Can you whales get greedier, please?

[Pensacola Pete]

With the last horse loading into the starting gate for race 5 at Gulfstream, #2 Zittman was 3-1 (4.2). This was barely acceptable, so I didn't bet it, because I knew what would happen. Surprise of surprises: the horse went down to 2-1 as the horses entered the far turn (3.1) and ended up at 8-5 (2.7). Now this wasn't likely to be past-posted money, because the horse was still buried about 7th as the horses entered the far turn.

Nope, it was just your usual greedy (CENSORED) whales, all seeing the delicious candy at 3-1 and shoving it down their throats as fast as they can. And this was just the latest example that I saw, as I type this. I've seen the same thing at least a dozen other times today (they don't all win), and it probably happens to some degree in every single race at every single track in North America (including greyhounds) that offers online betting at the mega-rebate shops for the Gobble Trolls.

Not for me.

About a year ago, somebody suggested a way to fix that: don't offer any rebates. I don't know how that would be implemented, if it could at all, but it certainly wouldn't hurt the serious bettor. That's correct: it would help. It does no good to get a 6% rebate if the guys getting 12% rebates are chowing down 10% of your edge in race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race.

Or have any of you database folks noticed that the same 30% winning factor in your favorite program now has an ROI of 0.86 instead of 0.92? I certainly have.

The whales don't even leave Australian racing alone. I'm back to playing that, now that they have the cheating better under control. Not long ago, somebody made a $6,000 bet in the North American pools on a horse in a mid-week race at a smaller track: said bet being made with about 1 minute to go. That may not seem like much to some of you, until you realize that 1) The average win pool size for that track that night was otherwise about $3,000, and 2) The horse was about the 10th best horse, by bookmaker odds, and was listed at 12.0 to 12.8 at various books.

"So what do you do, Pete?" I asked myself. I bet the horse for $20, of course. I took a horse that was 11-1 in Australia and bet it at 1-20 here. Yep, that was the smart move to make. Seriously. As sure as you can say "Jonah and the Air Spout," the money came in. About $2,000 made it into the pools on all of the other horses, That was probably the few other players who saw that money and decided to do their $20 all-but-overbet-horse or dutched it on AmWager. The race went off with $10,500 showing in the pool: $6,200 on the overbet horse and $4,200 on the others.

The race ended up with $18,750 bet on it. Only $8,750 more? Actually, about $14,500 more, because the bettor who shoved in the $6,000 removed it. And the rest was Moby Dick himself, chewing down on the perceived goodies. The horse in question went off at about 40-1; unfortunately, it was beaten by a nose by a 10-1 shot. And Woodbine (the host) probably got flooded the next day with calls by guys named Ahab, complaining about the bet pulled out of the pools. The only other Australian races that have $18,000+ in the North American win pool have purses of $1,000,000 AU and up or a horse named Winx running in them. Certainly not a Benchmark 58 race.

It's almost comical how these blubber-hunters do this race after race, still somehow stay in business, and don't break every other player in the process. What will be more comical is if they run off all of the recreational players (the few that are left) and end up fighting each other. Maybe they'll all go broke then. I won't lose any sleep if they do.

[biggestal99]

With the last horse loading into the starting gate for race 5 at Gulfstream, #2 Zittman was 3-1 (4.2). This was barely acceptable, so I didn't bet it, because I knew what would happen. Surprise of surprises: the horse went down to 2-1 as the horses entered the far turn (3.1) and ended up at 8-5 (2.7). Now this wasn't likely to be past-posted money, because the horse was still buried about 7th as the horses entered the far turn.

Nope, it was just your usual greedy (CENSORED) whales, all seeing the delicious candy at 3-1 and shoving it down their throats as fast as they can. And this was just the latest example that I saw, as I type this. I've seen the same thing at least a dozen other times today (they don't all win), and it probably happens to some degree in every single race at every single track in North America (including greyhounds) that offers online betting at the mega-rebate shops for the Gobble Trolls.

Not for me.

About a year ago, somebody suggested a way to fix that: don't offer any rebates. I don't know how that would be implemented, if it could at all, but it certainly wouldn't hurt the serious bettor. That's correct: it would help. It does no good to get a 6% rebate if the guys getting 12% rebates are chowing down 10% of your edge in race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race.

Or have any of you database folks noticed that the same 30% winning factor in your favorite program now has an ROI of 0.86 instead of 0.92? I certainly have.

The whales don't even leave Australian racing alone. I'm back to playing that, now that they have the cheating better under control. Not long ago, somebody made a $6,000 bet in the North American pools on a horse in a mid-week race at a smaller track: said bet being made with about 1 minute to go. That may not seem like much to some of you, until you realize that 1) The average win pool size for that track that night was otherwise about $3,000, and 2) The horse was about the 10th best horse, by bookmaker odds, and was listed at 12.0 to 12.8 at various books.

"So what do you do, Pete?" I asked myself. I bet the horse for $20, of course. I took a horse that was 11-1 in Australia and bet it at 1-20 here. Yep, that was the smart move to make. Seriously. As sure as you can say "Jonah and the Air Spout," the money came in. About $2,000 made it into the pools on all of the other horses, That was probably the few other players who saw that money and decided to do their $20 all-but-overbet-horse or dutched it on AmWager. The race went off with $10,500 showing in the pool: $6,200 on the overbet horse and $4,200 on the others.

