PDA

View Full Version : How much is it worth to NOT have robotic wagerers in the pools?


Andy Asaro
01-15-2018, 11:16 AM
https://twitter.com/EJXD2/status/952912329469030400


https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/952914076161552385

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/952919672646610945

Fager Fan
01-15-2018, 11:47 AM
I said this a number of times in the various threads around here, that if you want to fight for something important, it seems to me that it's harpooning the whales.

MONEY
01-15-2018, 12:02 PM
From what I understand from reading hear at PaceAdvantage, Whales as a whole lose a small percentage of their bankrolls, but make a profit because of large rebates on the takeout.

Why would I be against people that are putting large amounts of money into the pools for me to win?

classhandicapper
01-15-2018, 12:05 PM
From what I understand from reading hear at PaceAdvantage, Whales as a whole lose a small percentage of their bankrolls, but make a profit because of large rebates on the takeout.

Why would I be against people that are putting large amounts of money into the pools for me to win?


You can be a losing player and still be contributing to making the pools more efficient than they would be otherwise.

Andy Asaro
01-15-2018, 01:00 PM
The other day CJ mentioned free handle. What it comes down to is not how much more they handle cuz of the robotic wagering but how much more revenue they make. Gotta believe that the right thing to do is bend the curve the other way by lowering takeout for all and cutting massive rebates.

cj
01-15-2018, 01:03 PM
The other day CJ mentioned free handle. What it comes down to is not how much more they handle cuz of the robotic wagering but how much more revenue they make. Gotta believe that the right thing to do is bend the curve the other way by lowering takeout for all and cutting massive rebates.

By allowing rebating, tracks are admitting that lower takeout works. The unfair situation most bettors face now is unfortunate, between rebating and CRW. But are tracks going to turn off their biggest customers now when business isn't exactly booming as it is? That is a big ask. If it wasn't for those things (and gaming subsidies) the bottom would have fallen out years ago IMO at most places.

Andy Asaro
01-15-2018, 01:16 PM
By allowing rebating, tracks are admitting that lower takeout works. The unfair situation most bettors face now is unfortunate, between rebating and CRW. But are tracks going to turn off their biggest customers now when business isn't exactly booming as it is? That is a big ask. If it wasn't for those things (and gaming subsidies) the bottom would have fallen out years ago IMO at most places.

Not recommending cold turkey solution. Gotta bend the curve the other way over the next few years.

linrom1
01-15-2018, 01:22 PM
The other day CJ mentioned free handle. What it comes down to is not how much more they handle cuz of the robotic wagering but how much more revenue they make. Gotta believe that the right thing to do is bend the curve the other way by lowering takeout for all and cutting massive rebates.

This is the point about GP that players don't understand. GP is giving out the farm for free to computer teams because in turn they feast on the little guys.

This is a scam that will unravel because they're driving the little guys away from the game.

The P5 payoff at OP clearly shows how computer players effect play: 4-5 paid $1,500. If this was at GP, 5-5 would pay far less because all the combinations would be covered by computer players who would've then scooped the whole pool. NOTE: OP does not allow robotic players access to their pools.

The most important thing to understand about GP pools is that they're designed to screw novice, small or casual handicappers to the BENEFIT of computer players. They're paying for all of this through high take-out rates: the whales get rebates---GET IT!!!!

Andy Asaro
01-15-2018, 01:25 PM
Just heard from someone saying the Robotic wagerers can play Oaklawn but only up to 5% of the pools??????

cj
01-15-2018, 01:26 PM
Not recommending cold turkey solution. Gotta bend the curve the other way over the next few years.

I agree it is bad, just think the hole has been dug so deep sometimes you can't get out.

green80
01-15-2018, 01:33 PM
Oaklawn gets it, that's why their handle is up. Not many tracks show and increase in handle and attendance for last year as did OP.

cj
01-15-2018, 01:51 PM
Just heard from someone saying the Robotic wagerers can play Oaklawn but only up to 5% of the pools??????

I don't see how that could possibly be regulated. 5% of an unknown number? Doesn't make sense.

GMB@BP
01-15-2018, 02:53 PM
With these robotic wagers in play does it make sense to play at smaller tracks with smaller pools? I would have to believe that pool size has to go a long way in their ability to generate money.

Andy Asaro
01-15-2018, 02:57 PM
I don't see how that could possibly be regulated. 5% of an unknown number? Doesn't make sense.

Pretty sure it's just a guideline thing that they monitor. Pool yesterday was 50K

And not positive that this 5% is in stone. We need to hear from someone who knows for sure what can and can't be done.

AskinHaskin
01-15-2018, 05:26 PM
Is this collective selective myopia??

Why on earth is the one percent gathered here complaining about the computerized set-ups which know far greater advantages than they do while simultaneously (you) are unable or unwilling to understand in the slightest the huge number you and your ilk have done to the 98% which you have largely driven from racing??


Takeout percentage still has exactly nothing to do with any of the changes which must be made in order to reverse your own collective disastrous effect upon the whole of racing.


Every sensible move done in the interest of reversing the extreme imbalance in today's mutuel pools must be done with the little guy/novice/beginner in mind first and foremost.

The little guy doesn't give a sh*t about the $1.56 you might give him each day through your own, self-centered reduced takeout. (that little guy would be more interested in your offer if you held $1.56 in a small plastic bag with his name on it, visible from the turnstiles beneath the sign which says: "Admission: $6.50")


People bet billions of dollars on lotteries, with each aware going in that their own dollar has just as much chance as do any individual dollars spent by the fabulously wealthy on the same lottery. THAT is the mentality which drives the successes of lotteries. Racing won't even offer that comfort to its masses, and thus racing is circling the drain.

Just who believes that lottery revenue would remain stable or increase if its takeout were suddenly reduced to 40%. Do you believe that the guy who wins $386 Million (instead of $320 million) is now going to wager $66 million more on the lottery?



Begin by assisting the smallest of the small fries in attendance at each racing venue, and that, better than reducing takeout or (eliminating the computer-connections to the mutuel pools known to select few)... will begin the long road ahead toward bringing back the relative balance known to mutuel pools in the 1970's and before. (and who basically demanded over time the one-by-one disasters which have eroded the precious 'balance' in the mutuel pools? - it was you!!... all of you! ) (no racing newcomer ever wandered into Santa Anita guest services and exclaimed: "I'd love to wager here, but only if you add a 2nd pick-5 that overlaps the first one!" ) (no racing newcomer ever responded to a Keeneland BETologist with: "eh, I dunno, I think I'm gonna focus exclusively on rolling pick-3's today, can you help me establish my position?")




Lets call it Trickle-up economics.

Go watch the video (posted here at PA recently) of those guys standing around and screaming at the TV at Los Al and understand that those, along with people brand new to racing, are the people that racing needs to help first! Additionally, it is relatively easy to help those people for the mere fact that they could use any assistance most of anyone.


As for the rest of you... it should have been widely understood by each of you decades ago that you can not be any part of the solution until such time as when you cease to be the problem.

jay68802
01-15-2018, 06:40 PM
Is this collective selective myopia??

Why on earth is the one percent gathered here complaining about the computerized set-ups which know far greater advantages than they do while simultaneously (you) are unable or unwilling to understand in the slightest the huge number you and your ilk have done to the 98% which you have largely driven from racing??


Takeout percentage still has exactly nothing to do with any of the changes which must be made in order to reverse your own collective disastrous effect upon the whole of racing.


Every sensible move done in the interest of reversing the extreme imbalance in today's mutuel pools must be done with the little guy/novice/beginner in mind first and foremost.

The little guy doesn't give a sh*t about the $1.56 you might give him each day through your own, self-centered reduced takeout. (that little guy would be more interested in your offer if you held $1.56 in a small plastic bag with his name on it, visible from the turnstiles beneath the sign which says: "Admission: $6.50")


People bet billions of dollars on lotteries, with each aware going in that their own dollar has just as much chance as do any individual dollars spent by the fabulously wealthy on the same lottery. THAT is the mentality which drives the successes of lotteries. Racing won't even offer that comfort to its masses, and thus racing is circling the drain.



Just who believes that lottery revenue would remain stable or increase if its takeout were suddenly reduced to 40%. Do you believe that the guy who wins $386 Million (instead of $320 million) is now going to wager $66 million more on the lottery?



Begin by assisting the smallest of the small fries in attendance at each racing venue, and that, better than reducing takeout or (eliminating the computer-connections to the mutuel pools known to select few)... will begin the long road ahead toward bringing back the relative balance known to mutuel pools in the 1970's and before. (and who basically demanded over time the one-by-one disasters which have eroded the precious 'balance' in the mutuel pools? - it was you!!... all of you! ) (no racing newcomer ever wandered into Santa Anita guest services and exclaimed: "I'd love to wager here, but only if you add a 2nd pick-5 that overlaps the first one!" ) (no racing newcomer ever responded to a Keeneland BETologist with: "eh, I dunno, I think I'm gonna focus exclusively on rolling pick-3's today, can you help me establish my position?")




Lets call it Trickle-up economics.

Go watch the video (posted here at PA recently) of those guys standing around and screaming at the TV at Los Al and understand that those, along with people brand new to racing, are the people that racing needs to help first! Additionally, it is relatively easy to help those people for the mere fact that they could use any assistance most of anyone.


As for the rest of you... it should have been widely understood by each of you decades ago that you can not be any part of the solution until such time as when you cease to be the problem.

Oaklawn Park has increased the on track attendance and on track handle by offering a "show bet bonus" to its customers. This is nothing more than reducing take out on that wager. Do you think that these same customers, who would have their payout's reduced, by wagering into a higher take out pool, would be coming back? They like it because lower takeout, increases their pay out, and they feel good about the extra money they won.

Today at Gulfstream Park the Rainbow Six pool of 2.7 million dollars increased by about $10,000 after the race started. The win pool of $89,000 increased by $60,000. Do you think a new customer enjoys watching the payout on a 5-1 they bet get cut in half by the time the race is over? Would a new customer even care why this happened? No, all they think is that they were "ripped off" by "the track".

The "1 percent" of us care about this business, and IMO, will be able to help it in the long run.

And, by the way, reduced take out is "trickle-up economics".

cj
01-15-2018, 06:56 PM
Revenue on lotteries went up big time when takeout was reduced.

Andy Asaro
01-15-2018, 06:58 PM
Revenue on lotteries went up big time when takeout was reduced.

Happened in Ca. in 2011. Lottery reduced take and revenue went up. California increased take and revenue declined dramatically.

They do need a 5 or 5 and 1/2 furlong race on turf for cheaper horses.

Dave Schwartz
01-15-2018, 07:20 PM
Is this collective selective myopia??

The little guy doesn't give a sh*t about the $1.56 you might give him each day through your own, self-centered reduced takeout. (that little guy would be more interested in your offer if you held $1.56 in a small plastic bag with his name on it, visible from the turnstiles beneath the sign which says: "Admission: $6.50").

I hate to break it to you, but the tracks don't give a sh*t about the little guy, either.

Reality.

Dave

castaway01
01-15-2018, 07:23 PM
With these robotic wagers in play does it make sense to play at smaller tracks with smaller pools? I would have to believe that pool size has to go a long way in their ability to generate money.

It's hard to know what to believe. Some say the robotic wagers are in play at the smaller tracks too, but just on a smaller scale, and the amount of rebate they get (I.e., a very high percentage) makes it worth their while to do so.

SG4
01-15-2018, 09:37 PM
If robotic wagering whales are covering so many combinations & responsible for so much of the pool, shouldn't smaller players find this a benefit in that it should ensure more realistic payouts across all combinations? I really don't understand the complaints from people, please explain where the payoffs are so unfair?

linrom1
01-15-2018, 10:52 PM
If robotic wagering whales are covering so many combinations & responsible for so much of the pool, shouldn't smaller players find this a benefit in that it should ensure more realistic payouts across all combinations? I really don't understand the complaints from people, please explain where the payoffs are so unfair?

You seem to lack basic understanding how robotic wagers work: a wager is made if its expected value is greater than zero. Robotic wagers DON'T add any value to other players, they reduce payoffs for everyone else.

Since they also receive a fat rebate, the likelihood that tracks will reduce takeout is zero, you pay for it.

I am amazed how naive many players are.

Suppose I as a member of a computer wagering entity, wager $100 million for a profit of 1% and then receive a 17-18% rebate, I'll kiss Stronach arse, and if I am a money launderer from South America or Asia.........well.

AltonKelsey
01-15-2018, 11:12 PM
You seem to lack basic understanding how robotic wagers work: a wager is made if its expected value is greater than zero. Robotic wagers DON'T add any value to other players, they reduce payoffs for everyone else.

Since they also receive a fat rebate, the likelihood that tracks will reduce takeout is zero, you pay for it.

I am amazed how naive many players are.

Suppose I as a member of a computer wagering entity, wager $100 million for a profit of 1% and then receive a 17-18% rebate, I'll kiss Stronach arse, and if I am a money launderer from South America or Asia.........well.


Probably right about the money launderers who might even play and LOSE as long as they are cleaning the coin. I've considered that.

Once in a while , the value seeking bots pump up the winning payoff. They can't get it right every time, and if they concentrate on one set off combinations, the others will float. Trouble is, much of that is random (from your perspective) so you can't really predict what will happen in advance.

AndyC
01-15-2018, 11:16 PM
Oaklawn gets it, that's why their handle is up. Not many tracks show and increase in handle and attendance for last year as did OP.

Oaklawn doesn't charge for admission and by their own count the attendance went down. Handle was up very slightly.

ronsmac
01-15-2018, 11:23 PM
From what I understand from reading hear at PaceAdvantage, Whales as a whole lose a small percentage of their bankrolls, but make a profit because of large rebates on the takeout.

Why would I be against people that are putting large amounts of money into the pools for me to win?
If they're losing less than the takeout, then you're not winning because of their money.

AndyC
01-15-2018, 11:25 PM
You seem to lack basic understanding how robotic wagers work: a wager is made if its expected value is greater than zero. Robotic wagers DON'T add any value to other players, they reduce payoffs for everyone else......

I guess I am lacking understanding as well. If bets are made on horses with expected values greater than zero wouldn't this move the odds for horses whose expected values are less than zero?

Fox
01-16-2018, 03:46 AM
Better off just taking computers out of the game all together. Make everyone go back to paper programs and pencils. No highlighters though. Those aren’t fair.

