Wrona wronga?

[FenceBored]

If technologically superior America can't catch up with a minnow-like Australia - which has had accurate closing-tote odds at the start of every race since I lived there in the 1980s - please bring back bookmakers. I guarantee they could not possibly be viewed with more skepticism than this archaic system.
-- http://www.drf.com/news/letters-editor-jan-29 (http://www.drf.com/news/letters-editor-jan-29)

[cj]

He is spot on. I also know from experience DRF verifies those letters are from the person listed.

[Cardus]

From the thread title, I thought this was going to be yet another dreary "announcer thread" that focuses on their shortcomings and inevitably leads to a comparison of the current crop.

Wrona authors an interesting letter. I do not know if I agree with him, but he raises an interesting point regarding closing odds.

[horses4courses]

He makes a valid point.
I'm not sure, however, if you can compare the Australian tote system to the US pari-mutuel network. Seems like apples to oranges.

I doubt, though, that there is a single regular horse player in the US who hasn't been adversely affected by tumbling odds on your selected horse, as it sprints to the lead early in the race.

Your 3-1 odds entering the gate suddenly become 5-2 after a quarter mile, and 2-1 (or less) as they turn for home.
We've all been there......and it's infuriating.

The remedy?
Closing wagering at zero minutes to post.
It will not completely fix the problem, as off-site wagering causes a time delay that is hard to reconcile instantly. There will, however, be enough of a delay between close of wagering, and the start of the race, as to minimize the effects of wagers made right before cut-off time.

Bettors will hate it to begin with, of course.
In time, though, the sport would benefit from such a policy.

[RXB]

Closing the betting before post time might mean that you'll know the final odds prior to the start of the race; but you still won't know the final odds when you make your bet, which is the real issue. The money is going to pour in late regardless.

[jerry-g]

This reminds me of "The Sting". How does the track know the money flowing in has been wagered prior to the start? The flow of money is what should be stopped and returned to credit. It also reminds me of "the check is in the mail."

[PaceAdvantage]

Closing the betting before post time might mean that you'll know the final odds prior to the start of the race; but you still won't know the final odds when you make your bet, which is the real issue. The money is going to pour in late regardless.Excellent point.

[NJ Stinks]

Imagine going to a racetrack where you not only have the tote odds to bet into but also fixed odds that you can lock onto when the bet is placed with one of multitude of individually-owned on-track bookmakers. Even better - imagine a group of individually-owned on-track bookmakers who offer odds that will be adjusted according to their exposure as it develops before the off.

Do you think a half-hour is enough time to put together a betting strategy and shop for the best bang for your buck?

You can do the above in the UK and horseracing has more than a pulse there.

Meanwhile, we fidget about when our one window closes or how long there is between races.

Horseracing must be a tremendous game because it somehow survives here.

[thaskalos]

The drastically declining odds during the running of the race seems to be a rather recent phenomenon...and I can't understand why.

ADWs have been around for years now...but I don't remember seeing this problem for that long.

[v j stauffer]

Here's the way it was explained to me. Sounds plausible and non corrupt. However it doesn't change the fact that it's very annoying.

There are HUGE I mean REALLY HUGE players out there. They have software that is designed to analyize pools. Very little handicapping involved. The object is to bet massive amounts of money and break even. Then collect the rebates. These bets, because they are searching up until seconds to post, can be taken literally as the last horse is entering the gate. Still here in 2012 most tote systems are not equipped with state of the art fiber optics which makes the transition and posting of those bets slow. Sometimes as long a 30 seconds. Which as we've seen is pretty much as the field is going into the far turn.

I'm supremely confident that no one is cheating. If the racing associations thought that I'm quite sure after all this time they would have been able to catch the bad guys. Not to would destroy trust and quickly their fan base.

Obviously the question should be asked why not update to these high speed fiber optic systems?

That I can't speak to since I'm just a working stiff. I would speculate though that in these trying economic times, with racetracks desperately trying to stay afloat and eek out some profits, is doesn't at this time business sense.

VJS

[thaskalos]

Here's the way it was explained to me. Sounds plausible and non corrupt. However it doesn't change the fact that it's very annoying.

There are HUGE I mean REALLY HUGE players out there. They have software that is designed to analyize pools. Very little handicapping involved. The object is to bet massive amounts of money and break even. Then collect the rebates. These bets, because they are searching up until seconds to post, can be taken literally as the last horse is entering the gate. Still here in 2012 most tote systems are not equipped with state of the art fiber optics which makes the transition and posting of those bets slow. Sometimes as long a 30 seconds. Which as we've seen is pretty much as the field is going into the far turn.

I'm supremely confident that no one is cheating. If the racing associations thought that I'm quite sure after all this time they would have been able to catch the bad guys. Not to would destroy trust and quickly their fan base.

