I may have changed my mind on exchange wagering

[elhelmete]

I had middling results for BC2013 with my picks and less good strategy wiht the resulting wagering overall, but 100% of my total low-odds toss-outs were spot on. I've been skeptical of allowing exchanges here in the US, but I would have had a spectacular weekend if I could have legally bet that way.

[horses4courses]

Exchange wagering in the US would be a breath of fresh air for jaded bettors.
Problem is, it goes against the principles that pari-mutuel horse race wagering was founded on.

It's bookmaking with a different twist. Most Americans have a problem with that.

[LottaKash]

It's bookmaking with a different twist. Most Americans have a problem with that.

Not me tho....I would love to lock in my price !....:jump: ...Or play the game trying to, anyway...:jump:

[horses4courses]

Not me tho....I would love to lock in my price !....:jump: ...Or play the game trying to, anyway...:jump:

Absolutely.
I can't imagine why any horse player wouldn't welcome it - you won't be forced to play it, after all.

The politicians?
That's another story.

I went to sleep one night, and had a wonderful dream.
Exchange wagering was widespread at US tracks, and recognized as a success.
So much so, that sports wagering was about to be introduced in the same format.
Then the alarm clock went off............

[Dave Schwartz]

Please permit me to bring up the negative of the situation.

The Betfair world is dominated by whales. They use software that looks for anomalies between the take and lay. The software essentially closes the gap, placing wagers to take advantage of the situation.

The problem is that the fastest software out there, coupled with the best internet connection is what dominates. (Note that the accepted minimum is considered to be 20 updates per second.)

The point is that this will turn our game into "the fastest software wins."

Guess who will have that? Fill in the blanks: Wh_l_s.
Guess who won't? Y__ and m_.

Anybody need to buy a vowel?

[elhelmete]

Please permit me to bring up the negative of the situation.

The Betfair world is dominated by whales. They use software that looks for anomalies between the take and lay. The software essentially closes the gap, placing wagers to take advantage of the situation.

The problem is that the fastest software out there, coupled with the best internet connection is what dominates. (Note that the accepted minimum is considered to be 20 updates per second.)

The point is that this will turn our game into "the fastest software wins."

Guess who will have that? Fill in the blanks: Wh_l_s.
Guess who won't? Y__ and m_.

Anybody need to buy a vowel?

I get it, for sure.

What I was experiencing though was that I couldn't as directly take advantage pari-mutually of my opinion that GOD was a toss as I could have via an exchange. Verrazano, etc.

Via the tote...no bet made.
Via an exchange...big lay.

[Dave Schwartz]

I do like the idea myself. Especially the fixed odds.

For many of us it would make the game playable again.

[elhelmete]

Something I've never had quite adequately explained about exchanges is this:

Let's assume a non-descript field of 10 cheap claimers at Non Descript Downs. Would there be enough action to make the exchange an efficient alternative to the tote? In contrast to a competitive, well-known field at a top track? Not sure I'm getting my meaning across...sorry. I'm thinking there'd be so much lay demand on the cheapest of no-chancers that it would be hard to balance out realistically.

[LottaKash]

Guess who will have that? Fill in the blanks: Wh_l_s.
Guess who won't? Y__ and m_.

Anybody need to buy a vowel?

I'd like to solve Dave....:jump:

[Stillriledup]

Please permit me to bring up the negative of the situation.

The Betfair world is dominated by whales. They use software that looks for anomalies between the take and lay. The software essentially closes the gap, placing wagers to take advantage of the situation.

The problem is that the fastest software out there, coupled with the best internet connection is what dominates. (Note that the accepted minimum is considered to be 20 updates per second.)

The point is that this will turn our game into "the fastest software wins."

Guess who will have that? Fill in the blanks: Wh_l_s.
Guess who won't? Y__ and m_.

Anybody need to buy a vowel?

Seems like what you're talking about is an efficient market, so is the efficiency of the market a drawback? Are we essentially saying that the only way that we can win is if the market is inefficient and we can exploit those efficiencies?

You could have fast software, but you still have to have a good opinion.

[Stillriledup]

I had middling results for BC2013 with my picks and less good strategy wiht the resulting wagering overall, but 100% of my total low-odds toss-outs were spot on. I've been skeptical of allowing exchanges here in the US, but I would have had a spectacular weekend if I could have legally bet that way.

I would have layed 7 to win 1 on Laughing NOT winning her race.

I would have layed 28 to win 1 on the lumber guy NOT winning his race.

[Dave Schwartz]

SRU,

You make a good point.

As I now think of it, as long as the original tote board is an alternative, you would have to be ahead of the play.

I mean, (logically), if you have a choice between 4/5 and 2/1, who wouldn't take 2/1?

[cj]

Exchange betting would be great for the sport, IF the game is going to be tightly regulated. A recent article about the past posting incident (still no follow up!) indicated the tracks still don't even know where all the bets are coming from that enter the pools. Sorry, but the sport has to do better before we open it up for even more shenanigans.

