Whale Rebates

[Niko]

Thought I'd pick this up again to hear other peoples opinions as I "lost" the last thread that dealt with it.

Looking at the 10% rebate that big players get;

Most whales feel they deserve the 10%, the little guys feel cheated. I've been thinking about it from a business sense.

My best analogy is of Walmart and other big businesses that are able to create a profit on small margins and chase the little guys out of business. On a simplistic level this is done through scale, buying large lots at discounts and selling them in big volume at margins that smaller retailers can't match to stay in business. To me this is similar to some whales that only win with 10% rebates.

What happens; Walmart puts 95%? plus of the little guys out of business. They can't compete on the same margins because they're buying at a higher prices and selling in smaller quantities.

It happens in horseracing too. If I'm betting against a 20% take on average versus someone else at 10%, who has the advantage? Why would I want to play in such a situation?

Can you imagine what would happen in Poker if the pro's were playing with a 3% rake and everyone else had a 5% rake. How about blackjack if the big players were given a higher payout for blackjack then anyone else to offset the house odds. Would anyone play? Some yes but the game would be hurt.

To me, we are facing that in horse racing. Casinos comp big players with free meals, hotel rooms, free flights etc BUT they aren't giving them a "reduced" takeout. If they did, do you think they'd stay in business?

I realize there are some semantics here but I have a problem with whales who take their 10% rebate and say they deserve it because of all the money the tracks are making on them. At what expense?

I agee that whales should receive special consideration. I don't agree that they should receive what essentially is a reduced takeout that tips the scales heavily in their favor and obliterates the chances of a the casual fan ever overcoming the track take without a lucky hit or two. It's hard enough to win with just the track take much less playing against players who have 1/2 the track take.

But that's another aspect of horse racing today that the average player faces. And to anyone who says the rebate doesn't count because it's paid back after winnings (or losses with some offshores) I say bull.......If you can turn a 7% loss into a profit it's a reduced takeout.

Pinnacle was marvelous. You could take a 5% loss and turn it into a 2% gain. It helped level the playing field. Now without Pinnacle it's just a 5% loss. Now I'm limited again to my plays that beat the track take alone.

I don't know the numbers but if the whales are betting say 20% of the pools and they're getting a 10% rebate, what's the realistic track take for the casual fan 30%, 35%? Someone's soaking up the wins that the whale achieve with their rebates.

Give them free programs, suites at the track, free past performances, meals etc but get rid of those rebates or make them available to all. My friends play poker and go the casinos, I don't blame them. It's a lot friendlier for those that don't know what they're doing.

[HUSKER55]

I am not a whale. My max bet per race is generally less than $30. I simply enjoy the challenge of the sport.

When I travel, the Hotels I stay at offer coupons at the local casinos for $20 and the restaurant will give me a coupon for $10. Generally, I can do OTB at the casinos I go to.

Now a 10% rebate on a 20% pool comes to $20 per thousand. Unless your strike rate is over 50% the track, (casino), wins. At the end of ten races their handle is (for example: @ $1000/race) $10,000 and their perk is $100 which cost them less than $50.

I can get $30 by going to sleep and eating a healthy breakfast. When I get gas in my car I can get a coupon for $3 at the casino

Doesn't the local economy support and enjoy benefits of the casino where you live?

If you bet over the internet there is no way for the small fry to get those perks, or rebates as you call them.

But the track still needs to operate and employ people to deal with the crowds. There is a fixed price that the track needs each year and the only way they can do that is to attach each wager.

It is the nature of the beast. Where do you think the track is going to get their revenue to operate? Magna is going under because they couldn't do it.

I hate to see a race track close but I don't think on-site whales or rebates given out or taken back, are going to do very much to solve the problem you are refering to.

Just my HO

:)

[Dave Schwartz]

Niko,

First, your viewpoint is from the standpoint of the person who doesn't qualify for a rebate. If you were on the other side of the equation, you might have a different viewpoint.

Second, it does not matter what we think. It is the way it is.

You used the Wal-Mart analogy - it is a good one; one that I have used many times.

Personally, I don't very much like Wal-Mart. In the comparison of paradigms between Wal-Mart and Costco, I much prefer the way Costco does business, although even Costco is bad news for the small business.

However, it simply does not matter what I like or don't like. Wal-Mart is here to stay. No amount of complaining on my part is going to change that.


I used to feel the same way about whale-play. "Why should they get an advantage that I don't have?"

The answer is the same as in the Wal-Mart/small business issue: It does not matter what I think, like or dislike. It is simply part of the free-market system that the bigger purchaser/spender/player gets advantages that the smaller does not.

I contend that most of those who don't like whales/Wal-Mart really do not dislike the concept so much as the fact that in order to get the discounts/advantages one must spend so much.

If the definition of "high volume" was something a little more "reasonable and achievable" by an every day player such that it was within reach, then it would be okay. In other words, most do not have a problem with the concept of rebate but that it should be available at a much lower level to be "more fair."

I further contend, that, if this were the current condition, then the $2 player would be complaining that the $20 player had an unfair advantage. Many who agree with your position would then be on the other side of the equation and arguing that the $2 guy just can not see how right rebating is for the "larger" player (such as themselves).


Finally, I close with this conclusion: "It still does not matter!" The horse racing world is just like the real world these days: we may not like it much but it is as it is."


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Tom]

Second, it does not matter what we think. It is the way it is.

It does matter in that we do not have to play the game. Personally, my betting action is down 0ver 80% from last year and I have no intention of increasing it. The games sucks enough that it no longer is my favorite passtime. In time, probably sooner than later, I will be completely out of it. I already have scratched the BC off my list of important events. I see the Derby and Toga as the only things definate this season - both will involve much more beer than betting.

You used the Wal-Mart analogy - it is a good one; one that I have used many times No, not a good one at all. At Wlamrt, the transactios are mutually excluse. A rich gets a discount for buying in volume, but we both still ge tthe same stereo. A whale's special perks directly affect my treturn on investment. Although, the Wal Mart idea is a good one in that we should be callimng ICE more often and cracking down of the trainers who violate the laws - that is something we can do that matters. If they don't like it, it is what it is.....get a real job. :mad:

Racing is all but dead in my opinion - killed off by the idiots, morons, and nephews who run it.

[Murph]

It would be helpful to know exactly when I am facing this disadvantage when I wager. Then I could choose when I wanted to play in those pools, avoiding known pitfalls or trying to exploit any opportunities presented. That would remove some of the objections and let players know what they are up against. The problem is if regular joe knew exactly when this is happening to him, the whales would likely end up going canibal on each others bankroll. They wouldn't like that though would they?

Unfair advantage - you decide.

Murph

[Cangamble]

I view whales as hope that the game can be profitable if you really try hard.
Tracks sell their signals to other tracks for 3-5%. The race track that simulcasts gets the difference which averages around 16% on every bet.
Does it really matter to the average horse player what happens to that 16%?
What benefit do they get?
The more that is rebated whether to whales or average bettors is beneficial to all players. It means larger pools. Without whales today, the pools would probably be two thirds the size they are right now.
And the whales would disappear if not for the rebates. So no matter how you look at it, it is extra revenue for the tracks.
Oh, and anyone could get an average rebate of 7% if they live in a jurisdiction that allows Premier Turf Club.
Capitalism is great, when it is allowed.

[rrbauer]

As consumers, we should view Wal Mart from the perspective that regardless of who we are, when we shop there, we are ALL paying the same price. We are customers of Wal Mart, not competing business enterprises.

As horseplayers, if we stop patronizing the high takeout venues they will either reduce their takeouts or go out of business (there might be some gray areas here where slot subsidies of horseracing exists). As Dave indicated the rebate situation is "what it is". If you don't like the rebate situation and aren't able to participate in it then you have a choice....

And, as Tom put it, (paraphrasing) if you don't like the water get out of the pool!

[russowen77]

How much of a daily betting average would it take to qualify as a whale?

[lamboguy]

it cost just as much for the ticket puncher to punch out a $10 ticket as $100 one.

if no rebat to the $10 ticket the track makes $2.00. with a 10 % rebate to a $100 ticket the puncher makes $10.00.

you do the math and tell me why their shouldn't be raebates? or do you want the $100 better to go take a hike? Can the horse business exist with $10 bettors?

[alysheba88]

Sad day when its player against player in these arguments. We should be united on rebates regardless of our level of play.

Without the player there is no game.

Without the whale there is no other player. Just do the math sometime and look at what the whales contribute to the various coffers. There would not be a game without them.

[Tom]

Too many coffers.
How abnout 50% less races every day?
That would be blessing.

Racing existed without whales for a good many years. and without druggers and cheaters and all the other crap we populate the barns with theses days. A lot less racing would enhance the game.

Or, take a pages from the BC people - whales bet on Saturdays, average Joes bet on Fridays. :rolleyes:

[alysheba88]

Too many coffers.
How abnout 50% less races every day?
That would be blessing.

Racing existed without whales for a good many years. and without druggers and cheaters and all the other crap we populate the barns with theses days. A lot less racing would enhance the game.

Or, take a pages from the BC people - whales bet on Saturdays, average Joes bet on Fridays. :rolleyes:

Racing existed without whales? When

The $2 bet used to represent a significant amount of money

You think cutting races 50% will bring racing back to the "good old days". Where live racing was king, where there were limited gambling alternatives, and before tv, internet, other sports leagues and so forth? There is no returning to 1940.

Where is the handle going to come from? How will tracks stay open if betting handle drops substantially? What do you think would happen to takeout? Does anyone really, honestly believe that LESS HANDLE is the solution to racings problems? That less handle would positive in any way?

[russowen77]

Does anyone know the amount these people are betting to be considered whales?

[shanta]

Racing existed without whales for a good many years. and without druggers and cheaters and all the other crap we populate the barns with theses days. A lot less racing would enhance the game.


Agree 100%! 9 races a card. 6-8 tracks tops running nationally. Giant fields,giant pools. Let's rock! :jump:

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Can you imagine what would happen in Poker if the pro's were playing with a 3% rake and everyone else had a 5% rake. How about blackjack if the big players were given a higher payout for blackjack then anyone else to offset the house odds. Would anyone play? Some yes but the game would be hurt.

?????

High volume poker players pay less rake at almost every venue.

Blackjack whales are given cash rebates all the time.

[Jeff P]

Does anyone know the amount these people are betting to be considered whales?My understanding is that TrackNet has forced ADWs offering TrackNet track signals to require that rebated players bet at least $1 million annually... if you play full time - 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year - to qualify for rebates you need to bet at least $4,000.00 a day. In my opinion this level would actually be a little lower than what most "whales" bet. But it would qualify you for rebates.

Or... you could let TrackNet know what you think of them by betting non-TrackNet tracks through PTC... and get a very nice rebate in the process while being treated like you matter.

-jp

.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

This is absolutely pathetic.

The racetracks actually have people brainwashed into thinking that customers are leaving because of rebate players instead of customers leaving because almost nobody can win with the takeout being so ridiculously high.

[alysheba88]

This is absolutely pathetic.

The racetracks actually have people brainwashed into thinking that customers are leaving because of rebate players instead of customers leaving because almost nobody can win with the takeout being so ridiculously high.

Its amazing really.

[chickenhead]

This is absolutely pathetic.

The racetracks actually have people brainwashed into thinking that customers are leaving because of rebate players instead of customers leaving because almost nobody can win with the takeout being so ridiculously high.

I think pretty much everyone agrees a lower takeout is issue #1. "Rebates for everyone" = Lower takeout.

If poker had 30% rakes, but pros had 5% rakes, you'd have people complaining about that, too.

[banacek]

"Rebates for everyone" = Lower takeout.

Absolutely!

[Premier Turf Club]

Everyone's definition of "whales" is different but the level I have heard used most often is $5 million+ annually.

There are a very, very small number of players at that level. My guess is it's about 250 - 500 year-in, year-out.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Everyone's definition of "whales" is different but the level I have heard used most often is $5 million+ annually.

There are a very, very small number of players at that level. My guess is it's about 250 - 500 year-in, year-out.

Can I bet under 250 for everything I own and bet under 500 for my life?

[Imriledup]

Thought I'd pick this up again to hear other peoples opinions as I "lost" the last thread that dealt with it.

Looking at the 10% rebate that big players get;

Most whales feel they deserve the 10%, the little guys feel cheated. I've been thinking about it from a business sense.

My best analogy is of Walmart and other big businesses that are able to create a profit on small margins and chase the little guys out of business. On a simplistic level this is done through scale, buying large lots at discounts and selling them in big volume at margins that smaller retailers can't match to stay in business. To me this is similar to some whales that only win with 10% rebates.

What happens; Walmart puts 95%? plus of the little guys out of business. They can't compete on the same margins because they're buying at a higher prices and selling in smaller quantities.

It happens in horseracing too. If I'm betting against a 20% take on average versus someone else at 10%, who has the advantage? Why would I want to play in such a situation?

Can you imagine what would happen in Poker if the pro's were playing with a 3% rake and everyone else had a 5% rake. How about blackjack if the big players were given a higher payout for blackjack then anyone else to offset the house odds. Would anyone play? Some yes but the game would be hurt.

To me, we are facing that in horse racing. Casinos comp big players with free meals, hotel rooms, free flights etc BUT they aren't giving them a "reduced" takeout. If they did, do you think they'd stay in business?

I realize there are some semantics here but I have a problem with whales who take their 10% rebate and say they deserve it because of all the money the tracks are making on them. At what expense?

I agee that whales should receive special consideration. I don't agree that they should receive what essentially is a reduced takeout that tips the scales heavily in their favor and obliterates the chances of a the casual fan ever overcoming the track take without a lucky hit or two. It's hard enough to win with just the track take much less playing against players who have 1/2 the track take.

But that's another aspect of horse racing today that the average player faces. And to anyone who says the rebate doesn't count because it's paid back after winnings (or losses with some offshores) I say bull.......If you can turn a 7% loss into a profit it's a reduced takeout.

Pinnacle was marvelous. You could take a 5% loss and turn it into a 2% gain. It helped level the playing field. Now without Pinnacle it's just a 5% loss. Now I'm limited again to my plays that beat the track take alone.

I don't know the numbers but if the whales are betting say 20% of the pools and they're getting a 10% rebate, what's the realistic track take for the casual fan 30%, 35%? Someone's soaking up the wins that the whale achieve with their rebates.

Give them free programs, suites at the track, free past performances, meals etc but get rid of those rebates or make them available to all. My friends play poker and go the casinos, I don't blame them. It's a lot friendlier for those that don't know what they're doing.


I agree with DS in saying that people who complain about rebates are the ones not getting them. Instead of posting technical analysis as to why rebates are unfair, just say, "i don't get one so i'm jealous"

I will make just one point. Lets compare one whale to one non whale in a specific example. Race 1 at Laurel Park on a Thursday. Win pool is 40,000 after all is said and done. Big Whale looks up at the board with 1 minute to post and sees that the horse he likes is 3-1 and is projected to pay 8 dollars. Big Whale bets his customary 3,000 to win (he would bet 5k to win, but the pools are too small) and his 3-1 shot goes down to 9-5 and wins. Big Whale gets a 5.80 payoff. Little Fish misses the first race and shows up for the 2nd race (he got caught in traffic). Little fish looks up at the tote board and sees that his best bet of the day is 3-1. Little Fish bets his customary 20 dollars to win and his horse wins and pays 8.00.

The reason Big Whale NEEDS a rebate to stay in the game is because he's getting 5.80 on a 3-1 shot while little fish is getting 8.00 on his 3-1 shot.

If Big Whale didn't get a rebate, there's a cap as to how much he can play. With the rebate, he can play more. He CAN bet his 3k to win on that 3-1 shot into a 40k pool at Laurel.

[Premier Turf Club]

Can I bet under 250 for everything I own and bet under 500 for my life?

I would have said that same thing before I started. There are more than you think though. I know the names of at least 50, and maybe 100 if I really stop and think about it.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

I would have said that same thing before I started. There are more than you think though. I know the names of at least 50, and maybe 100 if I really stop and think about it.

Do the math.

Figure out total pari-mutuel handle minus pari-mutuel handle that whales can't/won't play. Basically 500 whales = 2.5 billion, which is ridiculous because some would bet way more than the minimum 5 million. So if we use 4 billion as a guess compared to appx. 8-10 billion total possible whale bettable handle, there is no way whales bet 40%-50%.

