Mike Welsch Takes A Stand

[Edward DeVere]

Mike Welsch takes a stand. What about his boss? Will his boss take a stand? Will his boss demand that betting stops at one minute to post?

Or will his boss continue to concentrate on his own personal Pick 6 betting, ignoring the power of his bully pulpit?


http://drf.com/blogs/calder-late-money-front-runners-distressing-trend

[RXB]

When I see proof of Welsch's claim that "more often than not these big drops in price happens with horses who break in front" then I'll believe it. Does he have research to back this up, clearly showing that >50% of the horses whose odds drop significantly at the end are on the front? (Note: even then, he'd have to prove that it wasn't simply a matter of people knowing a likely frontrunner when they see it.)

I bet a horse in the 3rd race at Mnr today named Sporting Rebel, a legit contender who was an unbelievable 17/1 as the horses loaded into the gate. But when I went to make the bet just before the gate opened, he was 11/1. On the first flash of the odds as they ran up the backstretch, he was 8/1 and by the time they hit the turn the odds read 6/1. And no, he didn't break on top; he was sitting fourth early.

What do you guys expect? There are people with money who are sharp and when they see a big overlay they're going to take away some of that overlay. Especially in medium/smaller pools.

Closing the betting early won't help anything. All that will do is make it impossible to cancel a bet when a horse acts up badly at/in the gate, or breaks through the gate, or looks physically awful at the gate.

[thaskalos]

As I recall, it was William Quirin who labeled the lone front running trip "the universal bias"...and who stated in his book WINNING AT THE RACES, that, if we were somehow able to place our bets at the first quarter call of the race instead of at the start...a very good living could be made by always betting on the horse with the clear early lead at the first quarter call.

Maybe some people have figured out a way to do just that...

[Bullet Plane]

They need to change the system where the odds of the horses do not change as they run around the track. Whale betters speaking at the Ariziona Racing School said they could place bet well after the race was in progress. This amounts to cheating.

They need to upgrade the On track and OTB feeds with better technology to avoid the appearance of wrong- doing. This really pisses the betters off. UPgrade the technology- they could probably do it cheaper than all the useless polytrack conversions they have made.

Let's at least give the appearance that the game is on the up and up. Because, if we don't. It will go away.

[Stillriledup]

When I see proof of Welsch's claim that "more often than not these big drops in price happens with horses who break in front" then I'll believe it. Does he have research to back this up, clearly showing that >50% of the horses whose odds drop significantly at the end are on the front? (Note: even then, he'd have to prove that it wasn't simply a matter of people knowing a likely frontrunner when they see it.)

I bet a horse in the 3rd race at Mnr today named Sporting Rebel, a legit contender who was an unbelievable 17/1 as the horses loaded into the gate. But when I went to make the bet just before the gate opened, he was 11/1. On the first flash of the odds as they ran up the backstretch, he was 8/1 and by the time they hit the turn the odds read 6/1. And no, he didn't break on top; he was sitting fourth early.

What do you guys expect? There are people with money who are sharp and when they see a big overlay they're going to take away some of that overlay. Especially in medium/smaller pools.

Closing the betting early won't help anything. All that will do is make it impossible to cancel a bet when a horse acts up badly at/in the gate, or breaks through the gate, or looks physically awful at the gate.


There's proof. He just gave you an example of a horse who beat the gate and went from 8-1 to 5-1.

[lamboguy]

maybe we should all chip in to have mike and his former partner jay stone to take tote analysis lessons so they can grasp the concept of changing odds on horses that get big leads, or horses that riders fall of and odds go up!

[RXB]

If it includes some grounding in probability and statistics, particularly the concept of statistical research to confirm/refute a hypothesis, I'll send 'em a few bucks.

Since psychological experiments often involve statistical measures, they might also analyze the possible paranoid tendencies of horseplayers, just to put their newfound knowledge and skills to further good use.

[eastie]

maybe we should all chip in to have mike and his former partner jay stone to take tote analysis lessons so they can grasp the concept of changing odds on horses that get big leads, or horses that riders fall of and odds go up!


