Questions about Firenze Fire/Jason Servis

[Track Phantom]

Apparently there was one or more massive bets that came in on Firenze Fire literally seconds before they left the gate in the Dwyer last Saturday. No one could possibly believe this money came from someone who wasn't privy to inside information about the horse. That inside information had to be knowledge of the "can't lose" medicine the Servis horses have been getting (for those unaware, Servis was 36 for 66 (55%) between Belmont and Monmouth going into Saturday).

The question I have is this: Can the money bet on this horse be traced back to a person? I know if it's at the track, cash in hand, probably not. But if bet through an ADW, couldn't this money be identified if someone took the time to follow the trail of it?

Secondarily, what if the trail led right back to Jason Servis? Is that a problem?

[Tom]

Not a problem.
Shut up and bet.

:bang:

[jay68802]

So Saturday at Belmont, had Leanna Willaford pick up her first win as a trainer. Too bad she is Mott Williams assistant, and is just a paper trainer, because Mott is serving a suspension. Nothing wrong there. Jason Servis wins with Freizen Fire and a huge amount of $ are bet late on the horse. Look the other way. And the best news is that Life In Shambles, the horse that was claimed, but not claimed, because she was sold back to the original owners, and sent back to the original trainer, was claimed again. This time by, guess who? Our favorite trainer, Jason Servis.

[burnsy]

Who wants to know? The money is green isn't it? :lol: The same guy (or people) jumped into a Limousine Liberal after he (they) collected! :cool:

[the little guy]

So Saturday at Belmont, had Leanna Willaford pick up her first win as a trainer. Too bad she is Mott Williams assistant, and is just a paper trainer, because Mott is serving a suspension. Nothing wrong there. Jason Servis wins with Freizen Fire and a huge amount of $ are bet late on the horse. Look the other way. And the best news is that Life In Shambles, the horse that was claimed, but not claimed, because she was sold back to the original owners, and sent back to the original trainer, was claimed again. This time by, guess who? Our favorite trainer, Jason Servis.

Leanna won many races before she worked for Mott. She is a very talented trainer who has been in charge of Mott's horses in NY for going on two decades. Calling her a "paper trainer" is as insulting as it is ignorant, or are you assuming Bill Mott puts incompetent people in charge of his owner's horses?

[Fager Fan]

Leanna won many races before she worked for Mott. She is a very talented trainer who has been in charge of Mott's horses in NY for going on two decades. Calling her a "paper trainer" is as insulting as it is ignorant, or are you assuming Bill Mott puts incompetent people in charge of his owner's horses?

You’re missing the point. A trainer on suspension shouldn’t be able to run his horses who are racing under another trainer “on paper.”

Isn’t Mott at NYRA most of the year? But she’s in charge, not Mott?

[the little guy]

Isn’t Mott at NYRA most of the year? But she’s in charge, not Mott?



Simply put, no, he isn't. Bill is in Florida for a substantial portion of the year and in Saratoga for pretty much the rest. Leanna is basically always at the NYRA track that is currently racing, except obviously Saratoga, where Bill is. Leanna is taking care of the horses still at Belmont during this period, many of which will ship to race. Anyone that goes to the track and pays attention, or watches the simulcast and does the same, is aware of this.

[Big Peps]

So Saturday at Belmont, had Leanna Willaford pick up her first win as a trainer. Too bad she is Mott Williams assistant, and is just a paper trainer, because Mott is serving a suspension. Nothing wrong there. Jason Servis wins with Freizen Fire and a huge amount of $ are bet late on the horse. Look the other way. And the best news is that Life In Shambles, the horse that was claimed, but not claimed, because she was sold back to the original owners, and sent back to the original trainer, was claimed again. This time by, guess who? Our favorite trainer, Jason Servis.


I am as skeptical of Servis' win % as the next guy. Servis won a 3-4 way shake for Life in Shambles I believe. I had a decent win bet on Firenze and I figured at worst it would be 5-1. Was 1/2 watching as I was working around the house, was in disbelief when I saw the 5/2 odds, but the last I had checked was with 3 minutes to go until midway through the race, did not realize it was pretty much after the gate opened that the bettor was actually able to see those odds at 5/2.

Crazy that whoever placed the big bet on Firenze was probably within 1 second or two of getting closed out

[classhandicapper]

I am as skeptical of Servis' win % as the next guy. Servis won a 3-4 way shake for Life in Shambles I believe. I had a decent win bet on Firenze and I figured at worst it would be 5-1. Was 1/2 watching as I was working around the house, was in disbelief when I saw the 5/2 odds, but the last I had checked was with 3 minutes to go until midway through the race, did not realize it was pretty much after the gate opened that the bettor was actually able to see those odds at 5/2.

Crazy that whoever placed the big bet on Firenze was probably within 1 second or two of getting closed out

When I looked at the race I was expecting him to be somewhere between 6-1 and 10-1 depending on how much "Servis is hot now" money came in on him.

[Big Peps]

When I looked at the race I was expecting him to be somewhere between 6-1 and 10-1 depending on how much "Servis is hot now" money came in on him.


I play mostly Pick 3,4,5 and you simply can't leave him off a ticket. I don't love singling him because beating a Servis horse brings value because everybody has them on their tickets as well as C Brown.

It has gotten a bit ridiculous though. The European Filly on Saturday was my demise

[classhandicapper]

I play mostly Pick 3,4,5 and you simply can't leave him off a ticket. I don't love singling him because beating a Servis horse brings value because everybody has them on their tickets as well as C Brown.

It has gotten a bit ridiculous though. The European Filly on Saturday was my demise

That race was a joke for me.

I thought you had to either take a stand against Mendelssohn or pass the race. I came up with Firenze Fire (who I made a score on in the Champagne) and Noble Indy who I used a bit in the Derby off his LA Derby that I liked. I have no problem betting 2 horses to win when I don't like the favorite. I bet both to win and boxed the exacta. When Firenze Fire took all that money and paid 5/2 I netted lunch and beer money. :bang:

[Big Peps]

That race was a joke for me.

I thought you had to either take a stand against Mendelssohn or pass the race. I came up with Firenze Fire (who I made a score on in the Champagne) and Noble Indy who I used a bit in the Derby off his LA Derby that I liked. I have no problem betting 2 horses to win when I don't like the favorite. I bet both to win and boxed the exacta. When Firenze Fire took all that money and paid 5/2 I netted lunch and beer money. :bang:

Yeah, I had Mendo and Firenze Fire on a pick 3 ticket as like I posted previously, I just don't see how you can leave out any Servis horse on a horizontal wager at this point.

[turfnsport]

According to Bill Finley:

The pool for the Dwyer closed at 4:38:38. At 4:38.02, an $8,500 win bet was made on the eventual winner. A series of bets between $2,083 and $4,355 followed. At 4:38.16, 12 bets in increments of $5,000 were bet at the same time. It’s apparent that one player made a $60,000 win bet at that time, but his or her tote company was only able to record the bets at a maximum of $5,000 each.

A bet of $2,012 followed at 4:38.18. At the exact same time, a win bet of $24,055 came in and then at 4:38.21another $11,596 was bet to win on Firenze Fire.

Odds are updated in cycles and the cycles are more frequent as the race draws closer. Within the last minute before the race goes off, the odds are updated every 10 seconds.

At Cycle 2, approximately 20 seconds before the race began, Firenze Fire was 6.3-1. He went down to 5-1 with the next flash and then closed at 5-2.

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/total-of-124109-bet-to-win-on-firenze-fire-in-last-36-seconds-of-dwyer-wagering/

[PaceAdvantage]

Simply put, no, he isn't. Bill is in Florida for a substantial portion of the year and in Saratoga for pretty much the rest. Leanna is basically always at the NYRA track that is currently racing, except obviously Saratoga, where Bill is. Leanna is taking care of the horses still at Belmont during this period, many of which will ship to race. Anyone that goes to the track and pays attention, or watches the simulcast and does the same, is aware of this.Thanks for explaining this to those who aren't as aware.

[PaceAdvantage]

According to Bill Finley:

The pool for the Dwyer closed at 4:38:38. At 4:38.02, an $8,500 win bet was made on the eventual winner. A series of bets between $2,083 and $4,355 followed. At 4:38.16, 12 bets in increments of $5,000 were bet at the same time. It’s apparent that one player made a $60,000 win bet at that time, but his or her tote company was only able to record the bets at a maximum of $5,000 each.

A bet of $2,012 followed at 4:38.18. At the exact same time, a win bet of $24,055 came in and then at 4:38.21another $11,596 was bet to win on Firenze Fire.

Odds are updated in cycles and the cycles are more frequent as the race draws closer. Within the last minute before the race goes off, the odds are updated every 10 seconds.

At Cycle 2, approximately 20 seconds before the race began, Firenze Fire was 6.3-1. He went down to 5-1 with the next flash and then closed at 5-2.

