Ask the Experts

General Category => Ask the Experts => Topic started by: dcbred1 on July 22, 2013, 12:06:49 PM

Title: Ouch
Post by: dcbred1 on July 22, 2013, 12:06:49 PM
http://www.drf.com/news/andrew-beyer-worst-bad-beat-story-
Title: Re: Ouch
Post by: P-Dub on July 22, 2013, 12:11:24 PM
Link doesn\'t work.

Is this the Super Hi 5 beat at La Downs??
Title: Re: Ouch
Post by: dcbred1 on July 22, 2013, 01:07:38 PM
Yes.
Title: Re: Ouch
Post by: miff on July 22, 2013, 02:04:59 PM
Not a real beat at all, just highlights the amateurish manner in which the Clueless Clowns conduct a $10 billion gambling business.Lack of sophisticated modern computerization in the game surprising.

Real ouch was the DQ at Del Mar Sunday costing someone $238k,much worse,imo.Seen worse stay up, stewards were asleep, jockey claim.
Title: Re: Ouch
Post by: metroj on July 22, 2013, 08:06:37 PM
Try this one.....

Link (http://www.drf.com/news/andrew-beyer-worst-bad-beat-story-all-time)

Reading the article raises a couple of questions....

How could the tote system have known what the probables would have been considering there was still, technically, two live tickets (the CT guys and the AP ticket) the latter\'s dependent upon Tsavo being the post time favorite?

Considering there was only $73+k or so in the mutuel pool and assuming half of that (36.5k) was the win pool, how much would it have taken to move Tsavo from the 2nd choice to post time favorite?   $500?   $1000?   small potatoes for a racetrack wanting to keep the carryover going.  Would be interesting to know where the late money on the winner came from.
Title: Re: Ouch
Post by: P-Dub on July 23, 2013, 12:28:47 AM
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not a real beat at all, just highlights the
> amateurish manner in which the Clueless Clowns
> conduct a $10 billion gambling business.Lack of
> sophisticated modern computerization in the game
> surprising.
>
> Real ouch was the DQ at Del Mar Sunday costing
> someone $238k,much worse,imo.Seen worse stay up,
> stewards were asleep, jockey claim.


I get your point Miff.

But when the track announcer works into his call, that you\'ve just won the jackpot, that\'s pretty tough to take.
Title: Re: Ouch
Post by: Topcat on July 23, 2013, 04:47:48 AM
P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Link doesn\'t work.
>
> Is this the Super Hi 5 beat at La Downs??



Does anyone have the breeding of the winner readily at hand?
Title: Re: Ouch
Post by: Rick B. on July 23, 2013, 05:04:45 AM
Topcat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone have the breeding of the winner
> readily at hand?

Take a peek:

http://www.pedigreequery.com/tsavo6

Kind of a stretch to get excited about this one\'s turf
chances, IMO. Someone with more pedigree knowledge (i.e.,
probably just about anyone here) can set me straight.
Title: Re: Ouch
Post by: miff on July 23, 2013, 05:11:12 AM
Paul,

No question,horrific for those players.Was referring more to a \"beat\" in it\'s purest terms. No matter how you slice it,most pool issues could be avoided with technology.Racing so broke,the money an issue.A new system,many years after the fixed six on BC Day,ready this fall I believe.

There is a reasonable cry for a forensic analysis of the LS betting pool to see if there was any possible manipulation.

Every day it seems there are strange payoff results,odds on horses in front dropping throughout the running and more.Just seems the Clueless Clowns do not get the criticality of pool integrity.

Mike
Title: Re: Ouch
Post by: P-Dub on July 23, 2013, 09:36:16 AM
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Paul,
>
> No question,horrific for those players.Was
> referring more to a \"beat\" in it\'s purest terms.
> No matter how you slice it,most pool issues could
> be avoided with technology.Racing so broke,the
> money an issue.A new system,many years after the
> fixed six on BC Day,ready this fall I believe.
>
> There is a reasonable cry for a forensic analysis
> of the LS betting pool to see if there was any
> possible manipulation.
>
> Every day it seems there are strange payoff
> results,odds on horses in front dropping
> throughout the running and more.Just seems the
> Clueless Clowns do not get the criticality of pool
> integrity.
>
> Mike

Mike,

Agree with all of this.

Makes you wonder how safe any pool is.
Title: Re: Ouch
Post by: Topcat on July 23, 2013, 11:23:26 AM
Rick B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Topcat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Does anyone have the breeding of the winner
> > readily at hand?
>
> Take a peek:
>
> http://www.pedigreequery.com/tsavo6
>
> Kind of a stretch to get excited about this one\'s
> turf
> chances, IMO. Someone with more pedigree knowledge
> (i.e.,
> probably just about anyone here) can set me
> straight.


Agree wit\'cha.   Will also point out this horse was/is owned by a Parting Glass partnership, and trained by Al Stall Jr.  The man seems to have a fairly good idea when a horse can grass, and when it\'s time to try it out for size . . . and as we all know, partnerships can generate considerable betting handle, especially at a place where the WPS total invested on the race was <$74K.
Title: Re: Ouch
Post by: catcapper on July 25, 2013, 02:01:38 PM
More than once I have gotten a late bet in by a split second AFTER the gate opened on Australian racing (late at night here). Maybe there is a lag in the video feed, Don\'t know.
Title: Re: Ouch
Post by: catcapper on July 25, 2013, 02:53:36 PM
Whoa! Got that backwards....a lag in the video feed would even be worse!

But I definitely have gotten a bet in a split second AFTER the gate opened on what I was seeing. SO, if there was a lag in the video feed which is tied to the betting program, then I got a bet in a couple of split seconds AFTER the gate opened.