Interesting point Kentucky and I can understand where you're coming from to a degree. There is nothing more frustrating than backing the supposed stable first string then watch it get nailed by the stable 'outsider'. I'm not that au fait with the whole coupling business other than it's used in France but I thought only horses in the same ownership were coupled as opposed to those from the same stable? Perhaps I'm wrong on this though... It's interesting if it is employed worldwide on the basis you suggest though. Whether I would be in favour of it though I would suggest no. Imagine recent gold cups. Rather than nailing your colours to the Kauto Star or Denman camp you would end up having to take skinny odds on all Paul Nicholls 2, 3 or 4 runners in the one race, even though you had a specific selection from that particular yard. To me that just doesn't seem right... If it is as I originally thought and horses coupled are those in the same ownership I can see greater merit to that principle.
Hi kentucky i can understand your frustration when yet another "Trainers neglected"goes in,with some its not an unusual occurrence.Skullduggery ? maybe but often its just as big a suprise to connections as the betting public. If you look at the yards where betting is an important part of the operation the real skulduggery is when two trainers work in conjunction to achieve a simular outcome.I belive this occurs and the bonus is it goes unnoticed by the stewards and the bookmakers.
Think Beeforsalmon is right, in France it is horses in the same ownership which are coupled? Think Ron will confirm this............. My imagination runs wild should trainers in the UK be made to "join" their charges (for betting purposes) in a big handicap? I mean, sometimes trainers like Dandy N. and Richard Fahey have five or six going in just the one race...........
No is the easy answer for me. If you want to 'couple' them why not just dutch them? The good thing about betting in the UK is that its easy to be how you wish, if you fancy Dandy Nicholls to win the Ayr Gold Cup you are freely allowed to dutch all of his runners, but you are also allowed to back just the one. Its the same with owners, you can back all the MPR horses in sprint handicaps in Yorkshire in a dutching bet, or you could just back the one you fancy.
kentucky - you say trainers know what they are doing but that is not always the case. Swinburn's yard seem to fancy most horses which go to the races and many of their fancied runners get beat. It is frustrating when this sort of this happens but it is more likely cock-up than conspiracy. I don't think horses from the same yard should be coupled. There is an argument for horses with the same owner but I would not even like to see that. For me it messes up the market in France and reduces the chances of getting value for money on your fancies.
Completely agree with Nass, if you want to dutch an entire yard then you are allowed to do this. The 25/1 won, maybe it was overpriced. As the punter the idea is to recognise where and when horses are overpriced and back accordingly. If you begin to couple horses it penalises those who have recognised that the 25/1 shot should be far shorter.
Just to confirm, in France, horses are coupled according to ownership. If the Aga Khan has four runners in the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe, they collectively will be the favourite on the Pari Mutuel. So if you fancy something that the Aga Khan owns for the race, back your named selection with a British bookie so that you get the real odds. Obviously if one of his other contenders wins, you lose whilst bettors on the PMU will still collect. If you want to follow a particular stable then you have to back their runners individually in this country and that seems perfectly fair, so I would not favour any sort of trainer/owner coupling in the betting. Over here you get exactly what it says on the tin.
