OctavetheRave

Pretty much, all a system like this would guarantee is that there would be absolutely no correlation between the odds at one minute to post and the final odds.
I guess to some degree it depends upon whether cancelling a bet means removing monies from the pool or just not placing a wager, but the second interpretation would then mean the pools would be tidal waved with late money.
Either way, in the end it all seems rather self-defeating.
To keep it simple, let's just use betting a favorite as an example. If cancelled wagers are monies taken out of the pool then it becomes too easy to manipulate the price on the favorite. You want even money, you bet $1,000 the old fashioned way, but you put in a $100,000 wager at 10-1 odds. Till a minute to post the favorite is flashing at 2/5 encouraging others to bet against it, but with one minute to post, your $100,000 bet is cancelled and 2/5 becomes a 7/5 overlay on what you think is a sure even money shot. (Meanwhile, proving the old adage that one man's cake knife is another man's dagger, the odds all the other entiries have been bled completely dry of value.)
On the other hand, maybe none of the predetermined wager money reveals itself on the odds board until one minute to post. So a hundred people have bet a thousand dollars on this favorite if it's 7/5. And because this $100,00 is not yet in the pool with a minute to go, the horse is 7/5, all bets are accepted, which pummels the horse down to 2/5.
Good idea, maybe, but then the road to nitwit hell is paved with good ideas covered with drool. Is there something I am missing? Or is this simply much ado about can do?

"Is there something I am missing?"
Other than a shitload of gray matter, you mean? "The pools would be bombarded???" This is strictly for advanced wagering, which likely represents less than 10% of the total handle. Even if all advanced money wagered went on the same horse -- a highly unlikely scenario -- his odds would be affected by 10 percent, or from 4-1 to 3.60-1. Regardless, here's a company going into its pocket and out of its way to accommodate the regular horse player who works for a living and you're inventing negative garbage to dissuade them. If it's true what they say about "horseplayers being their own worst enemy," clearly they're referring to people like you.

I think this is a great concept. The only recommendation I would give is making it money based rather than odds. If I put in 9/2 and a horse pays $10.80 (which would fall in the 4-1 bracket) I would be kicking myself. Whatever the case may be this system you talk of is much better than anything we have now.

Money-based? Oh, you mean ... like ... down to the nickel? WTF is it with you guys? You know somebody made the folks at Twinspires aware of this blog. What if they're gauging the comments as part of their research? Didn't ya mama ever tell you, "Never look a gift horse in the mouth?" Unbelievable ...

