Odds changes during races WHAT A JOKE

[storyline]

I'm not changing my statement, this horse was easy to get to.

Rather than be overtly aggressive, why not learn from the players that did have the horse on top? I'm willing to discuss the criteria I used to determine the horse's probability to win which was calculated to be 19.6%. There are many reasons to give this horse hard look, you should consider the very strong possibility other data providers had a very a different view of the horse. The data supported the way the horse was supposed to be run, and when it was allowed to run that way it did well. If you want to discuss these details at length and how they were arrived at a private message is most appropriate.

1st power rating
2nd most competitive horse
1st speed figure from last XX
2nd best class figure
2nd best late figure
1st best late figure2
2nd best pace figure
1st best tactical close
1st best consistent performance
1st best speed points

Cheers

I get it!! The horse was a cinch, where's your winning tickets? Where's a post before they ran stating the obvious.

If you want to school me, do it before they run and I'll be happy to engage. PM me anytime you got something live.

Adios

[Track Phantom]

I'm not changing my statement, this horse was easy to get to.

1st power rating
2nd most competitive horse
1st speed figure from last XX
2nd best class figure
2nd best late figure
1st best late figure2
2nd best pace figure
1st best tactical close
1st best consistent performance
1st best speed points

Cheers
What kind of mickey mouse data points are these? I agree with the other poster, you have to show something of fact before the race, or your bets after the race, to warrant any kind of respect with these comments.

I have no doubt you were on this horse but can't take your data points seriously as to why, and certainly can't agree this horse was "easy to get to". You know how many horses are easy to get to after the race? 100%.

[Track Phantom]

Anything is possible Gus but what is the likelihood of that happening? I'm taking your question at face-value but I have the sneaky suspicion that you're playing the new-kid a little, presumably you been around a few decades playing poker, ponies etc

Lets say hypothetically that you and I are the stewards of this horse and consider juicing him, keep in mind the purse is 800k and one of our best local wagering opportunities throughout the year.

Now who would either of us talk to about this? We're cheating and the consequences could seriously destroy our careers and reputation. Beside by talking we would loss some of our edge without diminishing our risk.

Do we tell our grooms, hotwalkers, exercises riders etc, do any of these people know any whales, are there whales in New Mexico playing Sunland Park?

Say we told the entire barn that we felt our horse would run huge and someone then misspoke about it to a whale member. Like these two groups run in the same circles.

Do you think a group who are wagering tens of millions of dollars annually would bet into this race because of barn talk? Me neither.

Honestly I'd be more inclined to embrace the possibility that someone from a drug cartel was involved (washing money) before whale involvement.
Occam's Razor.... the simple answer is likely correct (one that makes the fewest assumptions).

I am not accusing anyone of anything, but performance enhancing drugs combined with insider betting is, by far, the simplest explanation.

[lamboguy]

anytime money is involved, there are going to be people out there trying to figure out the edge and how to get their fingers on that money.

one of the best moves that used to happen in the racing was years ago before Nevada had pari-mutuel wagering. they had different rules in horse racing that don't exist today like if there was an entry, you had to pick one of the horses if the other one won you had no bet.

in daily doubles, when there is a scratch on one of the horses in either half of the double you got a refund no matter what the outcome of the horse that ran.
what slick guys did is bet doubles all over the state, if the first horse lost, the horse in the second half wound up getting scratched and they received a refund.

so i would say there are people that have dreamt up other modern day edges in the racing game, some we don't even know of. so face it, things are going on now, but we don't really know the extent of them. its just plain greed and human nature. if i had the chance to steal out of pari-mutuel pools without getting caught, i would do it in a heartbeat.

[storyline]

Occam's Razor.... the simple answer is likely correct (one that makes the fewest assumptions).

I am not accusing anyone of anything, but performance enhancing drugs combined with insider betting is, by far, the simplest explanation.

Aristotle would be proud :)

If I had the authority to investigate the largest bets made on these two horses I'd have begun 20 seconds after race 11.

I won't have someone pissing down my leg suggesting that's it's raining outside. What's worse than being robbed is listening to posters now proclaiming they have him now as their top selection and citing an odds line, nauseating.

[storyline]

I think the "Pegasus Cup" was the first race I might have commented on. There are 19 pages in this thread and I joined the discussion about halfway in post #162, #218 and #240

I pretty much stated the obvious that Sharp Azteca was a false favorite and I couldn't believe the amount of interest this horse was getting. Go read the thread if you're bored.

I went as far as speculating under a couple different scenarios when the horse would spit-the-bit and he did. I also gave out the x's

It's one race so who cares but really if a player can't accurately spot false favorites you're going to lose your bankroll, those are just facts of the game. How many bad wagers does one need to make per month to lose any profit, believe me it's not many.

The point is I backup my talk before they run and absolutely detest blather afterwards. Review my posts if you must but I leave zero wiggle room in my opinions before the race.

It's called being a straight shooter, try it.

[Track Phantom]

Aristotle would be proud :)

If I had the authority to investigate the largest bets made on these two horses I'd have begun 20 seconds after race 11.

I won't have someone pissing down my leg suggesting that's it's raining outside. What's worse than being robbed is listening to posters now proclaiming they have him now as their top selection and citing an odds line, nauseating.
Agreed. The betting and the way the horse ran deserve an audit. If I was running the show at Sunland, I'd have been on this immediately. As much for the connections of the winner, to remove doubt, as it would be to uncover something else.

But here's the problem. Why does the track want to bring undue negative spotlight on their product? They got the money into their pools and took their cut. That is where their true interest begins and ends. I'll tell you this....if the track was on the hook for fixed odds (at say the morning line of 8-1) and this money came in with this kind of result, there would be a serious investigation. In that I have no doubt.

This game lacks integrity and oversight in so many areas. It doesn't matter if you believe there was something illegal here, it only matters if you think the signs are there for it to be something illegal (which there clearly is). One only needs to have a cursory understanding of the game to know what happened in this race is "strange" both in the betting and kind of result that occurred.

I would love to have a printout of the bets, by time stamp and location. I could tell you in 30 seconds what happened if I was armed with that.

[Track Phantom]

...and one more thing. The court who is going to approve legalized sports betting should not look at horse racing as the model. One of the main propositions for legalizing sports betting is the regulatory arms of the wagering outfits can identify and flush out anomalies in the betting (to make sure they're tracking for something fishy). Horse racing is absolutely negligent in this area and at the expense of the game and their customers. It's why you see horse racing buried BEHIND Olympic Sports, WWE and Jaski (whatever that is) on the ESPN site. No one takes it seriously precisely due to lack of integrity.

[storyline]

...and one more thing. The court who is going to approve legalized sports betting should not look at horse racing as the model. One of the main propositions for legalizing sports betting is the regulatory arms of the wagering outfits can identify and flush out anomalies in the betting (to make sure they're tracking for something fishy). Horse racing is absolutely negligent in this area and at the expense of the game and their customers. It's why you see horse racing buried BEHIND Olympic Sports, WWE and Jaski (whatever that is) on the ESPN site. No one takes it seriously precisely due to lack of integrity.



Great posts Track Phantom and I look forward to exchanging opinions with you and others going forward. I had a great chat with Spalding No. in the Rebel Stakes thread the other day which is why we come back here.

I wanted to say before leaving this thread that PA is a fantastic host and a super guy and any disparaging comments I might have made were in no way directed towards him. I love the guy!

[Track Phantom]

Great posts Track Phantom and I look forward to exchanging opinions with you and others going forward. I had a great chat with Spalding No. in the Rebel Stakes thread the other day which is why we come back here.

I wanted to say before leaving this thread that PA is a fantastic host and a super guy and any disparaging comments I might have made were in no way directed towards him. I love the guy!
Thanks! I have no issue with PA or anyone debating this. While it feels black and white to me, it may not seem that way to others, and I always leave room for my opinion to be the wrong one in the argument. I wasn't there, didn't see the bets, or how the horse was handled up to the race, so it could be something else. Having said that, the data points are all right there for us to draw a solid hypothesis.

There is one thing with the tote board. Money doesn't lie. No matter how much BS trainers dish out about their horses, the money tells the story much more accurately. Had either the bet come in and the horse lost, or the horse ran so well without the betting, I'd be ok with it. It is the combination of the two that has me suspicious.

[Cholly]

Honestly I'd be more inclined to embrace the possibility that someone from a drug cartel was involved (washing money) before whale involvement.

Is El Paso close to Ruidoso?

[storyline]

Thanks! I have no issue with PA or anyone debating this. While it feels black and white to me, it may not seem that way to others, and I always leave room for my opinion to be the wrong one in the argument. I wasn't there, didn't see the bets, or how the horse was handled up to the race, so it could be something else. Having said that, the data points are all right there for us to draw a solid hypothesis.

There is one thing with the tote board. Money doesn't lie. No matter how much BS trainers dish out about their horses, the money tells the story much more accurately. Had either the bet come in and the horse lost, or the horse ran so well without the betting, I'd be ok with it. It is the combination of the two that has me suspicious.

You've nailed it all day, kudos to you.

Others might want to go back and replay his race Feb 25th when he set fractions and watch his action.

47.88 1:12.31 1:37.72 1:44.06

I think the last 5/16 was 31.75 raw time.

[storyline]

Is El Paso close to Ruidoso?

lol goggle says 120 miles :p

[cj]

Well the trainer did state his last workout before the race was slow, picked up really strong at the end and his gallop out was huge

It’s right there in the form for all to read.

Racing on the front end wasn’t working for him, so they switched gears and tried a rate job.

Nice job by the trainer.

Allan

If I bet every piece of positive sounding trainer info I read I'd be broke.

[JerryBoyle]

Agreed. The betting and the way the horse ran deserve an audit. If I was running the show at Sunland, I'd have been on this immediately. As much for the connections of the winner, to remove doubt, as it would be to uncover something else.

But here's the problem. Why does the track want to bring undue negative spotlight on their product? They got the money into their pools and took their cut. That is where their true interest begins and ends. I'll tell you this....if the track was on the hook for fixed odds (at say the morning line of 8-1) and this money came in with this kind of result, there would be a serious investigation. In that I have no doubt.

This game lacks integrity and oversight in so many areas. It doesn't matter if you believe there was something illegal here, it only matters if you think the signs are there for it to be something illegal (which there clearly is). One only needs to have a cursory understanding of the game to know what happened in this race is "strange" both in the betting and kind of result that occurred.

I would love to have a printout of the bets, by time stamp and location. I could tell you in 30 seconds what happened if I was armed with that.

I get what you're saying, and I don't have proof one way or the other. Personally, I don't find it as shocking that someone could arrive at that price using only publicly available data. That said, your argument essentially condemns any form of pari mutuel wagering. Perhaps moving to fixed odds is what the sport needs to do, but it won't solve a losing player's profitability issues. And as Dave S said, it'll make betting exotics harder.

[cj]

I get what you're saying, and I don't have proof one way or the other. Personally, I don't find it as shocking that someone could arrive at that price using only publicly available data. That said, your argument essentially condemns any form of pari mutuel wagering. Perhaps moving to fixed odds is what the sport needs to do, but it won't solve a losing player's profitability issues. And as Dave S said, it'll make betting exotics harder.

You don't think it would help smaller players? Yes, vast majority probably still lose, but right now those betting the big money late have a huge advantage and are getting a better price on their bets. Fixed odds would have to help.

[JerryBoyle]

You don't think it would help smaller players? Yes, vast majority probably still lose, but right now those betting the big money late have a huge advantage and are getting a better price on their bets. Fixed odds would have to help.

Perhaps. TBH, I don't know, because I'm sure bookies would be modeling their own lines to exploit weak players. How that trades off, I've got no idea. I think it'd help with perception for the more casual fan. That said, as someone who is attempting to bet using a model, I'd rather bet into a pari mutuel system vs a bookie.

[cj]

Perhaps. TBH, I don't know, because I'm sure bookies would be modeling their own lines to exploit weak players. How that trades off, I've got no idea. I think it'd help with perception for the more casual fan. That said, as someone who is attempting to bet using a model, I'd rather bet into a pari mutuel system vs a bookie.

I would too until the last 5 years. Right now not so much.

[thaskalos]

As time goes by and the "normal" folks continue to bet less and less in this game, more and more of the pari-mutuel pool will be comprised of computer-driven wagers...and these dramatic late changes of the odds will only get worse, IMO. In due time, we may ALL be priced out of this game...regardless of how "sharp" we may think we are.

[cj]

As time goes by and the "normal" folks continue to bet less and less in this game, more and more of the pari-mutuel pool will be comprised of computer-driven wagers...and these dramatic late changes of the odds will only get worse, IMO. In due time, we may ALL be priced out of this game...regardless of how "sharp" we may think we are.

It is already happening. Where do people think the "Gulfstream is up 14%" is coming from? It sure isn't guys hanging out in OTBs or playing with a few hundred bucks in an ADW account.

[thaskalos]

It is already happening. Where do people think the "Gulfstream is up 14%" is coming from? It sure isn't guys hanging out in OTBs or playing with a few hundred bucks in an ADW account.

It's already happening...and it can only get worse. I'm glad that I've expanded my gambling horizons...lest I be left with no game to play.

[cj]

It's already happening...and it can only get worse. I'm glad that I've expanded my gambling horizons...lest I be left with no game to play.



The playing field is going to have to be leveled. If you are betting Gulfstream, you're probably playing into at least a 25% takeout in the straight pools and even more on other bets. The deck is stacked against the average Joe. The anyone can do it argument doesn't fly. Not everyone can program a computer to put hundreds of bets in play in a few seconds after getting the latest pool info as the horses are loading into the gate. Does anyone believe it is a coincidence that Gulfstream has the long post drags? Who does this benefit? Surely not me or Gus. The CRW teams, yes.

I don't really like betting on much else besides horse racing, so I'm sticking with tennis for my spare time fall back plan. I beat an actual teaching pro last week, kind of my Johnny Chan "Rounders" moment. I'm going all in on the court! :)

[cutchemist42]

I get as frustrated as most of you do with the late odds moves...anyone who is a VIP sees this pretty regularly when I post my plays.

But, given that, I also don't get why this is such a huge problem for a lot of people.

Back before the CRW teams came about, did every horse go off near its morning line? You would make all your bets for the day before the first race goes off and you would get pretty much the price you expected in the end? Did they have fixed odds wagering back then? You see what I'm getting at...

OK, so today it's a little more extreme...however, if you wait until they are about to load into the gate, you pretty much KNOW what you're going to get within a certain range. You KNOW that 15-1 morning line shot isn't going off anywhere near 15-1...you know a horse that is 9/5 currently but 8/5 on the M/L is probably going lower when all is said and done. At smaller tracks, it might be down to even money or less...

Anyone who's played this game for a while lately knows that if you want a reasonable idea of what price a horse is going to be, you can't bet before they start loading the horses in...especially at the smaller handle tracks.

It sucks, I get it...but I don't see how this is an absolute game killer for people.

Remember, only 1 or 2% of people are long term winners...this has ALWAYS been the case, even before CRWs...it's not the late odds drops that are preventing people from becoming long term winners.

This sport is going to have to compete directly against sports betting. You really think people will accept not knowing their final price when in sports, they can?

Like what reason is there for keeping up the parimutuel system?

[thaskalos]

The playing field is going to have to be leveled. If you are betting Gulfstream, you're probably playing into at least a 25% takeout in the straight pools and even more on other bets. The deck is stacked against the average Joe. The anyone can do it argument doesn't fly. Not everyone can program a computer to put hundreds of bets in play in a few seconds after getting the latest pool info as the horses are loading into the gate. Does anyone believe it is a coincidence that Gulfstream has the long post drags? Who does this benefit? Surely not me or Gus. The CRW teams, yes.

I don't really like betting on much else besides horse racing, so I'm sticking with tennis for my spare time fall back plan. I beat an actual teaching pro last week, kind of my Johnny Chan "Rounders" moment. I'm going all in on the court! :)

I had a tennis adventure of my own recently. Not having stepped on a tennis court for over 6 years...I didn't hesitate to accept the challenge of a Russian tennis instructor, 7 years older than me...who suffered from the worst case of bow-leggedness that you could ever imagine. The poor man's knees looked as if they were ready to crumble...and he could barely walk down the street. Nevertheless, he gave me such a thorough beating on the court that I gave him my tennis racquets after the match...while promising myself that I would never again engage in any sport that didn't include the use of a chair.

[cutchemist42]

http://www.brisnet.com/php/bw_pdf_viewer.php?track=SUN&race=11&param1=2805&param2=2125&param3=1842434

I will say I didnt watch the race as Sunland doesnt provide a feed. I know he won obviously before looking.

The post position sucked, but the computer rankings liked him. Had the highest Bris SR last time out as well. Had a high Quirin as well, but yeah, without being familiar with the outside post at Sunland, I wouldn't have wanted a small price.

[Jeff P]

Well the trainer did state his last workout before the race was slow, picked up really strong at the end and his gallop out was huge

It’s right there in the form for all to read.

Racing on the front end wasn’t working for him, so they switched gears and tried a rate job.

Nice job by the trainer.

AllanI'm pretty sure this played a part in how well the horse ran.



Is it an impossibility that some computer-betting "Whale" might have infiltrated the backstretch in order to complement his software-based wagering?An interesting thought right? Actually I wouldn't put it past one of the teams to have known ahead of time that the connections had changed the horse's training regimen (and that the horse was thought to be responding well to it.)

I went to BRISnet to see what kind of slug Runaway Ghost is. From their data, his last race with speed of 100 is highest of any race shown among all horses. The BRISnet Prime Power number is also highest and roughly 10 higher than the average. I did not see betting action, warm-up or loading, but his horse going off as favorite at 7/2 does not shock me.FYI, the horse was also Rank = 1 in HDW PSR or Projected Speed Rating.

unless you know what their probs said, then you would have no idea.

of course they're handicapping, and doing it better ovall than the crowd

betting models are useless unless you have probability models too.
and what's more the bigger the price over their assessed price, then the more they attempt to get on, until any more is counter productive.Imo, this is exactly right.



I don't believe this statement. Not at all.You might want to rethink this. Some of their models are pretty damn good. And some of the teams know what they are doing.

and:
Computer Program is also not likely since those programs are designed to take the handicapping portion out of the equation and look for betting anomalies and bet horses who were outside of expected norms. There is no way a computer program identifies Runaway Ghost, from the 11 post, as value when all is said and done at under 4-1. No chance.

Hey, I'm not saying a fair chunk of the late money wasn't bet by insiders or somebody connected to the barn. It certainly could have been.

But in my mind, saying the horse couldn't possibly be a value play through computer handicapping at 4-1 given the far outside post is just wrong.

As mentioned above, the horse was rank=1 for both Brisnet Prime Power and HDW PSR (Projected Speed Rating.)

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that for someone using a simple model -- speed pace and form puts the horse's win likelihood somewhere in the vicinity of 30%. (Then as you consider other factors: adjust from there.)

In JCapper, using HDW data, the horse was rank=1 for a power rating called QRating.

