In the record books. $17M in earnings is one good way to start. Who needs Track Records with that right. But he does have one of those at Saratoga, at a mile and quarter, in the Travers no less.
Someone who would be in the know told me this horse has enough air capacity that he could run forever. He has speed, but it sustainable speed. Which if you look at his PP\'s and some of his final quarters etc they may be nearly as fast as the opening quarter. This isn\'t supposed to happen on dirt and almost always doesn\'t.....
Incredible late money action in the double says anybody but Arrogate. Maybe a good time to jump?
Of the 644K in the show pool, $633K is on Arrogate. Still 20 minutes to post.
He may have just set a World Record for the Big Minus Show Pool burned up
Really bizarre. Double prices with Arrogate doubled in the last tick while all of the other horses double prices were at least halved. Inquiry?
The ex/tri/Pic 3 all seem too small for Arrogate completely out??
Nothing here folks. Move along.
I smell a rat, too. I had the 4 to place and show since I saw the bridge jumping, so I\'m happy. but the vertical and horizontal exotics seem very light.
The 1 horse was slammed late in the win pool also. And who would believe that in what was a 4 horse field with one runner losing his irons Arrogate burns $1.3M in the Show Pool.
I think it was the Russians....ðŸ˜ðŸ˜²
Show prices were light too. And all of this was very late money and a lot of it. If I ever go to California I\'m leaving my wallet at home.
jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Show prices were light too. And all of this was
> very late money and a lot of it. If I ever go to
> California I\'m leaving my wallet at home.
Stuff happens.
Scherzer gave up 3 bombs in the first inning Friday night, sometimes Curry tosses up nothing but bricks. The Patriots have been known to lose a game or 2.
And sometimes great horses lay an egg.
Off a layoff, not cranked up, at less than his preferred distance. It happens.
For me, Arrogates performance is just as much of a disappointment as Cali Chrome was in Peg World Cup. That was overshadowed by Arrogates win but similar scenario. Nobody saw Chrome running THAT bad that day.
Stuff does happen. Sometimes for all the wrong reasons. The wagering on that race was irregular. Something happened.
I\'m not saying there was anything irregular about Arrogate laying an egg. I\'m just saying that in the last minute of wagering on the 8th race someone bet a lot of money into the double pools on just that event happening. It was last tick money and all of it went on everyone other than Arrogate. That\'s what\'s irregular.
jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stuff does happen. Sometimes for all the wrong
> reasons. The wagering on that race was irregular.
> Something happened.
Ot maybe for all the right reasons.
\"Off a layoff, not cranked up, at less than his preferred distance. It happens.\"
I know a few people that hammered the winner pretty good, and it had nothing to do with anything suspicious. Their data really liked the winner and they also gave the reasons I just mentioned.
I think you\'re grasping at straws if you think it was because of some kind of funny business. Possible, but unlikely.
What I\'m saying is every horse in the San Diego except for Arrogate got hammered in the doubles. Not just the winner. All of the horses had their double prices halved or better in the last tick. This has nothing to do with the performance of the horses on the track. This has to do with betting irregularities. You know, the same kind of forensics they use to detect insider trading and so on?
jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I\'m saying is every horse in the San Diego
> except for Arrogate got hammered in the doubles.
> Not just the winner. All of the horses had their
> double prices halved or better in the last tick.
> This has nothing to do with the performance of the
> horses on the track. This has to do with betting
> irregularities. You know, the same kind of
> forensics they use to detect insider trading and
> so on?
Ok Mr Conspiracy, relax. I know about forensics and how its used.
If a 1/9 favorite is predicted to lose, that creates value on EVERY other horse.
High level stuff here, comparing double prices being hammered to accounting forensics. High level stuff you\'ve come across yesterday. Impressive.
But if conspiracy theories are your thing, knock your lights out.
Geezus, Is it still Derby season?
Sorry I brought it up.
I didn\'t see the pool totals or will pays before the race. What you\'re saying is on the last tick EVERY horse not named Arrogate got halved? I\'m with you, that seems highly irregular at best. Was this just in the DD w/ the San Diego being the first leg or was it more widespread?
My question would be how much money would need to wagered on each entrant to get that kind of result? And then if that even makes sense? Is there anyway to figure that out? With all the talk of minus pools and such it would seem that the volume wouldn\'t be there late to make that happen, possibly a handful of massive wagers coming in at the very last minute like you mentioned. It would seem that it would have to be multiple bets, right?
Again I\'d love to see the actual math behind the final odds/payouts, I think that would help to put it into perspective. Like with sports wagering you can tell roughly how much money was bet on an individual side at any given venue by the line movements. I\'d think you could do the same basic thing here?
Sadly, I wasn\'t watching the pools on this so there\'s no way to see what might have happened. Anything is possible, but it would be quite rare to see a halving of every horse , UNLESS the double with Arrogate was absurdly low, and it was adjusting against that.
If someone knew Arrogate was a dead piece, there would have been action against in all the pools, not just double.
Could it have been computerized betting?
Software that spots overlays and automatically bets them??
Not really, and without seeing the actual price moves, hard to say if the final odds were right or suspicious.
For the most part, late changes have little to do with \'spotting\' overlays, and much more to do with what they like. This idea that you can scrub the pools for underbet numbers and win ,is in my opinion, a fantasy.
I have screen grabs for the 8th and 9th race double probables at 0 minutes to post and final probables. Just tell me how to get them to you. From these you\'ll be able to better decide if this is worth the discussion.
Just use one of the free image upload sites , like http://tinypic.com/
and post the link
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This idea that you can scrub the
> pools for underbet numbers and win ,is in my
> opinion, a fantasy.
Why do you find it implausible that one could shop for under-bet numbers and make money by finding them?
Isn\'t that what a zillion stock traders/sports bettors/real estate speculators/etc. are doing in their respective markets? Why shouldn\'t it work in this market? Haven\'t Benter et al. published that in some respects they were doing exactly this? Finding inefficiencies in the markets and blasting them?
See, e.g.:
https://www.wired.com/2002/03/betting/
OK. Posted on tinypic. Headers are Arrogate SDH 0min and Arrogate SDH final prices.
;-) link?
Here they are
http://i66.tinypic.com/14ahgf7.png
http://i67.tinypic.com/ztulua.jpg
On a quick eyeball, more or less what I suspected. Many of the doubles were just absurdly low on Arrogate and way too high on the others.
May have been some bet against money there, but nothing I\'d deem suspicious.
If you\'ll notice, the winning double vs the parlay was not out of line at all. If anything it was a tad high.
Also, pool was a tiny 68k.
Thank you for looking. Appreciate your opinion.