PDA

View Full Version : Aqu 5th Fevered Pitch 7/2 flashes at 2-1 at wire


asH
04-03-2008, 03:15 PM
Aqu 5th -As the Race was run Fevered Pitch's odds were posted at 7/2 on the video feed during the race and also on the tote, as she took the lead in the stretch the odds dropped to 2-1.... If this is a usual occurrence, I have never noticed it before.

misscashalot
04-03-2008, 03:32 PM
with 1 min to go and when loading Fevered Pitch was 2-1 on the board, and she was 2-1 on the screen as they raced. At 7/2 was the 7 She Belong To Us. Watch the rerun

sevenall
04-03-2008, 03:34 PM
Aqu 5th -As the Race was run Fevered Pitch's odds were posted at 7/2 on the video feed during the race and also on the tote, as she took the lead in the stretch the odds dropped to 2-1.... If this is a usual occurrence, I have never noticed it before.


Unfortunately, it's an all too common occurrence....but every now and then I'll get lucky and the odds will go up in my favor.

asH
04-03-2008, 03:39 PM
5/2 during the running of the race, sorry bout that, I watched the race again.

the little guy
04-03-2008, 03:43 PM
5/2 during the running of the race, sorry bout that, I watched the race again.


Actually the horse was 2:1 during the entire running of the race.

asH
04-03-2008, 03:49 PM
I watch through TVG which feeds from Aqu...I'm watching as I write and at the 1/4 to the stretch the visual on screen is 5/2

the little guy
04-03-2008, 03:52 PM
I watch through TVG which feeds from Aqu...I'm watching as I write and at the 1/4 to the stretch the visual on screen is 5/2


So, you are suggesting that TVG uses a different feed than the track feed and makes up their own odds? I don't have TVG but I find this hard to believe.

I watched the race again after I saw your post, even though I pretty much knew what Misscashalot posted was true, just to make sure and the horse was ALWAYS 2-1 on the track feed.

menifee
04-03-2008, 03:57 PM
Noticed it as well. I love this game, but I when I see events like this - it is very frustrating.

There is no absolutely no meaningful regulation of this game. I feel like I'm in the 1930's playing the securities markets prior to the Securities Act and Exchange Act in 1933 and 1934.

The federal government needs to step in and provide some meaningful regulations. The Interstate Horse Racing Wagering Act needs to be amended. The industry will not self regulate. The state legislatures will not adopt any model rules and have created fifty different sets of rules regarding everything.

The only thing holding the industry to any semblance of responsibility is the U.S. Attorney's Office in the various jurisdictions when they randomly decide to proceed against participants in the industry for fixing races (e.g. A One Rocket trained by Gregory Martin running a 103 on a milkshake in December, 2003). Those cases are few and far between.

It might be type for someone to test whether the state and or federal courts will regulate the market through civil actions (e.g., as they have done with products liability cases). In Massachusetts, we have a consumer protection act - 93A. The Courts have been very restrictive in whether bettors can sue tracks in contract or tort. The typical case is where a bettor claims he hit the winning pick 6, but the teller punched in the wrong ticket. Those cases are tossed immediately. However, the Courts have left open the question whether a Mass resident could pursue a case for unfair business practices against a track that simulcasts its signal into the state.

So for example, a bettor in Mass. might bring a prospective class action against NYRA, Aqueduct, etc. alleging that for a period of x years, track management has allowed wagering to occur after the race had started. This was an unfair business practice as it gave certain bettors in the parimutuel pool an unfair advantage and NYRA and the track made no efforts to fix or control the problem. Damages would be the collective amount wagered by Mass. residents into the pool. Discovery would be large and intense.

If you could get it pass the motion to dismiss stage, a few cases like this might force the industry to self regulate.

the little guy
04-03-2008, 03:58 PM
Noticed it as well. I love this game, but I when I see events like this - it is very frustrating.




How exactly do you notice something that doesn't happen?

menifee
04-03-2008, 04:01 PM
I watched this race again - you guys were right. Still have seen this in a lot of other races.

asH
04-03-2008, 04:04 PM
So, you are suggesting that TVG uses a different feed than the track feed and makes up their own odds? I don't have TVG but I find this hard to believe.

I watched the race again after I saw your post, even though I pretty much knew what Misscashalot posted was true, just to make sure and the horse was ALWAYS 2-1 on the track feed.

I watch through TVG which feeds from Aqu. This statement in no way suggests a different feed

menifee
04-03-2008, 04:04 PM
I confused the 5 and 7.

the little guy
04-03-2008, 04:07 PM
I watched this race again - you guys were right. Still have seen this in a lot of other races.


I'm not saying it's not disconcerting in some ways, but nobody seems to notice the many times that horses' odds go up during the race. I once bet a horse at Aqueduct ( about two years ago.....I remember it well because it was my last winner ) that was 20:1 when they went into the gate, closed to win from last, and was 30:1. We've all bet horses that ended up higher prices after the race started.