[Stillriledup]

Exchange betting would be great for the sport, IF the game is going to be tightly regulated. A recent article about the past posting incident (still no follow up!) indicated the tracks still don't even know where all the bets are coming from that enter the pools. Sorry, but the sport has to do better before we open it up for even more shenanigans.

I think there is precedent with Betfair where they can much more easily spot 'odd betting patterns' in exchange wagering. There's also been times where Betfair has suspended cashing until an investigation is complete. That means, if you pull some shenanigans and they catch you or see odd betting patterns, they may just not pay..and that way, the people who lost, can actually recover their money, no way this can happen in regular pari mutuel pools.

[cj]

I think there is precedent with Betfair where they can much more easily spot 'odd betting patterns' in exchange wagering. There's also been times where Betfair has suspended cashing until an investigation is complete. That means, if you pull some shenanigans and they catch you or see odd betting patterns, they may just not pay..and that way, the people who lost, can actually recover their money, no way this can happen in regular pari mutuel pools.

Yes, Betfair can. I have no such faith in our system. We don't even know where money being bet is coming from right now. Let Betfair run it and I might change my tune.

[Stillriledup]

Yes, Betfair can. I have no such faith in our system. We don't even know where money being bet is coming from right now. Let Betfair run it and I might change my tune.

I agree, i have much better faith in BF running it than the CHRB (for example).

[DeltaLover]

I do like the idea myself. Especially the fixed odds.

For many of us it would make the game playable again.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

I hope the industry is listening..

Extending the betting alternatives in exchanges and fixed odds, is the way to go.. Anything else like dime and nickel gimmicks, trackus, ADW etc are not going to make any difference in the long run. It is time for the game to move to the 21st century here in the states.

[Irish Boy]

I'm probably in the minority in that I prefer the parimutuel system. Frankly, I'd rather see an across-the-board rule that all pools are closed at one minute to post, which would instill confidence in the pools and hopefully cut down on the tendency of tracks to run 3-5 minutes after their post time in an effort to wring as much handle as possible.

[thaskalos]

Exchange betting would be great for the sport, IF the game is going to be tightly regulated. A recent article about the past posting incident (still no follow up!) indicated the tracks still don't even know where all the bets are coming from that enter the pools. Sorry, but the sport has to do better before we open it up for even more shenanigans.

There will be no exchange betting in this country...and there will be no tight regulations either. Past posting and illegal drugging incidents will remain buried in the obscure pages of horse racing publications...and the "reporters" in this industry will continue to avoid rocking the boat.

Everyone knows which side their bread is buttered on...and they know that their own financial well-being is directly related to that of the game's.

Caveat emptor...

[Robert Goren]

There will be no exchange betting in this country...and there will be no tight regulations either. Past posting and illegal drugging incidents will remain buried in the obscure pages of horse racing publications...and the "reporters" in this industry will continue to avoid rocking the boat.

Everyone knows which side their bread is buttered on...and they know that their own financial well-being is directly related to that of the game's.

Caveat emptor...Too many state and local laws that would have change. In Nebraska, pari-mutuel is written to state constitution. It would take a vote of the people with I think 60% the voters approving the change. I have feeling that some other states in the same boat.
My opinion is that exchange betting would raise the level of cheating to a new higher level.

[Dave Schwartz]

I'm probably in the minority in that I prefer the parimutuel system. Frankly, I'd rather see an across-the-board rule that all pools are closed at one minute to post, which would instill confidence in the pools and hopefully cut down on the tendency of tracks to run 3-5 minutes after their post time in an effort to wring as much handle as possible.

A great idea. Although it would not stop late odds shifts, it would certainly stop past posting or the fear thereof.


There will be no exchange betting in this country...and there will be no tight regulations either. Past posting and illegal drugging incidents will remain buried in the obscure pages of horse racing publications...and the "reporters" in this industry will continue to avoid rocking the boat.

Everyone knows which side their bread is buttered on...and they know that their own financial well-being is directly related to that of the game's.

Caveat emptor...

I fear that Thaskalos is right.

[Stillriledup]

There will be no exchange betting in this country...and there will be no tight regulations either. Past posting and illegal drugging incidents will remain buried in the obscure pages of horse racing publications...and the "reporters" in this industry will continue to avoid rocking the boat.

Everyone knows which side their bread is buttered on...and they know that their own financial well-being is directly related to that of the game's.

Caveat emptor...

This post is true because 'racing' doesnt have to follow real life laws. You have Michael Vick going to jail for abusing dogs, but horse trainers who have handfuls of horses die under mysterious circumstances are celebrated as heroes and sit on the shoulders of giants with nary a peep from the electronic media about it. Those in the media know who they are, its the free doughnut and coffee in the press box crowd who won't ever rock the boat and call out the horse killers.

[davew]

You can still 'bet against' with parimutual wagering - especially if they have more than 20% of the win pool

just dutch the other horses - or proportionally bet the contenders you like


I also fear I will be dead before exchange wagering is allowed in USA - unless some very strong forces decide to push it - and the only couple I can think of now are Churchill Downs Incorporated or Stronach Group.


