Odds changes during races WHAT A JOKE

[BCOURTNEY]

Originally Posted by storyline

Can we see your tickets?

Not that I doubt anyone's sincerity but this is a game of opinions backed by cold-hard-cash. If a player wants credibility among others then transparency isn't optional.

Otherwise no one should take that player seriously imho.

Not picking on BCOURTNEY but I'll call out anyone who makes post-comments similar to this without proof of wager or when posting such an idiotic comment "Easy to get to in the selection process".

You'll have my apology after posting your winning tickets

I'm not changing my statement, this horse was easy to get to.

Rather than be overtly aggressive, why not learn from the players that did have the horse on top? I'm willing to discuss the criteria I used to determine the horse's probability to win which was calculated to be 19.6%. There are many reasons to give this horse hard look, you should consider the very strong possibility other data providers had a very a different view of the horse. The data supported the way the horse was supposed to be run, and when it was allowed to run that way it did well. If you want to discuss these details at length and how they were arrived at a private message is most appropriate.

1st power rating
2nd most competitive horse
1st speed figure from last XX
2nd best class figure
2nd best late figure
1st best late figure2
2nd best pace figure
1st best tactical close
1st best consistent performance
1st best speed points

Cheers

[dasch]

One thing that caught my eye in watching the replay, was that the jockey on the winner wanted no part of getting over at any point in the race. In fact he angled him out more early. The 2nd placer who was 6 lengths clear of 3rd at 16-1 also had a very wide trip.

Local horse, local connections, looks like some people knew that the outside was the best part of the track. If the money hadn't shown up I would say it was just a coincidence.

Wide final margins by average horses, the 3rd placer was 10 lengths back and beaten by the 2 widest trip horses in the race, an EASY total throw race for me moving forward.

[BCOURTNEY]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

Well the trainer did state his last workout before the race was slow, picked up really strong at the end and his gallop out was huge

It’s right there in the form for all to read.

Racing on the front end wasn’t working for him, so they switched gears and tried a rate job.

Nice job by the trainer.

Allan

Agreed on trainer insight.
They allowed the horse to run the way the data said it could - it worked.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by steveb

if that's happening then you have two problems maybe.
1....computer teams
2....cheats


the computer teams need predictability.
cheats, cheat them as well as the general public.

anybody that thinks the likes of woods, benter, zjeljko,longmuir, dufficy and whoever else is out there now, got there by cheating is on another planet.
they are/were making thousands upon thousands of bets day in day out.
why would they need to cheat on the odd race, and how could they?

having cheats though would be no surprise.
it's epidemic proportions where i live.

I understand where you are coming from. I spent the afternoon looking at this race, putting in information by hand. Call me a little old school if you want. The 11 was a contender, no doubt about it. My best rating for the horse was 4-1. I called this one the "if things go perfect" program. There one thing in this post that caught my eye. The computer teams need predictability. Young 3 yr old's do not, and will never meet that condition. Never.

[storyline]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Is it an impossibility that some computer-betting "Whale" might have infiltrated the backstretch in order to complement his software-based wagering?

Anything is possible Gus but what is the likelihood of that happening? I'm taking your question at face-value but I have the sneaky suspicion that you're playing the new-kid a little, presumably you been around a few decades playing poker, ponies etc

Lets say hypothetically that you and I are the stewards of this horse and consider juicing him, keep in mind the purse is 800k and one of our best local wagering opportunities throughout the year.

Now who would either of us talk to about this? We're cheating and the consequences could seriously destroy our careers and reputation. Beside by talking we would loss some of our edge without diminishing our risk.

Do we tell our grooms, hotwalkers, exercises riders etc, do any of these people know any whales, are there whales in New Mexico playing Sunland Park?

Say we told the entire barn that we felt our horse would run huge and someone then misspoke about it to a whale member. Like these two groups run in the same circles.

Do you think a group who are wagering tens of millions of dollars annually would bet into this race because of barn talk? Me neither.

Honestly I'd be more inclined to embrace the possibility that someone from a drug cartel was involved (washing money) before whale involvement.

[storyline]

Originally Posted by BCOURTNEY

I'm not changing my statement, this horse was easy to get to.

