So he’s now a 50% trainer. I know...he’s placing them well...lol.
Not really though...CeeBeeGeeBee a perfect example in Monmouth’s 8th on 7/4. A 7 point top off a layoff....SURE!!!!
Sheets are useless if guys are getting huge tops that you could never forecast.
It\'s rather harsh to call something \"useless\" because there are exceptions to it\'s predictive effectiveness, no matter how extreme these exceptions are.
Why is it useless.
It\'s telling you what\'s going on.
Servis had three today at Mth:
I Idolize You - Race 3 - Claiming $7,500 (won at $10.80)
All Flatter - Race 7 - Maiden Special Weight (won at $6.20)
Cee Bee Gee Bee - Race 8 - Jersey Girl H. (out)
He is now 34-19-4-5 at Mth this meet.
I Idolize You looked like one of the worst horses in the race and he won by a pole.
I grew up at Monmouth Park. I used to love it. Now it\'s the worst track in the country regarding the integrity aspect. They have sports betting now. You\'ve probably got a better shot there. Do they even make any pretense about testing horses there for anything? The whole thing is a joke. The funniest thing I heard lately is one of the morons on TVG said Navarro should get a private training job in Dubai where he does so well--yeah, where they use no drugs whatsoever. That\'s a good one. I\'ll leave you all with one last absurdity. Mott got a suspension for some positive test 4 years ago. He\'s been fighting it. Mott, the original hay and oats trainer, gets a suspension while all the pirates roam free.
Servis with a smile.
FF goes from 6-1 to 5-2 in a flash and romps. I can\'t wait to see what happens with the 3 horse in the next race.
7-1 with a minute to post
Double whammy-this happens and it involves a juice trainer. Exacta with the Romans horse (16-1 minutes before post) comes back $25 for a buck with a 3-5 shot out of it.
Great stuff.
Good Luck,
Joe B
except it was a 3/2 shot not 3/5 . Did you think it was really a 3/5 shot, based on what ?
I stear clear of anything New Jersey with New York running a close second. It is sad to see NYRA, once the pinnacle of integrity, succumb to the pressures of the industry. It’s now all about handle. Who’s money and why is immaterial.
The replays on nyra.com often pick up well before the horses enter the gate. In this case, we can see that Firenze Fire was 6-1 and Seven Trumpets drifted from 14-1 to 15-1 as they were circling behind the gate. In the first flash after the gates opened, Firenze Fire had dropped to 5-1 and Seven Trumpets had dropped to 12-1. By the time they hit the 6f pole, they were 5-2 and 10-1, respectively. Based on a couple of sets of DD probables from the prior race, I guessed Firenze Fire would be 3.8-1 and Seven Trumpets would be 8.5-1.
I wonder if the batch bettors underestimated the amount of late money that would come in on Firenze Fire.
I zaw some other Double Pools looking low with straight bet odds looking high. Perhaps those in the know bet early differently. This FF bet had to be electronic. Too much at once that late. Wouldnt hurt to check those time stamps now amd then....
Andy Serling does a nice job on the NYRA feed of looking at the doubles and warning people to expect odds shifts.
He was 3/5 on the board when they were loading. Based on that.
How many have you seen go from 3/5 to 3/2 in NY in 1 minute? Look forward to your response. Setting the over/under at zero.
Good Luck,
Joe B
I agree on the zero. So do we have two issues here? Mendy had $50K popped on him early. He opened at 1-2. Electrobically was that deposit pulled and then hapf punched in on FF. Rugbymans odds wejt up a little but not that much. 7-2 to 9-2? Follow the money
This is an email sent by rezlegal, he asked me to assist him in posting it on the board.
A couple of observations:
There was 858K in the win pool for this race 190K of which was on FF.
One pool watcher told me that 90 of the last 105K bet was on FF. Per a twitter follower that same number is out there in tweet land.
FF was 4th choice in will pays in the Doubles and 3rd choice in pick 3’s in a 7 horse field.
This is not a typical computer generated punch as their pre race or will pay algorithms would never achieve a 5/2 value for this horse. All major services had this horse slow. The track was very fast yesterday I would anticipate a TG 2- ish at least a 5 point new top.
At the very least the wagering as well as Jason Servis recent “RED HOT RUNâ€as stated by one of the NBC genii need to be investigated. Anything less is a total outrage IMHO.
THANK YOU Richard,
I would hope that a couple of folks in the media who read this board would PLEASE have the intestinal fortitude to address this in their forums?
Mr. Lewandowski- I have been a racing fan for more than 50 years. I also an owner involved in 5 partnerships and an active NYRA Bets user. I am a Saratoga season ticket holder. I am also an attorney with more than 49 years active experience as a litigator, much of it involving fraud based litigation. I take this opportunity to write to you as the NY Gaming Commission Steward to request, indeed, demand, an appropriate investigation into the betting that took place in connection with yesterday\'s Dwyer handicap.
The basic facts are not disputed. Firenze, the winner of the race, trained by Jason Servis, was between 6-1 and 8-1 throughout the betting. Literally, as the horses were being loaded into the gate the horse was bet down to 5-2 and the $1 exacta with a 14-1 shot second paid $25. The horse had a stunning form reversal and won with ease by 9 lengths in a very fast time. Given that NYRA has already touted in the media how much was bet yesterday on a national basis, an enormous bet (not large, but enormous ) had to have been made at the last minute. The post race statements me by the connections of the horseâ€"“We now realize he is a one turn horse†are pablum designed to explain away what happened and to detract from asking “WHY?†and “HOWâ€. I was in a box seat yesterday, as I was fortunate enough to have a horse in the Belmont Derby and all anyone in ear shot could talk about was the incredible action this horse took.
