Dick,

Geez, and I thought I had a hard stance! <G>

That there is cheating (to one degree or another) is certainly not in question. The issue (for me) is can I simply accept that as part of the game and move on? The answer (again, for me) is, "Yes."

If one is going to get hung up on the cheating then this game is not for them.

Just my opinion.

Dave

Good point Dave. I doubt anyone would think the stock market is without cheaters, but in one form or another, most of us still gamble there.

CJ

Before the Hollywood Park meet started, rrbauer, I would have TOTALLY AGREED WITH YOU.
The incident opening day alarmed everyone, including Rick Baedecker ( CEO of HP).
It alarmed the CHRB.
Look, 99% of the pools show NO UNUSUAL PATTERNS, it is the 1% that everyone is questioning.
My own opinion: I honestly don't know.
It hasn't bothered me personally, I bet distance races, I have yet to see a race I bet be questionable.
I don't want to see a 2 minuet cut off, for the reasons you guys have mentioned.
I don't think people would tolerate it.
It looks as if a lot of them are not going to tolerate all the late money bet downs either. What the HELL do we/they do?
:confused: :confused: :confused:

Any system that requires multiple people to press buttons is bad period, and invites question. Would a Vegas casino have a system where 2 buttons need to be pressed? If they did there would be 2 security guards watching and the video camera would be rolling.

I shouldn't have to quit wagering on races because I think there are cheaters in the sport. Racing management and commissions should be doing everything in their power to root out cheaters and opportunities to cheat in order to keep the public trust that the sport is cheater free. Just like casinos do.

I don't think a 2 min rule will help, you will just have the same problem. You can watch the odds drop between the 2 min mark and when the gates open and you can't do anything about it, your bets are already down.

The 60 second cycle time has to be reduced. There is no excuse for a 60 second cycle time in the age of fiber optics, and high speed computers that run in nanoseconds and gigahertz.

This business runs on the tote board and in my mind it is just as important for the tote board to be clean just like it is for the horses, trainers and jockeys.

so.cal.fan said, "Before the Hollywood Park meet started, rrbauer, I would have TOTALLY AGREED WITH YOU. "

Comment:
I assume that your post refers to the huge win bet on opening day at HOL.

What happened and how it happened (all before the "stop betting" signal) has been documented and is a matter of public record. If your issue is with those facts you should pursue it with the CHRB.

You may recall that Barry Meadow posted an opinion on this board initially that he thought there was "after the bell" chicanery involved and that it would "come out eventually".

Then he backed off, revised his stance, and indicated that the bet was legit vis-a-vis the timing window....because, he had learned what the facts were.

Since then I have spoken to Barry about the situation (he may have written an article in his monthly pub???) and he told me that it was a "screw up", plain and simple. The mole (guy running the bet) screwed up and placed $5k bets when he thought he was placing $1k bets.

What isn't known (to my satisfaction) is whether, or not, given the huge amount of the "overbet", if the mole had enough cash/account credit to cover the bet that was made....or, did they (mutuel clerk and mole) just sweat the result, and when the horse won, any shortage was forgiven? Or, did the bet get settled, before payoff, the regular way?

In other words, if there is a large bet at post time that turns out to be a mistake (either with regard to who, or how much) what is the remedy? Is there any provision to "void" the bet after the race goes? And, if not, what are the financial liability issues with regard to the mutuel clerk and the player placing the bet?

My understanding was that it was a computer team using an online account, and therefore wagering more than their available balance was not possible. So they had the money, it was just a much larger chunk of it than they intended to bet...

A mutual clerk would not have taken money that was not on the table, unless he/she was crazy. They are responsible for shortages.
The CHRB is concerned with this event and others.
I have posted my opinion on this board before.
I think all the money coming in, is coming in at the last second, and it is the "value" bettors all jumping on a horse they feel is an overlay. There are computer programs out there that select accurate enough morning lines to show a profit, that is if the horse stays at the odds required. That's the hitch.
However.........NOT EVERYONE dismisses this as I have.
There is a lot of doubt. No one can argue that.
My comment was the concern of the public, and even many racing officials, that there is a "possiblity" of some other illegal dealings.
It is a real problem, because, yes, they could cut off bets at a minuet before post, but then you have other unfair consequences.

GT

I don't know the physical logistics. As you say, if the bet was made from an account, then the money would've been there.

I believe that was what Barry said. You can find it in the original thread when he retracted his statement that he thought it was past-posting...

Meadow's post:

"I was wrong about my guess that the bet was placed from an open machine.

"The bet was legally placed.

"Since the whole story involves rebates shops, wagering hubs, computer entries of bets, and betting teams--none of whom want to be identified--I can't give all details without getting some people in trouble. The gist of it was this:

"The bet was supposed to be for an ordinary, undisclosed amount. The person placing the bet wagered the wrong amount by a factor of plenty. Since some people do place large bets, particularly to show, nobody questioned the bet and it went through. The fact that the toteboard was out of action at Hollywood during this race added to the confusion.

"The bet was placed with less than one minute to go before off time.

"Sorry I can't be more forthcoming, but now that I've heard the actual story from someone who has direct knowledge of what took place, I can assure PA board members that there was no past posting involved. Just a mistake, in which the bettor was extremely lucky."

Nothing stated about how the bet was placed.


__________________

Blame AMTOTE
 

The tracks are using the equipment,AMTOTE and other betting services are in charge of the equipment and upgrades.The reason they won't fix the problem(which I think is not much of a problem)is it costs money to upgrade the system.think about it.How many betting outlets are there,betting machines and OTB services?Thousands.to upgrade all the equipment would be a massive task.From old betting machines to the lines they transmit the info on.
On the subject that it takes players from the game- Ask the people around you "Do you know what take out is?" or "what is breakage?"Or even "what does a horse with 4/5 odds pay to win?"If you can get any sizeable number that know I would be highly surprised.But be happy,its their money you should be getting.

Racing Management does not have a problem with taking all of the increased revenue that is generated from simulcasting only with spending some of it on upgrading their networks and equipment in order to provide an accurate tote board.

Racing wants to increase its' fan base. These new fans may not know what the pay out on 9-5 is or how much the take is, but everyone understands and expects that the odds don't change after the race starts. The best way I can think of to turn off new fans is to continue to give the appearance that there is something crooked going on

How about this

If they don't want to fix the problem then make a rule that when the race goes off the odds are frozen by the host track and any bets in the pipeline are the responsibility of the sending wagering hub to pay at the official off odds. In other words the simulcasting sites have to eat the difference. Give ya 9-5 that it won't take them very long to upgrade the equipment if this was required.

That makes sense to me, Mike.
In time, I think we will see it happen, let's hope it is soon.

Mike,

Interesting idea but I happen to be among those who think that the really late money is not all that "smart" anyway so I'd rather see it included in the pool. There are some here who have toteboard data who could probably provide a more definitive answer though.

Rick,
I agree about the so called "smart money", but wouldn't it all go into the pools if the equipment was state of the art, as Mike says?