Quote:
Originally Posted by fastfasterfastest
My best guess is with the much higher then usual money being wagered into their pools on Monday and Tuesday since they're one of the only games in town, the betting syndicates massive late money is not being reflected until the race is about to start or quite often during the running. No doubt its an inconvenience, especially for us value hunters.
|
That's a common occurrence and explains ~100% of the usual complaints about 'odds drops'.
However, this doesn't pass the smell test.
A fourth-choice rarely gets pounded at the bell, and a 4th-choice over a 5th-choice Exacta
almost never gets pounded at the bell.
These choice rankings are from the race-10 will-pays in DD.
were fairly strong favorites in the Doubles will-pays
was third choice,
(the winner) was fourth choice, and then there was some significant distance to the
(the place horse)
The
was not significantly favored over the
(narrowly 6th-choice). In fact, the 'Race-9 Probables DD(which for some reason aren't the same as the R10Will-pays) show more money on the
than the
. (The only reason that I call the
the '5th-choice' rather than 6th-choice, is that I recall the
being slightly lower than the
in the r10 DD will-pays)
So we're talking
the Fourth-Choice getting pounded in an exacta with a relative mid-priced long-shot. Rarely happens.
I think we have to be fair in assessing this.
It is
possible that some 'whale' correctly identified a significant overlay taking place with the fourth-choice horse AND correctly identified that the mid-priced long shot Fifth-Choice horse was worthy including in some type of exacta key using the fourth-choice
. Also a faint possibility of a freak event such as the
's ownership group went on 'tilt' or something ang got lucky.
Even with such considerations, it's
far more probable that there was either betting after the bell or race-fixing of the .
I don't which one it was. The delay in the odds doesn't necessarily meant that that it was more likely to be a Tote Vulnerability. That could be a misleading thing. In general, I'd have to guess that race fixing is more likely. It's fairly easy to hold back a horse, compared to hacking a Tote, but the answer is that "I don't know".
With a huge longshot in races 8 and 9, if there was a tote vulnerability, it brings up the 2002? Breeders' Cup scandal where horses where singled to 'All all'... , but P3,P4 is a blind pool, and the payouts didn't seem horribly low.
TLDR: Most probable that it was either a Tote vulnerability or a Race Fixing event, with some small chance that a whale made a nearly impossible correct assessment counter to the multis and tote odds, as well as small chance that the connections of the
made a lucky gamble.
As far as the other stuff?? (odds drops on favorites throughout, an ill-advised fist bump, daily double probables from r9 NEVER updating), I think we have to ignore that stuff.
With the high probability of an integrity-breach in the 10th race, it obviously adds merit to considering these previous hi-jinx, but those events themselves are not significant.
The most interesting previous event was the R9 Probable prices for doubles, but unfortunately I do not recall whether the R10 Will-pay prices for doubles ever mirrored the r9 will pays. You really would need a 'screen-cap' of R10 will-pays showing the $325 etc... The odds updated at different times for r10 on my ADWs (although never updating the r9 Probables for DD), and by the time I was able to think of checking, the R10 will-pays reflected the payout, rather than the $325.
Take these with a grain of salt.
Investigate the 10th race. "Unusual market behavior."
Due diligence requires that you also at least investigate the multis and daily doubles.
The significant wagers should all (obviously /covid-19) be showing up in online wagering.
Probable 'cheating' in the 10th race. RF's Full take:
