PDA

View Full Version : Odds change explanation at Hollywood


rwwupl
05-06-2011, 06:42 PM
This was concerning a race at Hollywood recently that the winner had an odds change while rounding the turn from 16-1 to 9-1 and created a fuss on the west coast.

Thanks to Mike Marten and the CHRB for this explanation.

http://www.chrb.ca.gov/advisories.htm (will be posted soon)


CHRB ADVISORY ON WAGERING REVIEW


SACRAMENTO, CA – The California Horse Racing Board has completed its review of wagering on the fifth race at Hollywood Park on April 24, 2011, and determined that all wagers were placed legally before the start of the race. The evidence is substantial and reaffirms that the wagering system in California is secure.

The CHRB received complaints about a late odds change on the winner of the fifth race, #9 Ninth Infantry, a horse that broke alertly and went on to win by more than three lengths. Because the displayed odds dropped from 16-1 down to 9-1 after the start of the race, some people suspected that a wager or wagers were placed after the start, commonly known as past posting. The CHRB has investigated similar complaints about other races over the years and has determined in every instance that all wagers were placed legally before the start of each race even though the infield totalizator board did not show the updated odds until after the start of the race.

The concern most commonly expressed in these instances is that “the money always comes in on the winner, never on the loser.” Furthermore, a common concern is that the late money “always seems to come in on a horse that breaks well,” indicating a belief by critics that cheaters observe the start before making their wagers. The CHRB review of the April 24 program at Hollywood Park addresses both of these concerns.

System logs and transaction reports show there were numerous large wagers placed on Ninth Infantry, including wagers of $252, $425, $1,030, and $5000 at various locations. All of those bets were placed before the start of the race – without exception – and most of them were reflected in the posted odds before the start. The $5,000 wager – most responsible for the drop in the odds – was made just three seconds before the start of the race. No wager made anywhere just three seconds before the race could have been processed and displayed in the odds before the start of the race. The $5,000 wager was made at a walk-up window at a Nevada location, meaning the bettor was issued a printed pari-mutuel ticket rather than a purely electronic transaction through a wagering account.

It is significant that the transaction logs for the Nevada location show that two other hardcopy $5,000 win wagers were placed at the same location on the two races that preceded the Ninth Infantry race. Both of those $5,000 wagers were losers. One was placed on #3 Steve’s Blue Sky, helping make her the favorite. This wager was placed 17 seconds before the start of the third race and was not reflected on the infield tote board until after the start. Significantly, Steve’s Blue Sky broke sixth in the field of eight and quickly dropped back to last. She wound up finishing seventh. During the early running of that race, the $5,000 wager showed up in the odds displays, helping to drop Steve’s Blue Sky from 5/2 to 9/5. The other $5,000 wager placed at the same location, also 17 seconds before the start of the race, was a win bet on #4 Nonrefundable in the fourth race. Nonrefundable broke alertly and dueled for the lead before finishing second. During the race, the $5,000 wager showed up in the odds displays, helping to drop Nonrefundable from 9/2 to 4-1.

The $5,000 win wager on Ninth Infantry, which was made three seconds before the start, was processed and then displayed on the infield tote board 17 seconds after the start. This was seven seconds slower than the industry standard of posting near-final odds 10 seconds after the start but nonetheless marked a significant improvement over the time it took to display such odds prior to 2007. In an effort to deal with the problem of late odds changes, the 2020 Committee, which is the industry’s technical committee meeting under the umbrella of the TRA, recommended in 2007 the adoption of a single 10-second forced odds cycle after the win pool is closed. Adoption by United Tote- and Sportech- (then Scientific Games) supported racetracks was immediate. AmTote-supported tracks adopted this practice over the following 24 months. The 10-seconds forced cycle, or ‘almost final’ is a summation of the host and all finals from guests that have been received within 10 seconds of stop betting for the win pool, and has been audited at levels of odds representing over 98% of the win pool.