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
There is a difference between critical thinking and negative thinking. And in fact, I would argue that there is nothing in this world ultimately more negative than an inability to think critically.
Take the sub-prime mortgage crisis, for instance. What a great idea sub-prime mortgages, and then bundling them into derivatives, brilliant. Of course, there were a few negative thinkers around like the guys who managed risk for Chase. They just couldn’t get with the program, couldn’t quite see the sound, easy money the other investment firms saw. And we know how that story is playing out: with Chase now owning Bear Stearns being the least of it.
So let’s see if we can actually think a situation through instead of
going all ad hominem.
For certainly, I’m not saying “contract” wagering is a bad idea–-as a theoretical concept I love it--I’m just saying that it might not prove to be a practical concept, instead one fraught with the peril of unintended consequences.
In fact, I probably love this idea as much as I loved the idea instituted by a certain horse parlor in Vegas about ten years ago, where they offered fixed odds for every race like the bookies of yesterday. That experiment, as we know, had the unintended consequence of driving them out of business, since the professional horseplayers pounded their early lines and bankrupted them.
I mention the fixed odds concept because Tom Ainsile for many years advocated the notion of employing the power of computers to introduce the concept of fixed odds wagering into the parimutuel pools. Basically, the idea is that the bettor would get paid off at whatever the odds were when he wagered. And the computers would then readjust the odds for the next bettor. Of course, the track would still be siphoning its takeout, so they couldn’t go broke. Now, as a bettor how could you not like this idea? Still it seems a bit complicated to me.
Which brings us back to contract wagering, which seems to be a poor man's version of Ainsile's concept. Again, I like the idea of contract wagering. To throw another wrinkle into the potential of contract wagering I have often fantasized of having the option of boxing two horses with one of them designated simply as the post-time favorite. “Let me have the three and the post time favorite” would save me a lot of wear and tear figuring out who is going to be the post time favorite.
The problem I have with contract wagering as articulated to date is, well, it doesn’t seem to be very well articulated. If truth is in the details, I don’t know enough about the details to have a definite opinion of Twins Spires plan, but as semi-articulated I do know enough to discern some red flags waving.
Let’s start with the concept of “For advanced wagering only.” You know, if the concept is that contract wagers have to be placed before the pools opened and would be limited to wagers of, let’s say, two hundred dollars, I’m completely down with the program. Such a system absolutely represents merited convenience and an upgrade in customer service to horseplayers across the land.
But, if “Advanced Wagering” represents account wagering and/or unlimited bets made five minutes to post time I just envision scam and chaos.
And, to the first of our unintended consequences: which is, at some point, it would be silly for a sophisticated player to not make his wagers in advance, or through account wagering. If you can guarantee the odds you want by betting off-track why would you bet on track?. Especially when you know the odds are going to drastically change with the last flash?
And of course, under such a system, the odds are going to change drastically with the last flash. Because the wagers are not contracted for, that is fully accounted for, until a minute to post. This phenomena would be somewhat mitigated by the adoption of maximum bet ceiling, which is why I called for one, but still, if enough people are using contract wagering, how is there anyway to determine what the actual odds are going to be before the contracts are settled?
Yesterday, I wondered whether the last flash would be determined by money coming into the pool or being removed. Another way, to articulate this concept is to think of money coming into the pool as contracts being settled while monies being removed would represent contracts being cancelled. From this perspective, I’m inclined to believe that monies will appear in the pool as contracts get settled; that instead of contracts being ‘cancelled’ they will just go unsettled, that is not appear in the pools at all, because the terms of the contract were never satisfied.
Proceeding with that assumption reduces the chaos somewhat, but still, money coming into the pools late creates its own ironies. Namely, if your contract is for 5-1, and your contract settles with one minute to post at 5-1, this does not guarantee you’re going to bet 5-1 on your horse. The money you bet, and or the monies other contract wagerers bet could very well, with more likelihood in the absence of betting limitations, drive your horse down to 9/2 or lower by post time. In this sense it’s just like making a bet at the last minute at the track, only to see the odds plummet after the horse leaves the gate. And some of these problems are built into the parimutuel system. I mean, if I bet a horse at 5-1 and he gets hit down to 9/2 last flash, that’s horse racing. It’s when they get hit down to 3-1 after I made my last minute bet, not only odds I would never have taken but odds that tell me the horse is not going to win, that I get upset. The irony being, of course, that contract betting as I’m understanding it, does actually protect you from this phenomena. If settlement for your 5-1 is at the one minute to post time mark you could still end up with a post time bet at 3-1. And how does the customer feel about paying up on a 3-1 loser when he contracted at 5-1? Are there any unintended consequences to that unanticipated circumstance. Like maybe a class action lawsuit?”
Of course, this coin has a reverse side. What if the horse is only 9/2 with a minute to post, but drifts off to 5-1 by post time. I’m watching the race, watching my horse win at the contracted price, only to find out later my contract wasn’t settled. How do I feel about this?
Now the truth of the matter is I don’t know enough about the details of the Contract Wagering concept to know if these contingencies have been anticipated or addressed. Perhaps all bets will be guarnateed at the contract price. Though, truth be told, my experience with Racing has led me to believe it's filled with a lot of New Coke type executives; people that really don’t think things through. So excuse me, for wanting to understand a few more details about the concept before I get all ravenous about Contract wagering. I liked the New Coke cans; I just didn’t like the product. I like the idea of Contract wagering–in theory-I’m just a little wary of how its going to play out, perhaps a little skeptical that it has been thought out.
But as I said before. If the concept is to allow bettors who can not get to the track to make wagers before the pools open in contract amounts whose execution is not likely to drastically change last minute odds, I’m all for the idea. On a larger scale, you bet your fucken ass I’m negative. (In a very positive way and constructive way, of course.)
We’ll let the gray matter speak for itself.
Thesis, antithesis, synthesis (synthesis being kind of like a synthetic track of mind, a composite of comprehension really, when you think about it.)

No, but she did teach me money is never a game and to always be aware of where it's going and how I am spending it.