Seabiscuit@AR
01-16-2018, 05:01 AM
Racetracks that allow rebaters to infest their pools are insane. All they are doing is enabling the rebaters to get rick quick while the racetrack over the long run goes bust as it slowly loses all the non rebate customers who are paying the full takeout

The more people win the more they bet. The more they lose the less they bet until they reach the point where they quit the game altogether. If you let rebaters infest your pools then the non rebate players basically only have poor value bets to choose from at -20% or worse. They are guaranteed to only ever be small players in the pools and to eventually quit forever. Meanwhile the rebate players are able to corner the market on all the value bets in the pool and make a mint

If the rebate player and non rebate player back the same horse, the rebates work to make that bet positive expectation for the rebate player but negative expectation for the non rebate player. So the rebate player and non rebate player can make exactly the same bets but the rebater makes a fortune while the non rebate player goes broke in the long run. The ultimate in unfair play

biggestal99
01-16-2018, 07:45 AM
Racetracks that allow rebaters to infest their pools are insane. All they are doing is enabling the rebaters to get rick quick while the racetrack over the long run goes bust as it slowly loses all the non rebate customers who are paying the full takeout

The more people win the more they bet. The more they lose the less they bet until they reach the point where they quit the game altogether. If you let rebaters infest your pools then the non rebate players basically only have poor value bets to choose from at -20% or worse. They are guaranteed to only ever be small players in the pools and to eventually quit forever. Meanwhile the rebate players are able to corner the market on all the value bets in the pool and make a mint

If the rebate player and non rebate player back the same horse, the rebates work to make that bet positive expectation for the rebate player but negative expectation for the non rebate player. So the rebate player and non rebate player can make exactly the same bets but the rebater makes a fortune while the non rebate player goes broke in the long run. The ultimate in unfair play

It’s is equally insane that these tracks (mostly)
Don’t allow exchange wagering at their tracks.
Commission too low. Yet they give out masses sums of money to robotic players to play their pools.


Fixed odds betting is great.

If I was allowed to I,d set up my bookie umbrella at Monmouth every summer and let the little man bet at good odds, not the crumbs they pm system allows in 2018. For instance there was a horse called big awesome at Tampa Bay 2nd race on Saturday. 9/2. Bet down to 5/2.Matt Carothers liked this horse. He even commented about the odds drop. Betfair price was over 5-1. Whoever bet this horse at the full takeout, I feel sorry for.

Allan

lamboguy
01-16-2018, 09:43 AM
in the old days at Rockingham, a good chunk of the handle was coming from bookmakers. there must have been 500 of them on track taking bets and laying them off in the pools. Lou Smith was a legend and he allowed them to do their business on his property, because the net result was there was more handle being pumped through the window's. i suppose the same thing could happen with exchange wagering. they can both thrive at the same time.

maybe things were a bit different back in the 60's and 70's. there was no such thing as an otb, but there were thousand's of bookmaking shops all over in places like dry-cleaner's, restaraunts and bars and small variety shops. but almost everyone you knew bet on horse racing every day. when the law closed down those places for good, people started betting on sports over the telephone.

Redboard
01-16-2018, 10:57 AM
So yesterday I put in a Pick 5 at Oaklawn and missed the first leg where I used 3 horses. Didn't think much about it after that. Later I find that it paid on 4 of 5 for $1600. That can't happen 99% of the time with the large robotic wagerers can it?



I didn't think that the track/ADWs gave out odds (before the first leg) of multirace bets with more legs than the pick 3. In other words, I've never seen will-pays for pick 4s, pick 5s, & pick 6s.

Has anybody here seen this?

cj
01-16-2018, 11:03 AM
I didn't think that the track/ADWs gave out odds (before the first leg) of multirace bets with more legs than the pick 3. In other words, I've never seen will-pays for pick 4s, pick 5s, & pick 6s.

Has anybody here seen this?

All those will pays are available before the last leg, none are available to the public beforehand, not that I've ever seen anyway.

Redboard
01-16-2018, 11:03 AM
With these robotic wagers in play does it make sense to play at smaller tracks with smaller pools? I would have to believe that pool size has to go a long way in their ability to generate money.

There was a guy here EMD, or something like that, who used to love raiding the pools at Portland Meadows every year, for the reason you mentioned.

I guess it works for some people but I'd rather lose money at Saratoga than win at Portland Meadows.

biggestal99
01-16-2018, 11:40 AM
in the old days at Rockingham, a good chunk of the handle was coming from bookmakers. there must have been 500 of them on track taking bets and laying them off in the pools. Lou Smith was a legend and he allowed them to do their business on his property, because the net result was there was more handle being pumped through the window's. i suppose the same thing could happen with exchange wagering. they can both thrive at the same time.

maybe things were a bit different back in the 60's and 70's. there was no such thing as an otb, but there were thousand's of bookmaking shops all over in places like dry-cleaner's, restaraunts and bars and small variety shops. but almost everyone you knew bet on horse racing every day. when the law closed down those places for good, people started betting on sports over the telephone.

well the Allan @ Monmouth Bookmakers certainly would not use the PM system at all.

we'd use betfair odds (a nearly round book between 100-102 usually)
and charge a 5% commission on winning bets.

For instance the horse Big Awesome paid 7.40 on track at Tampa. Price would
have paid 12.74 - .64 cents commission. paying a nice round 12.10 at Allan @ Monmouth Bookmakers.

No breakage. We leave the PM system behind and let the robots and AW money to fight it out for the crumbs on the table. On track people would benefit from fixed odds wagering.

There are a million ways to be inventive regarding on track minnow betting instead of forcing people on track to fight the robots of the world in the PM system for the 7.40 payoff.

Allan

Allan

AndyC
01-16-2018, 12:21 PM
Racetracks that allow rebaters to infest their pools are insane. All they are doing is enabling the rebaters to get rick quick while the racetrack over the long run goes bust as it slowly loses all the non rebate customers who are paying the full takeout

The more people win the more they bet. The more they lose the less they bet until they reach the point where they quit the game altogether. If you let rebaters infest your pools then the non rebate players basically only have poor value bets to choose from at -20% or worse. They are guaranteed to only ever be small players in the pools and to eventually quit forever. Meanwhile the rebate players are able to corner the market on all the value bets in the pool and make a mint

If the rebate player and non rebate player back the same horse, the rebates work to make that bet positive expectation for the rebate player but negative expectation for the non rebate player. So the rebate player and non rebate player can make exactly the same bets but the rebater makes a fortune while the non rebate player goes broke in the long run. The ultimate in unfair play

I can't follow your logic. Why would non-rebate players only have poor value bets at -20% or more to choose from? If the rebate players are only betting the so-called value plays the poor value plays will necessarily be brought back to less than poor value. After all it is a mutuel pool.

Presumably a bettor makes a bet because they believe they have value. If a rebate bettor makes the same bet as a non-rebate player it shouldn't change the belief of the non-rebate player that they are making a value bet.

Seabiscuit@AR
01-16-2018, 12:37 PM
AndyC

The pool has to balance to whatever the overall pool takeout is

So if the overall pool takeout is -20% and all horses are equal value then all horses will be -20% plays. So in a 4 horse field we get

Horse A -20%
Horse B -20%
Horse C -20%
Horse D -20%

OK now let's look at a race where Horse A is a value play. Let's call the rebate player Zeljko to pick a random name. OK so Zeljko's computer program tells him to hammer Horse A as it is a value pick. Zeljko has a 10% rebate and hammers this Horse A down to -5% before any rebates so it becomes a +5% value bet for Zeljko post rebate

The pool now becomes
Horse A -5%
Horse B -25%
Horse C -25%
Horse D -25%

The non rebate player has 2 options. Back the same horse as Zeljko the rebate player. If they do this they will lose -5% and go broke slowly in the long run (while Zeljko books a handsome profit at +5% after rebate). OR they can bet against Zeljko and bet on either Horse B, C or D and cop a -25% play and go broke quickly

Bottom line there are no value plays left in the pool for the non rebate player. Their only choice is to either go broke slowly (same play as Zeljko) or go broke fast (go against Zeljko)

biggestal99
01-16-2018, 12:48 PM
I can't follow your logic. Why would non-rebate players only have poor value bets at -20% or more to choose from? If the rebate players are only betting the so-called value plays the poor value plays will necessarily be brought back to less than poor value. After all it is a mutuel pool.

Presumably a bettor makes a bet because they believe they have value. If a rebate bettor makes the same bet as a non-rebate player it shouldn't change the belief of the non-rebate player that they are making a value bet.

Look at my Big awesome example on track bettors got 7.40, exchange bettors got 12.74.

Big awesome great value at 5.37; a lot less value at 2.70.

If I got 2.7 and other people got 5.37. well....how would you feel?

Allan

Seabiscuit@AR
01-16-2018, 12:54 PM
Now if there were no rebates for Zeljko or anyone else then the 2nd scenario would look like this

Horse A +4%
Horse B -28%
Horse C -28%
Horse D -28%

Now the non rebate player has a chance to make a value bet on horse A

The presence of the rebate player Zeljko in the pools has improved the returns on Horses B, C and D from -28% to -25%. But big deal. This means you go broke fast but not quite as fast. Betting against Zeljko still returns you worse than the -20% return in the first scenario where all horses are equal value

The reason the returns on B, C and D have improved is that the total pool takeout has reduced with rebates. If you reduced the takeout across the board for all players not just Zeljko then Horse B, C and D will have ROI -25% instead of -28% with no rebates

AndyC
01-16-2018, 12:59 PM
.....OK now let's look at a race where Horse A is a value play. Let's call the rebate player Zeljko to pick a random name. OK so Zeljko's computer program tells him to hammer Horse A as it is a value pick. Zeljko has a 10% rebate and hammers this Horse A down to -5% before any rebates so it becomes a +5% value bet for Zeljko post rebate

The pool now becomes
Horse A -5%
Horse B -25%
Horse C -25%
Horse D -25%

......Bottom line there are no value plays left in the pool for the non rebate player. Their only choice is to either go broke slowly (same play as Zeljko) or go broke fast (go against Zeljko)

Here is what I believe you are missing. Before Zeljko bets the pool looks like this:

Horse A +10
Horse B -30
Horse C -30
Horse D -30

The overwhelming majority of bettors will be helped because they won't be on horse A in the first place. They are getting better prices on their underlays. Underlays do win sometimes.

My problem is not with the rebate players, it is with the PM system. I only care what price I am getting when I bet, it is irrelevant what someone else gets. But when I don't know what price I am getting when I bet it essentially becomes a guessing game and not one where I evaluate the probability of a horse winning and bet when the odds are favorable to my evaluation.

classhandicapper
01-16-2018, 01:12 PM
Anyone that is sharp enough to recognize overlays will make the pools more efficient with their bets. Their money will make it harder to find real overlays and beat the game. If the biggest bettors at the track are sophisticated, everyone has a problem on their hands.

It's an odd dynamic.

The larger the pools and more unsophisticated the money in them, the more attractive they become to sophisticated money which then corrects the pools.

I could probably argue that someone like me is better off betting against a 18% take at some 3rd string track than a 16% take at AQU. I feel certain I am better off at Saratoga than AQU because there's so much extra tourist and casual money in the pools at Saratoga. But my ideal spot is probably the double at Pleasanton on a day there is mule racing in the 1st. :lol:

Of course the other issue is that what's in my best interests is not necessarily in the tracks best interests. They are worried about their own bottom line. I would only argue that what is in the best interests of the track now may not be in their best interests over 20 years.

Fager Fan
01-16-2018, 01:14 PM
in the old days at Rockingham, a good chunk of the handle was coming from bookmakers. there must have been 500 of them on track taking bets and laying them off in the pools. Lou Smith was a legend and he allowed them to do their business on his property, because the net result was there was more handle being pumped through the window's. i suppose the same thing could happen with exchange wagering. they can both thrive at the same time.

maybe things were a bit different back in the 60's and 70's. there was no such thing as an otb, but there were thousand's of bookmaking shops all over in places like dry-cleaner's, restaraunts and bars and small variety shops. but almost everyone you knew bet on horse racing every day. when the law closed down those places for good, people started betting on sports over the telephone.

Exchange wagering is yet another entity that is going to eat racing alive, just like the ADWs and rebate shops (and to some extent, simulcasting) are currently doing. The only way anyone who cares about the sport should be in favor of exchange wagering is if it's owned by the sport where the profits are put back into the sport. Otherwise, it's the death knell should it ever get nationwide approval.

AndyC
01-16-2018, 01:40 PM
Exchange wagering is yet another entity that is going to eat racing alive, just like the ADWs and rebate shops (and to some extent, simulcasting) are currently doing. The only way anyone who cares about the sport should be in favor of exchange wagering is if it's owned by the sport where the profits are put back into the sport. Otherwise, it's the death knell should it ever get nationwide approval.

Where else would the profits go? The commissions paid to the exchange for making a bet are in the same category as takeout from the mutuel pools.

Fox
01-16-2018, 01:48 PM
Where else would the profits go?

Betfair's coffers.

AndyC
01-16-2018, 01:49 PM
The larger the pools and more unsophisticated the money in them, the more attractive they become to sophisticated money which then corrects the pools.

I could probably argue that someone like me is better off betting against a 18% take at some 3rd string track than a 16% take at AQU. I feel certain I am better off at Saratoga than AQU because there's so much extra tourist and casual money in the pools at Saratoga. But my ideal spot is probably the double at Pleasanton on a day there is mule racing in the 1st. :lol:..

Your first statement above contradicts your feel about Saratoga. If unsophisticated money truly is going in the wrong direction at the windows then there will be even more money poured in by the sophisticated bettors. Saratoga can yield many "good' prices because the races can have large fields and be very competitive, much like a Derby or a BC race.

AndyC
01-16-2018, 01:52 PM
Betfair's coffers.

I am sure Betfair would get paid for providing a service but they must contract with the tracks for the percentage they will keep.

classhandicapper
01-16-2018, 02:07 PM
Your first statement above contradicts your feel about Saratoga. If unsophisticated money truly is going in the wrong direction at the windows then there will be even more money poured in by the sophisticated bettors. Saratoga can yield many "good' prices because the races can have large fields and be very competitive, much like a Derby or a BC race.

I think Saratoga (and the Derby/BC) are more attractive because the largest sophisticated betters are not raising their own bets enough to offset the huge influx of tourist and casual money. However, that does mean it will remain that way indefinitely.