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/total-of-124109-bet-to-win-on-firenze-fire-in-last-36-seconds-of-dwyer-wagering/Mendelssohn was such a huge underlay, this kind of action in the era of CRW is not surprising to me.

[Grits]

I read this Bill Finley piece yesterday. An honest question. Two, actually. And please understand I'm asking because I don't bet every day, and I don't do it to supplement my income.

How does the everyday, at track or at home, bettor continue to put their money into pools, while, before their eyes, they watch such tremendous sums coming in on a horse in the remaining seconds before a race? In this particular case, on a trainer who is alleged to be cheating.

Who is the reliable source that knows these figures, their timing, etc, etc? Why doesn't this source not identify themselves and openly discuss this activity?

Forgive me if my questions are naive. I'm sincere, though, in asking.

[Track Phantom]

Any way you view this it looks bad for horse racing in general. If inside money on a trainer winning at that high percentage, it's not good from one angle. However, if it is computer robotic wagering, it makes the pools unreliable for everyday players.

The common thought used to be that large odds swings wouldn't happen at the bigger tracks and the odds you see close to post time are pretty indicative of what they'll be at when the pools close.

One other thing to consider, if computer robotic wagering is making up that much of a percentage of the overall handle, what is the true growth or decline of wagering in the US if you removed computer betting? If comparing wagering handle from the 1970's, 1980's and so on, it would likely have to be compared without this rather new phenomenon.

[PaceAdvantage]

One other thing to consider, if computer robotic wagering is making up that much of a percentage of the overall handle, what is the true growth or decline of wagering in the US if you removed computer betting? If comparing wagering handle from the 1970's, 1980's and so on, it would likely have to be compared without this rather new phenomenon.CRW has probably saved a lot of tracks.

That's why you won't see it go away any time soon.

[PaceAdvantage]

I read this Bill Finley piece yesterday. An honest question. Two, actually. And please understand I'm asking because I don't bet every day, and I don't do it to supplement my income.

How does the everyday, at track or at home, bettor continue to put their money into pools, while, before their eyes, they watch such tremendous sums coming in on a horse in the remaining seconds before a race? In this particular case, on a trainer who is alleged to be cheating.

Who is the reliable source that knows these figures, their timing, etc, etc? Why doesn't this source not identify themselves and openly discuss this activity?

Forgive me if my questions are naive. I'm sincere, though, in asking.You only look at horses these computer teams WON'T BE TOUCHING. In other words, you become a long shot player.

That's what I have been doing. And I hardly ever notice my horse's odds being hit in the final minute or after the race closes.

Of course, I only win 11-15% of the time...but that's OK if my average mutuel is $20 or over...

[Fager Fan]

Simply put, no, he isn't. Bill is in Florida for a substantial portion of the year and in Saratoga for pretty much the rest. Leanna is basically always at the NYRA track that is currently racing, except obviously Saratoga, where Bill is. Leanna is taking care of the horses still at Belmont during this period, many of which will ship to race. Anyone that goes to the track and pays attention, or watches the simulcast and does the same, is aware of this.

I apologize. And here I thought Saratoga was part of NYRA. Silly me.

But thanks for skipping over the important part, which is that Mott is on suspension which means zilch when the trainer under suspension can run a horse under his assistant's name.

[Fager Fan]

Thanks for explaining this to those who aren't as aware.

You kiss up to Serling at every chance. Embarrassing for you.

For those unaware, going to Florida for the winter does not equate to Mott not spending most of the year on the NYRA circuit, which includes Saratoga. You'd think Serling would know that.

I think Mott would be offended if he knew Serling was saying that it's his assistant who runs things at the NYRA tracks, not him.

[the little guy]

I apologize. And here I thought Saratoga was part of NYRA. Silly me.

But thanks for skipping over the important part, which is that Mott is on suspension which means zilch when the trainer under suspension can run a horse under his assistant's name.


I didn't skip over anything. I just explained what you were wrong about. I was trying to help. Sorry if you misunderstood that.


I'm also surprised that you don't understand assistant trainers and the roles they play, especially in barns the size of Bill Mott's. That's one of the great things about this great game....as much as we know, or think we know, we can always learn new things on any and every day. I am just glad I could help you.

Take care.

[Fager Fan]

I didn't skip over anything. I just explained what you were wrong about. I was trying to help. Sorry if you misunderstood that.


I'm also surprised that you don't understand assistant trainers and the roles they play, especially in barns the size of Bill Mott's. That's one of the great things about this great game....as much as we know, or think we know, we can always learn new things on any and every day. I am just glad I could help you.

Take care.

I misunderstood nothing. I talk to Bill fairly frequently. I'll see if he agrees with your assessment that his assistant runs things at the NYRA tracks instead of him. I'll let you know what he says.

[the little guy]

I think Mott would be offended if he knew Serling was saying that it's his assistant who runs things at the NYRA tracks, not him.

Mott and I are good. I think the world of him. As I said, nothing I said wasn't obvious to anyone that pays even the slightest bit of attention.

I get it, I've read your nonsense here. You want to be the big horseman expert....and can't stand it when people have to constantly correct you. That's going to happen when you frequently act the expert about things you actually aren't well versed in.

[Grits]

Track Phantom and PA, I hope others will add thoughts to my questions, though, I know of course computer wagering is here to stay. Phantom, you pose a great question on growth. Is it actual or is it not?

... I used to handicap and bet each week. Not anymore. Now, only Belmont Week, the Saratoga meet, Derby Day, Breeders Cup and other big stakes days. The majority of the time only NYRA tracks with the exception of Arlington Million Day....and I'm doing that from Saratoga.

PA, you're correct, value in horses deserves close observation. A few weeks ago, not only Gronk's second in the Belmont, but Motion's, Spring Quality winning the Manhattan--both were cause for great celebration.

I love this sport above and beyond all but the questions about drugs, not betting activities, are beginning to come to me from people who haven't any knowledge at all of horses, their care, or their trainers. Those questions are becoming more and more difficult to field. ... I choose my words carefully in response.

[PaceAdvantage]

Fager Fan = never wrong on ANY topic. Horse racing or not. LULZ

[PaceAdvantage]

You kiss up to Serling at every chance. Embarrassing for you.Not as embarrassing as being wrong about virtually everything you post that is horse racing related.

[jay68802]

Leanna won many races before she worked for Mott. She is a very talented trainer who has been in charge of Mott's horses in NY for going on two decades. Calling her a "paper trainer" is as insulting as it is ignorant, or are you assuming Bill Mott puts incompetent people in charge of his owner's horses?

I never said she was a idiot, incompetent, or insulted her in any way. The simple fact is that the horse was previously trained by Mott William. Was "transfered", to Leanna, because Mott is serving a suspension. The horse did not change barns, or move anywhere, and will go right back to Mott after the suspension. Calling her anything but a "paper trainer" in this situation is being ignorant.

[PaceAdvantage]

I never said she was a idiot, incompetent, or insulted her in any way. The simple fact is that the horse was previously trained by Mott William. Was "transfered", to Leanna, because Mott is serving a suspension. The horse did not change barns, or move anywhere, and will go right back to Mott after the suspension. Calling her anything but a "paper trainer" in this situation is being ignorant.If you call her a "paper trainer" it is kind of insulting as you're saying she is doing nothing but putting her name on the paper...when...in fact...it's been pointed out by people with more knowledge that she is crucial to the Bill Mott operation and plays a vital, daily role in the day-to-day training.

Whether one agrees or not that this is the RIGHT thing to do when a trainer is suspended is an entirely different discussion.

[jay68802]

Fine, insert "trainer of record" for "paper trainer". Still just a end run around a suspension.

[PaceAdvantage]

Horses still need to be trained though...and that's the point, or so I thought.

[Robert Fischer]

getting off track with some of this shit...


Horse moves up from "Should be running ungraded stakes and OC races at 1-turn", to IS NOW TO BE CONSIDERED THE DIVISION LEADER, while he moves down from "Hey I think we have a consensus here that he should be 6-1 he may improve going 1-turn and his trainer is rather hot" to :cool:5/2 SUCKERS!:cool: in the last 30 seconds = significant/legitimate topic of concern :ThmbUp:


this other stuff needs it's own thread...
Whether you think Leanna Willaford is a 'class-act' and her having a moment in the sun a wonderful story that should be celebrated, or whether you think the current trainer suspensions that affect the named head trainer while leaving barns operating as usual, and owners generally unscathed is bad, = it detracts from the thread's focus on the bold act that we saw in broad daylight on a relatively big stage. It deserves it's own thread. :ThmbUp:

[PaceAdvantage]

Having a hard time remembering who even implied "a wonderful story that should be celebrated"

I guess I missed a few posts.

[cj]

CRW has probably saved a lot of tracks.

That's why you won't see it go away any time soon.

It is just another short term fix. People are leaving the game. Handle might look stagnant or even have slight increases, but the revenue probably doesn't match given the rebates some of these teams are getting. And at this rate they'll just be playing against themselves soon for the most part. Then what?