The race ended up with $18,750 bet on it. Only $8,750 more? Actually, about $14,500 more, because the bettor who shoved in the $6,000 removed it. And the rest was Moby Dick himself, chewing down on the perceived goodies. The horse in question went off at about 40-1; unfortunately, it was beaten by a nose by a 10-1 shot. And Woodbine (the host) probably got flooded the next day with calls by guys named Ahab, complaining about the bet pulled out of the pools. The only other Australian races that have $18,000+ in the North American win pool have purses of $1,000,000 AU and up or a horse named Winx running in them. Certainly not a Benchmark 58 race.

It's almost comical how these blubber-hunters do this race after race, still somehow stay in business, and don't break every other player in the process. What will be more comical is if they run off all of the recreational players (the few that are left) and end up fighting each other. Maybe they'll all go broke then. I won't lose any sleep if they do.

Fixed odds betting

Fixed odds betting

Fixed odds betting.

The same old saw.

Allan

[JerryBoyle]

With the last horse loading into the starting gate for race 5 at Gulfstream, #2 Zittman was 3-1 (4.2). This was barely acceptable, so I didn't bet it, because I knew what would happen. Surprise of surprises: the horse went down to 2-1 as the horses entered the far turn (3.1) and ended up at 8-5 (2.7). Now this wasn't likely to be past-posted money, because the horse was still buried about 7th as the horses entered the far turn.

Nope, it was just your usual greedy (CENSORED) whales, all seeing the delicious candy at 3-1 and shoving it down their throats as fast as they can. And this was just the latest example that I saw, as I type this. I've seen the same thing at least a dozen other times today (they don't all win), and it probably happens to some degree in every single race at every single track in North America (including greyhounds) that offers online betting at the mega-rebate shops for the Gobble Trolls.

Not for me.

About a year ago, somebody suggested a way to fix that: don't offer any rebates. I don't know how that would be implemented, if it could at all, but it certainly wouldn't hurt the serious bettor. That's correct: it would help. It does no good to get a 6% rebate if the guys getting 12% rebates are chowing down 10% of your edge in race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race.

Or have any of you database folks noticed that the same 30% winning factor in your favorite program now has an ROI of 0.86 instead of 0.92? I certainly have.

The whales don't even leave Australian racing alone. I'm back to playing that, now that they have the cheating better under control. Not long ago, somebody made a $6,000 bet in the North American pools on a horse in a mid-week race at a smaller track: said bet being made with about 1 minute to go. That may not seem like much to some of you, until you realize that 1) The average win pool size for that track that night was otherwise about $3,000, and 2) The horse was about the 10th best horse, by bookmaker odds, and was listed at 12.0 to 12.8 at various books.

"So what do you do, Pete?" I asked myself. I bet the horse for $20, of course. I took a horse that was 11-1 in Australia and bet it at 1-20 here. Yep, that was the smart move to make. Seriously. As sure as you can say "Jonah and the Air Spout," the money came in. About $2,000 made it into the pools on all of the other horses, That was probably the few other players who saw that money and decided to do their $20 all-but-overbet-horse or dutched it on AmWager. The race went off with $10,500 showing in the pool: $6,200 on the overbet horse and $4,200 on the others.

The race ended up with $18,750 bet on it. Only $8,750 more? Actually, about $14,500 more, because the bettor who shoved in the $6,000 removed it. And the rest was Moby Dick himself, chewing down on the perceived goodies. The horse in question went off at about 40-1; unfortunately, it was beaten by a nose by a 10-1 shot. And Woodbine (the host) probably got flooded the next day with calls by guys named Ahab, complaining about the bet pulled out of the pools. The only other Australian races that have $18,000+ in the North American win pool have purses of $1,000,000 AU and up or a horse named Winx running in them. Certainly not a Benchmark 58 race.

It's almost comical how these blubber-hunters do this race after race, still somehow stay in business, and don't break every other player in the process. What will be more comical is if they run off all of the recreational players (the few that are left) and end up fighting each other. Maybe they'll all go broke then. I won't lose any sleep if they do.

Removing rebates and leaving the rest of the cost structure the same, i.e. not alos lowering takeout, would decrease whale volume. However, they'll still bet and they'll still be better than you and I. And if instead we remove rebates but also lower the takeout (as rebates are really just a reduced takeout) you and I will be in the exact same position we are now.

The fundamental reason these guys are winning is because they are better at assessing a horse's chance of winning and they're better at assessing what a horse is likely to pay if it does win. Rebates are just an add on.

I'm not sure how you reduce volume by smart, large bettors, other than stop betting from any web based provider a few minutes prior to the race starting, while leaving the window open. Even this wouldn't be great. The sad fact is that horse racing is a large market that lends itself nicely to being modeled.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

JerryBoyle

The main reason that whales are better at assessing a horse's chances is because of the rebates

There is a direct relationship between takeout level and how much money you can extract from the tote pool. The higher the takeout rate the less money you can extract from the pool.

If the takeout is 20% you might be able to extract $3 million from the pool with high level play.
If the takeout is 10% you might be able to extract $6 million from the pool with high level play.
If the takeout is 5% you might be able to extract $12 million from the pool with high level play.

