UPDATED: Pool Manipulation? Suspicious Betting Spotted in Thistledown Race

by | 08.18.2014 | 4:19pm
Missjeanlouise wins the 5th at Thistledown Sunday, Aug. 17

Was Sunday's fifth race at Thistledown racetrack in Ohio a textbook case of how to beat the bookie? That's what one Paulick Report reader thinks, and the evidence is pretty compelling.

Missjeanlouise was odds-on favorite in the six-horse field of $20,000 filly and mare claimers (also open to non-winners of a race in 2014), until the final cycle of wagers was flashed on the tote board midway through the six-furlong race. Missjeanlouise went from 1-2 favorite to 3-1 as the horses approached the far turn. Every other starter in the race took significant action, putting each one of them at odds of between 3-1 to about 5-1. For example, Dusty Lily, the longest shot on the board, dropped from 35-1 to 9-2 in the last flash.

Missjeanlouise won comfortably by 2 1/4 lengths, giving owner Midwest Thoroughbreds and trainer Roger Brueggemann the second of their three winners on the day. Finishing second was Vilao, who went off at 9-2 after being 13-1 before the final odds change, according to a report from the Ohio State Racing Commission.


Missjeanlouise paid a healthy $8.20 to win as the second choice but only $2.10 to place and $2.10 to show, suggesting she was the heavy favorite in the place and show pools. The $2 exacta paid $17.60. View the chart here.

The win-place-show pool in Missjeanlouise's race was substantially larger than any other race of the day. A total of $45,855 was wagered in those pools. The next-highest WPS pool of the day was $21,887 in the sixth race, which had eight starters compared to the sixth race's six starters. The average WPS pool of the day's seven other races was $14,049, so the fifth race WPS pool was three times larger than the average for the day (excluding race five).

The fifth was not a particularly attractive betting contest in other pools. The $12,536 wagered on exactas was the fourth largest exacta pool of the eight races on Sunday.

So why would someone bet thousands of dollars on other horses in a race, including longshots, to improve the odds on the most probable winner?

That's simple. Manipulating the odds on the winning horse allows a gambler to receive a bigger payoff betting through a bookmaker or offshore sports/betting book, where the money does not go into the pari-mutuel pools.

It turns out, according to William Crawford, executive director of the Ohio State Racing Commission, that someone put $20,000 on the race ($4,000 on each of the other five starters) betting through an advance deposit wagering service affiliated with the North Dakota-licensed Lien Games.

(Editor's Note: The original version of this article incorrectly identified the source of wagers as coming through the Greyhound Channel advance deposit wagering service. The bets were made via an ADW affiliated with North Dakota-licensed Lien Games. Greyhound Channel and Lien Games are not affiliated with each other in any way.)

If the people involved in the odds manipulation made a $10,000 bet with bookmakers on Missjeanlouis, it would return $41,000 at track odds. In that scenario, it would mean an $11,000 profit from the amount wagered ($20,000 through the pools on the five non-winners and $10,000 on the winner through bookmakers). It's possible more than $10,000 would have been bet through various bookmakers and offshore operations so the profit could have been considerably more than $11,000.

If $30,000 had been bet to win on Missjeanlouise through the pari-mutuel pools, the profit would have been five cents on the dollar, or a total of $1,500.

Please note that I am not in any way linking the connections of Missjeanlouise with this possible pool manipulation and “beat the bookie” scheme. Their horse just happened to be an obvious winner in a short field where the odds could be easily manipulated.

What's next? Will the Ohio State Racing Commission and/or the Thoroughbred Racing Protective Bureau demand more information from Lien Games on who made the $20,000 in losing wagers? We'll keep you posted as we learn more.

UPDATE: The North Dakota Racing Commission, which has jurisdiction over Lien Games, issued the following statement on Tuesday afternoon:

“The North Dakota Racing Commission recently became aware of betting through one of our licensed ADWs which may be an attempt at odds manipulation on races at Thistledown racetrack. The Commission immediately reached out to both the TRPB and the Ohio State Racing Commission to begin collaborative efforts in resolving this issue.

