Tracks cut off Big Shots

[karlskorner]

www.drf.com/news/article/53380.html

I have seen a big improvement at GP, horse at post time is 5/1, crosses wire at 5/1. There have been very few "hits" after the bell.

[Buddha]

good read. i'm surprised the GM at TAM didn't mention the "boycott" as a reason for increased handle, and the rebates offered by Americatab. I know that Beulah I think had mentinoed increase in handle, and I think that has a big part to do with it. You have these people who are effectively shut out of Magna tracks, and if htey have an Americatab wagering account, every weekend they are getting a 7% rebate from one designated track a day, and now Americatab has added Monday and Tueday to that rebate schedule.

[PaceAdvantage]

Excellent article...thanks for the post!

[Dave_K]

"The main theory behind it is that you have sites winning disproportionate to the rest of the simulcast network and your ontrack players," Berube [Tampa Bay GM] said. "They are taking that money from your everyday players, and they are not betting it back."

At least somebody agrees with me that the influence of big players betting through rebate shops is harmful to the small-time horseplayer.

Does this mean that proven winners should be banned from the pari-mutuel pools? Of course not. But it must be realized that, because of the nature of pari-mutuel competition, anything that makes the game easier to beat for some players only makes it harder for the rest of the players. All I want is a level playing field (i.e., same effective track takeout).

[Figman]

It was mentioned in the story that New York took Tampa Bay three days last year and five days this year. Well that's not quite accurate as two of those three days were when NY took Tampa Bay for a couple of races a day and not the whole card. When the instate Aqueduct was finished on the weekends, the OTBs & ITWs in NY picked up the remaining races on the Tampa Bay card . The only day they took the entire Tampa Bay card was on the NYRA "Dark day" at the start of a week when Tampa Bay operated. When the simulcast rules were changed in May of 2003 in NY, the ITWs and OTBs in the State can now take every race every day from Tampa Bay.....a big boost for the Tampa Bay handle.

We here all about Brisbet, TSN-Bet, Philly Phbonebet, etc.
New York City OTB does over $1 BILLION in handle each year and over $200 million of that $1 BILLION in on the telephone. And New York City OTB is just one of six regional OTB corporations in the State.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Dave_K
"The main theory behind it is that you have sites winning disproportionate to the rest of the simulcast network and your ontrack players," Berube [Tampa Bay GM] said. "They are taking that money from your everyday players, and they are not betting it back."

At least somebody agrees with me that the influence of big players betting through rebate shops is harmful to the small-time horseplayer.

Does this mean that proven winners should be banned from the pari-mutuel pools? Of course not. But it must be realized that, because of the nature of pari-mutuel competition, anything that makes the game easier to beat for some players only makes it harder for the rest of the players. All I want is a level playing field (i.e., same effective track takeout).

It's not the rebate -- its the ability to bet at the very last second while having freshly updated pool information. The rebate attracts them, of course, but it is not what enables them to take money out of your pocket. If they allow the rebate, but cut off betting at post time for those places (while the rest of us still have a minute or so) then that will take care of the problem for the most part.

[Derek2U]

this lack of real-time odds is a killer. it looks & is bad.

[Jeff P]

Very Interesting Article-

For the past few days I've been playing online using an account at Pinnacle. On the Pinnacle wagering interface I was wondering why you can't see the odds or minutes to post on bets made at Oaklawn. But you CAN see them everywhere else. Now I know why.

The article makes it sound like everyone betting offshore has the ability to perform last second arbitrage for huge amounts. Not the case. As has been mentioned elsewhere on this board in other threads, the Pinnacle wagering interface leaves much to be desired.

The people making huge last second wagers are doing so using their own custom software to find and exploit, as the article put it, pool inefficiencies. Shutting off the signal to certain sites isn't necessarily going to make huge money go away. A whale can simply pay to have his program recoded to work with a different wagering interface and open up an account somewhere else.

The article brings another question to mind. Will account wagering services, in an effort not to have track signals pulled, start cutting off players who are proven winners?

And if they do, where does that end?

Could proven winners get booted from one account wagering service after another until they eventually have to actually go to a track to get bets down? And if a small track attracts a group of proven winners who bet enough money to make that one track beat the takeout, do major tracks start pulling their signals from minor tracks?

[Dave_K]

Originally posted by GameTheory
It's not the rebate --

I disagree. This true or false quiz may be better able to explain my reason for believing so.

1) True or false: If a certain group of horseplayers do better than the track take, then others must necessarily do worse.

2) True or false: Players betting through rebate shops do better than the track takeout.

3) True or false: The bigger the proportion of the money in the pari-mutuel pools that is represented by bettors who beat the take, the harder it is for anyone else to beat the take (this follows from #1).

4) True or false: Money from rebate shops account for a large proportion of the handle at some tracks (10-15% has been cited).

5) True or false: Rebate shop players only bet such large sums because of the rebate -- if they were paying 20% tax like everybody else, they wouldn't be betting so much.

6) True or false: Conclusion -- rebate shops make it harder for the average horseplayer to have a chance at beating the game.

[Dave_K]

How is racing going to attract new fans if (assuming at least initially they don't know a thing about handicapping), 20% of the money they bet is kept by the track and another 10-20% is kept by somebody betting through an OTB that is nothing more than an address in Curacao, and that person betting through Curacao pays only a 10% tax on his bets while the newcomer pays 20%?

Who in their right mind would want to get involved in a game like that? The slots must look like a good deal in comparison.

[GameTheory]

But the reason they are able to beat the take so easily is (largely) because they have better pool information than you do and the ability to bet at the last second. Take away those two things and they'll have a much harder time.

Don't think I'm all on the side of these rebate shops -- I think cutting them off is a good idea. The dumb thing the tracks have done is sell their signal to them for 3% or so. 3% should be the intertrack rate (tracks selling signals to other tracks), but it should be much higher for internet & off-track sites that don't have the overhead (which will leave them with no room left over for big rebates). That, along with a general lowering of the overall takeout and problem solved. Or maybe they should just put it in the contract that your site gets cut off if the site as a whole is beating the take over a certain amount of time.

So I agree that ideally no wagering site should be able to effectively advertise "it is easier for you to be a winner with us" when not everyone has that option. My nitpicking about the rebates is mainly technical disagreement about what effect certain factors really have and how.

But even if you take away the rebates, if you give some players real-time pool information and a high-speed wagering link, those players are still going to beat the take much more easily (unfairly, I think).

[Dave_K]

I agree.

Originally posted by GameTheory
But the reason they are able to beat the take so easily is (largely) because they have better pool information than you do and the ability to bet at the last second. Take away those two things and they'll have a much harder time.

Don't think I'm all on the side of these rebate shops -- I think cutting them off is a good idea. The dumb thing the tracks have done is sell their signal to them for 3% or so. 3% should be the intertrack rate (tracks selling signals to other tracks), but it should be much higher for internet & off-track sites that don't have the overhead (which will leave them with no room left over for big rebates). That, along with a general lowering of the overall takeout and problem solved. Or maybe they should just put it in the contract that your site gets cut off if the site as a whole is beating the take over a certain amount of time.

So I agree that ideally no wagering site should be able to effectively advertise "it is easier for you to be a winner with us" when not everyone has that option. My nitpicking about the rebates is mainly technical disagreement about what effect certain factors really have and how.

But even if you take away the rebates, if you give some players real-time pool information and a high-speed wagering link, those players are still going to beat the take much more easily (unfairly, I think).

[kenwoodallpromos]

I think "net winners" they are mentioning are the rebate shops themselves, not individual bettors. / We need to email Barry Meadows and others on the player panel and thank them! It was our voices through them that were listened to by the industry, realizing this was a critical and priority problem of pool jockeys. Kind of like casino players who bring in devices to get an artificial advantage!

[schweitz]

Here's my take: It's my understanding that the rebate players are only turning a profit because of the rebates--if this is true then they are adding money to the pools for all of us (their profit is coming from the wagering outlet not from the pari-mutual pools) I believe this is a good thing.
Late odds changes is a problem, but it is not just because of rebate players. Many of the tracks I play up to 90% of their handle comes from offsite and alot of this handle is entering the pools late.

[GameTheory]

The rebate players may only profit via the rebate, but they're still beating the take by 10% or so, so they aren't helping anyone else win...

[schweitz]

GameTheory, are they not adding more money to the pari-mutual pool than they are taking from it? If they become profitable because of the rebate it is not at my expense and that is what matters to me.

[Holy Bull]

To all of you who are cheering this nonsense, I hope you are ready for the day when you are banned from the allegedly parimutuel race track because you win.

[schweitz]

Let me put this another way---rebate players are not beating the take--they are pouring large amounts of money into the pools at a loss, a small loss but a loss just the same. If somebody wants to pay them 5,7,or 10% of their action that percentage is coming from the profit of the wagering outlet ; not from other players

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by schweitz
GameTheory, are they not adding more money to the pari-mutual pool than they are taking from it? If they become profitable because of the rebate it is not at my expense and that is what matters to me.