Jay Stone, there's a blast from the past at suffolk. pick 6ers they were, right?

[lamboguy]

If it includes some grounding in probability and statistics, particularly the concept of statistical research to confirm/refute a hypothesis, I'll send 'em a few bucks.

Since psychological experiments often involve statistical measures, they might also analyze the possible paranoid tendencies of horseplayers, just to put their newfound knowledge and skills to further good use.why of course

[lamboguy]

Jay Stone, there's a blast from the past at suffolk. pick 6ers they were, right?mike hustled a tout sheet in sulfolk years ago, he teamed up with jay stone and both went to florida to buy, sell and claim horses and ship them up north. i don't think that partnership lasted that long.

mike is a pretty sharp guy when it comes down to 2 yo racing. i know mike did the handicapping for the racing form in southern florida tracks. i have no idea if he still writes the column now for the daily racing form.

[saratoga guy]

Mike Welsch takes a stand. What about his boss? Will his boss take a stand? Will his boss demand that betting stops at one minute to post?

Or will his boss continue to concentrate on his own personal Pick 6 betting, ignoring the power of his bully pulpit?

Don't take a pot shot without the facts: Crist has written about this - and he was on it a long time back - "Late odds drops a real problem" June 2002 [http://www.drf.com/news/late-odds-drops-real-problem].

But I happen to agree with RXB - what are the real stats on this phenomenon. Is it for real - or do people just tend to notice when their horse's odds drop?


There's proof. He just gave you an example of a horse who beat the gate and went from 8-1 to 5-1.

That's one instance. That's "anecdotal proof". It doesn't prove - as RXB asked for - a substantiation that "more often than not these big drops in price happens with horses who break in front."

[Dave Schwartz]

When I see proof of Welsch's claim that "more often than not these big drops in price happens with horses who break in front" then I'll believe it. Does he have research to back this up, clearly showing that >50% of the horses whose odds drop significantly at the end are on the front? (Note: even then, he'd have to prove that it wasn't simply a matter of people knowing a likely frontrunner when they see it.)

Even if it is true, it does not prove past-posting.

Consider that the late money, especially the big late money is coming from very astute handicappers. Their nature is to pick very good horses. Very good horses go to the lead very often.

Ergo, the fact that the horse goes to the front as the money shows in the tote proves that the handicapping being done late puts a lot of emphasis on who is going to the front.

The same is true for the presser who blows by the leader at the top of the stretch.

Common sense dictates that the bet was not made 5 seconds before when the horse began its move. It takes much longer for the money to go from the betting window to the television screen.

[Robert Fischer]

the cancel delay is the elephant in the room.

[WinterTriangle]

What do you guys expect? There are people with money who are sharp and when they see a big overlay they're going to take away some of that overlay. Especially in medium/smaller pools.

17-1, and dropped to less than 1/2 those odds when they hit the turn?

I know there's smart money, but that seemed a terribly major plummet on a 17-1.

Then I saw that the M/L was 8-1 on the horse and he was actually the 3rd favorite. Apparently just drifted up and then drifted back down into line somewhat, due to a heavy Favorite in there (tipsaw).

(Looks like the smart money didn't see the horese who came in 2nd, his odds were 32-1. Nice $400 exacta. :) )

I play Australia, the time it takes for the tote to adjust is really long. The favorite changes drastically if you read the tote at post and the tote when the race is almost over LOL

I guess I would need to know exactly how long the wagers took to trickle in from everywhere before I got paranoid.

[Robert Fischer]

example of cancel delay abused to exploit the parimutuel system.:


Today's track; hypothetical downs is extremely speed favoring
In race #X, there are two speeds
If either of the two speeds breaks on top as a Lone Speed, the other is canceled, otherwise BOTH are canceled.
Everyone not "in" on the fix LOSES substantially in terms of value.
This is only one very simple example, and there are in fact MANY possibilities and combinations of cancel delay tactics involving different numbers of horses and situations.

[pandy]

I remember at Roosevelt Raceway years ago, it was possible to make a bet after the race started and a few guys were betting the leavers after the gate opened and getting the bet down. I saw it with my own eyes, I was standing right next to the guys. We wrote about it in Sports Eye (now Harness Eye). Roosevelt Raceway management acted and shut the windows down a few seconds earlier to avoid this past posting.

