Syx Shooter and the trainers comment.

And the money wasn't only on the books the tote win only paid R12-90
Pool Total
Win 965356
Not sure if the win pool is correct but that is the amount stated on Tabgold.
I would think it takes quite a bit of money for a 40-1 shot to pay R12-90 with nearly a 1 million rand pool.

durbs wrote: And the money wasn't only on the books the tote win only paid R12-90
Pool Total
Win 965356
Not sure if the win pool is correct but that is the amount stated on Tabgold.
I would think it takes quite a bit of money for a 40-1 shot to pay R12-90 with nearly a 1 million rand pool.

I dont know how much the tote win pool was, cant be arsed to look it up. Professional punters looking to land a betting coup do not bet on the tote for obvious reasons.
The eventual tote payout on the winner, in my opinion, reflects bets from the punters which I described on my above post. I think SP with the bookies was about 20/1
Another example I can think of are horses owned by the boxer Lerena. Im sure some occasional punters bet on his horses because of who he is.
I like to bet on the Queens horses & Alex Fergusson owned horses regardless of the form or comments or tips & I'm sure that I'm not alone.

My point is the horse was backed on the books and on the tote so a few people did fancy it.
The win pool was nearly 1 million rand so it would take much more than R1000 to make that horse pay R12-90.
So to me it all points to that quite a few people made good money on the horse and not just one person like you who backs names,numbers,trainers,owners,colour of the jockeys underpants or whatever you look for when betting a horse.No disrespect intended as you are entitled to bet whatever you want.

I'm not sure why we are talking about Tote odds ?

According to durbs, the odds he quoted was from Track & Ball, where the horse opened at 20s, drifted to 40s (reasonable to assume because most saw the 'will need the run' comment) and then was shortened into 16s. Those are the facts (as quoted by durbs anyway)

I don't know if the same betting patterns were present with other Bookmaking Firms, and only Track and Ball will know why they shortened the horse from 40s to 16s.

durbs also maintains that the horse never found any betting support in any of its previous runs - again we don't KNOW if the connections had the odd R100 on it on any of those occasions - just for the sake of loyalty (or any other 'indicator' e.g. 'I like the name' ,'it is my lucky number', or whatever other reasons us punters dish up to justify a bet on a particular horse)

So we don't KNOW squat - but to me personally it still SEEMS if someone thought the horse had a reasonable chance yesterday and parted with some cash supporting that view - how much cash we don't know - however the perception is out there and that perception supports the notion that racing is 'crooked'

On occasion questions are asked ito explaining the improvement shown of horses winning 'out of turn' in view of the apparent betting support - and I think questions need to be asked in this case - just my view

durbs wrote: My point is the horse was backed on the books and on the tote so a few people did fancy it.
The win pool was nearly 1 million rand so it would take much more than R1000 to make that horse pay R12-90.
So to me it all points to that quite a few people made good money on the horse and not just one person like you who backs names,numbers,trainers,owners,colour of the jockeys underpants or whatever you look for when betting a horse.No disrespect intended as you are entitled to bet whatever you want.

I accept that "quite a few people made good money", why not, plenty owners & staff etc etc involved.
However, in this case I just dont believe it was a betting coup or anything underhanded. Just my opinion.
It would however, be interesting to hear from the owners & trainers involved in this horse.
By the way, my missus stopped me betting on the colour of the jockeys underpants. LOL.

This doesn`t look like a coup imo

But don`t believe it`s not possible to get on elsewhere or by using/borrowing the Super VIP `s accounts

.....I purposely refrain from reading the comments as impe(in my personal experience) many trainers either do not know what they are doing and the fewer actually do know what they are doing.....I actually really fancied this horse from the ped picture and have been putting a decreasing EW wager on every run except the 1st KZN raid where I finally got even with a larger than usual place bet and a small win instead of an even EW... .....I did unfortunately see the trainers comments yesterday and instead of putting my usual EW bet I only played places and had it in my swinger box with 3 others that did not find the drum......:S

Frodo wrote: I'm not sure why we are talking about Tote odds ?

According to durbs, the odds he quoted was from Track & Ball, where the horse opened at 20s, drifted to 40s (reasonable to assume because most saw the 'will need the run' comment) and then was shortened into 16s. Those are the facts (as quoted by durbs anyway)

I don't know if the same betting patterns were present with other Bookmaking Firms, and only Track and Ball will know why they shortened the horse from 40s to 16s.

durbs also maintains that the horse never found any betting support in any of its previous runs - again we don't KNOW if the connections had the odd R100 on it on any of those occasions - just for the sake of loyalty (or any other 'indicator' e.g. 'I like the name' ,'it is my lucky number', or whatever other reasons us punters dish up to justify a bet on a particular horse)

So we don't KNOW squat - but to me personally it still SEEMS if someone thought the horse had a reasonable chance yesterday and parted with some cash supporting that view - how much cash we don't know - however the perception is out there and that perception supports the notion that racing is 'crooked'

On occasion questions are asked ito explaining the improvement shown of horses winning 'out of turn' in view of the apparent betting support - and I think questions need to be asked in this case - just my view

According to Gallop the horse was backed 12-1 to 9-1 in the last run before rest - Much more support that day than yesterday in a much stronger field - I understand the need the run comment throws off punters but I really don't think a coup -Rather look at the second horse and see a failed coup- 20-1 to 8-1 (hoping for improvement the stable comment)...Maybe a certain stable employee in the Binda yard said "have a few rand" or a punter looked at the form of the last run and saw 3 winners and had a punt

I believe that most trainers prefer not to comment at all, I wonder why ???
I never look at them, except for Zietz of course.

But it was obvious by the jockey arrangements that the horse has an each way shout

Just like when Forbes line up Mark Khan especially in the last race of a meeting as the combination wins more often than not

Just like Striker and Fabian

Chase and the Shams/Laing over 1000m to 1400m

Syster and Binda

Etc

imo, if this was a coupe, the horse would of started alot shorter 2/1 - 4/1 maybe.. How many trainers would go through the hard yards of setting up a coupe, and then leave 16/1 on the table, (even though 40/1 was on offer at one stage).... At 16/1 you could be getting close to 2/1 a drum, and i am pretty sure that not many if any trainers would laugh off that sort of price if they have planned a coupe...

.....for most small yards.... every winner is a coup....