This email is not prompted by sour grapes as my investment in the race (less than $20) is not worth my time and effort in writing this email. Like many horseplayers I am frustrated and angry at the apparent like of oversight protecting those who continue to make the existence of this game possible-the bettors. It would be inappropriate and irresponsible to accuse Jason Servis (or any trainer) of wrongdoing through the use of unlawful drugs or otherwise since I am not in possession of any facts to support such a accusation and my training was a litigator has taught me that facts are what count, not suspicion. ( I do note that Mr. Servis has been the subject of many writings of late on racing blogs regarding his incredible nearly 50% win percentage at Monmouth. He has supplanted Jorge Navarro as the most discussed trainer. This issue also goes far beyond a single trainer.)
As the NY State Steward (I have actually read the regulations) it is fair to state that your primary responsibility is to preserve the integrity of horse racing as conducted by NYRA. I respectfully suggest that you can only fulfill that obligation by conducting an investigation into the betting patterns, interviewing those involved and publishing your findings so your constituency -the betting public-at least has some comfort that their interests are being protected and that we hear something from you or NYRA other than there is nothing to investigate or “the chemists are ahead of usâ€. I respectfully suggest that neither NY State nor NYRA should be arrogant enough to believe this is an issue it can ignore. I have spoken to many involved in horse racing and the usual response is something like “ I don’t want to bite the hand the feeds me†or a shrug of the shoulders that says “It is what it isâ€. One person heavily involved in racing, in a confidential communication to me today on this issue stated “The cheaters have become emboldened and feel no shame in flaunting it.†Again, I am in no position to accuse Mr.. Servis or anyone of cheating. That seems to be your job to investigate. I do know that horse players are among the most abused persons-and most of the time they deserve it for continuing to play a game that, all to often, they believe is not played on a level playing field. All of us have options---we can stop gambling on horse racing, stop investing in partnerships or switch ADWs. The events of yesterday have made me start to think about some or all of this options. As an attorney I am also aware of the legal options available to compel the performance of your duties and responsibilites.
I am 72 and have choices where I can use my recreational disposable income. The response of you and NYRA to the demand made in this email will strongly suggest my future use of those funds. Since your cell phone is on line I provide you mine in the event you would like to discuss this further. On behalf of horseplayers everywhere, I am outraged at what happened yesterday and request that Mr. Kay and Mr. Panza forward this missive to NYRA’s Board of Directors. Thank you for your anticipated attention. Richard Resnik
Was actually 4/5 , not 3/5 and had been for some time before the start, and was actually 1-1 when they broke. Look at the replay . so 1-1 to 3/2 is not exactly 3/5 to 3/2. You lose the over under bet
No doubt , there was a huge punch on FF very late, as that one actually went 5-1 5/2 AFTER the start, quite rare in NY.
Hey, AFAIC this guy is rubbing it in everyones face. Obviously they are powerless . Funny how no other trainers say boo.
Thanks for the efforts on all fronts by Rez and Frank.
I had zero dollars invested in the race. Setting aside the issue of my suspicions with this trainer and his magical abilities lately, my concern was and is also with the betting. Can I bet 100k in the final minute? If I was on track, I doubt they could spit out enough tickets in that time if I had the cash on me to slide through the window. Where did the bet come from? Was it one bet and was it electronic as I suspect? It is interesting to me what would be considered public versus non-public information in this arena. How far has anyone pushed this under open records request laws for betting information? Often in open records requests, info such as account numbers or identities are redacted if protected by law but the public information is still provided. I\'m sure someone by 2018 has chased this a certain distance already. NYRA bets surely has a rebate system? And the rebates associated with any of the government connected entities would be terrific information to see month by month and year by year. Or what about the information connected to other ADW\'s, rebates, amounts bet, etc? Maybe the identities would be protected (maybe not necessarily) but the amounts and other pertinent information that is public would lead to more clues about these type situations. Transparency and integrity have not been racing\'s strong suits. I can\'t even begin to explain last night\'s scenario at Fairmount Park (check the charts of last night\'s 6th and 7th races and the (lack of) payoffs for a purse only puzzle that the stewards wouldn\'t even answer to me face to face after racing last night beyond a blanket answer of \"program issues\").
Regardless and back on topic, the late wager(s) on this particular race does not seem like gambling but rather a theft of everyone else\'s money in the race (or obviously a certain percentage of it).
The media of racing needs to complete some serious journalism here and find some answers since I likely know NYRA\'s response already. Hearing softballs about people are complaining and don\'t think it is right is not what we are looking for but rather more transparency about who, when, where, how are the questions that need to be answered. Hey Kasept, when you have Servis on to celebrate his great training job, ask him if he knows or has any idea who made the large late wager? Ask him if he wagered on the race or anyone close to him? Can you ask him how all of his horses have improved beyond belief in the last month plus? Aren\'t these fair questions? Anyone else on here have questions of Servis they want answered? Post them here and let\'s see if Steve will ask him.
As for the separate medication issues, clean up the game already and let\'s see OOC testing, cameras in every stall, and no drugs on race day. Then you will see who can really train a horse. I\'ve said this before and while tilting at windmills I say it here again. Clean up the game and make the rules uniform already.
Keep us updated if you learn or hear more.
Some similar language and thoughts here.
http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/betting-on-the-dwyer-a-game-of-bait-and-switch/
Stop picking on the man, you\'re upsetting him
https://www.horseracingnation.com/news/On_roll_of_a_lifetime_Servis_says_chatter_is_embarrassing_123
I saw that article earlier today. Some real hard hitting journalism as the answers are all right there!!!
Spots his horses well and has patient owners......
I guess the other trainers, well except for BB, haven\'t figured that out yet to get their win percentage to 50 percent in NY. I would love to see the look on Allen Jerkens or Phil Johnson\'s face if you told them you could have helped their win percentage if they would have just spotted their horses better and found some patient owners.