Here's what that looks like for dirt routes at Sunland from 01-01-2016 to Sat 03-24-2018 the day before this year's Sunland Derby was run:
query start: 3/26/2018 11:25:28 PM
query end: 3/26/2018 11:25:29 PM
elapsed time: 1 seconds

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None
SQL UDM Plays Report: Hide

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE TRACK='SUN'
AND INTSURFACE <= 3
AND DIST >= 1760
AND [DATE] >= #01-01-2016#
AND [DATE] <= #03-24-2018#
ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE


Data Summary Win Place Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 3564.40 4012.30 3931.80
Bet -5360.00 -5360.00 -5360.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L -1795.60 -1347.70 -1428.20

Wins 345 683 1023
Plays 2680 2680 2680
PCT .1287 .2549 .3817

ROI 0.6650 0.7486 0.7335
Avg Mut 10.33 5.87 3.84
By: QRating Rank

Rank P/L Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact AvgMut
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 -85.40 684.00 0.8751 107 342 .3129 2.4304 5.59 <--
2 22.80 684.00 1.0333 94 342 .2749 2.1351 7.52
3 -239.40 684.00 0.6500 53 342 .1550 1.2038 8.39
4 -359.80 684.00 0.4740 24 342 .0702 0.5451 13.51
5 -217.00 682.00 0.6818 29 341 .0850 0.6606 16.03
6 -366.00 664.00 0.4488 15 332 .0452 0.3510 19.87
7 -382.80 566.00 0.3237 10 283 .0353 0.2745 18.32
8 -52.20 372.00 0.8597 10 186 .0538 0.4176 31.98
9 -164.80 220.00 0.2509 1 110 .0091 0.0706 55.20
10 67.00 102.00 1.6569 2 51 .0392 0.3046 84.50
11 -14.00 14.00 0.0000 0 7 .0000 0.0000 0.00
12 -4.00 4.00 0.0000 0 2 .0000 0.0000 0.00



Then there's the far outside post.

FWIW, the data suggests that far outside posts in dirt routes at Sunland not only do ok but have actually been underbet over the last couple of years.

Below is what I have for dirt routes at Sunland from 01-01-2016 through Sat 03-24-2018 (the day before this year's Sunland Derby was run) with the data broken out by railposition or gate draw.

The top part of the query results shows the above described sample broken out into three columns - win, place, and show:
query start: 3/26/2018 10:14:29 PM
query end: 3/26/2018 10:14:30 PM
elapsed time: 1 seconds

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None
SQL UDM Plays Report: Hide

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE TRACK='SUN'
AND INTSURFACE <= 3
AND DIST >= 1760
AND [DATE] >= #01-01-2016#
AND [DATE] <= #03-24-2018#
ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE


Data Summary Win Place Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 3564.40 4012.30 3931.80
Bet -5360.00 -5360.00 -5360.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L -1795.60 -1347.70 -1428.20

Wins 345 683 1023
Plays 2680 2680 2680
PCT .1287 .2549 .3817

ROI 0.6650 0.7486 0.7335
Avg Mut 10.33 5.87 3.84


The second part of the sample shows the above 2680 runners broken out by their gate draw... 1 being drawn closest to the rail... and 12 being farthest out from the rail:
By: RailPosition or Gate Draw

Rail Pos P/L Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact AvgMut
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 -471.60 684.00 0.3105 32 342 .0936 0.7268 6.64
2 -103.40 684.00 0.8488 45 342 .1316 1.0221 12.90
3 -254.80 684.00 0.6275 37 342 .1082 0.8404 11.60
4 -268.60 684.00 0.6073 46 342 .1345 1.0448 9.03
5 -211.20 682.00 0.6903 51 341 .1496 1.1618 9.23
6 -130.00 664.00 0.8042 56 332 .1687 1.3103 9.54
7 -176.80 566.00 0.6876 34 283 .1201 0.9333 11.45
8 -90.60 372.00 0.7565 22 186 .1183 0.9188 12.79
9 -102.00 220.00 0.5364 15 110 .1364 1.0593 7.87

10 0.00 102.00 1.0000 5 51 .0980 0.7616 20.40 <--
11 17.40 14.00 2.2429 2 7 .2857 2.2195 15.70
12 -4.00 4.00 0.0000 0 2 .0000 0.0000 0.00


Note the +roi results for posts 10 and 11.

Also note that the three outermost posts were a combined 7 for 60 which works out to a win rate of 11.67% -- which is actually about 1.246x better than the win rate for horses that drew the rail.

All of that said --

If Brisnet had the horse as top Prime Power and most likely winner...

If HDW had the horse as top PSR and most likely winner...

I certainly wouldn't put it past any of the whales... Benter, Zeljko, etc., to have had the horse as their most likely winner too.

I'd fully expect all of them to have given proper weight in their models for the far outside post.

I also wouldn't put it past any of them to have known about the change in training regimen beforehand and to have worked that into their models as well.

The butterfly effect of the teams queuing up their wagers on that horse and then all hitting at once after the race was off, I assume most the teams playing the horse thought they would get 5 to 5.5 to 1.After doing this write up I have to agree with you.

I too suspect more than one of them had the same idea -- and ended up with lower odds than most of us expected.



-jp

.

[steveb]

You said the computer "teams" are handicapping and "better overall than the general public". I don't believe the edge in winning in this context has to do with handicapping and I don't believe some outfit has perfected the art of handicapping to win consistently and without risk.

Maybe that's not what you were saying, and we're probably off the talk track here.

ok, i am just a guy that knows nothing much about anything.

i did the data, i sent it to the guys, they told me how much(if any) more money it will make them with it , compared to without it.
why would i not believe it?

there may well be risk, but at the end of the year, just like all the preceding ones since they reached a certain level of expertise it will be +VE.

there is nothing special about them.
they are just acedemics and people that are good at racing come together, and the only problem they may have is starting up.
it might cost them millions to get to that stage where their models have reached a high enough r2, and many may fold before they get that far.
in fact i would bet you even know the names of some of those guys, just that they don't tell you what they are doing out of the public eye.
i would bet my last dollar nick mordin for instance does(or did) work for at least one computer team.
i would also bet my last dollar that nick mordin would not be able to win betting if just for himslef.
but what he does would form a small part of what they do, and helps them make money

so long story short....the part i put in bold of yours above is w r o n g.

[steveb]

I get it!! The horse was a cinch, where's your winning tickets? Where's a post before they ran stating the obvious.

If you want to school me, do it before they run and I'll be happy to engage. PM me anytime you got something live.

Adios

when you dismiss like that, you might be forfeiting the chance to learn something that just may help your bottom line.

i have been reading this board a long time and the guy you made that reply to, i would be fairly sure has a good take on things.
and i don't know him from joe blow, i just read and form opinions from what they say.

and by the way it's the second time i have been queried on that aspect.....
english IS my first language.
but you are a yank, and they have prostituted english that badly, that it probably should be called americish now!!!!

[MJC922]

Pretty sure steveb is the real deal and likely doing something similar to my own numbers processing. Best thing to come out of there since INXS. :)

[Track Phantom]

Thanks! I have no issue with PA or anyone debating this. While it feels black and white to me, it may not seem that way to others, and I always leave room for my opinion to be the wrong one in the argument. I wasn't there, didn't see the bets, or how the horse was handled up to the race, so it could be something else. Having said that, the data points are all right there for us to draw a solid hypothesis.

There is one thing with the tote board. Money doesn't lie. No matter how much BS trainers dish out about their horses, the money tells the story much more accurately. Had either the bet come in and the horse lost, or the horse ran so well without the betting, I'd be ok with it. It is the combination of the two that has me suspicious.

I'm pretty sure this played a part in how well the horse ran.



An interesting thought right? Actually I wouldn't put it past one of the teams to have known ahead of time that the connections had changed the horse's training regimen (and that the horse was thought to be responding well to it.)

FYI, the horse was also Rank = 1 in HDW PSR or Projected Speed Rating.

Imo, this is ....

....-jp

That is a lot of supporting data and more than my 5:30 AM brain can digest. I'll admit my handicapping didn't have this horse as one of the main players. I can acknowledge that there were others that did have him as a main player. However, the betting action, on a horse that looked that way, is hardly what the "public" would make this horse. It is what some minute segment (one or a few) made him.

The morning line guy had him at 8-1, which was fair. The main issue I have is the betting + the way he ran was too much for me to digest. We'll agree to disagree. I think the race, horse, connections and result have a strong decaying fish smell.

[biggestal99]

If I bet every piece of positive sounding trainer info I read I'd be broke.

Just saying the trainer gave the scoop before the race. I was no surprise that he rated a off and came with a big run.

I am sure the trainer knew his horse was ready for a big run.

Not saying to bet every piece of positive news that’s in the form blindly.

That’s why is called handicapping.

Could this former speed horse rate.

It had not been tried before with this horse as he went to the lead in every single race he had run.

Some horses can and some can’t

Put runaway ghost in the can column.

Allan

[steveb]

Pretty sure steveb is the real deal and likely doing something similar to my own numbers processing. Best thing to come out of there since INXS. :)

thank you, but you are wrong.

if i was ever the 'real deal' i am not these days.

it's hard to explain(too many wines tonight!!!!), but i don't bet these days, well not often anyway.

i think i have a fairly good take on racing(especially times) but racing itself has never really interested me.
i like the natural world and the environment far more(but there's no money for me in that!). wild birds excite me far more than horses do!!!!

my problem is, that it's the only subject that i am proficient in.....i think!!!

[biggestal99]

On the exchange opening price for runaway ghost was 5-1 and drifted up to 7-1 during the betting.

Allan

[cj]

On the exchange opening price for runaway ghost was 5-1 and drifted up to 7-1 during the betting.

Allan

Hmmm...

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/978389911391866881

[cj]

Just saying the trainer gave the scoop before the race. I was no surprise that he rated a off and came with a big run.

I am sure the trainer knew his horse was ready for a big run.

Not saying to bet every piece of positive news that’s in the form blindly.

That’s why is called handicapping.

Could this former speed horse rate.

It had not been tried before with this horse as he went to the lead in every single race he had run.

Some horses can and some can’t

Put runaway ghost in the can column.

Allan

I hear you, sometimes stuff works of course. But this was far more than that in my opinion given the trip the horse had. I think it is suspect. We'll find out in May I guess.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'll say this as politely as I possibly can.

If a whales computer probabilities were shown to bet this horse without any inside information I guarantee you that they'll be out of business long before years end.I know who you are. You're a smart guy.

I can't believe you're saying stuff like this.

[PaceAdvantage]

So let me get this right. You're saying there is this Holy Grail that these people have to allow them to print money at the expense of the dolts that play this game traditionally?It doesn't have to be anywhere near a Holy Grail to print money in this game.

[PaceAdvantage]

I get it!! The horse was a cinch, where's your winning tickets? Where's a post before they ran stating the obvious.

If you want to school me, do it before they run and I'll be happy to engage. PM me anytime you got something live.

AdiosThis has nothing to do with the discussion. And your aggressive overtones (a hallmark of your postings under your former handle here) don't do anything to add to it. Please stop with this nonsensical tangent.

[PaceAdvantage]

What kind of mickey mouse data points are these? I agree with the other poster, you have to show something of fact before the race, or your bets after the race, to warrant any kind of respect with these comments.

I have no doubt you were on this horse but can't take your data points seriously as to why, and certainly can't agree this horse was "easy to get to". You know how many horses are easy to get to after the race? 100%.Who cares if he/she was on it or not?

They're pointing out to you that this horse wasn't some 100-1 shot with no chance.

I told you this horse, under a model I use, was rated around 2.2-1.

Now, I'm picking like dogshit lately, but I did post 500+ races here and showed a positive ROI. When was the last time you did that on here?

If we want to talk all tough and shit.

The computer teams are 1000x better than I am at assessing probability. If I have a model that has this horse at 2.2-1, you bet they have one that had him at 3-1 or 4-1 and that's why his price went down from 7-1.

It happens EVERY DAY. Where have you guys been?

[Robert Fischer]

this is a rigged game

by it's very nature (not primarily because of dishonesty)


20% of the money is taken out of the pools for takeout. Then you have inside information (varying degrees of increased effective takeout).

And you are dealing with low probability events for the high-paying wagers.

And in addition to estimating the known and unknown, - there is a degree in randomness. (the very thing that makes the sport possible)

If you can find some things that aren't accounted for; maybe pool inefficiencies(what some of these whale posts have been about), or a method for finding false favorites, and you have the capital to wager properly and offset randomness playing a long-game, then you probably can 'print' some money in this game.

It's kind of a parody though. It's like a 'campy' comedy. If you can do the above, you may be better served looking at 'how' you did it in general terms, and applying that type of strategy to a 'real' market. Why be the greatest low-and-away slider hitter?

That's not to say this isn't a great game.

[storyline]

when you dismiss like that, you might be forfeiting the chance to learn something that just may help your bottom line.

i have been reading this board a long time and the guy you made that reply to, i would be fairly sure has a good take on things.
and i don't know him from joe blow, i just read and form opinions from what they say.

and by the way it's the second time i have been queried on that aspect.....
english IS my first language.
but you are a yank, and they have prostituted english that badly, that it probably should be called americish now!!!!


Steve, sorry if I offended you, it wasn't my intent.

[BCOURTNEY]

I get it!! The horse was a cinch, where's your winning tickets? Where's a post before they ran stating the obvious.

If you want to school me, do it before they run and I'll be happy to engage. PM me anytime you got something live.

Adios

Wasn't intended as a school lesson, I did think the insistence of drug use and various conspiracy theory (which on occasion may be the case?) were much less likely than handicapping errors based on a race performance that was supported by data, I offered to discuss that data if you didn't have access. The thread discussion was centered around the late odds drop on the horse, the stats were shared to show that the CDW teams using even simple models with particular data providers (the origination of the easy to get to comment) had a queue of wagers lurking at the bell. Understand that the comments were not malintended - but a way to explain the large drop in the final odds. I don't think that drugs or conspiracy caused the odds drop, and while everyone is entitled to an opinion, I do believe that more and more teams are sitting on larger wager amounts until 0 MTP.

[Valuist]

This sport is going to have to compete directly against sports betting. You really think people will accept not knowing their final price when in sports, they can?

Like what reason is there for keeping up the parimutuel system?

Many people, myself included, got into horse racing because it was the only legal gambling game around. Sports betting will be a body blow to the industry.

[storyline]

I can't believe you're saying stuff like this.


Post #462 is where I jumped into the discussion and wrote in part the following.

I agree with Track Phantom here, as that was exactly my interpretation proceeding the race.

The same connections win both races.

Race 10
#10 GM Gage at 2 minutes before post is 18-1, goes off @ 11-1

Race 11
#11 Runaway Ghost at 2 minutes before post is 7-1, goes off @ 7/2

The DD combination of 10 / 11 is the lowest paying combination, really.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm making the argument based on two separate events which are linked because of their connections, R10 & R11.

This result makes me suspicious and I stated it from the outset.

How is it that the combination of 10 / 11 is the lowest paying daily double? No one yet has given an reasonable explanation to that occurrence.

Part of what I heard is Bris numbers have him (Runaway Ghost) rated first or second in every category, what about the winner of race 10? Yet not one player posting in this thread chose Runaway Ghost. (please lets not get into a discussion about bris numbers).

The other part I heard is CRW teams are so much smarter than the rest of us and we just have to live with their advantage.

I concede that they use algorithms and wagering efficiencies that most of us dream about, are gifted different rates by track management etc which makes it impossible. It's not a level playing field.

But when it comes to setting the probabilities of win percentages in any one race I feel that I can compete. I know it's my arrogance speaking again.

What I'm largely arguing is the suspicious payouts of the vertical pools, not whether a single horse should be the 1st betting favorite or the 5th betting favorite. We all have our opinions and it's my opinion that anyone or group making horses like this the 7/2 favorite based on a model is in jeopardy of going broke, that is just my opinion agreed or not.

It's the sum of the pieces, it's the connecting of dots so-to-speak of races 10 & 11 that casts doubt and nowhere in this discussion has anyone in your camp made an argument to refute my charge or suspicion.

[jay68802]

Many people, myself included, got into horse racing because it was the only legal gambling game around. Sports betting will be a body blow to the industry.

You can say the same for me. However, sports betting has been around just as long as horse racing, and has been competing with horse racing for the gambling dollar the whole time. Horse racing will be fine, but they still have to address the issues they have. The technology is there to be able to show the win odds in very close to real time, yet the industry chooses not use it. They could also time each horse in each race from when the gate opens, but choose not to. The good news is that while the industry refuses to change, we still get to read threads like this one.

[storyline]

Wasn't intended as a school lesson, I did think the insistence of drug use and various conspiracy theory (which on occasion may be the case?) were much less likely than handicapping errors based on a race performance that was supported by data, I offered to discuss that data if you didn't have access. The thread discussion was centered around the late odds drop on the horse, the stats were shared to show that the CDW teams using even simple models with particular data providers (the origination of the easy to get to comment) had a queue of wagers lurking at the bell. Understand that the comments were not malintended - but a way to explain the large drop in the final odds. I don't think that drugs or conspiracy caused the odds drop, and while everyone is entitled to an opinion, I do believe that more and more teams are sitting on larger wager amounts until 0 MTP.

I find it extremely difficult to have rewarding handicapping discussions when both parties are unfamiliar with each others level of handicapping and use different data metrics.

I appreciate you reaching out and thank you :)

[davew]

Post #462 is where I jumped into the discussion and wrote in part the following.

I agree with Track Phantom here, as that was exactly my interpretation proceeding the race.

The same connections win both races.

Race 10
#10 GM Gage at 2 minutes before post is 18-1, goes off @ 11-1

Race 11
#11 Runaway Ghost at 2 minutes before post is 7-1, goes off @ 7/2

The DD combination of 10 / 11 is the lowest paying combination, really.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The same connections are based at Sunland, so could have a home field advantage.

My info has the lowest paying probable with the 5- Peace, with the 5,7,11 getting the most daily double action from the previous race. They finished 1st, 3rd and 9th with final odds ranging from 3.9 to 4.6. The 7 acted up in the starting gate and probably affected his start.

The favorite exacta combo was 11/5

[storyline]

The same connections are based at Sunland, so could have a home field advantage.

My info has the lowest paying probable with the 5- Peace, with the 5,7,11 getting the most daily double action from the previous race. They finished 1st, 3rd and 9th with final odds ranging from 3.9 to 4.6. The 7 acted up in the starting gate and probably affected his start.

The favorite exacta combo was 11/5

I'm not ignoring your post but I'm waiting for someone to address the (vertical pools).

I'm trying my damndest to keep the discussion focused there as that's where my charge and suspicion lies.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm not ignoring your post but I'm waiting for someone to address the (vertical pools).

I'm trying my damndest to keep the discussion focused there as that's where my charge and suspicion lies.You should be focusing on the last half of the double then...I agree, that horse was a head scratcher, unlike the winner of the Sunland Derby

[cj]

You should be focusing on the last half of the double then...I agree, that horse was a head scratcher, unlike the winner of the Sunland Derby

I still don't think anyone thinks the horse was that much of a head scratcher from a "winning the race" perspective.

But this, to my eye, looked like a recent 5k claim from Navarro that looked reasonable on paper, but won like a future Breeders' Cup Sprint winner. Runaway Ghost improved his speed figure on my scale by seven points while losing probably 8-10 lengths of ground. And this from a former front runner that usually loses very little if any ground.

[Denny]

Just finished reading the last few pages of this lively discussion.

Though good points were made by PA and Jeff P, I'm still on the Track Phantom, Storyline side of the argument. Also agree with comments of CJ and Thaskalos relative to this thread.

Just one man's opinion from what I've read about this from all of you, as I had no interest or involvement with handicapping, or betting on the race in question.

Just let's say i've been following this "game" for a long time and it's what my gut tells me.

I have less and less interest in straight betting any more. If I was going to bet straight from time to time, I'd rather look for a horse who was bet early and has odds going UP before post time!

[JerryBoyle]

For those who have large enough bankrolls, maybe it's time to start hammering your runner(s) at something like 4 or 3 mtp. Take the big guys out of the game altogether. Either they would have liked the same horse, and you'll get them off it, or they hate that horse, presumably your model is better, and them betting other runners will give you a better price. win-win

[PaceAdvantage]

News flash...winner of the 7th at MVR went UP in price from 2-1 to 5-2 during the race...

