The \"Corporate Hoodlums\" of the game who are \"The Masterminds\" of this scheme should probably hire some good Lawyers R.I.C.O carries 20 years. Price Fixing 10. And Anti Trust protection extends only to the Big Pro Sports. MLB.NFL.NBA.
Paulick said a potential compromise being mentioned is to cut off the CAW access to Pools after the 1st horse loads. With 5 horse fields and then Track Mgmt begins telling the Gate Crew now \"double load\" well that will do nothing.
No one wants to see anyone in handcuffs. Accountability and Equal Protections for all market participants is the Goal. And then a cohesive plan on how to grow to game now that slots have surged purses. Right now it\'s a Globalist Free for All....
https://x.com/racetrackandy/status/1990053693832794450?s=42
From Paulick on Twitter:
Horseplayers, I stand corrected. Now I am hearing the betting cutoff when first horse enters gate is for everyone-not just CAW. Sources say this is being considered by Stronach Group.
Silver- while I feel your pain and anger and am pleased that a legitimate firm and a plaintiff had the cahones to to shed light on the evil that is CAW wagering, this lawsuit is a long shot at best with a ways to go. First, no one is going to jail. Civil RICO lawsuits not only face a high bar but are quickly recognized by the judiciary as a plaintiff’s strategem to put fear in the defendants. As a matter of strategy this is what you can reasonably expect. The defendants will make motion to dismiss the complaint on various grounds that will put the case to sleep for 6-12 months. Even assuming the complaint is found to state a claim on behalf of the named plaintiff, in order for it to have any meaning it must achieve what is known as “ class action status†under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 23 requires that four elements be met to achieve class action status- 1.numerosity- meaning the size of the putative class is so large that it would be more efficient and in the interests of judicial economy for all the so called common claims to be in one claim. I am prepared to concede this case meets this test. Second, adequacy of representation- can these lawyers represent such a large group without conflict etc. Again, this test will be passed. The next two items ( were I representing the defendants are difficult. Those two claims are commonality ( are each plaintiffs claims the same) and typicality ( a variation on a theme). Everyone on this board bets for a different reason, would have to prove ( it seems to me) that any or all of the bets forming the claim were made in races where CAW involvement was present, and- it seems to me- that they either would not have made the bet had they known of CAW involvement ( every single person on this board fails that element)and had a reasonable expectation that the payoffs reflected at, let’s say 1 minute to post, were what a winning better would receive if successful in his or her wager. The comments over years on this board alone, reflect that many of you have continued to bet notwithstanding the existence of CAW and no one forced you to do so. There are other defenses ( and good luck with enormous burden - if the case gets that far- of engaging in pre trial discovery )but you get the thrust of my concern. As I said years ago, as one of the first to call this out on this board, eliminating or curtailing substantially your betting, is the best remedy- for yourselves and to send a message to the defendants. R
Well I am not going to litigate this with someone who obviously knows what he is talking about. But it does put the Tracks in the unenviable spot of \"we are against the Regular Customer and for the CAW Syndicate\" if they request it be dismissed and then move on.
And then yes it boomerangs back around to the Regular Customer who must say \"They don\'t care about me so why am I doing this.\" I can walk away in 5 seconds. And once the word and reputation gets around that the game is rigged and fixed against the \"little guy\" others will too.
I am self editing because when I said \"once the word gets around\" this is all over other forms of Social Media. Sure the DRF and Bloodhorse are not going to talk about it. Even in some type of Editorial Commentary. Its bad for business. But we don\'t live in that vacuum anymore. The CD Stock is down 33% YTD. A recent Share Buyback announcement created a small bounce. Shorts shy away. But they will come back. I would venture that valuations are down across the Board. And the cohesive turnaround plans and solutions are what......
Simply cutting the betting a little early will have ZERO affect on the CAW influence, UNLESS they are somehow doing some after the start wagering/cancelling which I doubt.
Rez,
While you are the expert in this area, I have more questions for you.
If I were to take my computer coded, algorithm aided, AI powered tablet/phone/laptop and set it down at the slot machine, may I hook it up to the slot machine and let it work its magic while I either sit there or even go wander around the casino?
If I were to take my computer coded, algorithm aided AI powered tablet/phone/laptop and I sit down at the black jack table so it can count cards and tell me the exact plays, may I do so?
If the law requires me to be 18 to wager on horse racing, and I hook up my 5 year old laptop into the parimutuel pools and I let it automatically make the bets using AI, is that legal? And what, if any, consequences are there for me having my 13 year old (albeit fictious for this exercise) son sitting behind the screen making thousands and thousands of dollars a day making sure the computer is connected to the pools at Stronach, CD, Parx, etc while no one else is in the room? I am sure that TrustMeBro Law dot com says they will never know if my kid is the one making the plays or my 5 year old laptop despite their combined age of 18.