Please tell me the author of the article and anyone else in the world doesn\'t actually believe this is why he wins so much.
The real chutzpah is one of Servis quotes is that “ he will probably be down to 25% by year endâ€.Second place is his horses are “well placedâ€.( In olden times it was “ the shoesâ€).The truth is none of us has any concrete evidence re whether anyone cheats- we have suspicions, some well founded and some not- based on experience as horse players. When I sent my missive to the Steward assigned by NY Gaming , I made a point of stating I was not accusing Servis of anything. Bill Finley’s article, forwarded by Fairmount, is well written but concludes there was no cheating involved. There is no basis for that conclusion either. The NY Steward and NYRA owe it to all investigate what happened and issue a report. Any bets on what will happen?
There’s lots of evidence, I.E. ridiculous percentages of tops. Proof is another matter.
Jerry- at best, lots of new tops is†circumstantial “ evidence, to wit, evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact.The horse racing world is waiting for direct evidence which supports all of our assertions directly, i.e. without need for any additional or inference. The law can be a bitch like that!
If I had a \"good thing\" and could bet $20,000 on a horse and get 7/2 or 4-1 vs putting $45000 and getting 5/2, why would I be so stupid as to wager the $45,000? It suggests that either more than one program betting entity/whale had the horse or the $45,000 was in the know (or just stupid.) Judging from the sheets, if I saw that horse at 5-1, my thought wouldn\'t be \"let me make my biggest wager of the month or year on a straight win bet here.\" (By the way, did anyone notice/explain if and what happened to the place and show prices?)
At any rate, seeing something like this offers little hope for bettors like me because either I\'m not \"in the know\" or my handicapping skills can\'t come close to competing with the program used to determine this was an unbelievable wager at say 5/2 or 3/1 - the price they had to assume they\'d end up getting! I\'ve been betting less and less and this might just push me to Derby Day and the Saturday of Breeders Cup only.
Everyone seems to think by the size of the wager and it’s late hit it has to be a computer team. Just as you say you’re not jumping out of your seat thinking this is the best bet ever @ 5/1 as I stated earlier it does not fit a BOT profile to pound a slow horse who is 4th choice in the double......
There was an obvious insider betting coup here and who is to say that one of the insiders does not have electronic access that can punch such a bet? I’m not one to wave the conspiracy theory flag but an owner, large bettor could be bankrolling a team and have access or with the duel track roll Servis has been on, is it crazy to think a well funded group couldn’t start up their own program?
Rocky could you please do some math for us?
I ve seen 2 places where it is stated that 90 of the last 105k bet into the win pool was on FF. If that is the case than the 45k Finley is throwing out is off.
There are actually two separate issues here: Jason Servis\'s \"hot streak\" and the late action.
I\'m skeptical that NYRA can do anything about the former.
I\'ve been watching a lot of NY racing lately, and it is not surprising to me for a Servis trainee to take more action than the figures would seem to warrant. What was unusual in the Dwyer was how late the money came in. My impression (perhaps mistaken) has been that the money shows early. For example, in the race after the Dwyer, Eye Luv Lulu was 7-1 when I noted the early odds and then drifted up to close at 10-1.
Some possible explanations for the late action in the Dwyer:
Fans of the past-posting narrative would probably note that Firenze Fire broke extremely well.
The composition of the betting public may have been a little different in this race than in a normal dirt stake because of the presence of Mendelssohn. I\'m guessing that international money would have come in early.
A lot of people may have been sucked in by the 6-1. That was my situation. I kept waiting for the odds to drop and when they appeared to be holding up, I made a small saver play (less that .01% of $90,000). When the odds dropped, my saver was too small to save me.
The computer guys may have screwed up. I know they have algorithms, but algorithms are only as good as the world view they represent. (Anyone remember Lehman Brothers?) The computer guys may have imperfect information about what other computer groups (or some loose-cannon big bettor) are going to do.
Whatever the explanation, I agree that NYRA and/or the Gaming Commission should look into the late betting and publicize the results. I\'m not optimistic this will happen. Transparency does not seem to be a priority for the officials who regulate NY racing. Try reading a NY stewards\' decision some time (e.g, \"After reviewing the video and speaking to the riders involved the claim of foul is disallowed and the race is official as is. Boilerplate. Boilerplate. Boilerplate.\").
The problem with the betting coup explanation is that it doesn\'t explain the odds movement on other horses. If someone just plunged on Firenze Fire, then the odds on all the other horses should have gone up. In fact, the odds on Mendelssohn and Rugbyman went up, but the odds on Noble Indy were stable or down slightly and the odds on Seven Trumpets and Seahenge went down.
I don\'t disagree that inside information is available to some bettors. I\'d be surprised if trainers weren\'t giving betting advice to existing or prospective owners or those willing to pay for the information. It is hard to see, however, how a ban on inside information could coexist with claiming races.
ðŸ'ðŸ'ðŸ'
FrankD. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rocky could you please do some math for us?
> I ve seen 2 places where it is stated that 90 of
> the last 105k bet into the win pool was on FF. If
> that is the case than the 45k Finley is throwing
> out is off.
Frank --
Unfortunately I wasn\'t around to grab the marginal pools during that race like I usually do, or I would have been able to pin down to the dollar how much was bet on FF in each late flash.
I can still back-engineer it, but not without making some assumptions and approximations. After doing so I\'m not sure either one of those estimates is right. Without being able to confirm how much total money was bet in that last flash though it\'s hard to tell.
That $105K figure wherein FF dropped from 5-1 to 5/2 doesn\'t make sense because at least three of the entries, particularly Mendy, could not have drifted up as much as they did in that last flash if that were the case, given the odds they were at the time FF was 5-1.
