Pedroza gets 1/9 out of money

[rrbauer]

4th on Friday
\

Show prices
#9 $20.40
#2 $46.80
#6 $70.80

#1 1/9 fav was 4th

[46zilzal]

4th on Friday
\

Show prices
#9 $20.40
#2 $46.80
#6 $70.80

#1 1/9 fav was 4th
There are a lot of race tracks with Spanish named jockey. It would help to identify just which course this was at.

[bks]

it was fairplex and the bridgejumper went in late.

Does anybody care that this is crooked? This is not the second time at Fairplex we've had an obviously crooked result after a bridgejumper dumped.

I know it presents opportunities to bet against, but it's crooked. The horse was run into trouble. There is no way he doesn't break with the frontrunners in that field.

[46zilzal]

it was fairplex and the bridgejumper went in late.

Does anybody care that this is crooked? This is not the second time at Fairplex we've had an obviously crooked result after a bridgejumper dumped.

I know it presents opportunities to bet against, but it's crooked. The horse was run into trouble. There is no way he doesn't break with the frontrunners in that field.
The TRACK has NO interest in running any race any particular way since their TAKE occurs the same race in race out, NO MATTER THE RESULT.

No vested interest? You take your money and say thanks. That's it!

[cj]

The TRACK has NO interest in running any race any particular way since their TAKE occurs the same race in race out, NO MATTER THE RESULT.

No vested interest? You take your money and say thanks. That's it!

That is simply not true. There would have been a minus pool if the favorite hit the board. Now, I'm not saying there was anything unseemly going on here, but the track certainly didn't mind the favorite running out.

I would imagine 97 out of 100 posters knew from the thread title it was about Fairplex.

[rrbauer]

I thought the ride (on the fav) was stinko, even after the horse came away awkardly it made up ground nicely but then took up sharply midway up the backside for no apparent reason and that cost it the race. I didn't see a head-on of the backstretch run so I don't know if there wasn't room or what, but the way he tookup didn't seem warranted. I didn't have a dog in the fight but sending it in to show in a 4f maiden-claimer will get you a whole bunch of agony if you don't get a good break.

[cj]

I thought the ride (on the fav) was stinko, even after the horse came away awkardly it made up ground nicely but then took up sharply midway up the backside for no apparent reason and that cost it the race. I didn't see a head-on of the backstretch run so I don't know if there wasn't room or what, but the way he tookup didn't seem warranted. I didn't have a dog in the fight but sending it in to show in a 4f maiden-claimer will get you a whole bunch of agony if you don't get a good break.

It is especially strange since the race was loaded with first time starters and three horses that had never run on dirt before.

[PaceAdvantage]

That is simply not true. There would have been a minus pool if the favorite hit the board. Now, I'm not saying there was anything unseemly going on here, but the track certainly didn't mind the favorite running out.FPX would only mind if the bet was made on track...if off track, it would be the bet taker's responsibility to make up the difference...or so I've heard...

[PaceAdvantage]

it was fairplex and the bridgejumper went in late.

Does anybody care that this is crooked? This is not the second time at Fairplex we've had an obviously crooked result after a bridgejumper dumped.

I know it presents opportunities to bet against, but it's crooked. The horse was run into trouble. There is no way he doesn't break with the frontrunners in that field.Any evidence other than your opinion? Horses who are "supposed to break" break slowly all the time, for lots of different reasons.

A+B does not always equal C. In fact, I'm betting it rarely does.

[cj]

FPX would only mind if the bet was made on track...if off track, it would be the bet taker's responsibility to make up the difference...or so I've heard...

You could be right, but I'm not so sure about that. If so, you would probably have heard of occasions where simulcast outlets did not offer all the pools that were offered on track.

[rrbauer]

FPX would only mind if the bet was made on track...if off track, it would be the bet taker's responsibility to make up the difference...or so I've heard...

No way. It's the host track's baby since they see all the money. If you put some small simulcast outlet or ADW in jeopardy of paying out a minus pool they simply wouldn't offer the bet. Do they pay out more at the sites that didn't take the bet?

