While the Clueless Clowns vie for the podium on Lasix and other bullshit issues, the computer geeks are closer than ever to perfecting models to beat the game. It\'s a matter of time before the geeks figure out a way to do this into much larger pools that we all play into.Incidentally, a fairly small investment by the Clueless Clowns in some new pari mutuel software could put the clamp on this type of thing.
DRF:
Ohio racing officials have launched an investigation into a flurry of last-second bets on the fifth race at Thistledown on Monday, the officials confirmed on Tuesday morning.
The bets, which originated through account-wagering hubs, drove the odds on a 1-5 horse at post time in a six-horse maiden field to 5-1 just after the horses left the gate. Eye Look the Part, the horse that had been 1-5, won the race by 16 1/2 lengths and paid $12.80 as the longest shot in the six-furlong race for maidens.
Just prior to the race starting, a bettor, using a Euro Off-Track betting account, wagered $7,000 to win on every horse in the race but Eye Look the Part. At the same time, $8,000 in win bets were placed through a separate account at the Greyhound Channel on every horse but Eye Look the Part, according to William Crawford, the Ohio State Racing Commission's executive director.
All told, $90,000 was bet at the last cycle to win on all the other horses in the race. Another $12,000 was bet on the other horses to show, also through the accounts, Crawford said. The bets did not show up on the odds until the race had started, but bettors who thought they were getting 1-5 ended up getting 5-1.
"Normally in these cases it's the other way around," Crawford said.
Crawford said that the mutuel pool – the total of all win, place, and show bets – on a race at Thistledown is typically $9,000. The total mutuel pool for the fifth race on Monday was $128,010.
Because of the way the bets were structured, a likely explanation is that the bettor or bettors who targeted all the horses but the favorite were attempting to drive up the price on Eye Look the Part in order to cash bets at non-pari-mutuel off-shore books that pay off at track odds. In order to break even under such a scenario, a bettor would have had to have made at least $14,064 in win bets through non-pari-mutuel outlets.
The betting was complicated by another factor. Of the amount bet to win on Eye Look the Part, a total of $8,359 was made by one bettor, also operating through an account-wagering service, Crawford said. The bettor also made a $968 show bet on Eye Look the Part. Both bets were placed well before the race started.
Crawford acknowledged that the odd amounts of the win and show bets on Eye Look the Part pointed to the use of a computerized robotic wagering program. The programs, which account for at least 10 percent of the handle on U.S. horse races, analyze pool totals searching for inefficiencies, and they typically place bets in odd amounts because of the program's ability to calculate the impact of the bets on the odds.
Crawford said he has requested additional information from both Euro Off-Track and the Greyhound Channel on the bets and the bettors who placed them.
In addition, the Thoroughbred Racing and Protective Bureau, an investigative arm of a company owned by racetracks, has also begun looking into the race, according to the TRPB's director of wagering analysis, J. Curtis
Makes me wish I was a sicko that bet 1-5 shots at Thistledown. Nice little windfall.
Hmm....
Well, there is another way to look at this.
A bunch of gamblers made legal, pre-race bets into the parimutuel betting system that created \"phony odds\" and \"value\" for those betting into the parimutuel system and wagering on the 1-5 favorite. They did this so they could bet presumably much much more, with either illegal bookmakers and/or offshore sports books (also illegal in this country).
The \"victim\" in this case is the offshore bookmaker or bookie.
Granted, there are other scenarios where this kind of manipulation could harm the players, but I don\'t think this one did.
Call me naiive, but what law did they break here? Assuming the bets were \"pre-race\", they bet a ton of money on some slugs that had no chance to win. Unless the \"illegal bets\" can be proven, I don\'t know what law has been broken.
jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hmm....
>
> Well, there is another way to look at this.
>
> A bunch of gamblers made legal, pre-race bets into
> the parimutuel betting system that created \"phony
> odds\" and \"value\" for those betting into the
> parimutuel system and wagering on the 1-5
> favorite. They did this so they could bet
> presumably much much more, with either illegal
> bookmakers and/or offshore sports books (also
> illegal in this country).
>
> The \"victim\" in this case is the offshore
> bookmaker or bookie.
>
> Granted, there are other scenarios where this kind
> of manipulation could harm the players, but I
> don\'t think this one did.
