Mountaineer Big Show Bettor Down In Flames Again

[InTheRiver68]

Okay, let's use today's Mother Goose as an example. The show pools were as follows:

-- 5,482
-- 5,379
-- 85,988
-- 4,307
-- 5,424

This really wasn't a classic bridge-jumper, since the favorite only held 80.7% of the show pool, but it will work just fine in illustrating my point.

Belmont's WPS takeout is (now) 16.0%.

The order of finish was - - - .

Belmont does net pool pricing. The show prices (and the unbroken show prices) were as follows:

-- $2.10 ($1.75)
-- $3.00 ($3.08)
-- $2.70 ($2.78)

If Belmont were not net pool pricing, and had used the standard mutuel pricing model, the show prices (and unbroken show prices) would have been:

-- $2.10 ($1.95)
-- $2.10 ($1.03)
-- $2.10 ($1.24)

When the odds-on favorite ends up in the money, the net pool model favors the bet-againsters. That is, if you bet against the odds-on favorite, you get back more money on your bets in the net pool pricing model than you would in the standard pricing model.

Okay, so what happens if the odds-on favorite is off the board, and the order of finish is - - ?

In the net pool pricing model, the show prices (and the unbroken show prices) would have been:

-- $13.40 ($13.56)
-- $11.00 ($11.01)
-- $11.00 ($11.11)

And in the standard pricing model, the show prices (and unbroken show prices) would have been:

-- $13.40 ($13.50)
-- $11.00 ($11.04)
-- $11.00 ($11.13)

The prices, in this case, are exactly the same! (Yes, it's a bit of a coincidence, but not an unusual outcome.) If the odds-on favorite is OFF the board, net pool pricing and standard pricing are essentially equal in terms of whether one or the other favors bet-againsters.

By the way, it should be technically not possible to calculate prices in a net pool pricing situation unless you know the takeout rates used by every site that's betting into the pools. However, the vast majority of sites will use the same takeouts as the host, and that's the assumption I used here to calculate the prices. If there are sites out there that are using different takeout rates, they will make only a minor difference in the pools, and 99% of the time, no difference at all in the prices.

- InTheRiver68

[InTheRiver68]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

they aren't the same, they are less, i don't have the exact percentage. but ARAPAHOE is not net-pool and they returned full value to the payoffs of the horses that did not have the big money on it.

lamboguy, if you can get some show pool figures from a bridge-jumped Arapahoe race, I'll be happy to run the same calculations for you. I just need to know how much was wagered on each horse.

- InTheRiver68

[thespaah]

Please permit my ignorance..What is "net pool" pricing?

[InTheRiver68]

In standard pricing, the prices are calculated based on the gross amounts wagered on each horse. In net pool pricing, the prices are calculated based on the net amounts (gross minus takeout). It's just a different way of calculating prices that is now used by most racetracks because (1) it's easier to permit pools in a foreign currency, and (2) some jurisdictions are forced to use their own takeout rates when betting on other tracks' signals, and net pool pricing allows that.

- InTheRiver68

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

I would love an explanation of "seem fixed"

Mnr has its share of trainer tomfoolery, and I have been privy to short notice on some of it a few years back, so I know they do some goofy stuff. But I would love to hear your explanation of how you determined a race fixed ?

I will give you an explanation of a "fixed" race at Mountaineer. It happened about six months ago...which was also the time that I swore never to even look at another Mountaineer race ever again.

It was a ten horse field, and the 9 horse was the obvious standout in the race. Speed figures, running style, class, jockey...EVERYTHING. The only problem was, the 7 horse - who was 20-1 in the morning line - was 9/5, with 6 minutes to post.

I looked at the 7 horse to see if there was something I missed. The horse had finished 8th or worse, and at least 15 lengths back, in his last four races...the last time at 46-1 odds. No hint of early speed at all, and no class drop for today's race. An obvious throw-out.

I figured that someone was playing games by placing a big bet on the 7, which they would cancel at post-time.