However, updating the tote system should be an urgency in this game. I am not exactly sure that would eliminate this " problem. " It's basically a timing thing between data received and how quickly it is sent to the proper channels.

the little guy
04-03-2008, 04:08 PM
I watch through TVG which feeds from Aqu. This statement in no way suggests a different feed

Then you never saw the winner's odds at anything other than 2:1 during the running of the race.

menifee
04-03-2008, 04:11 PM
I have seen that happen. But let me ask you something if the 20-1 shot had shot to a four length lead at the quarter pole instead of closing, do you think its odds would have been 30-1? Probably not.

Do me a favor and watch Los Alamitos - Quarter Horse Races. Watch the exacta pools. Guaranteed 8 out of 10 times, the exacta is paying less than what it was paying as they went into the gate.

the little guy
04-03-2008, 04:13 PM
I have seen that happen. But let me ask you something if the 20-1 shot had shot to a four length lead at the quarter pole instead of closing, do you think its odds would have been 30-1? Probably not.

Do me a favor and watch Los Alamitos - Quarter Horse Races. Watch the exacta pools. Guaranteed 8 out of 10 times, the exacta is paying less than what it was paying as they went into the gate.


Can I clean your bathroom instead?



On the first part.....I recently bet a horse that blew out to a big early lead and jumped from 5:1 to either 6:1 or 7:1. It was not, however, at Los Alamitos.

asH
04-03-2008, 04:13 PM
Then you never saw the winner's odds at anything other than 2:1 during the running of the race.
as stated previously
I watch through TVG which feeds from Aqu...I'm watching as I write and at the 1/4 to the stretch the visual on screen is 5/2

I can make a DVD and send it to you, ill try and figure a way to post the video

the little guy
04-03-2008, 04:17 PM
as stated previously
I watch through TVG which feeds from Aqu...I'm watching as I write and at the 1/4 to the stretch the visual on screen is 5/2

I can make a DVD and send it to you, ill try and figure a way to post the video


I hear you, and I wasn't necessarily doubting you, but if that is the case then TVG alters the feed ( as hard as that is to believe....for either of us ). I have watched the race twice since you posted this and the track feed shows the horse at 2:1 when it is among the top four.

I will watch it a third time right after I finish cleaning Menifee's bathroom.

menifee
04-03-2008, 04:17 PM
Thanks - I have a cleaning lady, but I will give her the week off.

If you only have had 1 winner in the last two years - I might ask you to look at the form and pick winners so I can eliminate a few. :D

rgustafson
04-03-2008, 05:01 PM
Let's see: 5/2 or 2-1. Guys, the horse paid $6.80 so I guess your arguing over twenty cents.:)

classhandicapper
04-03-2008, 05:31 PM
However, updating the tote system should be an urgency in this game. I am not exactly sure that would eliminate this " problem. " It's basically a timing thing between data received and how quickly it is sent to the proper channels.

They should probably close all the pools about 1 minute before the horses load. That would give everyone plenty of time to transmit all the betting data.

I reluctantly said this once before and didn't get much of a reaction, but I can tell you with 100% certainty it has been possible to bet NYRA (and other tracks) after the start of the race as recently as last year.

I'm not certain how many people were doing it and if any of the money actually reached the pools, but there were flaws in "multiple" software programs/processes at online wagering sites that allowed people to watch the start of a race (as much as an 1/8th of a mile at times) before releasing their bet.

One site no longer takes bets on horses and the other has corrected the problem. So I know of no way to do it now. Point being that if I could find problems like that by accident, imagine what a sophisticated operation could accomplish.

The only betting I find suspicious is when the odds drop sharply on a horse that cleared the field early. That suggests to me that it's at least possible that someone had a bet queued up but wanted to see if the horse got out of the gate well and made the lead before releasing the wager.

asH
04-03-2008, 06:13 PM
how can I add video to my post??

asH
04-03-2008, 06:22 PM
Let's see: 5/2 or 2-1. Guys, the horse paid $6.80 so I guess your arguing over twenty cents.:)
.20 cents or $100 dollars, it suggests the posibility of minipulation. these are your dollars at play in the pools, if someone has an advantage it diminishes your play (parimutual)... it should concern all

njcurveball
04-03-2008, 07:56 PM
The common thread from the conspiracy theory here is that a better thinks they have an overlay.

Too often I look at the horse and the morning line and see the final price to be pretty much what you would expect.

In this case, the horse was 2-1 in the morning line and paid $6.80.

Watching the replay #7 takes the lead at 7-2 and #5 is in fourth at 2-1.

#5 moves up to 3rd, then 2nd and is still 2-1.

Taking the lead in the stretch the horse is 2-1 and then wins by 10 lengths or so.

