wow

[46zilzal]

Shades of Arcagnes


2nd race - Gulfstream Park - March 12, 2007
Pgm Horse Win Place Show
12 Running Super Star 310.80 90.40 29.40
10 Bullet Proof Man 4.60 3.60
8 Excellent Eagle 37.80

$2 Daily Double 5-12 631.80

[Ron]

Its a longshot day.

[Ron]

And it continues...

[Perlnalysis]

How does the Race 1-2-3 Pick 3 pay only $646 for a buck?

The odds of the 3 winners are 3.40-1, 154-1 and 8-1.

[JPinMaryland]

Doesnt it really make you wonder? Playing GP the other day and it seemed like most of the winners the odds dropped after they left the gate. I havent keep any statistics but it just makes you wonder..

[Pace Cap'n]

How could there be about 20 super tickets with the 12 on top? Now THAT is mind-boggling. I bet there weren't that many win tickets.

Not to mention about 4 trifecta tickets.

[boomman]

How does the Race 1-2-3 Pick 3 pay only $646 for a buck?

The odds of the 3 winners are 3.40-1, 154-1 and 8-1.

Even though I will agree that $646 is certainly an underlay (especially given the fact a horse won the 2nd race that was sent off at 87x1 last time, doesn't beat a horse, returns at the same level and then wins from the 12 hole which makes a $300 win mutuel in itself seem like an underlay LOL), but when you examine it a little closer the field sizes probably had a lot to do with this pay-off. There were only 8 horses in the 1st leg which was won by a horse that totally figured, and there were only 6 horses in the 3rd leg which probably resulted in a lot of players wheeling that leg. Ther is no doubt however, that the connections of the 12 horse in the 2nd leg definitely played the pick 3's!

Boomer

[Perlnalysis]

I'm not a conspiracy theory guy, but the whole thing is fishy. How does that horse win? Based on the p3 payout, somebody clocked this horse in that pool. They muddled his form and they made a killing. Something stinks around here (other than me).

[mhrussell]

..this was my race of the day. I put a lot of work into this race but no way in hell did the #12 horse figure AT ALL. It IS a little fishy. I think that horse is still 'awake' tonight as I write this.. and may not go to sleep for awhile yet until certain things wear off.

You live for races like this; but you want to find SOME logical reason why a horse like this figures: 'numbers' or patterns or whatever your handicapping methods point to. But this horse looked like a total, absolute "Year of the Golden Pig" through and through. If you believe in this "Key race" idea <which I do not>; that was the only angle this total pork chop had going for it. But wow.. that was the biggest win payoff in a race that I have ever seen.

Kudos to those who might have had this piglet. You are all much better handicappers than I!

best

[Zaf]

Hoss was chalk in the same spot 2 races back.

Z

[BIG RED]

Zaf, I remember reading in some book about that being a part of an angle, being betting fave two races back.

Does anyone know the highest win payoff for $2? I can remember $384, but there has to be higher?

[jma]

I'm not a conspiracy theory guy, but the whole thing is fishy. How does that horse win? Based on the p3 payout, somebody clocked this horse in that pool. They muddled his form and they made a killing. Something stinks around here (other than me).

Looking at the other side of this for a minute, didn't the horse pay $310 to win? If they were darkening the form for a score, wouldn't it have made more sense to bet at least a little on it to win? I have trouble seeing a conspiracy where people liked a horse that figured to be 99-1 and decided to only play it in the Pick 3. You could have bet $4 to win and almost equaled the $1 Pick 3 payoff! To me, it's more likely that someone liking one of the other two horses that won their legs of the Pick 3 wheeled it in, say, $20 Pick 3's and had "All" in the leg with the $300 horse. If there were small fields in one or two of the legs, that definitely is possible. Sadly, I wasn't the one who bet it.

[boomman]

Looking at the other side of this for a minute, didn't the horse pay $310 to win? If they were darkening the form for a score, wouldn't it have made more sense to bet at least a little on it to win? I have trouble seeing a conspiracy where people liked a horse that figured to be 99-1 and decided to only play it in the Pick 3. You could have bet $4 to win and almost equaled the $1 Pick 3 payoff! To me, it's more likely that someone liking one of the other two horses that won their legs of the Pick 3 wheeled it in, say, $20 Pick 3's and had "All" in the leg with the $300 horse. If there were small fields in one or two of the legs, that definitely is possible. Sadly, I wasn't the one who bet it.

