Conspiracy Theories at Arlington

[azibuck]

This is not your average "odds changing as they run" story.

>AP bosses have been reviewing wagering data in an attempt to provide the public with an explanation of why the odds on wire-to-wire winner Rainy Day Rules dropped from 9-1 to 5-1 late in the second race on Saturday.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/horse/cst-spt-odnt02.html

For those that don't regularly read him, Jim O'Donnell covers the horse racing beat for the Chicago Sun-Times. I think he's a terrific writer. Would fit in well here. Skewers AP almost daily. (For starters, did you know it's 6 bucks just to get in there?). But I think he's really on top of things.

Here's another link to the general horse racing section, where you can find the original story of the odds tick-down (Under June 30th):

http://www.suntimes.com/index/horse.html

Important points from the story:

>9-1 to 5-1

That's a pretty steep drop, and is different from a chalk getting hammered from 9-5 to even money. That just mirrors the typical betting pattern. But a longish shot to mid-range? I believe Steve Fierro said not to worry because these odds drops were only on short prices that we weren't interested in. Hmm, not anymore?

Since this was horse went gate to wire, it's worth reading the other conspiracy theory about the "blocking" tactics of multiple jockeys.

>(From an observer) "What is extraordinary in a lot of these late 'tickdowns' is how accurate an inordinately large percentage of the late money is.

Yeah, that is one of the more troubling things, especially about this. I've seen chalks' odds change and them fade in the lane, but usually the late money is, um, on the money.

az

[GameTheory]

It's not that steep. The effect is magnified the bigger the odds. Without considering takeout:


9-1 = 1/10 = 10%

5-1 = 1/6 = 16.7%

Roughly a 6.5 percent increase of the total pool.


Now take a lower odds horse:

2-1 = 1/3 = 33%

3-2 = 1/2.5 = 40%

7% increase.


So a drop from 2-1 to 3-2 is actually bigger than from 9-1 to 5-1. Also, a check of the chart and you see that the final odds were 5.90, so much closer to 6-1 than to 5-1. The total WPS pool was 137k, so figure the win pool was about 89k, meaning it would have taken about $5000 extra on that horse to cause the drop. A big bet, but why is every big bet suspicious? How many big bets lose? What is the "normal" amount of such drops we can expect without thievery being involved? I never hear anyone address the basic questions -- it is always, "The odds dropped and the horse won. It must be fixed."

[Valuist]

I really don't think there was any funny business. I got to the track on Saturday just as they were posting the payoffs for the race, so I was unaware of the sharp drop. I do know that Rainy Day Rules had the top "back Beyer" sprint number in the race, and arguably also had the best early speed. I believe she also was coming off a mini-layoff, so there were a few questions. AP's races are not getting huge handle, and this horse had no business being 9-1 based on its numbers and speed. I'm sure a few big bettors looked at the board late and felt that 9-1 was a ridiuculous price on the horse and hammered away.

[azibuck]

You can always make a case for a horse after they've won.

If you agree that there isn't much difference between 6% and 7%, then I stand by my statement that the bet down of a longer priced horse is different. Betting down the chalk happens in many, if not most races. Alot of tote-watchers simply follow the money.

This was late-late money. And while I don't have stats on this type of thing, it's just not seen on a price horse.

I find this much more suspicious than a chalk bet-down, no matter what the percentage of pool.

[Valuist]

I disagree. This horse was a strong contender. The suspicious races are the ones in which you can't make any case for the winner, and that definitely wasn't the case here. If you still have Saturday's Racing Form, take a look at the race. I like O'Donnell's columns in the Sun Times because he looks out for the public but he's barking up the wrong tree this time.

[GameTheory]

Yeah, but why is a big bet in and of itself suspicious? There are lots of big bettors -- many more than most people realize. Are big bettors only allowed to bet on favorites? Are all big bettors race-fixers?

[VetScratch]

Game Theory is right on target!

Looked at another way, for a win pool of 90k with 17% takeout, the difference between 5.90-1 and 9.00-1 is only about $3300 bet one way as opposed to another.

That's not a major plunge for the winning connections. When you finally have your horse sitting on a win at decent odds, why would the owner/trainer/jock-agent and their confidants bet before the last second? It's certainly not cheating!

[azibuck]

Valuist: Whether the horse was a strong contender or not is moot, unless....

GT and Valuist: .... unless this type of bet down becomes more common. Then it won't be suspicious. It will just be another thing smaller fish have to live with, quit the game because of, or rail about.

It is suspicious simply because it's unusual. In a game that's been scandalized before, a parimutuel game, this type of manipulation should be investigated and explained.

Note: manipulation can be perfectly legal and legit. If someone can get $5K through the "windows" in a matter of seconds, just before the public realizes it, more power to them. And less to me.

I guess I'm just saying an investigation is justified (before the bastards sweep it under the rug again).

[VetScratch]

Some years ago on a major circuit, a trainer/friend gave me $200 to buy a win ticket for his jockey. The implication was that the boy might take a risk and plug his horse, which eventually went off at over 30-1. As I bought the jock's ticket, I also wheeled the horse top and bottom in the exacta ($5/way = $90) and then first and second in the Tri ($1/way = $144). I gave the win ticket to the trainer, then watched his horse get nipped at the wire by a 45-1 shot. The $2-exacta paid $1100-and-change, and the $2-Tri paid $7000-and-change.

Everyone seemed relatively unruffled, so I presume my bet for the jock was a last minute inspiration that had already been backed up by other wagers.