If the plaintiff\'s attorneys plead negligence against the tracks and the tote companies in failing to close the pools on time (which I believe is likely and have posted enough evidence that a civil jury would believe they are betting late more likely than not), would they get past a motion to dismiss for that claim? [NOTE: For those doubting the issues with past posting, please find me a list even a 1/3 as long as the ones I\'ve posted here where a horse that is 5-1 or less breaks slow or drops a jock at the start, and the odds GO DOWN in Price (meaning significantly more money is bet on them). You find me even one or two of those that in multiple pools more money comes in, and I might start to entertain the idea there isn\'t past posting).
__________
Rez, I\'ll save you the time. The answers are you believe they have no shot so actually no reply is needed. Luckily, they will fight this out in the Federal Court and not on the TG Board so we shall see how it all plays out in time. I\'m not saying you are incorrect with your pessimistic opinion; but I do think there is a better shot than you see.
Fairmount- all I was trying to point out is this is a difficult lawsuit, with many hurdles and an uphill climb!
I understand that. But what about my negligence claim? Why is that one a fail for you, if it is?
Stock Markets, a trillion dollar operation, have routinely given advantages to participants willing to pay for it .
I don\'t see any real change there , though there has been pushback for a decade or more . (see HFT )
The only way you\'re gonna get the law to intervene here is if there is some kind of fraud, or you can prove they are violating existing statutes.
Terrible example. Sorry. If I buy a $100 Stock I don\'t get $2 off for a volume discount. It is not a Free Market Pool for all participants if that is the case.
When I place a wager I am not buying someone else\'s Pari Mutual ticket like with Stocks. If I wager on a 10-1 Shot I don\'t get 10-1 guaranteed. I get nothing if my wager loses. And at the current rate in racing you get might a little more than nothing if your supposed 10-1 shot wins. Because another market participant pounded that down to 9-5 after the gate opened.
There is a also a Regulator called the Securities and Exchange Commission. Who regulates horse racing wagering pools? Mic Drop.....
You bring up an excellent point. If someone enters a pari-mutuel pool voluntarily, what is the harm done to that person? Lower odds? It\'s pari-mutuel wagering, the odds change.
And even if you bet into a CAW tainted pool, are you only harmed if you won the wager and the payout was reduced by the CAW activity?
I understand the frustration with CAW\'s, and the need for change, but really, what are the chances this gets to the discovery phase?
Is every participant in the class going to have to provide there betting history? Who is going to go through all that data & see what wagers where affected by CAW play?
Also if the Participants in the stock market are attempting to manipulate a particular security the SEC can fine and bar them. Or even Jail them
Anyone owns more than 5% of an individual security must file a Schedule 13(d) with the Exchange. Disclosure. Same potential penalty. Fined. Barred. Jailed. Who reports how much one group of Parties control in the wagering pools.
Also Insiders who have Conflicts of Interest are required to Report their individual stock purchases. If not totally barred from doing so. And sometimes they are required to do so. Skin in the game of the Company. But they are required to report it.
Nobody in Pari Mutual Wagering is required to do anything other than Report the handle and pay their taxes.
Silver Charm Wrote:
-----------------------
> Terrible example....
No, the example was fine. In particular, I highlighted structural advantages offered to those willing to pay for it, in the stock market . I didn\'t say anything about discounts.
Silver,
One of the Defendants in the lawsuit is \"Racing & Gaming Services,\" a CAW registered in St. Kitts and Nevis. A quick review of the tax benefits of St. Kitts will reveal that actually these folks likely do not even have to report their handle, much less pay taxes.
Meanwhile, Stronach Group of course is owned by Canadian Belinda Stronach.
As American as Apple Pie this horse racing game!
As for the idea that the stock market folks are a fair comparison, one question for you Silver, if you don\'t mind. Do the folks with the \"structural advantages\" Boscar describes also have the ability to put their money down on specific stocks based on prices 30 seconds earlier? I\'m gonna guess \"No.\"
_______________
Solutions:
1. Destroy them in court. Fingers crossed. I hope everyone involved with the CAWs and their partners\' brilliant schemes go down in flames.
2. Legislate the CAW\'s out of the game in the states that actually care about the future of the game beyond a few years.
3. At the track level, ban them altogether from your pools while catering to the valuable on track dollars from customers and Retail Players.
4. Create a federal oversight body for the billions in money involved in the horse racing industry. Yes, I ABSOLUTELY trust the federal govt over the Stronach Group and CDI and their CAW partners and tote partners. That\'s a scary proposition as some would say HISA has taught us. But, again, you can\'t trust anyone involved with the CAW folks.