So no conspiracy here. Sorry.

asH
04-03-2008, 08:21 PM
The common thread from the conspiracy theory here is that a better thinks they have an overlay.

Too often I look at the horse and the morning line and see the final price to be pretty much what you would expect.

In this case, the horse was 2-1 in the morning line and paid $6.80.

Watching the replay #7 takes the lead at 7-2 and #5 is in fourth at 2-1.

#5 moves up to 3rd, then 2nd and is still 2-1.

Taking the lead in the stretch the horse is 2-1 and then wins by 10 lengths or so.

So no conspiracy here. Sorry.
you are missing the point. pools should be commingled before races are run , odds should be correct before races are run, not during or after.

Premier Turf Club
04-03-2008, 08:32 PM
However, updating the tote system should be an urgency in this game. I am not exactly sure that would eliminate this " problem. " It's basically a timing thing between data received and how quickly it is sent to the proper channels.

That is precisely the issue. Wagers are batched and sent into the tote and on to the host track rather then sending them in continuously.

misscashalot
04-03-2008, 08:46 PM
you are missing the point. pools should be commingled before races are run , odds should be correct before races are run, not during or after.

The essence of the problem, is the essence of the posting that the odds of a horse who won had dropped fr 7/2 to 2-1 during the running of the race. In this case it was just a matter of an honest mistake. Honesty in the business of horse race gambling is looked upon, not just by outsiders, but by the supporter (bettors) as suspect. That's a very serious problem that can only undo the fabric of the industry that is trying hard to fail. It ain't gonna get better until the people running the tracks get together and form one umbrella organization headed by a czar. (Another Judge Mountain Landis perhaps resurrected). This czar should have supreme power. But this in our lifetime, will never happen.

asH
04-03-2008, 10:05 PM
finally, couldnt get the video, and the image size is limited on this web site
click on the link for the image
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3295&stc=1

Grits
04-03-2008, 10:27 PM
Your frustration has been understandable. I certainly hope apologies, to you, will be forthcoming.

finally, couldnt get the video, and the image size is limited on this web site

click on the link for the image
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3295&stc=1

the little guy
04-03-2008, 10:32 PM
Your frustration has been understandable. I certainly hope apologies, to you, will be forthcoming.


Apologies for what exactly?

That is a different feed than the NYRA feed and that was exactly the point that was discussed. Surely anybody that has seen the video from NYRA knows those are NOT their graphics. If you don't believe this then go to Racereplays or Calracing and watch the replay.

Grits
04-03-2008, 10:58 PM
Then you never saw the winner's odds at anything other than 2:1 during the running of the race.

I'm sorry, but I don't need to go to Calracing or Racereplays. I understand quite well that there are two videos. Everyone does. What I also understand is the above post that is telling this man, he did not see what he saw. And I also understand the posting of others that, too, didn't have the TVG feed and felt he was incorrect.

Guess, its just a matter of how one looks at such things.

the little guy
04-03-2008, 11:15 PM
That's pretty lame. The discussion began with my asking if TVG had a different feed.....the author of this thread originally felt they didn't but it turned out they did.

You're attacking the poster and not the argument. Pretty shitty....and even more obvious.

slewis
04-03-2008, 11:28 PM
Noticed it as well. I love this game, but I when I see events like this - it is very frustrating.

There is no absolutely no meaningful regulation of this game. I feel like I'm in the 1930's playing the securities markets prior to the Securities Act and Exchange Act in 1933 and 1934.

The federal government needs to step in and provide some meaningful regulations. The Interstate Horse Racing Wagering Act needs to be amended. The industry will not self regulate. The state legislatures will not adopt any model rules and have created fifty different sets of rules regarding everything.

The only thing holding the industry to any semblance of responsibility is the U.S. Attorney's Office in the various jurisdictions when they randomly decide to proceed against participants in the industry for fixing races (e.g. A One Rocket trained by Gregory Martin running a 103 on a milkshake in December, 2003). Those cases are few and far between.

It might be type for someone to test whether the state and or federal courts will regulate the market through civil actions (e.g., as they have done with products liability cases). In Massachusetts, we have a consumer protection act - 93A. The Courts have been very restrictive in whether bettors can sue tracks in contract or tort. The typical case is where a bettor claims he hit the winning pick 6, but the teller punched in the wrong ticket. Those cases are tossed immediately. However, the Courts have left open the question whether a Mass resident could pursue a case for unfair business practices against a track that simulcasts its signal into the state.

So for example, a bettor in Mass. might bring a prospective class action against NYRA, Aqueduct, etc. alleging that for a period of x years, track management has allowed wagering to occur after the race had started. This was an unfair business practice as it gave certain bettors in the parimutuel pool an unfair advantage and NYRA and the track made no efforts to fix or control the problem. Damages would be the collective amount wagered by Mass. residents into the pool. Discovery would be large and intense.