[InsideThePylons-MW]

If so, you would probably have heard of occasions where simulcast outlets did not offer all the pools that were offered on track.

This has happened numerous times.

[PaceAdvantage]

This has happened numerous times.Indeed it has. In fact, I believe Suffolk downs is notorious for refusing show bets on certain simulcast races lately.

A sure sign they would be on the hook for a minus pool caused by someone at their location.

[cj]

Good to know. I don't blame them, I wouldn't want to be on the hook for another track carding bad races.

[PaceAdvantage]

Actually, I take that back about Suffolk. It may have been the Meadowlands, in their simulcast program, that indicated they weren't taking show bets on some Suffolk Downs races...

I am confused at the moment (not a surprise), but somewhere recently, I was looking at a simulcast program at some track, and I was wondering why there was no show betting in these races with six or seven horses and a M/L fav that didn't look THAT ominous...in addition, the "No Show Betting" notation looked to be an afterthought, further indication that it wasn't the host track that banned the show bet but the simulcast facility....

[bks]

I had no dog in the race, PA, and I don't have any inside info. Just my spider sense, triggered by a couple of things I admit are not by themselves conclusive, but which I take to be suggestive of wrongdoing:

1. a very similar set of events last week when Dine at Nine (IIRC) was 1/5 or so and there was another minus pool, and a very similar thing happened. A horse with an obvious pace advantage (sorry) breaks OK but fails to get near the lead in a short race where he figures to be at or near the front; on the straightaway before the turn, the horse appears to be bothered (but not during the turn in both cases, where I imagine it's more dangerous to screw around on a bullring) has at least three horses it can see in front of it, and then fails to make up an inch in the stretch;

2. the general sense I have, which I grant I have not confirmed, that I see far more odds-on choices with heavy minus pools run out than do odds-on choices with no minus pool. It seems like its more the case recently, but has always been the case to a lesser degree.

This can be researched and confirmed, which I hope someone does.

It;s a very, very easy thing to do, particularly in a 4F race, and one could understand the leading rider at a track he loves wanting to 'give something back' if it helps them out (not saying he did this, of course).

It's not the equivalent by any means, but I will note the interesting research out of Stanford on the performance of prohibitive favorites in the NCAA and NBA basketball, as evidence that funny stuff happens when people bet lots of money on sporting events.

In the thousands and thousands of games they looked at where the point spread is smaller than 10, the underdogs and favorites cover almost exactly the same amount. It's like 50.05 % to 49.95%, something crazy.

When the spread gets to be above 13, the percentage of favorites that cover dips to about 47% in both leagues. That result is consistent with (but of course does not prove) a fairly significant amount of point-shaving.

http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/research.shtml#PointShaving

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-26-103/Research--NBA-Scores-Consistent-with-Occasional-Point-Shaving.html

And I would be interested to know whether the track is in fact not responsible for the minus pool. I had not ever heard the simulcast outlets might be responsible.

[fmolf]

anything is possible but i find it hard to believe that an adw would be responsible for a minus show pool.Its quite possible that the tracks ask the outlets to not take show bets on certain races where low priced favorites are anticipated.

[Imriledup]

I had no dog in the race, PA, and I don't have any inside info. Just my spider sense, triggered by a couple of things I admit are not by themselves conclusive, but which I take to be suggestive of wrongdoing:

1. a very similar set of events last week when Dine at Nine (IIRC) was 1/5 or so and there was another minus pool, and a very similar thing happened. A horse with an obvious pace advantage (sorry) breaks OK but fails to get near the lead in a short race where he figures to be at or near the front; on the straightaway before the turn, the horse appears to be bothered (but not during the turn in both cases, where I imagine it's more dangerous to screw around on a bullring) has at least three horses it can see in front of it, and then fails to make up an inch in the stretch;

2. the general sense I have, which I grant I have not confirmed, that I see far more odds-on choices with heavy minus pools run out than do odds-on choices with no minus pool. It seems like its more the case recently, but has always been the case to a lesser degree.