There are just too many jurisdictions, states, groups, and special interest groups to agree on anything. What they are doing now is making more wagers that are even harder to win, so that when they do, it makes the news like a giant lottery.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

the current tote situation in the USA is more slanted in favour of whales than an exchange betting system would be

but you need to make sure the exchange is properly regulated and on that score Betfair need to lift their game

[Robert Goren]

This post is true because 'racing' doesnt have to follow real life laws. You have Michael Vick going to jail for abusing dogs, but horse trainers who have handfuls of horses die under mysterious circumstances are celebrated as heroes and sit on the shoulders of giants with nary a peep from the electronic media about it. Those in the media know who they are, its the free doughnut and coffee in the press box crowd who won't ever rock the boat and call out the horse killers.There have been stories in the press about horses dying on the track. They are not well received by the industry nor are they well received here. A lot of people think that shining a light on the underbelly of the industry will kill the sport.

[DeltaLover]

You can still 'bet against' with parimutual wagering - especially if they have more than 20% of the win pool
just dutch the other horses - or proportionally bet the contenders you like


That's not the case.

The take out is very large in comparison to an exchange like bet fair and more importantly since the odds are subject to dramatic changes until the horses reach the stretch it is impossible to dutch all against the favorite (or any other). The critical component is the fixed nature of the contract. This is exactly what makes the betting process way more sophisticated and interesting.

Think about.. In a mutual pool there is one participant that is impossible to make a mistake and a guaranteed winner regardless of the outcome of the race and this is the take out of course. The same does not apply in the case of either fixed odds of a betting exchange, as it is quite possible for a bettor to secure his positions in such a way that can show guaranteed profit regardless of the outcome of the race. Note, that I do not necessary propose that this is the best approach to the game, I just underline it as a proof of the conceptual difference of the mutual vs fixed odds mechanisms.

[Pensacola Pete]

The exchanges will give the chemist trainers another source to screw over the public. It's a bad idea, and I hope it never catches on.

[cutchemist42]

Just give me a lower takeout, whatever it is.

[Stillriledup]

The exchanges will give the chemist trainers another source to screw over the public. It's a bad idea, and I hope it never catches on.

If they are currently "Screwing over" the public in the blind pari mutuel pools, why would they sign up to exchange wagering and provide personal details to the exchange wagering company? So they can "commit crimes" with their names and addresses attached to it?

[Stillriledup]

You can still 'bet against' with parimutual wagering - especially if they have more than 20% of the win pool

just dutch the other horses - or proportionally bet the contenders you like


I also fear I will be dead before exchange wagering is allowed in USA - unless some very strong forces decide to push it - and the only couple I can think of now are Churchill Downs Incorporated or Stronach Group.


There are just too many jurisdictions, states, groups, and special interest groups to agree on anything. What they are doing now is making more wagers that are even harder to win, so that when they do, it makes the news like a giant lottery.

Why should a player have to bet on multiple horses to try and exploit his or her edge on one specific runner?

[shank]

Dave, the betfair world on US racing is not,absolutely not dominated by whales.Requiring the fastest computer is not a factor,unless you're involved in the "in play" wagering. The whale is whoever is making the markets for players to wager against. And the system is a monstrous whale. For example if a player makes a $ 5000 show bet for or against on a race at MNR at even money,and a second later the computer is supposed to give a better price to the player, it will. It comes down to being sharper than whatever computer system is pricing the horses. No individual whales with fast computers involved.

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave, the betfair world on US racing is not,absolutely not dominated by whales.

My experience would differ from yours.

Although I would call them "mini-whales" by comparison, because there is not enough collective handle (at least the last time I was pitched) for any of them to go $100m.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

the average player would have a much better chance to win against the whales with a Betfair system than the current USA system of a heavily rebated tote. With the tote system the whales can set the odds for a horse at a level where the horse is a winning bet for the whale but a losing bet for the average player. This is the problem with the rebated tote system

With a betting exchange the odds on a horse will fluctuate so the whales will not be able to lock the odds for any given horse into a losing bet for the average player

[Stillriledup]

the average player would have a much better chance to win against the whales with a Betfair system than the current USA system of a heavily rebated tote. With the tote system the whales can set the odds for a horse at a level where the horse is a winning bet for the whale but a losing bet for the average player. This is the problem with the rebated tote system

With a betting exchange the odds on a horse will fluctuate so the whales will not be able to lock the odds for any given horse into a losing bet for the average player

But if horse A becomes a losing bet for the average player, doesnt that mean horse B becomes an overlay?

[DeltaLover]

But if horse A becomes a losing bet for the average player, doesnt that mean horse B becomes an overlay?

not necessary.

[Some_One]

Here are the results from the BC for the Betfair SP, all prices are lists as x to 1. The percentage was how much better/worse of a price the Betfair SP was, after 5% commission.

