crw wagering

[green80]

Does anyone know which tracks ban CRW wagering? Is it just OP and Tampa or are there more?

[PaceAdvantage]

Define computer robotic wagering and define how exactly they are banned?

You mean, they banned some KNOWN ones...do people think the wagers these guys submit are stamped CRW? :lol:

Let's take Oaklawn, as they've been mentioned a bunch of times lately. Who did they ban? How did they ban them? And how did they know who they were banning? Was it an individual? Was it a hub KNOWN for CRW participation?

What are the clues and signals for a track that they have CRW coming into their pools? Remember, we know bets are BATCH SENT (we know this because the industry constantly uses this as the excuse for massive odds changes after the bell), so how does a track know that a BATCH of wagers sent from off-track has CRW among it? How does it differentiate the "normal bets" from the CRW bets? Do they go through them with a fine tooth comb to note time stamps and then notice a large string of bets placed within one second or so?

What exactly is the forensic process here? Or like I said, are these types of bets stamped CRW! :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

My point is, a track may say they have banned CRW, but I don't believe that for a second, that they've banned ALL CRW...impossible.

[green80]

Banned may not have been the correct term. From what I understand, tracks such as Oaklawn did not make certain ADW's the "deals" they wanted so they could give their CRW players the rebate they need to be profitable.

[lamboguy]

they didn't give them the direct tote hook ups. without the hook up, they have ZERO edge.

[PaceAdvantage]

they didn't give them the direct tote hook ups. without the hook up, they have ZERO edge.Name one track that has given anybody "a direct tote hook up."

An ADW giving a customer access to something on their end is a different story. I could be completely wrong on this, but I doubt very much any Thoroughbred track is giving any individual or syndicate a "direct tote hook up," whatever that means.

[Cholly]

Name one track that has given anybody "a direct tote hook up."

An ADW giving a customer access to something on their end is a different story. I could be completely wrong on this, but I doubt very much any Thoroughbred track is giving any individual or syndicate a "direct tote hook up," whatever that means.

from Matt Hegarty aritlce in DRF:
"For 15 years, investor-owned computerized robotic wagering programs, or CRWs, have performed the same dual analyses, but those programs are provided with a direct interface into the bet-processing system so that the programs can see every detail of the betting pools in real time and send thousands of wagers into the pools in a matter of seconds. Those systems are also operated exclusively at off-track betting outlets that reward the operators with rich rebates on their handle, allowing the owners of the systems to post profits at a lower return on investment than the typical bettor in the parimutuel pool."

[ronsmac]

Banned may not have been the correct term. From what I understand, tracks such as Oaklawn did not make certain ADW's the "deals" they wanted so they could give their CRW players the rebate they need to be profitable.
Supposedly Oaklawn wasn't letting adw's like RGS and ETC into their pools in previous years, who knows if that's still true. The GM of Tampa said he allows them in their pools but charge a higher signal fee.

[PaceAdvantage]

from Matt Hegarty aritlce in DRF:
"For 15 years, investor-owned computerized robotic wagering programs, or CRWs, have performed the same dual analyses, but those programs are provided with a direct interface into the bet-processing system so that the programs can see every detail of the betting pools in real time and send thousands of wagers into the pools in a matter of seconds. Those systems are also operated exclusively at off-track betting outlets that reward the operators with rich rebates on their handle, allowing the owners of the systems to post profits at a lower return on investment than the typical bettor in the parimutuel pool."I read that to mean the ADW is allowing the customer to have some sort of better access to their internal system...not the track itself. There is a lot that is poorly defined in this discussion.

[lamboguy]

I read that to mean the ADW is allowing the customer to have some sort of better access to their internal system...not the track itself. There is a lot that is poorly defined in this discussion.the wording part is very vague, but we can get one of those terminals if we put up $40,000 to buy it and we will be in whole different world. there are probably reason's why you have to go through an offshore adw to get this access that i am not that clear on.

[green80]

What I was trying to determine if the average bettor's bottom line is any better at the tracks that do not cater to the CRW players in the form of low signal fees to their ADW's (or anything else). I know for the last couple of years my ROI is better at Oaklawn than any other track. Could this be because the CRW's aren't milking all the "juice" out of the pools?

[PaceAdvantage]

I still think way too much is being made of this. If anything, there might be a timing edge, similar to what High Frequency Traders get when they move their servers closer to the exchange servers...

I don't believe that CRWs get some sort of magical information that the rest of us aren't privy to...tell me where I'm wrong. And don't tell me how they are getting trifecta and superfecta will-pays...

