TOTE FAILURES: WHERE IS PLAN B?
For the second time in five days, wagering on a horse race at an American racetrack was allowed to continue until after the contest had been run. The latest incident, which involved Wednesday night’s second race at Penn National in Pennsylvania, came on the heels of a tote system failure at Hollywood Park on Saturday.
The Penn National tote failure was similar to the Hollywood Park problem in that a stop-betting signal was not communicated when the race began. United Tote, which has the contract at the Penn National Gaming racetracks, experienced a system-wide failure, allowing on-track and simulcast wagers to continue during and after the running of the race. The Hollywood Park stop-betting signal from Scientific Games Racing tote equipment was not received by 33 simulcast sites.
John Pricci first wrote about the Penn National problem at Horse Race Insider.
United Tote personnel informed track officials about a communications router failure just as the second race was beginning, Chris McErlean, vice president of racing for Penn National, told the Paulick Report. “The stop betting command which is initiated here did not go out on track or anywhere in the network,” McErlean said. “The pools remained open and were opened well past the finish of the race.”
It was apparent wagers were made after the start of the race, but because United Tote cannot see details on every wager made, track officials were unable to segregate the late bets from those made before the race began, McErlean added. “We discussed with them the various scenarios and the best thing we could do was call the race a no-contest,” he said. “We took the position that the pools had been compromised, and based on the information we had at the time we took the most conservative path and made what we thought was the right decision.”
In Hollywood Park’s past-posting incident on Saturday, all wagers from the 33 sites where the stop-betting signal was not received were thrown out of the pari-mutuel pools and the money refunded to bettors who retained their tickets.
A total of $164,000 was wagered on the race, which McErlean said may have been a little higher than normal but not exceedingly so. All wagers were refunded, though horseplayers were kept in the dark for some time as to why the race was not declared official. Those who had losing bets may have discarded their tickets before the race was declared "no contest."
McErlean admitted that the decision was not communicated as well as it should have been across the wagering network. “I will say in terms of communication there was confusion,” he said. “The race was never made official. From a display point of view, the television monitors may have displayed official without tote prices. That was obviously not.”
The Pennsylania Horse Racing Commission and Thoroughbred Racing Protective Bureau were notified of the problems, McErlean said.
To his knowledge, this was the first time since McErlean joined Penn National Gaming in December 2006 that any of the company’s six tracks have experienced this type of problem. “It appears to be either networking or equipment failure involving a communications router ,” McErlean said. “The issue that has to be discussed and talked about is where is the potential safety valve if one system fails or one part fails. What is the backup or Plan B?”
Good question, and one racing regulators must demand from the tote companies that are jeopardizing the integrity of the wagering systems that are the foundation of this game.
Be sure to vote in today’s Daily Paulick Poll asking whether you have confidence in the security of the U.S. pari-mutuel wagering systems.
Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report
Support the Paulick Report. Make a donation today.
Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.
Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick
Tags: chris mcerlean, Hollywood Park, Horse Racing, John Pricci, pari-mutuel wagering, past-post betting, Paulick Report, penn national, pennsylvania horse racing commission, Ray Paulick, scientific games racing, thoroughbred racing protective bureau, tote failures, trpb, united tote
May 21st, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Yeah, yeah, yeah now its a router failure! What else will racetrack operators come up with as the possible reason? The fact that there is no way to determine where bets came from past post is indicative of the inferior tote products in use in this country. I found that statement a bit odd given how advanced technology, even outdated systems, should be?
May 21st, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Maybe we should contact “Supernaut”…seems he or she has got the solution to these ongoing problems in the bag. Just pleased I don’t depend on this mess for a living…but about those that do? Whoops…guess I’m just paranoid and uninformed.
May 21st, 2009 at 1:48 pm
There is only way to stop this from happening and that is to close betting two minutes prior to the race being run. Many years ago they did this in Vegas and there is no reason they cant do it now. The fact of the matter is, past posting has been going on for over 10 years. Here is a example of one. Gold Rush day at Hollywood Park May 25th 4th race the horse that won this race was 7-2 in the gate and when the gate opened, as well as half way through the race. After he crossed the finish line he was 5-2. This nonsense that all money wasn’t counted at the time when the gates opened is total hogwash and is the typical excuse of the racetracks.
May 21st, 2009 at 1:54 pm
The tote system used in the U.S. is one step better than Pong.
The fact that Scientific Games is still doing business with tracks after the BC Fix 6 scandal should be investigated.
