another huge odds drop?

[Two Bucks To Win]

Watching today's 1st at PIM to get an idea of how the track is playing. Order of finish was 1-2-3-4 with the 1 going wire to wire, but the big news here is how he was 11-1 until halfway through the turn and then suddenly dropped to 6-1. :ThmbDown:

[thebeacondeacon]

Watching today's 1st at PIM to get an idea of how the track is playing. Order of finish was 1-2-3-4 with the 1 going wire to wire, but the big news here is how he was 11-1 until halfway through the turn and then suddenly dropped to 6-1. :ThmbDown:

Not surprising, given the added volume of interest in today's Black-Eyed Susan/Pimlico Special/pre-Preakness Stakes card.

Pimlico's computer network is probably slow responding to a much higher handle. There was $114,657 bet into today's first race win pool, compared with $59,569 in yesterday's.


thebeacondeacon

[RaceIsClosed]

Not surprising, given the added volume of interest in today's Black-Eyed Susan/Pimlico Special/pre-Preakness Stakes card.

Pimlico's computer network is probably slow responding to a much higher handle. There was $114,657 bet into today's first race win pool, compared with $59,569 in yesterday's.


thebeacondeacon

Your argument would be more convincing if the odds had gone from 6-1 to 11-1 instead.

[ryesteve]

Your argument would be more convincing if the odds had gone from 6-1 to 11-1 instead.
How so? If the assertion is that transactions are bottlenecked in the computer network, what difference would it make who the bets were on?

[RaceIsClosed]

How so? If the assertion is that transactions are bottlenecked in the computer network, what difference would it make who the bets were on?

I wasn't talking about the assertion, but rather the odds that the assertion is believable.

[ryesteve]

I wasn't talking about the assertion, but rather the odds that the assertion is believable.
I don't understand what this means either. I guess I should have used the word "argument" instead of "assertion"... so let's pretend I did. You said "the argument would be more convincing...", so yeah, you were talking about the argument... and I still don't see how its believability has anything to do with which way the odds swung.

[RaceIsClosed]

I don't understand what this means either. I guess I should have used the word "argument" instead of "assertion"... so let's pretend I did. You said "the argument would be more convincing...", so yeah, you were talking about the argument... and I still don't see how its believability has anything to do with which way the odds swung.

So you see no difference between an obvious winner going from 6-1 to 11-1 on the turn as opposed to 11-1 to 6-1?

What's that saying about God protecting certain people again?

[PaceAdvantage]

I think the archaic IT infrastructure of the North American Pari-Mutuel system is a more believable cause of late odds-changes than someone being able to wager on a race while it is being run.

Then again, perhaps the archaic nature of their equipment lends itself to allowing people to cheat....hmmmmmmmm..........

I'm still not sold.

[Two Bucks To Win]

The issue isn't really about what is causing these odds changes, if it's past posting or something else. It's about the fact that a wagerer can never know what his return will be. How can anyone take betting on an event seriously if he's expecting to get back 11-1 as indicated by the tote board (during the race) and then discovers when the prices are posted that he will get approximately half that? And I would not trust the statements made by the industry that it can't be past posting because these were the same ones who swore to god that the pick-6 could not be hacked until the evidence became so overwhelming that it was. I'm sure there are some who don't care about allowing past posted wagers because after all they get the same takeout regardless of when the wager was placed.

[ryesteve]

So you see no difference between an obvious winner going from 6-1 to 11-1 on the turn as opposed to 11-1 to 6-1?

What's that saying about God protecting certain people again?
Probably the same thing they say about what's happened to the level of literacy in this country.

If the horse had gone from 6 to 11, then obviously one of the losers would have had to have gotten pounded heavily. You're willing to accept THAT would be a legit bet, simply because the horse lost? In other words, you believe that big late odds drops are simply the result of delayed betting transmissions, as long the horse loses, but if the horse should happen to win, then it's obviously past-posting. Congratulations... you're the first person who's ever figured out how to eat your cake and have it too.

[BeatTheChalk]

Your post was :

I think the archaic IT infrastructure of the North American Pari-Mutuel system is a more believable cause of late odds-changes than someone being able to wager on a race while it is being run.

Then again, perhaps the archaic nature of their equipment lends itself to allowing people to cheat....hmmmmmmmm..........

I'm still not sold.

Now for my question. You are not sold on ? The fact that FOLKS CAN
CHEAT > :bang: I will presume that. ><><> However .. with the
huge advances in technology and the brilliance of many folks involved with
computers...IMHO...... anything is possible. Just my 2 cents.. I could be
wrong .. and I often am !

[Sly7449]

2$2Win,

Try keeping track of some Phantom Bets on horses on the Lead 1/2 way into the turn and see how many of them live up to the promise of a Sure Bet Winner.

Also, as the odds pulment on one horse, that should raise the odds on others. Never mind, once you got your money on the Winner, go to the window smiling.

L8R

Sly