“It is the highest priority of the North Dakota Racing Commission to ensure the integrity of our licensed ADWs. To that end we have established key relationships with prominent industry members such as the TRPB to support these ongoing efforts. The Commission hopes to use this unfortunate incident as an opportunity to work with the TRPB and others within the industry not just to resolve this single issue, but to begin an effort aimed at developing methods to prevent any possible odds manipulation in the future.”

 

  • keyne

    I was the one who 1st reported it.
    Other GLARING facets of this race: 1 minute to post the exacta that came in was the 5th highest exacta payoff with “louise”,with the lowest being $8!!!Thats exactly what she paid to win.Also,the second place finnisher was around 14-1 before someone “dumped” the pools.With a favorite winning and paying $2.10 to place,the fact that the place horse paid over $7 would signify to anyone that plays the races that he would’ve had to be at least 12-1,not 4.4-1.The place horse was NEVER below 10-1 at anytime in the 18 minutes or so of betting.I cashed on the exacta so I was in tune with the odds the whole time.When I saw my 15-1 shots odds on the screen at 9/2 i was more shocked then I’ve ever been in racing,and I’ve been playing for 32 years.

    • togahombre

      The off shore bookmakers do the same thing only backwards to lay a bet off, shady business for shady players

      • LongTimeEconomist

        When they do that, they are taking a bet that wasn’t in the track’s pool and putting into that pool, thereby giving the track and the horsemen their cut of a bet that they would otherwise have not received. That’s to the legal racing industry’s advantage. How can one be opposed to that?

        • togahombre

          Asian and euro whales use the bookmakers for very large wagers that would be way too big for the pools, books pay the track price, they take a 6 figure wager, they hedge it with a few k’s in the pools to knock the on track odds down if it wins they reduce the payout to their client by a handy sum for a relatively small play, also; I’m not for it or opposed to it, I guess its an ethically challenged relationship

  • Charles Smith

    It online books got hurt, and theeowas textbook, alright. This text has chapters that are fairly recent-two other incidents this spring at Sun Ray Park and a huge bookie beater last year at Sun Ray. In that one, Internet talk had the score estimated over 100,000. A small track, racing on tuesday, the slowest day of the. racing week. A track like that won’t be on the bookies boards weds.-sunday, but they get on monday and tuesday. It only took several thousand spread around in the win pool to turn a heavy morning line favorite into a 6 to 1 shot. Of course, the horse won in a common gallop. The Caliente books were hit the hardest, bur the offshore online shops took some too. In the Thistledown scam, only the Internet shops were involved. TRPB is powerless in this matter, why should they care anyway? The online books got hurt, they don’t care what happens tothem.

  • Andrew A.

    What could go wrong?

  • Fagers

    So what’s the problem? The track got more handle. The people who bet the winner got a higher-than-expected mutuel. Only an offshore or ILLEGAL bookmaker got hurt, right?

    What’s next…complaining if my new car gets BETTER mph than listed on the sticker?

    • Hamish

      But the bettors that used the ILLEGAL bookmaker, by the way ILLEGALLY, took full advantage of a wagering mechanism that should be shut down. Take this a step further, now if the horse that was supposed to win for the big offshore money was performance enhanced, or the other horses it was running against were slowed down or held, seems we are right back to the late 1970’s and horse racing corruption course 101. So that’s the problem.

      • jnewbyii

        This kind of thing is only going to happen at a track where the handle is not very big. You could feasibly hit a trifecta with three very longshots 1, 2, and 3, and get say $2000 because there’s not that much money in the pool. Do the same thing at say Santa Anita, Saratoga, or any other track with a large handle and all of a sudden the same odds horses pay $10-12000. Everything is relative. Bookies are the ones who got burned, not the track. I have only seen a negative show pool maybe dozen times in 50 years of handicapping.