Obviously the question should be asked why not update to these high speed fiber optic systems?

That I can't speak to since I'm just a working stiff. I would speculate though that in these trying economic times, with racetracks desperately trying to stay afloat and eek out some profits, is doesn't at this time business sense.

VJS
I understand what you say...but these suspicious-looking odds changes seem to occur most often at the minor tracks, with the small pools...and I have a hard time believing that these types of tracks would even appeal to the REALLY HUGE players you speak of.

Are we to believe that the game's biggest bettors have their sophisticated software pointed at the pools of Finger Lakes and Indiana Downs?

We could make the argument that these pools are so small, that even the small late-bettors could affect the odds during the race...but I seriously doubt that the smaller-sized bettors would be as obsessed with placing their wagers at the last possible second. ADWs has been around for years...and this problem has surfaced in more recent times.

And also...I thought that these "whales" were concentrating more on the exotics...where the pools (and the rebates) were much bigger.

[Robert Goren]

When you see a big odds drop at a small track, one of two things have happened. Somebody has decided on his own that the horse can't lose and dropped a bunch of money on it (this happens a lot more often than it should) or somebody associated with horse thinks he knows something. Most of the time it is the first case rather the second. They both can be right or they both can be wrong. Generally when you see a really big priced winner at a small track, it is a case of somebody associated with a horse or a couple of horses other than the winner thinking they know something and they were wrong.

[levinmpa]

My pet peeve with the American tote system is the way odds are displayed. Even before I was able to watch Australian racing on TV, I hated seeing odds displayed in fractions. If you are going to limit the tote board to 2 digits, please use a decimal instead of a slash, at least up to 10. 7/2 can mean 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 or 3.9. Why not show the more accurate decimal than the archaic 7/2? Don't tell me it's because that's the way it's always been done. That answer is why this game is in the poor shape it is now. It's 2012. Please lets get these systems updated. I want to know if the 6/1 on the tote board is paying $14.00 or $15.80. It's not rocket science. They seem to be able to do this in other parts of the world.

[lamboguy]

its not to hard to handicap which horses are going to get bet after the bell. problem is how to make money with that proposition. if a horse leaves the gate @2-1 and hits the turn @6/5, that proposition might actually be 3/5 with that lead. it really doesn't matter what odds those horses have way back in the pack, they don't have a snowballs chance in hell to win. the important thing to note is the after the bell activity does not take place in every single race. that is also the reason why you know its not the tote board analyzer's that are making the odds change. if it really was them it would happen every single race every single day.

[igiveupregistering]

Closing the betting before post time might mean that you'll know the final odds prior to the start of the race; but you still won't know the final odds when you make your bet, which is the real issue. The money is going to pour in late regardless.

The problem is, as you stated the pari-mutual bettting set-up.

For example, take an OTB like the Catskill NY OTB. This "gov't controlled"
entity is the management/communications hub for about 6-8 OTB locations in the lower Hudson Valley, NY.

Betting data from the Fishkill OTB is uploaded to the central Catskill OTB hub in Podunk NY where data (BETS) are stored until all the data (BETS) from all the other 6 Catskill OTB's are consolidated then UPLOADED AND SENT TO THE HOST TRACK FOR Race 3.

The bets are in. The wagering is CLOSED. BUT THE CATSKILL OTB HUB IS SLOW in sending the collected data to the NYRA computers for number-crunching. This is why the odds change during the race. The betting is closed but the computers are still crunching the data they are getting "vis a vis these podunk places with dial-up data lines".

Think as the Catskill OTB as a wheel with 8 OTB spokes. Each spoke has a one lane highway to send data (bets) to the Catskill Hub which has universal cloud transport system or a high speed data line or 20 lane highway directly into the NYRA computer.

The delay is these small OTB's and tracks in every hill and dale that send data (BETS) "via a one lane country road" to a hub that collects all the members data in a "buffer" and then uplaods ALL the data to the host track's computer via a high speed supersonic highway.

The ONLY way to eliminate delay in crunching numbers is to require EVERY pari-mutual location to have direct, point-to-point data transmission method directly to the host track's computers.

The host track cannot calculate the odds until ALL the data (bets) from all the hundreds of parimutual locations have been received (by the host tracks computers).

There will always be a delay in calculating race odds unless ALL parimutual locations invest in high-speed/packet nets that communicate directly with a
host tracks computers and ELIMINATE THE DELAY IN SENDING DATA TO THE HOST TRACK. The betting is closed, BUT the computers are still crunching data that is being sent from the hinterlands and thst is why the odds change during a race.

[appistappis]

I believe I owe my blood pressure to betting on a 4-1 at mountaineer with parker up and having him go to 5/2 when the gate opens and 6/5 as he opens up by five.