If you could get it pass the motion to dismiss stage, a few cases like this might force the industry to self regulate.

Can you or anyone else on this forum or in the free world explain to me how milkshaking a horse, or cheating by drugging or doing ANYTHING to a racehorse constitutes RACE-FIXING !!!!!!
If Greg Martin would have gotten a really good lawyer, he could have beaten that charge for fun.
LISTEN PEOPLE......... IF I MILKSHAKE, OR COCAINE-UP OR WHAT-F-ING EVER A HORSE IN A RACE DOES IT GUARANTEE I WIN??????
Rhetorical.... NO
The term "fixing" means I have a virtual guarantee of the outcome.
Greg never had that. Did he think he had a good chance of winning by cheating and his gambling buddies take a calculated risk based on that...yes.
BUT that's technically NOT race fixing, and in a court of law, technical shit means everything. I happened to have had horses with Carlos (Martin) at the time and I told him his uncle could beat that for fun. I don't think he had the resources. Next question is where is the line drawn? If milkshaking constitutes race-fixing, what's clenbuterol 3 days prior to race day (and so-on and so-on). Does everyone get my point???


What if I trained a horse and milkshaked him, and 4 other trainers in the race do the same, or worse,..... my horse would probably lose. What if my juiced horse just got beat by a faster horse?? The outcome, because it's not pre-determined, cannot be considered "fixed".
I'm not a lawyer, and I could win that one.

Now I would like to address the second part of this post.
For anyone out there who would like to test the waters and take a racetrack to court as a gambler on a claim, don't waste your time.
The courts are programmed to rule against. As I've mentioned in previous posts, I've had several beefs with NYRA and needed to know my rights as an owner/patron. I have a close friend who's a N.Y.S.judge who was also nice enough to research many cases involving NYRA over the last 20 yrs in various capacities. I read the case law. When gamblers sued, it seemed even when they had argueable points, the judges seemed to always state that when one partakes in "gambling" they assume all of the risks and bad luck that follows, even when it seems that the track messes up. As long as they are running it on a "Pari-mutuel" basis with no interest in the outcome of the event, that's as fair as the state and law need to exhonerate.
So, if you take em to court, good luck, you'll need it.
Now if you REALLY wanted to turn some heads, if through the internet, everyone who bets could be convinced to not bet for just 2 weeks until gamblers had some representation at ALL major racetracks..... then you'd be onto something.
Here's something that ALL RACETRACKS DONT WANT TO ADMIT...........
Take the gambling out of this game, and you have NO game, case closed.

asH
04-03-2008, 11:31 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't need to go to Calracing or Racereplays. I understand quite well that there are two videos. Everyone does. What I also understand is the above post that is telling this man, he did not see what he saw. And I also understand the posting of others that, too, didn't have the TVG feed and felt he was incorrect.

Guess, its just a matter of how one looks at such things.
Grits your a fine being, and I thank you. As we all know this web site is where you state your case then defend it, hopefully with facts and figures...i dont sweat the little stuff, and if I'm wrong (rarely if ever)I've learned..LOL

I believe there are some who have learned something new today, including myself...and thats what this is all about.



What I have realized is that the big guys taking their cut off the top may not be so concerned with security of pools after they have taken their cut, which could mean that there may be opportunity for larcenous opportunities.

asH
04-03-2008, 11:35 PM
That's pretty lame. The discussion began with my asking if TVG had a different feed.....the author of this thread originally felt they didn't but it turned out they did.

You're attacking the poster and not the argument. Pretty shitty....and even more obvious.

little Guy, you felt that there was one feed too, in fact that was your point of defense

So, you are suggesting that TVG uses a different feed than the track feed and makes up their own odds? I don't have TVG but I find this hard to believe.

I watched the race again after I saw your post, even though I pretty much knew what Misscashalot posted was true, just to make sure and the horse was ALWAYS 2-1 on the track feed.

Javagold
04-03-2008, 11:39 PM
i guess its NOT THAT HARD TO BELIEVE ANY MORE

the little guy
04-04-2008, 12:03 AM
little Guy, you felt that there was one feed too, in fact that was your point of defense


This really is typical. I asked you if there was a different feed and agreed with you it was hard to believe there was. However....I ASKED! And guess what....there was one. Frankly, it was you, if anyone, that inferred there wasn't one. I also said I don't have TVG so I couldn't know. However, as soon as I saw your pictures I knew there, in fact, was one.

I thought it was a discussion....I guess I was wrong. Sorry.

asH
04-04-2008, 12:04 AM
g-kQtlEAQzo
finally video
watch the tote on the bottom of the screen even after the race is over. my computer tote didnt reflect the change until the middle of the stretch.

PaceAdvantage
04-04-2008, 12:22 AM
It's not a different video feed. It's the same exact video feed...HOWEVER...