>
> Call me naiive, but what law did they break here?
> Assuming the bets were \"pre-race\", they bet a ton
> of money on some slugs that had no chance to win.
> Unless the \"illegal bets\" can be proven, I don\'t
> know what law has been broken.
I don\'t think 1/5 was phony considering he won by 16 lengths.
This one did harm the players in this respect. If odds can change after the race starts, then how can players have any confidence that what the odds they wager on are true?? Its one thing to go from 12/1 to 8/1 in a small pool. From 1/5 to 5/1?? that just doesn\'t happen EVER. Ever.
Its not about breaking laws, technically they didn\'t. But don\'t you think the integrity of the pools have been breached a bit??
If you can\'t trust the tote board, there is no game. Period.
This used to happen all the time in the old days. Boscar can help out here. What did they call it? \"Building?\" Bet up the rest of the field at Agua Caliente and clean up with US bookmakers on the good thing.
I also wonder how often this sort of thing could be pulled off. How many offshore outfits would get suckered twice on this sort of thing?
The math guys got Vegas(when Vegas booked horses) with a show bet at Monticello harness with next to nothing in the pools.Casinos hollered and refusd to pay but at the end of the day the Gaming Commission ordered the Casinos to pay the players.Vegas had an exposure and some smart young guys took advantage.
Agree with Jim that no laws were broken and only the offshore sites that book horses got banged but the whole point is again a simple one.Any form of pool manipulation MUST be guarded against with the elimination of robotic wagers and software programs that are hooked into live pools at the rebate shops.
If every player cannot make hundreds of bets in the last 30 seconds then no one should be able to.
Mike
I\'ve been around a long time and have a significant background on the taking side of bets.
1) Most offshore or non-parimutuel books will cap a payoff at 5 or 10 k total for the race at a C or D level track like thistle.
2) No book maker in their right mind would take a 10k or more bet on a track that normally has that amount in total in the WPS pool for an entire race.
3) No bookmaker in their right mind would take that kind of action on a new account or one that never bet like that before. The only exception maybe for a heavy hitting sucker who normally bets 1/5 types regularly.
2 + 2 = 8 here
About 30 years ago their was an article in American Turf Monthly about a couple of wise guys who \"fixed\" a 6 horse race at Charles Town in much the same way as this race was \"fixed\".
Only difference was the end result. The bettors got what was coming to them but it wasn\'t money.
Thanks
Wild Again
If I\'m understanding this correctly, the only ones that got hurt are BM\'s who don\'t give anything back to the tracks or in purses, have limits on payouts, and occasionally stiff people.
Anybody got a hankie? I\'m gonna need a couple of minutes to regain my composure.
P-Dub,
You didn\'t read what I wrote, at least not clearly.
The bets created \"phony odds\" in that the 1-5 shot went off at 5-1. 5-1 was \"phony\" considering the horse won by 16.
Frank D.,
I agree completely with what you wrote. I have quite a few outlets that I can bet through offshore and I have enough history with all of them that I can get their \"highest limits\" available. That said, I would be hard pressed to get more than 2-4k in win bets down TOTAL on a horse at Thistledown.
Anybody here know how to search back +/- 30 years in newspaper archives? There was a caper extremely similar to this a long time ago at PARX (at the time the track was called Keystone). Andrew Beyer wrote a detailed article about the whole thing. If we can access Andrew Beyer\'s old articles and search for the term keystone should be easily findable (he may have called it the Keystone Caper). What I am not sure about was whether the article was in the Washington Post or the Washington Star. It was definitely not in the DRF.
SoCalMan2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anybody here know how to search back +/- 30 years
> in newspaper archives? There was a caper
> extremely similar to this a long time ago at PARX
> (at the time the track was called Keystone).
> Andrew Beyer wrote a detailed article about the
> whole thing. If we can access Andrew Beyer\'s old
> articles and search for the term keystone should
> be easily findable (he may have called it the
> Keystone Caper). What I am not sure about was
> whether the article was in the Washington Post or
> the Washington Star. It was definitely not in the
> DRF.
I just found it on the Washington Post website, but it seems to be inaccessible. The article was published on November 13, 1981 and was entitled \"Kiddie Caper: Builder Play A Big Winner\"....i would love to be able to access it for nostalgia purposes, but it seems to be lost except for a very small abstract. Can\'t believe that was 30.5 years ago.....seems like yesterday.
magicnight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This used to happen all the time in the old days.
