Weird betting coup at Thistledown

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

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.....

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.

[blackthroatedwind]

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.

[blackthroatedwind]

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.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

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.

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.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

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.

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.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

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.

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.

[blackthroatedwind]

Comparing in 1992 to now is a mistake.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

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.

[blackthroatedwind]

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

[pba1817]

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

[philcski]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

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

This was my first thought. Especially since most Euro sites have a "best odds guarantee" now- which basically means if the tote price is higher than the fixed odds price, you get the tote price... which sets up perfectly for a situation like this. I don't know what their limits are on US racing (especially Thistledown, LOL) but I suppose if you could get down $10k at 4-5 spots then now you're talking about some serious money versus the investment.