Can anybody decipher this article? Robotic Wagering

[JustRalph]

http://www.drf.com/news/article/80478.html

What the hell difference does it make as long as the dollars and cents were correct going into the pool? unless the account holder only meant to put in one dollar ticks?

I still say somebody found a way to beat the system on something........or this wouldn't have happen and there wouldn't be a need for a patch........anybody got a clue on this one?

[cj]

Looks like direct access automated wagering to me.

What cracks me up is the guy saying this:

"This is really something that the industry needs to look at, because we need some safeguards to prevent this from happening," Dunn said. "There needs to be a way to know when a computer is making an error and stop it from sending the bets in."

Why? If they write a crap program, screw them. Why should the industry pay to put in safeguards to prevent someone using a computer to wager from betting too much?

[njcurveball]

I was about to post that same quote after reading the article! Mr. Dunn obviously isn't going to be teaching a computer class anytime soon. :D

Each bet should be time stamped and logged. I am not saying it is one way or the other, but I do agree that if the system was workiing properly there would be no need for a PATCH!

I guess most fans are still of the ilk that take the excuse "computer error" as something so mystical and magical they stop asking questions.

I would like someone at the DRF to look at the logs of the bets and see the time stamps of when they hit the pools. Also tell us WHAT the pick 3 bet was that won. If it was something like 1/ALL/ALL. I would be pretty darn suspicious!

[twindouble]

http://www.drf.com/news/article/80478.html

What the hell difference does it make as long as the dollars and cents were correct going into the pool? unless the account holder only meant to put in one dollar ticks?

I still say somebody found a way to beat the system on something........or this wouldn't have happen and there wouldn't be a need for a patch........anybody got a clue on this one?

From what I've understood these robotic wagering systems have been around for some time now, the are wired I think right into the pools. From the first time I heard of it I thought it would be a can of worms, ESP with late money coming in hammering the odds and payoffs. No player that is cut off from betting prior to the gate opening will be happy with such radical changes in odds. That just makes them think there's something crooked going on.

I don't have a complete understanding how robotic wagering works, so keep that in mind.

T.D.

[cj]

From what I understand, there really was a computer error made by the bettors. I am a little curious how they were able to put in such odd amount bets, $31.74. I'm pretty sure I can't do that, with or without a computer.

As an aside, the little guy knew about this for a while and was helpful in passing information along so that it found its way to print. So thanks tlg, otherwise the bettors would be in the dark, again.

[BillW]

From what I understand, there really was a computer error made by the bettors. I am a little curious how they were able to put in such odd amount bets, $31.74. I'm pretty sure I can't do that, with or without a computer.


I would guess at some level, the system would handle any value input ($2.00CDN for instance) and only be limited at the front end for flexibility.

[BillW]

Mr. Dunn obviously isn't going to be teaching a computer class anytime soon. :D


Dunn is the GM and not directly involved with the datacenter but should at least have a remedial understanding of the operation. Sadly typical in the industry from what I've seen.

[highnote]

All I can think of is that the systems are designed for tellers to punch in amounts in whole numbers. It probably was an oversite on the programmer's part to think that dollars and cents bets might be made by a computer. The programmer probably used legacy code from betting terminals for the new computer betting interface.

Because there was a decimal point in the bet it was probably ignored and only the "4" was seen and some zeros were added. There are probably some kind of codes that system needs to see. Maybe it misinterpreted the pick-3 wager code to be part of the bet amount because of the decimal point that was present.

If I'm not mistaken, when you program decimal numbers in machine language code you have to flip the numbers around for some reason. I never could figure out machine language. So maybe that is what happened.

There was definately NO larceny going on. Too much at stake. The people who run these operations are honest, but there is still a human element present. And errors happen.

I'm sure if someone asked, they would tell exactly what happened.

[njcurveball]

Anyone remember this golden oldie?



Donald Groth, the chairman of Catskill OTB, which is in upstate New York, said that the winning bettor is a 29-year-old Maryland resident who placed the wagers by phone. The bettor has requested anonymity, Groth said. He said that "there is nothing to indicate that this was anything but a very good day for our customer."



"I know why you're suspicious, but that's not my job," Groth said. "I'm familiar enough with the customer that I believe this is legitimate." Groth said that he has personally checked the time stamps for the telephone calls in which the pick six wagers were placed. "They were all placed beforehand," he said.

Who can you trust?

[PaceAdvantage]

What are you talking about? Groth was telling the truth if I recall correctly. The tickets were altered AFTER the bets were made, were they not? Therefore, as far as HE was concerned, they appeared LEGITIMATE at first blush.

[classhandicapper]

Each bet should be time stamped and logged.

If you are implying that some bettors have the ability to past post, I can tell you with 100% certainty that it was possible until very recently. It may still be possible (and I suspect it is), but I don't know that for a fact.

[rrbauer]

What are you talking about? Groth was telling the truth if I recall correctly. The tickets were altered AFTER the bets were made, were they not? Therefore, as far as HE was concerned, they appeared LEGITIMATE at first blush.

I believe that Groth also said that there was "no way" that bettor's could manipulate the bets that were placed in the Catskill system. So did the dude who was heading up the tote company at the time. People who don't know what's going on in the "computer room" should limit their comments or stand ready to reap the benefits of their ignorance.

[njcurveball]

Therefore, as far as HE was concerned, they appeared LEGITIMATE at first blush.

EXACTLY my point!

[njcurveball]

People who don't know what's going on in the "computer room" should limit their comments or stand ready to reap the benefits of their ignorance.

You read my mind! That was the point. Who can you trust? I would like them to come clean with ALL of the information. An innocent man has nothing to hide!

[cj]

If you are implying that some bettors have the ability to past post, I can tell you with 100% certainty that it was possible until very recently. It may still be possible (and I suspect it is), but I don't know that for a fact.

What changed?

[cj]

In this particular case, it makes no sense to suspect chicanery was involved. The guys bet so much in the pool they couldn't recover all their money due to takeout, even while "winning" the bets.

[1st time lasix]

It was a representative {executive} from United Tote that told Ed Bain and myself at the 2004 DRF expo in Las Vegas that offshore "batch" money can come in to the pools at Calder up to 22 seconds after the gates have opened. I was 100% certain at that time that "past posting" existed there. {probably elsewhere too} I have not used the win pool at Calder ever since..... and I would NEVER use the win pool any where I noticed late odds changes on speed horses that broke cleanly to the front. The tracks want more money in the pools for greater takeout. Period. They could care less that someone may have an advantage.

[twindouble]

It was a representative {executive} from United Tote that told Ed Bain and myself at the 2004 DRF expo in Las Vegas that offshore "batch" money can come in to the pools at Calder up to 22 seconds after the gates have opened. I was 100% certain at that time that "past posting" existed there. {probably elsewhere too} I have not used the win pool at Calder ever since..... and I would NEVER use the win pool any where I noticed late odds changes on speed horses that broke cleanly to the front. The tracks want more money in the pools for greater takeout. Period. They could care less that someone may have an advantage.

Past posting is nothing new to the game, just about every track in the country had the spotters posted. Are you saying every time I figured who was going to have the lead in race somehow I had an unfair advantage with no spotter? How about every time I figured the horse that would break cleanly to the front that had no shot to win the race? What about the three horses that come out stride for stride vying for the lead and the other one that's stalking on the rail and you know will gobble them up in the stretch?

The majority of races that went to the "wise guys", the speed ball chalk was "beat out of the gate", and in most cases they didn't have the leader. Why is that? I tell you why, they didn't screw around with $2.60 horse risking bundles of money past posting, their edge was a hell of lot better than that. Think about it, if all they were looking for was the leader of the race they wouldn't need spotters, those that did had very little impact on the game. They won, lost as many times as you or I.

When horses win that show little or no form or go to the lead when they didn't figure to out break half the field, they sure as hell won't be the chalk. That's the time to take a close look at what's going on.

T.D.

[point given]

It was a representative {executive} from United Tote that told Ed Bain and myself at the 2004 DRF expo in Las Vegas that offshore "batch" money can come in to the pools at Calder up to 22 seconds after the gates have opened. I was 100% certain at that time that "past posting" existed there. {probably elsewhere too} I have not used the win pool at Calder ever since..... and I would NEVER use the win pool any where I noticed late odds changes on speed horses that broke cleanly to the front. The tracks want more money in the pools for greater takeout. Period. They could care less that someone may have an advantage.

Read on derby board that there was a late odds drop on sunday, NOv. 12th 8th race at CD. #2 horse is 11/1 at the top of the stretch and changes to 8/1 right out of the turn, and of course wins. I saw it on replays myself.

I highly object to direct computer access to the pools by a few heavy bettors . NYRA kept them out last year and had a 10 % decline. The only other tracks that keep this sort of thing out are Tampa and Oaklawn from what I 've read. :ThmbDown:

[highnote]

Read on derby board that there was a late odds drop on sunday, NOv. 12th 8th race at CD. #2 horse is 11/1 at the top of the stretch and changes to 8/1 right out of the turn, and of course wins. I saw it on replays myself.

I highly object to direct computer access to the pools by a few heavy bettors . NYRA kept them out last year and had a 10 % decline. The only other tracks that keep this sort of thing out are Tampa and Oaklawn from what I 've read. :ThmbDown:


I love big bets by computer teams. Remember, these guys use models -- and you know what? Sometimes their models make mistakes -- like 67% of the time. When they make mistakes, you can make profits. Their models will hit the obvious horse hard. All you have to do is wait for their mistake and then get all over your horse like a bum on a baloney sandwich.

Long live computerized bettors.

[arkansasman]

In the spring of 2001, a robotic wagering system used by a customer of a rebate shop in North Dakota sent in 43 individual $5,000 win wagers on Monarchos in the Florida Derby at Gulfstream, driving the horse's odds down from 7-2 at post time to 7-5 by the time the results were posted. Gamblers demanded an explanation for the late odds drop, and Gulfstream shut off the rebate shop customer's computer link while an investigation was conducted. The investigation thrust the issue of robotic wagering programs into the spotlight for the first time.

Gulfstream Park made Racing Services cut off robotic wagering by Peter Wagner (North Dakota Whale) after he made bets of around 25k in the middle of February at Gulfstream and won 246k. The bets he made on Monarchos and Invisible Ink (entry) were made using 3 tellers, not robotic wagering.

[Pace Cap'n]

Think about it, if all they were looking for was the leader of the race they wouldn't need spotters, those that did had very little impact on the game. They won, lost as many times as you or I.

When horses win that show little or no form or go to the lead when they didn't figure to out break half the field, they sure as hell won't be the chalk. That's the time to take a close look at what's going on.

T.D.

The way I see it, these bettors are not looking to see which horse is in the lead and then betting on it--they have already decided which horse is the bet and just want to make sure he gets off to a good start.

Also, these are not "wise guys" in the sense that the fix is in. These are professional horseplayers looking for every advantage, not race fixers.

As far as integrity of the players, they could be as honest as the day is long, and probably are...but how much of an advantage are they gaining over those of us who have no direct tote access? Why should one class of players be given such an advantage over the majority of bettors? And how much longer should we put up with it?

[highnote]

...but how much of an advantage are they gaining over those of us who have no direct tote access? Why should one class of players be given such an advantage over the majority of bettors? And how much longer should we put up with it?


They are gaining no advantage. If you bet at the track, you can bet at the last minute.

If you bet with Youbet.com or Brisbet, etc., you can bet at the last minute. I don't see any difference.

It is pretty simple to automate your betting on Brisbet if you really want to. I believe there are players on PA who already have automated their bets with Brisbet.

For a few hundred dollars to maybe a thousand dollars you could probably hire someone to program a Brisbet interface for you.

I don't see how anyone has a big advantage.

I used to bet with a live teller at Connecticut OTB or sometimes with the CT OTB On-The-Wire touch-tone betting and could almost always get a last minute bet down.

If you really want to bet online, it is very easy to do these days.

[twindouble]

The way I see it, these bettors are not looking to see which horse is in the lead and then betting on it--they have already decided which horse is the bet and just want to make sure he gets off to a good start.

Pace, all the spotters I've been associated with over the years said just the opposite, the horse that took the lead was signaled to the window. That's not to say your example didn't happen along the way.

Also, these are not "wise guys" in the sense that the fix is in. These are professional horseplayers looking for every advantage, not race fixers.

Well, if they aren't fixing anything what's to worry about?

As far as integrity of the players, they could be as honest as the day is long, and probably are...but how much of an advantage are they gaining over those of us who have no direct tote access? Why should one class of players be given such an advantage over the majority of bettors? And how much longer should we put up with it?

I can't disagree with that but please explain what the great "advantage" is.
Did they handicap the race better than we did? Or do we just get upset when they are heavy on our horses not getting the odds we expected? Gimmick, picks or any pool. Are you refering to the rebates they get as well?

T.D.

[trigger]

First, let me make clear I have no problem with computer based handicapping systems.
However, the so-called Computer Robotic Wagering operators have figured out a way to circumvent the basic principles underlying the pari-mutuel betting system with the acquiescence and assistance of Account Deposit Wagering companies (notably Youbet.com via their offshore IRG) and most tracks.
Their wagering has nothing to do with handicapping per se. What they do is figure out though analyzing a massive amount of historical records what exotics payoffs (mostly exactas) should pay based on the win odds of the runners in a given race . Then, they analyze the betting on a given race and make bets on a series of exacta combinations that are a certain amount below the historical payoffs....the total amount bet and the amount bet on each combination is computed using sophisticated established mathematical formulas.
Now, you might say "so what", they are subject to the same problems as many other pool analysis type betting systems (including Zeimba,etc) under a pari-mutuel system....that is, the first problem is the final odds are not known until the pool closes and you will often get shut out if you wait too long to make your bets (and nowadays the odds change drastically after the race goes off anyway). Second, even if you wait until the last minute, you can then only make a small number of wagers before wagering is shut down.
The CRW operators have solved both problems by gaining direct real time electronic access to the tote systems (with track approval) which enables them to calculate the near final odds by utilizing the real time pool information in the tote system( information that doesn't reach the host track until after the race starts) and then, based on the near final odds, to process hundreds of bets in milliseconds before the race goes off. Many of the CRW operators (probably only 4 or 5 currently betting in North America) act essentially like a one man OTB. They use this process over many races and grind out a tremendous profit with the help of big rebates over time....Youbet currently has one CRW operator who bets $50 million a quarter!
Read the NTRA Task force report(2004) for examples of CRW bettors taking a net draw of millions in "winning" from pari-mutuel pools. http://www.bloodhorse.com/pdf/NTRATaskReportSep04.pdf
Allowing this type of betting in a pari mutuel system creates a tremendously unfair advantage over the rest of us bettors and , to my of thinking, results in a rigged system.
Trigger

[Pace Cap'n]

They are gaining no advantage. If you bet at the track, you can bet at the last minute.

