18/1 in the gate 7/1 in the winners circle.

[lamboguy]

there has to be something wrong with the timestamp and the way the bets came in. first the guy bets $41, then the guy decides to bet $1822, then he decides to only bet $131, oh and then he comes in for another $3386, etc etc.

supposedly Elite only has 5 customers in total, please wake the fug up America.

[Bustin Stones]

A lot of this hand wringing is due to the strategy of betting a horse who you think is underappreciated. Not necessarily the horse you believe has the best chance of winning, but the one who in the long run will yield the highest profit. That strategy requires you to know the final odds in order to evaluate your position. Since you won't know the final odds, the strategy falls apart.
I suggest you stick to betting the horse you believe has the best chance of winning and then decide whether the odds are acceptable. Even then, you won't know. You'd have to have a very liberal rule such as if the horse is currently 3/5 or worse you won't bet it.
It takes a lot less money to drive a 15/1 horse down to 7/1 than to drive it from 2/1 down to 3/5. So that would make the 2/1 odds more robust.
In addition, with all the AI being used, the chances of finding some 10/1 that has been overlooked is dwindling.
I already know this will fall on deaf ears in that it does not agree with the gamblers' mantra of beating the crowd by seeking value.
But, once you accepted the premise that value is the only way to win, you've accepted the weakness in the parimutuel process.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

A lot of this hand wringing is due to the strategy of betting a horse who you think is underappreciated. Not necessarily the horse you believe has the best chance of winning, but the one who in the long run will yield the highest profit. That strategy requires you to know the final odds in order to evaluate your position. Since you won't know the final odds, the strategy falls apart.
I suggest you stick to betting the horse you believe has the best chance of winning and then decide whether the odds are acceptable. Even then, you won't know. You'd have to have a very liberal rule such as if the horse is currently 3/5 or worse you won't bet it.
It takes a lot less money to drive a 15/1 horse down to 7/1 than to drive it from 2/1 down to 3/5. So that would make the 2/1 odds more robust.
In addition, with all the AI being used, the chances of finding some 10/1 that has been overlooked is dwindling.
I already know this will fall on deaf ears in that it does not agree with the gamblers' mantra of beating the crowd by seeking value.
But, once you accepted the premise that value is the only way to win, you've accepted the weakness in the parimutuel process.

That doesn't work any better. You identify a horse who is the most probable winner at 5-2. Those horses can be gold- horses that actually are hugely likely to win but offer decent odds. Computer guys come in at the last minute and bet him to 6-5. There goes your value.

[Track Phantom]

Would like to see ALL bets this person made (if possible) and the time stamp when they were made.

[iamt]

Why does this matter if it is computer teams.


Your example is waiting to late in betting, seeing something you think is value, and wanting to bet. You aren't the only one allowed to have that opinion, and not going to be the only person who does have it.


Late money is more pronounced as a proportion of the pool than ever, we know the, but it is all bettors now more able to be firing in as the horses load without fear of being locked out while waiting in line like years before.

[Robert Fischer]

several different things clouded together here

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by iamt

Why does this matter if it is computer teams.


Your example is waiting to late in betting, seeing something you think is value, and wanting to bet. You aren't the only one allowed to have that opinion, and not going to be the only person who does have it.


Late money is more pronounced as a proportion of the pool than ever, we know the, but it is all bettors now more able to be firing in as the horses load without fear of being locked out while waiting in line like years before.

I will do a longer post on this at some point but there is no right to bet. If racing thinks that computer users are causing people to lose confidence in the pools, it can absolutely make it harder or even impossible for them to do it. As I said, there are significant restrictions on computerized stock trading. Many forms of live gambling either ban computer assistance altogether or separate computer and live pools.

Now maybe racing should do nothing. But there's no philosophical reason racing has to allow computer operators to exploit technology to manipulate betting pools. If it's bad for the sport, then it needs to be restricted or separated into a separate pool.

[iamt]

You've used manipulation more than once in your posts, why?


There is nothing in this example that suggests manipulation, no bet cancelling, nothing. Just a team betting heavily (in an odd manor) on a runner close to jump.


The industry could make changes to the rebate shops like NYRA has, but the teams could still be able to bet rebate free close to jump through any ADW out there, in which case this example still effectively occurs.


Once you talk about banning these teams form the pools, you are one small step away form advocating that all winning players be barred so that the fish can lose and churn in peace.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by iamt

You've used manipulation more than once in your posts, why?


There is nothing in this example that suggests manipulation, no bet cancelling, nothing. Just a team betting heavily (in an odd manor) on a runner close to jump.


The industry could make changes to the rebate shops like NYRA has, but the teams could still be able to bet rebate free close to jump through any ADW out there, in which case this example still effectively occurs.


Once you talk about banning these teams form the pools, you are one small step away form advocating that all winning players be barred so that the fish can lose and churn in peace.

The parade of bets itself suggests manipulation. Why can't they place one bet? If the point is that they have to get the LAST bets in just before post time and bet the perfectly efficient amount, there's no right to do that! They can apply their computers to something else, rather than taking money out of the pockets of actual racing fans with their computers.