[Fager Fan]

I never said she was a idiot, incompetent, or insulted her in any way. The simple fact is that the horse was previously trained by Mott William. Was "transfered", to Leanna, because Mott is serving a suspension. The horse did not change barns, or move anywhere, and will go right back to Mott after the suspension. Calling her anything but a "paper trainer" in this situation is being ignorant.

Bingo. It's inane that Serling and PA are overlooking your point and twisting what you said.

NYRA (hey Andy, that includes Saratoga) dropped the ball here. A suspension should mean a suspension, not a temp transfer into an assistant's name.

[PaceAdvantage]

Bingo. It's inane that Serling and PA are overlooking your point and twisting what you said.

NYRA (hey Andy, that includes Saratoga) dropped the ball here. A suspension should mean a suspension, not a temp transfer into an assistant's name.Not overlooking anything. It's two completely different discussions. Two completely different topics.

Maybe it's too nuanced for you to comprehend. If so, I can completely understand that.

You can keep focusing on that one discussion and one topic that has nothing to do with what Andy was talking about. It won't make you any more correct.

[cj]

If you call her a "paper trainer" it is kind of insulting as you're saying she is doing nothing but putting her name on the paper...when...in fact...it's been pointed out by people with more knowledge that she is crucial to the Bill Mott operation and plays a vital, daily role in the day-to-day training.

Whether one agrees or not that this is the RIGHT thing to do when a trainer is suspended is an entirely different discussion.

The real issue in this case is that Mott appears to mostly be the paper trainer.

[Robert Fischer]

Having a hard time remembering who even implied "a wonderful story that should be celebrated"

I guess I missed a few posts.


Well that's my official stance. Maybe I've let my opinion get in the way.


She's a wonderful story. Class act. She's been working as Bill Mott's assistant. If another thread pops up, I'll continue to defend her.


For this thread I'll focus on the horse that went from Free Drop Bill to Justify in one race for a guy who is training like King Midas while taking 60 grand (just talking 'win' money) in the last 30 seconds of the pool.

[cj]

Bingo. It's inane that Serling and PA are overlooking your point and twisting what you said.

NYRA (hey Andy, that includes Saratoga) dropped the ball here. A suspension should mean a suspension, not a temp transfer into an assistant's name.

I personally don't think this is such a big deal as long as the assistant is actually getting paid as the lead trainer. Unless somebody thinks (I don't) that Mott is getting paid while suspended, I don't see the problem.

[Grits]

Fine, insert "trainer of record" for "paper trainer". Still just a end run around a suspension.

This WOMAN has been this trainer's assistant for TWENTY YEARS. ( You must have missed this part.). Again, twenty years in a barn 7 days a week. Said trainer is known as one of the finest, most honest horsemen in North America.

He fought an almost four year legal battle. Now, put time spent along with his legal fees incurred, up against a paltry $1,000 fine. Tell me who comes out on the short end of the stick.

Every trainer, going through such a hell, should have a Leanna Williford to oversee their barn and it's entries for seven brief days.

TWENTY YEARS speaks volumes!!

[PaceAdvantage]

You’re missing the point. A trainer on suspension shouldn’t be able to run his horses who are racing under another trainer “on paper.”

Isn’t Mott at NYRA most of the year? But she’s in charge, not Mott?You can blame all the latest chicanery on this one post from Fager, which was wrong on multiple levels. Never forget that.

[metro]

According to Bill Finley:

The pool for the Dwyer closed at 4:38:38. At 4:38.02, an $8,500 win bet was made on the eventual winner. A series of bets between $2,083 and $4,355 followed. At 4:38.16, 12 bets in increments of $5,000 were bet at the same time. It’s apparent that one player made a $60,000 win bet at that time, but his or her tote company was only able to record the bets at a maximum of $5,000 each.

A bet of $2,012 followed at 4:38.18. At the exact same time, a win bet of $24,055 came in and then at 4:38.21another $11,596 was bet to win on Firenze Fire.

Odds are updated in cycles and the cycles are more frequent as the race draws closer. Within the last minute before the race goes off, the odds are updated every 10 seconds.

At Cycle 2, approximately 20 seconds before the race began, Firenze Fire was 6.3-1. He went down to 5-1 with the next flash and then closed at 5-2.

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/total-of-124109-bet-to-win-on-firenze-fire-in-last-36-seconds-of-dwyer-wagering/

I thought the last part of Finley's article was relevant too.....

"There were a few other odds shifts within the final 36 seconds, but none nearly as dramatic as the one on Firenze Fire. Seahenge (Scat Daddy), Mendelssohn’s stablemate, went from 37-1 to 27-1. Seven Trumpets (Morning Line) fell from 15-1 to 10-1."

In other words, the CRW surely dumped money on horses other than Firenze Fire late, as they surely do on every race they invest. They still made money on FF but not as much as the optics may show.

The real crusher to FFs closing odds obviously came from the $60K wager late since that money was on ONE horse and not spread across those that CRWs still saw as value.

[the little guy]

The real issue in this case is that Mott appears to mostly be the paper trainer.

Not in the least. He has the bulk of his horses under his care whether it’s Florida or NY. Like any trainer with a reasonable number of horses, he has horses in different locales, and assistants overseeing things in those locations. Don’t forget, assistants work under the top trainer.

[Track Phantom]

The Little Guy:

Why don't tracks allow trainers on the grounds by "invitation-only" with the subjective decision making to exclude trainers who appear to be taking an edge? I know that no one wants to reduce horses on the grounds but I can't believe any track feels like what happened last weekend and what is happening with the trainer in question is a good thing.

If I walk into the Wynn in Vegas and win at a rate that is out of the norm over a long period of time, they'll "politely" show me the door.

I know there are dozens or reasons this is probably a bad idea (opening the door for a variety of unintended consequences) but tracks are NEVER going to catch up to those taking an edge. They have to approach it in a different way if they want to eradicate the obvious offenders.

[cj]

Not in the least. He has the bulk of his horses under his care whether it’s Florida or NY. Like any trainer with a reasonable number of horses, he has horses in different locales, and assistants overseeing things in those locations. Don’t forget, assistants work under the top trainer.

I understand, I don't think it is a huge issue, or even one that matters much at all, I just wish this stuff was more transparent. Like I obviously know Steve Asmussen isn't saddling horses that run under his name at Remington Park, but it wouldn't hurt to know who is.

[Grits]

I understand, I don't think it is a huge issue, or even one that matters much at all, I just wish this stuff was more transparent. Like I obviously know Steve Asmussen isn't saddling horses that run under his name at Remington Park, but it wouldn't hurt to know who is.

It's not his long time assistant, Darren Fleming?

[cj]

It's not his long time assistant, Darren Fleming?

I don't know, never introduced myself, but it definitely isn't Steve's hair I see in the paddock except on Derby day and Springboard Mile day.

[Grits]

The Little Guy:

Why don't tracks allow trainers on the grounds by "invitation-only" with the subjective decision making to exclude trainers who appear to be taking an edge? I know that no one wants to reduce horses on the grounds but I can't believe any track feels like what happened last weekend and what is happening with the trainer in question is a good thing.

If I walk into the Wynn in Vegas and win at a rate that is out of the norm over a long period of time, they'll "politely" show me the door.

I know there are dozens or reasons this is probably a bad idea (opening the door for a variety of unintended consequences) but tracks are NEVER going to catch up to those taking an edge. They have to approach it in a different way if they want to eradicate the obvious offenders.

Goodness knows Andy can shed more light on this than I, Phantom, and I know your question is for him. But, how could this be pulled off without concrete proof? This amounts to, guilty before proven innocent, no? A total about face of what we are based on. Just throwing it in.

[jay68802]

First, this has nothing to do with who these people are. I personally think that both are very good people, and hold them both in high regard. And Grits, this has nothing to do with weather it is a woman or a man doing this, I would be posting the exact same comments.

From the New York Rules and regulations:

"(c) Horses suspended. All horses in the charge of a trainer whose license has been revoked or has been suspended, whether temporarily for investigation or otherwise, shall be automatically suspended from racing during the period of the trainer's exclusion or suspension."

This part is very clear, and the intention of the rule is to prevent what has just happened and to punish the trainer.

"Permission may be given by the stewards for the transfer of such horses
to another trainer during such period, and upon such approval such horses shall again be eligible to race."

And this is the part that puts a hole in the rule you can drive a truck through.

When the rules are written this way, it becomes a farce. Why suspend the trainer in the first place?

[Grits]

I don't know, never introduced myself, but it definitely isn't Steve's hair I see in the paddock except on Derby day and Springboard Mile day.

The hair!! Long or short, still, he's the best looking man in thoroughbred racing. Some things don't change. ;)

In New York at Belmont, in the racing program, Toby, his long time assistant there, Toby Sheets, his name is always listed along with Steve's. Which is one of the coolest things I've ever seen in a trainer. And I've not seen it from others.