Anyone beating the take is cutting into your winnings -- they don't actually have to be profitable.

Example:

-- Let's say the take is 20%

-- Let's say our rebaters have an ROI of .92 without a rebate. That is not profitable, but is beating the take by 12%. Equaling the take would be an ROI of .80. (100% - 20% take).

-- So for every $100 they bet, they get back $92. But for every $100 the track receives, they only pay out $80. So that extra ($92 - $80) $12 comes at the expense of the other bettors.

So any ROI greater than .80 means that bettor is doing better than average, which means he is winning other people's money. He doesn't have to be profitable.

Of course, without a rebate he's still losing 8% and won't be a big player for long. But give him a 10% rebate and now he's +2%, and he's going to bet like crazy -- at your expense.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by schweitz
Let me put this another way---rebate players are not beating the take--they are pouring large amounts of money into the pools at a loss, a small loss but a loss just the same. If somebody wants to pay them 5,7,or 10% of their action that percentage is coming from the profit of the wagering outlet ; not from other players

They are beating the take.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Originally posted by Holy Bull
To all of you who are cheering this nonsense, I hope you are ready for the day when you are banned from the allegedly parimutuel race track because you win.

100% Correct!

In the 20+ years I have been involved in betting horses, one thing remains constant, the losers will always find a new "unfair" reason to squeal about pertaining to the winners.

[schweitz]

GameTheory, I stand corrected. They are beating the take. But wouldn't the only time they would cost me money if we are wagering on the horse which wins?

[GameTheory]

No one is talking about banning individual winners; they are talking about cutting off entire wagering sites that are net winners (all customers put together).

Any sufficiently large pool of bettors using a particular service should equal the take (more or less a tiny amount). The proper industry reaction to this can only be healthy for it, and in the cited example of Oaklawn actually increased their handle quite a bit because the rebate players weren't sucking the winnings away. That will make it easier for you to win, not harder (unless you are a rebate player depending on the rebate to profit). The rebaters have a special way to win not available to the average guy. I'm not trying to take a holier than though attitude -- I've benefitted from rebates myself. But having the same set of rules for everybody so it is really the superior handicappers who end up on top is still the best way to go in the long run.

Besides, you won't get banned in the future -- there is always exchange betting. The tracks need to get smart about that too and take advantage...

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by schweitz
GameTheory, I stand corrected. They are beating the take. But wouldn't the only time they would cost me money if we are wagering on the horse which wins?

I'm speaking about averages over time. The take is the average by definition. Anyone above average is your enemy, anyone below average is your friend. We are all trying to take money from our friends, and we don't want to have to split it up with too many enemies.

Of course practically everyone on this forum is your enemy by that definition, but we're mostly good sports...

[schweitz]

My point is I never wager or key a horse at less than 5/1 odds and many times my price will go up rather than down after the race starts. I think maybe the whales are fishing in a different pond than me.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Originally posted by GameTheory
Besides, you won't get banned in the future -- there is always exchange betting. The tracks need to get smart about that too and take advantage...

Since well over 80% of my handle is bet on 3 spot wagers or over, exchange betting provides no use for some of the few players that are a little more advanced in wagering ability compared to the wagering simpleton majority.

[Que]

This DRF story is so full of holes it would be funny, if it wasn't so sad. This article simply trys to reinforce the decisions of a whole industry that can't even shoot themselves in the foot because their head keep's getting in the way. Case in point (from the article);

"... a racetrack can cut off some of its largest bettors in order to grow handle."

This statement is pure fantasy. All industries cater to their biggest customers, and if the racing industry feels that they can do otherwise... then good luck.

"They are taking that money from your everyday players, and they are not betting it back."

You mean the largest bettors are "not betting the money back." This defies all logic. The biggest bettors make money by churning their bets, and this requires betting it back. The more often they bet it back the better... that's why they are called "big" bettors.

"... offtrack officials in that country (Australia) aggressively attempt to identify profitable players in order to cut them off."

Now thats something we should hope all tracks aspire too, i.e. cut off any body that's proved that they can consistently beat the races. If we can cut off all profitable players, then we can prevent hurting the regular players who consistently lose 20%+ of every dollar they wager.

Deciding "to cut off bets from offshore sites at zero minutes to post."

Although, I applaud Fair Grounds efforts to create a level playing field, its counterproductive to stop wagers "seconds before a race starts." However, it is imperative that all new bets are stopped the second the race starts. What the article doesn't address is the legtimate concern that there's a possibility that some people are actually betting the races after the race has already started. For example, why do almost all the significant odds drops during the race occur on horses on the lead vice the back of the pack. It wouldn't take a statistician with proper access to pool information more than a day or so to figure out which potential "off-shore" sites are contributing to odds drop after the race starts--and what percentage of these horses broke on or near the lead. Those sites identified are the sites that need to be cut-off, not the players with superior information or superior information technology that can make a profit. Therefore, the problem is not cutting off bets received after the post, but not allowing bets to be made after the race has already started.

"The average racing fan was catching on... He wasn't winning."

Give me a break. Let's just change the rules because the "regular" player isn't winning. The hard fact is, in a parimutual system with an average 17% take, it's impossible for the "regular," or average, player to win. Maybe the "regular" player doesn't deserve to win, maybe he hasn't invested enough time in the game to earn the necessary handicapping skills required to win. I don't play professional baseball because I don't have the skills to compete; and I don't expect them to change the rules, i.e. by not allowing any pitcher to throw me a pitch over 30 MPH or to throw me a curve ball.

"... parimutuel pools are not free-for-alls," and that "governing securities markets that prohibit insider trading and other practices."

Another pure fantasy. Parimutuel pools are free-for-alls, thats what makes the parimutual system so effective. And the comment regarding inside information... I'm sure that doesn't exist in the racing industry.

"One group should not have distinct advantages where they can lower their effective takeout and imbalance the pools."

While I credit the article about examining this important area, but the incessant industry mantra about preventing anyone from "lowering their effective takeout" is another example of the racing industry living in a fantasy world. However, I'm sure all those slot machines and poker rooms that the race tracks are investing in on their premises will create more race fans too.

In order to really help the "regular" player, and the racing industry in general, here are my recommendations:

1. Cut the track take. The only long term way to help the "regular" player is cut the track take--essentially giving even the "regular" player what amounts to a rebate.

2. Use all the profits from slot machines, poker rooms, etc. to reduce the the track's take rather than increasing purses; otherwise the racing industry will become a welfare industry of the casinos. A reduced track take will encourage more players, it may even create more players, and thereby increase the track's handle. The extra profits from the increase in handle can then be used to increase purses.

3. Encourage the large bettors. Cutting off your biggest investors/bettors is fatal logic in it's most serious form.

4. Develop a fail safe method that prevents anyone from betting after the race has started. Its counterproductive to stop wagers "seconds before a race starts," but it is imperative that all bets are stopped the second the race starts.

5. Provide everyone with the same ability for "direct access to the tote," and the ability to make wagers "seconds before the post." We have direct access to the future markets, the foreign exchange markets, and the securities markets--so why not the horse racing markets too. As the futurists have already determined, future success or failure will be determined by the fast and the slow. The people who can process the information the fastest will survive, the people who process the information the slowest will perish. This is true, whether it be in warfare, business, the financial markets, or even the racing industry. For an industry so mired in running times, it still has so little comprehension of the value of time. It's another fantasy of the racing industry to believe that they can regulate technology. What they need to do is use technology, i.e. to ensure this technology is being used lawfully--and start by not allowing bets to be made after the race has already started.

I know the racing industry has other ills that need to be addressed, but the racing industry needs to come out its fantasy world and make some realistic steps to cure its collective ills.

Que.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

What Que said!

Great post!

[Gold Bay]

Ive assumed that the whales betting with computer driven betting system bet chalk on the win end.So if I assumed correctly, their action would be most welcome for us non chalk players.

[Holy Bull]

Fantastic post Que. Glad someone sees the bigger picture and can read between this abomination that Oaklawn put out. I've been kicked out of casinos for winning at blackjack. I've been kicked out of sportsbooks for winning at sports.
This is what attracted me to horse racing...it was every one vs. every one else. This is the first time I have ever heard of people getting booted out for winning. As for the technology issue, horse racing insistance on staying in the stone age is why it is in the spot it is in. If you are worried about your on track patrons not having the same technologic advantages....well how many tracks have WiFi setup so patrons can bring laptops? They've had those tiny tim machines for years, how about having those with a simple wager queue? Or would this just disturb the customers while they are playing those insipid slot machines? How about a standard wagering XML interface into the totes so that any kid in his garage can right his own software, llike every other market out there? Instead tracks are trying to drive its everyday players into playing slots and drive its biggest bettors out of the pools.

[breakage]

Que....one of the most sensible and intelligent posts Ive ever seen. I couldn't possibly agree more. Why don't people in power ever see things this way?

