Exchange betting discussed

[trigger]

Losing bet expands reach
http://www.harnesstracks.com/commentary.htm

[singunner]

If anything, a betting exchange would lend legitimacy to an industry that outsiders largely view as being populated by degenerates. A horse betting exchange is immediately comparable to the NYSE, which might make people think twice about racing.

The author's contention that betting on a horse to lose is somehow against everything racing stands for is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Betting on a horse to win is BETTING THAT EVERY OTHER HORSE WILL LOSE. It's that simple.

The author failed to point to any evidence of market destruction in the UK due to exchanges. It seems like he's taken a very short view of the effects of an exchange. Exchange betting offers more bettors the opportunity to actually break even or make a profit, and how could that be bad for racing (unless we're talking about racing monopolies)?

[46zilzal]

I have signed up for BetFair and am learning how to use it from Colin a friendly bookie on this side of the pond (England).

[Cangamble]

I have signed up for BetFair and am learning how to use it from Colin a friendly bookie on this side of the pond (England).
Have you moved to England, or are you just visiting?

Betfair, btw is loads of fun. I've never taken a withdrawal from them though. I know many people who have and who are making a small living there.

I had one good run a couple of years ago, where I built a $200 deposit to $7000 within a week, and then I stupidly skid back to zero in the next three weeks.

[Javagold]

betting exchanges are the only hope racing has of surviving in the next 20 years

[LottaKash]

:ThmbUp: ..THX Trigger for the head's up on this article.

I've gotten the basic jist of it (betfair), but, would someone be kind enough to elaborate further on all the details of this scheme......Thx Ahead....jju

[Cangamble]

:ThmbUp: ..THX Trigger for the head's up on this article.

I've gotten the basic jist of it (betfair), but, would someone be kind enough to elaborate further on all the details of this scheme......Thx Ahead....jju
From their site:

How do I use the Exchange?

Back or lay

When you "back" a selection (be it an individual, a team, horse, dog or other), you are betting that it will win. This is just like betting with a conventional bookie.

When you "lay" it, you are betting against it winning. For example, if you're betting in a market on which team is going to win the Premiership and you lay Man Utd, you offer odds to other punters who wish to back Man Utd. If Man Utd don't win, then you pick up the backer's stake. If Man Utd wins, then you pay out. This is what bookmakers traditionally do.

Although Betfair knows who is on each side of every bet matched through the exchange, you never know who you are betting against. Your privacy and the confidentiality of your bets is maintained by Betfair's secure site.

Choose your odds

If you want better odds than are currently available, you can place an order for a better price, but be realistic because there has to be somebody prepared to lay the bet at those odds, and vice versa.

Take a look at the odds before an event and you will see them change as Betfair members back and lay their bets. The odds often improve nearer to the off as the number of people in the market increases.
**********************
There are quite a few Betfair videos on Youtube btw that shows how it actually works.

[LottaKash]

:ThmbUp: ..Thx Cangamble.....that clears it up for the most part.

I'm not so sure that betting to lose can be rewarding to anyone except cheaters......I'll have to think on this concept some more....I don't see how it can help to maintain the integrity in this sport of ours........

On the other hand, in the early years, I probably could've made a small fortune on betting on my selections to lose.....:lol:

SCARY !

[trigger]

:ThmbUp: ..Thx Cangamble.....that clears it up for the most part.

I'm not so sure that betting to lose can be rewarding to anyone except cheaters......I'll have to think on this concept some more....I don't see how it can help to maintain the integrity in this sport of ours........

On the other hand, in the early years, I probably could've made a small fortune on betting on my selections to lose.....:lol:

SCARY !

Yea, I'd have had about a 90% hit rate!

[ryesteve]

I'm not so sure that betting to lose can be rewarding to anyone except cheaters......I'll have to think on this concept some more....I don't see how it can help to maintain the integrity in this sport of ours....... !While it would make it easier for cheaters to profit from cheating, in terms of legit betting, there are plenty of times when you can look at a race and decide you hate the favorite, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have a strong opinion on which horse WILL win the race. Being able to lay the favorite would be the most logcial way to bet the race under those circumstances.