When I checked the exacta payoffs however, I found that the exactas, with the throwout on top, were paying as if the horse was a legitimate 9/5 shot. The 7-9 payoff, (with the obvious choice second, who was 7/2 in the betting), was paying $21.

I was shocked. In 30 years of playing this game, I had never seen a 9/5 shot look exactly like a 50-1 shot should look. I waited to see if the odds on the 7 would drift upwards. They never did.

The 7 horse was last in the early going, and got up to win the race by half a length over the 9, paying $5.80, instead of the $100 it should have paid. I never bet the 9, even-though the horse went off at 4-1 odds, and I promised to admit myself to Gamblers Anonymous if I ever LOOK at another race at Mountaineer!

[sammy the sage]

ditto...^^^^..the above...only at calder...EXACT same scenerio...

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I will give you an explanation of a "fixed" race at Mountaineer. It happened about six months ago...which was also the time that I swore never to even look at another Mountaineer race ever again.

It was a ten horse field, and the 9 horse was the obvious standout in the race. Speed figures, running style, class, jockey...EVERYTHING. The only problem was, the 7 horse - who was 20-1 in the morning line - was 9/5, with 6 minutes to post.

I looked at the 7 horse to see if there was something I missed. The horse had finished 8th or worse, and at least 15 lengths back, in his last four races...the last time at 46-1 odds. No hint of early speed at all, and no class drop for today's race. An obvious throw-out.

I figured that someone was playing games by placing a big bet on the 7, which they would cancel at post-time.

When I checked the exacta payoffs however, I found that the exactas, with the throwout on top, were paying as if the horse was a legitimate 9/5 shot. The 7-9 payoff, (with the obvious choice second, who was 7/2 in the betting), was paying $21.

I was shocked. In 30 years of playing this game, I had never seen a 9/5 shot look exactly like a 50-1 shot should look. I waited to see if the odds on the 7 would drift upwards. They never did.

The 7 horse was last in the early going, and got up to win the race by half a length over the 9, paying $5.80, instead of the $100 it should have paid. I never bet the 9, even-though the horse went off at 4-1 odds, and I promised to admit myself to Gamblers Anonymous if I ever LOOK at another race at Mountaineer!

Not sure I follow. Most "fixed races involve collusion. The result would have payoffs to only a few would the bounty go.
I hardly see how a $21 exacta could qualify.
Anayway....I think I can gove you a better example of what IMO was a fixed race..
Meadowlands Harness. Closing day. I'd say 1985 or '86.
Invitational Pace. One 4yo mare in the race. Very classy called Jef's Eternity. She took a couple of shots vs the boys that season but did not fare well and always ended back in distaff Open races where she was dominant.
On this night she is dismissed at 20-1. Gate swings open and inexplicably she is the only one to leave. There was plenty of speed in the field. Not one driver took a shot at her. She was allowed to loaf along to a pedestrian 56 second half. Once she hit the far turn with 3/8th's to go and
with her amount of class the race was essentially over. She stepped away from the field from 3/16th's to the wire to cap an $800 exacta.
Talk about suspsicious. You bet....On our way out there were plenty of comments using the word "fix"..

[nearco]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I will give you an explanation of a "fixed" race at Mountaineer. It happened about six months ago...which was also the time that I swore never to even look at another Mountaineer race ever again.

It was a ten horse field, and the 9 horse was the obvious standout in the race. Speed figures, running style, class, jockey...EVERYTHING. The only problem was, the 7 horse - who was 20-1 in the morning line - was 9/5, with 6 minutes to post.

I looked at the 7 horse to see if there was something I missed. The horse had finished 8th or worse, and at least 15 lengths back, in his last four races...the last time at 46-1 odds. No hint of early speed at all, and no class drop for today's race. An obvious throw-out.

I figured that someone was playing games by placing a big bet on the 7, which they would cancel at post-time.