So a person with a big rebate can extract a lot more money from the pool than a person with no rebate. Which means they can afford to pay big money to full time form analysts which makes their system better at assessing a horse's chances

So if the pool takeout is 20% but the whale syndicate is only paying 10% takeout thanks to a 10% rebate they can extract $6 million from the pool while the non rebate player can only extract $3 million. The way it works is the whale syndicate will use this extra $3 million to spend on form analysis. The non rebate player now has no way to beat the whale syndicate as if they spend the same $3 million on form analysis they will show no profit

To further rub it in, the whale syndicate can now use their rebates to lock in the value prices at a level which is value to them but no value to the non rebate player. So if a horse is a 4.00 chance (3-1) then the whale bets it down to 3.80 (2.80-1) so that the bet is a loser for the non rebate player but a winner for the whale with 10% rebate. So the non rebate player can no longer extract even their $3 million from the tote pool. Instead they can extract a value closer to $0 from the pool as the whale syndicate corners the market on all the value bets using their rebates

The fact is if the whales lost their rebates they would lose their edge as they would no longer be able to afford their form analysts and would no longer have superior assessments of a horse's chances. The loss of rebates would also mean they could no longer corner the market on the value bets in the pool. So they could extract far less money from the pool as they would have to share the value bets with other players

In short the whale syndicates would be gone from the pools tomorrow if they lost their rebates today

Should the whale syndicates lose their rebates? Of course they should

[SkunkApe]

JerryBoyle

The main reason that whales are better at assessing a horse's chances is because of the rebates

There is a direct relationship between takeout level and how much money you can extract from the tote pool. The higher the takeout rate the less money you can extract from the pool.

If the takeout is 20% you might be able to extract $3 million from the pool with high level play.
If the takeout is 10% you might be able to extract $6 million from the pool with high level play.
If the takeout is 5% you might be able to extract $12 million from the pool with high level play.

So a person with a big rebate can extract a lot more money from the pool than a person with no rebate. Which means they can afford to pay big money to full time form analysts which makes their system better at assessing a horse's chances

So if the pool takeout is 20% but the whale syndicate is only paying 10% takeout thanks to a 10% rebate they can extract $6 million from the pool while the non rebate player can only extract $3 million. The way it works is the whale syndicate will use this extra $3 million to spend on form analysis. The non rebate player now has no way to beat the whale syndicate as if they spend the same $3 million on form analysis they will show no profit

To further rub it in, the whale syndicate can now use their rebates to lock in the value prices at a level which is value to them but no value to the non rebate player. So if a horse is a 4.00 chance (3-1) then the whale bets it down to 3.80 (2.80-1) so that the bet is a loser for the non rebate player but a winner for the whale with 10% rebate. So the non rebate player can no longer extract even their $3 million from the tote pool. Instead they can extract a value closer to $0 from the pool as the whale syndicate corners the market on all the value bets using their rebates

The fact is if the whales lost their rebates they would lose their edge as they would no longer be able to afford their form analysts and would no longer have superior assessments of a horse's chances. The loss of rebates would also mean they could no longer corner the market on the value bets in the pool. So they could extract far less money from the pool as they would have to share the value bets with other players

In short the whale syndicates would be gone from the pools tomorrow if they lost their rebates today

Should the whale syndicates lose their rebates? Of course they should

Interesting.

I'm not sure myself exactly what's happening, but I hit 5 winners at Gulfstream yesterday, and every damned one of them had their odds drop between post payout.

I'm not that good of a handicapper - you'd think once in a while I'd get lucky and pick the wrong horse, and his odds would go UP. But, no - every damned time.

[AndyC]

.......The main reason that whales are better at assessing a horse's chances is because of the rebates......

Nonsense. Assessing a horse's probability of winning has no relationship to rebates or the amount of rebates.

[Dave Schwartz]

Nonsense. Assessing a horse's probability of winning has no relationship to rebates or the amount of rebates.

Nailed it. :ThmbUp:

If the rebate was gone, they'd make less money because there would be fewer golden opportunities. They'd have to settle for silver or bronze opportunities instead. :-)

Very few players get that some others are just light years faster than they are.

It is not a hopeless situation unless one is unwilling to change because what will work today is not what worked 25 years (if it ever did).

[thaskalos]

When I saw Garry Kasparov lose to a chess-playing computer...then I realized that the days of the "independent winning horseplayer" were numbered. Yes...the competent horseplayer can still engage in some sort of "guerrilla warfare" against the mighty Whales...but, for how long? The guerrillas have the mountains and the jungles to take refuge in...but the battling horseplayer has no-where to rest his head, in his lone struggle against the Whales' powerful armies.

The only chance we have might be in creating a conglomerated horse-playing team of our own. A horseplayer won't survive for long by playing a "lone hand" in this game...IMO.

[Poindexter]

Nonsense. Assessing a horse's probability of winning has no relationship to rebates or the amount of rebates.

Okay, a retired horseplayer, says nonsense, so nonsense it is. Let's ignore the fact that Ian Meyers (that is working for some of these upcoming teams) claims these teams of phd's are investing millions of dollars before they make their first bet. The millions of dollars they are investing must be because they hate money and not because they know there is a leak in the system (rebates) that will reward them well beyond their initial investment. I know my corner store (the 3 that are left) offers rebates, why shouldn't racing (I have gone through that at least 10 times by now).

It's funny in the off topic forum I always read about how much people hate wealth redistribution. This is wealth redistribution from the everyday horseplayer to teams betting hundreds of million of dollars a year. Every dollar they are able to bet at below takeout will drive up the takeout on the rest. Since they bet huge amounts of money at well below takeout, the public gets hammered (encouraged by and strongly supported by a racing industry that is completely lost in how to grow their sport).

But that will not resonate with a lot of you. What is coming across loud and clear is that horseplayers are getting tired of their horses constantly paying lower than the toteboard indicates as the horses are loading the gate. This is mainly because of rebates. Have the Whales have just gotten better and more precise in their estimations? Possibly. Is racing is getting more desperate and whales are taking up a higher percentage of the pools than ever before and is now forced to make backroom deals giving the whales better deals than ever before? Possibly. Whatever the case this is not a game most of us have a reasonable chance of beating and for the vast majority of horseplayers it is just a major leak in their gambling dollar until it gets replaced by another form of gambling.

