Foreign betting exchanges and US tote manipulation

[QTwithTQ]

Solid investigative report by Michael Cox from the South China Morning Post written for Thoroughbred Racing Commentary -

https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/asian-art-price-steaming-how-outlaw-exchanges-threaten-integrity-global-horse-racing

In the story, Cox explores two Philippines based betting exchanges where some of the world's biggest gamblers wager. He discusses one instance where odds were manipulated in Ohio, checks in with the Thoroughbred Racing Protective Bureau and discusses where the sport currently is in combating this threat to its integrity.

[davew]

I do not quite understand it - will they bet or lay (eat) percentage points from the actual pay-off, whatever it ends up? So they are not only betting on finish position, but also by track pay-offs (which are not known at time of bet)?

[joeslovo]

I don't know if I would call this US tote manipulation.A bettor is entitled to put whatever stake he/she likes on any or all horses in any race.If that effects the odds at a site in Manila;well that is up to the site in Manila to manage.In other words;if the Manila based betting site does not hedge or does not co-mingle their $20,000 bet with the US site;then more mug them.
This was "common"enough years ago in London.I remember a betting "coup" in the 60's at a London dog track (I think it was Park Royal) whereby a mob bet would bet a dog(at tote odds)with the OTB bookies that would be an odds on chance ante post (or morning line).They would then bet another 20/1 chance at the track to be odds on at the track tote.In those days the currency exchange was pounds;shillings and pence;so the odds were in 1/8ths instead of 1/10ths or decimals as today.No matter really;if you bet one horse or dog to be 1/10 then the odds will be big odds against for anything else.No two betting entities can be odds on.Where you can't win;you can't lose.Trying to manipulate all this is no easy matter;not least because of the number of people involved and the precise amount to place on each horse or dog that would give you the desired returns.In this case the courts sided with the bookies(who refused to pay out);there were threats made to the public at the time;since they were prevented from placing bets themselves by a few thugs inline at the track.All in the last few minutes.
As far as The Philippines is concerned;well the corruption there is total.Get in the way of some people and they will kill you and all your family.
I can see this as a way for money laundering and avoiding dues more than a
way to land a gamble or coup.

[Some_One]

That is not a betting exchange issue, sounds like CITIbet is acting like an offshore book when it handles US racing. The obvious response as someone who is an active exchange user (Betfair) is if you are up to anything illegal and there is an agreement with local racing jurisdictions, it's just a matter of time till you get arrested (see Fallon, etc over the years).

[Stillriledup]

I don't know if I would call this US tote manipulation.A bettor is entitled to put whatever stake he/she likes on any or all horses in any race.If that effects the odds at a site in Manila;well that is up to the site in Manila to manage.In other words;if the Manila based betting site does not hedge or does not co-mingle their $20,000 bet with the US site;then more mug them.
This was "common"enough years ago in London.I remember a betting "coup" in the 60's at a London dog track (I think it was Park Royal) whereby a mob bet would bet a dog(at tote odds)with the OTB bookies that would be an odds on chance ante post (or morning line).They would then bet another 20/1 chance at the track to be odds on at the track tote.In those days the currency exchange was pounds;shillings and pence;so the odds were in 1/8ths instead of 1/10ths or decimals as today.No matter really;if you bet one horse or dog to be 1/10 then the odds will be big odds against for anything else.No two betting entities can be odds on.Where you can't win;you can't lose.Trying to manipulate all this is no easy matter;not least because of the number of people involved and the precise amount to place on each horse or dog that would give you the desired returns.In this case the courts sided with the bookies(who refused to pay out);there were threats made to the public at the time;since they were prevented from placing bets themselves by a few thugs inline at the track.All in the last few minutes.
As far as The Philippines is concerned;well the corruption there is total.Get in the way of some people and they will kill you and all your family.
I can see this as a way for money laundering and avoiding dues more than a
way to land a gamble or coup.