Marathon: 10.17/9 (+7%)
Juvie Turf: 5.8/6 (-8%); Fav 2.4/1.3 (+76%)
Mile: 5.2/3.8 (+30%); Fav 4.14/2.5 (+57%)
Juvie Fill Turf 6.6/6.9 (-9%)
Distaff: 3/2.8 (+2%), Fav 2.15/1.4 (+46%)
Juvie Fillies: 50.75/32.3 (+49%)
FM Turf: 1.99/1.5 (+26%)
FM Sprint: 3.64/3 (+15%)
Turf Sprint: 3.69/2.7 (+30%)
Juvie: 8.87/10.5 (-20%)
Turf: 12.03/12.5 (-9%)
Sprint: 4/2.5 (+52%)
Mile: 1.08/0.8 (+28%)
Classic: 3.58/4 (-15%)

As expected, the Euro-centric betting had lower prices for the Euro winners. The Juvie was a bit of shock. As for the Classic, MMM was the Betfair fav, Game on Dude went off at almost 4-1 there.

[Stillriledup]

not necessary.

I guess the question would be this. Comparing a typical betting pool in 1970 and a typical betting pool in 2013, assuming the takeout is the same, wouldnt there be just as many overlays as underlays for the typical 2 dollar player?

Why would there be less "overlays" in 2013 than there would be in 1970? There are still plenty of 20, 30 and 40 dollar winners that come in on a daily basis across America, they all can't be underlays, right?

[Robert Goren]

I guess the question would be this. Comparing a typical betting pool in 1970 and a typical betting pool in 2013, assuming the takeout is the same, wouldnt there be just as many overlays as underlays for the typical 2 dollar player?

Why would there be less "overlays" in 2013 than there would be in 1970? There are still plenty of 20, 30 and 40 dollar winners that come in on a daily basis across America, they all can't be underlays, right?There ain't all overlays either.

[Dave Schwartz]

I guess the question would be this. Comparing a typical betting pool in 1970 and a typical betting pool in 2013, assuming the takeout is the same, wouldnt there be just as many overlays as underlays for the typical 2 dollar player?

No, there wouldn't.

Question: You walk into a poker room. There are two tables with an open seat. One table is all superstars of poker and the other is made up of suckers. Which table is likely to be the easiest to beat?

[DeltaLover]

I guess the question would be this. Comparing a typical betting pool in 1970 and a typical betting pool in 2013, assuming the takeout is the same, wouldnt there be just as many overlays as underlays for the typical 2 dollar player?


Unfortunately this is not case Strill!

The more informed the public is the less overlays will exist and the closer the pool we resemble the actual odds. This can be easily proven by applying simple statistics. One approach is to use the R2 test which can provide a valid test for prediction accuracy. I assure you that as time goes by the R2 of the crowd's odds grows higher meaning that is getting closer and closer to the optimal point which will eventually evaporate all overlays leaving no room for profitability.


Why would there be less "overlays" in 2013 than there would be in 1970? There are still plenty of 20, 30 and 40 dollar winners that come in on a daily basis across America, they all can't be underlays, right?

The magnitude of the win odds does not justify if a horse was an overlay or not. You can very well have a $10.00 horse been an overlay while a $150 an underlay and vice versa.

[DeltaLover]

Going a step further, I am kind of a skeptic about the definition of an overlay. At least when referring to a specific horse.

I find more accurate to talk about a specific horse profile that might have a high probability to present an overlay given a long sequence of bets regardless of the odds of each individual matching starter.

[thaskalos]

I guess the question would be this. Comparing a typical betting pool in 1970 and a typical betting pool in 2013, assuming the takeout is the same, wouldnt there be just as many overlays as underlays for the typical 2 dollar player?

Why would there be less "overlays" in 2013 than there would be in 1970? There are still plenty of 20, 30 and 40 dollar winners that come in on a daily basis across America, they all can't be underlays, right?

In the 1970s, all the overlays were apparent while the wagering was still open to all...and we could still bet on them.

Now, most of the overlays reveal themselves only as the horses are rounding the far turn...and they are no good to anyone.

[Stillriledup]

Unfortunately this is not case Strill!

The more informed the public is the less overlays will exist and the closer the pool we resemble the actual odds. This can be easily proven by applying simple statistics. One approach is to use the R2 test which can provide a valid test for prediction accuracy. I assure you that as time goes by the R2 of the crowd's odds grows higher meaning that is getting closer and closer to the optimal point which will eventually evaporate all overlays leaving no room for profitability.



The magnitude of the win odds does not justify if a horse was an overlay or not. You can very well have a $10.00 horse been an overlay while a $150 an underlay and vice versa.

So, if the market is "tighter" is has to do with smarter players, right? Seabiscuit AR was sort of implying that somehow rebates are a factor, but i dont see how a rebate for one player affects the bottom line of someone without one.

[thaskalos]

So, if the market is "tighter" is has to do with smarter players, right? Seabiscuit AR was sort of implying that somehow rebates are a factor, but i dont see how a rebate for one player affects the bottom line of someone without one.

We've been through this before, SRU...and you still don't seem to get what the argument is...IMO.

