Harness: Creating a fair playing field for all bettors

In days of yore when all wagers had to be made at the track, it was pretty easy to find out just who placed that heavy wager seconds before post time to knock a horse’s odds down significantly. Mind you it was a bit more difficult to actually put in large wagers since tickets had to be punched individually, thus technically limiting last-second involvement.

Perhaps some of those bell-punchers as we once called them would be envious of the simplicity of late-money activity in today’s racing game and the way it can distort odds in dramatic fashion. I couldn’t help and watch to some amazement as Bombay Hanover, a first-time starter in 2019 from post 10 in The Meadowlands opener on February 23, was torpedoed down to 3-10 odds. Yes, the gelding did deserve to be the betting favorite in a non-winners-of-two field; that I’ll concede. However, most who actually watch the races understand just how much the best a horse needs to be to overcome the outside draw. In the past such low odds were generally reserved for horses that won quite often and were still in cheaply enough to overpower their rivals. Bombay Hanover, a winner just one time in eight starts as a juvenile, hardly fit that description, yet for unknown reasons had his odds plummet.

What needs to be examined in this and many other like circumstances across the racing scene is whether institutional wagering is gaining some sort of advantage in placing wagers in the seconds before a race goes off. It would seem farfetched to believe that Bombay Hanover suddenly found a large group of followers that sensed the 6-5 near-post time odds were just too generous to pass up. A more fitting explanation would be that large wagering came from a single source perhaps motivated in part by rebates.

From my perspective what needs to be examined by our industry is whether some players have an unfair advantage in early or late pool manipulation. If we are actually searching to broaden the wagering dynamic across a greater population there has to be the equivalent “level playing field” for bettors as that’s what owners and trainers are striving for.

The point is that odds do have a way of impacting wagering and over-betting on particular horses has a way of propping up others in an unnatural fashion. It hardly seems that long ago that the late-Geoff Stein and myself ventured to Saratoga Harness to bet on the longshot Perette Hanover against would-be favorites Roses Are Red and Kris Messenger in a 3-year-old stakes event. In the late 70’s there was only on-track wagering and on this day Geoff put in his $100 win wager as the windows opened for the event. Voila, Perette Hanover, an obvious longshot, opens at 3-5 odds and Roses Are Red and Kris Messenger are double-digit prices initially.

Needless to say, suddenly players that normally looked at the program to handicap and place wagers on what they perceived to be the best horses, were propelled into wondering just what was going on.

Some 40 years later the circumstances have changed radically but a majority of the players only find out after the race went off that the odds had shifted and what they expected to be paid was significantly lower.

There is nothing illegal about wagers being placed at the end of the cycle. At the same time, it is necessary for all betting outlets to be monitored effectively just to understand who and why some of these wagers are being placed.

The betting public needs to have confidence in the system. We already know it’s not a level playing field since some outlets are afforded rebates and others are not. All outlets should be monitored to find out if money is being put into pools and later removed. Perhaps instead of this endless drag to post if certain hubs were shut off a minute before post the truth or fiction about pool manipulation might emerge.

Bombay Hanover didn’t win, as we all know by now. He also didn’t go postward with odds approaching his real chances of winning this race. Either way, his odds force perception of the race and its outcome to be questioned as to whether there are insiders pulling the strings.