Co-mingling Question

[traynor]

At what point are exotic wagers made online co-mingled with track pools? That is, when do the track "will pay" displays include exotic wagers made online?

[traynor]

More specifically, does anyone have any reliable information (as in a representative of an ADW) in regard to the processes used to co-mingle online wagers with the track pools?

"Common belief" seems to be that all wagers are held to the last minute, then dumped--once per race. Is there any difference (in time of co-mingling) between "conditional wagers" and other wagers? Are wagers on a specific race co-mingled incrementally to coincide (in any way) with the track wagering window for that specific race?

There is obviously a lot of current interest in "tote board analysis" on this forum, and the premise of "tracking smart money" in the wagering pools. Just as obviously, unless online wagers (other than time-related conditional wagers) are merged in real-time, at or almost at the instant they are made, the track exotic "will pays" do not accurately reflect the total wagers (online and on-track) made on those exotic pools at any point in time until the race goes off.

That would seem to make the only "tracking smart money in the wagering pools" going on restricted exclusively to on-track wagering.

[lamboguy]

i have seen money show up as quick as 10 seconds after you bet and as much as 10 minutes long to make it into the pool.

[traynor]

i have seen money show up as quick as 10 seconds after you bet and as much as 10 minutes long to make it into the pool.

I think the difficulty would be in source determination. Unless there is some specific (known and predictable) process of co-mingling, one could never be sure that what one is seeing is actually what one believes one is seeing.

I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that various venues have differing strategies (and timing) for co-mingling?

[davew]

my understanding is it depends on the hub and the track (whether they are CDI, Stronach, or other)

of course 'conditional' wagers could be made hours before the bet is officially made

[traynor]

my understanding is it depends on the hub and the track (whether they are CDI, Stronach, or other)

of course 'conditional' wagers could be made hours before the bet is officially made
The key would seem to be in when the money is dumped into the track pools (and hence registered on the track "will pays" for exotics) rather than when the bet is made.

Unless accepted wagers (not necessarily conditional wagers, until the appropriate time limit has passed) are uploaded repeatedly at frequent intervals, it would seem rather foolish for bettors to imagine they are "tracking the smart money" based on tote board patterns that may only be the on-track wagering, and have little or nothing to do (in many if not most cases) with what the "smart money bettors" are doing or not doing.

I don't think much of tote board chasing (mainly because I don't think there are too many out there who know more--in general terms--than I do, and hence would be worth my time and money to follow). I am not much of a follower, under any circumstances, and rarely even consider betting based on someone else's opinion or wagering. As in almost never.

I may be missing something. If so, I would like to learn more.

[AltonKelsey]

I'm surprised you are uncertain as to how the money flows, since you seem pretty hip when it comes to other aspects of the game.

I make no claims as to expertise in the dark arts of tote analysis , but I can say with some certainty that if you know more than me, you'd be Godlike.

In answer to your query, I'm quite certain the money flow is merged 'realtime' and since the updates happen so slowly (once a minute or a bit more) that you see all the money bet as it comes in.

It would be TOTAL chaos if it was done any other way.

[EMD4ME]

I bet small tracks and I've tested it with multiple ADWs. My bets hit within 1-2 cycles. (1-2 minutes). This includes Exactas , pick 4s and pick 5s. I can tell because the exacta payoff reduced significantly. I can tell as I've made a 300 pick 5 wager into a 500 pool (minute later it flashes up to 850 or so). This is why I hate to bet too early.

[traynor]

I'm surprised you are uncertain as to how the money flows, since you seem pretty hip when it comes to other aspects of the game.

I make no claims as to expertise in the dark arts of tote analysis , but I can say with some certainty that if you know more than me, you'd be Godlike.

In answer to your query, I'm quite certain the money flow is merged 'realtime' and since the updates happen so slowly (once a minute or a bit more) that you see all the money bet as it comes in.

It would be TOTAL chaos if it was done any other way.


My experience with ADWs is limited in exotics. I make a lot of relatively small win and exacta bets online, but only with ADWs that co-mingle. I never gave much thought to when the money was dumped in. My experience with "other" ADWs tended toward the negative, with varying degrees of disenchantment (of the ADWs of me as a customer) coinciding with the number and frequency of withdrawals. I like fairly frequent and fairly substantial withdrawals, apparently more than the "other" ADWs preferred.

My "serious" wagers are almost invariably made at the track, where I can see the entries up close.

[AltonKelsey]

I'm sure they would like you to leave all your winnings there indefinitely and then meet the wrong end of a Greyhound bus.

Who can blame them :p

[traynor]

I'm sure they would like you to leave all your winnings there indefinitely and then meet the wrong end of a Greyhound bus.

Who can blame them :p

I think Vegas should do more marketing to horse bettors. Many were "disenchanted" by the (past) realities of booked wagers rather than co-mingled. Obviously, if one can entice a lot of wagering by losers--and book the bets--it is as close to a money machine as it gets. (Did someone mumble "rebates"?)

