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

[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.

[brianwspencer]

Just for good measure, here’s another example:

Friday night I was doing an OTB gig in Chicago and played Hawthorne’s early Pick-4. I was stupid and let my bankroll dictate what combinations I played rather than vice versa.

I really, really loved Inscript because her older brother freaked out on real dirt, and she was making her first start on the stuff that night in the first leg of the pick-4.

I singled the second leg, which was in and of itself, a bad idea, because nobody in their right mind singles a horse with Brandon Meier up. Still, I used Shaquita, because I figured she’d get a soft lead and have plenty left turning for home. Ansong was the obvious other play despite it being her first time on the dirt thanks to her form and her wet track breeding, but I cut her so I could afford the other legs I wanted.

I went deeper in the next two legs trying to catch a price, but both races produced reasonable winners, each of whom was on my ticket.

Now, because I singled Shaquita in the second leg and didn’t use Ansong, I missed out on the Pick-4, even though I knew full well that Ansong was a huge threat.

However, because the minimum wager was $1 on this Pick-4, I lost, whereas I could have included Ansong in the second leg and spent the same amount of money that fit within my bankroll if Hawthorne offered $0.50 Pick-4s.

They don’t, and I made the decisions based on my handicapping that I thought were best given the way I set myself up for the night.

But at the end of the day, it’s not Hawthorne’s fault that my ticket lost. It’s mine, because I handicapped the races based on what I saw and constructed a ticket that I thought gave me the best chance to win from a risk v. reward perspective, given the seemingly wide-open nature of legs three and four. Now I’ve given you a perfectly legitimate scenario in which I would have hit that bet, and it’s quite clear that all I needed was for Hawthorne to offer $0.50 Pick-4s.

If Hawthorne offered $0.50 Pick-4s, I hit that bet.

http://equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/HAW101609USA.pdf

The logic you’re using would give me free license to blame them for the fact that I didn’t punch the right ticket to win. But you know what? It’s still my fault. Not Hawthorne’s. I’m responsible for constructing the ticket given the circumstances. They’re not responsible for tailoring the circumstances to ensure I construct a winning ticket.

[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.