If you bet with Youbet.com or Brisbet, etc., you can bet at the last minute. I don't see any difference.

That is still one step removed from being hard-wired to the tote board. You are NOT getting real-time information on pool totals and exotic combos.

The issue runs much deeper than being able to make a last minute bet. By a few hundred bets or so.

[twindouble]

Trigger;

Thanks for the link. Read some of it, will continue tomorrow.


T.D.

[MichaelNunamaker]

Hi Everyone,

Several people here have commented on things like "hard-wired to the tote board" or "direct access to the tote".

I don't believe anyone has such information. Indeed, I do not believe such information exists. As I understand it, simulcast wagers are accumulated at several "hubs" throughout the country. These hubs periodically (say every 20-50 seconds), send a big batch of wagers to the host track to mix into the official pool. It is this delay in sending batches from the hubs to the host track that causes a large part (most?) of the delay in odds updates.

So, to have real-time odds, you would have to have real time access to every single hub and the host track. Furthermore, you would have to analyze the wagers as they come in. This is not something the hubs have software to support. So, as I understand it, to be hard wired into the toteboard, someone would have to have a special relationship with every hub, and every track they are "hard-wired" to. They would also have to write special software and get every hub and host track to agree to run this special software that updates the pools instantly. And having now created a real-time tote, they would have to get every hub and track to agree not to let anyone else use that information. They would also have to get dozens of people to agree to keep all this secret.

This all seems improbable to me.

Mike Nunamaker

[twindouble]

Hi Everyone,

Several people here have commented on things like "hard-wired to the tote board" or "direct access to the tote".

I don't believe anyone has such information. Indeed, I do not believe such information exists. As I understand it, simulcast wagers are accumulated at several "hubs" throughout the country. These hubs periodically (say every 20-50 seconds), send a big batch of wagers to the host track to mix into the official pool. It is this delay in sending batches from the hubs to the host track that causes a large part (most?) of the delay in odds updates.

So, to have real-time odds, you would have to have real time access to every single hub and the host track. Furthermore, you would have to analyze the wagers as they come in. This is not something the hubs have software to support. So, as I understand it, to be hard wired into the toteboard, someone would have to have a special relationship with every hub, and every track they are "hard-wired" to. They would also have to write special software and get every hub and host track to agree to run this special software that updates the pools instantly. And having now created a real-time tote, they would have to get every hub and track to agree not to let anyone else use that information. They would also have to get dozens of people to agree to keep all this secret.

This all seems improbable to me.

Mike Nunamaker

Mike read page 8 of the link Trigger posted, let me know what you think.


T.D.

[point given]

Hi Everyone,

Several people here have commented on things like "hard-wired to the tote board" or "direct access to the tote".

I don't believe anyone has such information. Indeed, I do not believe such information exists. As I understand it, simulcast wagers are accumulated at several "hubs" throughout the country. These hubs periodically (say every 20-50 seconds), send a big batch of wagers to the host track to mix into the official pool. It is this delay in sending batches from the hubs to the host track that causes a large part (most?) of the delay in odds updates.

So, to have real-time odds, you would have to have real time access to every single hub and the host track. Furthermore, you would have to analyze the wagers as they come in. This is not something the hubs have software to support. So, as I understand it, to be hard wired into the toteboard, someone would have to have a special relationship with every hub, and every track they are "hard-wired" to. They would also have to write special software and get every hub and host track to agree to run this special software that updates the pools instantly. And having now created a real-time tote, they would have to get every hub and track to agree not to let anyone else use that information. They would also have to get dozens of people to agree to keep all this secret.

This all seems improbable to me.

Mike Nunamaker

I cannot agree with your premise and conclusions after reading the DRF article and the report from the NTRA Wagering Sytems Taskforce linked by Trigger earlier in the thread. The following is from the Matt Hegarty article on Nov.13th in the DRF.

Computer bets skew pick 3By MATT HEGARTY

[Valuist]

I have an account w/IRG and didn't think computer betting was allowed by them. Supposedly its all telephone betting; I know one thing: the rebate on Calder P3s is big. Probably in the range of 14% or so.

[MichaelNunamaker]

Hi T.D.,

You said "Mike read page 8 of the link Trigger posted, let me know what you think."

OK, I did. They specifically said that the computer wagering was done at 1-2 minutes to post. How in the world could someone posting wagers at one minutes before post know what the odds will be at post time? Also, I see nothing in that report that contradicts anything I said.

Mike Nunamaker

[MichaelNunamaker]

Hi point given,

You wrote "and the report from the NTRA Wagering Sytems"

OK, I've read portions of that report. What are you referring to? I can't find anything that contradicts what I said.

Mike Nunamaker

[PaceAdvantage]

I have an account w/IRG and didn't think computer betting was allowed by them. Supposedly its all telephone betting; I know one thing: the rebate on Calder P3s is big. Probably in the range of 14% or so.

IRG has limited computer betting with select big clients....not sure if they plan on making this more widely available, but I do remember reading something about them trying this on a limited basis.

[trigger]

Hi T.D.,

You said "Mike read page 8 of the link Trigger posted, let me know what you think."

OK, I did. They specifically said that the computer wagering was done at 1-2 minutes to post. How in the world could someone posting wagers at one minutes before post know what the odds will be at post time? Also, I see nothing in that report that contradicts anything I said.

Mike Nunamaker

Hi Mike, Here's a couple of more quotes from the NTRA Task Force Report:
>>>>"Late Odds Changes
The Task Force also addressed the issue of whether CRW plays a role in “late odds changes”and their resultant public perception problems. Historically, skilled handicappers attempt to place their bets as close the start of the race as possible. As noted above, this phenomenon is also true for batch or streamed wagers, which often are placed in the final seconds before the stop-betting signal is given to achieve the highest level of efficiency in the trading program."<<<<
>>>>(One of the) "Recommendations on Host Track/Horsemen Knowledge of SPMOs (p63)
Prepared by Thoroughbred Racing Protective Bureau
· Identity of serial-data links (SDL), ITSP (data) or other totalisator data connections that supply near real-time odds, probables and pool runner amounts for any “computer” bettor wagering through the SPMO;"<<<<

ALSO,Quote from a recent Bloodhorse article:
>>>>"By January 2007, odds for win bets should be finalized no later than 10 seconds after "off" time. The idea is to eliminate late odds changes when races are in progress. But that's just the beginning in what J. Curtis Linnell, director of wagering analysis for the Thoroughbred Racing and Protective Bureau, said will be a "long process."<<<,
http://www.bloodhorse.com/articleindex/article.asp?id=35867

It is my understanding that this upgrade in timely win odds postings to be effective 1/1/2007 will be accomplished via software as the the proposed Wagering Transmission Protocol system will not be operational for several months(years?).
In any event, it seems to me that this stop gap software upgrade could not be possible unless the pool information necessary to compute near real time win odds is available within the current tote system (including double hop hubs, etc.) . Apparently, it's just that the current tote system can't process the information fast enough to the tracks to calculate the up-to-date odds in a timely basis. So ,now all of a sudden, the tote companies determine they can develop software to compute near real time win odds odds. I wonder where they got this idea .....it couldn't be from the CRW operators who have probably been doing this via their own software programs for years.
Trigger

[arkansasman]

OK, I did. They specifically said that the computer wagering was done at 1-2 minutes to post. How in the world could someone posting wagers at one minutes before post know what the odds will be at post time? Also, I see nothing in that report that contradicts anything I said.
The final odds do not have to be known. The advantage bets do not change much in the last minute or 2, but the dividends do change after all the money comes into the final pool. All a team has to do, based on historical data, is build in a "fudge factor." If any of you have built a computer model, you will see the changes in the dividends from 2 minutes to post to the final pool. The bigger the overlay on advantage bets, the lower the dividends will be -so you adjust according to your "fudge factor."

[Valuist]

IRG has limited computer betting with select big clients....not sure if they plan on making this more widely available, but I do remember reading something about them trying this on a limited basis.

There's quite a few things about IRG that I find a bit baffling, from allowing "select computer wagering" to their rebates. If the computer wagers are going thru a hub in Central America (which their telephone wagers do), wouldn't that be offshore/online wagering? They contend they are 100% compliant within the law.

[twindouble]

Hi T.D.,

You said "Mike read page 8 of the link Trigger posted, let me know what you think."

OK, I did. They specifically said that the computer wagering was done at 1-2 minutes to post. How in the world could someone posting wagers at one minutes before post know what the odds will be at post time? Also, I see nothing in that report that contradicts anything I said.

Mike Nunamaker

Mike, wasn't looking for any "contradictions", just a better understanding of what it's all about. Here's a quote from my first post on the subject.

I don't have a complete understanding how robotic wagering works, so keep that in mind. Quote T.D.

I couldn't grasp if these bets were going to the "hubs" or right to the tracks.


Thanks,



T.D.

[PaceAdvantage]

As an aside, the little guy knew about this for a while and was helpful in passing information along so that it found its way to print. So thanks tlg, otherwise the bettors would be in the dark, again.

Yes, another thank you to TLG.....he's been taking it on the chin around here lately, so I thought another :ThmbUp: was in order.

Something obvious was pointed out to me by a fellow PA'er that has not have been fully appreciated by the participants in this thread (as far as I can tell).

These "batch-bet" arbitrage guys have these sophisticated algorithms that compute who to bet and how much to bet based on up-to-date pool total information -- Win/Place/Show/Exacta/Quinella -- these are all wagers where pool information and will-pays are known and can be computed and acted upon. This is designed primarily to take advantage of generous rebates they are offered by these specialty shops....even if they show a small loss on their actual wagers, they still profit after rebates.

Which begs the following question/statement:

THIS GUY WAS BATCH BETTING THE PICK THREE???

[MichaelNunamaker]

Hi Trigger,

You wrote ""Recommendations on Host Track/Horsemen Knowledge of SPMOs (p63) Prepared by Thoroughbred Racing Protective Bureau
· Identity of serial-data links (SDL), ITSP (data) or other totalisator data connections that supply near real-time odds, probables and pool runner amounts for any “computer” bettor wagering through the SPMO;"

Please note the phrase "near real-time odds". That's exactly what we have now. Any of the on-line tote boards are exactly that.

You also wrote "It is my understanding that this upgrade in timely win odds postings to be effective 1/1/2007 will be accomplished via software as the the proposed Wagering Transmission Protocol system will not be operational for several months(years?)."

Yes, it is all via software. As I understand it, the software change is as follows:

Current situation: Hubs collect batches of wagers and submit them to the host track every 20-50 seconds.

New situation: Hubs would transmit wagers to the host track either as each individual wager comes in or in very small batches every few seconds.

Please notice that this isn't a software update in one location. Every track and hub that participates in this has to change their software. Which was exactly my point. For someone to currently have access to true real time odds, they would have had to get software installed at every hub and track.

Mike Nunamaker

[MichaelNunamaker]

Hi PA,

You wrote "THIS GUY WAS BATCH BETTING THE PICK THREE???"

By waiting until the last minute before post time of the first race, he would maximize the information he could get from the public odds on the first leg of the Pick 3.

Clearly no where near as good as knowing the public odds on all three legs, but partial information beats the living daylights out of zero information.

Mike Nunamaker

[rrbauer]

The tote changes being mentioned for implementation on 1/1/07 or sometime thereafter are at the discretion of the host track as far as implementation and involve nothing more than the capability to "force" an update cycle to the win pool after the race starts but before the "normal" timed cycle would've occurred.

From my perspective all this will do is heighten confusion. If the final data has not been transmitted and/or collected when this ten-second update cycle is "forced" then the resultant odds will not be the final odds but just another intermediate result that will be superseded when the "final" update cycle occurs.

For example, for tracks implementing this feature, expect to see a 6/5 horse go to 1-1 ten seconds, or so, into the race; and, then change to 4/5 thirty seconds later when the final update cycle processes.

How does this solve anything?

[Murph]

Yes, another thank you to TLG.....he's been taking it on the chin around here lately, so I thought another :ThmbUp: was in order. I cant find any posts here, (in the forums over the past two weeks) where tlg mentions this subject. I would like to read his opinion on this matter myself.

Murph

[trigger]

Hi Trigger,

You wrote ""Recommendations on Host Track/Horsemen Knowledge of SPMOs (p63) Prepared by Thoroughbred Racing Protective Bureau
· Identity of serial-data links (SDL), ITSP (data) or other totalisator data connections that supply near real-time odds, probables and pool runner amounts for any “computer” bettor wagering through the SPMO;"
Please note the phrase "near real-time odds". That's exactly what we have now. Any of the on-line tote boards are exactly that.
You also wrote "It is my understanding that this upgrade in timely win odds postings to be effective 1/1/2007 will be accomplished via software as the the proposed Wagering Transmission Protocol system will not be operational for several months(years?)."
Yes, it is all via software. As I understand it, the software change is as follows:
Current situation: Hubs collect batches of wagers and submit them to the host track every 20-50 seconds.
New situation: Hubs would transmit wagers to the host track either as each individual wager comes in or in very small batches every few seconds.
Please notice that this isn't a software update in one location. Every track and hub that participates in this has to change their software. Which was exactly my point. For someone to currently have access to true real time odds, they would have had to get software installed at every hub and track.
Mike Nunamaker

Hi Mike, To me, near real time odds are odds that do not change dramatically 20 or 30 seconds or more after the race goes off as is now the case( in the case of exotic bets , many times I've seen pool changes occur while the horses are coming down the stretch).
Anyway, it seems to me that the TRPB in its 2004 NTRA recommendations concerning controlling SPMO's was referring to the ability of CRW operators(enabled by some SPMO's) to get more up-to-date odds and exotic payouts than the general public. Otherwise why would they bother making this recommendation if they didn't think the CRW operators were gaining an unfair advantage over the rest of us bettors?
Also, if the data is available somewhere in the system, someone will figure out a way to get at it. Remember, these CRW operators are often set up just like an OTB with unrestricted query access to every tote company's tote information. Also, it is my understanding that tote company systems are resident in some form at every track or OTB to accept the bets immediately as they are made. If so, all betting information is available on a real time basis somewhere in their systems .
BTW, is there is any public information as you describe about how the details of the new win odds system is going to work ? If so, I would appreciate a reference.Thanks, Trigger.
PS:ALSO,
In response to some other questions, Youbet's IRG takes bets in Curacao but processes them through a hub in Oregon. In complete disregard to the average bettor's welfare, the Oregon Racing Commission has allowed Youbet to process this CRW betting through hubs in their state.
Also, IRG is mostly a phone betting operation. Their is only One CRW bettor at Youbet ...the $50 million per quarter guy ($200 million a year!!!)
Trigger

[point given]

Hi PA,

You wrote "THIS GUY WAS BATCH BETTING THE PICK THREE???"

