Whales!

[andymays]

Does anyone here think that these offshore books that give these big rebates to so called “Whales” do it because the so called “Whales” are the sharpest bettors around? They take their action because most so called “Whales” lose their collective asses even with the rebates! The truth is these books love the “Whale” action and will take it all day long.


Stop the insanity people. Quit putting these guys on a pedestal like they all come from Mount Olympus. In my opinion there are a higher percentage of degenerate gamblers who are “Whales” than the rest of Horseplayers out there!

If you have a lot of money then why gamble? It's for the action!

What’s your opinion?

[ryesteve]

What’s your opinion?I think you're way off-base. If a whale is "losing their ass", how are they supposed to remain a whale? As far as I know, Bill Gates isn't into horses.

And why would you assume that the money bet by whales isn't ending up in the pools? Firstly, someone betting as much as whales do would be foolish to bet with an offshore book when they can get just as good a deal and infinitely better security by betting with a legal adw. But if for some reason they were betting with an off-shore book, why assume those people run their business in a naive and ignorant manner? They don't recklessly expose themselves to losses. Assume that money bet through them that puts them at risk is ending up in pools.

[andymays]

I think you're way off-base. If a whale is "losing their ass", how are they supposed to remain a whale? As far as I know, Bill Gates isn't into horses.

And why would you assume that the money bet by whales isn't ending up in the pools? Firstly, someone betting as much as whales do would be foolish to bet with an offshore book when they can get just as good a deal and infinitely better security by betting with a legal adw. But if for some reason they were betting with an off-shore book, why assume those people run their business in a naive and ignorant manner? They don't recklessly expose themselves to losses. Assume that money bet through them that puts them at risk is ending up in pools.


Most so called "Whales" didn't get their money gambling they got it from another source or have another source of income. Churning a million or more in a year is not that difficult to do if you play everyday!

[lamboguy]

I think you're way off-base. If a whale is "losing their ass", how are they supposed to remain a whale? As far as I know, Bill Gates isn't into horses.

And why would you assume that the money bet by whales isn't ending up in the pools? Firstly, someone betting as much as whales do would be foolish to bet with an offshore book when they can get just as good a deal and infinitely better security by betting with a legal adw. But if for some reason they were betting with an off-shore book, why assume those people run their business in a naive and ignorant manner? They don't recklessly expose themselves to losses. Assume that money bet through them that puts them at risk is ending up in pools.example,pinacle sports used to book horses online with capped payoffs. if you were to win, not only was the money that you bet with them wind un in the pool, but they would add to it!

offshore and non parimutual pool wagering is not the problem with horse racing today. the thing that amazes me is how much action betfair does on horseracing in places like penn national from people that can only bet from places outside the united states. until betfair became so big i never knew how much interest there was in betting on venues like penn national and mountaineer from places like the phillipenes and hong kong!

[Cangamble]

Most so called "Whales" didn't get their money gambling they got it from another source or have another source of income. Churning a million or more in a year is not that difficult to do if you play everyday!
Lets not confuse big bettors who bet with bookies to whales in horse racing.
Whales are those who make money or come very close to making money because of rebates, or even theoretically, they a big bettors who make money or come close to making money without rebates (though I doubt any of those exist in today's world).

There are ADWs that rebate on average 3-10% on almost all bets, even from dollar one for anyone.
So lets say you are a non whale and you have an ROI of .96, and you get a 5% rebate on average. Would you not bet a heck of lot more than you do without a rebate? Of course you would, in fact it would be to your advantage to bet as much as possible to make your now 1% edge meaningful. You bet a million, you make $10,000 on the year.
And the beauty of that is you might just need a bankroll of $5,000-$10,000 to get started if you start off on a bad streak for example.

Once you show you bet a million a year, that may get some ADWs offering you a rebate average of say 8%. Now you have a positive ROI of 5%. Your bets will most likely increase even more.

The ADWs want you to win. The more you win or come close to winning, the more you churn.

Bookie shops though, want you to lose, and they will turn down winners.

Potentially, any good player has the capability of becoming a whale.

[andymays]

Gambling is a vice and as with any vice the overwhelming majority of people that participate, Whales or not, lose control at some point. The size of your bankroll, whether it's $300 or $3,000,000 doesn't afford you any special "powers" that allow you to pick more winners than the next guy. Rebates are an edge but as I said earlier the offshore books would not be giving large rebates if people beat them on a regular basis.

[DeanT]

The majority of large players just go broke slower than the rest of us.

[DJofSD]

I'm never sure what exactly is meant by a whale. I've always assumed it meant some one that pushes enough money through the window they get special treatement like rebates.

As far as off-shore books, I thought the main incentive was to avoid IRS involvement.