[russowen77]

Tjhanks for the data y'all. 5 mil a year to bet must be sweet. :)

[Premier Turf Club]

Do the math.

Figure out total pari-mutuel handle minus pari-mutuel handle that whales can't/won't play. Basically 500 whales = 2.5 billion, which is ridiculous because some would bet way more than the minimum 5 million. So if we use 4 billion as a guess compared to appx. 8-10 billion total possible whale bettable handle, there is no way whales bet 40%-50%.

I'm talking pari-mutuel and non-pari-mutuel. You'd have no idea how much is bet through the books and Betfair.

We've got guys betting $300k+ a month with us and at least that much through a BetCris, Pinnacle, Betfair, etc. on tracks we don't carry.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

I'm talking pari-mutuel and non-pari-mutuel. You'd have no idea how much is bet through the books and Betfair.

We've got guys betting $300k+ a month with us and at least that much through a BetCris, Pinnacle, Betfair, etc. on tracks we don't carry.

I give.

Thread was about rebates and whales.

If you want to add Betfair, your estimate of 250-500 is so low it's borderline ridiculous.

[Niko]

Of course I'm jealous I'm not getting rebates. I'm also jealous that I don't get stock options for guaranteed money regardless of performance. At this point I don't expect either. As folks like D Schwartz have said, they are what they are and I choose to play under those circumstances...but I'm betting about 1/2 what I did without my Pinnacle rebate. Not because I affect the pools, but because I could take lower odds.

Rebates are good, which is essentially a lower takout and helps everyone. Everyone on the board understands the math.

Whales and big players should be treated well because businesses make the most money from their best customers.

Those points I'm not trying to argue.

I'm trying to determine what impact that has on the game though. If the large players are playing at 1/2 the take, are able to drive more money into the win pools because of it and further decrease overlays in the pools (in most situations) making it harder for the average Joe (or Jill) to not lose their bank at the track, what happens to the little players. aka the small businesses? They close shop and leave. They can't compete.

I limit my plays to get around it. I'll admit I can't push enough through the windows without a rebate (and probably with one) to qualify for one so I don't expect it. But, does it impact the game? Is it one of a few possible explanations for decreasing handle?

If the whales have been increasing their handles because of rebates but handles overall are decreasing does that mean the even more of the everyday and casual fans are leaving? I don't know, I don't have the books.

I can get my friends to go to the track once or twice a year now compared to a few dozen times a year before. They're all playing Poker or going to the casinos. Tired of the high take at the horses and the perception of drugs and insiders using that knowledge.

Inside the Pylons-thanks for the info on large Poker and Blackjack players-I'll ask around to understand that more. I didn't think the percentages in blackjack or poker changed.
I think the big difference in rebates here is that the odds of you winning and collecting don't change when the whale bets $1,000 or $1,000,000 on his hand. The odds on your hand don't go from 4-1 to 5/2. If they did all the little players would walk away from the table after being pushed around.

Make sense?

[Murph]

The reason Big Whale NEEDS a rebate to stay in the game is because he's getting 5.80 on a 3-1 shot while little fish is getting 8.00 on his 3-1 shot.
This is a crock because the horse isn't a 3-1 shot any more as soon as the whale lays his bet in. Big bettors understand how they manuver the odds and it is the reason they want to camaflage their action in various ways. A person with enough money can set the odds at will and does so. It's all part of the parimutuel give and take we love. I choose to bet in todays enviorment almost everyday. I understand why tracks need to attract as many large bettors as possible and I'm not opposed to rebates.

As a matter of fairness it wouldn't take rocket science for the tote to tell us what percentage of money wagered into a pool will be rebated at which average percent. The whales want and need to eat our $2 bumz in large numbers, I don't want the tracks to put us in a barrell for them to do it though.

Murph

[Pace Cap'n]

Perhaps I am a minority of one, but, of all the problems plauging racing, I think takeout would rank somewhere near the bottom. In all my years at the track and/or simo, I have never ever heard one single person say that the takeout was too high. Or, for that matter, ever heard the word "takeout" mentioned.

Poker-wise, all the online sites offer rebates in one form or another. One dude amassed enough FPP's (frequent player points) to redeem them for a freakin' Aston-Martin.

[Javagold]

Everyone should be able to get a 7-10% rebate whether you bet $50 or $50,000 a day...End of story !!

[Cangamble]

Perhaps I am a minority of one, but, of all the problems plauging racing, I think takeout would rank somewhere near the bottom. In all my years at the track and/or simo, I have never ever heard one single person say that the takeout was too high. Or, for that matter, ever heard the word "takeout" mentioned.

Poker-wise, all the online sites offer rebates in one form or another. One dude amassed enough FPP's (frequent player points) to redeem them for a freakin' Aston-Martin.
The word takeout is mentioned by those who left. That is why without whales and others who get rebates, betting would be down the toilet instead of embarrassingly just staying even in recent years in light of the fact that almost anyone could make a bet now from home if they want.

Takeout is the largest thing plaguing horse racing right now. Nothing is even close.

[Cangamble]

Everyone should be able to get a 7-10% rebate whether you bet $50 or $50,000 a day...End of story !!
I actually agree with that. But why even rebate. WPS should have a standard 10-12% everywhere and all other bets should be between 12-15%.

You would see betting explode if this was the case.

[Cangamble]

I should also add, that even if people aren't aware of track takeout, they are aware of how little a chance they have to win, and really now look at going to the track as a most probable losing proposition.
Back in the one track days, that wasn't the prevaling attitude so much.

[banacek]

Takeout is the largest thing plaguing horse racing right now. Nothing is even close.

Well I agree the takeout should be lowered - especially the takeout on the exotics which is ridiculous.

But the takeout on WPS hasn't really changed much in the last 40 years - or am I missing something. My copy of Ainslie (dated 1968) says "most tracks now deduct approximately 17%". Now I don't that many tracks, but 17% is about as high as any takeout I've dealt with recently. I play NY (15%), California (15.4%), Hastings (17.0% was 15.8% until last year:mad: , but now that they have slots they have upped the purses for this year- could I hope they'll drop the takeout back to 2006 levels?:lol: ).

I'd like the WPS takeout to drop and the exotics should drop a bunch. And get rid of rebates, horseplayer clubs, and (like you) most of the executives at WEG.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

But the takeout on WPS hasn't really changed much in the last 40 years - or am I missing something.

40 years ago..........

There wasn't a casino on every corner

There wasn't a million online gambling options

There wasn't a million state run lottery games

If you wanted to gamble, it was Vegas or the racetrack.

Today, you can..........

basically bet sports juice free (1%-2% at most if you are betting huge)

play a 100K pot of poker with the rake between 50 cents and $4

play blackjack with a theoretical hold of around 1%

And racing is still in the non-competitive 40 years ago dark ages.

[banacek]

40 years ago..........

There wasn't a casino on every corner

There wasn't a million online gambling options

There wasn't a million state run lottery games

If you wanted to gamble, it was Vegas or the racetrack.

Today, you can..........

basically bet sports juice free (1%-2% at most if you are betting huge)

play a 100K pot of poker with the rake between 50 cents and $4

play blackjack with a theoretical hold of around 1%

And racing is still in the non-competitive 40 years ago dark ages.

True, point taken, the tracks have to become more competitive because there are too many games in town. That's why they have to drop the take.

(One thing though - 40 years ago it cost me $10-$15 just to get ready to play the races (gas, admission, racing form, etc.), now it is about $1 - which must be about 10 or 20 cents in 1968 dollars!

[Cangamble]

20-25 years ago, there were no simulcastings which turned playing horses into a more blackjack, slots type of game (more bets per hour can be made, and lets face it, are made by many).
When slots came along, the sucker money mostly went to the slots. Suckers have a much lower ROI than those who do work, and stay away from chalk for example.
20 years ago (approx) Beyers numbers were available to everyone on the Form. This leveled the playing field for many a speed handicapper who had an edge by doing their own numbers or at least understanding the significance of track variant.
Bottom line is that winners (who play without rebate) are few and far between. No more buzz when it comes to going to the track.
25 years ago, a handicapper had a chance to beat a 20% takeout on a consistent basis (not by much, but it was possible.), now it is close to impossible.

[lamboguy]

40 years ago takeout at racetracks was less than 10%, and the tracks flourished. now they charge more than 30% in some cases/ they are having their problems with all this takeout.


the takeout is to high, if lowered they would increase their business, remember they are competeing against casino's and lottery's today!

[banacek]

40 years ago takeout at racetracks was less than 10%

This is my question. 40 years ago Ainslie said the takeout rates were 17%. What were the takeout rates in 1968, 1958,etc. Maybe sometime they were 10% but when?

[lamboguy]

i remember when the new england tracks, sulfolk, rockingham, naraganset, scarboro downs and lincoln were all less than 10%. the tracks were all packed, and they paid $2.20 to show along with new york racing.

that was on win place and show pool betting, of course back in those days there was only one daily double and 3 perfecta's on a standard race card!

[Cangamble]

This is my question. 40 years ago Ainslie said the takeout rates were 17%. What were the takeout rates in 1968, 1958,etc. Maybe sometime they were 10% but when?
If I remember correctly, 40 years ago when I was seven, Woodbine/Greenwood had a track takeout of around 14%. Now lets not forget, they were the only game in town, and there was only 1 daily double, and 2 exactors in a 8 race card.
No simulcasting. Lots of tout money, full stands. Woodbine used to get around 15-16,000 people in the stands on a Saturday constantly (this was before Sunday racing).
Churn rate was high. People had a good chance of going home a winner (not as many plays were available and there was tons of sucker money, people who bet "tips" were all over the place).

[Imriledup]

This is a crock because the horse isn't a 3-1 shot any more as soon as the whale lays his bet in. Big bettors understand how they manuver the odds and it is the reason they want to camaflage their action in various ways. A person with enough money can set the odds at will and does so. It's all part of the parimutuel give and take we love. I choose to bet in todays enviorment almost everyday. I understand why tracks need to attract as many large bettors as possible and I'm not opposed to rebates.

As a matter of fairness it wouldn't take rocket science for the tote to tell us what percentage of money wagered into a pool will be rebated at which average percent. The whales want and need to eat our $2 bumz in large numbers, I don't want the tracks to put us in a barrell for them to do it though.

Murph

In the real world, a person who buys in bulk gets a discount. if you buy one doughnut its 99 cents. If you buy a dozen, you get a break on the price (not sure what a dozen doughnuts costs, but its not .99 x 12). In racing, the person who buys in bulk (or bets a lot) not only doesn't get a discount, but he pays a premium.

If you bet 2 dollars on a 3-1 shot, you get 8 dollars. If you bet 2 thousand dollars on that same 3-1 shot, you get 6 dollars.

Why should someone betting in bulk not get a discount (rebate)?

[Dave Schwartz]

...and they paid $2.20 to show along with new york racing


Funny, but I recall it differently. I recall that you could get $1.90 back in a "minus pool."

[Pace Cap'n]

If you bet 2 dollars on a 3-1 shot, you get 8 dollars. If you bet 2 thousand dollars on that same 3-1 shot, you get 6 dollars.

Why should someone betting in bulk not get a discount (rebate)?

This is where the "pari-mutuel" in the term "pari-mutuel wagering" kicks in.

For fixed odds, see the crap table.

[Imriledup]

This is where the "pari-mutuel" in the term "pari-mutuel wagering" kicks in.

For fixed odds, see the crap table.

This has nothing to do with fixed odds. It has everything to do with a big bettor not wanting to knock his own price down so much as to create negative value.

The final odds, for the most part, is a fairly efficient market....if you are taking efficient prices and knocking them down way below market value, you are creating a long run losing bet. The only reason a smart player will bet a large amount is if he's being compensated somehow to do so.

[firstofftheclaim]

Do businesses not offer discounts for bulk orders? Whales could be viewed the same way. If you NEED a rebate to break even, find a new hobby.

[Cangamble]

Do businesses not offer discounts for bulk orders? Whales could be viewed the same way. If you NEED a rebate to break even, find a new hobby.
Considering the track takeout averages over 20%, the average horse player needs a 20% rebate to break even.
If you are saying that those who can't break even should find a new hobby, the game would be officially kaput.

[northerndancer]

A few of my own observations with the new 1/3 of blended takeout for purses, 1/3 to tracks and 1/3 for the non track outlet taking the wager that has been floated by the new horsemen's group.

I will get to how this pertains to the whale just give me time.

1. This new organization is a direct result of TNM and how ther business practices are received by the industry;
2. The base concept will only cause contraction of tracks (ecspecially at the 'c' level tracks (Beulah, Thistledowns, etc);
3. The industry will cause itself depth of pool degredation with this economic model;

The whale aspect to all of this:

1. You really need to look at Punters based on level of play....... there are the Blue Whales, the Southern Right Whale, Sperm Whale, Sei Whale and Humpback Whale;
2. Their are 5 Blue Whales known to the game today and they wager 1.5 Billion annually which makes up 10% of the total handle for North American racing;
3. The Blue Whale is non discriminatory of its hunting grounds as it will frolic whereever it is welcomed but it will never destroy any of its hunting grounds as it needs every possible track in order to be able to play that level of handle;
4. The Blue Whale will make up approx 5% of the total handle at the premier tracks (Del Mar, Santa Anita, Gulfstream Park, Hollywood Park, Fair Grounds, Churchill Downs) and will make up 20% of the handle at smaller venues (Beulah, Thistledowns, Sam Houston, Mountaineer, Penn National, etc.)..... this is a critical point in relation to the new horsemen's group primary agenda;
5. The Blue Whale does not create the minus place and show pools as they tend not to hunt in these specific waters;
6. As you move down the size chart of whales the actual number increases but there is a sheer drop off in size;


If the 1/3 Blended Takeout comes to being the non racing wagering outlets that service the Blue Whales would acutally lose money on the WPS wager and not be willing to offer a rebate to the Blue Whales. The blended takeout is apporx 21% which means that in a WPS pool with a 15% takeout the wagering outlet would be left with 1% before their direct costs which would make accepting the WPS wager unacceptable. This would create a liquidity issue in the Win pool at every track but specifically at the non Premier tracks.

The Blue Whale is constantly being pressured by the tracks (not all tracks) to not win against the takeout as the tracks do not want their on track patrons to lose. Therefore most Blue Whales understand that they need to get close to 98% return on every dollar wagered and then with a 10% rebate it will put them in a 8% profit before expenses. If the rebate is taken away from the Blue Whale why would the Blue Whale continue to frolic in these hunting grounds. Would they better off taking their bankroll and investing it in CD's or other guarnateed investments with no risk (I realize that these Blue Whales are too much of risk junkies to do this but I think you understand my point).

The Blue Whale offers depth to the non premier tracks pools. Without the Blue Whales the pool size will be severely limited which in turn will adversely effect the whole market. Therefore taking away or reducing the Blue Whales rebate will only reduce the handle at the track which in turn reduces what the track makes & horsemen get for purses. The fact is if you eliminate the rebate through increase track content fees the Blue Whale will go elsewhere and leave the game completely.

What the track charges to the outlet taking the wager is the critical piece in the equation. It is time that the industry realize that the fee charged for access to the track signal needs to be adjusted based on type of pool, type of player, field size, level of track (premier, A, B, C, etc) in order to correct the issue.

Whether a rebate is paid is a decision made by the outlet accepting the wager. They set the level of play necessary to qualify for a rebate..... why because it is the funds left after the outlet pays the track fee, tote company, staff and other costs that allow them to pay a rebate. If PTC choses to pay a rebate for all of their customers than that is their decision. What amount of rebate that PTC pays is their decision.

IMO a Blue Whale deserves the highest rebate paid in the game and then the next level of rebate is for the Southern Right Whale and then the next rebate level for the Sperm Whale and so on........ TNM put a threshold in of $1,000,000 of total handle (not just TNM track handle) so that the rebate operations would canablize the tracks players. I think the threshold set by TNM is too low IMO the threshold to receive a rebate should be $10 Million annual handle.

[russowen77]

Could someone correct me if I am wrong but does not the State set the takeout?

[trying2win]

I've seen a lot of PA members complain about high track takeouts and why they can't get rebates etc here at this website. Then a lot of them won't follow up by sending emails to the racetrack executives about high takeouts and complain about it. Or, they won't send emails to some arrogant horsemen group executives who are adamantly against rebates for horse players. There have been a few willing PA members here who have sent the emails on one, or maybe both subjects. Kudos to you! We need more like you.

I've sent emails to some racetrack executives and/or horsemen group executives in the past. I've told these executives that if they refuse to do business with an ADW like PREMIER TURF CLUB, then if I want to bet their track then I'll send my bets through PINNACLE SPORTS. That's exactly what I've been doing lately, by sending some bets for example on the GULFSTREAM and WOODBINE harness races through PINNACLE. I don't like betting now without a rebate. It's tough enough trying to be profitable without these rewards.

By betting certain tracks through PINNACLE, I'm hitting certain tracks and horsemen in the wallet. They get no financial benefits from these wagers then. I think more people should send these arrogant, neanderthal-thinking racetrack and/or horsemen group executives this same kind of message. I'm sending them a message THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR...it's a message THEY NEED TO HEAR! And they need to hear the message about lower track takeouts and other horse player concerns as well.


~ "The REAL BOSS IS THE CUSTOMER. They pay for your salary and everything you own. If you don't please him or her, they will take their business elsewhere".

--Earl Nightingale

[Cangamble]

Could someone correct me if I am wrong but does not the State set the takeout?
Not in Ontario. It is completely up to the track. There are mandatory taxes which are charged (3-5%) by the government, but after that it is the track's decision.
Laurel was able to experiment last year with a low takeout, so I doubt the state controls takeout.

[Cangamble]

I've seen a lot of PA members complain about high track takeouts and why they can't get rebates etc here at this website. Then a lot of them won't follow up by sending emails to the racetrack executives about high takeouts and complain about it. Or, they won't send emails to some arrogant horsemen group executives who are adamantly against rebates for horse players. There have been a few willing PA members here who have sent the emails on one, or maybe both subjects. Kudos to you! We need more like you.

I've sent emails to some racetrack executives and/or horsemen group executives in the past. I've told these executives that if they refuse to do business with an ADW like PREMIER TURF CLUB, then if I want to bet their track then I'll send my bets through PINNACLE SPORTS. That's exactly what I've been doing lately, by sending some bets for example on the GULFSTREAM and WOODBINE harness races through PINNACLE. I don't like betting now without a rebate. It's tough enough trying to be profitable without these rewards.

By betting certain tracks through PINNACLE, I'm hitting certain tracks and horsemen in the wallet. They get no financial benefits from these wagers then. I think more people should send these arrogant, neanderthal-thinking racetrack and/or horsemen group executives this same kind of message. I'm sending them a message THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR...it's a message THEY NEED TO HEAR! And they need to hear the message about lower track takeouts and other horse player concerns as well.


~ "The REAL BOSS IS THE CUSTOMER. They pay for your salary and everything you own. If you don't please him or her, they will take their business elsewhere".

--Earl Nightingale
I get hits on my blog from WEG. I'm sure there are execs reading this thread as well.
My guess is they wish we'd just shut up. But I have no intention of doing so.

[Pace Cap'n]

Could someone correct me if I am wrong but does not the State set the takeout?

In most cases in the States, you are correct.

[ryesteve]

This has nothing to do with fixed odds. It has everything to do with a big bettor not wanting to knock his own price down so much as to create negative value.
The problem with your argument is that when the whale comes along with his rebate and knocks the price down from $8 to $6, the non-rebate gets screwed because his payout is also getting knocked down, killing his edge, but he DOESN'T get a rebate to compensate for it.

[Cangamble]

The problem with your argument is that when the whale comes along with his rebate and knocks the price down from $8 to $6, the non-rebate gets screwed because his payout is also getting knocked down, killing his edge, but he DOESN'T get a rebate to compensate for it.
I think it is an exaggeration that whales drop prices from 8 to 6 bucks.
I'd say overall, that whales cost small non rebate players around 4% overall in potential payoffs. It could be a little higher, but not much.
The reality is that the small player is discourage enough, the extra 4% makes little difference to their betting patterns. Once you are charging a 20% takeout, a 24% takeout is just like shooting someone who is already dead.
Whales churn and churn and churn, and without them there would be a lot less money in the pools today and it would drastically hurt the tracks bottom line if they disappeared.

Again, I say drop takeouts to 12-15% for everyone in North America, whales would not be needed anymore and betting would go up drastically.
Just wrote a post slamming Magna for their lack of vision when it comes to this:
http://cangamble.blogspot.com/2008/03/stronach-is-no-visionary-magnas-future.html

[lamboguy]

spot on congamble. i am a rebate player, but i would prefer your scenerio with the lower takeout and more handle and forgoe of my rebate.


from what i understand, hong kong and japan have dramaticaly lower takeouts, smaller rebates, and they have $100 million a day in handle. they also scrutinize their racing to the nth degree.

i might suggest that the folks at the track net pay a visit to the orient, and they might learn something.

[DanG]

The problem with your argument is that when the whale comes along with his rebate and knocks the price down from $8 to $6, the non-rebate gets screwed because his payout is also getting knocked down, killing his edge, but he DOESN'T get a rebate to compensate for it.
There is also a flip side to that coin Steve imo…

The smaller risk player also gets significantly higher returns when Dahlman & Goldfarb step on a NY exacta and miss.

I think the smaller bettor misses the upside to whales when their losing a good 80+% of their exacta wagers for example.

I say bless the player who pushes millions through the windows and make the water as inviting as possible to attract more of them. It’s then the mission for the remainder of the pool to study their attack and profit when they miss…and they DO miss more often then we collectively think.

[Pace Cap'n]

from what i understand, hong kong and japan have dramaticaly lower takeouts, smaller rebates, and they have $100 million a day in handle. they also scrutinize their racing to the nth degree.

i might suggest that the folks at the track net pay a visit to the orient, and they might learn something.

In Hong Kong, if you want to gamble, the track is the only game in town. A recent article (that I can't cite) stated that even they are starting to see a downturn due to the recent inception of Vegas-style casinos in neighboring Macau.

[Premier Turf Club]

There is also a flip side to that coin Steve imo…

The smaller risk player also gets significantly higher returns when Dahlman & Goldfarb step on a NY exacta and miss.

I think the smaller bettor misses the upside to whales when their losing a good 80+% of their exacta wagers for example.

I say bless the player who pushes millions through the windows and make the water as inviting as possible to attract more of them. It’s then the mission for the remainder of the pool to study their attack and profit when they miss…and they DO miss more often then we collectively think.

Dead on post Dan. Without the liquidity added by the "whales" at the smaller venues it would be nearly impossible to play into the pools. Try betting into a $500 PK3 pool at WRD, or an $8k win pool at CBY (pre rebate days).

[Cangamble]

There is also a flip side to that coin Steve imo…

The smaller risk player also gets significantly higher returns when Dahlman & Goldfarb step on a NY exacta and miss.

I think the smaller bettor misses the upside to whales when their losing a good 80+% of their exacta wagers for example.

I say bless the player who pushes millions through the windows and make the water as inviting as possible to attract more of them. It’s then the mission for the remainder of the pool to study their attack and profit when they miss…and they DO miss more often then we collectively think.
But overall, whales do take money away from the small bettor in general.
A whale who gets a 10% rebate has a goal of having a ROI of .9 or better to at least break even.
Most do better than break even of course and they might have a ROI on average of .96 (Just a guess). So if they bet 5 million on the year, they make 300k.
This all means that the average non whale bettor has to have a ROI of much less than .80 (assuming an industry 20% takeout average).

That aside, if takeouts were knocked down to 15% maximum everywhere, good handicappers/bettors (those who win and those who have a ROI of greater than .85 in this example) would still be a burden to the rest of the bettors causing their ROIs to be much higher than .85.

Lets face it, if 15% takes became a reality, whales would still be pumping the money in, but only getting a 3-5% instead. I just think there would be a lot more players out there as the game will all of a sudden become reasonable to beat.

[Cangamble]

In Hong Kong, if you want to gamble, the track is the only game in town. A recent article (that I can't cite) stated that even they are starting to see a downturn due to the recent inception of Vegas-style casinos in neighboring Macau.
Competition for gambling dollars is supposed to be an excuse to lower the house rake in order to compete, not increase it.

[northerndancer]

I am really confused by the thought that every player deserves a rebate and that lower takeout is the cure.

Anyone beating the drum for lower takeout is only going to hurt their hands because that will NEVER happen so you have to get real with your fight. The groups that control the takeout will not take the chance to lower takeout to hopefully increase handle........ look at past examples that have not worked.... do not give me well it was only 10 days last summer at Laurel or the pick 4 with no takeout..... lower takeout has not increased the handle in a fashion that demonstrates to the beneficiaries of the takeout that it is a smart business move to make in regard to their revenue stream.

Another point is the airlines and the frequent flyer program. If I fly enough miles I can gain access to the Silver club and get a free upgrade to First Class but if the day I am flying a Platinum or Gold member is in coach they will get the upgrade before me because they fly more miles than I do. I do not complain to Northwest gate agent that I should be treated the same as the Platinum member. I take my ticket in economy and hope that another seat in first opens up. Why should it not be the same in our industry?

I wager $84,000 a year and do not get a financial rebate instead I qualify for points to get my kids something each year. I also do not believe I am entitled to a cash rebate for the level of my play. I am an economy flyer in this game. If I was to get a cash rebate for my play it would not go back into the pools it would go into my pocket. I do feel that I am more representative of the average joe than the whale who takes the rebate and churns the rebate making more money to the beneficiaries of the takeout as well as adding depth to the pools.

IMO a reduce takeout would mean less revenue to the parties who benefit from the takeout because I would not expect the increase in handle to make up for the lost revenue from the reduced takeout. The Blue Whale will not be the group that is responsible for the increase in handle. The handle increase will have to come from the average player or the Humpback Whale and I do not see them increasing their staking from their current positions with a reduction in takeout.

[cj]

But overall, whales do take money away from the small bettor in general.


Not really in my opinion. I think the money they are taking away is from those giving the rebate. It comes directly from them.

[bigmack]

Not really in my opinion. I think the money they are taking away is from those giving the rebate. It comes directly from them.
That's the stance I've always taken on this issue. I can't figure out why the folks that feel they're getting shafted can't grasp this.

[Premier Turf Club]

That's the stance I've always taken on this issue. I can't figure out why the folks that feel they're getting shafted can't grasp this.

If I choose to keep the entire spread for myself, give cash rewards to players or donate it all to Little Sisters of The Poor, shouldn't that be my decision?

If I give away my profits how does that hurt anyone? Other operators are free to do the same.

[Javagold]

PTC, with all due respect, i am sure you dont mind giving back some of your "profits" as 0 X 0 = 0 but 3 % of $10 million = ALOT $$$ (i know im exaggerating) but this money your "giving back" wouldnt be yours to give back without the REBATE


Full disclosure.....i love rebates and am lucky to get them (i am not a whale)HOWEVER rebates do hurt the small player without a doubt as the payoffs are usually smaller and thus a lose-lose situation for that player and thats my argument with CRW giving those players an advantage to look for inequities in the pools, IS NOT FAIR, i dont care how much handle you push thru the windows


the end game as i see it ( may take 100 years) is all the money will eventually find its way to the WHALES and then the 50 of them can play against each other

[chickenhead]

rebates are great if you get them. If you don't get them, it is a tough argument to say that they benefit you. They may not hurt you, but I don't believe they help. Dumb money helps, not 0.96 ROI money.

[Cangamble]

I am really confused by the thought that every player deserves a rebate and that lower takeout is the cure.

Anyone beating the drum for lower takeout is only going to hurt their hands because that will NEVER happen so you have to get real with your fight. The groups that control the takeout will not take the chance to lower takeout to hopefully increase handle........ look at past examples that have not worked.... do not give me well it was only 10 days last summer at Laurel or the pick 4 with no takeout..... lower takeout has not increased the handle in a fashion that demonstrates to the beneficiaries of the takeout that it is a smart business move to make in regard to their revenue stream.

Another point is the airlines and the frequent flyer program. If I fly enough miles I can gain access to the Silver club and get a free upgrade to First Class but if the day I am flying a Platinum or Gold member is in coach they will get the upgrade before me because they fly more miles than I do. I do not complain to Northwest gate agent that I should be treated the same as the Platinum member. I take my ticket in economy and hope that another seat in first opens up. Why should it not be the same in our industry?

I wager $84,000 a year and do not get a financial rebate instead I qualify for points to get my kids something each year. I also do not believe I am entitled to a cash rebate for the level of my play. I am an economy flyer in this game. If I was to get a cash rebate for my play it would not go back into the pools it would go into my pocket. I do feel that I am more representative of the average joe than the whale who takes the rebate and churns the rebate making more money to the beneficiaries of the takeout as well as adding depth to the pools.

IMO a reduce takeout would mean less revenue to the parties who benefit from the takeout because I would not expect the increase in handle to make up for the lost revenue from the reduced takeout. The Blue Whale will not be the group that is responsible for the increase in handle. The handle increase will have to come from the average player or the Humpback Whale and I do not see them increasing their staking from their current positions with a reduction in takeout.
I totally disagree with you. First off, the nobel try by Laurel and Ellis were irrelevant. It has to be a group of tracks that get together to try it, or simply extra money won at Laurel will be quickly squandered back to other high track takeouts tracks. It will hardly be churnable. Don't forget, mighty Woodbine wouldn't let its patrons take advantage of trying Laurel. Canadians were effectively shut out. And Woodbine took their 25% from Ellis Park tris. So again, Canadians were shut out of that experiment.

I know for a fact that people bet back their extra, and winners bet more.

Recently I wagered 8 times as much as I would have to date in 2008, and it all had to do with rebates. Yes, that is 8 times as much. I know it for a fact, because rebates kept me alive until I got hot for a spell.

And I am starting to think the game is beatable again.

The extra money will not go into most players pockets.

[cj]

Just because "whales" bet a lot doesn't mean they are winners. Do you think Vegas flies in big bettors and gives them penthouse suites because they clean up at the black jack table each visit?

[chickenhead]

Just because "whales" bet a lot doesn't mean they are winners. Do you think Vegas flies in big bettors and gives them penthouse suites because they clean up at the black jack table each visit?

Vegas bans the people that do make money. If they didn't, the whale ROI at the blackjack tables would be impressive. I don't have any reason to think horseracing is all that different...the smart money grows, the dumb money shrinks. Unless racing is continually beaching huge dumb whales, the smart ones should take over more and more of the pools. I don't have any reason to think that is not whats happening.

[Cangamble]

Not really in my opinion. I think the money they are taking away is from those giving the rebate. It comes directly from them.
I don't think we should use the term "unfair" advantage. It is strictly an advantage, and it does take the small player out of the game quicker, but the small player in this example had no chance to begin with anyway.

I can't remember the total bet figure for a year is, but lets use 1 billion (for however long it takes to bet 1 billion)
800 million is bet by those who don't get rebates, and 200 million by those who get rebates. The rebates are 10%. The average takeout rate is 20%. Another assumption is that whales wouldn't bet if they didn't make money with rebates so lets say their total ROI with rebate is 1.05, and they wouldn't bet without rebates because they would be losing money.

Without rebates. 800 million would be bet, and 640 million would be returned to the non rebate players.

With rebates. 1 billion would be bet with 190 million going back to the rebate player (plus their rebate), which means that 610 million would be going back to the other players instead of 640 million.

[Niko]

Just because "whales" bet a lot doesn't mean they are winners. Do you think Vegas flies in big bettors and gives them penthouse suites because they clean up at the black jack table each visit?

That's true but I believe that's a little different situation. In horseracing the ADW takes their cut up front regardless of whether the bet is won or lost. Kind of like the rake in poker. It doesn't matter which players win or lose, the house wins. But the profit and losses are divided among the players.

In blackjack, it's the house against the player. 52 cards in a deck, hard statistics that don't fluctuate. Either you figure out an edge like the card counters that put the percentages in your favor (and your kicked out of the casinos if you're caught or you lose. It doesn't matter what the other players at the table are doing (...if they don't play right there can be an affect)

And the casinos aren't giving rebates to the blackjack players to put the odds in their favor-changing an 8% loss into a 2% win. If they give rebates they still have an edge. Usually though it's rooms, dinners, etc-things that don't impact their odds or expectations of profit.