I am endlessly amused by the (often) creative explanations as to why a particular bettor is not regularly withdrawing funds from his or her account. Reminds me of the exchanges between Leon and his "banker" in The Professional.

[Nitro]

More specifically, does anyone have any reliable information (as in a representative of an ADW) in regard to the processes used to co-mingle online wagers with the track pools?

"Common belief" seems to be that all wagers are held to the last minute, then dumped--once per race. Is there any difference (in time of co-mingling) between "conditional wagers" and other wagers? Are wagers on a specific race co-mingled incrementally to coincide (in any way) with the track wagering window for that specific race?

There is obviously a lot of current interest in "tote board analysis" on this forum, and the premise of "tracking smart money" in the wagering pools. Just as obviously, unless online wagers (other than time-related conditional wagers) are merged in real-time, at or almost at the instant they are made, the track exotic "will pays" do not accurately reflect the total wagers (online and on-track) made on those exotic pools at any point in time until the race goes off.

That would seem to make the only "tracking smart money in the wagering pools" going on restricted exclusively to on-track wagering.

The key would seem to be in when the money is dumped into the track pools (and hence registered on the track "will pays" for exotics) rather than when the bet is made.

Unless accepted wagers (not necessarily conditional wagers, until the appropriate time limit has passed) are uploaded repeatedly at frequent intervals, it would seem rather foolish for bettors to imagine they are "tracking the smart money" based on tote board patterns that may only be the on-track wagering, and have little or nothing to do (in many if not most cases) with what the "smart money bettors" are doing or not doing.

I don't think much of tote board chasing (mainly because I don't think there are too many out there who know more--in general terms--than I do, and hence would be worth my time and money to follow). I am not much of a follower, under any circumstances, and rarely even consider betting based on someone else's opinion or wagering. As in almost never.

I may be missing something. If so, I would like to learn moreYou know Traynor I wasn’t even going to bother posting a response until I noticed your antithesis and motivation for even starting a thread like this.

Some of your assertions are purely guesswork for sure. Are you missing something? Personally I’d say you’re missing a lot when it comes to understanding the realities of money flow in a live market. I mean where in the world did you come up with that so called "Common belief"?

The funny thing is if you just took the time to examine the W/P’s displayed openly on any credible ADW Web site then you would find the answer yourself. There’s no mystery! The information is there and it’s called “public domain” which simply means that all racing/betting enterprises must display it.

Why don’t you just admit that the only real mystery in your mind is how any type of tote analysis could possibly point out race contenders on a consistent basis. Well my friend whether you want to believe it or not, a sophisticated analysis can do just that, and I know that for a fact !

[traynor]

I bet small tracks and I've tested it with multiple ADWs. My bets hit within 1-2 cycles. (1-2 minutes). This includes Exactas , pick 4s and pick 5s. I can tell because the exacta payoff reduced significantly. I can tell as I've made a 300 pick 5 wager into a 500 pool (minute later it flashes up to 850 or so). This is why I hate to bet too early.

I am really curious about this, because of an experience at Fraser Downs awhile back (mentioned elsewhere in excruciating, boring detail). Basically, on specific entries, there was an easily detectable "signature." Certain entries would drop early to even money (or close) and pretty much stay there until the race went off. Almost never below 3/5 (and then only for one click) and almost never above 7/5 (and then only for one click). A "disproportionately large" number of those entries won. The low odds made them (apparently) seem unappealing to the "value" bettors, and the final odds would often go up rather than down. 8/5 or 9/5 on a horse that wins 60-70% of the races is generous.

I never figured out if the money was being bet on-track, incrementally, or co-mingled with the aid of a (very sophisticated) computer-assisted wagering app. It was a lot of fun tracking it while I was in BC, but I don't usually bet FRD otherwise so I have not really tracked it seriously over time. However, all the postings on tote-related threads recently has made me think it may be worth pursuing.

[traynor]

You know Traynor I wasn’t even going to bother posting a response until I noticed your antithesis and motivation for even starting a thread like this.

Some of your assertions are purely guesswork for sure. Are you missing something? Personally I’d say you’re missing a lot when it comes to understanding the realities of money flow in a live market. I mean where in the world did you come up with that so called "Common belief"?

The funny thing is if you just took the time to examine the W/P’s displayed openly on any credible ADW Web site then you would find the answer yourself. There’s no mystery! The information is there and it’s called “public domain” which simply means that all racing/betting enterprises must display it.

Why don’t you just admit that the only real mystery in your mind is how any type of tote analysis could possibly point out race contenders on a consistent basis. Well my friend whether you want to believe it or not, a sophisticated analysis can do just that, and I know that for a fact !

Primarily because I have seen zero evidence of such, in anything more complex (or "sophisticated") than simplistic "public preference hierarchies." Entries tending toward the short odds end tend to win/place more frequently than entries tending toward the long odds end, and entries tending toward the long odds end tend to comprise larger payoffs in the second and third positions in exotics relative to payoffs when lower odds entries fill those positions. Not rocket science, and a LONG way from "sophisticated."