TVG overlays their own graphics on TOP of the existing feed, and, as anyone who has watched TVG for any length of time can attest, THEY DO MAKE MISTAKES, especially in the GRAPHICS department...
This was but one example of such a graphical error....

asH
04-04-2008, 01:03 AM
I would like to think that the visual on screen odds are linked to the actual and are computer controlled. It would seem hard to believe the odds are manually entered. I cant prove the fact that I saw the odds drop down to 2-1 in the middle of the stretch, but as the race became obvious I viewed my computer tote.

cj
04-04-2008, 01:09 AM
I would like to think that the visual on screen odds are linked to the actual and are computer controlled. It would seem hard to believe the odds are manually entered. I cant prove the fact that I saw the odds drop down to 2-1 in the middle of the stretch, but as the race became obvious I viewed my computer tote.

Clearly they are not since the actual track feed was 2 to 1 the entire trip.

PaceAdvantage
04-04-2008, 02:06 AM
I would like to think that the visual on screen odds are linked to the actual and are computer controlled. It would seem hard to believe the odds are manually entered. I cant prove the fact that I saw the odds drop down to 2-1 in the middle of the stretch, but as the race became obvious I viewed my computer tote.Since they are TVG's graphics superimposed over the actual track feed, the graphics are using TVG data. Perhaps there was a glitch with TVG's tote....

Grits
04-04-2008, 02:28 AM
Its always better to let comments like this one sit for a while, rather than risk making a fool of oneself.

TLG, not a word I've stated in this thread was lame, not a word I stated was shitty. What I did--was state the obvious. That is all I did. I didn't attack you. You chose to take offense due to your own perceived condition; and react, badly. I'm sorry that was your choice. I look forward to your handicapping show.

And AsH, thank you.

That's pretty lame. The discussion began with my asking if TVG had a different feed.....the author of this thread originally felt they didn't but it turned out they did.

You're attacking the poster and not the argument. Pretty shitty....and even more obvious.

menifee
04-04-2008, 03:44 AM
Can you or anyone else on this forum or in the free world explain to me how milkshaking a horse, or cheating by drugging or doing ANYTHING to a racehorse constitutes RACE-FIXING !!!!!!


If Greg Martin would have gotten a really good lawyer, he could have beaten that charge for fun.



I will reply to your post. I will preface it by saying I am a lawyer. You don't beat federal cases for fun. The conviction rate on federal cases that go to trial is over 90%. If he rolled the dice and lost at trial, he would have faced a lot more time. The feds had him - he had no chance of winning at trial especially when all his co-conspirators would have testified against him.

The horse improved by 28 beyer points and posted a 103 after they milkshaked him. That is cheating. Perhaps you disagree with the semantics, but it is race fixing. They bet a great deal of money on the race and if they were not "fixing" the race, they would not have bet the money. Of course the horse could have broken down or stumbled and lost the rider, but I think when you do anything illegal to a horse to create more betting value for yourself, you are fixing a race.

Finally, I agree with your points about NY law and suing in NY. Mass courts may be a little more friendly to those type of claims. I think your idea about withholding bets for two weeks is a solid one. I think if gamblers withheld their bets for one weekend day, the industry would suffer.

cj's dad
04-04-2008, 07:07 AM
I have seen that happen. But let me ask you something if the 20-1 shot had shot to a four length lead at the quarter pole instead of closing, do you think its odds would have been 30-1? Probably not.

Do me a favor and watch Los Alamitos - Quarter Horse Races. Watch the exacta pools. Guaranteed 8 out of 10 times, the exacta is paying less than what it was paying as they went into the gate.

As the prices change ( go down) on one combo, the price on another has to go up.

Imriledup
04-04-2008, 08:00 AM
I'd like to respectfully disagree with CH on his idea to close the pools early. What closing the pools early does is let the racing industry off the hook. The racing industry needs to be responsible enough to make sure no one is betting after the start. Why punish the bettors because the racing industry can't do something as simple as making sure the machines are shut off on time?

The one question i have for people who strongly believe that people are betting after the start at racetracks around the country is this:

If people are betting after the start, how come every front runner doesn't plummet in price in every race at every track? You'd think that if a person had the ability to wager after the races start, they would make large wagers on the front runner to win, right? How come every front runner doesn't go down a tick or two if people have the technology to wager after the start?

Do these sneaky after-the-start bettors skip races?

If you had the ability to see 20 seconds (for example) of every race at your favorite track and you saw a horse get loose on the lead, wouldn't you pound in a few grand to win? I can't imagine you would say, "i think i'll skip this one"

Robert Fischer
04-04-2008, 09:19 AM
you know what i'd like to see? - a computerized 2008 system. Even a late 90's system :liar: .
I don't know why there isn't a signal that goes out to Stop Wager at every betting facility as well as a RESPONSE signal that verifies the successful close.
Maybe a realistic penalty to a failed site would be real-time auditing of all action at that wagering site AND a manual shut-off operator until that site could be back "on line"?
Such a system could guarantee almost instant stop wagering and monitor the security of the network.:cool:.