[Cangamble]

:ThmbUp: ..Thx Cangamble.....that clears it up for the most part.

I'm not so sure that betting to lose can be rewarding to anyone except cheaters......I'll have to think on this concept some more....I don't see how it can help to maintain the integrity in this sport of ours........

On the other hand, in the early years, I probably could've made a small fortune on betting on my selections to lose.....:lol:

SCARY !
I've had some of my best hits by betting against a favourite to show. You can risk $20 for example, and if the horse runs out of the money you can make $120 to $175 at times.

As far as cheating goes, Betfair alerts regulators when there is too much action on certain horses in certain races.
Those guilty of race fixing can be more easily identified than someone at a track who bets a one way tri for $20 and cashes the ticket through a machine and then cashes the voucher with a teller.
Not that tris are ever fixed or anything.

[46zilzal]

Have you moved to England, or are you just visiting?



Visiting as I now am a permanent elector for the Canadian Thoroughbred Hall of Fame. Just got the good news yesterday. Woodbine is coming closer and closer.

[Cangamble]

Visiting as I now am a permanent elector for the Canadian Thoroughbred Hall of Fame. Just got the good news yesterday. Woodbine is coming closer and closer.
Congrats. You better pretend you don't have reasonable discourse with me though, I think they want me floating down the Niagara River by now.

[BIG49010]

Anybody find it interesting that Betfair has dropped all tracks that are not on TVG, except Woodbine. The exchange is 4-5k per race, is this mostly from Canada, or am I missing something?

[Cangamble]

Anybody find it interesting that Betfair has dropped all tracks that are not on TVG, except Woodbine. The exchange is 4-5k per race, is this mostly from Canada, or am I missing something?
I wasn't aware of that. I just saw the matched bets from a Golden Gate race total $27,000.
Usually races that only match 4 or 5 grand go off during or just after another race. For example, if Philly has a race going off in 4 minutes and Delaware has one in 6, Phillies race will usually get at least twice as much action.

[BIG49010]

I guess because Canada bets legally thru Betfair, that must be the reason for them putting up Woodbine on a regular basis. I wonder how long before the WEC puts pressure on Betfair to stop the bleed? It is not broadcast anywhere else but Canada, is it?

[DeanT]

Many tracks are on betfair. Worldwide. GGX, TPX, BEL, AQU etc.

In several jurisdictions tracks have done deals with them (at betfair's behest) and they offer a percentage of profits for the right to offer the bet. Tasmania for example has licensed them for a few years now, and British racing of course has been licensed with them since their inception.

Rakes are low, but with the intense volume they do, as well as the churn factor and aggressive advertising they bring in a fair amount to UK and Aussie racing.

I have wondered why the US tracks do not get a licensing deal with them, as it might bring in some decent extra revenue to North American racing.

[Cangamble]

I guess because Canada bets legally thru Betfair, that must be the reason for them putting up Woodbine on a regular basis. I wonder how long before the WEC puts pressure on Betfair to stop the bleed? It is not broadcast anywhere else but Canada, is it?
WEG has been whining about Betfair for a few years now. Betfair can't advertise within Canada anymore. And the reason Canadians can be there is because Betfair doesn't accept money within Canada from clients and doesn't have a Canadian server.
Woodbine isn't on the menu all the time, in fact it is on a lot rarer than most tracks.

[BIG49010]

4TH Race at Hastings over 25,000 exchanged on race. Winner of race was offered at over 4.5 , while bet down to 2-1 on track (3.0 ). The horse was taken down on a b.s. call. Sharp money on Betfair.

[46zilzal]

4TH Race at Hastings over 25,000 exchanged on race. Winner of race was offered at over 4.5 , while bet down to 2-1 on track (3.0 ). The horse was taken down on a b.s. call. Sharp money on Betfair.
I was there. NOT a B.S. call. Rocco Bowen caused Stephanie Fedora to check hard, first turn, losing all chance.