The whale's method of play is directly the OPPOSITE of what the average players (us) are trying to do. The whale structures his bets in an effort to take out all the value from the wagering pool...so there will no longer be any "overlays" found there. The whale wants a "true" closing line...where the odds resemble -- as closely as possible -- what he considers the winning chances of the horses to be...while also taking into consideration the track takeout. The whale tries to "smooth out" the odds...and makes his money from the rebates.

Where does that leave the non-rebated player...who is looking for overlays for his sole survival?

Yes...the whale's late betting action is sure to create other overlays on the board; after all...our game is not THAT predictable...and even the whale's opinion is bound to be wrong in a fair number of cases. But what good are these overlays...if we can't act on them in time?

How can we benefit...when the whale's mistakes are only evident after the race has already started?

[Dave Schwartz]

How can we benefit...when the whale's mistakes are only evident after the race has already started?

You are absolutely right!

:ThmbUp:

That is why I had to develop a playing approach that completely removed the tote board from the process.

What is the point of looking for tote-based overlays when the entire tote will shift at the end?

[Stillriledup]

We've been through this before, SRU...and you still don't seem to get what the argument is...IMO.

The whale's method of play is directly the OPPOSITE of what the average players (us) are trying to do. The whale structures his bets in an effort to take out all the value from the wagering pool...so there will no longer be any "overlays" found there. The whale wants a "true" closing line...where the odds resemble -- as closely as possible -- what he considers the winning chances of the horses to be...while also taking into consideration the track takeout. The whale tries to "smooth out" the odds...and makes his money from the rebates.

Where does that leave the non-rebated player...who is looking for overlays for his sole survival?

Yes...the whale's late betting action is sure to create other overlays on the board; after all...our game is not THAT predictable...and even the whale's opinion is bound to be wrong in a fair number of cases. But what good are these overlays...if we can't act on them in time?

How can we benefit...when the whale's mistakes are only evident after the race has already started?

I understand the whole arbitrage thing, they want to essentially "break even" and win the rebate. But, what does the intelligence of the whale have to do with whether or not he gets a rebate? The whale is still allowed to be a great handicapper and possess all the info he or she currently possesses and they would still be able to use their special software....it seems that the "efficient market" is being somehow blamed on rebates, if you take away everyone's rebate, you arent taking away their information and intelligence to be able to make a perfectly tight market.

I know the players today are smarter, the its harder to find value than it was in 1970, but that has to do with the intelligence of the players, the sophisticated speed and pace figures out there and the ability of more people to watch replays and decipher winners from losers....what does any of this have to do with what a private ADW does with their share of the profits?

[DeltaLover]

I understand the whole arbitrage thing, they want to essentially "break even" and win the rebate. But, what does the intelligence of the whale have to do with whether or not he gets a rebate? The whale is still allowed to be a great handicapper and possess all the info he or she currently possesses and they would still be able to use their special software....it seems that the "efficient market" is being somehow blamed on rebates, if you take away everyone's rebate, you arent taking away their information and intelligence to be able to make a perfectly tight market.

I know the players today are smarter, the its harder to find value than it was in 1970, but that has to do with the intelligence of the players, the sophisticated speed and pace figures out there and the ability of more people to watch replays and decipher winners from losers....what does any of this have to do with what a private ADW does with their share of the profits?

Bettors who operate under lesser takeout than others are experiencing a huge advantage. Rebates are very bad for the small bettor while are very good for the whale. Exists the possibility a small bettor to posses the same handicapping and betting ability as a whale and still losing all his bankroll while the whale can be a consistent winner. It is the difference of having a -1% disadvantage vs a 1% advantage. Meanwhile the large bettor maintains the ability to manipulate the prices meaning that it is the small bettor who will be usually surprised by the final pay out. As all of us can understand, the situation would had been better if instead of rebates, the race tracks would just lower the takeout without any respect to the total handle of each player.

If the game was based on fix odds I would have absolutely no objection of the large bettor getting a better deal since he would not be jeopardizing the small bettor.

[Native Texan III]

If anyone is getting special deals they have to be paid for.
That means in fixed odds you get smaller odds permanently.

So called Betfair whales are paying 60% premium charge when others are only paying 5%. It is only in-play betting that fast pictures and fast connections and bots can give an advantage, sometimes, to some - but other times they mess up big time to other who have strategies to overcome those tiny advantages.

[Irish Boy]

This has been an interesting topic. A few disparate points:

(1) I find it a bit surprising that one of the big advantages people see in fixed-odds wagering is the ability to lay a horse. I get that it's far, far easier with fixed odds wagering. But it seems odd to me that people are all that interested in grinding out profit like that. It strikes me as a losing proposition over the long run, for the same reason that betting favorites is tough over the long run.

(2) There are winners and losers in either system, and in either system, you have to be sharper than the person who is putting up money against yours. I guess I trust my ability against the pool as a whole than a shadowy single other. At a very minimum, it's the devil I know.

