 |
I am sick and tired of coupled entries in New York. This is especially frustrating in the winter...
7 Comments
Add this link to...
Tell a friend
Bury
7 Comments
Add this link to...
Tell a friend
Bury
Comments
New York coupling needs therapy
I am sick and tired of coupled entries in New York. This is especially frustrating in the winter, when Gary Contessa, Rick or Tony Dutrow, or Bruce Levine seem to run entries in every other race. What can a player do when he has a strong positive opinion about one half of the entry and a strong negative opinion about the other half?
The New York Racing Association may claim its hands are tied, but is it lobbying the state? I am sure others are just as aggravated as I am. Let's go, NYRA!
And to those conspiracy theorists who claim the longer halves of uncoupled entries win more often than not: Do yourselves a favor, bet them!
William Fosher - Lahaina, Hawaii
So says DRF letter writer William Fosher. He is correct, except NYRA would love to allow uncoupled entries. If the franchise issue is ever solved, they will try to get it done.
When NY tried uncoupled entries several years ago, the whine from a couple of turf writers was so loud you could hear it across the country. The boys were unhappy when trainers like Nick Zito and Mike Hernandez won with the "wrong" half of uncoupled entries in maiden races.
Unlike William, who has it so right, they apparently neglected to bet the other half.
Bettors need to realize that uncoupling entries is in their best interests. As William points out, it lets YOU choose on whom you want to bet. The result is better prices.
It also requires regulation -- stewards willing to press trainers about unexpected form reversals. That's where we turf writers come in. It is our job to push the stewards, not to moan about uncoupled entries.
Coupling and uncoupling do have up and down sides. The initial purpose is to protect the betting public from being victimized by conflict of interest. I've seen races where one half is bet so hard, that it's almost bet off the board... only for the longest half to somehow prevail. Betting Coup? That's open for one's interpretation. However, it does not look good for racing if the bettors have to worry about the possibility of a sudden form reversal every time a trainer sends an uncoupled entry out there. Could one do themselves a favor and bet the other horse? Sure. But is it worth the money if your opinion of the horse is a negative one? The objective in handicapping is to select the horse who fits the race and offers value to the bettor, not to pick numbers on a prayer.
On the other hand, it does get frustrating when I do like "the other half" and when it does win, I get 2-1 instead of the 4-1 or 5-1 I surely would have gotten had the horse run alone or uncoupled. If racing did not have such a surly reputation for corruption (or perception of) in the first place, racetracks and state racing jurisdictions would not be faced with these problems and would not have to create such rules. Unfortunately, the state of racing is that where sometimes rules are necessary to protect our money from being wasted because a greedy owner or trainer wants to cash a bet at our expense.
I find it ultra-frustrating when I bet a horse while the trainer's other runner, at the higher price, rolls on to win. People are kidding if they think integrity concerns aren't present when such occurs.
Travis,
I think it is a perception issue, similar to the case with late odds changes after a race has gone off.
No one remembers when they cash on the longer price, only when they get beaten by the longer price (or the declining price in the case of odds changes).
There is no question that the stewards need to be vigilant. This is another reason why stewards should be required to file written reports. What did they do to assure there was no trainer chicanery? Was the trainer, jockey, or others interviewed?
When New York tried the uncoupled experiment I kept a log of the results and wrote about it afterward. Based on my own selections, which often favored the longer price, there was no evidence at all of wrong doing.
The problem is few turf writers try to educate bettors about the benefits of having uncoupled entries. Most prefer to take the easy route of complaining when the longer price wins. They know it plays better to the public.
The most egregious violation of the uncoupled entry is when the shorter priced entry mate is used as a rabbit to set up the pace for the longshot closer. This is usually in a maiden race when a 2nd time starter showed speed first out and is bet down to chalk on the return. As the favorite the speed chalk has a "X" on his back and faces intense pressure and ends up setting ti up for his longshot entrymate. I see this time after time in California and I do not like it. There is a dynamic of an entry where one is a pace type and the other is a closer, they work as a team within the flow of the race and I feel like they should be bet like a team. New York is making the right move keeping coupled entries together. New York is protecting the bettors and respecting the tradition of the game.
Powercap,
Sorry, I have to disagree. Why is that the U.S. has coupled entries, and the vast majority of the rest of the racing world does not?
The answer is because: 1) American bettors have a paranoid idea that someone is always trying to fleece them, and, 2) the perception is that stewards aren't as powerful as they once were.
Are you telling me trainers in Europe are more honest than here?
The "tradition" of the game is not for coupling entries. It is for bettors to use all the tools at their disposal to determine who is most likely to win. Please note, I did not say who is best, I said who is most likely to win.
If you see the scenario you describe "time after time in California," then why aren't you betting the longer price?
What's next? A call from bettors to have stakes horses returning from a layoff to run for purse money only, since we don't know if the trainer is using the comeback race as a prep? That is the whole point of handicapping. Let me decide who is going to win, not the betting public which prefers one side of an entry over another.
I think the issue is deduced down to this:
Would you rather have fields with less wagering options or larger fields with a few ounces of doubt?
I don't think you'll ever be able to erase doubt away from handicappers when an uncoupled entry is in a race, and the longer price wins. To me, dealing with less betting interests is tolerable for erasing those few ounces of doubt.