As best I can ascertain, it looks like they\'re right that around $90K was bet on FF in that late flash, but the marginal pool looks like it was more like $170K than $105K, which means FF took a little over half of the final marginal pool and his marginal odds were around 3/5. Mendy\'s corresponding marginal odds were over 10-1, which is quite rare for an odds-on horse going in the gate.
Wish I had those marginal pools to nail down those numbers exactly because this one looked to be quite an anomaly.
“Corruption is why we win.†- Danny Dalton, Syriana
Again it begs the question, who is “we†in that sentence?
Apparently $105k wagered in last 18 seconds before the pools closed.
How? Who? Where?
Good Luck,
Joe B.
BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The replays on nyra.com often pick up well before
> the horses enter the gate. In this case, we can
> see that Firenze Fire was 6-1 and Seven Trumpets
> drifted from 14-1 to 15-1 as they were circling
> behind the gate. In the first flash after the
> gates opened, Firenze Fire had dropped to 5-1 and
> Seven Trumpets had dropped to 12-1. By the time
> they hit the 6f pole, they were 5-2 and 10-1,
> respectively. Based on a couple of sets of DD
> probables from the prior race, I guessed Firenze
> Fire would be 3.8-1 and Seven Trumpets would be
> 8.5-1.
>
> I wonder if the batch bettors underestimated the
> amount of late money that would come in on Firenze
> Fire.
Surprisingly, I never seem to see this happen. I see scenarios like FF all the time, where the horse is 5-1 loading into the gate and 3.8-1 in the Will Pays, so you expect the horse to get bet down to 4-1 or 7/2 in the last flash. The vast majority of they do, sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less (if they don\'t, the odds of you cashing that win ticket drop precipitously).
You\'d think that with all the computer teams out there looking at that 5-1 price, with \"fair value\" having already bet set at 3.8-1 in the Will Pays, that they might all jump in independent of one another at the last second and inadvertently pound that horse down well below that 3.8-1 fair value with all their big bets, but it doesn\'t seem to happen.
Perhaps the invisible hand of the market? Or maybe the big batch bettors got burned enough times by betting such horses down to the point that they\'re underlays that they\'ve developed means to estimate the amount of expected late action from the other computer teams and adjusted accordingly to prevent overbetting.
No surprise there really. 30-40% of the pool routinely comes in after the first horse loads into the gate. In this race that equates to $250-350K.
If the last flash of odds showing on the replay are representative, then even more than $105K had to have been bet between that last flash of odds and the final odds. Mendy could not have drifted up from 1-1 to 3-2 if only $105K was bet after that last flash unless money was actually removed from the pool on him (same goes for a couple of the other entries as well). So it looks like closer to $170K was bet after those last visible odds were showing on the screen when they started running.
Well stated and I think I actually pitched that thought before. Mendy had money removed. That $105,000 amount wagered would be net after say any amount up to $50,000 was taken back out.
I pulled a $50 bet at Arlington on Saturday as they loaded. I could have easily punched in somebody else but with 4 more clicks. The days of handing a teller a stack of cash are long gone. There are NO restrictions to keep people fron doing what I described. $50 or $50,000. It doesnt matter....
Please don\'t get me wrong, I\'m not saying that massive amounts of bets on Mendy were cancelled.
In all the races I\'ve ever tracked marginal pools for over the past year or so, of which there have been hundreds, I have never seen once seen the marginal late money totals go down on any horse.
That\'s why I said that several other horses in the race would have had to have had money removed from the pools if those last visible odds were a correct reflection of the final odds shift based on an only $105K marginal pool. Virtually impossible that three horses in the same race would have thousands of dollars of cancelled wagers in the marginal pool totals when I\'ve never seen even one ever.
Well, i got to chime in here.
All i can say is ive seen worse.
Good for this board to notice and you wont find a more intelligent discussion anywhere.
Better for those who got out.
And it is what it is.
Always has been and ever will be.
But the blatency, if that’s even a word, is truly and utterly astounding.
Hell with being subtle is snother way to say it.
But that musta been a party.
Finley coming out with more details and info in tomorrow\'s TDN.
No bets were cancelled on Mendy. One bettor,with 30 seconds left, put $60,000 to win on FF. Guy must have misread FF\'s sheet.
Good Luck,
Joe B
http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/total-of-124109-bet-to-win-on-firenze-fire-in-last-36-seconds-of-dwyer-wagering/
Per the most recent Finley article I seen posted on twitter, 22 seconds before betting closed:
\". . . 12 bets in increments of $5,000 were bet at the same time. It\'s apparent that one player made a $60,000 win bet at that time but his or her tote company was only able to record the bets at a maximum of $5,000 each.\"
Are there tote companies that can record a bet of more than $5,000 each? Or would only \"CAW teams\" have direct access to wagering in the pools at any amount they desire?
As for you beyond large bettors, setting aside how stupid a $60k win bet is generally speaking, can any of you bet $7000 let\'s say in one click on your ADW account? Or would it also go through in incremental amounts and require additional clicks by you? I ask this b/c I\'m wondering if this statement is a clue to the \"tote company.\" (Ie, certain companies would accept the bet but then send it in with 12 bets versus a company that would not accept a bet beyond a certain amount without additional work seconds later?) And I assume teams can bet any amount they so desire as long as the money is hitting the pools.
Would Belmont/NYRA honor my bet at 22 seconds to post when I say to the teller \"Six stacks of high society on number seven\"? You know the answer.
So I end this post with this. I\'m signing Rocky up on my \"team.\" I\'ll probably easily recruit a few others with more bucks than brains with him on my CAW team. Now how do I have direct access to the pools? Why haven\'t I heard this answer? Anyone that wants to jump in and tell me who I talk to at NYRA with my team to get my direct access, please let me know. I would nearly guarantee armed with this additional information Rocky could exploit a few pools himself. Correct me if I\'m wrong here Rock. If I\'m betting against these other CAW guys and Kay wants to enhance my guest experience, shouldn\'t my dollar or dollars be on equal footing with every other dollar clicked into the pools?
