JC report on CRW wagering

[GMB@BP]

http://www.drf.com/news/jockey-club-explore-buying-distressed-tracks-aiding-small-tracks

So about half way they talk about the CRW teams and impact on pools, takeout, the need for the fish to feed the whales.

I do give them credit, not even trying to hide it anymore.

So if they are targeting the 4 biggest tracks (circuits), and that’s pretty easy to discern who it is, then I will start scouring the smaller tracks where it makes the most sense.

[Tom]

I am looking at Prx, Ind, Elp, Tdn, FP as my main track. On TVG during the week, smaller track, but looks to have good field sizes.
I am tired of NYRA and small fields scratching down to smaller ones, turf sprints and a ridiculous number of grass races for cows.

You can have the main tracks.

[GMB@BP]

I am looking at Prx, Ind, Elp, Tdn, FP as my main track. On TVG during the week, smaller track, but looks to have good field sizes.
I am tired of NYRA and small fields scratching down to smaller ones, turf sprints and a ridiculous number of grass races for cows.

You can have the main tracks.

I am liking Emerald Downs, track seems to fit my handicapping style.

[jay68802]

Targeting the larger pools comes as no surprise. However, they will show up at the smaller tracks in the right circumstances. For a long time I studied Delta Downs and would see a sudden increase in the WPS and total handle in one race on a card. It was inconsistent but did happen regularly.

"The robotic programs are not profitable without significant rebates on their handle, and use of the programs is controversial in the racing industry. But most racetracks have welcomed the programs into their pools because of their often astounding volume, even though most racing officials acknowledge that the programs enjoy extraordinary advantages over regular players and that they often have a deleterious impact on casual players."

Interesting quote from the article. The tracks know that the rebates prop up these teams and that the teams have a negative impact an the rest of their customers. Shows the short sighted nature the tracks have about the game, and also a true disregard for the growth of the game in whole.

[GMB@BP]

Targeting the larger pools comes as no surprise. However, they will show up at the smaller tracks in the right circumstances. For a long time I studied Delta Downs and would see a sudden increase in the WPS and total handle in one race on a card. It was inconsistent but did happen regularly.

"The robotic programs are not profitable without significant rebates on their handle, and use of the programs is controversial in the racing industry. But most racetracks have welcomed the programs into their pools because of their often astounding volume, even though most racing officials acknowledge that the programs enjoy extraordinary advantages over regular players and that they often have a deleterious impact on casual players."

Interesting quote from the article. The tracks know that the rebates prop up these teams and that the teams have a negative impact an the rest of their customers. Shows the short sighted nature the tracks have about the game, and also a true disregard for the growth of the game in whole.

It doesnt get any more black and white to say we need the smaller customer to pay the higher rates (taxed more) to support the crw teams profits.

you think anyone in the upper management of this game would see the long term disaster that they are creating.

[jay68802]

It doesnt get any more black and white to say we need the smaller customer to pay the higher rates (taxed more) to support the crw teams profits.

you think anyone in the upper management of this game would see the long term disaster that they are creating.

I believe this is called "Blinkers On" syndrome.

[biggestal99]

Targeting the larger pools comes as no surprise. However, they will show up at the smaller tracks in the right circumstances. For a long time I studied Delta Downs and would see a sudden increase in the WPS and total handle in one race on a card. It was inconsistent but did happen regularly.

"The robotic programs are not profitable without significant rebates on their handle, and use of the programs is controversial in the racing industry. But most racetracks have welcomed the programs into their pools because of their often astounding volume, even though most racing officials acknowledge that the programs enjoy extraordinary advantages over regular players and that they often have a deleterious impact on casual players."

Interesting quote from the article. The tracks know that the rebates prop up these teams and that the teams have a negative impact an the rest of their customers. Shows the short sighted nature the tracks have about the game, and also a true disregard for the growth of the game in whole.

and people wonder why I am so pro exchange wagering.

Only Monmouth has seen the light.

every other track is in the dark ages of ripping off bettors.

Allan

[AltonKelsey]

Exch Wagering cant come soon enough to all states.



Taking way too long


I still say giving someone a 7% discount is an unfair advantage.


