Betting Coup?

[EMD4ME]

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/pool-manipulation-suspicious-betting-spotted-in-thistledown-race/

Thoughts everyone?

[Stillriledup]

I think we have more problems than just worrying about a gambler who makes bad bets. This "coup" did nothing wrong, to my knowledge, you're allowed to bet thousands of dollars on horses with no chance.

[lamboguy]

this is the work of the GREAT GAMBINI he strikes when you aren't looking. this is nothing new to him either, he's only been doing this for about 40 years.

[EMD4ME]

Do you think the bookie paid him/her/them off?

[Stillriledup]

I wonder if this could be a "false flag" or a "test" to throw us off the scent of what's really going on.

[Maximillion]

Almost the same thing happened a year or two ago at this track--believe it was a Monday afternoon.

[stringmail]

Do you think the bookie paid him/her/them off?

I doubt it. I think he is out $20K pari-mutuelly and if lucky got credited back his original wager at the off shore prior to the account being closed.

[horses4courses]

It is pool manipulation.

There is every chance that the person(s) made a killing offshore,
although wherever they bet is unlikely to take their action much longer.

The remedy for this is simple.
Before a race goes official, especially at a small track, some attention
needs to be given to the mutuel payoffs. If something looks suspicious,
payoffs need to be delayed pending a brief investigation.
The bets that caused the fluctuation need to be traced and, if possible, those wagering need to be identified.
Whether it's merely an unnamed photo, or they are known patrons, at least an investigation is now in progress.
The initial delay shouldn't take more than 5-10 minutes,
and it's ultimately protection for the customer.

It's very easy to manipulate small tote pools.
Everything possible should be done to prevent it.

Some tracks are vigilant in policing unusual betting patterns.
I remember getting a call from Cal Expo one time at our book in Tahoe.
They were raising concerns about a $2K win wager placed with us with hours to go before the race was posting. Having got the time and the window where it was placed, we were able to trace the customer and had him search through the losing tickets around him.

Sure enough, a Cal Expo ticket was in the pile. The player had wanted Santa Anita, but the writer gave him the wrong track. His horse lost, and he thought nothing of it. We were able to cancel the ticket, and he got a refund.
Had his horse won at Santa Anita, he still would have been paid as he was an excellent customer.
The onus is on the bettor to check their ticket.
Exceptions can be made, however.

[Robert Fischer]

Offering tote-payoffs in offshore "books"(not commingled) seems to be a problem.

[horses4courses]

Offering tote-payoffs in offshore "books"(not commingled) seems to be a problem.

True.

Another thing to remember is that most of these books
have very low limits for small tracks.
Maybe a number of books took the hit?

[garyscpa]

Too bad for the offshore books. They don't contribute to the takeout, so that's the risk they take.

[Mineshaft]

stop taking bets one minute before the race and this crap wont happen

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Once again the TRPB is being brought in to look into the matter.

However, that is hardly reassuring, based on their invisible track record at publishing the results of these "investigations".

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=107314

SRU has brought up the viewpoint of how powerless the players are to investigate such matters, as of course we have no access to the data. Betting coups have been a part of the game for a long, long time. And when rather simple computer checks could prevent a lot of this, it's frustrating to know the cheating, or the appearance of cheating, is commonplace.

Apparently only the most blatant and obvious events (the Breeder's Cup pick 6 scandal at Arlington) are investigated, and reluctantly at that.....

[Some_One]

1.If this was some sort of offshore pool manipulation, just remember offshore books are a 100% chance to payout on this
2.Cutting betting off at 0 or 1 MTP won't stop it, it would just shift the timing.
3.If you don't like these movements, stop playing these Mickey Mouse tracks

[Stillriledup]

Non pari mutuel books are keenly aware of this type of stuff, any red flag at all, and yeah, i would think a large win bet at Thistledown is a "Red flag" and when this manipulation stuff comes out, you can bet your bottom dollar that this guy isnt getting paid and his account is going to be closed. UNLESS he's a HUGE whale who loses a ton of money betting sports and they don't want to lose him as a customer, but other than him being a cash cow for the offshore place, no way he's getting paid.

This is what would happen in exchange wagering, the person trying the shenanigans would have this type of stuff on his account and he wouldnt get paid and he would be investigated for race fixing. This is why exchange wagering would be great for horse racing to have, fixes would be much easier to sniff out.