That's cause the 5 got hammered after the break...a horse that never figured to show speed either (and didn't), so that shoots down the "bet the speed after the break" theory....

Coincidentally, those were my two picks in the race, and it wasn't me doing the hammering...lol

And PS, the winner of the 7th at MVR was a SPEED HORSE that was in front a few strides out of the gate

[storyline]

Okay so lets view the tote beginning with race #10

Final win odds

#1 5-1
#2 2-1
#3 45-1
#4 9/2
#5 16-1
#6 5-1
#7 7/2
#8 25-1
#9 45-1
#10 11-1


Final win odds race 11
#1 7-1
#2 19-1
#3 5-1
#4 6-1
#5 4-1
#6 60-1
#7 9/2
#8 13-1
#9 13-1
#10 14-1
#11 7/2
#12 80-1

Just stop for one minute and review these odds, doesn't anyone come to the conclusion that a 10 / 11 double should be favored?

Here's the question - if the whales are smart enough to make Runaway Ghost the favorite in race 11 why did they leave win money on the table in race 10 by letting the winner go off as the 6th betting choice? Yet supposably I'm to believe they (whales) killed the DD making the combination of 10 / 11 the lowest paying daily double?

You guys can't have it both ways, if the whales made the 10 / 11 DD the lowest paying combination then explain why they left win money on the table in race 10.

This is where your argument falls apart and it's my contention that this was an inside old fashion heist.

To answer Dave the 11/5 x's makes perfect sense when viewed in context with what I've been saying. They enhance the 11's chance of winning and use the most logically horses underneath, follow the money.

Time to get some fresh air

[PaceAdvantage]

You should be focusing on the last half of the double then...I agree, that horse was a head scratcher, unlike the winner of the Sunland DerbySorry, I meant to write first half of the double...forgot the Derby was after Gage won.

[PaceAdvantage]

Okay so lets view the tote beginning with race #10

Final win odds

#1 5-1
#2 2-1
#3 45-1
#4 9/2
#5 16-1
#6 5-1
#7 7/2
#8 25-1
#9 45-1
#10 11-1


Final win odds race 11
#1 7-1
#2 19-1
#3 5-1
#4 6-1
#5 4-1
#6 60-1
#7 9/2
#8 13-1
#9 13-1
#10 14-1
#11 7/2
#12 80-1

Just stop for one minute and review these odds, doesn't anyone come to the conclusion that a 10 / 11 double should be favored?

Here's the question - if the whales are smart enough to make Runaway Ghost the favorite in race 11 why did they leave win money on the table in race 10 by letting the winner go off as the 6th betting choice? Yet supposably I'm to believe they (whales) killed the DD making the combination of 10 / 11 the lowest paying daily double?

You guys can't have it both ways, if the whales made the 10 / 11 DD the lowest paying combination then explain why they left win money on the table in race 10.

This is where your argument falls apart and it's my contention that this was an inside old fashion heist.

To answer Dave the 11/5 x's makes perfect sense when viewed in context with what I've been saying. They enhance the 11's chance of winning and use the most logically horses underneath, follow the money.

Time to get some fresh airMust be a betting stable. Then it makes perfect sense. Maybe it's a huge partnership and they all decided to bet the double...

[jay68802]

Only shows that the 11 was the favorite in the Double pool. If you follow that thinking, the 11 should have been the favorite in the win pool. The 2-11 double and the 7-11 double payouts were much lower than that.

[storyline]

Must be a betting stable. Then it makes perfect sense. Maybe it's a huge partnership and they all decided to bet the double...

Mike I don't know but the wagering irregularities are too obvious to be swept under the rug or dismissed as the whales are smarter than us.

If it was you and I we'd be playing the tri's / super / P4 / H5 but there's no way to know, I'm calling for a special counsel.

[storyline]

Only shows that the 11 was the favorite in the Double pool. If you follow that thinking, the 11 should have been the favorite in the win pool. The 2-11 double and the 7-11 double payouts were much lower than that.

Jay do you have the final DD payouts, I'm going from memory when I last looked at that pool, thanks

[PaceAdvantage]

Only shows that the 11 was the favorite in the Double pool. If you follow that thinking, the 11 should have been the favorite in the win pool. The 2-11 double and the 7-11 double payouts were much lower than that.Here I am thinking storyline is saying the 10-11 double WAS the lowest price double...which would be pretty incredible...

Are you saying this isn't so?

[storyline]

Here I am thinking storyline is saying the 10-11 double WAS the lowest price double...which would be pretty incredible...

Are you saying this isn't so?

That's what I believed, if anyone has access to the 10 / all payouts I'd be most interested.

[PaceAdvantage]

Somebody on this board must have this data...I've seen it posted by people before.

[JerryBoyle]

Somebody on this board must have this data...I've seen it posted by people before.

$1 Pgm
0 94.9 1
1 417.7 2
2 117.7 3
3 119.1 4
4 59.7 5
5 670.8 6
6 107.9 7
7 199.6 8
8 191.2 9
9 256.9 10
10 73.1 11
11 1428.3 12

[jay68802]

Here I am thinking storyline is saying the 10-11 double WAS the lowest price double...which would be pretty incredible...

Are you saying this isn't so?

As I said before, I was lost as far as the Sunland Derby. I did a check of the Double payouts with about 7-10 min to post in the 10th to see if they could give me a clue. At that time the 2 and 7 to the 11 were in the $40-$50 range, with the 1,5, and 7 being close to that. I thought that it proved that I was not alone with my opinion of the Sunland. After that I just wanted to watch the race, and keep my money.

[davew]

Okay so lets view the tote beginning with race #10

race 10 10 won

Final win odds race 11
#1 7-1
#2 19-1
#3 5-1
#4 6-1
#5 4-1
#6 60-1
#7 9/2
#8 13-1
#9 13-1
#10 14-1
#11 7/2
#12 80-1

Just stop for one minute and review these odds, doesn't anyone come to the conclusion that a 10 / 11 double should be favored?



You misunderstood. After the 10 won race 10, probable pay-offs are posted. Of the 12 probables posted, 11 was the favorite.

[storyline]

$1 Pgm
0 94.9 1
1 417.7 2
2 117.7 3
3 119.1 4
4 59.7 5
5 670.8 6
6 107.9 7
7 199.6 8
8 191.2 9
9 256.9 10
10 73.1 11
11 1428.3 12

Thanks Jerry most helpful, obvious that the 10 / 5 were the favored combination and the 10 / 11 was 2nd most favored. Still pretty significant imo and hardly lessens my contention.

Ideally I'd like to view the $1 Daily Double Probabilities screen from race 10 if anyone has that.

[storyline]

You misunderstood. After the 10 won race 10, probable pay-offs are posted. Of the 12 probables posted, 11 was the favorite.



So are you saying that the closing combination 10 / 11 was favored before the gates opened for race #10?

I asked Jerry or anyone else to post the $1 Daily Double Probabilities screen from race 10.

[JerryBoyle]

So are you saying that the closing combination 10 / 11 was favored before the gates opened for race #10?

I asked Jerry or anyone else to post the $1 Daily Double Probabilities screen from race 10.

This is the last snap I have. I believe it's close.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 \
1 52.0 172.0 45.0 47.0 31.0 337.0 48.0 109.0 104.0
2 22.0 110.0 23.0 25.0 17.0 161.0 28.0 45.0 56.0
3 518.0 1475.0 385.0 454.0 218.0 1703.0 367.0 696.0 694.0
4 63.0 233.0 54.0 55.0 36.0 422.0 52.0 99.0 98.0
5 179.0 714.0 163.0 169.0 112.0 1135.0 151.0 302.0 294.0
6 55.0 256.0 53.0 51.0 36.0 396.0 51.0 100.0 94.0
7 50.0 192.0 35.0 38.0 29.0 281.0 37.0 75.0 82.0
8 310.0 1054.0 366.0 335.0 172.0 1265.0 363.0 234.0 440.0
9 624.0 1844.0 477.0 570.0 260.0 2604.0 498.0 743.0 716.0
10 94.0 417.0 117.0 119.0 59.0 670.0 107.0 199.0 191.0
11 887.0 4025.0 1035.0 1265.0 254.0 8855.0 1059.0 868.0 1204.0

10 11 12
1 141.0 38.0 739.0
2 48.0 27.0 359.0
3 931.0 293.0 5534.0
4 158.0 40.0 751.0
5 507.0 122.0 3406.0
6 167.0 41.0 926.0
7 88.0 30.0 681.0
8 988.0 291.0 3162.0
9 1245.0 375.0 4025.0
10 256.0 73.0 1428.0
11 2459.0 942.0 9999.0

[davew]

So are you saying that the closing combination 10 / 11 was favored before the gates opened for race #10?

I asked Jerry or anyone else to post the $1 Daily Double Probabilities screen from race 10.

oops, I meant 2nd favorite - I had pools yesterday but are gone from my ADW because Sunland running today, I guess.

[JerryBoyle]

This is the last snap I have. I believe it's close.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 \
1 52.0 172.0 45.0 47.0 31.0 337.0 48.0 109.0 104.0
2 22.0 110.0 23.0 25.0 17.0 161.0 28.0 45.0 56.0
3 518.0 1475.0 385.0 454.0 218.0 1703.0 367.0 696.0 694.0
4 63.0 233.0 54.0 55.0 36.0 422.0 52.0 99.0 98.0
5 179.0 714.0 163.0 169.0 112.0 1135.0 151.0 302.0 294.0
6 55.0 256.0 53.0 51.0 36.0 396.0 51.0 100.0 94.0
7 50.0 192.0 35.0 38.0 29.0 281.0 37.0 75.0 82.0
8 310.0 1054.0 366.0 335.0 172.0 1265.0 363.0 234.0 440.0
9 624.0 1844.0 477.0 570.0 260.0 2604.0 498.0 743.0 716.0
10 94.0 417.0 117.0 119.0 59.0 670.0 107.0 199.0 191.0
11 887.0 4025.0 1035.0 1265.0 254.0 8855.0 1059.0 868.0 1204.0

10 11 12
1 141.0 38.0 739.0
2 48.0 27.0 359.0
3 931.0 293.0 5534.0
4 158.0 40.0 751.0
5 507.0 122.0 3406.0
6 167.0 41.0 926.0
7 88.0 30.0 681.0
8 988.0 291.0 3162.0
9 1245.0 375.0 4025.0
10 256.0 73.0 1428.0
11 2459.0 942.0 9999.0

Seems reasonably consistent with the argument that a team liked the 11 in 11 but wasn't sure about the 10 in 10.

[storyline]

This is the last snap I have. I believe it's close.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 \
1 52.0 172.0 45.0 47.0 31.0 337.0 48.0 109.0 104.0
2 22.0 110.0 23.0 25.0 17.0 161.0 28.0 45.0 56.0
3 518.0 1475.0 385.0 454.0 218.0 1703.0 367.0 696.0 694.0
4 63.0 233.0 54.0 55.0 36.0 422.0 52.0 99.0 98.0
5 179.0 714.0 163.0 169.0 112.0 1135.0 151.0 302.0 294.0
6 55.0 256.0 53.0 51.0 36.0 396.0 51.0 100.0 94.0
7 50.0 192.0 35.0 38.0 29.0 281.0 37.0 75.0 82.0
8 310.0 1054.0 366.0 335.0 172.0 1265.0 363.0 234.0 440.0
9 624.0 1844.0 477.0 570.0 260.0 2604.0 498.0 743.0 716.0
10 94.0 417.0 117.0 119.0 59.0 670.0 107.0 199.0 191.0
11 887.0 4025.0 1035.0 1265.0 254.0 8855.0 1059.0 868.0 1204.0

10 11 12
1 141.0 38.0 739.0
2 48.0 27.0 359.0
3 931.0 293.0 5534.0
4 158.0 40.0 751.0
5 507.0 122.0 3406.0
6 167.0 41.0 926.0
7 88.0 30.0 681.0
8 988.0 291.0 3162.0
9 1245.0 375.0 4025.0
10 256.0 73.0 1428.0
11 2459.0 942.0 9999.0

Thanks Jerry, that certainly gives clarity to what I believed to be correct.

I was inpart working off a my own false assumption and to those I offended here I apologize.

The first Saturday in May should give us a better picture of Runaway Ghost's classiness.

[MJC922]

We have issues in this game but I don't know this horse (winning at 7-2) is one of them. On my scale graded stakes horses will generally be rated at 100 or so, that's how my scale is set. This horse had a 99 I believe, you can check the link in my sig. 29.9% of all races will be won by the top ranked horse and that's not a backfit, that's forward tested for thousands of races. So on that day Runaway Ghost was rated to be a legit grade three horse at least as far as the computer is concerned and that is rating horse vs horse and margins, not times. Everyone else seems like they were rated well below that, they probably just aren't legit graded stakes horses. 3yos develop so much on these 'programs' it's pointless to read too much into class this early anyway. I think the KDerby winner last year came in with a 94 or something, a legit grade one stakes horse doesn't always take down the Derby. Pretty evident last years winner was grade three (or worse) unless you believe all of the medical excuses they made after the losses started to pile up.

[classhandicapper]

I can easily make a case where this horse should have been around 2-1, so I can easily see why they knocked his price down like they did, and it has zero to do with any speculation about something other than hay and water.



I agree.

He was 2nd best on my figures and I had a reason to dislike the highest rated horse. In fact, when I saw what he paid that night, I was kind of pissed off I had other things to do and hadn't played. I would have definitely put in a bet at 7-1. Even at 7/2 I would have considered a bet.

[steveb]

Steve, sorry if I offended you, it wasn't my intent.

you did not offend me, and i did not think you tried to.

no apologies needed.

[thaskalos]

The :11: sported the highest figure with multiple respected speed-figure providers...and many members here have made the case that this horse deserved to be a top contender in the race. And yet...no one here ever stated they they were willing to place even a token pre-race wager on the horse...even though he went in the gate at odds of 7-1. All I saw were a couple of guys who said that the horse deserved to be "used" somewhere in the wager. Even PA-Mike, whose handicapping software had the horse listed as a 2.2-1 betting choice, chose the :1: when he made a selection for the race.

How does a 7-1 "top contender" get so much wagering disrespect by our distinguished group of handicappers here?

[cutchemist42]

Personal opinion based on str's thread at SBR but I feel you have to still allow for some run style fluidity 3 months into a 3yo season.

[martini]

I just play for fun (small dollars), but used the :2: :3: :11: in an EX box. Those were my contenders, and I felt that the race had value. I hated that they didn't have .50 cent tri's or .10 supers, because I would have used the :1: :7: :8: down below. Or maybe I don't hate it, because I would have lost those bets too. :)

The bigger question for me, besides the :11: getting crushed late, is where did that :10: come from?

[PaceAdvantage]

The :11: sported the highest figure with multiple respected speed-figure providers...and many members here have made the case that this horse deserved to be a top contender in the race. And yet...no one here ever stated they they were willing to place even a token pre-race wager on the horse...even though he went in the gate at odds of 7-1. All I saw were a couple of guys who said that the horse deserved to be "used" somewhere in the wager. Even PA-Mike, whose handicapping software had the horse listed as a 2.2-1 betting choice, chose the :1: when he made a selection for the race.

How does a 7-1 "top contender" get so much wagering disrespect by our distinguished group of handicappers here?I said one of the models I use, which I didn't use on that race.

I suck now. So don't listen to anything I say.

[cj]

I agree.

He was 2nd best on my figures and I had a reason to dislike the highest rated horse. In fact, when I saw what he paid that night, I was kind of pissed off I had other things to do and hadn't played. I would have definitely put in a bet at 7-1. Even at 7/2 I would have considered a bet.

Given the trip he had didn't he look more like a 1-2 shot after the fact?

[porchy44]

This thread reminds me of something my father (old railbird) told me one day at the track more than 30 years ago. I was whining to him one day about a winning horse that I bet, the odds coming down during the running of the race.

In a sarcastic tone he told me "you better hope his odds comes down". At the time I had no idea what he was getting at and did not question him about it. I only bring this up because this occurred more than 30 years ago. Now I understand what his sarcasm meant.

[classhandicapper]

Given the trip he had didn't he look more like a 1-2 shot after the fact?

Maybe 3/5 ;)

Rating the way he did gave him the perfect setup.

It was one of those things for me. I took a quick look at the race in the morning, looked at my ratings and notes, saw there was plenty of speed in the race, and nothing stuck me strongly enough to ensure I was home to play later in the day. He was among my major contenders though. So the fact that he got bet was not shocking to me.

If you told me he was definitely going to rate I'm pretty sure I would have been home. ;)

[davew]

Given the trip he had didn't he look more like a 1-2 shot after the fact?

What does a 1-2 look like? I have seen them easily win, struggle to get their nose there, or come in last (to the delight of the anti-bridgejumpers).

I would be curious of the average winning odds of horses that won by 10 lengths during the last ?? few months, year, ... ??

[jay68802]

What does a 1-2 look like? I have seen them easily win, struggle to get their nose there, or come in last (to the delight of the anti-bridgejumpers).

I would be curious of the average winning odds of horses that won by 10 lengths during the last ?? few months, year, ... ??

Average PT odds: 5-1

Average Final odds: 3-2

[storyline]

Reride who easily beat Sunland Derby winner Runaway Ghost 34 days ago gets dusted today by 20 lengths finishing 3rd in Meydan, nobody ever saw that coming. :lol:

[cj]

Reride who easily beat Sunland Derby winner Runaway Ghost 34 days ago gets dusted today by 20 lengths finishing 3rd in Meydan, nobody ever saw that coming. :lol:

That is the problem with comparative handicapping. Clearly we didn't see the same Runaway Ghost last weekend but a much improved version. Reride beating the old version meant nothing today.

[jay68802]

Check out the first race at Tampa today. After the race is over, declared official, the odds that are posted for the winning horse is 5/2. Pays $6.00

[lamboguy]

not so fast! you obviously were not paying attention to the first at Keeneland. 3 minutes after the race, the winning horse, #2 goes down from 3-1 to 2-1. the money on him increases by over $3000 3 minutes after the race. now the runnerup, #9 leaves the race at 3/5 and official at 4/5 with about $2000 less on him in the winpool.

i keep trying to press my buttons and get no response after the race.

[jay68802]

not so fast! you obviously were not paying attention to the first at Keeneland. 3 minutes after the race, the winning horse, #2 goes down from 3-1 to 2-1. the money on him increases by over $3000 3 minutes after the race. now the runnerup, #9 leaves the race at 3/5 and official at 4/5 with about $2000 less on him in the winpool.

i keep trying to press my buttons and get no response after the race.

You obviously have the wrong buttons.

[Denny]

Someone in the know once told me the highest security access anywhere at the racetrack is the computer room.

Wonder why, anybody?.

Clue: The infamous Fix 6. (Who knows how often it could be happening.)

[biggestal99]

Reride who easily beat Sunland Derby winner Runaway Ghost 34 days ago gets dusted today by 20 lengths finishing 3rd in Meydan, nobody ever saw that coming. :lol:

well be have the facts completely straight.

He was 20-1 on the exchange.

I wouldn't touch him with a 10-foot pole at that price.

He was scorched by Mendelssohn.

Allan

[green80]

well I finally had one of those late odds changes work for me today. Will Rogers r3 #8 was 1/5 leaving the gate and 3/1 crossing the wire.

[affirmedny]

Winner of the Excelsior at AQU went from 7 to 12-1 during the race....