In other words, shortly after the start, virtually all wagers are reflected on the infield tote board. Additional time elapses before television, online, and streaming video displays are updated. The CHRB and other regulators and industry groups are continuously working with the racetracks, racing networks, and other wagering outlets to speed up and improve the display of odds. In fact, TVG and HRTV are providing more timely odds updates now than just a few years ago. Additional improvements for all odds displays are anticipated in the near future.



#

Arena Nut
05-07-2011, 06:46 PM
I really wish they would close wagering with one minute to post and update the odds before the break. The odds dropping on a horse who breaks on top is happening way to often.

JustRalph
05-07-2011, 07:11 PM
the fact that it wasn't electronic, makes me more suspicious.

Logs are text files...I think? ....anybody got a copy of notepad laying around on their desktop ?

jamey1977
05-08-2011, 04:13 AM
Every time it's always some horse going from 7 to 1 to 3 to 1, during the race that wins. Give us proof of odds going from 12 to 1 to 6 to 1, during the race. then losing or - 14 to 1, to 8 to 1 during the race or as they say,before the betting closes. Every damn time the horse wins, it's always 12 to 1 to 7 to 1 during the race or as they say it. 9 seconds before the gates open. All I know is I hardly ever see big drops during the race and the horse loses. I mean from middle odds out. From 7 to 1 and up. We don't believe any of their nonsense that they are sprouting out.

rwwupl
05-08-2011, 10:15 AM
I thought this was noteworthy... Could it be likely that all three bets were made by the same man?... if so, he was one for three.

rw


It is significant that the transaction logs for the Nevada location show that two other hardcopy $5,000 win wagers were placed at the same location on the two races that preceded the Ninth Infantry race. Both of those $5,000 wagers were losers. One was placed on #3 Steve’s Blue Sky, helping make her the favorite. This wager was placed 17 seconds before the start of the third race and was not reflected on the infield tote board until after the start. Significantly, Steve’s Blue Sky broke sixth in the field of eight and quickly dropped back to last. She wound up finishing seventh. During the early running of that race, the $5,000 wager showed up in the odds displays, helping to drop Steve’s Blue Sky from 5/2 to 9/5. The other $5,000 wager placed at the same location, also 17 seconds before the start of the race, was a win bet on #4 Nonrefundable in the fourth race. Nonrefundable broke alertly and dueled for the lead before finishing second. During the race, the $5,000 wager showed up in the odds displays, helping to drop Nonrefundable from 9/2 to 4-1.

Robert Goren
05-08-2011, 10:18 AM
I really wish they would close wagering with one minute to post and update the odds before the break. The odds dropping on a horse who breaks on top is happening way to often.How would that help? You are still betting before you know the final odds.

ALL CIRCUITS GO
05-08-2011, 10:50 AM
by closing betting when called to load, it will at least remove the suspicion of late betting on the 'first to break', if the odds are updated at 10 seconds as the CHRB states. I think anything that takes away any hint of impropriety will be helpful to the longevity of the sport.

:cool:

GameTheory
05-08-2011, 11:26 AM
by closing betting when called to load, it will at least remove the suspicion of late betting on the 'first to break', if the odds are updated at 10 seconds as the CHRB states. I think anything that takes away any hint of impropriety will be helpful to the longevity of the sport.

:cool:You know, they did try that (at Churchill, I think) a few years ago. Everyone complained -- they wanted to see how the horses were acting loading in the gate or something -- and they changed it back. (Plus it costs them money the earlier the cut-off.)

DJofSD
05-08-2011, 11:47 AM
If the proponents of closing the betting period before the gates open are so concerned about things, why don't you find an old fashion on-track bookmaker that will give you fixed odds?

The real solution to the perception of past posting is to update the entire tote system, top to bottom. Will it be cheap? No. But if you want to have your cake and eat it to, it has to be done.

Even a system update to the same thing that was in place on Wall Street, oh, let's say, 25 years ago, would still be decades more current than what is in place now.

ALL CIRCUITS GO
05-08-2011, 12:07 PM
costs them money? so they get less churn on the race, but its not like I'm gonna take the money and go home with it.

there needs (IMHO) to be industry wide standards adopted. so that all bettors, tracks and horsepeople know what to expect.

maybe it can start with loading and then move to other (off topic alert) issues like medicines?