Field size correlates to price, but that doesn't necessarily mean there are more overlays. My data suggests it's a little easier to find value in larger fields because hopeless longshots still tend to be overbet a little. The more of them the merrier. But I'd still way rather compete with the folks that bet 5 mule races at Fernadale. ;)

Fox
01-16-2018, 02:14 PM
I am sure Betfair would get paid for providing a service but they must contract with the tracks for the percentage they will keep.

In the case of New Jersey, Betfair gets the lion's share. If exchange wagering was such a great idea for the tracks, there is no reason they can't run it themselves instead of getting into bed with a complete outsider whose interests aren't completely aligned with the tracks. The exchange software itself is nothing complicated and could be developed fairly easily.

AndyC
01-16-2018, 02:35 PM
If exchange wagering was such a great idea for the tracks, there is no reason they can't run it themselves instead of getting into bed with a complete outsider whose interests aren't completely aligned with the tracks. The exchange software itself is nothing complicated and could be developed fairly easily.

I agree.

Poindexter
01-16-2018, 03:13 PM
Here is what I believe you are missing. Before Zeljko bets the pool looks like this:

Horse A +10
Horse B -30
Horse C -30
Horse D -30

The overwhelming majority of bettors will be helped because they won't be on horse A in the first place. They are getting better prices on their underlays. Underlays do win sometimes.

My problem is not with the rebate players, it is with the PM system. I only care what price I am getting when I bet, it is irrelevant what someone else gets. But when I don't know what price I am getting when I bet it essentially becomes a guessing game and not one where I evaluate the probability of a horse winning and bet when the odds are favorable to my evaluation.

That is indeed a huge problem with horse racing today and this problem is made far worse by both rebates and crw(obviously the bigger the rebate the more below ev the whales can bet a combo and thus the larger the late odss swings). I have mentioned this before, and John Pricci I believe has also mentioned this at least one of his articles. If you are going to rebate big volume players, at least make there bets get into the pool by 3 minutes to post(after 3 minutes to post, no rebates available. If they choose to cancel after that they should be charged a penalty of typical rebate for that type of bet+5%, otherwise they will just use cancelling as a tool to bet). One minute for it to show up in the pools and by two minutes to post the non rebated player now at least will have a fairly good idea of what the final odds are going to be. Sure there will be some late fluctuation, but most of the big money will be in the pools by 2 minutes to post and the late odds changes will be tiny relative to how they are today. I really do not see this at a big deterrent to whales betting. They are pretty much guesstimating the odds anyhow.

If you are going to give the whales the store with rebates and crw access, at least give the little guy (non rebated player) some edge too (a chance to play into a pretty much finalized pool). I think you will find many players who get rebates will actually elect to make both rebated and non rebated wagers). I highly doubt we will ever see the end of rebates or crw's in this game no matter how loud we scream, so this might be the best alternative.

fiznow
01-16-2018, 05:11 PM
Hi, here in Europe several Bookies are already offering fixed odds on US races. Not just Betfair, also William Hill, Bet 365, Paddy Power, Coral and others. The odds even differ from bookie to bookie and you can chose the best price. Recetly I got 10-1 for Glorious Moment who won at 5-2 (pool odds) at GP. This is the best way to bet if youre a win player. If your horse is 5-1 the moment you bet it you get 5-1 (also win parlays are cool when you know what you will get). For exotics I still use the pools, I don't play many though.
However, almost everywhere in the world fixed odds on horse racing offered by bookies are allowed. Europe, Africa, Australia, don't know about Asia (I think in Hong Kong and Singapore it's not allowed). It's a pity that it's not in America.

Robert Fischer
01-16-2018, 06:01 PM
I don't know enough about the subject to have a real opinion.

Without putting in the work to understand the issue, my superficial guess would be that robotic wagers don't bother me. It seems like we're doing two fundamentally different things. That the robotic wager is searching for pool inefficiencies, and I'm looking for inefficiencies of the favorite. Unless the robot has equal or greater skill, then when I am fortunate enough to find a bad favorite, all the robot does is ensure that various pools all pay well by gobbling up the underlays.

castaway01
01-16-2018, 06:09 PM
I don't know enough about the subject to have a real opinion.

Without putting in the work to understand the issue, my superficial guess would be that robotic wagers don't bother me. It seems like we're doing two fundamentally different things. That the robotic wager is searching for pool inefficiencies, and I'm looking for inefficiencies of the favorite. Unless the robot has equal or greater skill, then when I am fortunate enough to find a bad favorite, all the robot does is ensure that various pools all pay well by gobbling up the underlays.

I think what you're saying may go against pure math, since the more good players we're competing with who are beating the takeout (in some cases, by a lot), the less money we can win. However, since we've all been competing with robotic wagers for years, if you've been winning the past few years, then I guess you're already handling that level of competition. The issue, of course, is that most of us can't do that because there just isn't enough money to come back to us through the pools. And then we're back to takeout and rebates again.

Interesting topic, as always, but in the end it just highlights numerous frustrations you have to face when playing this game.

cj
01-16-2018, 06:14 PM
In the case of New Jersey, Betfair gets the lion's share. If exchange wagering was such a great idea for the tracks, there is no reason they can't run it themselves instead of getting into bed with a complete outsider whose interests aren't completely aligned with the tracks. The exchange software itself is nothing complicated and could be developed fairly easily.

Not running ADWs in the beginning is what got tracks into this hole they've been trying to slowly dig themselves out of the last few years.

lamboguy
01-16-2018, 06:17 PM
Hi, here in Europe several Bookies are already offering fixed odds on US races. Not just Betfair, also William Hill, Bet 365, Paddy Power, Coral and others. The odds even differ from bookie to bookie and you can chose the best price. Recetly I got 10-1 for Glorious Moment who won at 5-2 (pool odds) at GP. This is the best way to bet if youre a win player. If your horse is 5-1 the moment you bet it you get 5-1 (also win parlays are cool when you know what you will get). For exotics I still use the pools, I don't play many though.
However, almost everywhere in the world fixed odds on horse racing offered by bookies are allowed. Europe, Africa, Australia, don't know about Asia (I think in Hong Kong and Singapore it's not allowed). It's a pity that it's not in America.
i was just wondering if these bookmakers have to pay the tracks for the privilege of booking those horses.


it certainly would be a great idea in this country and i believe it would add interest in the game.

AndyC
01-16-2018, 06:33 PM
i was just wondering if these bookmakers have to pay the tracks for the privilege of booking those horses.


it certainly would be a great idea in this country and i believe it would add interest in the game.

Yes! And they are regulated.

If you attend races in the UK you have a choice of betting with numerous bookies who set up shop right in front of the grandstand or you can bet through the tote. It is quite a neat experience for a horseplayer used to betting in the US.

Lafecs
01-16-2018, 06:33 PM
Efficient odds at retail takeout makes the game next to impossible to beat in the long-run. CRWs are NOT good for the retail bettor, and it's not even debatable. They ARE good for the tracks however, who could care less whether you get value on your wager or not.

The real issue is that the computer groups are getting access to the tote system and are basically setting the odds to whatever they want to at the last second-So the true odds only become apparent AFTER the gates close.

I my opinion, Betfair and fixed odds betting would at least neutralize the playing field a little bit, so that the odds you are looking at in real time are at least TRUE odds.

Fox
01-16-2018, 06:38 PM
i was just wondering if these bookmakers have to pay the tracks for the privilege of booking those horses.

it certainly would be a great idea in this country and i believe it would add interest in the game.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38609519

Apparently, UK firms pay a 10% tax on profits from their bookings on UK races.

Those bookmaking outfits are quick to limit or boot anyone with a clue, so I am not sure if that's what we want over here.

Fager Fan
01-16-2018, 06:47 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38609519

Apparently, UK firms pay a 10% tax on profits from their bookings on UK races.

Those bookmaking outfits are quick to limit or boot anyone with a clue, so I am not sure if that's what we want over here.

10% on profits is a measly amount as well.

No one should ever want us to mimic what they're doing in Europe. Their purses are awful.

AndyC
01-16-2018, 08:03 PM
10% on profits is a measly amount as well.

No one should ever want us to mimic what they're doing in Europe. Their purses are awful.

10% on gross profits not net profits.

Andy Asaro
01-16-2018, 08:04 PM
Owners who want to pay crazy amounts for yearlings shouldn't expect Customer subsidized purse welfare.

Fager Fan
01-16-2018, 09:09 PM
Owners who want to pay crazy amounts for yearlings shouldn't expect Customer subsidized purse welfare.

What does that even mean?

All businesses are "subsidized" by customers.

In the case of racing, the owners are also customers, providing the asset which produces the product, and the handicappers then bet on the production.

You need each other, so quit your grousing.

thaskalos
01-16-2018, 09:32 PM
What does that even mean?

All businesses are "subsidized" by customers.

In the case of racing, the owners are also customers, providing the asset which produces the product, and the handicappers then bet on the production.

You need each other, so quit your grousing.

Yeah...but who needs the other more? Can the owners look for "another hobby" as readily as the handicappers can?

Fager Fan
01-16-2018, 11:09 PM
Yeah...but who needs the other more? Can the owners look for "another hobby" as readily as the handicappers can?

Is this a serious question? Do you want everyone to whip out their rulers next?

Owners dont make a profit as a whole, and the ones that do have set themselves up to cash out at the auctions. So the indebtedness you're looking for probably shouldn't be sought. The two entities who financially make the sport possible are the handicappers and the owners. You need each other equally, as the sport would cease to exist without the other.

thaskalos
01-17-2018, 12:08 AM
Is this a serious question? Do you want everyone to whip out their rulers next?

Owners dont make a profit as a whole, and the ones that do have set themselves up to cash out at the auctions. So the indebtedness you're looking for probably shouldn't be sought. The two entities who financially make the sport possible are the handicappers and the owners. You need each other equally, as the sport would cease to exist without the other.

It's YOU that I don't know if I should take seriously. Not too long ago, when we were talking here about the handicappers having no "voice" in this game...I suggested that the horseplayers were "partners" with the owners in this game...because we relied on one-another in order for this game to succeed. But you MOCKED my comment by telling me that horseracing is a "business", and that the owners are the "businessmen"...whereas the horseplayers are only the CUSTOMERS. "And if the customer doesn't like the product...then he is free to take his money elsewhere", you said..."but in no way can he be considered a PARTNER in this venture". And here you are telling me that the horseplayers and the owners "need each other equally".

If the racetrack was a "business" of a DIFFERENT sort, like, say, a GROCERY store...would you continue to assert that the owners and the customers "need each other EQUALLY"? What owner of any other business suggests that he and his customers "need each other EQUALLY"?

AltonKelsey
01-17-2018, 02:06 AM
US Racing

2016 Handle $10.735 billion

2016 Purses $1.083 billion


Approx takeout at 20% = 2.15 Billion


So horseplayers contributed that 2.15 Billion out of their pockets . Approx 1/2 of that was claimed by owners via purses.

The question is , how much do OWNERS spend per year in the US, for purchase and upkeep.

MONEY
01-17-2018, 02:15 AM
US Racing

2016 Handle $10.735 billion

2016 Purses $1.083 billion


Approx takeout at 20% = 2.15 Billion


So horseplayers contributed that 2.15 Billion out of their pockets . Approx 1/2 of that was claimed by owners via purses.

The question is , how much do OWNERS spend per year in the US, for purchase and upkeep.
I know an owner/trainer here in Texas, and he told me that for each picture that he takes in the winners circle, he spends close to $50,000.

o_crunk
01-17-2018, 07:32 AM
The sequence went 12 x 10 x 8 x 10 x 11.

It costs around $52K to buy the wager at the minimum.

The parlay was around $116K.

Average pool for P5 at OP since the wager began last year is $49K. Pool for day in question was $50K.

Consider the above scenario before jumping in wildly with claims that it paid 4 of 5 b/c the teams were not involved.

People are conflating "CRW teams" with "sharp" or "rebate". There are too many official industry personalities - touts, journos, etc - who have created this boogey man of the CRW team literally sucking money from the pools and it's very far from the truth. And anyway...what information would a CRW team have about this P5 via tote data? There is no advantage.

If you want to make a case that the rebated player is increasing the takeout for all, that's fine. But that player or team is puttting up massive capital through betting and creating their own tools. Is it fair? IDK.

But in this particular instance...this particular wager. It paid well and it had nothing to do with whether the teams were involved or not.

Andy Asaro
01-17-2018, 08:37 AM
What does that even mean?

All businesses are "subsidized" by customers.

In the case of racing, the owners are also customers, providing the asset which produces the product, and the handicappers then bet on the production.

You need each other, so quit your grousing.

Haven't you heard? We never quit.

My comments are directed at the TOC in Ca. and SB1072 and I should have specified that

Andy Asaro
01-17-2018, 08:40 AM
The sequence went 12 x 10 x 8 x 10 x 11.

It costs around $52K to buy the wager at the minimum.

The parlay was around $116K.

Average pool for P5 at OP since the wager began last year is $49K. Pool for day in question was $50K.

Consider the above scenario before jumping in wildly with claims that it paid 4 of 5 b/c the teams were not involved.

People are conflating "CRW teams" with "sharp" or "rebate". There are too many official industry personalities - touts, journos, etc - who have created this boogey man of the CRW team literally sucking money from the pools and it's very far from the truth. And anyway...what information would a CRW team have about this P5 via tote data? There is no advantage.

If you want to make a case that the rebated player is increasing the takeout for all, that's fine. But that player or team is puttting up massive capital through betting and creating their own tools. Is it fair? IDK.

But in this particular instance...this particular wager. It paid well and it had nothing to do with whether the teams were involved or not.

You know I respect your opinions greatly because you know the numbers better than the Industry does. In this case since the pool was only 50K I'd imagine it wouldn't be something that the biggest players would jump into. Maybe I'm wrong but it feels like there is more uninformed money in the pools. Never would have happened in Ca with those numbers IMO.

biggestal99
01-17-2018, 09:38 AM
Efficient odds at retail takeout makes the game next to impossible to beat in the long-run. CRWs are NOT good for the retail bettor, and it's not even debatable. They ARE good for the tracks however, who could care less whether you get value on your wager or not.

The real issue is that the computer groups are getting access to the tote system and are basically setting the odds to whatever they want to at the last second-So the true odds only become apparent AFTER the gates close.

I my opinion, Betfair and fixed odds betting would at least neutralize the playing field a little bit, so that the odds you are looking at in real time are at least TRUE odds.