Lord, knows how long it's been since YOU purchased a racing program. Something totally foreign to you! :lol:

[thaskalos]

You only look at horses these computer teams WON'T BE TOUCHING. In other words, you become a long shot player.

That's what I have been doing.

That's like advising the poker player, who is about to sit down at a poker table where a known cheat operates, to "just play the hands that the cheat has folded out of". The better advice, IMO...would be to advise him to stay away from that game altogether.

These are very dark days for horse racing...there is no doubt about that.

[Grits]

Here's a question for you, Jay, and it is clear what the rule states. No doubt.

How do you know that Leanna Williford DOES NOT have her trainer's license?

Give it some thought. She has been doing this for over 20 years. Maybe, I'm wrong, but not all trainers especially females want to venture out on their own. Some are quite comfortable where they are.

[Track Phantom]

That's like advising the poker player, who is about to sit down at a poker table where a known cheat operates, to "just play the hands that the cheat has folded out of". The better advice, IMO...would be to advise him so stay away from that game altogether.

These are very dark days for horse racing...there is no doubt about that.
I believe this to be true but am normally shot down by those that are employed by the industry in some facet. I know they are in a precarious position to balance objectivity with a positive face. It's tough and I don't envy them.

But I certainly hope, at least privately, everyone understands how detrimental to the health of the game these situations are. They seem to be happening at an alarming rate.

[thaskalos]

Mendelssohn was such a huge underlay, this kind of action in the era of CRW is not surprising to me.

Is it common for a "computer team" to unload on a single horse in this manner? Aren't they supposedly spreading their wagers out...while trying to take advantage of every overlay on the board?

How do we know that this gigantic bet wasn't made by an individual who possessed more "inside knowledge" than is available to the rest of us?

[Tom]

Anyone that goes to the track and pays attention, or watches the simulcast and does the same, is aware of this.

But not everyone follows NYRA racing everyday, and I bet the majority of the customers had no idea she was the "fill in trainer" for a top-shelf guy on suspension.

This is a problem. You guys on the inside might not think so, but to your customers, it is.

Treat us like customers is all we ask.

[Tom]

Fine, insert "trainer of record" for "paper trainer". Still just a end run around a suspension.

What suspension????:rolleyes:

[PaceAdvantage]

Is it common for a "computer team" to unload on a single horse in this manner? Aren't they supposedly spreading their wagers out...while trying to take advantage of every overlay on the board?

How do we know that this gigantic bet wasn't made by an individual who possessed more "inside knowledge" than is available to the rest of us?I think somebody already addressed this a few posts above, probably better than I could, or should...lol

[Tom]

Track Phantom and PA, I hope others will add thoughts to my questions, though, I know of course computer wagering is here to stay. Phantom, you pose a great question on growth. Is it actual or is it not?

... I used to handicap and bet each week. Not anymore. Now, only Belmont Week, the Saratoga meet, Derby Day, Breeders Cup and other big stakes days. The majority of the time only NYRA tracks with the exception of Arlington Million Day....and I'm doing that from Saratoga.

PA, you're correct, value in horses deserves close observation. A few weeks ago, not only Gronk's second in the Belmont, but Motion's, Spring Quality winning the Manhattan--both were cause for great celebration.

I love this sport above and beyond all but the questions about drugs, not betting activities, are beginning to come to me from people who haven't any knowledge at all of horses, their care, or their trainers. Those questions are becoming more and more difficult to field. ... I choose my words carefully in response.

GRITS, Steve Byk has Paul Matties on halfway through the first hour today, for 45 minutes, talking about this stuff. Good listen.

[thaskalos]

I believe this to be true but am normally shot down by those that are employed by the industry in some facet. I know they are in a precarious position to balance objectivity with a positive face. It's tough and I don't envy them.

But I certainly hope, at least privately, everyone understands how detrimental to the health of the game these situations are. They seem to be happening at an alarming rate.

The thing that is hurting this game the most, IMO...is that there is no independent investigative journalism in this game. No matter what grave injustice is committed in this game, the tendency is to try and whitewash it...because all the remaining "journalistic" outlets have their own financial futures directly related to the financial wellbeing of the game. What incentive does the DRF have to report about these disturbing issues on the front page...when the end result would be enraging the horseplayer to the extent where he might take a long hiatus from the sport...causing the DRF to possibly lose a customer?

[cj]

Is it common for a "computer team" to unload on a single horse in this manner? Aren't they supposedly spreading their wagers out...while trying to take advantage of every overlay on the board?

How do we know that this gigantic bet wasn't made by an individual who possessed more "inside knowledge" than is available to the rest of us?

Have you seen the graph of the winning exacta? It falls from $63 a few minutes before post to around $50, then drops to $25 after the break.

[castaway01]

Is it common for a "computer team" to unload on a single horse in this manner? Aren't they supposedly spreading their wagers out...while trying to take advantage of every overlay on the board?

How do we know that this gigantic bet wasn't made by an individual who possessed more "inside knowledge" than is available to the rest of us?

Metro's post earlier in the thread from the Finley article explained that there were two other horses whose odds dropped as well, so it's possible money was spread around by a team. Or maybe not. Which I suppose is your point, that the regular guy doesn't know. It seems like the longer I play, the less I know.

In a way it ties in with the Mott/assistant trainer discussion here. I think everyone respects Bill Mott, and I'm sure anyone working for him for 20 years is great at their job. No one views him as a "cheater". But it doesn't invalidate the point that for the regular player not in the know, we don't know who is training the horse. And this happens way too often. We've got insiders who know, and the majority of us who don't, and that's why the number of people who care about the game drops every day.

[Tom]

Horses still need to be trained though...and that's the point, or so I thought.

But they do not have to race.

If they do, is it so outrageous for a CUSTOMER to ask that the information be provided to him? They do have a changes page on the website - over weight, scratches, track conditions......it can be put on there?

[cj]

Have you seen the graph of the winning exacta? It falls from $63 a few minutes before post to around $50, then drops to $25 after the break.

https://twitter.com/EJXD2/status/1016338840053862400

[Grits]

Tom, I got stuff to do for a bit, maybe I can catch it on archive later on. Thanks. ;)

[cj]

Also, the double into favored (and eventual winner) Limousine Liberal:

https://twitter.com/EJXD2/status/1016338656028708864

[thaskalos]

Have you seen the graph of the winning exacta? It falls from $63 a few minutes before post to around $50, then drops to $25 after the break.

Yes...but did other exacta combinations decline similarly at the same time? Don't the "computer teams" bet MANY combinations...in order to cover all the overlays on the board? Are these guys "handicappers"...or FORTUNE-TELLERS?

[outofthebox]

Here's a question for you, Jay, and it is clear what the rule states. No doubt.

How do you know that Leanna Williford DOES NOT have her trainer's license?

Give it some thought. She has been doing this for over 20 years. Maybe, I'm wrong, but not all trainers especially females want to venture out on their own. Some are quite comfortable where they are.Grits..When i was an asst. in NY and my trainer was suspended, i had to go to racing commission and upgrade to trainer along with proof of workers comp. When my trainers suspension was up, i then had to move my license back to asst. as the rules were that two licensed trainers could not work together under the same barn. I am sure that is what Leanna will be required to do. Plus i doubt she put up the money for the workers comp...

[Track Phantom]

Have you seen the graph of the winning exacta? It falls from $63 a few minutes before post to around $50, then drops to $25 after the break.
The Dwyer exacta? Are you kidding me? Did other combinations drop with FF winning or just that one? Wow.....

[Tom]

Here's a question for you, Jay, and it is clear what the rule states. No doubt.

How do you know that Leanna Williford DOES NOT have her trainer's license?

Give it some thought. She has been doing this for over 20 years. Maybe, I'm wrong, but not all trainers especially females want to venture out on their own. Some are quite comfortable where they are.

Not the point.
If Jesus Christ were taking over for Mott, I want to know he is only there for that reason and that the horses are going back to Mott. Are we afraid the Russians will use top secret information for some nefarious purposes?

[Track Phantom]

The thing that is hurting this game the most, IMO...is that there is no independent investigative journalism in this game. No matter what grave injustice is committed in this game, the tendency is to try and whitewash it...because all the remaining "journalistic" outlets have their own financial futures directly related to the financial wellbeing of the game. What incentive does the DRF have to report about these disturbing issues on the front page...when the end result would be enraging the horseplayer to the extent where he might take a long hiatus from the sport...causing the DRF to possibly lose a customer?
I understand it. It's unfortunate because this kind of reporting ends up landing in the "speculation" category as there will never be proof, at least as it relates to exposing cheaters. Not sure many journalistic outlets want to both cut their own throats along with sticking their already bleeding neck out into the speculation ether.

[cj]

The Dwyer exacta? Are you kidding me? Did other combinations drop with FF winning or just that one? Wow.....