There was a thread on here a couple years ago where some ADW that catered to large players said the overall loss was around 10 cents on the dollar or so-or someone reported it. So they don't all win. I'm sure there are some large gamblers out there just like in Vegas that like to bet large sums because they have the money and like the action.

[lurker]

Excelent posts Cangamble. The solution of course is lower takeouts across the board. Every market that has done this has seen volume explode to more than overcome the change in takeout. Look at the stock market. As spreads and trading costs have come down, volume has exploded. The same applies to currencies, commodities etc. A lower rate encourages more participants and market makers, which is what whales really are. I had a discussion with a C Fotius and asked if I opened a dog track with a 4,5,6% takeout would pros play it and would I make money? He said that I might, but that of course no other outlet would carry the signal.

On a related topic, how much money do you think is bet with bookmakers/exchanges compared to the track pool? My feeling is that at the large tracks the WPS pool is probably bet 30x off track, the two horse pools are around 15x the track pool and no guess as to the multihorse pools. I know one crew that will never ever hit the track pool and will take 15-1 on Win and 50/1 on exotics. They average $15,000 per bet.

[Niko]

There is also a flip side to that coin Steve imo…

The smaller risk player also gets significantly higher returns when Dahlman & Goldfarb step on a NY exacta and miss.

I think the smaller bettor misses the upside to whales when their losing a good 80+% of their exacta wagers for example.

I say bless the player who pushes millions through the windows and make the water as inviting as possible to attract more of them. It’s then the mission for the remainder of the pool to study their attack and profit when they miss…and they DO miss more often then we collectively think.

That's a great point and why I limit myself to a couple plays a day now and rarely play a horse below 5-1. I figure the whale can't pound the higher odds horses as much without hurting their edge so they're concentrating on the lower odds horses (I could be wrong) in the straight pools. So I stay with the longshots and the whales in the game may benefit my play in those situations, I don't know.

Plus with the rebates they're able to play those low odds horses at a loss and profit and I can't-so why pick that battle. I'll be the one getting my ass handed to me 99% of the time.

So I decrease my volume for profit plays and limit my betting on fun days at the track knowing it's for entertainment and I'm paying other peoples salaries. Maybe one day I'll figure out how to profit on 1st or 2nd fav's but I'm definately not there.

[Premier Turf Club]

That's a great point and why I limit myself to a couple plays a day now and rarely play a horse below 5-1. I figure the whale can't pound the higher odds horses as much without hurting their edge so they're concentrating on the lower odds horses (I could be wrong) in the straight pools. So I stay with the longshots and the whales in the game may benefit my play in those situations, I don't know.

You are not wrong. Whales rarely key on any horses above 5 or 6 to 1. Their specialty is something like that fave/ 3rd fave exacta combo they have 500 times.

[Cangamble]

I don't think we should use the term "unfair" advantage. It is strictly an advantage, and it does take the small player out of the game quicker, but the small player in this example had no chance to begin with anyway.

I can't remember the total bet figure for a year is, but lets use 1 billion (for however long it takes to bet 1 billion)
800 million is bet by those who don't get rebates, and 200 million by those who get rebates. The rebates are 10%. The average takeout rate is 20%. Another assumption is that whales wouldn't bet if they didn't make money with rebates so lets say their total ROI with rebate is 1.05, and they wouldn't bet without rebates because they would be losing money.

Without rebates. 800 million would be bet, and 640 million would be returned to the non rebate players.

With rebates. 1 billion would be bet with 190 million going back to the rebate player (plus their rebate), which means that 610 million would be going back to the other players instead of 640 million.
I know. A sign of insanity is talking to yourself. Another good sign is replying to yourself on the internet;)

In my above example, and sticking with theories as to what I know would happen with extra money, the 30million that the whales are costing the non rebate players in the above example would probably also result in another 100 million in wagering.

Again, I'm not anti-whale at all. Take whales out of the game and divide the players into good versus bad, where good players have a ROI on average of .85 on half the total money that is bet in racing, while bad players have a ROI of .75 on the other half. If good players didn't exist, the bad player's ROI would have to be .80

Good players are a detriment to the rest of the players and always have been :)

[rokitman]

We need to recruit dumb money.

Maybe Ken has some ideas.

[ranchwest]

We need to recruit dumb money.

Maybe Ken has some ideas.

EVERYONE throws in dumb money sometimes, including the whales. That's why selective play is so critical.

[Cangamble]

We need to recruit dumb money.

Maybe Ken has some ideas.
The dumb money has gone into the slot machines. The bettor gets no advantage from slots.
To recruit newer players (potential dumb money), racetracks need to create a buzz that players have a reasonable chance to win if they do enough homework. This will only happen if takeouts are reduced to 12-15% across the board by the industry.
Friends will tell friends they have a chance, or have had a hot streak, and who knows, we'll get those young online poker players feeding into our pools.
To get back the players who left offshore or Betfair, the industry will have to both lower takeouts, and control their own betting exchange at an equal rake to Betfair.

[Premier Turf Club]

We need to recruit dumb money.

Maybe Ken has some ideas.

I'll see if I can get my wife to open an account with us. ;)

[Javagold]

If I choose to keep the entire spread for myself, give cash rewards to players or donate it all to Little Sisters of The Poor, shouldn't that be my decision?

If I give away my profits how does that hurt anyone? Other operators are free to do the same.

thats the question, thats has not been answered yet...

perhaps you are hurting the track (whatever one that may be), who lost the player who would have bet with them directly without a Rebate OR perhaps that money would not have been bet at all, thus the track is actually making something by you giving your rebate

but you "giving away your profits" is not a valid argument as you would have NO profits (or very little as im sure you would still have some busines) without the Rebates and thus the Sister of the poor shouldnt be holding their breath waiting for a donation ;)

[Premier Turf Club]

Most of that money would either not be bet at all, or would be bet through the off-shore bookmakers which obviously generates zero for the tracks.

That's not a guess. I know most of our players well, especially our biggest ones. To a man they tell me that if they couldn't bet through an ADW they'd stop playing. It's an old argument the tracks have been making for years. How many people on this board even live within 30 miles of a host track? Are you telling me the guys that play our night signals, CT, TP, PENN, MNR, LOS, Rideau Carlton, Balmoral, etc. would drive out after work to a race track to play them if we didn't offer rewards? No way. There is no question after a year's worth of business that we have added monies to the host track's bottom line. Like I'd said previously, we've got guys that bet a couple of hundred grand a month with the books on the tracks we don't have.

[bigmack]

perhaps you are hurting the track (whatever one that may be), who lost the player who would have bet with them directly without a Rebate OR perhaps that money would not have been bet at all, thus the track is actually making something by you giving your rebate
Huh? By him giving rebates, and augmenting play, he's supporting the track. Betting directly with the track, or through PTC, which offers a rebate, is a win/win for the host track.

Handle baby, handle.

[lamboguy]

you guys are using rebates as teh problem for racetracks. the tracks have disrespected their customer's for years. they figure that by taking your bets they are doing the player a favor. the result of that attitude is declining attendance and handles.



the casino's run aound and try to intice their players. they give them free drinks, waitress with low cut blouses to serve the drinks, and a smile on their faces.

no matter what size player you are you get something from the casino. at the racetrack you get a mean look and a boot in the rear.

get rid of rebates and lose at least 30% of the handle, even the small guys that don't get the rebate will stop playing into empty pools.

[Premier Turf Club]

get rid of rebates and lose at least 30% of the handle, even the small guys that don't get the rebate will stop playing into empty pools.

Or move their play to bookmakers.

Offering incentives is the only way to recapture the $4 billion (I use $4b, I've heard others say it's as much as $10b) wagered outside the pools. Nearly all track executives we've spoken to understand they have a significant problem with "leakage."

[chickenhead]

EVERYONE throws in dumb money sometimes, including the whales.

It's the collective that matters to the bottom line.

Say some Joe comes in and bets $100K this year, and his ROI is right at the track take. It is mathematically impossible that collectively we have taken any money from him. All he has done is pay the track. He hasn't lost a dollar to any other gambler.

Some other Joe comes in and after $100K bet has an ROI of 0.90. He has paid the track, and he has taken money from other gamblers. Again, a mathematical certainty. He has made the pools more efficient. Any singular money you might have made from him in one case is more than offset by other money you could have won had he not been around. He is a net winner from the pool of other gamblers.

ANYONE, and to a higher degree depending on how much they bet and to a higher degree on how high their ROI is, that beats the track take is soaking up dumb money. They are making it more difficult for all of the people that were previously beating the track take. In fact, assuming no new money comes in on the other side, some of the people who were beating the take will no longer be.

For you to make money, there must be people losing more than the track take when all their bets are tallied up. They have to pay the track, and then they have to pay you. I don't know how efficient the pools are, but I know it is very easy to beat the track take. Yet, for any of us to make money, we rely on people who lose MORE than the track take. It's not just dumb money but very very dumb money that makes this little world go 'round.

If we are interested in having the tracks and ADWs rebate part of their profit to stimulate play (and assuming I'm not going to get one), have them rebate it to the VERY WORST players they have. That would be a much bigger boon to you and me than rebating the very largest players. Unless you think the largest players are losing more than the track take. Which at the level they bet means unthinkably large losses.

[WhyWhyWhy]

Huh? By him giving rebates, and augmenting play, he's supporting the track. Betting directly with the track, or through PTC, which offers a rebate, is a win/win for the host track.

Handle baby, handle.

A rebate shop is giving the player part of the profit generated by the player, through the rebate shop. Without the rebate, the player would simply lose their money and the OTB would keep everything. This way, the OTB doesn't kill the goose, so both rebate shop and rebate player benefit.

What this hurts are the recreational players who don't have access to these discounts. Ideally, the recreational players who play every day or weekend should get some type of a rebate, while the hit-and-run traffic, the guys who go to the track once in a blue moon, should pay the full takeout. That would be the most fair system absent a lower takeout or an increased signal fee.

[WhyWhyWhy]

Or move their play to bookmakers.

Offering incentives is the only way to recapture the $4 billion (I use $4b, I've heard others say it's as much as $10b) wagered outside the pools. Nearly all track executives we've spoken to understand they have a significant problem with "leakage."

The only players bookmakers want are LOSING players. The rebated players are removing money from the pools that would be churned anyway, so losing them wouldn't affect much. Winning rebate players would have to stay on track because the bookies will kick them and their rebates out.

The rebate also only matters within a window of about a dime on the dollar. Once you get to $1.01 ROI without rebates, it's still profitable to play even if you're being "ripped off." The rebate player who is happy with $0.98 is like those coupon clippers who get $200 worth of groceries for $50 after spending time they could have used to earn $300 doing something else. It's not why i play this game.

Dahlman used to win without rebates, and so did Beyer and others. It can be done. High takeout is not a problem either as it drives away intelligent competition. My ROI is as high if not higher on the "bad" pools with the 25-31 percent takeouts.

Once you start hitting with a high ROI, you love the rebate players because they are consolidating all of the stupid money, keeping it stupid, and replenishing their stupidity through rebates, making their mistakes an amazingly inviting target.

Look at Dahaar yesterday. A very logical exacta of two very strong rivals comes back $121 in a short field. How much of that was driven by rebate money? In 1985 that exacta might have paid $50. Yes, you have to be smarter than the rebate players, but if you are, the game has never been easier.

I say bring on the rebates and leave the system as it is, and I don't really care if I get them, though I wouldn't mind them one bit if they came along.

[trying2win]

High takeout is not a problem either as it drives away intelligent competition. My ROI is as high if not higher on the "bad" pools with the 25-31 percent takeouts.

Once you start hitting with a high ROI, you love the rebate players because they are consolidating all of the stupid money, keeping it stupid, and replenishing their stupidity through rebates, making their mistakes an amazingly inviting target.

Look at Dahaar yesterday. A very logical exacta of two very strong rivals comes back $121 in a short field. How much of that was driven by rebate money? In 1985 that exacta might have paid $50. Yes, you have to be smarter than the rebate players, but if you are, the game has never been easier.

I say bring on the rebates and leave the system as it is, and I don't really care if I get them, though I wouldn't mind them one bit if they came along.

Yawn! It appears here is a conceited, know-it-all, insulting bragger with a few posts, trying to impress us with his alleged accomplishments at the racetrack. There are some 'real winners' at PACE ADVANTAGE though and I enjoy reading their posts and try to learn from them.

[slewis]

Question? ..Does anyone know the amount these people are betting to be considered whales?

Answer:
Figure about $15,000 per day... gets you some serious attention from the rebate
places.

The larger players I know are churning 7-10 mil per year and I have heard there are super whales betting 2-3 times that.

By the way... for everyone out there who likes to bitch about an "unfair playing field".... take note below:

Fact: Many of these whales are losing players..... with or without the rebate.

(They're just very wealthy people)

[the little guy]

Question? ..Does anyone know the amount these people are betting to be considered whales?

Answer:
Figure about $15,000 per day... gets you some serious attention from the rebate
places.

The larger players I know are churning 7-10 mil per year and I have heard there are super whales betting 2-3 times that.

By the way... for everyone out there who likes to bitch about an "unfair playing field".... take note below:

Fact: Many of these whales are losing players..... with or without the rebate.

(They're just very wealthy people)


You haven't been banned yet?

[slewis]

you guys are using rebates as teh problem for racetracks. the tracks have disrespected their customer's for years. they figure that by taking your bets they are doing the player a favor. the result of that attitude is declining attendance and handles.



the casino's run aound and try to intice their players. they give them free drinks, waitress with low cut blouses to serve the drinks, and a smile on their faces.

no matter what size player you are you get something from the casino. at the racetrack you get a mean look and a boot in the rear.

get rid of rebates and lose at least 30% of the handle, even the small guys that don't get the rebate will stop playing into empty pools.

Well said lamboguy.... take it from someone who's at NYRA everyday.
Everyone I know gets treated like shit........

I'll tell ye'all a true story that took place today, March 2nd at AQU.
I friend of mine who attends the races 3 or 4 days per week, 365, told me he walked past the "champs" bar on the ground floor in Aqueducts clubhouse.
He wanted a napkin, so he went to the bar and took 3 or 4 off the bar.
The waitress saw him and yelled and told him to put them down .."your not a regular customer in here, you have no right to take those".
Now for those who dont know, this bar is not private and is operated by NYRA. My friend, whose handle is none of my business, is probably not enormous but, for a regular.. who attends 3 or 4 days per week, every week, NYRA could spring for the napkins, you know?
So, he argues with her and procedes to customer service to complain about this loyal NYRA employee who's going to save the taxpayers of NY state money by.... saving on napkins.
At this point I laugh because I've gone to customer service with proof how employees have been disrespectful to me and they laugh in my face... which is what they did to my friend.. (although they use the standard line "we'll look into it")
Had this taken place at a Vegas casino involving a player who's there 3 days a week, the employee would be warned once and then fired the next time.
At the racetrack, there are rumors that disrespectful employees get extra paid vacation time ...on a case by case basis.
(I'm just kidding ....of course ....about the "vacation" line.. but it sure feels that way)

[slewis]

You haven't been banned yet?

From NYRA?? or this site???

or both.. !!!!

(ha ha)

[the little guy]

From NYRA?? or this site???

or both.. !!!!

(ha ha)


That would be a start!