[gino]

vettie-
i was wondering about your dad's former boss and his 1099-G habit...what was his speciality or were these signups the result of an amazing versatility, madness, or luck...i'd love to have been the sweeper in that joint...
gino
"mi papeles es a mi casa"

[VetScratch]

Gino,

He was a compulsive guy who felt the upswing in exotics, like Trifectas & Supers in almost every race at some tracks, gave him an angle because the average player can't cover enough combos to catch his fair share of the big payouts. Never saw him buy a ticket with any favorite (or near favorite) higher then third base.

In my earlier post that you reference, I merely reported how he claimed to have made out in 1999. I accepted what he told us as close to the facts because I did see him cash three or four W2-Gs on many occasions, and one day he had nine of them when we all went to dinner! He loved to play ALL-ALL-x and ALL-ALL-x-y combos when he had a hunch, and he took out quite a few pools over the years.

Like a million stories in the naked city (if you remember that old TV-series lead-in), only the Shadow (or maybe the IRS) knows the absolute facts. :)

[Tom]

It is irrelevent if it was a legit late action drop or a fix. If the majority of the plays think it was a fix, it will hurt racing.
Whatever else these mindless track operators do, they HAVE to stop this late odds dropping after the race starts. You can dish out all the perfectly legitimate reasons for it you want to, but if the players don't come back, that is pool money gone forever.

[VetScratch]

Tom,
Whatever else these mindless track operators do, they HAVE to stop this late odds dropping after the race starts.
I agree, and the AP spokeman (quoted in the news links) who claimed that the pool consolidation delay is not a significant factor was blowing smoke. As Dave S. pointed out in another thread, as much as 45-60% of the handle is often not reflected on the toteboard when the gate opens.

Does anyone know (firsthand) how Hong Kong copes with this problem? The handle on a single race can sometimes be greater than the combined handle for all races at all tracks in America, and at the time of Beyer's visit to Hong Kong, there were already over 50,000 online betting machines.

Maybe like revenue sharing among baseball markets, the tracks need to pool the funds necessary to make national simulcasting work. I guarantee you that Visa and MasterCard could show racing how to modernize the pari-mutuel networks.

[GameTheory]

I think because the pools are so huge, the odds in Hong Kong are much more stable. $5000 certainly won't do anything....

[VetScratch]

Game,

Yes, the handle is huge, but if 45-60% is not registered when the gate opens, the aggrevation level would be the same in Hong Kong.

5k may be a strong play here, but 50k could be an expression of similar interest by Mr. B in Hong Kong.

Do the HK odds change more or less than ours after the gate opens?

[GameTheory]

From what I know from William Benter I got the impression they didn't change that much in the final minutes. Although there are people making huge bets, the pool is an even greater of order of magnitude larger. The pools are huge because there are so many more people betting. What % of the pool is coming in late I don't know, but the effect is NOT neccessarily the same. The actual amount of dollars do matter. It has been shown that the odds will converge to some point (generally), but since our pools are not that big you see these big swings because there are so many less "agents" affecting things. An individual has much less influence in HK.

[VetScratch]

Game,

I see your point. My 50k to 5k was a weak analogy, because 50k only seems large from my perspective here in the U.S. If an AP win pool is 80k, whereas the HK win pool could be 8000k, you would need a bridge suspension cable to wrap a bankroll large enough to really jolt the toteboard.

Can you imagine Mr. B at EMD with a minute to go. He would be sound asleep! :D

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Tom
It is irrelevent if it was a legit late action drop or a fix. If the majority of the plays think it was a fix, it will hurt racing.
Whatever else these mindless track operators do, they HAVE to stop this late odds dropping after the race starts. You can dish out all the perfectly legitimate reasons for it you want to, but if the players don't come back, that is pool money gone forever.

Tom is dead on once again. It is the perception that causes the most damage. Incredible moment of complete clarity on his part. We can debate the reasons, the minutia is not relevant. The lasting effect or tangible result is that the game looks bad.
Once again....... between this crap and the Lawmakers trying to balance the budget on our backs.....the Bloodhorse article on drugs etc. ... it has been a pretty crappy day on the face of racing. :(

[Handy Cap]

The reason this is being looked into is because when the horse went from 9-1 to 5-1, no other horse went up or down on the odds board.

[VetScratch]

Handy Cap,
The reason this is being looked into is because when the horse went from 9-1 to 5-1, no other horse went up or down on the odds board.
This is a perfect example of the point made by Tom and JustRalph: perception is the key issue with respect to credibility.

The toteboard is perception while the underlying odds are factual. What you described cannot happen in an honest and accurate pari-mutuel system, but the perception that it did can certainly appear on a toteboard.

Given the right circumstances, what you describe can appear without really happening. Remember, when the horse went off at 5.90-1, the tote read 5-1, and we should be able to construct a set of pari-mutuel odds that could absorb a late wager equal to $3700 (i.e., roughly the difference between 9-1 in a 86k pool and 5.9-1 in a 90k pool) that would cause little or no change to other odds displayed on the toteboard. But this is not the real issue!

I don't have a chart for that race or snapshots of the toteboard odds and pools before and after the suspicious event. Moreover, a proof in theory that everything could have been on the up-and-up is not important. Like Tom and JustRalph said, perception is what will rule the day!

From what I read on this board, players did not like it when CD experimented with closing the pools at 2 minutes before post. I am sure that some of these same players are now crying foul about the race at AP.

I propose we send a delegation consisting of JustRalph and Game Theory to testify before the Congressional oversight committee for the EPA. Maybe something will get done if horseplayers get added to the endangered species list, and who better than JustRalph and Game Theory to plead our case?

[Handy Cap]

umm..horseplayers ARE on the endangered species list....:)

[Show Me the Wire]

Link to the Sun Times racing column more about the past posting:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/horse/cst-spt-odnt08.html

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality