Beyer articles

[cheesebeast]

Off Your Turf, Treated Like Dirt
By Andrew Beyer
Tuesday, March 12, 2002; Page D03
HALLANDALE, Fla.
When jockeys refused to ride on the Gulfstream Park turf course in Sunday's 11th race, forcing its transfer to the dirt, just about everybody at the track was angry and upset.
The jockeys said that clods of dirt had been flying at them during the ninth race, and insisted that the turf course was unsafe.
Trainers already had brought their horses to the paddock for the race and had shod them for the grass. None of the trainers was eager to run on dirt.
Gulfstream management, already in the midst of a dismal season, was upset that the change of surfaces and three late scratches cost it some $200,000 in wagering.
Nobody was worrying too much about the most aggrieved parties -- the bettors, who had wagered more than $250,000 in pick threes, pick sixes and daily doubles and were locked into selections made for a turf race. Gulfstream management surely wasn't thinking about Warren Brubaker.
Brubaker is the type of customer the racing industry should cherish; he loves the game, and he loves Gulfstream Park. He has played the horses since he was a teenager and was so enamored with the game that he worked as a jockey agent in Florida in the late 1960s before deciding to do something respectable with his life. He now practices law in Chicago, but he is also a partner in a small racing stable and he spends as much time as he can at Gulfstream in the winter.
Brubaker was at the track Sunday, and decided to make a play in the pick six. He consulted via mobile with his friend, Rick Mortenson, who was at an Illinois off-track betting parlor, and fashioned a $192 play. Brubaker's pal, Debbie Bigelow, took a 5 percent cut of the ticket and together they watched the day's dramatic events unfold.
Even after hitting the first four winners -- including a 25-to-1 upsetter in a field in which he had presciently included all the horses on his ticket -- Brubaker didn't permit himself to get too excited. He had a single horse in each of the last two races; Bluebird Day was a solid favorite in the 11th race, but his choice in the 10th, Hal's Hope, was winless since July and had a trainer who was 0 for 42 at the meeting.
When Hal's Hope led all the way, Brubaker started entertaining visions of glory. He held the only live ticket in the pick six, and it would be worth $35,258 if Bluebird Day -- the heavy favorite -- won. But 12 minutes before post time, track announcer Vic Stoffer stunned the crowd by informing them, "Ladies and gentlemen, the 11th race has been taken off the turf and will be run on the main track."
The jocks' revolt had been led by Rene Douglas, who told the Daily Racing Form, "I've got a black eye and was almost knocked down by a clod in the ninth race." Scott Savin, the track president, insisted nothing was wrong with the turf course. "What got me irate," he said, "was that they had ridden the sixth race on the turf and nobody said a peep. The jockeys don't run the show, and they shouldn't be able to bring it to a grinding halt."
Brubaker was irate, too. "I'm the most calm guy in the world," he said, "but I went crazy. If they're going to take it off the turf, they've got to tell you before you bet." He phoned Mortenson, his partner, who thought he was playing a cruel joke. Bigelow was crying.
A couple of minutes after the announcement, Bluebird Day was scratched, along with two other horses in the field. Under the rules for both the pick six and the pick three, a scratched horse is replaced by the post-time favorite. (Daily double bettors receive a consolation payoff.) But since there was nobody in the field with dirt form, there could be no solid favorite and Brubaker said, "I knew I was dead."
He was. An impossible-looking 24-to-1 shot won the ninth race, busting out any bettor who had inherited the post-time favorite.
Brubaker and partners did collect the lone consolation ticket for having five winners, worth $7,625, but not the $35,258 jackpot. Savin said, "He couldn't have been too upset if he got the consolation." Brubaker did not share the track president's opinion.
Last-minute switches of turf races are not unprecedented, and Brubaker's pain is minor compared with others'. Some years ago, a horseplayer named Red Tucker picked the first eight winners in the pick nine at Hollywood Park but missed a seven-digit payoff when the sprinkler system on the turf course malfunctioned and forced a last-minute transfer of the ninth race to the dirt. The sport needs to deal with such situations in a more fair way, and should do it this way: In pick threes, tracks should treat the switched race as if it were canceled and pay off on the basis of a pick-two. The same would be true in a pick six; bettors who picked five would share the entire pool wagered that day, but they wouldn't be entitled to any share of the carry-over jackpot.
However, there was a larger issue than pick-six rules involved here Sunday. Nobody would question jockeys' refusal to ride under unsafe conditions; theirs is a dangerous profession under the best of circumstances. But they had ridden two races earlier in the day, and they rode in two turf races Monday, so how bad could the turf have been at 5:38 p.m. Sunday? In marginal situations, the jockeys ought to remember that the betting public has a stake in this sport, too.
Jockeys, like horsemen and management, tend to forget that the bettors make possible the existence of the racing industry. "It seems," said Brubaker, "that they have no regard for people who are making money for them." The population of committed bettors is dwindling steadily, and Gulfstream alienated a few more of them Sunday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10620-2002Mar11.html

[cheesebeast]

Stock Market Got You Down? Bet Kentucky Derby Futures
By Andrew Beyer
Thursday, February 14, 2002; Page D07
HALLANDALE, Fla.
America's racing fans may now start handicapping the Kentucky Derby in earnest. Future wagering on the Derby begins today at tracks across the country, and the year's first Grade I prep race, the Fountain of Youth Stakes, will be run Saturday at Gulfstream Park.
The Derby future wager has grown in popularity since Churchill Downs created it three years ago. Bettors can choose among 23 top contenders or play the "field," consisting of all the other nominees to the race. When parimutuel future wagering ends Sunday afternoon, bettors get the closing odds on their selection; those who bet Fusaichi Pegasus at 12 to 1 two years ago collected that price when he won the Derby as the 2-to-1 post-time favorite. Two completely separate future pools will be offered in the coming weeks.
The wager not only gives horseplayers the chance to obtain a value, it gives them the bragging rights that go to anyone who can spot the Derby winner months in advance. However, horseplayers who pore over the past performance of the 405 Derby nominees may not find many who generate enthusiasm. Some of the most accomplished 3-year-olds have significant knocks against them. And many of the hyped up-and-comers are more hype than substance.
One might assume that there would be widespread enthusiasm for a colt who has a perfect 7-for-7 record and is a champion on two continents. But after Johannesburg dominated his rivals in Europe on turf and then won the Breeders' Cup Juvenile on dirt, most serious handicappers were skeptical of his future prospects. Indeed, the most common Derby opinion I have heard from the wise guys is this: "I want to bet against Johannesburg." The British colt benefited from a perfect trip at Belmont Park and still didn't earn a good speed figure; moreover, his pedigree looks iffy at the 1 1/4-mile Derby distance.
Many of the wise guys who disliked Johannesburg after the Breeders' Cup liked third-place finisher Siphonic, who ran well on the disadvantageous rail at Belmont. Siphonic confirmed their opinion -- and became the long-range Derby favorite -- when he won the Hollywood Futurity in December. But in his 3-year-old debut at Santa Anita he stumbled badly leaving the gate and was soundly beaten. Although Siphonic had a legitimate excuse, he did nothing to enhance his reputation; a bona-fide champion might have overcome the trouble better than he did.
Of all the Derby-age horses, none has shown more talent (in my opinion) than the California speedster Came Home. He's fast, he's gutty, and he has earned the best Beyer Speed Figure of his generation -- a 109 in his 3-year-old debut at Santa Anita. (By contrast, Johannesburg ran a 98 in the Breeders' Cup.) He even showed in that race that he's tractable and not a one-dimensional speed horse. Yet there are few passengers on the Came Home bandwagon because of his pedigree. The son of Gone West is bred to be a miler and might be gasping for air in the Churchill Downs stretch.
Many of the other prominent 3-year-olds have achieved their reputations by beating weak fields with slow times. The 23 Derby contenders in the future wager include Saarland and Nokoma, who earned speed figures of 87 running one-two in the Remsen Stakes, and several others whose best efforts are almost as slow.
Accordingly, many handicappers are searching for lightly raced late bloomers in the 3-year-old crop. The most talked-about such prospect is Stephentown, who runs in the Fountain of Youth.
Stephentown was visually impressive when he drove through traffic and drew away to win an allowance race at Gulfstream, but his winning time was so slow that this impressive move was somewhat illusory. The Stephentown bubble is likely to be burst when he takes on more seasoned rivals such as Booklet and Harlan's Holiday in the Fountain of Youth. Harlan's Holiday had a difficult trip when Booklet beat him in a stakes race here last month and he should turn the tables to establish himself as the leading 3-year-old in Florida.
But unless someone in the Fountain of Youth delivers an unexpectedly overpowering performance, most evidence suggests that the nation's top 3-year-olds are in California, and that Derby-future bettors should look there for the colt (or filly) who will be draped with roses in May.
The most logical bet in the future wager is probably the field, because there are plenty of good stakes winners among those 382 horses. But there are no bragging rights associated with cashing a bet on the field. So I will take a stab on Came Home, because he could be the most talented colt of his generation and that raw talent might be enough to overcome the weaknesses in his pedigree.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A6952-2002Feb13

[masun]

Off Your Turf, Treated Like Dirt
There would no doubt have been a riot if this happened in HK. The amazing thing is that the litigation-happy Americans didn't take the jockey clubs to court.

[hobbes]

Betting on Technology
By Andrew Beyer
Wednesday, July 31, 2002; Page D01
When Youbet.com was born, allowing horseplayers to watch races and wager by computer, its technology seemed to offer exciting and limitless possibilities. Optimists thought this could be the medium that would bring racing into the homes of a mass audience.
But Youbet.com suffered a fate similar to many other high-tech ventures in the 1990s and didn't live up to expectations. The company has never made a profit, and yesterday its stock was selling for 57 cents a share. Yet in a crucial sense it has been a success. It has been a technological trail-blazer, developing a product that is sophisticated, efficient and enjoyable. For some users, it is almost hypnotic.
Like many horseplayers, I tried Youbet.com a few years ago and found it unsatisfactory. The video transmission of races was like a herky-jerky old-time movie. Placing a wager was a cumbersome procedure. Youbet didn't offer some of the nation's best tracks, including those in New York and Kentucky. And it was beset with technological glitches. I gave up on Youbet after being plagued by crashes and messages such as "You have experienced an unexplained database error" or "Please wait a minute while your program is compacted."
It seemed that Youbet would never be able to compete with the TVG Network or the Race Track Television Network, which bring the sport to home TV; or with various telephone-betting operations that are quick, convenient and reliable.
But I revisited Youbet recently and found it transformed -- particularly in the area of audio-visual quality. In many ways, it now has an edge over the TV networks.
"This is a very complex product and, with experience, we've refined it," said David Marshall, Youbet's co-founder and CEO. "We are now one of the largest broadcasters of live audio-video in the country. We're at the leading edge. What you see now is pretty good, and day by day we're getting better."
Marshall said that many of Youbet's improvements are due to its availability on the Internet. Initially, subscribers had to install software with a CD-ROM disk, a procedure that created various technical problems. But since customers have been able to log on to www.youbet.com, (http://www.youbet.com,) Marshall said, "we're compatible with all the computers across the country."
Customers establish an account by making a deposit to fund their wagers, but they pay no monthly fee. After logging on to the Web site, they click on the names of the tracks they want to see. On the left side of the screen will appear as many as eight "buttons" showing a racetrack's name and the number of the upcoming race. Clicking on the button brings up the entries for that race, in the format of a racetrack program; a list of scratches and late changes; a tote board with the current odds; a grid showing probable exacta payoffs; and the audio-video feed from the racetrack. By clicking on another button, the user can get all of this information for another track in a matter of seconds. And by clicking "Wager Here" he can call up a betting menu. In the past year Youbet has made a pair of crucial breakthroughs. It struck a deal with Gemstar-TV Guide, the parent company of the TVG Network, allowing it to show races and take wagers from tracks that once had exclusive deals with TVG (such as Saratoga and Del Mar). Now a Youbet customer can watch races from almost every important track in the country.
Youbet also made a technological breakthrough that simplifies the process of funding an account. Customers of most phone betting services make deposits either by mailing a check or using a credit card, which can involve fees on both ends of the transaction as well as hassles with the credit-card issuer. Youbet developed a system called ExpressCash, which lets bettors transfer money almost instantaneously from a checking account.
As Youbet has improved its service, most people in the industry have been paying more attention to its sickly stock price and wondering if the company can survive. "People have been asking that since 1995," Marshall said, "but it's not something that's a concern. While we're operating at a loss, we've had a dramatic improvement in handle this year and we're projecting that we'll break even toward the end of the year."
Youbet's progress has been slow, Marshall said, because it has taken time to develop the necessary technology as well as to change attitudes within the racing business. "When we started," he said, "the industry wasn't ready for what we were providing. There was a lot of fear that racing fans wouldn't go to the track. But the industry has realized now that home wagering is the key." As a result, Youbet has been able to forge strategic partnerships with other major players in the business, such as Gemstar-TV Guide and Churchill Downs.
But the home-betting business still hasn't yielded anybody a financial windfall. High-end players can watch races on TV or on Youbet and wager with somebody else -- such as an offshore bookmaker offering them rebates. Youbet's future remains uncertain. But racing fans who have observed the company's improvements and have been mesmerized by the action on its Web site will concur that it deserves to survive and to prosper.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23244-2002Jul30.html

[Horny Harry]

Steve Davodiowitz article (http://www.trackmaster.com/retail/sd0802.htm)

[hobbes]

Modern Racing Is Without Bias By Andrew Beyer
Wednesday, August 14, 2002;
SARATOGA SPRINGS, N.Y.
There used to be a simple key to making money at Saratoga, and every serious horseplayer recognized it. That key was the track itself.
The racing surface was often so speed-favoring and rail-favoring that the horse who popped out of the gate first was the probable winner. This bias was especially profitable because the horses who ran here in August had been racing in July at Belmont Park, where the rail was frequently bad and front-runners wilted. Horses with bad-looking form at Belmont would win at Saratoga and pay big prices. What a beautiful world it was.
Bettors think wistfully about the good old days because those recurrent, strong biases have largely disappeared. Saratoga still has occasional speed-favoring days, but they are seldom all-powerful, and Belmont's racing strip is uniform much of the time, too.
These changes in New York are mirrored at major racetracks across the country. The southern California tracks used to be renowned for their speed-favoring tendencies, but now no type of runner has a distinct edge. Horses on the rail at Pimlico possessed an insuperable advantage for many years, but not any more. What has happened to track biases, which used to be such a crucial factor in the sport?
I put that question to three track superintendents: Jerry Porcelli of the New York Racing Association; John Passero of the Maryland Jockey Club; and Steve Wood of Del Mar and Santa Anita. All agreed with the premise that biases have diminished, and they generally agreed on the reasons. Track superintendents are paying more attention to biases and using better techniques to cope with them.
In the past, those in charge of racetracks refused to acknowledge that their tracks might be unfair. Horses hugging the rail could win every race on a Pimlico card, but General Manager Chick Lang would still insist that the bias was a figment of degenerate gamblers' imaginations. Even today, Wood said, "Some people in this business don't believe in biases." But the superintendents at top tracks now pay close attention when certain post positions or running styles dominate their races.
"We're a lot more conscious of biases," said Passero. "There has been a lot of press about them and it has made guys more aware of it." Passero was hired by the late Frank De Francis with a mandate to get rid of the Pimlico bias, which had turned the Preakness into a fluky race. He has largely succeeded in exterminating these unfair conditions, as have many of his counterparts.
While biases sometimes seem to appear for inexplicable reasons, tracks are usually influenced by two important factors: the slope of the racing strip and the moisture in it. "It's not a steep slope," Porcelli said, "but you'd be amazed by the amount of material that makes it to the inside." Left untended, the rail would be deep and disadvantageous. As a result, Porcelli and his crew "grade" the track every day, running harrows over it to maintain a certain depth of the cushion. A man with a measuring stick follows the equipment to verify that depth is the same, inside and out.
Because of the slope of the track, water makes its way toward the inside, too, sometimes making the dirt near the rail tighter and firmer. "When we come out of a period of rain," Porcelli said, "we don't have as much control over the track." A couple of wet days preceded the racing card at Saratoga on Aug. 4 and created a powerful rail-favoring bias, one that allowed Medaglia d'Oro to take the lead on the rail in the Jim Dandy Stakes and win by 12 lengths.
Days such as Aug. 4 create profitable opportunities for alert handicappers, who will upgrade horses with wide trips over the biased track while downgrading big performances of horses who were on the rail (such as Medaglia d'Oro.) But now the track superintendent observes such conditions as carefully as the bettors. Porcelli quickly recognized what was happening, and by the next day he had Saratoga back to normal.
Track superintendents have overcome biases not only by paying more attention to them but also, in many cases, by developing better racing surfaces. "One reason that there are fewer biases is the choice of materials in the last 10 years," Passero said. "Tracks are sandier, but with body, and the mixture we use now is much more forgiving -- particularly if you have too much or too little water."
Even though they may have more awareness and better tools than their counterparts of the past, modern track superintendents agree that maintaining an even track is a constant battle. Every track has its idiosyncrasies. Wood says that dry, windy weather makes Santa Anita speed-favoring, and that a half-percent increase in the moisture content of the Del Mar strip can turn the rail into a bog. Porcelli says humidity affects the track at Saratoga and that Belmont changes "when the wind is blowing a certain way."
As a result there is no magic formula for keeping a racetrack uniform. "It is not as much a science as it is an art," Porcelli said. "Otherwise, we'd be closer to being perfect."

[Horny Harry]

ACROSS THE BOARD by Steve Davidowitz
for TrackMaster - September 13 2002
The following column represents the private views and opinions of author-handicapper Steve Davidowitz and are not necessarily those of Axcis/TrackMaster or any of it's management or personnel. Each week, Mr. Davidowitz has the freedom to express his point of view in this forum and encourages comments from readers directed to him at davidwtz@aol.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 13, 2002. . .We are in the fall championship season, as Belmont Park likes to call it. Yet, there is Fairplex Park operating its usual three-week meet at the Pomona County Fairgrounds.
In other words, we have major league racing with numerous Breeders’ Cup prep stakes in progress in all corners of America except for the south left coast. Indeed, Fairplex will offer a series of moderate racing cards around a bull ring sized track that will have absolutely no impact on racing’s biggest day.
Earlier in the year, there was a move initiated by Frank Stronach through his Magna Entertainment Corp. to run the Pomona County Fair dates at Santa Anita. How nice of Mr. Stronach to see the logic of such a move. How nice of him to jump into the southern California racing picture to set up a major league meet after Del Mar.
It all made perfect sense, except for a few tiny things.
A suddenly upgraded Fairplex meet would have seriously and negatively impacted the quality of racing at Del Mar this year. Del Mar, which operates six days a week for 6-1/2 weeks already had a horse shortage problem familiar to fans of southern California racing. Even without an upgraded Fairplex meet, Del Mar inevitably struggles mightily to fill competitive races in late August and early September. Adding Fairplex to the mix would have been disastrous.
Of course, Mr. Stronach, who has appointed himself as racing’s ‘savior’ had no concern for that. In any event, the California Horse Racing Board denied Santa Anita’s late bid to take over this year’s Fairplex dates and so the southern California bull ring is, as usual, off and running.
Meanwhile, the notion that something is still wrong here remains. Fairplex is a ghost from racing’s past. It is a meaningless race meet at the wrong time in the wrong market. Moreover, even the people who run the Pomona County Fair recognize this fact, otherwise, they would not be so willing to give up their fall dates to Stronach.
The solution however does not lie with Stronach or any other single racing entity in California. The solution is obvious to anyone with any common sense and easily could be negotiated under CHRB supervision to everyone’s benefit.
Let Del Mar open three days earlier; let Santa Anita at Oak Tree operate three more days in the early fall; let Hollywood Park and Santa Anita Park each take three more days for each of their spilt meetings November 2002 through July 2003. Pay Fairplex a fair share of the net handle from these extra dates and/or assess each track a flat rental fee. Then when all this divvying up of the extra dates are complete, each track should be encouraged to give up two days of its newly configured racing schedule to help reduce the pressure on the horse population that is squeezing California racing so badly. Indeed, every Southern California meet has difficulty running races equal in quality to its huge purse structure.
I’ve been playing southern California races steadily, if not exclusively for more than 10 years. I do so, because I have had considerable success playing the Southern California Pick Six, which offers the best betting pools in the game. My most recent score in fact, occurred in a Del Mar Pick Six on Sunday, September 8, with a betting partner. But, if truth be known, that was the only Pick Six I played seriously since mid-July. The reason:
Too many short fields. Too many unreliable races. Too few Pick Six race sequences that attracted my interest and a lessening of my confidence in the way races are being run in SoCal.
I am suspicious of horses that suddenly jump out of their skins to show more speed or a stronger closing kick than they have demonstrated in six, seven or eighth consecutive starts. I may be wrong, but such drastic changes in running style and overall form has historically meant new chemicals in circulation. Beyond these suspicions, the Del Mar the racing surfaces themselves seemed to affect horse performance in undesirable ways.
On some days the Del Mar main track was so hard, it seemed to take a terrible toll on many horses running over it. Through most of the meet, the turf course also was rock hard and difficult for many horses to handle.
Del Mar is a beautiful racetrack, the most pleasant place in the country to play the horses and I would not miss an annual visit there. But I watched more strange results and more horses come back sore than any year in my memory.
Several trainers complained to me about it. By mid-meet, quite a few trainers adamantly declared that they would not risk many horses on either course due to the toll the Del Mar surfaces were exacting from their stock.
It is not possible for me to name names in this forum. Trainers only share this kind of information to members of the press when they can be assured that their identities will be protected. But, I did not need the confirmation of trainers to see some strange performances and the way horses traveled so gingerly over the Del Mar main track this summer.
So many races were decided at the top of the stretch between two or at most three horses, So many also-rans seemed to lose their action in the final furlongs. In past years, one of the characteristics that most appealed to me about southern California racing was this: Even horses who were clearly defeated seemed to run aggressively for their third, fourth and fifth placing. This year, there were few horses who seemed to willing to extend themselves once the race was decided in the upper stretch. There are problems here and they must be addressed.
Southern California racing cannot afford new chemicals, or strange form reversals without serious investigations. Southern California cannot afford problems with any racing surface, yet there is not a track in the region, including Fairplex that escapes issues caused by a general lack of rain in the region through most of the year.
Southern California can not afford anyone in a leadership role, including Frank Stronach, thinking that he has the answers for all of the state. Stronach certainly needs to spend considerable effort to fix the Santa Anita turf course, which has been plagued by problems for several years. Stronach also needs to find much better methods to keep his main track from becoming an Interstate highway.
Just as the SoCal racing dates may receive more attention when Fairplex’ dates for 2003 come under review, the entire region needs to quickly develop a serious, truly cooperative joint effort---with help from the usually listless CHRB---to gain control over a potentially dangerous list of problems that any serious horseplayer can already identify through a good pair of binoculars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Davidowitz' Best Plays from around the country are available on most Saturday's throughout the year, exclusively from The Winners Circle. An archive of Steve's past articles can be found here.

[cheesebeast]

British Web Site Lets Gamblers Have It Their Way

By Andrew Beyer
Friday, January 3, 2003; Page D06


A revolution has rocked gambling in Britain. So-called "sports betting exchanges," exemplified by a company called Betfair, have enthralled gamblers, giving them unprecedented opportunities, while generating fear and intense opposition from established bookmaking firms.

While Betfair is principally oriented toward British events, it also handles action on American horse racing and other sports. U.S. horseplayers who establish an account with the company will be amazed by the value it offers. And U.S. racetrack operators -- most of whom are now oblivious to what is happening at www.betfair.com -- are going to be stunned by the nature of this new competition.

Betfair has done for wagering what eBay has done for commerce: Through the Internet, it brings together two parties to make a transaction without having to pay the traditional middleman. Just as the owner of a painting can offer it online to eBay's customers and avoid an auction house's steep commissions, subscribers to Betfair can make wagers with each other, bypassing bookmakers and racetracks with their high takeout rates.

The business has been stunningly successful, and it now "matches" -- i.e. serves as the middleman for -- more than $10 million per day in bets.

Betfair's founder, Andrew Black, told an interviewer: "Centuries ago, betting started between individuals and then needed market-makers -- bookmakers -- when it got bigger. Now, in a sense, it has come full circle."

Betfair handles wagers on a wide variety of activities -- soccer, American football, cricket, darts, the Golden Globe Awards, the 2004 U.S. presidential election, the Dow Jones industrial average (you can bet whether the index will be up or down on any day). In any category, a customer may offer a wager for which he will act as a bookmaker, e.g.: He wants to lay odds of 15 to 1 against Hillary Rodham Clinton becoming the next Democratic presidential candidate, and will take up to $100 in wagers. Or a customer can propose a bet that he wants to make with someone: He wants to bet $50 at 3 to 1 or greater that "Gangs of New York" will win the Golden Globe Award for best picture.

Betfair's computer systems streamline this process, handling as many as 12,000 transactions per minute. Customers first establish an account and make a deposit -- though U.S.-issued credit cards are not accepted. (Americans need to make a wire transfer from their bank.) Their transactions are anonymous; bettors simply type the amount of a proposed or accepted wager into a grid on the screen. Betfair calculates the wins and losses, making the additions or deductions to the customers' accounts after each wager is decided. For its services, Betfair takes from the winner's profit a commission ranging from 2 to 5 percent -- depending on the customer's overall level of betting.

It is this low commission rate that makes horse betting especially attractive on Betfair. Because American racetracks take from 15 to 20 percent of any win bet -- and British bookmakers aren't noted for their generosity, either -- there is an enormous edge in betting man-to-man and paying only a small percentage to Betfair.

Two horse-racing channels televise American races in England, and Betfair handles wagers on these races -- from tracks including Laurel Park, Calder, Hawthorne and Santa Anita.

The action on Betfair is fast and mesmerizing -- and it offers opportunities that horseplayers never see in parimutuel wagering. Every handicapper has encountered innumerable races where he doesn't like the favorite but doesn't have a good way to capitalize on that opinion. On Betfair he can, in essence, become a bookmaker and accept a bet. Recently I was looking at a maiden race from Suffolk Downs where a horse with an 0 for 28 career record was the 6-to-5 favorite. I had no opinions on the race, but this looked like an ideal situation for Betfair. I offered 8 to 5 on the bum favorite and quickly got a taker.

As gamblers around the world make similar offers, the market on a horse race at Betfair is similar to a stock exchange where "bid" and "asked" prices for stocks are constantly fluctuating. The Betfair data on the computer screen shows a "back" and "lay" price for each horse. A horse might be available to bet at 3.2 to 1, while wagers on him could be booked at 3.4 to 1. In most cases, the betting odds are higher than at the track. A player who can anticipate the movement of the odds can lock in a price significantly higher than the post-time odds. I got 8-to-1 odds at Betfair on a horse who would up going off at 5 to 2 at Laurel.

The amount of action on run-of-the-mill American races is astonishing. Typically a U.S. race will produce $30,000 to $50,000 in matched bets. Gamblers are continually looking for any edge they can find, and the Betfair market offers myriad opportunities to secure an edge. As a result Betfair's business is growing every week, and the racing establishment has found it difficult to counter or eliminate the competition from a service that the public loves.


© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[imaufo]

© 2002 The Washington Post Company
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I60858-2000Mar12

By Andrew Beyer
Friday, December 27, 2002; Page D01


Playing the horses has always been a challenge, but nowadays one of the toughest challenges is simply finding a track to play. Too much of American racing consists of small fields and boring races offering limited opportunities for a handicapper.

I tried to bet Calder Race Course during December, but the effort was largely a waste of time: In the five days preceding Christmas, Calder ran 30 races with seven or fewer starters, and half of the winners paid 2 to 1 or less. Scrutinizing these races to uncover future bets was a waste of time, too, because few horses have troubled trips in such small fields.

I used to consider Gulfstream Park the last bastion of wide-open, bettable racing, and the Hallandale, Fla., track has annually been the major focus of my gambling year. But last year Gulfstream's meeting was dismal, and I squandered too much of my time and money on races that held little promise.

After the Gulfstream debacle I made a vow: I will never again direct all my handicapping efforts toward a single track. Instead, I will take advantage of the opportunities presented by simulcasting, scan the nation's racetracks and concentrate on the ones that promise to be the most fruitful. Thus I have formulated my battle plan for the winter. I will direct half of my gambling efforts to Gulfstream, where I hope that a new stable area and an increased horse population may produce better racing.

The rest of my energy and my bankroll will be invested in Tampa Bay Downs.

This surely will strike my fellow horseplayers as a surprising choice, since Tampa Bay is considered a minor league track. I don't know another serious bettor who has Tampa on his radar screen. But it is a track with many virtues.

Tampa Bay Downs used to be known as Sunshine Park, and its charms attracted a cult following: legendary sportswriters such as Grantland Rice and Joe Palmer often wrote about their outings to Sunshine. But in the age of simulcasting, charm doesn't count for much; Tampa's strength is the makeup of its races.

For its December-to-May season, Tampa fills its 1,400 stalls and also draws from the many horse farms in Ocala. Last year the track averaged 9.2 starters per race -- one of the best such figures in the United States. A heterogeneous group populates the races. The entrants on Tampa's opening-day card on Dec. 17 had made their most recent starts at 26 different tracks. To prepare for this meeting, I studied the charts of races at such far-flung places as Hoosier Park in Indiana, Great Lakes Downs in Michigan and Finger Lakes in upstate New York, hoping that some familiarity with these tracks would give me an edge at Tampa.

With their large fields, the races at Tampa are eventful -- especially so because the jockey colony at Tampa is not an all-star group. Every time I watch a race I am frantically scribbling notes about horses who are off slow, blocked or parked ridiculously wide on the turn -- a treasure trove of future bets.

Most simulcast bettors would instinctively shun a track where little-known jockeys ride $4,000 claiming horses, preferring to bet the major league tracks in California and New York. But those who do so are opting to compete against the nation's best-informed, high-rolling gamblers, who play the major circuits. This is like walking into a Las Vegas poker room, passing up a game filled with tourists and sitting down at a table populated by cutthroat local sharpies.

Sharpies do not play Tampa Bay. "During the week, our customers are mostly retirees and vacationers," said General Manager Peter Berube. "The weekends are skewed to younger people."

Moreover, I would guess that the majority of people who bet Tampa Bay from simulcast locations don't even consult the Daily Racing Form. I have observed enough generous payoffs on contenders and low odds on hopeless horses to suggest that the parimutuel competition at Tampa is pretty soft.

The usual drawback of minor tracks such as Tampa is that betting pools aren't large enough to accommodate even semi- serious action. But Tampa does surprisingly solid business. Berube said the track's popularity among bettors was spurred by the installation of a turf course in 1998. It orchestrates its post times to find open slots in the simulcasting schedule and lure wagers from out-of-state players.

The track's business was hurt in the past three years by battles between horsemen and management, but their problems have been resolved, and Tampa is likely to improve on last year's average daily handle of $2.1 million per day. Although that total is a far cry from New York or California, there is enough money in most Tampa pools to make playing the track worthwhile.

The only drawbacks I have observed at Tampa are its high takeout (25.9 percent on exactas and other multiple wagers) and the poor quality of its video coverage, which makes it hard to distinguish one horse from another. But because of the track's large fields and competitive races, I am excited and challenged whenever I sit down to handicap a Tampa Bay card -- and that is rare in modern racing.

[imaufo]

By Andrew Beyer

Thursday, January 9, 2003; Page D01


Since the Breeders' Cup Pick Six scandal erupted, horseplayers have been keenly aware of suspiciously low payoffs and late changes in odds, fearing that more cheaters have found a way to corrupt the parimutuel system. Most such concerns are based on sheer paranoia. But any knowledgeable fan who saw the results of the Pick Four on opening day at Gulfstream Park would readily conclude that something was rotten in the state of Florida.

A friend telephoned me after the race and said: "There's only one explanation for this payoff. This had to be dishonest. I'm not going to bet another Pick Four at Gulfstream." I suspect that bettors from coast to coast shared the same opinion.

Not one of the four races was won by an easy or obvious pick. The first winner paid $25.80. The next race produced a dead heat between a 13-to-1 shot and a 3-to-1 shot. Then First Blush scored a $25.80 surprise in the Spectacular Bid Stakes. The final winner paid $7.40.

What should the Pick Four have paid? The usual standard is the value of a four-horse parlay. Although the dead heat complicates this calculation, the parlay should have been worth around $4,300. But such wagers almost always pay more than the parlay when there are no solid favorites among the winners, and it would not have been surprising if Friday's Pick Four had paid $10,000 or more.

It paid $864.20.

This anomaly might have gone unnoticed by Gulfstream's management, but for the fact that a professional bettor knew the track's controller, Frank Trigeiro, and phoned him about the suspicious payoff. Trigeiro immediately inquired where the tickets had been sold, expecting to learn that the transaction had come from some rogue offshore off-track betting operation. He learned otherwise. Of $159 bet on the winning combination, $150 had been wagered at Gulfstream.

A single bettor held all of the tickets -- and had bought them 15 minutes before post time. This was no scam like the Breeders' Cup fix, where the crooks had altered wagers after some of the races had been run. The gambler had played a $50 Pick Four ticket using multiple horses, including both of the dead-heaters, which gave him the equivalent of a $100 winning ticket. He had also made another $50 play that duplicated some of the combinations on his first ticket, and hit with that one, too. The man is known to be a wild, high-rolling gambler, not a larcenous insider. If he possessed inside information he would surely have played other exotic wagers as well, but there was nothing suspicious about the payoffs in the Pick Threes and the Daily Double encompassing the same races. The handicapper might have been lucky or might have been smart, but the wager that netted him $64,815 was legitimate.

Yet the events at Gulfstream underscore many of the problems that the industry faces in the aftermath of the Breeders' Cup. Bettors are understandably worried about the sport's integrity, and many of them were left with the impression that the Gulfstream Pick Four was crooked -- even though that was not the case.

Bettors understand that most racetrack managements are oblivious to questionable circumstances such as the Pick Four payoffs. The sport desperately needs a system that red-flags suspicious transactions.

The National Thoroughbred Racing Association recently hired Giuliani Associates, working with Ernst and Young, to assess the security systems of U.S. racetracks.

What they ought to do is develop a software package, usable by any track, that will point out bets that look suspicious: Pick Fours and Pick Sixes that pay less than half the parlay price; exactas that pay less than half the "rule of thumb" (win price times the place price of the second finisher); odds that drop in half in the last two minutes before post time; cancellations of large wagers in the final minutes of wagering. The racetrack then can delve into the necessary records to learn the details of the wager.

But this is not enough. Even if tracks quietly look into the details of a suspicious wager and determine that it is kosher (as happened at Gulfstream), the customers don't know it and their doubts about the integrity of the game continue to fester. The sport needs some mechanism for a dialogue between fans and the industry. If a bettor is disgruntled after seeing Mustang Jock win at Aqueduct after his odds drop from 8-1 to 5-2 in the last minute of wagering, he should be able to ask "What happened?" and get an honest answer.

The sport should have an ombudsman who can take inquiries from the public, get the answers from racetracks and perhaps publish the questions and answers in the Daily Racing Form.

In the vast majority of cases, suspicious betting patterns are not larcenous at all -- as in the case of the Gulfstream Pick Four. But the sport has to prove this to its customers.


© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Seabiscuit]

This is not a Beyer article but an interesting discussion from www.paceadvantage.com Beyer's ideas in Picking Winners might have come from a guy called Pat Cabell who did not get the credit (magazine article in 1968). Picking Winners written Mid 70s from memory. Only thing is that Beyer acknowledges in Picking Winners that speed figures had been around for years and he was not the inventor but just the messenger as he liked writing. For all we know Cabell was not the inventor either. Anyway he is the posting from paceadvantage from Arnold Howe:

Cabell/Beyer
Gentlemen:
Andy Beyer is not duplicitous,as I believe he had never heard of Pat Cabell. It was I who shared the series of articles on pace that were written by Cabell and published in 'ATM' in the late sixties with Sheldon Kovitz of Revere,Massachuseytts. In turn,when Andy asked Sheldon about a speed methodology Sheldon discussed the theory with Andy and provided him with the
tables that I had given him. Andy never asked about where it all came from which any good student should have. Andy was not a good student at Harvard. He spent too much time with racing and the Harvard Crimson.
Cabell did more than develop pace tables. In that series he set forth a methodology for computing the daily varient.His work is original and innovative and no one approaches his work on a theoretical level.
I should point about that Cabell thought that speed numbers obeyed a percentage relationship below 100 and a logarithmic like relationship above 100. Beyers scale above 100 has to be linear because there's not way to duplcate the table above 100 which is necessary when using the table within a computer. This means that when a Beyer number is a 120 ,for example, then a 118 is closet to 120 than a 100 is to a 98.
Andy coined the term 'Beyer' number however, I constantly inform my friends that it is the 'Cabell" number.The correct attribution was shared with Sheldon ,however, I'm not
really sure if he passed it along. I'll have to ask him.
I would like to point out that I first observed that a daily
variant calculated on a drying out track,for example, did so at a variable rate. To solve the problem Sheldon developed a solution using regression analysis (1970).Sheldon also developed an algorithm to factor in the wind when doing the daily-variant. Sheldon refused to give it to Andy because Andy would just publish it and make our adversaries better informed.
I have been a student of pace since 1963 and am as informed on this matter as well as anyone. I simply do not believe in educating my advversaries. Game theory provides that you know everything known to your adversaries about a given game,however,you are not obligated to educate them to your disadvantage. The Beyer number with it's notion of universality has impacted the price a favorite pays significantly for example.
I just spoke with Sheldon. He says he told Andy that I provided the tables which I got from 'ATM'.

Arnold T. Howe

[imaufo]

By Max Presnell
November 21, 2003

Unlike with Seabiscuit, the gentle swish of oars or flapping spinnaker of the boat race was never heard in relation to Phar Lap.

To avoid confusion, the turf dictionary of racing slang describes a boat race as "an event to which the result was said to be prearranged".

No horse had to go slow for Phar Lap but in a column headed "Did Seabiscuit get a bit of help in epic race?", Andrew Beyer, the renowned Washington Post columnist, asked the question.

The final event of Seabiscuit's remarkable career, captured in the the film Seabiscuit currently showing in Sydney, was the Santa Anita Handicap.

"What really happened on March 2, 1940, remains a subject of speculation," Beyer wrote. "Some sceptics have maintained that Seabiscuit won America's richest race only because his stablemate Kayak 11, the second-place finisher, permitted him to do so . . ."

Beyer submits that Charles Howard, the owner of the pair and a major player in the Seabiscuit saga, "wanted to see Seabiscuit in the winner's circle".

"Before the 1940 race - in a practice that was permitted at the time - he officially declared his intention to win with Seabiscuit, meaning that Kayak 11 would not necessarily make an all-out effort if his stablemate was ahead.

"Contrary to the movie version, Seabiscuit did not make a come-from-a-mile-behind rally. As the formidable speedster Whichcee took the early lead near the rail, Seabiscuit pressed him from outside and stayed within a length of him. Kayak 11 was dead last in the field of 13.

"In mid-stretch, Seabiscuit finally moved past Whichcee. Jockey Buddy Haas aboard Kayak 11 was outside the two other horses and in position to see that Seabiscuit had taken command. At that point he stopped riding. He put Kayak 11 under visible restraint and didn't use the whip while Pollard continued to flail Seabiscuit. At the finish, Seabiscuit was a half-length ahead of his stablemate. . .

"After watching how emphatically he put his mount under wraps in the last 16th of a mile, I believe that Kayak 11 would have won if he had been permitted to do so," Beyer concluded after viewing film replays.

"If this is the case, the racing world should be grateful to Haas and Kayak 11, who sacrificed their moment of glory to make possible the perfect Hollywood ending for the Seabiscuit story."

Of course, the renowned fighting qualities of Seabiscuit could well have been ignited if the stablemate issued a challenge, but this dun-coloured nondescript was a great horse and the movie has done him and the wonderful book Seabiscuit, an American legend, by Laura Hillenbrand, proud.

But national pride demands that the point be raised: how does he rate against Phar Lap, our greatest horse, which also left lasting memories in the United States?

Phar Lap gets a berth in Julian Wilson's 100 Greatest Racehorses but not Seabiscuit. Yet War Admiral, which was well and truly beaten in a match race against Seabiscuit, is also listed. Wilson, an Englishman, quoted an expert of the era writing that War Admiral, the favourite, was "badly managed, trained and ridden" for the Seabiscuit clash. Other American horses acclaimed by Wilson included Secretariat and Seattle Slew.

Perhaps Seabiscuit's character and the story surrounding him were greater than his ability, which was still considerable. Apart from the book and the movie, the documentary seen on SBS recently was also testimony to this.

Still, Phar Lap the movie was comparable with the Seabiscuit production, which is saying something because all concerned have done a great job with the latest epic.

Seabiscuit is as much about Red Pollard (the battling, broken-down, blind-in-one-eye jockey with something to give to a no-account cuddy), trainer Tom Smith (very much a horse whisperer who talked to horses, not people, and makes Jack Denham, our most silent trainer, seem downright gabby) and Howard, the owner who had great faith in them.

While the film portrays Pollard as copping more punishment in fights than Rocky Balboa, he was in fact a useful prelim boxer forced into the ring to subsidise his meagre riding earnings. When he met Seabiscuit, Pollard had 27 cents in his pocket, a few sugar cubes, a bottle of Bow Wow wine and a passion for the classics.

Little was made of his drinking in Seabiscuit but he needed booze to ease the pain of injuries. Pollard had a near-crippling mishap in a race before the track incident so graphically portrayed in the movie.

According to Hillenbrand, as he was being carted to hospital in a starter's truck after the last crash that left his right leg nearly sheared off under the knee, he demanded the driver stop. "I cannot get to that hospital alive if you don't get on over there and get me a bottle of beer," he wailed.

Pollard, played superbly in the film by Tobey Maguire, lived by the Shakespearean doctrine he quoted: "Sweet are the uses of adversity." And he made one of the great comebacks in sporting history to eventually win the controversial Santa Anita on Seabiscuit.

However, his mate George Woolf - a role handled gracefully on the screen by Gary Stevens, one of the best American jockeys in recent times - rode Seabiscuit while Pollard was sidelined, and therein hangs a Phar Lap connection. Woolf "had a good luck piece, a battered kangaroo saddle, once carried by Phar Lap", Hillenbrand wrote.

On the eve of the famous match race with War Admiral at Pimlico, Pollard told Woolf how to get the best out of Seabiscuit, and promised "you'll ride to parts unknown".

Being a hero of the Depression, Seabiscuit went from the bottom to the top, with his name being so popular it was carried from dry cleaning outlets to oranges.

To the eye, though, anywhere else bar the winning post he fell well short of Phar Lap. Described as a "marvel of faulty construction", he had a swinging leg described as an "egg-beater gait". Considering his mileage as a two-year-old, 35 times, two-thirds more than the average for the age category, it is a miracle he had any legs left. Then along came Howard, Smith and Pollard.

In their final race, Smith gave Pollard the instructions, memorable for their brevity: "You know the horse, the horse knows you."

As good as Phar Lap? Does it really matter? Seabiscuit, or "Pops" as Pollard called him, was an inspiration of his time and still is. If "Pops" and a one-eyed jockey did get assistance in the final Santa Anita Handicap, it couldn't have been for a better cause.