(3) I think the late action is somewhat predictable, at least at large-pool tracks and circuits. Dave Schwartz's point is well-taken that you have to ignore the current tote to a certain extent. But I think the current tote + understanding of how lines are likely to move is a necessity.

I don't think I've made any groundbreaking discoveries in my time. Just my two cents.

[Stillriledup]

This has been an interesting topic. A few disparate points:

(1) I find it a bit surprising that one of the big advantages people see in fixed-odds wagering is the ability to lay a horse. I get that it's far, far easier with fixed odds wagering. But it seems odd to me that people are all that interested in grinding out profit like that. It strikes me as a losing proposition over the long run, for the same reason that betting favorites is tough over the long run.

(2) There are winners and losers in either system, and in either system, you have to be sharper than the person who is putting up money against yours. I guess I trust my ability against the pool as a whole than a shadowy single other. At a very minimum, it's the devil I know.

(3) I think the late action is somewhat predictable, at least at large-pool tracks and circuits. Dave Schwartz's point is well-taken that you have to ignore the current tote to a certain extent. But I think the current tote + understanding of how lines are likely to move is a necessity.

I don't think I've made any groundbreaking discoveries in my time. Just my two cents.

The biggest mistake people make is the idea that the odds they see on the toteboard with 1 MTP, 0 MTP and -1 MTP, are not what you should expect to be the final prices, no matter how large the pools happen to be. There's always someone who can bet 20k at the drop of a hat and make a 2-1 shot into an even money shot.

There has been a large bettor who plies his trade at MTN and CT who seems to want to make very large win bets at the last possible second on heavy favorite types. These 5, 10 and 15k win bets destroy the price and the horse ends up going off at 1-9. There was one that lost the other day, its amazing to me that someone with such a big bankroll has no idea he's overbetting the small pools.

[Maximillion]

The biggest mistake people make is the idea that the odds they see on the toteboard with 1 MTP, 0 MTP and -1 MTP, are not what you should expect to be the final prices, no matter how large the pools happen to be. There's always someone who can bet 20k at the drop of a hat and make a 2-1 shot into an even money shot.

There has been a large bettor who plies his trade at MTN and CT who seems to want to make very large win bets at the last possible second on heavy favorite types. These 5, 10 and 15k win bets destroy the price and the horse ends up going off at 1-9. There was one that lost the other day, its amazing to me that someone with such a big bankroll has no idea he's overbetting the small pools.

Thats why I would only consider betting on horses who could possibly greatly improve on recent form at these tracks.This way you dont have to worry about the toteboard.

[EagleEye Po]

I have been playing Betfair for the past 6 years. For me it is an excellent compliment to pari-mutuel wagering. In a majority of races there is value to be found vs the on track win odds simply by virtue of the 5% (or less) commission paid on winning bets vs the 15-18% on track takeout.

One aspect of exchange wagering that this thread hasn't touched on is the ability to buy and sell. There are often opportunities to back a horse at say 50-1 and sell it back at 30-1. In such situations you can guarantee yourself a small profit or a free bet. This is a very exciting option which pari-mutuel wagering doesn't offer.

Finally, the belief that the ability to bet against horses will lead to increased cheating has not been empirically proven. There is greater evidence that wagering irregularities on Betfair have enhanced regulators ability to identify cheaters.

[shouldacoulda]

That is why I had to develop a playing approach that completely removed the tote board from the process.

What is the point of looking for tote-based overlays when the entire tote will shift at the end?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhWUwOuyMFs

[DeltaLover]

In reality the take out when betting with an exchange, like bet fair, is way lower than 5%, actually it can very well be exactly zero!

The cut of 5% (or less) applies ONLY to winnings per market. What this means is that if your total bets in a specific race are $1,000 and you manage to break even there will be absolutely not take out. By the same token if you manage to win only $100, then despite of your total handle of $1,000 the whole event is only costing you $5.

For more details you can read here:

http://en.learning.betfair.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2486

The comparisons to the mutual pool are yours!

[Dave Schwartz]

Delta,

I believe your long term profitability is also a factor, as someone alluded to earlier.

I recall reading somewhere that if you are profitable in terms of net win over the lifetime of your account, the take is substantially higher.

Essentially, if you are a professional player, BF gets to be your partner.

[DeltaLover]

Delta,

I believe your long term profitability is also a factor, as someone alluded to earlier.

I recall reading somewhere that if you are profitable in terms of net win over the lifetime of your account, the take is substantially higher.

Essentially, if you are a professional player, BF gets to be your partner.

That's something I do not know since I have never placed a single bet with BF. How can we verify it?

[Dave Schwartz]

Delta,

I do not know. I think there was a thread here complaining about it a couple of years ago. (If I read it on a forum it was here since I don't read any others.)

What I recall was that there are thresholds of profitability.

My guess would be that the go-to guy on this forum for this would be Michael Wilding (if he is listening).

This is completely from memory but what I recall works something like this: You have your regular takeout. Then, when you hit (say) $30,000 of profit, BF takes some of your profit out of your account like $5,000. When you hit $50,000 (even if there is only $10k in your account) they take another $5k.