According to Ed it was all the combos:

https://twitter.com/EJXD2/status/1016337576775569413

[Track Phantom]

Not the point.
If Jesus Christ were taking over for Mott, I want to know he is only there for that reason and that the horses are going back to Mott. Are we afraid the Russians will use top secret information for some nefarious purposes?
Can you imagine educating a newbie on this game. Having them understand all of these things? We forget how complicated all of this really is.

[thaskalos]

Metro's post earlier in the thread from the Finley article explained that there were two other horses whose odds dropped as well, so it's possible money was spread around by a team. Or maybe not. Which I suppose is your point, that the regular guy doesn't know. It seems like the longer I play, the less I know.

In a way it ties in with the Mott/assistant trainer discussion here. I think everyone respects Bill Mott, and I'm sure anyone working for him for 20 years is great at their job. No one views him as a "cheater". But it doesn't invalidate the point that for the regular player not in the know, we don't know who is training the horse. And this happens way too often. We've got insiders who know, and the majority of us who don't, and that's why the number of people who care about the game drops every day.

I read metro's earlier post...but the proof isn't there that the 60K late wager was placed by a computer group. If metro is right, and the computer group had a betting interest in 3 horses in that race...then, why did the late-late money avoid the other 2 horses?

[Track Phantom]

According to Ed it was all the combos:

https://twitter.com/EJXD2/status/1016337576775569413

Got to be kidding me. So this horse was bet as if could not lose. It ran as if it was radiating battery acid. How could this possibly be someone without inside knowledge? C'mon, are we all really that collectively naive? No way!

[thaskalos]

According to Ed it was all the combos:

https://twitter.com/EJXD2/status/1016337576775569413

It was all the combinations involving FF in the win spot. But we've been told that these computer groups don't focus on a single horse in the win spot. They supposedly play the "percentage game".

[jay68802]

Here's a question for you, Jay, and it is clear what the rule states. No doubt.

How do you know that Leanna Williford DOES NOT have her trainer's license?

Give it some thought. She has been doing this for over 20 years. Maybe, I'm wrong, but not all trainers especially females want to venture out on their own. Some are quite comfortable where they are.

I know she does have her trainers license. Why she has been a assistant for that long really does not matter to me. As they say, different strokes for different folks. If that is what she wants to do, fine with me. What they have done is legal and within the rules as they are written. She is the trainer of record for the horses, but she is not venturing out on her own. These horses will go back to racing under Mott's name as soon as the suspension is over, and I believe that is today.

Give this some thought, why is the rule worded this way?

IMO, it is this way because the state of New York can say to the public "Look how tough we are on people that break our rules. We suspended the trainer and fined him."

But in reality, there is no suspension and the only thing that happened was a small fine. And it reduces and almost negates the effect of all drug violations.

[Track Phantom]

It was all the combinations involving FF in the win spot. But we've been told that these computer groups don't focus on a single horse in the win spot. They supposedly play the "percentage game".
So, they are just impossibly accurate handicappers? We are to believe that this had NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH, ZERO involvement from the 55% winning trainer (connections) but instead a computer program that mysteriously ferets out value (of the 5-2 nature) on only the winning horse and to the tune of $150k give or take? And, by the way, has been doing this consistently for many months, rarely to get it wrong? Sorry, I'm very skeptical this is the whole (or correct) story.

[Robert Fischer]

3YO Division leaders


1. Justify (may be done due to incentive and injury)
2. Firenze Fire
3. Good Magic
4.

[cj]

It was all the combinations involving FF in the win spot. But we've been told that these computer groups don't focus on a single horse in the win spot. They supposedly play the "percentage game".

The runner up dropped late in odds too, as did the longshot O'Brien horse. And this despite the big money on Firenze Fire. So they did bet more than one horse.

[Robert Fischer]

KENTUCKY DERBY FORM NOTES: FIRENZE FIRE :lol::lol:

Firenze Fire

Debut MSW 5f - Broke in 2nd, chased the leader while moving well, took over mid stretch while on the wrong lead to win.

2nd start G3 Sanford 6f - mid pack early, moving well, entered stretch on wrong lead, tackled the leader, switched to proper lead finished well to win.

3rd start G1 Hopeful S. 7f - Broke on top, tracking inside while 3rd, entered the stretch on the wrong lead, stayed on the wrong lead for a flat 4th.

4th start G1 Champagne 1M - Settled back near the rear of the mid-pack, fast pace, moving advanced under his own power approaching far turn, fanned wide, swept to the lead to win on the wrong lead.

5th start G1 Breeders Cup Juvenile - Raced mid pack, moved well enough with the flow of the race, did not change leads and weakened.

6th start $150 Jerome 1M - Stalked near the rear, good response, entered the stretch on the wrong lead, changed leads, won an extended duel.

7th start G3 Whithers 1 1/8M - Relaxed early near mid-pack, eager inside to move up to the leaders, chased the winner, changed leads smoothly for a willing 2nd.

8th start G3 Gotham 1M - Mid pack, raced in company as the field bunched up, momentum slowed slightly approaching the far turn in traffic, changed leads well, even finish.

9th start 2 Wood Memorial 1 1/8M - Broke near the front but settled near the back, fast pace, some progress approaching the far turn, changed leads well, flattened out.

Final thoughts - Firenze Fire is unlikely to contend.

[thaskalos]

The runner up dropped late in odds too, as did the longshot O'Brien horse. And this despite the big money on Firenze Fire. So they did bet more than one horse.

Is it okay if I call you on the phone in 5 minutes?

[GMB@BP]

This doesnt feel like a CRW drop, yes we see late odds drops on combinations just about everyday.

This feels like a betting coup, a horse so sure to run well above his established form that people sent in hundreds of thousands of dollars in bets at the last second.

[cj]

This doesnt feel like a CRW drop, yes we see late odds drops on combinations just about everyday.

This feels like a betting coup, a horse so sure to run well above his established form that people sent in hundreds of thousands of dollars in bets at the last second.

The weird amounts of many of the bets in the article that was posted sure feels like a CRW team.

[cj]

Is it okay if I call you on the phone in 5 minutes?

Sure.

[GMB@BP]

The weird amounts of many of the bets in the article that was posted sure feels like a CRW team.

It may have been done with computers, but I dont think its one of the every day companies who make the plays, this feels much more targeted. When else on a major race day have you seen odds like that drop so substantially?

[cj]

It may have been done with computers, but I dont think its one of the every day companies who make the plays, this feels much more targeted. When else on a major race day have you seen odds like that drop so substantially?

Who knows what is going on really? It is certainly feasible that these teams have deals with trainers and owners. Nothing would surprise me any more.

[Robert Fischer]

no reason it can't be both

[Lance Uppercut]

Does anyone have access to the double and/or P3 will pays for the race? I am curious to see what the winner's odds were in those pools compared to the win odds.

[thaskalos]

Who knows what is going on really? It is certainly feasible that these teams have deals with trainers and owners. Nothing would surprise me any more.

Could it be that Jason Servis heads his own betting syndicate...as a side-job?

[cj]

Could it be that Jason Servis heads his own betting syndicate...as a side-job?

No, he's bewildered by all the talk. Nothing to see here. He probably doesn't even know people bet on the races.

[the little guy]

But not everyone follows NYRA racing everyday, and I bet the majority of the customers had no idea she was the "fill in trainer" for a top-shelf guy on suspension.

This is a problem. You guys on the inside might not think so, but to your customers, it is.

Treat us like customers is all we ask.

I have explained it to our customers every single time she started a horse, as well as in other places.

[Valuist]

3YO Division leaders


1. Justify (may be done due to incentive and injury)
2. Firenze Fire
3. Good Magic
4.

No way should Firenze Fire be ranked ahead of Good Magic.

[Robert Fischer]

No way should Firenze Fire be ranked ahead of Good Magic.

Maybe not on their body of work, but Good Magic has never run as big as FF's Dwyer.

Of course, it should be clear that I am skeptical about the huge move up, and FF may (or may not) stick to 1-turn races going forward.

[GMB@BP]

No way should Firenze Fire be ranked ahead of Good Magic.

Justify would have lost badly to Firezne Fire had he been in that race.

[Andy Asaro]

http://www.drf.com/news/flurry-late-wagers-drove-down-odds-firenze-fire-dwyer-stakes

Excerpt:

ELMONT, N.Y. – Twenty-one large individual win bets totaling $124,109 were placed on Firenze Fire in the last 28 seconds of wagering, prompting his odds to plummet from 5-1 to 5-2 in Saturday’s Grade 3 Dwyer, a race he won.

According to information provided by the New York Racing Association, there was one individual wager of $24,055, another of $11,596, one of $8,500, and a dozen of $5,000 made in the last 28 seconds before post. Other wagers ranged from $547 to $4,355.

Though NYRA would not supply information on where the wagers were made, it is believed that all came in via computer.