[green80]

My point is, a track may say they have banned CRW, but I don't believe that for a second, that they've banned ALL CRW...impossible.

May 3, 2015 The Times Record

At Oaklawn Park, CRWs are on a hit list.

“We simply refuse to allow them into our pools,” Bobby Geiger, Oaklawn’s director of wagering and simulcast, said in an Email. He said Oaklawn realized more than 10 years ago that “these parasites would kill the grandstand player and ultimately the wagering component of the sport, so we eliminated them from our distribution portfolio. “They’ve tried to sneak into our pools on multiple occasions … but we constantly monitor our pools for the activity,” he said. “WE ALWAYS CATCH THEM. The practice is so egregious and unfair to the other patrons in the pools that is impossible to disguise.”





- See more at: http://swtimes.com/sports/sports-columnists/king-oaklawn-takes-aim-robotic-wagering-horse-racing#sthash.yNPHZFsO.dpuf

[Track Collector]

I still think way too much is being made of this. If anything, there might be a timing edge, similar to what High Frequency Traders get when they move their servers closer to the exchange servers...

I don't believe that CRWs get some sort of magical information that the rest of us aren't privy to...tell me where I'm wrong. And don't tell me how they are getting trifecta and superfecta will-pays...

I do not say this as one who knows, but wonder if "this" is how CRWs derive their advantages:

CRWs obviously have the ability to fire in lots of wagers at the last minute.
CRWs have an extremely high likelihood of being associated with a high level handicapping methodology, that is, one that has the ability to identify what it believes is a "true" value (i.e. odds) for a race participant.

Then all that remains is to compare as close to post time as possible the current odds vs. the "true" value odds, then make the associated value wagers.

You and I can see the "approximate" odds as posted on the odds board. We can even access sites which show the actual dollars of each horse, and compute more accurate odds. By doing so, we might be able to see that instead of 3-1, a horse's odds are really 3.29-1. The problem with these calculations is that they are static, and are only accurate at the instantaneous moment the tote system cycles thru the odds. I suspect the tote system continually collects wagers in real time, but is not programmed to cycle thru and display this info except per the predetermined cycle time (like every 30 seconds close to Post Time). At perhaps 2-6 seconds before someone "thinks" a race is going to go off, a CRW could be set into motion to calculate the existing odds using the RAW wagering data not yet displayed to the public, and do its' thing.

The number of folks using CRWs is likely very low, but they are still competing against each other. I would suspect that the algorithms that they use take this into consideration. CRWs also live in an imperfect world of not knowing for sure what the final odds will be, but the picture they use to make their wagering decisions is vastly more accurate than the one 99.999% will see.

[Stillriledup]

I do not say this as one who knows, but wonder if "this" is how CRWs derive their advantages:

CRWs obviously have the ability to fire in lots of wagers at the last minute.
CRWs have an extremely high likelihood of being associated with a high level handicapping methodology, that is, one that has the ability to identify what it believes is a "true" value (i.e. odds) for a race participant.

Then all that remains is to compare as close to post time as possible the current odds vs. the "true" value odds, then make the associated value wagers.

You and I can see the "approximate" odds as posted on the odds board. We can even access sites which show the actual dollars of each horse, and compute more accurate odds. By doing so, we might be able to see that instead of 3-1, a horse's odds are really 3.29-1. The problem with these calculations is that they are static, and are only accurate at the instantaneous moment the tote system cycles thru the odds. I suspect the tote system continually collects wagers in real time, but is not programmed to cycle thru and display this info except per the predetermined cycle time (like every 30 seconds close to Post Time). At perhaps 2-6 seconds before someone "thinks" a race is going to go off, a CRW could be set into motion to calculate the existing odds using the RAW wagering data not yet displayed to the public, and do its' thing.

The number of folks using CRWs is likely very low, but they are still competing against each other. I would suspect that the algorithms that they use take this into consideration. CRWs also live in an imperfect world of not knowing for sure what the final odds will be, but the picture they use to make their wagering decisions is vastly more accurate than the one 99.999% will see.

Here's a hypothetical example of how CRW helps.

Lets say there's a huge pentafecta carryover and mr CRW wants to invest 10k into the penta, it's a 12 horse field so there are 95,000 possible outcomes. The CRW can be programmed to invest the entire 10k in the most efficient manner covering the combos that exactly reflect the opinion of the bettor. The computer can spit out hundreds of small tickets that are structured in a perfect way as to not overlap....unless the user wants an overlap to get something twice. You can't do that nearly as well if you're doing this the old fashioned way. Try getting a pen and paper and writing out dozens of tickets by hand and then standing at a SAM machine at a live racetrack (or calling into a bet taker on the phone) it's not even close to being as efficient.

[Track Collector]

Here's a hypothetical example of how CRW helps.

Lets say there's a huge pentafecta carryover and mr CRW wants to invest 10k into the penta, it's a 12 horse field so there are 95,000 possible outcomes. The CRW can be programmed to invest the entire 10k in the most efficient manner covering the combos that exactly reflect the opinion of the bettor. The computer can spit out hundreds of small tickets that are structured in a perfect way as to not overlap....unless the user wants an overlap to get something twice. You can't do that nearly as well if you're doing this the old fashioned way. Try getting a pen and paper and writing out dozens of tickets by hand and then standing at a SAM machine at a live racetrack (or calling into a bet taker on the phone) it's not even close to being as efficient.

Rapid calculations and bet submission often become non-starters without more-accurate pool information.

Unfortunately, only a few industry folks have the knowledge and expertise to confirm/reject my hypothesis (that wagers are merged into the pools on a continuous basis and can be viewed/calculated in-between tote cycle times), and I'm not sure if it would be in their vested interests to share that info.

[Fox]

Does anyone have any actual proof or at least claim first hand knowledge that access to pool data not widely available is being furnished to a select few? Such pool data would be something like real time odds updates or access to probables in blind pools such as the trifecta. I hate the bogeyman as much as the next guy but have actually never met him or anyone who has. He scares me though and I feel very strongly that he must be stopped.

[Stillriledup]

Does anyone have any actual proof or at least claim first hand knowledge that access to pool data not widely available is being furnished to a select few? Such pool data would be something like real time odds updates or access to probables in blind pools such as the trifecta. I hate the bogeyman as much as the next guy but have actually never met him or anyone who has. He scares me though and I feel very strongly that he must be stopped.

If big bettors had access to probable payouts and their computers were able to 'see' which combos had 0 dollars on them with 1 millisecond to post, would there ever be something that goes unhit?

[lamboguy]

If big bettors had access to probable payouts and their computers were able to 'see' which combos had 0 dollars on them with 1 millisecond to post, would there ever be something that goes unhit?the numbers game run by the Massachusetts state lottery offers a 4 number play for the last 30 years. when they first started they were taking in about $100,000 a day on that 10,000-1 shot. today they do close to $1 million a day on the 4 digit. not once in those 30 years has a day gone by that the 4 digit wasn't hit.

years ago before the lottery i knew the biggest guy around who took in more than 5 times the state. he told me that he has often gone 2 weeks without a 4 digit number hit, and he was paying fixed odds. he also told me that he wouldn't book any state numbers because he didn't trust them.

about 3 weeks ago there was a superfecta some place that paid $11,000 for ten cents. there were 6 ten cent tickets on the winning combination. i looked at those horses and didn't think there could possibly be 1 lucky winner, but there were 6. i suppose its possible for 1 guy to have had all the tickets, but very unlikely. even more unlikely is 6 people to pick those lucky numbers on the very same race.

in this age of the computer and the internet anything is possible.

[AndyC]

If big bettors had access to probable payouts and their computers were able to 'see' which combos had 0 dollars on them with 1 millisecond to post, would there ever be something that goes unhit?

Yes. If the probability of hitting a certain combo was higher than a whole pool payout presumably you wouldn't want that bet.

[Stillriledup]

Yes. If the probability of hitting a certain combo was higher than a whole pool payout presumably you wouldn't want that bet.

I think it would depend on how many uncovered combos were left vs the reward for being the only winner. For example, if a person has Millions in his adw account and there's a 250k carryover at Santa Anita with a million dollars of new money, and his computer sees that it only cost 2k to cover all the tickets that are uncovered, is he not just spend the 2k ?

you're right about the math, it does depend on a lot of factors, they also don't have to place money on all the uncovered combos, they can just get some of them.

I would assume bettors can't 'see' uncovered combos, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

[sharkie187]

about 3 weeks ago there was a superfecta some place that paid $11,000 for ten cents. there were 6 ten cent tickets on the winning combination. i looked at those horses and didn't think there could possibly be 1 lucky winner, but there were 6. i suppose its possible for 1 guy to have had all the tickets, but very unlikely. even more unlikely is 6 people to pick those lucky numbers on the very same race.

in this age of the computer and the internet anything is possible.