        • Mark

          I agree with most of what you said…BUT…”I have only seen a negative show pool maybe dozen times in 50 years of handicapping.”…you need to look around…there have been at least a dozen “minus” show pools at Charles Town alone this year…

        • djlresearch

          Today at Southland where there is only about $3000-4000 in the trifecta pool, I suspect someone was making a $1000 straight bet on the 3 longest shots. This was returning larger payouts on the $1 tri when the more probable dogs finished in the money. I suspected someone was boxing the field and betting with a bookie.

    • “Only an offshore or ILLEGAL bookmaker got hurt, right?”

      The bookmaker looks up, sees what’s going on, and has the option of refusing to pay the customer.

      What court can the customer bring the bookie to? None, if you’re wagering illegally.

      Since we don’t know who the “customer” and the “operation” involved were, it’s all hypothetical. But there’s nothing unusual about a bookie refusing to pay a winner after he sees blatant odds-manipulation impacting his end of the bet (odds changing this drastically during the race).

      Unless, of course, there’s a guy on the inside who’s trying to rip off his employers and the “customer” is his cohort. Cohort takes the bet & later splits the take with the inside guy.

      All of the evils of legal betting notwithstanding, it’s a paradise compared to the alternative. Betting with bookies is skating on ice that’s only a quarter-inch thick.

      • Bunker

        “What court can the customer bring the bookie to? None, if you’re wagering illegally.”

        So now you’re siding with the customer who bet offshore or illegally, right? The customer that didn’t want his money to hit the pools and/or tried to screw others, right?

        To quote the strip club owner in Kill Bill Vol. 2….”You’re saying that the reason that you’re not doing the job that I’m paying you to do is that you don’t have a job to do? Is that what you’re saying? What are you trying to convince me of, exactly? That you’re as useless as an a–hole right here? Well guess what, Buddy. I think, you just f—ing convinced me!”

        • Not siding with anyone here. Could not care less.

      • TJS

        You obviously don’t have a grasp on off shore wagering Don. This isn’t betting with the guy who sits at the end of the bar. Guess the game is passing you by.

        • For a guy born in 1865, I am remarkably current with the latest trends, including The Fug, The Shimmy and The Shake. Go pick on Dick Clark.

      • Bellwether

        Damn a bookie…

  • Racemaven

    There is nothing illegal about it. Frankly, pool manipulation goes on everytime a computer program is driving the bets. Screw the off-shore books anyway. They give large bettors a decided advantage through inflated rebates which rewards mediocre handicapping.
    Racemaven

    • tim blake

      the offshore books that give rebates aren’t the same as the offshore books that would have lost out on this race at Thistledown. The ones that give rebates commingle their bets with the tracks. and they make these types of scams even easier because they pay such a low percentage of takeout on their losing bets too. but i agree with you that the rebate shops are bad for racing.

      the illegal ones that don’t commingle are the ones who would be stuck with the wagers paying at track odds on bets not placed into the pools. but most of them are not follish enough to pay up when something like this happens and is obvious.

      of course, sometimes it isn’t about making a big profit. it’s just about laundering some money where breaking even is fine.

  • Jay Stone

    Congrats to whoever did this. There is nothing illegal about it and the people who took the bet deserve what they get because in not putting bet into pools they screw the tracks and horsemen. This goes on a lot but not as obvious as this play.

    • togahombre

      Exactly, someone makes a 6 figure wager on a 4-1 thru the bookmakers, the book puts a few k’s on it thru the pools, horse get knocked down to 2-1,9-5, bookmaker can go to lunch now, even if he wins he saved hundreds of k’s, the public thinks some tipped whale just got it down, none the wiser

    • Keyne

      Nothing illegal about this? Hmmm….here in jersey you need special permission from track management to cancel a substantially large wager because they don’t want pools manipulated.Our game,which is teetering on oblivion anyways,strongly needs consumer trust more now than ever.
      Here’s my solution:Stop wagering 30 seconds before any horse goes into the gate,PERIOD!This would accomplish several things.First it would end the mid-race odds fluctuations that make people into conspiracy theorists(sometimes warranted,other times not).Second: if wagering were stopped before the horses went into the gate,a betting scheme like this would be caught BEFORE the race went off.Then,they could let the horse being manipulated to run FOR PURSE MONEY ONLY.Now,the persons who wagered on the other 5 horses would be stuck,insuring they would never do this again.This is the only answer.

