Past Post Wagering

[linrom1]

In the event that you might still insist that past post wagering is a myth, here is some food for thought.



Keeneland Shuts Out Five Wagering Outlets
by Blood-Horse Staff
Date Posted: 4/8/2005 2:13:01 PM
Last Updated: 4/8/2005 2:24:08 PM
Keeneland will not make its live racing available for simulcasting to five outlets located both inside and outside of the United States. The official announcement was made Friday, the opening day of the 16-day meeting in Lexington.

"Until we are fully satisfied these locations are properly regulated, it's in the best interest of Keeneland's customers-both on track and off-not to send them our signal," said Keeneland President Nick Nicholson.

The excluded outlets are Tonkawa, Euro-Off Track, Elite Turf Club, RGS, and Capitol Sports.

Tonkawa is the Tonkawa Indian Reservation in Oklahoma. Euro-Off Track is located on the Isle of Man in Great Britain. RGS is a betting shop based in the Caribbean that employs a hub in Lewiston, Maine.

"In order to ensure the integrity of our wagering pools, we will continue to seek information about each of the sites; however, we will not make our signal available to them until we are confident that they are being regulated appropriately and that their use of betting technology does not place other Keeneland customers at a disadvantage," Nicholson said.

"This is an industry-wide issue that needs an industry-wide solution. We encourage the NTRA, TRPB and the various regulatory bodies to quickly form the necessary oversight group at a national level."

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't think anyway said it was a myth. One look at the BC Fix Six tells you anything and everything is possible.

[rrbauer]

Past-post wagering the reason that Keeneland shut off those sites?

The host track on the sumulcast network has the "stop wagering" button to cutoff wagers into its track. When that button gets pressed that shuts off any wagers that show up that were made after wagering was "stopped". So if there is past-post wagering going on, the host track has to be a partner to the crime.

I think that these are the same sites that Tampa Bay Downs stopped doing business with. Tampa's reason was that the sites were allowing players using computers with application-program interfaces (API's) to the wagering network have access to the site's betting system so that bets could be placed directly from the computer, bypassing any intermediate mutuel clerk or account-wagering process. This allowed a flurry of bets (maybe hundreds) to be placed just before wagering was stopped. It was Tampa's assertion that the late-betting activity was disruptive and that the use of computers in that manner was an unfair advantage over its "regular" customers.

It's a fact that the tracks have the right to do business with whoever they please. It's unfortunate that the reasons given when a business relationship is terminated are laced with gobbledygook and ambiguity.

[GMB@BP]

Isnt RGS the company that Youbet aquired so that they could give rebates to big players, who ironicaly are the ones who use the advanced computer systems? If that is the case, then this is very interesting.

[highnote]

I can bet pretty much up to the last second at BRISBET using a computer program to make the bets for me. How is this any different than what off-shore sites are doing?

Keeneland should cut off BRISBET/AmerciaTab and other U.S. based internet wagering sites because users of those sites can instruct their computers to place the bets for them.

In fact, why not just stop taking bets altogether except for patrons at the track. That would solve the problem.

Or better yet, since racetrack management seems intent on destroying their fan base, they should just stop taking wagers altogether and return the sport to the way it was back in 1700. If you wanted to bet back then it was probably just a bet between two individuals.

Personally, I like the fact the big fish are in pond -- I can handicap as well or better than them.

[Vegas711]

NO one should be allowed to bypass the system and have their computer search all the pools like tris and supers , this is an unfair advantage. The end result is a gaurantee loss for the rest of us. If this practice where to continue then I for one would Quit this game becouse only a true sucker would step into a situation where there is no possible mathematical way of winning.


Think about it if someone would devise a program that can connect directly into the wager pools and look for all the overlays there would be none for the rest of us. To sum up bet underlays YOU LOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GameTheory]

I can bet pretty much up to the last second at BRISBET using a computer program to make the bets for me. How is this any different than what off-shore sites are doing?Lots different. You can't make hundreds of bets at the last second simulataneously, nor is your pool information as up-to-the-minute as theirs. You can't analzye trifecta pools, etc.

Who knows what is actually going on now, but those are the things that used to go on at Racing Services (Fargo), so it is possible...

[highnote]

NO one should be allowed to bypass the system and have their computer search all the pools like tris and supers , this is an unfair advantage. The end result is a gaurantee loss for the rest of us. If this practice where to continue then I for one would Quit this game becouse only a true sucker would step into a situation where there is no possible mathematical way of winning.


Think about it if someone would devise a program that can connect directly into the wager pools and look for all the overlays there would be none for the rest of us. To sum up bet underlays YOU LOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do not know if anyone is able to search the tris and supers. I thought that information was kept at the host track. Maybe someone can confirm this.

