than I did, as he was the one who reminded me when they had their next firster. We both bet.....and scored with the horse at 35-1. Subsequently, the horse that won today's first, was bet VERY strongly in his next start, after finishing around last at 89-1 in his first Gulfstream start. That was enough for me....and I cashed on a visually impressive win at 10-1. I made a small bet on another winner of there's, a 9-2 shot dropping from MSW to maiden claimers, who flashed speed in his debut.

The lesson is that the signals were sent out by the Big Stable very early in the meet, and without any information, some of us were able to capitalize on their victories. That's our job. I'm sure I also miss a lot but it is incumbant on every horse player to figure out for themselves how to make money on putovers. It can be done.

robfla · #5 03-11-2007, 09:10 PM

I was curious, sir. I read in a post a while back that you asked Mr. Beyer not to write that article that he did about this topic. Why is that? if i can be so bold to ask

blackthroatedwind · #6 03-11-2007, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robfla

I was curious, sir. I read in a post a while back that you asked Mr. Beyer not to write that article that he did about this topic. Why is that? if i can be so bold to ask

Well, I was sort of kidding him, but honestly, I didn't feel a need to share that information with the general public. It's not like I was doing any type of public handicapping at that time.

Sightseek · #7 03-11-2007, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

It's a horseplayer's job to understand money being bet on first time starters.

To start with the Bush horse at Aqueduct today....Tom Bush shows a 3% win percentage ( in his case 1-34 ) with first time starters in DRF. Yet, this horse was bet like IRON. That's all you need to know. His workouts ( which, yes, I don't trust ) don't matter. You see plenty of horses making their first starts with fast works, sometimes from good trainers, that take no money at the windows and they rarely win. When a trainer like Tom Bush, who's a good trainer but has done poorly with firsters, gets bet like today you, the horseplayer, are at fault for not using him. The board is WAY more telling than workouts will ever be...at least printed works that is. Even if they are accurate, unless you or someone you know sees them, you have no idea what conditions they were earned under.

The bottom line.....horseplayers are MUCH better off getting to know what kind of action trainers take on their firsters ( live and dead ) and following the board from there. Some trainers are dead at 4-1....while others are live at 12-1.

Now, the Big Stable.....when they won with their first firster of the meet ( they won with one more ) I called Beyer right after the race and said the putover horse of the year just won. A trainer we never heard of, a jockey we never heard of, and the horse aired. It did NOT seem random. Now, luckily for me, Beyer noted this better than I did, as he was the one who reminded me when they had their next firster. We both bet.....and scored with the horse at 35-1. Subsequently, the horse that won today's first, was bet VERY strongly in his next start, after finishing around last at 89-1 in his first Gulfstream start. That was enough for me....and I cashed on a visually impressive win at 10-1. I made a small bet on another winner of there's, a 9-2 shot dropping from MSW to maiden claimers, who flashed speed in his debut.

The lesson is that the signals were sent out by the Big Stable very early in the meet, and without any information, some of us were able to capitalize on their victories. That's our job. I'm sure I also miss a lot but it is incumbant on every horse player to figure out for themselves how to make money on putovers. It can be done.

I'm really glad you pointed this out, because I, in my infancy of betting, run up to the windows thinking I got some clever price on the horse trained by a better 'first time out trainer' when generally that isn't the case. Excellent point and I think sometimes as a novice you over-emphasize the stats that are in the pp's like trainer/jock combos, sire, lay-offs etc.

Thoroughbred Fan · #8 03-11-2007, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

It's a horseplayer's job to understand money being bet on first time starters.

To start with the Bush horse at Aqueduct today....Tom Bush shows a 3% win percentage ( in his case 1-34 ) with first time starters in DRF. Yet, this horse was bet like IRON. That's all you need to know. His workouts ( which, yes, I don't trust ) don't matter. You see plenty of horses making their first starts with fast works, sometimes from good trainers, that take no money at the windows and they rarely win. When a trainer like Tom Bush, who's a good trainer but has done poorly with firsters, gets bet like today you, the horseplayer, are at fault for not using him. The board is WAY more telling than workouts will ever be...at least printed works that is. Even if they are accurate, unless you or someone you know sees them, you have no idea what conditions they were earned under.

The bottom line.....horseplayers are MUCH better off getting to know what kind of action trainers take on their firsters ( live and dead ) and following the board from there. Some trainers are dead at 4-1....while others are live at 12-1.