Manipulation occurs in the US when a bettor makes bets and then has them refunded. Like you say, if a person wants to bet 10k to win on every horse in the race and then doesn't refund the bet, that's not manipulation..a bad bet maybe, but you're allowed to bet whatever you want, as long as you keep the bet.

[Robert Fischer]

I don't know if I would call this US tote manipulation.A bettor is entitled to put whatever stake he/she likes on any or all horses in any race.If that effects the odds at a site in Manila;well that is up to the site in Manila to manage.In other words;if the Manila based betting site does not hedge or does not co-mingle their $20,000 bet with the US site;then more mug them.
This was "common"enough years ago in London.I remember a betting "coup" in the 60's at a London dog track (I think it was Park Royal) whereby a mob bet would bet a dog(at tote odds)with the OTB bookies that would be an odds on chance ante post (or morning line).They would then bet another 20/1 chance at the track to be odds on at the track tote.In those days the currency exchange was pounds;shillings and pence;so the odds were in 1/8ths instead of 1/10ths or decimals as today.No matter really;if you bet one horse or dog to be 1/10 then the odds will be big odds against for anything else.No two betting entities can be odds on.Where you can't win;you can't lose.Trying to manipulate all this is no easy matter;not least because of the number of people involved and the precise amount to place on each horse or dog that would give you the desired returns.In this case the courts sided with the bookies(who refused to pay out);there were threats made to the public at the time;since they were prevented from placing bets themselves by a few thugs inline at the track.All in the last few minutes.
As far as The Philippines is concerned;well the corruption there is total.Get in the way of some people and they will kill you and all your family.
I can see this as a way for money laundering and avoiding dues more than a
way to land a gamble or coup.

Interesting stuff.

[joeslovo]

@SRU
"Manipulation occurs in the US when a bettor makes bets and then has them refunded. Like you say, if a person wants to bet 10k to win on every horse in the race and then doesn't refund the bet, that's not manipulation..a bad bet maybe, but you're allowed to bet whatever you want, as long as you keep the bet"

Wouldn't this make the tote returns "worse" for the bettor?
How does betting and then cancelling a bet effect the pool?

Also in the case reported;how sure can the bettor be of a return of 11/2 by placing an even $4000 on the field except the 1/5 favorite?

[Stillriledup]

@SRU
"Manipulation occurs in the US when a bettor makes bets and then has them refunded. Like you say, if a person wants to bet 10k to win on every horse in the race and then doesn't refund the bet, that's not manipulation..a bad bet maybe, but you're allowed to bet whatever you want, as long as you keep the bet"

Wouldn't this make the tote returns "worse" for the bettor?
How does betting and then cancelling a bet effect the pool?

Also in the case reported;how sure can the bettor be of a return of 11/2 by placing an even $4000 on the field except the 1/5 favorite?

Im not saying the bettor would bet every horse to win as a matter of practice, i just used that as an example of what some people might find as manipulation but is not.

Cancelling bettors can either corner the market on a runner with big bets that they don't intend keeping or betting on no hopers that gives off the impression the no hoper can hit the exa or tri and causes other bettors to use that runner in exotics because he's taking "Action"

For example, lets say a horse figures to be about an even money shot by post time, but the big bettor loves the horse and plans to bet 1k to win. He can bet 3k to win, cause the 1-1 shot to dip far below what anyone else would consider a good bet, this forces value seeking punters onto other horses, but when he refunds 2k of the 3k at the very last second (hypothetically speaking), he inflates his own win price and gets a higher return on his 1k if the horse should win.

Bet enough where you "force" other bettors to seek value elsewhere...the big bet keeps them off that horse..nobody wants 3-5 on a horse who deserves to be 1-1.