As for the $60k bet that wasn\'t a CAW bettor, I\'m guessing he is connected to the Servis barn. I don\'t hear anyone nearing the answer to that question either.
........crickets...............crickets.......
It\'s nice to fantasize , but if that guy was connected to Servis , why would he wait till the last possible second and risk a shutout?
Ans: He wouldn\'t (unless he was foolish)
He was foolish enough to bet 60k in the win pool.....
On the positive side, the horse won by 9. That\'s some solid handicapping to have that kind of confidence........
No mention was made of any other bets , but I wouldn\'t discount the possibility of some punching in the exacta. Quite rare these days for someone to be that sloppy.
My guess that the late action on FF was a combination of the computer teams and big bettor(s) (with some inside info that FF was a good thing?) got a little more support with that Finley update. The $24,055 and $11,596 win bets smack of computer teams. The precise, odd amounts are their exact MO based on the output from their algos telling them exactly how much they should wager. The $60K bet in twelve $5K increments is not the MO of a computer team at all â€" it smacks of one big bettor, possibly on-track.
One reliable twitter source tweeted that he spoke with a very large on-track bettor that informed him that it’s possible to place $5K wagers at the $50 NYRA windows, and that one can fire off such bets in rapid succession to get down as much as $100K in less than 30 seconds. You don’t need to be a CAW team with “direct access†to the wagering pools (not sure if they have this ability?) or even an ADW bettor with simple batch betting capability, although that certainly makes things easier.
Another twitter source did a deep dive into the effect of that particular $60K bet. He noted that without that bet, the payoff on FF would have been around $8.50, much closer to FF’s 7/2 implied final odds based on the Will Pays.
So it looks like the computer teams did what they always do â€" they bet the horse down late, right to what the implied final odds were based on the Will Pays. Simultaneously, it looks like some big bettor also came in with that $60K wager and drove the horse down even further to 5/2.
Does that mean something nefarious was going on? Not necessarily, but several facts certainly make it look suspicious:
(a) the fact that FF got pounded down to well below the 7/2 implied final odds based on the Will Pays
(b) the fact that the bet came in at the last possible second
(c) the fact that FF went on to win in an absolute laugher with a likely big new top in near-record time
Did he risk being shut out by betting so late? Sure, but to my mind, that\'s even more of an indication that “somebody knew something†and wanted to get as big a bet down as late as possible so as to hide it from the sharpie board watchers looking for just such signs of “smart money†action. By rattling off $5K bets in rapid succession after the last odds flash went up until the windows closed, he was able to get as much down as he could without tipping off the board watchers before the race went off. I wouldn’t be surprised if he were standing at the $50K window watching the horses load into the gate as he bet (because of the latency issue with online feeds, if you’re looking to get down a bet at the last possible second, it’s actually much better to bet at the track), and that he would have bet even more if he could have within the time frame available.
All speculation of course, and a $60K bet at the last second doesn’t necessarily mean there was a betting coup going on, but it certainly wouldn’t be the first time. It’s happened at the track since time immemorial, this would just be one of the more recent and egregious examples of it. And granted, $60K isn’t all that much when you look at the kinds of lines these computer teams are swinging around on a regular basis, but it’s still “six stacks of high society\" as Richie noted, a figure at which Knish would certainly advise exercising a little more prudence.
Thanks Rock,
Great work diving into this and kudo’s to Bill Finley for diving back into investigating the wagering after his off base dollar amount article and theory in the first piece.
Finley and several other journalists were sent a body of work that Rocky did that killed the first theory of 45k being bet on FF late and shot down the consensus that it was all computer teams that killed the price. We received comments from those who cover the game for a living such as: 100% computer teams, 2 teams collided on the same horse and one who actually believe it or not said “this is old news and sent me a link to piece he wrote 5 years agoâ€.
Thank you Bill Finley for doing due dillegence while quite frankly others sat on their hands. It’s amazing that this turnaround of theories, dollars and a 2nd article all took place in a matter of hours.
Now those of you that frequent the win pool know that cheaters or those associated with them have the capability to rock the odds undetected by anyone at the last second. Many of you establish the perceived value per the teams on the will pays. Any given Saturday in the backyard there are 4-5 guys doing it all from the school of Rocky. The fruits of your labor are now worthless because they can be off set in seconds. Even the average Joe betting modestly has come to grips that 5/1 loading will go to 4/1, maybe high 7/2. When your $12 horse went to $10 or $9.60, yeah it hurts but now it can go to $7.50...... Do the math and see what that will do to your bankroll over the course of the year.
To we horizontalists, quit looking for the sharp action in will pays when you start a pick 5 sequence because now the 4th choice and doubles and 3rd in pick 3’s in a 7 horse heat with 2 hopeless longshots is a live horse. If you could spot such action as pool watchers have for years you most probably would include that horse, TG’s or not in your equation as a saver. Forget it, that info is no longer available or relevant.
It’s a copy cat world and to quote MJ “to have the Blatentcy†to pull this off on a big Saturday in a stakes race? Buyer and Beyer beware it now can and will happen again and again.
Rezlegal is still waiting for NYRA’s response.
Nero fiddled as Rome burned, did someone mention history repeating itself?
Frank D.
Nero fiddled while Rome burned... perfect summation Frank...as discussed, if sh t like this continues it will drive those folks who wager between $500,000 - 1,000,000 per year (which likely describes > half of this board) out of the game within 5 years. I understand that \'bots\' constitute between 20-25% of the handle... BUT...I would estimate that those folks who wager >$500k/year are a much greater percentage...if we disappear it will cripple the game... comments?