[cj]

Winner of the Excelsior at AQU went from 7 to 12-1 during the race....


Other way around? He paid 17.60 (7-1)

[Poindexter]

Winner of the Excelsior at AQU went from 7 to 12-1 during the race....


Winning horses go up in odds after off often. The problem is is you liked the horse at 9 or 10-1 up, you don't get the benefit of collecting that 12-1. This happens to me often. That is why horse racing really sucks now. We get burned when are horse get hammered after off and we don't get to take advantage of the horses that we would have bet that do not become value until after off.

A while back I created a thread where I suggested that we be able to make conditional bets that get fulfilled after the race goes off. If we had that option, someone may have been able to make a conditional bet on the said horse at 10-1+ and been able to collect a nice mutual, instead of being frustrated by the fact that the horse drifted up at a time he could not take advantage of the price.

This aspect of racing is just too damn frustrating and is going to continue to stunt the growth of the sport. Either you give players exchange betting, you make the whales(all rebated bets) bet by 2 minutes to post, you come up with something creative like after off conditional betting, or this sport will continue to suck from a betting standpoint. The main determinant of whether we will win or lose (the actual odds) long term cannot be predicted with any reliability. Even PA has finally figured this out.

But as long as we keep accepting this bs, this bs will continue. We boycott over a 2% takeout increase but we don't boycott over this. Very curious?

[Dave Schwartz]

A while back I created a thread where I suggested that we be able to make conditional bets that get fulfilled after the race goes off. If we had that option, someone may have been able to make a conditional bet on the said horse at 10-1+ and been able to collect a nice mutual, instead of being frustrated by the fact that the horse drifted up at a time he could not take advantage of the price.

So, that means the betting is shut off for everyone but... who? The people who get to bet after the gate opens?

[cj]

Winning horses go up in odds after off often. The problem is is you liked the horse at 9 or 10-1 up, you don't get the benefit of collecting that 12-1. This happens to me often. That is why horse racing really sucks now. We get burned when are horse get hammered after off and we don't get to take advantage of the horses that we would have bet that do not become value until after off.

A while back I created a thread where I suggested that we be able to make conditional bets that get fulfilled after the race goes off. If we had that option, someone may have been able to make a conditional bet on the said horse at 10-1+ and been able to collect a nice mutual, instead of being frustrated by the fact that the horse drifted up at a time he could not take advantage of the price.

This aspect of racing is just too damn frustrating and is going to continue to stunt the growth of the sport. Either you give players exchange betting, you make the whales(all rebated bets) bet by 2 minutes to post, you come up with something creative like after off conditional betting, or this sport will continue to suck from a betting standpoint. The main determinant of whether we will win or lose (the actual odds) long term cannot be predicted with any reliability. Even PA has finally figured this out.

But as long as we keep accepting this bs, this bs will continue. We boycott over a 2% takeout increase but we don't boycott over this. Very curious?

Like I said, this horse didn't go up, he went down.

[whisperlunch]

I had a horse last Thursday or Friday go off 4-1 and after winning was at 5/2. No doubt there are some outlets getting to bet after the races start. Maybe it’s offshore but I’m convinced they get a few seconds. Speaking of offshore
I have a few sports accounts and I rarely play horses but last year I hit a race at an offshore sports book and it took a couple hours to grade it. I called and they said I bet it after the race by 8 or 9 seconds. They allow up to 10 seconds for the bet to stand. I was paid.

[affirmedny]

Other way around? He paid 17.60 (7-1)

Sorry, 4NJBETS had wrong odds posted. Should have checked b4 posting, Slightly less pissed about getting shut out now

[JerryBoyle]

Winning horses go up in odds after off often. The problem is is you liked the horse at 9 or 10-1 up, you don't get the benefit of collecting that 12-1. This happens to me often. That is why horse racing really sucks now. We get burned when are horse get hammered after off and we don't get to take advantage of the horses that we would have bet that do not become value until after off.

A while back I created a thread where I suggested that we be able to make conditional bets that get fulfilled after the race goes off. If we had that option, someone may have been able to make a conditional bet on the said horse at 10-1+ and been able to collect a nice mutual, instead of being frustrated by the fact that the horse drifted up at a time he could not take advantage of the price.

This aspect of racing is just too damn frustrating and is going to continue to stunt the growth of the sport. Either you give players exchange betting, you make the whales(all rebated bets) bet by 2 minutes to post, you come up with something creative like after off conditional betting, or this sport will continue to suck from a betting standpoint. The main determinant of whether we will win or lose (the actual odds) long term cannot be predicted with any reliability. Even PA has finally figured this out.

But as long as we keep accepting this bs, this bs will continue. We boycott over a 2% takeout increase but we don't boycott over this. Very curious?

Don't some ADW's already provide conditional wagering? I've never used it so I've got no idea how it works, but I thought I've seen it advertised

[jay68802]

Don't some ADW's already provide conditional wagering? I've never used it so I've got no idea how it works, but I thought I've seen it advertised

You put a bet in and the minimum post time odds you are willing to take. If the odds are higher than your minimum, the bet is placed, if the odds are lower, the bet is canceled. I placed 6 today, 4 were canceled, 2 were placed, 1 of them I still got less than my minimum odds.

[Poindexter]

Oh that makes it so much better. The players that bet the horse thinking they were getting 12-1 ended up with 7.8-1. Now that truly is entertainment. Sort of like being mugged in the parking lot as you leave the track.

Dave S, Been a while since I have even thought about it, I am too busy adapting to the status quo (so much fun:jump:). Anyway this is the thread that I explained what I am talking about:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=141107&highlight=past+post+conditional

[Dave Schwartz]

Oh that makes it so much better. The players that bet the horse thinking they were getting 12-1 ended up with 7.8-1. Now that truly is entertainment. Sort of like being mugged in the parking lot as you leave the track.

Dave S, Been a while since I have even thought about it, I am too busy adapting to the status quo (so much fun:jump:). Anyway this is the thread that I explained what I am talking about:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=141107&highlight=past+post+conditional

I understood. But the very issue that ANYONE could get a bet in AFTER the gate opens means that SOMEONE is getting favored treatment.

We'd ALL like to make "conditional wagers." That would solve "the problem" for many near-break-even players.

[Poindexter]

I understood. But the very issue that ANYONE could get a bet in AFTER the gate opens means that SOMEONE is getting favored treatment.

We'd ALL like to make "conditional wagers." That would solve "the problem" for many near-break-even players.


They can't bet after the gate is open, I am just saying to provide the option of a past off conditional bet. Instead of your ADW processing their conditional wagers 3 minutes before the race goes off, give all players the option of making conditional wagers that will be determined after the race is off and all the money is in. If it is available to all players, how is anyone getting favorable treatment.

This is analogous to saying that anyone playing the stock market that places a limit order on xyz company is getting an unfair advantage. If the stock becomes available at the specified price the order is filled, if it doesn't no transaction. The same applies here. If 2-1 is available for your conditional wager it gets filled if it isn't, it will not get filled.

If I had a $100 conditional wager on a horse at 20-1 or better, he jumped from 15-1 to 30-1 after the horses left the gate and my $100 bet knocked him down to 27-1 only to drift up to 29-1 after all other conditional bets get filled., why would that be an unfair advantage that my order got filled. In fact why would anyone really care. If they bet the same horse they were expecting 15-1 anyways and if they bet another horse my $100 bet is perhaps driving up the price on their horse.

Not following your logic at all. Also, not sold that is would be the game changer you think it would be. It would just enable players to lock in bets that all represent true value. Plenty of "value" players are not making money in this game and often it has more to do with line errors than it does betting horses below fair value. Still as a value player, I have a strong desire to limit my bets to strictly value situations. This would be the only way to do so. However, I realize that doing so is hardly a guarantee that I will make money in this game .

[Dave Schwartz]

IMHO, it does not solve the problem of odds changes at all. It just allows the more sophisticated player to bet even later.

Do you really think the whales wouldn't hop on this bandwagon?

[Onion Monster]

I bet Instilled Regard @ 9-1 as they were forever approaching (in the GP sense of the word) the gate. Went off at 5-1 (5.7 per the charts). I was never happier to see a horse given a no shot ride or Rosario'd.

[Poindexter]

IMHO, it does not solve the problem of odds changes at all. It just allows the more sophisticated player to bet even later.

Do you really think the whales wouldn't hop on this bandwagon?

Of course they would, but that is why I suggested a limit of $100 bets per player. It would be more of a courtesy/convenience to small players that might not even be getting rebates and are basically forgotten. It would be pointless if whales are putting in conditional wagers of $7000.


Yes I agree that it would not solve the problem of odds changes, but it would solve the problem of a player being a victim of odds changes(if they chose to go that route). Bottom line is as a value bettor I want to bet the 6 horse at odds of 5/2 or better. If I bet him at 5/2 as they are loading the gate and he drops to 6/5, I am pissed. If I have conditional past post wager on him at 5/2 and he drops to 6/5 I will not have a bet so I don't care. As far as I am concerned, problem solved. He may very well go onto win by 5, but I know over the long run I am better off without the bet. A lot of players may feel otherwise and may have zero interest in this type of technology(if it was available).

[GMB@BP]

Well I bet the 4 at 7/1 at Kee 5th, 8/1 into the gate, 9/2 at first flash.....

love this game, hey I won right!

[PaceAdvantage]

I SWEAR TO GOD, I AM GOING TO GIVE THIS ****ING JOKE OF A GAME UP

I just bet :4: Ivy's College Fund at Keeneland in the 5th.

I bet the horse at 0mtp when it was 9 to ****ing 1.

8-1 morning line. These are NOT tiny pools.

****ING HORSE IS 9/2 when they cross the wire.

**** THIS SHIT

[Dave Schwartz]

Of course they would, but that is why I suggested a limit of $100 bets per player. It would be more of a courtesy/convenience to small players that might not even be getting rebates and are basically forgotten. It would be pointless if whales are putting in conditional wagers of $7000.


Yes I agree that it would not solve the problem of odds changes, but it would solve the problem of a player being a victim of odds changes(if they chose to go that route). Bottom line is as a value bettor I want to bet the 6 horse at odds of 5/2 or better. If I bet him at 5/2 as they are loading the gate and he drops to 6/5, I am pissed. If I have conditional past post wager on him at 5/2 and he drops to 6/5 I will not have a bet so I don't care. As far as I am concerned, problem solved. He may very well go onto win by 5, but I know over the long run I am better off without the bet. A lot of players may feel otherwise and may have zero interest in this type of technology(if it was available).

I'm sorry but this is an idea that I just cannot get behind for several reasons.

1. Just not practical. No business or industry is ever going to give the little guy an edge over the big guy. If anything, it just pisses off the big guy.

Example: If I go to Walmart and am told that I'd get a better deal if I spend less, that is exactly what I'd do.

2. Players are not "victims." Want to bet like a whale? Then hook up with an ADW that allows you to upload a bet file. This is so common these days that there is actually an "industry standard." Unfortunately, it isn't a standard for the mainstream guys (i.e. ExpressBet, etc.). Solution? Go to a little guy.

3. While I feel your pain (I, too, get stung by Winners'-Odds-Crash-Syndrome" (WOCS), guess what? So do the whales. How do they overcome it? The make the effort to build models that predict what the odds will be. You and I could do that.

In fact, I've been doing it for almost 4 years. I've even created products that show people how to do it and done free webinars that demonstrate the technique.


[B]4[/] The best solution - and it does not stop WOCS - is to close the pools then hold the gate for 2 minutes, locking out all wagers received after that time.

This solution only stops the public perception that cheating is going on. It does not change the fact that with 2 minutes to post you made your bet on a horse that was 6/1 and when the gate opens he was only 3/1.


Just my opinion.

Dave

[GMB@BP]

I SWEAR TO GOD, I AM GOING TO GIVE THIS ****ING JOKE OF A GAME UP

I just bet :4: Ivy's College Fund at Keeneland in the 5th.

I bet the horse at 0mtp when it was 9 to ****ing 1.

8-1 morning line. These are NOT tiny pools.

****ING HORSE IS 9/2 when they cross the wire.

**** THIS SHIT

I was wrong, 9/1 into the gate, i had not updated my tvg and still had the gate odds...it was worse.

[Poindexter]

I'm sorry but this is an idea that I just cannot get behind for several reasons.

1. Just not practical. No business or industry is ever going to give the little guy an edge over the big guy. If anything, it just pisses off the big guy.

Example: If I go to Walmart and am told that I'd get a better deal if I spend less, that is exactly what I'd do.

2. Players are not "victims." Want to bet like a whale? Then hook up with an ADW that allows you to upload a bet file. This is so common these days that there is actually an "industry standard." Unfortunately, it isn't a standard for the mainstream guys (i.e. ExpressBet, etc.). Solution? Go to a little guy.

3. While I feel your pain (I, too, get stung by Winners'-Odds-Crash-Syndrome" (WOCS), guess what? So do the whales. How do they overcome it? The make the effort to build models that predict what the odds will be. You and I could do that.

In fact, I've been doing it for almost 4 years. I've even created products that show people how to do it and done free webinars that demonstrate the technique.


[B]4[/] The best solution - and it does not stop WOCS - is to close the pools then hold the gate for 2 minutes, locking out all wagers received after that time.

This solution only stops the public perception that cheating is going on. It does not change the fact that with 2 minutes to post you made your bet on a horse that was 6/1 and when the gate opens he was only 3/1.


Just my opinion.

Dave

It's cool. I posted the thread and very little response to it. Sounds like a good idea to me, but doesn't seem as too many others agree. Doubt racing would implement it anyhow, even if there was a strong demand for it.

Why would a whale care if a bunch of everyday players were opting in or off of horses after the race went off. When all is said and done the final odds will be very close to what they are today. If anything it would help their cause, because they are the ones who drive the price up and down on horses that would become bets or non bets for people at the new after off price. Don't see why creating a technology that provides for a better betting product that we have existing could ever be a bad thing. Just because it will not be of great value to whales due to the limits, they certainly could use it as part of their approach.

If this technology would turn some losing or struggling players into winning players, that would be a good thing for everyone, no? They bet more, whales can bet more.......Whales can't keep making money if it is just them against each other. If this technology could make the game more enjoyable for some, because they now are only making bets they want to make, instead of having numerous bad bets sandwiched in between, that also is a good thing for the industry, no? I only see positive, not negative. You see a whole bunch of negative and I am not really understanding why. You see it as a screw you to whales, I see it as a chance for smaller player to compete with whales, without going through the extremes you talk about and actually play a gambling game where they have some sort of control of the final odds they get (I know betting exchange, but until that actually happens on a wide scale, I am assuming it will not happen).

[Dave Schwartz]

Why would a whale care if a bunch of everyday players were opting in or off of horses after the race went off.

Because it hurts their prices and, hence, their bottom line.

I mean no disrespect here, but this is like Horse Racing Math 101.


There is no way that the big boys would ever stand for the little guys being able to do something that they cannot do. Frankly, they shouldn't have to anyway.

Of course, they would just do it themselves. I mean, if you could make a conditional wager that was allowed AFTER the pools were closed, then they would do the same thing.

If you put a limit on the size of the bet, then they would have multiple accounts.

If this were implemented, the only thing that would happen is that the visible odds changes would happen LATER THAN NOW.

(And to be clear, what you are advocating is that SOME PEOPLE should be allowed to PAST POST based upon the odds. Imagine the can of worms THAT would open up.)


Dave

[BCOURTNEY]

Since the wagers are not submitted using a stateful protocol with two way handshaking, the timestamps could be easily altered in an undetectable way, seems easy enough to do. Who audits this, since they don't require the ADW's to connect and submit with stateful protocols? Easy to hide bets in a queue when the back end can't complete the processing until later, of course, what do I know.

What is the security around the timestamps since the protocol is non stateful? If the answer is none - easily exploited. Just ask the wall street flash boys.

Technically saavy federal audit would be great.

Preemptively before the detractors start with with conspiracy theory talk, verse yourself in stateful and non stateful protocols and security around timestamps and how they are a major concern in every other secured system in the world, particularly in trading environments.

[Elkchester Road]

Maybe I am being too simplistic here, but...how could stopping wagering with 1 or 2 minutes before loading begins be seen as anything but inherently fair? The final odds will be the final odds, of course, but would at least be known before the race starts. Perception matters. Tracks can, and do, delay start times of races... 7-8 minutes at times. But... is it SO unreasonable to give either 1 or 2 minutes back to the bettors? The tracks are practically broadcasting their "indifference". If the whales and tracks don't like it...close shop. Players will find another game to gravitate to. Too many tracks racing, anyway.

These odds changes are happening 2 and 3 times from the time half of the field is loaded until after the finish of the race. Past posting??? Don't know, but what I do know is this is happening almost regularly. What ISN'T happening is a horse who wins whose odds go UP 2 or 3 times from load to finish of the race. Sometimes they go up once...none of the going up more than that. That only happens on the down elevator.

It isn't my intent to seem like a doomsayer. I am a somewhat serious Friday-Sunday player who plays 15-20 races over the course of a weekend (fields of 10 or more). That gives a LOT of time to observe happenings in the races with shorter fields. It is sometimes mind-boggling. The game just, at times, feels too "tilted".

[Poindexter]

Because it hurts their prices and, hence, their bottom line.

I mean no disrespect here, but this is like Horse Racing Math 101.


There is no way that the big boys would ever stand for the little guys being able to do something that they cannot do. Frankly, they shouldn't have to anyway.

Of course, they would just do it themselves. I mean, if you could make a conditional wager that was allowed AFTER the pools were closed, then they would do the same thing.

If you put a limit on the size of the bet, then they would have multiple accounts.

If this were implemented, the only thing that would happen is that the visible odds changes would happen LATER THAN NOW.

(And to be clear, what you are advocating is that SOME PEOPLE should be allowed to PAST POST based upon the odds. Imagine the can of worms THAT would open up.)


Dave

Dave I responded completely hit one wrong key and everything went. Must have been a message from upstairs. We are in complete disagreement on just everything. So I will agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[biggestal99]

I SWEAR TO GOD, I AM GOING TO GIVE THIS ****ING JOKE OF A GAME UP

I just bet :4: Ivy's College Fund at Keeneland in the 5th.

I bet the horse at 0mtp when it was 9 to ****ing 1.

8-1 morning line. These are NOT tiny pools.

****ING HORSE IS 9/2 when they cross the wire.

**** THIS SHIT

Exchange wagering. Not sure what the price was on the X. But it sure was higher than 5.6 (9-2).

the X keep the cursing at the odds drop to a minimum.

Allan

[cj]

Exchange wagering. Not sure what the price was on the X. But it sure was higher than 5.6 (9-2).

the X keep the cursing at the odds drop to a minimum.

Allan

We all know this by now. It doesn't do the vast majority of us any good since we're not in New Jersey.

[JerryBoyle]

I SWEAR TO GOD, I AM GOING TO GIVE THIS ****ING JOKE OF A GAME UP

I just bet :4: Ivy's College Fund at Keeneland in the 5th.

I bet the horse at 0mtp when it was 9 to ****ing 1.

8-1 morning line. These are NOT tiny pools.

****ING HORSE IS 9/2 when they cross the wire.

**** THIS SHIT

Assuming that betting is closed 2 minutes prior to the start of the race, you still bet this horse at 9/, and this runner's odds were 9/2 at the time the runners were loaded to the gate, would you be equally frustrated as you are now?

[PaceAdvantage]

Assuming that betting is closed 2 minutes prior to the start of the race, you still bet this horse at 9/, and this runner's odds were 9/2 at the time the runners were loaded to the gate, would you be equally frustrated as you are now?Absolutely.