[Grits]

Grits..When i was an asst. in NY and my trainer was suspended, i had to go to racing commission and upgrade to trainer along with proof of workers comp. When my trainers suspension was up, i then had to move my license back to asst. as the rules were that two licensed trainers could not work together under the same barn. I am sure that is what Leanna will be required to do. Plus i doubt she put up the money for the workers comp...

OBox, thank you for replying and you, too, Jay. ...Workman's Comp is killer--price wise.

[Fager Fan]

Here's a question for you, Jay, and it is clear what the rule states. No doubt.

How do you know that Leanna Williford DOES NOT have her trainer's license?

Give it some thought. She has been doing this for over 20 years. Maybe, I'm wrong, but not all trainers especially females want to venture out on their own. Some are quite comfortable where they are.

What does this have to do with anything?

The point is that Mott was suspended yet his barn continued normal operation. Now, to most people, they don’t see that as much of a punishment, instead it looks more like a vacation.

I thought NYRA was smarter than this.

[Valuist]

Justify would have lost badly to Firezne Fire had he been in that race.

Body of work trumps one outlier figure.

[Grits]

What does this have to do with anything?

The point is that Mott was suspended yet his barn continued normal operation. Now, to most people, they don’t see that as much of a punishment, instead it looks more like a vacation.

I thought NYRA was smarter than this.


Quite possibly a lot. Given that the trainer and the assistant worked within the rules. Fager, I'm not going at it with you tonight. I don't feel like it. Nothing here, move on to someone else. Please.

[classhandicapper]

Justify would have lost badly to Firezne Fire had he been in that race.

If Justify is not retired he is very likely to run faster speed figures when he returns..

The pace of the Derby was very fast and all the chasers other than Good Magic collapsed.

The pace of the Preakness wasn't as fast, but it was very competitive and got pretty hot in the middle against another high quality 3yo.

I personally think the Belmont Beyer was a few points light, but even if not, 12F doesn't tell us much.

I think his entire Triple Crown series is a bit better than it looks. He's also going to benefit from the rest and development process that FF just went through. I'd really like to see him come back just to see if can make a solid jump. I'd have to think he can handle a horse like the improved Firenze Fire (who got a nice setup Saturday).

[Tom]

I have explained it to our customers every single time she started a horse, as well as in other places.

Yes, but not all of them watch your show.
You have a website with scratches, changes, etc.
It would seem this would be a change.

[Fager Fan]

I have explained it to our customers every single time she started a horse, as well as in other places.

All 10 times since 2002? Hope that didn't knock you out!

[Fager Fan]

Quite possibly a lot. Given that the trainer and the assistant worked within the rules. Fager, I'm not going at it with you tonight. I don't feel like it. Nothing here, move on to someone else. Please.

Don't tell me there's nothing here. Get over yourself. This has been a quite common complaint in racing, and for some reason a few of you are defending it this time. Maybe because it's Mott and a woman assistant instead of someone less liked. The fact is that there are jurisdictions that don't allow this, and I thought NYRA was one of them and shocked to find out they aren't.

[Grits]

Don't tell me there's nothing here. Get over yourself. This has been a quite common complaint in racing, and for some reason a few of you are defending it this time. Maybe because it's Mott and a woman assistant instead of someone less liked. The fact is that there are jurisdictions that don't allow this, and I thought NYRA was one of them and shocked to find out they aren't.

Carry it some freaking where else, Fager. Dammit, you can be the biggest pain in the ***. I asked you, nicely. I said, please!!! My sister in law's brother is dying, on life support in Duke Hospital tonight where he's battled leukemia for months. His body is shutting down, rejecting his bone marrow transplant. I'm really concerned as this family has been dear to me for decades.

Get over myself????? Shove it sideways, Fager.

[Tom]

Good thoughts, GRITS, and prayers to you and your family.

[PaceAdvantage]

The fact is that there are jurisdictions that don't allow this, and I thought NYRA was one of them and shocked to find out they aren't.Shocked he was! If you follow racing and are on a racing board such as this one all the time, how you could have been shocked or even surprised is the real shocking element to all of this.

[Afleet]

Justify would have lost badly to Firezne Fire had he been in that race.

Secretariat would have lost badly had he been in the race

[AltonKelsey]

What does this have to do with anything?

The point is that Mott was suspended yet his barn continued normal operation. Now, to most people, they don’t see that as much of a punishment, instead it looks more like a vacation.

I thought NYRA was smarter than this.




If the ceo of google or ibm or aapl go to jail , do you expect the companies to stop doing business.



Presumably, any monies earned go to the sub trainer during this period. That's the punishment, along with the stigma, such as it is.

[GMB@BP]

If Justify is not retired he is very likely to run faster speed figures when he returns..

The pace of the Derby was very fast and all the chasers other than Good Magic collapsed.

The pace of the Preakness wasn't as fast, but it was very competitive and got pretty hot in the middle against another high quality 3yo.

I personally think the Belmont Beyer was a few points light, but even if not, 12F doesn't tell us much.

I think his entire Triple Crown series is a bit better than it looks. He's also going to benefit from the rest and development process that FF just went through. I'd really like to see him come back just to see if can make a solid jump. I'd have to think he can handle a horse like the improved Firenze Fire (who got a nice setup Saturday).

I dont think that large of a bet was made if there was any doubt that horse could lose, not sure it mattered who was in the field. The horse wasnt even all out really. My point was more about the over the top nature of the "sure thing" than anything specifically about Justify.

[Fager Fan]

Shocked he was! If you follow racing and are on a racing board such as this one all the time, how you could have been shocked or even surprised is the real shocking element to all of this.

There has been a move towards disallowing this from happening anymore. Who was it who was suspended and it was a big deal because the trainer was complaining on behalf of his employees who had no work when his horses moved barns?

It was only a week, so I’m fine and all should be ok for the horses to stay in the barn, but they shouldn’t have been able to run during that time. And I really doubt the assistant paid all the employees that week from her own money, and she billed all the horse owners for that week’s training fees and other bills, etc.

[SaratogaSteve]

where can you access this tote data that Finley quoted, and shown in the twitter reposts?

Thanks

[Tom]

Secretariat would have lost badly had he been in the race

But we would have gotten 5-1 on him!

[PaceAdvantage]

where can you access this tote data that Finley quoted, and shown in the twitter reposts?

ThanksThe host track's audit trail.

Good luck.

[RunDustyRun]

So the DRF "believes" all bets were made by computer without any supporting evidence...yea that's the ticket...hide behind the computer syndicate excuse all you want but the only thing that adds up is that some insiders knew the horse WOULD NOT LOSE and unloaded accordingly on both the win end and on the exacta...crooked as hell!

[cj]

So the DRF "believes" all bets were made by computer without any supporting evidence...yea that's the ticket...hide behind the computer syndicate excuse all you want but the only thing that adds up is that some insiders knew the horse WOULD NOT LOSE and unloaded accordingly on both the win end and on the exacta...crooked as hell!

I believe it is NYRA that "believes it, not DRF.

Though NYRA would not supply information on where the wagers were made, it is believed that all came in via computer.

NYRA didn't provide the where but I read it as they did provide the type, i.e. computer.

[RunDustyRun]

I read it as the opposite but it really doesn't matter...i would guess whoever knew the fix was in would rather bet online as to guarantee the bet goes through seconds before post

[AltonKelsey]

I read it as the opposite but it really doesn't matter...i would guess whoever knew the fix was in would rather bet online as to guarantee the bet goes through seconds before post


Also a large rebate, on a large bet. Simple. Only suckers bet at the track :)

[papillon]

I read metro's earlier post...but the proof isn't there that the 60K late wager was placed by a computer group. If metro is right, and the computer group had a betting interest in 3 horses in that race...then, why did the late-late money avoid the other 2 horses?


There is good discussion on this over at Thorograph.

The $60k was 12 $5k bets made at the track at 0 MTP.

One of the guys over there has been in touch with NYRA and apparently the gaming commision is looking into it.

[thaskalos]

There is good discussion on this over at Thorograph.

The $60k was 12 $5k bets made at the track at 0 MTP.

One of the guys over there has been in touch with NYRA and apparently the gaming commision is looking into it.

At the TRACK? Wasn't it reported that the money was bet by computer?

[Track Phantom]

I've read as much as I can on the FF subject. My conclusion is now this:

* Computer programs came in and did their thing in the last 30 seconds knocking FF down to their expected 7-2 odds based on other pools
* Someone on track, most likely someone affiliated with Servis, put twelve $5,000 bets through the window in the final 20 seconds.
* The combination of the two knocked FF down dramatically, more than what the computer programs would of/could of predicted

Identifying the on-track $60,000 win bettor is the key component here. While it's not illegal to bet $60,000 on a horse at the last second, it is illegal if it is part of a bigger betting coup with drug aided advantage given to FF. The fact that the trainer, Servis, said in an interview after the fact that he had "no idea" FF would run like that means he should not be part of the betting coup in anyway. Would seem highly improbable that the trainer didn't know the horse was going to run that way but some random bettor did.