John
If I get a response before opening weekend, drinks on me in backyard that Sunday. NYRA is so arrogant they can’t be bothered to respond to a suggestion I made by separate email that same day that the wagering interface on the NYRA Bets full site needs to be updated so that will pays and probables be displayed on the same page as odds. I have no expectations of any response because we are all pawns and as grown ups we each need to do what we perceive to be in our own self interest.
Thanks for the drinks offer Rez...bit I\'m guessing that we are going to pay for them ourselves..
I confess to inexperience in betting coups, but in this context, betting $60,000 in one chunk at the last minute strikes me as the wrong way to go about it. If you know from the doubles that the computer groups think your horse should be 7/2, letting his odds stay at 6-1 throughout the betting is an invitation to the computer groups to dive in late. Wouldn\'t it be better to dribble enough money into the pool to keep his odds around 7/2, so that the computer groups don\'t bet? That way, you get the public\'s money mostly to yourself, rather than having to share it with the computer groups. Or would the computer groups notice that?
Interesting that Firenze Fire was also bet more heavily in the exacta pools than in the double pools:
https://twitter.com/truxtonstables/status/1016496763581104129
It\'s possible that $60K bettor had no idea that FF was 7/2 in the Will Pays and figured to get bet down late. His only goal may have been to get his bet down as late as possible to hide it from an unsuspecting public before the boardwatchers had time to react.
Interesting theory though - if he had indeed bet earlier, would the bots have lightened up with their last minute wagers and sent FF off closer to 7/2?
Also possible that same bettor punched some big late exacta tix, as Boscar suggested.
Thanks for clarifying on Mendy. My question is what is illegal about someone hammering $60K to Win. Fools bet bigger amounts to Show and just 14 days ago on the Foster Card someone punch in $50K to Win with 10 MTP on a McPeek horse who DIDNT WIN.
Now if Win money came out and Win money went back in then that\'s a different story to me. But as you said that didn\'t happen. The Betting limit thing intrigues me. ($5,000). but clicking repeat bet 12 times in 10 seconds is not that hard to due. Who knows maybe he meant to do it 20 and got shut out.....
Betting is not illegal. Cheating is.
Proving it is another matter. As rezlegal noted, circumstantial vs. direct evidence.
Maybe that big bettor simply hated Mendy and decided to send it in on the white hot supertrainer. There\'s a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests otherwise as I noted in my previous post, but hard to prove with certainty..
Well said Rocky...
Bit of a mass hysteria on this one (the mendy race). We had one get hammered today, and hardly any mention of it . 20-1 to 7-1, that\'s a pretty good drop, even Grandma might notice that even if her clipboard was broken.
PS It got nipped at the wire. Good \'handicapping\', though.
Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for clarifying on Mendy. My question is
> what is illegal about someone hammering $60K to
> Win. Fools bet bigger amounts to Show and just 14
> days ago on the Foster Card someone punch in $50K
> to Win with 10 MTP on a McPeek horse who DIDNT
> WIN.
>
> Now if Win money came out and Win money went back
> in then that\'s a different story to me. But as you
> said that didn\'t happen. The Betting limit thing
> intrigues me. ($5,000). but clicking repeat bet 12
> times in 10 seconds is not that hard to due. Who
> knows maybe he meant to do it 20 and got shut
> out.....
Must be the same guy who played Lucky Dan to win.
I write to respectfully push back on what B O characterizes as “mass hysteriaâ€. I think this Board has been measured. What happened in the Dwyer served to shine a bright light on an issue that is now in the forefront - batch computer betting. Silver is correct- there is nothing illegal about it in a game where everyone seeks an edge. What makes last Saturday unique was the extreme nature of what occurred. This is an issue for the tracks to figure out ( they won’t) and for bettors to be beware of( they won’t either). I will guess that the example you used of another late hit in another race was not nearly as extreme as what happened last Saturday. I received a bit of criticism for indirectly raising the Servis issue ( I have never seen the word conflate used as much as in the last few days)in my email to Lewandowski. As a matter of strategy, I acknowledge, particularly as an attorney, perhaps there was no point in throwing that in my email, particularly since I took pains to,state I was in no position to accuse Servis of anything.. BUT- there ain’t a poster or reader on this Board that didn’t think of that issue and whether the coup was related somehow to magic performed by another supertrainer. . This is not hysteria- it is a legitimate concern for any bettor. The far greater concern is whether we are all simply banging our heads against the wall because it will feel good when we stop.
My reference was directed at the fact that while events of this nature occur regularly , somehow this became high profile. Straw/Camel ?
The pools have been under \'attack\' for some time now.
Byk show had Paul Matties on yesterday discussing .
To win? He was supposed to play Lucky Dan to show!
actually it was Harold Gould telling Robert Shaw to “place it on Lucky Dan†in some race at Riverside Park
\"Place it on Lucky Dan, third race, Riverside Park\"
Servis by a few poles just now. Wow! Looked like a rocket ship while Pletch gets eased. This run is unreal. El Jugooooo
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The pools have been under \'attack\' for some time now.
>
> Byk show had Paul Matties on yesterday discussing.
Most interesting thing about the Paul Matties segment was his thoughts on how to combat the late betting action of the computer teams, which echoed Fairmount’s comment earlier in this thread about putting every dollar bet into the pools on equal footing with every other dollar.
Paraphrasing some of Paul’s comments:
>>There’s at least one group that’s going through every pool and making sure that the market is correct on all of them based on the other markets. FF was 7/2 in all the other markets, but when the win bets came in at the last minute and dropped him to 5/2, he went down to 5/2 in the exactas as well based on the imputed odds the seconds after the win bets were made. That’s how fast these Totes and these computer models work. They can take the money that was bet to win and two seconds later analyze it make a bet on the exactas!