[wisconsin]

I bet race 9 Sunday at Aqueduct. The :1: was 4-1 when they began to load, dropped to 7/2 when last seen. Had my money in this horse. When the gates opened, :1: clearly gets the best jump you could imagine, and at first flash on screen, lo and behold, he's 2-1 on the lead around the clubhouse turn. I mean, come on. It's like someone made a bet after a very obvious great start. Even 3-1 to 2-1 is a big swing in one flash, especially in a large pool.

[cj]

I bet race 9 Sunday at Aqueduct. The :1: was 4-1 when they began to load, dropped to 7/2 when last seen. Had my money in this horse. When the gates opened, :1: clearly gets the best jump you could imagine, and at first flash on screen, lo and behold, he's 2-1 on the lead around the clubhouse turn. I mean, come on. It's like someone made a bet after a very obvious great start. Even 3-1 to 2-1 is a big swing in one flash, especially in a large pool.
I bet this horse too and was not very happy.

[Tom]

Closing the betting before post time might mean that you'll know the final odds prior to the start of the race; but you still won't know the final odds when you make your bet, which is the real issue. The money is going to pour in late regardless.

That is true, but it is the perception of this that matters. The game can be clean as all get out, but if people think it is dirty, that is what matters.
The way it was explained on Byk's show is that the current system only changes the screen odds when the order of positions change - if you get a merry-go-round race, they will not change for a while into the race. This has to be fixed.

[PaceAdvantage]

That is true, but it is the perception of this that matters. The game can be clean as all get out, but if people think it is dirty, that is what matters.
The way it was explained on Byk's show is that the current system only changes the screen odds when the order of positions change - if you get a merry-go-round race, they will not change for a while into the race. This has to be fixed.Trakus solves this problem I believe...

[AndyC]

The whole crux of Wrona's argument is the following: I've had University of California, Berkeley, students absolutely enthralled at the idea of intellectually determining "worthwhile investments," highlighting the one enormous advantage that horse racing has over casinos - the overlay. But how can you look seriously at this gold mine of future business, knowing that 3-1 can become 7-5 after a quarter of the race has been completed?

What I would like to ask Wrona is how is a bettor able to determine a "worthwhile investment" if they don't know the odds at the time they are betting? Clearly with the ability to make last second bets of thousands of dollars one will never know the odds they are getting until AFTER they bet. And this would be true in Australia, Hong Kong or any other location. It has nothing to do with technology (other than the perception factor with bet cycles) and everything to do with the parimutuel system itself.

[thaskalos]

The whole crux of Wrona's argument is the following: I've had University of California, Berkeley, students absolutely enthralled at the idea of intellectually determining "worthwhile investments," highlighting the one enormous advantage that horse racing has over casinos - the overlay. But how can you look seriously at this gold mine of future business, knowing that 3-1 can become 7-5 after a quarter of the race has been completed?

What I would like to ask Wrona is how is a bettor able to determine a "worthwhile investment" if they don't know the odds at the time they are betting? Clearly with the ability to make last second bets of thousands of dollars one will never know the odds they are getting until AFTER they bet. And this would be true in Australia, Hong Kong or any other location. It has nothing to do with technology (other than the perception factor with bet cycles) and everything to do with the parimutuel system itself.

Yes, Wrona's argument revolves around these "overlays"...but there is a bigger problem which he neglected to mention.

There is a perception out there that bets are being made (or canceled) AFTER the start of the race...and this perception CANNOT be disproven because things like this have, in fact, taken place in the recent past.

How can we be sure that these odds changes are not the result of bets being made, or canceled, after the start of the race?

The technology needs to be updated in this game...in order to protect whatever integrity the game has left.

To see our odds drop because of some late-betting "whale" is one thing. To be cheated is another...

[AndyC]

Yes, Wrona's argument revolves around these "overlays"...but there is a bigger problem which he neglected to mention.

There is a perception out there that bets are being made (or canceled) AFTER the start of the race...and this perception CANNOT be disproven because things like this have, in fact, taken place in the recent past.

How can we be sure that these odds changes are not the result of bets being made, or canceled, after the start of the race?

The technology needs to be updated in this game...in order to protect whatever integrity the game has left.

To see our odds drop because of some late-betting "whale" is one thing. To be cheated is another...

I agree that technology needs to be updated to prevent fraud and to help the perception of the game. In the end however, what will bring and keep players betting is a game where the target isn't moving such as it does with parimutuel betting.

In the good ole days when you could only bet on track (or with a bookie) big bets were made early to avoid being shut out. Now they are bet a literally the last second.

[mountainman]

My off the cuff impression is that the odds drop on enough eventual winners after the race is underway to more than warrant suspicion. But my suspicions are just that-off the cuff-with no research to support them.