I have software that looks at the win, place, show, exacta, quinella pools as well as the will pays for doubles and pick 3s. I look for overlays. But my definition of an overlay may be someones elses underlay.

Overlay or underlay -- it's subjective.

[highnote]

Lots different. You can't make hundreds of bets at the last second simulataneously, nor is your pool information as up-to-the-minute as theirs. You can't analzye trifecta pools, etc.

Who knows what is actually going on now, but those are the things that used to go on at Racing Services (Fargo), so it is possible...


Do you know for a fact that someone is making hundreds of bets at the last possible second? I have never heard that. However, you're right.... anything is possible.

I have never heard of anyone having access to the tri pools. Even the people betting at the offshore places don't have up-to-the-minute info better than say BRIS offers. I think the betting information flows one way from each offtrack site and then it is compiled at the host site and the whole pool information is disseminated to everyone equally.

I could be wrong. Anyone know EXACTLY how this works?

[PaceAdvantage]

The problem is, us "suckers" are only getting the info the WAGERING HOSTS like AmericaTab, YouBet, etc, want to GIVE to us!

People who are "connected" at off-shore books (and dare I say, places here in the US) are probably getting the same feed as BRISbet and Youbet, BUT they are being allowed to CONNECT to this data in a more advantageous way.....that's all....they know the right people and they bet enough $$....

These offshore books aren't getting special data feeds. They're getting the same stuff all wagering hubs are basically getting. The difference is in how BIG SHOT CUSTOMER is allowed to connect to the data, what they are allowed to connect with, and finally, what they do with the added info they may be receiving.

[whobet]

I heard rumors at the race track I frequent that management would shut off everybody else connection but have a betting machine that would stay open. After all they own the race track, they can do this, and then bet on the horse that got the lead at the beginning.

[highnote]

People who are "connected" at off-shore books (and dare I say, places here in the US) are probably getting the same feed as BRISbet and Youbet, BUT they are being allowed to CONNECT to this data in a more advantageous way.....that's all....they know the right people and they bet enough $$....

What do you mean in a more advantageous way?

These offshore books aren't getting special data feeds. They're getting the same stuff all wagering hubs are basically getting. The difference is in how BIG SHOT CUSTOMER is allowed to connect to the data,

I'm no computer expert. How are they able to connect that is different than the way I connect through BRISBET?


what they are allowed to connect with, and finally, what they do with the added info they may be receiving.

Sorry to be a pain in the ass PA, but I'm not following you here. What do you mean "what they are allowed to connect with" and what "added info might they be receiving"?

What else can they get that we don't get? I think I'm missing something (other than a brain).

Thanks.

John

[GameTheory]

What do you mean in a more advantageous way?



I'm no computer expert. How are they able to connect that is different than the way I connect through BRISBET?




Sorry to be a pain in the ass PA, but I'm not following you here. What do you mean "what they are allowed to connect with" and what "added info might they be receiving"?

What else can they get that we don't get? I think I'm missing something (other than a brain).

Direct access to the signal that the wagering service itself receives from the host track with the ability to send in a batch (dozens or hundreds) of bets simulataneously at the last possible moment. I don't know if this is going on now and neither does Keeneland -- they said they are trying to find out what is going on. But that is what was happening a couple of years ago at the Fargo site that pissed so many people off and caused Gulfstream to deny its signal to that site due to extreme changes in the pools at the last second. You or I cannot get in hundreds of bets 1 second before the cutoff...

[highnote]

Direct access to the signal that the wagering service itself receives from the host track with the ability to send in a batch (dozens or hundreds) of bets simulataneously at the last possible moment. I don't know if this is going on now and neither does Keeneland -- they said they are trying to find out what is going on. But that is what was happening a couple of years ago at the Fargo site that pissed so many people off and caused Gulfstream to deny its signal to that site due to extreme changes in the pools at the last second. You or I cannot get in hundreds of bets 1 second before the cutoff...

I'm still bothered by one thing: If Keeneland doesn't know if this is going on, then why should they cut off the signal? Why not get proof and then either have the sites change their practices or shut them off?

You're right that we can't get down hundreds of bets in a second, but it sounds to me like the racing officials don't know if anyone else can either.

But, it's their track, so I guess they can do whatever they want. Guilty until determined innocent. Fortunately for bettors, there are plenty of tracks to choose from.

[Dave Schwartz]

Do you know for a fact that someone is making hundreds of bets at the last possible second? I have never heard that. However, you're right.... anything is possible.

Yes, I know this.


