hobbes
09-11-2002, 02:08
http://www.msnbc.com/news/832137.asp#BODY --- john pricci.
SARATOGA SPRINGS, N.Y., Nov. 7 —
“Racing’s Enron.” “Bet Fix Sows Panic, Doubt.” “Integrity of Pari-mutuel Betting At Risk.” “Can Racing Survive Latest Scandal?” “Sport’s Integrity On Trial in Pick Six Investigation.” Etc., etc.
Headline writers are having their way with the Breeders’ Cup Pick 6 investigation, which also has led the nightly news. It is all anyone talks about, or wants to talk about, at tracks and simulcast venues everywhere, especially here, very close to where the fraud was telephone-enabled. And I’m thinking: Could everyone please calm down here?
WHAT HAPPENED TO the Breeders’ Cup Ultra Pick Six was not a fix. No one tampered with the outcome of a sporting event.
What happened was that two (or was it three?) guys, one an insider with the knowledge and capability of beating the machine allegedly tried to steal $3.1 million. It was no different than when Willie Sutton walked into the bank and walked off with the cash. When Sutton was asked why banks, he replied: “Because that’s where the money is.”
It is no different for an industry that generates billions of dollars in business every year for thieves with the desire and ability to beat the system. In Sutton’s day, no one thought of abolishing banks. No one should think to abolish multi-race wagers at racetracks either, as some naively have suggested. It may be useful to recall the NRA slogan whenever the subject of gun control is broached. To paraphrase: Computers don’t rob the betting public; hackers do.
There are so many issues at work here that are, at once, disappointing, disturbing and alarming. One of them is public reaction. I have spoken to, or eavesdropped on, bettors at the Saratoga Equine Sports Center simulcast and at Capital District OTB’s Teletheater in Albany, N.Y., since returning from Chicago. To no one’s surprise, bettors see larceny beneath every rock.
I discovered, too, that many of these same bettors invariably blame duplicitous jockeys for every losing bet and larcenous trainers every time a favorite gets beat. It is never poor handicapping or money management skills.
More disappointing were the conversations overheard, a pitiful blend of hero worship and wishful thinking. I should have known what to expect. Maybe I’ve spent too much time around racetrackers where talent, pride and dedication separate the winners from losers, a handful of “cheaters” notwithstanding, of course.
What is most disturbing, however, is the lack of knowledge many officials have about the wagering process, a handicapper’s wagering methodology and tote system limitations. From an OTB chief who ignored the obvious four-single/two-all-button red flag and thought this one lucky bettor was good for the game; to a betting company chairman who believed the security issue was resolved before any damage was done and the betting company president who also believed the bet was legitimate and good for racing; all are fools, or worse.
Or maybe they think horseplayers are. How can so many industry executives act in the sport’s best interests when they don’t know what they’re doing? Did it occur to them that the simple math showed the payoff on six winning tickets was about a third of a winning parlay? Do they even know what a parlay is? Didn’t they know that those six winning tickets from one venue “won” 85 percent of the money bet?
How could Catskill OTB be allowed to conduct phone betting without audio-taped verification of any wager made? And does this governmental outfit, mandated into existence and allowed to prosper from the labors and expenses of what is essentially an agri-business, have the right to save pennies at the expense of an entire industry’s customers? Aside from the great handicappers Hahn and Davis, the real culprits are an outdated tote system and corporate greed —a familiar theme in new millennium America. The notion that actual pick six wagers are transmitted to the host track after four races are run to minimize cyber traffic is totally unacceptable and insulting, now and then.
And now there is new evidence to suggest that only “live combinations” are transmitted after five results are known. As this New York State Racing and Wagering Board investigation progresses, we are learning that there may be no monitoring system in place to track people with access to the betting software and that the technology, more than a decade old, lacks protection from insider manipulation. There is evidence to suggest, too, that many of the systems are even older and, in the face of all this, tote officials still decline comment about security procedures fearing public information could lead to a further breach. Isn’t it way too late to make this point, or haven’t corporate spinners yet arrived at a plausible explanation?
As an aside, horseplayers and the racing industry owe a huge debt of gratitude to trainer Phil Johnson and Volponi, whose Classic heroics brought this whole theft to light. Had favored Medaglia d’Oro won, there may have been 20 or 30 winning tickets with the skewed payoffs flying beneath the radar. Credit must be paid to the National Thoroughbred Racing Association and Breeders’ Cup Ltd. in calling for an investigation and the freezing of payout immediately after learning all tickets were sold in one of the smallest betting venues in the country.
Presently, all major racetracks are putting heat on tote companies to insure greater security and integrity of all wagering data. But all of racing must share the responsibility for what happened in Chicago and might have been happening for some time. And, once again, greed is a contributing factor. To wit: When the odds on last year’s Florida Derby winner Monarchos dropped two full points during the running of the race, it subsequently was learned that a large bettor with an arbitrage wagering program had been given special access to tote system information at a North Dakota OTB in order to place last minute wagers.
While there was no evidence of past-posting, it was learned that final betting-cycle data is not transmitted until after the pool closes. The public doesn’t see this change on the tote board until about 45 seconds later, well after a race has begun.
For fans watching on television, there is another delay in the transmission of information from tote system, to production truck, to screen. None of this gives bettors the feeling that their wagers are secure.
The NTRA’s calling for a task force to further investigate the issue of tote supplier security does not go far enough. Change is needed immediately. While investigations may help set policy in the future, they don’t address the present.
After the Monarchos incident, it was suggested that tracks suspend betting a minute before post time to allow for all simulcast wagers to be transmitted to the host track.
But greed won out. Tracks said they didn’t want the risk of shutting out last minute bettors and the bad public relations that might generate. Could there be a more specious argument? Last minute betting is last minute betting. In that context, does it matter if last minute betting occurs two minutes before the starting gate is locked, or 10 minutes before the first pick six race is run? Do tracks really believe that fans will object to this additional level of security? Has anyone asked that same question of frequent flyers lately?
Should this measure be taken, horseplayers will adapt to the perceived inconvenience. Bettors have had to endure much worse over the course of a wagering life. Tracks might lose a few dollars initially, but it shouldn’t take long for bettors to catch on. No player wants to be shut out.
Finally, after the tote suppliers bring software and security up to 21st century standards, racetracks could return to final-seconds wagering. As everyone knows, the NTRA does not have the power of an NFL or NBA league office. But they could take a stand on this issue and show some courage by publicly calling on their member tracks and organizations to finalize all betting in advance of post time.
Short of that, isn’t there a single racetrack out there willing to make their simulcast partners transmit all wagers prior to post time, or simply begin loading the horses after all simulcast data are in-house?
That would send the right message, possibly shaming their competitors into doing likewise for this newly found, marketable “security advantage.” At the very least, this would eliminate the need for those annoying, time-consuming “prices pending” announcements after a race is made official.
Stop throwing words at the problem. Fix it. Now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
® 2002 Thoroughbred-world.com
[ November 08, 2002, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: hobbes ]
SARATOGA SPRINGS, N.Y., Nov. 7 —
“Racing’s Enron.” “Bet Fix Sows Panic, Doubt.” “Integrity of Pari-mutuel Betting At Risk.” “Can Racing Survive Latest Scandal?” “Sport’s Integrity On Trial in Pick Six Investigation.” Etc., etc.
Headline writers are having their way with the Breeders’ Cup Pick 6 investigation, which also has led the nightly news. It is all anyone talks about, or wants to talk about, at tracks and simulcast venues everywhere, especially here, very close to where the fraud was telephone-enabled. And I’m thinking: Could everyone please calm down here?
WHAT HAPPENED TO the Breeders’ Cup Ultra Pick Six was not a fix. No one tampered with the outcome of a sporting event.
What happened was that two (or was it three?) guys, one an insider with the knowledge and capability of beating the machine allegedly tried to steal $3.1 million. It was no different than when Willie Sutton walked into the bank and walked off with the cash. When Sutton was asked why banks, he replied: “Because that’s where the money is.”
It is no different for an industry that generates billions of dollars in business every year for thieves with the desire and ability to beat the system. In Sutton’s day, no one thought of abolishing banks. No one should think to abolish multi-race wagers at racetracks either, as some naively have suggested. It may be useful to recall the NRA slogan whenever the subject of gun control is broached. To paraphrase: Computers don’t rob the betting public; hackers do.
There are so many issues at work here that are, at once, disappointing, disturbing and alarming. One of them is public reaction. I have spoken to, or eavesdropped on, bettors at the Saratoga Equine Sports Center simulcast and at Capital District OTB’s Teletheater in Albany, N.Y., since returning from Chicago. To no one’s surprise, bettors see larceny beneath every rock.
I discovered, too, that many of these same bettors invariably blame duplicitous jockeys for every losing bet and larcenous trainers every time a favorite gets beat. It is never poor handicapping or money management skills.
More disappointing were the conversations overheard, a pitiful blend of hero worship and wishful thinking. I should have known what to expect. Maybe I’ve spent too much time around racetrackers where talent, pride and dedication separate the winners from losers, a handful of “cheaters” notwithstanding, of course.
