At the end of the day, the whole Baffert/Repole (don\'t tell me this was just a Geroux thing, Repole wanted to do the exact same thing, their horse just was not talented enough) discussion comes down to whether or not we need coupled entries.
Personally, I remember SEVERAL different times I was frustrated with coupled entries where one I liked ended up scratched during multi race wagers and I was stuck with the other half of the entry only, who had no shot at all. At least with uncoupled entries, I get the favorite after a scratch like that instead of a completely inept horse who was only being run for reasons like Restoring Hope/Noble Indy, and had no chance of winning.
To me, this is the trade-off. You can have coupled entries and end up with frustrating wagering scenarios like scratches in multi-race wagers, or you can have uncoupled entries and deal with frustrating wagering scenarios like the one TGJB mentioned, betting on Restoring Hope.
Which is the lesser of 2 evils?
Tread,
If you really like one part of a coupled entry and not the other, and the other horse takes action, the race is ruined. Your play is gone.
And then you have the scratch issue.
And of course the shenanigans that take place with uncoupled entries.
Personally, for every one race that is ruined because I can not figure out what might or might not take place with an uncoupled entry, I find many more to be ruined when my value disappears due to a coupled entry.
I would prefer they not expand the coupling of horses.
How about neither? No coupled entries. And no uncoupled entries.
Im in complete agreement, I have far more bad memories of wagering issues from coupled entries than I do shenanigans from uncoupled ones.