How would you feel if they gave someone a zero takeout account?

[GMB@BP]

and people wonder why I am so pro exchange wagering.

Only Monmouth has seen the light.

every other track is in the dark ages of ripping off bettors.

Allan

well, if the tracks have to support a system that feeds the whales, how are they going to make a switch that does not accomplish that goal?

[GMB@BP]

Article on Single Pool that is mentioned.

Its a bit confusing to me how this benefits the crw teams as I thought they were very good at finding inefficiencies. Maybe since the pools will be a lot less volatile.

http://www.drf.com/news/single-pool-wagering-opens-new-bet-types-many-find-it-too-complex

[AlsoEligible]

In fact, Gagliano said in his own Round Table presentation that the market share of the programs has a mathematical limit in that “they need recreational players in the pool to be profitable and to continue betting.” The programs most often target the pools at the highest-handling tracks because the programs need to have large pools in order to properly estimate the impact of their bets on payouts, which is also why they dump their bets at the last possible moment before a race goes off.

Gagliano said experts estimate that the programs would hit the mathematical limit at a market share of 20 percent. [Currently estimated at 16-19 percent]

“So, we may be nearing the limits of the growth in computer wagering that we’ve seen over the past seven years,” Gagliano said. “If so, overall handle will decline again in the future unless racing can grow handle from recreational bettors.”

That's a very ominous prediction. If I'm reading that correctly, they're saying that most of the uptick we've seen year over year since 2011 can be attributed to CRW. But the whales will soon run out of room to grow, at which point the industry is going to be relying on all the little fish (which the whales are actively driving away) to come back, and bring their friends. Otherwise we can expect handle to start dipping again like we saw from 2004-2011.

That seems like quite a longshot. Between this and the rise of sports betting, could be some very dark days ahead for racing.

[castaway01]

That's a very ominous prediction. If I'm reading that correctly, they're saying that most of the uptick we've seen year over year since 2011 can be attributed to CRW. But the whales will soon run out of room to grow, at which point the industry is going to be relying on all the little fish (which the whales are actively driving away) to come back, and bring their friends. Otherwise we can expect handle to start dipping again like we saw from 2004-2011.

That seems like quite a longshot. Between this and the rise of sports betting, could be some very dark days ahead for racing.

Not only is it ominous, but in response to the "uptick" in handle part...Handle was $15 billion in 2004, $10.8 billion in 2011 and $10.9 billion last year. That uptick added back about 2% of the $4 billion-plus that left the pools between 2004 and 2011. Was it really worth it? If the answer is that handle would have been $7 billion now, then racing is screwed anyway---just delaying the inevitable. I never believed that racing was doomed before but it's looking more bleak that I imagined if THIS is considered the "boom" period....

[NJ Stinks]

It's not easy justifying this hobby....

If a table-playing high roller at the casino gets a comp, does the casino expect the $10 table player to pay for it? Or does the casino believe it will beat the high roller over an extended period of time?

How come this racing game is so screwed up in this country? :mad:

[PaceAdvantage]

Maybe they need to start going all-in on fan education and REEDUCATION...also, promote the hell out of WINNERS...promote the hell out of the guys that win those big tourneys.

Start pooling some money to sponsor hour long TV programs on some halfway decent cable channel that shows guys winning a couple of hundred grand playing a tourney...find a winning player somewhere, ANYWHERE, that isn't afraid of promoting himself...do a special on him or her.

PROMOTE THE BEATABILITY OF THE GAME.

That's what sets it apart from most other gambling games out there.

There are winners out there. Find them. And show the world that it can be done.

That will get people interested...

Hell, do a documentary on the CRW teams...yeah, I know, they don't want the publicity...has anyone gone out with a camera and a show in mind and ASKED?

[thaskalos]

So, the "Round Table's" recommendation is that the onerous takeouts on the exotics should remain untouched...because the generous rebates that go out to the computer groups leave no adequate profit margin behind to justify such a reduction. But they want to "encourage" more 'regular-guy' participation...because the computer groups need more suckers to fleece. :ThmbUp: And this coming from the brain-trust that has been assigned the responsibility of "fixing" this game. :faint:

What a farce this game has become. :ThmbDown::ThmbDown:

[clicknow]

Aren't there certain tracks like OP and Tampa that "hit list" CRWs?