I have little interest in explanations that imply the existence of "sophisticated secret strategies." Short runs of posted selections (particularly those involving 4-5 "choices" in each race) are not particularly persuasive. Short samples rarely provide useful insights to processes that may be applied to larger samples with equivalent (or even similar) results. I see nothing more complex in the explanations than the same old same old things most bettors know, understand, and have discarded as long-term losers. Interesting in the short term, but not especially useful in the long term.

[thaskalos]

I'm surprised you are uncertain as to how the money flows, since you seem pretty hip when it comes to other aspects of the game.

I make no claims as to expertise in the dark arts of tote analysis , but I can say with some certainty that if you know more than me, you'd be Godlike.

In answer to your query, I'm quite certain the money flow is merged 'realtime' and since the updates happen so slowly (once a minute or a bit more) that you see all the money bet as it comes in.

It would be TOTAL chaos if it was done any other way.


The wagered money isn't necessarily transferred to the mutuel pool of the host track in "real time". It could just as easily be co-mingled 10 minutes later. There are no regulations in place to ensure that the money is transferred in a prompt manner.

[traynor]

The wagered money isn't necessarily transferred to the mutuel pool of the host track in "real time". It could just as easily be co-mingled 10 minutes later. There are no regulations in place to ensure that the money is transferred in a prompt manner.
Thank you for the information. That is much as I expected, and much as it has seemed to me from observation.

Representatives of ADWs with credible evidence of their strategies to assure ALL wagers are submitted to the track pools on a real-time basis at frequent, pre-defined intervals during the track wagering cycle for each race are invited to comment on those strategies.

[AltonKelsey]

It 'could' be.

1) No reason to do it that way, it entails more risk for the ADW

2) No way to be 100% sure unless we ask the ADW's. There is no reason for them not to reveal this deep , dark secret.

[AltonKelsey]

traynor, what makes you think that the ultimate voting machine, the mutual pools, contain no 'information' that can be mined?

Nothing is perfect or for certain, but the information is there.

Now, how easy is it to extract and interpret is the question. I think its reasonably difficult , and suggest that the uninitiated don't even bother. Too hard.

Since Nitro has obviously cracked the code, maybe he can help us.

[traynor]

traynor, what makes you think that the ultimate voting machine, the mutual pools, contain no 'information' that can be mined?

Nothing is perfect or for certain, but the information is there.

Now, how easy is it to extract and interpret is the question. I think its reasonably difficult , and suggest that the uninitiated don't even bother. Too hard.

Since Nitro has obviously cracked the code, maybe he can help us.

I think the uninitiated are probably too busy doing other stuff to be even vaguely interested in horse racing, tote board versions or otherwise.

I find little (if anything) in data mining or data analysis "too hard." I think the same is true for many others.

It is not so much that I think there is "no information" in the mutuel pools, as that it helps to know the origin of the numbers one is massaging before massaging too vigorously.

I like Ruth Ellen Boetcher-Joeres' term of "obfuscatory prose" in regard to some of the "explanations" I have seem. Much classier than the typical grad school dismissal as being "the osmosis of the cosmosis."

[AltonKelsey]

Indeed.

The uninitiated I was referring to are not the unwashed masses too busy watching balls of various sizes and shapes being flung about, but actual horseplayers, not used to delving into the deep end of the 'pool'

As for the origin of the money, you will never know that , unless it's your money, or you're standing next to the guy betting at the next stall.

But after watching 3 or 4 hundred thousand betting pools (but who's counting) , you begin to get a feel.

[traynor]

Indeed.

The uninitiated I was referring to are not the unwashed masses too busy watching balls of various sizes and shapes being flung about, but actual horseplayers, not used to delving into the deep end of the 'pool'

As for the origin of the money, you will never know that , unless it's your money, or you're standing next to the guy betting at the next stall.

But after watching 3 or 4 hundred thousand betting pools (but who's counting) , you begin to get a feel.

Quite likely. However, I think the majority of bettors (at least those on this forum) are highly skeptical of feelings as a basis for wagering. Especially as a viable strategy for long-term profit.

None of which is to detract from those who use (or are willing to use) such as the basis for wagering. I am a big fan of the British Petroleum training process for their petroleum engineers/geologists for locating possibly productive areas for exploration. Some very slick pattern-recognition training. Big topic in executive decision-making studies.

[showonly]

I think Vegas should do more marketing to horse bettors. Many were "disenchanted" by the (past) realities of booked wagers rather than co-mingled. Obviously, if one can entice a lot of wagering by losers--and book the bets--it is as close to a money machine as it gets. (Did someone mumble "rebates"?)
The people who run the casinos racebooks have positioned themselves in a no win situation and treat it accordingly. I would think the next action by the casinos would be to charge for seating in the race books.