I doubt that this is type of past posting is happening at Calder. The late money is most likely money coming in from simulcast parlors, the same situation that has been documented by several reporters over the years. The only way to stop this is to stop taking bets a few minutes before the race starts and I doubt that the industry is going to make that change anything soon.

[lamboguy]

I remember at Roosevelt Raceway years ago, it was possible to make a bet after the race started and a few guys were betting the leavers after the gate opened and getting the bet down. I saw it with my own eyes, I was standing right next to the guys. We wrote about it in Sports Eye (now Harness Eye). Roosevelt Raceway management acted and shut the windows down a few seconds earlier to avoid this past posting.

I doubt that this is type of past posting is happening at Calder. The late money is most likely money coming in from simulcast parlors, the same situation that has been documented by several reporters over the years. The only way to stop this is to stop taking bets a few minutes before the race starts and I doubt that the industry is going to make that change anything soon.betting and canceling at the break is one story. today there is NO security at all on these pools. an expert can hack into the system and do whatever they want to do. when you deal with blind pools, no one outsided the tote industry has a clue what might be happening including myself.

i maintain that trifecta's and superfecta's pay less today than ever. i cannot justify those prices that i see constantly. that is part of the reason for steep declines in handle.

[highnote]

betting and canceling at the break is one story. today there is NO security at all on these pools. an expert can hack into the system and do whatever they want to do. when you deal with blind pools, no one outsided the tote industry has a clue what might be happening including myself.

i maintain that trifecta's and superfecta's pay less today than ever. i cannot justify those prices that i see constantly. that is part of the reason for steep declines in handle.


Hackers can break into all sorts of secure websites.

Read about the Stuxnet worm. If hackers can develop a worm to take over a nuclear reactor hackers can certainly develop one to hack the pari mutuel system.

Is cheating going on? Maybe.

Can I prove it? No.

[Robert Goren]

betting and canceling at the break is one story. today there is NO security at all on these pools. an expert can hack into the system and do whatever they want to do. when you deal with blind pools, no one outsided the tote industry has a clue what might be happening including myself.

i maintain that trifecta's and superfecta's pay less today than ever. i cannot justify those prices that i see constantly. that is part of the reason for steep declines in handle.The takeout some of those pools is sky high. It keeps getting higher and higher. Sometimes it gets raised at some of the small and mid sized tracks and nobody notices, at least til HANA came along. Even then....

[lamboguy]

Hackers can break into all sorts of secure websites.

Read about the Stuxnet worm. If hackers can develop a worm to take over a nuclear reactor hackers can certainly develop one to hack the pari mutuel system.

Is cheating going on? Maybe.

Can I prove it? No.i saw $20k come out of a minus show pool at monmouth, i saw a rider fall of a horse at finger lakes and the odds on the horse went from 4-1 up to 12-1. how much more proof do you need? how much tote analysis does on need to see this?

i understand that there are lots of people that are doing tote anaylysis these days and play based on the late odds and desparities in the actual odds from the odds that wind up on their models. but that does not explain these 2 different and confirmed circumstances by others than myself.. even if by some stretch of ones imagination i am completely off based, the look as to what is happening on a constant basis does have the effect of smelling the same as dead fish.

[the little guy]

i saw $20k come out of a minus show pool at monmouth, i saw a rider fall of a horse at finger lakes and the odds on the horse went from 4-1 up to 12-1. how much more proof do you need? how much tote analysis does on need to see this?




You can't even look at a result chart and determine the ages of the contestants but we are all supposed to accept the above examples at face value?