[BIG49010]

Looked to me like an apprentice trying to go through a hole that wasn't there, with a horse she couldn't control. I didn't bet the race, I was just suprised at the action on BF, for a race most people didn't have on TV. I watched on HPI west, which most people don't have either. If you watched the stewards review, the important shot was not available to them either, it was in a blind spot.

[DeanT]

With the sport worrying about wagering integrity it is interesting that an ADW-type company has been front and centre on this.

Interesting read about betfair and betting patterns. Just a few years ago the old guard used to fear monger about "betting to lose" but now that has quieted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/sports/othersports/25betfair.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp

[startngate]

The author's contention that betting on a horse to lose is somehow against everything racing stands for is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Betting on a horse to win is BETTING THAT EVERY OTHER HORSE WILL LOSE. It's that simple. Actually, no it's not, and therein lies one of my problems with being able to be a horse to lose.

If you are betting on a horse to win, you are making one bet (as opposed to buying win tickets on the rest of the field), with one successful outcome. In order to fix that race, you have to contend with the total number of runners -1 to guarantee yourself a successful bet. If you bet a horse to lose, you are still only making one bet, but with total number of runners -1 possible outcomes. You only have to contend with one animal .. yours ... to guarantee a successful bet. And it's a lot easier to do something undetectable to your one horse to make it not win (remember running second is still ok for purposes of the wager) than it is to do something undetectable to guarantee a win in a 12 horse field. If you were forced to buy win tickets on the entire field, you'd never be able to get the return necessary to make money.

My other issue is this ... the real-time monitoring is fine for the exchange. If they find something funny, they can disallow all the wagers. It's a closed market.

But what about the secondary market ... the pari-mutuel pools? Bettors here will still get screwed on the fix, even if it is caught, because no one will be able to act fast enough.

With sports wagering, events take hours (and sometimes days) to complete. Plenty of time to catch and act on something before the event gets done. Horse races last between 1 and 3 minutes, making it virtually impossible to do anything about it for the secondary market until after it's too late.

And yes, I fully believe races can be (and are) fixed now. It's just more difficult to make the score now because it's harder to make bets to take advantage of the fix. Make it easier with a betting exchange, and I think all heck breaks loose at a time where racing doesn't need it.

[DeanT]

And yes, I fully believe races can be (and are) fixed now. It's just more difficult to make the score now because it's harder to make bets to take advantage of the fix. Make it easier with a betting exchange, and I think all heck breaks loose at a time where racing doesn't need it.

They've been doing it for years now, and 1.1 million customers have spoken. They like it.

We have to start doing what customers want. That is seemingly a strange concept for racing, but we better learn to respond, imo.

[startngate]

I have no problem with betting exchanges as long as the person making the offer can only "back" a horse.

If the exchange is going to allow a person to "lay" a horse, then I want the market closed at least 5 minutes to post, with open access to the market for the regulatory body overseeing the race to be able to look at all the bets before the horses go into the gate.

They've been doing it for years now, and 1.1 million customers have spoken. They like it.

We have to start doing what customers want. That is seemingly a strange concept for racing, but we better learn to respond, imo. I agree that the industry should be looking to deliver things the customers want, but I respectfully disagree in this case. I'm sure there are 1.1 million "customers" in the world that "like" doing crack cocaine ... doesn't mean it should be legal. Sometimes the greater good needs to rule, and IMO allowing someone to bet a horse to lose is not serving the greater good. It makes it even easier to cheat than it is now.

[ryesteve]

I have no problem with betting exchanges as long as the person making the offer can only "back" a horse.But then it's not an exchange.

A wagering company that merely offers fixed odds wagering with a low rake sounds like a huge losing business model. If someone had the capability to make odds lines so good that they wouldn't get burned, they wouldn't need to bother starting such a company... they'd just start betting and siphoning money out of the pools directly.