[miesque]

My only comment regarding whales is that based on what I have read on this Forum the past few days (especially in the HANA section), there definitely appears to be a Captain Ahab level of obsession with them amongst a few select individuals.

[ryesteve]

as I said earlier the offshore books would not be giving large rebates if people beat them on a regular basis.Yes, you said it earlier, but lamboguy and I already explained that away.

The size of your bankroll, whether it's $300 or $3,000,000 doesn't afford you any special "powers" that allow you to pick more winners than the next guyObviously not, but if you're churning a few million a year, and you're losing 10-15% after rebate (in other words, your results are "average" compared to the take) there aren't a lot of people who can afford to lose half a million a year and keep at it. So unless you think there are that many people with bottomless wallets, that's why people assume whales are taking more money out of the pools than they're contributing.

[andymays]

The majority of large players just go broke slower than the rest of us.


Dean, the reason I started this thread is that I keep hearing about Whales in many discussions and I believe there is a huge misconception about Whales.

The great thing about Horse Racing is that you can bet a little to win a lot. I am living proof. That requires you to take a stand on a longshot when most others including Whales are spreading.

Over the last 13 years I have churned over a million three times and two of those times over 2 million. Every time I started one of my rolls it was with small money. One time I started with $80 and the others were in the 3k range. The last couple of years have been tough but even this year I've been on my rims and still have churned over 200k so far.

I recongnize that when most here put it on paper they believe what the numbers say. But gambling is not all about numbers and theory! The perception is often different than the reality.

As usual I have a different take than most. Just hoping to change a few minds but not all!

[Track Collector]

Does anyone here think that these offshore books that give these big rebates to so called “Whales” do it because the so called “Whales” are the sharpest bettors around? They take their action because most so called “Whales” lose their collective asses even with the rebates!
An opinion. There is no practical way to verify whether or not this is true.

The true is these books love the “Whale” action and will take it all day long.

Most offshore outfits are smart enough to keep the action of those who lose, while laying off action of consistent winners. Some (RGS?) are even paramutuel, so they want winners who churn and churn their handle while never going broke, thus assuring themselves of a nice profit without risk.

What is it that really bothers you about whales? Is it the rebates they receive, the size of their wagers put into the pool, other?? You and I have the "opportunity" to achieve that status by developing a successful wagering methodology and growing a small bankroll up to ~$25K to $50K, which in turn can be churned to levels of 10 to 20 times over the course of a year.

[phatbastard]

only thing i know about the whales, and program bettors is...

that 12-1 to 20-1 shot @ post time i manage to sniff out returns 30 to 100 bucks due to the swells action...the exact opposite of the crybabies whose 5/2 shot @ post returns 5 bucks.....

contrarian plays vs the $$$$ is the way to go in all wagering...

SAVE THE WHALES INDEED

[Greyfox]

Gambling is a vice and as with any vice the overwhelming majority of people that participate, Whales or not, lose control at some point. .

vice = an immoral or evil habit or practice

I beg to differ.
Who says gambling is a vice?

[andymays]

[/b]
An opinion. There is no practical way to verify whether or not this is true.

[/QUOTE=andymays]The truth is these books love the “Whale” action and will take it all day long. Most offshore outfits are smart enough to keep the action of those who lose, while laying off action of consistent winners. Some (RGS?) are even paramutuel, so they want winners who churn and churn their handle while never going broke, thus assuring themselves of a nice profit without risk.

Track Collector said:

What is it that really bothers you about whales? Is it the rebates they receive, the size of their wagers put into the pool, other?? You and I have the "opportunity" to achieve that status by developing a successful wagering methodology and growing a small bankroll up to ~$25K to $50K, which in turn can be churned to levels of 10 to 20 times over the course of a year.[/QUOTE]


Andymays said:

Whales don't bother me at all. Big bettors are good for everyone especially if they play into the pools. The reason for the thread is that I believe most Horseplayers think that these guys have some special insight that I know they don't from my personal experience.

[Cangamble]

only thing i know about the whales, and program bettors is...

that 12-1 to 20-1 shot @ post time i manage to sniff out returns 30 to 100 bucks due to the swells action...the exact opposite of the crybabies whose 5/2 shot @ post returns 5 bucks.....

contrarian plays vs the $$$$ is the way to go in all wagering...

SAVE THE WHALES INDEED
The reason why horses go to 3-2 from 5-2 is that computer systems still have the horse as a value play at 3-2.
Your horse that went from 12-1 to 20-1, should have been even higher in many instances on certain computer programs, though if it was a value play at 15-1, it might be missed if it made such a jump.

[Cangamble]

Most whales do have a special insight. They usually have ROI's between .9 to even a positive ROI (before rebate). Lets remember that the average ROI for all players is .79.

[andymays]

vice = an immoral or evil habit or practice

I beg to differ.
Who says gambling is a vice?


