Luck

[Left Bank]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

It's just the way it is.

The old-time horse racing press would very commonly write about betting coups and putover situations involving barn money...even in big races.

It would often be written that a horse was either "the medium of a failed betting coup" if the horse with some insider money failed to win ... or it would be called a successful betting coup if the horse won.

There are hundreds and hundreds of examples of this I have seen...and you see a horse called "the medium of a failed betting coup" probably five times for every story about a successful one.

Nowadays, you see a horse like Sassy Image get a flood of obvious barn money from somewhere after a layoff and surgery that went unreported, and it's like taboo to even acknowledge that it happened.

The exact same happens in the stock market.They blame "Insider trading" or "Speculators", and fail to realize that it takes an ENORMOUS amount of money to do the things they claim. The crash of 1929 was partially blamed on Jesse Livermore,who did make millions on the crash by shorting the market,but he was not the cause of it.

[Calzone Lord]

I wouldn't compare insider betting in horse racing with the stock market.

I'm not familar with all the rules of the stock market -- but it's perfectly legal in horse racing so long as the connections are betting on their own horse.

Situations involving first-time starters and layoffs are by far the most common situations where inside money might have an edge.