[GameTheory]

Is it smart for the track to drive players away from one source (themselves) where they get paid 15% or more to another where they get paid 3%? Do you know the rebate shops employ agents to take bigger bettors away from the track or other services? (Offering them free sportscars etc to move their accounts.)

Is it smart to alienate huge portions of your "average" fan base to cater to a few big bettors? (Oaklawn said handle went up, not down when they cut off the rebate shop.)

I agree with most of what Que said, but that doesn't mean a track has to dumb with its signal, or sell themselves short. But the solutions are the same -- lower the overall takeout to ease the burden on everyone, and charge enough for the signal to offtrack sites that the track (& the horsemen) actually benefits from the handle produced there and so that everyone has to overcome the same takeout in order to win. Why not let the best handicappers win? Isn't THAT how the "supposedly pari-mutuel system" is supposed to work?

[LOU M.]

I place a $100 wager at the track.They take out $17 and put the $83 into the pool to be redistributed to the winners. I wager $100 off shore ,they in turn place the bet with the track and what happens then?Does the track take the agreed to 3% fee out ,send the off shore site back the 14% they would have taken themselves and put the other 83% into the pool?

[JimG]

I guess my stupid question of the day is this:

How are certain entities able to scan the entire pool with seconds before post time and enter numerous bets to find pool inefficiencies at the last possible second?

To me, that ability needs to be eliminated. Not the bettors themselves. If that is the only way they are willing to play, then I do not think they should be allowed to play.

I presume the answer to my question is technology. Probably very expensive technology. It creates an unfair playing field and needs to be eliminated.

JimG

[sjk]

If someone could explain it, I would like to better understand how the players arbitrage the pools. I always understood an arbitrage to be long position in one market and short position in a related market. I'm not sure how the player creates the short position.

What is very obvious is how a house account at one of the off-shore shops could do this: By holding some bets while playing others into the pools. Since their computers are already tied in to the pools, developing the software to do this would be pretty easy.

The only downside I see is that unless you know you are getting the last bet in, the shop across the street could be doing the same thing upsetting your calculated odds.

Is there any code of conduct for simulcast outlets that prevents this?

[Tom]

My 2cents worth...

NO ONE should have any access whatsoever to the pools, at any time.
And ALL offshore betting should be illegal and stopped.
And ALL rebates stopped, unless they are given to everyone.
And ALL betting stopped 2 minutes before post,
And all final odds posted before the gate opens.



And free hot dogs.
:rolleyes:

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by LOU M.
I place a $100 wager at the track.They take out $17 and put the $83 into the pool to be redistributed to the winners. I wager $100 off shore ,they in turn place the bet with the track and what happens then?Does the track take the agreed to 3% fee out ,send the off shore site back the 14% they would have taken themselves and put the other 83% into the pool?

Yes.

[LOU M.]

So no money goes to purses, no money goes to state taxes, the average bettor loses because the whale who couldn't turn a profit without the rebate wouldn't bet into these pools lowering the payoffs when we do win. The only winner is the track. The track after distribution of the take usually nets 3% anyway so they haven't lost a cent. They aren't that dumb after all. They've managed to expand their customer base where it could never go without lowering the take and that reason is because states are not going to lower their % for taxes and the horsemen are not going to lower their % going to purses even though it has been proven it will increase handle.I am not pro owner by any means just pointing out the facts.Is it a reach to think some of the tracks may actually be in bed with certain rebate shops. It won't be long before the states get smart and want their cut.

[Figman]

GT
I don't agree. The only relationship the 2%-7% (the contractual fee) has to the betting pool is that the total net race betting pools (all pools summed for a given race) are multiplied by the agreed contractual fee rate and that is what the guest pays the host track for using the host track's simulcast.

[BillW]

Originally posted by GameTheory
Yes.

GT,

I don't believe the state forfeits its take just because the entity is off shore.

Bill

[LOU M.]

If you can't place a bet from off site in real time then how can you recieve the odds info in real time. There's a lag going both ways. The whale may be able to place a wager at the last second but the odds they see are the same as anyone watching.Here at Arlington or their OTBs you can wager right from your seat with a hand held unit they provide that plugs into a phone jack. It places your wager and credits or debits your account automatically.
Now on the other hand if they are getting the lag odds directly into their computer and are able use them for inefficiences in the exotic pools thats a different matter I would think because they would be harder to compute without software. Wasn't that what was going on in South Dak.? But in the win pool the bettor is the one who sets the odds for his choice and the tote tells him if its an overlay based on his odds line. His edge is in the rebate not the placing of the bet.

[Buckeye]

Originally posted by Tom
My 2cents worth...

NO ONE should have any access whatsoever to the pools, at any time.
And ALL offshore betting should be illegal and stopped.
And ALL rebates stopped, unless they are given to everyone.
And ALL betting stopped 2 minutes before post,
And all final odds posted before the gate opens.



And free hot dogs.
:rolleyes:

Eldorado, tilting at windmills.
Like the free hot dogs though ... :D

[Pace Cap'n]

I surmise that when tracks refer to selling their signal, they are not talking about their video signal. They are selling access to the tote.

I surmise that the Bill Bentners of the world are multiplying, and gaining tote access by setting themselves up as an offshore book.

Therefore they have access to better information than 99.999% of the betting public. This is patently unfair.

The odds drop is problematic, but not the only problem. My guess is that these whales are not just looking for one horse to dump 10g's on. Rather, they allocate say, 10g's for that race, have a program that can set a fairly decent odds line, and a program that compares that odds line to the tote with the view of distributing that 10 grand on all available wagers (WPS, ex, tri, super) to the best advantage. Thereby depressing all payoffs.

Perhaps a solution (a longshot) would be to require any software that interfaces with the tote to be open source.

What Tom said: I couldn't agre more.

[Pace Cap'n]

Originally posted by LOU M.
If you can't place a bet from off site in real time then how can you recieve the odds info in real time. There's a lag going both ways. The whale may be able to place a wager at the last second but the odds they see are the same as anyone watching

I don't think the whale ever sees the odds. His computer sees them and reacts instantly. As long as his program is working properly, he probably doesn't even care about the odds.

[Kappa]

I guess all of you anti-rebaters choose to pay full list price for all of their non-racing purchases? Letsee, that new car car you want has a non-rebate (sticker) price of $25,000. You can pay dealer "A" the asking (sticker) price or shop around for a rebate (discount) dealer and pay less. The bottom line to GM or the GM workers is the same whichever dealer you choose.

Should GM could protect the 'less efficient' dealers by cutting off the signal (car supply) to the discounters?

By the way, the discounts (rebates) are available to anyone who wants to shop for them.

[Pace Cap'n]

Originally posted by Kappa
[B]I guess all of you anti-rebaters choose to pay full list price for all of their non-racing purchases?

The rebates do not concern me nearly so much as the tote access.

[schweitz]

Ok, Iv'e convinced myself that whales/rebaters are not costing me money due to the tracks I play and the types of odds restrictions I employ.Now what I'm confused about is how anybody is getting real time odds--Are we saying the host track has real time odds but doesn't make them available to the betting public either on site or otherwise but do make them available to select offshore rebaters? Doesn't seem likely. So confusing!

[Pace Cap'n]

Originally posted by schweitz
Ok, Iv'e convinced myself that whales/rebaters are not costing me money due to the tracks I play and the types of odds restrictions I employ.Now what I'm confused about is how anybody is getting real time odds--Are we saying the host track has real time odds but doesn't make them available to the betting public either on site or otherwise but do make them available to select offshore rebaters? Doesn't seem likely. So confusing!

I believe that the offshore books don't get the odds any faster, but that they have the ability to respond to the last flash almost instantaneously by virture of being networked to the tote. If we are sitting at home manually punching in the bets, we might get a couple in if we're lucky. The offshore computer can calculate and submit a jillion bets in no time at all.

[MikeDee]

I think we all may be looking at this wrong. Everone assumes that it is individuals (whales) with last minute bets doing this. I don'think so. I think it is the off shore sites themselves. They are the one with the technology and acces. I think they are consolidating their bets and then making wagers into the pools at the last minute to lay off the bets they don't want to back themselves.

[Holy Bull]

The whales use racing channel. Thats their "unfair" tote access. They see the same odds you do. Nothing the whales do could remotely be considerred arbitrage, just another lie from the tracks . There is absolutely no difference between what they do and what any person can do plugging into brisbet (other than the rebate).

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by BillW
GT,

I don't believe the state forfeits its take just because the entity is off shore.



I wasn't trying to imply that they did -- just that the track gets to keep less of the take than if they took the bet themselves. I think they've been selling the signal offshore at more or less the same rate as they do to other tracks.

[Holy Bull]

If I make a bet on Aqueduct at my local track, Aqueduct gets 3%. If I make it offshore, they make 6%.

[kenwoodallpromos]

If offshores pay the samme rate as another track, that ismunfair to give a retail bettor industry prices for the signal. / I'll bet there are programs that get the odds, determine bewts, and make the bets, all automatically. We are then playing pretty much against a robot with an unfair wholesale cost advantage! They sgould have to at least pay state taxes or let everyone bet on the central system online at that cost!

[Jeff P]

It's not really arbitrage in the true sense of the word. True arbitrage means that you'll get a profit no matter what the outcome.

But some people are gaining an unfair advantage over the rest of us.

Here's a simple example of how:

Let's say that you want to bet the #4 horse to win. His current odds are 7.00 to 1. If you bet $200.00 and he wins, you collect $1600.00. The odds are right there on the tote board. Everyone who bets to win, except rebated players, get the same 7-1. It's a very level playing field.

But, what if you had software that could instantly evaluate all of the possible exacta, trifecta, and double combinations involving this horse? And what if your software, by way of a special tie in, could do this after practically everybody else had already bet? Now, what if your software told you that by wheeling this horse on top in the exacta pool, using varying amounts to equalize the payoff with every other horse in the race, you could get 11-1 for your $200.00 instead of the 7-1 in the win pool? Further, what if your software could place the bets for you, and do so just seconds before the race goes off? Further, lets say that you are well funded and have a very large bankroll to play with. Your software could tell you your optimal bet size so that you don't kill your own prices. Your software basically decides what pool to put your money into, how much goes there in order to get the best result, and then places the bet for you. What you've done then is create a very unlevel playing field.

The guy in the stands at the track can't do that. He's on a totally different playing field. If he wants to try it he has to wait for the TV monitors to display exacta combinations (and hope that the video doesn't jump to something else in the middle of it.) Then he has to write them down when he sees them. Then he has to try to make calculations by hand or in his head of how much to bet on each combination. (I used to try to do this with a calculator.) Then he has to wait his turn in line and call the combinations out to a cashier, who, hopefully, punches the combinations correctly. It takes this guy a whole lot of effort to get anything close to the same thing accomplished.

If he's sharp, maybe he's able to compare win odds against the exacta or double pools for a couple of races each day. The whale in my examlpe does this race after race, at all tracks of his choosing, day after day.

As an aside, in another thread, I posted that I was looking for a better way of getting scratches into my own program rather than selecting them from a drop down list. After about 8 hours of my own coding and testing time, I was able to create a visual basic project that parses the HTML present on some of the Bris Supertote pages. Now scratches come to me automatically.

But why stop there? I could see myself creating a separate tote module to interface with my other programs. No, it won't be able to place any bets for me. And no, I won't be able to bet after a race goes off. I won't be hacking into the tote system or anything like that. Just making better use of information that's already there. I'll KNOW when my money should go into the double or exacta pools rather than the win pool and how much to bet on each combination. Sound far fetched? It shouldn't take much more than a day or two to get a proof of concept project going.

After the project is complete, I can't say that I'll be on the same playing field as other players. I'm not sure if I really care. Others have already gone down this same road. Many more will surely follow. I'd just like to get to the party before it's over.

[kenwoodallpromos]

May be Gallo-types with their own offshore betting and connections to autotoe winning handicapping contests andm pick 6's. Next they will move to Colonial Downs where they can cancel the bet 1 furlong into the race with cancel delays!.

[sjk]

Jeff P,

I use my program to look at win and exacta bets and choose the one where I think the value is best. About 95% of the time I end up betting a list of exactas. That is because my program has an opinion as to who will come in second as well as first.

I don't think that comparing one pool against another has as much potential for profit as comparing each pool against your own handicapped expectations.

[schweitz]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeff P
[



But what if you had software that could instantly evaluate all of the possible exacta, trifecta, and double combinations involving this horse? And what if your software, by way of a special tie in, could do this after practically everybody else had already bet? Now, what if your software told you that by wheeling this horse on top in the exacta pool, using varying amounts to equalize the payoff with every other horse in the race, you could get 11-1 for your $200.00 instead of the 7-1 in the win pool? Further, what if your software could place the bets for you, and do so just seconds before the race goes off? Further, lets say that you are well funded and have a very large bankroll to play with. Your software could tell you your optimal bet size so that you don't kill your own prices. Your software basically decides what pool to put your money into, how much goes there in order to get the best result, and then places the bet for you. What you've done then is create a very unlevel playing field.

But isn't this software making these decisions based on the same tote info that I see on track or off and thus not accurate info?

[andicap]

Wondering what people thought of Steve Crist's column today on this whole affair.

He explains why a whale who loses 10% is hurting the rest of the players. And gives his theories on why the tracks are shutting out the whales. He ties it a bit to the Magna situation -- the tracks want more than a 3% take of simulcast action, either from offshore or domestically.

[Holy Bull]

Originally posted by Jeff P
It's not really arbitrage in the true sense of the word. True arbitrage means that you'll get a profit no matter what the outcome.

But some people are gaining an unfair advantage over the rest of us.

Here's a simple example of how:

Let's say that you want to bet the #4 horse to win. His current odds are 7.00 to 1. If you bet $200.00 and he wins, you collect $1600.00. The odds are right there on the tote board. Everyone who bets to win, except rebated players, get the same 7-1. It's a very level playing field.

But, what if you had software that could instantly evaluate all of the possible exacta, trifecta, and double combinations involving this horse? And what if your software, by way of a special tie in, could do this after practically everybody else had already bet? Now, what if your software told you that by wheeling this horse on top in the exacta pool, using varying amounts to equalize the payoff with every other horse in the race, you could get 11-1 for your $200.00 instead of the 7-1 in the win pool? Further, what if your software could place the bets for you, and do so just seconds before the race goes off? Further, lets say that you are well funded and have a very large bankroll to play with. Your software could tell you your optimal bet size so that you don't kill your own prices. Your software basically decides what pool to put your money into, how much goes there in order to get the best result, and then places the bet for you. What you've done then is create a very unlevel playing field.

The guy in the stands at the track can't do that. He's on a totally different playing field. If he wants to try it he has to wait for the TV monitors to display exacta combinations (and hope that the video doesn't jump to something else in the middle of it.) Then he has to write them down when he sees them. Then he has to try to make calculations by hand or in his head of how much to bet on each combination. (I used to try to do this with a calculator.) Then he has to wait his turn in line and call the combinations out to a cashier, who, hopefully, punches the combinations correctly. It takes this guy a whole lot of effort to get anything close to the same thing accomplished.

If he's sharp, maybe he's able to compare win odds against the exacta or double pools for a couple of races each day. The whale in my examlpe does this race after race, at all tracks of his choosing, day after day.

As an aside, in another thread, I posted that I was looking for a better way of getting scratches into my own program rather than selecting them from a drop down list. After about 8 hours of my own coding and testing time, I was able to create a visual basic project that parses the HTML present on some of the Bris Supertote pages. Now scratches come to me automatically.

But why stop there? I could see myself creating a separate tote module to interface with my other programs. No, it won't be able to place any bets for me. And no, I won't be able to bet after a race goes off. I won't be hacking into the tote system or anything like that. Just making better use of information that's already there. I'll KNOW when my money should go into the double or exacta pools rather than the win pool and how much to bet on each combination. Sound far fetched? It shouldn't take much more than a day or two to get a proof of concept project going.

After the project is complete, I can't say that I'll be on the same playing field as other players. I'm not sure if I really care. Others have already gone down this same road. Many more will surely follow. I'd just like to get to the party before it's over.


I bet in the exact manner you are speaking. I spent months writing the software. Do I have an advantage over some yahoo in the grandstand? I sure as heck hope so. I use HTR handicapping software, does this give me an advantage? Again, I'd hope so.
The whales spent millions developping their software. You better believe they have an advantage. If I want to look at a horse in the paddock to see how he is moving, I can't do that, but the guy on track can, does he have an advantage? Maybe we should keep the horses in a veil of secrecy before the race to level the playing field.

Which advantages are fair and which are unfair? And I better not here about some double secret tote access because it flat out doesn't exist no matter what the tracks try to brainwash you into believing.

The parimutuel game is one of competition. If you want to win, you better be talented enough and work your butt off to put yourself in position to win. The drunk guy in the OTB is going to lose no matter what. The people who work the hardest with the most talent are going to win. If the tracks don't like this, I guess they'll just stick to slot machines where everyone loses...what fun. How about we ban all people with an IQ over 130 from the pools....thats an unlevel playing field! They take too much from the poor innocent idiots on track.

[schweitz]

Holy Bull, Well said!

[PaceAdvantage]

Holy Bull certainly makes an excellent point....bravo! (any wonder why I chose him for my avatar??? LOL)

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Holy Bull,

Perfect post!

I remember when I use to get the videotapes of the races about 18 years ago. All of the losers said I had a unfair advantage because I could get them and they didn't. I found the guy who ran the TV room and asked him how much he would charge me for the tapes per week. Did I have a unfair advantage because I found out how to acquire the tapes (the same ones that ran from 9AM to 5PM and again before the races at the facility for everybody to watch free of charge) and was willing to pay the $50 a week for the copies? NO! I had a unfair advantage because I spent 50 hours a week watching them and converting what I saw into what I would need to give give me my best chance to win every time I wagered.

