Betting After the Race is Run

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Here is an Australian case of a tote employee who was betting on trifectas after the races were run and won. She managed to collect $1.4 million over 10 long years. Only just found out about the case as it was posted to an Australian forum but the story is 2 years old

I doubt this only happens in Australia. Anyways if your trifecta dividends seem a bit short it could be due to this sort of thing

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/acttab-fraud-worth-14-million-sees-woman-jailed-for-five-years-20130812-2rsa1.html

[lamboguy]

i quit trifecta's, superfecta's and other blind pools for 12 years now. truthfully, while i know some of the short payoffs are due to after the bell players, most of the deficiency in those pools are due to batch bettors that know the probable trifecta and superfecta before the race is even run and their computer's can fire away in miliseconds legally because they have the console hooked directly into the tote feed and i don't.

[lamboguy]

Here is an Australian case of a tote employee who was betting on trifectas after the races were run and won. She managed to collect $1.4 million over 10 long years. Only just found out about the case as it was posted to an Australian forum but the story is 2 years old

I doubt this only happens in Australia. Anyways if your trifecta dividends seem a bit short it could be due to this sort of thing

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/acttab-fraud-worth-14-million-sees-woman-jailed-for-five-years-20130812-2rsa1.htmli am going to guarantee you this, it don't happen in Hong Kong. that's why they are handling $200 million a race card and are projected to reach $300 million within 2 years.
by the way, we probably have one of the best Hong Kong handicappers in the world that posts on this board before the race, Nitro.

[ultracapper]

not sure she was getting the money out of the pool. Tough to tell by that story, but she may have been getting her money out of the rake. she would have had to get her bets in after the race was run but before it went official to get money out of the pool. This article sounds like maybe she was syphoning it off the track take somehow.

Not sure.

[davew]

i quit trifecta's, superfecta's and other blind pools for 12 years now. truthfully, while i know some of the short payoffs are due to after the bell players, most of the deficiency in those pools are due to batch bettors that know the probable trifecta and superfecta before the race is even run and their computer's can fire away in miliseconds legally because they have the console hooked directly into the tote feed and i don't.

Does that mean they have instantaneous updates rather than every 30-50 seconds? Does the feed also tell where the bet originated? So do they have access to the blind pools and how much was bet on each combination?

[Stillriledup]

Tri's and Supers often pay half of what they used to pay. Tri's that you used to get 1,000 on now pay 500 with the same degree of difficulty.

[olddaddy]

Technology is out there to show probables on tris and supers to the public but no need to implement it as long as people keep betting it blindly.

[lamboguy]

Does that mean they have instantaneous updates rather than every 30-50 seconds? Does the feed also tell where the bet originated? So do they have access to the blind pools and how much was bet on each combination?
i don't have the answer's to your question, but in gambling when someone has something that you don't have its called getting an edge and i know enough to step aside.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

ultracapper

She was definitely getting the money out of the players' share of the pool. If she was stealing money out of the tote's share of the pool they would not have taken 10 years to wake up to it. As it was the tote was not losing money as she was simply reducing the dividends for the players who held winning tickets. And these winning players had no idea that their trifecta should have paid $700 instead of the $500 or whatever they received

[Stillriledup]

ultracapper

She was definitely getting the money out of the players' share of the pool. If she was stealing money out of the tote's share of the pool they would not have taken 10 years to wake up to it. As it was the tote was not losing money as she was simply reducing the dividends for the players who held winning tickets. And these winning players had no idea that their trifecta should have paid $700 instead of the $500 or whatever they received

I'd love to know more about the way she placed the wagers...did she place a 1 dollar straight trifecta....or maybe if the tri paid boxcars, she made a 9 horse box and lost some bets on purpose to make it look good?

It doesn't seem to me that the American horse racing industry is going full bore to make sure this isn't happening in America because after all, they get a cut of the bets that are made after the fact...so, not much incentive to dig into this and look for fraud.

I don't believe it would be too hard to sniff out betting accounts that are skimming and betting after the race is over, you just gotta want to find it and you have to do the legwork.

[JohnGalt1]

[QUOTE=Stillriledup]Tri's and Supers often pay half of what they used to pay. Tri's that you used to get 1,000 on now pay 500 with the same degree of difficulty.[/QUOTE

A reason is lower minimum bets.

I can't remember where I read this online, (I read so much.) Frank Angst wrote an article recently on how pay offs have dropped since minimums were lowered on exotics. If I remember he wrote trifecta payoffs are down 8% since 1995 per unit. That is a $1 tri minimum that averages $100 does not average $50 at a fifty cent minimum, but $46.