[DeanT]

I have no problem with betting exchanges as long as the person making the offer can only "back" a horse.


Then you don't have an exchange. (edit: sorry ryesteve :))

If the exchange is going to allow a person to "lay" a horse, then I want the market closed at least 5 minutes to post, with open access to the market for the regulatory body overseeing the race to be able to look at all the bets before the horses go into the gate.

People get fixed odds on a bet. Ask 1000 customers, would they want 5-2 locked in for their price, or do they think it is more honest to have their 5-2 bet go to 4-5 after the bell? And that is not even including the evidence of past posting.

. Sometimes the greater good needs to rule, and IMO allowing someone to bet a horse to lose is not serving the greater good. It makes it even easier to cheat than it is now.

It is easier to drink and drive now that alcohol is legal, but it does not mean we should ban cars, or go back to prohibition. It's easier to get child pornography too, but we don't stop the internet. We have to move forward with technology, not backwards because of a few people who abuse it.

People are going to cheat. Up here in Ontario it is against the rules to bet against your own horse in the race, as it is in other places. That is betting him to lose. People still do that, but the funny thing is, a few have gotten caught, and have been fined. Why? Because they did it in their HPI account. Technology improves policing your game, it does not hinder it.

Insider trading was big, and I mean huge in the 1970's and 1980's. When Etrade and all the internet companies came aboard, most old time thinkers and the brokers (worried about protecting their slice) said that insider trading would run rampant with the Internet, and that it will be a huge detriment to trading and the capital markets. The opposite of course happened. Online trading is a boon to investment using one of the greatest inventions of our time, and there is an electronic trail to anyone who tries to manipulate a market.

If the sole goal is making sure no one cheats, we should all close up shop and go home. Just ask Mike Maloney about the integrity of our pools. We now have mechanisms in place like Betfair to ensure the cheaters are caught now. And they add much needed transparency like online traders have. This has has been proven in tennis and other sports, as well as racing. If you do not have transparency, you do not have a growing game (imo).

Poll 100 bettors that use betfair and use the wagering pools. Ask which place they believe their money is most protected, and which company they think is looking out for them. I guarantee a huge majority choose betfair.

[startngate]

But then it's not an exchange.

A wagering company that merely offers fixed odds wagering with a low rake sounds like a huge losing business model. If someone had the capability to make odds lines so good that they wouldn't get burned, they wouldn't need to bother starting such a company... they'd just start betting and siphoning money out of the pools directly.Sure it is ... because the "wagering company" is not the one making the offer. Individuals are. And people that have the capability to make good odds lines create companies all the time. They are called bookmakers.
People get fixed odds on a bet. Ask 1000 customers, would they want 5-2 locked in for their price, or do they think it is more honest to have their 5-2 bet go to 4-5 after the bell? And that is not even including the evidence of past posting.I'm sure they would, but that would be fixed odds wagering, not pari-mutuel wagering. You don't have to allow offers of horses to lose to have fixed odds wagering. Bookmakers do it all the time.
It is easier to drink and drive now that alcohol is legal, but it does not mean we should ban cars, or go back to prohibition. It's easier to get child pornography too, but we don't stop the internet. We have to move forward with technology, not backwards because of a few people who abuse it.But there are laws against drinking and driving and against child porn. How easy would it be to do those things if they were no longer illegal? They'd be MUCH easier, and more people would do them.
Insider trading was big, and I mean huge in the 1970's and 1980's. When Etrade and all the internet companies came aboard, most old time thinkers and the brokers (worried about protecting their slice) said that insider trading would run rampant with the Internet, and that it will be a huge detriment to trading and the capital markets. The opposite of course happened. Online trading is a boon to investment using one of the greatest inventions of our time, and there is an electronic trail to anyone who tries to manipulate a market. And the insider trading laws are much tougher now then they were back then too. Oh, and if you think insider trading is less of an issue than it was back then, I'd suggest you stop trading. There is far more market manipulation going on now then there was back then because technology makes it easier.
If the sole goal is making sure no one cheats, we should all close up shop and go home. So you are saying we should just give up and stop trying, and by the way, while we're at it, lets make it easier? Stopping the cheats should be the goal. I'd rather see the industry fix the tote system issues (including setting up monitoring), ban race day medication (and test like crazy) and figure out how to open up distribution. Will it happen? Maybe not, but I sure don't want to just go home. People will always try to find an edge ... I just don't want to make it easy on them.
We have to move forward with technology, not backwards because of a few people who abuse it.Absolutely ... and now you can bet online and over the phone (in some jurisdictions). And we still haven't gone far enough. PTC and TwinSpires are the only systems that allow conditional wagering, Trackus isn't used everywhere, there are still tote systems issues, etc, etc. That doesn't mean we need to allow whatever the next designer drug is to enhance performance.