Rather than be overtly aggressive, why not learn from the players that did have the horse on top? I'm willing to discuss the criteria I used to determine the horse's probability to win which was calculated to be 19.6%. There are many reasons to give this horse hard look, you should consider the very strong possibility other data providers had a very a different view of the horse. The data supported the way the horse was supposed to be run, and when it was allowed to run that way it did well. If you want to discuss these details at length and how they were arrived at a private message is most appropriate.

1st power rating
2nd most competitive horse
1st speed figure from last XX
2nd best class figure
2nd best late figure
1st best late figure2
2nd best pace figure
1st best tactical close
1st best consistent performance
1st best speed points

Cheers

I get it!! The horse was a cinch, where's your winning tickets? Where's a post before they ran stating the obvious.

If you want to school me, do it before they run and I'll be happy to engage. PM me anytime you got something live.

Adios

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by BCOURTNEY

I'm not changing my statement, this horse was easy to get to.

1st power rating
2nd most competitive horse
1st speed figure from last XX
2nd best class figure
2nd best late figure
1st best late figure2
2nd best pace figure
1st best tactical close
1st best consistent performance
1st best speed points

Cheers

What kind of mickey mouse data points are these? I agree with the other poster, you have to show something of fact before the race, or your bets after the race, to warrant any kind of respect with these comments.

I have no doubt you were on this horse but can't take your data points seriously as to why, and certainly can't agree this horse was "easy to get to". You know how many horses are easy to get to after the race? 100%.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by storyline

Anything is possible Gus but what is the likelihood of that happening? I'm taking your question at face-value but I have the sneaky suspicion that you're playing the new-kid a little, presumably you been around a few decades playing poker, ponies etc

Lets say hypothetically that you and I are the stewards of this horse and consider juicing him, keep in mind the purse is 800k and one of our best local wagering opportunities throughout the year.

Now who would either of us talk to about this? We're cheating and the consequences could seriously destroy our careers and reputation. Beside by talking we would loss some of our edge without diminishing our risk.

Do we tell our grooms, hotwalkers, exercises riders etc, do any of these people know any whales, are there whales in New Mexico playing Sunland Park?

Say we told the entire barn that we felt our horse would run huge and someone then misspoke about it to a whale member. Like these two groups run in the same circles.

Do you think a group who are wagering tens of millions of dollars annually would bet into this race because of barn talk? Me neither.

Honestly I'd be more inclined to embrace the possibility that someone from a drug cartel was involved (washing money) before whale involvement.

Occam's Razor.... the simple answer is likely correct (one that makes the fewest assumptions).

I am not accusing anyone of anything, but performance enhancing drugs combined with insider betting is, by far, the simplest explanation.

[lamboguy]

anytime money is involved, there are going to be people out there trying to figure out the edge and how to get their fingers on that money.

one of the best moves that used to happen in the racing was years ago before Nevada had pari-mutuel wagering. they had different rules in horse racing that don't exist today like if there was an entry, you had to pick one of the horses if the other one won you had no bet.

in daily doubles, when there is a scratch on one of the horses in either half of the double you got a refund no matter what the outcome of the horse that ran.
what slick guys did is bet doubles all over the state, if the first horse lost, the horse in the second half wound up getting scratched and they received a refund.

so i would say there are people that have dreamt up other modern day edges in the racing game, some we don't even know of. so face it, things are going on now, but we don't really know the extent of them. its just plain greed and human nature. if i had the chance to steal out of pari-mutuel pools without getting caught, i would do it in a heartbeat.

[storyline]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

Occam's Razor.... the simple answer is likely correct (one that makes the fewest assumptions).

I am not accusing anyone of anything, but performance enhancing drugs combined with insider betting is, by far, the simplest explanation.

Aristotle would be proud

If I had the authority to investigate the largest bets made on these two horses I'd have begun 20 seconds after race 11.

I won't have someone pissing down my leg suggesting that's it's raining outside. What's worse than being robbed is listening to posters now proclaiming they have him now as their top selection and citing an odds line, nauseating.