And now Hawthorne and others have $.20 cent minimums for 3+ horse exotics.

I apologize for veering from the original topic.

To paraphrase the control voice from Outer Limits, "I will now return control back to the original topic."

[OTM Al]

[QUOTE=Stillriledup]Tri's and Supers often pay half of what they used to pay. Tri's that you used to get 1,000 on now pay 500 with the same degree of difficulty.[/QUOTE

A reason is lower minimum bets.

I can't remember where I read this online, (I read so much.) Frank Angst wrote an article recently on how pay offs have dropped since minimums were lowered on exotics. If I remember he wrote trifecta payoffs are down 8% since 1995 per unit. That is a $1 tri minimum that averages $100 does not average $50 at a fifty cent minimum, but $46.

And now Hawthorne and others have $.20 cent minimums for 3+ horse exotics.

I apologize for veering from the original topic.

To paraphrase the control voice from Outer Limits, "I will now return control back to the original topic."

What you say is actually more interesting than the original topic anyway. To be able to do what is talked about here, you would have to be able to turn the tote back on after the race has gone off and it has already been closed. Maybe someone at the tote company could do this but not even sure that is possible.

[JohnGalt1]

I just remembered I saw a link to Frank Angst's article at HANA's website.

[SoCalCircuit]

I'm not sure where/if I could find the data, but I would guarantee the percent drop off is even larger for pick 4s since the minimum was lowered at most tracks a few years ago.

[Some_One]

[QUOTE=Stillriledup]Tri's and Supers often pay half of what they used to pay. Tri's that you used to get 1,000 on now pay 500 with the same degree of difficulty.[/QUOTE

A reason is lower minimum bets.

I can't remember where I read this online, (I read so much.) Frank Angst wrote an article recently on how pay offs have dropped since minimums were lowered on exotics. If I remember he wrote trifecta payoffs are down 8% since 1995 per unit. That is a $1 tri minimum that averages $100 does not average $50 at a fifty cent minimum, but $46.

And now Hawthorne and others have $.20 cent minimums for 3+ horse exotics.

I apologize for veering from the original topic.

To paraphrase the control voice from Outer Limits, "I will now return control back to the original topic."

Wouldn't an 8% drop in average payoff correlate reasonably with decreasing average field sizes which decreases combos?

[lamboguy]

[QUOTE=JohnGalt1]

Wouldn't an 8% drop in average payoff correlate reasonably with decreasing average field sizes which decreases combos?
that makes more sense than lower ticket prices that don't mean a thing.

[Nitro]

i am going to guarantee you this, it don't happen in Hong Kong. that's why they are handling $200 million a race card and are projected to reach $300 million within 2 years.
by the way, we probably have one of the best Hong Kong handicappers in the world that posts on this board before the race, Nitro.
You're absolutely correct Lambo! Maybe not about me, but I appreciate the plug. I certainly have enjoyed my run at SHA TIN, and sharing that makes it even more fun.

But all this talk about dropping payoffs in Triples is no real news and certainly not related to a few skilled cheaters in remote locations. More often then not the totes are being monitored very carefully. Field size is of course a concern, but let's face it players today are just a bit smarter about structuring their Triple plays. When I started playing Triples in the 70's the payoffs were as large as Supers are today with 10 and 12 horse fields. That's one of the reasons I enjoy Hong Kong so much. Even their Quinellas can often pay as much as a Triple here in the States and the outlay is substantially less. :ThmbUp:

[affirmedny]

[QUOTE=Stillriledup]Tri's and Supers often pay half of what they used to pay. Tri's that you used to get 1,000 on now pay 500 with the same degree of difficulty.[/QUOTE

A reason is lower minimum bets.

I can't remember where I read this online, (I read so much.) Frank Angst wrote an article recently on how pay offs have dropped since minimums were lowered on exotics. If I remember he wrote trifecta payoffs are down 8% since 1995 per unit. That is a $1 tri minimum that averages $100 does not average $50 at a fifty cent minimum, but $46.

And now Hawthorne and others have $.20 cent minimums for 3+ horse exotics.



For this to be true the $.20 players would have to be better handicappers that the $1-$2 players. I'm not buying it.......

[OTM Al]

[QUOTE=JohnGalt1]

For this to be true the $.20 players would have to be better handicappers that the $1-$2 players. I'm not buying it.......

No, just equal handicappers with smaller bankrolls.