I don't care if they close the betting at the bell, or 10 minutes prior. That makes no difference to me. Nor would it solve this particular problem.

You guys all realize Keeneland IS NOT Gulfstream. They don't load the horses at -10mtp. They actually load the horses at 0mtp.

This horse was 8-1 or 9-1 at 0mtp, as they were loading the horses into the gate. Keeneland has some of the largest pools going at the moment.

This winner's odds were cut RIGHT IN HALF from the time they were loading into the gate until the time she crossed the finish line in front.

The problem is, 40% or more of the pool is MISSING until AFTER the race starts. That's the freakin problem in a nutshell.

I still would have bet this horse at 9/2. But that's not the point.

[cj]

Absolutely.

I don't care if they close the betting at the bell, or 10 minutes prior. That makes no difference to me. Nor would it solve this particular problem.

You guys all realize Keeneland IS NOT Gulfstream. They don't load the horses at -10mtp. They actually load the horses at 0mtp.

This horse was 8-1 or 9-1 at 0mtp, as they were loading the horses into the gate. Keeneland has some of the largest pools going at the moment.

This winner's odds were cut RIGHT IN HALF from the time they were loading into the gate until the time she crossed the finish line in front.

The problem is, 40% or more of the pool is MISSING until AFTER the race starts. That's the freakin problem in a nutshell.

I still would have bet this horse at 9/2. But that's not the point.

How would you feel about no odds being shown (or pools) at any point until the gate opens? That might level the playing field.

[pandy]

How would you feel about no odds being shown (or pools) at any point until the gate opens? That might level the playing field.

You're being facetious, right?

[JerryBoyle]

Absolutely.

I don't care if they close the betting at the bell, or 10 minutes prior. That makes no difference to me. Nor would it solve this particular problem.

You guys all realize Keeneland IS NOT Gulfstream. They don't load the horses at -10mtp. They actually load the horses at 0mtp.

This horse was 8-1 or 9-1 at 0mtp, as they were loading the horses into the gate. Keeneland has some of the largest pools going at the moment.

This winner's odds were cut RIGHT IN HALF from the time they were loading into the gate until the time she crossed the finish line in front.

The problem is, 40% or more of the pool is MISSING until AFTER the race starts. That's the freakin problem in a nutshell.

I still would have bet this horse at 9/2. But that's not the point.

Yeah, understood. Although I think you mean the problem is 40% of the pool is missing after most people (smaller bettors) can bet. Or another way, 40% is missing up until 30s or less before betting is closed. Has nothing to do when the race starts. Important because it means you're not mad about past posting. You're just mad that the price you thought you were getting isn't the price you got.

I don't see how this can be fixed in a fair way. The price is only changing because there are smarter bettors who have more money and have a way to bet seconds prior to start - either through paying people to monitor the race or some program to estimate off time. There is no way to limit that that is fair because it's admittedly punishing people who are simply better at handicapping and wagering.

My general frustration with this whole thread is there's a context that something nefarious is going which is causing those upset to lose when they'd otherwise win. I don't think this is true. Even if there are slight advantages afforded to those who have large bankrolls, like a slightly faster tote access, the advantages are not why they're winning.

[PaceAdvantage]

My general frustration with this whole thread is there's a context that something nefarious is going which is causing those upset to lose when they'd otherwise win.Something nefarious IS going on when close to half the pool is missing from public information prior to the race going off.

The only way to solve this is via real time reporting. It can be done. Easily.

Tracks just need to spend some of that $$$$ they are raking in from the CRW teams betting their millions every month.

[JerryBoyle]

Something nefarious IS going on when close to half the pool is missing from public information prior to the race going off.

The only way to solve this is via real time reporting. It can be done. Easily.

Tracks just need to spend some of that $$$$ they are raking in from the CRW teams betting their millions every month.

Agreed that it's crazy that it takes 30s for wagers to make it's way through to the screen. But let's say some team drops a huge wager 30s prior to off time and you see it in 5s. Will you realistically be able to respond by canceling a wager? I personally would not be able to

[cj]

You're being facetious, right?

Somewhat. But currently the odds at 0 mtp mean very little, so what would the harm be?

[cj]

Agreed that it's crazy that it takes 30s for wagers to make it's way through to the screen. But let's say some team drops a huge wager 30s prior to off time and you see it in 5s. Will you realistically be able to respond by canceling a wager? I personally would not be able to


It is pretty easy to cancel a wager on xpressbet, I could do it in five seconds.

[Jeff P]

I'm wondering if there's a way to incentivize pool stability.

Just floating some ideas at this point:

Wagers placed before 5 mtp: 1.00x rebates if placed remotely/reduced takeout if placed on track.

Wagers placed before 4 mtp: 0.90x rebates if placed remotely/some takeout reduction (but not as much if placed earlier) if placed on track.

Wagers placed before 3 mtp: 0.75x rebates if placed remotely/some takeout reduction (but not as much if placed earlier) if placed on track.

Wagers placed before 2 mtp: 0.50x rebates if placed remotely/some takeout reduction (but not as much if placed earlier) if placed on track.

Wagers placed after 2 mtp: no rebates if placed remotely/full takeout if placed on track.

NO canceling of large wagers after 2 mtp under any circumstances.


Thoughts?


-jp

.

[Dave Schwartz]

How would you feel about no odds being shown (or pools) at any point until the gate opens? That might level the playing field.

That would NOT level the playing field.

It would give the whales an even bigger advantage because they'd be the only ones with really good modeling software to predict prices.

My approach, which I'd call "good enough," would be a very distant 2nd to theirs. (Or maybe not even in the money.)

[lamboguy]

there were times in the summer when i bet on Arapahoe and my money hit the pools within 10 seconds. then other times i bet Mountaineer and my money didn't make it in for 3 minutes.

there is a lot more that can go on with mutual pools other than after the bell bets. for instance, someone can be peaking at your bets that work inside the tote room or the hub. hypothetically your bet doesn't ever have to make it into a mutual pool either, it can go in someones back pocket and they are responsible for the wager.

[Lafecs]

Yeah, understood. Although I think you mean the problem is 40% of the pool is missing after most people (smaller bettors) can bet. Or another way, 40% is missing up until 30s or less before betting is closed. Has nothing to do when the race starts. Important because it means you're not mad about past posting. You're just mad that the price you thought you were getting isn't the price you got.

I don't see how this can be fixed in a fair way. The price is only changing because there are smarter bettors who have more money and have a way to bet seconds prior to start - either through paying people to monitor the race or some program to estimate off time. There is no way to limit that that is fair because it's admittedly punishing people who are simply better at handicapping and wagering.

My general frustration with this whole thread is there's a context that something nefarious is going which is causing those upset to lose when they'd otherwise win. I don't think this is true. Even if there are slight advantages afforded to those who have large bankrolls, like a slightly faster tote access, the advantages are not why they're winning.

What if the roles were reversed? What if you shut the bots out at 2 MTP, then let the public wager until the gates open. How well would that work out for them?

[Denny]

Pari-mutuel Wagering.

That's the problem at the heart of it all when you get down to it.
(It's also why Takeout is so high.)

Please legalize the Exchange everywhere at a fair price.

[JerryBoyle]

What if the roles were reversed? What if you shut the bots out at 2 MTP, then let the public wager until the gates open. How well would that work out for them?

The difference is that the public isn't currently being unfairly shut out. All of us have the technology, if we want, to place large # of wagers as late as possible. There's rule or obstruction which allows large players to get late bets in while the rest of the public cannot

[PaceAdvantage]

The difference is that the public isn't currently being unfairly shut out.Not true. The public is being unfairly shut out (or shut off, I should say), from the knowledge of nearly 40% or more of the wagering pool that is coming their way at a point in time when they have no chance to react to this information...unlike the few major players who are the source of this late money, who know exactly what the odds will be after their money works its way into the pools.

It's a great little scheme they have going...surprised it took them this long to make it happen.

They have created their own private BetFair...they ARE getting fixed odds essentially.

[Tom]

The difference is that the public isn't currently being unfairly shut out. All of us have the technology, if we want, to place large # of wagers as late as possible. There's rule or obstruction which allows large players to get late bets in while the rest of the public cannot

And that is supposed to be good for the game?

[JerryBoyle]

And that is supposed to be good for the game?

Meant to say there's *no* rule or obstruction that prevents, my bad.

Whether batch wagering is good for the game or not, I've not given it any thought

[JerryBoyle]

Not true. The public is being unfairly shut out (or shut off, I should say), from the knowledge of nearly 40% or more of the wagering pool that is coming their way at a point in time when they have no chance to react to this information...unlike the few major players who are the source of this late money, who know exactly what the odds will be after their money works its way into the pools.

It's a great little scheme they have going...surprised it took them this long to make it happen.

They have created their own private BetFair...they ARE getting fixed odds essentially.

Only if you think it's because odds aren't updated in real time. But that's not really unfair, as we're all subject to it. I coudl be wrong, but I don't think a large betting team will know instantly when another team has dropped 40% into the pool. They're at the mercy of the slow update as well, though as Dave has said, they might have a slight advantage here

[PaceAdvantage]

Only if you think it's because odds aren't updated in real time. But that's not really unfair, as we're all subject to it. I coudl be wrong, but I don't think a large betting team will know instantly when another team has dropped 40% into the pool. They're at the mercy of the slow update as well, though as Dave has said, they might have a slight advantage hereThe few large teams operating out there are affecting the pools tremendously simply because they are betting some serious, serious money. Can we at least agree on that, since it's becoming obvious you won't agree with anyone on anything.

Thus, they will come the closest to knowing what the final odds will be on their horses given their monetary influence on closing prices. They will be far, far more accurate than you or I or any other joe schmoe out there staring at the unforgiving tote board.

Will they be outflanked on occasion by another large team? Possibly. But that in no way will diminish the huge edge they have in knowing how their money will affect prices after nobody else has a chance to react.

There's a reason they are betting millions and millions every month.

There are edges, and then there are EDGES.

[biggestal99]

We all know this by now. It doesn't do the vast majority of us any good since we're not in New Jersey.

It always amazes me when the bettors in the uk can get 8-1 (or better) legally on a horse in Kentucky bettors can only legally get 9/2.

Why is the uk way ahead of the us in this matter?

Allan

[JerryBoyle]

The few large teams operating out there are affecting the pools tremendously simply because they are betting some serious, serious money. Can we at least agree on that, since it's becoming obvious you won't agree with anyone on anything.

Thus, they will come the closest to knowing what the final odds will be on their horses given their monetary influence on closing prices. They will be far, far more accurate than you or I or any other joe schmoe out there staring at the unforgiving tote board.

Will they be outflanked on occasion by another large team? Possibly. But that in no way will diminish the huge edge they have in knowing how their money will affect prices after nobody else has a chance to react.

There's a reason they are betting millions and millions every month.

There are edges, and then there are EDGES.

I agree with this 100%. They have significant edge

[AltonKelsey]

What exactly is the edge in knowing the horse is going to pay 7/2 and not 6-1 ?

I must be missing something

Oh yeah, they can NOT bet the horse at 7/2, but wait, they are the ones making it 7/2 , but wait.

sorry , I'm very confused, help me out.

[PaceAdvantage]

What exactly is the edge in knowing the horse is going to pay 7/2 and not 6-1 ?

I must be missing something

Oh yeah, they can NOT bet the horse at 7/2, but wait, they are the ones making it 7/2 , but wait.

sorry , I'm very confused, help me out.You're right. There is zero edge in betting and knowing a horse will be around 9/2 if it wins, versus betting a horse when she's 9/1 while loading into the gate and not knowing she's actually going to be at or near 9/2 at the finish line. :bang:

[cj]

What exactly is the edge in knowing the horse is going to pay 7/2 and not 6-1 ?

I must be missing something

Oh yeah, they can NOT bet the horse at 7/2, but wait, they are the ones making it 7/2 , but wait.

sorry , I'm very confused, help me out.

How much they can bet without losing an edge including rebate.

[AltonKelsey]

How much they can bet without losing an edge including rebate.


I thought everyone knew that? (How much lower the price can go before edge is lost) Are we objecting to how smart they are, the rebate, or something else?

If we are objecting to the rebate, then I suggest we stop betting and demand that the tracks and adw's stop giving rebates and lower the takeout .

If we are objecting to how smart they are, then good luck .

[Poindexter]

What exactly is the edge in knowing the horse is going to pay 7/2 and not 6-1 ?

I must be missing something

Oh yeah, they can NOT bet the horse at 7/2, but wait, they are the ones making it 7/2 , but wait.

sorry , I'm very confused, help me out.

I was wondering the same thing. Sounds like PA is confusing player disadvantage with whale advantage. One has nothing to do with the other. Whales don't make money because other players don't know what the final odds will be (that just makes it harder for other players to win), they make money because imo


1) they have excellent forecasting methods (which seems to include inside information and perhaps info not available to others-like more accurate times etc.),

2) they get very nice rebates

3), I believe (educated guess by me) they (or at least some of them) have a whole lot more access to what the up to the moment true odds and money bet is than the "experts" claim or admit to.

4) All the modeling stuff they have developed (as per Ian Meyers and Dave Schwartz)

5) They use CRW to make a split second determination of how to exploit their edge and create wagers based on all this information they have

6)) Perhaps even some are past posting.


The last second odds swing are just a result of what they do.

[PaceAdvantage]

If you maniacs don't think being able to wager vast sums of money, bringing a horse down to pretty much where your models say he should be, and also KNOWING that nobody can do a thing about it at that point, isn't some tremendous edge in and of itself, then I don't know what else to say.

It's not even about being smart. It's being ABLE to bet ENOUGH at a point where NOBODY ELSE will be able to bet, to basically LOCK IN YOUR PRICE.

They are, in effect, getting FIXED ODDS while still betting into the pari-mutuel system.

THEY KNOW what the end price will be, because they are SETTING the END PRICE.

I'm not confusing a thing.

[Poindexter]

If you maniacs don't think being able to wager vast sums of money, bringing a horse down to pretty much where your models say he should be, and also KNOWING that nobody can do a thing about it at that point, isn't some tremendous edge in and of itself, then I don't know what else to say.

It's not even about being smart. It's being ABLE to bet ENOUGH at a point where NOBODY ELSE will be able to bet, to basically LOCK IN YOUR PRICE.

They are, in effect, getting FIXED ODDS while still betting into the pari-mutuel system.

THEY KNOW what the end price will be, because they are SETTING the END PRICE.

I'm not confusing a thing.

If there models are wrong they are gong to go broke really quickly. When they knocked your horse from 9-1 to 9/2 at the last second, why was that to their advantage the the betting closed, What if a second after their bet went in, a no hoper started acting up in the gate and caused a reload and about a 3 minute delay. What would have happened to your 9/2 if they were done betting. The public would have bet other horses that they drove up and the 9/2 would have drifted to 5-1 or even 6-1. How was it to their advantage for the betting to close the second just after their bet was made. I assume that they bet so late because their models require the input of what other bettors are doing to be the most accurate. So betting at 3 seconds to off they will have a lot stronger prediction of each horses relative chances than they would have had at 3 minutes to post. Who knows maybe they even have a physicality expert on track watching the horses come up to the gate giving his analysis of each horses appearance and adding that to their model. For the amount of money they are making, it would be stupid not to.

Their advantage isn't fixed odds (which they don't have anyways, because other whales can bet the same horse) their advantage is what I detailed in my previous post.

[AltonKelsey]

Anyone can set the end price (lower) by betting a lot on whoever they like.

That's not an edge.

Unless you're manipulating the odds and betting somewhere else.

Think about it.


Think outside the box.


In itself, smashing the price lower on a horse is not an edge, and thinking it is, is foolishness.

[porchy44]

The edge in betting late is not to allow anyone “get in on it”. If we noticed most winners came from abnornally early money, many people would capitalize on that. My ROI would be higher if I could cancel any bets in which my horse went up in odds after the late action came in.

[Lafecs]

Anyone can set the end price (lower) by betting a lot on whoever they like.

That's not an edge.

Unless you're manipulating the odds and betting somewhere else.

Think about it.


Think outside the box.


In itself, smashing the price lower on a horse is not an edge, and thinking it is, is foolishness.

It is an edge if they are getting real-time odds updates. How many times do I have to say it? And please, spare me the insults...

[jay68802]

CHRB meeting minutes discussing whales, pg 12. Tote updates, pg 72 and 98.

[PaceAdvantage]

In itself, smashing the price lower on a horse is not an edge, and thinking it is, is foolishness.Of course it is...IF they KNOW the end price will be where they want it to be...therefore, they can bet AS MUCH AS THEY CAN to drive it to that price and thus ensure MAXIMUM PROFIT.

I can't believe I have to explain the obvious.

[PaceAdvantage]

If there models are wrong they are gong to go broke really quickly.You think they're working with inadequate models? :lol:

Come on man...and as for your other "nightmare scenarios," it all works out in the wash long term.

[green80]

rOf course it is...IF they KNOW the end price will be where they want it to be...therefore, they can bet AS MUCH AS THEY CAN to drive it to that price and thus ensure MAXIMUM PROFIT.
t
I can't believe I have to explain the obvious.

unless their is two of them trying to do it.

[Poindexter]

You think they're working with inadequate models? :lol:

Come on man...and as for your other "nightmare scenarios," it all works out in the wash long term.

Your biggest gripe is they are too good. When have you ever seen me post they have inadequate models? They are the sharpest cappers on the planet(as I have posted many times), that is why it is insane to give them rebates(as I have posted at least 100 times on this board). I am saying that their edge is the things I listed, not that they have more control of the final odds than you do. I believe they have less control of the final odds than you think they do. Their skill level and enormous rebates help them stay in the black.

[thaskalos]

Of course it is...IF they KNOW the end price will be where they want it to be...therefore, they can bet AS MUCH AS THEY CAN to drive it to that price and thus ensure MAXIMUM PROFIT.

I can't believe I have to explain the obvious.

Do you see the irony? It used to be us who had to "explain the obvious" to you on this issue, a while back...but now that you've "seen the light", the roles are reversed...and it is now YOU who has to do the "explaining"...:)

[AltonKelsey]

Ok, now I get it. The lower the payoff on winners, the better it is for those betting them.

And all this time , I thought we were hunting for overlays.

So what we really want is to know what horses are going to be bet down to the lowest possible odds, so we can also bet those horses.

Thanks.

To be fair, some of you may be saying that you are betting overlays but THEY are killing the price. Well, are they winning? And more importantly, were you ever getting the price you took at 2 min to post?

[thaskalos]

Your biggest gripe is they are too good. When have you ever seen me post they have inadequate models? They are the sharpest cappers on the planet(as I have posted many times), that is why it is insane to give them rebates(as I have posted at least 100 times on this board). I am saying that their edge is the things I listed, not that they have more control of the final odds than you do. I believe they have less control of the final odds than you think they do. Their skill level and enormous rebates help them stay in the black.

They aren't the "sharpest cappers on the planet". They are a bunch of rich Wall Streeters with the resources to hire some brilliant individuals, and supply them with the proper tools to get the job done. If you were a multi-millionaire retired bond trader...you could probably accomplish the same thing.

[GMB@BP]

CHRB meeting minutes discussing whales, pg 12. Tote updates, pg 72 and 98.

Well kinda interesting, but it sure feels like the secret that they dont want to discuss is that they know certain hubs are playing games, sounds like the cancel CRW bet to manipulate the pools is the bigger issue that may be going.

Either way its clear they are way behind the tech that they are dealing with.

Its a good argument for multi race pools, again if they CRW have direct access to the tickets coming in it wont matter, but at least those odds are not shown ahead of time.