[lamboguy]

i went with my wife to belmont on a thursday in october to watch my horse run in the seventh race. i bumped into dick dutrow on the way in and he said he had to horses that could win today, they actually both won. i went to the booth with the turnstyle and told them i had a horse running in the 7th race, they asked me if i had my racing license with me, i told them i was gonna go to the racing ofice to get a picture and a new license. i showed them my drivers license and it matched the name of the owner of my horse in the 7th race, they said they would not charge me to get in but i had to pay for my wife. i paid and went in, it was a hot day so i was wearing shorts, but i knew that you had to have long pants on to go to the paddock or winners circle, in case my horse won. so i took my pants with me and left them in the racing office until i had to change them. in the racing office i saw about 15 different jockey agents, some i knew like richie dupass, and others i never saw before in my life. bobby frankel was in the office watching the races on television. he had a horse in the 3rd race, the horse won the race, he sat there and didn't go to the winners circle.
i thought that was odd, but anyway i saw he had another horse in the next race, he never got up to go to the paddock. he won that race too. 5 minutes after the race he got a phone call from what i suspected to be his owner and spoke to that person. he never got up off the steel chairs in the office. low and behold he had another horse in the next race. he had the same routine, just sat there, that won too! angel cordero walked into the room, and said the kid rode his horses great, rafael bejarano, he responded he will do just fine in california.

i walked out of the racing office and into the clubhouse, i went to a room and they told me i have to be a member to get in, but recommened this other spot that serves sandwiches and salad, so we went there. other than agents, tellers and a few trainers, i never saw anyone else in the place. i walked with my wife to the seats facing the toteboard to show her how nice belmont looked. there was an usher there that guarded the seats for no people, he stopped me and said i can't let you go in there, you are wearing shorts. the guy got pretty nasty with me, i must have been the highlight of his day, because there was no one else in the place to get into a beef with. this guy must be getting paid around $100 a day to sit around and do nothing.
i walked around where the tellers were and saw about 10 windows open with no one betting in the place.

i now went to the racing office to pick up my pants and change so i could go to the paddock and meet with my trainer. this was the first time i ever met him. my horse was the #10 but he got saddled where the 1A would be. i introduced my wife and myself to him and asked him how come the rider listed wasn't on my horse. he told me he had to ride the first race at meadowlands and decided to take off the mount.

anyway, my horse leaves the gate at 5-1,,,,,,,,gets to the lead, looks good and takes a bad step. they had to put him down. i went thru 5 different calls with the attending vet. it was a very sad day, and i promise never to walk in the place again.

[Imriledup]

I'm still trying to figure out why having MORE money in the pools is a bad thing for people not getting a rebate.

If you take away rebates, the overall handle of the entire industry will suffer as some people will leave altogether and other people will be betting much less money.

If the overall handle of the industry goes down, that's less money for everyone who is playing to win. The bettors make less money and so do the tracks and states.

Lets say for example that your favorite track to play is Penn National or Mountaineer. Don't you think that some whales after getting hammered at their favorite daytime track are betting bingo numbers on 6-5 shots to get their handle up for the day (thus, increasing the rebate they receive?) on the mountain?

I have to imagine that people betting millions of dollars per year are doing so at a major circuits like Santa Anita, Gulfstream, etc.

Which means that if you know every nook and crannie of Mountaineer, you are going to be exploiting any rebate player who plays that track. If you only bet your money at Mountaineer and you don't bet one dollar at any other track and you sit in the grandstand every night at the Mountain making trip notes with your binoculars and watching the runners gallop out, taking bias notes and really getting 'in the cracks' of that circuit, you are taking money from any rebate player who's betting there. There's no possible way that a guy who concentrates his play on a major daytime track is going to know more than you do about your track yet his big money will find its way into the pools and thus, you will benefit.

With NO rebate, guys won't be betting random numbers at smaller circuits. There will be no 'padding' in the pools like there is now. There's something to be said about 'padding' from whales in tracks they are not experts in.

Very few, if any, whales who get rebates are just betting one track. How many of you out there know how your own personal handicapping suffers if you follow multiple tracks? If you follow 3, 4, 5 tracks you are spreading yourself thin and aren't going to be as good.

This padding in the pools is the best thing that could have ever happened to people who have a one track mind. You spend 5 hours preparing JUST for Mountaineer per day and the whale spends what, 20 minutes? He's handicapping tons of tracks, he's not spending 5 hours on Mountaineer like you are.

[WhyWhyWhy]

I'm still trying to figure out why having MORE money in the pools is a bad thing for people not getting a rebate.

It becomes a bad thing when the rebate whales take money out of the pools that would otherwise be churned. If the rebate players lose with the rebates, then it's great.

[WhyWhyWhy]

Yawn! It appears here is a conceited, know-it-all, insulting bragger with a few posts, trying to impress us with his alleged accomplishments at the racetrack.

Oooh a hater! Does my hard work piss you off?

If I were trying to impress anyone here, I'd pubilsh my entire method and knock all your ROIs down 10 cents. Maybe I'll do that just to jolt the whales the way Beyer jolted everyone in 1992. Not difficult to do if you have strong methods and feel like killing the goose. If you want to see my handiwork, try betting a p3 or superfecta at Philadelphia Park offshore, or try getting a rebate from there. As of a month or two ago, you couldn't at most places.

For now, I leave the know-it-all stuff to the "authorized advertisers" who get a pass on bragging. It's not my fault I see people debating stuff that's solvable and should have been solved, such as how to project a spsed-figure on a first-timer. When I feel like killing my price on debut winners, I'll share.

Basic internet problem: cry out for knowledge, then attack anyone who has it or shares it. Now you know why the discussion levels are so poor. Maybe one day, when the sponsors of this site get sick of being called chicken for relying on censorship and exclusion of competitors to market (see how long this post stays up for example), then the policies will change. If not, they can get used to reading about their cowardice in places they can't censor.

To get back on topic, the rebates work only for players who are NEAR-profitable. If their ROI was $0.88 or whatever, they wouldn't win. What happens is that they siphon money off the other players, causing them to lose more, and apparently, there are few winning players left to exploit this. Guys like Dahlman, when they are wrong, create great opportunity for sharper players who can win without rebate because they deliver not only parimutuel money, but also rebate/OTB money.

How many people do you think bet Dahaar yesterday to cash in on the rebate?

Just because your site bans some winning players for talking like "know it alls" and not being "authorized advertisers," that doesn't mean we don't exist. It means we don't need to post here and don't need to sell crap to a dumbed-down community that isn't even getting all points of view.

I'll spare this site the name of the "authorized avdertiser" who called me from his CAR on a Saturday afternoon as they were loading for a NYRA race....yeah, he bets his own product sure.

Scrutiny anyone? Or does that get in the way of the site's "authorized" revenue?

A recent study showed that "information" websites which sell products are useless.

Guess PA will ban me at this point, so I'll go back to stealing the good ideas y'all post here, while sharing nothing of my own that might actually help some of you win.

Thanks for the flames.

[WhyWhyWhy]

This padding in the pools is the best thing that could have ever happened to people who have a one track mind. You spend 5 hours preparing JUST for Mountaineer per day and the whale spends what, 20 minutes? He's handicapping tons of tracks, he's not spending 5 hours on Mountaineer like you are.

A doctor spends seconds looking at a sick person because he knows what he's looking at.

[Imriledup]

A doctor spends seconds looking at a sick person because he knows what he's looking at.

So, you're saying that a person who has won big money in the past can just open up the form and scan the past performances for a few minutes and win? Cmon now, you're smarter than that. No matter how much experience a person has, every day is a new day and you are only as good as your last winner.

If you think that whale's just open up the form and scan the pp's like Doctors and 'diagnose' the problem, you are certainly better than most.

[Cangamble]

The only players bookmakers want are LOSING players. The rebated players are removing money from the pools that would be churned anyway, so losing them wouldn't affect much. Winning rebate players would have to stay on track because the bookies will kick them and their rebates out.
**********************************
Many people bet with bookies because they are getting enough back that they think there is more value in betting with them, and most are close to winning, thus thinking they can win. That is the nature of the NFL gambler as well. Knocking out onshore rebates will affect the total amount tracks take in through betting by around 10% (see my example), even when considering that slightly more money would be churned by smaller players if whales went extinct.

The rebate also only matters within a window of about a dime on the dollar. Once you get to $1.01 ROI without rebates, it's still profitable to play even if you're being "ripped off." The rebate player who is happy with $0.98 is like those coupon clippers who get $200 worth of groceries for $50 after spending time they could have used to earn $300 doing something else. It's not why i play this game.
************************************
Nope, the rebates matter regardless. They do increase overall handle and in the whales case they do take churnable money away from smaller players as long as the whales ROI is greater than the overall takeout ROI.

Dahlman used to win without rebates, and so did Beyer and others. It can be done. High takeout is not a problem either as it drives away intelligent competition. My ROI is as high if not higher on the "bad" pools with the 25-31 percent takeouts.
*************************************
The fact is that on a 25% takeout, no matter how good or lucky you are, if 1 million is bet by patrons, 250,000 is lost by patrons. It doesn't make much room for very many winners, if any. For the few that win :rolleyes: the amount of discouragement from the losers is why racing is stagnant in growth even though betting on horses is now available to everyone who has a phone or a computer. The industry should have grown in leaps and bounds, but you need buzz from winners to do so. You need to have a "reasonable" chance to win or at least break even. When Beyers numbers appeared in the form, that leveled the playing field immensely, taking away a huge edge speed handicappers had. Then suckers money left for lotteries (as they became more popular) and slots. Now it is knowledgable players versus knowledgable players with super computers programming.

Once you start hitting with a high ROI, you love the rebate players because they are consolidating all of the stupid money, keeping it stupid, and replenishing their stupidity through rebates, making their mistakes an amazingly inviting target.
*************************************
This statement is complete BS. If collectively rebate players are beating the natural ROI takeout, they are collectively causing the average bettor to make less on their bets overall, as my example shows.

Look at Dahaar yesterday. A very logical exacta of two very strong rivals comes back $121 in a short field. How much of that was driven by rebate money? In 1985 that exacta might have paid $50. Yes, you have to be smarter than the rebate players, but if you are, the game has never been easier.
****************************
Wow, you cashed a ticket, congrats. You have no evidence that your cash would have paid less without rebate players. How many times do you hit an exactor that pays $30, that would have paid $40 without rebaters?

I say bring on the rebates and leave the system as it is, and I don't really care if I get them, though I wouldn't mind them one bit if they came along.
****************************
Spoken like a true racing exec.:lol:

[ryesteve]

There is also a flip side to that coin Steve imo…

The smaller risk player also gets significantly higher returns when Dahlman & Goldfarb step on a NY exacta and miss.If true, you're correct... but my impression has always been that these people (not D&G specifically, but whales in general) spread pretty wide all over the board, so it's not as if it's easy to find an overlaid situation that looks especially enticing. For example, this is what I see on the odds boards of a lot of the 2nd and 3rd tier tracks I look at:

ML Actual Odds
5/2 9/5
7/2 3/1
5/1 7/2
6/1 4/1
8/1 4/1
8/1 21/1
10/1 27/1
12/1 39/1
15/1 47/1
The high end of the odds board gets ignored, the middle contains horses that either get hammered or totally ignored, and the low end is bet as you'd expect. Yes, MAYBE those dead-on-the-board longshots are overlays, but they're dead on the board for a reason... I wouldn't be able to look at any of them and envision a rationale or scenario that has them winning. Meanwhile, the horses I do like that looked like they were going to offer some value (in this case, something among the 3rd-5th listed horses) seldom offer the sort of value one would've hoped. It's as if the whale money has eliminated "the longshot bias", causing the overall ROI on those horses to creep up towards the take, and depressing the overall ROI on the more "selectable" horses.

[cj]

Oooh a hater! Does my hard work piss you off?

...

Thanks for the flames.

I think you just won the award for the stupidest post in the history of the internet. PA rarely if ever bans ANYONE. When he does, it is for clear violations of the Terms of Service agreement. You certainly come across as someone that broke those and felt his wrath under another moniker.

[Niko]

Oooh a hater! Does my hard work piss you off?

It's not my fault I see people debating stuff that's solvable and should have been solved, such as how to project a spsed-figure on a first-timer. When I feel like killing my price on debut winners, I'll share.

Basic internet problem: cry out for knowledge, then attack anyone who has it or shares it. Now you know why the discussion levels are so poor. To get back on topic, the rebates work only for players who are NEAR-profitable. Guys like Dahlman, when they are wrong, create great opportunity for sharper players who can win without rebate because they deliver not only parimutuel money, but also rebate/OTB money.



...... It means we don't need to post here and don't need to sell crap to a dumbed-down community....



......so I'll go back to stealing the good ideas y'all post here, while sharing nothing of my own that might actually help some of you win.

Thanks for the flames.

A doctor spends seconds looking at a sick person because he knows what he's looking at.



Yeah, these posts really help discussions. As part of the dumb downed community I'm just grateful that you took the time to make your presence felt, where do I send my check for all the helpful informaiton you've provided.

I don't think you're saying you're sharper than Dahlman are you?? You think a sharp player like him makes it easier to beat the game when he's wrong???
You may get better value overall on his mistakes but how is the game easier to beat (if you're not a small spot player on longer odds horses)??

How about some informative posts like Cangamble and others.

And I'm glad you can make debut speed figures for first timers....you should start a service for trainers so they can more properly gauge their horses...

[the little guy]

It's not my fault I see people debating stuff that's solvable and should have been solved, such as how to project a spsed-figure on a first-timer. When I feel like killing my price on debut winners, I'll share.




I wouldn't want you to leave before at least explaining this one. Are you suggesting you can do this before or after the race. Seriously, I was just hoping you would clarify this. No need to reveal your method.

[Cangamble]

I wouldn't want you to leave before at least explaining this one. Are you suggesting you can do this before or after the race. Seriously, I was just hoping you would clarify this. No need to reveal your method.
There are ways you can rate a first time starter using workout times. But I have a hard time trusting workout times. You need to know the variant for the day, or the day closest to the workout if they didn't race that day.
You can guesstimate that a 48h is equal to say a 1:00:4 for five and 1:13:4 for six furlongs.
You can also add 2 or 3 lengths for a breeze and another 2 lengths for a gate work.
You can also look at sire stats and trainer stats and add or subtract a few lengths either way as well.

Personally, I haven't explored looking into this seriously. I usually look at workout patterns and trainer and sire and then try to figure out if the horses who started in the race don't have high enough figs to win.

[the little guy]

There are ways you can rate a first time starter using workout times. But I have a hard time trusting workout times. You need to know the variant for the day, or the day closest to the workout if they didn't race that day.
You can guesstimate that a 48h is equal to say a 1:00:4 for five and 1:13:4 for six furlongs.
You can also add 2 or 3 lengths for a breeze and another 2 lengths for a gate work.
You can also look at sire stats and trainer stats and add or subtract a few lengths either way as well.

Personally, I haven't explored looking into this seriously. I usually look at workout patterns and trainer and sire and then try to figure out if the horses who started in the race don't have high enough figs to win.

I appreciate it but there is so much unreliable about workout times, forgetting even that their accuracy is in question, that even attempting to use them would be folly. Unless you actually see the workout, and really know what you are looking at, the number in the paper, while not useless, is almost inherently deceptive.

I have no problem with someone who has a decent understanding of firsters, using whatever " angles " they may have, as certainly there are many ways to win at this game whether any of us understand them or not, but I find the entire concept of even suggesting that one can project what kinds of figures firsters will run with even a reasonable amount of accuracy to be counterintuitive to logic.

[Tom]

Rats!

[DeanT]

This "whales win and take money away from people" talk always makes me chuckle a bit. The logic is just not there. The tracks do a good job of selling people on it - hey why not, when you coalesce around a villain it makes life easier. Whales are good villains.

In Hong Kong racing, bookmakers (those who do not lay off any wagers) offer their whales who bet more than $1000 bets, a ten percent rebate. Pinnacle, offers their whales a 5% (was 7%) rebate. Now, why would a private company, or bookmaker offer these rates to people if they are booking bets, and these people are winning?

They aren't winning; if they were winning none of these places would be in business.

[ryesteve]

In Hong Kong racing, bookmakers (those who do not lay off any wagers) offer their whales who bet more than $1000 bets, a ten percent rebate. Pinnacle, offers their whales a 5% (was 7%) rebate.
How do you know the Hong Kong bookmakers aren't laying off bets? In the case of Pinnacle, while it always led to spirited debates, the consensus seemed to be that they most definitely would lay off bets coming from those customers who'd demonstrated success.

[chickenhead]

This "whales win and take money away from people" talk always makes me chuckle a bit. The logic is just not there. The tracks do a good job of selling people on it - hey why not, when you coalesce around a villain it makes life easier. Whales are good villains.

In Hong Kong racing, bookmakers (those who do not lay off any wagers) offer their whales who bet more than $1000 bets, a ten percent rebate. Pinnacle, offers their whales a 5% (was 7%) rebate. Now, why would a private company, or bookmaker offer these rates to people if they are booking bets, and these people are winning?

They aren't winning; if they were winning none of these places would be in business.

They don't have to win, they just have to beat the take. As much as we like to think we win money from each other, or from whales, or vice versa...at the end of the day we are all competing for the money lost by the very worst gamblers out there. They are the only ones losing money to other gamblers. There are several million guys and gals who several times a year visit the track and drop $300 for entertainment, and hardcore losers who are at the OTB every day keying in cold hunch supers...those are the source of everyones profits. Everyone else even remotely interested in being "good" at handicapping is your competition for those dollars.

