Harness: Unusually low payoffs cause concern
Why should I care?
The opening lyrics from The Who’s Quadrophenia album cut 5:15 kept repeating in my brain as for the second time in two weeks an exacta price at Yonkers Raceway posted at an inexplicably low number.
It was hardly déjà vu but the circumstances surrounding both races were incredibly similar. On April 5 in the 11th race on the card, Cheyenne Triengel got up from the rail at 14-1 overtaking 31-1 shot Ambro Courage N, the pacesetter, on the wire. The numbers 1-6 were official with the exacta returning $213, a number that appeared quite low at first glance and then became incredibly underlayed juxtaposed to a $14K plus triple payoff.
A week later on April 12 in the last of 12 races at Yonkers, 21-1 shot Lispatty took the lead from post seven at the quarter and never looked back. Early leaver Dongal Rundlscrk N, third choice at nearly 6-1, rallied for the place spot. With the first two favorites off the board and the numbers 7-6 on the tote board, the exacta returned but $100. The exacta payoff with Lispatty on top was lower with #6 than it was with posts one and two that were favored respectively in the win pool.
In both cases watching and witnessing the races and payouts, the rush of adrenalin kicked in and questions were raised. How did these numbers come back incredibly short? Were there any similarities in the two races? Was it possible that there was any inside activity where someone knew in advance how the races would play out?
Those were the questions of a journalist in 2019.
Had these two races happened more than 25 years ago, the calls would be endless from angry bettors. The tweets and Facebook posts would be relentless. The outrage over something obviously being amiss could cause a revolt of some sort.
Yet in April of 2019, I’m left wondering why should I care?
Today’s issues require “Tote-splaining” if you will, because the circumstances that surround each of these races presents a new dynamic in today’s wagering platforms. You see both on April 5 and this past Friday evening there was a sudden shift in the post parade delay status and the actual post time. Such is the unfortunate scenario raised by tracks never going off when the clock strikes zero and instead dragging out post time. On both occasions Yonkers flipped the switch on its usual delay tactics and elected to cut short the drag and go right to post. Just as the methodology appears to work when post times are dragged to create increased wagering, the opposite happens when there’s a sudden shortening. So that was one of the aspects of both races where pool size was dramatically reduced.
Initially I didn’t see the pool reduction argument as legitimate when looking at these races but there is substance to it when you consider how late money (rebate induced) tends to focus on shorter priced horses and lower priced exactas. So had late money not arrived from these locations because timing was thrown off (we’ll assume those that can bet up until the last second missed out), it is reasonable to conclude favorite prices would go down and exactas could go up appreciably.
There’s another dynamic that needs to be introduced and that is the correlation between win-place pricing and exactas. At one time there was a direct relationship with the win-place prices that determined to a relative degree what a fair exacta payoff would be. As stated in our current pool-driven rebate economy, quite often the exacta price, given its pool size is generally double that of the win pool, is more a determiner of where the actual money is and quite often win prices are misleading.
There was something else that stuck out in each race and that was the horses that left the gate. On April 5, Ambro Courage N and Austin Siegelman left the gate hard from post six at 31-1. On April 12, both Lispatty and Dongal Rundlscrk N were out quickly, though the former got the lead and the latter would tuck in fourth.
It has never been a secret that wagering on a half-mile track is all about early position and nothing is more important than recognizing the horses that will leave the gate. At Yonkers a 30-1 shot from the outside not leaving is a toss, a 30-1 shot leaving is a power play. Given that on both occasions the 1-2 exacta finishers left the gate and the exactas appear short when compared to the win and trifecta payouts, the possibility would exist that a player(s) with clairvoyance or impeccable timing could box three or four horses in a $20 exacta at the last second or beyond and make a nice score.
There is no proof that anything untoward happened prior to these races or during their running. Perhaps that’s where I do begin to care. As a person who had to listen to complaints about driver motivation and numbers coming up short with some individuals out of the money with intent, I fear that awkwardly low payouts could cast doubt on the legitimacy of the events. Essentially activity behind the scenes could be driving this latest chapter in the book of bad payoffs, yet those on the outside will likely blame the individuals driving and training the horses for the discrepancy.
Needless to say, bad publicity is something no one wants to be part of. As is generally the case, you first need an audience before you can hear people booing. That no one is watching should be all the reason those who do care about this sport should take action. If this is just a result of smaller pools, perhaps more should be done to consistently spread the races out and not reverse the pattern suddenly. If players have access to bet races even two seconds after the start, it’s a danger to all.
Someone needs to care.