[davew]

@SRU
"Manipulation occurs in the US when a bettor makes bets and then has them refunded. Like you say, if a person wants to bet 10k to win on every horse in the race and then doesn't refund the bet, that's not manipulation..a bad bet maybe, but you're allowed to bet whatever you want, as long as you keep the bet"

Wouldn't this make the tote returns "worse" for the bettor?
How does betting and then cancelling a bet effect the pool?

Also in the case reported;how sure can the bettor be of a return of 11/2 by placing an even $4000 on the field except the 1/5 favorite?


favorite, smaller track pool

pool manipulator bets $11000 to win in a pool typically that closes typically with $15K in win pool

during betting period horse opens at 1/9 while everyone else over 10/1

that next logical contenders get money, and the overbet does not get much more

odds drift 1 minutes to post
3/5 on favorite, 4/1 on 2nd, 6/1 on 3rd choice
lets say the true probabilities are
35%, 30%, 25% chances of winning for first 3

the value bettors hammer the 2nd and 3rd choice
horses start entering gate

pool manipulator cancels $10,000 of their $11,000 bet just as gates open
off odds main contenders are 6/5, 5/2, 7/2

horse turn for home and last bets/cancellations show on odds

5/1 for original way overbet, 6/5 second choice, 2/1 third choice

guy wins and manipulator gets $12.40 / $2 for $1000
instead of the $4-5 they would have gotten without screwing with pool

[whodoyoulike]

I agree with SRU and davew.

The obvious way to manipulate the parimutuel pools is the last second cancellation of large bets. Which is why I think tracks should announce how much was cancelled (say w/in 30 seconds of going off). They report how much was wagered in each pool. They could even show how much was cancelled by horse then bettors can decide whether they want to bet at those tracks. At the very least someone should be reviewing this type of activity.

[Robert Goren]

All is fair in love and war and gambling. I don't have problem someone trying to out maneuver the late bettors whose money does not show up until after the horses hit the half mile pole. Those big bettors are driving new bettors away from the game and they don not limit the actions to an obscure track and they do it in most races at even major tracks.

[joeslovo]

He!He! All these examples are pure speculation and in the main fantastical.
I don't look for value in even money shots;nor do I imagine for the life of me that there are loads of people just waiting around to find value in a drifting odds on chance and plunge into a maiden race at Thistledown.
Anything that depends on the mind set (and pocket book) of others is just theory and for the most part a fairy tale.Especially at a maiden event in a small track.
And in any case people are free to bet and cancel as they wish;if they want to give themselves such a headache.

The Asian "mob" in the story have done nothing wrong.It is lawful to place $7000 on each of 6 horses out of 7 with the totalisator.

If they (and they are said to be) betting on an exchange with other or one other punter;then that is legitimate also.You can allow discounts which in their worls is also legitimate.And/or you can lay over or under the prevailing odds;or returned SP(starting price) or returned tote odds.

If you have someone or more likely a lot of people online with you who are willing to accept that bet;then good luck to you;again,nothing wrong with that in my book.

I am saying that it is not all that easy to manage;and not easy to determine how much should be layed out on each horse at Thistledown in the 7 horse race.In this case it was supposed to be $7000 on each of 6.What if one of the 6 had won.What was the market for the others?The return odds of 11/2 was in no way guaranteed;and was in itself a gamble.

Finding others to take your bet would require some rehearsal as well;so once bitten twice shy here;but if a person/s pulls this off;it is all good as far as I am concerned.

It is all about numbers nowadays and good luck if you can get them to come for you.

[Stillriledup]

He!He! All these examples are pure speculation and in the main fantastical.
I don't look for value in even money shots;nor do I imagine for the life of me that there are loads of people just waiting around to find value in a drifting odds on chance and plunge into a maiden race at Thistledown.
Anything that depends on the mind set (and pocket book) of others is just theory and for the most part a fairy tale.Especially at a maiden event in a small track.
And in any case people are free to bet and cancel as they wish;if they want to give themselves such a headache.

The Asian "mob" in the story have done nothing wrong.It is lawful to place $7000 on each of 6 horses out of 7 with the totalisator.