[DeanT]

How do you know the Hong Kong bookmakers aren't laying off bets? In the case of Pinnacle, while it always led to spirited debates, the consensus seemed to be that they most definitely would lay off bets coming from those customers who'd demonstrated success.

The HKJC says that they are not; and I tend to believe them as most of their PR and information on these matters are not filled with hyperbole like tracks press releases here, which seem to be focused on a woe is me platform to get government help.

Pinny certainly was laying off. I have seen that with my own eyes. But not any longer with all of the offshore hub problems, eveidenced by the rebate drop. Whales still play there and last time I checked, they are still in business.

They don't have to win, they just have to beat the take. As much as we like to think we win money from each other, or from whales, or vice versa...at the end of the day we are all competing for the money lost by the very worst gamblers out there. They are the only ones losing money to other gamblers. There are several million guys and gals who several times a year visit the track and drop $300 for entertainment, and hardcore losers who are at the OTB every day keying in cold hunch supers...those are the source of everyones profits. Everyone else even remotely interested in being "good" at handicapping is your competition for those dollars.

Hi Chick,

Most certainly true. Since we are pari-mutuel it all depends on what Larry is doing. Looking at low rake places with a market, like betfair you see how many ways there are to skin a cat in a low rake environ, and the sheer volume. All I hear is "dont play at betfair, there are too many whales there, you can never succeed." It's a load of crap. You can succeed against whales, or anyone else for that matter, imo. It just helps when it is in a low rake environ.

[rrbauer]

You think cutting races 50% will bring racing back to the "good old days". Where live racing was king, where there were limited gambling alternatives, and before tv, internet, other sports leagues and so forth? There is no returning to 1940.

Where is the handle going to come from? How will tracks stay open if betting handle drops substantially? What do you think would happen to takeout? Does anyone really, honestly believe that LESS HANDLE is the solution to racings problems? That less handle would positive in any way?


So, what is your solution? Do you like shit tracks where there's more horsemen and their help than customers? How about racing in sub-freezing weather? How about (use NoCal as an example) a steady diet of 4-, 5- and 6-horse fields? You think that getting rid of that would hurt the game?

You talk out of both sides of your mouth. If the "good old days" are history (to which I agree) then why should there continue to be the same level, or more, of handle if the quality of the product can't compete without subsidies. Racing is not a "growth" business. Handle should go down. Tracks should go out of business. With 80% of the owners losing money racing is a dumb investment. And, so is patronizing high-takeout venues that offer a subpar product.

[DeanT]

Crist chatted about the less is more thing on his blog, with stats from around the world.

If those stats do not open your eyes that things have to change here, I dont know what will. Racings leaders have been a collosal failure in he West, imo.

http://cristblog.drf.com/crist/2008/02/global-perspect.html

[alysheba88]

So, what is your solution? Do you like shit tracks where there's more horsemen and their help than customers? How about racing in sub-freezing weather? How about (use NoCal as an example) a steady diet of 4-, 5- and 6-horse fields? You think that getting rid of that would hurt the game?

You talk out of both sides of your mouth. If the "good old days" are history (to which I agree) then why should there continue to be the same level, or more, of handle if the quality of the product can't compete without subsidies. Racing is not a "growth" business. Handle should go down. Tracks should go out of business. With 80% of the owners losing money racing is a dumb investment. And, so is patronizing high-takeout venues that offer a subpar product.


Not sure I follow. I do think some tracks should close and I do think they are is too much racing.

However, I think the focus should always be on generating more handle. There are many ways to do it.

Should be looking to grow racing, not cut back. Racing is a growth business. Thats the tragedy in all this. People dont seem to recognize it. Look at the handle now compared to 10-15 years ago. More than just inflation growth.

Look at BC handle now compared to when it started.

[riskman]

Everyone should be able to get a 7-10% rebate whether you bet $50 or $50,000 a day...End of story !!


In the real world do not businesses receive volume discounts on total dollar amount of sales volume or other criteria to achieve cost savings. Why should wagering be any different?

[ryesteve]

In the real world do not businesses receive volume discounts on total dollar amount of sales volume or other criteria to achieve cost savings. Why should wagering be any different?
The problem isn't so much that they're getting rebates; the problem is that their rebates enable to them to bet in such a way that it lowers MY profit. If the game wasn't parimutuel, the "volume discount" argument would be a far easier sell.

[firstofftheclaim]

I don't have a problem with whale rebates. I have a problem with automated robot betting thingy's.

[chickenhead]

I send my robot to the OTB to do his thing.

[Cangamble]

He looks like a chalker. Probably has a terrible ROI.

[firstofftheclaim]

I read an article about those betting robots. I hate them!!

[Cangamble]

I read an article about those betting robots. I hate them!!
I'm a capitalist. I think that anyone of us could be a whale if we really worked at it, complete with our own pet robot. That is why I have nothing against whales.

[firstofftheclaim]

What does being a capitalist have anything to do with software that allows people to put it bets that **** up the pools for people like me.

[Cangamble]

What does being a capitalist have anything to do with software that allows people to put it bets that **** up the pools for people like me.
Because you could do the same thing potentially. It is available for any of us to do.
Where do you draw the line, sophisticated handicapping software that accurately predicts legitimate odds? Are you against this too? If not, why not?

[alysheba88]

People somehow seem to think the "whales" are unique. That there is something "wrong" and how this doesnt happen elsewhere.

How they get "edges" that allow them to beat the little guy.

It sounds like these people dont really understand what goes on in much of our economy including Wall Street

[Javagold]

you want to make a wager, call it out !!!! like every other schmuck that bets the horses has to do....CRW is NOT fair

[chickenhead]

He looks like a chalker. Probably has a terrible ROI.

Indeed. I finally figured out he had a profound crush on the ATM machine. Was losing money on purpose just so he could go visit her.

[alysheba88]

you want to make a wager, call it out !!!! like every other schmuck that bets the horses has to do....CRW is NOT fair

I am assuming you want to outlaw internet gambling?

[riskman]

It took a little while, but I'm about 99.9% certain WhyWhyWhy is this clown from way back, Ray Gordon. Here is his latest site:

http://raygordon.blogs.com/hoopsandhorses/2007/02/index.html

At least now he appears to have left the sex part of his web sites off.


Hoorah !!! The future is bright for horse racing--- the new
"POWER RATING" will be a defining moment in the history of capping.

[Cangamble]

Indeed. I finally figured out he had a profound crush on the ATM machine. Was losing money on purpose just so he could go visit her.
:lol:I'm glad I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that. I would have had to invest in a new keyboard, and also get treatment for nostril burn.

[firstofftheclaim]

Batch betting should not be allowed.

[ranchwest]

It's the collective that matters to the bottom line.

Say some Joe comes in and bets $100K this year, and his ROI is right at the track take. It is mathematically impossible that collectively we have taken any money from him. All he has done is pay the track. He hasn't lost a dollar to any other gambler.

Some other Joe comes in and after $100K bet has an ROI of 0.90. He has paid the track, and he has taken money from other gamblers. Again, a mathematical certainty. He has made the pools more efficient. Any singular money you might have made from him in one case is more than offset by other money you could have won had he not been around. He is a net winner from the pool of other gamblers.

ANYONE, and to a higher degree depending on how much they bet and to a higher degree on how high their ROI is, that beats the track take is soaking up dumb money. They are making it more difficult for all of the people that were previously beating the track take. In fact, assuming no new money comes in on the other side, some of the people who were beating the take will no longer be.

For you to make money, there must be people losing more than the track take when all their bets are tallied up. They have to pay the track, and then they have to pay you. I don't know how efficient the pools are, but I know it is very easy to beat the track take. Yet, for any of us to make money, we rely on people who lose MORE than the track take. It's not just dumb money but very very dumb money that makes this little world go 'round.

If we are interested in having the tracks and ADWs rebate part of their profit to stimulate play (and assuming I'm not going to get one), have them rebate it to the VERY WORST players they have. That would be a much bigger boon to you and me than rebating the very largest players. Unless you think the largest players are losing more than the track take. Which at the level they bet means unthinkably large losses.

Do you bet into the collective?

I bet into individual races.

Think of the bird on the beach. He doesn't go run into the water and drown. He waits until the water goes out and eats all of the food left behind.

Even whales screw up. When they do, pouncing on their mistake can be huge. Yes, whales make betting chalk tough, but if you're on a 10/1 a whale can make it a 15/1. Is that a bad thing?

Every time a horse in a pari-mutuel pool goes one way, another goes the other way in odds.

Profits are best for the contrarians.

I'm not saying I like everything about the way things are. I just figure things aren't going to change based on my opinion so I have to adapt.

[chickenhead]

Do you bet into the collective?

I bet into individual races.

At the end of the year, all those individual races are tallied up and become the collective.


Yes, whales make betting chalk tough, but if you're on a 10/1 a whale can make it a 15/1. Is that a bad thing?

Every time a horse in a pari-mutuel pool goes one way, another goes the other way in odds.

Profits are best for the contrarians.

I know what you're saying.

You will beat them out of profits in some cases, but it is more than offset by the other times when you don't have a profitable play, yet you would have had they not been around. If they are beating the take, that is a certainty.

If the question is are rebates necessarily good for the average bettor that does not receive them, I think the answer is no. Can they theoretically be good for some percentage of bettors that don't receive them, sure.

[Imriledup]

All this talk about whales and how its unfair to the small fish is poppycock. You look up at the board as the horses are loading in the gate, you decide if there's a good bet on the board and you either play or you don't. Who's money is in the pools and how it got there doesn't matter at all. Whether a whale is betting one thousand dollars of rebate money or Bill Gates is betting 10k to win on his favorite number is meaningless to YOUR bottom line.

[chickenhead]

Bill Gates is betting 10k to win on his favorite number is meaningless to YOUR bottom line.

actually that would be pretty good for my bottom line.

I agee tho, fair has nothing to do with it. "Fair" shouldn't even be in the discussion.

[Imriledup]

actually that would be pretty good for my bottom line.

I agee tho, fair has nothing to do with it. "Fair" shouldn't even be in the discussion.

I should have said that since no one knows exactly WHO'S money is in the pool, that doesn't matter since everyone has the ability to look up at the board with 0 mins to post and determine if they want to bet or not by the odds that are being displayed. Whether its Joe Whale or Bill Gates and his tea leaves isn't all that important.

Also, a whale who gets a big rebate has just as good of a chance to make a big play on a terrible pick as he does on a good pick. In fact, if a person who's making a large rebate is betting thousands of dollars, the small guy who doesn't get the rebate can benefit because the thousands of dollars any particular whale is wagering on any particular horse creates value on OTHER horses in the race and also pads the pool with more money to be won.

So, as the small fish, the reason you want big rebate players to bet back rebated money is because these people make the pools bigger and thus, your return is bigger if you win because your bet doesn't deflate your own price as much as it would if the pools were smaller.

[PaceAdvantage]

Batch betting should not be allowed.I disagree 1000%

[russowen77]

Would some one explain batch betting please.

[ezrabrooks]

actually that would be pretty good for my bottom line.

I agee tho, fair has nothing to do with it. "Fair" shouldn't even be in the discussion.

Although using the word "fair" in this discussion does make the user sound like a pussy... but, in any event, in a pari-mutuel wagering system, which is supposedly being used, a level playing field as to wagering is essential. Edges in selections and such are part of the game, but not in just simply placing a bet. If it is not intended to be a pari-mutuel system, change it.


Ez

[ryesteve]

Also, a whale who gets a big rebate has just as good of a chance to make a big play on a terrible pick as he does on a good pick.
Except it's not as if they're plunging hard on just one horse. They're spreading as wide as they can. Sure, you can look for horses outside their spread, but it's usually very hard for me to make a case for any of them. And who possesses the kind of precision necessary to decide that a 35-1 shot has a 3.4% chance of winning, rather than a 3.1% chance of winning, and is thus a great bet?

[PaceAdvantage]

Would some one explain batch betting please.Waiting until the last possible moment to send your bets into the system, so that you have all available information to correctly judge value/arb wagers.

Then, when the computer thinks it has no time left, it transmits all wagers (sometimes 100s or 1000s) all at one time.

It can be done crudely at home through customized software, or more ideally, through the tote company using specialized connections.

Theoretically, there can be no advantage such as betting after the races goes off, etc. etc., which is why I can't understand why anyone would be against such betting methods being available to the masses.

Hell, you can batch bet using Premier Turf Club. It's built right into their ground breaking user interface.....

[russowen77]

Waiting until the last possible moment to send your bets into the system, so that you have all available information to correctly judge value/arb wagers.

Then, when the computer thinks it has no time left, it transmits all wagers (sometimes 100s or 1000s) all at one time.

It can be done crudely at home through customized software, or more ideally, through the tote company using specialized connections.

Theoretically, there can be no advantage such as betting after the races goes off, etc. etc., which is why I can't understand why anyone would be against such betting methods being available to the masses.

Hell, you can batch bet using Premier Turf Club. It's built right into their ground breaking user interface.....

Thank you very much for the data. If all can do it then I sure see nothing wrong with it.

[Pace Cap'n]

Only a select few can get hard-wired into a tote system.

[PaceAdvantage]

If all can do it then I sure see nothing wrong with it.As long as you have access to Premier Turf Club, then you can do it too.....

[russowen77]

I am going to switch to them as soon as OP finishes.

[Premier Turf Club]

Only a select few can get hard-wired into a tote system.

NOBODY is hard wired to a tote. Every CRW player is betting through an ADW that feeds the bets into the ADWs tote provider.

And there is nothing that any of the big CRW players "see" in terms of data that you and I can't see. All that talk about 'tri probables or super totals' is just that. Talk. I mean are you kidding me??? The totes have enough trouble processing the pool data they have. Go into a tote room at your local track sometime. I'll bet your average 10 year old has a more powerful PC sitting on the desk in their bedroom.

[Javagold]

the tracks and ADWs, such as PTW, dont mind batch betting or CRW (or whatever u want to call it) as it increases handle and thats all they cares about , increasing handle and skimming their vig off the top...

you give a CRW player direct access to pools and a rebate on top of that and i dont think thats an even playing field in a pari mutuel field

[Premier Turf Club]

you give a CRW player direct access to pools and a rebate on top of that and i dont think thats an even playing field in a pari mutuel field

What does that mean "direct access to the pools"? Seriously. People use these terms and I don't think they truly understand the process. As I said previously, nobody is wired into the tote.

As for level playing field, there are guys on this board that have developed very sophisticated handicapping software, better then anything I can do by hand. Is that "fair"? Should they be prevented from using it?

[Javagold]

i know the CRW , computer robotic wagering, has direct access to pools


UBETs rouge operation IRG defiantely allowed for it as do/did others....with a push of a button thousands of dollars and hundreds of bets can be placed when the last horse is being loaded

[Premier Turf Club]

i know the CRW , computer robotic wagering, has direct access to pools


UBETs rouge operation IRG defiantely allowed for it as do/did others....with a push of a button thousands of dollars and hundreds of bets can be placed when the last horse is being loaded

No, no, no. I bet I know more about that interface then anyone on this board. My developer built it.

[russowen77]

NOBODY is hard wired to a tote. Every CRW player is betting through an ADW that feeds the bets into the ADWs tote provider.

And there is nothing that any of the big CRW players "see" in terms of data that you and I can't see. All that talk about 'tri probables or super totals' is just that. Talk. I mean are you kidding me??? The totes have enough trouble processing the pool data they have. Go into a tote room at your local track sometime. I'll bet your average 10 year old has a more powerful PC sitting on the desk in their bedroom.
If the track is using amtote I can almost guarentee it. :)

[Kelso]

How about those couple of big computer outfits betting Hong Kong? Might they have had more direct access to the HK pools? An article I read early last year seemed to say that, but I'm not certain.

[Premier Turf Club]

How about those couple of big computer outfits betting Hong Kong? Might they have had more direct access to the HK pools? An article I read early last year seemed to say that, but I'm not certain.

I can't say what goes on in HK. I honestly don't know how they do it there.

