OTB pool separate from track pools?

[hbeck]

Can this be done, legally?

I went to an NYC OTB today (pathetic, given their vig and clientèle, I know) to bet a few races. I was watching all of the terrible horseplayer's at the OTB (the same ones who have been there since I went during lunch in high school six years ago) and wondering if an OTB with a large handle would be able to ever set up a separate pool from tracks while still paying them for their signal.

If NYC OTB ever did this, any half competent handicapper would make out royally.

[ranchwest]

Can this be done, legally?

I went to an NYC OTB today (pathetic, given their vig and clientèle, I know) to bet a few races. I was watching all of the terrible horseplayer's at the OTB (the same ones who have been there since I went during lunch in high school six years ago) and wondering if an OTB with a large handle would be able to ever set up a separate pool from tracks while still paying them for their signal.

If NYC OTB ever did this, any half competent handicapper would make out royally.

In the early days of simulcasting, many (most? all?) pools were separate. I'll always remember that Very Subtle went off at about 13/1 on track in the BC Sprint, but I got 20/1 on her at EVD (I was the only one yelling for her, lol).

I think most people don't like the volatility of small pools, so I wouldn't anticipate a return to separate pools. Pools are volatile enough as it is.

[Zman179]

Can this be done, legally?

I went to an NYC OTB today (pathetic, given their vig and clientèle, I know) to bet a few races. I was watching all of the terrible horseplayer's at the OTB (the same ones who have been there since I went during lunch in high school six years ago) and wondering if an OTB with a large handle would be able to ever set up a separate pool from tracks while still paying them for their signal.

If NYC OTB ever did this, any half competent handicapper would make out royally.

Oh yes, of course! The last time NYCOTB did this was when Hialeah was still running with their unbelieveably high takeouts (up to 32% for exotics.) Since OTB wanted to take action from Hialeah, they set up a separate NY State pool for Hialeah in which all the NY OTB's pooled their money. The takeouts were 17% WPS, 20% DD & EX, 25% all others.
Even with these reduced takeouts, I noticed that the payoffs at NYCOTB were often WORSE than those at Hialeah itself! One example: I hit a longshot to win and the exacta. At Hialeah, the horse paid $110 to win and the exacta $1200. At NYCOTB, where I hit the race, the horse paid $44 to win and the exacta $453. It got to the point where I was beginning to wonder whether the New York bettors really were sharper than their Florida counterparts. :confused:

BTW, until around 1992 all out-of-state tracks handled by NYOTB were in separate pools. Not only that, but the downstate OTB's had restrictions on the types of wagers that they could accept at Finger Lakes. You could only make a quinella wager on a race, except on the second race where there was only trifecta wagering available and no quinella. No WPS wagering.

[Premier Turf Club]

Oh yes, of course! The last time NYCOTB did this was when Hialeah was still running with their unbelieveably high takeouts (up to 32% for exotics.) Since OTB wanted to take action from Hialeah, they set up a separate NY State pool for Hialeah in which all the NY OTB's pooled their money. The takeouts were 17% WPS, 20% DD & EX, 25% all others.
Even with these reduced takeouts, I noticed that the payoffs at NYCOTB were often WORSE than those at Hialeah itself! One example: I hit a longshot to win and the exacta. At Hialeah, the horse paid $110 to win and the exacta $1200. At NYCOTB, where I hit the race, the horse paid $44 to win and the exacta $453. It got to the point where I was beginning to wonder whether the New York bettors really were sharper than their Florida counterparts. :confused:

BTW, until around 1992 all out-of-state tracks handled by NYOTB were in separate pools. Not only that, but the downstate OTB's had restrictions on the types of wagers that they could accept at Finger Lakes. You could only make a quinella wager on a race, except on the second race where there was only trifecta wagering available and no quinella. No WPS wagering.

These stories bring back memories.

I snuck into my first OTB (Suffolk) when I was 13 to place a wager. I'd sneak in successfully every so often (most times the manager, a really short guy named Gus, would come out from the back and kick me out) until I was 18 and allowed to enter legally. I vividly remember that all the non NYRA pools were non-commingled, both the regular Finger Lakes and Hialeah simulcasts, and the special events (Derby, Preakness, Mass Cap (yes, the Mass Cap was a "special event" believe it or not), etc.) It was that way for many years, and while the payoffs were obviously different from the host track payouts, I don't remember seeing the kind of disparities that would allow you to make a lot of money off them. Now of course with PC betting, things would be different...

[ranchwest]

The odds tended to level out some because there would sometimes be several different tracks offering non-commingled pools. This meant bettors could shop for the highest odds. Of course, betting into that pool leveled it down to the odds at the lower odds tracks. Still, it was fun to shop for prices.

[highnote]

Connecticut OTB used to have separate pools. I remember on more than one occasion some bridgejumper would bet $10,000 to show on some horse at a NYRA track. If we spotted it we would bet every horse to show except the $10,000 one. I remember getting show payoffs over $20 more than once when the bridgejumpers' horses ran out of the money.

[Zman179]

Connecticut OTB used to have separate pools. I remember on more than one occasion some bridgejumper would bet $10,000 to show on some horse at a NYRA track. If we spotted it we would bet every horse to show except the $10,000 one. I remember getting show payoffs over $20 more than once when the bridgejumpers' horses ran out of the money.

Are you kidding? I used to have a friend who had money to burn who would bet $100 to win on a horse at the New Haven Teletrack just to see the odds go to 1-9! He got a kick out of that! :lol:

[point given]

I don't know if they still do it, but some years back Monmouth had their own pool for the Belmont stakes. It was the year Lemon Drop Kid won and Visison and Verse was 2nd. The Belmont payout was $1500 for the exacta , and at Monmouth it paid around $500. The reason was that ontrack handicapper Brad Thomas had given it out cold and everyone on track bet into the Monmouth pool.

I have also bet years ago in canada before they could comingle. What I noticed there was that the WPS odds were very close to the US track odds, but that the long shots would be much longer odds than the US odds.

[LemonSoupKid]

Yes, we used to be able to compare pool odds and bet it at whichever track. Why has this changed? It used to be the case at Arlington Park. Then I think AP was bought out by Churchill Downs and they've pretty much consolidated everything. Either that or there is pressure for pools to go through the main track for the big races. I remember almost all Triple Crown races being this way, and I could exploit it, much like the Smarty Jones place and show from 2004, where had he won it would have been

2.90 3.30 3.00

which is just a thing of beauty -- of course I bet those place and show, and I remember my Dr. Z calculation for the place and show expected return was exactly that - 130%

LSK

[highnote]

like the Smarty Jones place and show from 2004, where had he won it would have been

2.90 3.30 3.00

which is just a thing of beauty -- of course I bet those place and show, and I remember my Dr. Z calculation for the place and show expected return was exactly that - 130%

LSK

That was maybe the greatest Dr. Z bet of all time. His system said to bet everything you have and then borrow money from your neighbor and bet even more! :D

We had to laugh about that one.

To save space in the hand held calculator and simplify the computer programming, the commercial version of the Dr.Z system uses regression derived approximations instead of the actual generalized reduced gradient algorithms. Since the commercial system is an approximation it broke down under an extreme anamoly. That was the first time I had ever seen it break down.

Even though it went haywire, it still indicated that it was a great bet. :ThmbUp:

By the way, the reason it broke down was because the pools were so large. In a normal sized pool even extreme values are handled well. I guess when they created the regressions they didn't have enough multi-million dollar pool data.

I've used it many times at the Breeders' Cup and Triple Crown races with good results. The Smarty Jones Belmont was just an anomoly.