[castaway01]

I was just reading a thread on Rotogrinders (it's a daily fantasy sports site). A guy was complaining about "whales" dominating a recent contest. There was a $55 entry contest that had 6191 entries (you can enter multiple times) and paid out money to the top 250 lineups. Well, four players won 55% of the money. One guy had 61 of the 250 entries that cashed, another 34 entries. How could this be, the poster asked. What's the point of our even playing if these guys dominate?

If you look at the results of the DFS DraftKings contests, 1% of the players win 50% of the money. Sound familiar? Also, keep in mind that there are "sharks" that lost money on that contest that might win in the next contest, just like in horse racing. The average DFS "whale" also has a huge bankroll but churns through it, winning about 3%. Strangely, we've heard that exact number used in horse racing to estimate the whales' profits after rebates.

I don't have an answer here, just saying that if you're gambling against others who are much better capitalized and more talented, this is an issue. An option that DFS players have is entering contests that are limited to a single entry per person, or just a few entries. Maybe that's their version of exchange wagering, at least in spirit---something similar that somewhat avoids direct combat with the whales.

Unfortunately, sometimes the advice was just "you need to get better". As a simple fact, it's clearly true---nearly all of us have to get better or get out if we want to win money.

[GMB@BP]

I was just reading a thread on Rotogrinders (it's a daily fantasy sports site). A guy was complaining about "whales" dominating a recent contest. There was a $55 entry contest that had 6191 entries (you can enter multiple times) and paid out money to the top 250 lineups. Well, four players won 55% of the money. One guy had 61 of the 250 entries that cashed, another 34 entries. How could this be, the poster asked. What's the point of our even playing if these guys dominate?

If you look at the results of the DFS DraftKings contests, 1% of the players win 50% of the money. Sound familiar? Also, keep in mind that there are "sharks" that lost money on that contest that might win in the next contest, just like in horse racing. The average DFS "whale" also has a huge bankroll but churns through it, winning about 3%. Strangely, we've heard that exact number used in horse racing to estimate the whales' profits after rebates.

I don't have an answer here, just saying that if you're gambling against others who are much better capitalized and more talented, this is an issue. An option that DFS players have is entering contests that are limited to a single entry per person, or just a few entries. Maybe that's their version of exchange wagering, at least in spirit---something similar that somewhat avoids direct combat with the whales.

Unfortunately, sometimes the advice was just "you need to get better". As a simple fact, it's clearly true---nearly all of us have to get better or get out if we want to win money.

Most the handicapping contests i play with horses have max limits on entries, so at least there is that.

[Jeff P]

Single-pool wagering opens up new bet types, but many find it too complex:
http://www.drf.com/news/single-pool-wagering-opens-new-bet-types-many-find-it-too-complex

Longitude officials contend that single-pool wagering will provide a multitude of benefits, including the ability to display real-time odds and an increase in pool liquidity, a term that supporters of the system use to describe the ability of a bettor to place a wager of any size without dramatically changing the odds. That ability would presumably enable bettors to make larger and larger bets. It would also give incentives to racetracks to offer new bet types that can’t be justified under the present system because they do not draw enough wagers, supporters say.

Under the system, most wagers – whether exacta, place, superfecta, etc. – would be combined in a single pool. Using patented mathematical techniques that were developed to analyze the prices of commodities and derivatives on exchanges, the pool’s calculator would analyze the amount of money on a specific finish-order outcome to determine payouts. In practical terms, if a horse is being played more heavily in exacta bets to finish first relative to the money bet on the horse to win, the win price for the horse would be lower than in a standard mutuel pool to reflect the positions taken by the exacta players.


I'm against this.

The proposed changes call for all pools to be merged into a single pool.

I predict that if adopted, the new system will cause the avg win mutuel for true longshots to go down (and not by an insignificant amount.)

Imo, this change, if adopted - would make it harder on a guy like me.