[traynor]

The people who run the casinos racebooks have positioned themselves in a no win situation and treat it accordingly. I would think the next action by the casinos would be to charge for seating in the race books.

It would not be a surprise.

[AltonKelsey]

All it takes is a few deep pocketed connected wise guys and your bookies will be taking the proverbial bath in no time.

They know it.

[davew]

The people who run the casinos racebooks have positioned themselves in a no win situation and treat it accordingly. I would think the next action by the casinos would be to charge for seating in the race books.


When they were 'books', they had unlimited exposure, that is why they had 'caps' on pay-offs - stuff like 300/1 max on DD, EX, TRI and some steam horses needed key approval before bet accepted.

When they started co-mingling, they were guaranteed a certain percentage depending on the bet type. Also betters were more willing to bet a few thousand on pick 6 carry-overs and such. It also became good advertising when the pool was taken down by a bettor in Vegas.

I am not sure how they are in any worse position than any off-track betting site.

[showonly]

When they were 'books', they had unlimited exposure, that is why they had 'caps' on pay-offs - stuff like 300/1 max on DD, EX, TRI and some steam horses needed key approval before bet accepted.

When they started co-mingling, they were guaranteed a certain percentage depending on the bet type. Also betters were more willing to bet a few thousand on pick 6 carry-overs and such. It also became good advertising when the pool was taken down by a bettor in Vegas.

I am not sure how they are in any worse position than any off-track betting site.


In a "center of the universe" panic move those in power decided to pass a state law forbidding cash perquisites. This move was in hopes of derailing the ascendance of one of the race books. It of course backfired and scattered one of the biggest collections of significant dollar wagers in the country. It also lead to what was the first of the V.I.P ADW's. With a few exceptions each year the Casino's would gladly shutter the remaining pestilence that is racing.

[ReplayRandall]

All it takes is a few deep pocketed connected wise guys and your bookies will be taking the proverbial bath in no time.

They know it.

Reminds me of a joint called the Sport of Kings, it lasted 2 months...

[showonly]

Reminds me of a joint called the Sport of Kings, it lasted 2 months...











A bookmaker can never hope to defeat a solid winning player. Remember that unlike poker there is no ante a player can wait as long as he likes for a wager that suits his criterion. In order to maintain his edge a bookmaker must follow a rigid risk management protocol of his limits per proposition and per player. The problem is as simple as losers bet less than winners in most cases.

[thaskalos]

A bookmaker can never hope to defeat a solid winning player. Remember that unlike poker there is no ante a player can wait as long as he likes for a wager that suits his criterion. In order to maintain his edge a bookmaker must follow a rigid risk management protocol of his limits per proposition and per player. The problem is as simple as losers bet less than winners in most cases.

The fixed races were the reason why the bookies soured on the idea of booking the horse-bets themselves. Being non-parimutuel...these early racebooks attracted all the connected riff-raff, primarily from the Northern California area...and that's what caused the heavy losses which resulted in the co-mingling of the wagers.

The losing horseplayers outnumber the winners by such an extent that no self-respecting bookmaker would be hesitant of booking the horses for fear that the "winning players" would beat him "legitimately". The bookie fears the FIXED race...and you can't blame him.

And, believe me...there are plenty of losers out there who bet just as much as the "winners".

[AltonKelsey]

The few pros that are winners are not the bookies concern.

The folks cleaning their clock are not even horseplayers. :rolleyes:

And it doesn't even have to be anything fixed. It's just too easy to win for certain elements when you don't have to bet into the pool.

[toddbowker]

It could just as easily be co-mingled 10 minutes later. There are no regulations in place to ensure that the money is transferred in a prompt manner.Couldn't be further from the truth.

The tote systems all talk to one another based on something called ITSP (Inter Tote System Protocol). The host track sets the amount of time between transmissions of the pool data. That time used to be once every minute, but the tote companies have innovated during the last couple of years and can go below 30 seconds at the host track's discretion. Most US tracks now are at either 30 seconds or 45.

The display of the data is another hit to the time sequence, as once the data is received, it must be aggregated and disseminated by the host track back to the outlets, or back to the TV displays. That can add a few more seconds before a customer sees it.

No outlet sits on your wagers and waits around to send them. In nearly every State, you have to refund wagers that were not transmitted to the host track, so there is a built in regulatory disincentive to sit on them. You'd run the risk of losing your link, having your customers get shut out of a pool, and therefore losing your commission on the wagers.

[PaceAdvantage]

Thanks Todd for setting the record straight on that...you need to post more! :ThmbUp:

[toddbowker]

Thanks Todd for setting the record straight on that...you need to post more! :ThmbUp:I always knew that 19 years of sitting through TRA 2020 meetings would come in handy some day .... :)

[traynor]

Couldn't be further from the truth.