By waiting until the last minute before post time of the first race, he would maximize the information he could get from the public odds on the first leg of the Pick 3.

Clearly no where near as good as knowing the public odds on all three legs, but partial information beats the living daylights out of zero information.

Mike Nunamaker

The will pays for both the ending leg of a p3 (1st leg of the p3 to be started), as well as the daily double will pays for rolling daily double tracks would give him 2/3's of the probable betting pattern for the p3 being started in that race. IMO, this is a good reason for tracks to eliminate the rolling doubles on races which start a p3 sequence. I rarely bet p3's at tracks who roll daily doubles ( namely the california tracks). I would also like to see widespread 50 cent trifecta wagering at many more tracks. As value is being taken by a few well heeled "connected" bettors from the win and exacta pools, the trifecta pool remains a more viable wagering option. This would also help with less W2G's , as the 10 cent wager has done for the superfecta bettors.

[MichaelNunamaker]

Hi Trigger,

You wrote "Also, if the data is available somewhere in the system"

And that cuts to the heart of the point I keep trying to make. The data is _not_available in the system, to anyone.

You also wrote "If so, all betting information is available on a real time basis somewhere in their systems ."

If this were true, why wouldn't the tracks update the toteboard in real-time? The tracks ___hate hate hate___ the odds changes after the race starts. If the tracks had true real-time odds available to them, why would they keep a system they detest?

Mike Nunamaker

[highnote]

In response to some other questions, Youbet's IRG takes bets in Curacao but processes them through a hub in Oregon. In complete disregard to the average bettor's welfare, the Oregon Racing Commission has allowed Youbet to process this CRW betting through hubs in their state.
Also, IRG is mostly a phone betting operation. Their is only One CRW bettor at Youbet ...the $50 million per quarter guy ($200 million a year!!!)
Trigger


Trigger,

1. I don't understand how allowing a CRW to bet disregards my welfare. I welcome it. I love betting against computers. I'll put my mind up against the best handicapping program any day. To me, it's all about picking your spots. Even before the days of CRWs you had to pick your spots. If you liked a horse and made it 2-1 and it was going off at 6/5 you passed the race and waited for the next opportunity.

Even with CRWs the favorite still loses 67% of the time.

2. How do you know there is only one 50 million per quarter guy? Why is the amount the CRW bets significant? The more the better as far as I'm concerned.


Thanks,

John

[point given]

Hi point given,

You wrote "and the report from the NTRA Wagering Sytems"

OK, I've read portions of that report. What are you referring to? I can't find anything that contradicts what I said.

Mike Nunamaker

The arguments and logic which Trigger is voicing are concurrent with mine, so I see no need to duplicate the points.

One point though is banging around in my head. REmember the old saying " even when I win I lose " ? Well, in this case , the CW's have a similar one but different; " even when I lose I win " ! It is no longer a level playing field and it bothers me a great deal, to the point where I have to question further participation in the game.

[highnote]

It is no longer a level playing field and it bothers me a great deal, to the point where I have to question further participation in the game.


Racing has always been a tough game to beat. I think it is easier now than ever before. When you win today, you should get ridiculous prices on the horse you like. All you have to do is beat an over priced favorite. 67% of the time the favorite is going to lose. So anytime you don't like the favorite and your odds are lower than the public's you should have a good bet.

[shanta]

Trigger,

1. I don't understand how allowing a CRW to bet disregards my welfare. I welcome it. I love betting against computers. I'll put my mind up against the best handicapping program any day. To me, it's all about picking your spots. Even before the days of CRWs you had to pick your spots. If you liked a horse and made it 2-1 and it was going off at 6/5 you passed the race and waited for the next opportunity.

Even with CRWs the favorite still loses 67% of the time.

2. How do you know there is only one 50 million per quarter guy? Why is the amount the CRW bets significant? The more the better as far as I'm concerned.


Thanks,

John

Bravo! :ThmbUp:

Long as "they" have to bet BEFORE the gate pops. Not after man. Just like the rest of "us".

Rich

[point given]

Racing has always been a tough game to beat. I think it is easier now than ever before. When you win today, you should get ridiculous prices on the horse you like. All you have to do is beat an over priced favorite. 67% of the time the favorite is going to lose. So anytime you don't like the favorite and your odds are lower than the public's you should have a good bet.

What you say is true to an extent. However; I am not a win bettor, I bet exotics. When value is taken from the exacta pool by the CWP, that leaves the tri and picks. (don't play supersmuch). Now I didnot know before the Calder P3 incident that CPW are into the P3 pools. I previously posted that I donot play the west coast p3's much do to the rolling daily doubles. Now, I wonder about other p3 pools as well. That leaves me with the tri , which is why I would like to see more widespread acceptance of the 50 cent tri at other tracks. Other than that I will tread very lightly in Magna and CD owned track waters. I prefer a level playing field that Tampa Bay , Oaklawn and NYRA provide.

[Valuist]

Point Given-

You also may want to add Delaware and Colonial to your list. IRG doesn't take wagers on those tracks.

[Niko]

I never knew the game had gotten so easy sweetyjohn. I'm glad you're making so much money since the advent of not so smart computers.

My observation is that I'm finding it a lot harder to find really strong overlays in the exotics. And when I find what I think are good overalys, I hate to see them drop a couple ticks when they go around the track. But that's just personal obversation and I don't have any stats to back it up. Or maybe it's selective memory. I just never ever noticed it to the extent I have the last couple of years. Gotta admire the computer guys, they take advantage of every angle they can. But Mullins was right about one thing, people will keep gambling no matter what the situation (his exact quote was much better). I have one friend left who really plays the horses and he's really cutting back to.

I'm sure some of the computers guys could possibly do the following and it would be very interesting to see the results. Ave overlay based on odds say 4-5 years ago for p3's, exactas, tri's compared to last year by track. Would be very interesting to see if there's any trends or it's just my imagination. I'd feel a lot better knowing.

[highnote]

I never knew the game had gotten so easy sweetyjohn. I'm glad you're making so much money since the advent of not so smart computers.

I didn't say it was easy. I said it has gotten easier and that I will put my brain up against a computer handicapping program any day.

Computers aren't smart. People who program them are. But even so, the people who program only have a small edge over lots of races. Not a big edge over lots of races.

I think I have a big edge when I handicap, but I can only bet a small number of races.

So I'm like most handicappers -- I'm a punter. The big computer bettors are run like a hedge fund and the really successful ones can be considered professionals.

I don't have the desire to be a professional handicapper. It's not that interesting to me. It's a lot of drudgery. To me, there are more interesting things to do in life than handicapping horse races.

But when I do handicap, I feel I have an edge over computerized handicapping software. But it is definately not easy.

Bring 'em on!

[the little guy]

I cant find any posts here, (in the forums over the past two weeks) where tlg mentions this subject. I would like to read his opinion on this matter myself.

Murph

Should I consider this a thank you?

[1st time lasix]

Yesterday I had a horse pop up from my watch list in the last race at Calder. Opening odds were 35 -1 which was ridiculous of course ....but does indicate the connections didn't put any significant amount on "Centerfire" early. With one minute to post the horse was 7-1 which about what i expected. When the gates opened he was 6-1. Now this horse goes to the front and clears by himself...the odds move down to 9/2 at the half mile pole. That is two additional clicks down after the gates had opened. Day after day....week after week....horses that can win if they get an early lead near the quarter pole at this track get pounded down AFTER the gates open. Batch money is coming in 20-22 seconds after regular players are shut out. Nothing fair about it! Absolutely convinced after hearing the comments from the Tote executive that win players there are being robbed.

[Niko]

[QUOTE=swetyejohn]I didn't say it was easy. I said it has gotten easier and that I will put my brain up against a computer handicapping program any day.

Computers aren't smart. People who program them are. But even so, the people who program only have a small edge over lots of races. Not a big edge over lots of races.

I think I have a big edge when I handicap, but I can only bet a small number of races.

So I'm like most handicappers -- I'm a punter. The big computer bettors are run like a hedge fund and the really successful ones can be considered professionals.

Makes a lot more sense and it's the direction I've gone also-thanks for the clarification.

Relating to other threads; I'll bet more if I like a P or S running horse because I don't get the late odds drops on them

[njcurveball]

I think I have a big edge when I handicap, but I can only bet a small number of races.

So I'm like most handicappers -- I'm a punter. The big computer bettors are run like a hedge fund and the really successful ones can be considered professionals.

I don't have the desire to be a professional handicapper. It's not that interesting to me. It's a lot of drudgery. To me, there are more interesting things to do in life than handicapping horse races.


Bring 'em on!

I like your attitude! You have a big edge and can win at this easy game! But you choose to spend your time writing programs for others and posting helpful hints on a racing board rather than tilting the toteboard.

I want to thank you for your restraint and not hurting the odds of the winners. Keep up the good work!

[point given]

Yesterday I had a horse pop up from my watch list in the last race at Calder. Opening odds were 35 -1 which was ridiculous of course ....but does indicate the connections didn't put any significant amount on "Centerfire" early. With one minute to post the horse was 7-1 which about what i expected. When the gates opened he was 6-1. Now this horse goes to the front and clears by himself...the odds move down to 9/2 at the half mile pole. That is two additional clicks down after the gates had opened. Day after day....week after week....horses that can win if they get an early lead near the quarter pole at this track get pounded down AFTER the gates open. Batch money is coming in 20-22 seconds after regular players are shut out. Nothing fair about it! Absolutely convinced after hearing the comments from the Tote executive that win players there are being robbed.


See the CD Nov.12th 8th race, #2, at the top of the stretch the odds drop from 11/1 to 8/1. this is between 45-57 seconds after the gates open. Welcome to the CD / Magna experience. :ThmbDown:


.

[highnote]

I like your attitude! You have a big edge and can win at this easy game! But you choose to spend your time writing programs for others and posting helpful hints on a racing board rather than tilting the toteboard.

I want to thank you for your restraint and not hurting the odds of the winners. Keep up the good work!

You are the one saying it is an easy game. I said it had gotten easier due to CRWs. I didn't say it was easy.

I also have a day job and a wife and 2 kids to support. Handicapping is fun. I don't want to rely on it for a living.

Plus, because I am a resident of Connecticut, I am not permitted to bet using the internet. I can bet with a live operator with CT OTB, but have chosen not to. When CT OTB decides to get busy and lobbying our state pols and get online horse race betting legal I will do so.

So I am limited to going to the track. I did that every Saturday and Sunday for one year straight. I don't want to make a living going to the track. Why should I when I can make more and work less at running my business.

So now, I help my good friend with Pick 6's and other bets on a limited basis. This frees me up to write software and post helpful hints on this board. And keeps my mind fresh for handicapping -- which as we know is mentally tough.

Would it be better if I kept my mouth shut, didn't help the PA community and lived a life of professional gambler?

No thanks. I prefer the life I'm living.

[highnote]

I probably should not have made such a broad, general statement. It is quite possible that CRWs have made the game more difficult for some people.

I feel it's easier for me now due to CRWs. Maybe for people who use the same factors as CRWs things are more difficult.

And just to be perfectly clear, I'm not saying it is easy for me to win at racing. I'm saying it is easier for me than it used to be.

Let me restate that, just so there is no confusion. It is not easy for me to win at racing. For me, it is easier now than it used to.

Is that clear? Let me say it one more time just to be sure everyone gets it...

Winning has always been difficult for me. But due to CRWs it seems like it has become easier. Or maybe I'm getting better. I had my best year ever last year -- but it wasn't easy. Just easier than it had been in the past.

Can I say something to make it clearer?

[njcurveball]

Would it be better if I kept my mouth shut, didn't help the PA community and lived a life of professional gambler?



PLEASE! Just poking a lil fun here. You are doing a great job and helping people. I was just playing.

best to you,
Jim

[njcurveball]

Winning has always been difficult for me. But due to CRWs it seems like it has become easier. Or maybe I'm getting better. I had my best year ever last year -- but it wasn't easy. Just easier than it had been in the past.

Can I say something to make it clearer?

Yes you can make it clearer, please explain how you know CRWs have made it easier for you? If the money goes in after you bet, are you basically saying that these people ALWAYS play different horses than you?

The point we all do not like is someone coming in very late and having free run of the pool. We all use the odds to judge whether something is a good bet. We are not saying these guys are geniuses. But if they "smooth out" the odds on the horses who are underbet, it makes the pool more efficient.

I am not talking about the people betting front runners. I am talking about the guys who are experts at value and can dutch a few horses with close to final odds.

If all of the horse you thought would pay $12, start paying $11, that is a MAJOR HIT in your return. If somehow they go down to $10, you have taken a 20% profit and pushed it down to break even.

The only method I see that wouldn't be impacted by this type of wagering is playing horses that are severely overbet. That doesn't win for me, put perhaps you have a great method.

keep up the good work!
Jim

[highnote]

PLEASE! Just poking a lil fun here. You are doing a great job and helping people. I was just playing.

best to you,
Jim


Sorry. Couldn't tell. But thanks! I think? LOL

[highnote]

Let me also say that just because I don't bet online now, doesn't mean I'm not working on systems that will do that. I anticipate that some day I will be able to bet online legally.