[storyline]

I think the "Pegasus Cup" was the first race I might have commented on. There are 19 pages in this thread and I joined the discussion about halfway in post #162, #218 and #240

I pretty much stated the obvious that Sharp Azteca was a false favorite and I couldn't believe the amount of interest this horse was getting. Go read the thread if you're bored.

I went as far as speculating under a couple different scenarios when the horse would spit-the-bit and he did. I also gave out the x's

It's one race so who cares but really if a player can't accurately spot false favorites you're going to lose your bankroll, those are just facts of the game. How many bad wagers does one need to make per month to lose any profit, believe me it's not many.

The point is I backup my talk before they run and absolutely detest blather afterwards. Review my posts if you must but I leave zero wiggle room in my opinions before the race.

It's called being a straight shooter, try it.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by storyline

Aristotle would be proud

If I had the authority to investigate the largest bets made on these two horses I'd have begun 20 seconds after race 11.

I won't have someone pissing down my leg suggesting that's it's raining outside. What's worse than being robbed is listening to posters now proclaiming they have him now as their top selection and citing an odds line, nauseating.

Agreed. The betting and the way the horse ran deserve an audit. If I was running the show at Sunland, I'd have been on this immediately. As much for the connections of the winner, to remove doubt, as it would be to uncover something else.

But here's the problem. Why does the track want to bring undue negative spotlight on their product? They got the money into their pools and took their cut. That is where their true interest begins and ends. I'll tell you this....if the track was on the hook for fixed odds (at say the morning line of 8-1) and this money came in with this kind of result, there would be a serious investigation. In that I have no doubt.

This game lacks integrity and oversight in so many areas. It doesn't matter if you believe there was something illegal here, it only matters if you think the signs are there for it to be something illegal (which there clearly is). One only needs to have a cursory understanding of the game to know what happened in this race is "strange" both in the betting and kind of result that occurred.

I would love to have a printout of the bets, by time stamp and location. I could tell you in 30 seconds what happened if I was armed with that.

[Track Phantom]

...and one more thing. The court who is going to approve legalized sports betting should not look at horse racing as the model. One of the main propositions for legalizing sports betting is the regulatory arms of the wagering outfits can identify and flush out anomalies in the betting (to make sure they're tracking for something fishy). Horse racing is absolutely negligent in this area and at the expense of the game and their customers. It's why you see horse racing buried BEHIND Olympic Sports, WWE and Jaski (whatever that is) on the ESPN site. No one takes it seriously precisely due to lack of integrity.

[storyline]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

...and one more thing. The court who is going to approve legalized sports betting should not look at horse racing as the model. One of the main propositions for legalizing sports betting is the regulatory arms of the wagering outfits can identify and flush out anomalies in the betting (to make sure they're tracking for something fishy). Horse racing is absolutely negligent in this area and at the expense of the game and their customers. It's why you see horse racing buried BEHIND Olympic Sports, WWE and Jaski (whatever that is) on the ESPN site. No one takes it seriously precisely due to lack of integrity.

Great posts Track Phantom and I look forward to exchanging opinions with you and others going forward. I had a great chat with Spalding No. in the Rebel Stakes thread the other day which is why we come back here.

I wanted to say before leaving this thread that PA is a fantastic host and a super guy and any disparaging comments I might have made were in no way directed towards him. I love the guy!

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by storyline

Great posts Track Phantom and I look forward to exchanging opinions with you and others going forward. I had a great chat with Spalding No. in the Rebel Stakes thread the other day which is why we come back here.

I wanted to say before leaving this thread that PA is a fantastic host and a super guy and any disparaging comments I might have made were in no way directed towards him. I love the guy!

Thanks! I have no issue with PA or anyone debating this. While it feels black and white to me, it may not seem that way to others, and I always leave room for my opinion to be the wrong one in the argument. I wasn't there, didn't see the bets, or how the horse was handled up to the race, so it could be something else. Having said that, the data points are all right there for us to draw a solid hypothesis.

There is one thing with the tote board. Money doesn't lie. No matter how much BS trainers dish out about their horses, the money tells the story much more accurately. Had either the bet come in and the horse lost, or the horse ran so well without the betting, I'd be ok with it. It is the combination of the two that has me suspicious.