Actually, its common for someone to pick the super without the use of computers...its called the "Quick Pick" on SAMs. A few years ago, I went to Mobile Greyhound Park, and there's a group of old men and the security guy who pool their money togethet and all they do is play 10 cent supers on races with 8 or more runners. All they do is have one guy put in a $5-10 voucher ($10-20 on big races) and he keeps hitting the QP at the SAM machine. They don't know the odds or the forums, but every so often, they hit one.

[sharkie187]

I think it would depend on how many uncovered combos were left vs the reward for being the only winner. For example, if a person has Millions in his adw account and there's a 250k carryover at Santa Anita with a million dollars of new money, and his computer sees that it only cost 2k to cover all the tickets that are uncovered, is he not just spend the 2k ?

you're right about the math, it does depend on a lot of factors, they also don't have to place money on all the uncovered combos, they can just get some of them.

I would assume bettors can't 'see' uncovered combos, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

Sure he/she can spend the 2k on uncovered pick 6 spreads, but what are the odds of that uncovered spread coming in? Really really low! Esp if one of the uncover spreads were 40/1, 30/1, 30/1, 20/1, 25/1, and 50/1. He/she can add that money into the pool and help the payoff to the bettors who cover all the favorites.

[Robert Goren]

All I know is that pre simulcast days, I did not see the kind of odds drops after the gates open that I see now. To quote the Buffalo Springfield " There's something happening here, But what it is ain't exactly clear". And whatever it is, it is not good for my bottom line. And it probably is not good for the bottom lines of most of the posters at this site either.

[Stillriledup]

Sure he/she can spend the 2k on uncovered pick 6 spreads, but what are the odds of that uncovered spread coming in? Really really low! Esp if one of the uncover spreads were 40/1, 30/1, 30/1, 20/1, 25/1, and 50/1. He/she can add that money into the pool and help the payoff to the bettors who cover all the favorites.

You would be surprised at how many times a logical 4 or 5 dollar winner comes in and still nobody hits. He can tell the computer that he only wants to see uncovered combos with his best bet, which is a 1-1 shot in leg 1 (for example).

[Hoofless_Wonder]

What I was trying to determine if the average bettor's bottom line is any better at the tracks that do not cater to the CRW players in the form of low signal fees to their ADW's (or anything else). I know for the last couple of years my ROI is better at Oaklawn than any other track. Could this be because the CRW's aren't milking all the "juice" out of the pools?

Not exactly sure what you mean by the "juice", and I don't know the exact relationship between signal fees and rebates, but IN THEORY it's possible your higher ROI at Oaklawn is because your winners are paying more - versus tracks where prices paid include the overhead of higher rebates to the whales. Since we're not privy to the balance sheets of all parties involved, it's speculation. But at least a couple of racetracks understand that concentrating "the edge" of rebates in the hands of the few is detrimental to handle in the long run.

Unless you have years worth of plays over the OP meet, it's more likely your handicapping is a bigger factor in the difference between your play at OP and other tracks. After all, just a few nice hits during their relatively short meet can cause you to be in the black. I know at the end of the year my ROI by track varies from 0.00 to 1.65, and it's not the CRW influence that's causing that....

[Stillriledup]

Not exactly sure what you mean by the "juice", and I don't know the exact relationship between signal fees and rebates, but IN THEORY it's possible your higher ROI at Oaklawn is because your winners are paying more - versus tracks where prices paid include the overhead of higher rebates to the whales. Since we're not privy to the balance sheets of all parties involved, it's speculation. But at least a couple of racetracks understand that concentrating "the edge" of rebates in the hands of the few is detrimental to handle in the long run.

Unless you have years worth of plays over the OP meet, it's more likely your handicapping is a bigger factor in the difference between your play at OP and other tracks. After all, just a few nice hits during their relatively short meet can cause you to be in the black. I know at the end of the year my ROI by track varies from 0.00 to 1.65, and it's not the CRW influence that's causing that....

I don't understand how a private transaction that happens after the prices are official has any affect on those very prices. A horse who pays 8.20 pays 8.20 whether of not a rebate shop gives a gratuity to their customers.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I don't understand how a private transaction that happens after the prices are official has any affect on those very prices. A horse who pays 8.20 pays 8.20 whether of not a rebate shop gives a gratuity to their customers.

Sigh. SRU, we've been down this path many times. You seem to think the money that flows to rebates magically appears from nowhere. Let's use your example.

Let's say we have two tracks, CRW Park and SRU Downs. They have exactly the same handle, the same takeout, the same signal fees, the same purses, the same costs, etc. SRU Downs has a nicer turf course. They run at different times during the year, so they even have the same announcer, and poor concessions.