If they (and they are said to be) betting on an exchange with other or one other punter;then that is legitimate also.You can allow discounts which in their worls is also legitimate.And/or you can lay over or under the prevailing odds;or returned SP(starting price) or returned tote odds.

If you have someone or more likely a lot of people online with you who are willing to accept that bet;then good luck to you;again,nothing wrong with that in my book.

I am saying that it is not all that easy to manage;and not easy to determine how much should be layed out on each horse at Thistledown in the 7 horse race.In this case it was supposed to be $7000 on each of 6.What if one of the 6 had won.What was the market for the others?The return odds of 11/2 was in no way guaranteed;and was in itself a gamble.

Finding others to take your bet would require some rehearsal as well;so once bitten twice shy here;but if a person/s pulls this off;it is all good as far as I am concerned.

It is all about numbers nowadays and good luck if you can get them to come for you.

You're losing me here....so making large bets and cancelling them is all fair in love and war?

Is that what you're saying?

[davew]

You're losing me here....so making large bets and cancelling them is all fair in love and war?

Is that what you're saying?


Goren thinks so as well, I can't understand how they decide to make a bet - maybe they just don't bet.

[whodoyoulike]

I think we just have to remind ourselves this is going on in horse racing, sports betting and the stock market.

Horse racing can and should do something about this because they're in a downward spiral. And, if more and more "fans" think this is widespread, I'd suspect it'd be another reason to find something else to do with their money.

Even free popcorn won't bring them back.

This will end up being a case of perception becoming reality.

[Stillriledup]

I think we just have to remind ourselves this is going on in horse racing, sports betting and the stock market.

Horse racing can and should do something about this because they're in a downward spiral. And, if more and more "fans" think this is widespread, I'd suspect it'd be another reason to find something else to do with their money.

"Horse racing" doesn't do anything unless there's something in it for them, they have never acted in the best interests of their customers. Its a take it or leave it game for customers and fans, that's how its always been.

[whodoyoulike]

But, it will eventually affect them.

[lamboguy]

i understand the the reasoning behind betting every horse in a race for $7000 to win other than the horse that you want to win the race. what i don't understand is how someone sitting 8000 miles away in the Philippenes would book a $40,000 or more bet on the 5th race at Thistle? i wish i had these options about 40 years ago when i first started betting horses, i would be owning all the race tracks instead of betting them.

[Stillriledup]

But, it will eventually affect them.

The funny thing is that its affecting them now, they just don't know it.

[Stillriledup]

i understand the the reasoning behind betting every horse in a race for $7000 to win other than the horse that you want to win the race. what i don't understand is how someone sitting 8000 miles away in the Philippenes would book a $40,000 or more bet on the 5th race at Thistle? i wish i had these options about 40 years ago when i first started betting horses, i would be owning all the race tracks instead of betting them.

Lambo Downs! :ThmbUp:

[davew]

i understand the the reasoning behind betting every horse in a race for $7000 to win other than the horse that you want to win the race. what i don't understand is how someone sitting 8000 miles away in the Philippenes would book a $40,000 or more bet on the 5th race at Thistle? i wish i had these options about 40 years ago when i first started betting horses, i would be owning all the race tracks instead of betting them.

the exchange is just matching 'bets' between 2 degenerates

[Stillriledup]

Solid investigative report by Michael Cox from the South China Morning Post written for Thoroughbred Racing Commentary -

https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/asian-art-price-steaming-how-outlaw-exchanges-threaten-integrity-global-horse-racing

In the story, Cox explores two Philippines based betting exchanges where some of the world's biggest gamblers wager. He discusses one instance where odds were manipulated in Ohio, checks in with the Thoroughbred Racing Protective Bureau and discusses where the sport currently is in combating this threat to its integrity.

The TRPB can't even get around to THIS: (see below link) and they're talking about Singapore. Pretty funny.