Hey if you are currently beating this game, more power to you. If you are not, I would think strongly about what this game has become. This game is extremely time consuming. If it provides recreation and you don't mind losing some to pay for it, great. I agree, it is a very fun game. But if you think there is a light at the end of the tunnel, I would think again. This game was tough enough to beat when weren't seeing 20 to 40 % reductions in payoffs between the gate springing and the horse entering the winners circle which happens with regularity now.

[Franco Santiago]

That's correct: it would help. It does no good to get a 6% rebate if the guys getting 12% rebates are chowing down 10% of your edge in race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race.


In the win pool, the highest rebates available for people betting a million or more a year are not at 12%, especially on the major tracks. You can get 17% at AJAX downs or 12% at Assiniboia Downs, but that ain't happening at GP, BEL, SA, etc.

[Franco Santiago]

Nailed it. :ThmbUp:

It is not a hopeless situation unless one is unwilling to change because what will work today is not what worked 25 years (if it ever did).

As the one rich guy in 48 Hours said, "Indeed, Mortimer.....inDEEEEEEED".

[AndyC]

Okay, a retired horseplayer, says nonsense, so nonsense it is. Let's ignore the fact that Ian Meyers (that is working for some of these upcoming teams) claims these teams of phd's are investing millions of dollars before they make their first bet. The millions of dollars they are investing must be because they hate money and not because they know there is a leak in the system (rebates) that will reward them well beyond their initial investment. I know my corner store (the 3 that are left) offers rebates, why shouldn't racing (I have gone through that at least 10 times by now).

It's funny in the off topic forum I always read about how much people hate wealth redistribution. This is wealth redistribution from the everyday horseplayer to teams betting hundreds of million of dollars a year. Every dollar they are able to bet at below takeout will drive up the takeout on the rest. Since they bet huge amounts of money at well below takeout, the public gets hammered (encouraged by and strongly supported by a racing industry that is completely lost in how to grow their sport).

But that will not resonate with a lot of you. What is coming across loud and clear is that horseplayers are getting tired of their horses constantly paying lower than the toteboard indicates as the horses are loading the gate. This is mainly because of rebates. Have the Whales have just gotten better and more precise in their estimations? Possibly. Is racing is getting more desperate and whales are taking up a higher percentage of the pools than ever before and is now forced to make backroom deals giving the whales better deals than ever before? Possibly. Whatever the case this is not a game most of us have a reasonable chance of beating and for the vast majority of horseplayers it is just a major leak in their gambling dollar until it gets replaced by another form of gambling.

Hey if you are currently beating this game, more power to you. If you are not, I would think strongly about what this game has become. This game is extremely time consuming. If it provides recreation and you don't mind losing some to pay for it, great. I agree, it is a very fun game. But if you think there is a light at the end of the tunnel, I would think again. This game was tough enough to beat when weren't seeing 20 to 40 % reductions in payoffs between the gate springing and the horse entering the winners circle which happens with regularity now.

Perhaps you should re-read my comment. I said it was nonsense that getting rebates would help assessing a horse's chance of winning. I didn't say it was nonsense that rebates helped bettors win money. Getting rebates doesn't make you smarter or better at assessing probability, it just gives you a better price. If you're good in the assessment area it is a big edge. Is your viewpoint different?

[Franco Santiago]

When I saw Garry Kasparov lose to a chess-playing computer...then I realized that the days of the "independent winning horseplayer" were numbered. Yes...the competent horseplayer can still engage in some sort of "guerrilla warfare" against the mighty Whales...but, for how long? The guerrillas have the mountains and the jungles to take refuge in...but the battling horseplayer has no-where to rest his head, in his lone struggle against the Whales' powerful armies.

The only chance we have might be in creating a conglomerated horse-playing team of our own. A horseplayer won't survive for long by playing a "lone hand" in this game...IMO.

After the match with Deep Blue, GK said he could beat Deep Blue if he was allowed to study Deep Blue as much as Deep Blue was "allowed" to study him. So, maybe those that bet the win pool need to study up on what the whales are betting on and bet something else.

For my part, I don't believe the win pool can be conquered (i.e. beat) because of the high takeout and non-competitive fields...there simply is not enough mathematical room for mistakes large enough to exploit to a point where there is a profit - even with a great rebate.

[DGroundhog]

Yesterday in Prairie Meadows 8th race the 5 horse was 2-1. By the time they finished the race the odds had changed to 4-1.

Stupid whales. :p

[Dave Schwartz]

After the match with Deep Blue, GK said he could beat Deep Blue if he was allowed to study Deep Blue as much as Deep Blue was "allowed" to study him. So, maybe those that bet the win pool need to study up on what the whales are betting on and bet something else.

For my part, I don't believe the win pool can be conquered (i.e. beat) because of the high takeout and non-competitive fields...there simply is not enough mathematical room for mistakes large enough to exploit to a point where there is a profit - even with a great rebate.

Are you under the impression that whales only wager to win?

But your point is a good one. That is precisely what I suggested in another thread.

More specifically, get to the wagers and key horses in such a different way that you will be on different horses often enough to have them not slicing into your pie as often.

[thaskalos]

As the one rich guy in 48 Hours said, "Indeed, Mortimer.....inDEEEEEEED".

Was that the guy who was carried out on a stretcher in the end of the movie?

[Poindexter]

Perhaps you should re-read my comment. I said it was nonsense that getting rebates would help assessing a horse's chance of winning. I didn't say it was nonsense that rebates helped bettors win money. Getting rebates doesn't make you smarter or better at assessing probability, it just gives you a better price. If you're good in the assessment area it is a big edge. Is your viewpoint different?