Again, I'm perfectly fine with betting exhanges that don't allow people to bet horses to lose ... OR, if they cut off wagering with enough time for the tracks hosting the secondary market (the pari-mutuel pools) to do something BEFORE a race starts if the monitoring system flags something.

[Cangamble]

So Startngate, you have no problem with bookmakers making lines and thus betting on horses to lose, but you have a problem with individuals acting like bookies?

[Charlie D]

Stopping the cheats should be the goal


Correct and if you Google betfair memorandum of understanding you'll see who is trying to achieve the goal.

Not only are exchanges like Betfair trying to protect it's clients (the honest bettors like me) from the cheats, but they are also trying to help the governing bodies catch the cheats

[DeanT]

So you are saying we should just give up and stop trying, and by the way, while we're at it, lets make it easier?

Our whole discussion is based on this line, so I did a quick snip. You think because a platform is created that directly allows people to bet to lose that it will encourage cheating. I am of the belief that if it is transparent it does the opposite - people know they will be called out and caught if they try, so it discourages cheating.

Many of these arguments were already posed in Great Britain and in Australia. None of them have come to pass. It was mainly fear mongering from the tracks because there was a new kid in town and they were coming into their space. Hey, I understand that, no doubt auction houses didn't lke Ebay either.

Anyway, the empirical evidence seems to contradict the betting to lose gripe. In fact, when these same arguments were presented in Tasmania in 2005, the head of Tasmanian racing touted the same arguments. It is perfectly understandable.

Now a couple years after betfair entered the market there, the same man who was critical of betting to lose said this:

Since Racing Victoria gave Betfair approval to cover Victorian racing in July 2006, its
Chief Steward, Des Gleeson, has said:
“None of the issues of concern before Betfair became licensed over here have come to fruition. That’s because the protocols and information they make available to us is
second to none.
Hobart Mercury

Here is some info from some FAQ's about the betting to lose argument from the betfair site. I would suggest those who currently bet against their horses via the pari-mutuel pools or bookies as they've been doing for generations, continue that practice, cuz if you do it via an exchange, you are likely to get caught.

INTEGRITY ISSUES: Q: How can Betfair help protect the integrity of sport?

A: The use of technology allows Betfair to introduce higher standards of probity, consumer protection and integrity than is possible under cash-based systems used by TABs and traditional bookmakers. Every bet on Betfair can be tracked to a particular customer. Betfair records every detail of every bet and every click of the mouse once you are on its site. It can trace every cent in and out of the exchange, and every bet back to an end customer and an end bank account. All of this information is available to racing and sporting regulators, anti-money laundering agencies and law enforcement bodies either through the Tasmanian Gaming Commission or through Betfair directly.

Q: Who does Betfair have Product Fee and Integrity Agreements with?

A: Betfair has Product Fee and Integrity Agreements with RVL, Cricket Australia, AFL, NRL, FFA, The PGA Tour of Australasia and Tennis Australia. These agreements enable the regulators/sports bodies to gain access to customer identities and wagering information from Betfair should they ever wish to investigate betting activity on a particular race or event access. Betfair has also agreed to contribute a product fee to the sports based on the amount of wagering occurring on the respective sports.

