Weird betting coup at Thistledown
 

It's not a betting coup.

Yes, it was. The only question is whether it was a successful one.

I guess waiting for the facts before making conclusions has become a lost art.

Only two logical explanations I can see. One is what is mentioned in the article, that there were bigger bets offshore that guaranteed a win. Two, there was some type of glitch in the betting software being used. That one appears far less likely to me.

When do we ever get all the facts in cases like this?

Looks like a rebate grab right?

I don't know a lot, and certainly nothing about this, but do you think there are outfits booking big action on Thistledown? You do realize if it was a betting coup, someone had to get down for $20K just to break even? And that's assuming they even get paid. I guess anything's possible but I don't buy it.

I realize it. It doesn't seem that hard to believe somebody would take the action, especially spreading it out all over the place. Paying out though, that is another story.

How would that work exactly?

There are a lot of holes in believing a betting coup ( at least if you don't live in a Dick Francis novel ). It seems much more likely it was a computer glitch. Then again, I don't know anything about how that would work, but given how illogical it is that it was a betting coup, I'll take the glitch side.

You're going to encourage him?

Please lets us know when you get "facts" from offshore books.

No one said it was successful. But if you put the known facts together, reasonable people (yes, I am afraid you are off this train already) can draw reasoned inferences.

Induction--a modern day miracle, I know.

Yeah, I'm unreasonable.

It happening on a 1/5 shot that won by 16.5 lengths is highly suspicious.

This was a horse that could not lose without falling down.

Another mere coincidence--you must disregard that fact. Please await facts from the offshore books, those will resolve the issue. Of course if those facts don't show up--is that even POSSIBLE?--then no conclusions of any kind can be drawn. Act as if nothing happened. And if happens again, that won't happen, either. In fact, it already didn't.

Barney Curley?

This is very bizarre.

If it is a computer glitch -- it's an expensive one.

Very few people, if any, could get down for that much money with books at Thistle to make a profit out of that situation.

I know a guy who was leading owner year in and year out on the So. Cal circuit -- and I recall he told me he could beat Mountaineer for as much as $50,000 in a race with just one mysterious book. He was claiming horses like Repole of the West at one time though -- and I'm sure a book would only allow themselves to be slaughtered by him in a race at a small track because having him as a client was to their benefit.

It looks like computers though -- they're a menace with the way they move odds late. Bodemeister got crushed late by them in both the Ky Derby and Preakness this year. Sweetnorthernsaint got hammered to Ky Derby favortisim in the last mintue the one year. The Monarchos/Invisible Ink entry got creamed late in the Fla Derby. Many examples even into the teeth of massive sized win pools.

You have a sure thing at a small track. You got $150,000 to bet on him. Bet him on the nose and you win $15,000. Nice score but not what your hoping for on a sure thing.

Instead, you bet $9,000 on him early to drive his odds down. No one doubts he will win, but few bet him at short price. Bet $15,000 late on all other horses in the field to basically make every horse in the field 9-2 or 5-1 price range. You are in for $100,000. If your horse wins, you get back about half of what you bet into parimutuel pool. If he loses, you get back about 80% of that pool.

That leaves you $50,000 to throw at every off-shore and bookie you can come up with to try to win $250,000. If you can collect from them all, you clear $200,000 instead of $15,000. Lots of work and risk, but for $185,000 difference, I can see it.....

Agreed. I'm sure there are details we are not privy to, but it seems likely that they had a wagering outlet that was not parimutuel based.

More news, though no further clarity: http://www.drf.com/news/thistledown-...-still-mystery

I know I'm not allowed to discuss this, else I will be yelled at by this thread's self-designated matron, but finding sites that will accept bets and pay in a situation like this is pretty much impossible. It is FAR more likely this was a computer glitch.

Cue thread matron.....

I'm pretty shocked that people are arguing that point with you. The offshore world is beyond sketchy after Black Monday, and only three sites are worthwhile right now, all based in a country that has no affliation at all with the US. And those sites have like max win around 1k for a track like Thistly Downs. And even those sites are slow pay when you do win.

