TRA Conference

[betovernetcapper]

On September 17th-19th the 15th Annual Simulcast Conference will be held in KC. While this is geared for the industry, maybe some players should attend. I mean just in case any of them are curious about a fans opinion.
your thoughts
http://www.tra-online.com/2007conf2.html

[DJofSD]

Just a bit disconcerting when you view the page the HTML title shows up as "2005 TRA, HTA, AQHR....". Ya, were being led into the future by really knowledgable folks here, right on the cutting edge of technology - not.

[northerndancer]

I will be in attendance..... I have been attending since 2002 and really get a lot from this conference.

[trigger]

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2007/September/16/Simulcast-conference-begins-with-focus-on-wagers.aspx

[Premier Turf Club]

The conference shifts to technological discussions on Tuesday and Wednesday with panels centering on Internet Protocol Television, advances in account wagering

Now's there's an oxymoron if I ever saw one.

[cj]

Just a bit disconcerting when you view the page the HTML title shows up as "2005 TRA, HTA, AQHR....". Ya, were being led into the future by really knowledgable folks here, right on the cutting edge of technology - not.

That is too funny. HTML can be quite a challenge though. :D

[swetyejohn]

I attended the TRA conference. I wanted to see how the world looks from their side of the world.

From what I could see the industry people are very aware of all the problems that are talked about on PA.

They, like any bettor, would like to see more stable odds as post time approaches and after the bell rings. Problem is, the pari-mutuel model has no good way of preventing that.

What we do know from research presented at the conference by Dr. Ziemba is that the odds of favorites tend to drop and the longshots tend to rise.

So if you are betting the favorite at, say, 2-1 at post time, you can probably assume it will go off a little lower. If you're betting a 7-1 shot it will probably rise after the bell.

As long as you're aware of this, it shouldn't be much of a problem or surprise. Personally, late odds shifts have never been a problem for me. In the pari-mutuel world, it is good to embrace what others hate. That means there is an edge to be had.

For me, I want as much late money in the pool as possible. When I bet a longshot I know I'm going to get even more value as post time approaches.

Those people that bet heavily on favorites hate it when late money drives their prices lower.

Racetracks are well aware of the integrity problem. Curtis Linnell did an outstanding job in his presentation of explaining how the ADW system works and how it leads to the false impression of past posting. It's clear, that no past posting is going on, but because of the slow pool updates, the hub system and a few other things, the problem won't disappear soon.

Racetracks don't make a lot of money, yet the cost of a new wagering system is huge. Who is going to fund it and how?

Clearly, the new Wagering Transmission Protocol (WTP) will happen eventually, but it is going to take time. And even when a few tracks start to implement it, it will take time to work out the bugs and get all the other tracks to pay their share.

The other big problem is that tracks are so heavily legislated that it's hard for them to change. Their hands are tied. Then if a racetrack gets sold, the new owners are stuck with the old problems and also have to start over dealing with the legislature.

If you're a bettor not associated with a racetrack I would highly recommend that you attend next year's TRA simulcast conference. You may find what I found -- that there are a lot of good, well-meaning, hard-working people in the industry. But there are barriers the size of mountains that must be overcome.

[HorseRun]

regarding odds drop....PERCEPTION IS REALITY


and it is perceived that every wire to wire winers odds seem to drop at every pole they go past.....they can talk about no past posting until they are blue in the face, IT JUST LOKS BAD !!! (plus who is gonna believe these guys after most of them went on record saying no way Pick 6 scandal pool was breeched)

[Premier Turf Club]

I understand that one of the panelists talked about conditional wagering and how important it is for the industry, without giving us any credit of course. ..."someone has come out with conditional wagering software."


It's interesting how no one asked us to attend. If anyone ever had any questions about this business being a good 'old boys network... :bang:

[swetyejohn]

I understand that one of the panelists talked about conditional wagering and how important it is for the industry, without giving us any credit of course. ..."someone has come out with conditional wagering software."


It's interesting how no one asked us to attend. If anyone ever had any questions about this business being a good 'old boys network... :bang:


I think you're right -- your name wasn't mentioned. Either they didn't know or they weren't talking?

It also sounded like we're going to see more people offering conditional odds.