These same losers who were squealing about that now have the ability to watch replays and videos for free and won't put 1 minute of time and effort into watching and analyzing. These same losers are now spending their time bitching about some computer program that places bets that the don't have access to.

"UNFAIR! UNFAIR! UNFAIR!"
The chant of the losers

[Tom]

But the bottom line is if you drive people away, the game is going to suffer. Frankly, all this crap aobut 5-1 shots at the break hitting the wire at 9-5 is not good for the game. I agree it is a game where you have to be smarter than the guy next to you, but at what point does the guy next to you say, hell, those VLTs sure look inviting? It's not a question of fair or unfair, but whether people will bother with the game. Afterall, it is basically a slow, drwn out game, little action, and smaller and smaller fields.
Horse racing doesn't exactly offer anything that great to today's action orieted young people. Unless you want the game to come to HTR vs HSH vs ES vs OFfshore whales.
I draw the line at the ability of anyone to go into the pools with a program and make automatic bets. If that means I get left out of the game eventually, too bad. But soon, it will be a battle of the whales, and where do YOU stand in that one?

[kenwoodallpromos]

Are unbalanced pools unbalanced because the computer programs give a slight edge, are that much better than regular handicapping, or because a lot of bettors are still betting wrong in spite of all the pace, speed, etc. info available? How exactly do computers predict the races that accurately?

[yak merchant]

My god the ignorance of these people is making me sick. I thought they got a percentage of the handle and wanted to grow the industry. They act like they are running a casino and banning card counters. Technology is the root of all evil. Must go back to calculating payouts with adding machines.

It really looks as this may be the end of racing in America. With Stronach purposely trying to run half of industry in the ground so he can build casinos, and the other half of the industy with the IQ of my left nut. We are doomed. No one seems to see who the customer is. Has anybody looked at the long term affect slot machines has on racing? Does anyone not realize that the reason we wager is the possibility that we might actually win? Why don't we just raise the takeout to 85% that way we'll ensure the poor mistreated horsemen have plenty of money and nobody can beat the takeout.

If they want a level playing field they need to clean up the ranks of the horsemen. The takeout isn't any lower in Hong Kong, but the handles are enormous, and new bettors are always pouring big money into the pools trying to be the next Benter. Why is that? One because technology is part of the game, and second and most important is that cheating is almost non-existent. They don't allow trainers to run 5 horses a year, train them offsite, jack the full of drugs and cobra venom, and cash 30.00 exacta tickets on 100.00 win horses. Even the best handicapper in the world can't win if every other race is crooked. And it looks like that's where we are headed. As far as I'm concerned any dollar I contribute to the pools is confirmation to these morons that they are doing the right thing. Hello ehorse exchanges.

Seriously disgruntled.

YM

[Pace Cap'n]

Holy Bull--- I agree with you regarding the work ethic requisite for handicapping.

However, I do have nagging doubts about the matter of "secret tote access". Does not an OTB have a more direct access to the pools than the home bettor? Does it make any difference if the OTB is stateside or offshore? If a track sells it's signal to an OTB, is it not also selling tote access? What is a bettor's assurance this is not happening?

Perception can be as important as factual circumstances. If enought people perceive they are at a disadvantage, whether they actually are or not, racing will suffer.

[GameTheory]

I also am building a system that does exactly what Holy Bull's does. But I don't understand why he thinks no one has tote access. Every wagering service that buys the signal has a direct connection to the network. It is just a matter of whether they give any of their customers access to it. RSI in North Dakota was giving a guy direct access to the tote until Gulfstream threatened to cut off their signal. And we've been talking about that guy lately in South Dakota (?) who simply opened his own OTB. Think he is using Racing Channel? Come on...

[Dave_K]

After skimming the last 30 or so posts here, it looks like the consensus (again) is that rebate shops are an all around good thing for horseplayers and for racing in general.

There also seems to be consensus on the idea that if you can't beat this game (with or without rebates), you're either 1) lazy, 2) dumb, or 3) both.

[Dave_K]

Originally posted by Holy Bull

The parimutuel game is one of competition. If you want to win, you better be talented enough and work your butt off to put yourself in position to win. The drunk guy in the OTB is going to lose no matter what. The people who work the hardest with the most talent are going to win.

Getting a 10% rebate on your action from a P.O. Box in the Carribean doesn't hurt either....

[schweitz]

I'm trying to understand how a computer betting system with any tote feed other than real time odds (which I don't believe exists) would be of any advantage. The system would just be using the same odds that I am at post time and we know in many cases how those can change after the start of the race.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

The real time odds don't exist. This is why the host tracks are having so many problems with the odds drops long after the race has started. Everything is delayed, even at the host track. So, the actual real time odds would be the delayed odds that are cycled at the host track.

Another point........If these super-genius computer programs used by the whales that exploit the so-called overlays were the reason that these late odds drops occurred, wouldn't they be betting "anti-value" every time?

[schweitz]

Dave_K, 7% is availabe to you right now from Ohio. I don't believe this is a bad thing.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Tom
But the bottom line is if you drive people away, the game is going to suffer....But soon, it will be a battle of the whales, and where do YOU stand in that one?

Ahh, an excellent counterpoint. Boy I love this board!

[Holy Bull]

Originally posted by Tom
But the bottom line is if you drive people away, the game is going to suffer. Frankly, all this crap aobut 5-1 shots at the break hitting the wire at 9-5 is not good for the game. I agree it is a game where you have to be smarter than the guy next to you, but at what point does the guy next to you say, hell, those VLTs sure look inviting? It's not a question of fair or unfair, but whether people will bother with the game. Afterall, it is basically a slow, drwn out game, little action, and smaller and smaller fields.
Horse racing doesn't exactly offer anything that great to today's action orieted young people. Unless you want the game to come to HTR vs HSH vs ES vs OFfshore whales.
I draw the line at the ability of anyone to go into the pools with a program and make automatic bets. If that means I get left out of the game eventually, too bad. But soon, it will be a battle of the whales, and where do YOU stand in that one?

You bring up valid points, one I won't pretend I have all the answers too. Around 3 years ago, I had noticed the style of horseplay I had used up to that point was beginning to fail. Mostly win, mostly mid range priced horses (between 5/2 and 5-1) and a lot of this was because I wasn't getting the price I was quoted at 1 mtp. I did not look to blame anyone else for my loses. I knew I had to take it easy and retool my game. Learn how to figure out when these betdowns came, how drastic they were, and how to invest my money to not only avoid them but take advantage of them. I'm still on the wrong side of them more often than I'd like and I get pissed off...I consider it a poker game between me and everyone else using similar tools (pace figures, speed figures, handicapping s/w), including the whales. About a year ago I posted a thread on this board touting the idea of having a varying payoff based on when the bet was placed (which I believe most in here flat rejected). One of the fundamental flaws of the parimutuel system is that in most cases it is in your best interest to bet at the very last second. This flaw has been magnified by the internet age with an army of well educated punters hunting for the best value at the latest time and is a problem independant of whales or rebates, they again just magnify it because they bet the largest. Further magnifying the flaw is the archaic 1970s tote system in place which delays odds 45 seconds because tracks refuse to invest in proper technology. Perhaps we can blame the whales for that too.

As for the problem of eventually ending up with all sharks in the pools, again I'm not going to say I have any great answer. One thing I will say which will go a long way towards this (and I think a point that basically everyone here agrees on) is that the take needs to be lowered drastically, and it needed to happen 10 years ago. No matter how good the sharps get or how square the squares are, by far the single biggest factor causing people to lose is the exhorbitant take.
Even every big rebate player I know is 100% for this and because their price is solely depandant on the host fee, it wouldn't even affect the price they pay. On the subject of slots, you are darn right the VLT's would look inviting and this drives me nuts....they probably average a 4-5% takeout versus a 20% takeout of the horses. The fact that tracks got this windfall from slots and chose to spite their core horseplaying customer and not lower horseracing takeout to similar levels of the slot machines I feel is an abomonation and will logically end up drying up the parimutuel revenue.

THis is getting a bit long but I want to make one more point on the original subject. Oaklawn can do what it wants and charge what it wants for its signal. If they wanted to charge more for their host fee, it wouldn't be an issue, thats their business...many tracks have tried it and the rebate shops already pay the highest host fees of anyone. If the press release was "we cut off these rebate shops because they wouldn't agree to our host fee demands" thats fine. But they didn't chose to do that, they chose to release a piece of garbage full of lies and half truths basically accusing their biggest customers of cheating, and basically saying they don't want either winners or technically advanced players playing at Oaklawn Park. This I take issue with and i'd hope the rest of you do too.

[trying2win]

Can someone tell me something? If this alleged big group of whales are "out there" somewhere and they are allegedly smarter than everybody else betting the horse races, then how come the win mutuels at all tracks are not all short-priced? You'd think the majority of win mutuels would be short-priced, with all this alleged huge amount of money being bet by the whales.