[Stillriledup]

stop taking bets one minute before the race and this crap wont happen

What's "crap" about it? If i was a horseplayer who bet TDN i would welcome this guy with open arms....if he's going to provide me an 8 dollar win price on a horse who would otherwise be 3-5, why would anyone care to stop this? Its a win win for Thistledown and its a win win for people who had the winner.

[tanner12oz]

Offshore knows this goes on hence the much lower max payouts on b and c level tracks

[Mineshaft]

What's "crap" about it? If i was a horseplayer who bet TDN i would welcome this guy with open arms....if he's going to provide me an 8 dollar win price on a horse who would otherwise be 3-5, why would anyone care to stop this? Its a win win for Thistledown and its a win win for people who had the winner.




i get that and i would welcome the guy with open arms. But i think if you want to stop pool manipulation then cut the bets off early. Me personally i dont care about pool manipulation as a bettor.

[Frost king]

How does cutting off early stop pool manipulation? All that it does, it allows you to see the effects before the race goes off. You will then be crying, that your horse had inflated odds, and have been locked out from putting your bet down.

As for these bets, if you could consistently make them and win, everybody would be at the trough.

[cj]

Do you think the bookie paid him/her/them off?

Very little chance they got paid, slim and none.

[BlueShoe]

this is the work of the GREAT GAMBINI he strikes when you aren't looking. this is nothing new to him either, he's only been doing this for about 40 years.
Goes back much farther than that, back long before computers, ADWs, and offshore books. Many racing historians are familiar with the infamous Linden Tree incident which took place at old Aqua Caliente in 1932. A prohibitive favorite at 1-3 just before postime, his owner and part owner of the track, Baron Long, phoned in bets to bookies too late for them to lay any of it off, while at the same time making large wagers on every other horse in the race at the track into the small betting pools. When Linden Tree won easily and paid $21.40 there was a huge stink and investigation. The stewards were not amused and banned Long from racing at his own racetrack.

[Stillriledup]

i get that and i would welcome the guy with open arms. But i think if you want to stop pool manipulation then cut the bets off early. Me personally i dont care about pool manipulation as a bettor.

I don't really view this as pool manipulation. You're allowed to bet whatever you want as long as you don't cancel the bets and alter the odds. I feel that manipulation is when someone sticks money on a horse they don't intend keeping and they pull that money out at the last second. They're essentially manipulating you to think that this hopeless 20-1 shot is really 4-1 and has a chance. I don't have any problem with what they did, if someone wants to stick a couple grand on almost all the horses, more power to them...as long as they don't get refunds at the last second, i'm ok with it.

[GameTheory]

Yeah, I mean who are they protecting -- the bookies? Since the bookie(s) probably won't pay off the bettor and so they just threw away 20K altering the odds on a bet that won't get paid, I think the problem is self-correcting. As long as there are no cancelled bets, it's great for the rest of us. Who wouldn't want a ton of money poured on the least likely horses? Sounds great.

[Stillriledup]

Yeah, I mean who are they protecting -- the bookies? Since the bookie(s) probably won't pay off the bettor and so they just threw away 20K altering the odds on a bet that won't get paid, I think the problem is self-correcting. As long as there are no cancelled bets, it's great for the rest of us. Who wouldn't want a ton of money poured on the least likely horses? Sounds great.

I wonder if this Thistledown situation goes "Deeper" than just someone trying to exploit a non-comingled pool.

I've brought up the idea of a "False flag" you know, a "Test run" to see how "vigilant" the industry is with investigations. Hey, after all, if you have the ability to hack into the system, alter the prices and funnel money to your account unnoticed and you can prove that "authorities" won't care to dig and investigate, why not just do it?

We had a situation last October that the TRPB was going to investigate, yet, we still haven't heard anything about that, almost a year later.

"Racing" has proven time and time again that they don't care and their main goal is to keep all scandal out of the headlines. Let the "hackers" have their skim as long as we don't get the bad publicity that the tote systems are not really secure.

[GameTheory]

I wonder if this Thistledown situation goes "Deeper" than just someone trying to exploit a non-comingled pool.

I've brought up the idea of a "False flag" you know, a "Test run" to see how "vigilant" the industry is with investigations. Hey, after all, if you have the ability to hack into the system, alter the prices and funnel money to your account unnoticed and you can prove that "authorities" won't care to dig and investigate, why not just do it?