So I think we're seeking a remedy, so to speak, before confirming the illness. Shouldn't the first step be to study thousands of races to determine at which tracks and how often the odds plummet on winners well into the running? And to furthermore match dropping payoffs with distinctive (and quickly discernable) raceflows likley to favor certain horses?

And a reliable baseline would be needed to determine irregularities, a baseline predicated on tons of data that may not exist. How often historically, for instance, is the late money correct in the win pool? And what running style has traditionally taken the most late money? In my opinion, there is just no getting around it, guys, somebody has to do the research. Anecdotal evidence won't cut it.

[Edward DeVere]

I'm supremely confident that no one is cheating.

[/QUOTE]

I would be hard pressed to say that about anything on Planet Earth involving money.

I don't believe Willie Sutton was the only guy to ever rob banks, and I don't believe the Drexel Dregs were the only guys to ever past-post.

Banks are hacked, Fortune 500 companies are hacked, the Pentagon - the PENTAGON(!) ferchrissakes is hacked. But race tracks with outdated technology are NOT hacked?

Crikies - I was born at night, but it wasn't LAST night.

[v j stauffer]

I'm supremely confident that no one is cheating.



I would be hard pressed to say that about anything on Planet Earth involving money.

I don't believe Willie Sutton was the only guy to ever rob banks, and I don't believe the Drexel Dregs were the only guys to ever past-post.

Banks are hacked, Fortune 500 companies are hacked, the Pentagon - the PENTAGON(!) ferchrissakes is hacked. But race tracks with outdated technology are NOT hacked?

Crikies - I was born at night, but it wasn't LAST night.[/QUOTE]

All of the places you listed eventually knew something unlawful had happened to them.

The point I'm making is late odds changes have been happening for many years.

If someone was stealing your customer's money you'd eventually know and be forced to stop it or die.

That's not the way these scenarios have played out.

I'm supremely confident that no one is cheating.

[Gallop58]

Would not these computer bettors easily be able to adjust and triangulate their likely closing odds with fractions of seconds left to close? (Something a little guy is far less likely to be able to do accurately and hence a very real limitation for those who look for value?)

Would the large computer bettor not easily be able to statistically model the pool growth and bet accordingly? (taking into account the tin can and string communications from upstate OTBs) Again something not possible for pencil and paper or even most ADW bettors.

Would the actuaries not want to be in pools where they're the only large computer bettor because an equally large bet coming in at the same time would really kill things? (How do they deal with it in Oz or HK where presumably there are multi syndicates betting into the same pools? (or does the larger pool size make this moot?)

Is it not the case that we notice these things when our horse is in the running?
ie. Some other horses odds just went up and if we're on that one, we are secretly happy or happily oblivious that the odds "climbed" after the flag dropped? Enough so that you don't feel compelled to post in a forum about what a travesty it is that your 7/1 brainiac pick closed at 12/1?

Great thread.

And re: closing the pool at exactly 0MTP. This was tried in the wake of one of the insider jobs and people SCREAMED!!! Tracks listened to their customers and backed off.

[A. Pineda]

And re: closing the pool at exactly 0MTP. This was tried in the wake of one of the insider jobs and people SCREAMED!!! Tracks listened to their customers and backed off.

True, and I was also unhappy with the change. But, given time, players would have made the adjustment. They dropped the new system too soon.

[Jeff P]

Well I'm not supremely confident that no one is cheating.

If a customer walks up to a teller window in a bank and makes a deposit, the bank has internal controls in place designed to create an audit trail. In the event the customer later contacts the bank and says "My deposit was never credited to my account." the bank's auditors can use the audit trail created by their internal controls to determine where the customer's money was last seen (and with a high degree of precision.) Most banks have enough confidence in their internal controls that their policy is to accept the customer's deposit slip at face value and credit the customer's account for the deposit in question - and then let their auditors figure things out shortly afterwards.

Up until a little less than 3 years ago, racing's internal controls were so weak that the accuracy of race off time could only be determined to the nearest minute (not minutes and seconds.) The weakness resided in the fact that track video feeds were not being synched daily to an accurate time feed and therefore did not record race off time accurately. In some instances the video time feeds were off by as much as several minutes. At the same time the official chart recorded race off time to the nearest minute only (not minutes and seconds.)

Add to this the fact that every once in a while (there are 7 or 8 documented instances of this that I have been made aware of over the past 3 years) betting was unintentionally allowed to take place after the gate had sprung due to a technical glitch (router or other equipment failure.) - These equipment failures made it possible for people to place bets on a handful of races even though the horses were already running (or in some instances) had already crossed the wire.

Before anyone goes into a panic fit, I need to point out that these weaknesses have been largely corrected. But up until the time that they were corrected, because of ill designed internal controls: it was impossible for auditors to determine with 100% certainty that past posting had not taken place.