Yes you can make it clearer, please explain how you know CRWs have made it easier for you?

The same way you know they have made it harder for you. I watch the board, make my bets and calculate my profits. My profits were up last year -- of course, I bet on a lot fewer occasions. So maybe I was fresher -- or more selective?


If the money goes in after you bet, are you basically saying that these people ALWAYS play different horses than you?

No. But when I have horse that is 5-1 and I make it 3-1, chances are it is going to be a good bet even after the gates have sprung.

My research has shown that there is almost no difference between the 1 minute odds and the final odds when averaged across thousands of races over the last 9 months. How many people on PA who complain about late odds drops have empirical evidence to support their claims.

I think odds drops happen occasionally. But I don't think they happen as often as people think.

Let me tell you a story. In the old days -- maybe 20 or 30 or even only 10 years ago, there were some big NY bettors who were Sheets players. They would hammer a horse they liked early in the wagering and knock a horse down below even money in an effort to keep other people off the horse. That was a big odds drop and odds manipulation. Is that wrong? It's pari-mutuel. If you want better odds then go on ehorsex or betfair and get fixed odds. No one is making you bet pari-mutuelly. As a consumer, you have options.

The point we all do not like is someone coming in very late and having free run of the pool. We all use the odds to judge whether something is a good bet. We are not saying these guys are geniuses. But if they "smooth out" the odds on the horses who are underbet, it makes the pool more efficient.

I don't think they have free run of the pools. No different than the Sheet guys betting early and knocking down the odds. BRISBET and YOUBET allow last minute wagers. There is a ton of money coming in late nowadays. Everyone has approximately the same odds info. They know what you know. They may have bigger bankrolls. Their big bets -- that is what moves the odds. I love it when I disagree with them. I get better prices.

If a horse is underbet, it is only because they think it has a better chance than what is shown on the board -- or vice-versa. Maybe they don't bet on certain horses and drive the odds up higher.

I am not talking about the people betting front runners. I am talking about the guys who are experts at value and can dutch a few horses with close to final odds.

I have no problem with that.

If all of the horse you thought would pay $12, start paying $11, that is a MAJOR HIT in your return. If somehow they go down to $10, you have taken a 20% profit and pushed it down to break even.

That's unlikely. But if it did happen, your numbers are correct.

The only method I see that wouldn't be impacted by this type of wagering is playing horses that are severely overbet. That doesn't win for me, put perhaps you have a great method.

Again, I'd like to see empirical evidence to support the claims.

keep up the good work!
Jim

Thanks. I'll do my best.

[trigger]

Hi Trigger,
You wrote "Also, if the data is available somewhere in the system"
And that cuts to the heart of the point I keep trying to make. The data is _not_available in the system, to anyone.
You also wrote "If so, all betting information is available on a real time basis somewhere in their systems ."
If this were true, why wouldn't the tracks update the toteboard in real-time? The tracks ___hate hate hate___ the odds changes after the race starts. If the tracks had true real-time odds available to them, why would they keep a system they detest?
Mike Nunamaker

Mike, My point is that the info IS available in the system , it's just that the current tote system can't get it though their archaic system fast enough. As you know getting the tracks, horsemen ,etc. to address something in concert is like herding cats.....they don't do something until it threatens their existance. Hence, because bettors are seriously questioning the integrity of racing due to late odds changes, the current ancient tote system is finally going to be replaced with the Wagering Protocol which will act like a stock market buy or sell....i.e.a bet will show up in the system for everyone to see instantly. In the meantime, they suddenly come up with a work around software patch that will allow near final win odds to be posted 10 seconds after the race goes off . If they hate , hate , hate late odds changes, why didn't they do something like this patch years ago ( I think they learned from the CRW guys) ?
To me, what the CRW operators are doing is illegal. Here's another quote from the NTRA report. (Note that here they have the final odds calculation down to within a minute of race start. in this quote)
NTRA Wagering Systems Task Force :
September 2004 p.35....Now suppose there is a third class of bettors: informed program bettors. 61 These bettors not only assemble and analyze handicapping information but also have the capability, using current
information technology, to compile and project payoffs on Daily Doubles/Exactas and Exotic pools and submit high volumes of wagers within a minute prior to the start of a race. Informed program bettors are not unambiguously good for pari-mutuel wagering as long as the totalisator
system that processes their wagers – when payoff rates are in excess of the superior handicappers’ range of 90-95% – does not, or cannot, post odds changes quickly enough for other players to respond to, thereby increasing those players’ effective takeout rate. Although further research is warranted, we think it is precisely this process reflected in the effective takeout data in Exhibits 16 and 17. If that is the case, then the Thoroughbred pari-mutuel
wagering system is out of balance, at least temporarily, due to its disparate capabilities to accept and process bets. In particular, the traditional benefits may be out of balance.62 That is,recreational players traditionally have been willing to compensate informed bettors for the information they bring to the market. The current costs of that information (in the form of higher effective takeouts) now may outweigh the benefits.63
Footnotes:61 As of the writing of this report, we have not seen any evidence that illustrates the full extent of computerized batch betting or bet streaming.
62 The situation is very closely analogous to so-called market-timing issues with trading in certain mutual funds that have been the subject of investigation and litigation of late. In market-timing, certain investors were permitted to trade frequently into and out of mutual funds at “stale” Net Asset Value (“NAV”) prices. This ‘permitted these investors the opportunity to earn returns that would otherwise have been claimed by all remaining fund-holders. In other words, the market-timers had the opportunity to dilute the returns to all other investors, much in the same way that informed computer bettors dilute returns to all other recreational and informed bettors. While correcting stale NAV pricing is the long-term solution to the market-timing problem, mutual funds have traditionally barred this kind of trading, and those which, in one way or another, permitted such trading are now the subject of the current focus on this issue. For more on the market timing issue, see Dunbar, Frederick C. and Okongwu, Chudozie,“[Market] Timing Is [Not] Everything,” Wall Street Lawyer, vol. 7, no. 5, 2003.
63 The WSTF has indicated to us that these issues may be “temporary” in that potential improvements in tote systems IT would make it possible to report payoffs on a more complete and up-to-the-second basis. Thus the issue here may be thought of as seeking a temporary solution to the apparent imbalance until such time as more permanent solutions are available.

[trigger]

Hi Trigger,
You wrote "Also, if the data is available somewhere in the system"
And that cuts to the heart of the point I keep trying to make. The data is _not_available in the system, to anyone.
You also wrote "If so, all betting information is available on a real time basis somewhere in their systems ."
If this were true, why wouldn't the tracks update the toteboard in real-time? The tracks ___hate hate hate___ the odds changes after the race starts. If the tracks had true real-time odds available to them, why would they keep a system they detest?

Mike Nunamaker

Hi Mike , Here's a DRF article from today:
>>>>"Robotic wagering systems, which emerged in the U.S. in the last 10 years after the practice of rebating made the programs financially viable, typically generate large batches of wagers that are sent directly into commingled pools through the use of an interface designed by bet-processing companies. Because the systems rely on real-time odds to determine the value of the combinations of wagers, the bets are typically sent in just prior to post."<<<<
>>>>"The officials said that all computer wagering programs are linked to a player's account, and therefore, should a malfunction begin to send in wagers that exceed the player's available funds, the program would be stopped from sending in additional bets. In addition, the officials said that the robotic wagering programs do not have access to any data other than that available to racetracks and other players."<<<<
http://www.drf.com/news/article/80598.html
Now,when was the last time you, as a horse player, had access to real-time odds!!!
What Youbet is really saying is the data is available if you have unfettered electronic access to the entire tote system so you can compute real time odds using real time pools and use that information to configure your exotic bets and then electronically process hundreds of bets at the last possible millisecond. What a screw job!
Trigger

[highnote]

To me, what the CRW operators are doing is illegal.

What is illegal about it?

I don't see how it is any different from betting on self-service machine at the track, on YOUBET or online with BRISBET or one of the other account wagering companies. I've written software that analyses the toteboard. It isn't hard to do. And if you can't write it yourself, you can hire someone who can.

To me the pari-mutuel market is just like any other market. Those who try harder and are better informed make better decisions and probably more money.

Let's take the Major League Baseball for example. The Milwaukee Brewers owner and, coincidentally, Baseball Commissioner, Bud Selig, thinks there should be revenue sharing because teams like the Yankees can afford to buy the best players and a small market team like the Brewers can't afford the best players and therefore they can't compete.

Then along comes Billy Beane, GM of the Oakland A's, with a payroll a fraction of the size of the Yankees and is competitive, because he tries something different -- something no one else is doing. He uses statistics to play the game. He doesn't steal bases. He doesn't bunt, etc. because he found out statistically it is better to keep a guy on base rather than risk an out.

Beane works hard and is smarter than other GMs and his team has been the most successful of the small market teams -- even making the playoffs -- and being financially successful.

Just because he's doing something different doesn't mean what he's doing is wrong. And just because the Yankees spend 250 million on their payroll (or whatever it is) doesn't mean they are doing something wrong.

It's about the competition.

That NTRA report sounds like it was written by a bunch of crybabies. Get over it and get competitive.


Here's another quote from the NTRA report. (Note that here they have the final odds calculation down to within a minute of race start. in this quote)
NTRA Wagering Systems Task Force :
September 2004 p.35....Now suppose there is a third class of bettors: informed program bettors. 61 These bettors not only assemble and analyze handicapping information but also have the capability, using current
information technology, to compile and project payoffs on Daily Doubles/Exactas and Exotic pools and submit high volumes of wagers within a minute prior to the start of a race.

Imagine that -- a class of bettors that can assemble and analyze data better than another class of bettors. Did you know Pittsburgh Phil was banned from NY racetracks early last century because he won too much money? He worked hard and made betting his life's work. But he was too good. So the racetrack executives of the old boy's club banned him.

OK so maybe it's actually the high volumes of wagers that bother everyone so much. You know, not everyone of those wagers wins. And everytime they don't, that means more money for better informed players.

If you want to increase your betting volume, just open up several online accounts and write software to send in more bets to each of several accounts simultaneously. Of course, that would mean working harder and being clever. And investing money. But everyone wants it to be easy, I suppose. Better to take things away from hard working people than to make less industrious people work harder. Pari-mutuel socialism is what I like to call it.


Informed program bettors are not unambiguously good for pari-mutuel wagering as long as the totalisator
system that processes their wagers – when payoff rates are in excess of the superior handicappers’ range of 90-95% – does not, or cannot, post odds changes quickly enough for other players to respond to, thereby increasing those players’ effective takeout rate.

Can they write a more convoluted, less clear sentence? Jesus, I still am not sure what that means. "... when payoff rates are in excess of the superior handicappers' range of 90-95% ... " WTF does that mean? Who decided what the benchmark for superior handicappers is? Give me a f---ing break.



That is,recreational players traditionally have been willing to compensate informed bettors for the information they bring to the market.

I don't know about you, but I don't compensate informed bettors for the information they bring to the market -- at least not knowingly. Where do they get this stuff?


The current costs of that information (in the form of higher effective takeouts) now may outweigh the benefits.

Sorry, this makes no sense. Maybe someone with a sharper mind can explain this to me. I'd welcome an explanation. Thanks.

Footnotes:61 As of the writing of this report, we have not seen any evidence that illustrates the full extent of computerized batch betting or bet streaming.

Maybe they should get some hard data before throwing around allegations as if they're true.

The situation is very closely analogous to so-called market-timing issues with trading in certain mutual funds that have been the subject of investigation and litigation of late.

The situation is nothing like market timing of certain mutual funds. This is a big stretch and an incredibly weak argument. Gotta be the dumbest thing I've read from this report, yet.


In market-timing, certain investors were permitted to trade frequently into and out of mutual funds at “stale” Net Asset Value (“NAV”) prices.

How the hell do you trade in and out of a pari-mutuel market? Does their argument get any weaker? Let's see...

This ‘permitted these investors the opportunity to earn returns that
would otherwise have been claimed by all remaining fund-holders. In other words, the market-timers had the opportunity to dilute the returns to all other investors, much in the same way that informed computer bettors dilute returns to all other recreational and informed bettors.

OK. Now I see what they are getting at. They're saying better informed bettors dilute the returns to all other recreational and informed bettors.

Again, I disagree. So informed bettors are diluting the returns to all other informed bettors. OK, so which class of informed bettors should be eliminated -- the informed ones, or the informed ones? Yeah, that makes sense.



While correcting stale NAV pricing is the long-term solution to the market-timing problem, mutual funds have traditionally barred this kind of trading, and those which, in one way or another, permitted such trading are now the subject of the current focus on this issue. For more on the market timing issue, see Dunbar, Frederick C. and Okongwu, Chudozie,“[Market] Timing Is [Not] Everything,” Wall Street Lawyer, vol. 7, no. 5, 2003.
63 The WSTF has indicated to us that these issues may be “temporary” in that potential improvements in tote systems IT would make it possible to report payoffs on a more complete and up-to-the-second basis. Thus the issue here may be thought of as seeking a temporary solution to the apparent imbalance until such time as more permanent solutions are available.

So it sounds like the big problem is that some players are too good for the current system. In essence, professional bettors have an unfair advantage over recreational bettors.

I can tell you one thing for certain. You can ban CRWs, but you can't ban winning players. CRWs will just find another way to win. I can hear the complaints now -- "Those professional betting companies employ 10 or 15 people to go out to the track to stand in line and make bets at the last minute while receiving instructions via cell phone from a central dispatcher. And they also have 10 or 15 phone accounts with employees calling in multiple bets at the last minutes. It just isn't fair."

[highnote]

Because the systems rely on real-time odds to determine the value of the combinations of wagers, the bets are typically sent in just prior to post

BRIS Supertote shows real-time odds. And it's freely accessible.


In addition, the officials said that the robotic wagering programs do not have access to any data other than that available to racetracks and other players."

Fair enough.


Now,when was the last time you, as a horse player, had access to real-time odds!!!

How about every time I turn on my computer and access BRIS Supertote, DRF toteboard, Racing Channel toteboard, YouBet toteboard, or a myriad of other online or ontrack toteboards.

