- This topic has 134 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
Investigate bookmakers for taking bets on a horse that won?
personal insult deleted – poster warned – Cormack15
- Total Posts 84
It seems to me that being able to assess some of the less obvious angles is what picks out the shrewd punter from the more ordinary. Situations such as this are part and parcel of making racing what it is – there’s no use complaining about it.
I didn’t pick this horse, because I didn’t look at the race in question for the purpose of having a bet in it, but, quite honestly, I think there were sufficient clues for the shrewd punter to haver picked the winner.
The only obvious angle to back Am I Blue was the obvious pattern with Phil Smith’s hopeless handicapping team. Enough is enough now – he is responsible for offering incentives to get a horse beat by a million miles.
Jose – I believe the handicappers must find themselves in a no-win situation on a daily basis. What do you do when a horse gets beat consistently? You have no option but to drop the mark, surely. If it miraculously bursts back into life and trots up you can hardly blame the handicappers. I know there are potentially problems with current handicapping methods but you can’t play them in situations like this.
I’d do away with most handicaps and run claiming races instead.
So was it just some kind of accident I appeared as banned or was it more of what is to come?
I’m furious.
- Total Posts 17716
Jose everyone was banned, its an on going problem with TRF when cleaning the membership database I think.
No need to sweat, you’re a good bloke
Jose everyone was banned, its an on going problem with TRF when cleaning the membership database I think.
No need to sweat, you’re a good bloke
I was particularly concerned and two minutes away from contacting my lawyers.
Sorry for the email I sent to Cormack as well.
Jose – everyone on the entire site was banned. Disagreeing with me on handicappers isn’t a banning offence – YET!
No problem with your email – I was flattered that you value your TRF membership highly enough to consider legal action to have it reinstated!
Jose – I believe the handicappers must find themselves in a no-win situation on a daily basis. What do you do when a horse gets beat consistently? You have no option but to drop the mark, surely. If it miraculously bursts back into life and trots up you can hardly blame the handicappers. I know there are potentially problems with current handicapping methods but you can’t play them in situations like this.
I’d do away with most handicaps and run claiming races instead.
Ok, I believe I can get back to this now.
I accept handicappers have to drop horses when they clearly deteriorate. But I feel there is clearly a difference between a horse that can’t win off its’ current mark and is running to just about no mark at all.
Am I Blue was dropped 5lb, 5lb and 7lb for losing by 22l, 77l and 85l. I find it difficult to comprehend what difference 5lb would make to a horse losing by 70l+ that is near the top of weights.
So what should the handicapper have done?
Well this is the difficult part and where the handicappers are constrained by the rules of racing, but imo they should have left the horse on the same mark until they can judge if the horse has permanently declined – say 5 runs. By then the BHA should have stepped in but I’m getting into a different issue. Because if the horse has ability around the mark of 20-60 in NH terms, and then was given that rating, which Am I Blue was clearly performing at, the horse won’t be running in 0-95 handicap hurdles because it will be rated below what is required to "get in." The current moving horses down in that style is open to all sorts of games. It was never a reflection of what mark the horse had performed at.
The handicapping system would surely fall apart in days if horses weren’t downgraded for five runs wouldn’t it.
I don’t follow these matters closely but how would it’s poor runs and gentle slide down the handicap compare with other horses with similar profiles (i.e. beaten out of sight in several races on the trot)? Surely bumping them down too quick would not offer any deterrent to the unscrupulous handler and/or owner.
The handicapping system would surely fall apart in days if horses weren’t downgraded for five runs wouldn’t it.
I don’t follow these matters closely but how would it’s poor runs and gentle slide down the handicap compare with other horses with similar profiles (i.e. beaten out of sight in several races on the trot)? Surely bumping them down too quick would not offer any deterrent to the unscrupulous handler and/or owner.
The handicapping system would fall apart if that was applied to all horses literally – yes. I agree completely.
I am meaning just for the Jeu De Roseau’s, Tusculum’s and Am I Blue’s of this world. And in all three cases the same thing has happened. There was a race at Wincanton I posted about as well on here.
The point I’m really trying to make is that these horses have hardly been able to register a number in positive figures. As in, horses beaten totally out of all sight to the point where those who backed them needed to go to the course to see them in the parade ring, and even then they would have been moving faster walking around the parade ring.
Would there not be a way where if a horse runs 30lbs in NH terms below its’ current mark, and I’m giving a fair sized number there, the run is ignored. If it happens five times reassessment comes around. Maybe with the reassessment the BHA could spend some of their integrity costs by a sending a vet, who perhaps they could employ, to visit the horse/s in question.
There is only so far a horse can be beaten before it becomes irrelevant in handicapping terms, surely?
Dear Armchair jockey. I made the suggestion that it takes two for a gamble to come off. So both are parties to the scam.However somebody suggested that by with holding the money bookies would bring the bandits into the open. So i suggesteed that refusing to pay on a winner when you are willing to take the gamblers bets is hardly likely to give the bookies a good name.Like heads i win tails you lose.
- Total Posts 17716
The ‘scam’, should it be proven in this case, is the will of connections to deliberately fail to run a horse on its merits with a view to backing it at a later date. How can a bookmaker taking bets on the day the brakes come off be party to the ‘scam’?
This horse and its connections did nothing wrong whatsoever. The horse ran entirely on its merits. Neither the owners nor the yard had any money on the race. The jockey switch was for genuine reasons.
The real culprits in this matter are the owners, trainers and jockeys of all the other runners in the race. It’s obvious that that’s where all the money came from on the day and everyone was riding to instructions. Therefore Johnson had no option but to lead the field.
It’s hardly his fault if no one chooses to go past him is it?
See. Sorted. Now that didn’t take the Einsteins of the Integrity Department with all their millions to solve that case did it?
Conundrum
(Equine Detective Agency)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.