[Robert Fischer]

i saw $20k come out of a minus show pool at monmouth, i saw a rider fall of a horse at finger lakes and the odds on the horse went from 4-1 up to 12-1. how much more proof do you need?

no offence but this is part the problem LAMBORGHINI MAN
we do NEED more proof. And it starts with an end to the pseudo-science and an END to the anecdotal complaints. :)
While it makes for interesting stories, it does not bring us closer to our goal. We continue to get ripped off!!! as long as the crooks get to remain silent behind a foggy description of some race that didn't seem quite right!!!

we NEED


A CLEAR DEFINITION OF RULES ON BOTH a)CANCEL DELAY & b)PAST POSTING. The rules have to have much better focus on manipulation for the :bang:cancel delays:bang: or they have no power under the false pretense of bettor protection. :bang:Cancel delay:bang: can't be ignored as it is the one current method that actually LEGALLY ALLOWS past-post manipulation, yet is still kept hush and/or in ignorance.
A clear accurate process of stamping and auditing all wagers so that late money can be reviewed as easily as a possible jockey interference.
Late money can then be identified by location/hub - and should a source be consistently late, that source can then be adjusted!




:bang:CANCEL DELAY:bang:

[classhandicapper]

I can vouche for Pandy on the betting at Roosevelt years ago because I personally know people that did that also.

I can also tell you with 100% certainty that I was past posting at two seperate websites just a couple of years ago on thoroughbred tracks until they corrected a glitch in the software they used to close races (they closed via a slightly delayed feed). What I can't say for sure is whether any of the money I bet actually made it into the betting pools (I am almost certain it did not). But the very fact that I could do it anywhere proves without question that it's possible it's happening elsewhere.

If I liked a front runner I would queue up a bet and only release it if my horse broke really well and was moving to the lead. I had a good 70 yards to make the decision. What I was doing coincides perfectly with my observations of highly suspect odds changes I have seen at certain tracks from time to time during the same time period and since then.

[mountainman]

True, there are logical reasons why front-running winners would tend to take late money, and objective research to establish the frequency and nature of late odds drops has yet to be done. But my gut says too many winners drop too low on the tote after taking the lead at certain tracks. It just doesn't pass the smell test. And even if nobody IS beating the system, what's the harm in players demanding more rigid standards of monitoring? And technology that cycles wagers more quickly? Just where is the downside in that??

[lamboguy]

You can't even look at a result chart and determine the ages of the contestants but we are all supposed to accept the above examples at face value?we are going to change your name to "the funny guy"

[classhandicapper]

I can vouche for Pandy on the betting at Roosevelt years ago because I personally know people that did that also.

I can also tell you with 100% certainty that I was past posting at two seperate websites just a couple of years ago on thoroughbred tracks until they corrected a glitch in the software they used to close races (they closed via a slightly delayed feed). What I can't say for sure is whether any of the money I bet actually made it into the betting pools (I am almost certain it did not). But the very fact that I could do it anywhere proves without question that it's possible it's happening elsewhere.

If I liked a front runner I would queue up a bet and only release it if my horse broke really well and was moving to the lead. I had a good 70 yards to make the decision. What I was doing coincides perfectly with my observations of highly suspect odds changes I have seen at certain tracks from time to time during the same time period and since then.

By the way, in both cases "I" was the one that reprted the glitch to the company so they COULD correct it.

The first time I discovered it by accident. I wanted to bet a horse but I got distracted and missed the break. In frustration/anger I clicked the enter button anyway as the horse took the lead. To my shock the software accepted it.

[RXB]

True, there are logical reasons why front-running winners would tend to take late money, and objective research to establish the frequency and nature of late odds drops has yet to be done. But my gut says too many winners drop too low on the tote after taking the lead at certain tracks. It just doesn't pass the smell test. And even if nobody IS beating the system, what's the harm in players demanding more rigid standards of monitoring? And technology that cycles wagers more quickly? Just where is the downside in that??

Nobody is objecting to more rigorous monitoring or faster, more secure technology.

What is being questioned is the assumption that if a horse's odds drop significantly and it wins then someone was cheating the system.

If bettors want to feel confidence in the integrity of the betting systems, the first thing they need isn't upgraded technology or the closure of wagering a minute before post, but rather a 21st-century view of the game that includes an understanding that large percentages of the wagering pools flow in during the final seconds now, particularly at minor tracks with minimal on-track attendance/betting.