May 21st, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Racetracks and ADW outlets are legal “bookmakers.” To them, what’s the big deal if they hold out a bet, or permit late money in? Well the big deal is when odds are manipulated to the disadvantage of the bettors legitimately in the pool and of course when the racetracks and ADW’s get “busted” and decide to cancel all bets forcing hardship on those that held winning tickets, as well as those that unknowing threw a refunded ticket into the garbage can. Bring in the feds!
May 21st, 2009 at 2:08 pm
# Mike Says:
May 21st, 2009 at 1:54 pm
The tote system used in the U.S. is one step better than Pong.
The fact that Scientific Games is still doing business with tracks after the BC Fix 6 scandal should be investigated.
***************************
Couldn’t agree more. This Industry is so outdated it makes Madonna look fresh!!
May 21st, 2009 at 2:09 pm
With a nod to poster #3…why is doing the 1-2 MTP closure such a problem?…even “Supernaut” suggested that via a previous poster on the HP mess thread. What’s the problem? why isn’t there a National standard?
May 21st, 2009 at 2:09 pm
It is clear that the tote system cannot be self policed by the tracks. It is time for the tracks, the bettors, and the various industry organizations to get aggresively behind the RCI wagering security initiative requiring independent testing and real time monitoring done by an independent entity answering to the general public. The California Senate passed a bill this week setting aside resources for monitoring and in NY the NYSRWB has imposed an unfunded mandate requiring monitoring. The industry should not resist these efforts and should embrace them. I predict that you will see other states follow the lead of NY and California on this issue. Racing fans should insist on it and demand that their legislators support it as well.
May 21st, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Here’s what bothers me about all this.
If we can’t trust the industry to do something as simple as stop past posting of wagers, how can we trust other things?
How can we trust that our past performance information is as accurate as it can be?
How can we trust workout information?
How can we trust the integrity of racing officials?
How can we trust that races are actually being run at the distances advertised?
Believe me, this issue affects more than just wagering integrity.
May 21st, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Michael:
As a fan (I am), a bettor (I am not) or any form of connection ( I own 3 TB retirees)…we can’t trust anything. Until that problem is solved, this game will continue the slow death rattle (or is that raddle?) and downward spiral.
May 21st, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Give me one reason why any handicapper - from the person playing dime superfecta’s to the top gun who makes a visit to the IRS window - should leave the house and go to a track when the best gaming is available online. The national model at the roots is destroyed, but industry sycophants look at the scorched earth and try to convince people that only a little rain is needed for things to grow well again. A commissioner not affiliated with the industry and given full control over every aspect of the game is needed….or this sport will continue on the trail of being a cheap version of pro rasslin’.
May 21st, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Question with regard to this mess: What is the difference between on-track/satellite wagering and internet wagering (other than the obvious…why do intenet get it and the others don’t seem to be able to)? I don’t bet, so be patient. However, (other than I despise the off-shore crap) what is the big problem with uniform rules? What is the problem?
I know, go to the serious race wagering blogs and learn….sorry, they are so beyond my world, I’m driving a buggy and they are NASCAR.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Watch race 8 at Arlington today. The #2 horse (longest shot on board at 16-to-1 as they load) opens up a comfortable lead thru slow fractions. He hits the wire way in front and he’s 9-to-1.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:41 pm
That’s the money the house was booking, holding out of the pool on the horse, that they slipped into the pool when the horse was still running good, while they kept it open to see how the race was unfolding. Or, that’s the pool being left open and bets coming in from some preferred source once it looked like this horse was going to win. Please, racetrack, ADW and tote operators provide another explanation, if there is one.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Please note: The simple way is stop betting at 0MTP! As patrons are allowed to wager up to stop betting, there will alwys be a delay in pool shipment, especially from 100 or more import sites. As the expense that would be incurred is excessive as to new software, etc., the only way is to do the above. a mutuel manager once told me, “Bettors are like puppies. They can be trained”. What is needed is for the industry as a whole to look at itself and do something productive for a change.
May 21st, 2009 at 6:42 pm
The fact that the money was refunded in the PENN case showed to me, at least in this instance, there was integrity to the system. Hey, computers break down. Hasn’t yours? They even have redundancy in the software. Yes, I am troubled when odds drop noticeably after a race begins. Everyone is. United Tote told me during my interview for my Thoroughbred Times story that they have requested simulcast hubs prioritize win bet information into the system because they are the drivers of odds. Seems like at least an effort. As for the systems being outdated, they are constantly being updated. Whether the root platform that they are based on needs to be rethought, however, is another question.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:37 pm
I do not believe that there was a tote irregularity. I belive that human manipulation created the problem. Money should have not been refunded to folks that legitimately won a bet in the affected race. They should have had a winning ticket and the house should have bourne the expense. A $15 billion industry should have appropriate backup systems.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:01 pm
I probably will be unable to sleep tonight.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:37 pm
If this is the general level of incompetence that exists, consider what is being stolen by the “Boys from Drexel Institute” that were not greedy enough to get caught-yet.