Closing pools early a double edged sword. -While you do prevent past-posting, you also lose a "control" aspect of canceling your ticket due to unruly gate behavior or breaking through the gate. Such a change would have to come with new strict bettor-favored gate scratch rules. No more having a horse bolt off for a furlong and loading him in, or breaking through the gate etc.., and god forbid a horse must be scratched there needs to be a well planned protocol on how an "overtime" wagering period.

bottom line - management needs to take steps to better serve the horseplayers:ThmbUp:

classhandicapper
04-04-2008, 09:27 AM
I'd like to respectfully disagree with CH on his idea to close the pools early. What closing the pools early does is let the racing industry off the hook. The racing industry needs to be responsible enough to make sure no one is betting after the start. Why punish the bettors because the racing industry can't do something as simple as making sure the machines are shut off on time?

The one question i have for people who strongly believe that people are betting after the start at racetracks around the country is this:

If people are betting after the start, how come every front runner doesn't plummet in price in every race at every track? You'd think that if a person had the ability to wager after the races start, they would make large wagers on the front runner to win, right? How come every front runner doesn't go down a tick or two if people have the technology to wager after the start?

Do these sneaky after-the-start bettors skip races?

If you had the ability to see 20 seconds (for example) of every race at your favorite track and you saw a horse get loose on the lead, wouldn't you pound in a few grand to win? I can't imagine you would say, "i think i'll skip this one"

I understand what you are saying.

However, from my perspective, it wouldn't make a difference if they closed the pools 5 minutes before they loaded the horses into the gate. Sure, something could happen in that last minute or so that would change my mind, but things happen after the start that change my mind. :lol:

As long as everyone is locked out at the same time, no one has an advantage.

It would be nice if the industry fixed this the right way, but they could implement my change quickly. If they did and the odds changed after the race started, we would know someone hacked the system.

As far as actually betting after the start, I WAS DOING IT LAST YEAR and the YEAR BEFORE. That's why I am 100% certain. ;)

I had to queue up a specific bet in order to get it in after the start because I typically only had a chance to see the start and perhaps 70 yards of the race before I got shut out (sometimes it was longer). I didn't have time to key in a bet AFTER I saw who made the lead.

The best scenario I could think of for taking advantage was when I liked a front runner BUT ONLY IF HE GOT THE LEAD. Then I could watch the start, see if he cleared, and then either release the bet or hold it back depending on how he was doing. With other types of horses, seeing the early part of the race didn't help me much.

Since I know what I was doing, when I see a horse like that drop in price after the start, I immediately "suspect" that someone is in a position to do the same thing, except they are queuing up very big bets.

Like I said in my previous post, I am not sure if any of my money eventually made it to the betting pools because these sites may or may not have been sending any money into the actual pools.

I was exploiting a software/process glitch that has since been corrected. However, I found this same glitch at "TWO" sites!

Imriledup
04-04-2008, 09:35 AM
I understand what you are saying.

However, from my perspective, it wouldn't make a difference if they closed the pools 5 minutes before they loaded the horses into the gate. Sure, something could happen in that last minute or so that would change my mind, but things happen after the start that change my mind. :lol:

As long as everyone is locked out at the same time, no one has an advantage.

It would be nice if the industry fixed this the right way, but they could implement my change quickly. If they did and the odds changed after the race started, we would know someone hacked the system.

As far as actually betting after the start, I WAS DOING IT LAST YEAR and the YEAR BEFORE. That's why I am 100% certain. ;)

I had to queue up a specific bet in order to get it in after the start because I typically only had a chance to see the start and perhaps 70 yards of the race before I got shut out (sometimes it was longer). I didn't have time to key in a bet AFTER I saw who made the lead.

The best scenario I could think of for taking advantage was when I liked a front runner BUT ONLY IF HE GOT THE LEAD. Then I could watch the start, see if he cleared, and then either release the bet or hold it back depending on how he was doing. With other types of horses, seeing the early part of the race didn't help me much.

Since I know what I was doing, when I see a horse like that drop in price after the start, I immediately "suspect" that someone is in a position to do the same thing, except they are queuing up very big bets.

Like I said in my previous post, I am not sure if any of my money eventually made it to the betting pools because these sites may or may not have been sending any money into the actual pools.

I was exploiting a software/process glitch that has since been corrected. However, I found this same glitch at "TWO" sites!

Valid points. Maybe we need to shut the pools off so everyone knows exactly what their horse is paying at the start of the race and at the end. I guess any good handicapper would be able to adjust. Racing tried this at one point, and there was too much of an outcry, so they went back to the way they did things in the past.