This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/20/1069027263350.html

[hobbes]

By Andrew Beyer

Thursday, January 1, 2004

Horse race betting in America is undergoing a revolutionary change, one that affects every player and every racetrack. But the industry still doesn't know quite what to think or do about the impact of rebates on its business.

In recent years, certain betting operations -- mostly located off-shore -- have enticed high-rolling customers by refunding to them a certain percentage of their wagers. If an off-track betting shop offers a rebate of 10 percent, a gambler who wagers $20,000 in a day will get $2,000 credited to his account, regardless of the outcome of his bets. The total wagered on U.S. races through so-called rebate shops may be in the vicinity of $1.5 billion a year -- 10 percent of the parimutuel action at U.S. tracks.

Rebates were spawned by the peculiar economics of parimutuel betting in the simulcast era. Racetracks typically take 20 percent of every dollar wagered by their customers -- revenue that goes into purse money, upkeep of the facilities and profits. When they started to send their television signals to each other and take each other's bets, tracks set a very cheap price on the simulcast product -- normally about 3 percent. Thus, if Laurel Park offers its races to Churchill Downs or New York Off-Track Betting, those outlets keep 17 percent of the money bet on Laurel races and send 3 percent to Maryland. Tracks such as Laurel initially viewed this 3 percent as a bonanza, but they belatedly learned that simulcasting is a double-edged sword.

The age of simulcasting spawned the development of telephone-betting and off-track betting operations that weren't burdened by the expenses of running a racetrack. After paying 3 percent for the signal, the OTB operators were receiving 17 percent of the bets they took in. If they offered a 10 percent rebate to a gambler who would bet millions of dollars a year, they were going to pocket 7 percent of those millions.

In many cases, such deals cannibalized the racetracks' business. If a horseplayer stops putting his money through the windows and instead places his bets by phoning a rebate shop, the track may receive only 3 percent instead of 20 percent of his action. Thus have racetrack executives described the rebaters as "pirates" and worse.

But the economics of rebates is not so simple. If it were, racetracks could simply refuse to do business with the rebate shops. But their existence has changed the dynamics of horse betting in a way that benefits the industry, too.

Many skilled horseplayers are unable to make a profit at the track; they lose not because they can't beat the races but because they can't beat the takeout. If a horseplayer loses 8 percent of all the dollars he pushes through the windows during the course of a year, he has proved that he is much more adept than the average player (who loses 20 percent), but he is nevertheless likely to go broke in the long run. With a rebate, however, he can become a winner.

Maury Wolff and David Cuscuna studied rebates for the National Thoroughbred Racing Association Players' Panel, a board of gamblers examining the important issues in the sport. It was they who produced the $1.5-billion-a-year betting figure. In the course of their research, Wolff related, "One rebate shop provide these numbers: Their customers lose 7 to 8 percent overall, and basically play for a 2 percent profit after the rebate. And so they bet gigantic dollars to chase that 2 percent."

Instead of betting less as his bankroll is eroded by losses, a gambler with a rebate has a huge incentive to bet more money. If his profit margin is 2 percent, he has to wager heavily to make that edge worthwhile. Wolff says he knows players whose annual wagering has increased tenfold -- say, from $3 million a year to $30 million a year. This is not money being pirated from racetracks; it is money that otherwise wouldn't be bet.

Rebates encouraged for the highest of high rollers to get involved in American racing. Syndicates have operated successfully for years in Hong Kong by using sophisticated computer programs to analyze races and calculate optimal betting strategies. Their methods might not have been able to succeed on American races with a 20 percent takeout. But the availability of rebates has given offshoots of the Hong Kong syndicates (supposedly, there are two such groups) the opportunity to use their methods in this country. When horseplayers observe dramatic late changes in horses' odds, it is usually the rebate-driven computer groups that are betting. Wolff believes they account for $500 million a year in handle on U.S. races, and most tracks are understandably disinclined to turn away business of this magnitude.

Nevertheless, the tracks realize this is hardly an ideal system. "In a perfect business environment, the only rebates would be offered by the host track," said Bill Nader, vice president of the New York Racing Association. NYRA would love to be able to target prime customers and develop their loyalty to NYRA instead of, say, an off-track operation in St. Kitts. But racetracks in New York and elsewhere are so heavily regulated that they don't have the flexibility to run their business as they would like. They may raise the rates that they charge the rebate shops (to 5 percent or so), but they have to do business with them. "The rebate sites have some of the best customers in the sport -- a customer base we can't ignore," Nader said.

The system is hardly a fair one for the majority of a track's customers. The gamblers getting rebates have a huge competitive advantage over the long-suffering souls in the grandstand betting at a 20 percent takeout rate. Peter Berube, general manager of Tampa Bay Downs, examined last season's wagers from rebate-shop customers and saw that these sophisticated players -- presumably the computer groups -- were winning at an astonishing rate relative to everybody else. "They're fleecing the rest of our customers," Berube said, "and this season we decided not to allow them access to our pools." Tampa Bay became one of the few tracks to cut off the rebate shops.

Gamblers who look at Tampa Bay's takeout rates -- 22.5 percent on exactas, 25.9 percent on trifectas -- might reasonably say that the track is equally guilty of fleecing its customers. Few horseplayers have a chance to make a profit betting against the sky-high rates that prevail at most American tracks.

Even though rebate-shop customers are being treated much better than the majority of on-track players, Wolff maintained that the current system makes sense. "Racing is like a lot of businesses in which they best customers get the best deals," he said. "Rebates are targeted to the people who need them most. In an ideal world, though, takeouts would be a lot lower and that would be the end of it."

Indeed, the success of the rebate shops underscores the fact that the American racing industry, with its high takeout, is its own worst enemy. By taking 20 percent of every dollar they bankrupt or discourage most of their customers. If, instead, tracks charged 10 percent, those same customers would be betting maniacally because they knew they had a fair chance to win.



© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[cheesebeast]

Turning losers into winners
By ANDREW BEYER
WASHINGTON - Since the company Betfair began its operations in 2000, it has altered the world of gambling as profoundly as eBay altered the world of commerce.
The British firm calls itself a "betting exchange" and allows gamblers around the globe to wager against each other while eliminating the racetrack or the bookmaker as a middleman. If a horseplayer wants to bet his choice in a race at 2-1, he wagers against another player who is willing to lay those odds. Betfair's computers handle the transaction instantaneously, with the company taking a commission of 2 to 5 percent - a modest fee when compared with the 20 or 25 percent that U.S. tracks extract from every dollar.

Long oppressed by the cost of placing a wager through tracks' tote systems, horseplayers everywhere have hailed the advent of betting exchanges. But in recent weeks, even their most dedicated customers have recognized one great danger associated with the exchanges. Their existence makes racetrack larceny almost too easy.

Of course, schemers and crooks have tried to execute betting coups for as long as the Thoroughbred species has existed. Ensuring that a given horse will win a race is never easy. But it is relatively easy for an insider to be sure that a particular horse will lose - and Betfair enables him to profit from that knowledge.

That is what happened last summer at Carlisle, a minor English track, in a race that only recently has made headlines.

Hillside Girl was a contender whose odds were 7-2 when wagering began, but on Betfair her price started drifting higher and higher and higher. Somebody was so confident Hillside Girl wouldn't win that he was willing to accept almost any bet on the filly, at any price. By the time the wagering had closed, Hillside Girl was 21-1. There were few worries for the people who would have to pay those 21-1 odds if the filly won. After running barely a quarter-mile, Hillside Girl went lame.

Subsequent investigations unearthed the startling fact that Hillside Girl's blacksmith sometimes bet nearly $200,000 against horses on Betfair. The Jockey Club this month charged the blacksmith, the trainer, and the jockey with committing "a corrupt or fraudulent practice" by running a lame horse "in the interests of bets laid on the betting exchange markets."

A British newspaper, the Guardian, wrote that the practice of deliberately running a lame horse "will surprise even the most hardened betting-shop cynics." In fact, two recent races have astonished Britons even more than the Hillside Girl scandal.

* Ice Saint was the early odds-on favorite in a steeplechase at Fontwell, but his odds drifted as high as 5-1 on Betfair. In mid-race, jockey Sean Fox literally took a dive and jumped off the horse, producing newspaper headlines across the country about another Betfair coup and earning the jockey a 21-day suspension.

* Kieran Fallon, one of Britain's most prominent riders, told an undercover reporter for a British paper that Ballinger Ridge was going to lose a race at Lingfield. Before the race, Betfair notified racing officials of suspicious betting patterns on the race. After Ballinger Ridge opened a 10-length lead, Fallon eased him up and was caught in the final stride - touching off a major scandal and earning the jockey nationwide opprobrium.

These suspicious races have led to denunciations of the betting exchanges and calls for restrictions on them. A spokesman for the big bookmaking firm William Hill declared, "Racing's integrity jumped out the window the moment the exchanges jumped in."

But many such complaints are self-serving. Betfair now handles $14 million in wagers per day and it has taken business away from the bookmakers and the racing industry.

