Ask The Experts
General Category => Ask the Experts => Topic started by: TGJB on September 09, 2004, 01:12:28 PM
-
Delmar Deb sent me this. Unbelievable.
http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=24221
-
It is very sad, and discourages me from wanting to give them fools my money or time.
Cant imagine a stronger statement from an article.
-
Horse racing is catching up with Wall Street. I have to laugh about these guys and companies paying fines that are a tiny fraction of what they are accused of stealing. And then, to add insult to injury, in the paper it says \"Merrill Lynch paid the fine but they did not admit any wrongdoing.\" Lovely. We lose again. HP
-
I don\'t know where you live or play, but I am so thankful to hear you say that!
I love an old-fashioned coup or edge that doesn\'t involve chemical warfare - and I will even take advantage of situations where I think that all of the Mullins/Mitchell stock will run \"true to form\" and eliminate them from consideration. But handicapping who\'s going to use it today and who isn\'t is NOT what I signed up for when I became a racing fan and player.
-
well said Delmar Deb.
Things are not much different in the Delaware Valley where the same guys who are getting 6 yos to run new tops don\'t know which end yesterday\'s meal comes out.
Godd Luck,
Joe B.
-
And to think I was called by paranoid by some of my racing friends.
My favorite part of this article was (paraphrasing)...\"after numerous positive tests for clenbuterol, the board changed the rules to allow a small amount.\"
Yeah, because that\'s how you solve a problem like that....just change the rules.
No wonder nobody east of Vegas bets that garbage. I wish the Form would stop including it with its National circulation. I\'d much rather them put Turfway in there everyday.
-
Yes, but what if they had a so called real crack down, and these so-called super trainers keep on getting these horses to run big races, then what are you all going to say?? Oh its not working or some other bs. I have to see ex\'s of these jump up horses, not sheets, I mean PP\'s. I mean are these trainers getting a 10,000 hoss and moving him up to 30 or 40K and winning what??? I\'m a player in this game and this stuff going on has not bugged me not once. Stop playing races where these trainers are in, if it drives you nuts.
-
>Stop playing races where these trainers are in, if it drives you nuts.<
That\'s what I did to a large degree even though I know players that are profitable just using trainer angles.
I know I\'m in the minority, but personally I think there\'s a lot less drugging going on in stakes races. If there is more than I suspect, then it is used on a consistent basis so it is not effecting my handicapping. The horses are running back to form.
The only time it is an issue is if there is a trainer change, and that is much rarer in stakes than in the claiming ranks.
-
My favorite part was when they tested and found a Mitchell horse had been tranquilized, they disqualified it and placed it last. Mitchell\'s excuse (and it may be legit) was that some groom tranquilized the wrong \"nutty\" horse.
Now if you are accusing a trainer of tranquilizing a horse then I assume that you are saying that the trainer did so to ensure that it would run poorly. Given that, disqualifying it from 4th and placing it last does not seem like much of a penalty to me. Of course, it may just be me...
Chris
-
Chris:
I\'m pretty sure we bet on that horse when we played the last pk 6 last year at DMR since it was getaway day!!!!!
-
We know a good lawyer. I say we sue somebody:-)
-
That\'s my recollection as well, although I might have been against including KR if I had known that he had bad breath. Race day mouthwash is a new one on me. Speaking of getaway day pk6s, the 5 of 6 Mon at Sar didn\'t seem as bad given others\' experience Wed at Dmr.
It\'s a little ironic that this discussion is taking place on the same day that Dmr\'s improved attendance & handle figures were released. One premise of Wagner\'s article seems to be that things were, or wld be, better if the stewards were back in charge & handing out suspensions. I\'m skeptical because I don\'t remember that it was, & because a good case can be made that the stewards\' complete lack of common sense & judgment is the reason the CRHB started handling things as described in the article. On the other hand, a B-H editorial about 4 mos or so ago questioned why despite numerous complaints & a criminal case the CRHB has never taken any action against a trainer who swindled 2 owners by substituting cheap horses for more expensive Euros he was paid to buy, & pocketing the difference.
I thought you might have had something to add to the informative & interesting discussion re pace, in particular methods of identifying in advance those situations where pace might play a more important role in the outcome than most sheet players believe, as I assumed you were contemplating a study along those lines when you asked for info on the winning pct of horses with the best TG figure in the last 3 races.
Two obvious problems in testing something like this are sample size & deciding on objective criteria for the plays. The latter factor, moreover, means that you end up with a mechanical system which produces plays(& winners,some no doubt at long odds) which very few handicappers would ever use in real life. Nonetheless, I recently read a study of more than 18k non mdn fast dirt races where all or all but one of the horses could be assigned a non-TG \"performance figure\" for the last 90 days. There were more than 10k plays where the horse with the best or 2nd best performance figure also had the best Fr1 ranking. The results were a 27.7 win pct with a .98 roi. The Bel meet which starts today has too few races to be statistically meaningful, but if those who have expressed an interest ran the same or a similar kind of test, it might be an interesting snap shot of whether mechanically including just one pace factor in sheets handicapping has a tendency to help or hurt the bottom line.
P.S. I apologize for not learning of the tri/super call until a few mins ago. I\'ll catch up with you later today.