[Premier Turf Club]

I think you're right -- your name wasn't mentioned. Either they didn't know or they weren't talking?

It also sounded like we're going to see more people offering conditional odds.

Believe me, they know.

Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, I guess. Just makes me work harder to stay 3 steps ahead of them all.

[swetyejohn]

regarding odds drop....PERCEPTION IS REALITY


and it is perceived that every wire to wire winers odds seem to drop at every pole they go past.....they can talk about no past posting until they are blue in the face, IT JUST LOKS BAD !!! (plus who is gonna believe these guys after most of them went on record saying no way Pick 6 scandal pool was breeched)


You're right, perception is reality, but in reality, "reality is reality".

[HorseRun]

well then the reality is its a BAD THING, every time someone sees a wire to wire winners odds drops as he is running the race and eventually people will go else where (and i mean long time players as well as new handicappers) for their wagering investments/entertainment

[swetyejohn]

well then the reality is its a BAD THING, every time someone sees a wire to wire winners odds drops as he is running the race and eventually people will go else where (and i mean long time players as well as new handicappers) for their wagering investments/entertainment

It's definately a bad thing. The industry is aware of it. But the solution is difficult in this environment where the technology is ahead of legislation.

[DJofSD]

Correct me if I'm wrong: all race tracks contribute to the tax coffers in each state -- in essance they are sanctioned and supported by the state government. Isn't the respective states responsibility to upgrade the parimutual wagering system? Who's responsible/owns those systems -- computers, telecomm equipment, facilities and employees that run the whole operation -- the state or private industry?

[ceejay]

It's definately a bad thing. The industry is aware of it. But the solution is difficult in this environment where the technology is ahead of legislation.

I think the solution is easy. Close betting as the first horse loads. this will allow enough time for an odds update close to the start of the race. Bettors will adapt. I don't mind odds changing after I bet, just after the race has run.

This problem usually helps my prices given my style of play.

[swetyejohn]

I think the solution is easy. Close betting as the first horse loads. this will allow enough time for an odds update close to the start of the race. Bettors will adapt. I don't mind odds changing after I bet, just after the race has run.

This problem usually helps my prices given my style of play.


As someone said, perception of reality is bad, even if it isn't reality.

For me, I know the reality, so it doesn't bother me. If the race is shut off early, the problem of late odds shifts will still exist. They just won't be shifting after the race has started.

Trying to get the racetracks to agree on the same protocols is probably next to impossible. That's life. The best thing for a better to do is to take Sartin's advice -- "Know thy track". That will eliminate 99% of the problems for the bettor.

Obviously, there are a lot of people still winning. So late odds shifts are not affecting everyone. They don't affect me -- but I'm not a good barometer because I don't bet much these days. But I have not suffered from this problem when I have bet.

[Pace Cap'n]

As far as I know, not a track in the country owns a tote system. Why would it cost the tracks a nickel for a tote system that provides near real-time updates?

[swetyejohn]

As far as I know, not a track in the country owns a tote system. Why would it cost the tracks a nickel for a tote system that provides near real-time updates?

I dunno. Good question.

Maybe tracks are going to do away with hiring out the tote providers and own it themselves?

Or maybe the tote providers don't want to spend the money?

[northerndancer]

I posted this yesterday in another form on Pace Advantage:

The issue I have is the industry has not produced the facts to determine exactly who, what and when is causing the themajor shift in odds fromt he last tote cycle. Since the industry has record of the wagers (when they were made and from what outlet) why has there not been a study done of 500 races to determine difinitively when and from what source the wagers are coming from..... if we can determine where and when then and only then can we devise a potential solution. At the present time we are jsut guessing at the cause of the situation.

