Thursday 1/5/2012 GP PK3 races 6 (11.00), 7 (49.60),8 (69.40)... 1$ pk3 payed 246.60
Another low payout with long shots... Something smells here!
This race got investigated and *allegedly* according to Gulfstream, it was a \'legit\' win. Someone in Canada simo land punched a 110 dollar pick 3 part wheel. I\'m not sure too many people bet 100 dollar pick 3\'s with 35-1 shots into small pools, but hey, they said it was legit so who are we to argue. lol
I just read this from Thoroughbred Times...
Surprisingly low pick three raises eyebrows at Gulfstream
Posted: Thursday, January 05, 2012 5:47 PM
by Frank Angst
Bettors who expected a monster payout when they hooked a pair of longshots in a pick three sequence on Thursday at Gulfstream Park were left wondering what happened when the payout was much less than expected.
While exotic payouts can surprise or disappoint on a daily basis at the races, the $1 pick three sequence at Gulfstream Park ending in the eighth race on Thursday seemed particularly low. Bettors who wagered $1 on the correct pick three sequence seemed to be in very good standing after Water of Life scored at 4.50-to-1, Matt's a Giant won at 23.80-to-1, and Gentlemen's Bet capped the sequence by winning at 33.70-to-1. However, the $1 pick three wager returned only $246.60.
Late Thursday Gulfstream Park officials determined a bettor at a Canadian-based platform had wagered a $110 pick three wager in which he singled the winner of the first race of the sequence, selected all of the horses in the second leg, and played two horses in the final leg, including the winner. Total cost of the ticket would have been $1,908 and the bettor received $27,126 for his efforts.
The massive winning wager made for some odd payouts, considering a $1 win parlay would have returned $3,609 and one expert bettor said sequences like these routinely return more than $5,000.
To put things in perspective, a $1 daily double for the final two races in the sequence returned $635.30, which is 258% higher than the $1 pick three return. The $1 pick three ending in the following race, in which 9-to-10 favorite Miss Netta won, paid $3,178.90. So that sequence, in which the $2 win payouts for the horses were $49.60, $69.40, and $3.80 paid 12.89-times as much as the sequence that started with the $11 winner and ended with longshots paying $49.60 and $69.40 for $2 win wagers, respectively.
Frank Angst is senior writer for Thoroughbred Times
This seems like a \'quick\' investigation. Maybe they took 5 seconds and looked at the time stamp on the ticket and determined it was legit? Maybe they care not to \'find out\' if someone is past posting and finding ways to bet after Leg 1 even though the time stamp says its legit?
Since there are super sophisticated crooks out there and the racing industry is really still using 1970s technology (not to mention they could care less), i\'d still want to know more about this wager and the tote system in general.
Does anyone feel satisfied that Gulfstream\'s pools are incredible iron clad safe just because they told us that some rogue better punched a reckless 110 dollar pick 3 and happened to win?
Does that make you feel safe and make you want to start spending 5 hours a night handicapping Gulfstream and sinking your hard earned money into their pools?
Does it?
1) An idiot bet way too much into a small pool on a high odds serial bet.
2) A psychotic crook is past posting and wants to be caught by calling maximum attention to his deeds.
Choose wisely from one of the above.
In this case, if the guy had the ability to past-post, wouldn\'t he have just past-posted a $1900 win bet on the 35-1 shot rather than spreading in a Pick 3 bet where he won much less money?
If there was criminal activity, it was a pretty dumb criminal who seemingly wanted to hold a \"criminal\" sign up over his head.
Pool Integrity is something you will rarely, if ever, hear an out of touch Clueless Clown stump about.Too busy catering to the marginal animal loon or some other sexy racing flavor of the day,lasix,steroids,blah,blah.
Not much change in the game.
Mike
Plastic...
I agree, last week it was a $220 DD at Santa Anita using a single and wheel, now this crap....
Who bets $110 PK3 wheels into those pools?
They (GP officials) seem satisfied with their swift investigation, but, NOT I nor should YOU!
ok, lets do an experiment.
keep track of all the anomalous p3 payoffs PRE RACE.
then get back to me.
Beau, there probably wasnt even an \'investigation\' They probably looked at the betting logs, saw the ticket was \'legit\' and proclaimed it \'on the up and up\'. without doing \'deep digging\'. Why dig deep when you might not like what you find?