      • LongTimeEconomist

        You’d still have fluctuations in the odds after the windows close. There is no way to avoid that. Besides, what difference do these late changes make? I’ve seen more of the horses being bet heavily at the last minute getting beat than winning.

        • gus stewart

          really, close 1-2 minutes to post load the horses into gate which takes at least a minute,,, your telling me the odds would still move after gate opens!!! plain?

          • LongTimeEconomist

            Read it again. I said the odds will move after the windows close, irrespective of when the race starts. And the wise guys will still moan and groan about late odds changes.

      • Jay Stone

        In most racing jurisdictions you can’t cancel a large bet without approval from upstairs. Last year several large wagers at SA were cancelled lat and screwed up the odds but these were cancelled through a large ADW. Most people saw it as an attempt by sharp gamblers to manipulate odds but it was really a bad bet made by someone with too much money. Officials at CHRB and the ADW were made aware and now the ADW won’t cancel large bets.

      • G-man

        Jay Stone is right! nothing illegal was done here. the people who bet the winner got a 250% bonus. The people who bet the losers, lost it does not matter what their odds should have been. More money was bet, thus the track and horsemen made more money. The loser will be the person that bet off shore, he more than likely will not get paid. Sounds like a win, win for racing

  • tim blake

    happens every day at a lot of tracks. just not so obvious usually, i guess.

    made the news at Thistle before though…

    http://www.cleveland.com/horseracing/index.ssf/2012/05/offshore_betting_transforms_fa.html

    smart books will not pay on those bets so i am surprised it works anymore. all they normally do is close the account and send a polite email about their policies regarding such practices. plus, most books would not take a very big bet at a low handle place like Thistledown anyway. the bettors would have had to spread it out…which i’m sure they did.

    everyone, including the tracks, complains about the offshore books that don’t mingle with the pools and i used to agree with them. but now, the tracks have given access to the tote to so many people, that you have a much better chance of winning if no one knows what you have bet.

    • keyne

      No Tim,it does not happen every day like this.Over 50% of the pool was wagered by one person on the last odds flip.It RARELY happens like this.
      I watch and wager on over 400 races aweek,and this was glaringly different.

  • hype22redux

    years ago at del mar,if I remember right steiner the night before he got married won 2 races both paid about 80.00….I believe it was cielo cyanosis race that drew the attention of CHRB why because some bbok in mexico took it in the shorts<I never understood why CHRB was concerned about it it had nothing to do with our pools if anything it helped anyone who bet it here because the return was better than it should have been,dutton stables was involed with one years later a large bet put thru the Lewiston,me facility placed into the legal pool and they casually looked at it despite the odds dropping dramatically after the race started……this past sunday one 20.00 winner to another 20.00 winner in large fields returned a pau;ltry 140.00 no one batted an eye…..its racing pure and simple

    • Who “steiner”?

      • hype22redux

        joe steiner…the jockey still riding at del mar

  • hype22redux

    cielo cyanosis….mexico book makers took in the shorts..and CHRB investigated the incident WHY…also many years ago jerry Dutton had a runner win the first race ….odds droppred dramatically on the last flash and yes the legal betors took it in the shorts ..now one guess which incident got more attention from local authorities …you guessed it the mexico one ..go figure

  • tim blake

    from what i have observed, the TRPB only concerns itself with protecting the racetracks that are paying clients of the TRPB. Their goal seems to be to preserve the ‘appearance’ of the integrity of horse racing by defending all claims of impropriety or corruption. I don’t think they have any interest in the ‘actual’ integrity of horse racing or protecting the bettors who are continually the victims. Unless forced by some other authority like the FBI or a racing commission, the TRPB seems to always find a rational for defending even the most obvious cases of rule bending and breaking.