I know the numbers I am quoting are wrong. I could be completely wrong about the whole thing, but as I recall, this is how it was explained to me. It is also why I decided not to get involved in this new chase.

[horses4courses]

If that's true, it's an outrage.
There should be no BF commissions, other than on single transactions.

Delta,

I do not know. I think there was a thread here complaining about it a couple of years ago. (If I read it on a forum it was here since I don't read any others.)

What I recall was that there are thresholds of profitability.

My guess would be that the go-to guy on this forum for this would be Michael Wilding (if he is listening).

This is completely from memory but what I recall works something like this: You have your regular takeout. Then, when you hit (say) $30,000 of profit, BF takes some of your profit out of your account like $5,000. When you hit $50,000 (even if there is only $10k in your account) they take another $5k.

I know the numbers I am quoting are wrong. I could be completely wrong about the whole thing, but as I recall, this is how it was explained to me. It is also why I decided not to get involved in this new chase.

[Fox]

It's called premium charge. Basic premium charge affects many. If you are profitable, betfair wants 20% of that profit. Every Wednesday morning, if commision paid divided by gross profit on all markets bet the prior week is less than 20%, betfair takes the difference out of your account. For highly successful accounts, they take 40% to 60% depending on a few factors. It is a little more complex than I just stated but not much.

[Dave Schwartz]

Fox,

Thank you for correcting my error.

:ThmbUp:


Dave

[Stillriledup]

It's called premium charge. Basic premium charge affects many. If you are profitable, betfair wants 20% of that profit. Every Wednesday morning, if commision paid divided by gross profit on all markets bet the prior week is less than 20%, betfair takes the difference out of your account. For highly successful accounts, they take 40% to 60% depending on a few factors. It is a little more complex than I just stated but not much.

So, if someone has an amazing year and crushes the place, they take out a large portion.....do they give it back if that same player gets destroyed the next year and wins 0?

[Dave Schwartz]

I am sure you know the answer to that one already.

:lol:

[Stillriledup]

I am sure you know the answer to that one already.

:lol:



I know what you're saying, they would be nice guys and give the money back. :D

[Cannon shell]

Personally I'd love to see exchange wagering in the US.
However I see two real problems. One is simply getting horsemans groups, tracks and state racing commissions to stomach a takeout low enough to make exchange wagering worth playing. The second is the inability to properly police the sport in both wagering integrity and on the backsides/jocks rooms. While I have little knowledge of the oversight on the wagering side I can tell you that there most certainly isnt nearly enough regulation on the racing side especially if you can play horses to lose. While Betfair has been successful in ferreting out irregularities in the UK, racing in the US is a far bigger creature with wide differences in regulation from state to state. There are some states where I'm afraid without outright irrefutable evidence the offending parties would never even be questioned.

[shank]

There are betfair related activities going on all day everyday. Let's say a horse is 2-1 at the track a minute before post,and even money on betfair. people will try to arbitrage the postion by betting against on betfair and on in the mutual pool. If the horse drops to even money at the track to match their betting against price they still gain the rebate. goes on all day.quite often there is far more money matched on betfair than in the mutual pool. betfair is the dog and the mutual pool the tail. and without question there are betfair connected jocks. they may get you the first time but it makes for some nice playbacks.obviously important to figure out who they are and watch them at all times. the jockey aspect occurs at low purse tracks which oddly is where betfair's handle is highest.

[Some_One]

If a horse is 2-1 on the tote and evens on BF, I would highly expect to see the horse end up at 3-5 or 4-5 on the tote on the final flash, not the other way around.

[shank]

U are correct. the arbs seem to underestimate the amount they can wager into the pools without affecting the price.betfair will certainly tell u direction of final mutual prices.

[Mike_412]

Random question, but does anyone know what happened to the exchange wagering push in Jersey? I've been out of the racing loop for a while now and don't remember reading anything new about it. I think it was signed into law almost 3 years ago and then nothing came about. Thanks.

[horses4courses]

Here's an example of a drawback in exchange wagering.
Professional gambler in Far East takes large sums in lay bets having received information from a stable hand that a particular horse in a big race is not 100%.

Granted, betting activity is launched everywhere in the world on the strengths, and weaknesses, of insider info. Remember, though, that it's much easier to make money on exchanges by laying a horse to lose than it is to pick a winner.

http://www.racenet.com.au/mobile/article.asp?id=95705

[Stillriledup]

Here's an example of a drawback in exchange wagering.
Professional gambler in Far East takes large sums in lay bets having received information from a stable hand that a particular horse in a big race is not 100%.

Granted, betting activity is launched everywhere in the world on the strengths, and weaknesses, of insider info. Remember, though, that it's much easier to make money on exchanges by laying a horse to lose than it is to pick a winner.

http://www.racenet.com.au/mobile/article.asp?id=95705

And if this happens, they hold up the payouts while they investigate. Also, the person betting has his name, address, SS number, etc attached to his account. This isnt true for Pari Mutuel betting at the racetrack. People bet anonymously with cash.