When I checked the exacta payoffs however, I found that the exactas, with the throwout on top, were paying as if the horse was a legitimate 9/5 shot. The 7-9 payoff, (with the obvious choice second, who was 7/2 in the betting), was paying $21.

I was shocked. In 30 years of playing this game, I had never seen a 9/5 shot look exactly like a 50-1 shot should look. I waited to see if the odds on the 7 would drift upwards. They never did.

The 7 horse was last in the early going, and got up to win the race by half a length over the 9, paying $5.80, instead of the $100 it should have paid. I never bet the 9, even-though the horse went off at 4-1 odds, and I promised to admit myself to Gamblers Anonymous if I ever LOOK at another race at Mountaineer!

How big were the win and exacta pools on this race?
Seems like they'd have to be fairly sizable when you factor in paying off the other 9 jockeys in the race.

Now if the 7 horse had been run down the field in previous races and was actually a higher quality animal than his form suggested, that's a different story, and not really a "fix", which, as someone pointed out, implies collusion.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by nearco

How big were the win and exacta pools on this race?
Seems like they'd have to be fairly sizable when you factor in paying off the other 9 jockeys in the race.

Now if the 7 horse had been run down the field in previous races and was actually a higher quality animal than his form suggested, that's a different story, and not really a "fix", which, as someone pointed out, implies collusion.

The race was a 5K claimer. The 7 horse had lost his last 4 races, at the SAME class level, at the SAME track, by at least 15 lengths! His last race odds were 46-1, at the same class as today, and he finished LAST. And on top of everything else...the horse was a confirmed stretch runner!

How is a horse like that 9/5 in a 10 horse field...plus being bet in the exotics?

Collusion or no collusion, the race was unlike any other I have ever seen...and I thought I had seen it ALL!

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by nearco

How big were the win and exacta pools on this race?
Seems like they'd have to be fairly sizable when you factor in paying off the other 9 jockeys in the race.

Now if the 7 horse had been run down the field in previous races and was actually a higher quality animal than his form suggested, that's a different story, and not really a "fix", which, as someone pointed out, implies collusion.

BAck then typical Saturday night crowds were in the 17 -20k range. Avg per capita wagering at The Big M usually hovered around 110 to 120 dollars.
Satuday handles avgd about $2 million.
The Meadowlands carded the feature race in the middle of the program. Typically the 6th of 10 or 11 races. I would imagine the exacta pool was roughly $150k. There was no trifecta or rolling pick 3 back then and no one ever heard of a Super. Just W-P-S and Exacta. Doubles on the 1st and 2nd and the last two. Trifectas on the 4th and Last races.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The race was a 5K claimer. The 7 horse had lost his last 4 races, at the SAME class level, at the SAME track, by at least 15 lengths! His last race odds were 46-1, at the same class as today, and he finished LAST. And on top of everything else...the horse was a confirmed stretch runner!

How is a horse like that 9/5 in a 10 horse field...plus being bet in the exotics?

Collusion or no collusion, the race was unlike any other I have ever seen...and I thought I had seen it ALL!

PLaying devil's advocate...Ok so the horse was a closer. I will assume the horse was in the same barn.
Do you think it possible that since what was being done wiht the horse hadn't been working ,the trianer decided to instruct the rider to go to the front in order to take a shot at reversing a losing strategy?
Look, if the horse hadn't been bet at all and the exotics came back huge, I would tend to agree with your theory of a fix.
Tell ya what, when I see a mysterious drop in odds based on the PP's my first inclination is to think "somebody knows something about this horse today/night"... I will throw in a "just in case" wager to cover myself.
It doesn't make sense to me for the owners and others in the alleged fix to blow up the pools with large bets for all to see. If I were in the alleged fix, I'd have that bet made at the last possible nanno-second to conceal it from the public.
One does not fix a race for a $21 exacta.
This is merely a discussion. Not an argument.
I believe I can understand your frustration. I think I have at times been the victim of shenanigans myself. My example above is clear.
One other.
I was at Saratoga a few years ago at our annual picnic out back.
Anyway, a few of us were on the same horses in this one particular race.
We all hit the same exacta. 7-1 over a 9-1 in a field of 9. Me being the astute person I am, I watch the exacta probables like a hawk. I noticed that the probables pay on this combo were starting to fall with under 5 mins to go. started out at around $150 or so and slid to $130 just as they took down the graphics to show the gate load. We were figuring at least $125 for that one. Even that seemed a little low. I said to my buddies, "somebody knows something".....Internet bettors must have crushed this combo because the payoff was a measly $77..... To have this combo payoff cut nearly in half from OTW and internet in such a short period of time tells you what?