jma: First of all, they could have bet a small amount to win and still not affected the win price much as they would have been the ONLY ones wagering on that animal for sure! And as for the conspiracy theory, it certainly appears that they went out of their way to put in a bad performance after the horse was a beaten favorite two races back, and singling him in the Pick 3 definitely did make sense from their standpoint, especially given the fact that there were only 8 horses in the first leg and 6 horses in the back leg of the pick 3, every $1 pick 3 wheel ticket would have only cost 8x1x6=$48. So it is certainly not inconceivable given the pay-off that the connections may have wheeled the horse up to 20 times in the pick 3. When a horse shows nothing to indicate that he could win (thus appearing to be an obvious throw-out), then not only wins but does so at what appears to be a "short" pay-off, a conspiracy theory will ALWAYS abound and in this case that theory warrants the attention it's receiving!

Boomer

[betovernetcapper]

I did NOT have this horse, but when I read 46z's post I looked it up to see if it could have been played. It had a few things in it's favor, first being that it was lightly raced-4 starts and 2 of those were MSW. It's last start was a sprint-so maybe that could have be tossed and in it's previous mdnclm route, he had some trouble, so maybe that could have been tossed.
His lifetime best speed fig ranked 3rd, with this group, so maybe a contender on that.
His trainer is 17% with a positive ROI of $1.17 with horses making their 3rd start after a layoff.
His trainer is 20% with a positive ROI of $2.95 moving horses from sprint to route.
Viewing everything in total and considering the price, a case could have been made for putting a couple of dollars on him. The problem is I didn't make that case until an hour after post. :bang:

[Perlnalysis]

Like I said before, I'm anti conspiracy theory. Oswald acted alone and 9/11 was perpetrated by Al Qaeda. That all said, let's allow the data to drive our discussion. Here is some pool info. The race 1-2 DD had a pool of over $77k. The race 2-3 DD had a pool of $13,592. This strikes me as typical - on a Monday you've got the regular old-timers playing the race one DD and basically ignoring the Race 2 DD since rolling doubles are a new innovation.

The Race 1-2 DD pays $631, which is low given the odds of the winners but maybe not shocking b/c a lot of old dinosaurs might have played the 3-1 shot with the all button in leg 2. Then again, I suspect our perpetrators might have been involved in this pool to an extent.

The Race 2-3 $2 DD pays $2480. There was only $13,592 in the pool. Not sure of the takeout, but with an 18% takeout, the total winning $ on this wager was 9 measely dollars.

The Race 1-2-3 $2 P3 pays $1292. Note this is approximately half the payout of the Daily Double, and you needed to have the $8.80 winner of the first race! Is that not suspicious?? To top it off, the size of the pool was $30,687. Assuming a 20% takeout, there was $38 winning dollars on this brutally tough combination. That seems extremely high even if one player clocked it for $20.

A couple of takeaways:

1. Is the Race 1 P3 pool typically more than double the size of the Race 2 DD pool on Monday's at GP? I would like to look at historical data on that one. 2. I would look into details of the P3 pool and I suspect what you'll find is that in fact BOOMMAN was right - there are a lot of 8x1x6 tickets. The fix was in!

[jma]

I don't know if the horse was impossible or playable, as recent posts have argued. Again though, these people thought the horse likely enough to win that they (might have) bet thousands of dollars on the Pick 3, yet they let the horse go off at 154-1? You'd think these conspirators would have been smart enough to bet $500 to win too. Even if they dropped to odds to a measly 40 or 50 to 1, they'd have added another $25,000 or so to the much smaller amount they won on the Pick 3. I still think it was someone who liked the 3-1 shot and got lucky with a longshot in the middle leg of the Pick 3. I'd save the conspiracy theories for when the horse looks like it should be 154-1 and goes off 4-1.

[betovernetcapper]

Is there some reason the connections of the #12 shouldn't bet their own horse?

[Perlnalysis]

You guys make some fair points. But I'd be interested in knowing the size of the win pool. Maybe a $500 bet drops the odds lower than 40 or 50-1.

The other possibility is that a whale was involved in the p3 pool. If you have one person who nailed it for $30, that alone would explain the low payoff. Perhaps, like you said, some big timer wheeled the heck out of the winner of the first race.
Bottom line: You are nuts if you are playing horses on non-big race days if you are not: a) a professional computer-aided whale, b) an insider, or c) a retired guy with deep pockets and nothing better to do

[Show Me the Wire]

Perlnalysis:

Did you ever consider the owners may have been kept in the dark about the impending form reversal?