Absolutely correct betfair odds are true odds. A lot of the time. A horse is sitting pm at 25s and it 50s or more on bf.

Fixed odds betting would be a godsend to the average American player.

I know exactly to the penny what I am to win Before the bet is placed.

Blind bets into the pm pools, that’s yesterdays betting.

The exchange is today’s betting.

Allan

Fager Fan
01-17-2018, 09:45 AM
It's YOU that I don't know if I should take seriously. Not too long ago, when we were talking here about the handicappers having no "voice" in this game...I suggested that the horseplayers were "partners" with the owners in this game...because we relied on one-another in order for this game to succeed. But you MOCKED my comment by telling me that horseracing is a "business", and that the owners are the "businessmen"...whereas the horseplayers are only the CUSTOMERS. "And if the customer doesn't like the product...then he is free to take his money elsewhere", you said..."but in no way can he be considered a PARTNER in this venture". And here you are telling me that the horseplayers and the owners "need each other equally".

If the racetrack was a "business" of a DIFFERENT sort, like, say, a GROCERY store...would you continue to assert that the owners and the customers "need each other EQUALLY"? What owner of any other business suggests that he and his customers "need each other EQUALLY"?

Of course a business needs customers. That in no way makes them a partner. You own no part of any of the business.

lamboguy
01-17-2018, 09:47 AM
i have not heard that much about "the teams" betting into exchange wagering. they might but from what i see there isn't that much in matches in the exchange s. and if they did bet into the exchanges it wouldn't make any difference to me.

for that reason alone, and the fact that i don't bet that much any longer, i have switched positions and am now in favor of exchange wagering as long as i don't get killed with the juice i pay.

o_crunk
01-17-2018, 09:49 AM
You know I respect your opinions greatly because you know the numbers better than the Industry does. In this case since the pool was only 50K I'd imagine it wouldn't be something that the biggest players would jump into. Maybe I'm wrong but it feels like there is more uninformed money in the pools. Never would have happened in Ca with those numbers IMO.

It's more than just the pool size. It's also the combinations.

You mention SoCal. Well, sans BC, there was only *one* pick5 sequence last year at DMR and SA where there were as many combinations as this sequence at OP on Sunday.

One! Out of 200 plus race days.

The average number of runners in a SoCal pick 5 sequence is 36. That combined with an average pool size that is literally 10x that of OP.

Is it dumb money at OP? I don't think, sans massive big TC and BC days, there is "dumb" money left in racing. OP is just not that popular a signal, which is strange because they have great field size and a single surface which is conducive to modeling. OP is closer to GG at the per betting interest level than it is to say TAM or even MTH. I don't think that signals "dumb" money so much as it signals no money or more opportunity for less efficient pools. I sure wish it was offered on exchange b/c contrarian views are rewarded in instances where field size is high.

biggestal99
01-17-2018, 09:50 AM
Absolutely correct betfair odds are true odds. A lot of the time. A horse is sitting pm at 25s and it 50s or more on bf.

Fixed odds betting would be a godsend to the average American player.

I know exactly to the penny what I am to win Before the bet is placed.

Blind bets into the pm pools, that’s yesterdays betting.

The exchange is today’s betting.

Allan

For instance yesterday at Sunland Park I liked the chalkie horse in the 7th.

Heloha honey. paid 5.60 for 2 dollars betMy average odds when betting this horse was 7.56 for every two dollars bet.

Even after the 12% commission charged by betfair. I came out way ahead.

For a horseplayer every cent counts as I have learned on my two years on the exchange.


Allan

classhandicapper
01-17-2018, 11:31 AM
Owners who want to pay crazy amounts for yearlings shouldn't expect Customer subsidized purse welfare.

You can keep taking this further and further back.

It costs a ton of money to have a breeding operation. If owners aren't willing to pay the prices needed to keep breeders afloat, breeder's will stop breeding thoroughbreds to race.

The economics of the industry are poor and it's like that for virtually everyone.

How many breeder's are making good money based on their investment?

How many owners are making good money based on their investment?

How many jockeys and trainers are making a good living?

How many tracks are whole without casino subsidies?

How many horse players have a large enough edge to make all the work they put into game worthwhile? How many have any edge at all?

I'm going to guess that "not too many" covers most of the answers. Too many people are fighting over a small and potentially shrinking pie. We can either grow the pie better or consolidate the industry.

Andy Asaro
01-17-2018, 11:40 AM
You can keep taking this further and further back.

It costs a ton of money to have a breeding operation. If owners aren't willing to pay the prices needed to keep breeders afloat, breeder's will stop breeding thoroughbreds to race.

The economics of the industry are poor and it's like that for virtually everyone.

How many breeder's are making good money based on their investment?

How many owners are making good money based on their investment?

How many jockeys and trainers are making a good living?

How many tracks are whole without casino subsidies?

How many horse players have a large enough edge to make all the work they put into game worthwhile? How many have any edge at all?

I'm going to guess that "not too many" covers most of the answers. Too many people are fighting over a small and potentially shrinking pie. We can either grow the pie better or consolidate the industry.

The way the Industry does business must change. The best hope of positive change will come from the Stronach Group. I think people will be surprised in a good way at some of things they want to do. And yes, I'm keenly aware of the timing problems and post drag stuff.

Fager Fan
01-17-2018, 11:46 AM
You can keep taking this further and further back.

It costs a ton of money to have a breeding operation. If owners aren't willing to pay the prices needed to keep breeders afloat, breeder's will stop breeding thoroughbreds to race.

The economics of the industry are poor and it's like that for virtually everyone.

How many breeder's are making good money based on their investment?

How many owners are making good money based on their investment?

How many jockeys and trainers are making a good living?

How many tracks are whole without casino subsidies?

How many horse players have a large enough edge to make all the work they put into game worthwhile? How many have any edge at all?

I'm going to guess that "not too many" covers most of the answers. Too many people are fighting over a small and potentially shrinking pie. We can either grow the pie better or consolidate the industry.

The trainers are making good money. What I'd call a mid level trainer is making $250k or so a year. These guys get the rewards of the investments by their owners without the massive losses. Note how many horses Pletcher, Brown, and Baffert own.

But otherwise I agree. The trainers are for the most part the exception in that list, though I wouldn't want their life of 24/7/365, and not able to go home every night.

lamboguy
01-17-2018, 11:49 AM
The way the Industry does business must change. The best hope of positive change will come from the Stronach Group. I think people will be surprised in a good way at some of things they want to do. And yes, I'm keenly aware of the timing problems and post drag stuff.Stronach is the only big operator that is bullish on horse racing, Penn National, Chruchill, Harrah's and Mohegan Sun are bearish and just going through the motion's to get the slot and casino money.

i am told in Vegas, Samstown and Wynn are bullish as well.

cj
01-17-2018, 11:50 AM
The trainers are making good money. What I'd call a mid level trainer is making $250k or so a year. These guys get the rewards of the investments by their owners without the massive losses. Note how many horses Pletcher, Brown, and Baffert own.

But otherwise I agree. The trainers are for the most part the exception in that list, though I wouldn't want their life of 24/7/365, and not able to go home every night.

I think you could say the same about mid level jockeys. The top 200 in 2017 all had minimum of $1,501,563 in earnings, so they aren't exactly struggling to get by.

green80
01-17-2018, 11:56 AM
I know an owner/trainer here in Texas, and he told me that for each picture that he takes in the winners circle, he spends close to $50,000.

I don't doubt that to be true. I would say that over 90% of owners lose money. With the cost of the horse,the training or boarding cost, vet bills , etc. a horse has to earn 20 to 25k a year or more to break even. How many horses do that?

cj
01-17-2018, 11:58 AM
I don't doubt that to be true. I would say that over 90% of owners lose money. With the cost of the horse,the training or boarding cost, vet bills , etc. a horse has to earn 20 to 25k a year or more to break even. How many horses do that?

Definitely they have to earn more than that to break even.

classhandicapper
01-17-2018, 12:07 PM
The trainers are making good money. What I'd call a mid level trainer is making $250k or so a year. These guys get the rewards of the investments by their owners without the massive losses. Note how many horses Pletcher, Brown, and Baffert own.

But otherwise I agree. The trainers are for the most part the exception in that list, though I wouldn't want their life of 24/7/365, and not able to go home every night.

There are definitely jockeys and trainers making a lot of money (especially on the major circuits), but how many are making a good living on the smaller tracks and how many drop out each year because they can't.

Even in NY I hear rumors of fairly big name trainers that are behind on their bills and struggling where I would have guessed they were still making good money. There are significant costs to operate.

cj
01-17-2018, 12:12 PM
There are definitely jockeys and trainers making a lot of money (especially on the major circuits), but how many are making a good living on the smaller tracks and how many drop out each year because they can't.

You could say this about any sport really. The top make a ton, there is a very healthy group below the elite level, then it gets tough. But as I noted, a lot of guys are making a very nice living riding horses and obviously training too. If you are in this sport to make money those are the two groups with the most potential IMO. It is actually easier for jockeys than trainers, no doubt due to the huge barns for a select group these days.

classhandicapper
01-17-2018, 12:14 PM
I don't doubt that to be true. I would say that over 90% of owners lose money. With the cost of the horse,the training or boarding cost, vet bills , etc. a horse has to earn 20 to 25k a year or more to break even. How many horses do that?

I'm sure it varies from circuit to circuit and trainer to trainer, but in NY you aren't even going to cover your trainer's day rate for 25K.

Fager Fan
01-17-2018, 12:51 PM
I think you could say the same about mid level jockeys. The top 200 in 2017 all had minimum of $1,501,563 in earnings, so they aren't exactly struggling to get by.

I thought about including them, but of them I'm less sure. With the trainers, I feel comfortable with that number being salary, after they've paid all their employees and business bills. For the jockeys, they have their agents to pay plus I don't know if they have rather large insurance payments or if they're getting most/all paid for by the tracks/owners. Obviously the guys at the top are doing very well, I just didn't know how far down the list we'd have to go.

Fager Fan
01-17-2018, 01:01 PM
Stronach is the only big operator that is bullish on horse racing, Penn National, Chruchill, Harrah's and Mohegan Sun are bearish and just going through the motion's to get the slot and casino money.

i am told in Vegas, Samstown and Wynn are bullish as well.

This is why I can get so defensive about Stronach. He's not perfect, he may be hard to work for, but he loves the sport and pours millions into it. He tries to be innovative. He owns a farm and has racehorses so pours more money into it there too, not just with his tracks. He has a retirement program for his ex racehorses to put them into new careers. He also took the very unusual stand of selling horses at the 2yo sales in just a gallop, because he knew the speed that was being asked was too much for them to be doing. He took a beating doing that so had to get out of the 2yo in training market.

Then you have an entity like Churchill Downs who truly cares about only one thing: How much money they can squeeze out of the Kentucky Derby. They couldn't care less about the sport. Money is their sole motive for existence.

Fager Fan
01-17-2018, 01:11 PM
You could say this about any sport really. The top make a ton, there is a very healthy group below the elite level, then it gets tough. But as I noted, a lot of guys are making a very nice living riding horses and obviously training too. If you are in this sport to make money those are the two groups with the most potential IMO. It is actually easier for jockeys than trainers, no doubt due to the huge barns for a select group these days.

The most absurdly overpaid entity in the sport is the agent. At least the trainers and riders deserve and work really hard for their pay.

cj
01-17-2018, 01:16 PM
The most absurdly overpaid entity in the sport is the agent. At least the trainers and riders deserve and work really hard for their pay.

I'm frugal. I'd 100% be my own agent if I were a rider, or any kind of paid athlete for that matter :)

Fager Fan
01-17-2018, 01:38 PM
I'm frugal. I'd 100% be my own agent if I were a rider, or any kind of paid athlete for that matter :)

I've wondered if most of the jocks actually need their agents. ;-)

Fager Fan
01-17-2018, 01:54 PM
Just for kicks, I looked up some numbers at the JC to come up with some good estimates to therefore reach the following numbers:

20,850 per foal crop
6,963 sold as yearlings for $422m
2,357 sold as 2yoIT for $177m
11,530 aren't sold so will race as homebreds, for our purposes I'll put a $20k cost of raising and $10k stud fee average on these, to total $346m.

So our owners have paid $945m in yearly costs just for the purchase of each new crop of horses.

There are approx. 52,000 starters in a year. More train or on layup than start, but we'll just use the starters, and a $30k yearly expenses average per starter. That totals $1.56 billion in training and other costs.

So our owners are spending about $2.5 billion per year, and getting back in purses about $1.1 billion, leaving them with a net loss of $1.4 billion per year.

Redboard
01-17-2018, 02:07 PM
I think Saratoga (and the Derby/BC) are more attractive because the largest sophisticated betters are not raising their own bets enough to offset the huge influx of tourist and casual money. However, that does mean it will remain that way indefinitely.

Field size correlates to price, but that doesn't necessarily mean there are more overlays. My data suggests it's a little easier to find value in larger fields because hopeless longshots still tend to be overbet a little. The more of them the merrier. But I'd still way rather compete with the folks that bet 5 mule races at Fernadale. ;)

Don't want to sound like a geezer but I think things have changed in the past 10 years at the SPA - whether it's computers or just smarter bettors. Seems like 12-1s used to be 20-1s, and 5-1s used to be 8-1s. Then there's the issue of the super trainers that stir the pot and add to the confusion.

Where has all the stupid money gone?

Jeff P
01-17-2018, 02:10 PM
The title of this thread thread implies whales are unable to get money into Oaklawn's pools.

Here's a link to an article that appeared at The Paulick Report back in 2013...

I, Robot: The Future of Horse Race Wagering?:
https://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/i-robot-the-future-of-horse-race-wagering/

"Flesh and Blood"
Not every track is comfortable allowing CRW teams into their pools. Oaklawn Park has shunned computer-assisted bettors for years, arguing that they win often enough to discourage other gamblers.

If I recall correctly, at the time the article was written, Oaklawn was blocking its signal (or refusing to accept wagers) from two of the better known rebate houses: RGS and Elite.

However, Oaklawn does give its signal out to (and accepts wagers from) many other ADWs that have rebate programs. Twinspires, Xpressbet, and Premier Turf Club come to mind.

That means if I am a whale who makes batch wagers using CRW and I have an account at (say) Elite and I wanted to get money into Oaklawn's pools, even though it might be a pain in the ass or mean I have to jump through hoops:

I could open an account (in my name or the name of a beard) at a rebate house that does have a contract with Oaklawn --

And instead of CRW -- I could create my own custom wagering interface and use text file upload.