Yes it is. They are using that promised rebate money to invest millions of dollars so that they are able to set up models and the most accurate ways of assessing each horses chance of winning. They will likely use that money to gain more information, which will give them the most accurate lines available. Without it they won't make money. Think about it if you were heading a team betting 100's of millions of dollars a year what would you do. I would have people on my payroll who are experts on horse physicality giving me up to the minute updates on how horses are warming up and how they look in the paddock and how they are acting as they approach the gate. I would find the best track bias guy around and have him giving me track bias information. I would have the best speed figure people around doing speed figures....They already have the sophisticated models and algos to make the last second betting decisions so the more accurate their line the more money they will make. So what exactly do with the money they are making to make their line more accurate, who knows, but logically one can assume they are investing a lot of it to give them the complete picture and yes the most accurate lines around. Where is this money coming from, REBATES.

Do you really think that if Racing announced today that we are lowering takeout to 10% across the board and eliminating rebates to everyone, that these same people would keep investing millions of dollars before they made their first bet. Not a chance. There gravy train would be over and they would have to earn their money like the rest of the betting public (by making a profit). The current whales would still bet plenty and make money, but they will not have the same edge they currently have and more importantly the betting public would not be at the overwhelming disadvantage they are currently at. Imagine that, the sport might actually grow. Nah stupid idea. Stick with the entertainment theme.

[Franco Santiago]

Was that the guy who was carried out on a stretcher in the end of the movie?

I messed up...the movie was Trading Places. It was Mortimer and Randolph Duke...not sure which one was carried out. Great movie, though.

[Franco Santiago]

Are you under the impression that whales only wager to win?

But your point is a good one. That is precisely what I suggested in another thread.

More specifically, get to the wagers and key horses in such a different way that you will be on different horses often enough to have them not slicing into your pie as often.

No, but it was my impression - and I could be wrong - that it was the win pool that the OP was commenting on.

[Poindexter]

Yesterday in Prairie Meadows 8th race the 5 horse was 2-1. By the time they finished the race the odds had changed to 4-1.

Stupid whales. :p


So what, if the horse was 2-1 while they were loading the gate even if you wanted to bet him at 3-1 or higher, you had no way of knowing he would be 4-1. The only way to capitalize on such is to be so off on your analysis that you would take 2-1 on such a horse(which assumes he has over a 33% chance of winning). Your point is that whales make mistakes, NSS. But if we can't take advantage of their mistakes it does us the bettor no good, unless we are just way off in our analysis.

[AndyC]

Yes it is. They are using that promised rebate money to invest millions of dollars so that they are able to set up models and the most accurate ways of assessing each horses chance of winning. They will likely use that money to gain more information, which will give them the most accurate lines available. Without it they won't make money. Think about it if you were heading a team betting 100's of millions of dollars a year what would you do. I would have people on my payroll who are experts on horse physicality giving me up to the minute updates on how horses are warming up and how they look in the paddock and how they are acting as they approach the gate. I would find the best track bias guy around and have him giving me track bias information. I would have the best speed figure people around doing speed figures....They already have the sophisticated models and algos to make the last second betting decisions so the more accurate their line the more money they will make. So what exactly do with the money they are making to make their line more accurate, who knows, but logically one can assume they are investing a lot of it to give them the complete picture and yes the most accurate lines around. Where is this money coming from, REBATES.

Do you really think that if Racing announced today that we are lowering takeout to 10% across the board and eliminating rebates to everyone, that these same people would keep investing millions of dollars before they made their first bet. Not a chance. There gravy train would be over and they would have to earn their money like the rest of the betting public (by making a profit). The current whales would still bet plenty and make money, but they will not have the same edge they currently have and more importantly the betting public would not be at the overwhelming disadvantage they are currently at. Imagine that, the sport might actually grow. Nah stupid idea. Stick with the entertainment theme.

People have been throwing around millions for many years trying to build the better mousetrap. Even with the promise of rebates there is no guarantee that extra expenditures will create a bigger edge.

What prevents you from forming your own group to take advantage of all of these obvious advantages? I don't think I would keep showing up to a gun fight with a knife when I could go out and buy my own gun.

[DGroundhog]

So what, if the horse was 2-1 while they were loading the gate even if you wanted to bet him at 3-1 or higher, you had no way of knowing he would be 4-1. The only way to capitalize on such is to be so off on your analysis that you would take 2-1 on such a horse(which assumes he has over a 33% chance of winning). Your point is that whales make mistakes, NSS. But if we can't take advantage of their mistakes it does us the bettor no good, unless we are just way off in our analysis.

In this case, the horse was 8-1 in the morning line, but to me that was ridiculously high. After the first click the horse was 3/5 (less than $500 on him to win at that point). The odds slowly climbed to 2-1 by the time they were going in the gate.

Figuring that whales likely were not focusing too much on a horse that was 8-1 in the ML but only 2-1 as the last horse is going in the gate, you could reasonably expect the odds might still creep up as the late money comes in.

Getting 4-1 was a bit better than I expected. Thanks, whales!

[AndyC]

So what, if the horse was 2-1 while they were loading the gate even if you wanted to bet him at 3-1 or higher, you had no way of knowing he would be 4-1. The only way to capitalize on such is to be so off on your analysis that you would take 2-1 on such a horse(which assumes he has over a 33% chance of winning). Your point is that whales make mistakes, NSS. But if we can't take advantage of their mistakes it does us the bettor no good, unless we are just way off in our analysis.

Doesn't a whale bet without knowing what the odds will be? The ability to predict the final odds is a skill that is necessary for tody's parimutuel pools.

[Dave Schwartz]

Doesn't a whale bet without knowing what the odds will be? The ability to predict the final odds is a skill that is necessary for tody's parimutuel pools.