The tote systems all talk to one another based on something called ITSP (Inter Tote System Protocol). The host track sets the amount of time between transmissions of the pool data. That time used to be once every minute, but the tote companies have innovated during the last couple of years and can go below 30 seconds at the host track's discretion. Most US tracks now are at either 30 seconds or 45.

The display of the data is another hit to the time sequence, as once the data is received, it must be aggregated and disseminated by the host track back to the outlets, or back to the TV displays. That can add a few more seconds before a customer sees it.

No outlet sits on your wagers and waits around to send them. In nearly every State, you have to refund wagers that were not transmitted to the host track, so there is a built in regulatory disincentive to sit on them. You'd run the risk of losing your link, having your customers get shut out of a pool, and therefore losing your commission on the wagers.

Thank you for the interesting comment. From your wording, it would seem the bolded portion above is mandatory, while that may not be the case at all. Does it mean the outlet MUST send the wagers at the stated interval, or does it mean that the outlet cannot send it more frequently (as in real-time)? Unless the regulation of interval involves some kind of mandatory time interval (that cannot be exceeded) between the time bets are received by the outlet and the time those bets are sent to the track, it doesn't clarify the matter. I agree that it might not be in the best interest of the outlet to fail to send wagers for a given race before that race is locked, but what incentive is there to send the wagers incrementally? And what penalty is there (as long as the wagers are sent before the wagering for that race is closed) for NOT sending the wagers incrementally?

[traynor]

Unfortunately, if all wagers ARE sent incrementally by the outlets, that would increase the incentive of "serious bettors" to wait until the last possible moment to wager in a given race. That would tend to make the premise of "tracking smart money" by interpreting tote board fluctuations even shakier.

[thaskalos]

Couldn't be further from the truth.

The tote systems all talk to one another based on something called ITSP (Inter Tote System Protocol). The host track sets the amount of time between transmissions of the pool data. That time used to be once every minute, but the tote companies have innovated during the last couple of years and can go below 30 seconds at the host track's discretion. Most US tracks now are at either 30 seconds or 45.

The display of the data is another hit to the time sequence, as once the data is received, it must be aggregated and disseminated by the host track back to the outlets, or back to the TV displays. That can add a few more seconds before a customer sees it.

No outlet sits on your wagers and waits around to send them. In nearly every State, you have to refund wagers that were not transmitted to the host track, so there is a built in regulatory disincentive to sit on them. You'd run the risk of losing your link, having your customers get shut out of a pool, and therefore losing your commission on the wagers.

What I posted here didn't come off the top of my head...nor do I have a vested interest in the outcome of this discussion. But we held a similar conversation to this here a few years ago, and I was able to unearth an official-sounding article...which matter-of-factly stated that there was no set "procedure" for the swift commingling of the out-of-state wagers. The article clearly stated that the merger of these wagers often took considerably longer than "45 seconds". I was able to attach said article to my reply a few years ago...but I was unable to find it when I responded to this thread.

I will continue looking for it though...

[Nitro]

Unfortunately, if all wagers ARE sent incrementally by the outlets, that would increase the incentive of "serious bettors" to wait until the last possible moment to wager in a given race. That would tend to make the premise of "tracking smart money" by interpreting tote board fluctuations even shakier.You know Traynor you really don’t get it. The man (toddbowker) offers you a plausible explanation for how the tote operations work and you continue to try to undermine the value of monitoring the activities of money flow. You just offer more half-witted and hypothetical psychological motivations for betting a certain way that fits your personal skepticism. What Todd didn’t mention is that in spite of the increased transmission speeds (of 30 to 45 secs) that the actual output of the displayed tote information occurs every 60 seconds at your favorite track or ADW.

And now of all things you’re proposing that this would some how justify betting ALL the “smart money” close to post time!! What sort of fools do you think these smart bettors are anyway? Do you really believe they’re going to risk taking a chance on getting shut out (for any number of reasons) when they’ve got something good going?

Besides who ever said anything about “interpreting tote board fluctuations”? We don’t have to interpret anything! The betting patterns are what they are - plain and simple. Just like many other realities in life; they can be very subtle or very obvious. Those like yourself have absolutely no concept of what’s really going on in ALL of the mutual and exacta (or quinella) pools simultaneously. You should be the last one offering dubious conjectures about a topic that’s apparently well beyond your scope.

Perhaps an accurate description of the sharp and smart player - written over 100 years ago!
by Edward Cole - from "Racing Maxims and Methods of Pittsburg Phil" - (1908)
Excerpt from CHAPTER 1 -- What One Must Know to Play the Races
Now what do the form players and successful handicappers know about horses? Well, I might say, incidentally, that they know the capabilities of every good horse in training, and have an accurate idea of what he will do under all circumstances. They know his habits, and his disposition as well, and perhaps better than you know your own brother. They know when he is at his best and when otherwise. They know what weather suits him, what track he likes best, what distance he likes to go, what weight he likes to carry, and what kind of a jockey he likes to have on his back. They know what the jockeys can do and what they cannot do, and in addition to that, they are close observers in the betting ring. If there is anything wrong it generally shows in the market. Did you happen to notice how is this fine portrayal is concluded?