BillW
05-08-2011, 12:08 PM
The real solution to the perception of past posting is to update the entire tote system, top to bottom. Will it be cheap? No. But if you want to have your cake and eat it to, it has to be done.

Even a system update to the same thing that was in place on Wall Street, oh, let's say, 25 years ago, would still be decades more current than what is in place now.

Bingo!

ALL CIRCUITS GO
05-08-2011, 12:15 PM
yes,,, update the tote system..

I agree its the perception of impropriety

thanks
;)

rwwupl
05-08-2011, 02:55 PM
From review statement:

Additional improvements for all odds displays are anticipated in the near future.


Yes that is the answer.

Even though this bet was legal...the problem of the public perception of something wrong was agravated by the slowness and uncoordinated and differences in the display between the tote board and and the T.V. broadcast,computer video.

Mike Marten(CHRB), the author of the review above is aware of what is needed and indicates he thinks we can expect positive changes in the future. Public perception...is reality...we must improve the product presented to the public.

rw

Irish Boy
05-08-2011, 04:15 PM
Beyond continuous, fluid updating, I'm not sure how this helps. Odds will jump each time the tote reloads, whether you set it to 30 seconds or one minute or whatever.

I think this is a problem that can never be fully solved. I'd have no problem with ending betting right at post time, but I know lots of bettors would insist that this was a scheme to deprive them of information, and you still wouldn't be sure of the final odds. There is no perfect fix,

Kelso
05-08-2011, 11:26 PM
You know, they did try that (at Churchill, I think) a few years ago. Everyone complained -- they wanted to see how the horses were acting loading in the gate or something -- and they changed it back. (Plus it costs them money the earlier the cut-off.)My bet is the complaints were largely from the past-posters. (Yes, it is quite clear that it happens and that it happens frequently.)

It costs tracks money when they try to assure pool integrity because the past-posters take their late cash elsewhere. Of course, to the morons in track management, integrity and perceptions of same take a seat far back from today's handle ... while they concurrently whine that annual handle has been tanking for years.

GameTheory
05-08-2011, 11:29 PM
My bet is the complaints were largely from the past-posters. (Yes, it is quite clear that it happens and that it happens frequently.)

It costs tracks money when they try to assure pool integrity because the past-posters take their late cash elsewhere. Of course, to the morons in track management, integrity and perceptions of same take a seat far back from today's handle ... while they concurrently whine that annual handle has been tanking for years.There were lots of complainers right here on this board, they're all past-posters? Don't think so. Do you think people are past-posting via an ADW?

And how is it "quite clear"?

Kelso
05-09-2011, 01:05 AM
There were lots of complainers right here on this board, they're all past-posters?I don't know. Certainly possible that some of them are ... but accomplished past-posters really don't need a forum of this nature to learn how to make money at the track or to complain about illegalities. They're making good money from at least one of the frauds.


Do you think people are past-posting via an ADW?I think it's more likely an electronic scam ... ADW/Simo back room, perhaps ... than an on-track thing.


And how is it "quite clear"?I think the frequency of major odds-drops going to winning horses is simply too high to be "chance." Of course, there are exceptions ... odds-droppers losing and odds-jumpers winning. But they're sufficiently infrequent, I think, as to be regarded more as proving the rule.

PaceAdvantage
05-09-2011, 04:01 AM
I don't know. Certainly possible that some of them are ... but accomplished past-posters really don't need a forum of this nature to learn how to make money at the track or to complain about illegalities. They're making good money from at least one of the frauds.


I think it's more likely an electronic scam ... ADW/Simo back room, perhaps ... than an on-track thing.


I think the frequency of major odds-drops going to winning horses is simply too high to be "chance." Of course, there are exceptions ... odds-droppers losing and odds-jumpers winning. But they're sufficiently infrequent, I think, as to be regarded more as proving the rule.How can it be an ADW/Simo back room thing when it's the TRACK that closes the pools?

And with multiple instances of "I think" in your last sentence, something tells me you're hanging your hat on anecdotal rather than empirical evidence.

redshift1
05-09-2011, 04:21 AM
Anonymous is testing the pari-mutual internet security perimeter.