It is part of their skill set.

Racing has two separate problems: Predicting win probabilities and predicting odds.

[DGroundhog]

Doesn't a whale bet without knowing what the odds will be? The ability to predict the final odds is a skill that is necessary for tody's parimutuel pools.

I think that is becoming a part of it - especially if you are generally playing Win pools, and possibly even Exactas since that info is so freely available. I really don't place Win wagers that often. I play Exactas and Superfectas most often.

If you are complaining computer aided wagering paired with advanced methods of analyzing and placing wagers, then you should focus on pools with 4 legs or more (SFCs, PK4s). Because of the way these pools are handled - there is NOBODY gaining an edge based on a calculation of odds vs. win probability (unless, of course, they are just better handicappers than you).

With the changes to the SFC minimum wager to 10 cents - this should become an even more enticing option for players.

Under IRS rules, if you play a straight $2 SFC you get IRSed if the payout is more than $602 (a 300-1 payout). If you play a straight $1 SFC you get IRSed if the payout is more than $601 (a 600-1 payout). If you play a straight 10 cent SFC you get IRSed if the payout is more than $600.10 (a 6000-1 payout). I realize few are playing straight SFCs - but the concept carries over to combo tickets as well.

New IRS rules that combine the total wagers placed on a ticket even more enticing.

The 10 cent SFC is the best wager at the track. If you are playing a straight SFC and you think the payout might be between $600 and $6000 for a $1 or $2 base wager you are an idiot to play a $1 or $2 SFC. Play 10 or 20 10 cent SFCs instead.

10 cent SFC also allows you to play just one dime, or three or 10 or 20.

Players should be demanding 10 cent PK4s and lowering minimums on similar pools greater than 4 legs if they really want a positive change in the industry for the bettor.

NO WHALE can evaluate SFC, PK4 or greater pool payouts. Their advantage is effectively negated - barring their superior knowledge or handicapping ability.

[Andy Asaro]

Nailed it. :ThmbUp:

If the rebate was gone, they'd make less money because there would be fewer golden opportunities. They'd have to settle for silver or bronze opportunities instead. :-)

Very few players get that some others are just light years faster than they are.

It is not a hopeless situation unless one is unwilling to change because what will work today is not what worked 25 years (if it ever did).

Dave, you and I both know that most of the highly rebated players are playing a totally different game than people playing retail takeout. If people were only rebated on losing wagers what would happen? Or if the max rebate for all tracks was 5% what would happen?

[TiffaniO]

I don’t understand how so many of you don’t get rebates unless you play with peanuts or don’t even wager at all...

I don’t bet a lot in the scheme of things, however I moved my adw wagering from one site to another a few years ago because they offered me a decent rebate.

Well this last November, a rep from the previous adw called and asked how he could get me to come back to their site. I bluntly stated, “beat the other sites rebate”.

Well, he did... and I receive mostly 12-20% back on my wagers now, depending on the track and wager.

I don’t bet a million dollars a year FYI but I consistently bet a decent amount. Instead of whining about rebates, do some searching around and if you are actually a serious player, I’m sure you can find something. (It helped that I live in a state with no surcharge)

[Andy Asaro]

I don’t understand how so many of you don’t get rebates unless you play with peanuts or don’t even wager at all...

I don’t bet a lot in the scheme of things, however I moved my adw wagering from one site to another a few years ago because they offered me a decent rebate.

Well this last November, a rep from the previous adw called and asked how he could get me to come back to their site. I bluntly stated, “beat the other sites rebate”.

Well, he did... and I receive mostly 12-20% back on my wagers now, depending on the track and wager.

I don’t bet a million dollars a year FYI but I consistently bet a decent amount. Instead of whining about rebates, do some searching around and if you are actually a serious player, I’m sure you can find something. (It helped that I live in a state with no surcharge)

In California there is a retention cap. So for every 20K I wager I only get about $100 bucks.

[TiffaniO]

I’m not being a smarty pants here but it just seems like if you want to continue to play the races, you need to lobby your representatives or move. If you bet $1 million a year and get 12% that is $120,000. Might be worth it.

Just because there are some states that are less kind to us than others, doesn’t mean all have to suffer.

[Andy Asaro]

I’m not being a smarty pants here but it just seems like if you want to continue to play the races, you need to lobby your representatives or move. If you bet $1 million a year and get 12% that is $120,000. Might be worth it.

Just because there are some states that are less kind to us than others, doesn’t mean all have to suffer.

Or racing can lower takeout for everyone and make it a lot more likely the game will grow.

[TiffaniO]

They aren’t going to lower takeout for people who don’t wager a certain amount. The less you play, the higher your takeout is...pretty much like any other business model.

This is the grid of my rebates.

Keep in mind I never play WPS.

I rarely play doubles or exactas.

99% of my plays are pick 3s or pick 4s, tris and supers.

[Andy Asaro]

This is the grid of my rebates.

Keep in mind I never play WPS.

I rarely play doubles or exactas.

99% of my plays are pick 3s or pick 4s, tris and supers.

What are your rebates for Santa Anita?

[TiffaniO]

I don’t play Santa Anita. So I didn’t ask them to put that in my deal. I told them the tracks I play and those are the ones listed.

[Andy Asaro]

I don’t play Santa Anita. So I didn’t ask them to put that in my deal. I told them the tracks I play and those are the ones listed.

Got it. Thanks for the information

[TiffaniO]

Got it. Thanks for the information

And you are correct in the assumption about it matters what track you play. My previous adw couldn’t offer any rebate on any Stronach owned track. Thus why I got into the habit of not playing them.