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:57 am
D.Masters wrote:
“With a nod to poster #3…why is doing the 1-2 MTP closure such a problem?…even “Supernaut†suggested that via a previous poster on the HP mess thread. What’s the problem? why isn’t there a National standard?”
The problem with stopping betting at 0 MTP (or anytime before the race is actually ran) is that the bettors are against it and the tracks are against it. Many bettors wait until the last minute to place their wagers. Tracks think it will negatively affect their handle. The uproar over stopping betting before the gates open is going to be much louder than the occasional uproar that ensues when a technical malfunction occurs.
As a bettor I would rather get my wager in (win, lose or refund) than get shut out.
D.Masters wrote:
“What is the difference between on-track/satellite wagering and internet wagering (other than the obvious…why do intenet get it and the others don’t seem to be able to)? I don’t bet, so be patient. However, (other than I despise the off-shore crap) what is the big problem with uniform rules? What is the problem?”
There isn’t a difference. The internet sites wager into the hosts parimutuel pools the same as any other track/satellite. Comments like ‘just wager online and you won’t have this problem’ are completely inaccurate. (shocking, huh?)
If you wagered on this Penn race online you still got the refund.
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:15 am
Thank you for the breakdown, Supernaut..
May 24th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Supernaut,
If you can’t get your wager in before 0MTP, then you and everyone else deserves to get shut out. Besides the fact most of the world stops early and bettors don’t compalin, I have never understood this idea of waiting until the last minute. With a dead set stop betting time, there is no room for shenaigans, pure and simple. As to Al, there was a tote problem. While the companies do have many problems, especially inexperience in the operator positions, there will always be problems with equipment, data lines, etc. No different then you having problems with your cable. It happens! The question is, how is it handled when it does happen. In both the Penn case and the Hollywood case, the track managements and the tote saw there was a problem that could affect the integrity of the pools. They did the right thing. they did not accept questionable monies. In Penn’s case, they no raced the race rather then affect the integrity of the pools. I find it interesting that some of the same people that are crying about late odds flashes and the appearance of impropriety take umbrage when the industry gets it right on the side of integrity. Yes, sometimes the innocent bettor will be affected by that, but I’d rather have that then the perception that’s out there now as to the industry. BTW, the remark from the mutuel manager I cite in my prior posting was a man named Ben Costello over thirty six years ago. He was right then and it is correct now. Go for integrity first. Stop the damned betting! One other thing, every site wagering into a track goes thru that track’s totalisator. Internet wagering is no different then going to a ticket machine at the track or a parlor. just more convenient.
May 24th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I know I’m on my high horse right now, but one other thing.Don’t ever blame the Tote companies for not implementing 0MTP automatic stop wagering! The capability has been there for years. It is the tracks and the rest of the industry that will not allow them to use it. And it is the most cost effective short term fix to start changing the bad perception out there as to the integrity of the pools.
October 8th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
I am a tote operator and can understand most of your frustrations. The complaint I hear most is past posting or wagering past post. This is not a common place occurance as is stated. Our software is designed that at 0 MTP if a communication link is lost to the host track our pools are automatically locked so there is no possibility of past posting.
There has been a situation when we were able to bet a Philly race past post. Philly`s system never sent us a lock. We were still linked with them, but for some reason there system was not talking. The normal reason is lease line, phone line, or 56K loss of com.
There are ways to determine what bets were made when, but they take time and tracks do not want delays. Sometimes tracks will toss incomming wagers that delay there post times
due to a loss of com.
There are times all wagers through our Florida hub are rejected and we make a florida pool based on our wagers.
There were the olden days when we watched a clock and manually locked each race before post, ie 1st horse in the gate, 1 minute to post, or whatever host requested. That was long ago when there were 6 or 8 programs wagered in a day. Sometimes we are wagering on 30 programs a day and this kind of vigilance is prohibitive unless each site is willing to pay a full time position locking each race of each program. Chicago employs someone for this position and I will say there are more mistakes of locking wrong races early and having to call to have them re-opened.
As an operator I share your frustration, since these instances cause me and my crew head aches as well. As for holding money out of a pool That`s a rediculous statement. There are cases where a lot of money is bet on the last cycle and will significantly affect the odds, but that is not the tote company. That is individuals pounding bets at post.