On the past-post subject (which has nothing to do with the quote above):

I also know that I did a very short study about 18-24 months ago that leads me to believe past-posting could be a reality.

The study went like this:

1. I tracked only 7 & 8 Quirin-point horses.
2. For each such horse I noted their tote odds at 0 minutes to post and absolute final tote odds (on Racing Channel).
3. For each such horse I noted there 1st-call position in the charts, asking the question "was the horse within 1/2 length of the leader?" (Yes or no.)

Conclusion: After looking at about 80 races, I concluded that a horse that was bet down in that last flash was 3 times more likely to run to the front than a horse that was not bet down.

This is not a difficult test to duplicate... all it takes is a couple of wasted playing days (and a good screenshot utility helps). Give it a try and see what you find.

I look forward to your report. <G>

Dave Schwartz

PS: It caused me to look into a strategy where I eliminated all front runners (i.e. 7-8 pt horses). My theory was that most cheating would be done with front runners.

[betovernetcapper]

I bet as late as possible-maybe a minute or so before the off time. I'm guessing that most people on this board do the same. At tracks with small pools the late smart money could be just the combined bets of of several guys on this board. How much money has to show up to shift the toteboard line at a track like GLD-a hundred or so could do it. I think that much of this late action is not the Mafia or cheating horse trainers, but a lot of guys betting at the last miniute. :)

[highnote]

Yes, I know this.


On the past-post subject (which has nothing to do with the quote above):

I also know that I did a very short study about 18-24 months ago that leads me to believe past-posting could be a reality.

The study went like this:

1. I tracked only 7 & 8 Quirin-point horses.
2. For each such horse I noted their tote odds at 0 minutes to post and absolute final tote odds (on Racing Channel).
3. For each such horse I noted there 1st-call position in the charts, asking the question "was the horse within 1/2 length of the leader?" (Yes or no.)

Conclusion: After looking at about 80 races, I concluded that a horse that was bet down in that last flash was 3 times more likely to run to the front than a horse that was not bet down.

This is not a difficult test to duplicate... all it takes is a couple of wasted playing days (and a good screenshot utility helps). Give it a try and see what you find.

I look forward to your report. <G>

Dave Schwartz

PS: It caused me to look into a strategy where I eliminated all front runners (i.e. 7-8 pt horses). My theory was that most cheating would be done with front runners.

Dave,
I know you do a lot of good work so I'm not being critical of your study. But just to play devil's advocate --

Isn't it possible that good handicappers or good computer models could determine which horses will get the lead? That's the name of the game, right -- predict how the race will shape up. So the public is pretty smart - wouldn't they be able to predict which horse is going to get the lead and bet it more than a horse that wouldn't get the lead?

My friend and I used to go to the NYRA races every Saturday for a year. We got to know all the best horses by site. There was a horse named Ormsby. We figured out that if the pace was over slower than 47 4/5 for the half then he would win. If it was faster than 47 4/5 he would lose. It got to the point that we could predict from sight how fast the horses were running the race. We also knew from experience how fast the pace was likely to be and who was going to be on the lead. Every once in awhile a horse would surprise us, but not often.

So maybe what you're seeing is good handicapping. Unless I don't understand something about your study -- which is quite possible since it is getting late and I'm getting tired.

Thoughts?

John

[Dave Schwartz]

John,

Yes. That is exactly what I said. But I do find it interesting that the majority of these handicappers' wagers are hitting the tote (coincidently) after 0 minutes to post.

I am simply saying that while this is not proof, it looks suspiciously close to it.


Dave

[highnote]

Was it only in the win pool or was it in exactas also? I'd think it would be more hidden in the exactas. On the other hand, it's easier to pick a winner than an exacta.

[GameTheory]

I'm still bothered by one thing: If Keeneland doesn't know if this is going on, then why should they cut off the signal? Why not get proof and then either have the sites change their practices or shut them off?It sounds like Keeneland wants to see the behavior of their pools without these sites having access. The only way to do that is to cut them off for a few days and find out....

[ElKabong]

I dug up an old post by Ridersup about this subject. He emailed me a few times about this subject before he passed away, said it was a huge problem at Tampa.

Btw, his post here is 4 yrs old! Diff day, same problems.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1570#post1570

I have posted on numerous occasions that I believe there are open keys somewhere that allow people to wager well after post time.

On at least three occasions at my home track I have witnessed bettors using self service machines betting well after 4f of a 6f race was run. Now Im sure these were malfunctioning machines but as I stated before if this can happen accidently surely with all the computer genuises out there some one can do this on purpose.

I have watched my odds melt on numerous long shots while the race was running and even while the horse was walking to the winners circle. This is a serious problem and one that is discussed daily at the many different facilities I have bet at.