We grew up with long lineups at the mutuel windows, a relatively even flow of money in the final several minutes of wagering and a feeling that if you bet a 4/1 with a minute to post then you were likely not to get anything less than 7/2. Well, now we have to accept that changes in odds that used to take place over a span of several minutes can now take place in the last few seconds, as a whole bunch of us sit at our computers or Tiny Tims and hit the Bet button just before the race goes.

[RXB]

we NEED


A CLEAR DEFINITION OF RULES ON BOTH a)CANCEL DELAY & b)PAST POSTING. The rules have to have much better focus on manipulation for the :bang:cancel delays:bang: or they have no power under the false pretense of bettor protection. :bang:Cancel delay:bang: can't be ignored as it is the one current method that actually LEGALLY ALLOWS past-post manipulation, yet is still kept hush and/or in ignorance.
A clear accurate process of stamping and auditing all wagers so that late money can be reviewed as easily as a possible jockey interference.
Late money can then be identified by location/hub - and should a source be consistently late, that source can then be adjusted!



As of last fall, here were the tracks that still had teller cancel delays in effect, including the number of seconds allowed for the delay:

Turf Paradise, 8
Oaklawn Park, 7 (Live races only)
Les Bois Park, 5
Del Mar, 4
Fairplex Park, 4
Golden Gate, 4
Hollywood Park, 4
North California Fairs, 4
Oak Tree, 4
Santa Anita, 4
Yavapai Downs, 4

[Robert Fischer]

As of last fall, here were the tracks that still had teller cancel delays in effect, including the number of seconds allowed for the delay:

Turf Paradise, 8
Oaklawn Park, 7 (Live races only)
Les Bois Park, 5
Del Mar, 4
Fairplex Park, 4
Golden Gate, 4
Hollywood Park, 4
North California Fairs, 4
Oak Tree, 4
Santa Anita, 4
Yavapai Downs, 4

thanks
that is really good information:ThmbUp:
Interesting to see the geographical tendency as well as some of the time discrepancies.

[DeanT]

It's a huge problem whether it is happening once a month, once every six months, or every day. It's a $10B system and you can not, imo, have money coming in like it is, or have bettors feeling like they are getting their lunch eaten. The NASDAQ would not have a system like this - nor would any other business worried about their customer.

It's a 1950 system in a 2010 world. Incongruous.

I think fixing it shows just how we are looked at by racing. They dont seem to particularly care about what final odds we get. HANA has spoken with them about it and are told it aint getting fixed. It costs too much money.

Then when something comes along that could fix it (i.e. fixed odds wagering, via a place like Betfair) we are told we cant have that either.

Getting set odds, or close to set odds, is a gambling staple. It is how we all bet - knowing that we have a 35% chance and want to bet a 5-2 shot at one minute to post, or knowing we have a 55% chance of winning a football game and getting even money. Racing just does not seem to understand, nor respect that. It's the way it is, and even losing half their real handle the last decade has not woken them up.

[mountainman]

What is being questioned is the assumption that if a horse's odds drop significantly and it wins then someone was cheating the system.




No, you're questioning that assumption. I'm questioning the system itself. Or do you alone set the parameters of this discussion?

[RXB]

Sorry if it came across as a criticism of what you're saying; I didn't mean it like that.

Let me rephrase: there are no downsides to improved technology and security for the wagering systems, and I think few, if any, would disagree on that point. But in the case of Welsch's recent blog and some other threads, there is a suggestion of skullduggery where I believe that it is more likely just a late (but legitimate) flow of money.

[thaskalos]

Sorry if it came across as a criticism of what you're saying; I didn't mean it like that.

Let me rephrase: there are no downsides to improved technology and security for the wagering systems, and I think few, if any, would disagree on that point. But in the case of Welsch's recent blog and some other threads, there is a suggestion of skullduggery where I believe that it is more likely just a late (but legitimate) flow of money.Whenever serious money is involved, especially when we are talking about an industry as scandal-ridden as the horse racing industry, the integrity of the betting pools must be maintained beyond any doubt whatsoever. There is no room for comments like "I believe"...or "more likely".

This game has been "rocked" by betting scandals of this sort in the recent past...and the "industry's" unwillingness to invest the money necessary to make sure that this sort of thing never happens again, is mind boggling to say the least.