As a person who who knows something about gambling, drinking, fighting, and chasing women I am saying it's a vice. I don't know that I necessarily agree with the exact definition you have put forth.

[andymays]

Most whales do have a special insight. They usually have ROI's between .9 to even a positive ROI (before rebate). Lets remember that the average ROI for all players is .79.


If you want to believe that Whales reside on Mount Olympus then more power to you. Anyway it's a good debate for a Tuesday!

[Greyfox]

As a person who who knows something about gambling, drinking, fighting, and chasing women I am saying it's a vice. I don't know that I necessarily agree with the exact definition you have put forth.

I might know something about those areas too.
I took the definition from the dictionary if you are using your own definitions then I can't help you. You weren't implying that it was something to hold pipes in.
Gambling is not a vice. It is a necessary fact of life.
Getting out of bed in the morning is a gamble. Staying in bed is more of a gamble as more people die in bed than anywhere else.
Organized gambling for money is not a vice, never has been and never will be.
Addictions counselors push that crap all of the time, trying to make people feel guilty for drinking or gambling or what have you.
I do not look on my fellow betting patrons as sinners and that is what vice is implying.
I repeat Gambling is not a vice. Sorry I can't stay and debate this further but I have to go place a bet.

[DJofSD]

Interesting debate about whether or not gambling is a vice.

Yes, life, by definition, incurs risk. How you perceive and handle those risks is where I think the term gambling comes into play.

I believe there is a line that is unique for each person that defines planned risk taking as gambling. Donald Trump wagering on a crap game with $100 would not be gambling while some one living on food stamps and social security betting $2 on the lotto would be.

[Dave Schwartz]

ANdy,

Whales are not betting a few million per year.

They are wagering hundreds of millions.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[ryesteve]

The reason for the thread is that I believe most Horseplayers think that these guys have some special insight that I know they don't from my personal experience.
No one is saying that if you have a large bankroll, it makes you a genius. What we're saying is, if you want to maintain that bankroll and stay in the game, then yes, you DO need special insight, unless you have financial reserves that 99.99% of us don't.

And I don't even see how your personal experience says otherwise. When you were churning 7 figures, it WAS because you were doing well. When you stopped, it was because you weren't. How is that in any way contradicting the premise that a whale needs to be successful in order to stay a whale?

[andymays]

I might know something about those areas too.
I took the definition from the dictionary if you are using your own definitions then I can't help you. You weren't implying that it was something to hold pipes in.
Gambling is not a vice. It is a necessary fact of life.
Getting out of bed in the morning is a gamble. Staying in bed is more of a gamble as more people die in bed than anywhere else.
Organized gambling for money is not a vice, never has been and never will be.
Addictions counselors push that crap all of the time, trying to make people feel guilty for drinking or gambling or what have you.
I do not look on my fellow betting patrons as sinners and that is what vice is implying.
I repeat Gambling is not a vice. Sorry I can't stay and debate this further but I have to go place a bet.

All I know is when you get caught bookmaking or caught running a poker game the vice squad comes for you not a traffic cop!

[andymays]

ANdy,

Whales are not betting a few million per year.

They are wagering hundreds of millions.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz


I doubt that each Whale is churning hundreds of millions each year!

[andymays]

No one is saying that if you have a large bankroll, it makes you a genius. What we're saying is, if you want to maintain that bankroll and stay in the game, then yes, you DO need special insight, unless you have financial reserves that 99.99% of us don't.

And I don't even see how your personal experience says otherwise. When you were churning 7 figures, it WAS because you were doing well. When you stopped, it was because you weren't. How is that in any way contradicting the premise that a whale needs to be successful in order to stay a whale?

I think that most Whales are not always Whales. Whales come and go. Most that stick around have another source of income.

Casino's fall all over themeselves trying to get Whales to gamble at their Casinos where the take is much less than Horse Racing. They want them at their Casinos because over time the Casino get the dough!

[andymays]

Interesting debate about whether or not gambling is a vice.

Yes, life, by definition, incurs risk. How you perceive and handle those risks is where I think the term gambling comes into play.

I believe there is a line that is unique for each person that defines planned risk taking as gambling. Donald Trump wagering on a crap game with $100 would not be gambling while some one living on food stamps and social security betting $2 on the lotto would be.


They don't put ATM's and Credit Card Cash Advance deals at any gambling establishment because most people forget to bring their money. They do it because they know when you lose it is very likely that you will get more money if you can and it doesn't matter what the juice is!

Denying that there is an ugly side to any gambling is denying the truth.

[ryesteve]

Casino's fall all over themeselves trying to get Whales to gamble at their Casinos where the take is much less than Horse Racing. They want them at their Casinos because over time the Casino get the dough!I don't understand the relevance of an analogy to casino wagering, where, except for blackjack, losing is a mathematical certainty.