Racing is the best game to be involved in if you are a cheat...many times the tracks look the other way for a variety of reasons.
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ok, lets do an experiment.
>
> keep track of all the anomalous p3 payoffs PRE
> RACE.
>
> then get back to me.
To this extreme??
Nothing extreme about it.
I contend that folks only get bent when one of these payoffs WINS, and they ignore the dozens or more that run up the track.
I\'m all for triple checking the pool integrity, but its kind of silly to think there\'s past posting involved.
Matter of fact, ya\'ll should be cleaning up betting the third leg.
Does anyone know if the payouts on the rest of the field in the last leg of this PIK 3 were \"normal\"?
Were there any other PIK 3 possibles that were extremely low that didn\'t win? Was this bettor making numerous $110 PIK 3 wagers or did he just happen to hit the one he really liked?
I would hope that Gulfstream would look at all of the wagers made on this day because of this situation. I think if the bettor hit the only big PIK 3 wager he made that day it would raise some suspicion, not only of past posting but what about good old fashioned race fixing?
what about bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>....
> suspicion, not only of past posting but what about
> good old fashioned race fixing?
Could be. Hearing that anyone that went to bet Catalano\'s firster was dragged off in cuffs, thats why it paid over 30-1.
They\'re coming out of the woodwork on this one.
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They\'re coming out of the woodwork on this one.
It\'s easier to accept continual losses if a scapegoat is handy.
The \"I can\'t win because somebody is cheating\" excuse is as low as it gets. If you are convinced the game is crooked, there is only one sane response: quit playing.
\"I\'m all for triple checking the pool integrity, but its kind of silly to think there\'s past posting involved\"
Box,
You don\'t have a clue if you don\'t know that it HAS been done in the past and that people are looking for ways to do it now. That is not to say that this one was a past post or any other low looking payoff.
The point is that checks and balances regarding pool integrity is critical to everyone.What do the Clueless Clowns tell us about this area?, generally nuthin!!
Mike
What I found interesting with the GP P3 and the HOL DD is that the last leg of each sequence was keyed on only 2 horses and the preceding leg was an \"all\". Additionally, the units wagered $110 (GP) and $220 (HOL) ratio/multiple is too strong of a coincidence to simply dismiss.
BTW, the standard response - \"time-stamp shows that the wagers are legit\", was also the case with the Drexel Boys P6 during their dry runs at Belmont.
I proposed some simple questions that I thought would be interesting to know the answers to. For me to think that I don\'t win because of cheating in racing is as absurd as someone who think\'s it doesn\'t exist.
You protest too much. Didn\'t mean you.
Also, I don\'t think the game is 100% clean. No sport is, and for that matter, neither is any non-sporting activity or endeavor where money is involved.
My point was / is: if you really think the cheating bogeymen are around every corner -- involved with every odds drop, low payoff, sudden horse improvement, suspicious jockey move, etc., it\'s time for you to quit the game.
Others here wanted answers about why that P3 payout was so low, and when the authorities promptly provided same, these folks pretty much rejected the official response out of hand. (One even opined that the response was too fast!) Well, that screams \"loser\" to me.
Yeah ,well clue or not, the first place I would look for past posting would not be some random p3 that pays 1/10 fair value.
So you think someone with a way to cheat the system would blow it by taking down the whole TINY pool?
Doubt it. That and since the payoffs are posted BEFORE the running of the last leg.......
There\'s plenty of cheating in everything, just not where you think it is.
A situation like this \'calls attention to\' the notion that betting pool integrity is a serious issue. Whether this particular example is legit or not legit doesnt amount to a heck of a lot. What concerns me is the other 99.99 percent of the races and that nobody is pulling a Chris Harn situation, but just doing it smarter and more efficient.
If Volponi doesnt win, the Drexel boys are living on a beachfront mansion in Malibu on all the winnings they would have made in the last 10 years, all on the backs of YOU and ME.
So, they \'outed\' the Drexel boys, that was TEN years ago. Do you know how much technology has progressed in the last 10 years? Heck, there\'s a new and \'improved\' IPAD every few weeks, and we\'re still working with the same exact tote system from 1910?
Does anyone have any information that the tote systems in horse racing are as iron clad and as sophisticated as the newest technology on this earth?
What\'s been done behind the scenes in horse racing to assure that this Chris Harn/Drexel situation never happens again?