5. A criminal investigation by the FBI (Eastern District of NY) into these folks and let\'s see what we learn.
________________________________
NOTE: Mike Maloney posted (paraphrasing here) on twitter/X this weekend that circa 2009, the Integrity Committee in Kentucky voted to close the pools when the 1st horse loads with unanimous support. It then had a majority of support from the Commission [Racing I presume he means]. On the day of the vote though it was shut down by Churchill and the head of the [Racing?] Commission Beck was then suddenly against closing the pools when the first horse loads.
CD and all these tracks/CAW\'s/Tote Companies/Track Execs have been laughing to the bank for the past 16 years at least as they all exploit whatever weaknesses they can find in the parimutuel pools, the tote system, and at the expense of All Retail Bettors.
Now ask yourself, why is it is SO important to not close the pools when the first horse loads that CD had to jump on the scene to save the day back in 2009?
I\'m sure the most altruistic reasons one can surmise are what a few folks here will tell me.
First horse loading is a bit problematic for many players who like to bet late. Video feeds are often delayed. This would shut a lot of people out, and the tracks dont like that lost income.
I\'ve seen feeds that appear to be near realtime, based in their screen clocks, but NYRA is always delayed by an absurd 20 seconds. Why is that ?
Someone can buy a Seat in the Exchange. But it doesn\'t get them a Special Deal. If you know someone you can probably get in on an IPO but if the IPO was over priced the Stock would go down once it\'s Trading. Unlikely because people want it to be successful. So comparing that to Horse Racing did you get a Deal? Well you will know in about 10 minutes when the IPO hits the Market or the Race is run.
No one is buying a Deal. And there is a Regulatory Body called the Securities and Exchange Commission. Market manipulators are watched. Insiders are Tracked. There is no such thing or a similar regulatory body surrounding Racing.
A Company can not price their IPO lower for one group of buyers because they favor them versus another. It\'s Illegal as hell.
I told ya , look up HFT , High Frequency Trading. Ask your favorite AI for a summary. They are good at that
Fairmount- negligence is an unintentional tort. Any wrongdoing here was manifestly intentional as all the defendants knew or had to know the impact that CAW wagering would have on pools, payoffs etc.
Rez,
Apologies here for the miscommunication on these fronts.
Correct me if I\'m wrong, but for some time, you have maintained the problem with chasing the tracks, CAW\'s, and Tote companies is that with the allegations involved namely that it would be in the vein of fraud. As such, your position is that getting past a Motion to Dismiss would be very difficult. As a result, the discovery that would effectuate meaningful change by itself even before a trial would never happen. I believe that is your position in the past. If I\'m wrong, correct me.
Picking up on that, I am suggesting that pleading Negligence against the tracks and tote companies, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, to the intentional torts would provide another avenue to achieving success. Now, the exact lawsuit in question may not state this, but I am stating that a claim can be made with the mountain of evidence piling up that At Least, the tracks and tote companies are negligent in failing to close the pools when the gates open. The evidence is beyond there for this claim. Now if it is being done intentionally, that would be a suit based in fraud. Those two suits could be plead alternatively. One set of facts can give rise to these alternative theories being plead as you understand.
And the negligence suit is more likely to get past a Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgment than an intentional tort. That is my point.
I understand in the suit at hand actually on file that it is plead under statutes that provide treble damages and attorney\'s fees while negligence does not allow these terrific threats. However, all one may need is to get the case to discovery. The house of cards, if it is one, will begin to show its bare bones if that\'s the situation (LIKELY LOL).
Duty to Close the Pools When the Gates Open
Breach-Show any judge just one video of the odds changing at the wire after 1:12 3/5 and I\'m pretty sure they aren\'t going to say I understand 70s technology is slow in 2026. Add in ALL the examples where the odds on horses go up in odds that lose jockeys and break poorly and we have a PLAUSIBLE claim. NOTE: This is where you HAVE them...the pools don\'t even fully settle by their own records until 19 SECONDS INTO THE RACE!!!!
Causation-The Pools not closing when the gates open lead to lower odds on horses bet after the bell causing the Plaintiff to receive lower odds and thus lower payoffs in the form of monetary damages. All these ADW records are perfect for this to show a payoff for a plaintiff was far lower b/c of the odds difference between the odds shown at the time the gates open and when the pools close. Just look for a BCBC participant (with diversity) who was robbed of 75k on a winning play the last several years. I\'m sure there is at least one example of this out there. Between their gambled amount going down b/c of the odds change and the prize amount they missed for a higher placing in the final race, I\'m certain we can get there.
Damages-Lost prize money and gambling winnings from the pool not being closed on time by the tracks and the tote companies.
This gets them past a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion for Summary Judgement against the tracks and the tote companies. And that gets you to Discovery which is the promise land to tearing them down. A victory at trial isn\'t even probably necessary thereafter. But there\'s no treble damages and no attorney\'s fees with this approach.
I just gave another blueprint to take these %^#%&^#$ down. You can disagree and I\'m confident you will. But it will only take one suit to get to discovery in one state using this method and . . .