This can be researched and confirmed, which I hope someone does.

It;s a very, very easy thing to do, particularly in a 4F race, and one could understand the leading rider at a track he loves wanting to 'give something back' if it helps them out (not saying he did this, of course).

It's not the equivalent by any means, but I will note the interesting research out of Stanford on the performance of prohibitive favorites in the NCAA and NBA basketball, as evidence that funny stuff happens when people bet lots of money on sporting events.

In the thousands and thousands of games they looked at where the point spread is smaller than 10, the underdogs and favorites cover almost exactly the same amount. It's like 50.05 % to 49.95%, something crazy.

When the spread gets to be above 13, the percentage of favorites that cover dips to about 47% in both leagues. That result is consistent with (but of course does not prove) a fairly significant amount of point-shaving.

http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/research.shtml#PointShaving

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-26-103/Research--NBA-Scores-Consistent-with-Occasional-Point-Shaving.html

And I would be interested to know whether the track is in fact not responsible for the minus pool. I had not ever heard the simulcast outlets might be responsible.

Personally, i thought this was the surest thing in racing to run at least 3rd. When this horse ran 4th i thought exactly what you thought.

[Barney Rubble]

I just watched the replay 3 times, and it's amazing what Pedroza does to this horse. Obvious stiff job!

[Imriledup]

I just watched the replay 3 times, and it's amazing what Pedroza does to this horse. Obvious stiff job!

I thought the same thing.

[thespaah]

it was fairplex and the bridgejumper went in late.

Does anybody care that this is crooked? This is not the second time at Fairplex we've had an obviously crooked result after a bridgejumper dumped.

I know it presents opportunities to bet against, but it's crooked. The horse was run into trouble. There is no way he doesn't break with the frontrunners in that field.
You believe this to be true( crooked) with 100% certainty and have proof there was criminal activity to brought to bear?
Could it be the horse just didn't perform well?
Isn't this why it is called gambling? Risk?

[castaway01]

Actually, I take that back about Suffolk. It may have been the Meadowlands, in their simulcast program, that indicated they weren't taking show bets on some Suffolk Downs races...

I am confused at the moment (not a surprise), but somewhere recently, I was looking at a simulcast program at some track, and I was wondering why there was no show betting in these races with six or seven horses and a M/L fav that didn't look THAT ominous...in addition, the "No Show Betting" notation looked to be an afterthought, further indication that it wasn't the host track that banned the show bet but the simulcast facility....

Probably to avoid the extra hit because I believe the minimum show payoff at Suffolk is $2.20, so extra profit for the successful bridgejumper there.

[Ian Meyers]

FPX would only mind if the bet was made on track...if off track, it would be the bet taker's responsibility to make up the difference...or so I've heard...

PA is right. Guest site is responsible for their share of any minus pools. It's in every simulcast agreement.

[lamboguy]

i wonder how much of a drop in handle there would be if there were no heavy duty minus pool betting.

in the haskell day program they had a 4 horse field and offered show wagering. it was the new jers6ey derby race.

[Robert Goren]

The track its self doesn't not have to be in on it for a race to be fixed. Just a jockey and a few friends to make wagers. I always worry with very short priced favorite. There many ways for a horse to lose. Being stiffed is one of them. It happens, maybe not a lot, but it does happen.

[WinterTriangle]

It happens, maybe not a lot, but it does happen.

I think it does happen, I've heard people talk about it at bush tracks. But with Pedroza, winniest jock at that track, high exposure......I doubt he could get away with it.

I never know why people think a jock sometimes just doesn't give a great ride, it's totally within the % of human failure to badly screw up a few?

[RXB]

I don't see any stiff job. Breaking from the rail in a 4f race, the horse bobbles at the start, which can happen to any horse. So Pedroza has to rush up on the rail, doesn't get to the turn in time, gets shut off and has to check. I see that all the time with maidens when they hit the far turn on the rail and things get a bit tight.