We had a situation last October that the TRPB was going to investigate, yet, we still haven't heard anything about that, almost a year later.

"Racing" has proven time and time again that they don't care and their main goal is to keep all scandal out of the headlines. Let the "hackers" have their skim as long as we don't get the bad publicity that the tote systems are not really secure.
It is hard to imagine that someone that doesn't want attention would bring attention to themselves just to see if they get attention. But then again, it doesn't make much sense to so obviously manipulate the pools if they want their real bet to be paid. So either someone here is just a dim bulb or there is something going on we haven't quite puzzled out that would indeed make perfect sense. (Auto-betting computer run amok?)

[Stillriledup]

It is hard to imagine that someone that doesn't want attention would bring attention to themselves just to see if they get attention. But then again, it doesn't make much sense to so obviously manipulate the pools if they want their real bet to be paid. So either someone here is just a dim bulb or there is something going on we haven't quite puzzled out that would indeed make perfect sense. (Auto-betting computer run amok?)

Sometimes its an advantage to have people think you're an idiot rather than think you're "dumb like a fox". Poker players and sports refs come to mind right away. If you think pro sports refs are "idiots" it will never dawn on you to think they might be really smart game fixers instead. Maybe there's some reason this bettor wants everyone to think he's a clown.

[GameTheory]

Sometimes its an advantage to have people think you're an idiot rather than think you're "dumb like a fox". Poker players and sports refs come to mind right away. If you think pro sports refs are "idiots" it will never dawn on you to think they might be really smart game fixers instead. Maybe there's some reason this bettor wants everyone to think he's a clown.
Very conspiratorial. Still it is hard to imagine. Poker players and game-fixing sports refs need to hide in plain site -- this was someone that could have remained hidden and chose not to (or thought stupidly that they would remain so). It is strange...

[Maximillion]

Sometimes its an advantage to have people think you're an idiot rather than think you're "dumb like a fox". Poker players and sports refs come to mind right away. If you think pro sports refs are "idiots" it will never dawn on you to think they might be really smart game fixers instead. Maybe there's some reason this bettor wants everyone to think he's a clown.

When this happened before (at TDN) it was almost 100 grand in wagers if I remember correctly.

[Maximillion]

Very conspiratorial. Still it is hard to imagine. Poker players and game-fixing sports refs need to hide in plain site -- this was someone that could have remained hidden and chose not to (or thought stupidly that they would remain so). It is strange...

The bets in both cases were so precise its hard to believe its the work of some idiot,but I guess anythings possible.....I agree its very strange.

[Stillriledup]

Very conspiratorial. Still it is hard to imagine. Poker players and game-fixing sports refs need to hide in plain site -- this was someone that could have remained hidden and chose not to (or thought stupidly that they would remain so). It is strange...

You know, as a handicapper, i've been "Trained" to think outside the box and come up with the most bizarre theories...but, i believe anything is possible, i wouldnt put anything past anyone.

If i would told you that someone who worked in the tote room was pulling shenanigans with tickets and changing the numbers after a few of the races were over, you might have said "cmon" but it really happened with the Pick 6 scandal.

I think anything is possible, you read some of this stuff in wired magazine and watch programs like American Greed (there was one on the other night about hackers) and you see what the best and the brightest have the capability to do and then you think how "behind the times" the racing industry is with their thinking, just makes me wonder if everything is "iron clad". Greatest hackers have proven they can beat almost anything.

[Cholly]

Who wouldn't want a ton of money poured on the least likely horses?

Possibly the people who had already bet on "the least likely horses" and expected to get a somewhat legitimate return for their risk...maybe them?

[GameTheory]

Possibly the people who had already bet on "the least likely horses" and expected to get a somewhat legitimate return for their risk...maybe them?For one race as a surprise maybe, but on a regular basis it would be awesome. They are actually trying to do it with that equilottery nonsense...

[Stillriledup]

For one race as a surprise maybe, but on a regular basis it would be awesome. They are actually trying to do it with that equilottery nonsense...

I agree, im sure bettors would sacrifice one race where their 10-1 shot was 4-1 in order to have this "idiot" in the pools more often.