Imo this change, if adopted - would also make it easier on the whale syndicates. (They wouldn't need to go as deep in terms of coverage as they do now. They could bet even more money on the top 2 or 3 in the field than they do now.)

Simple observation: Look at the wps pool amounts and percentages for any horse paying a big win mutuel under the current system.

True longshots have a really tiny percentage of total win pool vs. the other horses in the race.

But generally that same true longshot ends up with a higher percentage of the total place and show pool than it does for the win pool.

If the new system is adopted and all pools are merged together into a single pool:

What do you think is going to happen to the win mutuel of a true longshot?

Hint: I don't see it going up.



-jp

.

[GMB@BP]

Jeff,

Thats why I posted the article and tied it in with this thread, its another step to help the CRW teams.

What I find so disgusting is how open the JC and the report are at stating they need to do all this things which clearly will not grow the game but are needed to keep feeding the whales.

And then they get to pay a management fee (increase in takeout?) to this company to run it.

What a farce.

[AltonKelsey]

Jeff P (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/member.php?u=259), I'm a little fuzzy on the workings of merging, but Im pretty sure that place and show money have no impact on win prices.



How could it?


Merging consolidates LIKE position money, Top horse in EX,TRI,SUPER, etc.


As I said, Im not up to speed on the details, but I believe that's correct .

[Poindexter]

Jeff P (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/member.php?u=259), I'm a little fuzzy on the workings of merging, but Im pretty sure that place and show money have no impact on win prices.



How could it?


Merging consolidates LIKE position money, Top horse in EX,TRI,SUPER, etc.


As I said, Im not up to speed on the details, but I believe that's correct .

I agree. Also like this aspect quite a bit (exactly what I proposed in a post a while back).

from the drf article Jeff linked


The system would allow bettors to place wagers that are akin to Wall Street plays, such as limit orders. For example, a bettor could place a $100 win wager on a horse, but the bet would be accepted only if the horse’s odds remained above a certain price, say, 5-1, at the time betting closed. Bettors could even designate portions of a large bet to go into the pool at different prices.


-----------------------------

If I am understanding correctly (and I very well may not be) they are basically just ironing out inefficiencies in various pools(horse is 2-1 on top in the win pool, 3-1 on top in the trifecta pool, 4-1 on top in the exacta pool and the algo adjusts all the prices to reflect say a blended 3-1 in all pools. For the most part it is probably something whales are going to do in the closing seconds anyhow (at a point other bettors cannot take adavantage) so in my eyes it is probably a good thing, provided we don't see a takeout hike to pay for it. Obviously I need a lot clearer understanding how it works than the drf article gave to really give an intelligent decision, so this is just an initial reaction for me.

[classhandicapper]

I still say giving someone a 7% discount is an unfair advantage.


How would you feel if they gave someone a zero takeout account?

It depends if I was that person. :lol:

Seriously, I think the whole things is BS. I just don't know if there is a solution.

Let's say they eliminated rebates and lowered the take across the board for everyone instead (for a theoretical net of zero to the industry bottom line).

I don't think the net would end up being zero.

The take reduction would be worth less than the rebate amounts to the biggest customers. If the biggest customers then left, the handle would take a big hit.

The only thing they could do is give everyone the same large rebate (effectively lowering the take substantially). That would be fair and what everyone has been wishing for for along time. But I think if they lowered the take that much they would certainly take a big hit in the short term and it would probably not be optimal for the tracks over the long term either.

[classhandicapper]

Single-pool wagering opens up new bet types, but many find it too complex:
http://www.drf.com/news/single-pool-wagering-opens-new-bet-types-many-find-it-too-complex

Simple observation: Look at the wps pool amounts and percentages for any horse paying a big win mutuel under the current system.

True longshots have a really tiny percentage of total win pool vs. the other horses in the race.

But generally that same true longshot ends up with a higher percentage of the total place and show pool than it does for the win pool.

If the new system is adopted and all pools are merged together into a single pool:

What do you think is going to happen to the win mutuel of a true longshot?

Hint: I don't see it going up.



-jp

.


