Cringing At Calder

[PaceAdvantage]

Just hit the first race exacta there. 8-1 on top, 9/2 finishes second.....3/2 and 2-1 shots out of the exacta....7 horse field...

Winner paid $18.40 and the place horse paid $6.00 to place.

You'd think the exacta should come back close to $100.....guess what I got??


$39


What kind of BS was that??

[PaceAdvantage]

IT GETS BETTER.....


Want to know what the exacta would have paid if the 3/2 favorite had finished 2nd instead of the 9/2 shot who completed the official $39 payoff????



$82 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Thanks to YouBet, I can go back and review the potential exacta payoffs in that race....if this doesn't trigger an investigation, nothing should....

[Moe Mony]

PA, I have always believed that the exacta is the 'bet' where the real betting stables make their money.

[melman]

Ouch, that is not good. Coming from a confirmed exacta player, I think you got ripped. I see the exacta pool was $62,000 so not a extreme short pool. Just how much did you bet on that combination???? LOL

[ranchwest]

That means that one in every 26 tickets was on that combination.

[Tom]

You'd think the exacta should come back close to $100.....guess what I got??


I think I know what you got!
Did you get a kiss afterwards?

~G~

Tom

[karlskorner]

PA

As I came through the Secretary's office this morning at 11:30AM I was given the 7-4 as a box by one of the agents, a couple of computer people I spoke to before and after the race also had it, I am quite sure the "backside" was on it.

So apparently it was no secret and as someone mentioned above 69K in the exacta pool for the 1st race is heavy money for CRC. which leads me to belive that simulcast monies was on this also.

Karl

[Dick Schmidt]

PA,

Just wondering if you went back and looked at the probables on your combination before the race. If the combo was paying $39 (or so) with two or three minutes to post, then take your lumps and forget about it. You made the bet and should have known the payoff. On the other hand, if the probables were $100 at the last flash and then clobbered by late or after-start money, then you have a right to complain. Maybe the "South Dakota Whale" isn't out of action after all.

Has anyone else seen this happen? Is it becoming a pattern? If so, there are enough of us to raise a stink, or at least write Andy Beyer.

Dick

[PaceAdvantage]

No matter what *I* did or didn't do before the race, the fact remains that:

An 8-1 shot on top of a 9/2 shot in a seven horse field paid $39 for the exacta, while in the very same race, the 8-1 shot on top of the 3/2 favorite was paying $82 (these are final prices).

The 8-1 shot wasn't some first time starter with unknown ability. This was a filly making her 12 career start. The 9/2 shot who finished 2nd was making her 15 career start. If these fillies were so obvious, how could they be overlooked in the win and place pools???



==PA

[wes]

No BS to that type of play. The connection loaded up heavy on the exacta and left the win bet alone. If you will watch this type play and know that from the win odds the race should be more you may be able to cash in on the win bet. The win and the exacta pools are two different pools. The win bet has nothing to do with what the exacta will pay. The lopsided pay outs on exactas happen quiet often.

wes

[karlskorner]

PA;

As WES explained there was no way in hell that heavy money was going to disturb $8.20/1 win price on the #7 horse.

I am quite sure everyone concerned was pleased with the $39.00 payoff.

Karl

[John]

COULD THIS BE A GOOD ANGLE TO LOOK FOR. I MEAN IF A PARLAY ON TWO IS SO MUCH GREATER THAN THE EXACTA. THE FLAT BET ON BOTH IS THE WAY TO GO.

WHAT DO YOU THINK.

[PaceAdvantage]

So they knew BOTH horses were going to finish 1/2????

I don't buy it. It's one thing to know your horse is going to run the race of his/her life today....it's another to know of TWO horses that are going to run the races of their lives......the reverse was paying almost the same!!

I still don't buy it. More evidence please that this was a legitimate payoff....

Maybe I'm missing something obvious...remember, I WON the race, so I am not bitter about losing money....

Here are the off odds:

1) 9-1
2) 8-1
3) 54-1
4) 9-2
5) 3-2
6) 2-1
7) 8-1

Here are all the exacta payoffs:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/images/calderr1.gif


7-4 paying $39, 7-5 paying $82!!!, and 7-6 paying $30 isn't out of whack??

[PaceAdvantage]

The win and the exacta pools are two different pools. The win bet has nothing to do with what the exacta will pay. [/B]


Wes, I am well aware that the win bet has nothing to do with what the exacta will pay, HOWEVER, it is a fairly accurate guide at what neighborhood the exacta SHOULD pay. Just as parlays are good guides as to what Pick 3s and Pick 4s and Pick 6s should pay MINIMUM (of course the different takeout structures of these bets from the win pool will affect the final outcome, as will the individual betting patterns of that particular day). GENERALITIES hold up quite well. When significant deviations occur from what is GENERALLY expected (as with what happened at Calder today), it's time to take extra notice.


==PA

[JimH]

Let's look a little closer at this whole situation before getting carried away talking about backside money or anything crooked going on.