You bet $10,000 at each of those tracks in one year, making 1000 $10 bets, and your average winning mutual was $8.20. Fortunately for you, your strike rate is a whopping 30%, cashing 300 times at each circuit, returning $12,300.

These two tracks have the same accountant, say AndyC, who does their books so we can validate these numbers. Now let's say CRW Park is going to lower their signal fee to Offshore ADW, hoping to attract more handle when Offshore ADW offers their clientele rebates. Because their income from signal fees is slightly lower, they have to raise the takeout 2.5% to balance the books. They hope to make additional profits from the increase in handle, but we won't know that until the end of the year.

Year two, your wagers now look like this:

CRW Park - $10,000 bet, average mutual $8.00, now returns $12,000 for the year
SRU Downs - $10,000 bet, average mutual $8.20, still returns $12,300 for the year

Now we hear of anywhere from 3 to 5 to 8 or 10 percent on rebates. So after several years of adjusting signal fees and takeouts, lets say the whales betting CRW Park through Offshore ADW are getting back 5% on their bets, and the small players at either track don't get rebates. You would now see:

CRW Park - $10,000 bet, average mutual $7.80, now returns $11,700 for the year
SRU Downs - $10,000 bet, average mutual $8.20, still returns $12,300 for the year

You review your wagers for the year, and think it's okay, I'm still making a profit at CRW Park. But then the odds drop late in the betting there. The payoffs get lower. The "overlays" become more difficult to spot. The Whales are now making up an ever larger portion of the handle. You're thinking, "Man, that track is getting tougher." The handle may vary between the tracks, but all of it being funneled to rebates at CRW Park is coming out of the mutual pools at some point. Mathematically, you are getting lower payouts since you get no rebate. And, if you think a higher handle is bettor for the track, it may very well be - but chances are the increase in profits is going to flow to the executive's bonuses or the horsemen's pockets long before you see a lowering of takeout.

As the competition for ever shrinking handle between racetracks gets worse, which track do you think the small players will want to bet on?

[green80]

Very well put, Hoofless Wonder

[baconswitchfarm]

Sigh. SRU, we've been down this path many times. You seem to think the money that flows to rebates magically appears from nowhere. Let's use your example.

Let's say we have two tracks, CRW Park and SRU Downs. They have exactly the same handle, the same takeout, the same signal fees, the same purses, the same costs, etc. SRU Downs has a nicer turf course. They run at different times during the year, so they even have the same announcer, and poor concessions.

You bet $10,000 at each of those tracks in one year, making 1000 $10 bets, and your average winning mutual was $8.20. Fortunately for you, your strike rate is a whopping 30%, cashing 300 times at each circuit, returning $12,300.

These two tracks have the same accountant, say AndyC, who does their books so we can validate these numbers. Now let's say CRW Park is going to lower their signal fee to Offshore ADW, hoping to attract more handle when Offshore ADW offers their clientele rebates. Because their income from signal fees is slightly lower, they have to raise the takeout 2.5% to balance the books. They hope to make additional profits from the increase in handle, but we won't know that until the end of the year.

Year two, your wagers now look like this:

CRW Park - $10,000 bet, average mutual $8.00, now returns $12,000 for the year
SRU Downs - $10,000 bet, average mutual $8.20, still returns $12,300 for the year

Now we hear of anywhere from 3 to 5 to 8 or 10 percent on rebates. So after several years of adjusting signal fees and takeouts, lets say the whales betting CRW Park through Offshore ADW are getting back 5% on their bets, and the small players at either track don't get rebates. You would now see:

CRW Park - $10,000 bet, average mutual $7.80, now returns $11,700 for the year
SRU Downs - $10,000 bet, average mutual $8.20, still returns $12,300 for the year

You review your wagers for the year, and think it's okay, I'm still making a profit at CRW Park. But then the odds drop late in the betting there. The payoffs get lower. The "overlays" become more difficult to spot. The Whales are now making up an ever larger portion of the handle. You're thinking, "Man, that track is getting tougher." The handle may vary between the tracks, but all of it being funneled to rebates at CRW Park is coming out of the mutual pools at some point. Mathematically, you are getting lower payouts since you get no rebate. And, if you think a higher handle is bettor for the track, it may very well be - but chances are the increase in profits is going to flow to the executive's bonuses or the horsemen's pockets long before you see a lowering of takeout.

As the competition for ever shrinking handle between racetracks gets worse, which track do you think the small players will want to bet on?