As far as how it does here, when we bet online all of us are connected to the tote. Any wagers you submit via PTC, Twin Spires, Youbet, etc passes through our servers routed along a T1 or VPN into either Amtote, U-Tote or Sci-Games. That's the concept bethind wagering on-line. You connect to us, we are always directly linked to the tote.

[Pace Cap'n]

NOBODY is hard wired to a tote. Every CRW player is betting through an ADW that feeds the bets into the ADWs tote provider.

That is indeed some good news. It is reassuring to hear that from someone who should be in a position to know.

[trigger]

NOBODY is hard wired to a tote. Every CRW player is betting through an ADW that feeds the bets into the ADWs tote provider.

And there is nothing that any of the big CRW players "see" in terms of data that you and I can't see. All that talk about 'tri probables or super totals' is just that. Talk. I mean are you kidding me??? The totes have enough trouble processing the pool data they have. Go into a tote room at your local track sometime. I'll bet your average 10 year old has a more powerful PC sitting on the desk in their bedroom.

Columnists | Posted 11/17/2006, 6:33 pm
Technology woes in the news
By STEVEN CRIST, DRF
NEW YORK - "Two very different types of robotic betting led the parimutuel news this past week, each illustrating the fragility and inadequacy of the wagering machinery that fuels the $15 billion annual wagering handle that drives Thoroughbred racing.
In Florida, an investigation into a bizarrely large pool and low payoff in a pick three at Calder Oct. 28 revealed that a software glitch led to a computer's mistakenly betting nearly $40,000 on behalf of a high-rolling customer. The rogue computer made the wager in $31.74 rather than $1 units, turning an intended $1,260 play into a $39,992 investment into a pool that usually handles about $20,000. Oops. The pick three, which should have paid about $250, came back $54.40 for linking winners that paid $7, $29.20 and $4.60.
The arbitrageur had enough of the winning combo to break around even for the race, while the few normal bettors with winning tickets got a horrendously underlaid payoff. The bettor was probably not only relieved but also pleased with the result, because people who wager through these computer programs are not handicapping wizards who profit by picking winners. They are playing to break even or even lose a little parimutuelly, their profit coming from the rebates they receive on their handle.
The most disturbing thing about the incident is not that someone bet a lot of money and got lucky at the expense of regular bettors. This happens all the time when a high roller swings and hits, and it can work the other way when a big punch misses and an exotic pays more than it should. 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?
Officials at the tracks and betting companies involved say that no such information is made available to computer traders, and that pick three possibles can not even be calculated until money from various hubs is commingled after the close of betting. Even if that is the case here, 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. "

[Premier Turf Club]

Well established by whom? Every CRW player I know of has a model to estimate blind pools based upon what is seen, win, exactas, doubles,etc. I respect Crist but if he ever had any interaction with a tote hub, he'd know they couldn't even provide this if they wanted to.

We had to write our own code to provide key-box wagers because Amtote does not have that functional capability. Yet people are willing to believe they've got these giant super computers stealthly passing on tri and super payoffs to a chosen few?

I promise you it is not happening.

[BillW]

Well established by whom? Every CRW player I know of has a model to estimate blind pools based upon what is seen, win, exactas, doubles,etc. I respect Crist but if he ever had any interaction with a tote hub, he'd know they couldn't even provide this if they wanted to.

We had to write our own code to provide key-box wagers because Amtote does not have that functional capability. Yet people are willing to believe they've got these giant super computers stealthly passing on tri and super payoffs to a chosen few?

I promise you it is not happening.

You mean they're NOT out to get me and I'm just losing on my own! :eek:

[Indulto]

Columnists | Posted 11/17/2006, 6:33 pm
Technology woes in the news
By STEVEN CRIST, DRF... 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?
Officials at the tracks and betting companies involved say that no such information is made available to computer traders, and that pick three possibles can not even be calculated until money from various hubs is commingled after the close of betting. Even if that is the case here, 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."Well established by whom? Every CRW player I know of has a model to estimate blind pools based upon what is seen, win, exactas, doubles,etc. I respect Crist but if he ever had any interaction with a tote hub, he'd know they couldn't even provide this if they wanted to.

We had to write our own code to provide key-box wagers because Amtote does not have that functional capability. Yet people are willing to believe they've got these giant super computers stealthly passing on tri and super payoffs to a chosen few?

I promise you it is not happening.PTC,
I have no doubt that you are providing the best information available to you and that few, if any, are likely to have more available to them. On the other hand, the Crist column seems to contradict you in no uncertain terms, and this particular source's credibility is nothing short of a horseplaying deity's.

Is it possible that Crist's contention that "... 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. ..." was true at one time, but no longer the case today?

Protestations will only lead to more confusion and, worse, a lack of confidence. Perhaps the issue is one of semantics. Please provide us with additional references that might clarify your contention that no descrete wagering entities have access (at any price) to pool information that all other bettors do not.

Do you happen to have any further details regading the incident Crist was describing in that column?

[Dave Schwartz]

Indulto,

I have no doubt that you are providing the best information available to you and that few, if any, are likely to have more available to them. On the other hand, the Crist column seems to contradict you in no uncertain terms, and this particular source's credibility is nothing short of a horseplaying deity's.

I do not wish to get embroiled in this and am restricted from discussing it much.

However, I assure you that Ian is 100% on the money here. There is no "secret feed" of information.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Premier Turf Club]

Please provide us with additional references that might clarify your contention that no descrete wagering entities have access (at any price) to pool information that all other bettors do not.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

How do I disprove this?

[Dave Schwartz]

Boy, am I out of the loop.

I didn't even know you were married.

[Premier Turf Club]

Boy, am I out of the loop.

I didn't even know you were married.

I hope that wasn't really lost on you or anyone else. Obviously I wasn't implying Indulto or anyone else beats his wife, I was trying to make a point.



Loaded Question

Alias:





Complex Question
Many Questions
Plurium Interrogationum



Translation: "many questions", Latin
Form:

A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.

Exposition:

A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.

Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:


"Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."
"No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."

[Indulto]

Indulto,

I do not wish to get embroiled in this and am restricted from discussing it much.

However, I assure you that Ian is 100% on the money here. There is no "secret feed" of information.

Regards,
Dave SchwartzDS,
There seems to be some contradictory aspects to your post. ;)
Have you stopped beating your wife?

How do I disprove this?PTC,
The applicable question here is "Has my wife stopped beating me?" :bang:

Actually, the responsibilty for resolving the apparent conflict is not yours alone. It is also incumbent upon Crist to further support his position as well, so perhaps some non-anonymous poster will see fit to address that question to him off-board in some manner. I was merely pointing out that you happen to be going head-to-head with another individual with an impeccable reputation. :cool:

Now -- with that out of the way -- when you get finished beating your wife, please let me know how it is accomplished. :lol:

[Premier Turf Club]

Now -- with that out of the way -- when you get finished beating your wife, please let me know how it is accomplished. :lol:

My wife is 5' 0", 98 lbs of solid muscle. Runs marathons and plays tennis 5 days a week. Plus she's a crack shot with a gun (she worked for an outdoor magazine at one point). I think she'd kick my ass...;)

[ezrabrooks]

Indulto,



I do not wish to get embroiled in this and am restricted from discussing it much.

However, I assure you that Ian is 100% on the money here. There is no "secret feed" of information.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

I have to ask...Why would you be restricted in discussing this subject?

Ez

[jma]

I have to ask...Why would you be restricted in discussing this subject?

Ez

I imagine Dave works with a lot of big bettors, and if anyone would be getting access to "special betting privileges", it would be them.

It's the type of topic that will never be resolved, because strange things do sometimes happen to the odds during the race, and they happen to the odds we can see on the screen (a.k.a, the top four horses) so everyone notices. In a game with as many "characters" as horse racing, it's hard not to think that something crooked isn't going on, though thus far there's no hard evidence that there is. I think it's probably better not to be paranoid, but then I also don't want to be naive. So, I'll reserve judgement for now.

[Dave Schwartz]

Ezra,

Non-disclosure agreements.

Dave

[Indulto]

I imagine Dave works with a lot of big bettors, and if anyone would be getting access to "special betting privileges", it would be them.

It's the type of topic that will never be resolved, because strange things do sometimes happen to the odds during the race, and they happen to the odds we can see on the screen (a.k.a, the top four horses) so everyone notices. In a game with as many "characters" as horse racing, it's hard not to think that something crooked isn't going on, though thus far there's no hard evidence that there is. I think it's probably better not to be paranoid, but then I also don't want to be naive. So, I'll reserve judgement for now.jma,
You appear to be supporting the sinister contention that there ARE indeed "special betting priviliges" regarding the exotic pools available only to a select few, i.e., something beyond the exotic pool totals, the win/place/show percentages of each contestant, and the exacta combination percentages; all of which in concert somehow provide predictors of exotic combination percentages for trifecta and similarly, superfectas. How is that reserving judgement? ;)

Perhaps there exist processing algorithms for generating expected TRI and SUPER payoffs of varying accuracy. Surely the details of any such algorithithms that have been proven successful would be subject to non-disclosure, but apparently even gaining ackowledgement of their existence is like fishing for closed-mouth bass. :bang: I've always been willing to sacrifice full disclosure to being able to have fully disclothed her. :D

The visual odds fluctuations you mentioned have already been addressed by several industry excecutives and media commentators who blame outdated technology for that problem.

[rokitman]

The Free Masons have there own hub to bet into that stays open 30 seconds into the race.

It's in the Constitution.sdrawkcaB

[jma]

jma,
You appear to be supporting the sinister contention that there ARE indeed "special betting priviliges" regarding the exotic pools available only to a select few, i.e., something beyond the exotic pool totals, the win/place/show percentages of each contestant, and the exacta combination percentages; all of which in concert somehow provide predictors of exotic combination percentages for trifecta and similarly, superfectas. How is that reserving judgement? ;)

Perhaps there exist processing algorithms for generating expected TRI and SUPER payoffs of varying accuracy. Surely the details of any such algorithithms that have been proven successful would be subject to non-disclosure, but apparently even gaining ackowledgement of their existence is like fishing for closed-mouth bass. :bang: I've always been willing to sacrifice full disclosure to being able to have fully disclothed her. :D

The visual odds fluctuations you mentioned have already been addressed by several industry excecutives and media commentators who blame outdated technology for that problem.

No, what I'm pointing out is the PERCEPTION that many people have that someone is betting after the race, due to the things I mentioned like changing odds. In this case, the perception is nearly as damaging as the reality, at least in the effect it could have on handle. People such as Ed Bain have claimed that "industry officials" have told them that there are people who have bet after the bell. Also, there was that little Pick Six scandal a few years back. Personally I don't go in for the paranoia---just saying that all those who are paranoid have a few facts they can throw out there. If those doubts cause them not to bet, then it's not good for the game. I still do bet, and wouldn't if I thought it was fixed against me.

Just today I needed the Asmussen favorite in the Fair Grounds 6th for the Pick 3. I watched him go from 4-5 to 1-1 during the race and still win unchallenged. So, even the guys betting after the bell screw up sometimes. ;)

[northerndancer]

People such as Ed Bain have claimed that "industry officials" have told them that there are people who have bet after the bell.

This IMO is the issue if you are going to be that careless when making a statement then name names...... Ed Bain and others like him should be ashamed of themselves when they make these types of statements as all it does is make people believe it is true even though they do not provide facts to back up the claim..... just because someone is quoted in the press does not mean that it is true especially when they do not actually name their source.

I have had the opportunity to work directly with all 4 tote companies on various projects and can attest to the fact they can not and do not provide data to any player (no matter what the size of the player) that is not available to the general wagering public at the track, local OTB etc.

As PTC mentioned it would be cost prohibitive for the tote companies to provide the mythical information that is bantered about.......one project I worked on tried to get the tote companies to provide the Tri and Spr data and the tote companies stated flat out not a snowballs chance in hell even if the project paid for the cost.

Your odds changes after the start of the race are caused by all the simulcast outlets reporting the wagers accepted in the final couple of minutes of wagering. This is tote controlled as it costs money each time that the wager data is sent. Mr. Christ knows this information (and if he did not shame on him) and he should have included this in his article.

[ezrabrooks]

This IMO is the issue if you are going to be that careless when making a statement then name names...... Ed Bain and others like him should be ashamed of themselves when they make these types of statements as all it does is make people believe it is true even though they do not provide facts to back up the claim..... just because someone is quoted in the press does not mean that it is true especially when they do not actually name their source.

I have had the opportunity to work directly with all 4 tote companies on various projects and can attest to the fact they can not and do not provide data to any player (no matter what the size of the player) that is not available to the general wagering public at the track, local OTB etc.

As PTC mentioned it would be cost prohibitive for the tote companies to provide the mythical information that is bantered about.......one project I worked on tried to get the tote companies to provide the Tri and Spr data and the tote companies stated flat out not a snowballs chance in hell even if the project paid for the cost.

Your odds changes after the start of the race are caused by all the simulcast outlets reporting the wagers accepted in the final couple of minutes of wagering. This is tote controlled as it costs money each time that the wager data is sent. Mr. Christ knows this information (and if he did not shame on him) and he should have included this in his article.

I don't think Crist's article posted herein said anything about the problem of odds changing after the start of the race. I have no knowledge about what a tote company can or cannot do...but, really don't think Crist just pulled this question about mutual feeds out of thin air.

Ez

[Kelso]

Your odds changes after the start of the race are caused by all the simulcast outlets reporting the wagers accepted in the final couple of minutes of wagering. This is tote controlled as it costs money each time that the wager data is sent. Mr. Christ knows this information (and if he did not shame on him) and he should have included this in his article.


As has been very recently verified at Fairgrounds (and Turfway?) ... it is also caused by bettors beiing permitted to place and/or cancel wagers AFTER THE HORSES HAVE LEFT THE GATE.

Tracks AND TOTES that enable such fraudulent practices are much more deserving of shame, scorn ... and legal sanctions ... than anything Mr. Crist might have ommited from his article.

[richrosa]

I have had the opportunity to work directly with all 4 tote companies on various projects and can attest to the fact they can not and do not provide data to any player (no matter what the size of the player) that is not available to the general wagering public at the track, local OTB etc.


Many horseplayers need someone to blame other than themselves, therefore they start believing in such mythology despite the fact that those in the know state explicitly differently. The really good players, many of which read here and many who lurk and don't post know exactly how the system works, and never take mythology for granted unless it was proven. Its wise to listen to people like northerndancer and PTC that are expressing a professional knowledge of the system Crist should know better and is probably stirring the pot as a writer, and Bain is just a guy who demonstrated that he believes in many strange theories like Equibase gremlins in his computers and other frivolous things.

As has been very recently verified at Fairgrounds (and Turfway?) ... it is also caused by bettors beiing permitted to place and/or cancel wagers AFTER THE HORSES HAVE LEFT THE GATE.

Tracks AND TOTES that enable such fraudulent practices are much more deserving of shame, scorn ... and legal sanctions ... than anything Mr. Crist might have ommited from his article.

Yes, this is true, but that is due to human error, not due to the flaws in the tote system.

[ezrabrooks]

Many horseplayers need someone to blame other than themselves, therefore they start believing in such mythology despite the fact that those in the know state explicitly differently. The really good players, many of which read here and many who lurk and don't post know exactly how the system works, and never take mythology for granted unless it was proven. Its wise to listen to people like northerndancer and PTC that are expressing a professional knowledge of the system Crist should know better and is probably stirring the pot as a writer, and Bain is just a guy who demonstrated that he believes in many strange theories like Equibase gremlins in his computers and other frivolous things.


Yes, this is true, but that is due to human error, not due to the flaws in the tote system.

That a tote system allows the cancelling of bets after the start of the race is a human error..and not the system? I guess allowing s/s/s/s/all/all pick six ticket, after the fourth leg had been run, is a human error. That just doesn't sound right. The fact that that these things have been, or are being, done, makes the entire tote system appear vulnerable to whatever. . As to Crist stirring the pot, I wonder why the tote companies didn't call him out as being wrong.

Ez

[njcurveball]

I guess allowing s/s/s/s/all/all pick six ticket, after the fourth leg had been run, is a human error.

They put the bets in before the first leg was run. What they discovered at Balmoral long before this was that if you had access to (I forget where) you could change the numbers, since the tote was not locking the bet until the last leg.

They took out quite a bit of money from Balmoral pick fours. much more than anyone really knows. If they had continued doing this on a small scale, the tote company (Autotote / Scientific Games) would have never figured it out.