Notice that the #4 horse, despite being 9/2, is lower on the bottom of all of the exactas than she should be (look at the 6/4 combo!!!!), if you tried to evaluate the exacta based just on win payoffs. BUT, look at who it is--TINNER'S LADY!

Tinner's Lady is a RAT! She is one of those who will probably be a maiden for her whole life. They've taken her long/short/dirt/turf, switched jockeys a couple times, dropped her in class, bumped her up, and NOTHING is getting her picture taken. However, she's not a poor, outclassed runner. She hits the board a lot. Just does NOT win. I think she's a ridiculous underlay at 9/2 because of this fact. It's just that if there were ever a horse who perfectly fit the description of an ideal "underneath wheel" horse, good ol' Tinner is IT!!

[ranchwest]

Looks like the 4 was wheeled under the 1, 6 and 7 heavily. I think JimH is correct. This may be a horse that is never going to win as much against winners as maidens, so it is a permanent second place finisher. So, they wheel it under the three best horses and whichever runs big, they collect a lot more than the place ticket.

[hdcper]

Agree with Jim H and Ranchwest on this one. Just looking at the payoffs supports their opinion.

However PA, I agree monitoring of payoffs and betting activity is very important to keep this game on the up and up!

Hdcper

[ranchwest]

Sheesh, it is interesting what you can piece together if you really think about it.

My guess is that somebody played that bottom wheel for about $750 on each horse. That means they spent $2250 and got back about $15,000. That's a lot better payoff than the place ticket.

[PaceAdvantage]

Makes perfect sense...when I was putting up that graphic of the exacta matrix, I had a nagging thought in the back of my head that this is what you guys were going to come up with.....I believe it was starting to sink in that upon closer inspection, the #4 was the horse that was being keyed in the exactas, not the winner.....


Thanks....should have seen it myself first time around...

[ranchwest]

Well, I still wonder if bottom wheeling a maiden for $2250 is good handicapping or something else.

[ridersup]

PA

Been betting CRC for 12 years and have ceased being amazed at the exacta payoffs. On the race in question however I thought the payoff was quite generous inasmuch as the 1-2 finnishers were the 2d and 3d Bris Prime Power pick. I personnaly thought the 6 horse was the best in the race and keyed him over the 4 and 7. As a result I got nothing.

2d race was similar. Winner paid $17 and place horse paid $ 4. Again the exacta was $44 which might seem low based on winners price but again these were the 2 and 3 Bris Prime Power picks.

3d race had a lower price winner $13.40 and place horse was $3.60 so you would expect a lower payout. But in this case the winner were the 4th Bris Prime Power Pick and the 3d Bris Prime Power pick and the exacta zoomed to $73.

Again in the 4th race the the 4th and 3d Bris PPP ran 1-2 with a $13.40 horse on top with a $5.40 place horse
and the exacta paid $86.80.

In any event I don't think there is any funny stuff going on in the races in question as they pretty much followed the Bris ratings. Obviously there were some overlays in the win pool today. Unfortunately I only took advantage of one of them.

[Tom]

Let's assume that nothing crooked was going on here.
And that the payoffs were the result of informed inside information about the horses, stricty legit stuff.
No foul, just people in the know making intelligent bets.
Bottom line is that I am sure PA is not the only one to get upset about the payoffs. How many other people who were will not be coming back to the track? PA has an advantage of this board to sound off on and get other viewpoints. Most people will say that damn racing is fixed. Great advertising for the casinos.
Racing needs to have an honest perception - just being honest isn't enough.

Tom

[Moe Mony]

The lopsided pay outs on exactas happen quiet often.


wes [/B][/QUOTE]

Wes, you're right about the lopsided payouts on exacta's. You must have one of those old-fashioned exacta payout charts that shows what the exacta should pay as compared to what it will pay.

[ranchwest]

I'm wondering if maybe today's technology is causing greater disparity between wins and exactas. These have always been separate pools, but maybe now we've got greater segregation of participants.

[JimH]

But what is so lopsided about a $39 exacta in a 7-horse field when both horses are logical contenders?

Would this even be an issue if it weren't for somebody's making a huge win bet on the 5 horse in that race? The 5 went off at 3/2, was not one of the top three power-rating number horses, and wasn't really touched in the exactas in either the win or place spots. She didn't run like a 3/2 shot, that's for sure. But it seems to me that this filly was not the "public choice" as it were, but rather the choice of one bettor with a big ticket.

[PaceAdvantage]

The trouble with the logic of recent posts is that if those two horses were so logical, why did the winner pay $18+??? And why did the place horse, if she was such a confirmed bridesmaid (which she WASN'T, she only finished 2nd THREE TIMES in FOURTEEN STARTS), pay over $6 to place???


==PA....stirring the pot

[melman]

For comparison last nite at the BigM harness with the same amount in the exacta pool a 7-1 winner with a 5-1 place horse and the payout was $122.80. Of course the exacta pool is different from the win pool, and one that is much nicer to swim in IMO. In playing exacta's I try to watch for, and avoid "bad numbers" like the one at CRC. To those that had it and had it hard, congrats but I will look to swim with the payout sited above. Just a question for the group, do you really think that the BRIS Power numbers take that much action.??