> Boscar can help out here. What did they call it?
> \"Building?\" Bet up the rest of the field at Agua
> Caliente and clean up with US bookmakers on the
> good thing.
>
> I also wonder how often this sort of thing could
> be pulled off. How many offshore outfits would get
> suckered twice on this sort of thing?
That\'s what they called it . . . old art forms never die.
. . . but share the wonder at their ability to get a significant amount \"off\" on a secondary track, with reasonable confidence that the guy(s) they\'re playing with will hold it and not dump it into the pools . . .
SoCal,
I remember that one, the one miff mentioned at Monticello & one at Pimlico where they manipulated the show pool and cashed in Vegas before the houses went parimutuel. The difference is in those days before co-mingled pools at smaller tracks it took a few grand or less to turn the pools and they bet in Vegas or with street bookmakers.
These guy\'s pumped 75k into the pool to set the odds and had to bet close to 15k to get even; that\'s a 90k investment for nothing. How much more could they bet and where to make it worth while? If they bet another 20k they invested 110 to get even money. It goes on how much could they get down for in the world at Thistle? (AND GET PAID)
Plus healthy rebates on a very low-risk bet.
FrankD. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I\'ve been around a long time and have a
> significant background on the taking side of
> bets.
>
> 1) Most offshore or non-parimutuel books will cap
> a payoff at 5 or 10 k total for the race at a C or
> D level track like thistle.
>
> 2) No book maker in their right mind would take a
> 10k or more bet on a track that normally has that
> amount in total in the WPS pool for an entire
> race.
>
> 3) No bookmaker in their right mind would take
> that kind of action on a new account or one that
> never bet like that before. The only exception
> maybe for a heavy hitting sucker who normally bets
> 1/5 types regularly.
>
> 2 + 2 = 8 here
Most likely a bunch of different offshore boobkmakers used. as you are correct on the C and D track limits.
I don\'t swim in this partlcular pool, (offshore betting) but I suspect these guys have a NON MANIPULATION clause in the rules, to protect themselves.
It\'s called \"padding the pool\". As I mentioned in another post, I would think most if not all offshore books that hold bets, would EXCLUDE pools that are obviously manipulated from paying off.
Otherwise, they would be out of business very quickly.
magicnight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This used to happen all the time in the old days.
> Boscar can help out here. What did they call it?
> \"Building?\" Bet up the rest of the field at Agua
> Caliente and clean up with US bookmakers on the
> good thing.
>
> I also wonder how often this sort of thing could
> be pulled off. How many offshore outfits would get
> suckered twice on this sort of thing?
\"most if not all offshore books that hold bets, would EXCLUDE pools that are obviously manipulated from paying off.\"
So where did they lay the 40 grand or so necessary to make all the bother worthwhile? And know that they would get paid?
no idea what they were doing. there are many strange things going on all the time in the pools, most under the radar.
just saw a comment elsewhere that suggests someones betting account might have been hacked. that would make a lot of sense. now , just find out who bet the winner large in the tote to find the culprit ;-).
if anyone thinks it\'s unlikely, I refer you to the exact same thing being done with hacked stock broker accounts.
this, from bogdog.
\"In the event we believe there has been \'Pool Manipulation\' to gain monies from Bodog Racebook, we will investigate the race and betting patterns which may result in any \'winnings\' being deemed as void. We also reserve the right to restrict or limit wagering access in Bodog Racebook.\"
But I don\'t think there were many winners through the tote. Wasn\'t there an early offshore bet of $9,000 or so that drove the initial price to 1/5? Isn\'t that account holder suspect? That\'s 50 grand right there.
It does happen and it did happen in a small pool at Thistledown. While this example is dramatic, small tracks see big price swings quite a bit. Check out the Timonium Fairgrounds summer meet this August. My mother could move the prices.
What about the old time bookies?? I know a few in South Florida who take bets on most anything, but this would be a windfall!
Mike, can every player NOT make 100\'s of bets into the pools at the last second? What\'s preventing you or anyone else from doing the same exact thing?