What Youbet is really saying is the data is available if you have unfettered electronic access to the entire tote system so you can compute real time odds using real time pools and use that information to configure your exotic bets and then electronically process hundreds of bets at the last possible millisecond. What a screw job!
Trigger

That's not at all what they said. You quoted them yourself as saying "robotic wagering programs do not have access to any data other than that available to racetracks and other players."

[PaceAdvantage]

Now,when was the last time you, as a horse player, had access to real-time odds!!!
What Youbet is really saying is the data is available if you have unfettered electronic access to the entire tote system so you can compute real time odds using real time pools and use that information to configure your exotic bets and then electronically process hundreds of bets at the last possible millisecond. What a screw job!
Trigger


If you are still trying to imply that these "robotic" wagering systems have access to bets AS THEY ARE PLACED (or, in stock market terms, TICK by TICK data), then you are mistaken. That capability doesn't exist, for the reasons MikeN states. They will get CLOSER to that kind of reality when these new updates are implemented, but even then, they will NOT be true bet by bet updates.....

JUst because an article says "Real Time" it doesn't mean instantaneous updates of pools as wagers are placed. The YouBet and BRIS tote-boards are real time.....as real as the tote board at the track is real time....

[arkansasman]

I agree with Swetyejohn. What is the big deal with CRW's? If they ban CRW's, they will do what I have written below.


I can tell you one thing for certain. You can ban CRWs, but you can't ban winning players. CRWs will just find another way to win. I can hear the complaints now -- "Those professional betting companies employ 10 or 15 people to go out to the track to stand in line and make bets at the last minute while receiving instructions via cell phone from a central dispatcher. And they also have 10 or 15 phone accounts with employees calling in multiple bets at the last minutes. It just isn't fair."

I asked the team leader of one of the 4 computer teams betting in the USA about CRW's and he said they did not use CRW's. He said they set up a phone room and they call in their bets.

I can only guess that they did not want to draw attention to their betting, but that is only a guess on my part.

[PlanB]

I've never known what CRWs were before reading this post. But I have 1 question: How could YouBet accomplish this sophisticated strategy. Everytime
I access it, usually at my office at lunchtime, the video is sub-par & the signal
goes in & out. I just think YouBet's technology is pre-digital to begin with.

[highnote]

I asked the team leader of one of the 4 computer teams betting in the USA about CRW's and he said they did not use CRW's. He said they set up a phone room and they call in their bets.

I can only guess that they did not want to draw attention to their betting, but that is only a guess on my part.

Well, there you have it. You don't need to have CRW to be profitable.

Winners find a way to win.

[highnote]

I've never known what CRWs were before reading this post. But I have 1 question: How could YouBet accomplish this sophisticated strategy. Everytime
I access it, usually at my office at lunchtime, the video is sub-par & the signal
goes in & out. I just think YouBet's technology is pre-digital to begin with.

I was a beta tester for YOUBET when they were first coming online. I don't remember what year it was -- 1997?

At that time, I recommended to them that they should allow for users and YOUBET's computers to talk to each other without a Graphical User Interface so that the home user could send in bets automatically without having to use a mouse to click through several screens just to send in a bet.

The concept was too new at the time and was not what they were trying to accomplish. It is my understanding that some users have had that ability since then.

I'm not sure if YOUBETs subsidiary IRG in Curacao provides a CRW hookup for their customers.

[trigger]

Swetyejohn and others, The crux of this discussion centers on whether or not one believes the so-called CRW operators have an unfair advantage over the rest of us bettors(informed,recreational,whatever) when wagering in the pari-mutuel setting. I believe they do because I believe from the information out there about these systems that they can electronically access more up-to-date wagering pool data from the tote system than the rest of us. I'm not talking about manipulating and projecting the final odds and pools using the information that shows up on tote boards at Youbet, Bris , or at the track ....I'm talking about the ability to "see" real hard data on pools within the tote system before anyone else.
If you don't believe this is happening then you don't see any problem. If you do, then you believe the pari-mutuel system is broken and needs to be fixed.
Trigger

[arkansasman]

You can get more up to date information regarding pools by hooking up with LVDC. I really don't know how to do this, but I have a friend who use to access the pools through LVDC and bet through Elite.

[trigger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasman
I asked the team leader of one of the 4 computer teams betting in the USA about CRW's and he said they did not use CRW's. He said they set up a phone room and they call in their bets.

I can only guess that they did not want to draw attention to their betting, but that is only a guess on my part.


Well, there you have it. You don't need to have CRW to be profitable.
Winners find a way to win.

Swety, I have no problem with the extensive use of computers or computer teams to handicap like the famous gambler in Hong Kong (forget his name). My problem is giving one set of bettors an unfair advantage through exclusive access to more up to date tote info (which the Hong Kong guy didn't do). Trigger

[highnote]

....I'm talking about the ability to "see" real hard data on pools within the tote system before anyone else.
If you don't believe this is happening then you don't see any problem. If you do, then you believe the pari-mutuel system is broken and needs to be fixed.
Trigger

I have seen no evidence that this is happening. And even it it was, I don't see how the information is any more valuable than what is already available.

The online totes don't have access to this data. The only way to get this data is from the tracks themselves. I seriously doubt the tracks are letting a few privileged bettors access this info. And even if one track did, it's doubtful that those same bettors would have access to the hard data of every track in the country. Those privileged bettors would need to have good relations with the mutuel department of every track.

It would be harder to pull off that conspiracy than a US gov't JFK assissination or a plot by our own gov't to do the 911 attacks. It's ludicrous.

[westbridge]

1. Computer teams do not have access to secret information. They do not need secret info to win. Their advantages are speed, consistence, and abilities to quantify values.

2. Truely math based computer teams bet values, not probability to win. Many teams do not know the exact bet list until the final calculation is made. The bet mix is usually everywhere instead of all keying in to a horse. So the idea of posting bets after the gate open, depending on whether a particular horse breaks well, is a myth.

3. The proposed forced update at shorter interval will bring substantial benefits to the computer teams as well. They will have more accurate information to act on.

4. Finally and most important, using computers and math to gamble is not a crime. It's a natural progression & maturation of any financial market.

The only way to wipe out computer teams is to withhold information - such as not publicizing length beaten, weight carried, gear, running distance, track conditions, race condition, etc...

[highnote]

West,

I agree. You can go to almost any racing market in the world -- markets with less info than is available in the US -- and betting syndicates still win.

As long as there is an edge and money to be made there will be people using all available means to win.

That is what makes markets so much fun to participate in.

If you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen.

[Pace Cap'n]

So, the ND whale had his account suspended...WHY?

And Oaklawn, Tampa Bay, and NTRA are just misguided and misinformed?

[Dave Schwartz]

Pace,

His account was not suspended. The bet-taking organization was suspended.


Dave

[highnote]

And Oaklawn, Tampa Bay, and NTRA are just misguided and misinformed?

And Churchill, Santa Anita, Bay Meadows, Mountaineer, Laurel, Pimlico, Calder, Gulfstream, Sam Houston, Arlington, Prairie Meadows, Albuquerque, Suffolk, Meadowlands, Finger Lakes, NYRA, etc., etc., etc., are misinformed?

[Indulto]

Wow! What an amazing thread. This one has to make everybody’s “Best of PaceAdvantage” top ten! It was like watching a trial prosecuted by trigger, defended by swetyejohn, with a few “expert witnesses” chiming in. ;)

My “Johnny Cochran” award goes to …... If you want to increase your betting volume, just open up several online accounts and write software to send in more bets to each of several accounts simultaneously. Of course, that would mean working harder and being clever. And investing money. But everyone wants it to be easy, I suppose. Better to take things away from hard working people than to make less industrious people work harder. Pari-mutuel socialism is what I like to call it. :lol:

I would appreciate some clarification of this exchange though:… What Youbet is really saying is the data is available if you have unfettered electronic access to the entire tote system so you can compute real time odds using real time pools and use that information to configure your exotic bets and then electronically process hundreds of bets at the last possible millisecond. What a screw job!... That's not at all what they said. You quoted them yourself as saying "robotic wagering programs do not have access to any data other than that available to racetracks and other players." This is probably nitpicking, but it still isn’t clear to me whether ALL “other players” have access to the SAME data as “that available to racetracks.” Nor why -- if one has access to all pool data at the racetrack, but not the hub -- one’s advantage would not still be considerable.

While not summing up the prosecution’s case, “juror” Point Given reached some important conclusions:The arguments and logic which Trigger is voicing are concurrent with mine, so I see no need to duplicate the points.

One point though is banging around in my head. REmember the old saying " even when I win I lose " ? Well, in this case , the CW's have a similar one but different; " even when I lose I win " ! It is no longer a level playing field and it bothers me a great deal, to the point where I have to question further participation in the game.What you say is true to an extent. However; I am not a win bettor, I bet exotics. When value is taken from the exacta pool by the CWP, that leaves the tri and picks. (don't play supersmuch). Now I didnot know before the Calder P3 incident that CPW are into the P3 pools. I previously posted that I donot play the west coast p3's much do to the rolling daily doubles. Now, I wonder about other p3 pools as well. That leaves me with the tri , which is why I would like to see more widespread acceptance of the 50 cent tri at other tracks. Other than that I will tread very lightly in Magna and CD owned track waters. I prefer a level playing field that Tampa Bay , Oaklawn and NYRA provide.
I’m also not clear as to which exotic pool combination payoffs can be approximated by CRWs. I don’t think I would object to the pool access aspect if I could also stick my exotic ticket into a machine (or paste/key my transaction content on my PC) to display the approximate payoff(s) at the time.

Now the rebate issue is something else again, and while it hasn’t driven an excessive number of existing horseplayers to other forms of gambling, IMO it will surely lower recruitment levels of individuals who now have gambling alternatives that weren’t available when many here got started.

So, SJ, is it also “pari-mutuel socialism” to seek lower wager minimums? Seems to me I’d work harder to structure all the additional combinations I’d then be able to afford. :D

[highnote]

So, SJ, is it also “pari-mutuel socialism” to seek lower wager minimums? Seems to me I’d work harder to structure all the additional combinations I’d then be able to afford. :D

I'm all for lower minimums. I think it means more money spread around in the various pools. That's gotta be good for everyone!

[trigger]

If you are still trying to imply that these "robotic" wagering systems have access to bets AS THEY ARE PLACED (or, in stock market terms, TICK by TICK data), then you are mistaken. That capability doesn't exist, for the reasons MikeN states. They will get CLOSER to that kind of reality when these new updates are implemented, but even then, they will NOT be true bet by bet updates.....
JUst because an article says "Real Time" it doesn't mean instantaneous updates of pools as wagers are placed. The YouBet and BRIS tote-boards are real time.....as real as the tote board at the track is real time....

PA, I don't know if CRW operators have access to tick by tick wagering data but imho they are getting enough data that is more current than what the other bettors get to enable them to use their arbitrage programs (with the help of the tote companies and tracks) to grind out substantial profits at a expense of the rest of us bettors.
BTW,it's interesting that the other bettors are the only losers in this "racket"...the tracks, the totes, and the ADW firms get their piece of the takeout and the CRW operator gets his profit while the bettor gets screwed with lower payoffs on winning tickets.
Here's a quote from the DRF article: "Robotic wagering systems, which emerged in the U.S. in the last 10 years after the practice of rebating made the programs financially viable, typically generate large batches of wagers that are sent directly into commingled pools through the use of an interface designed by bet-processing companies."
http://www.drf.com/news/article/80598.html
Doesn't it make you uneasy at least a little bit that the tote companies and, in this case, specifically United Tote has written a special "interface" program to handle the bets of a lone Youbet CRW operator...it does me. When is the last time a tote company wrote a program for you? What the hell is a tote company even doing thinking about writing a program for a special class of bettor to facilitate that bettors wagering (or whatever)....every bettor should be treated the same by a tote company's system.
I'm mad as hell and won't take it any more!!!!! Trigger

[highnote]

I'm mad as hell and won't take it any more!!!!! Trigger

What do you plan on doing about?

If you stop wagering and you're a winning player, that's good for the rest of us.

If you stop wagering and you're a losing player, we will all hate to see you leave.

If you have another plan, I'm sure a lot of us would be interested in hearing it. We can try to give constructive feedback. Everyone would benefit from improvements in the tote.

One thing you have to remember, this is all market driven. If it's viable for the totes to write special software for large customers, it's only because the totes will realize a return on their investment. They're business people first.

Once the new systems have been put in place and tested they should trickle down to the rest of us. As I have said ad infinitum, if you spend a little time and money you too can bet with a computer on BRISBET or some other wagering service provider. Time marches on and things change. Someday we might all be betting this way.

Large flat screen TVs were thousands of dollars just a couple years ago. I saw some nice ones last week for under $1,000. I paid $800 for my 27" Sony almost 20 years ago. It's a beautiful TV and still works great. So a price of under $1000 for a new flat screen adjusted for inflation is probably less than that Sony of 20 years ago. The price of flat screens continue to drop as manufacturing becomes more effecient and more TVs are sold to cover the cost of the production.

The point I'm trying to make is that these systems need to be paid for. It may not be cost effective to roll out these system en masse. They aren't free. Once the tote industry sees the benefit of allowing this type of wagering and the return on investment has covered the costs it will become more common place. In the meantime, someone has to foot the bill. These CRWs may spend a million dollars just getting their systems in place. I have no problem with them getting a price reduction for doing a large volume of business. No different than any other business. These are the people who are on the cutting edge and paving the way for the way we'll be betting in the future.

The only alternative I hear from those who oppose these systems is to shut them down. That isn't going to happen.

So I'd like to hear alternative plans.

[Indulto]

Originally Posted by trigger
I'm mad as hell and won't take it any more!!!!! TriggerWhat do you plan on doing about?

If you stop wagering and you're a winning player, that's good for the rest of us.

If you stop wagering and you're a losing player, we will all hate to see you leave.

If you have another plan, I'm sure a lot of us would be interested in hearing it. We can try to give constructive feedback. Everyone would benefit from improvements in the tote.

One thing you have to remember, this is all market driven.