Last time I checked, some longshots were still paying $35.00 to win, or $127.00 to win, etc. Last I heard, favorites were still winning overall at the perennial rate of approximately 33%. Also, as far as I know, horses were still winning at an efficient rate...i.e. favorites were winning more than 2nd favorites...and 2nd favorites were winning more than 3rd favorites, and so on right down the line.

These modern complaints about the whales having an unfair advantage, remind me of the old days at racetracks. That's when some losers would complain that the "boys working in the barns" had an unfair edge, because they had "inside information" that the poor crowd in the grandstand didn't have. Well, if the "boys working in the barns" had privy to all this alleged "inside information", how come you didn't see all those workers from the backstretch driving cadillacs to work everyday?

There's an old saying... "After all is said and done, more is said than done". If anyone thinks tracks should lower the takeout for example, instead of just talking about it, why not be proactive and e-mail or phone your local racing manager about this complaint. I've e-mailed the racing manager at our local racetrack in the past, with some beefs and bouquets about some aspects of the local racing scene. Maybe the local racing manager has meetings with his counterparts across the country now and then, and they all might discuss customer concerns and take action on some common complaints. Who knows?

Well, that's my two cents worth.

T2W

[Seabiscuit@AR]

In the DRF article which started this thread, Matt Hegarty makes the claim that Australian TABs (off track betting companies) seek out winning players and cut them off. I don't think this is true. In fact in the past some TABs used to give rebates to high rollers. It is true that some of the guys running TABs think that professional punters "steal" money from the average punter and as such are parasites. But I doubt that any TAB has gone so far as to cut off a player simply because they were profitable. So the attempt to justify actions taken in America based on the "Australian experience" is flawed as it is untrue.

And there is good reason why the Australian TABs have not cut off winning players. You just have to look at the example of Hong Kong racing. There they did take the step of closing down the accounts of winning players. This happened I think around the time of the handover of HK from British rule to Chinese rule (a few years back). Pretty much ever since the HK tote pools have been falling dramatically. Turnover is down again this season and if current trends continue then turnover will be down by about 30% from its peak 7 years ago at the end of this season. 30% loss of your turnover or handle in 7 years is huge. Imagine the outcry if American total betting handle fell by 30% over the next 7 years. Quite a few people put the number 1 cause of HK's falling turnover as the closing down of the accounts of professional players.

As stated in the article in DRF the basis for closing down professional players is that they act as an effective extra tax burden on the average player. But the problem is that the professionals turn over a lot more than the average player. HK seems to indicate the result of cutting off big players is to lower handle.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

I should just add that in the last few months Hong Kong has allowed betting on soccer. Previously horse racing had a legal gambling monopoly there. This added competition from soccer betting has probably helped speed up the decline in horse betting this season. But HK racing turnover has been in very serious decline for several seasons now and the closing down of accounts matches pretty well timewise with the start of the decline.

[Buddha]

I don't understand why the racetracks care some much about the average bettor instead of the "big" bettor who puts more money themselves into their pockets. As was previously mentioned, the whales dont make one bet, make a couple thousand and call it quits, they keep betting, and keep betting big. Why get rid of them? If it is because of the odds drop, well then cut off the simulcast outlets a few seconds earlier, and get the odds posted ASAP. Find a realtime network of some sort where there arent these odds drops. I am sure that there can be some kind of technology that should be able to fix it.

[trying2win]

Originally posted by Buddha
I don't understand why the racetracks care some much about the average bettor instead of the "big" bettor who puts more money themselves into their pockets. As was previously mentioned, the whales dont make one bet, make a couple thousand and call it quits, they keep betting, and keep betting big. Why get rid of them? If it is because of the odds drop, well then cut off the simulcast outlets a few seconds earlier, and get the odds posted ASAP. Find a realtime network of some sort where there arent these odds drops. I am sure that there can be some kind of technology that should be able to fix it.

Good post Buddha,

Didn't I read somewhere that some tracks have already instituted an earlier cutoff at their mutuel machines...like at one minute to post, or right at post time? If that's true, hopefully someone can remember which tracks are doing this. In my opinion it's a step in the right direction and horseplayers should lobby more racetracks to do the same thing.

T2W

[Dave Schwartz]

T2W,

Actually, I think that is a terrible idea.

It penalizes the very people who are at the largest disadvantage and does nothing to prevent the "borderline past poss" from getting in from the hubs.


Dave Schwartz

[trying2win]

Dave,

I see your point there. What do you think would be a fair solution, to dealing with all the complaints about late betting changing the odds after a race has begun?

Thanks,

T2W

[Buddha]

Originally posted by trying2win
Good post Buddha,

Didn't I read somewhere that some tracks have already instituted an earlier cutoff at their mutuel machines...like at one minute to post, or right at post time? If that's true, hopefully someone can remember which tracks are doing this. In my opinion it's a step in the right direction and horseplayers should lobby more racetracks to do the same thing.

T2W

I know Delta shuts off their signal at like 2 MTP for the simulcast people at least at mountaineer. CDI tracks I thought cut it off at the 0MTP before, but doesnt appear to be that way anymore.

[cj]

What I will do when named national commisioner of racing:


Cut off ALL wagering at 1 MTP, or some other designated time before the race begins that will allow all monies to be received
Begin loading horses when all money is received and odds are final and posted
Coordinate post times between tracks so people can schedule when they need to place bets for a particular race


This would eliminate the odds changing problem. People would just have to get used to not being able to bet even though the horses aren't running yet. This shouldn't be a problem with a good schedule. A fair trade off in my opinion.

[sjk]

Something that would be quite helpful is if the track video had a real time clock so that we would really know how much time we have left; streaming video is subject to unpredictable delays causing early bets or shut outs.

[trying2win]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
What I will do when named national commisioner of racing:


Cut off ALL wagering at 1 MTP, or some other designated time before the race begins that will allow all monies to be received
Begin loading horses when all money is received and odds are final and posted
Coordinate post times between tracks so people can schedule when they need to place bets for a particular race


This would eliminate the odds changing problem. People would just have to get used to not being able to bet even though the horses aren't running yet. This shouldn't be a problem with a good schedule. A fair trade off in my opinion.

CJ,

Right on! Very good ideas.

T2W

[GameTheory]

CJ's idea has been brought up from time to time, and I think it is a good one. The common complaint, however, is "What about horses acting up in the gate? I want to get my bet down after I see that the horse is not wasting all its energy loading."

To which I respond: deal with it. It is a price I'm willing to pay to have the odds fixed before the race starts. (If a horse is scratched at the gate, they should reopen the pools for a couple minutes.) This would eliminate so much suspicion and complaining it is well worth it.

Many people seem to think they have a god-given right to play exactly the way they want to play or are playing now, and think it is unfair to change anything. i.e. "I'm getting a rebate now, so it is unfair to talk of taking it away." "I can bet until the gate opens now, so it is unfair to talk of changing that.", etc.

The only thing I demand is that we're all in the same boat -- we're betting against each other, after all.

[shots]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
What I will do when named national commisioner of racing:


Cut off ALL wagering at 1 MTP, or some other designated time before the race begins that will allow all monies to be received
Begin loading horses when all money is received and odds are final and posted
Coordinate post times between tracks so people can schedule when they need to place bets for a particular race


This would eliminate the odds changing problem. People would just have to get used to not being able to bet even though the horses aren't running yet. This shouldn't be a problem with a good schedule. A fair trade off in my opinion.

CJ

Great Idea! I'm all for it.

shots

[delayjf]

IMHO,

I have no problem with anyone who is a winner at the track. In this case, if the whales are achieving their edge by having access to the pools while the everyday player does not, I do consider that unfair. If tracks want to give that access to one, they should give it to all. Frankly, given the money that the whales make overseas, I don't know why the tracks don't sell the access.

[Buddha]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
What I will do when named national commisioner of racing:

[list]
Cut off ALL wagering at 1 MTP, or some other designated time before the race begins that will allow all monies to be received


I think that is a fine and dandy idea, and would have no problem with it, but that still brings up the question that a lot of people will still hate. Even if the pools close at 1MTP, there will still be the "late" money coming in before they start the race, and the odds will still change, just not as the race goes off. You may be a horse that is 2/1 at 2MTP and after the pools close at 1 MTP everyone who that 2/1 was a bargain now made the horse 8/5. That is something people have to live with. You will rarely get the price you see when the pools close no matter when that time is because they still have to get the simulcast money and compute the pools, at which time the final odds will change. What htey need to do is either find a way to get a real time odds netowrk, or instead of the odds updates every 60 seconds, update them every 10-15 where it is closer to real time.

[BillW]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
What I will do when named national commisioner of racing:


Cut off ALL wagering at 1 MTP, or some other designated time before the race begins that will allow all monies to be received
Begin loading horses when all money is received and odds are final and posted
Coordinate post times between tracks so people can schedule when they need to place bets for a particular race




The problem of post time scratches would have to be dealt with if a 1 MTP cutoff was enforced. If an odds-on fav was scratched, you would see odds changes like we have never seen before :).

