Well...

[Boscar Obarra]

Pretty extreme case there, you dont see it much (winning, that is)

 Looks like an \'extra\' $200 on that #, hard to fathom.  

 But I doubt anyone would be so dumb as to past post a number like that and open themselves up to investigation.

 Easy enough for them to go back and see when the money came in.

 imo this is a form of \'cherry picking\' as you dont notice the 100\'s or 1000\'s of combos bet crazy every day that DON\'T come in.

[miff]

Box,


Not even close. There isn\'t hundreds or thousands of possible pool aberrations like this one, every day.


Mike

[Boscar Obarra]

Unless you\'re looking at lots of aberrant  payoffs BEFORE the race, you really don\'t know how often.

 There  are more of these than you think, though this is particularly odd.

 PS , unless someone just randomly found an open pool somehow, why would they do something so obvious? There are better ways to steal 20k and not get caught.

 They should certainly be looking at when and how the money came in here, a trivial task.

[miff]

Box,

Not suggesting this was a past post.The point was that the Clueless Clowns have not shown enough interest in pool integrity.

Fyi,there are many guys charting exacta/double pools looking to spot big plays and ride with them.

Mike

[Boscar Obarra]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Box,
>
> Not suggesting this was a past post.The point was
> that the Clueless Clowns have not shown enough
> interest in pool integrity.
>
> Fyi,there are many guys charting exacta/double
> pools looking to spot big plays and ride with
> them.
>
> Mike

 I\'m sure there are, the question is where do they get the money to replenish their bankrolls when they tap out?

 I guess everyone saw the will pays on that 10-1 shot, but looks like next to nothing was bet accordingly.

[TGJB]

The only possible innocent explanation would be a big backwheel of the second winner, but they absolutely should investigate.

[miff]

\"The only possible innocent explanation would be a big backwheel of the second winner, but they absolutely should investigate\"


...possibly a drunk or a wrong punch maybe.

[Rick B.]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yesterday at Hollywood the winner of the 5th race
> paid 173 to win, the winner of the 6th race paid
> 23. The rolling DD paid 174(should pay near 2K)
> pool size was like 23k.

\"Should pay near 2K\"? Says who? Where is it written that the win pool -- or any other separate, independent pool -- is the final arbiter of what the serial bets should pay?

You can compare pools all you want. They might even \"line up\" frequently, depending on what formula(s) you use. Statistically speaking, though, it don\'t mean shit...and I don\'t care if you or anybody else has been doing these comparisons for 100 years: it\'s outright rubbish...mental masturbation that proves *nothing*.

Now, was the DD on the \"low\" side, as compared to numerous other somewhat similar race sequences and DD payoffs we have all witnessed in the past? Sure, but what ought to be plainly obvious is that the horse in the first leg had no business paying $173+!! And what the hell was the Mitchell horse doing paying $20+? Mitchell\'s been on fire. There are the statistical anomalies!

Still not buying it? OK, fine: did you do the math on this one, Miff?

I did. There was about $240 wagered on the winning double combo.

That\'s $240 out of a total DD pool of about $25,900.

Who were the \"insiders\" that \"stole\" the DD here -- a bunch of blue-haired grandmas that all threw in a sawbuck? Three homeless guys and a stooper? Some betting coup there.

>The Clueless Clowns would ever think of such a
> thing in these type circumstances, too stupid,out
> of touch with their customers.

Or maybe they are tired of their Paranoid Patrons frothing at the mouth at things they could have thought through for themselves.

Cuts both ways, Mike.

[Rick B.]

Agree. Doesn\'t hurt to take a look.

I just question whether the conspiracy theorists out there would accept an explanation that doesn\'t involve organized skulduggery, featuring Al Qaeda, Rick Dutrow, and the Illuminati. People prefer juicy tales of wrongdoing vs. boring reality and reasonable explanations.

[Boscar Obarra]

I already said there was an extra $200 on the number. No calculus needed for that.

 I don\'t know how many standard deviations away from normal a 1/10th payout is , but its quite a few.

 And unless you\'re thinking past post, then what you\'re really asking for here is an intervention for the imbecile that took 85-1 on a 1000-1 parlay.

 Can\'t discount the possibility that some offshore bet was laid off in a clumsy way.

[JR]

Well that\'s a pretty easy one unless I\'m misunderstanding something. The DD pools would have been closed after the 5th race so you should have been able to see the $174 probable payout before the 6th race was run. No opportunity for past posting that I can see.

[JR]

I\'m not suggesting it was a coup but a $173 winner and a $23 winner coming back a $174 double is pretty weird. Would love to see what the other double probables were for the rest of the horses in the 6th. I do chart sometimes and an aberration like that is a pretty good tell.

[Boscar Obarra]

good point, you can\'t past post a double.

 so it was just a math impaired plunger.

[plasticman]

Rick, Technically you make valid points. However, it doesnt make any real sense that you\'re so passionate in questioning someone who\'s suggesting that a \'weird price\' should be investigated. If this same post was made right after the fix 6 scandal (and before the fix became public), you might have posted the same thing and would have been wrong.

Its always good to question authority. When a price is low like that, i\'m all for the entire base of racing fans to go nuts demanding an investigation. Personally, as someone who bets into America\'s racing pools, i\'d prefer a large segment of the public to \'go nuts\' and demand this be looked into...i\'m just not sure why you would defend the opposite side of this.....which is to look the other way and just assume its legit.

As far as a DD not being able to be \'past posted\' it CAN be past posted, but the bet has to be placed in the 30 seconds to 1 minute before the prices go up for leg 1.. The person with the open window can see the big longshot win and then crush an \'all\' as soon as the winner crosses the line.

[Rick B.]

plasticman, I think you\'ve made several bad assumptions.

1. Nowhere did I say that this payoff *shouldn\'t* be investigated, nor did I say that we should look the other way. In fact, had you looked at other posts in this thread, you would have seen that I seconded TGJB\'s suggestion that the payoff should at least be investigated.

2. Regarding the Fix Six, I am on record (on @derby) as being one of the very first horseplayers to call for a full-scale investigation into that matter; I also offered to head up an independent forensic investigation into the betting of that Pick 6 for FREE -- that\'s how sure I was that foul play was involved.

My point is (and remains): do the math *first*. Take the time to figure out how much actual money was bet on a so-called \"too short\" payoff, and take a sniff: did someone REALLY take all that risk (remember, the Fix Six guys got caught, and pretty damn fast, I thought), only to bet a tiny amount of money, and then get back not a whole hell of a lot? And, does it make any sense?

Most times, no...and frankly, having checked into a fair number of these payoffs over the years, I can only remember one time where the calculations provided strong evidence of an organized race outcome.

Yes -- someone look at this one, and the next, and on and on. Give us a detailed explanation of the betting patterns, assure us that the time stamps were verified and that file controls were not tampered with, etc...and when the rancor over short payouts finally dies down, maybe we can move on to teaching horseplayers how to watch race riding so they stop shouting \"the jock stiffed \'im!\", when all that really happened was the complainant simply made a losing bet.