In addition to this Betfair UK has similar information sharing agreements with the following bodies:




The Horseracing Regulatory Authority in the UK – June 2003
The ATP (men’s professional tennis tour) – September 2003
The Darts Regulatory Authority – December 2003
The International Cricket Council – January 2004
The FA (English soccer) – March 2004
The Jockey Club of South Africa – September 2004
The Rugby Football League (UK rugby league) – December 2004
UEFA (European soccer) – January 2005
The National Greyhound Racing Club (UK greyhounds) – January 2005
The Thoroughbred Racing Protective Bureau (US racing) – March 2005
The International Tennis Federation – October 2005
The Grand Slam Committee (tennis) – October 2005
The Lawn Tennis Association – October 2005
The Women’s Tennis Association – October 2005
The Rugby Football Union – February 2006
The British Darts Organisation – February 2006
The Belgian FA – February 2006
FIFA (World soccer) – May 2006
Racing Services Tasmania – July 2006
Horse Racing Ireland – August 2006
Football Association of Ireland (FAI) – October 2007
Q: How do you monitor betting?

A: We have a dedicated integrity team of specialists who monitor the betting patterns across all the betting markets offered by Betfair. They use a combination of software tools and experience. As the details of every bet are recorded any market can be investigated, current or historic.

Betfair now gives stewards in most States real time access to all bets placed on their races on Betfair. No other wagering operator in Australia is in a position to do this. In addition, all personal details of punters are available to stewards in Tasmania and in Victoria as a result of information sharing agreements that those States have signed with Betfair. Betfair would like to sign similar information sharing agreements in all States. The agreements are free of charge to the racing body.

[ryesteve]

Sure it is ... because the "wagering company" is not the one making the offer. Individuals are.How do you figure? If you make this parimutuel then it's no longer fixed odds wagering.

And people that have the capability to make good odds lines create companies all the time. They are called bookmakers.Please direct me to a bookmaker that offers fixed-odds 105% lines on horse races. I'll believe it when I see it.

[startngate]

So Startngate, you have no problem with bookmakers making lines and thus betting on horses to lose, but you have a problem with individuals acting like bookies?If a bookmaker makes a line for taking all other horses in a race against one horse, then yes, I do have a problem with that. Doesn't matter if it's an individual or a professional bookmaker. I'd be a hypocrite if I believed that there was a difference.

And please don't confuse someone accepting an offer with someone making the offer. If someone believes Big Brown will win the Belmont and says they will match up to $500 at 5-1 odds, I have no problem with the person who thinks Big Brown will not win the race accepting the offer.

How do you figure? If you make this parimutuel then it's no longer fixed odds wagering.Where did you get that? I never tried to imply it was pari-mutuel. I'm just stating that the "wagering company" (ie Betfair) wasn't the one offering the bet, and therefore it still is an exchange.

Our whole discussion is based on this line, so I did a quick snip. You think because a platform is created that directly allows people to bet to lose that it will encourage cheating. I am of the belief that if it is transparent it does the opposite - people know they will be called out and caught if they try, so it discourages cheating.I said it would make it easier to cheat, and I believe it to be true. Those that are inclined to do so will usually find a way. I'm just not in favor of making it easier to do, and betting exchanges can give the cheat one more tool to profit with. I live in a very safe neighborhood, but I still lock my door when I leave the house and set the alarm. The professional is still going to break in if he wants to, but the amateur will move on. On the other hand, if I leave my doors unlocked and the alarm off it will be easier for a thief to make off with my 50" LCD TV.

Monitoring is only good if something proactive can be done with it, and this is the line from Betfair's own FAQ that says it all ... "These agreements enable the regulators/sports bodies to gain access to customer identities and wagering information from Betfair should they ever wish to investigate betting activity on a particular race or event access."