Stillriledup
05-09-2011, 05:58 AM
I really wish they would close wagering with one minute to post and update the odds before the break. The odds dropping on a horse who breaks on top is happening way to often.

So, you're saying they should put the burden on the bettors instead of forcing the tracks to update the tote systems? If they would just update the tote systems, they wouldnt have people hacking into the system skimming the pools.

Stillriledup
05-09-2011, 06:05 AM
How can it be an ADW/Simo back room thing when it's the TRACK that closes the pools?

And with multiple instances of "I think" in your last sentence, something tells me you're hanging your hat on anecdotal rather than empirical evidence.

Ask racetrack insiders about the 'open window'. Some would bet their last dying breath that these things exist.

Would you bet your last dying breath that they do not?

According to the horse racing industry, everything is 'air tight' . Do you believe that there's no more Chris Harns out there in the world? Harn pulled his stunt almost 10 years ago, hackers have gotten much smarter over the years...what has the racing industry actually done in the last 5 to 10 years to make sure that this stuff is not happening? They've done nothing. The tote systems are still the same. Racetracks don't care who wins, they just care how much money is bet.

Horseplayersbet.com
05-09-2011, 11:11 AM
In my opinion, value players and value computer programs wait until the last possible moment to wager most of the time. I don't find it shocking that the biggest bettors who are value players will be right more times than they are wrong.
However, whenever I look at late odds interval information, drastic changes in odds only happen a small percentage of the time, and again, I think that can be accounted for by big value bettors 99.9% of the time.

Kelso
05-09-2011, 10:48 PM
How can it be an ADW/Simo back room thing when it's the TRACK that closes the pools?
When it happens, it's because the tracks don't care enough about the issue to close the pools in time. As SRP indicated, all the tracks care about is maximizing handle.


And with multiple instances of "I think" in your last sentence, something tells me you're hanging your hat on anecdotal rather than empirical evidence.Any instance of "I think" in my posts is due to my not having enough good information to say "I know." (Do you do anything different?)

Of course my info is mostly anecdotal. I don't work in the industry and I don't have your contacts. Speaking of which ... what do YOU "know" about the issue.

PaceAdvantage
05-10-2011, 01:43 AM
Ask racetrack insiders about the 'open window'. Some would bet their last dying breath that these things exist.

Would you bet your last dying breath that they do not?

According to the horse racing industry, everything is 'air tight' . Do you believe that there's no more Chris Harns out there in the world? Harn pulled his stunt almost 10 years ago, hackers have gotten much smarter over the years...what has the racing industry actually done in the last 5 to 10 years to make sure that this stuff is not happening? They've done nothing. The tote systems are still the same. Racetracks don't care who wins, they just care how much money is bet.Calm down there Francis. I never said they don't exist.

PaceAdvantage
05-10-2011, 01:44 AM
Of course my info is mostly anecdotal. I don't work in the industry and I don't have your contacts. Speaking of which ... what do YOU "know" about the issue.I'm flattered that you think I'm some big shot with fancy contacts. The fact that I still have to work for a living outside this website should tell you all you need to know about that theory... :lol:

thaskalos
05-10-2011, 11:11 AM
I'm flattered that you think I'm some big shot with fancy contacts. The fact that I still have to work for a living outside this website should tell you all you need to know about that theory... :lol:
You don't know how lucky you are...

Because of MY contacts within the game...I was forced to get a SECOND job!

andymays
05-10-2011, 11:39 AM
http://www.drf.com/news/hollywood-park-california-investigation-reveals-big-bet-made-just-race-began

Excerpt:

The racing board’s statement said that two other $5,000 win bets were made at a Nevada racebook on the third and fourth races on April 24 about 17 seconds before post time, but that neither ticket was placed on a winning horse. Steve’s Blue Sky finished seventh in the third race after her odds dropped from 5-2 to 9-5 caused largely by a $5,000 win bet. In the fourth race, a $5,000 win bet on Nonrefundable reduced the odds on that horse from 9-2 to 4-1. Nonrefundable finished second.