[joeslovo]

How can this be considered a coup?
In my view it is a poor bet to make.
In the example given by the report;the bettor lays out $30,000 to win $11,000.
To accomplish that he also needs an off course bookmaker or an off shore racebook to take his bets.
He would probably need a helper as well which would reduce his ROI.
To bet 3/1 on yourself under these uncertain conditions is a mugs game.
I worked for Ladbrokes in the 60's (long before it was Ladbrokes)...not in the USA and we would have to watch out for "betting coups" all the time as (in London) both the Tote and Off Track betting were legal.

[joeslovo]

Also if this bettor "knows" a bookmaker who would be mug enough to lay these kind of bets then there is an easier way of making your $10,000.
Remember a bookie does not want to know what is going to win.A bookie needs to know what is going to lose;so that he can lay it without fear.
This is the cause of many questionable moves on the Exchange for instance.

[classhandicapper]

I'm going to guess the money bet off shore or with illegal bookmakers was not bet by one person or into one account. I'm going to guess it was split up between multiple accounts and sites to try to ensure the bet would both be taken and get paid off.

There are winning sport bettors that actually pay people a small fee to make bets for them so it is split up and they can get their huge action down.

[GameTheory]

I'm going to guess the money bet off shore or with illegal bookmakers was not bet by one person or into one account. I'm going to guess it was split up between multiple accounts and sites to try to ensure the bet would both be taken and get paid off.

There are winning sport bettors that actually pay people a small fee to make bets for them so it is split up and they can get their huge action down.

Sure, but I assume most non-parimutuel books would just declare this race "no action" and refund all bets.

[thespaah]

It seems everyone is assuming the offshore sites are aware or even care.
Or their security is sophisticated to the point where management of said offshore sites is even aware that multiple bets made across several accounts were made to manipulate the mutuel pools.
I submit that this kind of thing goes on quite frequently and those who could stop it look the other way because these bettors are pumping a lot of money through their sites.
Just a thought.

[davew]

nobody has mentioned another possibility, being a computer betting (bot) screw-up. The pool totals for each entrant had to be rather close and to do that takes very quick calculations to determine what odd amount to wager on each entrant.

A few years ago when Nevada was strickly racebooks, they had house quinellas - top 2 horse entries paid (win price of winner)( half place price of second). Occasionally there would be strange pays and some would feel it was a run on Nevada racebooks. Only problem with that is on many occasions, they would limit certain bets - especially to strangers - and the amount you could wager (as well as their typical max pay-outs).

[GameTheory]

It seems everyone is assuming the offshore sites are aware or even care.
Or their security is sophisticated to the point where management of said offshore sites is even aware that multiple bets made across several accounts were made to manipulate the mutuel pools.
I submit that this kind of thing goes on quite frequently and those who could stop it look the other way because these bettors are pumping a lot of money through their sites.
Just a thought.Even the smallest neighborhood bookies now run their business online through "pay per head" software -- they are all tied to central servers for lines, etc. Most of them will cancel a bet or an account over anything at all, they do it all the time. Basically anybody that wins or does anything slightly suspicious has to find new bookies constantly. The larger offshore sites don't necessarily care if you win (as long as it isn't TOO much) because their books are balanced, but something like this would probably have been an automatic system-wide "no action" that will filter down from the main servers (trust me, THEY are paying attention) to the big books and small-time bookies alike...

[thaskalos]

Even the smallest neighborhood bookies now run their business online through "pay per head" software -- they are all tied to central servers for lines, etc. Most of them will cancel a bet or an account over anything at all, they do it all the time. Basically anybody that wins or does anything slightly suspicious has to find new bookies constantly. The larger offshore sites don't necessarily care if you win (as long as it isn't TOO much) because their books are balanced, but something like this would probably have been an automatic system-wide "no action" that will filter down from the main servers (trust me, THEY are paying attention) to the big books and small-time bookies alike...

Not always. Many an enterprising bookie will even go to the extent of rewarding a long-time winning customer with a monetary BONUS...to ensure that he keeps the winner's business. The bookie will just piggyback on the winning customer's picks...while laying them off with another book.

[GameTheory]

Not always. Many an enterprising bookie will even go to the extent of rewarding a long-time winning customer with a monetary BONUS...to ensure that he keeps the winner's business. The bookie will just piggyback on the winning customer's picks...while laying them off with another book.Yes yes yes, that was also in my head and I forgot to add it. A ton of that going on with the "per head" sites -- everybody trying to follow everyone else...