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

[Brisk Urging]

https://t.co/Sz0PAV2oAb


Paulick-How does a horse go from 17-1 to 7-1 while loading into the starting gate? With 13 bets totaling $11,206 made in 40 seconds by one computer assisted wagering player.

Here is the is the log of bets provided by the CHRB from the Elite Turf Club player on the March 27 race up until wagering was closed at 16:17.21 p.m. PT.

Time bet placed Elite Turf Club win wager Time before betting stops
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

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Brisk Urging

https://t.co/Sz0PAV2oAb


Paulick-How does a horse go from 17-1 to 7-1 while loading into the starting gate? With 13 bets totaling $11,206 made in 40 seconds by one computer assisted wagering player.

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.

[Robert Fischer]

did the multis indicate that there would be a change,
or was it the first race and the public was blind,

or was it someone taking a big swing, or inside info??

there's a complete story

[iamt]

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.

What exactly are you looking at banning. Computers exist and they're going nowhere, their use in placing bets (through rebate shops or not) isn't going anywhere.

Or the issue if the rebates, does this example look any better if the horse was 16/1 down to 8/1 where the bettor is likely getting a very similar rate of return?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by iamt

What exactly are you looking at banning. Computers exist and they're going nowhere, their use in placing bets (through rebate shops or not) isn't going anywhere.

Or the issue if the rebates, does this example look any better if the horse was 16/1 down to 8/1 where the bettor is likely getting a very similar rate of return?

You can ban this sort of burst betting- the computer gets 1 bet and then has to wait 30 seconds or a minute before placing another one. You can also cut off the computers before the start and allow the people at the track get the last shot at it. And you can limit the amounts that computers can bet close to post time.

The stock markets have limits on program trading. This isn't sacrosanct. If someone bet this horse at 17-1 at Santa Anita, checked the odds at post time and saw he was 17-1, and then got paid 7-1, that person may decide that horse racing is rigged.

A good regulator would definitely make it harder for people with computers to manipulate betting pools.

[Cholly]

The Paulick Report article stated that NYRA Bets is part-owner of Elite Turf Club along with Stronach/1st Bets. I was aware Churchill & Stronach operated CAW’s of their own that compete with their customers, but it was news to me that NYRA Bets is also in on this…
Oh well, I guess that completes the circle

As Track Phantom stated in the thread “Late Acccurate Betting”
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?t=166361

“Finally, I also read recently that Stronach and Churchill Downs have two of the big CAW teams. Unless I'm missing something, isn't that a serious conflict of interest? Couldn't it be extrapolated that those with the information on blind pools could gather knowledge about inefficiencies and bet accordingly? Something similar to what the DFS issue was with insider knowledge of what combinations of players were taken.”

[AskinHaskin]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

There's no reason whatsoever to allow this.

Originally Posted by dilanesp

You can ban this...

A good regulator would definitely make it harder for people with computers to manipulate betting pools.

Yeah, right.


Maybe the deep south was missing no more than "a good regulator" at the drinking fountains long ago.


Why? (again) is it OK to tote $11,000 up to the window and bet to win on the same horse, while it isn't OK for somebody ELSE to bet $11,000 on the same horse (you bet) ??


You're simply not thinking clearly.

The only sensible way to offset whatever you seem to be complaining about is from the opposite side.

.
.
.

You're at the Nike point now. "Just do it"

[AndyC]

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 does it appear that the same bettor made all of the above bets? Quite the contrary it looks like several players to me. Why would it be necessary to make a $131, $6, $3, $3, $74, and $40 bets?

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by Cholly

The Paulick Report article stated that NYRA Bets is part-owner of Elite Turf Club along with Stronach/1st Bets. I was aware Churchill & Stronach operated CAW’s of their own that compete with their customers, but it was news to me that NYRA Bets is also in on this…
Oh well, I guess that completes the circle

As Track Phantom stated in the thread “Late Acccurate Betting”
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?t=166361

“Finally, I also read recently that Stronach and Churchill Downs have two of the big CAW teams. Unless I'm missing something, isn't that a serious conflict of interest? Couldn't it be extrapolated that those with the information on blind pools could gather knowledge about inefficiencies and bet accordingly? Something similar to what the DFS issue was with insider knowledge of what combinations of players were taken.”

Don’t forget Amtote.

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Why does it appear that the same bettor made all of the above bets? Quite the contrary it looks like several players to me. Why would it be necessary to make a $131, $6, $3, $3, $74, and $40 bets?

The Paulick report article said that all 13 bets were by one Elite Turf Club member. The log of bets were provided by the CHRB according to the article.

[BarchCapper]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Why does it appear that the same bettor made all of the above bets? Quite the contrary it looks like several players to me. Why would it be necessary to make a $131, $6, $3, $3, $74, and $40 bets?

Would there be multiple "models" running simultaneously, each measuring different conditions, and those models finding profitable scenarios each spitting out a bet amount in accordance with the calculated edge for those conditions being met? (I still have trouble wrapping my head around the $3 and $6 bets regardless.)

[iamt]

If you throttle their bets, limiting them to one bet every 60 seconds, they'll just place fewer bets, or maybe just one, waiting to the last moment... making the swings even more obvious.


If you cut them out minutes before post, and they still want to bet late, what is to stop them opening a TVG account and just placing the bet through there, as a normal ADW customer??


At the end of the day, if these teams want to bet, they will find a way.

[lamboguy]

i see someone else figured out we are now in the 'CRYPTO GENERATION", or maybe even more realistically the "CLIPTO WORLD".

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AskinHaskin

Yeah, right.


Maybe the deep south was missing no more than "a good regulator" at the drinking fountains long ago.


Why? (again) is it OK to tote $11,000 up to the window and bet to win on the same horse, while it isn't OK for somebody ELSE to bet $11,000 on the same horse (you bet) ??


You're simply not thinking clearly.

The only sensible way to offset whatever you seem to be complaining about is from the opposite side.

.
.
.

You're at the Nike point now. "Just do it"

The same reason an automatic stock trade can be restricted even if a traditional trade can still be put through.

[classhandicapper]

The more I think about this the less it bothers me.

These computer guys to a large extent have the same problem we have. Even if this was one guy, it still demonstrates their risk.

If some computer guy pegs the fair price on a horse at 10-1, bets him at 18-1 in the last minute, some other computer guys also come in and do the same, and the total amount bet drives him to 7-1 in the last few seconds, they are all just as screwed as I am.

It still comes down to making a more accurate odds line than other people and giving yourself some margin of safety in the price to cover your occasional errors in analysis and late odds changes.

IMO, the real issues are the huge rebates and pool access.

You can at least question whether the industry would be better off in the long term if they used all that rebate money to lower the take for everyone rather than giving huge high volume rebates to some.

I still don't quite understand if they have access to pool data everyone else doesn't have. Clearly, if you have software that can look across all pools and quickly calculate the best way to bet your horse, you have an edge. But if they are just scraping the data everyone has, then imo they deserve to have that edge for being smart and working harder. However, if they are given access to non public data or given the data faster because of their volume and deal, that's a major problem.