Plastic,
You need to be able to batch/robotic bet, not just repeat bet, i.e. 100 or hundreds of bets for different amounts.In last 30 seconds, can\'t do that with a teller at the track/otb or online with any AWD from my experience.
Mike
Does anybody wonder why these betters were so sure of their bet?
It appears they correctly thought they had no or little risk. Does this raise any flags about the horse and the trainer and the degree of certainty the betters gad when they pulled this? And why they felt they had no or little risk?
Does anybody wonder why these betters were so sure of their bet?
It appears they correctly thought they had no or little risk. Does this raise any flags about the horse and the trainer and the degree of certainty the betters had when they pulled this? And why they felt they had no or little risk?
There is such a simple way to end the issue with betting after the race starts and late odds changes: the race does not go off until one minute after the betting ends. Post time means the end of betting, wait one minute, and the race is run. Why is this not done?
The people who are betting robotically had to come from somewhere. There was a point when they were NOT robotic bettors. They found a way to BECOME robotic bettors. My point was that if they can do it, why can\'t you? Why can\'t you do what they did?
PD, this was tried and worked out horribly for the tracks. They lost a ton of money and the \'learning curve\' was just not worth waiting for in their opinion.
Also, what if they close betting and then the 3-5 shot flips in the gate and has to be scratched? They have already said they can\'t \'reopen\' betting, they just lose all that revenue because people cant rebet.
I like it the way its structured, i like to be able to bet with 1 millisecond to post, i believe its more important that the racing industry be held accontable to not permit certain bettors to bet at the quarter pole. Just close all the pools at off time and they won\'t have to take drastic measures of closing pools 1 MTP.
How come Betfair in the UK has in race betting and we cannot even get real time betting on post time?
What kind of software are they using? Why haven\'t our tote systems been able to figure out how to do it?
Because Betfair has more money than the Racing industry and actually understands what bettors want and gives it to them. Betfair KNOWS about gambling, the racing industry does not.
Correct me if I\'m wrong, but at a rebate shop, you can make money if you are close to break even...and so does the shop...bet 100K, cash for 100K, and make $5 grand...it\'s all in the churn...the shop is a track with virtually no overhead, and their take covers the rebate amount easily...the rebate may even exceed 5%, especially if you have a piece of the shop.
JR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It does happen and it did happen in a small pool
> at Thistledown. While this example is dramatic,
> small tracks see big price swings quite a bit.
> Check out the Timonium Fairgrounds summer meet
> this August. My mother could move the prices.
. . . and Parx remains a comic book, in this regard.
SoCalMan,
Someone with access to the Lexis Nexis database should be able to find it with the right search terms.
Mike
That\'s 50 grand, but they bet another 105 grand with 2 minutes to post (six 15K win bets and six 2K show bets) that returned $7400. They better have found a lot of offshore outlets for Thistledown because they lost 50-60K in the pools. It\'s more likely this was a robotic betting glitch where a computer somewhere screwed up because the other answers only make sense if there are bookmakers taking 10K bets on the 5th at Thistledown---and there aren\'t.
So sure of what bet? The money bet at the track, other than the original 9K to win on the winner, all lost---100K in, 50K return.
This is nothing new. Happens every day. In this case it just so happened that someone noticed.
I remember betting Monarchos in the Florida Derby back in 2001 and he dropped from 5/2 to 8/5 when they were on the backstretch. Pissed me off completely. I made a huge stink about it and the answer I eventually got back was that some guy in the midwest somewhere placed a very large bet via a wagering service, all perfectly legal, about 5 seconds before the gates opened. That was in 2001, and it was pretty educational for me.
This game has always been about finding an edge on the crowd. Data is part of that, but we are in the information edge and it\'s gotten tougher and tougher to maintain an edge that way.
I don\'t play like I used to, but I know a couple of people that do and much of their money goes offshore with someone who offers rebates. Why wouldn\'t it? If you can get 2 or 3% or more of your money back automatically in exchange for guaranteeing a monthly or anuual handle, that\'s a big edge. You just lowered your takeout. Since most pros more or less break even or turn a small profit on the majority of their daily bets but keep swinging at big scores and make their money that way when they hit, that rebate is more or less their monthly nut, and it makes a big difference.