... The only alternative I hear from those who oppose these systems is to shut them down. That isn't going to happen.

So I'd like to hear alternative plans.Do I detect somewhat of a "We do it because we can" attitude here?

That the game is being run for the benefit of the taxing authorities, the tracks, and now of huge bettors with "unfair" advantages, says to me that walking away -- at least for some period of time -- is the appropriate alternative. If enough non-professionals are willing to withdraw, they will be very effective in stopping this.

From a practical standpoint, there is a limit to the number of races I can analyze over any given period. From now on, I will not knowingly wager on races at any track which permits bettors direct access to their pools. I love the game, but I can still enjoy a race without making a bet, and the odor of greed and power handicaps my ability to make allowances for this wired world of non-sports.

Any suggestions as to how to go about becoming a "pari-mutuel socialist" activist without getting involved with hackers or "financial" terrorists?" ;)

[highnote]

As Arkansasman pointed out, you can shut down the CRWs but you can't shut out winning players.

It is market driven. If the market changes then winning bettors will adjust. Winning bettors will bet wherever they find an edge. If it can be done, someone will find a way to do it.

Personally, I think there are more opportunities now than ever before to be a winning player -- especially in the straight pools. There are so many types of bets to make other than win, place, show, daily double and exacta and those exotics are where you'll find the CRWs.

In the old days there was only win,place,show and dd. Those are pools that CRWs probably avoid. If a regular player focuses on those pools he/she should do pretty well. Those are the easiest to understand and they don't require a big computer to scan the pools looking for mispricings. It's actually not hard to scan the exactas, but the problem is having enough time to scan them and the straight pools manually.

When my friend and I used to go to the track every weekend I watched him make a lot of money just betting to win. He rarely bet an exacta. He was strictly a win bettor. He always found incredible value by being a paddock handicapper. He watched the best horses on the grounds -- the NYRA graded stakes horses -- and only bet them. He was a specialist. He had information that no one else had and he bet a lot. It was a lot of work. Now he bets less and is undoubtedly happier being a journalist -- less of a grind.

Was it unfair that he could go to the track and see the horses live and a handicapper in St. Louis couldn't? He had a huge edge, should he have not been allowed to exploit it? Should he have been forced to make his paddock knowledge public? Should he have been banned from the pool for being too good because he was winning?

Pari-mutuelly, you have to do what no one else is doing.

I say, go out and find an edge of your own and exploit it and quit bellyaching about those who have found an edge.

Or, if you can't be 'em, join 'em.

[Indulto]

It is market driven. If the market changes then winning bettors will adjust. Winning bettors will bet wherever they find an edge. If it can be done, someone will find a way to do it.Agreed. That's how CRWs got here in the first place.Personally, I think there are more opportunities now than ever before to be a winning player -- especially in the straight pools. There are so many types of bets to make other than win, place, show, daily double and exacta and those exotics are where you'll find the CRWs.

In the old days there was only win,place,show and dd. Those are pools that CRWs probably avoid. If a regular player focuses on those pools he/she should do pretty well. Those are the easiest to understand and they don't require a big computer to scan the pools looking for mispricings. It's actually not hard to scan the exactas, but the problem is having enough time to scan them and the straight pools manually. You are probably right, but the limited return is too small which may be why the CRWs are ignoring them.Was it unfair that he could go to the track and see the horses live and a handicapper in St. Louis couldn't? He had a huge edge, should he have not been allowed to exploit it? Should he have been forced to make his paddock knowledge public? Should he have been banned from the pool for being too good because he was winning? :lol:
That's why I never miss any of your posts. ;) Pari-mutuelly, you have to do what no one else is doing.

I say, go out and find an edge of your own and exploit it and quit bellyaching about those who have found an edge.

Or, if you can't be 'em, join 'em.Ah, the power of positive thinking. I only hope those capable of thinking outside the box aren't more Drexel boys dreaming up ways to put themselves in one.

Seriously, SJ, you arguments are valid, but so is protest.

Like Bullwinkle, horseplayers don't know their own strength. :D

[the little guy]

I haven't followed this discussion very closely, to say the least, but isn't one of the things the pari-mutual system is SUPPOSED to be about is providing no unfair advantages to some of the players?

It seems to me if any tote company is giving ANY information to certain individuals that isn't available to everyone then that is a violation of the entire system.

And, once again everyone, you're all very welcome....you're really too kind.

[cj]

Steve Crist covers this in his latest DRF article (http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=80604) as well.

The question that lingers is what kind of arbitrage system, the foundation of which is to exploit discrepancies between odds and actual probabilities, would be robotically triggered to play the pick three, a multirace pool where possible payoffs are supposed to be kept secret until the first two legs have been run?

...it has been well established in the past that some high-tech bettors do receive mutuel feeds containing information not available to the general public.

[the little guy]

And isn't this the crux of the problem?

[cj]

And isn't this the crux of the problem?

I tried to quote the part I felt was the crux.

I'm not so interested in the second part, seems that might be going a little bit too far. If I want to bet $2,000 a race on some jockey, it really isn't anyone else's business.

[the little guy]

I tried to quote the part I felt was the crux.

I'm not so interested in the second part, seems that might be going a little bit too far. If I want to bet $2,000 a race on some jockey, it really isn't anyone else's business.


You try writing a couple columns every week.

I think the part about the guy betting Borel was more entertainment. Believe it or not, and I know this will come as a shock to many, the intricacies of this story aren't of interest to everyone. A good writer knows his entire audience.

[cj]

I hear you, and wasn't knocking the writing. It was amusing, in a sad, sick sort of way.

[Dave Schwartz]

...it has been well established in the past that some high-tech bettors do receive mutuel feeds containing information not available to the general public.


This is an untrue statement.

They do not get information that is not available to everyone else. They simply get slightly more current information and can act on it closer to post time.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[the little guy]

I hear you, and wasn't knocking the writing. It was amusing, in a sad, sick sort of way.


I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.



I never thought you were. I was pointing out that we were both discussing the real crux of the story. Sometimes that gets lost.

Not that that's always a bad thing.

[the little guy]

This is an untrue statement.

They do not get information that is not available to everyone else. They simply get slightly more current information and can act on it closer to post time.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz


That is some combination of double talk and BS.

[Indulto]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
This is an untrue statement.

They do not get information that is not available to everyone else. They simply get slightly more current information and can act on it closer to post time.

Regards,
Dave SchwartzThat is some combination of double talk and BS.
:lol: I haven't followed this discussion very closely, to say the least, but isn't one of the things the pari-mutual system is SUPPOSED to be about is providing no unfair advantages to some of the players?

It seems to me if any tote company is giving ANY information to certain individuals that isn't available to everyone then that is a violation of the entire system.

And, once again everyone, you're all very welcome....you're really too kind.Exactly how did cj get his information regarding your involvement and how did you come into possession of it in the first place? One can't be a hero if nobody knows about it. Not saying it's the equivalent of an arsonist calling the Fire Dept., but you get my point.

You want huzzahs? Give us the whole story. Otherwise, don't strain yourself patting your own back. ;)

[highnote]

This is an untrue statement.

They do not get information that is not available to everyone else. They simply get slightly more current information and can act on it closer to post time.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz


Dave,
I certainly agree that "they" don't get any information that I don't get.

I'm not sure I agree that they get slightly more current information than I am able to get, but maybe they do. If so, how, and from whom?

I can get slightly more current information, too, depending on which online toteboard I connect to. I think it is up to the end user to find the most efficient source of information. Some people can't afford a Daily Racing Form so they buy the NY Post for 50 cents and get the public handicappers' picks. Is it my fault they can't or won't spend the extra money for better information?

If someone wants to use BRIS Supertote which is slower in my experience than PhoneBet is it my fault they person can't or won't do the research to find the best service available. Supertote, freebie that they are, doesn't supply the place and show pools for some tracks. So maybe they have to sign up with BRISBET instead to get all the pools. If they aren't willing to take the extra step should those of us who are all suffer?

If some bettors are getting information quicker and are connecting to the host tracks' betting pools directly I want to know who, what, when, where and how. I haven't been shown any "well established" evidence that they are.

These tote companies are run by businesspeople. I'm sure that if you contact them and show them how you are going to bring them extra business they will try to work with you. If you're a two dollar bettor they probably can't work with you. I'm sure there is some point of marginal utility below which it just isn't feasible to provide a feed. But again, as this segment of the industry grows it may someday be feasible. Or maybe there will be a premium service one can subscribe to -- like YouBet.

No one is complaining because some people can afford to buy premium products from DRF in order to get an edge. Or what about people who pay to buy videotaped replays of races in order to study them and to get an edge? Should that be banned, too? Should paddock handicapping be banned because some people live across from the track and can be there everyday to study the horses in the flesh and most others can't? Should Len Friedman been banned because he was using Ragozin sheets, a product most weren't willing to spend money on, to make a lot of money betting? Or should the Sheets have been banned because everyone didn't have equal access to them?

Besides, if everyone was given this supposed special extra tote information how many people would actually know what to do with it? You'd still need software to connect to the tote. The tote companies aren't going to write special interfaces for everyone. You'd have to write it yourself. How many know how to do that? And assuming you did know how to do that, then you'd have to write software that would use your system to exploit the information. How many people even have a system that could exploit the data if they had access to the data?

Steve Crist writes: The question that lingers is what kind of arbitrage system, the foundation of which is to exploit discrepancies between odds and actual probabilities, would be robotically triggered to play the pick three, a multirace pool where possible payoffs are supposed to be kept secret until the first two legs have been run?

How about the kind of system that only uses the odds of the first leg and then uses estimated odds based on a computer model which might incorporate the ML odds as one of the factors? It's not that difficult, Steve. You can estimate the payoffs -- doesn't mean you're 100% sure what the payoffs are. In fact, you may be way off. But if you look at 100 or 1000 past pick-3s at a certain track maybe you can start to make some pretty good estimates. Hell, just having an edge in the first leg might be enough to make the bet profitable. Everyone knows from reading Quinn that the pick-3 is one of the best bets. So maybe there is enough room for error that you can make a reasonable guess as to what the will pays are and make a profit.

All I can say is this talk sounds like Bud Selig complaining that the Yankees have an unfair advantage because they can spend more money on players because they are in a bigger market and this somehow allows them to buy a World Series. The Oakland A's learned how to compete, so did the Marlins. I think I read recently that 7 different teams have won the World Series in the last 7 years. OK Bud, rather than waste time complaining why don't you go and figure out how to field a more competitive team?

Reminds me of a line from a George Harrison song -- "It's easier to see somebody else's wealth, than to see yourself."

I've heard a lot of talk, but I have not heard one convincing argument that certain individuals have an unfair edge that isn't available to everyone. As far as I can tell, everything that one individual can do or buy to get an edge is available to everyone.

Actually, there is one unfair advantage that some people have -- some people are a lot smarter than me and know how to get a bigger edge in a tough game. I can only blame myself for not learning more and blame my parents for not giving me better genes. :D Although, my parents might disagree -- and they'd probably be right. It was my choice to spend a lot of time on racing. They didn't force it on me.

[Dave Schwartz]

Indulto,

That is some combination of double talk and BS.

I am afraid I don't understand what you mean. Could you please be more specific?


Dave Schwartz

[Indulto]

... Some people can't afford a Daily Racing Form so they buy the NY Post for 50 cents and get the public handicappers' picks. Is it my fault they can't or won't spend the extra money for better information?

... If some bettors are getting information quicker and are connecting to the host tracks' betting pools directly I want to know who, what, when, where and how. I haven't been shown any "well established" evidence that they are.

... No one is complaining because some people can afford to buy premium products from DRF in order to get an edge. Or what about people who pay to buy videotaped replays of races in order to study them and to get an edge? Should that be banned, too? Should paddock handicapping be banned because some people live across from the track and can be there everyday to study the horses in the flesh and most others can't? Should Len Friedman been banned because he was using Ragozin sheets, a product most weren't willing to spend money on, to make a lot of money betting? Or should the Sheets have been banned because everyone didn't have equal access to them?

... Reminds me of a line from a George Harrison song -- "It's easier to see somebody else's wealth, than to see yourself."

I've heard a lot of talk, but I have not heard one convincing argument that certain individuals have an unfair edge that isn't available to everyone. As far as I can tell, everything that one individual can do or buy to get an edge is available to everyone.

Actually, there is one unfair advantage that some people have -- some people are a lot smarter than me and know how to get a bigger edge in a tough game. I can only blame myself for not learning more and blame my parents for not giving me better genes. :D Although, my parents might disagree -- and they'd probably be right. It was my choice to spend a lot of time on racing. They didn't force it on me.:lol: I love it!

SJ,
Were you entered in either of Connecticut's Senatorial primaries? ;)

So it all boils down to "you can have whatever you want as long as you can pay for it." (OK, now I know which primary.:D)

I don't know which is worse -- finding myself on the same side of an issue as tlg, or trying to argue with arguably the most logical mind on the board.

This issue can only be decided by horseplayers, collectively, who will have to vote with their feet and their fingers by not using them, temporarily, to transact wagers in all the wrong places. And you may have done us all a great service by framing the issue in a way to get us off the dime. :ThmbUp:

[Indulto]

Indulto,

I am afraid I don't understand what you mean. Could you please be more specific?

Dave SchwartzDS,
No offense or derision on my part was intended in your direction.

Aside from being surprised at tlg's "mutual take" on the issue, his expression was actually funny, and he finally made me laugh for the first time. I knew that I'd never remember why it was so funny unless I included the post he was responding to.

Permission to carry on, Sir? ;)

[highnote]

So it all boils down to "you can have whatever you want as long as you can pay for it." (OK, now I know which primary.:D)

I'm not militant about it. To a degree, if you are willing to spend some money you should be able to get preferred service. But only to a degree. At some point the playing field tilts too far. The question is, at what point? I don't think anyone has reached that point, yet, where they have such a big advantage that everyone else is disadvantaged. If that was the case then there would be no non-rebate, on-track bettors making a profit. I assume there are people on PA making money at racing and not getting rebates. Am I right?


I don't know which is worse -- finding myself on the same side of an issue as tlg, or trying to argue with arguably the most logical mind on the board.

Thanks for the compliment. I don't see myself as the most logical mind on the board. I pale in comparison to GameTheory.



