Mad Bomber Not Travelling with Bridgejumpers

[stu]

Y'all,

I am puzzled by recent events.

Recently in the Mid-Atlantic, there has been a 'madbomber' betting horses down to 1:5 in the win pool. Often 'bridgejumpers' follow 'madbombers' the way carrion birds follow lions, but here the 'bridgejumpers' don't always accompany this 'madbomber.'

It just happened again in today's openiner at PRX.

Program Horse Win Place Show

1 Sweetheart Samanth 1,855 797 342

2 Itsmrbillytoyou 1,717 547 316

3 Zippy Jan 4,605 1,699 902

4 Don't Lie to Me 0 0 0

5 Shanesha 1,034 334 283

6 Dress N Drink 15,389 2,742 1,109

7 Itsinthebank 487 314 257

I can't figure out why somebody is willing to make a horse 1:5 in the win pool when the horse isn't good enough for somebody else to take them for 1:20 in the show pool.

Thoughts anybody?

[stu]

BTW, the horse in question finished 2nd.

http://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/PRX041211USA1.pdf

[DJofSD]

Maybe I don't understand the question, but, why would you expect there to be any logic involved? I look at those kind of wagers and pools as the result of pure and simple gambling, not parimutual investing.

[stu]

I guess I am more interested in a deviation from a pattern that I recognize.

I am used to seeing horses crushed in the show pool when they are crushed in the win pool. It seems unusual that someone is willing to plunge on the nose without simultaneous bridgejumping.

The only pattern that this matches is the classic madbomber from Calder in the early '90s. I thought that I had read that person had died in the last decade.

[castaway01]

I guess I am more interested in a deviation from a pattern that I recognize.

I am used to seeing horses crushed in the show pool when they are crushed in the win pool. It seems unusual that someone is willing to plunge on the nose without simultaneous bridgejumping.

The only pattern that this matches is the classic madbomber from Calder in the early '90s. I thought that I had read that person had died in the last decade.

I would think if anything that the pattern would be the opposite of what you seem to expect: one rogue "mad bomber" is betting horses way down early, but the horses shouldn't be 1-5 so no one bridgejumps on them in the show pool. As far as why this current heavy bettor bets to win rather than show, well, either bet is reckless, so I don't see how they'd be much logic either way.

[cj]

I've always suspected there is some money laundering going on with these types of bets.

[parlay]

I've always suspected there is some money laundering going on with these types of bets.

Seems expensive for that, unless they are recovering some through bookies
and betfair style sites.
They lose the takeout of the top. If they make a large win bet on the
horse(s) that should win they they still only get part of that pool (70-90 %)?

[cj]

It is still be cheaper to clean money that way than via other illicit methods.

[cj's dad]

Question; did this particular horse go off at 1-5 ?

And to cj's point, there was known money laundering going on at Laurel Park prior to 9-11. Mohammed (?) Atta was found to have lived for a time near LP and the laundering was discovered after the fact.

[Stillriledup]

I think big win bettors who bet early in the cycles are using the logic that the public will adjust the odds to their rightful place by post time, so, they can get in a huge win bet and still get the same odds that the horse would have been had they not even bet at all. If there's 1 or 2 MTP and there are a few horses sitting on the board at 10-1 that really should be 5-1, this bettor is hoping that some computer bettors will be advised to bet something on these runners.

They're trying to corner the market on their pick and force you to bet someone else, a lot of times, that strategy will work, who's willing to take 1-5 on some random horse at some random track? Not too many.

[Charli125]

And to cj's point, there was known money laundering going on at Laurel Park prior to 9-11. Mohammed (?) Atta was found to have lived for a time near LP and the laundering was discovered after the fact.

Wow, I'd never heard that. That's crazy. I've always heard that money laundering goes on, but that really brings some reality to it.

[parlay]

It is still be cheaper to clean money that way than via other illicit methods.

You may be correct. What is the going street price for laundering?
Wouldn't it be efficient to make sure you recovered the maximum
possible through the show pool?

[showbet]

Question; did this particular horse go off at 1-5 ?
The horse closed at 30 cents on the dollar, which would be 1-5 on the toteboard.

Equibase chart (http://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/PRX041211USA1.pdf)

[lamboguy]

in todays world, i have no idea how one can bet big money into these parimutual pools without effecting the odds. you can use any pace or sheet number and someone else is going to come up with the same horse. if you bet a first time starter that you happened to have fooled the clocker with you are still going to be betting against yourself unless you are in big tracks. in big tracks you have races loaded with tallent and the horse you bet don't have to win. i run horses at the bottom because i can't beat these good trainers to start out with. i don't use the same race prep drugs that the super trainers use, so i can't beat them.

[cj]

You may be correct. What is the going street price for laundering?