Very well written. If not for the fact it is complete fantasy with no basis in fact, it would be a powerful argument. All adw pay a higher signal fee , not lower. No adw has had their signal fee lowered . While brick and mortar tracks pay a lower fee , they have more overhead. The adw pays a higher fee and choses to try to operate on on a thin margin. No take out has ever been raised because of low fees to adw companies. It is fine to hate rebates but your argument should at least be based in fact. This one is based in something that is in your head but has never actually happened in real life.

[green80]

Very well written. If not for the fact it is complete fantasy with no basis in fact, it would be a powerful argument. All adw pay a higher signal fee , not lower. No adw has had their signal fee lowered . While brick and mortar tracks pay a lower fee , they have more overhead. The adw pays a higher fee and choses to try to operate on on a thin margin. No take out has ever been raised because of low fees to adw companies. It is fine to hate rebates but your argument should at least be based in fact. This one is based in something that is in your head but has never actually happened in real life.

I have a database of over 4000 races at various tracks. I wager when my software finds an "overlay" at 0 minutes to post. For some reason the tracks that are most profitable are the ones that I get the lowest rebate on.

[Stillriledup]

I have a database of over 4000 races at various tracks. I wager when my software finds an "overlay" at 0 minutes to post. For some reason the tracks that are most profitable are the ones that I get the lowest rebate on.

This though is the crux of the argument, maybe your profitability (or lack of) has to do with the intelligence of the players and not rebates.

[Stillriledup]

Sigh. SRU, we've been down this path many times. You seem to think the money that flows to rebates magically appears from nowhere. Let's use your example.

Let's say we have two tracks, CRW Park and SRU Downs. They have exactly the same handle, the same takeout, the same signal fees, the same purses, the same costs, etc. SRU Downs has a nicer turf course. They run at different times during the year, so they even have the same announcer, and poor concessions.

You bet $10,000 at each of those tracks in one year, making 1000 $10 bets, and your average winning mutual was $8.20. Fortunately for you, your strike rate is a whopping 30%, cashing 300 times at each circuit, returning $12,300.

These two tracks have the same accountant, say AndyC, who does their books so we can validate these numbers. Now let's say CRW Park is going to lower their signal fee to Offshore ADW, hoping to attract more handle when Offshore ADW offers their clientele rebates. Because their income from signal fees is slightly lower, they have to raise the takeout 2.5% to balance the books. They hope to make additional profits from the increase in handle, but we won't know that until the end of the year.

Year two, your wagers now look like this:

CRW Park - $10,000 bet, average mutual $8.00, now returns $12,000 for the year
SRU Downs - $10,000 bet, average mutual $8.20, still returns $12,300 for the year

Now we hear of anywhere from 3 to 5 to 8 or 10 percent on rebates. So after several years of adjusting signal fees and takeouts, lets say the whales betting CRW Park through Offshore ADW are getting back 5% on their bets, and the small players at either track don't get rebates. You would now see:

CRW Park - $10,000 bet, average mutual $7.80, now returns $11,700 for the year
SRU Downs - $10,000 bet, average mutual $8.20, still returns $12,300 for the year

You review your wagers for the year, and think it's okay, I'm still making a profit at CRW Park. But then the odds drop late in the betting there. The payoffs get lower. The "overlays" become more difficult to spot. The Whales are now making up an ever larger portion of the handle. You're thinking, "Man, that track is getting tougher." The handle may vary between the tracks, but all of it being funneled to rebates at CRW Park is coming out of the mutual pools at some point. Mathematically, you are getting lower payouts since you get no rebate. And, if you think a higher handle is bettor for the track, it may very well be - but chances are the increase in profits is going to flow to the executive's bonuses or the horsemen's pockets long before you see a lowering of takeout.

As the competition for ever shrinking handle between racetracks gets worse, which track do you think the small players will want to bet on?

The rebate money comes from the profits of the rebate house, that money is either going all to the rebate house or half to the rebate house and half to the bettors, but either way, the rebate shops private transaction with its customers have nothing to do with your own personal bottom line. An 8.20 winner still pays 8.20 for you. The 8.20 is figured out at the host tracks advertised takeout rate, it's a rate that you know before you make a bet, they don't change the rate after the race is over.

[raybo]

When a track offers, anyone, a lower signal fee, the track is "expecting" a higher handle from that entity, so they expect that the "books will be balanced" (as was mentioned earlier as if it is a guarantee that the "books will be balanced") by an increase in handle from that entity. There is no guarantee that the "books will actually be balanced" in the end. The track is taking a risk, based on the "probability" that a significant increase in handle from that entity will actually happen. The track does not raise the takeout to "balance the books", indeed, the "books may not balance". That's the risk the track takes by lowering signal fees based on unknown handle numbers in the future. It's like any other business that offers lower prices based on the presumption of higher sales numbers, it's a calculated risk, but it's still a risk, and that risk is born by the business, alone.