I just don't like giving the racing industry the easy way out. Make them fix the problem.

njcurveball
04-04-2008, 10:14 AM
Aqu 5th -As the Race was run Fevered Pitch's odds were posted at 7/2 on the video feed during the race and also on the tote, as she took the lead in the stretch the odds dropped to 2-1.... If this is a usual occurrence, I have never noticed it before.

Although many valid points made. The TVG feed had the horse at 5-2 and the track feed had him at 2-1. There is a possibility the TVG feed was missing but a few dollars.

A horse paying $6.99 will be listed 2-1. A horse paying $7.00 will be listed at 5-2.

An investigation of how TVG computes odds v.s. the track would be a good thing.

Jim

rokitman
04-04-2008, 10:26 AM
Valid points. Maybe we need to shut the pools off so everyone knows exactly what their horse is paying at the start of the race and at the end. I guess any good handicapper would be able to adjust. Racing tried this at one point, and there was too much of an outcry, so they went back to the way they did things in the past.

I just don't like giving the racing industry the easy way out. Make them fix the problem.Outcry by who? I don't recall any polling of players. I wonder what percentage of players really had a problem with that. All they need to do is be consistent, and stick with it.

You're right. They just took the easy/lazy way out. The "outcry" was just a convenient story.

cj
04-04-2008, 10:39 AM
Outcry by who? I don't recall any polling of players. I wonder what percentage of players really had a problem with that. All they need to do is be consistent, and stick with it.

You're right. They just took the easy/lazy way out. The "outcry" was just a convenient story.

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. I don't know anyone that was crying about it.

slewis
04-04-2008, 10:41 AM
Can you or anyone else on this forum or in the free world explain to me how milkshaking a horse, or cheating by drugging or doing ANYTHING to a racehorse constitutes RACE-FIXING !!!!!!


If Greg Martin would have gotten a really good lawyer, he could have beaten that charge for fun.



I will reply to your post. I will preface it by saying I am a lawyer. You don't beat federal cases for fun. The conviction rate on federal cases that go to trial is over 90%. If he rolled the dice and lost at trial, he would have faced a lot more time. The feds had him - he had no chance of winning at trial especially when all his co-conspirators would have testified against him.

The horse improved by 28 beyer points and posted a 103 after they milkshaked him. That is cheating. Perhaps you disagree with the semantics, but it is race fixing. They bet a great deal of money on the race and if they were not "fixing" the race, they would not have bet the money. Of course the horse could have broken down or stumbled and lost the rider, but I think when you do anything illegal to a horse to create more betting value for yourself, you are fixing a race.

Finally, I agree with your points about NY law and suing in NY. Mass courts may be a little more friendly to those type of claims. I think your idea about withholding bets for two weeks is a solid one. I think if gamblers withheld their bets for one weekend day, the industry would suffer.

Menifee,

Thanks for your response. I wanted to make clear again that I am not a lawyer but, as mentioned, briefly chatted with several who are and we all, including you, basically agree. It comes down to risk (possible jail ) vs reward, getting suspended from training for 6 months or so and then continuing your career as a trainer. Had this been a top name trainer, with wealthy owners and lots of money, my opinion is he beats this. But as a lawyer, you know success or failure in court is often directly related to ones ability to absorb the financial burdens of a powerful legal team.
Now I'll ask you... where is the line drawn???? Doesn't every trainer who gets a positive go into Greg Martin's catagory???
I know your going to say it's semantics but there's a HUGE difference between drugging a horse to TRY and win a race, as opposed to, let's say, paying off the jockey's to stiff their mounts.
One I would call "Race-fixing", the other is just plain cheating.
Anyway, thanks again for a great post.

asH
04-04-2008, 02:28 PM
Although many valid points made. The TVG feed had the horse at 5-2 and the track feed had him at 2-1. There is a possibility the TVG feed was missing but a few dollars.

A horse paying $6.99 will be listed 2-1. A horse paying $7.00 will be listed at 5-2.

An investigation of how TVG computes odds v.s. the track would be a good thing.

Jim
a few dollars! all of the odd were way off ,I have the video of both replays
during the running odds of both feeds
# 1 tvg odds23 aqu 29
#7 tvg odds7/2 aqu 7/2
#5 tvg odds5/2 aqu 2
#2 tvg odds13 aqu 16
Did you notice the fractions today Kee 2nd race TVG Feed 22.82, 46.51, 58.75, 111.55 Kee feed 22.8, 46.46, 58.68, 111.15. I emailed TVG about bboth incidents, no word yet, but the 3rd race fractions where the same on both feeds

njcurveball
04-04-2008, 02:31 PM
a few dollars! all of the odd were way off ,I have the video of both replays
during the running feed TVG Aqu
odds Horse # 1 23 29
7 7/2 7/2
5 5/2 2
2 13 16
Did you notice the fractions today Kee 2nd race TVG Feed 22.82, 46.51, 58.75, 111.55 Kee feed 22.8, 46.46, 58.68, 111.15. I emailed TVG about bboth incidents, no word yet, but the 3rd race fractions where the same on both feeds

I do not have TVG, so I have no clue why the mistakes. A timing error of .4 seconds in final time is HUGE in this sport!