This issue can only be decided by horseplayers, collectively, who will have to vote with their feet and their fingers by not using them, temporarily, to transact wagers in all the wrong places.

I agree. The one power we all have is personal power. We can choose whether or not we want to participate. Every dollar we bet is a vote that tells the industry that everything is OK.

And you may have done us all a great service by framing the issue in a way to get us off the dime. :ThmbUp:

Then I have done my job! The more we debate and participate the more we can move the industry forward.

Now let's get on our elected officials asses and get some favorable online gaming legislation passed!! :ThmbUp:

Let me rephrase that :D -- let's encourage our elected officials to get off their asses and pass some favorable online gaming legislation.

[Indulto]

Now let's get on our elected officials asses and get some favorable online gaming legislation passed!! :ThmbUp:

Let me rephrase that :D -- let's encourage our elected officials to get off their asses and pass some favorable online gaming legislation.Your act is hard to Foley, but we're on the same page.;)

[1st time lasix]

What is this that all you guys are not understanding???? According to the executive at the tote company.....there are batch computer players out there that are able to monitor the first twenty seconds of a race AFTER the gates open BEFORE they enter their wager. For goodness sake.....forget the information they may or may not have on the pools men.....they have an unfair advantage! They never play on horses that miss the break, get bumbed hard, lose their rider or stumble. They wait for good early speed/presser types that get into their favored position. Push their button and get rebates on top of it. I will never ever bet into the win pools at a venue that accepts this money. It is ludicrous/foolish to say that you welcome this money into the pools.

[highnote]

What is this that all you guys are not understanding???? According to the executive at the tote company.....there are batch computer players out there that are able to monitor the first twenty seconds of a race AFTER the gates open BEFORE they enter their wager. For goodness sake.....forget the information they may or may not have on the pools men.....they have an unfair advantage! They never play on horses that miss the break, get bumbed hard, lose their rider or stumble. They wait for good early speed/presser types that get into their favored position. Push their button and get rebates on top of it. I will never ever bet into the win pools at a venue that accepts this money. It is ludicrous/foolish to say that you welcome this money into the pools.


Just because one executive says that, we're supposed to take it at face value?

If that is happening I'd think the State Police and the FBI would be investigating.

Where's the proof?
Who is doing this late betting?
What track and/or tote company is allowing it?
What track or tote company is allowing batch wagering?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Pace Cap'n]

I believe most tote systems have a "hold/cancel" feature--that has been stated here without drawing much dissent. That would give the "hard-wired" bettor a huge advantage as he would indeed be able to affect a wager after the gate opens. Only someone directly connected to the tote system would have this benefit.

As far as an investigation, I think that is precisely what some of us here would like to see.

[PaceAdvantage]

What is this that all you guys are not understanding???? According to the executive at the tote company.....there are batch computer players out there that are able to monitor the first twenty seconds of a race AFTER the gates open BEFORE they enter their wager.

A tote executive publicly stated that some computer batch players can place a wager after the gates open? How did I miss that? Link anyone?

[cj]

[size=2]:lol: Exactly how did cj get his information regarding your involvement and how did you come into possession of it in the first place? One can't be a hero if nobody knows about it. Not saying it's the equivalent of an arsonist calling the Fire Dept., but you get my point.

You want huzzahs? Give us the whole story. Otherwise, don't strain yourself patting your own back. ;)

Believe it or not, the little guy isn't the only person I know in the industry that has information not available to the public. I doubt the little guy would have brought up his involvement at all. Seeing how he seems to be a target here many times, I thought I'd mention his looking out for horseplayers.

[the little guy]

[size=2]:lol: Exactly how did cj get his information regarding your involvement and how did you come into possession of it in the first place? One can't be a hero if nobody knows about it. Not saying it's the equivalent of an arsonist calling the Fire Dept., but you get my point.

You want huzzahs? Give us the whole story. Otherwise, don't strain yourself patting your own back. ;)


No offense, but this is a classic example of what I have found offensive about many of your posts ( and not necessarily ones only directed towards me ). I am probably reading you incorrectly, but it seems like you are often almost preposterously demanding, as though because you say " why " or " how " you deserve an answer. Sorry, but you don't always.

Believe it or not, CJ and I don't only converse on this board, and he is often privy to things I know. " Exactly how " is neither relevant nor any of your business. Nothing personal. And, how I came to know about this story is also none of your business.

I don't want " huzzahs ", nor do I want to be a hero, and am only joking about it because of the obvious lack of interest in just about anything I may have to say around here. One tends to notice things concerning themselves more than others and I notice a lot.

[the little guy]

I should add that I am extremely excited to see a quote from George Harrison in this thread. Now THAT makes it all worthwhile.

[westbridge]

What is this that all you guys are not understanding???? According to the executive at the tote company.....there are batch computer players out there that are able to monitor the first twenty seconds of a race AFTER the gates open BEFORE they enter their wager. For goodness sake.....forget the information they may or may not have on the pools men.....they have an unfair advantage! They never play on horses that miss the break, get bumbed hard, lose their rider or stumble. They wait for good early speed/presser types that get into their favored position. Push their button and get rebates on top of it. I will never ever bet into the win pools at a venue that accepts this money. It is ludicrous/foolish to say that you welcome this money into the pools.

You probably have never seen how a real probability model based computer player work. (I believe Dave Schwartz had a good characterization in a similar discussion about 1 year ago.)

Usually a computer player's bet list is not keyed to a single horse, and thus it's not critical whether a particular horse breaks clearly or not. What you are talking about probably applies more to insider betting than computer teams.

BTW if you know which hub accepts bets after the gate open, please let me know. The one I am using now surely do not allow such practice. And I don't even have access to any pool information not already available to the public in one form or the other. And they don't give me any software application, they just provided me a communication protocol specifications in a Word file, and I have to write my own software to use the protocol. What a bad deal I have got myself into. :bang:

[Light]

I am not really following this thread but regarding betting after the gates are open is not something you need special software for. A friend of mine(not ToeToe) who loves to play speed horses,stands by the betting machine (at the track) and watches the monitor when the gates open. He has his bet all punched in. Its just a matter of betting it or canceling it. So if his horse gets out successfully,he pushes the button to accept the bet,if it doesnt he cancels it. There seems to be about 1 or 2 seconds after the gates open and the bell rings,that it is still possible to bet using the tracks own machines. I have seen him do this at least a half a dozen times.

[westbridge]

I am not really following this thread but regarding betting after the gates are open is not something you need special software for. A friend of mine(not ToeToe) who loves to play speed horses,stands by the betting machine (at the track) and watches the monitor when the gates open. He has his bet all punched in. Its just a matter of betting it or canceling it. So if his horse gets out successfully,he pushes the button to accept the bet,if it doesnt he cancels it. There seems to be about 1 or 2 seconds after the gates open and the bell rings,that it is still possible to bet using the tracks own machines. I have seen him do this at least a half a dozen times.

I assume you are at least partly responding to my post...

I wasn't saying it's impossible to bet after gate open. I was saying computer teams do not need to.

[highnote]

I assume you are at least partly responding to my post...

I wasn't saying it's impossible to bet after gate open. I was saying computer teams do not need to.


West,

For the record, I agree with you on both points.

It might be possible to bet after the gate opens -- especially on a tote machine at the track. However, it seems unlikely that you could bet after the gate opens from a remote location. I think there would be too much of a time delay.

I don't know exactly how the betting works. If I was the designer, I would think that when the gates open a time stamp is recorded. Any bet that comes in from a hub with a late time stamp can not be accepted.

Maybe it is not designed that way. The more I think about it, the more I think it is possible to bet after the gate opens. However, it seems unlikely that it's happening and people are getting away with it and making a fortune.

js

[cj]

I really don't think this was intended to talk about people betting after the gate opens. It was about some people having access to certain information that others do not. Information that should be publically available or not at all.

It seems these guys have access to Pick 3 pool information. I don't know if they do, but it seems that way to me. They probably also have access to trifecta pool information, pick 4 pool information, and other things that are not available at BrisBet, YouBet, or on track. Isn't that a cause for concern as a hugely unfair advantage?

[highnote]

It seems these guys have access to Pick 3 pool information. I don't know if they do, but it seems that way to me. They probably also have access to trifecta pool information, pick 4 pool information, and other things that are not available at BrisBet, YouBet, or on track. Isn't that a cause for concern as a hugely unfair advantage?

If they have information like that, that would be a cause for concern.

They don't have that information unless they are working in the track's pari-mutuel dep't. I don't know of any service that provides that information. Services don't supply that information because they don't have it. At least that is my understanding. I don't know everything about the tote system, so maybe there is information I don't have.
[/quote]

[Indulto]

Believe it or not, the little guy isn't the only person I know in the industry that has information not available to the public. I doubt the little guy would have brought up his involvement at all. Seeing how he seems to be a target here many times, I thought I'd mention his looking out for horseplayers.cj,
I have no doubt you have access to other such information sources and I appreciate your passing this tidbit and others on to the board. My interest was, and still is, in whether tlg was your ONLY source for that particular piece of information. And, if that were the case, was it not then reasonable to assume that he was aware of your intent to do so, especially given the likelihood that you would have requested his permission under those circumstances? I didn’t challenge your friend’s motivation which you described as “looking out for horseplayers,” but rather his being miffed at the absence (up to that point) of any expression of gratitude beyond your own.No offense, but this is a classic example of what I have found offensive about many of your posts ( and not necessarily ones only directed towards me ). I am probably reading you incorrectly, but it seems like you are often almost preposterously demanding, as though because you say " why " or " how " you deserve an answer. Sorry, but you don't always.

Believe it or not, CJ and I don't only converse on this board, and he is often privy to things I know. " Exactly how " is neither relevant nor any of your business. Nothing personal. And, how I came to know about this story is also none of your business.

I don't want " huzzahs ", nor do I want to be a hero, and am only joking about it because of the obvious lack of interest in just about anything I may have to say around here. One tends to notice things concerning themselves more than others and I notice a lot. tlg,
Why would anyone be surprised that you and cj communicate off-board?

I must say that YOUR demeanor has certainly toned down considerably in the last several months. No reason to repeat all that I have found offensive about many of YOUR posts as that has already been well-documented. I never take offense at a NOYB response. The issue, however, is not whether I deserve an answer, but whether YOU deserve to be questioned. Your petulant “joke” was treated in context.

This whining “lack of interest” complaint of yours is bogus. In fact people have often requested information or opinions from you, and received marginal or otherwise unsatisfying replies. But the full force of your personality -- which you frequently reveal in your unsolicited remarks -- may have inhibited requests to below the level you would deem appropriate.

I’ve never questioned that you are an intelligent, knowledgeable, articulate individual who CAN be interesting to listen to, but tone aside, your stinginess with supporting details for your opinions and observations is ridiculous. Pardon me, but just because YOU say something doesn't mean that substantiation is unnecessary.

I can only speak for myself, but I suspect greater and more open participation on your part COULD make this place even more worthwhile.

BTW I noticed that post #112 followed post #111 by 3 minutes. May I assume no tags were exchanged? ;)

[cj]

cj,
I have no doubt you have access to other such information sources and I appreciate your passing this tidbit and others on to the board. My interest was, and still is, in whether tlg was your ONLY source for that particular piece of information. ...


Not only was he not the only source, he wasn't even a source. That is what I was hinting at in the first place.


BTW I noticed that post #112 followed post #111 by 3 minutes. May I assume no tags were exchanged? ;)

I can assure you we had a good laugh about it afterwards, but didn't plot out replies beforehand, purely coincedence. As often as I post, you could probably show that any poster on the board posts within 3 minutes of me. ;)

I am, by the way, interested to here why it is Dave Schwartz called Crist's statement untrue. Do you think he is lying or inaccurate? If inaccurate, do you not think a writer of his prominence researched what he wrote or had firsthand knowledge?

[Indulto]

Not only was he not the only source, he wasn't even a source. That is what I was hinting at in the first place.I was never good at taking a hint.:D Boy, are you guys closed-lipped!I can assure you we had a good laugh about it afterwards, but didn't plot out replies beforehand, purely coincedence. As often as I post, you could probably show that any poster on the board posts within 3 minutes of me. ;)That was just to ping-pong tlg's original tag team reference from the closed thread.I am, by the way, interested to here why it is Dave Schwartz called Crist's statement untrue. Do you think he is lying or inaccurate? If inaccurate, do you not think a writer of his prominence researched what he wrote or had firsthand knowledge?I assume this question was not intended for me. I would like to hear the answer as well, but I doubt anybody here considers Crist a liar. That doesn't mean HIS statements should always be taken at face-value either.

[highnote]

...., but I doubt anybody here considers Crist a liar. That doesn't mean HIS statements should always be taken at face-value either.

I don't think Crist is lying, either. I think he is probably wrong. We keep hearing these accusations, but there is never any proof.

If people are cheating then the FBI would surely get involved. Weren't the FEDS involved in investigation of the Fix 6 scandal.

If there is past posting going on, why isn't law enforcement lookiing into this?

Wasn't Guiliani and Company hired to assess the tote system. Why didn't they report this possibility?

I'm skeptical that it's happening, but believe it is possible.

[the little guy]

I must say that YOUR demeanor has certainly toned down considerably in the last several months. No reason to repeat all that I have found offensive about many of YOUR posts as that has already been well-documented. I never take offense at a NOYB response. The issue, however, is not whether I deserve an answer, but whether YOU deserve to be questioned. Your petulant “joke” was treated in context.

This whining “lack of interest” complaint of yours is bogus. In fact people have often requested information or opinions from you, and received marginal or otherwise unsatisfying replies. But the full force of your personality -- which you frequently reveal in your unsolicited remarks -- may have inhibited requests to below the level you would deem appropriate.

I’ve never questioned that you are an intelligent, knowledgeable, articulate individual who CAN be interesting to listen to, but tone aside, your stinginess with supporting details for your opinions and observations is ridiculous. Pardon me, but just because YOU say something doesn't mean that substantiation is unnecessary.

I can only speak for myself, but I suspect greater and more open participation on your part COULD make this place even more worthwhile.