Bill

[mountainman]

Am stealing somewhat from a recent steven crist article in drf, but do agree that track's true motivation to refuse wagers from "whales" might be somewhat less altruistic than professed concern for the minnows. crist (love him or hate him but he aint no dummy) claims certain tracks first asked for a bigger cut from "winning" rebate shops, were rebuffed and THEN developed deep concern for the common man .

No doubt seems unfair for high-tech hacks to get nano second odds updates and exploit "pool inefficiencies"while we take the honorable route and discuss the merit of key races and explore beyer speed patterns etc. etc..

However, EVERYBODY hates a winner in this game, and i agree with the guy from an earlier posting in this thread and wonder
where does it stop once winning players are systematically axed like haunted house party guests in an old vincent price movie???
once THAT precedent is set, tracks can do the same to me or you.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Once again I will ask this question..........Since everybody is worried about the winning whales, and they are the ones who make horses go 5-1 to 5-2, 3-1 to 9-5, 2-1 to 6-5 in the last odds cycle using their super-genius computer programs. How can they win by "always" getting the worst value?

One of the complainers here must have a great answer for this one.

:confused:

[GameTheory]

Worst value is most greatly overbet, not lowest overall price. Whales account for the drop in odds their bet will cause, and remember that if they are getting a rebate they can operate at a loss that the rebate will make up for so they hammer as much into the pools as they can....

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Originally posted by GameTheory
Whales account for the drop in odds their bet will cause,

Is there only one whale? I don't think so. What happens when 5 whales all see the same thing and bet accordingly all in the last second? The horse becomes anti-value and all other horses become increased value......correct? How do they know what all the other whales are going to bet?

Originally posted by GameTheory
and remember that if they are getting a rebate they can operate at a loss that the rebate will make up for so they hammer as much into the pools as they can....

Trust me, no rebate (8% maximum on win bets, some tracks 3-4%) makes up for the 30%-50% odds drops that everybody is complaining about over a large quantity of bets that all whales make.

If everybody here thinks that the public (non-whales) are that big of idiots (off by 25%-50% with their opinions after takeout) so that the whales can come in at the last second and bet huge amounts and still have a edge, all everybody has to do is go to tracks like Prairie Meadows, Canterbury, Sunland, etc. where the whales don't play and all the complaining losers here should be multi-millionaires in a couple of years.

[LOU M.]

This maybe hard to answer but could someone look at the average payoffs for each choice favorite on down say several years ago prior to rebates and this last minute betting and today to see if the chalk is paying less and the other choices paying more which should be the case.

Thans, Lou M.

[sjk]

Here is avg winning payoff for favorites by year and field size:

year 7 8 9 10 11 12
1996 1.35 1.47 1.63 1.68 1.76 1.92
1997 1.25 1.42 1.52 1.61 1.72 1.81
1998 1.32 1.45 1.50 1.67 1.72 1.77
1999 1.37 1.48 1.59 1.72 1.75 1.79
2000 1.32 1.48 1.58 1.69 1.73 1.80
2001 1.35 1.48 1.58 1.69 1.73 1.81
2002 1.35 1.47 1.58 1.68 1.73 1.83
2003 1.30 1.43 1.54 1.62 1.66 1.76

If I knew how to format these things, I would include 6 horse fields:

year 6
1996 1.19
1997 1.15
1998 1.18
1999 1.21
2000 1.21
2001 1.21
2002 1.19
2003 1.17

The trend is down, but I don't know how significant it is.
The dataset is more complete for the last 5 years than before.

[LOU M.]

Thanks for the info. Would you know if the 2nd, 3rd etc. choices payoffs also declined which I think would indicate pool efficiency or a rise in the other odds which might indicate money redistibution?

Thanks, Lou M.

[LOU M.]

Has the Fav. win % stayed constant and have the other choices win % stayed the same?If the second choice is winning more than before and its payoff declined ,someones smarter than before!

[Speed Figure]

Originally posted by sjk
Here is avg winning payoff for favorites by year and field size:

year 7 8 9 10 11 12
1996 1.35 1.47 1.63 1.68 1.76 1.92
1997 1.25 1.42 1.52 1.61 1.72 1.81
1998 1.32 1.45 1.50 1.67 1.72 1.77
1999 1.37 1.48 1.59 1.72 1.75 1.79
2000 1.32 1.48 1.58 1.69 1.73 1.80
2001 1.35 1.48 1.58 1.69 1.73 1.81
2002 1.35 1.47 1.58 1.68 1.73 1.83
2003 1.30 1.43 1.54 1.62 1.66 1.76

If I knew how to format these things, I would include 6 horse fields:

year 6
1996 1.19
1997 1.15
1998 1.18
1999 1.21
2000 1.21
2001 1.21
2002 1.19
2003 1.17

The trend is down, but I don't know how significant it is.
The dataset is more complete for the last 5 years than before.
I hope this is o.k. just trying to make it easy to read. ;)

[LOU M.]

Sorry for all the posts. Anyone know what was going on in 1997 with the change in odds?

[Pace Cap'n]

Personally, I have no problem with a whale who makes a large wager at the last possible moment.

I would have a big problem with the whale who is interactive with the tote and has the ability to make hundreds of wagers at the last moment, as the North Dakota dude was doing.

My concern is that there are more like him out there.

[sjk]

Lou,

I wouldn't read too much into the modest dip in the 1997 numbers. I only have 11,600 races for 1997 whereas for the last several years I have 50,000+ races.

Speed Figure,

Thanks for the formatting help.

Lou,

Takes a lot more processing to find second favorite. If the computer can handle it, I will post.

[Derek2U]

in 2004, heres the strategy. INVENT/BUY/STEAL a system that
brings you 2 things: % of WIN BETS that are Stable & Close-2-
break-Even ROI. It has got to be a TRUE system! ... NO CAPPING.
Your Computer Spits Out its picks --- and, after say repeated
samples of ~~100-150 Races You are +2% or -2% or LESS. Now
thats ideal. NO UNEXPECTED TWISTS. Say YOUR system puts
you within 2 points of Break-Even (consistently so). Now YOU
WILL MAKE LOTS OF MONEY. First, get my system of analysing
this: SHOULD I BET MY SYSTEM'S PICK 2 WIN or SHOULD I TAKE
MY WIN BET AMT & BET the PIck ON TOP in Exactas? Trust me on this: I have found how to take You from -2% to a PLUS 4% just by
using this computer paradigm. (Are U listening Rick?) /// Next,
bet at pinnacle or some 3rd world offshore outlet & get another
plus ~~3% to 5% ..... its vCool ... U begin with -2% but U wind
up at +5% or more ... only in (outside?) AmericA. So, guys, get
2 work.

[sjk]

Lou,

If you still care here are avg odds for winning second choices:

year 7 8 9 10 11 12
1996 2.76 2.95 3.19 3.26 3.44 3.57
1997 2.63 2.80 2.99 3.05 3.16 3.15
1998 2.77 2.91 2.96 3.11 3.24 3.35
1999 2.72 2.91 3.06 3.23 3.24 3.47
2000 2.79 2.99 3.14 3.26 3.37 3.54
2001 2.79 2.99 3.13 3.31 3.40 3.52
2002 2.76 2.95 3.16 3.26 3.35 3.49
2003 2.75 2.94 3.09 3.26 3.39 3.53

For 6 horse fields:

year 6
1996 2.54
1997 2.51
1998 2.54
1999 2.56
2000 2.58
2001 2.56
2002 2.56
2003 2.60

Here, if anything the trend looks to be up, but I can't say the differences tell me much. Once again, I have more races the last 4-5 years than before.

[LOU M.]

Thanks.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by InsideThePylons-MW
Is there only one whale? I don't think so. What happens when 5 whales all see the same thing and bet accordingly all in the last second? The horse becomes anti-value and all other horses become increased value......correct? How do they know what all the other whales are going to bet?
Yes, that's right -- so they have to predict what everyone is going to do as well. It's not that hard -- just save the tote data and you can get a good idea of what is going to happen. They don't get into the game until they know they are going to profit -- and then they keep track of trends.


Trust me, no rebate (8% maximum on win bets, some tracks 3-4%) makes up for the 30%-50% odds drops that everybody is complaining about over a large quantity of bets that all whales make. The mathematically optimal bet allows for some amount of odds dropping. Comparing the amount of rebate to the % the odds drop is not appropriate. (Mathematically)


If everybody here thinks that the public (non-whales) are that big of idiots (off by 25%-50% with their opinions after takeout) so that the whales can come in at the last second and bet huge amounts and still have a edge...But that is exactly what they do. Are you saying that these whales don't make money? (Being a whale doesn't automatically mean you'll make money, but there certainly are whales causing big odds drops and profiting too.)