Betfair officials respond that instead of causing corruption they have uncovered it, and there is merit to their argument. The company looks for abnormal betting patterns and reports them to racing authorities. It maintains a "watch list" of gamblers who are wagering large sums and achieving extraordinary results. It has ferreted out evidence of misdeeds in the sport more effectively than most racing officials.

Although the controversies involving Betfair have been centered in Britain, the operations of betting exchanges permeate cyberspace and concern racing officials around the world. Betfair takes wagers on events everywhere; it handled $100,000 in action on Monday's first race at Gulfstream Park. And while Betfair doesn't accept customers with U.S. addresses, other betting exchanges - such as the English company IbetX - are willing and eager to sign up U.S. customers. So even now it is possible for a gambler to wager substantially that a horse in an American race is going to lose.

While horseplayers may worry about the possibilities for dishonesty associated with the exchanges, they like even less the idea of paying tracks 20 to 25 percent of every dollar they push through the parimutuel windows. Because the exchanges offer such value to their customers, they are going to thrive and proliferate. The controversy over their operations has barely begun.

(c) 2004 The Washingotn Post


http://www.drf.com/news/article/54391.html

[cheesebeast]

Cup Day true test of trainers, too
By ANDREW BEYER
GRAND PRAIRIE, Texas - In an era when horse racing appears to be plagued by illegal drug use, when trainers regularly accomplish feats that defy logic, when bettors routinely factor "juice" into their handicapping, one event in the sport remains free of scandal and suspicion.

Before the 21st Breeders' Cup World Thoroughbred Championships are run at Lone Star Park Saturday, trainers, horses, and veterinarians will be subjected to scrutiny without parallel in America racing. The Breeders' Cup organization has the resources (and the will) to do what individual racetracks cannot.

And yet, ironically, the integrity of the event produces even more cynicism among America's already cynical racing fans. When miracle-working trainers send top horses to the Breeders' Cup, and those horses run poorly, fans wonder about the legitimacy of their feats on the other 364 days of the year was tainted.

Of course, every racing jurisdiction tests horses for illegal drugs, but cheaters always manage to stay a few steps ahead of the chemists. So the most effective way to deter cheating is through close surveillance.

The Breeders' Cup's security program grew out of its efforts to address a different problem. In the early 1990's, its races were tarnished by conspicuous breakdowns of horses - notably the horrific death of the celebrated filly Go for Wand. Starting in 1993, the organization assembled a team of veterinarians from major racing jurisdictions to inspect all the horses as they trained. These vets, savvy about the realities of the modern game, began consulting with stewards, racing commissioners and security officials at the tracks that host the event, and a system evolved.

A week before the Breeders' Cup, security personnel are on duty at the barns housing the horses. And they know what they're doing. "The individuals in charge of security are well informed," said Pam Blatz-Murff, senior vice president of operations for the Breeders' Cup. "They're not just hired by a security firm. They're horse-conscious."

In the 24 hours before post time, the security guards monitor the movement of anyone who goes into the stall of any horse entered on the card - the supporting races as well as the championship events. When a vet enters a stall, he has to register and he is observed while he is with a horse. If he administers an injection, the security personnel have authority - granted by the racing commission - to confiscate the syringe so the contents can be tested.

There was one loophole in this system, and in 1999 it made headlines. James Bond, who trained Behrens, the favorite in the Classic, and Val's Prince, the top American contender in the Turf, declared that he would not stable his horses at Gulfstream Park. He would van the horses from a training center 100 miles north of the track so that they would arrive shortly before their races. A rival trainer, Michael Dickinson, was so suspicious of the motive behind this plan that he hired a private investigator to follow the van carrying the horses.

When the story broke, with a track press release saying the purpose of the surveillance was to "observe any improper prerace administrations," many people thought the idiosyncratic Dickinson had lost his mind. But after both the Bond horses ran dismally, suspicious minds wondered if the surveillance had something to do with it. And the Breeders' Cup subsequently adopted a rule requiring every horse to be on the grounds the day before the race.

Certainly, racetrack people are a little paranoid about drugs. As Bond observed in the aftermath of the Behrens flap, "Any time you do good, people say, 'He's using something.' "

But it is hard to suppress suspicions when trainers enjoy extraordinary success throughout the year but flop in the Breeders' Cup. And it happens that the nation's two leading trainers of stakes horses have dismal Breeders' Cup records.

Todd Pletcher's powerful stable dominates almost every major track in the East, yet his career record in the Breeders' Cup is 0 for 12. However, most of his entrants didn't figure strongly - until this year, when he will saddle at least three solid contenders. So maybe his winless record will prove to be a short-lived aberration.

Bobby Frankel has compiled one of the most extraordinary records in the history of his profession. During the last five years he has won with more than 25 percent of his starters, and dramatically improved most of the horses he has acquired. But in the Breeders' Cup his career record is 2 for 57. Last year he saddled eight horses, four of them favorites, and they all lost. Sightseek, who looked unbeatable in the Distaff, finished out of the money at 3-5. Peace Rules, a paragon of consistency, finished 13th and last in the Mile.

Chronic failure in the Breeders' Cup casts a shadow over a trainer's other accomplishments. Maybe that is unfair - like denigrating a great ballplayer because of a sub-par World Series - but the Breeders' Cup has become a uniquely definitive test of both horses and trainers. A trainer can earn plenty of money and fame during the rest of the year, but at the Breeders' Cup he can prove his legitimacy to a cynical world.

[cheesebeast]

Chat Transcript: Andy Beyer TUESDAY, OCT. 26, 2004


Deanmachine:Q: Sweet Catomine's Oak Leaf was visually impressive and her workout yeasterday was the best of 127 with apparent 160lb. exercise rider. Can you see her moving forward and crushing these?

Andy Beyer:Possibly. I thought her races was visually impressive, too. But there are about 10 fillies in this race with figures within a few points of each other, and I don't see betting a relatively short priced favorite in a spot like this.

Shacopate:Q: I like 3 longshots that appear to be cycling forward. Gold Storm-Sprint, Sis City-JF, and Newfoundland-Classic. All three held the lead down in lane in their latest prep. Which horse, if any, do you feel has the best chance to win on saturday?

Andy Beyer:Sis City is out of the race, if I'm not mistaken. I don't like the others. Gold Storm was on a gold rail at Keeneland in his last, and Newfoundland isn't quite good enough for these.

boboo:Q: What is Paulson thinking running Azeri in the Classic?

Andy Beyer:I can't imagine. He's obviously had this idea in his mind for a long time, and he's going forward despite all logic to the contrary. Obviously, she has no chance of winning. What mystifies me is that he said in a press conference the other day that he was going to look at the Classic from the pace standpoint before coming to his decision. Didn't he see Roses in May in the race? He'll bury Azeri.

seatac:Q: storm flag flying returned this year BIG on may 15th, then beat azeri on August 27th, now that azeri is going in the classic is storm flag flying the one to beat in the distaff?

Andy Beyer:I don't know if she's the one to beat, but she certainly becomes a contender. However, when she beat Azeri at Saratoga--her lone win in her last four starts--she was the beneficiary of an absoultely perfect trip behind a big speed duel.

BACKSTRETCH2:Q: Alot of people like GZ in the classic I dont give him a chance to hit the board he never has gone the distance your thoughts?

Andy Beyer:As a figure guy, I have to respect any horse who has run sensational numbers such as he has. His 128 at Monmouth, as you probably know, was the biggest figure since our numbers started to appear in the DRF in 1992. Of course, he hasn't tried to go 10 furlongs yet, but what's to say that he can't? He's done just about everything else brilliantly.

Mark:Q: In the breeder's cup classic: it's obvious that Ghostzapper is a super horse -- but how super is he really? He scored an amazing 128 in the Iselin, but I'm assuming that was inflated a lot due to the slop. His recent workout of 1:17 is rather uninspirin

Andy Beyer:There are a lot of times when we look at exceptional figures, scratch our heads and ask, "Could this be right?"--but this was not the case with Ghostzapper's 128. It was cut and dried. How much he moved up in the slop I can't begin to guess. But he had run 120 in his previous start, at 7f, and it's conceivable he has been wanting all along to go longer distances.

mark_2:Q: Hi Andy. Great call on Cajun Beat last year; who is the Cajun Beat sleeper of 04? CB himself? Thanks.

Andy Beyer:Not this year--he has never duplicated that great Breeders' Cup race, and I'm a little wary of betting any Frankel horse in view of his dismal Breeders' Cup history. I don't know that I've got any bombs about whom I feel so strongly this year, but I think that Dance Away Capote has a solid chance at a big price in the Juvenile Fillies.

jimbo66:Q: Can you envisioin any scenario where Azeri finishes in the top 3? She can't send and win, she can't rate and win, she can't run with them period.