[Moe Mony]

. Just a question for the group, do you really think that the BRIS Power numbers take that much action.?? [/B][/QUOTE]



NO.

[Moe Mony]

Originally posted by Tom
Let's assume that nothing crooked was going on here.
And that the payoffs were the result of informed inside information about the horses, stricty legit stuff.
No foul, just people in the know making intelligent bets.
Bottom line is that I am sure PA is not the only one to get upset about the payoffs. How many other people who were will not be coming back to the track? PA has an advantage of this board to sound off on and get other viewpoints. Most people will say that damn racing is fixed. Great advertising for the casinos.
Racing needs to have an honest perception - just being honest isn't enough.

Tom


YO, Tom,

Anyone who gravitates towards casino type play, would not have recognized the 'short' exacta payoff, because THEY PLAY casino-type games, which discludes sports betting.
To me, from your post, it sounds like you believe horse racing could be fixed, BUT do you still play PENN NATIONAL?
It costs as much to feed a 'Secreteriat' as much as an 'Iggy from Muskuigee'.
PA****more fuel to the fire.

[BillW]

Moe Mony,

Re. BRIS Prime Power:

Here is some ROI data from my lil database (This data happens to be Dirt/Dry)


Top 2.69 IV -0.23 ROI 3549 starters
2nd 1.64 IV -0.30 ROI 3541 starters
3rd 1.20 IV -0.37 ROI 3531 starters

Where 0.00 ROI is breakeven and the average ROI of the database is -0.50 (takeout plus breakage) based on a $2.00 wager.

The greater the difference between average ROI and ROI of a factor would indicate less action. 0.23 doesn't indicate an overabundance of action. For instance, average earnings for the last 2 years shows an ROI of -0.46 for the top ranked horse.

Bill W.

[Tom]

Yes, I believe some races are fixed to some degree.
I have no doubts. Not fixed like Hey, everyone pull up and let the 10 win-he's 7-1!!
More like, the 2, 3, and 5 are lame-no way they can run today. The 1 and the 6,my horse, are the only speed. Let the 1 get away early, and box him with the 4,5,and 8.
Yes, I bet Pen, but lately I am betting Moutaineer more. And I like Sam Houston. Personally, I think the NYRA is the worst racing anywhere-maybe big purses, but crap horses and manipulating cheating horsemen.
Less so on turf, but on dirt, AQU means to me minor league racing. With YouBet, I don't have to play NYRA and seldom do anymore. The more money the trainers have, the better the drugs they can get and pay off peopleto let them use them.
JMHO, but after years of NYRA, I can't take it seriously.

Tom
(OK, let's dump gasoline on the fire now!)

[Moe Mony]

Originally posted by BillW
Re. BRIS Prime Power:

Here is some ROI data from my lil database (This data happens to be Dirt/Dry)


Top 2.69 IV -0.23 ROI 3549 starters
2nd 1.64 IV -0.30 ROI 3541 starters
3rd 1.20 IV -0.37 ROI 3531 starters

Where 0.00 ROI is breakeven and the average ROI of the database is -0.50 (takeout plus breakage) based on a $2.00 wager.

The greater the difference between average ROI and ROI of a factor would indicate less action. 0.23 doesn't indicate an overabundance of action. For instance, average earnings for the last 2 years shows an ROI of -0.46 for the top ranked horse.

Bill W. [/B]

THANX Bill for puttin' it in black and white. Your li'l DB sez more than all of Larry's DB posts in yonder years; and confirms the tried an' true saying; "Don't Mess With Texas!"

[John]

Bill w

I just got in todays mail from Bris, "Handicapping times" were they state that top prime power horses by three full points won 39% of the time six full points won 46%of the time ten full points won 55%of the time. of course they never gave any ROI.but, you get to see for free three " Prime Power Search Reports" for free in December

[Tom]

Last time they offered a free PPreport, I took on and foudn like 23 horses or so with a 10 point edge, and only two winners!
That was the last time I looked at PP.

Tom

[ranchwest]

While I believe most races are run reasonably legitimately, I have seen fixed races. I'm not talking a little fixed. I've seen races that were absolutely fixed. I saw one race in which every jockey in the race was in on it. I think this sort of thing seldom happens, but I have seen it happen.

[BillW]

Originally posted by rocajack

Bill w

I just got in todays mail from Bris, "Handicapping times" were they state that top prime power horses by three full points won 39% of the time six full points won 46%of the time ten full points won 55%of the time. of course they never gave any ROI.but, you get to see for free three " Prime Power Search Reports" for free in December

rocajack,

I've never checked my database against their claims, but, without data to back me up, I would say that any horse that is +3 on prime power is probably the favorite, +6 odds on favorite and +10 is Hallowed Dreams at Delta Downs.

It seems to be a good rating based on my database of about 10,000 races but value is not necessarily found in large deltas to the second place horse.

I'm not familiar with the Prime Power Search Report. I typically just use their raw data files and avoid the expensive reports. I always like to check out the free stuff though. :)

Bill W.