[statepierback]

I had no dog in the race, PA, and I don't have any inside info. Just my spider sense, triggered by a couple of things I admit are not by themselves conclusive, but which I take to be suggestive of wrongdoing:

1. a very similar set of events last week when Dine at Nine (IIRC) was 1/5 or so and there was another minus pool, and a very similar thing happened. A horse with an obvious pace advantage (sorry) breaks OK but fails to get near the lead in a short race where he figures to be at or near the front; on the straightaway before the turn, the horse appears to be bothered (but not during the turn in both cases, where I imagine it's more dangerous to screw around on a bullring) has at least three horses it can see in front of it, and then fails to make up an inch in the stretch;

2. the general sense I have, which I grant I have not confirmed, that I see far more odds-on choices with heavy minus pools run out than do odds-on choices with no minus pool. It seems like its more the case recently, but has always been the case to a lesser degree.

This can be researched and confirmed, which I hope someone does.

It;s a very, very easy thing to do, particularly in a 4F race, and one could understand the leading rider at a track he loves wanting to 'give something back' if it helps them out (not saying he did this, of course).

It's not the equivalent by any means, but I will note the interesting research out of Stanford on the performance of prohibitive favorites in the NCAA and NBA basketball, as evidence that funny stuff happens when people bet lots of money on sporting events.

In the thousands and thousands of games they looked at where the point spread is smaller than 10, the underdogs and favorites cover almost exactly the same amount. It's like 50.05 % to 49.95%, something crazy.

When the spread gets to be above 13, the percentage of favorites that cover dips to about 47% in both leagues. That result is consistent with (but of course does not prove) a fairly significant amount of point-shaving.

http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/research.shtml#PointShaving

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-26-103/Research--NBA-Scores-Consistent-with-Occasional-Point-Shaving.html

And I would be interested to know whether the track is in fact not responsible for the minus pool. I had not ever heard the simulcast outlets might be responsible.

Dine At Nine is returning in Saturday's third at Fairplex off a claim. I'm very interested to see how she runs. Off the last effort she's a toss out.
As for Pedroza's mount, the post was a major factor in the fourth place finish. Break slow from the rail at 4 1/2 and you're asking for trouble.

[bks]

As for Pedroza's mount, the post was a major factor in the fourth place finish. Break slow from the rail at 4 1/2 and you're asking for trouble.

Agree. Yet the horse towered over the field, and had every reason to hit the board turning for home.

One thing I didn't mention: when the race went off, I hadn't glanced at the pools for a few minutes. AFTER the race ran, I instantly wondered if someone had bridgejumped. When I saw that they did, it increased my suspicion.

You believe this to be true( crooked) with 100% certainty and have proof there was criminal activity to brought to bear?
Could it be the horse just didn't perform well?
Isn't this why it is called gambling? Risk?

I'm not 100% certain of anything in horseracing.

Anyway, there's a way to answer it. Research the fate of odds-on favorites who attract bridgejumpers, and compare to similarly-priced favorites who don't. No good reason there should be a wide disparity if one turns up.

[InTheRiver68]

PA is right. Guest site is responsible for their share of any minus pools. It's in every simulcast agreement.

I'll chime in on this as I have worked for a decade in the mutuel department, including six years in mutuel accounting.

Yes, the guest site is responsible for any minus pools. The hit can be quite substantial. In a heavily-bet show pool, the favorite that returns $2.10 to the bettor can actually have a calculated $2.00 payoff price as low as $1.64. The difference between the calculated price and the $2.10 (or worse, $2.20) that the customer receives makes for a substantial loss for the guest site...if someone bets $20,000 to win $21,000, the track could lose as much as $4,600 in negative break ($5,600 if the minimum payout is $2.20), *plus* they're still on the hook for $600 in signal fees (3% is the norm).

When you consider that most tracks are nickel-and-diming you from the moment you drive onto the property, you can see why they can be reluctant to let you play this way. I've actually been tasked with locating minus pool bettors within our facility in order to persuade them not to bridge-jump. I've also been threatened with having my own personal ADW account closed if I participated in minus pools to a substantial degree.