Keep on them about this! :ThmbUp:

asH
04-04-2008, 02:42 PM
yTNOsU_vYq8 g-kQtlEAQzo

I'm getting pretty good at this video stuff...look for more...spoke to fast aqu video didnt convert correctly, will try again

njcurveball
04-04-2008, 03:54 PM
Well at least we found out that the horse was not 7-2 and dropped to 2-1 in the stretch.

Hopefully we also have some people contacting TVG to determine and hopefully eliminate the reason for their mistakes.

I would be pretty mad if the 2 horse won and TVG was showing 16-1 the whole way and I only got paid 13-1 odds. I would probably start a thread on here about that. :jump:

toetoe
04-04-2008, 05:46 PM
Guy-let,

Speaking of sh!##y, the stewards have ruled that you may choose between:

A) wiping up menifee's micturitions, and

B) doing Bruce Vilanch's laundry. :eek:

asH
04-04-2008, 07:08 PM
Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. I don't know anyone that was crying about it.

before yesterday not many, if any, were aware. But I'll bet you now pay closer attention ...if you view more than one tote.
Question: if you had 20 seconds after a race started could you make it work for you...and dont give me tha BS about yeah but, yada, yada, cause we all know the answer to the question... and if you cant make it work then you dont need to be cappin.

cj
04-04-2008, 07:16 PM
before yesterday not many, if any, were aware. But I'll bet you now pay closer attention ...if you view more than one tote.
Question: if you had 20 seconds after a race started could you make it work for you...and dont give me tha BS about yeah but, yada, yada, cause we all know the answer to the question... and if you cant make it work then you dont need to be cappin.

I think you misunderstood me. I was talking about the time when tracks were closing the pools at 1 mtp, or when the first horse entered the gate. It didn't last long, because the tracks said they were getting too many complaints. I think it had more to do with not being willing to wait out the adjustment period and losing handle than it did bettors complaining.

Sure, there were probably a few griping, but many more complain about late odds changes. The tracks, however, sided with the few because it helped the short term bottom line.

asH
04-04-2008, 07:34 PM
Before yesterday I wasn’t aware that the delay (if that is what it was) could last as long as it did within a race. I'm wondering if it works the other way the west to east...the computer programmer part of me sees a probable larcenous opportunity for nefarious individuals…where there’s delay there’s opportunity

Could be that TVG is just the mom-n-pop I’ve always thought it was

Grits
04-04-2008, 08:48 PM
I think you misunderstood me. I was talking about the time when tracks were closing the pools at 1 mtp, or when the first horse entered the gate. It didn't last long, because the tracks said they were getting too many complaints. I think it had more to do with not being willing to wait out the adjustment period and losing handle than it did bettors complaining.

Sure, there were probably a few griping, but many more complain about late odds changes. The tracks, however, sided with the few because it helped the short term bottom line.

When this rule came about, I was at Keeneland almost every day for simulcasting. And there, people DID get hot, when they'd get shut out.......so maybe somewhere, there was enough complaining to do away with the ruling. I heard more ranting disagreement about this, than about odds dropping after the gate opened. Too, I was not upstairs with heavyhitters, who would notice this more readily than the "joe $20 to $50 to win" folks surrounding me.

The elephant in the livingroom has gone without mention in this thread. And that surprises me. Maybe its because its come to be expected. And there wasn't much running in this one.

Still, in a 15k non winners of 2. Dutrow and Dubb's December claim that had been in the barn about a 110 days, had never, in her 4 starts posted splits of 23.1, 46.1, 1:11.3, 1:37.2. In her only win, off a six week freshening going a 1 1/16, she only managed 24.3, 49.3, 1:15.1, 1:48. She had two works showing nothing at Belmont going 5f a week apart, 44/68 and 17/17. Though horses in against her in Kentucky and Louisana, had, come back to win next out.

Keeping in mind, both state's more lax medications rules..........this thing comes back 110 days later, and wins by 12 lengths with these fractions? That's a whole lotta improvement.

This concerns me, a good deal more than wondering if past posting is going on, or that I may be shut out at the window.

Given the trainer/owner, I'm surprised the thing didn't go off at even money.

Stirs the memory of another he claimed in Kentucky and ran back in NY, Feat, I believe it was. Levine won with him too, if I recall. Wonder where that one is now?

He can really spot his runners; that, along with good barn rest. Maybe I'm missing something in all this rambling..........