Past posting

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by delfman

I certainly believe that is possible. Sort of the same as how back when online poker was legal in all states, there were hackers cheating then.

One thing that is worth knowing from the experience of online poker:

Yes, there definitely was cheating in online poker. There was Russ Hamilton and his buddies at Ultimate Bet. There was Stox with his multiple accounts. There was Furbean and his collusion scam. There were the bots, allegedly from China.

All these things went on. They probably still go on.

HOWEVER, this coexisted with another fact: 99 percent of all online poker cheating allegations were false. People would constantly say that online poker was rigged, and use as their examples stuff that happens all the time in live poker too.

I think this should inform people's analysis about what goes on in horse racing. Yes, there are betting coups. Yes, there have been some scandals and hacks. And yes, it wouldn't shock me if it turned out someone was past posting.

But it's also true that the vast majority of the time, the betting is going to be honest and what you are seeing is just computer lags or whatever.

[Tom]

Horse racing - for people who just don't get enough pain!

[PressThePace]

Just watched a race at Belterra. Horse was 7/2 after gates open. Turning for home, he was 7/1. No other horse was hammered late.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by PressThePace

Just watched a race at Belterra. Horse was 7/2 after gates open. Turning for home, he was 7/1. No other horse was hammered late.

Not true; the went from 2-1 with the last horse loading to 3-5 during the race.

By the way, neither horse won (the 7-2 to 7-1 horse finished 3rd, the 2-1 to 3-5 horse finished 2nd).

[PressThePace]

Originally Posted by castaway01

Not true; the went from 2-1 with the last horse loading to 3-5 during the race.

By the way, neither horse won (the 7-2 to 7-1 horse finished 3rd, the 2-1 to 3-5 horse finished 2nd).

Thank you, I stand corrected. I thought the was even money went the gates opened. I didn't bet either horse, but annoying nonetheless

[SG4]

This sounds crazy. If the bomb longshot wasn't in the 2nd leg I'd say this had all the hallmarks of the fix-six scandal all over again.



https://live.drf.com/nuggets/51020-pick-six-curiosity

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by SG4

This sounds crazy. If the bomb longshot wasn't in the 2nd leg I'd say this had all the hallmarks of the fix-six scandal all over again.



https://live.drf.com/nuggets/51020-pick-six-curiosity

Why?

He/she bet almost $30k into the wager...when's the last time you did that?

[SG4]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Why?

He/she bet almost $30k into the wager...when's the last time you did that?

Are you asking why this sounds crazy or why this was reminiscent of the fix six?

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm asking why anyone would see "something" in this result given the relatively large total invested in this particular bet.

Why would any thought of possible skulduggery cross a person's mind?

It's so weird how over on off-topic I'm called a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy king, but here in racing I seem to never buy into alternative notions.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by SG4

Are you asking why this sounds crazy or why this was reminiscent of the fix six?

There is absolutely nothing even remotely similar to this situation and what happened in the BC Pick-6 scandal. This is how the CAW players put in their Pick-6 wagers....each combination individually for different amounts. There is NOTHING unusual about this particular play.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by the little guy

There is absolutely nothing even remotely similar to this situation and what happened in the BC Pick-6 scandal. This is how the CAW players put in their Pick-6 wagers....each combination individually for different amounts. There is NOTHING unusual about this particular play.

I dont think people are at all familiar with how CAW players put in tickets.

[JerryBoyle]

Originally Posted by the little guy

There is absolutely nothing even remotely similar to this situation and what happened in the BC Pick-6 scandal. This is how the CAW players put in their Pick-6 wagers....each combination individually for different amounts. There is NOTHING unusual about this particular play.

Gotta agree here. It is possible to merge tickets to increase the speed at which you get bets down, but for faster sites, like AmWager, you can get thousands of bets through really quickly. There's nothing suspicious about what this person or team did imo.

There's also risk that a scratched runner in a ticket can invalidate the whole ticket, even if it contains a combination that does not include the scratched runner. This has happened to me in the past, causing me to miss a decent payoff on a superfecta. Because of that, I don't merge tickets that I send through faster ADWs, while still merging for slower ADWs.

By merging I mean, start with all single combination tickets, and group them by those with the same bet amount. Then for each group, start combining them where possible. E.g if I want to bet $2 on 1/2/3 and 1/2/4 trifectas, for slower ADWs I'll merge them to 1/2/(3,4). As far as I know, there isn't an efficient solution to that problem, so I just brute force it.

[JerryBoyle]

Also, it's worth keeping in mind that if you're solving for bet sizes using something like the kelly criterion or maximizing expected profit, and you're solving such that you're considering all dependent bets together, you will see suggested bets on combinations with negative edge that can include bombs. In a way, it's hedging against bets on other combinations.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by JerryBoyle

merging tickets...
kelly criterion...

yup

and with the 'jackpot' rules, there's a built-in incentive to separating tickets that contain unpopular outcomes (long shots).



interesting winning ticket(s).


part that is new to me = Rule change/evolution to designate 'single ticket' vs. 'minimum denomination'.

I could be misremembering, but I thought that was at one time a topic of debate, and had even been a controversial decision to withhold a jackpot from a single-ticket-winner at least once. (someone was the 'only winner' but bet for more than the minimum denomination?)

Hopefully that is a universal rule now at major tracks. I feel it significantly improves the rule.


back to JerryBoyle/kelly Criterion etc.../ 'math guys' ... Seems like an interesting 'equation' including all of the factors.

[JerryBoyle]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

yup

part that is new to me = Rule change/evolution to designate 'single ticket' vs. 'minimum denomination'.

Yeah, in my opinion, it should be phrased such that the jackpot is triggered when there's a sole owner of a single combination, regardless of whether the combo is merged w another combo, or whether there's more than the minimum bet on the combo. Even if you bet the same combo twice, if you're the sole owner of a ticket(s) with the combo, you should get the jackpot. That seems to be in the spirit of it, and it makes the math easier .

As for the equation for kelly, considering all dependent outcomes and their impact on payoff, it's fairly straightforward:



N = number of combinations
W = total money bet into the pool prior to proposed bets
Q = 1 - track take
w_i = current money bet on combination i
b_i = proposed bet on combination i
p_i = model's estimate of combination i winning
I = starting bankroll
r = rebate % for the type of pool

The equation gives the expected change in logarithmic wealth for a given set of bets. You'd then maximize that equation with respect to a series of bets. Solving it simply in python using scipy's minimize function is easy. However, solving it quickly for large pools is not trivial. In my experience, more complex solutions are required for anything more exotic than the exacta/daily double pools.


I should note that the equation is presented in a paper in Efficiency of Racetrack Betting Markets titled "Concavity Properties of Racetrack Betting Models" by J.G. Kallberg and W.T. Ziemba. I only modified it to include rebates.