The host just doesn't care that much about the negative pool, because most bridge-jumping activity takes place at guest sites or in ADW accounts. Host tracks have an interest in keeping show pools open....the host will still collect their signal fee on every dollar wagered, whether it's bet into the show pool or the super pool. Guest sites can close specific pools if they wish to limit their liability to the negative break, but it doesn't happen that often...patrons get pissed when they're told they can't wager in a pool that's clearly open to the rest of the country. Plus, if you're going to close specific place and show pools, you need to have someone on staff who's willing to scour the program every day in order to find the pools with the most chance of doing damage to the business.

So most guest sites take their lumps and chalk it up as a cost of doing business.

- InTheRiver68

[Imriledup]

I'll chime in on this as I have worked for a decade in the mutuel department, including six years in mutuel accounting.

Yes, the guest site is responsible for any minus pools. The hit can be quite substantial. In a heavily-bet show pool, the favorite that returns $2.10 to the bettor can actually have a calculated $2.00 payoff price as low as $1.64. The difference between the calculated price and the $2.10 (or worse, $2.20) that the customer receives makes for a substantial loss for the guest site...if someone bets $20,000 to win $21,000, the track could lose as much as $4,600 in negative break ($5,600 if the minimum payout is $2.20), *plus* they're still on the hook for $600 in signal fees (3% is the norm).

When you consider that most tracks are nickel-and-diming you from the moment you drive onto the property, you can see why they can be reluctant to let you play this way. I've actually been tasked with locating minus pool bettors within our facility in order to persuade them not to bridge-jump. I've also been threatened with having my own personal ADW account closed if I participated in minus pools to a substantial degree.

The host just doesn't care that much about the negative pool, because most bridge-jumping activity takes place at guest sites or in ADW accounts. Host tracks have an interest in keeping show pools open....the host will still collect their signal fee on every dollar wagered, whether it's bet into the show pool or the super pool. Guest sites can close specific pools if they wish to limit their liability to the negative break, but it doesn't happen that often...patrons get pissed when they're told they can't wager in a pool that's clearly open to the rest of the country. Plus, if you're going to close specific place and show pools, you need to have someone on staff who's willing to scour the program every day in order to find the pools with the most chance of doing damage to the business.

So most guest sites take their lumps and chalk it up as a cost of doing business.

- InTheRiver68

Great and informative post, thanks for chiming in.

This is just what we need, someone who doesn't know the game 'handicapping' FOR us. One of the Northern California fair tracks did that to me a few months ago when they cancelled show betting when a horse named Tribesman was going to be a heavy favorite with Russel Baze. Tribesman, while he's a decent horse, is a one dimensional front runner who was carrying 125 and didn't figure to have an easy lead, if he even got the lead at all. To make a long story longer, he never got the lead and gave up when that happened and was no where to be found. He actually had somewhat of a minus place pool believe it or not. This cost me a bunch of money on my car insurance.

[InTheRiver68]

Great and informative post, thanks for chiming in.

This is just what we need, someone who doesn't know the game 'handicapping' FOR us. One of the Northern California fair tracks did that to me a few months ago when they cancelled show betting when a horse named Tribesman was going to be a heavy favorite with Russel Baze. Tribesman, while he's a decent horse, is a one dimensional front runner who was carrying 125 and didn't figure to have an easy lead, if he even got the lead at all. To make a long story longer, he never got the lead and gave up when that happened and was no where to be found. He actually had somewhat of a minus place pool believe it or not. This cost me a bunch of money on my car insurance.
Yes, that's a corollary to "patrons get pissed when they're told they can't wager in a pool that's clearly open to the rest of the country". When the odds-on favorite with the huge share of the show pool actually finishes out of the money, and the board shows $20, $30, $70 show prices, any track that refused to allow it's patrons to bet show is going to be burned to the ground by it's patrons. And most of the people doing the torching wouldn't even bet show to begin with; they'd just be pissed because they *could* have won big!

- InTheRiver68