I\'ve also seen a couple of pretty cool programs that analyze pools and spit out suggested tickets. Like it or not, that is part of deal. Anyone who wants to go that route can choose to make the investment. And if you don\'t want to make the investment you can\'t complain about the people who do. Should the guy in the crowd be able to bitch at you because you bought a set of sheets for the day and he didn\'t?
I remember when I lived in Chicago one of the daily track guys, a guy who wrote for the DRF, was offering up the name of a steamer for $1000. That horse came in a week later and paid 15-1. Don\'t know how he knew about the horse and I never asked because you don\'t ask about stuff like that. It just happens. Especially at tracks that are near a bunch of private training farms. You don\'t think those guys have an edge and are going to use it?
What about the stable that knows their horse with bad form on paper or a long layoff is really coming around and acting like he is sitting on a big one all of sudden in the mornings since that nagging little whatever has seemed to go away. When he shows up in a 10K claimer does that outfit have an edge? Should they be required to tell all of us?
Or what about the people that get up daily and head to the track at 5AM just so they can play horses like that. Should they have to share that info?
If you are willing to put in the time or make the investment to get an edge, as long as you are not breaking the law I say you are entitled to keep it and good for you.
Robotic bettors have no edge unless they are good handicappers, i.e. have an accurate model/line. Making a ton of bad last minute bets does you no good at all.
Jma-- right. That\'s the flip side to \"robotic\" betting. If someone had that horse\'s real chances at 10-1, rather than 1/5, it would make everyone else an overlay, and the program would make huge bets. The thing is it wouldn\'t just be in the win pool-- have to see what the exactas looked like.
The guy who made the bet on Monarchos (Australian who became a billionaire in software and was one of the first batch bettors here) once told a friend of mine that bet was a mistake, he tried to bet 2k and accidentally bet 20k, or something like that. Me, I\'ve always figured given the antiquated tote sytem, that this guy is a software genius, that they can hack into NASA, and the odds changed AFTER the horse made that huge move...
\"I\'ve also seen a couple of pretty cool programs that analyze pools and spit out suggested tickets. Like it or not, that is part of deal. Anyone who wants to go that route can choose to make the investment. And if you don\'t want to make the investment you can\'t complain about the people who do\"
Mjellish,
Agree, but what you describe is an apple,I was referring to an orange. There are software programs out that are far more sophiscated than what you described.In some cases the player does not even know what the computer bet until after the race has started. No manual intervention,automated software programme has parameters (including risk amount) and is either hardwired right at the site or has remote pool access.Bets dumped as late as possible.
One outfit I know made a few hundred grand,two others busted out for.Technology to advance the game great,giving people access to live pools another story. As JB correctly points out geeks are at genius level these days hacking into almost anything.
Mike
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Robotic bettors have no edge unless they are good
> handicappers, i.e. have an accurate model/line.
> Making a ton of bad last minute bets does you no
> good at all.
The edge they have is being able to place multiple bets at the end . They can control the net return on the wager very closely , something a manual bettor cannot do, unless they are making a very simple win bet or a few exactas.
Of course, there has to be some \'handicapping\' involved or they will lose the takeout-rebate in the long run.
I agree that the integrity of the pool is most important and allowing the robotic wagering a connection to live pools at the rebate shops is a negative because it allows manipulation of the pool. If it isn't happening already, a more sophisticated P6 fix than when the Volponi won the BC classic is in the future. That crew had the experience and knowledge to beat the secure wagering network but not enough knowledge to structure the bet so that it would look like a reasonable bet.
Any person or organization that has a connection to the live pools should be licensed and audited (including lie detector tests) periodically.
All the data collection that MJ mentions are valid examples of knowledge we daily live without at the track, but the trainers and owners have. We all benefit from MJ's knowledge year round, especially at derby time. But I also believe this is an apples and oranges thing. I don't believe the integrity of the pool is affected by those examples.
Also taking money from the horsemen by reducing on track handle and thus reducing purse size is a negative. I realize that argument was lost years ago, but it is fact.
Thanks MJ! Thanks Miff! Thanks to everyone else for the great input on this board.
Fred D
According to DRF the horse was 14-1 after the $7000 and $8000 bets were made on all other horses. Then a robotic wagering program caught the inefficiency and placed $8359.00 win bet to drive the horse down from 14-1 to 5-1. All this happening 90 seconds before they left the gate. CRAZY SHEEET!!!