What is most disturbing, however, is the lack of knowledge many officials have about the wagering process, a handicapper’s wagering methodology and tote system limitations. From an OTB chief who ignored the obvious four-single/two-all-button red flag and thought this one lucky bettor was good for the game; to a betting company chairman who believed the security issue was resolved before any damage was done and the betting company president who also believed the bet was legitimate and good for racing; all are fools, or worse.
Or maybe they think horseplayers are. How can so many industry executives act in the sport’s best interests when they don’t know what they’re doing? Did it occur to them that the simple math showed the payoff on six winning tickets was about a third of a winning parlay? Do they even know what a parlay is? Didn’t they know that those six winning tickets from one venue “won” 85 percent of the money bet?
How could Catskill OTB be allowed to conduct phone betting without audio-taped verification of any wager made? And does this governmental outfit, mandated into existence and allowed to prosper from the labors and expenses of what is essentially an agri-business, have the right to save pennies at the expense of an entire industry’s customers? Aside from the great handicappers Hahn and Davis, the real culprits are an outdated tote system and corporate greed —a familiar theme in new millennium America. The notion that actual pick six wagers are transmitted to the host track after four races are run to minimize cyber traffic is totally unacceptable and insulting, now and then.
And now there is new evidence to suggest that only “live combinations” are transmitted after five results are known. As this New York State Racing and Wagering Board investigation progresses, we are learning that there may be no monitoring system in place to track people with access to the betting software and that the technology, more than a decade old, lacks protection from insider manipulation. There is evidence to suggest, too, that many of the systems are even older and, in the face of all this, tote officials still decline comment about security procedures fearing public information could lead to a further breach. Isn’t it way too late to make this point, or haven’t corporate spinners yet arrived at a plausible explanation?
As an aside, horseplayers and the racing industry owe a huge debt of gratitude to trainer Phil Johnson and Volponi, whose Classic heroics brought this whole theft to light. Had favored Medaglia d’Oro won, there may have been 20 or 30 winning tickets with the skewed payoffs flying beneath the radar. Credit must be paid to the National Thoroughbred Racing Association and Breeders’ Cup Ltd. in calling for an investigation and the freezing of payout immediately after learning all tickets were sold in one of the smallest betting venues in the country.
Presently, all major racetracks are putting heat on tote companies to insure greater security and integrity of all wagering data. But all of racing must share the responsibility for what happened in Chicago and might have been happening for some time. And, once again, greed is a contributing factor. To wit: When the odds on last year’s Florida Derby winner Monarchos dropped two full points during the running of the race, it subsequently was learned that a large bettor with an arbitrage wagering program had been given special access to tote system information at a North Dakota OTB in order to place last minute wagers.
While there was no evidence of past-posting, it was learned that final betting-cycle data is not transmitted until after the pool closes. The public doesn’t see this change on the tote board until about 45 seconds later, well after a race has begun.
For fans watching on television, there is another delay in the transmission of information from tote system, to production truck, to screen. None of this gives bettors the feeling that their wagers are secure.
The NTRA’s calling for a task force to further investigate the issue of tote supplier security does not go far enough. Change is needed immediately. While investigations may help set policy in the future, they don’t address the present.
After the Monarchos incident, it was suggested that tracks suspend betting a minute before post time to allow for all simulcast wagers to be transmitted to the host track.
But greed won out. Tracks said they didn’t want the risk of shutting out last minute bettors and the bad public relations that might generate. Could there be a more specious argument? Last minute betting is last minute betting. In that context, does it matter if last minute betting occurs two minutes before the starting gate is locked, or 10 minutes before the first pick six race is run? Do tracks really believe that fans will object to this additional level of security? Has anyone asked that same question of frequent flyers lately?
Should this measure be taken, horseplayers will adapt to the perceived inconvenience. Bettors have had to endure much worse over the course of a wagering life. Tracks might lose a few dollars initially, but it shouldn’t take long for bettors to catch on. No player wants to be shut out.
Finally, after the tote suppliers bring software and security up to 21st century standards, racetracks could return to final-seconds wagering. As everyone knows, the NTRA does not have the power of an NFL or NBA league office. But they could take a stand on this issue and show some courage by publicly calling on their member tracks and organizations to finalize all betting in advance of post time.
Short of that, isn’t there a single racetrack out there willing to make their simulcast partners transmit all wagers prior to post time, or simply begin loading the horses after all simulcast data are in-house?
That would send the right message, possibly shaming their competitors into doing likewise for this newly found, marketable “security advantage.” At the very least, this would eliminate the need for those annoying, time-consuming “prices pending” announcements after a race is made official.
Stop throwing words at the problem. Fix it. Now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
® 2002 Thoroughbred-world.com
[ November 08, 2002, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: hobbes ]