By the way, if you create your own custom wagering interface, text file upload is probably the closest thing to CRW -- and it is available to EVERYONE -- even the $2.00 bettor.

Playing by text file upload, I might have to hit the submit button a few seconds earlier than I would if I were playing by CRW. But other than that the net effect would be about the same.

I would be a whale getting decent rebates and betting all the money I want into Oaklawn's pools.

I submit to you the idea that if you think Oaklawn's pools are somehow protected -- think again.


-jp

.

AndyC
01-17-2018, 02:14 PM
....So our owners are spending about $2.5 billion per year, and getting back in purses about $1.1 billion, leaving them with a net loss of $1.4 billion per year.

Seems like a real rational financial move.

biggestal99
01-17-2018, 02:16 PM
I'm frugal. I'd 100% be my own agent if I were a rider, or any kind of paid athlete for that matter :)

If you were a popular jock. How would you determine which horse to ride?
when our horse was ready to win we would just call Mark Guidry's agent. and he would tell us yay or nay whether Mark was available for the ride.

Allan

biggestal99
01-17-2018, 02:17 PM
Seems like a real rational financial move.

Yet people spend millions upon millions to get a good horse in the barn.

Allan

Fager Fan
01-17-2018, 02:30 PM
Seems like a real rational financial move.

It's not. The excitement and thrill is much of what they're paying for. And if they want to be anywhere close to the black, they have to buy decent enough peds and physicals to get big chunks back as breeding prospects.

Ultimately we have to be glad that these are businesses where the losses pass through to the owners' personal taxes.

AndyC
01-17-2018, 02:50 PM
It's not. The excitement and thrill is much of what they're paying for. And if they want to be anywhere close to the black, they have to buy decent enough peds and physicals to get big chunks back as breeding prospects.

Ultimately we have to be glad that these are businesses where the losses pass through to the owners' personal taxes.

Ultimately you have to meet the requirements that you are, in fact, in a business and not a hobby. With the stats you presented it would be hard to justify going into the horse ownership business.

thaskalos
01-17-2018, 03:00 PM
Ultimately you have to meet the requirements that you are, in fact, in a business and not a hobby. With the stats you presented it would be hard to justify going into the horse ownership business.

The horse-owners get their "thrills"...and their operating losses are tax-deductible. The horseplayers, on the other hand, pay a lot more for the "thrills" that they seek...because their gambling losses go unrecognized by the IRS. Consequently...it is even HARDER to justify becoming a serious horseplayer.

Fager Fan
01-17-2018, 03:06 PM
Ultimately you have to meet the requirements that you are, in fact, in a business and not a hobby. With the stats you presented it would be hard to justify going into the horse ownership business.

That requires selling of horses every X years. It doesn't require that you make a profit, only that you try to make a profit. Since some people do, at least in individual years, it has to be seen as viable. Again, though, it's from selling, not from purses that one would normally show a profit.

Fox
01-17-2018, 03:08 PM
The horse-owners get their "thrills"...and their operating losses are tax-deductible. The horseplayers, on the other hand, pay a lot more for the "thrills" that they seek...because their gambling losses go unrecognized by the IRS. Consequently...it is even HARDER to justify becoming a serious horseplayer.

I may wrong, but I thought hobby expenses were only tax deductible up to hobby income, much like gambling. The only difference may be the ability to carry forward losses.

Fox
01-17-2018, 03:09 PM
The title of this thread thread implies whales are unable to get money into Oaklawn's pools.

Here's a link to an article that appeared at The Paulick Report back in 2013...

I, Robot: The Future of Horse Race Wagering?:
https://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/i-robot-the-future-of-horse-race-wagering/


If I recall correctly, at the time the article was written, Oaklawn was blocking its signal (or refusing to accept wagers) from two of the better known rebate houses: RGS and Elite.

However, Oaklawn does give its signal out to (and accepts wagers from) many other ADWs that have rebate programs. Twinspires, Xpressbet, and Premier Turf Club come to mind.

That means if I am a whale who makes batch wagers using CRW and I have an account at (say) Elite and I wanted to get money into Oaklawn's pools, even though it might be a pain in the ass or mean I have to jump through hoops:

I could open an account (in my name or the name of a beard) at a rebate house that does have a contract with Oaklawn --

And instead of CRW -- I could create my own custom wagering interface and use text file upload.

By the way, if you create your own custom wagering interface, text file upload is probably the closest thing to CRW -- and it is available to EVERYONE -- even the $2.00 bettor.

Playing by text file upload, I might have to hit the submit button a few seconds earlier than I would if I were playing by CRW. But other than that the net effect would be about the same.

I would be a whale getting decent rebates and betting all the money I want into Oaklawn's pools.

I submit to you the idea that if you think Oaklawn's pools are somehow protected -- think again.


-jp

.

Jeff, I think we need keep knowledge and facts and reason out of this thread.

Fager Fan
01-17-2018, 03:17 PM
Jeff, I think we need keep knowledge and facts and reason out of this thread.

I find it confusing. Do we know that OP does indeed sell their signal to any rebate shop?

Jeff P
01-17-2018, 03:22 PM
I find it confusing. Do we know that OP does indeed sell their signal to any rebate shop?

You're kidding, right?


-jp

.

Fager Fan
01-17-2018, 03:40 PM
You're kidding, right?


-jp

.

No? I'd assumed that most/all sell to rebate shops, but if OP has been brought forward as one who is known as not selling to two of the bigger rebate shops, why shouldn't I think it's possible that they don't sell to any rebate shop?

Jeff P
01-17-2018, 03:55 PM
IDK. Maybe they've led you to think they don't sell to rebate shops?

Ok. But if you really didn't know...

I mentioned Twinspires, Xpressbet, and Premier in my previous post.

Each has an in house rebate program...

Oaklawn sells their signal to them (as well as others.)

The truth is Oaklawn does sell their signal to rebate shops. (Just not all rebate shops.)

It's like I said in my previous post.

Provided he/she is willing to jump through a few hoops:

The whale who wants rebates while betting into Oaklawn's pools is able to do so.



-jp

.

AndyC
01-17-2018, 03:59 PM
The horse-owners get their "thrills"...and their operating losses are tax-deductible. The horseplayers, on the other hand, pay a lot more for the "thrills" that they seek...because their gambling losses go unrecognized by the IRS. Consequently...it is even HARDER to justify becoming a serious horseplayer.

There are many horse owners who fall into the "hobby" classification and accordingly cannot write-off operating losses. I agree on your second point.

classhandicapper
01-17-2018, 04:02 PM
I thought about including them, but of them I'm less sure. With the trainers, I feel comfortable with that number being salary, after they've paid all their employees and business bills. For the jockeys, they have their agents to pay plus I don't know if they have rather large insurance payments or if they're getting most/all paid for by the tracks/owners. Obviously the guys at the top are doing very well, I just didn't know how far down the list we'd have to go.


I think they are generally sum the earnings of all a jockey's mounts for reports, but they don't always get 10% of that.

They get 10% of their winning mounts, but less than that downward.

They pay agents.

They belong to a union so they probably have to pay something into the union.

They may have to pay valets something.

They probably need nutritionists and physical therapists (if they can afford one).

It's never as much you think before all the costs of the career come into play, except at the very top.

AndyC
01-17-2018, 04:07 PM
That requires selling of horses every X years. It doesn't require that you make a profit, only that you try to make a profit. Since some people do, at least in individual years, it has to be seen as viable. Again, though, it's from selling, not from purses that one would normally show a profit.

It's not only that you try, it's how you try. This issue has been litigated many times. There is no litmus test but there are many factors that are looked at. Some listed by the IRS:

The following factors, although not all inclusive, may help you to determine whether your activity is an activity engaged in for profit or a hobby:

Does the time and effort put into the activity indicate an intention to make a profit?
Do you depend on income from the activity?
If there are losses, are they due to circumstances beyond your control or did they occur in the start-up phase of the business?
Have you changed methods of operation to improve profitability?
Do you have the knowledge needed to carry on the activity as a successful business?
Have you made a profit in similar activities in the past?
Does the activity make a profit in some years?
Do you expect to make a profit in the future from the appreciation of assets used in the activity?

classhandicapper
01-17-2018, 04:18 PM
The horse-owners get their "thrills"...and their operating losses are tax-deductible. The horseplayers, on the other hand, pay a lot more for the "thrills" that they seek...because their gambling losses go unrecognized by the IRS. Consequently...it is even HARDER to justify becoming a serious horseplayer.

The typical level of investment is part of the equation.

When you buy a single horse you have the up front investment and then the annual cost of training, vets, etc... A single 10K claimer is putting more at risk than most horse players bet in a year. Of course, there are horse players whose handle runs into 7 figures, but there are owners that spend that much on just 1 or 2 horses.

Would you rather your unsuccessful hobby be two 10K claimers and 100K of operating costs or 120K through the windows at the track?

The average horse player is going to lose take and breakage. I think the average owner is doing worse than that.

classhandicapper
01-17-2018, 04:25 PM
It's not only that you try, it's how you try. This issue has been litigated many times. There is no litmus test but there are many factors that are looked at. Some listed by the IRS:

The following factors, although not all inclusive, may help you to determine whether your activity is an activity engaged in for profit or a hobby:

Does the time and effort put into the activity indicate an intention to make a profit?
Do you depend on income from the activity?
If there are losses, are they due to circumstances beyond your control or did they occur in the start-up phase of the business?
Have you changed methods of operation to improve profitability?
Do you have the knowledge needed to carry on the activity as a successful business?
Have you made a profit in similar activities in the past?
Does the activity make a profit in some years?
Do you expect to make a profit in the future from the appreciation of assets used in the activity?

How about stuff like this?

Do you go to Belmont at 6:30 in the morning to watch your horses work out?

Do you read the condition book every time it comes out and actively discuss where to run the horses with partners and the trainer?

Do you do private handicapping tasks to help spot your horses?

Do you make a special trip to Belmont to see your horse after a victory so you can personally feed it a treat? ;)

Fager Fan
01-17-2018, 04:27 PM
IDK. Maybe they've led you to think they don't sell to rebate shops?

Ok. But if you really didn't know...

I mentioned Twinspires, Xpressbet, and Premier in my previous post.

Each has an in house rebate program...

Oaklawn sells their signal to them (as well as others.)

The truth is Oaklawn does sell their signal to rebate shops. (Just not all rebate shops.)



-jp

.

Maybe I'm just being obtuse.

Are not the rebate shops owned by those entities contracted separately with the tracks and bets must be made through them to get the rebates?

I'm not talking about the "normal" rebates from what I'd call "normal" ADWs.

AndyC
01-17-2018, 04:34 PM
How about stuff like this?

Do you go to Belmont at 6:30 in the morning to watch your horses work out?

Do you read the condition book every time it comes out and actively discuss where to run the horses with partners and the trainer?

Do you do private handicapping tasks to help spot your horses?

Do you make a special trip to Belmont to see your horse after a victory so you can personally feed it a treat? ;)

Certainly wouldn't hurt your cause. The problems exist with people who make income from sources outside of racing and then buy a few horses. While they will try to make a profit they might be hard pressed to prove that they are in the business of racing horses.

Jeff P
01-17-2018, 05:19 PM
Maybe I'm just being obtuse.

Are not the rebate shops owned by those entities contracted separately with the tracks and bets must be made through them to get the rebates?

I'm not talking about the "normal" rebates from what I'd call "normal" ADWs.

To my way of thinking:

There is zero difference between the "regular" ADW (Twinspires, Xpressbet, etc.) with an in-house VIP rebate program and the so called rebate house (RGS, Elite, etc.)

Both compete against each other for the business of the high volume parimutuel player.

Both offer better than "normal" rebates, auto-generation of wagers, and VIP concierge service to the high volume parimutuel player.

Shouldn't the customer be the one to choose which company/service best meets his or her needs?

Why is RGS, Elite considered BAD?

Why is Twinspires, Xpressbet (who offer the same services) considered GOOD?

IDK. Maybe I'm the one who doesn't get it...


-jp

.

AltonKelsey
01-17-2018, 05:29 PM
I've wondered if most of the jocks actually need their agents. ;-)


I suspect a good agent is worth twice what he's paid

Any agents here want to dispute that?

Andy Asaro
01-17-2018, 05:34 PM
This is all about lowering take for everyone and growing the game by selling it as a gambling game of skill.

Fager Fan
01-17-2018, 05:39 PM
To my way of thinking:

There is zero difference between the "regular" ADW (Twinspires, Xpressbet, etc.) with an in-house VIP rebate program and the so called rebate house (RGS, Elite, etc.)

Both compete against each other for the business of the high volume parimutuel player.

Both offer better than "normal" rebates, auto-generation of wagers, and VIP concierge service to the high volume parimutuel player.

Shouldn't the customer be the one to choose which company/service best meets his or her needs?

Why is RGS, Elite considered BAD?

Why is Twinspires, Xpressbet (who offer the same services) considered GOOD?

IDK. Maybe I'm the one who doesn't get it...


-jp

.

All of them get too much of the takeout, so I consider all of them "bad" for business. A bit better is if one is owned by a track and one can see that one way or another, the profits are being put back into racing. This is why I use only xpressbet as I see the ways Stronach puts money back into the sport.

But the rebate shops get WAY too much off the takeout, resulting in them being able to rebate so much. So from a viewpoint of what's best for the sport, I see the rebate shops as horrendous. From the viewpoint of the player, I'd be irritated that these guys get perks that I don't get, and the result is driving down the odds on many of the same "value" horses that I land on. From the viewpoint of both, I think the whales are responsible for the extreme odd changes at the last second, which makes handicappers infuriated with racing and think shenanigans are happening, so therefore bad PR, and for the handicappers, they can't beat the last second bets.

As to your original post that I was responding to, I am assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the rebate shops, even the ones owned by tracks, are contracted separately from their regular ADW, and the clients of each are therefore separated.

Jeff P
01-17-2018, 05:44 PM
Same parent company - which I'm guessing - has both a wholesale and a retail contract with the host track.

From what I can tell - VIP clients treated very differently.


-jp

.

Fox
01-17-2018, 05:52 PM
Provided he/she is willing to jump through a few hoops:

The whale who wants rebates while betting into Oaklawn's pools is able to do so.

-jp

.

http://www.wacohigh1971.com/000/9/6/0/17069/userfiles/image/Rob7SeasFire.jpg



Whales jumping through hoops. It happens.