I am not advocating "all winning players be banned". I am saying you can draw lines. You (and others here) may be afraid of drawing lines, but the reality is drawing lines is essential.

For instance, if your online poker site is dominated by foreign bots that profit through automatic play and massive computing power (as some are), eventually, others will get the point and stop playing, and then you won't have any poker games at all or enough tables for someone to try to make some money.

Which is why the better sites do what they can to stop bots.

It's not that I want to "ban winning players". It's that just because someone's devised a way to win DOESN'T actually mean it's good for the sport, and the sport certainly CAN ban "winning players that do serious harm to the integrity of the betting pools". Or at least restrict them or make it harder for them to win.

There's no libertarian paradise here. In libertarian paradise, everyone on this board loses their shirt and quits horse racing unless they are a member of one of the computer teams, and the computer teams move onto something else after they've destroyed the sport. If someone's "winning play" comes from exploiting technology or information lags rather than a mere advantage of acumen, we absolutely should treat them differently and stop them if necessary to protect the sport.

[iamt]

Nothing about the multiple bets suggests manipulation in any way, at all. Why they did it that way I have no idea but as long as the money goes into the pools and stays there I can't see how there is an issue with the way they were placed.

[jay68802]

The betting shows how fast the CAW's are able to react to the pool that is being targeted. Looks like they are getting pool totals about every 1 to 2 seconds, and are able to react in a second.

[Elkchester Road]

Originally Posted by jay68802

The betting shows how fast the CAW's are able to react to the pool that is being targeted. Looks like they are getting pool totals about every 1 to 2 seconds, and are able to react in a second.

Yet there are people here who don't understand why anybody would have a problem with that.

jay68802

[iamt]

This has been discussed before, but pool wise these teams aren't getting access to anything that isn't already available publicly. So they would be on the same cycles and updates as shown by the ADWs.


No company is providing pool updates that frequently, to anyone.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

16:16.41 $41 40 seconds
16:16.41 $1,822 40 seconds
16:16.53 $131 28 seconds
16:16.53 $3,386 28 seconds
16:16.55 $6 26 seconds
16:17.02 $38 19 seconds
16:17.01 $3 18 seconds
16:17.06 $496 15 seconds
16:17.08 $3 13 seconds
16:17.11 $2,890 10 seconds
16:17.12 $2,276 9 seconds
16:17.18 $74 3 seconds
16:17.19 $40 2 seconds

This is really bad. We don't know with absolute certainty, but it appears as though all of these bets were placed by the same bettor. There's no reason whatsoever to allow this.

Stuff like this, by the way, is a good reason why the sport needs national regulation. No single track or state wants to ban this, because they don't want to lose the handle. But a national regulator could ban it for all tracks and put everyone on a level playing field.

Why is it really bad?

There is nothing illegal about it. All bets were made before the race went off. None of the bets were cancelled.

If all bets are from the same account, and placed via computer then it makes perfect sense. Computer algorithms come up with some interesting things which will look unusual to "normies"

Just because you can't do this doesn't make it bad.

There are a lot of people in this industry on every side of the playing field who can do things you or I can't do...does that make them all bad?

I fail to understand the logic here.

10-15 years ago I was writing code that read the online ADW data and automatically placed bets for me at the last minute, sometimes in strange patterns, not unlike the person above. I still lost money. I was bad, but not in the way you're making it seem...LOL

NONE OF THIS IS NEW...if I was doing something like this 10-15 years ago, you can
ONLY IMAGINE WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING TODAY

[Poindexter]

Just some random points on this subject.

1) Rebates, are a partial cause of these extreme betdowns, because it changes the math. If we were old school make a horse 8-1 and bet value at 11-1 or better or maybe these guys are so sharp that they will take 10-1 or better with a smile, they are only knocking the horse down to maybe 12 or 13-1 just in case they have company. With rebates the math changes and their technique changes.

2)I would not assume anything as to what these teams can do. While the racetracks may not be providing them up to the second odds updates, if they are in the system why would I assume they cannot provide it to themselves. Someone on the technical end would have to provide me convincing evidence it cannot happen. These folks are betting and making a lot of money and will use any edge they can to make more and I don't blame them (common sense). On our many posts on this subject I don't recall seeing any of that convincing evidence. Maybe I am a hard sell, but doubt it. By the way a little off topic but I put past posting in the same boat.

3) The optics of this is beyond ridiculous. You assume that the betting public is completely naive if you think they are going to accept with a smile a horse being completely ignored in the betting throughout and then after off the get hammered from 18-1 to 7-1 and wins the race. There is no cure for this. The sport looks crooked, whether it is or not. I promise you that nobody is counting the 8 or 9 times that another horse gets pounded and loses ( assuming there are 8 or 9 times and they probably will not even notice anyhow). By the way if somebody keeps track of these types of bell betdowns, would be fascinating to see how they do long term. Are 18-1's bet down to 7-1 or similar winning 1 out of 5, 1 out of 10 or 1 out of 20. The answer to this question would shed a light on how serious this problem is. A query of something like roi of any horse that drops in half or less when final odds are say 5-1 + after the bell would do the trick. If the final roi sucks on these horses, who cares, but..................