The adw now offers me a decent rebate in Maryland tracks so I got back into that but Santa Anita and gulfstream make me yawn.

[Andy Asaro]

And you are correct in the assumption about it matters what track you play. My previous adw couldn’t offer any rebate on any Stronach owned track. Thus why I got into the habit of not playing them.

The adw now offers me a decent rebate in Maryland tracks so I got back into that but Santa Anita and gulfstream make me yawn.

In Ca you can get minimal rebates if you churn a million or more. I churn about 300K. Most states you can get decent rebates if you churn 300K

[TiffaniO]

In Ca you can get minimal rebates if you churn a million or more. I churn about 300K. Most states you can get decent rebates if you churn 300K

I think that’s a certain racing companys influence putting the screws to you and other CA bettors.

[Andy Asaro]

I think that’s a certain racing companys influence putting the screws to you and other CA bettors.

It's a law passed by the Thoroughbred Owners of California. That's why I have no use for them.

[TiffaniO]

It's a law passed by the Thoroughbred Owners of California. That's why I have no use for them.

Boycott their product.

[Andy Asaro]

Boycott their product.

Been there done that. Willing to do it again if HANA leads the way.

[TiffaniO]

Been there done that. Willing to do it again if HANA leads the way.

A few years ago I couldn’t even bet on tracks within my state. I called legislators dozens of times and finally it was changed. I bluntly told them, I’m not going to the track to place those wagers so they can either relax the laws and get a lesser amount or getting nothing when I wager nothing with them.

Oddly enough, it worked.

[headhawg]

Or racing can lower takeout for everyone and make it a lot more likely the game will grow.I'm am for lower takeouts but it is not going to make the game grow. I am not sure anything will. MLB is trying to figure out ways to shorten a baseball game -- apparently it's too long and doesn't have enough action for any "new blood". Sounds like the attitude towards horse racing.

[Andy Asaro]

A few years ago I couldn’t even bet on tracks within my state. I called legislators dozens of times and finally it was changed. I bluntly told them, I’m not going to the track to place those wagers so they can either relax the laws and get a lesser amount or getting nothing when I wager nothing with them.

Oddly enough, it worked.

Come to Ca. We had them down 250 million in handle in 2011. We got a 14% take P5 in the first race. We got DD's back down to 20% and we got handle transparency on www.calracing.com website.

[Andy Asaro]

I'm am for lower takeouts but it is not going to make the game grow. I am not sure anything will. MLB is trying to figure out ways to shorten a baseball game -- apparently it's too long and doesn't have enough action for any "new blood". Sounds like the attitude towards horse racing.

I wrote this a couple of years ago. I'd adjust a little but the main point is the same

https://www.paulickreport.com/horseplayers-category/asaro-ground-zero-in-fight-for-future-of-horse-racing/

[TiffaniO]

Come to Ca. We had them down 250 million in handle in 2011. We got a 14% take P5 in the first race. We got DD's back down to 20% and we got handle transparency on www.calracing.com website.

Well it sounds like you guys had them where you wanted them and let them off of the hook. What would help CA players the most? 14% pick 5s and 20% doubles or the ability to get a better rebate return for all bettors?

Kudos for doing it, but those two takeouts help a small percentage and many people wager on neither of those pools.

[Andy Asaro]

Well it sounds like you guys had them where you wanted them and let them off of the hook. What would help CA players the most? 14% pick 5s and 20% doubles or the ability to get a better rebate return for all bettors?

Kudos for doing it, but those two takeouts help a small percentage and many people wager on neither of those pools.

It's about the gambling game of horse racing. Would you play in a live money tournament with a buy in of $500 where 25% of the field was credited with an extra $50? Of course not.

[TiffaniO]

It's about the gambling game of horse racing. Would you play in a live money tournament with a buy in of $500 where 25% of the field was credited with an extra $50? Of course not.

No I wouldn’t. However it’s California that is the issue here. For years bettors asked for bigger pools, this helps. The biggest thing you guys can do is call your states legislators, explain to them why them holding back your ability to get rebates hurts you and your ability to stay in the game. Tell them if it doesn’t change, you and thousands of others will leave the industry. If they don’t do anything, follow through with it.

[Andy Asaro]

No I wouldn’t. However it’s California that is the issue here. For years bettors asked for bigger pools, this helps. The biggest thing you guys can do is call your states legislators, explain to them why them holding back your ability to get rebates hurts you and your ability to stay in the game. Tell them if it doesn’t change, you and thousands of others will leave the industry. If they don’t do anything, follow through with it.

The biggest pools happen when everyone has the same shot. Every pool is a tournament so why give someone an edge in that tournament?

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave, you and I both know that most of the highly rebated players are playing a totally different game than people playing retail takeout. If people were only rebated on losing wagers what would happen? Or if the max rebate for all tracks was 5% what would happen?


What would happen
1. They'd still be better than we are.

2. They'd still get higher rebates than we would because, as volume players, the tracks would give them 5% and we'd get 1% (or less).

3. They'd have a more difficult time making profit and would bet less money, but still make massive amounts.

4. Handles would go down because some current winning players would now be losing players.

5. The "rebates on losers only" would make longshots more attractive, thereby forcing the whales to move their area of concentration from low/medium odds to include higher odds.


I could go on and on but the bottom line is that the industry cannot get the manure back into the horse.

There is nothing to be done short of the tracks not allowing winning players.

[acorn54]

there is a classic lesson to be learned here. we live in a free country where the individual can choose what to do with their precious time given on this earth.

[PaceAdvantage]

They aren’t going to lower takeout for people who don’t wager a certain amount. The less you play, the higher your takeout is...pretty much like any other business model.

This is the grid of my rebates.