[jay68802]

Well kinda interesting, but it sure feels like the secret that they dont want to discuss is that they know certain hubs are playing games, sounds like the cancel CRW bet to manipulate the pools is the bigger issue that may be going.

Either way its clear they are way behind the tech that they are dealing with.

Its a good argument for multi race pools, again if they CRW have direct access to the tickets coming in it wont matter, but at least those odds are not shown ahead of time.

It points out that the large bettors a connected, and catered to. Even recruited. The odds issue is known about and discussed. They also seem to think that the tote system refreshes pretty darn fast. But that it not seen that way because of lags in displaying the information. And there are a few outlets that do not have the technology to keep up or transmit their wagers in a timely fashion. I also got the impression that their conversations were cryptic. That their was some things that they did not want on record. I just do not get a feeling that it was a open discussion.

And as a side note, it seems they wanted to put out a hit on someone in Tobagano or what ever country that was.

[Lafecs]

Ok, now I get it. The lower the payoff on winners, the better it is for those betting them.

And all this time , I thought we were hunting for overlays.

So what we really want is to know what horses are going to be bet down to the lowest possible odds, so we can also bet those horses.

Thanks.

To be fair, some of you may be saying that you are betting overlays but THEY are killing the price. Well, are they winning? And more importantly, were you ever getting the price you took at 2 min to post?

No, you don’t. The OPTIMUM price on winners is best for those betting them. And I don’t have the capacity to get into college-level statistics. But you’re welcome, anyway.

[PaceAdvantage]

Ok, now I get it. The lower the payoff on winners, the better it is for those betting them.Do you just like to argue? Or do you also like to make sense?

No, not the lower the payoff, the better. Their models, which some (like Pointdexter apparently) believe are the "best on the planet," tell them what a horse should be in terms of odds. They can then bet as much as it will take to bring it close to those odds. Maybe they only bet half of what they should because of the other teams in play. Who knows how their models are set up.

But obviously, if you have a long term SUCCESSFUL model that tells you a horse should be 5-2, and it's up there at 9-1, and your model also has shown you, given the history of how much money these teams are sending in on any given race, that you can bet this amount of money to bring it down to say 5-1 or 6-1, and some other team also is on the horse and sends it to 9-2...you're still getting a nice overlay.

All of this has been modeled out for them already. They know precisely how much to bet to ensure profit and they know pretty much where the odds will end up and "how far they can take it."

So no, it's not "the lower the payoff the better."

Where do you come up with this? I haven't said anything remotely like that.

[Dave Schwartz]

Do you just like to argue? Or do you also like to make sense?

No, not the lower the payoff, the better. Their models, which some (like Pointdexter apparently) believe are the "best on the planet," tell them what a horse should be in terms of odds. They can then bet as much as it will take to bring it close to those odds. Maybe they only bet half of what they should because of the other teams in play. Who knows how their models are set up.

But obviously, if you have a long term SUCCESSFUL model that tells you a horse should be 5-2, and it's up there at 9-1, and your model also has shown you, given the history of how much money these teams are sending in on any given race, that you can bet this amount of money to bring it down to say 5-1 or 6-1, and some other team also is on the horse and sends it to 9-2...you're still getting a nice overlay.

All of this has been modeled out for them already. They know precisely how much to bet to ensure profit and they know pretty much where the odds will end up and "how far they can take it."

So no, it's not "the lower the payoff the better."

Where do you come up with this? I haven't said anything remotely like that.

This is a really intelligent post. :ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

And to be clear, when their odds projection models for a given race are off on a particular card, they lose.

What does it take for "odds projection models to be off?" Agreement with the other whales.

This is what has caused the big last-minute odds changes in favor of the winning horses. More specifically, it is that so much pool money is controlled by just a few people.

Two decades ago, there were "big" and "smart" players. There were even "big and smart" players. But nobody was wagering $100m per year. By comparison to the whales of today, the "big" player was a small fry.

Were (are) there guys who would bet a few thousand dollars or more into a single race? Sure. But they didn't do it across 85% of the races at almost all tracks.

Remember that back in the "good old days," we'd occasionally see horses drop hugely in the first flash after the gate opened. I recall a horse going from 12/1 to 6/1 at Hollywood when the guy in front of me bet like ten dimes. The horse lost and I got shut out on the winner while they counted the money. LOL

In today's world, when the whales agree the horse(s) get hammered and everyone has made a bad bet whether the horse wins or loses.

I am sure that there are some really saavy investors here who are aware of the term, "price discovery" as it applies to the stock and commodities markets. My understanding is that many whales used to spread their bets over several minutes in order to see what the other whales were doing.

I've been told (but have no proof) that this changed as the whales' models of tote action improved. Imagine having years of tote data showing price movements.

Note that this is not "tote watching" to scope out who the best horses are. It is tote watching for the purpose of understanding how the public reacts.

Finally, about this past-posting-thing. Is it happening? Probably. It's happened in the past and, human nature being what it is, I can only assume that somewhere, sometimes, it is happening now.

But that is not a whale strategy. That is a strategy used by "sharpies" who can game the system for a few bucks. It is not a day-to-day, race-by-race strategy for someone pushing $100m+ through the (figurative) window, with a roomful of employees participating.

Do you really think if that was the case that they'd be able to hide this? Do you really think that there wouldn't be a disgruntled whistle blower? For that matter, do you really think that the employees are highly paid? (Sure, the quants and specialists make quite a lot, but not everybody.)


Finally, the key to winning today is to absolutely not do what the whales are doing. If you try, they will eat you alive. You must have a DIFFERENT approach.

And don't think that means, "I have to bet longshots," because they bet them too. Of course, they are not-so-long-shots when they're done with them. As PA's rant indicated.

My advice about this whole game is:
1. Lighten up and enjoy the game.
2. Accept that nobody is going to change the game for you because you don't like the way it is being played.
3. Find a way that works - and don't think for a minute that the "ways of the '80s are going to work 30 years later.
4. Learn to beat the small fields. It's what's for dinner.


Best to you all.

Dave

[AltonKelsey]

Do you just like to argue? Or do you also like to make sense?


......
Where do you come up with this? I haven't said anything remotely like that.


It's very easy to get lost in the weeds on this. Exactly what is being objected to here. That the whales are betting at the last second and changing the odds?

Well apparently, everyone is betting the winner, and all the winners drop in odds, else there wouldn't be the constant whining.

We know neither of those is the case.

How about logging how often the winner goes up in odds vs down. I think its more often than is given credit.

And not mentioned is there are often multiple horses that drop in odds, not just the winner. Maybe 3 or 4 in a 12 horse field get punched late.

[cj]

It's very easy to get lost in the weeds on this. Exactly what is being objected to here. That the whales are betting at the last second and changing the odds?

Well apparently, everyone is betting the winner, and all the winners drop in odds, else there wouldn't be the constant whining.

We know neither of those is the case.

How about logging how often the winner goes up in odds vs down. I think its more often than is given credit.

And not mentioned is there are often multiple horses that drop in odds, not just the winner. Maybe 3 or 4 in a 12 horse field get punched late.

The number of winners that drop in odds after the bell far outnumbers the amount that go up in price. I'm sure you could track this for a week and see for yourself if you think it isn't true.

[Lafecs]

It's very easy to get lost in the weeds on this. Exactly what is being objected to here. That the whales are betting at the last second and changing the odds?

That the game is ****ing ruined. Lol....

Well apparently, everyone is betting the winner, and all the winners drop in odds, else there wouldn't be the constant whining.

Overall this is pretty accurate.

We know neither of those is the case.

How about logging how often the winner goes up in odds vs down. I think its more often than is given credit.

We've discussed this already, it's close to 80% at some tracks

And not mentioned is there are often multiple horses that drop in odds, not just the winner. Maybe 3 or 4 in a 12 horse field get punched late.

Why couldn't they dutch 2 or 3 horses if they see fit to? You do realize all the other losing horses odds would go up, right?

[lamboguy]

It's very easy to get lost in the weeds on this. Exactly what is being objected to here. That the whales are betting at the last second and changing the odds?

That the game is ****ing ruined. Lol....

Well apparently, everyone is betting the winner, and all the winners drop in odds, else there wouldn't be the constant whining.

Overall this is pretty accurate.

We know neither of those is the case.

How about logging how often the winner goes up in odds vs down. I think its more often than is given credit.

We've discussed this already, it's close to 80% at some tracks

And not mentioned is there are often multiple horses that drop in odds, not just the winner. Maybe 3 or 4 in a 12 horse field get punched late.

Why couldn't they dutch 2 or 3 horses if they see fit to? You do realize all the other losing horses odds would go up, right?
please give us a break with that nonsense. taking the after the bell out of the equation, the people that don't have access to the real-time odds are at a severe disadvantage to those that have them. the people that have the real-time don't even need the after the bell access to win. anyone without real time cannot win for any sustained period of time.

and by the way, your percentages are nowhere near close. i am going to give you a clue how you can tell. don't look at the winner, look at the horses that didn't win and see how many of them had their odds go up after the running of the race. then get back to us and explain how wrong you are.

[biggestal99]

My advice about this whole game is:
1. Lighten up and enjoy the game.
2. Accept that nobody is going to change the game for you because you don't like the way it is being played.
3. Find a way that works - and don't think for a minute that the "ways of the '80s are going to work 30 years later.
4. Learn to beat the small fields. It's what's for dinner.


Best to you all.

Dave

Exactly. My current method is to bet against at 9.0 or lower, horses that have a less than 10% chance of winning so far so good as the horses in question have been winning at a 7% rate this year and last. Yes when that 7% come in.....well its a loss and I have had 2 7%ers in a row win. That doesnt do wonders for the bankroll I will tell you that.

But if the methodology is good and I stick with the program...well I won last year and am winning this one using the 10% lay strategy.

sometimes if the odds drift enough, I will cash out and take the guaranteed profit, other times when a big enough profit isnt insured or I calculate wrong and i am in the red at the off, I roll the dice depending on my method to bring me profits.

adapt to what is happening.

The 20 year old Allan was a gambler.

The 61 year old Allan is a calculated risk taker.

Allan

[Lafecs]

please give us a break with that nonsense. taking the after the bell out of the equation, the people that don't have access to the real-time odds are at a severe disadvantage to those that have them. the people that have the real-time don't even need the after the bell access to win. anyone without real time cannot win for any sustained period of time.

and by the way, your percentages are nowhere near close. i am going to give you a clue how you can tell. don't look at the winner, look at the horses that didn't win and see how many of them had their odds go up after the running of the race. then get back to us and explain how wrong you are.

I don't doubt this for a second. But the playing field is stacked in favor of the guys who least need it. I'm tired of debating it. If you don't like the current landscape, then the solution is simple, stop betting it. Which I did. American racing might be the best in the world, but in my opinion the product they offer is one of the worst.

-L

[lamboguy]

I don't doubt this for a second. But the playing field is stacked in favor of the guys who least need it. I'm tired of debating it. If you don't like the current landscape, then the solution is simple, stop betting it. Which I did. American racing might be the best in the world, but in my opinion the product they offer is one of the worst.

-Li basically have stopped, maybe if i am at a track i will go at it again or a change in the tote system.

there are some places that are way up in handle this year, Gulfstream, Santa Anita, Laurel and Oaklawn that i know of.

[Lafecs]

i basically have stopped, maybe if i am at a track i will go at it again or a change in the tote system.

there are some places that are way up in handle this year, Gulfstream, Santa Anita, Laurel and Oaklawn that i know of.

To be honest, the real problem is that there are too many tracks. The sport is too hard to follow for the casual fan, the wagering dollars are too diluted. If they were smart, NY, FL, CA, and KY would join together with what they have and organize and coordinate it into one racing league. The product would be 10x better than the shit show it is now

[JerryBoyle]

To be honest, the real problem is that there are too many tracks. The sport is too hard to follow for the casual fan, the wagering dollars are too diluted. If they were smart, NY, FL, CA, and KY would join together with what they have and organize and coordinate it into one racing league. The product would be 10x better than the shit show it is now

This would be so great. The product would be improved in countless ways. Someone needs to get on the inside and start making moves

[PaceAdvantage]

This would be so great. The product would be improved in countless ways. Someone needs to get on the inside and start making movesFirst stop, ARIP! :pound:

[PaceAdvantage]

This would be so great. The product would be improved in countless ways. Someone needs to get on the inside and start making movesFirst stop, RTIP! :pound:

[PaceAdvantage]

It's very easy to get lost in the weeds on this. Exactly what is being objected to here. That the whales are betting at the last second and changing the odds?

Well apparently, everyone is betting the winner, and all the winners drop in odds, else there wouldn't be the constant whining.

We know neither of those is the case.

How about logging how often the winner goes up in odds vs down. I think its more often than is given credit.

And not mentioned is there are often multiple horses that drop in odds, not just the winner. Maybe 3 or 4 in a 12 horse field get punched late.I've seen winners go up in price. I've seen losers go down in price.

Who care if the ratio is 50 to 1 in favor of losers going down?

So....not....the....point.

[AltonKelsey]

I've seen winners go up in price. I've seen losers go down in price.

Who care if the ratio is 50 to 1 in favor of losers going down?

So....not....the....point.


Exactly my point. What is the point?

I have no idea what the complaint is here.

You realize you cant stop anyone form betting as much as they want on any horse, right?

Let's assume there's no after the bell betting. No proof of it at this point.


Are we objecting to big bettors? Bettors that bet late? Bettors that are smarter than you/have more info than you?

Rebaters?

What exactly would calm the natives?

You realize you cant stop anyone from betting as much as they want at any time up till the bell on any horse.

[PaceAdvantage]

If what they are doing is drastically altering the game for 99% of the other players, which it is, then you can make a very strong argument, that yes you can curtail their actions for the good of the vast majority.

If it were just some guy cutting odds of an 8-1 horse down to 6-1, nobody would care.

But these guys are taking 9-1s down to 9-2 at a track like Keeneland, and 99% of the world never gets a chance to see it coming.

That's complete and utter nonsense and has to stop.

Like I said, and this is a very important point that nobody seems to comment on.

These multi-million dollar teams are essentially getting FIXED odds on their selections in a pari-mutuel system.

Think about that and tell me nothing should be done about it.

You can 100% cut these guys off, or put restrictions on them if they want to continue to participate in a pari-mutuel game. They are an abomination. I've changed my thinking on this 100%

In fact, you sound just like me not too long ago. Not any more.

[castaway01]

Exactly my point. What is the point?

I have no idea what the complaint is here.

You realize you cant stop anyone form betting as much as they want on any horse, right?

Let's assume there's no after the bell betting. No proof of it at this point.


Are we objecting to big bettors? Bettors that bet late? Bettors that are smarter than you/have more info than you?

Rebaters?

What exactly would calm the natives?

You realize you cant stop anyone from betting as much as they want at any time up till the bell on any horse.

I think that's the problem, isn't it? You seem to think that because it's not illegal, it's okay. Fine, it's "okay" for the odds to drastically change after almost all of us have bet. But it's killing the value of racing for all but a few.

Sure, some people don't care. Look in this thread. Dave Schwartz, he's a very smart guy, and he's attacking from a different angle where the final price is not vital to his decisions. That's cool. Biggestal will post for the 100th time about the NJ Exchange, which has no liquidity and few people on this site can bet anyway, but whatever. And there will always be a few people who claim they win anyway (like you?).

But this is an issue because if no non-whale can bet with 1 minute to post and know if he's getting 9-1 or 9-5, that's a major disincentive for MOST of us to bother wagering. If there's nothing to be done about it, fine, but people are leaving the game, fields are shrinking, handle is stagnant, purses are fully propped up by slots, and the quality of racing and wagering opportunities largely sucks. If that's the game you want to play, keep supporting the status quo and you're going to get it.

[GMB@BP]

Its also not just last second bets being made but as I understand it they can batch cancel as well to manipulate the pools?

[jay68802]

What is that word I am looking for? When a small group controls a large population? Just can't seem to think of it.....:bang:

[Track Phantom]

I think that's the problem, isn't it? You seem to think that because it's not illegal, it's okay. Fine, it's "okay" for the odds to drastically change after almost all of us have bet. But it's killing the value of racing for all but a few.

Sure, some people don't care. Look in this thread. Dave Schwartz, he's a very smart guy, and he's attacking from a different angle where the final price is not vital to his decisions. That's cool. Biggestal will post for the 100th time about the NJ Exchange, which has no liquidity and few people on this site can bet anyway, but whatever. And there will always be a few people who claim they win anyway (like you?).

But this is an issue because if no non-whale can bet with 1 minute to post and know if he's getting 9-1 or 9-5, that's a major disincentive for MOST of us to bother wagering. If there's nothing to be done about it, fine, but people are leaving the game, fields are shrinking, handle is stagnant, purses are fully propped up by slots, and the quality of racing and wagering opportunities largely sucks. If that's the game you want to play, keep supporting the status quo and you're going to get it.
Love this post. Well-said.

[Tom]

Its also not just last second bets being made but as I understand it they can batch cancel as well to manipulate the pools?

This is where I think we need a hard and fast rule - no cancelling a bet. Take the time to figure it out before you make it - once you do, you live with it.

[Jeff P]

Agree with you 100% Tom.

It's one thing if you're canceling a small ticket to correct a mistake.

But it's obvious to everybody watching that we have way too many large cancels being made just before the race off - and these are just out and out pool manipulation.

Imo, allowing large cancels is terrible from an integrity of the game standpoint.


-jp

.

[JustRalph]

This is where I think we need a hard and fast rule - no cancelling a bet. Take the time to figure it out before you make it - once you do, you live with it.

This was the case with Twinspires for years wasn’t it? I remember betting somewhere with no ability to cancel. It was like that for years

[stefan084]

-get on a fixed odds exchange like BetFair. you guys are too good to be wasting your talents on parimutuel betting. (yes I realize Betfair isn't technically available to americans but there are ways around it):)

[Pensacola Pete]

They've been late-betting for 15 years in Hong Kong, and the public doesn't get to see much of it. A guy who pays for a live feed said that even he only sees about a third of the late bets. With $1 million plus (USD) in the win pool, a horse will come down from 10-1 to 4-1 at the end, and nobody will know until betting is closed. It wouldn't surprise me if the same guys branched out to the U.S. a long time ago, because this isn't new.

As far as batch cancels go, that probably doesn't happen for long because the other whales will complain when the odds they bet on get screwed up by the manipulator.

[Fager Fan]

So, in 46 pages did you reach a consensus on how to fix? Will you be happy with cut-off prior to post, or will you still be unhappy as your odds plummet after that cut-off time whenever it happens to be?

[Dave Schwartz]

They've been late-betting for 15 years in Hong Kong, and the public doesn't get to see much of it. A guy who pays for a live feed said that even he only sees about a third of the late bets. With $1 million plus (USD) in the win pool, a horse will come down from 10-1 to 4-1 at the end, and nobody will know until betting is closed. It wouldn't surprise me if the same guys branched out to the U.S. a long time ago, because this isn't new.

As far as batch cancels go, that probably doesn't happen for long because the other whales will complain when the odds they bet on get screwed up by the manipulator.

Pete,

I had a client in Japan for a short while - just long enough for me to attend the World Cup in Yokohama. LOL

At that time you had to bet in person, so he and I would go to the "racebook" carrying between $1m and $3m usd in a tote bag. (The money was in yen.)

The racebook was called "WINS," a 7-story building with 125 ticket writers per floor. The "big players" were on the 4th floor.

Punchline: My guy wagered $1m per day and was not big enough to qualify for the 4th floor.