I've learned to not be shocked by just about anything I read on the internet.

Agree with Andy and others that there's no way this was a betting coup. . . there are a bunch of reasons why it couldn't be.

It's interesting that these computer guys/batch bettors seem to be making a comeback. . . I hadn't been noticing them as much lately. Very similar to HFT algos in the financial markets - let's hope they don't get as out of control.

While last minute and automated computer betting is frowned upon, it's hard to turn away business when it produces millions of dollars worth of handle. I know a lot of it still goes on. Heck, conditional wagering on almost all major ADW platforms allows for last minute wagering now. This particular incident can be anything from computer error to human error... but doubtful it shakes-out to be criminal.

Computers don't usually just 'glitch' for no readily apparent reason.

That, taken with the extreme unlikeliness that this happened with a horse that won by 16.5 lengths defies what you are saying about it not being a betting coup.

Perhaps, if it was a coup, the people behind this had the ability to wager with good old fashioned bookies that would pay full track odds.

They still do exist, believe it or not. Or perhaps they had a way to wager at a site not in the USA? I know in Mexico, for instance, I used to be able to wager and get track odds, without being tied in.

Knowing something about how computers work, I'd say it's nearly impossible that the computer glitched itself in such a highly specific and detailed way.

Humans had to be involved, and I don't care about what sort of nonsensical spin that the officials are eventually going to throw our way as explanation.

You know computers better than I, and I really do respect your opinion on it, and don't dismiss it out of hand. On the other hand, I probably know more about bookmakers than most.

I agree this story feels like there may be many tentacles but the betting coup theory has, at best, a lot of holes.

But even if you had this, how much action do you really think the bookies would take?

I'm not sure how the Mexican site worked, but I'm not sure many people would be comfortable depositing that type of money needed to make this thing worth while.

The whole story, in a way, reminds me of a great lesson I learned as a kid. Someone I knew, that bet a lot of money, and was extremely honorable, made a six horse $500 win/place round robin at Monticello one night. One of his horses ran second. The rest ran out. He lost, I believe, $30K.

A couple of days later he told me he wasn't going to pay. I was incredulous, as he always paid, and then he explained it to me. " The guy took a bet he couldn't pay. I knew it going in and always knew i had no bet, regardless of what he might have thought. " My friend was right. What if all six horses had won? My friend would have won millions.

Every theory has huge glaring holes in it.

I tend not to underestimate shady people's resourcefulness however, so it's easier for me to believe there is something crooked here than it is to believe in a very implausible computer glitch.

It wasn't just a 'site'. It was Caliente.

Hell, they used to take Breeders Cup action there and give you the choice of which tracks odds want.

In 1992, I had the choice of betting the BC at GP (the host track), SA and whatever NY track was running at the time.

I got 35/1 on Thirty Slews in New York, no limits.

I have no idea what's possible there now, but who knows. Maybe there is some track in Uruguay that takes action on US tracks.

Comparing in 1992 to now is a mistake.

Yeah, I know man. Just saying, I don't think it's impossible that some clever person can figure out how to get down with some large bets.

I missed something. Betting in Europe. I've probably been wrong about this.

They still cannot figure out how anyone could have profited off the scheme = someone got away with it.

It is pretty amazing you could get so much wrong in such a short post.

since most local BM's all use internet sites in Costa Rico, things are back to business as usual. Feds didn't want people taking cash bets at bars, cobblers..etc..so they had to pack it up and find a new way to take action. Now, BM's give you a site and a password, along with a limit. you bet just like the old days. $42/$15/$7. are the limits on Win Place and show. 50-1 on exactas or triples , 100-1 on Doubles. you settle up on Tuesdays, and can get down for as much as you want.

That makes it sound like the robotic worked perfectly. In less than 90 seconds, the Bot made a $8,359 win bet to drive the winners price from 14-to-1 to 5-to-1.