Tonalist odds drop

[Seabiscuit@AR]

A 200K bet is nothing surprising. One syndicate at least has won tens of millions of dollars betting on USA racing in the last 10 to 15 years. They have probably even won over 100 million in that time. Other syndicates would have also stripped millions out of the pools in this time period

These syndicates would bet 200K a horse and more every day if the pools were big enough. Instead they can only do so in Triple Crown races and maybe Breeders Cup days. The rest of the time they bet a few hundred dollars a race at Delaware as that is all the pools can sustain without killing the odds

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Seabiscuit@AR

A 200K bet is nothing surprising. One syndicate at least has won tens of millions of dollars betting on USA racing in the last 10 to 15 years. They have probably even won over 100 million in that time. Other syndicates would have also stripped millions out of the pools in this time period

These syndicates would bet 200K a horse and more every day if the pools were big enough. Instead they can only do so in Triple Crown races and maybe Breeders Cup days. The rest of the time they bet a few hundred dollars a race at Delaware as that is all the pools can sustain without killing the odds

My question would be instead of pounding 200k at the bell and knocking the horse from 24 to 20, why not start betting 3,333 with 60 mins to post and place one wager every 1 betting cycle...that way, you can get more than 20 dollars on this horse as your money that comes in would essentially raise the prices on the other runners and when bettors see raised prices on other runners they (or their computer) adjusts and puts money on other runners who show value.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Sometimes they might do this

But the simplest & safest strategy for the big players is to drop their bet on at the very last second so nobody else sees their bet before the race jumps

[tampahorseplayer]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

I don't know what happened, but the people who DO know what happened aren't saying a word about it.

Whats the point of it being a past post? The horse didnt have the lead, didnt look like the winner even in the stretch and won by barely a neck. Noone is going to past post to take a gamble, only a sure thing. The money came in before the race was even half over. Im sure there is shenanigans going on elsewhere other times, to think of there not being is impossible there is always shady characters however this is a non issue to me.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Seabiscuit@AR

Sometimes they might do this

But the simplest & safest strategy for the big players is to drop their bet on at the very last second so nobody else sees their bet before the race jumps

But you want them to see your bet, the biggest players bet against the biggest bets because their computers tell them to bet more on the other horses if they're drifting up in price. Lets say the guy bet 200k with 1 MTP and other players saw 11-1 to 9-1.....the other large players computers aren't telling them to bet MORE on the 9-1.......but what they are saying is to bet on other horses.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by tampahorseplayer

Whats the point of it being a past post? The horse didnt have the lead, didnt look like the winner even in the stretch and won by barely a neck. Noone is going to past post to take a gamble, only a sure thing. The money came in before the race was even half over. Im sure there is shenanigans going on elsewhere other times, to think of there not being is impossible there is always shady characters however this is a non issue to me.

Its always an issue in the sense that you want to make sure things are on the up and up. Players and tracks need not be sensitive if a bettor calls them out and says "that looks shady, lets look into that". Lets not be sensitive and say "non issue" or "move on, nothing to see" i don't get that part of it. I don't understand how anyone would feel "offended" if another bettor said "hmmm, a little fishy prices here, lets look into this".

Why not be safe rather than sorry? So, you see the shady odds changes or payoffs and you research it, just not sure why people get offended if someone else questions it.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Stillriledup

Very few types of players can bet 200K on a single horse. Most likely candidate is a big syndicate who knows what they are doing. If the other syndicates see this bet they might even follow the money

[NY BRED]

bigger issue could be the exotics as against the win bet.

[tanner12oz]

Originally Posted by Seabiscuit@AR

Sometimes they might do this

But the simplest & safest strategy for the big players is to drop their bet on at the very last second so nobody else sees their bet before the race jumps

who cares if they see it...it ends up like candy boy about as often as ends up like tonalist

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by tanner12oz

who cares if they see it...it ends up like candy boy about as often as ends up like tonalist

People that watch the pools tend to pile on if they see money like that. Then the odds drop even more. People that bet like that, don't want to share. Some smaller bettors see money like that as information. That bet could of went in at the last second. People can't prove it didn't but they always cry conspiracy anyway. I don't like it. But you are correct, the horse still has to run and many times these schemes have more money than brains....its still gambling. Many times the horse is no where. Like the Candy Boy bet. Of course, us regular folk can never be 100% sure either way. It really should be first horse in, lock out (every race). It just causes questions and suspicion.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

tanneroz12

if it ends up like Candy Boy as often as Tonalist they will still be well in front getting 9-1 for Tonalist

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Seabiscuit@AR

A 200K bet is nothing surprising. One syndicate at least has won tens of millions of dollars betting on USA racing in the last 10 to 15 years. They have probably even won over 100 million in that time. Other syndicates would have also stripped millions out of the pools in this time period

These syndicates would bet 200K a horse and more every day if the pools were big enough. Instead they can only do so in Triple Crown races and maybe Breeders Cup days. The rest of the time they bet a few hundred dollars a race at Delaware as that is all the pools can sustain without killing the odds

This is a good post.