[garyscpa]

Originally Posted by InTheRiver68

I beg to differ, but I may be wrong.
The biggest impact net-pool
pricing has is that the non-favorites will pay more than $2.10 when the favorite (with heavy show wagers) finishes in the money . When the favorite runs out, the difference between standard prices and net pool prices is very slim, and in fact net pool prices may be higher. I'll illustrate it if I get the chance today.

- InTheRiver68

Even if the profit is $.20 instead of $.10 when the favorite finishes in the money, you only get it on two horses. The purpose of beating the bridgejumper is for the favorite to run out of the money. Then net pool pricing has little effect.

The biggest impact is that there will be more bridgejumpers on a net pool pricing track.

[InTheRiver68]

Originally Posted by garyscpa

Even if the profit is $.20 instead of $.10 when the favorite finishes in the money, you only get it on two horses. The purpose of beating the bridgejumper is for the favorite to run out of the money. Then net pool pricing has little effect.

The biggest impact is that there will be more bridgejumpers on a net pool pricing track.

Actually, the biggest impact is that there will be more *bet-againsters* on a net pool pricing track. For the bridgejumpers themselves, net pool pricing has absolutely no effect. If they win, their take will be $2.10 or $2.20 regardless of whether the track uses the standard model or the net pool model. (Of course, if they lose, the lose, and again it doesn't matter which model it's under.)

Net pool pricing has a much bigger effect than 10c or 20c profit for bet-againsters. It's more like 60c or $1.20 or more profit.

My point is that the favorite only runs out of the money, what, once out of every 15 or 20 or 30 times? While you're waiting for that race, while you're betting on races where the bomb comes in the money, you still have to preserve your capital. Even if you only bet one horse to show (against the odds-on favorite), sometimes that horse runs out and you've got nothing to show for it. The times that it's IN the money, even with the odds-on favorite, you need to pick up that extra few bucks.

Net pool pricing favors the bet-againster.

- InTheRiver68

[garyscpa]

Originally Posted by InTheRiver68

Actually, the biggest impact is that there will be more *bet-againsters* on a net pool pricing track. For the bridgejumpers themselves, net pool pricing has absolutely no effect. If they win, their take will be $2.10 or $2.20 regardless of whether the track uses the standard model or the net pool model. (Of course, if they lose, the lose, and again it doesn't matter which model it's under.)

Net pool pricing has a much bigger effect than 10c or 20c profit for bet-againsters. It's more like 60c or $1.20 or more profit.

My point is that the favorite only runs out of the money, what, once out of every 15 or 20 or 30 times? While you're waiting for that race, while you're betting on races where the bomb comes in the money, you still have to preserve your capital. Even if you only bet one horse to show (against the odds-on favorite), sometimes that horse runs out and you've got nothing to show for it. The times that it's IN the money, even with the odds-on favorite, you need to pick up that extra few bucks.

Net pool pricing favors the bet-againster.

- InTheRiver68

The reason it's more important for the bridgejumper is that it doubles his return.

[ddog]

I know one thing, when you look at stats on MNR v all other "major" tracks , the ratio of real good looking dirt LOSERS is outside of normal expectation.

Maybe it's bad bad horses peaking or maybe................

Check it out for yourself in the last 30-60 days.

P.S. i didn't have to stop playing it as I never started.