:lol:

Jeff P
01-17-2018, 05:57 PM
I think that jockey is clearly not trying. :)


-jp

.

jay68802
01-17-2018, 06:14 PM
I think that jockey is clearly not trying. :)


-jp

.

Needs to go left handed, don't you think?

o_crunk
01-17-2018, 06:40 PM
I don't doubt that to be true. I would say that over 90% of owners lose money. With the cost of the horse,the training or boarding cost, vet bills , etc. a horse has to earn 20 to 25k a year or more to break even. How many horses do that?

47,123 horses made at least 1 start in the US in 2017.

29 won $1M or more.
1,366 won $100K or more.
4,175 won $50K or more.
11,745 won $25K or more.
14,510 won $20K or more.
32,613 won less than $20K.

The median earnings for that 47,123 were $9,295. Average $21,953.

Both median and average purse earnings are up pretty significantly in the last 20 years. Median up 118%. Average up 71%.

Jeff P
01-17-2018, 09:27 PM
All of them get too much of the takeout, so I consider all of them "bad" for business. A bit better is if one is owned by a track and one can see that one way or another, the profits are being put back into racing. This is why I use only xpressbet as I see the ways Stronach puts money back into the sport...

I have the exact opposite viewpoint.

I make it a point to support the independent ADW or contest site with my hard earned dollars because they are the only ones doing any innovating.

Imo, one of the (many) reasons racing finds itself mired in a downward -- or right now at best stagnant trend is: complete and utter lack of innovation.

Look around you. Innovation isn't some random cosmic accident.

Innovation - Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation

...innovation is often also viewed as the application of better solutions that meet new requirements, unarticulated needs, or existing market needs.

Over the past 15 years the best performing publicly traded companies... Apple, Amazon, Google, Netflix, Priceline, and more recently NVIDIA, etc., just to name a few, have realized GROWTH in top line sales, bottom line P&L, and share price that is nothing short of phenomenal...

Imo, not because they lucked into it -- but rather -- because these companies are constantly striving to identify new target markets, identify the needs and wants of the customers in those target markets, and because top management at these companies has made it their mission to implement solutions designed to do an ever improving job of satisfying those customer needs and wants.

Imo, by way of comparison, racing industry decision makers -- and by that I mean track management, leadership of horsemen's alphabet groups, and state regulators -- have been completely lacking (closer to comically terrible actually) when it comes to innovation.

As a horseplayer -- I am painfully aware of the seemingly endless list of unaddressed horseplayer needs and wants. Mainly because I have to deal with them on a daily basis.

But that doesn't mean there hasn't been any innovation in horse racing.

• Exchange wagering is certainly a form of innovation. Imo, a form of innovation that has clear potential to bring growth to racing. And a form of innovation that industry decision makers here in North America have resisted (kicking and screaming) at just about every opportunity.

• Handicapping tournaments such as those offered by Derby Wars is another form of innovation. Imo, this is a form of innovation that also has clear potential to bring some serious growth to racing. (Just look at fantasy sports.) But apparently, this is also a form of innovation industry decision makers (for instance The Stronach Group) will resist at nearly every opportunity.

• Better more intuitive wagering interfaces are an innovation. One that wasn't envisioned or created by industry decision makers -- but rather one created by independent ADWs. (Bet Builder which was created by Premier Turf Club back in the day and has since been copied in one form or another by a lot of others comes to mind.)

• Text file upload is another innovation. To the best of my knowledge, this is an innovation created not by industry decision makers, but by independent ADWs.

• Free past performances from ADWs if you make a bet on today's card is another form of innovation. Imo, an innovation industry decision makers have managed to f#!k up beyond belief. (I'll leave that discussion if anyone wants to have it for another post or thread.)

• Trakus is another innovation. Imo, an innovation industry decision makers have also managed to f#!k up beyond belief. (See one of the many threads about mistimed races for that discussion.)

My point?

I cannot think of a single recent innovation that has come from industry decision makers that can even be remotely viewed as fitting the definition of innovation listed on the Wikipedia page that I linked to above (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation):
the application of better solutions that meet new requirements, unarticulated needs, or existing market needs.

If we rely solely on industry decision makers for innovation --

If we allow industry decision makers to thwart every innovation --

At best (if we are lucky) we'll see ZERO growth.

Look around you.

Through lack of innovation, industry decision makers have created the horse racing equivalent of Sears with an empty parking lot in an Apple, Amazon, Google, Netflix, Priceline, and NVIDIA world.


-jp

.

Andy Asaro
01-17-2018, 09:38 PM
I have the exact opposite viewpoint.

I make it a point to support the independent ADW or contest site with my hard earned dollars because they are the only ones doing any innovating.

Imo, one of the (many) reasons racing finds itself mired in a downward -- or right now at best stagnant trend is: complete and utter lack of innovation.

Look around you. Innovation isn't some random cosmic accident.

Innovation - Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation



Over the past 15 years the best performing publicly traded companies... Apple, Amazon, Google, Netflix, Priceline, and more recently NVIDIA, etc., just to name a few, have realized GROWTH in top line sales, bottom line P&L, and share price that is nothing short of phenomenal...

Imo, not because they lucked into it -- but rather -- because these companies are constantly striving to identify new target markets, identify the needs and wants of the customers in those target markets, and because top management at these companies has made it their mission to implement solutions designed to do an ever improving job of satisfying those customer needs and wants.

Imo, by way of comparison, racing industry decision makers -- and by that I mean track management, leadership of horsemen's alphabet groups, and state regulators -- have been completely lacking (closer to comically terrible actually) when it comes to innovation.

As a horseplayer -- I am painfully aware of the seemingly endless list of unaddressed horseplayer needs and wants. Mainly because I have to deal with them on a daily basis.

But that doesn't mean there hasn't been any innovation in horse racing.

• Exchange wagering is certainly a form of innovation. Imo, a form of innovation that has clear potential to bring growth to racing. And a form of innovation that industry decision makers here in North America have resisted (kicking and screaming) at just about every opportunity.

• Handicapping tournaments such as those offered by Derby Wars is another form of innovation. Imo, this is a form of innovation that also has clear potential to bring some serious growth to racing. (Just look at fantasy sports.) But apparently, this is also a form of innovation industry decision makers (for instance The Stronach Group) will resist at nearly every opportunity.

• Better more intuitive wagering interfaces are an innovation. One that wasn't envisioned or created by industry decision makers -- but rather one created by independent ADWs. (Bet Builder which was created by Premier Turf Club back in the day and has since been copied in one form or another by a lot of others comes to mind.)

• Text file upload is another innovation. To the best of my knowledge, this is an innovation created not by industry decision makers, but by independent ADWs.

• Free past performances from ADWs if you make a bet on today's card is another form of innovation. Imo, an innovation industry decision makers have managed to f#!k up beyond belief. (I'll leave that discussion if anyone wants to have it for another post or thread.)

• Trakus is another innovation. Imo, an innovation industry decision makers have also managed to f#!k up beyond belief. (See one of the many threads about mistimed races for that discussion.)

My point?

I cannot think of a single recent innovation that has come from industry decision makers that can even be remotely viewed as fitting the definition of innovation listed on the Wikipedia page that I linked to above (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation):


If we rely solely on industry decision makers for innovation --

If we allow industry decision makers to thwart every innovation --

At best (if we are lucky) we'll see ZERO growth.

Look around you.

Through lack of innovation, industry decision makers have created the horse racing equivalent of Sears with an empty parking lot in an Apple, Amazon, Google, Netflix, Priceline, and NVIDIA world.


-jp

.

It's not over yet but it's getting closer.

GMB@BP
01-18-2018, 01:13 PM
I have to agree with Jeff P's post.

Here are a few examples.

ADW's should seriously discount, or give away PP's for free. I cannot tell you how many times I made a bet on a race not because I intended to but because it was the Timeform or DRF free races for the day. It also has the added bonus of bringing in new players who dont want to spend money on something they may only have a new interest in, or may keep someone interested who just right now does not have the money to bet.

Can someone explain to me why TVG even requires an account, and on top of that has to be in a certain state, to watch their shows? Makes zero sense in growing the sport.

New gamblers with the internet and in the information age sure as heck are going to understand that you need a rebate to be successful with this gambling model, so how do you start small and grow if you cant get a rebate, or a rebate that essentially is free pp's? Rebates essentially are stating the normal everyday model will not work gamblers in a skill based game over the long haul.

thaskalos
01-18-2018, 01:23 PM
Here are a few examples.

ADW's should seriously discount, or give away PP's for free. I cannot tell you how many times I made a bet on a race not because I intended to but because it was the Timeform or DRF free races for the day. It also has the added bonus of bringing in new players who dont want to spend money on something they may only have a new interest in, or may keep someone interested who just right now does not have the money to bet.


Don't the ADWs currently offer their PPs for the price of a token $2 wager? This is as close to free as it gets...IMO. The injustice is when the tracks and the OTBs charge full-price for the PPs, to people who have already gone there to gamble.

GMB@BP
01-18-2018, 02:01 PM
Don't the ADWs currently offer their PPs for the price of a token $2 wager? This is as close to free as it gets...IMO. The injustice is when the tracks and the OTBs charge full-price for the PPs, to people who have already gone there to gamble.

Yea, completely agree. I understand the need to turn a profit, but balancing the need to grow the game is also a factor that they are way to short sighted on.

But so I look at 10 tracks on a day, I need to put up $20 or $140 bucks a week or $560 a month to get my money back, just to look at the product I might purchase with a bet?

Denny
01-18-2018, 02:35 PM
I do most of my wagering on Harness racing.

Why?

One reason is the FREE PP's that are available DAILY.

USTrotting.com has partnered with participating tracks to offer free Trackmaster PP's - they call the Strategic Wagering Program. Usually P4's and P5's, sometimes other bet types.

DRF.com/Harness also offers free Harness Eye PP's just about daily on select tracks and bet types.

Another reason is the LOW TAKEOUTS on these wagers. For example, Meadowlands P4 and P5 TAKEOUT is 15%.

Recently Pompano Park lowered take to 12% on P4's!!! Lowest in the country.

These two tracks both participate in the Strategic Wagering program with USTA.

I PLAY EVERY DAY because of these free pp's being available.

thaskalos
01-18-2018, 02:45 PM
Yea, completely agree. I understand the need to turn a profit, but balancing the need to grow the game is also a factor that they are way to short sighted on.

But so I look at 10 tracks on a day, I need to put up $20 or $140 bucks a week or $560 a month to get my money back, just to look at the product I might purchase with a bet?

If I held a decision-making position in this game, then I would be handing the PPs out totally free, with no "strings attached"...because, as you say, "growing the game" is of utmost importance at this point and time. But I can also see the point of the ADW outlets, when they require a minimum bet before they allow access to the PPs. Why would they agree to give free PPs to people who are refusing to bet at ALL? Is a $2 bet on an entire day's card really too much to ask?

Fager Fan
01-18-2018, 02:53 PM
If I held a decision-making position in this game, then I would be handing the PPs out totally free, with no "strings attached"...because, as you say, "growing the game" is of utmost importance at this point and time. But I can also see the point of the ADW outlets, when they require a minimum bet before they allow access to the PPs. Why would they agree to give free PPs to people who are refusing to bet at ALL? Is a $2 bet on an entire day's card really too much to ask?

The ADWs are in no worse condition than the tracks. Better, actually, because they don't have any printing costs. Both entities would have to pay for the digital information and the permission to distribute.

thaskalos
01-18-2018, 03:09 PM
The ADWs are in no worse condition than the tracks. Better, actually, because they don't have any printing costs. Both entities would have to pay for the digital information and the permission to distribute.

To me...paying for the PPs is akin to paying a restaurant for the right to look at the menu before ordering. At least the ADWs are handing out complete past-performances for the price of a minimum bet per day...and that's reasonable. But the tracks are selling horribly-abbreviated simulcast programs for $5...while the DRF is selling at $10+ a copy. And the cost doubles if the patron also wants the PM edition. The tracks should get their acts together and realize that a $20 cover-charge isn't the right lure for attracting customers for a day at the local track, or OTB outlet.

jay68802
01-18-2018, 03:45 PM
I have to say I am in agreement with most of is being said about the distribution of racing information. Figuring out a way to distribute the information to the public at a price that is considered reasonable is a area the sport should be improving. If the customer wants the information in a readable format, get it to them. I will say that I thought Trakus was going to be a important step forward for the industry. That lasted until I visited their website for the first time and they proudly announced that the information collected was going to be made available to "horse racing insiders" and was not really for the general public or the customers that support this sport. Look at all the free information available for, name the 3 letter sport.NFL, NBA, PGA, ect. I do have one question to ask and that is, "Isn't robotic wagering a innovation?" And even though it caters to a small group of individuals, be considered a step in the right direction?

Fager Fan
01-18-2018, 07:32 PM
I don't disagree with you two, just stating what I believe the problem to be, and I'm not sure who can pick up the cost for free data collection and distribution. It's that pesky no central authority again.

lamboguy
01-18-2018, 07:54 PM
i spoke to a guy that is a bookmaker a few weeks ago and he told me that he was getting "robo" players in sports and got rid of them. they would bet a game at +6 and 2 seconds after he placed the bet the game would go down to 4.

he told me that if he picked up new players he would have a small limit on them to make sure they weren't "robo" players. he told me that he would get cleaned out if he allowed those guys to play with him in sports.

Dave Schwartz
01-18-2018, 09:25 PM
If I held a decision-making position in this game, then I would be handing the PPs out totally free, with no "strings attached"...because, as you say, "growing the game" is of utmost importance at this point and time. But I can also see the point of the ADW outlets, when they require a minimum bet before they allow access to the PPs. Why would they agree to give free PPs to people who are refusing to bet at ALL? Is a $2 bet on an entire day's card really too much to ask?

IMHO, add to that free data to that list as well.

Ours is the only sport that I am aware of that charges for data.

Recently downloaded the play-by-play for every baseball game back to 1903 absolutely free.


Dave

Fager Fan
01-18-2018, 09:54 PM
IMHO, add to that free data to that list as well.

Ours is the only sport that I am aware of that charges for data.

Recently downloaded the play-by-play for every baseball game back to 1903 absolutely free.


Dave


Surely you see the difference. Who needs basketball data?

classhandicapper
01-19-2018, 02:15 PM
If I held a decision-making position in this game, then I would be handing the PPs out totally free, with no "strings attached"..