Pool size will cause a plateau in earnings potential in the win pool.

I've showed before how a winning player can grow an edge into exponential profits, but then there comes a point when the exponential gain stops, and it becomes more of a daily plateau goal with fluctuations tied into pool size.

This is also why larger players often look to the exotic pools.
It still takes a pretty large bankroll to mathematically justify a $200K win bet, even with an overlay like Tonalist, and a pool size like a triple-crown Belmont Stakes. (example: Kelly would require about a $2M bankroll to justify $200K on Tonalist, depending on the probability estimates).
I still wouldn't rule out a generally wealthy player, perhaps the owner, who could afford to wager $200K on an event like the Belmont.

[Exotic1]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

This is a good post.

Pool size will cause a plateau in earnings potential in the win pool.

I've showed before how a winning player can grow an edge into exponential profits, but then there comes a point when the exponential gain stops, and it becomes more of a daily plateau goal with fluctuations tied into pool size.

This is also why larger players often look to the exotic pools.
It still takes a pretty large bankroll to mathematically justify a $200K win bet, even with an overlay like Tonalist, and a pool size like a triple-crown Belmont Stakes. (example: Kelly would require about a $2M bankroll to justify $200K on Tonalist, depending on the probability estimates).
I still wouldn't rule out a generally wealthy player, perhaps the owner, who could afford to wager $200K on an event like the Belmont.

Good post as well.

The 200k could have been an aggregate of conditional bets that were accepted the last possible moment or it could have been one person or syndicate. It's also possible that a string or batch of conditional bets never made it into the pool because the conditional odds set by the bettor were never met. As the conditional bets are added to the pool the first out bets will pass the condition test and make it to the pool while the bets still in the queue may not. And of course there could have been competing bets against on other horses that never passed the condition test. Have no idea if odds are updated internally every nano second so that parts of an ADW upload will be accepted and some won't - I imagine that's the way it could work.

Anyway, personally, I learned from this thread.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Seabiscuit@AR

Stillriledup

Very few types of players can bet 200K on a single horse. Most likely candidate is a big syndicate who knows what they are doing. If the other syndicates see this bet they might even follow the money

But other big syndicates also know what they're doing, they don't care about other people's opinions, they have their own fantastic opinion and if you're betting huge money, the last thing you're going to do is say "hmmm, some random person bet 200k on this horse, let me bet him too". Those guys are all about what the computer says and the computer is not going to bet MORE on a 9-1 (vs 11-1) because some random bet came in at the last second. If anything they bet less or bet another horse who went up in price.

Large bettors don't follow the money, they go against the money so they can get value on other runners.

If the Tonalist 200k bettor was worried that others would piggyback his bet, he was mistaken, he needed to drip drab the money in the pools a few grand at a time, or even stick 20k to win each 1 minute increment starting at 10 MTP. He would have gotten a higher win price as the odds on other runners would have gone up and caused other bettors to bet on them.

[Matt Bryan]

Tonalist seemed like an easy pick and an obvious overlay. Is anyone that bet on Tonalist REALLY pissed off about the payoff? Is anyone that had Tonalist on top of their exotics pissed off? Ummm....NO. Hell, coming off a decent performance on a wet track at Belmont a few weeks earlier, and having the best pedigree for the distance (although somewhat subjective - of course)....9-1 odds were a steal. I was worried when he dropped to 4-1 early on - had he been pushed down to 2-1 or worse in the early stages by a major wager, the odds would have stayed down there. We all know that, with people hopping on. Until we know there were conspiratorial forces in play, let us be thankful that the 200k wager (in this particular case) was placed late. I mean, seriously...people around me were going deep on Samraat, Chrome, ROC, etc. We all know not to get sentimentally attached to horses - e.g. Chrome. We all knew the history of the Belmont, the stats, etc., etc. As always, that's easier to say in hindsight, but we all knew - and, nobody that cashed a ticket is complaining about the difference between the 11-1 and 9-1 odds...or whatever. As others have already mentioned, who wouldn't wait until the last second with that kind of money? We can argue about whether to sprinkle it in or not, but I wouldn't have...although, that's beside the point. I just don't see foul play here, in this particular race.