I also need to point out that the audit trails that currently exist for bets made on track, at otbs, and through US and Canadian ADWs are very good. The location, amount, type of bet, and timestamp for bets made at these locations are all recorded as part of the audit trail - making it possible for auditors to trace each bet all the way through the system in the event the bet needs to be investigated.

However, there IS one area where I remain unconvinced that the industry's audit trails are adequate. There are a handful of offshore sites where the site legally acts as the player, the ADW, and the tote company (all three entities wrapped up as one.) The industry's audit trail for bets made through this type of site begins when a batch of bets shows up at a US based hub.

From what I can see it would be possible for somebody unscrupulous to use a computer to do the following:

1. Generate a batch of bets.

2. Not have the computer submit that batch right away.

3. Have a human operator watch the gate open (and perhaps as much as the first quarter mile of that race.)

4. Have a pre-written routine that would allow deletion of horses from that last batch before submitting that batch.

The routine could be as simple as enabling a human operator to notice that the #3 horse broke slowly or lost the rider at the start - immediately followed by the human operator hitting the #3 key and the Delete Key - with the result being that all wagers involving the #3 horse are instantly deleted from that batch.

From there the batch would be submitted - with 0 transactions involving the #3 horse included - and no indication of any kind that wagers involving the #3 horse were canceled - and certainly no timestamp indicating when wagers involving the #3 horse were canceled. So long as the batch shows up at a US based hub in a timely manner - all wagers included in that batch go into the pools (with no one being the wiser.)

Please understand that I am not saying this type of activity is taking place.

But I am saying that I don't believe the internal controls currently in place are strong enough to prevent someone unscrupulous from pulling something like this off.


-jp

.

[grant miller]

the poster about ny otb is dead on! in ny, otb money IS NOT added to the mutal pools till the race is off-people in my otb(hornell ny) bumrush the teller when the horses are loading,in motion ect,,,,Its kinda funny to watch cane fights & and wheelchair demolision derby! Iuse the self bet and bet with 2-3 m.t.p. Ilike the action, sos a drop in the odds dont bother me.

[lamboguy]

what i have seen plenty of times is when the horse get the lead the odds go down. that might be from the simulcast facility in upper state new york or anywhere that reports late. but what i really don't understand is that there are will pays for daily doubles and pick three's that often don't reflect the final odds of the horses that make quick leads. i always wonder are these people that bet win that much smarter than the daily double and pick three players?

[PaceAdvantage]

i always wonder are these people that bet win that much smarter than the daily double and pick three players?Considering that win betters have THAT MUCH MORE information at their disposal than people who are required to have their bets in one or two races PRIOR to the current race...then yeah, they are that much smarter.

[RichieP]

Closing the betting before post time might mean that you'll know the final odds prior to the start of the race; but you still won't know the final odds when you make your bet, which is the real issue. The money is going to pour in late regardless.


But it will remove thoughts of folks being able to wager while the race is running restoring a bit of integrity to the game we love.

If the pools were to close at say 2mtp and after a few cycles and before the gate pops final odds and pool totals are shown I would be all for it.

[Gallop58]

Probably been posted elsewhere before but I thought it relevant to a portion of this discussion:

http://www.xpressbet.com/ReadOnTrack

"To make the improbable finish even more amazing (or revolting, depending on your point of view), before the last race, Michael Beychok actually had attempted to cancel his winning wager because the price on the winning horse was only 5/2—not enough for Beychok to catch Flanzman. Good thing for the Bayou Bettor, he was too late. During the race the price on the winner actually went up to 3-1, returning the required winning payoff amount!

Who says odds on winners never go up after the race starts? These did. By a buck. And it made an $850,000 difference."

[RXB]

But it will remove thoughts of folks being able to wager while the race is running restoring a bit of integrity to the game we love.

If the pools were to close at say 2mtp and after a few cycles and before the gate pops final odds and pool totals are shown I would be all for it.

I'd rather be able to observe my horse at the gate and wager/not wager accordingly. I don't see what integrity is restored if my horse breaks through the gate, or makes a horrible fuss when they try to load the beast, and I can't cancel the wager.

[mountainman]

Well I'm not supremely confident that no one is cheating.

If a customer walks up to a teller window in a bank and makes a deposit, the bank has internal controls in place designed to create an audit trail. In the event the customer later contacts the bank and says "My deposit was never credited to my account." the bank's auditors can use the audit trail created by their internal controls to determine where the customer's money was last seen (and with a high degree of precision.) Most banks have enough confidence in their internal controls that their policy is to accept the customer's deposit slip at face value and credit the customer's account for the deposit in question - and then let their auditors figure things out shortly afterwards.

