I bet on a race today in which there were horses numbered 1 and 1A (as well as 2 through 8). A bet on horse #1 was as good as a bet on horse #1A. That is, if you bet on horse #1, and horse #1A finished in the position in which you bet on horse #1 (win, place, show, whatever), then your bet paid off. IOW, the wagering was arranged as if #1 and #1A were the same horse.
Under what circumstances would such a race be run? This seems to tilt the odds in favor of the bettor, thereby limiting the track’s take. So what would compel the track to arrange such a race?
Furthermore, since you couldn’t bet a 1 & 1A Exacta, if the first two horses to cross the finish line had been 1 and 1A, would all other Extaca bets be a push?
My understanding is that when one trainer has two (or more) horses in a race, they are handled this way – as a single entry. The reason usually given is that this avoids incentives for one to give way to the other another.
Though I don’t know, I suspect that exacta bets follow this logic, so if 1 and 1A finish first ans second, the other horse in the exacta is the one that finished third.
Horses generally run as an entry if they have either the same owner or the same trainer. Each state racing association has its own rules, however, and some states allow horses trained by the same person to run uncoupled. And yes, betting entries can result in such exotica as a 1-1 exacta or #1 winning both sides of the place pool (which makes a place bet equivalent to a win bet, although the payoffs won’t necessarily be identical since they are separate pools). None of this exotica has any effect on the track take.
It depends on the state regulations. Here in California, horses that have the same owner racing in the same race are run as an entry. In some states (Kentucky, at least in recent past if not current), same trainers and/or same owners result in entries. In still other states, there must be a shared owner and a shared trainer to result in coupling.
This creates very interesting situations such as the 1988 Breeder’s Cup, run at Churchill Downs in KY. Trainer D. Wayne Lukas so dominated the 2-year-old filly division that year that he had 5 fillies run in the BC Juvenile Fillies. So…we had 1, 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1X. First and only time I’ve ever seen a 5 horse entry–and they ran 1-2-3-4. Since then, at least for the Breeder’s Cup and Kentucky Derby, the state has relaxed the rules to coupling the horses only if they share an owner.
An entry isn’t necessarily so damaging to the track, financially. Also, for years, the Kentucky Derby would feature a “field.” (The Breeder’s Cup has one on occasion, also.) The field basically comprises of the horses with the worst odds and can range from 2 to 5 horses. Bet one, you get them all. Typically, the field may have odds in the 20-1 range, which sounds great to bettors…but it’s not the 99-1+ odds some of the horses would be facing, and the track paying, should they not be grouped. More people enticed to bet more horses + badly outmatched horses = general plus for the track. Sure, a horse from the field may win on the rarest of occasions, but generally they’re lucky just to make it around the track.
You can ** not ** bet a 1/1a exacta,at least in any jurisdiction I’ve ever been at (that includes all the majors and quite a few minor league tracks in this country).The exacta, as was noted before if the entry runs 1/2,or 1,2,3,etc.,is based on the next horse in the finish order.Same goes for trifectas or triples or whatever you call them in your neck of he woods.
Secondly the track has no interest in any horse you back,other than the rake (takeout) that is imposed on each and every bet at the same rate in that particular pool.Most favorites go off at skimpy odds (3/2 down to 1/2) and track takes remain constant.
Obviously they like to see a lot of winners,since that creates more handle from the churn (betting back winnings).This is usually better accomplished when favorites win,since more money was backing those steeds.
The lucky ones that win a lumberyard with a toothpick usually bet back at their same smaller denominations (per bet) and squander the rest on things like cars,stereos,etc.That money is never brought back to the windows,but does provide at least a glimmer of hope in the industry that those winnings’publicity may generate some new blood.
I’ve seen races where one of the horses in the entry (which is what its called when you’ve got a 1-1A coupling) sets a fast pace early, forcing the rest of the field to try to keep up. By the time they all come out of the far turn, they’re tired and don’t have the strength to catch the other half of the entry, who has been taking it easy towards the back of the pack. He (or she) turns on the speed in the stretch, and often finishes somewhere in the money. An entry could be a strategy move on the part of the trainer, in other words.
As for the “can you buy a 1-1A exactor?” question, I have to agree that it depends on the jurisdiction, although as has been stated, that capability seems to be disappearing. I remember that at one time, here in Ontario, you certainly could. Now, you cannot. From the “Regulations and Information” page of a recent program (Friday March 21, 2003) published by the Ontario Jockey Club:
So, at least in Ontario, if the 1-1A entry won and placed respectively, the exactor bets wouldn’t be a “push;” rather, the exactor payout would be made on the win-show combination.
This practice is commonly called “running a rabbit” in a race. It’s very common when your best horse is a come-from-behind runner, but another top candidate likes to run free and loose on the lead, and thus dictate the pace. In a race with no other early speed, as they call it, such a front-runner could win in a cakewalk (as War Emblem did in this past year’s Derby). By having a “rabbit” in the race, that early speed feels more pressure, is more likely to tense up and overexspend, and the come-from-behind horses benefit.
It’s a fairly well-known strategy, although not as often used as in past times. It’s rather unfair to the “rabbit,” who has no real chance in hell to beat his/her competition. (Just saw this yesterday in a $300,000 race…the rabbit was this poor $10,000 claimer who’d actually won his last few, but against ridiculously weaker competition. He was last, of course, and his entrymate was a measley 4th of 7.)
I have made this wager in Ontario and in Alberta (and I presume I could have in the other Canadian provinces too). So, it must be a US/Canada difference.
That being said, I recall being able to do the same when I went to the track in Florida (although I can’t be 100% certain).
