"Smart money" at Gulfstream

[FakeNameChanged]

Clearly this one fits my wife's old same-name in a race angle. Two horses named Mischief in a race?-bet them both. On a serious note, I wouldn't have expected 's odds to be as low or lower than the or Five workouts with the last one a bullet running around the dogs has to be the main contributor. Not a regular follower of Section II Racing LLC, they may be worth following.

[barn32]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Maybe he was a big CAW play, as their money REALLY dominates those pools...

What does CAW stand for?

Originally Posted by thaskalos

This isn't the profile of the typical computer-group betdown selection...from what I have seen.

What does the profile of the typical computer-group betdown selection look like?

[johnhenry81]

The bullet work on April 14 At PMM was shared with Speed Franco, a multiple stakes winner and was 3/5's faster than the 3rd worker.

Dont know if the top two were in company.

jh

[Tom]

HTR had him listed a "Bomb" and if go back to his good form last summer, he had a big early advantage over the field.
Their line had him 10-1

[Suff]

He was hit at the win spot, was hovering 7-1, 5-1 approach the gate, went at $3.30. They didn't catch up to the double. The probable was $80 when I bet this 5 min to post, and still paid $76. 190 for $5

Summer Mischief jockey changed to Lopez P

[lamboguy]

my guess is that they found something wrong with the horse and corrected it. worked the horse with a jockey or an exercise rider that had been on him before, and reported a big positive change in the way the horse went in the a.m.

under those premise's if correct, anyone of a number of people could have known the improvement and decided to take their speculations to the mutual window's. if it was me and it was 30 years ago, i would have been running up and down the Vegas strip betting into non-parimutuel pools, and bet with any handbook that took thoroughbred action.`

[the little guy]

This horse's odds had little to nothing to do with who was riding it.

[Tom]

This is the kind of race and betting that just fills the seats....at the racino.

Nothing worse for the game this kind of thing.

FWIW anyone who bets GP deserves what they get.
I wouldn't play GP with your money if you drove me to the track and bought me lunch.

[Suff]

Originally Posted by the little guy

This horse's odds had little to nothing to do with who was riding it.

for me it did'nt because mine was just a lopez/lopez double. As far as what effect the leading rider had by picking up a late mount in this spot, I'd defer to you.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by Suff

for me it did'nt because mine was just a lopez/lopez double. As far as what effect the leading rider had by picking up a late mount in this spot, I'd defer to you.

Given he had over $15K more bet to win on him ( and I'm assuming much more in exotics ) than could reasonably have been expected, it's utterly impossible that the rider played much of a role in betting. Oh to live in a betting universe where significant odds swings occurred for that reason.

While rider changes may well be part of some ( or even all ) big player's models, I doubt it is a significant enough percentage to have created this action.

Doesn't anyone ever wonder about the handle numbers down there?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Given he had over $15K more bet to win on him ( and I'm assuming much more in exotics ) than could reasonably have been expected, it's utterly impossible that the rider played much of a role in betting. Oh to live in a betting universe where significant odds swings occurred for that reason.

While rider changes may well be part of some ( or even all ) big player's models, I doubt it is a significant enough percentage to have created this action.

Doesn't anyone ever wonder about the handle numbers down there?

As in the numbers reported by the track (on a daily and/or end-of-year press release basis) don't seem to foot to the numbers reported to the state (available in the FY annual report)?

[AlsoEligible]

Originally Posted by barn32

What does CAW stand for?

Computer Assisted Wagering

A lot of people will also say "Computer Automated Wagering", but there's an important distinction between the two, as most jurisdictions don't allow completely robotic/automated wagering, and by law a human being has to be submitting the bets.

So their models will spit out a list of 1-2k bets to be submitted, and a human operator will hit the "send" button as close to the bell as they can. Hence the computer is only "assisting" in the wagering, not fully "automating" it.

[Tom]

Track-speak for FU, they bet more than your ever will. Who cares about you, moron?

[Robert Fischer]

"What a surprise"

[classhandicapper]

I think it's highly likely it was people that knew the horse was training especially well (the workouts).

Whenever I see a horse taking a lot of money I don't understand, the first two things I check are the workouts and if there are any trainer patterns I am unaware of.

I can't tell you who bets big off workouts. It could be clockers, handicappers that get clocker reports, trainers/owners that know how well the horses is doing compared to the past, or just handicappers that put weight on them, but especially good and improved workouts often take a lot of money unless the horse always works that way. I'd have to add that in many cases the horses will run improved or peak efforts. So people that pay attention and evaluate these things well are not being stupid.