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Originally posted by GameTheory
Yes, that's right -- so they have to predict what everyone is going to do as well. It's not that hard -- just save the tote data and you can get a good idea of what is going to happen. They don't get into the game until they know they are going to profit -- and then they keep track of trends.

WHAT?! You have got to be kidding! So now, not only do all of the whales have some super secret computer program that allows them to pick winners without fail, bet with 100% efficiency, and acquire direct access to the tote, but it also predicts exactly who will be bet on and how much will be bet by the other whales. Give me a break!

The mathematically optimal bet allows for some amount of odds dropping. Comparing the amount of rebate to the % the odds drop is not appropriate. (Mathematically)

100% wrong! That is ALL the whales care about!


But that is exactly what they do. Are you saying that these whales don't make money? (Being a whale doesn't automatically mean you'll make money, but there certainly are whales causing big odds drops and profiting too.)

They definitely don't make money over the long run on the specific bet circumstances we are discussing here.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by InsideThePylons-MW
[B]WHAT?! You have got to be kidding! So now, not only do all of the whales have some super secret computer program that allows them to pick winners without fail, bet with 100% efficiency, and acquire direct access to the tote, but it also predicts exactly who will be bet on and how much will be bet by the other whales. Give me a break!What is outrageous? Don't we all take a risk that the final odds won't be what we think they'll be when we make a bet? Sometimes we're right, sometimes we're wrong -- but if we play smart with a margin for error, we'll come out ahead. Whales are no different.

And I never said anything about "super secret" anything, picking winners without fail, or any of that stuff. You did.


100% wrong! That is ALL the whales care about!I just meant that the relative percentage odds drop shouldn't be directly compared to the absolute percentage rebate when figuring out how much they're gonna bet. The point being it is ok for a bet to make the odds drop somewhat and it is still a good bet.



They definitely don't make money over the long run on the specific bet circumstances we are discussing here. That may be -- we don't know what other bets they're making, possibly in the same pool on other horses. I think the win pool is probably the one they're least interested in anyway, but that is where we see the odds drop most obviously so that's what people talk about. But they're making money somewhere, or they wouldn't be whales for long...

[schweitz]

The the largest "whale" that everybody seems to forget is all the money comming in from all the simulcast outlets( you know people like you and me). This is a huge percentage (up to 90% of total handle at some tracks) and in my opinion the largest reason for lthe late odds drop.

[cj]

Originally posted by BillW
The problem of post time scratches would have to be dealt with if a 1 MTP cutoff was enforced. If an odds-on fav was scratched, you would see odds changes like we have never seen before :).

Bill

BillW,

The difference is, the odds changes would have an explanation. Everyone would know why it happened.

Buddha,

Sure we would have odds changes after the race closed, but at least no one could say it was people betting after the bell. Many people think this might be happening, and its bad for the game. What if a few years ago in the Kentucky Derby, War Emblem busts out to a 3 length lead around the clubhouse turn, and he suddenly dropped from 20-1 to 10-1. That is the biggest problem with the late odds drops, in my opinion.

[entropy]

fascinating discussion but how some presumably intelligent people can miss the point is beyond me. really it is just simple arithmetic.

It's not the rebate -- its the ability to bet at the very last second while having freshly updated pool information. The rebate attracts them, of course, but it is not what enables them to take money out of your pocket. If they allow the rebate, but cut off betting at post time for those places (while the rest of us still have a minute or so) then that will take care of the problem for the most part.

whilst a lot of what GT says is accurate that bit is not!!

of course being able to make a lot of bets at the last minute helps and rebates help even more but as has already has been demonstrated in other countries neither will stop a true pro.

in another country the tote started trying to stop the last minute bets 11 years ago and cut them off 10 years ago.

whoops --- contrary to their expectations that didn't work. skip forward a couple more years and the "tote" closed the phone accounts of their biggest winners.

well fcuk me -- that didn't work either.

one pool in particular was being beaten very very badly by the bigger players so the tote introduced the equivalent of the PICK6 believing it would be just luck.

well fcuk me -- that didn't work either. not only that but the "pros" absolutely anniliated the new pool. ( and still do ).

can you even conceive how much the tote hated the pros.

seabiscuit's post is one of the most accurate of all except for one crucial point.

turnover DID NOT decline because they cut off the pros -- the latter just adjusted to betting cash off course 10 minutes before race start and continued winning more than ever.

turnover declined because of the "asian crisis" post 97 and because the pros had effectively been increasing the effective tax on the public for years.

now back to the simple arithmetic --- forget the last minute bets or rebates. if you add any punter who can do better than the takeout you effectively raise the tax on the rest of the punters.

add a few winning punters to the mix and the effective takeout on the rest can hit the "hip pocket nerve" enough that Joe Q will subconsciously realise same and reduce, or stop, his betting.

the best punters do not need to bet at the last minute nor do they need rebates. they are a blight on the general public and gov't revenue because they take money from the public that would otherwise go into the gov't pocket.

that said the rebates are a huge edge and the tracks are unbelievably moronic if they are offerring their feed anywhere for as little as 3%. same virtually ensures a lot of the turnover they would otherwise get will move to bet via the hub.

i didn't read much of Que's post ( for which he got many kudos ) but what i did see was largely BS.

hi seabiscuit --- Que i think we may know each other via the net also.

[entropy]

(Being a whale doesn't automatically mean you'll make money, but there certainly are whales causing big odds drops and profiting too.)

i do not believe it is the computer teams causing the huge drop in win pools i read about in the US prior to the "fixsix" scandal.

as GT points out the win pool is one of the pools they would be least interested in and it is the very antithesis of computer betting to crush the odds to that extent.

if there was any element of past posting involved none of the computer teams i am aware of would touch it with a 40 foot pole.

[entropy]

having read all of your post you make some very good points but originally i didn'y get beyond some very false statements.

"... a racetrack can cut off some of its largest bettors in order to grow handle."

This statement is pure fantasy. All industries cater to their biggest customers, and if the racing industry feels that they can do otherwise... then good luck.

they should indeed do otherwise if their biggest customers are winners otherwise likely outcome is the winners will drive the losing punters away and eventually lead to a possible HUGE decline in turnover,

The more often they bet it back the better... that's why they are called "big" bettors.

see above.

"... offtrack officials in that country (Australia) aggressively attempt to identify profitable players in order to cut them off."

Now thats something we should hope all tracks aspire too, i.e. cut off any body that's proved that they can consistently beat the races. If we can cut off all profitable players, then we can prevent hurting the regular players who consistently lose 20%+ of every dollar they wager.

like seabiscuit i doubt they do that in Australia at all but any who have " proved that they can consistently beat the races" are very undesireable customers to have.

3. Encourage the large bettors. Cutting off your biggest investors/bettors is fatal logic in it's most serious form.

see above.

[schweitz]

Originally posted by entropy



[b]It's not the rebate -- its the ability to bet at the very last second while having freshly updated pool information.

How does one get freshly updated pool information?

[racingrev]

Whoever stated that the Aussie T.A.B's cut off the big customers is living in a drug enduced haze......

To the contrary....They give them special telephone betting lines that will never give an engaged signal and will always be answered......

When a certain Media Magnate decides to go all out on a betting spree over the Melbourne Cup Carnival, his wagers of mamoth proportions are accepted by both T.A.B and on course Bookmakers who by law are now allowed to market their services and take phone call bets on track...

It was also widely documented that prior to the recent Australian Cup at Flemington that a certain big name punter placed a $1,000,000....wager on the winner Lonrho at odd's of $1.55...

[entropy]

Whoever stated that the Aussie T.A.B's cut off the big customers is living in a drug enduced haze......

agree and like the haze quote so much i used it on another BB you may frequent. are we close friends ?

http://www.asianracing.nu/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=232

the big customers you speak of would not bet on the tote and even if they did would be unlikely to match the turnover of the biggest computer teams.

[racingrev]

I don't know.... Are we.....

My profile is more up front than yours.... So??????

Anyway I'm sure you will enjoy this....


http://www.racecafe.co.nz/cgi-bin/forum/thoroughbred.pl?=read70987

Click on...Punter wants $300,000 on Alinghi.....

[entropy]

yes i did. don't know what i have read about Sean Bartholomew but have heard the name. also heard of racecafe years ago when i used to frequent tnhrf in Aus.

also heard of a huge turnover on BF on a race in Aus. asked a friend if it was him and who won. it was a computer team v Bartholomew and the latter won but i was given the impression same was unlikely to be a long term problem.

kiwi steve posts on major wager and seems to be quite a character.

liked "The Worlds worst racehorse post" best. according to international herald tribune he started at 2.80 when running 2nd last at his 106th start. next time i want to be on all the other horses in the race despite the 26 to 28% takeout in Japan.

after my last post read most of yours especially the bonecrusher one. ( race callers ) . my close friend's grammar is much weaker than yours but his father was one of 2 owners of bonecrusher.

still i twice lived in Auckland for 18 mths.