Dave

[green80]

If a track or ADW does something to give one person a wagering advantage over another, do we still have a paramutual game here?

Someone or a group of people need to file a lawsuit and take this to court and see what a judge says. There may be some state laws that come into play here or there may need to be some updates to the existing laws. One horseplayer couldn't afford the legal fees but as a group we may be able to.

The threat of a class-action suit may change some things.

[PaceAdvantage]

If a track or ADW does something to give one person a wagering advantage over another, do we still have a paramutual game here?

Someone or a group of people need to file a lawsuit and take this to court and see what a judge says. There may be some state laws that come into play here or there may need to be some updates to the existing laws. One horseplayer couldn't afford the legal fees but as a group we may be able to.

The threat of a class-action suit may change some things.Except they don't have an advantage that you are I are missing.

Except $$$millions$$$ to bet with, and better handicapping software. But money and better tools have always been an accepted advantage.

I could sit in front of a bank of monitors and bet a ton of money in the last 20-30 seconds before a race goes off. And it would affect the odds. And you wouldn't see that, most likely, until the horses were well on their way.

Should I be taken to court?

Until racing changes its technology, and ALL outlets transmit their wagers to the tote INSTANTLY, which is updated INSTANTLY, they must put a limit on the amount of money these guys can push through in the last minute of wagering.

And that's it.

It can be done. They just won't want to do it.

[green80]

Except they don't have an advantage that you are I are missing.

Except $$$millions$$$ to bet with, and better handicapping software. But money and better tools have always been an accepted advantage.

I could sit in front of a bank of monitors and bet a ton of money in the last 20-30 seconds before a race goes off. And it would affect the odds. And you wouldn't see that, most likely, until the horses were well on their way.

Should I be taken to court?

Until racing changes its technology, and ALL outlets transmit their wagers to the tote INSTANTLY, which is updated INSTANTLY, they must put a limit on the amount of money these guys can push through in the last minute of wagering.

And that's it.

It can be done. They just won't want to do it.

So you don't think any past posting or pool manipulation is going on? Just guys making big bets at the last possible second? Looks like they are right a lot.

In the good old days when a guy had to make his bet with cash, at the track, just the process of counting that much money prevented this problem.

[PaceAdvantage]

Looks like they are right a lot.Yeah, because they're good.

[Pensacola Pete]

Yeah, because they're good.

They have crystal balls.

It happens race after race, day after day, and they're greedy about it. Somebody somewhere has a "Bet at the quarter pole pole" privilege. In the two races just run, I watched the winner at Evangeline drop from 5.9-1 to 3.2-1 at the eighth pole. I then watched the winner at Charles Town drop from 3.6-1 to 2.0-1 about halfway around the far turn (about 3/16ths out). Both were poised to make big moves at the time. But I don't ever see the logical horses, the horses who look strong at the quarter pole and then fold up their tent, or the nags that surprise everybody by passing six horses in the last eighth of a mile get that late dough.

When they fix the cheating, I'll start playing North American pools again. Until then, I'll stay with the betting exchanges, where I know what price I'm getting.

[green80]

Yeah, because they're good.

I think they are a little more than good. If not past posting maybe somebody's hacking into the system somewhere.

[PaceAdvantage]

Human beings are interesting creatures. That's one thing I've learned from being here 19 years.

I am profoundly shocked there are so many people in this thread who believe that the racing industry is allowing a small group to blatantly past-post SIGNIFICANT wagers at races and tracks all around the country every single day. Surely they see this as well as you do. The odds drops after the bell. The odds drops on winners.

And yet, nobody investigates? Not one person in the media is jonesing to blow the lid of what would surely be a big story even at non-racing news outlets? Not one racetrack or tote executive has ever looked into it? Or if they have, and have found evidence of what many of you claim, they just don't do anything about it?

Really?

[Track Phantom]

Here is the problem I have with the "computer batch betting" accounting for the odds changing: If this was true, common sense would say that we would see A LOT more (in the neighborhood of 50% or more) horses winning at significantly increased odds from the time the gates opened. If these batch bettors are dropping anchor on one horse (because they're so good), then most other runners should move drift up significantly. Unless they are hitting in the 90% range (and even the "why is it so hard to believe" group can't think that is true), then we should actually love this money in the pool because the 50% of the time they are wrong, we'd get overpaid.

See all of this just defies common sense. You'd have to believe these algorithms MIT'ers are so good that that they can identify the "winner" nearly all the time. However, the purpose of these outfits isn't to find the winner but find the betting inefficiencies (i.e. overlays). They, over time, will show profit (combined with rebate) by betting horses who are underplayed by the public. This practice should have almost no correlation to win percentage. Win percentage should remain in the 25% to 35% range.

I can buy algorithms that show inefficiencies in betting. Seeing a horse with characteristics that indicate he should be at 3-1 on the board and is sitting at 5-1 on the board, thus constituting a bet. I do not believe (not for a single solitary second) that these outfits have "handicapping software" or whatever you want to call it, that puts them on winners at a significantly higher rate than the public. That, my friends, is kool-aid drinking at its finest.

[PaceAdvantage]

Who says they are dropping anchor on just one horse?

Frankly, I haven't seen anything from the "past posting" clan except isolated races cherry picked.

Gulfstream is said to have the biggest proportion of CRW money in their pools...which is the main reason for their handle increase in recent times.

It should be quite easy to chart their races for a few days and prove that these extreme odds moves win 90% of the time.

And what constitutes an extreme odds move? I saw somebody post some supposed examples today, and the odds moves they highlighted didn't look all that extreme to me.

But even if what you write above is 100% true and factual, it would serve even further to bolster MY response above.

You think ALL of that is happening and nobody has noticed? And if they have, they haven't done a thing about it?

They want another scandal? They want the Feds involved? And for many of them in the INDUSTRY...they want to go to JAIL for doing nothing about it, or worse, colluding with the past-posters to allow it to continue unabated and in everyone's faces every single day?

[jay68802]

Here is the problem I have with the "computer batch betting" accounting for the odds changing: If this was true, common sense would say that we would see A LOT more (in the neighborhood of 50% or more) horses winning at significantly increased odds from the time the gates opened.

The win pool is not the only pool they are in, the are in the exacta and tri pools also. They are basing their wagers on the win pool, looking at all the horses for overlays. The reason you are not seeing a lot of odds movement on all the horses is that the public gets it right a lot of the times. So the horse might get a large amount bet on it but the odds do not change because the odds are already where they should be. It is when the public is drastically wrong and usually it is on only one horse in a race, is when you see the odds dip on the overlay and the odds rise on the favorites.

Who says they are dropping anchor on just one horse?



It should be quite easy to chart their races for a few days and prove that these extreme odds moves win 90% of the time.

I charted GP for a while, not long but enough to get a understanding. Depends on field size but they are usually on two horses that are winning around the 70% range. What do the top two horses in a 6 horse field win at. I think it is around 63%, but I might be wrong on that.

[TonyK@HSH]

One of the tracks I play regularly is Penn National. Late odds swings are commonplace at Penn as nearly 50% of the win pool posts while the race is running. I've found that in most races, these late changes are predictable.

After each race, take a moment to review DD and P3 will pays for the upcoming race. Final odds for the upcoming race most often mirror the will pays, especially with low priced favs. If you see a horse sitting a 5-2 at post time and the P3 and DD will pays project odds of let's say 1-1, the odds on this horse will very often float down to the 1-1 range.
Likewise horses not bet in the will pays will usually float upward when late money arrives.

I do not believe past posting is occurring.

Tony

[Track Phantom]

Who says they are dropping anchor on just one horse?

Frankly, I haven't seen anything from the "past posting" clan except isolated races cherry picked.

Gulfstream is said to have the biggest proportion of CRW money in their pools...which is the main reason for their handle increase in recent times.

It should be quite easy to chart their races for a few days and prove that these extreme odds moves win 90% of the time.

And what constitutes an extreme odds move? I saw somebody post some supposed examples today, and the odds moves they highlighted didn't look all that extreme to me.

But even if what you write above is 100% true and factual, it would serve even further to bolster MY response above.

You think ALL of that is happening and nobody has noticed? And if they have, they haven't done a thing about it?

They want another scandal? They want the Feds involved? And for many of them in the INDUSTRY...they want to go to JAIL for doing nothing about it, or worse, colluding with the past-posters to allow it to continue unabated and in everyone's faces every single day?
Stop clumping me in with the past posting crowd. I'll say this again, as it relates to odds dropping during the running of the race, I do NOT believe that it is people betting during the race. It can't be. By the time anyone see's an advantage during the race (speedball stumbling from the gate), if they bet it immediately (or canceled immediately), it wouldn't show up in the pools, and then on the board, until very late in the race. Am I saying past posting does not occur? No. I wouldn't claim to know and my instinct says that their Commodore 54 security system probably isn't good enough to keep out everyone. I don't know if it's happening but the signs are there.

I've said, many times, that I believe the betting is inside betting by connections based on knowing more about that horse than the public does. If you want assign it illegal stuff or not, I don't care. I know it isn't Wally sitting at the bar with a program and a pencil and noticing, at the last minute, that a horse has blinkers today and runs up to dump a mortgage.

I have ZERO doubt. ZERO. That Runaway Ghost was inside information and probably laced with something that turned him into a Maserati. It was too convenient that he was bet late, then HAMMERED late down to favoritism, into a race where you had Asmussen, Pletcher, Romans and every other name. Then the rider takes him (purposely) 6 wide and he closes and wins despite it by daylight. That combined with the betting was so obvious that it makes my eyes water.

[PaceAdvantage]

I've said, many times, that I believe the betting is inside betting by connections based on knowing more about that horse than the public does. If you want assign it illegal stuff or not, I don't care. I know it isn't Wally sitting at the bar with a program and a pencil and noticing, at the last minute, that a horse has blinkers today and runs up to dump a mortgage.

I have ZERO doubt. ZERO. That Runaway Ghost was inside information and probably laced with something that turned him into a Maserati. It was too convenient that he was bet late, then HAMMERED late down to favoritism, into a race where you had Asmussen, Pletcher, Romans and every other name. Then the rider takes him (purposely) 6 wide and he closes and wins despite it by daylight. That combined with the betting was so obvious that it makes my eyes water.What I see is happening far too often and on far too many races every day to be inside betting by connections. It has to be, at least the vast majority, these CRW teams.

As for Runaway Ghost, I've seen some incredible odds drops at Sunland, so it wouldn't surprise me in the least that some CRW team was behind that one as well. Like I said in another thread, Runaway Ghost wasn't some impossible to find horse based on PPs alone. Well, in my opinion anyway.

And sorry for clumping you in...my bad.

[Poindexter]

Human beings are interesting creatures. That's one thing I've learned from being here 19 years.

I am profoundly shocked there are so many people in this thread who believe that the racing industry is allowing a small group to blatantly past-post SIGNIFICANT wagers at races and tracks all around the country every single day. Surely they see this as well as you do. The odds drops after the bell. The odds drops on winners.

And yet, nobody investigates? Not one person in the media is jonesing to blow the lid of what would surely be a big story even at non-racing news outlets? Not one racetrack or tote executive has ever looked into it? Or if they have, and have found evidence of what many of you claim, they just don't do anything about it?

Really?


PA, you have read posts by Todd and AE. I am sure most of the people that can actually order an investigation, are in the same boat. They believe that past posting is not possible, and they believe that the accuracy of the late money is a reflection of the talents of the Whales and nothing else. If that is your belief why would you wast the time and spend the money to investigate something you are 100% sure is not happening. In fact they were actually reading these threads they would likely be laughing out loud about how stupid they think some us are. Couple that with the fact that this type of cheating doesn't affect racing's bottom line one dollar and I really do not see a lot of motivation for anyone in the racing industry to go out of their way to really investigate if this type of cheating is going on. You can argue that any kind of cheating will cause a financial strain to their core customer base, but so do rebates, crw and whales in general and racing certainly has no problem with them.

So for this reason I am not persuaded at all by your argument. However, as I think about it, the argument I would make for no past posting is that there are reportedly 25 or more groups out there betting huge amounts of money and using rebates to profit. If a couple of groups were past posting and the rest weren't, it seems to me over time that the groups that were past posting would swallow up all the profits and the other groups would have a hard time surviving even with their skill set and rebates. For this reason I will side with past posting being more of a minor issue or non issue than a major issue.

So if past posting is not the problem, why the large odds swings? Why are horses that the rest of the public is dismissing at 9-1, being pounded down to 9/2 by the whales (I had a horse I bet at Gulfstream at 54-1 as they loaded the gate and won at 28-1 I believe another horse-Lambo mentioned in one of these threads I bet was 17-1 loading and won at 8-1(after the race I checked and he was 8.3-1 in the double) The public is not going to be that far off. It has to be pool manipulation. Bet some of their money early on other horse(s), make the public think certain horse(s) are more dead on the board than they actually are or have less chance than they actually do. By the same token they make some horses look more live than they are and have a better chance than they do. A horse that they like that they feel is off the radar of the public they can make look like a hopeless longshot or just make look like a non factor and then on the final flash, bang. In the final seconds they make their balancing wagers, cancellations and they get exactly what they want while the public is confusing itself with why is horse x so live and why horse Y so dead and ignoring horse z because he is 50-1. Meanwhile that was just a mirage to throw off the public.

Obviously if there are 25 or 30 groups or even more groups out there they probably are not all using this approach, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that some of the groups are. At this point I personally am concluding that pool manipulation on top of the the rest of the things I have mentioned is the explanation for these huge odds swings.

[biggestal99]

PA, you have read posts by Todd and AE. I am sure most of the people that can actually order an investigation, are in the same boat. They believe that past posting is not possible, and they believe that the accuracy of the late money is a reflection of the talents of the Whales and nothing else. If that is your belief why would you wast the time and spend the money to investigate something you are 100% sure is not happening. In fact they were actually reading these threads they would likely be laughing out loud about how stupid they think some us are. Couple that with the fact that this type of cheating doesn't affect racing's bottom line one dollar and I really do not see a lot of motivation for anyone in the racing industry to go out of their way to really investigate if this type of cheating is going on. You can argue that any kind of cheating will cause a financial strain to their core customer base, but so do rebates, crw and whales in general and racing certainly has no problem with them.

So for this reason I am not persuaded at all by your argument. However, as I think about it, the argument I would make for no past posting is that there are reportedly 25 or more groups out there betting huge amounts of money and using rebates to profit. If a couple of groups were past posting and the rest weren't, it seems to me over time that the groups that were past posting would swallow up all the profits and the other groups would have a hard time surviving even with their skill set and rebates. For this reason I will side with past posting being more of a minor issue or non issue than a major issue.

So if past posting is not the problem, why the large odds swings? Why are horses that the rest of the public is dismissing at 9-1, being pounded down to 9/2 by the whales (I had a horse I bet at Gulfstream at 54-1 as they loaded the gate and won at 28-1 I believe another horse-Lambo mentioned in one of these threads I bet was 17-1 loading and won at 8-1(after the race I checked and he was 8.3-1 in the double) The public is not going to be that far off. It has to be pool manipulation. Bet some of their money early on other horse(s), make the public think certain horse(s) are more dead on the board than they actually are or have less chance than they actually do. By the same token they make some horses look more live than they are and have a better chance than they do. A horse that they like that they feel is off the radar of the public they can make look like a hopeless longshot or just make look like a non factor and then on the final flash, bang. In the final seconds they make their balancing wagers, cancellations and they get exactly what they want while the public is confusing itself with why is horse x so live and why horse Y so dead and ignoring horse z because he is 50-1. Meanwhile that was just a mirage to throw off the public.

Obviously if there are 25 or 30 groups or even more groups out there they probably are not all using this approach, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that some of the groups are. At this point I personally am concluding that pool manipulation on top of the the rest of the things I have mentioned is the explanation for these huge odds swings.

Now this makes sense. Countless times on betfair, a 8-1 on betfair is 3,4 - 1 on the tote. It is a sure loser. I am betting this type on betfair. The early tote have it as 25% winner and in reality it’s 7%. Pool manipulation is a huge problem at smaller tracks. I totally ignore the tote prices. I don’t care what their odds are.

Allan

[lamboguy]

The world is full of naive believers. Listen to these self proclaimed ecperts and dream on8

[lamboguy]

I am glad that at the very least we have a few people here that are not blind and foolish. I would not pay attention to the inside racing people telling how fair the bell is. Nothing could be further from the truth

[PaceAdvantage]

I am glad that at the very least we have a few people here that are not blind and foolish. I would not pay attention to the inside racing people telling how fair the bell is. Nothing could be further from the truthCan't wait to see your video.

[PaceAdvantage]

So if past posting is not the problem, why the large odds swings? Why are horses that the rest of the public is dismissing at 9-1, being pounded down to 9/2 by the whales That 9-1 horse that got pounded down to 9/2, I had that horse at 9/5 on my line. Obviously, I had that one right (for a change), as the horse won like a 9/5 should.

So the public was very wrong on that one...and the smarter whales (plus myself, the blind squirrel) were all over it...that's what happens all the time.

Contrary to popular opinion, there ARE a lot of overlays out there...the public ISN'T that good, IMO. Or else all of us would have given up this game a LONG time ago.

More proof that the public isn't all that good is the very fact these CRW teams exist in the first place.

[Poindexter]

That 9-1 horse that got pounded down to 9/2, I had that horse at 9/5 on my line. Obviously, I had that one right (for a change), as the horse won like a 9/5 should.

So the public was very wrong on that one...and the smarter whales (plus myself, the blind squirrel) were all over it...that's what happens all the time.

Contrary to popular opinion, there ARE a lot of overlays out there...the public ISN'T that good, IMO. Or else all of us would have given up this game a LONG time ago.

More proof that the public isn't all that good is the very fact these CRW teams exist in the first place.

My explanation makes the most sense to me, you explanation makes the most sense to you. The interesting thing is that there probably is not a lot I can say that would persuade you otherwise and vice versa. At the end of the day we will all draw our own conclusions (including those who think past-posting is rampant).

[Denny]

My explanation makes the most sense to me, you explanation makes the most sense to you. The interesting thing is that there probably is not a lot I can say that would persuade you otherwise and vice versa. At the end of the day we will all draw our own conclusions (including those who think past-posting is rampant).

We do all seem to agree that something is wrong, and that something needs to be done.

[Track Phantom]

What I see is happening far too often and on far too many races every day to be inside betting by connections. It has to be, at least the vast majority, these CRW teams.

As for Runaway Ghost, I've seen some incredible odds drops at Sunland, so it wouldn't surprise me in the least that some CRW team was behind that one as well. Like I said in another thread, Runaway Ghost wasn't some impossible to find horse based on PPs alone. Well, in my opinion anyway.

And sorry for clumping you in...my bad.
In your opinion, do the "computer betting outfits" have software which "handicaps" or "assess toteboard inefficiencies"? Or both?

You claim these guys pick winners at a much higher rate than us with their software but then the conversation settles around dutch betting on horses who are under-played by the public. Which is it?

This is a big answer because if their software identifies overlays and bets these horses, their win% should actually be less than normal and they would win due to the odds they are betting on viable winners (not needing as many winners as it would take if betting favorites) + rebates. That is believable.

On the other hand, if you're saying these outfits have computer programs which "picks winners" at a higher rate than the average public, I call bulllshit. No way!! And if....if....if I was to buy that argument, I would think their margin of heightened success would be extraordinarily marginal.

From what I see, odds dropping during the race are disproportionately dropping on the winners. We should see a proportionate amount of winners whose odds went UP dramatically from the spring of the gate. My instinct is for every one horse the goes up dramatically, 15 go down.

