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

[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.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by kgar311

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.

Ok, I 100% disagree. I don't think the morning-line should have anything to do with handicapping. I think it's MY job to see Ken McPeek, Kent D., some solid back works, and know that the wide draw is no real roadblock to Keeneland success for a trainer who excels with baby runners and thrives at that meet.

That's the point at which I see what seems like a pretty bad line like 12-1, cross my heart and thank Mike B., and go for it.

I didn't play the race, FWIW, but this kind of situation is happening somewhere every day.

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Ok, I 100% disagree. I don't think the morning-line should have anything to do with handicapping. I think it's MY job to see Ken McPeek, Kent D., some solid back works, and know that the wide draw is no real roadblock to Keeneland success for a trainer who excels with baby runners and thrives at that meet.

That's the point at which I see what seems like a pretty bad line like 12-1, cross my heart and thank Mike B., and go for it.

I didn't play the race, FWIW, but this kind of situation is happening somewhere every day.

Well im not a professional handicapper and it not my JOB to know im being duped by the oddsmaker. So I have to 100% disagree with you.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by kgar311

Well im not a professional handicapper and it not my JOB to know im being duped by the oddsmaker. So I have to 100% disagree with you.

"Duped" or not, "professional" or not, it's YOUR job to decide if YOU like the horse. Battaglia putting an "8-1" instead of a "12-1" shouldn't change your opinion of the horse. A morning-line is nothing more than a guess of what the linemaker thinks the public will do.

If you're betting or not betting a horse because of what Battaglia or any other morning-line maker puts next to it, you're not even getting off on the right foot for handicapping, let alone the kind of headstart you're going to need to have any chance to make money at the track.

And as a horizontal player, I have incredible empathy for bad beats in multi-race wagers, incredible understanding of how hard they can be to hit and how tough it can be to go 3 of 4 and miss a horse that doesn't turn out the way you think it will, but no sympathy whatsoever for blaming a ML maker for the fact that you didn't do your homework and overlooked EVERY relevant angle on this horse's page.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

"Duped" or not, "professional" or not, it's YOUR job to decide if YOU like the horse. Battaglia putting an "8-1" instead of a "12-1" shouldn't change your opinion of the horse. A morning-line is nothing more than a guess of what the linemaker thinks the public will do.

If you're betting or not betting a horse because of what Battaglia or any other morning-line maker puts next to it, you're not even getting off on the right foot for handicapping, let alone the kind of headstart you're going to need to have any chance to make money at the track.

And as a horizontal player, I have incredible empathy for bad beats in multi-race wagers, incredible understanding of how hard they can be to hit and how tough it can be to go 3 of 4 and miss a horse that doesn't turn out the way you think it will, but no sympathy whatsoever for blaming a ML maker for the fact that you didn't do your homework and overlooked EVERY relevant angle on this horse's page.

Well said.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by kgar311

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.

A horse debuted at Keeneland the other day for the Cannon Shell barn that was 20/1 ML and went off at 34/1. Said horse never had a work past 101 and Cannon Shell said the horse was working well.

The horse ran a good 2nd, but by your theory, I should have never played him, or the exacta with the McPeek horse because he had slow worked and was 20/1 ML

[Round Pen]

Originally Posted by kgar311

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.

First thing 12-1 Morning Line on a first time starter is not dismissing him.

I know Clockers are not on the Up and Up but your argument here holds NO water
The Work in 103.1 on Sept 24th Was in the Slop Plus 19 of the 24 horse who worked that morning Went In 103 or Slower. THere were works that day in 104, 105 and 106 and Change. THe fastest 3/8's that day was 38 and change Plus the Majority of the Horses that worked A 1/2 on the 24th went in 51 or 52. Face it the Track was slow that Day.

[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.

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by GPK

Dude, you need to play Tampa Bay Downs for an entire meet. You will learn that ML odds mean nothing.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

December 12th

[docicu3]

Originally Posted by GPK

December 12th

At least we'll all have something to do on Tuesday's....

[NTamm1215]

Maybe Bigs can confirm it but I heard Tampa is ditching Tuesdays and going to a Wed-Sun schedule for the bulk of the meet.

NT

[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.