I've been wondering what would happen if basic PPs were a lot cheaper, but a significant investment was made in gathering better data, creating proprietary metrics, stats, and algorithms and making that available for a price.

That way, if you are a beginner or want to play the game without significant overhead you could, but if you wanted to get more serious and do research there would be a menu of really GOOD data also.

Dave Schwartz
01-19-2018, 04:34 PM
Surely you see the difference. Who needs basketball data?

LOL - Only the winners.

castaway01
01-19-2018, 05:24 PM
Surely you see the difference. Who needs basketball data?

If you believe this then you'd be amazed at the amount of data serious fantasy sports players look at, much less the guys betting thousands on an NBA game.

AlsoEligible
01-19-2018, 06:02 PM
Surely you see the difference. Who needs basketball data?

Surely you don't think that horse players are the only breed of gambler who bother to study statistical data and past performances before putting down their money? Come on now.

No, I don't see any difference. If you want people to wager on your product, you can't just count on them to throw money at you based on gut feelings or horse names. Sure, some casual $2 bettors will do that, but not over any sustained period of time.

I've been wondering what would happen if basic PPs were a lot cheaper, but a significant investment was made in gathering better data, creating proprietary metrics, stats, and algorithms and making that available for a price.

That way, if you are a beginner or want to play the game without significant overhead you could, but if you wanted to get more serious and do research there would be a menu of really GOOD data also.

^ This is the correct answer, except make basic PP's free, and then charge for more advanced metrics and stats.

Asking for some basic free data is not unreasonable. It's in the industry's best interest to provide that information to anyone and everyone who may be curious about betting horses. Not hide it behind paywalls, require account signups and deposits, or nickel and dime people who already took the time and effort to show up at your facility and want to bet.

If other sports can do this, there is no reason that horse racing cannot. The idea that it can't be done because <insert track> or <insert ADW> will lose a few bucks is a great example of why racing continues to struggle. We're unable and unwilling to come together and work as an industry on anything. And we're too short-sighted to look past our own bottom lines to see the bigger picture. Otherwise we'd realize that something like this would be good for the industry, and benefit everyone, and that everyone includes themselves.

dilanesp
01-19-2018, 07:34 PM
There's an intellectual property issue behind the past performance data situation.

In most sports, you have a league that collects official statistics. For instance, since someone mentioned baseball, every major league baseball game has been officially scored dating back to the Nineteenth Century. And those scoresheets have always been available for public inspection. Since enough people care about baseball, statistically-minded fans, publishers, and a number of other folks have reviewed those scoresheets and mined the data. Nowadays, of course, the scoresheets are published electronically. As a result, baseball statistics are extremely widely available.

And there's a longstanding tradition of widely available baseball statistics. They were published in books, newspapers, gambling newsletters, team publications, game programs, etc.

In horse racing, something like Equibase is quite recent. The way it used to work 60 years ago was the tracks ran the races, timed them, took a photo finish, and announced the placings. Everything else had to be collected privately. Since data collection was ridiculously expensive, the Daily Racing Form was able to attain a near monopoly on this. And they charged for their product, as every monopolist does.

Over time parts of the monopoly got eroded. For instance, tracks started filming and later videotaping their races, so it now became theoretically somewhat cheaper to collect past performance data. And some tracks began offering their own past performance data, usually pretty limited, in race programs. Harness and quarter horse tracks did this a lot.

But it was only in the last 20 years or so that horse racing really centralized the collection of data. So you had a decades-long tradition of horseplayers paying for statistical data, because rather than being collected by the league (as in baseball), it was collected privately. And that creates entrenched interests who would fight any serious attempt to make the data free.

Dave Schwartz
01-19-2018, 08:03 PM
But it was only in the last 20 years or so that horse racing really centralized the collection of data. So you had a decades-long tradition of horseplayers paying for statistical data, because rather than being collected by the league (as in baseball), it was collected privately. And that creates entrenched interests who would fight any serious attempt to make the data free.

I believe the EQb data collection actually began about 32 years ago, but did not go commercial until the early 90s. (Someone may be able to say that it actually went back even further.)

Entrenched data... You are so right. However, pro sports had the same issues in many ways in the "good old days" because the dissemination of information had a bottleneck at the distribution end.

Other sports have done well to keep information flowing to the fan base. IMHO, this could be done by racing.

Remember that EQb is racing.

cj
01-19-2018, 10:09 PM
Horse today at Gulfstream Park, the big dog of the tracks this time of year, saw a horse drop from 16-1 at the break to 7-1 as he made the lead and went on to win.

jay68802
01-19-2018, 10:34 PM
Horse today at Gulfstream Park, the big dog of the tracks this time of year, saw a horse drop from 16-1 at the break to 7-1 as he made the lead and went on to win.

Watched the track all day, saw large odd swings during the race 4 times(4 pts or more, all but 1 finished in the money. The one horse I played went from 20-1 to 16-1 and ran 2nd. When you are playing pools that only have 50% of the money in them when they load the gate, you can't tell what you are going to have. I have always thought that betting after the break was a rare incident, but after watching and playing Gulf the last two days, I am beginning to think otherwise.

Mc990
01-19-2018, 10:49 PM
Look at the multi-race payouts to the 7-1 horse though.... he was never going to be 16-1. I completely understand the frustration but I'm not sure there is anything unscrupulous going on.

A quick check of the will pays before plunging into the win pool will save a lot of headaches.

cj
01-19-2018, 10:56 PM
Look at the multi-race payouts to the 7-1 horse though.... he was never going to be 16-1. I completely understand the frustration but I'm not sure there is anything unscrupulous going on.

A quick check of the will pays before plunging into the win pool will save a lot of headaches.

I know, made the same point on Twitter. Bettors deserve better than this though.

Dave Schwartz
01-19-2018, 11:56 PM
Watched the track all day, saw large odd swings during the race 4 times(4 pts or more, all but 1 finished in the money. The one horse I played went from 20-1 to 16-1 and ran 2nd. When you are playing pools that only have 50% of the money in them when they load the gate, you can't tell what you are going to have. I have always thought that betting after the break was a rare incident, but after watching and playing Gulf the last two days, I am beginning to think otherwise.

I do not believe the issue is ticket cancels or past-posting. Although that might exist, my belief is that it is rare.

I believe that the phenomenon is the result of good handicapping by "The Whales."



About 8 years ago I did a 4-day study of the tote system. I looked at 10 tracks, as I recall. Specifically, I kept 2 sets of numbers:

A. Odds on all horses in the 1st flash after 0 minutes to post.
B. Odds when the race was official (i.e. "Winner's Circle Odds").

I was only interested in the winner.

I came to the following conclusions:

1. Track tendencies could be divided into two categories: High Rebate and Low (or no) Rebate. At that time the dividing line was (I think) about 3%. (Note that breakpoint would be much lower today.)

2. At low-rebate tracks, the breakdown of winners was:
42.5% of winners went down in odds
20.0% of winners stayed at approx. the same odds.
37.5% of winners went up in odds.

3. At high rebate tracks, the breakdown of winners was:
73% of winners went down in odds
9% stayed the same
18% of winners went up in odds

Believe it or don't, as you see fit. Or, better, do your own study. Just takes a little tenacity with screen captures and you're only considering one horse per race.


Dave

jay68802
01-20-2018, 01:28 AM
Believe it or don't, as you see fit. Or, better, do your own study. Just takes a little tenacity with screen captures and you're only considering one horse per race.


Dave[/QUOTE]

I have no reason to doubt what you say. I think the problem I see, or have, is more with the % of money in the last dump. I have seen this more than once, since I started paying attention to the last dump into WPS pools.

I have seen the last dump % be any where from as low as .15% to as high as .70%. When that much money is put in last, the people, sometimes me, see "cheating by insiders" or "whales".

A new player is going to be turned off by this, and to help grow the game this % has to be lower. How to lower this is very hard to do. After all, a bankroll of 100,000 is better than 10,000.

Dave Schwartz
01-20-2018, 01:48 AM
Jay,

I completely agree.

Here's the thing... it hasn't actually changed. The mechanism, that is. In fact, that is probably part of the problem. (More on that later.)

When I say, "It hasn't actually changed," what I mean is that things are working as they used to.

That is, people bet for 20 minutes or so, while the "smarter players" wait until 2 minutes to post. Then the others bet, some waiting until the the horses are loading.

Among those waiting until the loading are the biggest bettors on the planet.

WHAT HAS CHANGED is that so much handle is being controlled by just a handful of decision makers (i.e. whales).


(This is a long paragraph, so I have intentionally broken it into small bites.)



Instead of the gate-load money...
being spread across thousands of bettors...
with diverse decision approaches...
about 6 gigantic players and maybe 50-75 lesser-but-still-huge players (using similar approaches)...
are determining the "good bets."


*This results in more extreme fluctuations in the odds.


Big money controlled by a small number of people...
Results in what appears to be...
Bets being made during the race...


*In other words, they land on the same horses a huge percentage of the time.
*They do this because their handicapping is substantially better than the public's.

Why is it different at the low-rebate tracks?

Because the percentage of total handle being bet by the BIG gate-load money is smaller.


What do you think? Does this make sense to you?

Dave

Lafecs
01-20-2018, 02:25 AM
This doesn't just happen in the win pool either, it happens in the exacta pool and probably every other pool. The odds get signficantly sharper after the gates open, than even at 30 seconds to post. It's obviously being done robotically at the very last second (probably by some whale computer geniuses), and it is condoned because the tracks don't give a s**t. It's more money in their pocket, but less in 99% of the betting public's.

Mc990
01-20-2018, 08:49 AM
I know, made the same point on Twitter. Bettors deserve better than this though.

Agreed. I imagine anyone posting on this forum is savvy/experienced enough though to check will pays before placing any kind of bet. 90% of the complaining could be avoided by doing so.

Anyone who argues the multi race pools aren't efficient and aren't indicative should be jumping into them with both feet! Can't have it both ways

Fager Fan
01-20-2018, 09:59 AM
Surely you don't think that horse players are the only breed of gambler who bother to study statistical data and past performances before putting down their money? Come on now.

No, I don't see any difference. If you want people to wager on your product, you can't just count on them to throw money at you based on gut feelings or horse names. Sure, some casual $2 bettors will do that, but not over any sustained period of time.



^ This is the correct answer, except make basic PP's free, and then charge for more advanced metrics and stats.

Asking for some basic free data is not unreasonable. It's in the industry's best interest to provide that information to anyone and everyone who may be curious about betting horses. Not hide it behind paywalls, require account signups and deposits, or nickel and dime people who already took the time and effort to show up at your facility and want to bet.

If other sports can do this, there is no reason that horse racing cannot. The idea that it can't be done because <insert track> or <insert ADW> will lose a few bucks is a great example of why racing continues to struggle. We're unable and unwilling to come together and work as an industry on anything. And we're too short-sighted to look past our own bottom lines to see the bigger picture. Otherwise we'd realize that something like this would be good for the industry, and benefit everyone, and that everyone includes themselves.

But the BUSINESS of those sports doesn't revolve around betting and the importance of the stats.

cj
01-20-2018, 12:40 PM
But the BUSINESS of those sports doesn't revolve around betting and the importance of the stats.

The major sports leagues know that a lot of what drives interest is gambling. Not for everyone, but for many. Why else would the NFL have injury reports and fine teams for lying about them?

GMB@BP
01-20-2018, 02:57 PM
If you believe this then you'd be amazed at the amount of data serious fantasy sports players look at, much less the guys betting thousands on an NBA game.

What is mind boggling is its this type of person that horse racing would surely appeal to, the data driven analysis, conclusions, etc.....but racing does its best to drive those people away rather then pull them in.

dilanesp
01-20-2018, 03:03 PM
The major sports leagues know that a lot of what drives interest is gambling. Not for everyone, but for many. Why else would the NFL have injury reports and fine teams for lying about them?

This is true but slightly misses the point. The NFL does this because it historically HATED gambling- they suspended Paul Hornung, a Hall of Famer, simply for being friends with gamblers, and made Joe Namath, the most popular player in the league, sell his nightclub for the same reason.

The NFL's injury report rules are intended to prevent teams from creating a pool of inside information that can be sold to gamblers.

AndyC
01-20-2018, 03:26 PM
The major sports leagues know that a lot of what drives interest is gambling. Not for everyone, but for many. Why else would the NFL have injury reports and fine teams for lying about them?

Long before I ever gambled I was a stat junkie for all sports, be it baseball, basketball or football. They made the games and players more interesting. It helped create a lifetime bond to the sports.

The release of injury reports was not to accommodate bettors, although it did just that, it was to erase any perception that gambling controlled the outcomes of the games.

ultracapper
01-20-2018, 03:36 PM
Same as Andy, I was a baseball stats junkie. I loved the numbers. When I was introduced to the DRF, it had that same effect on me as the MLB boxscore. But the DRF was even better, you could easily place legal bets that you knew would be paid immediately upon completion of the race.

This may sound funny, but I'm not, by nature, a gambler. If it weren't for the belief that those numbers could tell me a story and help me determine the outcome of a race, I never would have started playing the horses.

classhandicapper
01-21-2018, 12:09 PM
Agreed. I imagine anyone posting on this forum is savvy/experienced enough though to check will pays before placing any kind of bet. 90% of the complaining could be avoided by doing so.

Anyone who argues the multi race pools aren't efficient and aren't indicative should be jumping into them with both feet! Can't have it both ways


I wonder how much of it is a self fulfilling prophecy as opposed to separate pools coming to the same conclusion.

30 years ago I used an IBM clone to create a chart of win odds and corresponding fair exacta payoffs. I used to walk around the track with a notebook looking at exacta payoffs vs. the win odds and put my bets into the better pool. I was doing exactly what the whales are doing except I was trying to do it manually (and with smaller bets of course).

More money is in the double and other exoctic pools. Therefore, the assumption is the exotic pools are more efficient than the early betting in win pools. But that isn't necessarily so. As far as I know, there is no rule that says the double pool has to be more efficient just because it's bigger. Some people may be driving the win odds in that direction on the assumption they are getting value (and may not be) as opposed to independently agreeing. IMO, the only use for that information is what you are saying. It gives you a tool for predicting what people are going to do with the win odds.

jay68802
01-21-2018, 01:16 PM
I wonder how much of it is a self fulfilling prophecy.