A previous poster said it correctly. Something is wrong. The "something" is open for debate but if a lot of grizzled veterans of the game have issue with it, there is merit to this angst.

[PaceAdvantage]

In your opinion, do the "computer betting outfits" have software which "handicaps" or "assess toteboard inefficiencies"? Or both?

You claim these guys pick winners at a much higher rate than us with their software but then the conversation settles around dutch betting on horses who are under-played by the public. Which is it?

This is a big answer because if their software identifies overlays and bets these horses, their win% should actually be less than normal and they would win due to the odds they are betting on viable winners (not needing as many winners as it would take if betting favorites) + rebates. That is believable.

On the other hand, if you're saying these outfits have computer programs which "picks winners" at a higher rate than the average public, I call bulllshit. No way!! And if....if....if I was to buy that argument, I would think their margin of heightened success would be extraordinarily marginal.

From what I see, odds dropping during the race are disproportionately dropping on the winners. We should see a proportionate amount of winners whose odds went UP dramatically from the spring of the gate. My instinct is for every one horse the goes up dramatically, 15 go down.

A previous poster said it correctly. Something is wrong. The "something" is open for debate but if a lot of grizzled veterans of the game have issue with it, there is merit to this angst.How do you know they are only betting one horse in a race?

I never claimed to know exactly what they are doing. In order to come up with tote board inefficiencies, don't you have to handicap? Otherwise, you don't know if the price is an overlay or not.

Or if you're asking if they analyze all the pools to weed out inefficiencies based on pool info alone...who knows...maybe...that kind of thing has been around since Dr. Z...remember Ziemba? You should have seen the show prices drop on Dr. Z horses back in the day in the last flash...

Oh wait...that's kind of like what's happening now, but on the win end and in a grander scale.

I'd love to see someone chart these happenings for one day...and show that these CRW odds-droppers hit at 90% or whatever the high percentage number is claimed at the moment.

[Poindexter]

We do all seem to agree that something is wrong, and that something needs to be done.

Absolutely, imo what needs to be done is takeout needs to be reduced substantially 8/10/12 % and rebates must be eliminated. The biggest problems this industry faces usually comes back to that. That will not eliminate the problem, but if the Whales have a horse at 4-1 and the public at 6-1, it sure helps that they have to leave themselves at least 9/2 and not the 7/2 or whatever the current system lets them go down to (also the public as a group would lose so much less than they currently do that these late odds changes probably will not be nearly as frustrating for that reason alone) What else can help? The industry denies past posting is even happening. It seems pretty clear that crw isn't going anywhere. Pool manipulation is not preventable unless they get very strict about the cancelling of large wagers(and even so some pool manipulation still can be one). As Dave Schwartz would say, how do you let small bettors cancel wagers and tell the big boys they can't. The other option is a betting exchange, but that will bring with it a new set of issues and problems and controversy.

Remember in this industry's eyes the whales butter their bread and the rest of us are in it for the entertainment(in other words our opinion means squat). I don't think they are overly anxious to crack down on syndicate #10 that bets 200 million dollars a years but is cancelling large wagers 100 times a day.. All we can really do is try as a group to figure out what exactly we agree needs to be fixed and as a group demand that it get's fixed. But if there are 7 different interpretations and opinions on why something bad is happening, how can we demand change? The status quo works for the industry so it is not changing unless we give the industry a major reason to change (having a loud and uniform and reasonable voice and boycotting). Otherwise we are all on our own, drawing our own conclusions, making our own decisions and nothing of substance will change.

[Track Phantom]

Speaking of cancellations, when did the rule change that you can cancel any size bet? It used to be you couldn't. In fact, I remember my dad, back in about 1987, would keep a voucher in his wallet. He started with $100 and every day, when he'd see a horse he was sure couldn't miss the board, bet the whole voucher to show on that horse. He had it up to $400+ and bet it to show on a horse at Canterbury in a 6 horse field. He decided he wanted to cancel it and they wouldn't let him saying they wouldn't cancel a bet over $200. He went nuts and almost got booted from the place.

About 10 years later, I had made some large wins bets at CBY and canceled them near post (maybe 3 races). I was using my players card when making the bets. Later that day I got an email from the track telling me not to do it as it makes them look bad.

Now all of sudden we cancel willy-nilly. Is that because of the large computer betting groups demanding it?

[AlsoEligible]

As Dave Schwartz would say, how do you let small bettors cancel wagers and tell the big boys they can't.

It's easy. "You can't".

For at least one of the major tote companies, the CRW teams have no ability to cancel wagers once they're placed, for exactly this reason. I've seen guys accidentally pump in $50k worth of bets that were supposed to go to a test system, and had to tell them they were S.O.L. when they asked about canceling them.

Suppose it's possible that they could be making large wagers through other retail outlets to steer the public, then cancelling those in the final seconds and dumping their batch of real bets. But then again, retail ADWs are pretty good about flagging and closing accounts that are obviously manipulating pools.

Call it Occam's razor, but I the models these guys use are good enough at making them money, without having to resort to such elaborate (and risky) schemes. Not that pool manipulation isn't an issue - particularly at smaller tracks - just don't think it's related to CRW.

[Dave Schwartz]

I don't have a problem with wager cancels.

However, IMHO...

1. Wagers over a significant amount (to be determined) should demand a 5-minute process for canceling. "If you want to make large wagers, make them early."

2. At the track, a supervisor must be present to cancel a large wager and all large cancels should be logged and tracked. (This means ask for an ID to cancel.) Among other things, it works against money laundering, IMHO, the primary reason for cash cancels.

3. Exception to the above rules would be during a gate scratch.

[thaskalos]

That 9-1 horse that got pounded down to 9/2, I had that horse at 9/5 on my line. Obviously, I had that one right (for a change), as the horse won like a 9/5 should.

So the public was very wrong on that one...and the smarter whales (plus myself, the blind squirrel) were all over it...that's what happens all the time.

Contrary to popular opinion, there ARE a lot of overlays out there...the public ISN'T that good, IMO. Or else all of us would have given up this game a LONG time ago.

More proof that the public isn't all that good is the very fact these CRW teams exist in the first place.

If "the public isn't that good"...then how come the winning horseplayers have always been so few and far between? IMO...the public is good enough.

[PaceAdvantage]

If "the public isn't that good"...then how come the winning horseplayers have always been so few and far between? IMO...the public is good enough.I should have written THAT good, instead of just that good.

[cj]

I should have written THAT good, instead of just that good.

Andy says it a lot on Twitter..."they knew"...and more often than not "they knew" that one of the contenders wasn't going to run well. Is that handicapping or inside info? Because often times there is nothing on paper to tip this off.

What makes me skeptical is that with today's smaller fields, it should be much tougher to find inefficiencies. They aren't running 4, 5, and 6 horse fields in Hong Kong like we do here.

[Poindexter]

It's easy. "You can't".

For at least one of the major tote companies, the CRW teams have no ability to cancel wagers once they're placed, for exactly this reason. I've seen guys accidentally pump in $50k worth of bets that were supposed to go to a test system, and had to tell them they were S.O.L. when they asked about canceling them.

Suppose it's possible that they could be making large wagers through other retail outlets to steer the public, then cancelling those in the final seconds and dumping their batch of real bets. But then again, retail ADWs are pretty good about flagging and closing accounts that are obviously manipulating pools.

Call it Occam's razor, but I the models these guys use are good enough at making them money, without having to resort to such elaborate (and risky) schemes. Not that pool manipulation isn't an issue - particularly at smaller tracks - just don't think it's related to CRW.

I am going to retract my statement regarding pool manipulation. I am sure some pool manipulation goes on by some players but what you post makes sense to me.

[Track Phantom]

Found this interesting:

EVD Race 3:
Start loading into the gate:
#7: 3-2
#8: 1-1

Last horse is loading into the gate:
7: 2-1
8: 3-5

Rider replacement called for and they back out of the gate.
7: 2-1
8: 3-5

10 minutes go by and the odds remain:
7: 2-1
8: 3-5

* If it is computer betting, the odds should be as they are.

#7 wins

Final odds:
7: 9-5
8: 4-5

[DGroundhog]

If "the public isn't that good"...then how come the winning horseplayers have always been so few and far between? IMO...the public is good enough.

IMO - the 'public' has little ability to refrain from betting. How many races a day would you really consider to be playable? Most bettors select a few tracks to focus on and play nearly every race. That sort of puts them on the level of slot players pushing a button and hoping for the best.

Many bettors who have success are dependent on big payoffs to have a successful year. They might place thousands of bets during the year - but success is dependent on hitting that $10,000 or $100,000+ payoff (depending on your style and wagering level).

I find few people who can make much consistent success at all grinding out victory by placing thousands of bets of the WPS EXA type of wagers per year. If you can do that, then you probably have a shot at selling your selections.

Another significant factor is inside information or 'tips' you might receive from people who actually work with the horses. Much of the public has little access to that info.

I don't have much in the way of those connections, but occasionally I do hear a tip. Some of them are from proven sources and have led to some pretty decent payouts that really come from nowhere as far as my own ability to handicap a race is concerned. I increase my plays on those tips. They don't always pay off, but overall they have generated profit by a significant margin.

If I were a smarter, less vain and more disciplined man, I would refrain from wagering completely until one of those tips came around (maybe one a month at best). If I were a more social person, I would seek to expand on those sources.

Whales have plenty of connections, however, and they take advantage of those tips. Sometimes they are paying for those tips - and that is discounting any nefarious fixing going on (IMO this happens infrequently, probably more often at the end of a meet or when bills are due - and longshot players probably increase their chances of winning when it does occur, but there is always the chance to profit even if you don't know jack about it).

If you (or I) are playing horses based on the PPs and your perception that you are smarter than everybody else, then I would be wagering against you (or I) having any sort of consistent success. That isn't a knock, it is an acknowledgement of wagering against the takeout. I would also wager on you (or I) losing less than a lottery or pull tab player (much higher takeout).

In addition, I would say that some people are just 'self defeating'. They think everything and everybody is against them. They are being conspired against. Races are fixed, there is past post wagering frequently occurring and the late money always screws them over. These folks generally have lost their money before they have even placed a wager.

[DGroundhog]

We do all seem to agree that something is wrong, and that something needs to be done.

Unfortunately, that 'something' would only cause more complaining, mostly by the people demanding something be done.

[DGroundhog]

Found this interesting:

EVD Race 3:
Start loading into the gate:
#7: 3-2
#8: 1-1

Last horse is loading into the gate:
7: 2-1
8: 3-5

Rider replacement called for and they back out of the gate.
7: 2-1
8: 3-5

10 minutes go by and the odds remain:
7: 2-1
8: 3-5

* If it is computer betting, the odds should be as they are.

#7 wins

Final odds:
7: 9-5
8: 4-5

I didn't.

That is about as insignificant a change as I could imagine.

[Track Phantom]

I didn't.

That is about as insignificant a change as I could imagine.
Of course it's insignificant. I said as much. But what I found interesting is that all the late money came in on the #8. Then they backed the horses out. No odds move for 10 minutes. Race ends, and the winner, not the #8, goes down in price.

[GMB@BP]

What type of money does it take at Kee to go from 4/5 to 1/5 during the race?

About 3/4 through the race Bee Jersey drew off and after race flash was 1/5. This horse looked like the horse to beat but 1/5 with other pace in the race, just feels fishy.

[AstrosFan]

Unfortunately, that 'something' would only cause more complaining, mostly by the people demanding something be done.

Inept track management doesn't care about this or anything else and this is why the game suffers in today's market

[formula_2002]

here is a situation I just ran into which is not so infrequent.

race 5 at Epson, the 4/1 exacta paid $31.10, the $1 win bet returned $2.80

at 1 minuet too post the exacta pool was $3,740, the final pool was $11,071

using the 1 min to post exacta pool data I constructed a $1 payout of $4.04 on the winning combination, while the final pool data construct had a $1 payout of only $2.87 (which by the way as you can see, beat the straight pool $1 return.)

here is the 1 min to post construct indicating "your choice" as #4 over all.
the idea is, if your win bet choice is the #4, then you should bet the 4 over all, using the bet sizes indicated.

"UK Epsom
Race
5

Post
11:25

MTP
1

$1 Exacta Pool
$3,704"
YOUR CHOICE OVER pgno bet size
1 13
2 3
3 21
4 0
5 27
6 11
7 20
8 4
9 0
10 0
11 0
12 0
13 0
14 0
15 0
16 0
100

[AstrosFan]

I enjoy your info, great to see actual data in action

[formula_2002]

I enjoy your info, great to see actual data in action

thanks
I spend too much of my time with this, but I do the same with breathing:)

[formula_2002]

"Golden Gate Fields
Race
2

Post
3:47

MTP
2

$1 Exacta Pool
$19,719"
YOUR CHOICE OVER pgno bet size
1 10
2 6
3 22
4 19
5 17
6 6
7 3
8 17
9 0
10 0
11 0
12 0
13 0
14 0
15 0
16 0
100

[P Matties Jr]

If anybody has information on the drop of the #1 in race #5 at Churchill, today, it would be much appreciated. The winner went from 9-5 to 4-5 shortly after the second favorite (the #8) broke bad and eased. I believe the #8 went from 2-1 to 3-1. Looking for any verification or any pool information for this race.

[AltonKelsey]

Would rather see the pools and the flow to make a accurate judgement, but the double paid 20.80 off an 8.60 winner, so 9/5 was likely too high. more like 1-1


My guess, price adjustment. As usual

[lamboguy]

If anybody has information on the drop of the #1 in race #5 at Churchill, today, it would be much appreciated. The winner went from 9-5 to 4-5 shortly after the second favorite (the #8) broke bad and eased. I believe the #8 went from 2-1 to 3-1. Looking for any verification or any pool information for this race.that horse got the lead and no doubt the people that have access to the bell or went in on the horse. i am not wrong, and it does happen, and it happens more frequently than you think.

you are one of the top handicappers in the world and if i was sitting in your shoes i would never be making a bet into the pari mutuel pools and stick with the contests that you should do very well at without exposure to crooked pools.

[castaway01]

that horse got the lead and no doubt the people that have access to the bell or went in on the horse. i am not wrong, and it does happen, and it happens more frequently than you think.

you are one of the top handicappers in the world and if i was sitting in your shoes i would never be making a bet into the pari mutuel pools and stick with the contests that you should do very well at without exposure to crooked pools.

Why would payoffs in the pari-mutuel pools not affect his contest prices as well?

[Poindexter]

If anybody has information on the drop of the #1 in race #5 at Churchill, today, it would be much appreciated. The winner went from 9-5 to 4-5 shortly after the second favorite (the #8) broke bad and eased. I believe the #8 went from 2-1 to 3-1. Looking for any verification or any pool information for this race.

Don't have the info you are looking for but do note that based off of the daily double probables going into race 5, The 1 should have been about 1.18 to 1 and the 8 should have been about 4.08 to 1. Based off of that the odds changes make sense.

It was brought up by another poster, but the more I look at double probables the more I realize that they are predictive of many of these late odds changes. Bet the winner of the last race at Churchill yesterday at 9-1 late in the betting, when he won, I was pissed he was at 5-1. Then I looked at the double payoffs going into that race and sure enough he was about 6-1. I was less pissed.

The good thing about using double probables going into the race is that it is a closed pool. So as bettors we definitely need to look at those probables and weigh them heavily in assessing what final odds we are going to get (at tracks with rolling doubles obviously). So if as a bettor you were looking for 7/5 or better on the 1,, which seems reasonable when he is 9/5 late in the betting, it was far less reasonable to assume you would get it when you saw he was only 1.18-1 in the double pools. Also maybe the fact that the horse was 9/5 late created too much public money on the horse leading to an excessive late odds crush.

Another advantage of using double probables to gauge your probably payoffs is it gives you a lot of time to prepare your potential bets. When I am waiting for the tote board to stabilize I am usually waiting to very late in the betting process and I am forced to make a lot of bets quickly and usually get shut out on some of them (and of course typically the winning ones).

If we are looking to prove if past posting is going on we need to find odds drops that do not correlate with the closing odds of the double pools that closed about 30 minutes earlier. In other words in the example mentioned, had the 1 been 2-1 and the 8 been 3-1 in the double pool(race 4 to race 5) that line movement would have been highly suspicious. However that was not the case in this situation.

[AltonKelsey]

"If we are looking to prove if past posting is going on we need to find odds drops that do not correlate with the closing odds of the double pools that closed about 30 minutes earlier. In other words in the example mentioned, had the 1 been 2-1 and the 8 been 3-1 in the double pool(race 4 to race 5) that line movement would have been highly suspicious. However that was not the case in this situation."

Good luck finding it. And if you find one there's a good chance its a LOSER
anyway.

[CSR]

Was on the :6: in the 3rd at Churchill. Was 3-1 but the low price on the double. Sure enough he drops to 9-5 during the load.

[trifecta]

Was on the :6: in the 3rd at Churchill. Was 3-1 but the low price on the double. Sure enough he drops to 9-5 during the load.

I followed the betting action from the time they loaded until 4 or 5 strides after the gates opened. Here's what I documented (I took cell phone pictures of the TwinSpires feed):

As first horse was entering the gate:
total win pool amount $142,383
#1 - $21,889 15.4% of pool 4/1 odds
#2 - $44,457 31.2% of pool 8/5
#3 - scratched
#4 - $12,737 8.9% of pool 8/1
#5 - $5,678 4.0% of pool 20/1
#6 - $27,919 19.6% of pool 3/1
#7 - $29,700 20.9% of pool 5/2

After last horse entered the gate:
total win pool $154,951
#1 - $23,537 15.2% 4/1
#2 - $49,591 32.0% 3/2
#3 - scratched
#4 - $13,315 8.6% 8/1
#5 - $5,821 3.8% 20/1
#6 - $30,349 19.6% 3/1
#7 - $32,335 20.9% 5/2

4 to 5 strides after the gate opened (and the final pool):
total win pool $196,490
#1 - $25,792 13.1% 5/1 (up from 4/1) (broke 6th and last)
#2 - $59,284 30.2% 8/5 (up from 3/2) (broke 3rd)
#3 - scratched
#4 - $14,274 7.3% 10/1 (up from 8/1) (broke 4th)
#5 - $6,177 3.1% 25/1 (up from 20/1) (broke 1st)
#6 - $55,113 28.0% 9/5 (down from 3/1) (broke 2nd)
#7 - $35,850 18.2% 7/2 (up from 5/2) (broke 5th)

Percentage of final win pool incremental increase that was bet on each horse:
Last pool increased $41,539 (from $154,951 to $196,490).
#1 - 5.4%
#2 - 23.3%
#3 - scratched
#4 - 2.3%
#5 - 0.9%
#6 - 59.6%
#7 - 8.5%

Change in each horse's percentage of pool from the time they loaded the first horse in the gate up until the time they had completed 4 or 5 strides out of the gate:
#1 - down 14.9% (from 15.4% to 13.1%) (decrease of 2.3 divided by 15.4)
#2 - down 3.2% (from 31.2% to 30.2%)
#3 - n/a
#4 - down 18.0% (from 8.9% to 7.3%)
#5 - down 22.5% (from 4.0% to 3.1%)
#6 - up 42.9% (from 19.6% to 28.0%)
#7 - down 12.9% (from 20.9% to 18.2%)

[alhattab]

Interesting read on a successful computer bettor with access to the Hong Kong pools

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-05-03/the-gambler-who-cracked-the-horse-racing-code

[Pensacola Pete]

Interesting read on a successful computer bettor with access to the Hong Kong pools

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-05-03/the-gambler-who-cracked-the-horse-racing-code

A whole thread about this:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=144634