It is a much different issue than a "grace period of a few seconds" to allow late cancellations.

[richrosa]

That a tote system allows the cancelling of bets after the start of the race is a human error..and not the system? I guess allowing s/s/s/s/all/all pick six ticket, after the fourth leg had been run, is a human error. That just doesn't sound right. The fact that that these things have been, or are being, done, makes the entire tote system appear vulnerable to whatever. . As to Crist stirring the pot, I wonder why the tote companies didn't call him out as being wrong.

Ez

Please be consistent. The Pick Six scandal was a criminal act that exploited security flaws in the tote systems that have since been addressed. You were concerned with odds changing after the race has been run. Over and over again there has been given a plausible explanation for this. I think its bad technology, but I don't think that the totes are helping whales cheat. Also, Crist expressed concern about whales having access to tote feeds that others who are more in the know than Crist have told you don't exist. I too have seen tote integration specifications, and nowhere does it ever talk about a trifecta and superfecta will pays.

I guess in the end you have to believe what you want to believe. I for one do firmly believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, Islamic terrorists blew up the WTC by crashing planes exclusively, and George Bush did not blow up the levees in New Orleans.

I get 7-8 hours of good sleep each night too. No worries.

[njcurveball]

My wife is 5' 0", 98 lbs of solid muscle.

Twisted steel and sex appeal! :jump:

[Premier Turf Club]

Twisted steel and sex appeal! :jump:

Off topic, but my son is 10 1/2 and plays on a little league team with other kids as old as 12. He hasn't gotten that hormone rush yet (thank goodness) and is emotionally immature relative to others his age. He didn't know what to do or think when a couple of his teammates told him Saturday his mom was "hot". :confused:

[ezrabrooks]

Please be consistent. The Pick Six scandal was a criminal act that exploited security flaws in the tote systems that have since been addressed. You were concerned with odds changing after the race has been run. Over and over again there has been given a plausible explanation for this. I think its bad technology, but I don't think that the totes are helping whales cheat. Also, Crist expressed concern about whales having access to tote feeds that others who are more in the know than Crist have told you don't exist. I too have seen tote integration specifications, and nowhere does it ever talk about a trifecta and superfecta will pays.

I guess in the end you have to believe what you want to believe. I for one do firmly believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, Islamic terrorists blew up the WTC by crashing planes exclusively, and George Bush did not blow up the levees in New Orleans.

I get 7-8 hours of good sleep each night too. No worries.

Hey, I hate to sound crabby, but I have never had an issue with odds changing after the start of the race. I can see the delay in getting the money into the host track's tote board.. So please, at least check out who you are attacking. I was referring to the questions raised in Crist's article...which had nothing to do with late odd changes.

I have to disagree with you that canceling bets after the bell (if it happens), or hacking into the system and manufacturing tickets is a human problem..not the system.

Ez

[njcurveball]

He didn't know what to do or think when a couple of his teammates told him Saturday his mom was "hot". :confused:

Enjoy this time my friend! Your son has the internet, so the learning curve there has been flattened considerably. :ThmbUp:

[Indulto]

Many horseplayers need someone to blame other than themselves, therefore they start believing in such mythology despite the fact that those in the know state explicitly differently. The really good players, many of which read here and many who lurk and don't post know exactly how the system works, and never take mythology for granted unless it was proven. Its wise to listen to people like northerndancer and PTC that are expressing a professional knowledge of the system Crist should know better and is probably stirring the pot as a writer, and Bain is just a guy who demonstrated that he believes in many strange theories like Equibase gremlins in his computers and other frivolous things.... I don't think that the totes are helping whales cheat. Also, Crist expressed concern about whales having access to tote feeds that others who are more in the know than Crist have told you don't exist. I too have seen tote integration specifications, and nowhere does it ever talk about a trifecta and superfecta will pays. ...rr,
You only THINK totes aren't helping whales cheat? Is that an example of proof? Do you think that because YOU haven't seen mention of "will pays" in "integration specifications" available to YOU, that's sufficient proof that such a facility doesn't exist. And what does one's alleged status as a "good horseplayer" have to do with whether or not one should take Crist at his word?

What PROOF do you have that Crist "should know better" and was "stirring the pot as a writer?" One doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist to contemplate whether calculations that don't require rocket science to implement are being performed without our knowledge on banks of high-performance PC's; particulary when doing so could be extremely profitable in an endeavor frought with cheating. Or don't you believe in "juice," either?

Nothing you've contributed to this thread so far has provided even a shred of proof to support your position, yet you've cast aspersions on someone whose credibility is unmatched within the industry, and challenged the pschological status of those who disagree with you. Cyber-browbeating doesn't work. Try debating using arguments that can be supported with verifiable facts rather than anecdotes.

BTW courts will convict based on circumstantial evidence.

[richrosa]

rr,
You only THINK totes aren't helping whales cheat? Is that an example of proof? Do you think that because YOU haven't seen mention of "will pays" in "integration specifications" available to YOU, that's sufficient proof that such a facility doesn't exist. And what does one's alleged status as a "good horseplayer" have to do with whether or not one should take Crist at his word?

What PROOF do you have that Crist "should know better" and was "stirring the pot as a writer?" One doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist to contemplate whether calculations that don't require rocket science to implement are being performed without our knowledge on banks of high-performance PC's; particulary when doing so could be extremely profitable in an endeavor frought with cheating. Or don't you believe in "juice," either?

Nothing you've contributed to this thread so far has provided even a shred of proof to support your position, yet you've cast aspersions on someone whose credibility is unmatched within the industry, and challenged the pschological status of those who disagree with you. Cyber-browbeating doesn't work. Try debating using arguments that can be supported with verifiable facts rather than anecdotes.

BTW courts will convict based on circumstantial evidence.

The point of my comments were to explain that EXPERTS like northerndancer and PTC have told you that the data doesn't exist for Superfectas and Trifectas will pays. I personally have reviewed industry documents regarding the operation of the tote system. For your own personal proof you can read the draft of the "Wager Transfer Protocol" that the industry intends to adopt someday, which builds upon the tote data that is available today.

I'm not sure what else you will need to believe. Maybe there's nothing that will convince you.

As far as Crist, I said, "he's probably stirring the pot". I mentioned that because I think he knows better and can't understand why he would suggest that others have access to data he should know doesn't exist. Its quite possible that he meant to suggest that whales are developing this information on their own by creating models, which clearly isn't cheating.

I'll leave Bain alone, however his public track record is his legacy.

Oh! BTW, no one has a shred of proof that whales have access to this data, do they?

[ezrabrooks]

They put the bets in before the first leg was run. What they discovered at Balmoral long before this was that if you had access to (I forget where) you could change the numbers, since the tote was not locking the bet until the last leg.

They took out quite a bit of money from Balmoral pick fours. much more than anyone really knows. If they had continued doing this on a small scale, the tote company (Autotote / Scientific Games) would have never figured it out.

It is a much different issue than a "grace period of a few seconds" to allow late cancellations.

Agreed...but my point was that the fact that tickets could be changed was not a human error...it was a system error. I use the machines at LS all of the time, but have never tired to cancel a wager, and never have seen an option to cancel one.. Will check it out next time I am over there.

[Fastracehorse]

I agree with DS in saying that people who complain about rebates are the ones not getting them. Instead of posting technical analysis as to why rebates are unfair, just say, "i don't get one so i'm jealous"

I will make just one point. Lets compare one whale to one non whale in a specific example. Race 1 at Laurel Park on a Thursday. Win pool is 40,000 after all is said and done. Big Whale looks up at the board with 1 minute to post and sees that the horse he likes is 3-1 and is projected to pay 8 dollars. Big Whale bets his customary 3,000 to win (he would bet 5k to win, but the pools are too small) and his 3-1 shot goes down to 9-5 and wins. Big Whale gets a 5.80 payoff. Little Fish misses the first race and shows up for the 2nd race (he got caught in traffic). Little fish looks up at the tote board and sees that his best bet of the day is 3-1. Little Fish bets his customary 20 dollars to win and his horse wins and pays 8.00.

The reason Big Whale NEEDS a rebate to stay in the game is because he's getting 5.80 on a 3-1 shot while little fish is getting 8.00 on his 3-1 shot.

If Big Whale didn't get a rebate, there's a cap as to how much he can play. With the rebate, he can play more. He CAN bet his 3k to win on that 3-1 shot into a 40k pool at Laurel.

Whale doesn't have to hurt his bottom line by betting so much - he bets more because he wants more.

Lil' guy would be able to bet more if he got a rebate too.

fffastt

[Imriledup]

Whale doesn't have to hurt his bottom line by betting so much - he bets more because he wants more.

Lil' guy would be able to bet more if he got a rebate too.

fffastt

Yeah, but he only wants more because he can get more. The Whale only bets what the pools will let him afford and without a rebate, he'd bet much less.

As far as the lil guy being able to bet more if he got a rebate that's not entirely true. The lil guy is only the lil guy because he's not good enough to be a whale. IF that lil guy was a winning player, he'd be able to take his small bankroll and make it big and with a big bankroll, he'd be able to get a rebate of his own.

Which sort of means that if a genie came out of a bottle and handed each 'lil guy' a hundred grand and told him to take that 100k and become a whale, now many of those lil guys would eventually lose that 100k and become lil guys again and how many would take that 100k and run with it and turn it into a much larger stake?

The whale bets more because he wants more which is also good for the size of the pools. If the win pool was 50k or 500k, the odds on the horses would still be the same. The 3-5 shot would still be 3-5 and the 25-1 shot would still be 25-1....but, there's just much more money to win, which is good for everyone.

[Indulto]

The point of my comments were to explain that EXPERTS like northerndancer and PTC have told you that the data doesn't exist for Superfectas and Trifectas will pays. I personally have reviewed industry documents regarding the operation of the tote system. For your own personal proof you can read the draft of the "Wager Transfer Protocol" that the industry intends to adopt someday, which builds upon the tote data that is available today.

I'm not sure what else you will need to believe. Maybe there's nothing that will convince you.

As far as Crist, I said, "he's probably stirring the pot". I mentioned that because I think he knows better and can't understand why he would suggest that others have access to data he should know doesn't exist. Its quite possible that he meant to suggest that whales are developing this information on their own by creating models, which clearly isn't cheating.

I'll leave Bain alone, however his public track record is his legacy.

Oh! BTW, no one has a shred of proof that whales have access to this data, do they?It would take an admission from Crist that he had no evidence to support his statement to move me from 99% to 100% convinced. ;)

[JustRalph]

My wife is 5' 0", 98 lbs of solid muscle. Runs marathons and plays tennis 5 days a week. Plus she's a crack shot with a gun (she worked for an outdoor magazine at one point). I think she'd kick my ass...;)

My god, hide her tennis racket, throw away her running shoes and buy that women a sandwich! :lol:

[ezrabrooks]

Yeah, but he only wants more because he can get more. The Whale only bets what the pools will let him afford and without a rebate, he'd bet much less.

As far as the lil guy being able to bet more if he got a rebate that's not entirely true. The lil guy is only the lil guy because he's not good enough to be a whale. IF that lil guy was a winning player, he'd be able to take his small bankroll and make it big and with a big bankroll, he'd be able to get a rebate of his own.

Which sort of means that if a genie came out of a bottle and handed each 'lil guy' a hundred grand and told him to take that 100k and become a whale, now many of those lil guys would eventually lose that 100k and become lil guys again and how many would take that 100k and run with it and turn it into a much larger stake?

The whale bets more because he wants more which is also good for the size of the pools. If the win pool was 50k or 500k, the odds on the horses would still be the same. The 3-5 shot would still be 3-5 and the 25-1 shot would still be 25-1....but, there's just much more money to win, which is good for everyone.

I trust this is a well thought out argument...but, if the odds on the runners are going to stay the same, why does (should) one better want to compete with another, who has an advantage over him on every bet?

Ez

[trigger]

I have had the opportunity to work directly with all 4 tote companies on various projects and can attest to the fact they can not and do not provide data to any player (no matter what the size of the player) that is not available to the general wagering public at the track, local OTB etc.

As PTC mentioned it would be cost prohibitive for the tote companies to provide the mythical information that is bantered about.......one project I worked on tried to get the tote companies to provide the Tri and Spr data and the tote companies stated flat out not a snowballs chance in hell even if the project paid for the cost.
.

ND, Some clarification please
---Am I correct in inferring that the raw Tri/SF wagering data is "sitting" somewhere in the tote system? (Otherwise, how would Tri/SF payoffs be computed once the race is official?)
If so, is it not available to someone who has direct access to that tote system? If so, couldn't a person with direct access to the system extract the raw Tri/SF wagering data and determine "payoffs" on their own?

Also, I dimly recall some kind of Tri info being shown to bettors in the early 90's--perhaps at the NYRA.....anyone else remember this?
Thanks, Trigger

[Fastracehorse]

[QUOTE=Imriledup]Yeah, but he only wants more because he can get more. The Whale only bets what the pools will let him afford and without a rebate, he'd bet much less.

As far as the lil guy being able to bet more if he got a rebate that's not entirely true. The lil guy is only the lil guy because he's not good enough to be a whale. IF that lil guy was a winning player, he'd be able to take his small bankroll and make it big and with a big bankroll, he'd be able to get a rebate of his own.

Which sort of means that if a genie came out of a bottle and handed each 'lil guy' a hundred grand and told him to take that 100k and become a whale, now many of those lil guys would eventually lose that 100k and become lil guys again and how many would take that 100k and run with it and turn it into a much larger stake?

U are assuming that all whales make money at this game??

The lil guy is not making money because he's not a whale?? - he may be making money.

I know lil' guys who pay for family trips to HK and don't work.

I know whales who disappear from the local OTB and owe the owner k's.

fffastt

[northerndancer]

ND, Some clarification please
---Am I correct in inferring that the raw Tri/SF wagering data is "sitting" somewhere in the tote system? (Otherwise, how would Tri/SF payoffs be computed once the race is official?)
If so, is it not available to someone who has direct access to that tote system? If so, couldn't a person with direct access to the system extract the raw Tri/SF wagering data and determine "payoffs" on their own?

Also, I dimly recall some kind of Tri info being shown to bettors in the early 90's--perhaps at the NYRA.....anyone else remember this?
Thanks, Trigger

Trigger,
The information can be produced for Tri's & Spr's but the cost to transmit this information is cost prohibitive therefore the tote companies do not and will not develop the necessary protocol to send out this information.

The players (whether whales or guppies) do not have direct access to the tote system. The wagering outlet that accepts the wager (such as PTC) has the access to the tote.

The players who utilize exected payoffs in their models use historical information as well as the win and exacta pools to estimate the Tri & Spr payoffs.

There are a few tracks that will provide what the total amount wagered in the TRI pool with a specific horse in the first position. Yes before you ask the tracks receive this data from the tote company.

I hope this clarifies your queries.
ND

[Imriledup]

I trust this is a well thought out argument...but, if the odds on the runners are going to stay the same, why does (should) one better want to compete with another, who has an advantage over him on every bet?

Ez

What advantage?

[Pace Cap'n]

The players (whether whales or guppies) do not have direct access to the tote system. The wagering outlet that accepts the wager (such as PTC) has the access to the tote.

Whales have been known to own OTB's.

[trigger]

Trigger,
The information can be produced for Tri's & Spr's but the cost to transmit this information is cost prohibitive therefore the tote companies do not and will not develop the necessary protocol to send out this information.

The players (whether whales or guppies) do not have direct access to the tote system. The wagering outlet that accepts the wager (such as PTC) has the access to the tote.

The players who utilize exected payoffs in their models use historical information as well as the win and exacta pools to estimate the Tri & Spr payoffs.

There are a few tracks that will provide what the total amount wagered in the TRI pool with a specific horse in the first position. Yes before you ask the tracks receive this data from the tote company.

I hope this clarifies your queries.ND

ND, Thanks for the info.
A couple of more questions.
--Do you know of any other info like the TRI(amount bet on tri's by lead horse) pool info that the track receives from the tote company that it chooses not to make available to the bettors?
--Where does the raw bet data reside in the tote system ? (I assume that each individual bet is entered into the tote system as it is made.)
BTW, it is my understanding that Youbet owned United Tote wrote special programs that provided CRW bettors direct access into the tote system.
Trigger.