    I accept that this is what they do. I just think they should be required to make it clear that they do not represent the interest of the bettors who are almost always the actual victims…no one does.

    • Tiznow90

      You sure got that one right. They’re completely useless. Brought something to their attention a few years ago that should have been of grave concern and sparked immediate investigation, but they just threw up their hands and said it was outside their jurisdiction. Unless it fits their agenda, forget it, especially if it means a lot of work.

  • AngelaInAbilene

    It’s called “gambling” no matter WHERE you do it.

  • jupiter tom

    They did nothing illegal. It’ a way of making money. In their own way, corporations do it everyday.

  • Herewego

    Legit players through the pari-mutuel pools, either through on-track or export at the track, win getting an $8.20 win price on what should have been a $3 horse.
    The off-shore bookmakers who don’t co-mingle into Thistledown’s pools and thereby avoid making any contribution to the track or horsemen lose. As Jay Stone said congrats to whoever pulled it off. I would love to see it happen three or four times a week until all of the off-shore books refused to take wagers on US racing.

  • Deb Trickel

    This article reports that the wagers in question were made
    through Greyhound Channel. This
    information is incorrect. The wagers in
    question were placed through an ADW outlet that utilizes the same totalisator
    hub as Greyhound Channel. Greyhound
    Channel does not offer wagering on Thistledown to their account holders.

  • David

    Your right of course but seems like lots of energy to make
    10k and that’s assuming they actually get paid. Nowadays can’t imagine many books taking anything significant on
    anything in the 4th at TD.
    With Vegas out of the gambling biz (on Horses anyway) what’s left? Vegas used to cry like babies when they got
    hit, they’d wine “ . . . you know someone steamed a horse at your place and we
    got hurt . . .” something solved by hooking up w/tracks, taking 2/3rd
    less on bottom and increasing their volume.
    Anyone tied to the pools (including the ones who ‘swing both ways’ in
    order to lay off action) could care less about manipulation and I doubt the
    Ohio Commission will be worried about a few nickel/dime books keeping a few
    sports-playing whales happy with a losing horse play every once in awhile. Irony of small-town books’ reputation is
    that they likely helped the tracks over the long term. But alas now we have neon facades, electronic
    roulette tables, slots, dinging sounds everywhere to replace all those colorful
    characters hanging out in places with true atmosphere . . . we’ve come so far.

    • keyne

      My friends have several sites in the islands that will yake up to 5,000 bet on any horse.I’m sure these sites wern’t aware of this “sting” until we reported it.

      • David

        Don’t doubt it but those same outfits also have access to a co-mingled pool and can always lay a portion or all off to avoid a hit. The NA racing industry can and should worry bout a bunch of stuff but IMO the off-shore guys are way down the list.

        • keyne

          No.Due to the specific software(the North Dakota hub has been at the center of a lot of this garbage),the bet was put in at the very last second.The bookie could not lay it off,as no one knew the odds would change so dramatically other than the perpetrators..

          • David

            It’s a simple key punch to another on some/any other end. Yes really dumb outlets like ND get sited but no one – the JC, horsemen, host tracks, TRPB (think they still exist), ADW platforms, Equibase – can say exactly just where all the bets in the co-mingled pool are coming from. IMO certain “studies” that have concluded untold billion are wagered outside co-mingled, pari-mutuel pools are works of fiction.

      • Thanks for alerting us to this story.

      • jnewbyii

        Well, I’m not a Thistledown player. I want to play the ponies from my home via the internet in Texas and the state has ruled against it saying I have to go to the track and make my bet in person. But, the Racing Commission allows the major tracks in Texas to sell their signal to states that allow internet wagers. So, what I am trying to do is get a movement going to get the rules changed by the time the new legislature meets next spring.
        COME ON TEXAS HANDICAPPERS AND HELP ME FIND A WAY TO GET THIS DEAL FAIR FOR EVERYONE!