More that likely you are right the "win" money was bet into the the multi-race exotics so as not to clue in the public or possibly the owners and the owners friends. Really, I would not be surprised if the owners did not wager into any pool on their horse.

[linrom1]

What a coincidence, PTj Stable on 3/11/07 3rd Race won with a horse that paid $42.20. Wow, in two days whoever this might be took down 2 pools?

[Show Me the Wire]

I stand corrected, the owner(s) knew, same ownership different trainers.

[Light]

Besides equipment changes,reported and unreported,form reversals can be due to medical conditions of the horse. They may have scoped him and corrected a breathing problem or some other ailment.If anything is crooked about this game its the lack of information in the medical field in a sport where horses are pressed to their physical limit making this pivotal part of the game a total guess.

[wes]

Did you ever consider the owners may have been kept in the dark about the impending form reversal?

I wonder why Equisim 5.0 listed the Owner as the number one pick along with the Comp number. Nothing will be learned as to why or who. I suppose we all need to Learn how to read our own tea leaves (DATA) to become a long shot winner.

wes

[schweitz]

Bottom line: You are nuts if you are playing horses on non-big race days if you are not: a) a professional computer-aided whale, b) an insider, or c) a retired guy with deep pockets and nothing better to do


What? :confused:

[bigmack]

Bombs land everyday. Conspiracy theorums come & go. Funny how the bigger the bomb the more likely the conspiracy. But then again, maybe not.

Post up every winner who pays over $40 each day and someones program or data will have something viable of them to point to their winning effort. Let the bombs drop where they may and may the conspiracy buffs take a seat in the back of the bus.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/GP2.jpg

[Show Me the Wire]

bigmack:

Yes, bombs win every day with legitimate payouts. The conspiracy theory alluded to the betting pattern, i.e. the high odds on the tote (dead on the board) and a low resulting payoff in the pick three( alive in the multi-race exotics).

Wes:

I did not handicap the race as I do not wager on Gulfstream, so I have no idea about how the tea leafs fell. If Equisim 5.0 had this horse at what 154 to 1(?), I hope you cashed. But the point to you is the same as above; the betting pattern is what is being discussed.

Seek and you shall find.

[BIG RED]

Anyone know the answer to my question of the largest $2 win ticket paid yet?

I can't find out, no search engines to ask.

[Perlnalysis]

Look, I'll acknowledge it's very possible everything was on the level. Maybe you had some guy who loved the winners of the 1st and 3rd races and wheeled them with the all button. Maybe some guy played a straight $30 p3 with random numbers. These are all very realistic possibilities.

All I'm saying is that it's not often you have a scenario at a major racetrack where the P3 pays half of the DD payoff with an $8.80 winner on the front end. I mean, maybe if the front end winner was 1-5, I could see this possibility, but he was almost 7-2! N

That and the somewhat low Race 1-2 DD payoff makes it worth Gulfstream management reviewing the pool details and making sure there wasn't any unusual wagers. Who knows maybe a computer programmer got a piece of the pool?

Then again, maybe it was just Joe the reitred postman playing his route #. Ya never know!

[betovernetcapper]

Big Red
1000-1 on a 2 to5 shot
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33665&highlight=betfair

[DanG]

Richard [Betovernetcapper]

Alerted me to this thread “WOW” as he saw on the HTR board that I was involved in this race and knew the origin of several combinations.

In the interest of time I will copy a portion of what was written on the other board as I’m running a little late today. I hope it’s not out of context. Quick thought, its not always those connected to the animal that drive seemingly aberrant payoffs…

Jim…

This is one of those rare times that I can explain exactly what happened and it’s first hand knowledge.

I know three people who hit the early pick-3 because I’m one of them. 2 of the other members of my group also had it. (The 4th member only plays the pick-6).

Part of our routine is I tell them if visually I have anything interesting on either card. As I said yesterday I mentioned this bomber, although in all honesty I wasn’t jumping up and down about him. One guy had the pick-three 5X, another twice and I had it 4X. BTW: All on track. It’s a case of killing our own price and ironically none of us had it in the win pool!!!.

The ticket I was fortunate on was 2 X 5 X 3, so I certainly didn’t single this rascal by any means.

That is one drawback to having a group; if you share all information some side bets can get some nasty crossfire in the pool. If we tried that at Will Rodgers Downs it might create a minus pool!!!

[46zilzal]

Anyone know the answer to my question of the largest $2 win ticket paid yet?