Up until a little less than 3 years ago, racing's internal controls were so weak that the accuracy of race off time could only be determined to the nearest minute (not minutes and seconds.) The weakness resided in the fact that track video feeds were not being synched daily to an accurate time feed and therefore did not record race off time accurately. In some instances the video time feeds were off by as much as several minutes. At the same time the official chart recorded race off time to the nearest minute only (not minutes and seconds.)

Add to this the fact that every once in a while (there are 7 or 8 documented instances of this that I have been made aware of over the past 3 years) betting was unintentionally allowed to take place after the gate had sprung due to a technical glitch (router or other equipment failure.) - These equipment failures made it possible for people to place bets on a handful of races even though the horses were already running (or in some instances) had already crossed the wire.

Before anyone goes into a panic fit, I need to point out that these weaknesses have been largely corrected. But up until the time that they were corrected, because of ill designed internal controls: it was impossible for auditors to determine with 100% certainty that past posting had not taken place.

I also need to point out that the audit trails that currently exist for bets made on track, at otbs, and through US and Canadian ADWs are very good. The location, amount, type of bet, and timestamp for bets made at these locations are all recorded as part of the audit trail - making it possible for auditors to trace each bet all the way through the system in the event the bet needs to be investigated.

However, there IS one area where I remain unconvinced that the industry's audit trails are adequate. There are a handful of offshore sites where the site legally acts as the player, the ADW, and the tote company (all three entities wrapped up as one.) The industry's audit trail for bets made through this type of site begins when a batch of bets shows up at a US based hub.

From what I can see it would be possible for somebody unscrupulous to use a computer to do the following:

1. Generate a batch of bets.

2. Not have the computer submit that batch right away.

3. Have a human operator watch the gate open (and perhaps as much as the first quarter mile of that race.)

4. Have a pre-written routine that would allow deletion of horses from that last batch before submitting that batch.

The routine could be as simple as enabling a human operator to notice that the #3 horse broke slowly or lost the rider at the start - immediately followed by the human operator hitting the #3 key and the Delete Key - with the result being that all wagers involving the #3 horse are instantly deleted from that batch.

From there the batch would be submitted - with 0 transactions involving the #3 horse included - and no indication of any kind that wagers involving the #3 horse were canceled - and certainly no timestamp indicating when wagers involving the #3 horse were canceled. So long as the batch shows up at a US based hub in a timely manner - all wagers included in that batch go into the pools (with no one being the wiser.)

Please understand that I am not saying this type of activity is taking place.

But I am saying that I don't believe the internal controls currently in place are strong enough to prevent someone unscrupulous from pulling something like this off.


-jp

.

Brilliant post..fair, measured and replete with rare knowledge.

[Midnight Cruiser]

From the thread title, I thought this was going to be yet another dreary "announcer thread" that focuses on their shortcomings and inevitably leads to a comparison of the current crop.

Wrona authors an interesting letter. I do not know if I agree with him, but he raises an interesting point regarding closing odds.

Anyone else notice Wrona is missing in action? Might have ruffled the wrong feathers. I think GG is saying he is visiting sick relative out of the country, but the timing seems ironic....

[David-LV]

True, and I was also unhappy with the change. But, given time, players would have made the adjustment. They dropped the new system too soon.

Shut off betting at zero minutes to post and lose 20% to 40% of your handle.
Another problem at simulcasting location will be the problem of reopening wagering when there are problems at the gate or a late scratch happens after betting is closed.
If these tracks would spend the money and upgrade their software this problem would go away.
Getting these cheapskates to spend, that my friend is the main problem.
Greed is their middle name.
_______
David-LV

[David-LV]

But it will remove thoughts of folks being able to wager while the race is running restoring a bit of integrity to the game we love.

If the pools were to close at say 2mtp and after a few cycles and before the gate pops final odds and pool totals are shown I would be all for it.

Unworkable, you will lose 40% of your handle at 2mtp especially in Las Vegas where you don't have Sam machines and a small work force behind the counters.

________
David-LV

[v j stauffer]

Anyone else notice Wrona is missing in action? Might have ruffled the wrong feathers. I think GG is saying he is visiting sick relative out of the country, but the timing seems ironic....

Oy Vey :bang:

[BeatTheChalk]

OT - but Peter Falk is always worth a comment :jump:
" I'm Lt Columbo - from the Police "

[BeatTheChalk]

My comments : Why was Trevor MISSING IN ACTION during the races
.. so far ? I only heard him for a few seconds. Anyone else find that to be strange ? :bang:

[PhantomOnTour]

I am just waiting for an announcer to accurately call the splits. ANY ANNOUNCER...PLEASE!
A 1/4m in 22.38 is NOT 22 and 1/5 but that's what every racecaller says...why not use tenths for chrissakes?
This rounding down stuff is way out of date, dontcha think???

[johnhannibalsmith]

...A 1/4m in 22.38 is NOT 22 and 1/5 ...

One of my completely insane racetrack friends goes apeshit over this...