    • We will now pause for a moment’s silence to honor the idgits who thought a brand-new 57-story hotel-casino in Atlantic City would reinvigorate the area’s economy, but instead, only reminded us that defense spending creates things that, in the best scenario, sit around collecting dust.

      Ding ding ding ding…

      • Keyne

        To be fair,the Revel was devised around 2006,before the Empire casino existed in NY,and before Philly casinos had table games,and there was no mortgage bubble.So hindsight ,as usual,is always 20-20…

        • The 2008 crash was the direct result of the largest real estate bubble ever to exist. This couldn’t fall into the category of “hindsight” under any circumstance imaginable.

    • Drfibb

      The answer is pretty simple, don’t sell signal to locations that book bets on races. If you get the signal, you must put all the wagers into the pool.

      The offshore bookies are finding ways to get the signal without paying for it. If you bet with them, then you are violating the copyright laws of the signal rights and could suffer legal consequences here in the states.

  • keyne

    Another eason why this is very bad for racing:My buddy had the place horse Vilao.He bet $40 to win on him at 14-1.When he was 4-1 in the middle of the race,we thought we were watching the wrong track.He was so disgusted by this,he said he will never bet a Thistledown race again.Maybe thats justified,maybe not.But this is exactly how you get long-time customers(the little that are left) to give up racing and flock to the poker tables.

    • David

      The digital age has thrown in many curves with innovation outpacing regulation. Rather than waiting for this not-so-prosperous industry to react, maybe best for your buddy to play top tier tracks with larger pools.

    • “eason”?

  • Michael Infurna

    If the winner they supposedley bet off shore did not win, how much would these guys have lost?

    • jupiter tom

      Don’t forget they bet $4000.00 on each of the other 5 starters in the race. It depends what the winning horse would have paid.

      • Imagine the chaos if the longest shot on the board had come in.

        • jupiter tom

          The longest shot on the board after betting had closed was only 4.90-1. What chaos?

          • If you had bet ten dollars across the board on the longest shot on the board and then watched his odds plummet DURING THE RACE to $4.90-1, we could have tracked you on Doppler radar as you exploded and ran around the track looking like a tornado!

            Speaking of hyperbole, an alleged racing writer used the phrase “tote board chaos” to describe last Saturday’s events at Del Mar. The favorite won five of the ten races; the 2nd fave won two of them; and a 3rd fave won Race Six.

        • keyne

          tThe true chaos would’ve been if the outside horse who was second choice pre-dump,ran second.The exacta with him(underneath the fav) going into the gate was 7 dollars!Winner pays $8,the exacta pays$7???

          • You’re right. That would have been a ton of fun.

    • tim blake

      that would not happen.

  • Richard C

    It brings back sordid memories of the sixth race at Northfield Park on January 14, 2004 — in that oval skullduggery, it was the manipulation of exacta and trifecta payoffs.

  • Michael Infurna

    Also, why such a small lace price if they bet the other horses to win?

    • Jay Stone

      The horse that won should have been around even money and when the other horses took just win money the winner had already been bet substantially to place and show.

  • jupiter tom

    This reminds me of what happened at Northfield Park harness track back in the 1980’s, also in NE Ohio. During a handicapping contest involving races at Northfield, in the last seconds of betting, a group of slick contestants bet large amounts of money on horses to show who had no chance to hit the board. Then they made their contest wagers on the logical horses to show which paid huge to show. The other contestants were betting these same logical horses to win. The show payoffs were much larger than the win payoffs. And this wasn’t even internet/offshore wagering back then.

    • Was the pot large enough to justify taking the risk of this stunt blowing up in their faces?

  • Tulsa Terry

    Death penalty should be used for manipulating odds, pools, or horses.

    • Not a good idea, unless said in jest.

      • Tulsa Terry

        Ok life sentence for juicing a horse but death for pulling one.