BTW I noticed that post #112 followed post #111 by 3 minutes. May I assume no tags were exchanged? ;)

You caught us....CJ and I corresponded and then decided to post three minutes apart.

I would blame him but it was really me that fudged our whole plan.

Your continued psychoanalytical babble, coupled with passive aggressive BS, is as boorish as it is uninteresting. This is why I don't like you. You insult while pretending it is you that is being insulted. You have criticized me on this board for questioning others who have inaccurately slandered public figures while failing to reprimand those who are truly guilty. You are as obvious as you are nasty. You may think you're clever but you are a simple primer in internet Trolling.

Frankly, your post is so insulting that I suspect you may reread it some day, should you have another rare moment of introspection, and write up another maudlin apology. I'm quite sure that one will be as disingenuous as your first one proved to be. Talk about " whining ".

Stingy? What exactly do you think the world owes you?

[Dave Schwartz]

Actually, I did not call Stev Crist's statement untrue. I have not even read the article.

I was referring to the fact that there is more data in the "special" tote feed than is available on the "public" tote systems (i.e. DRF, PhillyPark, SuperTote, etc.).

The data is the same.

And with that statement I will remove myself from this thread.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[njcurveball]

I was referring to the fact that there is more data in the "special" tote feed than is available on the "public" tote systems (i.e. DRF, PhillyPark, SuperTote, etc.).



The tote room has access to many pools and calculations we never see on the toteboard.

They also have ways to "slice" the data by tracks, number of bets, size of bets, etc.

I have never seen the windows open for 20 seconds after tbe race starts. Well, I did hear of this one time at Atlantic City. But only a few "not so smart" tellers caught it. They bet $50 exactas on the winning combinations and were promptly caught.

They lost their Union jobs and didn't even get to cash the tickets.

Basically what tracks need to do is simply offer equibase the horses odds at certain intervals. If we have a data feed of thousands of races and the odds intervals, than the facts will prove this out one way or the other.

Jim

[Dave Schwartz]

NJ,

What you are describing is not "in" any tote feed that I have ever seen. It is a function of slicing and dicing the tote after you get it. The same thing could be captured from BRIS or DRF.


Dave

[njcurveball]

Dave,

I know the tote room at ACRC use to recycle boxes and boxes of different reports. They were used by the Management to analyze betting trends. I had thought that information was not available elsewhere until I read this thread.

When ACRC runs, I am going to do a lil research of my own on just what the tote room can see.

Obviously you know better than me what a programmer can do with an "eye" into the raw data.


best to you,
Jim

[PaceAdvantage]

Pardon me, but just because YOU say something doesn't mean that substantiation is unnecessary.

I don't agree with that.....TLG is a known quantity in the racing world. I have no trouble taking what he states at face value. If TLG says it, I believe that, at the very least, HE believes it to be true, and most likely, it is true. I can't think of something he has written to me privately, or posted publicly that turned out to be false. That's more than I can say for myself. I'm sure someone will come up with something, but I can't think of anything off hand when it come to TLG.

At least he isn't a poster hiding behind the anonymity of the internet (ok, he doesn't use his real name as his posting name, but anybody who's been around here more than 30 minutes should know his true identity).

Indulto, let it go already.....don't turn another thread into your personal crusade against TLG....I've had enough.

[JPinMaryland]

Ive been around here more than 30 min. and I dont know TLG's true identity. How would the average poster know this? There is nothing in his personal info that suggests anything.

[Bruddah]

and the mind of a simpleton. I don't understand the need to insult knowlegable insiders, trying to honestly inform. (With or without documentation) It seems to me, they do so at great risk of their hard earned reputations. If wrong or inaccurate, they will pay hansomely. No need for anyone to be prosecutor or mud slinger. Time will be the jury and return a verdict. Until then, always accept what is written with much scutiny and doubt. Never with insults or with mud slinging.

Now, to the subject of time delays of viewing and betting, which seems to be at an ad nauseum level. If the networks add 3 seconds of delay for editing of live shows. What problems would it be to add 10 or 15 seconds of video feed delay to viewers off track. (other betting portals) It wouldn't stop the guy at the tote machine on track. But, (he) doesn't seem to be the vast majority of the betting revenues in question.

I plead my case as a simpleton. I hope the intelligencia will go easy on me.

[JustRalph]

Ive been around here more than 30 min. and I dont know TLG's true identity. How would the average poster know this? There is nothing in his personal info that suggests anything.

JPIN.........

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29826&highlight=times

[njcurveball]

Thank you Ralph!


It was a great article!

Jim

[trigger]

Pari-mutuelly, you have to do what no one else is doing.

I say, go out and find an edge of your own and exploit it and quit bellyaching about those who have found an edge.

Or, if you can't be 'em, join 'em.

swety, IMHO, An entity that operates a gambling enterprise to be utilized by the public should do everything possible to maintain a level playing field for all bettors that wager through their systems. Putting aside the question of access to more current data than the rest of us, I think it is clear that United Tote has ,at a minimum, built a special interface that facilitates a specific bettors wagers(i.e. Youbet's lone CRW operator) presumably to enable that bettor to process his bets faster than the rest of us . To me ,just this single act is a breach of the the unwritten contract that Youbet/ United Tote have with the betting public...that is to maintain a level playing field that treats every bettor the same when using their system.
Say, you were an avid Massachusetts State numbers lottery player (the lottery game where you try to predict a 3 ot 4 number sequence...i.e.123 or 1234) who bet a fair amount of money on the number each day. As in pari-mutuel pools, the payoff on this game is dependent on the amount money of bet on the winning combination and the size of the total pool after Massachusetts' healthy takeout.
Now, suppose Mass. gave a specific bettor, because of his substantial amount of wagers, access to the the State's data base that shows the up-to-date numbers played and total dollar amount bet on each number sequence at any time before the daily game closed. Furthermore, the State then proceeded to built a program that processed this specific bettor's bets at lightning speed while all other bettors had to process their bets through the slow corner store system. Finally, because of this bettors play , Mass decided to give the bettor a volume discount on his bets.
The bigtime bettor would then be able to scan the database to see the number combinations played and amounts bet on each and determine which numbers were underplayed . He would then ,through his own mathematical program , be able to configure a series of bets on underplayed combinations and process these bets at the last possible moment that over time would enable him to grind out a substantial profit over time.
Man, this is longwinded...almost done!
But, anyway, my question to you is: Would you continue to bet into this lottery if you were made aware of this "super' bettors' state-aided methods ? I don't think so and neither would I.
In this example, the state has created a wagering system that is not fair . To me, this is exactly what Youbet/United Tote and the CRW accepting tracks have done....and in doing so, have ,in effect, abrogated their responsibility to operate a fair wagering system for the overwhelming bulk of their customers. Trigger

[JPinMaryland]

thanks, Ralph. I was feeling left out.

[Indulto]

Indulto, ... I've had enough.PA,
I believe you......don't turn another thread into your personal crusadeI’m considering changing my pseudonym to Ivanhoe. Perhaps that would encourage me to post more heroically. You know what they say – Once a gelding, always a gelding, but once a Knight is enough.ok, he doesn't use his real name as his posting nameAnd if he had, it’s likely fewer objectionable posts would have appeared next to it.anybody who's been around here more than 30 minutes should know his true identity) JR should get a publicist’s fee for guaranteeing it. ;)

Hey, if this thread stimulates a “resurgence” in his popularity to a level he deems appropriate, DRF should arrange for an EXPO ad here. (No, PA, I’m not suggesting that was your motivation.)… Time will be the jury and return a verdict. Until then, always accept what is written with much scrutiny and doubt. Sure wish I’d said that.HE believes it to be true, and most likely, it is true.I’m sure that IS true. However, when an opinion is expressed, or an action out of the ordinary is noted, it is hardly unusual to provide an explanation of the reasoning behind it or the circumstances involved (or to expect it). Wanting clarification and/or justification is NOT equivalent to accusing someone of being a liar.… I don't understand the need to insult knowledgeable insiders …Or be insulted BY them, either.At least he isn't a poster hiding behind the anonymity of the internetWhen you started this board, PA, what percentage of posters WEREN’T anonymous? What is that figure now? Until the Saratoga get-togethers, what percentage of members had actually conversed with another member face-to-face? Is there anything in the TOS that says anonymous posters are second-class members? (Or that a member has to have any? :D) Are posters who are willing to reveal their identities not subject to the same behavior restrictions as those who are not?

Computers and discussions of financial markets aside, this is still a society that doesn't embrace "gambling," and contains sizable elements -- including some employers and extended families -- that still regard horseplayers as "degenerates." The threat of identity theft alone justifies caution and invalidates convenient charges of "cowardice" and claims of higher moral ground. I'll match my ethical courage with anybody here.

Careful, PA, the anti-anonymous chorus discourages lurkers and new ideas as effectively as aggressive posters inhibit participation by those who prefer to avoid embarrassment. I may not be huggable, but I haven’t fought beneath my weight class, either.… let it go already. It’s your board. I just wish you wouldn’t mix personal opinions and administrative decisions in the same post. It’s easier to NOT bet, than to NOT post. (And, no, I’m not suggesting you’re a bully, either.:bang: )

[highnote]

swety, IMHO, An entity that operates a gambling enterprise to be utilized by the public should do everything possible to maintain a level playing field for all bettors that wager through their systems. Putting aside the question of access to more current data than the rest of us, I think it is clear that United Tote has ,at a minimum, built a special interface that facilitates a specific bettors wagers(i.e. Youbet's lone CRW operator) presumably to enable that bettor to process his bets faster than the rest of us . To me ,just this single act is a breach of the the unwritten contract that Youbet/ United Tote have with the betting public...that is to maintain a level playing field that treats every bettor the same when using their system.
Say, you were an avid Massachusetts State numbers lottery player (the lottery game where you try to predict a 3 ot 4 number sequence...i.e.123 or 1234) who bet a fair amount of money on the number each day. As in pari-mutuel pools, the payoff on this game is dependent on the amount money of bet on the winning combination and the size of the total pool after Massachusetts' healthy takeout.
Now, suppose Mass. gave a specific bettor, because of his substantial amount of wagers, access to the the State's data base that shows the up-to-date numbers played and total dollar amount bet on each number sequence at any time before the daily game closed. Furthermore, the State then proceeded to built a program that processed this specific bettor's bets at lightning speed while all other bettors had to process their bets through the slow corner store system. Finally, because of this bettors play , Mass decided to give the bettor a volume discount on his bets.
The bigtime bettor would then be able to scan the database to see the number combinations played and amounts bet on each and determine which numbers were underplayed . He would then ,through his own mathematical program , be able to configure a series of bets on underplayed combinations and process these bets at the last possible moment that over time would enable him to grind out a substantial profit over time.
Man, this is longwinded...almost done!
But, anyway, my question to you is: Would you continue to bet into this lottery if you were made aware of this "super' bettors' state-aided methods ? I don't think so and neither would I.
In this example, the state has created a wagering system that is not fair . To me, this is exactly what Youbet/United Tote and the CRW accepting tracks have done....and in doing so, have ,in effect, abrogated their responsibility to operate a fair wagering system for the overwhelming bulk of their customers. Trigger

Trigger,
I'm not in an argumentive mood today. I'm not trying to avoid answering. I'm burnt out from too much work and am looking forward to a big turkey dinner, football and a long nap!

Let me a quote from the board to answer your post:

Originally Posted by Bruddah
… Time will be the jury and return a verdict. Until then, always accept what is written with much scrutiny and doubt.

[PaceAdvantage]

When you started this board, PA, what percentage of posters WEREN’T anonymous? What is that figure now? Until the Saratoga get-togethers, what percentage of members had actually conversed with another member face-to-face? Is there anything in the TOS that says anonymous posters are second-class members? (Or that a member has to have any? :D) Are posters who are willing to reveal their identities not subject to the same behavior restrictions as those who are not?

I've got nothing against anonymous posters. Hell, I relish being one of them as much as I can....

However, it is YOU who is mixing it up with TLG, questioning many of his claims, opinions, and actions on this board. When you do that, from a position of anonymity, it's a bit unfair....especially when his identity is essentially known by many.

Just my opinion...that's all...

[WJ47]

I don't think its fair either. I think if you have something to say, identify yourself and don't hide behind an ID. :) But I also think that most people are so intelligent on this board that they don't put any weight on what anonymous posters say. I know I don't. If Suff, Tom, TLG or other longtime members post, I'm listening closely. But when these anonymous newbies post, especially to criticize or attack a long time member on this board, I just think that they're a troll or have some grudge. :)

I have a question about software programs too. Alot of times, I'll handicap the night before and have some horses that I'm interested in. Then I won't be by the computer while the racing is going on because I'm back in college full time. I think it would be great if there was a computer program that would put the bets in for you, but based on the odds of the horse at 2 minutes before post. If I liked a horse, but I only wanted to wager on him if his odds were 5/1 or higher. Maybe they already have a program or betting account like that. I hate coming home and seeing a horse I loved at 2/1 morning line actually ended up paying $13.40. Or a horse that was 3/1 on the morning line and it went off at 4/5 and finished out of the money. :) If I'm home that day, I can watch for value and pass on underlays, but when I'm gone, I don't like to bet without seeing the late odds.

All this talk of robots and software reminds me of when I got a new custom made computer a few year back. It was loaded and expensive. The computer guy who built it for me was showing me everything it could do. I was so excited to get it home and play with it and I babbled like an idiot, "Wow, I can't believe technology! Pretty soon they'll come out with a computer to wash my dishes!" The tech looked funny, then said, "They already have that. It's called a dishwasher." :bang:

[the little guy]

I've got nothing against anonymous posters. Hell, I relish being one of them as much as I can....

However, it is YOU who is mixing it up with TLG, questioning many of his claims, opinions, and actions on this board. When you do that, from a position of anonymity, it's a bit unfair....especially when his identity is essentially known by many.

Just my opinion...that's all...


Right, Indulto has been dogging me forever here, insulting me at every opportunity, and somehow is offended when I return the favor?

Like I said before, I think it would be great if Indulto showed up at the Saratoga meeting next summer, as I'm sure his in-person persona is exactly as it is on this board, and then we can hash out all his problems with me. As until that happens I will consider what he is doing your run-of-the-mill internet harrassment.