Yes, the odds on horses may decline after an entity begins paying a lower signal fee to the track, but that has nothing to do with a "supposed" higher takeout (the track's takeout doesn't change in such a circumstance), that has to do with the skill of the betting members of that entity, and the amount of money they are betting.

[green80]

One would assume that these CRW players that wager significant amounts of money are of a high skill level or they will not be in the business long.

[raybo]

One would assume that these CRW players that wager significant amounts of money are of a high skill level or they will not be in the business long.

I, as you, assume that these "CRW" players are both skilled and wager lots of money. But, we are both "assuming". If we are right, wouldn't that help explain why the prices might decline after they receive their large rebate from the ADW, who was able to offer them that by paying a lower signal fee to the track? What is still true, regardless, is that the track is "betting" that a reduced signal rate for a particular ADW will result in higher handle and offset the lowered signal fee.

[Dave Schwartz]

I have a database of over 4000 races at various tracks. I wager when my software finds an "overlay" at 0 minutes to post. For some reason the tracks that are most profitable are the ones that I get the lowest rebate on.

This has been precisely my experience for about the last 4 years.

The higher the rebate, the stiffer the competition because a greater percentage of the pool is "smart(er)" money.

That makes the lower rebate tracks more beatable.

[Stillriledup]

This has been precisely my experience for about the last 4 years.

The higher the rebate, the stiffer the competition because a greater percentage of the pool is "smart(er)" money.

That makes the lower rebate tracks more beatable.

So you're saying santa Anita/dmr and nyra are more beatable than Charlestown, Penn, Mountain, etc?

[raybo]

So you're saying santa Anita/dmr and nyra are more beatable than Charlestown, Penn, Mountain, etc?

If you're playing the same game the CRWs are playing, probably yes. If you're creating a line and betting the perceived overlays, then you are playing the CRWs' game, and they're most likely going to beat you at it.

[green80]

Alright, who starts the next thread, most beatable tracks?

[Dave Schwartz]

So you're saying santa Anita/dmr and nyra are more beatable than Charlestown, Penn, Mountain, etc?

Exactly.

[Stillriledup]

Exactly.

Don't you think the gamblers at the top tier tracks are smarter? The biggest bettors tend to be the smartest bettors and those people gravitate towards tracks with bigger pools. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'd love to hear more about this, I've always thought the A tracks were the hardest due to the sharpest players all being in the big pools.

[green80]

Don't you think the gamblers at the top tier tracks are smarter? The biggest bettors tend to be the smartest bettors and those people gravitate towards tracks with bigger pools. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'd love to hear more about this, I've always thought the A tracks were the hardest due to the sharpest players all being in the big pools.

The reason the sharps and big bettors like the big pools is that they can bet more without lowering the payouts on the horse that they like. Whereas you could make a $500 or bigger win bet at a big pool track without lowering your payout, a $50 bet at a small pool track could lower your odds.

[Maximillion]

I agree with Dave that the smaller tracks are more difficult to beat.
I think its a combination of the whales being a higher percentage of the pools there...and imo its harder to sustain any kind of profit on the 5k and lower open claiming races these tracks are filled with.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Very well written. If not for the fact it is complete fantasy with no basis in fact, it would be a powerful argument. All adw pay a higher signal fee , not lower. No adw has had their signal fee lowered . While brick and mortar tracks pay a lower fee , they have more overhead. The adw pays a higher fee and choses to try to operate on on a thin margin. No take out has ever been raised because of low fees to adw companies. It is fine to hate rebates but your argument should at least be based in fact. This one is based in something that is in your head but has never actually happened in real life.

It was written for example purposes only, holding all variables static except takeout and signal fees. This is because it's been argued on this board that rebates are discretionary payments made by ADWs, when I'm trying to argue they are NOT. It was not intended to describe this is how the industry got to where it is today. Like I stated in an earlier post, without access to the books all we can do is speculate.

Speaking of which, you claim that an ADW has never had its signal fee lowered, nor has a track increased takeout to cover low fees to ADW companies. And how do you know this?

And if you can provide an example that's more "real life" to explain EXACTLY where the rebate funds originate, I'm all ears.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

The rebate money comes from the profits of the rebate house, that money is either going all to the rebate house or half to the rebate house and half to the bettors, but either way, the rebate shops private transaction with its customers have nothing to do with your own personal bottom line. An 8.20 winner still pays 8.20 for you. The 8.20 is figured out at the host tracks advertised takeout rate, it's a rate that you know before you make a bet, they don't change the rate after the race is over.