    • Bellwether

      That’s something the Taliban would do…How about jail/prison time???…

  • john_hernandez

    Jay, except that they DON’T have to cancel the bets. They leave the bets on to pump up the price of another horse, in most cases a very logical winner. We saw that at Prairie Meadows two summers ago when the pool manipulators notices how small the pools were on Sunday afternoons and how little they needed to bet to win on other horses to drive up the price of another. They bet $1K on every other runner (but the strong “on paper” horse) when they wagered the first time. Didn’t take ’em long to figure out they could manipulate the pool with much less than $1K per runner. Didn’t happen last season, didn’t happen last Sunday, the opening day of the 2014 PrM QH season.

  • Tommy

    i call BS. there cant be a bookmaker alive that would take that type of action on this track . and if there is there cant be anyone stupid enough to steal from this TYPE OF BOOKIE. Most likely an automated value betting computer bet..

    • keyne

      There are literally thousands of off-shore sites(and Europe) who take ALL North America tracks.And I’m sure they all paid out this bet before we called them on it.

      • Tommy

        go on these sites and the amount that can be won on a race at that track, also check the rules on perceived fraud.they are not in action because they are stupid.

    • tim blakea

      an automated value betting computer bet would not place $4,000 to win on everyone but the favorite. I agree that not many books would be foolish enough to pay on this type of scam, but some must. and stuff like this happens all the time without the publicity so it must be profitable.

  • J_W_C_NM

    Gaining an edge is a legitimate strategy when gambling. Otherwise they would deal the cards face up. That would be more fair.

    • keyne

      Maybe the dumbest thing ever said in ths forum.if ,at a hold’em table,90% of the players had their cards dealt face up,but the other 10% card’s were hidden,who do you think would win???lolololol……The 90% would find a new kind of game,thats for sure.

      • J_W_C_NM

        Have your mommy look up the word sarcasm and ‘splain it to you, Lucy.

  • Lefty_Orioles_Fan

    We are talking about going from 1 to 2 to 3 to 1.
    Maybe and even probably something happened.
    However to what end?
    To quote Easy Money, what are you g buying a house?
    I mean this is chump change.
    Plus, you have to report to the tax man! I mean what are you going to do tell him or her all about it? If this really did happen, those responsible are silly!

    • keyne

      No,you don’t have to report it to the tax man,as the odds wern’t 300-1…..good post though(lol).

  • Andy

    think about this guys n gals, it is the North Dakota Racing Commission, there are 7 OTB locations in the state to bet and do ADWs at the 1 race track in North Dakota….this should not be rocket science to figure out who made the bet where and who filled out the tax form…..

    • tim blake

      there is no tax form on 3-1. whoever won on the race will have already had time to cash out. plus, they probably mostly won with books not in the U.S. hardly worth it to do all that and just collect from the legal pool….other than to launder money.

      the worst they will probably do to the person placing the losing bets is close their account, if that. if they are relying on the TRPB, nothing will come of it, like always.

  • What laws were violated?

    • Crabs

      Betting with a bookie

  • Harvey

    Who, in their right mind, is betting the 5th race at Thistledown to begin with?

    • Richard C

      It was a perfect storm of elements to play the manipulation game.

  • Andrew

    What’s the problem here? This should actually be encouraged. It drives and increases handle which is good for the tracks, and takes advantage of illegal operations that take wagers without running any of it through the parimutuel system. Besides…as they say in “Let it Ride”…”Even when you know you never know.”

    I agree placing then cancelling a big wager is a little suspect and should potentially be against the rules or at the very least , the spirit of the game. But that was not done in this case.

    Someone placed a bunch of legal wagers, the track handled more, and those on the easy winner got more back to churn. Please disperse. Nothing to see here.

  • djlresearch

    I saw this happen at Southland Greyhound Park today. Someone was making $200 place and show bets on the least likely dog to finish in the money. There is barely $200 in those pools on a slow day. Some of the place and show prices were from $10 to $30 on dogs that certainly had a reasonable or good chance of finishing in the money.

Twitter Twitter
Paulick Report on Instagram