Just because you can’t do it or even understand what might be involved doesn’t mean that it can’t be or isn’t being done!

[traynor]

You know Traynor you really don’t get it. The man (toddbowker) offers you a plausible explanation for how the tote operations work and you continue to try to undermine the value of monitoring the activities of money flow. You just offer more half-witted and hypothetical psychological motivations for betting a certain way that fits your personal skepticism. What Todd didn’t mention is that in spite of the increased transmission speeds (of 30 to 45 secs) that the actual output of the displayed tote information occurs every 60 seconds at your favorite track or ADW.

And now of all things you’re proposing that this would some how justify betting ALL the “smart money” close to post time!! What sort of fools do you think these smart bettors are anyway? Do you really believe they’re going to risk taking a chance on getting shut out (for any number of reasons) when they’ve got something good going?

Besides who ever said anything about “interpreting tote board fluctuations”? We don’t have to interpret anything! The betting patterns are what they are - plain and simple. Just like many other realities in life; they can be very subtle or very obvious. Those like yourself have absolutely no concept of what’s really going on in ALL of the mutual and exacta (or quinella) pools simultaneously. You should be the last one offering dubious conjectures about a topic that’s apparently well beyond your scope.

Perhaps an accurate description of the sharp and smart player - written over 100 years ago!
Did you happen to notice how is this fine portrayal is concluded?

Just because you can’t do it or even understand what might be involved doesn’t mean that it can’t be or isn’t being done!

As I mentioned previously, I like Ruth Ellen Boetcher-Joeres' term of "obfuscatory prose" in regard to some of the "explanations" I have seen. Much classier than the typical grad school dismissal as being "the osmosis of the cosmosis."

[toddbowker]

Also just to clarify, under the current ITSP system, individual bets are not sent to the host track, pool totals are. To simply explain, assume PTC is betting on Santa Anita today. When we report our win pool in the Classic, we would send the total bet on each runner. So if we sent $1,000 WIN 4, that could be a single $1,000 wager or 500 $2.00 wagers.

It's done this way because for the purposes of calculating prices, the host only needs the total winning dollars, not the individual tickets. It makes the messages shorter.

And yes, the "smart money" and computer players do try to come in as late as possible so they can see as close to "final" odds as possible before making their bets. There is a risk of getting shut out, but it's minimal as tote systems are capable of processing thousands of bets per second.

The bigger issue brought forth in this discussion is actually about the display side of things, not the transmission of the pools themselves. The simplified version of path of the entire chain of events looks like this:

1) Guest site accepts bets.
2) Guest tote aggregates the bets.
3) Guest tote transmits Pool totals to host tote.
4) Host tote aggregates the pools for all guests.
5) Host tote sends pool totals back to the guest tote.
6) Guest tote passes pool totals back to guest's display system.
7) Guest site's display system processes the information.
8) Guest site displays tote information to public.

And then you have the ability of the human eyes/brain to process the data once it's displayed. The closer you get to "real time" the more advantage the computer players have, because their models can analyze the data more quickly than a human can.

[traynor]

Also just to clarify, under the current ITSP system, individual bets are not sent to the host track, pool totals are. To simply explain, assume PTC is betting on Santa Anita today. When we report our win pool in the Classic, we would send the total bet on each runner. So if we sent $1,000 WIN 4, that could be a single $1,000 wager or 500 $2.00 wagers.

It's done this way because for the purposes of calculating prices, the host only needs the total winning dollars, not the individual tickets. It makes the messages shorter.

And yes, the "smart money" and computer players do try to come in as late as possible so they can see as close to "final" odds as possible before making their bets. There is a risk of getting shut out, but it's minimal as tote systems are capable of processing thousands of bets per second.

The bigger issue brought forth in this discussion is actually about the display side of things, not the transmission of the pools themselves. The simplified version of path of the entire chain of events looks like this:

1) Guest site accepts bets.
2) Guest tote aggregates the bets.
3) Guest tote transmits Pool totals to host tote.
4) Host tote aggregates the pools for all guests.
5) Host tote sends pool totals back to the guest tote.
6) Guest tote passes pool totals back to guest's display system.
7) Guest site's display system processes the information.
8) Guest site displays tote information to public.

And then you have the ability of the human eyes/brain to process the data once it's displayed. The closer you get to "real time" the more advantage the computer players have, because their models can analyze the data more quickly than a human can.

Thank you for the additional clarification. That is consistent with what I have seen of (and been involved in the development of) "professional grade" data mining and data analysis applications.

[AltonKelsey]

Wasn't this all pretty obvious by simple observation? I thought I described the process early on.

Bet's are made, they are sent once a minute or so, prices fluctuate.

Why would it work any other way?

And why would someone adept at pool analysis reveal proprietary knowledge any more readily than a handicapper with a winning method?

It's not obfuscation, it's a secret!