The right way to counter the late betting action is to give more weapons to the everyday players, who are the ones who are threatened the most by this. The player’s technology is lacking. In 2018, the player should have some kind of access, either through his ADW or through his phone, of a little bit of a way to counter and be able to play in the same manner as the computer guys do. With some ADWs, you can if they offer batch betting with file uploads and you can write a program, but the ease is not there. We need to get that ability to the players.
Getting more information to the players was the primary concern in the 1990’s. But in 2018 it’s got to be betting. The weapon that the players need now is a better betting tool. Some of the ADWs have gotten better at it, and some of the platforms are getting there, but they’re not advancing like the CAW’s are, and you’ve got to keep that playing field level.<<
NYRA has come a long way and done a terrific job with their NYRA Bets wagering interface, rewards program, ROI trackers, HD replay feeds, etc., but they’ve lagged badly in this respect. The betting public needs to be placed on the same level as the computer teams to make this a fair fight, which means file uploading and batch betting capability so that a high or low-volume player can match, dollar for dollar, exactly what the computer teams can do at the last second. Not having this capability is like using a Flinstone flip phone in the age of smartphones.
The other thing that\'s been proposed is to stop betting at say, 1 minute before post, but that wouldn’t change anything other than perception. The teams will still bet at the last second and the public will see the odds drop without a chance to react as always, they’ll just see it before the race goes off. The only thing that will change is the perception that any cheating may be going on related to past-posting (ala “Lucky Danâ€).
Another idea, as Paul suggested, would be to put a stop on the computer teams a little earlier than everyone else. But as he says, >>that’s never going to happen. The only way to really counter it is to put more power into the hands of the player.<<
Other than that, the most useful tool in the horseplayer\'s arsenal is the good \'ole DD Will Pays, when they\'re available, and when some big plunger with \"magical\" handicapping skills doesn\'t come in at the last second.
Not having this capability is like using a Flinstone flip phone in the age of smartphones.
Rocky,
Great analogy considering I was trying to call our beloved Uncle Bill for 3 weeks, finally I called his wife’s phone. She told me since they put a new metal roof on the house, Billy can’t get phone calls at home...... You can’t make this up.
TGJB tried to get him to buy a smart phone, $800 no way, so he went to buy $144 flip phone to replace his 10 year old Flintstone version that was not working.
The guy looked at as dinosaur and did something to it so it works. It works great except at his Florida home where he spends 6 months a year not getting phone calls. ☎ï¸
Antonio Meucci
“about putting every dollar bet into the pools on equal footing with every other dollarâ€
I’m not understanding the above statement,what exactly does that mean?
Ty
The \"equal footing\" argument is usually made as an argument against rebates. Rebates allow the computer groups (and others) to make a profit even when their bets (before rebate) are just break-even or slightly unprofitable. Because of their access to the tote, their ability to use pool information to calculate expected values and optimal bet amounts almost instantly, and their ability to place large wagers in batches at the last minute, they can drive the odds down to a level that is profitable for them but not for those with no or smaller rebates.
Of course, the argument depends on the assumption that their algorithms enable the computer groups to very accurately identify the probability of each possible outcome of races. That assumption is not unreasonable if one also assumes that, if the algorithms were not accurate, the computer groups would rapidly go out of business.
Rocky, your comment that horse players need more help with betting echoes what I was trying to get to in a post about six weeks ago on the red board issue. Horseplayers don’t know how to bet, as a whole, and can’t make fast enough updates and changes compared to the computers if they have that preparation . The problem seems to be the computer guys don’t have to worry about how to “bet†as they cover all possible angles and then as was mentioned if they can be close to breaking even, the rebates make up the difference in terms of net profit. Otherwise it seems each time computers have taken on humans in almost every venue computers prevail. Computers versus human at blackjack, computers win, computers versus humans at chess, computers win. Computers versus humans in the stock market, computers again . Vegas did as Mr. Wolff suggested and doesn’t allow computers. Wall Street, that’s another story. Horse racing’s future of humans versus computers seems to be pretty clear with a predictable outcome. It would be interesting to hear from some of the board watchers who follow Oaklawn closely where they apparently don’t allow the batch bettors and see what is going on there? You still have the issue of betting protocols for the public but at least they are all on someone equal terms of the pools. Every day players, can you show a greater profit percentage at a track like versus NYRA?
Mathcapper -
I didn\'t understand Matties\'s argument that the ability of the computer groups to analyze the betting in one pool and then make another pool align with it is particularly valuable. If a favorite is overbet in the win pool, there is no advantage to making him overbet in the exacta pool.
I do understand from your previous posts that there is a \"wisdom of crowds\" factor built into the models. Maybe there is also a \"wisdom of unexpected late money\" factor involved?
I\'m not sure I agree with the arm-the-players solution. While that might benefit some players, it might also discourage more casual players. At the end of the day, the industry depends on somebody losing money.
I wonder if any ADW or track is considering using DD will-pays to make projected odds for the public (e.g., an updated morning line). I seem to remember responding to a survey where I was asked whether I would find such a thing useful. In many cases, it would make late odds shifts less suspicious.
Matties has a pretty good handle on what\'s happening, but I think he\'s a little off on the \'adjust\' thing. Pretty sure of it actually.
What is really happening is they are simultaneously betting into all the pools.
So it wasn\'t an \'adjust\' based on the win pool, but money that was bet at the same time into the exacta.
Why would the bots blindly follow the win pool money?
FrankD. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not having this capability is like using a
> Flinstone flip phone in the age of smartphones.
>
> Rocky,
> Great analogy considering I was trying to call our
> beloved Uncle Bill for 3 weeks, finally I called
> his wife’s phone. She told me since they put a
> new metal roof on the house, Billy can’t get
> phone calls at home...... You can’t make this
> up.