Oddly, two of the most detrimental things crippling the game collided on one horse last Saturday. Computer batch betting and performance enhancing drugs. The cosmic blast it created in the industry is a perfect time to address both. However, if you've followed this game, you'll know that most that could do something will wait out the noise and not expose the problem.

BAU in a week or so.

[cj]

If I were going to bet 60k on a horse at the track I'd do it early to discourage late money from the teams. But what do I know.

[classhandicapper]

If I were going to bet 60k on a horse at the track I'd do it early to discourage late money from the teams. But what do I know.

It probably also discourages a lot of regular players.

One the flip side, when I see a lot of early money I don't understand (in either direction) I pay closer attention. I never tracked it, but just based on experience a lot of those horses are either more live or more dead than I thought depending on which way the unexpected early money went.

[metro]

Also a large rebate, on a large bet. Simple. Only suckers bet at the track :)

Tracks give out rebates too, or at least some of them.

[metro]

There is good discussion on this over at Thorograph.

The $60k was 12 $5k bets made at the track at 0 MTP.

One of the guys over there has been in touch with NYRA and apparently the gaming commision is looking into it.

The same source of the 60K could have contributed to the late action in the exacta pool as well, hope the gaming commission looks into that. They should be able to trace any wager in the tote system, regardless if it was on track, simulcast, ADW or CRW.

[Track Phantom]

If I were going to bet 60k on a horse at the track I'd do it early to discourage late money from the teams. But what do I know.
I would guess the on-track bettor is not a savvy, rebate, computer type player but an old school horse person that only knows the horse is going to win. The old school theory is you bet a horse at the last second to not signify the horse is live and bring other money onto it. I doubt that person is factoring in robotic wagering.

[PaceAdvantage]

I would guess the on-track bettor is not a savvy, rebate, computer type player but an old school horse person that only knows the horse is going to win. The old school theory is you bet a horse at the last second to not signify the horse is live and bring other money onto it. I doubt that person is factoring in robotic wagering.If you're an old school horse person that KNOWS the horse is going to win, why the heck would you wait until the LAST SECOND and risk getting SHUT OUT by a slow teller, or some other unforeseen circumstance?

No way a person like that waits until 0mtp to bet. They send it in gradually or they bet it all early on...no way they wait until the last minute to send it all in.

[Track Phantom]

If you're an old school horse person that KNOWS the horse is going to win, why the heck would you wait until the LAST SECOND and risk getting SHUT OUT by a slow teller, or some other unforeseen circumstance?

No way a person like that waits until 0mtp to bet. They send it in gradually or they bet it all early on...no way they wait until the last minute to send it all in.
If you're standing at the window watching the horses load, your chances of getting shut out are zero.

[Tom]

If you're standing at the window watching the horses load, your chances of getting shut out are zero.

Not at all. When I used to bet at the windows at the track, I used to do just that and got shut out more than a few times. All it takes is one slow-poke making his exacta picks in line and one union teller who could give a crap about my bet.

I bowed to the ATMs and now I stay home and curse Twin Spires on my slow XP.

[Track Phantom]

Not at all. When I used to bet at the windows at the track, I used to do just that and got shut out more than a few times. All it takes is one slow-poke making his exacta picks in line and one union teller who could give a crap about my bet.

I bowed to the ATMs and now I stay home and curse Twin Spires on my slow XP.
Standing at the window means face to face with the teller. Not behind someone in a two-dollar line. Probably had the window to himself, teller pointing people behind him to another line. Quite sure he isn't running up at the last second.

[Tom]

I didn't usually see open windows with no one in line.
Ever try to do that at Saratoga?

[Track Phantom]

I didn't usually see open windows with no one in line.
Ever try to do that at Saratoga?
Nope....nor have I had 60 large in my hands to make a straight win bet. Was Belmont, too.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

The current strategy being employed by syndicates and big betting insiders is clearly one of waiting till the last second

The idea of putting a big bet on early to put other players off is so 1990s

The big players with positive ROI systems don't care if they miss a bet by being shut out. Being shut out will cost them some theoretical profit but the most important thing is to make positive ROI bets. If you put that bet on a bit early these days you can show your hand to your opposition and then your bet can turn ROI negative

Better off being shut out a few times and having ROI 1.03 on $3 million worth of bets than betting earlier and having ROI of 0.99 on $4 million worth of bets

It is impossible to not be shut out in the days of simulcast betting where races clash

[castaway01]

The current strategy being employed by syndicates and big betting insiders is clearly one of waiting till the last second

The idea of putting a big bet on early to put other players off is so 1990s

The big players with positive ROI systems don't care if they miss a bet by being shut out. Being shut out will cost them some theoretical profit but the most important thing is to make positive ROI bets. If you put that bet on a bit early these days you can show your hand to your opposition and then your bet can turn ROI negative

Better off being shut out a few times and having ROI 1.03 on $3 million worth of bets than betting earlier and having ROI of 0.99 on $4 million worth of bets

It is impossible to not be shut out in the days of simulcast betting where races clash

Two big flaws in what you wrote---in order for being shut out to increase your ROI, you'd have to know in advance which bets are going to lose. Second, how is a syndicate "showing its hand" going to make every other syndicate, which pays a ton of money for their own computer programs, suddenly chase your bet and kill your value? Doesn't make sense. Neither does burying a single horse at 30 seconds to post, since that's not how these syndicates usually operate either (unless they have some other edge we're not aware of and are constantly told they don't have). Doesn't pass the smell test, sorry.

[clicknow]

Not at all. When I used to bet at the windows at the track, I used to do just that and got shut out more than a few times. All it takes is one slow-poke making his exacta picks in line and one union teller who could give a crap about my bet.
.

All it takes is for the ticket teller to key the wrong race/amount/track ...

this happens all the time, and then there is no time to put thru for a refund MTP
. YIKES.


At some tracks, the ticket teller actually has to PAY for the tickets if the customer rejects them.....even if the customer changes their mind at the last minute. I didn't know this until recently.

I treat all the tellers courteously and tip them when I cash. The crap they have to put up with with last minute bettors who can be very pushy (esp. if drunk) is real.

And it's noisy when crowded, hard to hear what the customer is asking you to punch.

[metro]

All it takes is for the ticket teller to key the wrong race/amount/track ...

this happens all the time, and then there is no time to put thru for a refund MTP
. YIKES.


At some tracks, the ticket teller actually has to PAY for the tickets if the customer rejects them.....even if the customer changes their mind at the last minute. I didn't know this until recently.

I treat all the tellers courteously and tip them when I cash. The crap they have to put up with with last minute bettors who can be very pushy (esp. if drunk) is real.

And it's noisy when crowded, hard to hear what the customer is asking you to punch.

I doubt the 60K win bet player was wagering from the mainline or grandstand section of the track. No idea what the set up is at Belmont but most every major track nowadays has a much more private area set aside for their big players. Guys that wager 60K in a day can get a teller to themselves.

[cj]

The current strategy being employed by syndicates and big betting insiders is clearly one of waiting till the last second

The idea of putting a big bet on early to put other players off is so 1990s

The big players with positive ROI systems don't care if they miss a bet by being shut out. Being shut out will cost them some theoretical profit but the most important thing is to make positive ROI bets. If you put that bet on a bit early these days you can show your hand to your opposition and then your bet can turn ROI negative

Better off being shut out a few times and having ROI 1.03 on $3 million worth of bets than betting earlier and having ROI of 0.99 on $4 million worth of bets

It is impossible to not be shut out in the days of simulcast betting where races clash

If you put in the big bet early, it makes the odds lower, which means the computer teams won't bet as much as there is less meat on the bone for them to chew off. It has nothing to do with putting them off.

If they think horse A should be 2-1 and he is 6-1 on the board, the will bet X. If the same horse is 3-1 on the board due to a much larger bet earlier, the will bet a sum much smaller than X. Thus the person betting 60k has a greater percentage of the pool and an bigger payoff. This isn't about mind games, it is math.

[Tom]

It is impossible to not be shut out in the days of simulcast betting where races clash

Between robot betting at the last second and tracks after track showing absolutely no respect tot he bettors by overlapping post times, the game really is not worth the bother theses days.

Even when there are only two tracks running anywhere, they freaking overlap.
No matter how large any track might be, it is STILL a minor league operation.

[Tom]

If you put in the big bet early, it makes the odds lower, which means the computer teams won't bet as much as there is less meat on the bone for them to chew off. It has nothing to do with putting them off.

If they think horse A should be 2-1 and he is 6-1 on the board, the will bet X. If the same horse is 3-1 on the board due to a much larger bet earlier, the will bet a sum much smaller than X. Thus the person betting 60k has a greater percentage of the pool and an bigger payoff. This isn't about mind games, it is math.

And so it would be a strategy to make large bets early and then cancel them very late and make new ones?

[cj]

And so it would be a strategy to make large bets early and then cancel them very late and make new ones?