Solution: Stop the betting 2min before post time. At least then you won't have to watch your money melt before your very eyes.
__________________
Ridersup

[sjk]

I'm sure no one is in favor of past post betting but a batch betting option would be a real benefit. There have been many times when I have 3 or 4 races to bet and watch within the space of a few minutes and looked with dismay at a list of 16 exacta combinations I needed to bet for one of the races.

I saw where rrbauer has been after Youbet to allow bettors to submit a list of bets. This would simplify my life considerably.

We live in a world where people use computers and cut and paste data; not where they need to re-type everything from scratch. Of course it was not that many years ago that tracks did not even have telephones so I guess it takes a while for them to get with the current century.

I don't often play the pick 3s,4s,5s or 6s for a number of reasons but the inability to batch wager is one of them. It is absurd that you have to either make your bets one by one or stuff them into part-wheels. You ought to be able to make a list of bets you want to make and get it done.

The tracks are reluctant to make it more convenient to bet at home than at the track. Of course it already is so; if you are at the track and want to know exacta payoffs you are at the mercy of the video feed which I find very frustrating. You discover that some tracks have rolling doubles or quinellas. Nobody bets these pools but they occupy a lot of video time. Then the post parade comes (usually right before the combination of interest).

This week some of the guys want to go out to Keeneland and I will do so but I am resigned to the fact that its going to cost me a lot of action. At home betting is more convienent and if the tracks are smart they would play that up rather than trying to stifle it.

[Dave Schwartz]

John,

Never looked at exactas as that would have seriously changed the work load.

Dave

[highnote]

John,

Never looked at exactas as that would have seriously changed the work load.

Dave

Dave,
I hear ya. Not enough hours in the day as it.

GT,
Good point. Maybe they'll open their pools up again. Keeneland is a funny meet. Do they even need to make a profit? Don't they make the bulk of their money from horse sales?

sjk,

I was a beta-tester for Youbet when they were first starting up. I suggested then that we be allowed to bypass their interface and let our computers make the bets directly. Their interface was too clunky and slow. When you're betting 5 tracks, who wants to sit around all day typing in bets.

All they said to me was that it was a good suggestion and they'd think about it. That was, what, about 10 years ago? These racing organizations are slower to change than the Catholic church.

I don't see the big deal with batch wagering. If it's available to everyone then the playing field would be level.

The consumers want certain things from the tracks, but the tracks aren't listening to their customers. Any wonder why race tracks are always complaining about losing money or handles declining, etc. etc. etc. (I know, not all tracks are losing money.)

John

[Misteranthropic]

I think shutting down betting 2 minutes before post is a GREAT idea. Today in the 5th at Hawthorne the winner, who was 5/2 at post shot out of the gate and had a 6 length lead at the half mile pole. Amazingly the odds dropped suddenly to 3/2. I might be paranoid, but I firmly believe that paranoia is just a heightened state of awarness.

I wait until the last minute to see where the odds are too, but not until the half mile pole. In my opinion, and I can't substantiate it with facts, is that there is something fishy going on.

Prepared for flames.

[midnight]

I've done studies of past posting myself, and this led me to cease playing the Texas and Louisiana tracks.

I have software that stores every update of the toteboard, regardless of how many (in other words, it can update 14 times at 0 minute to post if there's a long delay). Every update stores the money bet in the WPS pools and the win and calculated exacta odds. It only works on one track at a time, and multiple copies can be run to do more.

At Fair Grounds on a Saturday in late 2003, a route race had 10 entrants. . Of those, four contenders and one non contender were E or EP types. One particular contender could have been "the speed of the speed", provided he broke well. It didn't always break that well, though, and at least two other horses could have challenged it regardless. It was the type of horse who had to have the early lead to win.

This horse, who had post and program #3, was morning line of 5-1, and it was 9/2 or 4-1 for the entire wagering period. As the horses loaded into the gate, it was 4.3-1 win and 4.1-1 calculated exacta. The first nine horses loaded without incident, and the 10th and last horse was led up to the gate and appeared to be going in without hassle. At that point, you would think that any late money (that wasn't past-posted) would have been bet. Then for no apparenty reason, #10, a 40-1 shot (non E) , refused to load. This horse balked at all attempts to load it and held up the start of the race for almost two minutes. During this time, three more tote updates were recorded. While quite a bit of money came in (about 60% of all money bet), #3's odds stayed in the 4.2 to 4.3 range to win and 4.1 to 4.2 range in the exacta.

The race began, and #3 broke alertly and was taken to a two-length lead by the middle of the clubhouse turn. Another tote update occurred, no change in the odds. Easy quarter, easy half, easy six furlongs. Of course, #3 took advantage of the easy pace, widened his lead, and won in hand and easily.