If "odd" amounts of money show up for a particular situation, it gets investigated. I believe that Betfair had a situation with a "fixed" tennis match and they just didnt pay the winners.

I'd rather have the threat hanging over people's heads that if you pull some shenanigans in the exchange wagering arena, you either might not get paid or get investigated. Someone's name and info is attached to the account that places the bets, so if something crooked happens, someone is on the hook. No so in regular race betting.

[horses4courses]

And if this happens, they hold up the payouts while they investigate. Also, the person betting has his name, address, SS number, etc attached to his account. This isnt true for Pari Mutuel betting at the racetrack. People bet anonymously with cash.

If "odd" amounts of money show up for a particular situation, it gets investigated. I believe that Betfair had a situation with a "fixed" tennis match and they just didnt pay the winners.

I'd rather have the threat hanging over people's heads that if you pull some shenanigans in the exchange wagering arena, you either might not get paid or get investigated. Someone's name and info is attached to the account that places the bets, so if something crooked happens, someone is on the hook. No so in regular race betting.

That's a fair point.

[Stillriledup]

That's a fair point.


Thanks.

I think this is the biggest argument amongst the people who don't like exchange wagering, they suggest that it will "Easier" to "fix" a race....the one thing they don't ever talk about is that all exchange wagers are done by account holders, there's no shadowy figure showing up at the track with a bag of cash and making a bet, cashing and slinking out into the darkness of night, with nary a trace.

You posted a link of someone who got caught....but, if this same exact situation happened in regular betting, you wouldnt have posted the link because it wouldnt have ever been investigated in the first place.

My theory is that crooks are everywhere, at least with exchange wagering, there's a better shot they'll get caught...and because there's a better shot they'll get caught (than normal race betting on track with cash) that means exchange wagering has at least one check and balance to shenanigans.

[horses4courses]

The same argument can be applied to sports wagering, and I subscribe to it.
It's easier to monitor unusual betting activity from point shaving, etc.,
if a legal sports book, or group of them, is taking the action.

[Stillriledup]

The same argument can be applied to sports wagering, and I subscribe to it.
It's easier to monitor unusual betting activity from point shaving, etc.,
if a legal sports book, or group of them, is taking the action.

Totally true. This is the argument Vegas makes to the sports leagues. Those on high moral ground standing on soap boxes (MLB, NFL, etc) 'despise' sports betting, but legal sports betting is one way to sniff out point shavers and whatnut. If there was only betting with bookies, the fixers would be harder (or impossible) to catch.

[horses4courses]

Those on high moral ground standing on soap boxes (MLB, NFL, etc) 'despise' sports betting

The main reason these execs take this stance?
Fat paychecks, which result from maintaining the status quo.

Politicians are in the same boat, except it's contributions instead of payroll.

[Some_One]

Here's an example of a drawback in exchange wagering.
Professional gambler in Far East takes large sums in lay bets having received information from a stable hand that a particular horse in a big race is not 100%.

Granted, betting activity is launched everywhere in the world on the strengths, and weaknesses, of insider info. Remember, though, that it's much easier to make money on exchanges by laying a horse to lose than it is to pick a winner.

http://www.racenet.com.au/mobile/article.asp?id=95705

What exactly was illegal here? What happens in North America with trainers putting high/illegal drugs into their horses is much worse then a stableboy telling a punter who's off form. If anything in this case, did the trainer willingly enter a hurt horse? How did it pass the pre race vet? Those should be the questions that punters be asking right now.

Also it doesn't say how much was won, I looked it up and the horse went off on Betfair near the tote price it appears of 2-1, if it was a large sum of money, I would have thought the gap be much bigger.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Trainers are supposed to report to stewards if their horse has an injury or health problem (see the whole Gai Waterhouse and More Joyous affair from earlier this year)

The gap between the tote price and Betfair price won't really tell the story for a very popular multiple G1 winning horse like Mosheen who was a last start winner. The tote prices will always follow the fixed odds prices and end up roughly the same

[pondman]

Seems like what you're talking about is an efficient market, so is the efficiency of the market a drawback?

The reality: laying odds against a favorite in an efficient market will be valued at about 30 cents on the dollar. You will not find an offer anywhere near the favorites odds. The returns would be less than a show bet. It works in other countries because they have legal booking entities, which offer a portfolio. As Dave Schwartz is suggesting, you would be playing against an entity similiar to a Casino Sports book. Those entities would be out buying opportunities along side the $2 bettor, and in many cases you'd be left with near break even bets.

It would be ideal for a trainer who knows a horse is not 100%.

[Some_One]

The reality: laying odds against a favorite in an efficient market will be valued at about 30 cents on the dollar. You will not find an offer anywhere near the favorites odds. The returns would be less than a show bet.

Really? The odds on the exchage should be 10% higher because of the effective takeout difference, but that's it, you can easily lay horses at their tote odds. The returns are irrelevant if it's a +EV bet, casino's don't make their billions but changing P6 100K-1 odds like most horseplayers do, they do it on the back of even money and less bets because they have the +EV.