I can't find out, no search engines to ask.
Wishing Ring, Latonia Race Course June 17, 1912 value of $2 dollar ticket was $1,885.50

[BIG RED]

OK, thanks. betoverthenet, that has was 125-1 at the track. He was more at an exchange the way I read it.

46, where is Latonia? or maybe 'was' looking at the date.

[46zilzal]

OK, thanks. betoverthenet, that has was 125-1 at the track. He was more at an exchange the way I read it.

46, where is Latonia? or maybe 'was' looking at the date.
Now called Turfway

[Niko]

Damn Dan, now I know why you don't have to "work" for a living. Good to hear someone who knew what went on. No wonder it's so hard to get good pay-offs on these things.

If the track reported on IRS tickets by insiders like the SEC maybe we wouldn't have to guess....at least on IRS tickets.

And that'll happen... :sleeping:

[BIG RED]

Thanks 46.

Where did you look to find that info, I was lost where to start?

[46zilzal]

American Racing Manual. Have them all back to 1966

[Perlnalysis]

June 17, 1912 - A record parimutuel payoff on a straight $2 wager was set when Wishing Ring, sent off at odds of 941-1, paid $1,885.50 to win at Latonia. The mark was only surpassed in 1989, when Power to Geaux paid $2,922 for a $2 wager made at AKsarben on a race that was simulcast from Fair Grounds.

[Perlnalysis]

Published: November 8, 1993
Arcangues's winning price of $269.20 for $2 in Saturday's Breeders' Cup Classic at Santa Anita was the biggest in the 10-year history of the Breeders' Cup, and was one of the largest in the sport's history in a major stakes race.

But it fell far short of the $2,922 payoff on Power to Geaux at Aksarben on Dec. 8, 1989, the record in thoroughbred racing, according to the American Racing Manual.

Power to Geaux was in a race at the Fair Grounds in Louisiana that was simulcast to Aksarben in Nebraska. The horse paid $96.60 at the Fair Grounds, but only one $2 ticket was bought at Arksarben, which had a separate pool, and one fan took all the money.

Before the proliferation of simulcasting, the record win payoff was $1,885.50, on Wishing Ring at Latonia in Kentucky on June 17, 1912.

The American Racing Manual lists 40 payoffs of more than $400 in the sport's history.

This year, the only other major upset in a top stakes race occurred in the Arkansas Derby, which Rockamundo won, paying $218.

[JustRalph]

Latonia used to be a day trip from Columbus........my dad and his buddies used to go down there. I used to hear all kinds of stories about Latonia trips.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turfway_Park

[Pace Cap'n]

Now if we could just figure out who put the 12-horse on top of those 20-some odd superfecta tickets.....

[how cliche]

The more people I know who own horses, the more a payoff like this doesn't surprise me, especially in a maiden claiming race.


A friend of mine owns a horse who was fancied in his debut and well bet at SA, with a top rider up. He ran poorly and was unwilling to give anything. No one could explain this as he was training so well in company. They vetted him and he came up clean. He resumed training in company and was competitive against his workmates and fast in his drills.

The next race he again gave nothing with the same rider up. It turns out he has soft shins & has been training at HOL where the surface is allegedy kinder to them. Reason 1 for his unwillingness was his tentative nature insofar as not wanting to pound his soft shins on the SA strip. From there he was relocated to SA so he could overcome his mental block through gallops and workouts. The trainer liked what he saw.

His third race was his worst. He overcame his tentative strides, but flipped his pallet(sp) & couldn't breathe at the bottom level on the class ladder. A myectomy(sp) was performed & he will resurface at HOL.

You see where I'm going. There are many things the bettors can never know about a runner. Physical problems, operations, etc. A maiden claimer winning at a big number ought not surprise anyone aquainted with low level owners.

[boomman]

Published: November 8, 1993
Arcangues's winning price of $269.20 for $2 in Saturday's Breeders' Cup Classic at Santa Anita was the biggest in the 10-year history of the Breeders' Cup, and was one of the largest in the sport's history in a major stakes race.

But it fell far short of the $2,922 payoff on Power to Geaux at Aksarben on Dec. 8, 1989, the record in thoroughbred racing, according to the American Racing Manual.

Power to Geaux was in a race at the Fair Grounds in Louisiana that was simulcast to Aksarben in Nebraska. The horse paid $96.60 at the Fair Grounds, but only one $2 ticket was bought at Arksarben, which had a separate pool, and one fan took all the money.

Before the proliferation of simulcasting, the record win payoff was $1,885.50, on Wishing Ring at Latonia in Kentucky on June 17, 1912.

