Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jwkniska
Quick-Pick under Scrutiny A computer glitch that invalidated hundreds, possibly thousands of bets has brought Scientific Games beneath the spotlight of the California Horse Racing Board, which learned of the matter on May 7, although its probe was not disclosed until last Sunday. The story has now been picked up by various California news outlets, although the San Jose Mercury News has the best rundown of the situation.
The problem was uncovered by a bettor at San Mateo's Bay Meadows track who placed 1,300 $1 superfecta bets on the Kentucky Derby, using Scientific's randomizing software. However, not one of the 1,300 tickets listed eventual winner Big Brown. Seems Scientific's "quick-pick" function had been routinely omitting the last-numbered horse in the Derby and other races (Big Brown was #20). This isn't Scientific's first brush with notoriety: In 2002, an employee of Scientific subsidiary Autotote pled guilty to an attempted pick-six fix of the Breeders' Cup, a scam that -- had it been successful -- would have netted $3 million
|
i think the bigger story is the one about retards betting $1300 on random numbers.
just when i start to think i'm too cynical about human nature, i find out i'm actually too optimistic.