>
> TGJB tried to get him to buy a smart phone, $800
> no way, so he went to buy $144 flip phone to
> replace his 10 year old Flintstone version that
> was not working.
> The guy looked at his dinosaur and did something to
> it so it works. It works great except at his
> Florida home where he spends 6 months a year not
> getting phone calls. ☎ï¸
>
> Antonio Meucci
Antonio Meucci â€" LOL! Bill and I had the same conversation recently. Apologies to TGJB but I’m afraid I may have nudged Uncle Bill in that direction as I speak from experience. Still got a Flinstone myself â€" $50 model that rings as loud as a siren and gets crystal clear reception (notwithstanding metal roofs of course). Never found much need for a “smartâ€phone (I carry around my laptop instead when needed which has the horsepower to run big spreadsheets), although it does elicit some strange looks from millennials..
BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The \"equal footing\" argument is usually made as an
> argument against rebates. Rebates allow the
> computer groups (and others) to make a profit even
> when their bets (before rebate) are just
> break-even or slightly unprofitable. Because of
> their access to the tote, their ability to use
> pool information to calculate expected values and
> optimal bet amounts almost instantly, and their
> ability to place large wagers in batches at the
> last minute, they can drive the odds down to a
> level that is profitable for them but not for
> those with no or smaller rebates.
Wish there was a like button I could hit for this. Excellent response, sums things up precisely and succinctly. Part of the reason why horses that used to pay $6.60 are now paying $5.20.
banditbeau Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rocky, your comment that horse players need more
> help with betting echoes what I was trying to get
> to in a post about six weeks ago on the red board
> issue. Horseplayers don’t know how to bet, as a
> whole, and can’t make fast enough updates and
> changes compared to the computers if they have
> that preparation . The problem seems to be the
> computer guys don’t have to worry about how to
> “bet†as they cover all possible angles and
> then as was mentioned if they can be close to
> breaking even, the rebates make up the difference
> in terms of net profit. Otherwise it seems each
> time computers have taken on humans in almost
> every venue computers prevail. Computers versus
> human at blackjack, computers win, computers
> versus humans at chess, computers win. Computers
> versus humans in the stock market, computers again
> . Vegas did as Mr. Wolff suggested and doesn’t
> allow computers. Wall Street, that’s another
> story. Horse racing’s future of humans versus
> computers seems to be pretty clear with a
> predictable outcome. It would be interesting to
> hear from some of the board watchers who follow
> Oaklawn closely where they apparently don’t
> allow the batch bettors and see what is going on
> there? You still have the issue of betting
> protocols for the public but at least they are all
> on someone equal terms of the pools. Every day
> players, can you show a greater profit percentage
> at a track like versus NYRA?
Never really looked into Oaklawn, but I should be able to tell pretty quickly if there’s any discernable effect of the ban on bots. Tampa too(?)
BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mathcapper -
>
> I didn\'t understand Matties\'s argument that the
> ability of the computer groups to analyze the
> betting in one pool and then make another pool
> align with it is particularly valuable. If a
> favorite is overbet in the win pool, there is no
> advantage to making him overbet in the exacta
> pool.
I think he was referring to using one pool (the win pool most likely, which is generally the most efficient) to establish the fair odds in the other pools, from which they can determine the positive EV bets. But yeah, when the win pools are off, everything else would be too. An argument can be made that the $60K win bet on FF in the Dwyer made him an underlay and hence all the related exotics too. Then again, in hindsight the way he won made him look like a big overlay.
The argument I think Paul is trying to make is that modern-day handicapping has evolved with some of these computer teams to where instead of using the pure handicapping approach of a traditional Benter-like multifactor probability model, they’re just using the imputed odds from the (win) pool to clean up the inefficiencies in the other pools.
> I do understand from your previous posts that
> there is a \"wisdom of crowds\" factor built into
> the models. Maybe there is also a \"wisdom of
> unexpected late money\" factor involved?
There’s almost certainly an element of that too. The academic studies have shown that the later the money is bet, particularly just before post time, the “smarter†it is. The win pool is the most efficient pool, and of that pool, the marginal late money is even more efficient than the overall pool (FWIW, FF\'s late marginal odds in the Dwyer looked to be around 3/5).
> I\'m not sure I agree with the arm-the-players
> solution. While that might benefit some players,
> it might also discourage more casual players. At
> the end of the day, the industry depends on
> somebody losing money.
>
> I wonder if any ADW or track is considering using
> DD will-pays to make projected odds for the public
> (e.g., an updated morning line). I seem to
> remember responding to a survey where I was asked
> whether I would find such a thing useful. In many
> cases, it would make late odds shifts less
> suspicious.
Agreed. I’m surprised more horseplayers aren’t already computing it themselves (maybe they just aren\'t aware?). It would certainly make my life easier, and it might help the everyday player to grab some of that money that the computer guys are siphoning through their methods of cleaning up inefficiencies noted above (ie. they could bet down horses to their implied Will Pay odds before the computer guys come in with their late action). Of course, the computer guys would probably make quick adjustments, including possibly messing with the Will Pay pools to throw off the public as to a horse’s true fair odds.
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Matties has a pretty good handle on what\'s
> happening, but I think he\'s a little off on the
> \'adjust\' thing. Pretty sure of it actually.
>
> What is really happening is they are
> simultaneously betting into all the pools.
>
> So it wasn\'t an \'adjust\' based on the win pool,
> but money that was bet at the same time into the
> exacta.
>
> Why would the bots blindly follow the win pool
> money?
Tend to agree, unless the thinking is that since the win pool is generally the most efficient pool, it can be used to compute the fair odds in the other pools and clean up inefficiencies as noted above. But I’m with you, I think it’s more likely that all pools are hit simultaneously based on the algo’s implied fair odds.