When your business handles BILLIONS of dollars in transactions, your operation is either 100% secure...or you are a joke.

[cj]

Whenever serious money is involved, especially when we are talking about an industry as scandal-ridden as the horse racing industry, the integrity of the betting pools must be maintained beyond any doubt whatsoever. There is no room for comments like "I believe"...or "more likely".

This game has been "rocked" by betting scandals of this sort in the recent past...and the "industry's" unwillingness to invest the money necessary to make sure that this sort of thing never happens again, is mind boggling to say the least.

When your business handles BILLIONS of dollars in transactions, your operation is either 100% secure...or you are a joke.

Where there are large sums of money, there are people scheming to steal it. If the system is outdated, surely some are succeeding.

[Robert Fischer]

wagering security is one of many things allowed to operate at unacceptable levels within the current state-to-state corruption model.

[DeanT]

It happens, and it is confirmed that it happens. The question is, how much or how little, and is anyone going to do something about it. I think this was #1 of three instances that HANA has been following.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Past Posting, Again (http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2009/05/past-posting-again.html)


By Mike Maloney

What a Preakness. Rachel takes her place in history as Calvin "big race" Borel continues to sizzle. Mine That Bird validates his Derby win with a closing kick reminiscent of Silky Sullivan. Musket Man fires another solid race and trainer Derek Ryan impresses by immediately ruling out the Belmont for the son of Yonaguska. Surprisingly, top contenders Pioneerof the Nile and Friesan Fire are beaten by Wayne Lukas longshots Flying Private and Luv Gov. Bob Baffert and my man Larry Jones candidly admit to being baffled by their horses performances. Not surprisingly, Lukas points toward the Belmont.

All in all, a good day of racing at Pimlico.

Unfortunately the good vibes don't seem to last long in racing today. Barely an hour after the Preakness ended the horses left the gate at Hollywood Park in the Grade 3 Los Angeles Handicap. Jockey Joe Talamo deftly guided Red Arrow to the win and the 2-8-6-3 results were posted on the infield tote board.

The only problem was that the betting windows were still open. That's right, the race is over, the results are posted and you can still make a wager. Hey, who needs Beyer figures anyway?

Let's use this race to conduct an experiment. Let's see if the racing industry is forthcoming and accountable to its customers. By Tuesday at the latest, Hollywood Park should inform the betting public of the failure of the tote system and the possible effect on the pay-offs. I'm sure the California Horse Racing Board was immediately notified of such a serious problem, and since they regulate all racing and wagering in the state, a press release regarding a potential investigation should be issued quickly. The public unknowingly wagered hundreds of thousands of dollars into non-secure mutuel pools, and the CHRB should protect the public's interest.

Let's see if the racing media informs horseplayers about the incident. Will HRTV mention the tote failure, will it be on a TVG newsbreak, how long will it take the DRF to report?

Most of the previous past posting incidents have been swept under the rug by the industry. So keep your eyes on the Hollywood Park race and judge for yourself if the bettor's interests are being protected. And if you aren't satisfied with the industry's response, I have a suggestion for you. Join HANA (http://www.jcapper.com/HANA/SignUp/HANASignUpForm.asp?source=1) and help us send the message that today's horseplayers demand transparency and accountability from the industry funded by our wagers.
Posted by HANA at 10:39 AM (http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2009/05/past-posting-again.html) http://img2.blogblog.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif (http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=1484410456100254393&postID=989039046603880636)

[thaskalos]

Where there are large sums of money, there are people scheming to steal it. If the system is outdated, surely some are succeeding.That's my whole point...

If the nature of your business is to handle billions of dollars, and you cannot afford an updated system...should you be in business?

[InsideThePylons-MW]

That's my whole point...

If the nature of your business is to handle billions of dollars, and you cannot afford an updated system...should you be in business?

"free-enterprise and the quadruple-quadfecta"

[Robert Fischer]

That's my whole point...

If the nature of your business is to handle billions of dollars, and you cannot afford an updated system...should you be in business?

look, we need slots :D