"If the son-of-a-bitch's head was two centimeters bigger he would have run the quarter a fifth of a second faster according to this ignorant prick they have calling the races!!!!"

I can't even begin to count the number of times I've heard that rant in my lifetime.

[Stillriledup]

Mirror man at GG today. Hopefully Wrona is just taking a day off?

[Peter Berry]

Mirror man at GG today. Hopefully Wrona is just taking a day off?

Wrona is calling the Carlos Pellegrini in Argentina for HRTV tomorrow.

[Stillriledup]

Wrona is calling the Carlos Pellegrini in Argentina for HRTV tomorrow.

Thanks PB.

[Stillriledup]

"You're a nation is streaming forward"

-Michael Wrona

(today's 8th at GG)

[RXB]

Wrona is an excellent announcer whose accent and sense of humour seem to conspire to keep him away from the big time.

[Stillriledup]

Wrona botch Race 6 call today (didnt call wrong horse, just stumbled over his words at the wire).

Yikes, Spit it out Mike!! :D

[FrankieFigs]

Did anyone hear the Race 5 call?

"You're A Nation has stopped to a trickle..." :D

[Stillriledup]

Did anyone hear the Race 5 call?

"You're A Nation has stopped to a trickle..." :D

No, cmon, really? :lol:

There's a your a nation quote a post or two above this.

[FrankieFigs]

I know. I just happened to post another one......

[dilanesp]

Just to update this thread:

You're a Nation ran on March 9 and was "flowing freely" according to Wrona. And he ran on March 23 and "hit the wall". (He left his mic on after the March 23 race, and you can actually hear a guy talking in the press box-- "you hear that one? You're a Nation has hit the wall. Comes up with a new one every time!".)

But on April 21 he was a vet scratch. He must have failed his urine test or something.

[v j stauffer]

I've been working the past couple of months on a 75th Anniversary documentary about Hollywood Park.

Have watched hundreds of stakes races dating all the way back to Seabiscuit in 1938.

Each time I come across a Wrona stakes call it's better than the one before.

Michael is a VERY good announcer.

[dilanesp]

I've been working the past couple of months on a 75th Anniversary documentary about Hollywood Park.

Have watched hundreds of stakes races dating all the way back to Seabiscuit in 1938.

Each time I come across a Wrona stakes call it's better than the one before.

Michael is a VERY good announcer.

For the record, I agree. Obviously, there's nothing at all wrong with the current announcer at Hollywood Park (I've actually liked your work ever since you were at Detroit in the 1980's), but I always wondered why Wrona's 2 tenures at the track were so short. He managed to call some pretty signature races in his short time there, including the Sunday Silence-Criminal Type Gold Cup, the Real Quiet Gold Cup, and Pincay's record-breaking ride (and then he also got to call Russell Baze's record-breaking ride up north). He rarely made any sort of a mistake. Why did the track not like him?

[v j stauffer]

It's not for me to discuss business that doesn't involve me. I will say this though. BHP management has always and continues to like Michael's work. As well they should.

[Stillriledup]

Wrona sounded "different" today. What gives?

Someone other than Wrona called the 2nd race today.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Wrona sounded "different" today. What gives?

Someone other than Wrona called the 2nd race today.

Pretty sure I heard good old Jonathan "Shows Them A Clean Set of Heels" Silverman calling a couple today.

Took over at Arapahoe from Craig a few years ago and called at Farmington or somewhere in N.M. for a while after Denver ended this year.

[picojim]

Jonathan "Shows Them A Clean Set of Heels" Silverman.

i think you mean Jonathan Horowitz

[johnhannibalsmith]

i think you mean Jonathan Horowitz

:D :D

Yeah, that's kind of funny. I think I dreamt that I went and saw Weekend at Bernie's at the Drive-in or something.

Sorry Mr. Jonathan.

[cj]

Wrona just butchered the finish of the 4th race at Golden Gate.

[Stillriledup]

Wrona just butchered the finish of the 4th race at Golden Gate.

He did?

[cj]

He did?

Yes, he called the winner of the race (the 2) by the name of the 1 the last two times he mentioned him.

[Stillriledup]

Yes, he called the winner of the race (the 2) by the name of the 1 the last two times he mentioned him.
oh yeah, great catch, lol, i didnt even hear that, he was calling top tizzy than all of a sudden started calling Texit the winner...yikes, that was bad.

[Stillriledup]

Giving a shout out to Churchill Downs during his 4th race call?


What's up with THAT.

[Stillriledup]

Wasn't sure I loved his call in the 7th today, he seemed too upbeat after a horse had fallen, he just kept calling the race as if it was business as usual.

[dilanesp]

Wasn't sure I loved his call in the 7th today, he seemed too upbeat after a horse had fallen, he just kept calling the race as if it was business as usual.