A few things to ponder:

1. Of the 15 billion wagered on North American racing product annually 10% is wagered by the high volume players (whales), 20% is wagered on track and 70% comes from SPMO's (simulcast outlets);
2. The tote cycle is currently set at 45 - 60 seconds no matter if the race is 15 minutes to post or 1 minute to post;
3. If the pools close at the ring of the bell for the start of the race there will always be one more cycle therefore odds change will always happen;

A few suggestions:

1. If there are currently 20 tote cycles for each race I would recommned taking and changing when they occurr...... from the opening of the pool until 4 minutes to post the tote cylce should be every 2 minutes....... from 4 minutes to 2 minutes the tote cycle should be 1 minute...... from 2 minutes out the tote cycle should be every 20 seconds. This would reduce the amount handled in the cycle that takes place after the race is started therefore reducing the effect from that cycle on the odds. The problem with this is you will need the tote companies to buy in to the process and that is why I would suggest that you allow the tote companies to continue with the same number of cycles therefore not increasing their overall costs;

2. If you close the pools when the first horse is loaded you can not reopen the pools. As a result if a horse is scratched at the gate (Charles Town can have 3 or 4 of those a night or a race) you will not be able to change your wager due to a scratch causing major issues for your multi race wagers;

3. The industry has to require the SPMO's (simulcast outlets) to send their wagers on a more timely schedule. Their are SPMO's who will transmit at 8 minutes and then not until 2 minutes then after the pool has been closed. If you require the SPMO to transmit their wagers on a set schedule (every 2 minute from 8 MTP in) you will assist in reducing the amount of wagers being reported in the cycle after the pools have closed;

IMO the industry does not want to inform the public of the real causes to the issue......... the causes are due to their own inefficient and neglitent management of their wagers.

In relation to your suggestion about tracks owning their own tote company. This will never happen as it is not cost effective. The total capital expenditure for equipment would be $750,000 - $1,000,000. The fact is that the tote companies have been squeezed by the tracks to the point were they are not profitable. As a result changes to the current system will have to be a collaborative effort between tote, track owners & horsemen.

In relation to DJ's statement of the state subsidy to the industry. The states receive a percentage of total handle. In the case of a simulcast wager the state where the wager is placed and the state where the wager is accepted receive their respective legislatively determined percentage. Yes if the simulcast outlet is within that state still gets both sides.

The fact of the matter is that their will always be a late odds change after the pools have closed because once the pools close the amount wagered since the last odds cycle has to be sent to the host track.

I still want to see the facts to determine where the wagers that cause the late odds change originate. It is my belief that it is the simulcast outlets that send only two or three times during the course of wagering.

[Kelso]

Racetracks don't make a lot of money, yet the cost of a new wagering system is huge.


Perhaps true but, to my mind irrelevant.

They don't need a new wagering system to fix the past-posting ... real and/or perceived ... problem. All they have to do is not load a horse until final odds have been posted. End of problem ... and most of the betting public will quickly, easily and enthusiastically adapt. (Senator Kyl might even approve.)

[northerndancer]

Perhaps true but, to my mind irrelevant.

They don't need a new wagering system to fix the past-posting ... real and/or perceived ... problem. All they have to do is not load a horse until final odds have been posted. End of problem ... and most of the betting public will quickly, easily and enthusiastically adapt. (Senator Kyl might even approve.)

The industry tried to close the pools when the first horse loaded (NYRA was the first to try) and they abandoned the program after numerous issues and complaints..... does anyone remember the reasons for NYRA giving up the practice..... the issues escape my feable brain.

[alydar]

Perhaps true but, to my mind irrelevant.

They don't need a new wagering system to fix the past-posting ... real and/or perceived ... problem. All they have to do is not load a horse until final odds have been posted. End of problem ... and most of the betting public will quickly, easily and enthusiastically adapt. (Senator Kyl might even approve.)


I agree that this is the solution. CDI and NYRA tried to stop wagering at least from simulcast outlets early. Magna never got on board. It just needs to be done universally. Getting the industry to agree on anything is close to impossible. This is just one more example.

[rrbauer]

The industry tried to close the pools when the first horse loaded (NYRA was the first to try) and they abandoned the program after numerous issues and complaints..... does anyone remember the reasons for NYRA giving up the practice..... the issues escape my feable brain.

Odds still changed after the start, people got shut out, fractious horses caused gate unload/reload but betting wasn't reopened (Peter Berube at Tampa told me when I complained about that at his track that it's a 4- to 5- minute process to get the wagering re-opened once a race has been "closed"). It's like all the other unresolved issues that we face in this game, it will get changed when enough of us withhold our money until change occurs.

[DJofSD]

A 4 or 5 minute process to reopen betting after a gate scratch is proof enough the system is out of date and needs to be replaced.