Now, the Big Stable.....when they won with their first firster of the meet ( they won with one more ) I called Beyer right after the race and said the putover horse of the year just won. A trainer we never heard of, a jockey we never heard of, and the horse aired. It did NOT seem random. Now, luckily for me, Beyer noted this better than I did, as he was the one who reminded me when they had their next firster. We both bet.....and scored with the horse at 35-1. Subsequently, the horse that won today's first, was bet VERY strongly in his next start, after finishing around last at 89-1 in his first Gulfstream start. That was enough for me....and I cashed on a visually impressive win at 10-1. I made a small bet on another winner of there's, a 9-2 shot dropping from MSW to maiden claimers, who flashed speed in his debut.

The lesson is that the signals were sent out by the Big Stable very early in the meet, and without any information, some of us were able to capitalize on their victories. That's our job. I'm sure I also miss a lot but it is incumbant on every horse player to figure out for themselves how to make money on putovers. It can be done.

Well you should have shared with us loyal DTers. We all like 35-1. It wouldn't have made it worse than 32-1 if you had shared. Thanks.

blackthroatedwind · #9 03-11-2007, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thoroughbred Fan

Well you ahould have shared with us loyal DTers. We all like 35-1. It wouldn't have made it worse than 32-1 if you had shared. Thanks.

I will tell you a story....

On December 31st 1994 I had the flu. I was so sick that I couldn't get out of bed. As you probably know the entire Pick-6 pool has to be distributed on the last day of every meet as well as the final day of the year. There was also a carryover going into the day. As it happened I liked a Pat Kelly horse quite a bit that day named Unction. I made a pretty good bet on him, as well as the 8th winner, a shipper I believe named Double Calvados ( or something like that ) I also played a small Pick-3 into the horse. Because I was sick, and the races weren't yet on TV, I couldn't watch, and fell asleep. When I got up, I found out that Unction, who was in the second leg of the Pick-6, paid $57 and Double Calvados won the feature ( 4 or 5 to 1 ) and I hit the Pick-3 on a small 2 x 3 x 1 play. I made a bunch of money, but when I started to get a clearer head, I realized a Kimmel firster, at 2-1 ( and this was when he really used to win with firsters ), won one of the other legs of the Pick-6 and a Jolley maiden ( when he used to win ) won the other leg at 2-1 and the Pick-6 paid around $55K. I played the Pick-6 frequently then, and there was really little doubt, at least to me, that I would have hit it. But, hey, that's the way it goes.

However, the next day I found out that someone I knew had hit it. Now, that's cool. But then I found out that he only hit it because one of my few friends I had told about Unction told him I really liked the horse, so he threw him in.

It didn't make me feel better considering the entire situation. It was one thing for me to have been out of action but it was another to hear that someone else won the money I felt I could easily have had because of me. Nothing against the guy that won, I'm happy for him, but I also decided that I would do whatever I could not to let something like that happen again. So, unless I am being paid for my selections, i.e. doing handicapping shows, you'll have to excuse me if I am frugal with my opinion.

Linny · #10 03-12-2007, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thoroughbred Fan

Well you should have shared with us loyal DTers. We all like 35-1. It wouldn't have made it worse than 32-1 if you had shared. Thanks.

I was the one with the friend with the 35-1 shot. I sat at a table with her, going over the races and she didn't say a word to me until the horse was 2 lengths in front! She didn't give him to me!

outofthebox · #11 03-11-2007, 08:59 PM

I doubt the trainer gave the wrong name to the clockers. the work in question was from the gate and all names are reported to the gate crew. And since this particular horse had had many trips to the gate for schooling im quite sure the identity of this horse was never in doubt. Now about a legitimate time of the workout i am not sure about, i was not there to verify it. But what from what i heard the work was much faster than posted. Not the first time its happened, wont be the last.

blackthroatedwind · #12 03-11-2007, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outofthebox

I doubt the trainer gave the wrong name to the clockers. the work in question was from the gate and all names are reported to the gate crew. And since this particular horse had had many trips to the gate for schooling im quite sure the identity of this horse was never in doubt. Now about a legitimate time of the workout i am not sure about, i was not there to verify it. But what from what i heard the work was much faster than posted. Not the first time its happened, wont be the last.