Ever hear Chic Anderson's call of Ruffian and Foolish Pleasure? He raised his voice!

Tom Durkin used to cry into the mic after breakdowns. But that isn't the announcer's job. The bettors, the public, and the owners deserve a professional call. If Wrona called the race as you describe, he was right.

[thaskalos]

Wasn't sure I loved his call in the 7th today, he seemed too upbeat after a horse had fallen, he just kept calling the race as if it was business as usual.

I, on the other hand, am quite sure that Michael Wrona is one of the top 3 race callers in this country. It isn't the announcer's job to manufacture fake emotion during the running of the race. If he had reduced the tone of his race call to suit the circumstances of the race...then he would surely be called "fake", or "unprofessional", by some other poster. IMO...he main thing is to be "real". If you FEEL something, then SAY it. If you don't...then DON'T.

[thaskalos]

Ever hear Chic Anderson's call of Ruffian and Foolish Pleasure? He raised his voice!

Tom Durkin used to cry into the mic after breakdowns. But that isn't the announcer's job. The bettors, the public, and the owners deserve a professional call. If Wrona called the race as you describe, he was right.

Ooops...had I seen this, then I wouldn't have bothered posting. :ThmbUp:

[Stillriledup]

I, on the other hand, am quite sure that Michael Wrona is one of the top 3 race callers in this country. It isn't the announcer's job to manufacture fake emotion during the running of the race. If he had reduced the tone of his race call to suit the circumstances of the race...then he would surely be called "fake", or "unprofessional", by some other poster. IMO...he main thing is to be "real". If you FEEL something, then SAY it. If you don't...then DON'T.


But isn't he calling the race for the crowd? By only saying what you feel, than he's really calling the race for himself and not the paying customers.

[horses4courses]

But isn't he calling the race for the crowd? By only saying what you feel, than he's really calling the race for himself and not the paying customers.

He's doing his job - his way.
All race callers have their own styles - some you like, some you don't.

Michael Wrona is a fine race caller - clearly one of the best in the world.
There is no way he can have 100% accuracy with his calls, or please everyone.

[thaskalos]

But isn't he calling the race for the crowd? By only saying what you feel, than he's really calling the race for himself and not the paying customers.

I don't understand what you are saying here, SRU. You don't even sound CONVINCED that you were bothered by Wrona's race call. "I'm not sure that I loved his call"...you wrote. What kind of "criticism" is that?

IMO...the announcer is LYING when he tries to "manufacture" emotion...and it's often obvious to the audience. The race is unfolding rapidly...and you have very little time to react to an unexpected development. It would have been nice if Wrona was compelled to deliver the appropriately somber race call that would have met with your approval....but it didn't happen. And that's fine too.

[MPRanger]

Excellent point.

Since I was going to say that, I'll say, "Thank you".

Here's my idea for a solution:

Problem: Whales are dumping big money at the last micro second straight into the pools. Yes everyone wants to bet late but the whales are the ones tilting the tote board.

Solution: Limit the amount of money that can be wagered. Starting 10 minutes out, you can bet all you want with amounts reducing approaching post time.

The final wager size should be high enough not to affect normal wagerers who aren't dumping huge amounts into the pools from computers at the last second but small enough to keep these people from ruining the game for the rest of us.

[Stillriledup]

He's doing his job - his way.
All race callers have their own styles - some you like, some you don't.

Michael Wrona is a fine race caller - clearly one of the best in the world.
There is no way he can have 100% accuracy with his calls, or please everyone.

I like his style, I'm not being critical of the accuracy of his calls.

[Stillriledup]

I don't understand what you are saying here, SRU. You don't even sound CONVINCED that you were bothered by Wrona's race call. "I'm not sure that I loved his call"...you wrote. What kind of "criticism" is that?

IMO...the announcer is LYING when he tries to "manufacture" emotion...and it's often obvious to the audience. The race is unfolding rapidly...and you have very little time to react to an unexpected development. It would have been nice if Wrona was compelled to deliver the appropriately somber race call that would have met with your approval....but it didn't happen. And that's fine too.

He's only lying if a stricken horse didnt affect him in anyway, but since he's human and a pretty nice guy with a good heart by all accounts, he must have felt some sadness to see what happened...and If he did, and covered it up, isn't he lying by not lowering his voice even a little bit? I know Vic has quite often lowered his voice when he's seen an accident, was Vic being disingenuous by doing that?

I'm not looking for a somber call, but at least acknowledge that most customers were saddened to see that, the upbeat call with a horse struggling for his last breaths was a bit much for me. When I'm sad, I don't want to hear someone upbeat, I didn't think I needed to reach for my mute button so fast, Next time a horse goes down, I'll remember to mute wrona because at that point I'm too interested in hearing a call "celebrating" the winner.