Only if you can bet later than the computer teams. Good luck with that.

[Tom]

I was thinking a computer team could do that.
I doubt my $2 would ever be detected! :lol:

[glengarry]

Here is what I don't understand about the CRW teams, and how they make money. Unlike Wall Street, profiting from insider information is perfectly legal in the racing game. Add to that the huge takeout that dwarfs any table game in Las Vegas, and I am unable to see how value can be found in this game, especially when that value is erased by the reduction in odds as soon as the CRW players do their thing. So they see value at 4 to 1, and then one or more teams bang the horse on the win end, and presumably other horses as well, to the point they are no longer value plays.



My best guess, and I am happy to be corrected, is the profit comes from the enormous rebates they get. Then it becomes a game of churning as much through the machines as they can over the year. The tracks could care less, as their goal is to increase handle. So everyone else has 2 choices: take up another activity, or take the abuse.

[GMB@BP]

Here is what I don't understand about the CRW teams, and how they make money. Unlike Wall Street, profiting from insider information is perfectly legal in the racing game. Add to that the huge takeout that dwarfs any table game in Las Vegas, and I am unable to see how value can be found in this game, especially when that value is erased by the reduction in odds as soon as the CRW players do their thing. So they see value at 4 to 1, and then one or more teams bang the horse on the win end, and presumably other horses as well, to the point they are no longer value plays.



My best guess, and I am happy to be corrected, is the profit comes from the enormous rebates they get. Then it becomes a game of churning as much through the machines as they can over the year. The tracks could care less, as their goal is to increase handle. So everyone else has 2 choices: take up another activity, or take the abuse.

Your last paragraph pretty much sums it up. They are trying to equalize all the payoffs and then make money on the rebate. They just have to beat the takeout to make money.

Its almost foolproof really.

[Track Phantom]

Here is what I don't understand about the CRW teams, and how they make money. Unlike Wall Street, profiting from insider information is perfectly legal in the racing game. Add to that the huge takeout that dwarfs any table game in Las Vegas, and I am unable to see how value can be found in this game, especially when that value is erased by the reduction in odds as soon as the CRW players do their thing. So they see value at 4 to 1, and then one or more teams bang the horse on the win end, and presumably other horses as well, to the point they are no longer value plays.



My best guess, and I am happy to be corrected, is the profit comes from the enormous rebates they get. Then it becomes a game of churning as much through the machines as they can over the year. The tracks could care less, as their goal is to increase handle. So everyone else has 2 choices: take up another activity, or take the abuse.
Spot on. It is a real, and I mean VERY real, problem for the game. If everything is being depressed for average horseplayers and attractive value (i.e. Firenze Fire at 6-1 vs 5-2) is being eliminated, hard core players will be forced to leave the horse racing betting game. This doesn't even address the need to go after new customers. The game won't have many old customers.

I wrote about this for my Gaming Today article. The game will have to decide between short term financial gain or long term customer health.

[classhandicapper]

Spot on. It is a real, and I mean VERY real, problem for the game. If everything is being depressed for average horseplayers and attractive value (i.e. Firenze Fire at 6-1 vs 5-2) is being eliminated, hard core players will be forced to leave the horse racing betting game. This doesn't even address the need to go after new customers. The game won't have many old customers.

I wrote about this for my Gaming Today article. The game will have to decide between short term financial gain or long term customer health.

It used to be that you had to get yourself into the small group that was much more informed than a bunch of casual players players in OTB. Now you have to be smarter than other smart people armed with figures, trips, replays, bias notes, trainer patterns, private workout info, databases, and advanced algorithms.

I don't see how you can do it unless you specialize to the point of extreme expertise in a couple of areas and come up with some original metrics.

[glengarry]

Here is my suggestion to begin addressing this problem. If the tracks need the handle of CRW players, then at least give half the card back to the recreational and semipro players. Shut down access for the computer teams on five races a day. Lower the takeout on those races to something reasonable. Shut off access to the computer wager teams for all stake races as well.



I doubt the tracks do anything. They appear to look at the average player (those that bet at the windows or from home with a regular wagering account) with disdain. The average players have no organization, no union, and no voice. The perception is that if you play a game with an exorbitant takeout, you must have a mental illness and no self control. Therefore, why give any concessions to a group that will wager no matter the takeout. Sure, you will chase out some to other activities, but the CRW guys will keep the handle going.

[Tom]

I doubt the tracks do anything.

They won't.
They do not see a problem.
They are getting handle from the whales and as far as everyone goes, "shut up and bet."

Tracks are providing the best game ever - if you doubt it , just ask them.

We will be greeting Martians in Times square long before any track will do anything.

[GMB@BP]

I figured he would pull back on the needle after the extra attention, this is from that crazy saturday.. 1/10 0.25 roi.

[Tom]

Just went down the drain at 3-5 in the NY Derby at FL.
Alvarado even shipped in to ride.

[outofthebox]

Paddock Pick in the 1st at Del Mar 5-1 entering gate, goes off at 5/2 and wears down 2/5 favorite..

[Tom]

I'm going out on a limb here and say I think he was doped up.

[cj]

I've talked about this so many places I don't remember where I talked about the betting aspect, but it is painfully clear these guys weren't just cheating to steal purses, they were also cheating to steal big chunks of the betting pools.

He didn't win on Saturday, but look at the very late money on Bon Raison Saturday at Aqueduct. His trainer's name ring any bells?

[ReplayRandall]

He didn't win on Saturday, but look at the very late money on Bon Raison Saturday at Aqueduct. His trainer's name ring any bells?
Just so you know, that was MY money that came in late and got burned up..:blush:

[castaway01]

Looking back at the race that started this thread with Firenze Fire in the Dwyer, this was exactly the kind of race that would make a casual fan throw up his fans and say "Forget this." As the horses move down the backstretch, FF is 5-1, then drops right to 5-2 with the odds on screen. And then of course wins like he's got a rocket on his back. Sure, we've all seen that happen, but this wasn't a weekday claimer at Obscure Downs---as documented here, it took a lot of money to do that. Even if I'm a casual bettor, I would definitely think I had no chance against whoever crushed that horse right at post time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muD4vG_VEQc

[Saratoga_Mike]

I've talked about this so many places I don't remember where I talked about the betting aspect, but it is painfully clear these guys weren't just cheating to steal purses, they were also cheating to steal big chunks of the betting pools.

He didn't win on Saturday, but look at the very late money on Bon Raison Saturday at Aqueduct. His trainer's name ring any bells?

https://www.drf.com/news/caught-doping-scandal-tannuzzo-hopes-second-chance

[tophatmert]

I've talked about this so many places I don't remember where I talked about the betting aspect, but it is painfully clear these guys weren't just cheating to steal purses, they were also cheating to steal big chunks of the betting pools.

He didn't win on Saturday, but look at the very late money on Bon Raison Saturday at Aqueduct. His trainer's name ring any bells?

Exactly who was betting that money is of interest to me because I know it wasn't the trainers or their buddies. These guys are the worst bettors I have ever seen in my 45 years around the track. If you're hitting a lot of supers and losing money on the bets that you do hit , profitability might be difficult. Who else was getting information about specific horses that was disciplined enough to actually make money off of them? I'm sure there are some owners who might have some "splainin" to do as Ricky Ricardo used to say.

[Tom]

I think I referred to the 2018 Dwyer as the Independence Day Massacre.:rolleyes:

[Tom]

https://www.drf.com/news/caught-doping-scandal-tannuzzo-hopes-second-chance

Be nice to have a list compiled of all the horses who get dispersed and who they go to. Would be a perfect article for DRF to print.

[Robert Fischer]

I think I referred to the 2018 Dwyer as the Independence Day Massacre.:rolleyes:

Yea. If anyone still could not form there own opinion, outside of the narrative, social-proof, and authority, - then they don't have the competence and psychology to form a competent opinion, and really should not be jumping on the bandwagon now.

We had an obvious PED situation, and in that instance we also had a major, significant betting coup.

A few people here called it out, when it happened.


Horse moves up from "Should be running ungraded stakes and OC races at 1-turn[/B]"[/I], to IS NOW TO BE CONSIDERED THE DIVISION LEADER, while he moves down from "Hey I think we have a consensus here that he should be 6-1 he may improve going 1-turn and his trainer is rather hot" to :cool:5/2 SUCKERS!:cool: in the last 30 seconds = significant/legitimate topic of concern :ThmbUp:


... the bold act that we saw in broad daylight on a relatively big stage. ...


I saw a PED horse run well yesterday. There are 10+ major operations who use PEDs on most horses. Multiple others who only use PEDs in spots.

Not every operation even participates in the betting. For some it's all the ownership business and the purse money.

The Dwyer was ABJECT in that it did involve the parimutuel pools, and it was a brazen act on a big stage.

[Robert Fischer]

I would definitely think I had no chance against whoever crushed that horse right at post time.

you'd be right

those coordinated doping schemes and betting coups win big over a series of races.