WRD "Graphics Delay"

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

There were 3 other daily doubles yesterday., 2 at Fonner and one at Will Rogers...and all 3 paid EXACTLY what was listed at the end of the first race of the DD. The last DD at WRD was the only exception. The other three daily doubles paid (I think) $198, $153 and $28. And these were the exact payoff amounts reported at the end of the 1st daily double race, in every single case.

I hope people don't think I'm defending our archaic system, because it stinks.

I just don't think the double pool changed after the will pays were calculated. I would guess the tote delay caused that particular ADW to not update with the final totals as it usually does. If the will pays shown before the race changed after the fact that is a huge problem obviously. But I don't think that is what happened.

That said, this should 100% be investigated. It smells fishy as hell even if the will pay was correct. But it won't be. Who is actually going to do the looking, LOL?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

I hope people don't think I'm defending our archaic system, because it stinks.

I just don't think the double pool changed after the will pays were calculated. I would guess the tote delay caused that particular ADW to not update with the final totals as it usually does. If the will pays shown before the race changed after the fact that is a huge problem obviously. But I don't think that is what happened.

That said, this should 100% be investigated. It smells fishy as hell even if the will pay was correct. But it won't be. Who is actually going to do the looking, LOL?

Let's leave the daily double out of it for now. The winner of the 10th race was 6-1 and the second place horse was 19-1. What "genius" was smart enough to isolate this particular exacta combination...and reduce it to almost HALF of what it was supposed to pay? If you checked the 10th race exacta probables at the end of the 10th race betting period...the 4-7 exacta combination payoff was listed at $226. It only paid $119 when the payoffs were finally posted after the "delay". The winning paid only $10.40...even though Twinspires' tote board had the horse listed at 6-1 even HOURS later.

The fact that this incident is only being discussed HERE is shocking to me. Why isn't anybody else talking about this? Is there no investigative reporting at ALL left in this game anymore?

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Let's leave the daily double out of it for now. The winner of the 10th race was 6-1 and the second place horse was 19-1. What "genius" was smart enough to isolate this particular exacta combination...and reduce it to almost HALF of what it was supposed to pay? If you checked the 10th race exacta probables at the end of the 10th race betting period...the 4-7 exacta combination payoff was listed at $226. It only paid $119 when the payoffs were finally posted after the "delay". The winning paid only $10.40...even though Twinspires' tote board had the horse listed at 6-1 even HOURS later.

The fact that this incident is only being discussed HERE is shocking to me. Why isn't anybody else talking about this? Is there no investigative reporting at ALL left in this game anymore?

It has been discussed quite a bit on Twitter is well. But again, that is just bettors that know something looks fishy. Reminds me of a certain drug scandal.

Twitter

Thinking anyone running Will Rogers Downs would have a clue is probably wishful thinking at best.

I guess these people are supposed to be keeping an eye on things, but I haven't seen them do much of anything.

http://www.trpb.com/

[Afleet]

Originally Posted by cj

It has been discussed quite a bit on Twitter is well. But again, that is just bettors that know something looks fishy. Reminds me of a certain drug scandal.

https://twitter.com/PaulMattiesJr/st...38221825118209

Thinking anyone running Will Rogers Downs would have a clue is probably wishful thinking at best.

I guess these people are supposed to be keeping an eye on things, but I haven't seen them do much of anything.

http://www.trpb.com/

WRD still using an abacus

[shout1966]

Just using math here the 4/7 exacta should have paid in the area of $150.
it paid $119. I wouldn't think this was half of what it should be.
For the Daily Double it should have been around $175 what the parlay was as a base, it paid $257. Quite more then the parlay indeed.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by shout1966

Just using math here the 4/7 exacta should have paid in the area of $150.
it paid $119. I wouldn't think this was half of what it should be.
For the Daily Double it should have been around $175 what the parlay was as a base, it paid $257. Quite more then the parlay indeed.

According to your math...what should the exacta have paid if it came 7/4?

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by shout1966

Just using math here the 4/7 exacta should have paid in the area of $150.
it paid $119. I wouldn't think this was half of what it should be.
For the Daily Double it should have been around $175 what the parlay was as a base, it paid $257. Quite more then the parlay indeed.

That's hard to believe...

12 horses...

It was also something like a 6-1 over 19-1? before the late odds changes.

a 4th choice over mid-range-long-shot 5th or 6th choice, in a 12 horse field, where you had two standout co-favorites ().

99.9% of the time that people whine about odds changes, it's more a function of the way the tote system operates, and an ignorance of those doing the complaining.

This time, was different and you had unusual market behavior.

• The greatest bet in recent history(or maybe that I've 'ever' noticed...), where some 'whale' bucked the multis and tote board, and went out on his own?
• The owner of the #4 went on tilt, and got extremely lucky?
• was there somehow a vulnerability in the Tote?
• Were the clear co-favs (#2,#11) held back in a 'fixing' incident?
• was the #4 given the same juice that Navarro/Service et al. gave (and continue to give), and was thriving so much that the owners/conspirators made huge late bets w/ confidence (think Firenze Fire Dwyer)?