Andy Beyer:No, I can't. I can't see her in the top half of the field.

taggrules:Q: How can we have a Beyer chat and not ask, "What is your five star mortal lock"? And I dont want to hear another short priced Little Lenny/ Winter's Tale exacta!

Andy Beyer:I can't proclaim any mortal locks on this card, but I do like Ghostzapper in the Classic. I'll live and die with the figs in that spot. And, as I said, I could get a little excited about Dance Away Capote if she's 20 to 1 or thereabouts.

baltphil:Q: If Super Brand continues her improvement, can she be competitive in the Filly and Mare Turf at a price?

Andy Beyer:Well, she's gone from a fig of 90 to 94, but she's going to have to accelerate her improvement a lot. I don't see a race in her PPs that would come close to making her a contender here, and she is running against a European killer.

Trezza:Q: How will the Europeans fare this year considering the fact that Lone Star might not be condusive to their running styles?

Andy Beyer:Everybody said the same thing at Santa Anita last year and the Euros did fine there. The Europeans are always making excuses in advance; it's too hot, too far to ship, the turns are too tight. The problem this year, really, is that their horses don't look all that strong, except for Ouija Board in the Filly and Mare Turf. Their contingent in the Mile looks below-average, and in the Turf they have rarely faced an American horse as good as Kitten's Joy.

capp:Q: From Capp: What about Island Fashion in the Distaff, can he win at a price?

Andy Beyer:I'm inclined to take a stand against her, even though she has by far the best back dope, now that Azeri is out of the race. She hasn't run a big race since the Big Cap last March. I suppose you could argue that her comeback win in the Lady's Secret was a good tuneup and she's going to move forward, but I didn't like that race, either visually or figure-wise. She was life-and-death to hold on and earn a number of 94.

Troy:Q: Mr. Beyer, How concerned are you with the extra time given off for horses like Birdstone, Pleasantly Perfect, and Ghostzapper? Not really the traditional way of bringing horses into the BC is it?

Andy Beyer:Well, everybody's doing it more and more, and those horses are trained by three of the best in the training business. Still, there's a fair amount of evidence that laying off from August till the Breeders' Cup is a losing strategy. I think trainers are getting too cautious. After all, these are tough older horses. If 3-year-olds can do what they do getting ready for the Triple Crown series, does a veteran like Pleasantly Perfect need all this rest before a big racde?

katmandu8:Q: the sprint looks wide open w/ speightstown having thrown a clunker in his last...do you think he rebounds to win or are you looking for another horse to step up?

spinnin:Q: Funny Cide has a lot of heart and appears in good form. Does he have what it takes to win the Classic? We know he likes the distance. Tagg thinks he will win!

Andy Beyer:I just don't think he's good enough on his best form. But his last race was quite good; he gave a gutsy performance, and the figure might have been even higher than we gave him. That was a confusing day.

Outlander:Q: I really like Sense of Style in the JF - What is your take?

Andy Beyer:She did run into trouble in the stretch at Keeneland, and the jockey did wrap her on her late. But I'm not convinced she had any run to give. For all the hype about her, Sense of Style's best figures don't give her any edge over the field, and now she's coming off a poor effort. She's going to be a big underlay. No thanks.

jimbo66:Q: Do you think Roman Ruler is a solid favorite or a good "go against" in the Juvenile? I am leaning towards Sun King and Consolidator right now, but am afraid of Roman Ruler.

Andy Beyer:I just don't know. I can't decide what to do with him either. The pluses: his figures of 106 and 103 are the two best performances in the field. But his stakes wins have come in fields of 4, 4 and 5 horses; the only time he got a challenge he was beaten. I'm confused.

SpartanTom:Q: Will Allen Jerkens get his first BC win with Society Selection in the Distaff now that Azeri has defected?

Andy Beyer:He certainly can; Society Solection looks to me like the best horse on paper. I just hate to bet on trainers with a consistenty poor record in the Breeders' Cup.

HARRAHSLADOWNS:Q: Mr. Beyer, I know you Love the GZapp beyers but remember Midway Road eye blistering beyers? This horse hasn't won lately or come close. I think GZapp is a blimp

Andy Beyer:I don't think the comparison is apt. Midway Road got very good for a brief time and unleashed that one giant number on a sloppy track Ghostzapper showed signs of real brilliance last year, too; he ran a figure of 116 as a 3-year-old, and was visually sensational in some other races too. He's continued his improvement this year. He's neither a blip nor a blimp.

peteaxthelm:Q: You can get 25-1 right now on Dance Away Capote at William Hill. Should we grab it?

Andy Beyer:Grab it.

onafasttrack:Q: Hi Andy, How do Timeform ratings compare to Beyer spped figures ? Is there a formula to convert those Timeform ratings ?

Andy Beyer:My rough rule of thumb is to subtract 14 points from the Timeform numbers; that works reasonably well--at least for upper-level horses of the sor t who come to the Breeders' Cup. As horses get cheaper, the difference between the two scales is narrower.

bettor13:Q: I think the Mile will be a blanket finish...do you have any strong opinions in the mile?

Andy Beyer:I almost always guess wrong in the Mile, particularly about the Euros. This year they don't look so strong to me. Even though his speed figures aren't especially great, Artie Schiller has compiled an outstanding record and has a powerful stretch kick. He'll probably be my pick,, but I'll probably be wrong in this race again.

thebrock22:Q: How do you view Champali's chances in the Sprint?

Andy Beyer:He's OK. I've always thought he was just a cut below the top sprinters, but I've got a knock on just about everybody in the field. I thought his win at Keeneland was a good one; he was chasing three-wide on that rail-favoring track. A lot of people seem to like Clock Stopper out of that Keeneland race, but he's too slow for my taste; at least Champali's got tactical speed.

figuresman:Q: What about Culinary in the JF? She has more upside than most, and may not even need to improve off her win over Runway Model

Andy Beyer:I like her. She will definitely be part of my exactas. I thought her race at Arlington was visually impressive, and the figure might have been higher than the 86 we gave her. (It was a tough day to make the variant.)

gilly:Q: if you had $100 to bet on ONE BC win ticket, what would that be ?

Andy Beyer:The one win bet I've made is on Ghostzapper at 11-2 in the futures.

chip_2:Q: what your feelings on dynever chances since he has already had a trip over the track?

Andy Beyer:I was a leader of the Dynever fan club last year; if he'd won the Classic I would have had a spectacular day. But his form this year has been a disappointment. I just can't see him against this tough field.

frangooch:Q: Hey Andy, I like Our New Recruit in the Sprint. Do you think he's good enough? At what odds?

Andy Beyer:He's never run a race remotely good enough to win the Sprint. My improvised figure for his win in Dubai was a low one, and his comeback race at Dubai wasn't particularly fast either.

pensive:Q: Please give me your opinion of Afleet Alex in the Juveniles. Does he have the potential to win this and go on to be a Kentucky Derby Horse?

Andy Beyer:I don't believe he's going to prove a true distance horse. He's got a sprint-oriented pedigree, and I wasn't convinced by his rally in the Champagne. He was rallying versus Proud Accolade, who is also likely to be a sprinter-miler type. I think they're both likely to be the kind of early season flashes who are forgotten by the first Saturday in May.

Andrew_C:Q: What do you think of Abbondanza in the Sprint? I like his early speed, and he'll likely be a price.

Andy Beyer:I understand we're getting a lot of questions about Abbondanza. Is there mass hysteria out there? This horse has never won a graded stakes. And don't be swayed too much by that 43 1/5 half mile in his last start; the track at Philly Park was lighting fast that day. There's no way he gets the lead in here.

mingun:Q: with the defection of balto star and now probably ouija board from the turf,dos it now leave it open for kittens joy to repeat his turf classic win given the same pace scenario as that daythus kittens joy once again not having his stamina tested???

Andy Beyer:I don't think Kitten's Joy needs a particular scenario. He can finish like a rocket or he can stalk the pace. He's the best U. S. turf horse we've seen in quite some time. If he wins, there are going to be some interesting arguments about whether he or Smarty Jones deserves the 3-year-old title.

slim_jim:Q: No one seems to like Soaring Free off his Atto Mile victory, what are your thoughts on him and the quality of the Atto Mile field ?

Andy Beyer:The figure was fairly weak (103) and that was the only time Soaring Free has gone beyond 7 furlongs successfully. He's certainly not going to get a favorable trip with a speedster like Special Ring in the field. Can't see him.

Dreams_Made_Reak:Q: What are your thoughts on Kela and Bwana charlie

Andy Beyer:I don't think Bwana Charlie is good enough, but Kela comes into the field with the best last-race figure, 116. I've looked long and hard at him. But I think he doesn't have enough quickness. He's won at a distance shorter than seven furlongs only once in his career, and that was in a field of five.

Andy Beyer:Thanks everybody; sorry I couldn't get to all your questions. Have a great Breeders' Cup!

http://www.drf.com/bc/2004/chat_beyer.html

[cheesebeast]

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18340&page=2&pp=15