30 years ago I used an IBM clone to create a chart of win odds and corresponding fair exacta payoffs. I used to walk around the track with a notebook looking at exacta payoffs vs. the win odds and put my bets into the better pool.

I was doing exactly what the whales are doing except I was trying to do it manually (and with smaller bets of course).

More money is in the double and other exoctic pools. Therefore, the assumption is the exotic pools are more efficient than the early betting in win pools. But that isn't necessarily so. As far as I know, there is no rule that says the double pool has to be more efficient just because it's bigger. Some people may be driving the win odds in that direction on the assumption they are getting value. IMO, the only use for that information is what you are saying. It gives you a tool for predicting what people are going to do with the win odds.


I have posted in other threads that one thing I pay close attention to is the double payout to my selection. The odds for that payout sometimes make the double a more attractive bet than a win bet in the next race. Most of the time the double payout does not indicate the win odds, but shows where my selection will be in rank. If the rank of my selection is higher than the morning line rank, it becomes a red flag. If it has a lower rank than the morning line, it is encouraging, and if it is the first or second lowest payout, I look at the double odds in hope of getting more value in that pool, than I will probably get in the win pool.

Yesterday at Gulfstream in the 3rd race, the eventual winner, All Go, was 5-1 when the gates opened. He broke well and the odds went to 7-2, his morning line. This horse was the second choice in the doubles from the previous race, the #2 horse in morning line. His odds in the last dump was 1-1, a correction in the win pool, that brought him back in line and even though it probably angered a few bettors, was predictable.

In the 5th race the eventual winner, Lead By Example, was 12-1 when the gates opened. He broke well and the odds went to 6-1, 6 points below his morning line. This horse was the 8th choice in the doubles pool from the previous race, and the 7th choice in the morning line. His odds in the last dump was 7-2, a correction in the win pool that defies logic. This is the odds swing that make me believe that the playing field is not level.

thaskalos
01-21-2018, 01:21 PM
[/B]

I have posted in other threads that one thing I pay close attention to is the double payout to my selection. The odds for that payout sometimes make the double a more attractive bet than a win bet in the next race. Most of the time the double payout does not indicate the win odds, but shows where my selection will be in rank. If the rank of my selection is higher than the morning line rank, it becomes a red flag. If it has a lower rank than the morning line, it is encouraging, and if it is the first or second lowest payout, I look at the double odds in hope of getting more value in that pool, than I will probably get in the win pool.

Yesterday at Gulfstream in the 3rd race, the eventual winner, All Go, was 5-1 when the gates opened. He broke well and the odds went to 7-2, his morning line. This horse was the second choice in the doubles from the previous race, the #2 horse in morning line. His odds in the last dump was 1-1, a correction in the win pool, that brought him back in line and even though it probably angered a few bettors, was predictable.

In the 5th race the eventual winner, Lead By Example, was 12-1 when the gates opened. He broke well and the odds went to 6-1, 6 points below his morning line. This horse was the 8th choice in the doubles pool from the previous race, and the 7th choice in the morning line. His odds in the last dump was 7-2, a correction in the win pool that defies logic. This is the odds swing that make me believe that the playing field is not level.

When was the last time that the odds dropped noticeably on a horse that DIDN'T break well?

lamboguy
01-21-2018, 01:29 PM
When was the last time that the odds dropped noticeably on a horse that DIDN'T break well?what do you think a guy that is calling the break is going to bet the horse that breaks last? for your information, they are going to call the horse that breaks on top 99% of the time. the other 1% are the ones they call because they are not wearing full power eye glasses.

dilanesp
01-21-2018, 03:27 PM
I wonder how much of it is a self fulfilling prophecy as opposed to separate pools coming to the same conclusion.

30 years ago I used an IBM clone to create a chart of win odds and corresponding fair exacta payoffs. I used to walk around the track with a notebook looking at exacta payoffs vs. the win odds and put my bets into the better pool. I was doing exactly what the whales are doing except I was trying to do it manually (and with smaller bets of course).

More money is in the double and other exoctic pools. Therefore, the assumption is the exotic pools are more efficient than the early betting in win pools. But that isn't necessarily so. As far as I know, there is no rule that says the double pool has to be more efficient just because it's bigger. Some people may be driving the win odds in that direction on the assumption they are getting value (and may not be) as opposed to independently agreeing. IMO, the only use for that information is what you are saying. It gives you a tool for predicting what people are going to do with the win odds.

I think exotic pools are less efficient because so many bettors don't know the odds.

AndyC
01-21-2018, 04:29 PM
........More money is in the double and other exotic pools. Therefore, the assumption is the exotic pools are more efficient than the early betting in win pools. But that isn't necessarily so. As far as I know, there is no rule that says the double pool has to be more efficient just because it's bigger.....

In California the DD pools are rarely as big as the win pools. Looking at the probables after the first leg is probably not the least bit helpful, especially if a longer price has won the first leg.

cj
01-21-2018, 05:52 PM
In California the DD pools are rarely as big as the win pools. Looking at the probables after the first leg is probably not the least bit helpful, especially if a longer price has won the first leg.


With doubles you can get the probable for every combo, you don't need the will pays.

iamt
01-21-2018, 06:01 PM
[/B]

I have posted in other threads that one thing I pay close attention to is the double payout to my selection. The odds for that payout sometimes make the double a more attractive bet than a win bet in the next race. Most of the time the double payout does not indicate the win odds, but shows where my selection will be in rank. If the rank of my selection is higher than the morning line rank, it becomes a red flag. If it has a lower rank than the morning line, it is encouraging, and if it is the first or second lowest payout, I look at the double odds in hope of getting more value in that pool, than I will probably get in the win pool.

Yesterday at Gulfstream in the 3rd race, the eventual winner, All Go, was 5-1 when the gates opened. He broke well and the odds went to 7-2, his morning line. This horse was the second choice in the doubles from the previous race, the #2 horse in morning line. His odds in the last dump was 1-1, a correction in the win pool, that brought him back in line and even though it probably angered a few bettors, was predictable.

In the 5th race the eventual winner, Lead By Example, was 12-1 when the gates opened. He broke well and the odds went to 6-1, 6 points below his morning line. This horse was the 8th choice in the doubles pool from the previous race, and the 7th choice in the morning line. His odds in the last dump was 7-2, a correction in the win pool that defies logic. This is the odds swing that make me believe that the playing field is not level.


Neither of these horses broke that quickly, or established an obviously better position that quickly in the race. Lead by Example particularly bettered only 3 or 4 horses out of the gate and was 4th/5th 3 wide when the updated odds first displayed.

AndyC
01-21-2018, 11:04 PM
With doubles you can get the probable for every combo, you don't need the will pays.

My message wasn't very well written. I am aware of the probables I was just countering the notion that DDs had a larger pool than the win pool.

classhandicapper
01-22-2018, 09:34 PM
My message wasn't very well written. I am aware of the probables I was just countering the notion that DDs had a larger pool than the win pool.

I was talking about the opening win betting.

In the early betting, the win pool will often be very small and the odds much different than they will be at the close. If you look at the double "will pays", that double pool is already closed, as large as it's going to get, and fairly efficient.

So using the "will pays" can give you a clue as to how the win odds are going to move later in the betting in the win pool.

If in CA the opening betting on win is already larger than the closed double pool then maybe this wouldn't be as useful a tool for prediction.

What I'm wondering is how much people looking at the "will pays" for doubles, pick 3s, pick 4s, exactas etc.. is driving the win odds and how much is the pools coming into sync naturally and independently.

AndyC
01-23-2018, 01:10 AM
I was talking about the opening win betting.

In the early betting, the win pool will often be very small and the odds much different than they will be at the close. If you look at the double "will pays", that double pool is already closed, as large as it's going to get, and fairly efficient.

So using the "will pays" can give you a clue as to how the win odds are going to move later in the betting in the win pool.

If in CA the opening betting on win is already larger than the closed double pool then maybe this wouldn't be as useful a tool for prediction.

What I'm wondering is how much people looking at the "will pays" for doubles, pick 3s, pick 4s, exactas etc.. is driving the win odds and how much is the pools coming into sync naturally and independently.

My problem with will-pays is as follows: Santa Anita's average DD pool is less than $30,000 but I will use $30,000 in my example. If a 4-1 horse wins the first half of the DD it will mean that approximately 16.9% of the DD pool will be used in determining the DD will-pays. So there will be $5,070 of live tickets to compute the winning amounts. In a 10 horse field for the second half of the DD that comes to just a little bit over $500 per horse. I doubt that volume of betting will provide much efficiency to rely on. The math for P-3s and P-4s gets even worse for efficiency.

classhandicapper
01-23-2018, 01:23 PM
My problem with will-pays is as follows: Santa Anita's average DD pool is less than $30,000 but I will use $30,000 in my example. If a 4-1 horse wins the first half of the DD it will mean that approximately 16.9% of the DD pool will be used in determining the DD will-pays. So there will be $5,070 of live tickets to compute the winning amounts. In a 10 horse field for the second half of the DD that comes to just a little bit over $500 per horse. I doubt that volume of betting will provide much efficiency to rely on. The math for P-3s and P-4s gets even worse for efficiency.

Good point, but since the pools are closed and all the action is in, the double pools should be relatively efficient. Any crazy overlays in the doubles would have been noticed by the sharpest players and corrected late in the double betting.

In the early win pools, none of that corrective action has taken place yet.

cj
01-23-2018, 01:32 PM
Good point, but since the pools are closed and all the action is in, the double pools should be relatively efficient. Any crazy overlays in the doubles would have been noticed by the sharpest players and corrected late in the double betting.

In the early win pools, none of that corrective action has taken place yet.

Been doing this for a while now and while it isn't perfect, it has saved a lot of bets from being made that looked good at post time but ended up being bad. I can't predict the odds with perfection, but I know for example if I'm predicting 4-1 and the horse is sitting at 8-1 at post time, it will almost always go off at less than 8-1. The majority of times it will be closer to 4 than 8 when the final odds are posted.

Robert Fischer
01-23-2018, 02:08 PM
Been doing this for a while now and while it isn't perfect, it has saved a lot of bets from being made that looked good at post time but ended up being bad. I can't predict the odds with perfection, but I know for example if I'm predicting 4-1 and the horse is sitting at 8-1 at post time, it will almost always go off at less than 8-1. The majority of times it will be closer to 4 than 8 when the final odds are posted.

That is smart.

Agree that when a horse is well-bet in doubles, he usually comes down late in the win pool(if he isn't already down early).
The other horses that I expect to drop late are
-Strong obvious favs generally get hammered late
-Rare ML chalk that is sitting 'COLD' at higher odds tend to get lowered somewhat late.
-Horses who break well (half kidding)


I look at doubles and multis(p3 etc) and just do a simple 'odds ranking'. (e.g. 1Fav, 2Second, 3Third, 4Fourthchoice,...) and then compare it to the morning line.

Want to see what to expect, and also if anything is happening that I didn't expect and can't explain. 'UOB'(Unexpected Odds Behavior')


/with Doubles - if a long shot won, I go back and check the 'probables' from the chalky horses, rather than using will-pays

Notice some trends. For example, Favorites slightly more with favorites, while 'wise guy/value' horses tend to reflect a little more action onto the 'wise-guy' values in the following race, particularly odds ranking.

linrom1
01-23-2018, 03:52 PM
It's not the way i see DOUBLE POOLS with robotic wagering playing a large role.
I often see a logical contender hammered with 4-5 horses in probables in a relatively tight range.

But then, one of them opens up at 9/5 while the others languish at 4-8 win odds and don't lift a hoof.

AndyC
01-23-2018, 05:15 PM
Good point, but since the pools are closed and all the action is in, the double pools should be relatively efficient. Any crazy overlays in the doubles would have been noticed by the sharpest players and corrected late in the double betting.

In the early win pools, none of that corrective action has taken place yet.

At what point does the betting cease to be efficient? When $4,000 determines the prices, $2,000 or $500? Sharp players trying to correct for overlays in the DD pools are dealing with a hair trigger. It doesn't take much betting to flip a bet to the underlay column.

I have been studying pools for over 30 years. I have suggested to Del Mar that they implement what I call a pick tote. It is a 1 page matrix showing all the money that has been bet on each horse in each leg of the DD, P-3, P-4, etc. In addition a matrix could show the odds equivalent for each horse in each leg. So if there was a P-4 with $100,000 in the pool, the matrix would have 4 columns showing how the $100,000 is distributed in each race by horse. It could also show that horse 3 in leg 4 would be 6-1 if the $100,000 were in a win pool.

cj
01-23-2018, 05:17 PM
At what point does the betting cease to be efficient? When $4,000 determines the prices, $2,000 or $500? Sharp players trying to correct for overlays in the DD pools are dealing with a hair trigger. It doesn't take much betting to flip a bet to the underlay column.

I have been studying pools for over 30 years. I have suggested to Del Mar that they implement what I call a pick tote. It is a 1 page matrix showing all the money that has been bet on each horse in each leg of the DD, P-3, P-4, etc. In addition a matrix could show the odds equivalent for each horse in each leg. So if there was a P-4 with $100,000 in the pool, the matrix would have 4 columns showing how the $100,000 is distributed in each race by horse. It could also show that horse 3 in leg 4 would be 6-1 if the $100,000 were in a win pool.

That is a really good idea so I'm sure it won't be done in my lifetime.

classhandicapper
01-24-2018, 05:28 PM
At what point does the betting cease to be efficient? When $4,000 determines the prices, $2,000 or $500? Sharp players trying to correct for overlays in the DD pools are dealing with a hair trigger. It doesn't take much betting to flip a bet to the underlay column.

I have been studying pools for over 30 years. I have suggested to Del Mar that they implement what I call a pick tote. It is a 1 page matrix showing all the money that has been bet on each horse in each leg of the DD, P-3, P-4, etc. In addition a matrix could show the odds equivalent for each horse in each leg. So if there was a P-4 with $100,000 in the pool, the matrix would have 4 columns showing how the $100,000 is distributed in each race by horse. It could also show that horse 3 in leg 4 would be 6-1 if the $100,000 were in a win pool.

To answer your first question, I don't know the answer. What I would do is look at the double "will pays" and then see if they were adding any value to my ability to predict the final odds to win.

I don't play a lot of small tracks, but I love mule racing as a hobby and get into those ridiculously small pools all the time when they are in season . I'd like to think I help make those odds more efficient sometimes. ;) I see some crazy payoffs where it's obvious the pools are not in sync. It's tough to exploit though because of the large late swings.

I love your idea.