With the right tools, you see things.

[traynor]

Wasn't this all pretty obvious by simple observation? I thought I described the process early on.

Bet's are made, they are sent once a minute or so, prices fluctuate.

Why would it work any other way?

And why would someone adept at pool analysis reveal proprietary knowledge any more readily than a handicapper with a winning method?

It's not obfuscation, it's a secret!

With the right tools, you see things.

I wish you and your associate the best of luck, and much success in marketing your "secrets."

[AltonKelsey]

Thanks for the good wishes. Sadly, no one is my associate, and I have no need or desire to market anything. Dealing with the public is anathema to me.

[LottaKash]

. . Dealing with the public is anathema to me.

Since this is a public forum, and we are anathema to you, then I would ask you, why do you even bother posting here ?...

[Nitro]

Thanks for the good wishes. Sadly, no one is my associate, and I have no need or desire to market anything. Dealing with the public is anathema to me.Isn’t it amazing how Taynor conjurers up these things. Where did anyone even mention the sale or marketing of anything? But you’re correct; the programs I’m using utilize proprietary formulas. My understanding is that they’re based on the previous analysis of a database containing the betting cycles of ¾ million races of every description.

Funny thing is I was recently informed that these programs are no longer available even through personal referrals. So I feel very fortunate to have had the opportunity to have gotten involved when I did. Having used them for quite a while I can also confirm that what the betting patterns reveal is partially dependent upon the size of the betting pools involved.

In other words, at tracks where the pools are larger there’s no need for anyone to wait for the last minute to bet because the odds and will/pays are normally very stable. Those smart bettors also realize that there’s no need to be concerned about anyone attempting to visually track their betting because these pools are big enough to absorb large bets. They also realize that the majority of handicappers don’t even bother monitoring the tote board to begin with.

[traynor]

Isn’t it amazing how Taynor conjurers up these things. Where did anyone even mention the sale or marketing of anything? But you’re correct; the programs I’m using utilize proprietary formulas. My understanding is that they’re based on the previous analysis of a database containing the betting cycles of ¾ million races of every description.

Funny thing is I was recently informed that these programs are no longer available even through personal referrals. So I feel very fortunate to have had the opportunity to have gotten involved when I did. Having used them for quite a while I can also confirm that what the betting patterns reveal is partially dependent upon the size of the betting pools involved.

In other words, at tracks where the pools are larger there’s no need for anyone to wait for the last minute to bet because the odds and will/pays are normally very stable. Those smart bettors also realize that there’s no need to be concerned about anyone attempting to visually track their betting because these pools are big enough to absorb large bets. They also realize that the majority of handicappers don’t even bother monitoring the tote board to begin with.

I wish you and your associate the best of luck, and much success in marketing your "secrets."

[thaskalos]

I wish you and your associate the best of luck, and much success in marketing your "secrets."

They better hurry...before the "customers" run out of money. :)

[VigorsTheGrey]

Also just to clarify, under the current ITSP system, individual bets are not sent to the host track, pool totals are. To simply explain, assume PTC is betting on Santa Anita today. When we report our win pool in the Classic, we would send the total bet on each runner. So if we sent $1,000 WIN 4, that could be a single $1,000 wager or 500 $2.00 wagers.

It's done this way because for the purposes of calculating prices, the host only needs the total winning dollars, not the individual tickets. It makes the messages shorter.

And yes, the "smart money" and computer players do try to come in as late as possible so they can see as close to "final" odds as possible before making their bets. There is a risk of getting shut out, but it's minimal as tote systems are capable of processing thousands of bets per second.

The bigger issue brought forth in this discussion is actually about the display side of things, not the transmission of the pools themselves. The simplified version of path of the entire chain of events looks like this:

1) Guest site accepts bets.
2) Guest tote aggregates the bets.
3) Guest tote transmits Pool totals to host tote.
4) Host tote aggregates the pools for all guests.
5) Host tote sends pool totals back to the guest tote.
6) Guest tote passes pool totals back to guest's display system.
7) Guest site's display system processes the information.
8) Guest site displays tote information to public.

And then you have the ability of the human eyes/brain to process the data once it's displayed. The closer you get to "real time" the more advantage the computer players have, because their models can analyze the data more quickly than a human can.

What length of time does the 1 thru 8 above take? If I am standing at at satellite wagering facility betting computer exactly 1 minute prior to post time is this good enough to catch the latest price changes? We have seen price changes well after the gate opens...

[toddbowker]

What length of time does the 1 thru 8 above take? If I am standing at at satellite wagering facility betting computer exactly 1 minute prior to post time is this good enough to catch the latest price changes? We have seen price changes well after the gate opens...Not the answer you want to hear, but it depends. Items 2-5 typically happen within seconds (or less) depending on the network. The additional time for you to see it will depend on how/where you are viewing the data, and the pool transmission timing establish at the host tote. It also matters whether or not the wagers being sent at that time actually affect the price. Entirely possible for $100k to come into the win pool and the odds don't move because it came in at the same ratios of what was already there. Pool total changes, but the odds don't.