Michael Cox says this:

And most frighteningly -- a place where these shadowy cooperations seem to have zero interest in helping maintain the integrity of the sport they leech from each and every day.

SRU says This:

Why is this most frightening? I don't understand this comment from the writer of this article, isn't the TRPB and other regulatory bodies in charge of maintaining integrity in American racing?

J Curtis Linnell Says:

Linnell estimates that similar-type scenarios have played out "between 50 and 70 times" since that day in 2012, with the trail leading back to betting accounts based in Southeast Asia.

SRU says:

I don't remember 50 to 70 times where 0ver 50k was pumped into small pools in America on losing horses.....do you?

J Curtis Linnell says:

The problem I have is the lack of transparency, and the lack of contact we have with the operators,"

SRU says: LOL.

Chris Eaton Says:

"The agent-based structures are clearly designed to maintain the anonymity and secrecy of account holders, are readymade for abuse by criminals and ideal for money laundering. These operations are turning over billions weekly and governments are not pursuing them. No one even knows who owns these operations and this is outlandish."

SRU Says: Yes, god forbid bettors can win money without the entire world knowing about it. What's actually outlandish is the criminally high takeouts in American racing as well as the breakage that's being pilfered every day from bettors accounts, you know, those bettors who are known via the information they have provided their ADWs.

Chris Eaton Says:

Horse racing had the best protected system in the world, it understood betting and it has great stewarding systems and drug testing, but all of those integrity measures are based within national borders -- once it goes outside those borders and becomes unregulated, the stewards' control is lost and this is the problem.

SRU says:

I don't understand these comments, if these people are betting on American racetracks, the "stewarding systems" and "Drug testing" doesn't become unregulated because some people are betting in the shadowy underworld...the integrity of racing is the integrity of racing and doesn't get better or worse if some betting is going on outside these borders. What am i missing?

Last paragraph in article, assuming its from Michael Cox:

So while billions of dollars change hands on the sport, racing gets nothing except a threat to its integrity and some strange occurrences at far-flung racetracks around the world.

SRU said:
How does this threaten integrity?

Andrew Harding (i think) said:

"It's about gaining recognition of the fact that racing's business model is built upon a reasonable rate of return from wagering to the sport,”

SRU said:

Reasonable rate? So, 30 to 35 pct takeout at some tracks in the Tri pools is "reasonable"?. Seems reasonable to me.

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

[baconswitchfarm]

Curtis has collected a full time paycheck and never caught anyone here . I am sure they are pretty safe over there if he is on the job. :lol:

[joeslovo]

http://www.amazon.com/Definitive-Betting-Exchanges-Racing-Expert/dp/1905153023

Here is a good reference to exchange betting

[Stillriledup]

Curtis has collected a full time paycheck and never caught anyone here . I am sure they are pretty safe over there if he is on the job. :lol:

I think they caught some past posters over a year ago at an "unnamed track" but that got brushed under the rug....either that, or they're still "investigating". :D

[thespaah]

@SRU
"Manipulation occurs in the US when a bettor makes bets and then has them refunded. Like you say, if a person wants to bet 10k to win on every horse in the race and then doesn't refund the bet, that's not manipulation..a bad bet maybe, but you're allowed to bet whatever you want, as long as you keep the bet"

Wouldn't this make the tote returns "worse" for the bettor?
How does betting and then cancelling a bet effect the pool?

Also in the case reported;how sure can the bettor be of a return of 11/2 by placing an even $4000 on the field except the 1/5 favorite?
The activity mentioned by SRU is manipulation in that the large wager is made with the intent of skewing the bets away from the actual favorite of a race. The theory is the public money will "follow" the large bet. This makes the targeted entry a false favorite. The large wager is cancelled at the last moment and at the same instance, the large bettor then acts, placing his bet giving the public no time to leap on the coat tails of the bet....
So instead of the tote odds being say 4/5 he gets much better odds.