I'll use one of your horses as a good example. You were enduring a horrible meet up at Saratoga ( sorry ) and your first timers were doing particularly poorly. However, these firsters were all dead on the board, each seemingly going off at 40-1 or more. Well, now we come to the final weekend, and the soon to return Kong's Revenge showed up. It was a typically strong looking Saturday maiden race at Saratoga and there was Kong's Revenge at 4-1 early in the betting. You don't need to hit me over the head. He drifted to 11-1, still a short price for your stable's Saratoga firsters, and aired.

Seattleallstar · #13 03-11-2007, 09:07 PM

there was a horse like that at Hawthorne today in a mdn clm race, it was unbridled something

Sightseek · #14 03-11-2007, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I'll use one of your horses as a good example. You were enduring a horrible meet up at Saratoga ( sorry ) and your first timers were doing particularly poorly. However, these firsters were all dead on the board, each seemingly going off at 40-1 or more. Well, now we come to the final weekend, and the soon to return Kong's Revenge showed up. It was a typically strong looking Saturday maiden race at Saratoga and there was Kong's Revenge at 4-1 early in the betting. You don't need to hit me over the head. He drifted to 11-1, still a short price for your stable's Saratoga firsters, and aired.

Thank you for that outofthebox!!

outofthebox · #15 03-11-2007, 09:12 PM

Your 100% right. You have to know your barns, and definately watch the board and the action it takes. Kongs Revenge is a great example you posted. He wasnt working so particurly fast, but Cornelio V was just crazy about him everytime he worked him. That gave us alot of confidence that a top jockey really liked him..

Honu · #16 03-11-2007, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holland Hacker

I was at Aqueduct today but it could have been happened anywhere. There was a first time starter listed at something like 8-1 in the ML and went off at close to 2-1. As my friend was walking away from the windows he over heard some one saying that the trainer had put $$$ down on the horse. He also said that the he heard someone say that the morning clocker was given the wrong name for the horse when this horse worked out in the morning. There was no way this horse would have been bet down with the published works 1:03 +/- for the last two work.

I guess I wouldn't have cared or bothered to post this if the horse didn't win but it actually won and and won for fun, I think the horse drew off by 8 - 10 lengths.

My questions to you guys are:

Do you think this is a common practice among certain trainers and is it unaoivdable?

Should we basically ignore the published work outs horse in the mornings?

But did the morning clockers know what the riders instructions were? Alot of times public and private clockers watch a horse work and they think they arent much but they dont know what the exercise riders or jockeys instructions were.
I cant tell you how many times I have worked a horse with another horse and the boss has said " listen this horse is going to run in 6 days DO NOT BEAT HIM " " dont even gallop out by him". Its important , I see private clockers all the time in the grandstand at Hollywood and to tell you the truth they remind me of pigeons , just lookin for somethin they can peck on.

Grits · #17 03-11-2007, 09:48 PM

Another trainer in at GP that I've noted and am not at all familiar with this season is Javier Negrete? Jeffrey Sanchez rides.

I don't have anything in front of me tonight, but if I recall, he's popped huge. I've found myself thinking, "hey where's this one from?" A former assistant possibly?

Anyone else notice him?

The Bid · #18 03-11-2007, 09:54 PM

Hes a nice guy. I dont know where hes from, has a slight accent, but sharp

Grits · #19 03-11-2007, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bid

Hes a nice guy. I dont know where hes from, has a slight accent, but sharp

I don't recall seeing him at GP prior to this year.

Linny · #20 03-11-2007, 10:25 PM

Speaking of firsters... i was at the Big A yesterday with a skeptical (and often right) friend who works for an AQU trainer. She had the "outofthebox" firster that "dead heated" for second. The works were average but the breeding was great for a debut win. She doubted the works and was rewarded (though I think she was screwed by the DH, the horse ran second

) with the EX.
I had a bad day with maidens as Triumphal looked like the goods to me and was passed late. The winner saved some folks who really bet the other 1/2 of the entry. I did get to feed Triumphal some peppermints after the races and he thinks the jock asked him way too soon!

As for Bush, didn't he used to win first out at about 15%? If that's the case, he may have just hit a patch where some didn't fire as expected or ran into buzz saws. He may also have gotten a few "different" horses ie: a few owners decided to focus on distance racing or grass, where "win early" is very hard.