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

[brianwspencer]

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.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

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.

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.

[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.

[Kasept]

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.

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by Kasept

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.

[brianwspencer]

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.

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.

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

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.

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.

[Kasept]

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.

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.

[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.

[docicu3]

The key to the race was the board and the pattern of money played which unfortunately doesn't help with the P4. 5 minutes from the open of play for the 8th race Saturday I looked at the board and saw that my intended play, #7 Star Recruit, was 7-1 while I expected a third of that.

At that point I realized Star Recruit was unlikely to win and I would need to scale back the intended play, but I would continue to watch the board and see if the first lump sums on the #12 Connie and Michael were supported with additional lump sums which did continue right up to post time.

The play was to read the board and accept the exacta being advertised by the pattern and the money sustained on the FTS. While I agree there are times FTS take early and excessive money this seemed like far more and I wished I trusted my instincts here a little bit more.

[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

[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

[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!!