The final update showed that #3's odds were 2.8-1 win and about 3.0 exacta.

This isn't an isolated example, just one of the more blatant ones. It takes a bit of money to move the odds that much at Fair Grounds on a Saturday. I've seen this happen many times at Delta, Evangeline, Fair Grounds, and Sam Houston, not as often at Lone Star, and oddly not much at all at Retama. The last few months, I've seen a lot of it at Turfway. Most of the horses this kind of action ends up on go to easy leads early in the race. Not all of them win, but it goes without saying that a bet on all of them would show a healthy ROI.

There's no question in my mind that past posting is happening at some tracks, possibly all of them to some degree, and I've ceased playing the two above circuits because of that and require a bigger overlay at other tracks before I make a bet. If racing doesn't do something to curtail the past-posting, the drugging and other cheating, I'll probably be turning to sports or poker in the future. It's hard enough to make money with a 14-25% takeout, let alone have to deal with what may practically be another 10-15% on top of that to allow for the cheats.

[MichaelNunamaker]

I personally have no idea if serious past-post betting is happening. However, I very much agree that the anecdotal evidence is not something that makes me happy. I really wish the industry would simply update their wagering systems. I believe in Hong Kong everything updates with a second or so. That would certainly solve the problem. Display the final odds one second after the start of the race. I'd bet everyone here would be happy with that. I surely would.

[highnote]

One thing Howard Sartin asked and I agree with...(and I paraphrase)... "if you think races are fixed then why do you bet them?

I think that there are probably a lot of late bettors betting the same horse at the last minute. This drives the odds down. It should be more pronounced at small tracks where it takes less money to move the odds.

It used to be that the tote companies stored every wager that was made on reel-to-reel computer tapes. I knew a University of Louisville professor who had access to those tapes. I assume all the wagers are backed up somewhere everyday. Perhaps someone will do a study to find out if past posting is really happening. Didn't NTRA hire Guiliani partners to study this?

js

[Dave Schwartz]

Midnight,

I think shutting down betting 2 minutes before post is a GREAT idea.

I agree with you, but I think there is a better way.

In my opinion, the only way to maintain the integrity of racing is for the public to know that there is no cheating of this nature going on. And the only way that can happen is if the home track actually rejects any money received after the gates open.

They need to enforce a rigid post time and announce that all money is in the tote system before the horses load. Now we have a system where the tote waits on the horses... gate opens, betting stops. It needs to be the other way around.


Dave Schwartz

[highnote]

Dave,
Agreed. That's the only surefire way I've heard that will work.
John

[sjk]

A number of tracks tried cutting off betting early a few years ago and it was a royal pain for those of us trying to bet and watch a number of tracks. It is nice to be able to bet and then almost immediately watch a race. With the early cutoff and extended loading time too much time went to each track.

The real answer is for the tracks to invest in technology that shows the money in the pools within seconds of it being bet. Then almost all money would show before the horses break and all would show within 1-2 secs of that time.

There has been more than one recent nights at Turfway when I won a race and was so disgusted by the payoff (vs what it was at 1MTP) that I quit playing for the night. When they have found a way to make the winners more unhappy than the losers you would think they might invest a few dollars in upgrading their technology.

Or maybe angering and losing players is welcome since it improves the story they tell the legislators.

[BillW]

I believe in Hong Kong everything updates with a second or so. That would certainly solve the problem. Display the final odds one second after the start of the race. I'd bet everyone here would be happy with that. I surely would.

Do you know how widespread the Honk Kong system is? If it it only track wide or city wide it would be a lot easier to accomplish this than with a nationwide network that we have.

Bill

[Figman]

International Totalizator put together the Hong Kong tote system.
Although this is an American company from California, AmTote, Scientific Games (Autotote) and United Tote have all the racetracks in the US "locked up" and this company which uses state of the art computer equipment can't get in.
http://www.ilts.com/race_sys.htm

[Dave Schwartz]

The real answer is for the tracks to invest in technology that shows the money in the pools within seconds of it being bet.

I am not sure this is actually possible.

Even with the fast computers available today, there are so many steps necessary from the physical bet window at an otb, to a hub, to the totalizator company, to the track.

The way I see it, the correct procedure is:

1. Close the track/OTB windows
2. Close the hubs
3. Close the track
4. Start the race

Currently it is done almost backwards to that.

I guarantee if the tracks' money was at stake here the system would be more fool proof.

What they have now is a system that would rather accept a wager late (keep the revenue) than reject the wager (lose the revenue).


Dave