Drf saying what I said yest, that books would never pay off.
In any case, whoever did this, unless it was an honest mistake, is a moron.
Miff,
I get what you are saying, but I don\'t have a problem with it so long as they are not breaking the law. Past posting is breaking the law.
On normal race days in normal size pools there does come a point where a big player faces diminishing returns by betting more. Time to put your money in another pool. I have no problem with people who use software to help with that.
On another level, I don\'t like watching a horse drop 50% in value after the gates open either when my money is on it. But I get the other side of it too. If I\'ve spent the time and money to get that edge, and there is no law against it, then I deserve to have it.
This never was or never will be a level playing field.
Back in the day I used to have a teller that I would hand signal and he would punch out my tickets if I was stuck in line. I tipped him accordingly. I even went to his father\'s funeral. Was that cheating? To me, I earned that right.
This is a whole new ballgame these days. Hell, Mike Welsch is there at Churchill reporting by video about all of the Derby and Oaks workers. It\'s free to watch and he\'s pretty good. So that edge on those races is fading away.
I think the question becomes if you draw the line, where do you draw it? Should everyone get free TG numbers? Should everyone get software? Should we all be hard wired in? How do we balance out the needs of the big player and the average joe?
I dunno. But we have casinos now all over all the place on tribal land, and they do a pretty good job of attracting alot of money that used to come to the track. Any big player has to get that they benefit by having the average joe at the track. In fact, without Joe it\'s probably too tough of a game. So your point has a lot of merit.
\"Drf saying what I said yest, that books would never pay off.
In any case, whoever did this, unless it was an honest mistake, is a moron.\"
Yeah. This thing makes less sense the more that comes out about it. I was checking the Racing Post to see if this came up on the radar of the Irish and English books and found nothing. I googled the connections and the breeder/owner is an optometrist from Ohio who is active in that state\'s HBPA and the trainer is a small-timer with a typical win rate.
Looking like you are on target with the \"moron or honest mistake\" choice.
JMA11473 suggested yesterday that maybe the computer or the programmer bugged out. Not sure if that explains the two different betting accounts used, but it sure doesn\'t rule it out.
Just looked at the chart. This guy bet so much into the race, that every horse was the same price, \'cept the winner who was a point higher.
This pretty much guarantees he loses the take , no matter who wins, assuming all the action was from one source.
There are a few possible explanations, none more likely than an automated program gone awry.
mjellish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Miff,
>
> I get what you are saying, but I don\'t have a
> problem with it so long as they are not breaking
> the law. Past posting is breaking the law.
>
> On normal race days in normal size pools there
> does come a point where a big player faces
> diminishing returns by betting more. Time to put
> your money in another pool. I have no problem
> with people who use software to help with that.
>
> On another level, I don\'t like watching a horse
> drop 50% in value after the gates open either when
> my money is on it. But I get the other side of it
> too. If I\'ve spent the time and money to get that
> edge, and there is no law against it, then I
> deserve to have it.
>
> This never was or never will be a level playing
> field.
>
> Back in the day I used to have a teller that I
> would hand signal and he would punch out my
> tickets if I was stuck in line. I tipped him
> accordingly. I even went to his father\'s funeral.
> Was that cheating? To me, I earned that right.
>
>
> This is a whole new ballgame these days. Hell,
> Mike Welsch is there at Churchill reporting by
> video about all of the Derby and Oaks workers.
> It\'s free to watch and he\'s pretty good. So that
> edge on those races is fading away.
>
> I think the question becomes if you draw the line,
> where do you draw it? Should everyone get free TG
> numbers? Should everyone get software? Should we
> all be hard wired in? How do we balance out the
> needs of the big player and the average joe?
>
> I dunno. But we have casinos now all over all the
> place on tribal land, and they do a pretty good
> job of attracting alot of money that used to come
> to the track. Any big player has to get that they
> benefit by having the average joe at the track.
> In fact, without Joe it\'s probably too tough of a
> game. So your point has a lot of merit.
The way the programs affect the pools have both helped and hurt me . . . they\'ve helped when they build the price on an overlooked longshot trending on a steady odds drift-up the last five or so minutes of betting . . . and they\'ve hurt (especially in the past few years) on sharp pattern horses which the programs pound in the final minute . . .