[Stillriledup]

The activity mentioned by SRU is manipulation in that the large wager is made with the intent of skewing the bets away from the actual favorite of a race. The theory is the public money will "follow" the large bet. This makes the targeted entry a false favorite. The large wager is cancelled at the last moment and at the same instance, the large bettor then acts, placing his bet giving the public no time to leap on the coat tails of the bet....
So instead of the tote odds being say 4/5 he gets much better odds.

I know you have follow in quotes, but what i'm talking about is the big bettor betting ON the horse he likes to depress the odds so far down that even though some bettors feel that's the "hot horse" many other big bettors who seek value won't bet the horse, even if they think its the most likely winner. If the horse is "supposed to be" 1-1 and the huge bettor's bet makes the horse 2-5 with 0 mtp, even though that horse is fancied by many people, nobody is going to take 2-5 on a horse they "want" 1-1 on. BUT, the big bettor refunds a large portion of that bet at the last possible second....so, with that 2-5 getting refunded AND other bettors sending money in on overlays, the 2-5 drifts up to 1-1 or higher...and the canceller gets his 1-1 (or more) in the end.

Its a move that's kind of "Cornering the market" on the "right horse" and getting value bettors to bet on other horses.

[thespaah]

I don't see how pool manipulation can take place if the offshore betting parlors do not comingle with the track pools

[Stillriledup]

I don't see how pool manipulation can take place if the offshore betting parlors do not comingle with the track pools

Because the people who are betting in the non comingled offshores also have accounts or friends with accounts in the states....and they play around with the pools in America because the non comingled places book the bets and just pay off whatever the official prices are in America. Now, some think that a guy betting 10k to win on horses who can't win as "manipulation" but its not manipulation, its just a guy making a bunch of bad bets that he kept. Now, if he bet and refunded them, than that's manipulation.

[whodoyoulike]

I think the two of you are both correct. It's just two ways to manipulate the odds. Either way, the manipulator has the intention of betting his selection(s) from the outset hopefully from his POV at higher odds. And, there are probably other ways to manipulate the odds.

[Stillriledup]

I think the two of you are both correct. It's just two ways to manipulate the odds. Either way, the manipulator has the intention of betting his selection(s) from the outset hopefully from his POV at higher odds. And, there are probably other ways to manipulate the odds.

You're right, technically they're both forms of manipulation, but the only one that should bother people is when the manipulators make bets they have no intention of keeping. I WANT them to stick lots of money on no hopers, its more for me and its more for you if we happen to come up with the winner.

[thespaah]

Because the people who are betting in the non comingled offshores also have accounts or friends with accounts in the states....and they play around with the pools in America because the non comingled places book the bets and just pay off whatever the official prices are in America. Now, some think that a guy betting 10k to win on horses who can't win as "manipulation" but its not manipulation, its just a guy making a bunch of bad bets that he kept. Now, if he bet and refunded them, than that's manipulation.
Well that is an entirely different story...
The article in question makes no mention of collusion with US based bettors who are wagering via on track or ADW's and the offshore bettors

[thespaah]

"Horse racing" doesn't do anything unless there's something in it for them, they have never acted in the best interests of their customers. Its a take it or leave it game for customers and fans, that's how its always been.
I can understand your cynicism. However, how much longer can this type of business model continue?
As the average age of horseplayers advances and with virtually no new blood taking an interest in it, track managements and those in the industry in general will find that without bettors, their entire way of life is dependent on black jack, slots and craps.....How is that going to work out for them?

[Stillriledup]

I can understand your cynicism. However, how much longer can this type of business model continue?
As the average age of horseplayers advances and with virtually no new blood taking an interest in it, track managements and those in the industry in general will find that without bettors, their entire way of life is dependent on black jack, slots and craps.....How is that going to work out for them?

Its not really MY cynicism, its just the racing industry doesn't put the customers first....not being cynical, just trying to be realistic.