Who knows exactly what happened. A 'tremendous lone-wolf whale', or a 'lucky random debt-risking gamble' just seems to be the more unlikely chances.

It's clear that there is a high probability that something nefarious happened.

We saw the Dwyer juicing+betting-coup, and many other cheating incidents... that were both obvious, and unpunished.

At this point there's no reason to make excuses.

[shout1966]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

According to your math...what should the exacta have paid if it came 7/4?

$240.00 low end. But i am not arguing that something was or wasn't going on I am just stating from my experience of watching horse racing for 40 years that these payoffs are not out of the realm of possibilities.

[shout1966]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

That's hard to believe...

12 horses...

It was also something like a 6-1 over 19-1? before the late odds changes.

a 4th choice over mid-range-long-shot 5th or 6th choice, in a 12 horse field, where you had two standout co-favorites ().

99.9% of the time that people whine about odds changes, it's more a function of the way the tote system operates, and an ignorance of those doing the complaining.

This time, was different and you had unusual market behavior.

• The greatest bet in recent history(or maybe that I've 'ever' noticed...), where some 'whale' bucked the multis and tote board, and went out on his own?
• The owner of the #4 went on tilt, and got extremely lucky?
• was there somehow a vulnerability in the Tote?
• Were the clear co-favs (#2,#11) held back in a 'fixing' incident?
• was the #4 given the same juice that Navarro/Service et al. gave (and continue to give), and was thriving so much that the owners/conspirators made huge late bets w/ confidence (think Firenze Fire Dwyer)?

Who knows exactly what happened. A 'tremendous lone-wolf whale', or a 'lucky random debt-risking gamble' just seems to be the more unlikely chances.

It's clear that there is a high probability that something nefarious happened.

We saw the Dwyer juicing+betting-coup, and many other cheating incidents... that were both obvious, and unpunished.

At this point there's no reason to make excuses.

The 4 was 4-1 he was not 6-1. No matter what he was at the gate he went off 4-1. That would make him the 3rd choice. Again only stating what the final odds were. I also called TVG and tried to get screen shots of both the 9th race and 10th race that would show what the double was as a probable and what it was as a will pay in the 10th. Do to the fact that everyone is working from home he wasn't able to help get the information would have been interesting to see it as it showed it live.

[iamt]

Amwager keep the full will pays up in their results.


Across the double, Pick 3 and Pick 4 he was normally 60% longer than #1, and 40% longer than #11, and was the third pick across all of them, marginally in front of #8.


The #11 took more action than the #1 int he win pool, but it all looks as expected for the win price vs the will pays.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by shout1966

The 4 was 4-1 he was not 6-1. No matter what he was at the gate he went off 4-1. That would make him the 3rd choice. Again only stating what the final odds were. I also called TVG and tried to get screen shots of both the 9th race and 10th race that would show what the double was as a probable and what it was as a will pay in the 10th. Do to the fact that everyone is working from home he wasn't able to help get the information would have been interesting to see it as it showed it live.

How do you know that the was 4-1? Was the horse ever listed at 4-1 on the Fonner tote board? I am asking because the Twinspires tote board had the horse at 6-1 all night long.

[shout1966]

TVG shows final odds of 4-1

[shout1966]

Originally Posted by iamt

Amwager keep the full will pays up in their results.


Across the double, Pick 3 and Pick 4 he was normally 60% longer than #1, and 40% longer than #11, and was the third pick across all of them, marginally in front of #8.


The #11 took more action than the #1 int he win pool, but it all looks as expected for the win price vs the will pays.

so you can look back at the 9th and see if the double probable was in fact $257.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by shout1966

The 4 was 4-1 he was not 6-1.

I don't disagree that that final prices seem very logical when compared to the final prices.


They actually match perfectly.

[Mason]

Originally Posted by cj

I guess these people are supposed to be keeping an eye on things, but I haven't seen them do much of anything.

http://www.trpb.com/

That's because WRD isn't a member track of the TRPB

http://www.trpb.com/members.html

Wagering security TRPB link

http://www.trpb.com/tss.html

All 3 tote providers and their watch dogs aren't much better either. You get two guys sitting in the tote room during a race day, face down in their phones or watching tv, making crappy pay, some with zero knowledge of the sport, and yet we the wagering public is suppose to put our trust into the pools and integrity of this sport?

My wagering amount in racing has tanked over the years due to the on going flaws the horse racing industry continues to throw at us. Poor chartwriters, inaccurate published racing data, bad race timing, drugs in the game, some questionable jockeys-trainers-owners, cheaters, and so on. I have too many options today where my gambling dollar is better spent.