I won't divulge my rates.

Wouldn't it be efficient to make sure you recovered the maximum
possible through the show pool?

I can't answer because I don't know. My point is that is seems silly to think that people that have amassed hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars would be foolish enough to repeatedly risk those kind of sums on a horse. Why would anyone do that for the meager return? There has to be some upside.

[woodtoo]

I won't divulge my rates.



I can't answer because I don't know. My point is that is seems silly to think that people that have amassed hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars would be foolish enough to repeatedly risk those kind of sums on a horse. Why would anyone do that for the meager return? There has to be some upside.

If you can "clean" your dirty money at over 50% I think would be a good %
ae: bet a favorite to show with a $2.20 payout,and hit only 2 out of 4 thats over 50%
If you hit 4 out of 4 your laughing all the way to the bank.

[jorcus]

Why do we assume the mad bomber has any idea what he is doing? Just because it's big money does not mean it's smart money. I don't think bridge jumpers would lay down a show bet just because someone else has banged the horse in the win pool. The horse has to make sense as a bridge jump, like a layover on a small field.

I never really understood the theory of playing a horse you think has it all over a field to show. You are almost always getting more return for a win bet and if you are afraid of the horse getting beat at low odds you should not be playing it anyway. When playing the odds on game you have to have to be very certain of the outcome or you will be done pretty quick. I don't think any horse is worth wagering at 1/5 but you will see races where the bridge jumpers are in the show pool and the win pool is 1/2 or 3/5. There are certain situations where this may be playable but there are a lot of traps to avoid.



Y'all,

I am puzzled by recent events.

Recently in the Mid-Atlantic, there has been a 'madbomber' betting horses down to 1:5 in the win pool. Often 'bridgejumpers' follow 'madbombers' the way carrion birds follow lions, but here the 'bridgejumpers' don't always accompany this 'madbomber.'

It just happened again in today's openiner at PRX.

Program Horse Win Place Show

1 Sweetheart Samanth 1,855 797 342

2 Itsmrbillytoyou 1,717 547 316

3 Zippy Jan 4,605 1,699 902

4 Don't Lie to Me 0 0 0

5 Shanesha 1,034 334 283

6 Dress N Drink 15,389 2,742 1,109

7 Itsinthebank 487 314 257

I can't figure out why somebody is willing to make a horse 1:5 in the win pool when the horse isn't good enough for somebody else to take them for 1:20 in the show pool.

Thoughts anybody?

[cj]

Why do we assume the mad bomber has any idea what he is doing? Just because it's big money does not mean it's smart money. I don't think bridge jumpers would lay down a show bet just because someone else has banged the horse in the win pool. The horse has to make sense as a bridge jump, like a layover on a small field.



I've already explained why I think it happens. People with that kind of money are usually stupid, especially when it comes to money.

[mountainman]

Somebody makes big show bets at mnr and has NO clue when to pull the trigger. In fact, the short favorites they plunge on sometimes introduce unacceptable risk factors-slightly askew pace scenario; potentially negative class-drop; career effort that could lead to a bounce-into the equation. By not knowing the difference between a chalk that's just very likely to be third or better, and one that would have to fall down to miss the ticket, they've blown some serious wagers here. My guess is it's a well-heeled amateur who never learned that nothing in life is free.( And was likewise never told that batting .850 may make you the star of beer-league softball-but doesn't quite cut it when your profiting a mere 10% per pop.)

[affirmedny]

If you can "clean" your dirty money at over 50% I think would be a good %
ae: bet a favorite to show with a $2.20 payout,and hit only 2 out of 4 thats over 50%
If you hit 4 out of 4 your laughing all the way to the bank.

Hitting 2 out of 4 is not 50% if you're getting paid at 1-10. You're getting killed if you're hitting 2 out of 4 on this kind of bet.

[lamboguy]

this 7th race at charlietown this evening has a bet down horse. the horse ran 3rd for open company in pimlico, now he faces nw 1 to the date w.v breds. the horse is 1-9 right now and might go off 1-2. that don't look like such a bad bet to me. it won't be 1-2 now because the 2nd best horse just got scratched.

[cj]

Hitting 2 out of 4 is not 50% if you're getting paid at 1-10. You're getting killed if you're hitting 2 out of 4 on this kind of bet.

It is still better than the going rate for cleaning dirty money.

By the way, my earlier post was supposed to say people with that kind of money are usually NOT stupid.

[Fox]

Hitting 2 out of 4 is not 50% if you're getting paid at 1-10. You're getting killed if you're hitting 2 out of 4 on this kind of bet.

He is talking about the ratio of clean to dirty money. You put $8.00 of dirty money through the window and you get back $4.40 in clean money.