Gomez Clinches 4th Money Title In a Row

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

how and when was it determined that he lied? has he admitted to it? If not then why do you make assertions like this as if you know it to be a fact?

I also don't buy the argument that multirace bettors have calculated things down to a specific number of lengths that a rider will cost a horse. Gomez sometimes costs a horse a length. You never know how its going to play out. You're implying that somebody figured the horse could win but kept it off their ticket because they felt Pedroza would not get the job done by costing the horse a length? please. there are many things to worry about in racing that effect bettors. this isn't one of them.

If you listen to Gomez's agent on the radio show out of California (forget the name), it is obvious. They don't even try to hide it. Why assert I'm making false allegations if you didn't bother to investigate? You are doing exactly what you throw at me.

As for you other assertions, you are wrong. There are people that do exactly what you say shouldn't be worried about. They obviously are using computers and jockey ability is a part of the equation. I also suspect they are much better gamblers than you.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

If you listen to Gomez's agent on the radio show out of California (forget the name), it is obvious. They don't even try to hide it. Why assert I'm making false allegations if you didn't bother to investigate? You are doing exactly what you throw at me.

As for you other assertions, you are wrong. There are people that do exactly what you say shouldn't be worried about. They obviously are using computers and jockey ability is a part of the equation. I also suspect they are much better gamblers than you.

It obviously was a unique situation and really what could be done? Go down and perform a physical on Pedroza? You may be right in that a certain, very small % of betters may have made a different decision based on the jockey change but being right and having a workable solution are two seperate items.

[2Hot4TV]

The best part of Ron Anderson's radio interview with Roger was when you could hear the toilet flush on Anderson's end of the phone call. Roger was amused and Ron started to studder abit. You can hear the show replay at http://www.rogerstein.com/

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It obviously was a unique situation and really what could be done? Go down and perform a physical on Pedroza? You may be right in that a certain, very small % of betters may have made a different decision based on the jockey change but being right and having a workable solution are two seperate items.

The stewards could certainly ask for proof. At the very least, he should now be punished for obviously making a joke of the system. Gomez can then pay him for his suspension time as well. That way maybe people would think again before trying this again.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

If you listen to Gomez's agent on the radio show out of California (forget the name), it is obvious. They don't even try to hide it. Why assert I'm making false allegations if you didn't bother to investigate? You are doing exactly what you throw at me.

As for you other assertions, you are wrong. There are people that do exactly what you say shouldn't be worried about. They obviously are using computers and jockey ability is a part of the equation. I also suspect they are much better gamblers than you.

I asked where you got your information, and you're telling me its something you implied from listening to Gomez's agent on the radio. so you're speculating, let's be honest. I don't really doubt what happened, but I'm not going to go around and call someone a liar either based on hearsay.

of course people use jockey ability as part of the equation, but its only one small part of the equation.
what you are alleging, is that there are some very sophisticated and "smart" gamblers who make pass or play decisions whether or not to use a horse on a multirace ticket based solely on the rider. ie: Gomez up, the horse is a play. Pedroza up on same horse in same race, its a pass, off the ticket. I would think that if the calculated difference in riding ability between Gomez and Pedroza alone was enough to make one horse have a higher rating than the other, that the smart player might include both horses or pass the bet entirely if it made the ticket to costly. The average difference in outcome that Gomez can be expected to have over an experienced journeyman like Pedroza on a particular horse in a particular race is not very large. In this case there certainly was much more uncertainty due to the many firsters and inexperienced runners. I don't think any programs exist that can accurately get a fix on those factors.

In short, I don't believe anyone, smart player or not, passed on that horse against that field due to Pedroza having the mount.

No doubt you're right, there are better gamblers out there than myself. Did you feel that by stating that it somehow makes your argument stronger? For the record, I suspect that you also don't stack up that well against the best gamblers.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

No doubt you're right, there are better gamblers out there than myself. Did you feel that by stating that it somehow makes your argument stronger? For the record, I suspect that you also don't stack up that well against the best gamblers.

Probably not, but I am saying you are showing you don't realize the level of sophistication that goes into some people's methods. A P4 or a P3 or a win bet are still all about getting value, so it is very possible the difference in riders could be the difference between using a favorite and not using it. A good bettor is trying to bet value, not cash tickets that are underlays. You do that by finding favorites that are suspect. I'm sure you do know that much, but it seems you are conveniently overlooking it here.