Keep in mind I never play WPS.

I rarely play doubles or exactas.

99% of my plays are pick 3s or pick 4s, tris and supers.This is the first time I've seen anyone post a full chart of actual rebate rates from any ADW...I know that if you named the ADW, they'd probably have a shit fit, as it seems the goal is to keep these rates as secretive as possible...so don't name them...:lol:

[Andy Asaro]

What would happen
1. They'd still be better than we are.

2. They'd still get higher rebates than we would because, as volume players, the tracks would give them 5% and we'd get 1% (or less).

3. They'd have a more difficult time making profit and would bet less money, but still make massive amounts.

4. Handles would go down because some current winning players would now be losing players.

5. The "rebates on losers only" would make longshots more attractive, thereby forcing the whales to move their area of concentration from low/medium odds to include higher odds.


I could go on and on but the bottom line is that the industry cannot get the manure back into the horse.

There is nothing to be done short of the tracks not allowing winning players.

Respect your opinion but the game has to be sold as it was intended. Parimutuel wagering is supposed to be competition among gamblers in each pool. Lower takeout for all is the only way to grow the game IMO

[TiffaniO]

This is the first time I've seen anyone post a full chart of actual rebate rates from any ADW...I know that if you named the ADW, they'd probably have a shit fit, as it seems the goal is to keep these rates as secretive as possible...so don't name them...:lol:

Trust me I won’t. The thing is, each chart is different for every bettor. The rep/salesman negotiates with you until you are happy enough to go to their site.

I only posted it to show that just because I’m female, doesn’t mean I don’t know anything, and that I only bet $2 a race.

[PaceAdvantage]

I only posted it to show that just because I’m female, doesn’t mean I don’t know anything, and that I only bet $2 a race.Having run this place for 19 years, I would never have thought otherwise.

[Dave Schwartz]

Respect your opinion but the game has to be sold as it was intended. Parimutuel wagering is supposed to be competition among gamblers in each pool. Lower takeout for all is the only way to grow the game IMO

No argument on the "lower takeout." It would be better for the track as well.

However, talking about what wagering is "supposed to be" or what the tracks "should do," is a complete waste of time. They simply aren't listening.

As far as "selling the game," they aren't doing much of that either.

Remember, these are the geniuses who believe that the customers in racing are the people who own race horses.

[Andy Asaro]

No argument on the "lower takeout." It would be better for the track as well.

However, talking about what wagering is "supposed to be" or what the tracks "should do," is a complete waste of time. They simply aren't listening.

As far as "selling the game," they aren't doing much of that either.

Remember, these are the geniuses who believe that the customers in racing are the people who own race horses.

Dave, it can all change in 30 Days if everyone pulled together. Problem is that the people getting the benefits don't want to disrupt the status quo.

[thaskalos]

A few years ago I couldn’t even bet on tracks within my state. I called legislators dozens of times and finally it was changed. I bluntly told them, I’m not going to the track to place those wagers so they can either relax the laws and get a lesser amount or getting nothing when I wager nothing with them.

Oddly enough, it worked.

How could I persuade you to call the legislators of MY state? Because when I do it...it does no good at all. :confused:

[TiffaniO]

How could I persuade you to call the legislators of MY state? Because when I do it...it does no good at all. :confused:

Persistence my friend... persistence... as I said I called dozens of times. Have to find someone friendly to the situation.

[thaskalos]

Persistence my friend... persistence... as I said I called dozens of times. Have to find someone friendly to the situation.

It's easy for you to be patient...because you seem to be a lot YOUNGER than I am.

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave, it can all change in 30 Days if everyone pulled together. Problem is that the people getting the benefits don't want to disrupt the status quo.

It can only change in 30 days if you can get the whales onboard.

I don't see that happening. LOL

[biggestal99]

It can only change in 30 days if you can get the whales onboard.

I don't see that happening. LOL

When you see tracks posting massive increases in handle recently, they aint giving up on that gravy train.

Allan

[classhandicapper]

After the match with Deep Blue, GK said he could beat Deep Blue if he was allowed to study Deep Blue as much as Deep Blue was "allowed" to study him. So, maybe those that bet the win pool need to study up on what the whales are betting on and bet something else.

I said the same thing awhile back.

Math/Computer guys are going to do a better job analyzing data, building models, and getting optimal bets in, but some of the game does not lend itself to number crunching because things change so rapidly or an answer requires subjective judgement.

If you are really good at judging horses in the paddock, you will probably have an edge over the math/computer guys even if they employ someone to help in that area.

If you are really good at picking up on biases by watching races and seeing how the horses are running in different paths, you should be able to pick up on things quicker than math/computer guys.

I'm going to guess that most computer models use speed figures because it's easier to input a number that tells you how well a horse ran than it is to subjectively analyze the quality of a field, watch the race, and see how horses with similar and different trips ran relative to each other.

Non computer players should be in good shape at pretty much anything that requires visual skills, subjective analysis, and a lot of experience.

[Pensacola Pete]

If you are really good at judging horses in the paddock, you will probably have an edge over the math/computer guys even if they employ someone to help in that area.

If you are really good at picking up on biases by watching races and seeing how the horses are running in different paths, you should be able to pick up on things quicker than math/computer guys.


And if you understand how some trainers operate, you will have a huge edge over the number crunchers. That's about all I bet on anymore; the latest was The Best Candy at Gulfstream in yesterday's 10th. I waited on that horse to return for several months, and when it did, it was up against a future stakes winner who fortunately was as green as grass. It's also what points me towards Tap N Kirk in the upcoming 3rd at TuP, although the latter is more of a shot than a good thing, and I'm not touching it at its current 3-1 odds.