I get your point, SRU, and I think part of the problem here is that a player's handicapping skills vary much more from track to track versus the impact of rebates.

But I think another part of the problem is that you're arguing in a vacuum, and not looking at the big picture. Instead of being focused on my payout is $8.20, you need to ask the question why did my payout drop to $7.80 at CRW Park? Or, better yet, ask the question, how many hobby horseplayers prefer SRU Downs to CRW Park?

BTW - in my example, I forgot to take into account that as CEO of SRU Downs, you would actually have a much higher strike rate, but of course would have to use beards to run all your bets. We wouldn't to have the public relations nightmare of a conflict of interest, eh? :)

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I agree with Dave that the smaller tracks are more difficult to beat.
I think its a combination of the whales being a higher percentage of the pools there...and imo its harder to sustain any kind of profit on the 5k and lower open claiming races these tracks are filled with.

It could be higher whale participation, or it could be that the local connection's wagers represent a higher percentage in the pools than at the larger venues. It could also be that handicapping a minor track versus a major one is vastly different.

It sure would be nice if we had access to some of the details around wagers, entities betting, rebates, signal fees and the like. It's a complex model and flow of funds.

[no breathalyzer]

Alright, who starts the next thread, most beatable tracks?

The most beatable track is the one you study the hardest .. as long as the pools are not a complete joke.

[no breathalyzer]

They can offer the fattest rebate to me to bet cali tracks yet i probably would pass cause i admit overall i don't know shit about racing out west . Rebate does me no good if i'm leaking my roll all over the place.

Track A offers me 8% rebate.. don't know shit about and consistently lose
or
Track B offers me 4% rebate.. i follow.. cash tickets and make profit

Which track do you think i choice?

[no breathalyzer]

“We simply refuse to allow them into our pools,” Bobby Geiger, Oaklawn’s director of wagering and simulcast, said in an Email. He said Oaklawn realized more than 10 years ago that “these parasites would kill the grandstand player and ultimately the wagering component of the sport, so we eliminated them from our distribution portfolio. “They’ve tried to sneak into our pools on multiple occasions … but we constantly monitor our pools for the activity,” he said. “WE ALWAYS CATCH THEM.

Sure fooled me... Do they let them only bet certain races or something?

[Stillriledup]

I get your point, SRU, and I think part of the problem here is that a player's handicapping skills vary much more from track to track versus the impact of rebates.

But I think another part of the problem is that you're arguing in a vacuum, and not looking at the big picture. Instead of being focused on my payout is $8.20, you need to ask the question why did my payout drop to $7.80 at CRW Park? Or, better yet, ask the question, how many hobby horseplayers prefer SRU Downs to CRW Park?

BTW - in my example, I forgot to take into account that as CEO of SRU Downs, you would actually have a much higher strike rate, but of course would have to use beards to run all your bets. We wouldn't to have the public relations nightmare of a conflict of interest, eh? :)

But if your payout is 7.80 that's due to the intelligence of the player, not the rebate. Also, if one horse is 'supposed to' pay 8.20 and gets bet down to 7.80, the other runners go up in price, some other horse gains more value.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

But if your payout is 7.80 that's due to the intelligence of the player, not the rebate. Also, if one horse is 'supposed to' pay 8.20 and gets bet down to 7.80, the other runners go up in price, some other horse gains more value.

<double sigh> SRU, the horse pays $7.80 because the 40 cents is skimmed to pay the whales the rebates. But if you want to look at that way, you can also make the argument the payoff reflects the "intelligence" of the pool, which has whales.

And aren't you the one advocating two pools, one with whales and one without? Or rather, one allowing CRW and one that doesn't?

CRW pool - $7.80
non-CRW pool - $8.20

[raybo]

<double sigh> SRU, the horse pays $7.80 because the 40 cents is skimmed to pay the whales the rebates. But if you want to look at that way, you can also make the argument the payoff reflects the "intelligence" of the pool, which has whales.

And aren't you the one advocating two pools, one with whales and one without? Or rather, one allowing CRW and one that doesn't?

CRW pool - $7.80
non-CRW pool - $8.20

No, the horse pays $7.80 because he was bet down to that. Nothing was "skimmed" to cause that drop. The money bet into the pools, on all horses, determines the payouts. You never know whether the supposed $8.20 payout will actually be $7.80 or $8.60 or $8.20 or something else, and that is true whether CRWs are involved or not.