And to do it right, you would have to be monitoring ALL of the exchanges collectively. It's great that Betfair does what they do, but not all exchanges do. Unless you can tie all the data together, someone wishing to cheat could spread their action out over multiple exchanges and it might slip under the radar screen.

Figuring out something went wrong with a race after it's done and the pari-mutuel pools have been paid out doesn't cut it for me. Yes, it's nice to catch the bad guys, but that doesn't help the people who didn't bet through the exchange and therefore can't get their money back.

[Charlie D]

Those that are inclined to do so will usually find a way

Aye they will, and they don't need a betting exchange to do it either

[Cangamble]

Startngate:"If someone believes Big Brown will win the Belmont and says they will match up to $500 at 5-1 odds, I have no problem with the person who thinks Big Brown will not win the race accepting the offer."

The person accepting the offer is betting on Big Brown to lose. That is exactly what exchange betting is all about. That person may not want to book it at 6-1, and may only want to book it at 5-1 or less in your example.

[ryesteve]

If someone believes Big Brown will win the Belmont and says they will match up to $500 at 5-1 odds, I have no problem with the person who thinks Big Brown will not win the race accepting the offer.Well, you've just defined how an exchange works, and you're saying you have no problem with it. I'm glad you were finally able to talk yourself into it!

[startngate]

Well, you've just defined how an exchange works, and you're saying you have no problem with it. I'm glad you were finally able to talk yourself into it!Not at all .... Again, don't mistake the acceptance of the bet with the offering of the bet.

My issue is with allowing the guy that thought the horse (Big Brown in my example) was going to lose to "lay" on the collective rest of the field to beat him. If that same guy wants to "back" each of the rest of the horses in the race then that's OK. It will be more difficult to profit from doing something to the horse (Big Brown) if he has to back many horses as opposed to just offering one lay bet.

And as I have mentioned, my concern on the laying of bets goes away if the exchange closes with enough time for the monitoring system to notify the host track of any issues prior to the race going off. It's the only way to protect the secondary market (the pari-mutuel pools) where the vast majority of people are betting. Racing complicates the monitoring process because the events are so short in duration.

[Charlie D]

If that same guy wants to "back" each of the rest of the horses in the race then that's OK

So it's OK for connections of Big Brown to back Casino Drive and in doing so lay Big Brown by proxy???

[DeanT]

So it's OK for connections of Big Brown to back Casino Drive and in doing so lay Big Brown by proxy???
I think that is the point that Start seems to be glossing over. It is hidden if they do that, at places like BF it makes it transparent. I don't like the Sgt Shultz policy much for anything.

Regardless, perhaps an interesting story. I spoke to a track head at a wagering conference and he said (paraphrasing), this might be pie in the sky but he hopes that in a decade people will be going to the racetrack and betting based on fixed odds with the pari-mutel pools tapped right into an exchange. For example, a lady can go to a betting window and say "I'll take $20 to win on the four horse at 7-1".

It might be pie in the sky, and it might never come, but it sure is hell is nice to hear an executive think of changing our game for the better in the future, rather than stagnating like we have for the last twenty years with higher rakes and infighting.

[rrbauer]

Regardless, perhaps an interesting story. I spoke to a track head at a wagering conference and he said (paraphrasing), this might be pie in the sky but he hopes that in a decade people will be going to the racetrack and betting based on fixed odds with the pari-mutel pools tapped right into an exchange. For example, a lady can go to a betting window and say "I'll take $20 to win on the four horse at 7-1".

It might be pie in the sky, and it might never come, but it sure is hell is nice to hear an executive think of changing our game for the better in the future, rather than stagnating like we have for the last twenty years with higher rakes and infighting.

The last two track execs that I heard discussing "fixed-price odds" as a solution for racing's woes were both looking for employment within five years after. Was it the Sport of Kings racebook in LV that was laying fixed-price odds? Great for the players for about 3-4 months. Then SOK went pari-mutuel....then they went out of business. The Betfair model, if adopted, might do wonders for maybe 1/3 of the tracks in the U.S. That still leaves the rest on a short leash.