The American Racing Manual lists 40 payoffs of more than $400 in the sport's history.

This year, the only other major upset in a top stakes race occurred in the Arkansas Derby, which Rockamundo won, paying $218.

Perl: When I was at the Lincoln State Fair back in the early 1980's I seem to remember a horse paying something like $354 to place. Any notation of that in the manual?

Boomer

[46zilzal]

Perl: When I was at the Lincoln State Fair back in the early 1980's I seem to remember a horse paying something like $354 to place. Any notation of that in the manual?


Only win mutuels covered.

[DanG]

One more point about this race that may be relevant.

This horse was the favorite in his Gulfstream debut. I happened to see things visually I liked and really the tote action forced me to concentrate on the replay more than I normally would. Who ever bet him hard in almost every pool that day took a hit.

Point two:

This was a VERY educational tool for me.

I was a pretty serious horseplayer before we moved to Florida to get in the restaurant business. Our first breakfast cook (great high volume chef) named Al used to own a horse that ran at Calder / Tampa. He bought him as a yearling (first mistake) and if you knew Al’s luck in racing it was no surprise this poor thing couldn’t outrun a Clydesdale.

Al bet $500 to win EVERY time his horse ran. As soon as he got to the track…BAM…First flash his horse would be odds on. As a first time starter he bet $2,000 and he went off as the favorite.

This poor creature never hit the board and was never really close to cashing a check before they retired him. That’s a 32 race career were he bet at least $500 each time he ran.

People on track didn’t know in his first out if the stable “new something” or if it was some guy named Al risking 2 + weeks pay because he loved the SOB.

I was fascinated hanging around the backstretch at Monmouth and Santa Anita to see just how competitive and just how wrong stables often were when betting. A disproportionate amount of “stable money” does not evaluate the rest of the field very well.

Bottom line…We know more than we think going into a race. The theory that there are people in the shadows who are in on something we are not privy to is largely false.

Whether this applies to the super in this particular race is pure conjecture. If the stable did body slam this bet truth is they were very fortunate. Douglas’s mount was best if he didn’t lug-in severely.

[linrom1]

One more point about this race that may be relevant.

This horse was the favorite in his Gulfstream debut. I happened to see things visually I liked and really the tote action forced me to concentrate on the replay more than I normally would. Who ever bet him hard in almost every pool that day took a hit.

Point two:

This was a VERY educational tool for me.

I was a pretty serious horseplayer before we moved to Florida to get in the restaurant business. Our first breakfast cook (great high volume chef) named Al used to own a horse that ran at Calder / Tampa. He bought him as a yearling (first mistake) and if you knew Al’s luck in racing it was no surprise this poor thing couldn’t outrun a Clydesdale.

Al bet $500 to win EVERY time his horse ran. As soon as he got to the track…BAM…First flash his horse would be odds on. As a first time starter he bet $2,000 and he went off as the favorite.

This poor creature never hit the board and was never really close to cashing a check before they retired him. That’s a 32 race career were he bet at least $500 each time he ran.

People on track didn’t know in his first out if the stable “new something” or if it was some guy named Al risking 2 + weeks pay because he loved the SOB.

I was fascinated hanging around the backstretch at Monmouth and Santa Anita to see just how competitive and just how wrong stables often were when betting. A disproportionate amount of “stable money” does not evaluate the rest of the field very well.

Bottom line…We know more than we think going into a race. The theory that there are people in the shadows who are in on something we are not privy to is largely false.

Whether this applies to the super in this particular race is pure conjecture. If the stable did body slam this bet truth is they were very fortunate. Douglas’s mount was best if he didn’t lug-in severely.

Nice story DanG. :D I have PTj in my sights next time they run. Thanks for the info. ;)

[DanG]

Nice story DanG. :D I have PTj in my sights next time they run. Thanks for the info. ;)
Should I bother asking? What the heck…

Yet another chat room acronym that I don’t recognize… “Ptj” :confused:

BTW: Maybe it’s just me, but that seems like an awful lot to quote for that response.

[linrom1]

Should I bother asking? What the heck…

Yet another chat room acronym that I don’t recognize… “Ptj” :confused:

BTW: Maybe it’s just me, but that seems like an awful lot to quote for that response.

PTj Stable. owners of 2 bombs at GP this week including this 150:1 wonder. I guess they must be clueless? :lol: PTJ is also a big trader on NYMEX, I wonder if that's the same connection. There are probably very few cooks left in this game, but many that can still cook the books. :D