You would hope the algorithm is smart enough to understand that the probabilities of a horse placing or showing are related to his chances of winning, but not perfectly. So the payoffs would reflect that in the same way they sometimes get reflected in current pools.

[Jeff P]

From the article :
https://www.drf.com/news/single-pool-wagering-opens-new-bet-types-many-find-it-too-complex

The new system tweaks the way money is distributed from the pools. In the system, it’s possible – in fact, it’s probable – that a portion of the money bet by players of one bet type will be distributed instead to players of another bet type.

The above quote has me thinking this could turn out to be a huge can of worms.

As a horseplayer: I want to know what my odds are going in.

I don't want my win mutuel on a longshot diluted because the whales boxed my horse with the favorite in the exacta. (Or boxed my horse with the first and second favorites in the tri.)




-jp

.

[thaskalos]

From the article :
https://www.drf.com/news/single-pool-wagering-opens-new-bet-types-many-find-it-too-complex



The above quote has me thinking this could turn out to be a huge can of worms.

As a horseplayer: I want to know what my odds are going in.

I don't want my win mutuel on a longshot diluted because the whales boxed my horse with the favorite in the exacta. (Or boxed my horse with the first and second favorites in the tri.)




-jp

.

What is the purpose of this wagering plan other than to cause even more chaos on the odds-board than what we have now? Is this just a prop so the Whales can have a deeper overall pool to swin in? How does the non-whale benefit by the implementation of this new idea?

If they are just inventing new toys for the Whales to play with...why don't they just come out and tell us to find something else to do with our time?

[GMB@BP]

What is the purpose of this wagering plan other than to cause even more chaos on the odds-board than what we have now? Is this just a prop so the Whales can have a deeper overall pool to swin in? How does the non-whale benefit by the implementation of this new idea?

If they are just inventing new toys for the Whales to play with...why don't they just come out and tell us to find something else to do with our time?

With the statements that have been made I would contend that they are being very transparent, so if one choses to bet into it then seems like at least they warned the smaller player.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

One clarification from this report. The whales are not just looking to bet at the biggest tracks. The whales want to bet in the biggest pools they can find. They want the Kentucky Derby pools to appear every day if possible. But they will bet at every track they can find a betting advantage. They will bet at Yavapai Downs/Arizona Downs if they can find a bet there

In fact they likely make up a bigger percentage of handle at the smaller tracks as they get bigger rebates there

The proposal by the Jockey Club to buy up small tracks that fail is insane. The whales get massive rebates at these tracks and then send them bust by driving all the non rebate players away. But now the Jockey Club is proposing buying these failing small tracks just so the whales can keep making a mint

[GMB@BP]

One clarification from this report. The whales are not just looking to bet at the biggest tracks. The whales want to bet in the biggest pools they can find. They want the Kentucky Derby pools to appear every day if possible. But they will bet at every track they can find a betting advantage. They will bet at Yavapai Downs/Arizona Downs if they can find a bet there

In fact they likely make up a bigger percentage of handle at the smaller tracks as they get bigger rebates there

The proposal by the Jockey Club to buy up small tracks that fail is insane. The whales get massive rebates at these tracks and then send them bust by driving all the non rebate players away. But now the Jockey Club is proposing buying these failing small tracks just so the whales can keep making a mint

in a win pool of 4k i dont see how they can make much profit given they can only wager small amounts every race. Maybe I am wrong but seems like they are bit stuck at those tracks.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

I have never understood how they can make much profit in a pool of 4K or 5K. But they still do form on these races and bet into them. Maybe the small tracks offer them some super rebate deal on small pools to keep their tracks alive. It does not make sense but I have no doubt they still play the tiniest of pools

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I know the Longitude system rather well, and think it could work here.

HOWEVER, the industry needs to invest in its tote system before anything can get done. There are a number of wagers overseas, at tracks that we commingle with, that we cannot take because the tote system here cannot handle it. Most tote companies operate on razor thing margins, and it can be a chore just to get everyone on the same ITSP version, so it makes me a little hesitant to think that we can make a move to their platform.

I am sure once the industry comes together, with a central governing body, and standardizes things across the board (medication, weights, ect) this will be a slam dunk. :)