[DeanT]

I don't disagree Rich. It was hypothetical, and a "what we could be" soliliquay.

One thing I found interesting tho, is it is a whole other world out there. Here the headlines are about horseman fighting tracks for a slice of a shrinking pie, not good. I spoke with someone from Australia at a wagering conference and he can not believe we do not think outside the box more here. They surveyed their bettors and do so often. One thing they wanted were races scheduled at the right time for the big tracks covered on the racing channel. They got together and did that. Smaller players wanted to compete with whales in super bets, so they quickly changed the model where you can pick a dollar amount and a couple of key horses and it gives you a fractional bet. You can bet 12 cent superfectas or pick 6's, or 22 cent supers or pick 6's. Whatever.

Wagering is up downunder, not down.

There are so many ways to skin a cat out there, with very few things tried in our business in North America. Betfair and others are leaving us in the dust in terms of innovation and invention. Our response seems to be to shut out customers, not allow people like Ian to have a signal, increase takeouts, shrink our market, or make gambling over the internet a felony. Why is wagering stagnant again? Not hard to see is it.

[startngate]

I think that is the point that Start seems to be glossing over. It is hidden if they do that, at places like BF it makes it transparent. I don't like the Sgt Shultz policy much for anything. Nope, I'm not glossing over anything.

In order for someone to do exactly the same thing as "laying" one horse in a race, they would have to back EVERY OTHER HORSE IN THE RACE. Not just one, but all the horses. Even if they think they can throw out one or two, it would still be very difficult to be profitable doing that, whereas it would be easy to profit by just laying the one horse against the field.

Going back to my original premise of making it easier to cheat .. if someone "lays" one horse against the field (Big Brown), they only have to worry about one horse. If they "lay by proxy" (as Charlie D says) by "backing" Casino Drive then they have two horses to contend with. And if they have to "back" the entire field then they have a lot more horses to deal with.

And if Betfair's monitoring system is so great, how would that be hidden? It's no more or less transparent if they are in fact logging and analyzing every transaction the way they say they are. IMO, if anything it would less hidden because I would think one person backing every horse in a race except one would seem like a strange thing to do by the monitoring system, and certainly to a human with a bookmaking background.

Smaller players wanted to compete with whales in super bets, so they quickly changed the model where you can pick a dollar amount and a couple of key horses and it gives you a fractional bet. You can bet 12 cent superfectas or pick 6's, or 22 cent supers or pick 6's.Fractional betting is an idea that should be easily doable by the tote providers. I suspect they've probably already done the software. It would just need regulatory approval in every State to get it done.

There are so many ways to skin a cat out there, with very few things tried in our business in North America. Betfair and others are leaving us in the dust in terms of innovation and invention. Our response seems to be to shut out customers, not allow people like Ian to have a signal, increase takeouts, shrink our market, or make gambling over the internet a felony. Why is wagering stagnant again? Not hard to see is it.While I am not the Betfair fan you are (obviously) you are spot on here.

[Cangamble]

Startngate:"In order for someone to do exactly the same thing as "laying" one horse in a race, they would have to back EVERY OTHER HORSE IN THE RACE. Not just one, but all the horses. Even if they think they can throw out one or two, it would still be very difficult to be profitable doing that, whereas it would be easy to profit by just laying the one horse against the field."
***************************
You can book against one horse, and what you are doing is taking the field over him or her. You can hedge the bet by betting on a few horses to win as well. This will lower your odds if another horse wins, and it will increase your liability if the horse you booked wins.
Right now on Betfair you can book or bet on the Presidential election. You can back Obama and get .7-1 or bet McCain and get 1.70-1. you can book Obama and get 1.4-1. But if you book Obama, you win if McCain or anyone else wins. Hillary, Gore, McCain? Doesn't matter, if Obama loses you win.