The reason you see odds changes after the break has to do with two things. When the pools lock, the final pool cycle gets sent to the host site. It then gets processed and displayed as I outlined above (steps 6-8), so of course you can see changes after the break. How long after the break these changes will show up depends on where you are seeing them.

And keep in mind odds swings might not actually be as severe as you think. Since we use fractional odds, a horse that is actually 3.90-1 will show as 7/2, so if you see a horse go from 7/2 to 4-1, it might have only gone up from 3.90-1 to 4.00-1.

You will see odds most quickly on the physical tote board at the track, Generally speaking after that, next quickest would be the on-track TV broadcast, then the data feed on an ADW platform, then via satellite TV transmission at guest sites, finally streaming video on an ADW platform. The further you get from the toteboard the more processing that needs to be done (and therefore more delay).

[Nitro]

Isn’t it amazing how Taynor conjurers up these things. Where did anyone even mention the sale or marketing of anything? But you’re correct; the programs I’m using utilize proprietary formulas. I wish you and your associate the best of luck, and much success in marketing your "secrets."Your continued insinuations are not only ludicrous, they're beyond belief! I mean don't you know how to comprehend the written word? I personally would never sell what I'm using; if for no other reason than out of respect for my mentor's wishes and continued support. Besides, why would anyone playing a pari-mutual game with all sorts of competition want to divulge the contents of any edge that they might possess?

You know, I have a strong suspicion that you're among those who are just resentful of how some like us can successfully navigate and participate in this game in ways that are completely outside the realm of typical handicapping.

[AltonKelsey]

Nitro, I don't know you from Adam, but if Traynor thinks he's going to 'embarrass' us into divulging secret, proprietary, hard learned wisdom on a chat board, he's smoking the good stuff.

Nice try.

[Nitro]

Nitro, I don't know you from Adam, but if Traynor thinks he's going to 'embarrass' us into divulging secret, proprietary, hard learned wisdom on a chat board, he's smoking the good stuff.

Nice try.I’m not sure what he’s smoking, but I personally hate seeing someone whom I thought had some intelligence embarrass himself with antics like this. Maybe I just got the wrong impression from reading many of his other posts. Who knows?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Your continued insinuations are not only ludicrous, they're beyond belief! I mean don't you know how to comprehend the written word? I personally would never sell what I'm using; if for no other reason than out of respect for my mentor's wishes and continued support. Besides, why would anyone playing a pari-mutual game with all sorts of competition want to divulge the contents of any edge that they might possess?

You know, I have a strong suspicion that you're among those who are just resentful of how some like us can successfully navigate and participate in this game in ways that are completely outside the realm of typical handicapping.
Nitro, you pose the question of why anyone would divulge the contents of any edge and yet you routinely divulge the objects of your edge to all of us, namely your selections in your typical AB\cde or AB\cdef fashion....are you divulging your selections because you are altruistic here.....? Or is your purpose just to get more exotic bets into the gross exotic pools that you can then exploit with the way you actually bet without revealing THAT to us?

[AltonKelsey]

Nitro, you've been unmasked.

Posting your selections, so PA bettors can add to the zillion dollar pools and give you a bigger edge to bet into.

Game over.

[thaskalos]

Come on, guys. Traynor is just having some pre-election fun...that's all. :)

[VigorsTheGrey]

Nitro, you pose the question of why anyone would divulge the contents of any edge and yet you routinely divulge the objects of your edge to all of us, namely your selections in your typical AB\cde or AB\cdef fashion....are you divulging your selections because you are altruistic here.....? Or is your purpose just to get more exotic bets into the gross exotic pools that you can then exploit with the way you actually bet without revealing THAT to us?

I guess this is unfair of me to post this, Nitro. Sorry, I apologize in advance here....you've been very helpful to me and others here and I wish good things for everyone here.... Thanks, again for your selections...I'm going to try to utilize them more in the future and I hope that you will continue to post them for all of our benefit.....Vigors.

[Nitro]

Nitro, you've been unmasked.

Posting your selections, so PA bettors can add to the zillion dollar pools and give you a bigger edge to bet into.

Game over.OMG !! Vigors actually believes that the typical egotistical player is going to use someone else' s selections? Especially those coming from someone who completely disregards the sacred and traditional handicapping!

Really though, I can't lump everyone into that category, because I know of a few who have been kind enough to acknowledge their personal success with some of my posts. I have no problem sharing that type of information. As much as I know the difficulties some might have coming to grips with my approach, I enjoy letting people know that there is another way to skin a cat. I just wish someone would have demonstrated this to me 30 years ago!

[Nitro]

Come on, guys. Traynor is just having some pre-election fun...that's all. :)
I sure hope so! Because I'm still a bit bewildered by some of his comments.
Thanks for making this whole conversation a bit lighter!