[andymays]

I don't understand the relevance of an analogy to casino wagering, where, except for blackjack, losing is a mathematical certainty.

Most would say that it is much tougher to win at Horse Racing than in a Casino. That hasn't been true for me but I think if you took a public poll 90% of the public (not people on this board) would agree.

[ryesteve]

Most would say that it is much tougher to win at Horse Racing than in a Casino. That hasn't been true for me but I think if you took a public poll 90% of the public (not people on this board) would agree.
If this is true, then 90% of the public is either thinking very short-term, or they don't understand basic math.

[andymays]

If this is true, then 90% of the public is either thinking very short-term, or they don't understand basic math.


You're right, the public would rather sit in front of a machine and press a button over an over again because they don't have to think so much.

[Dave Schwartz]

I doubt that each Whale is churning hundreds of millions each year!

Doubt it all you want. It is fact.

[andymays]

Doubt it all you want. It is fact.


Are you saying that each Whale bets 100's of millions on Horse Races?

[Indulto]

My only comment regarding whales is that based on what I have read on this Forum the past few days (especially in the HANA section), there definitely appears to be a Captain Ahab level of obsession with them amongst a few select individuals.Thar she blows! :jump:

I realize you're too much of a fiscal conservative, but moby miesque has such a nice ring to it. :D

[Dave Schwartz]

Yes.

Google names like Dana Parham and Peter Wagner.

[andymays]

Yes.

Google names like Dana Parham and Peter Wagner.


I looked at a few sites and looks like these are wealthy people but I don't see anything that says they churn hundreds of millions per year betting on Horse Races. How about a little help?

[Track Collector]

Most whales do have a special insight. They usually have ROI's between .9 to even a positive ROI (before rebate). Lets remember that the average ROI for all players is .79.

Exactly, which is why a person who has an ROI of even 0.85 does not suddenly decide to become a whale and take advantage of a newly found 5% to 10% rebates. Their net (after rebate) ROI would still only be 0.90 to 0.95, which when coupled with short to medium term losing streaks, could run them out of business (i.e. tap out their bankroll) in a matter of months.

[Bison]

How about a little help?

Didn't take long to find this site.

http://leftatthegate.blogspot.com/2...ng-stories.html

and Gambling imo is not a vice.

[andymays]

According to this article Dave is correct. I still find it hard to believe that if he's betting that much and winning, someone would even take his action.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/26/sports/horse-racing-horse-racing-s-biggest-bettors-are-reaping-richest-rewards.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

[Indulto]

Yes.

Google names like Dana Parham and Peter Wagner.I looked at a few sites and looks like these are wealthy people but I don't see anything that says they churn hundreds of millions per year betting on Horse Races. How about a little help?I googled Dave Schwartz and found this:
Horse Street Publications - Practical Handicapping Tools (http://www.horsestreet.com/)
Dave Schwartz is internationally recognized as the premier thinker in handicapping software development. His clients range from North America to Australia, ...
www.horsestreet.com/ - Cached (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:lDsx70j9O40J:www.horsestreet.com/+Dave+Scwartz&cd=43&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) - Similar (http:///search?hl=en&q=related:www.horsestreet.com/)
Does that help?

[andymays]

I googled Dave Schwartz and found this:Does that help?


Indulto you always help!

[Cangamble]

According to this article Dave is correct. I still find it hard to believe that if he's betting that much and winning, someone would even take his action.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/26/sports/horse-racing-horse-racing-s-biggest-bettors-are-reaping-richest-rewards.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
If someone is winning money from a parimutuel pool, the only people losing theoretically are the other bettors. Not the ADW, not the track.

If someone is winning and betting with a bookie, that is another story. The bookie has two options, layoff to other bookies and bet some into the parimutuel pool, or close the bettors account.

[Dave Schwartz]

Andy,

All whales are parimutuel.


Dave

[markgoldie]

How many guys on this site bet with RGS?

Mark

[andymays]

Andy,

All whales are parimutuel.


Dave

Dave, I have a hard time believing that a guy betting a million a day is doing it in the parimutuel pools. I mean what's this guy doing betting a 10k pick 4 going 2 by 2 by 2 by 2 for 160k? Betting more than 10k to win and place on a weekday knocks the odds way way down.

I just can't wrap my mind around this guy betting over 100 million a year in the parimutuel pools.

[fmolf]

Dave, I have a hard time believing that a guy betting a million a day is doing it in the parimutuel pools. I mean what's this guy doing betting a 10k pick 4 going 2 by 2 by 2 by 2 for 160k? Betting more than 10k to win and place on a weekday knocks the odds way way down.

I just can't wrap my mind around this guy betting over 100 million a year in the parimutuel pools.
If their are guys betting that much money(and more than a few of them)the competition for their gambling dollars would be intense.Just the same as casinos competing for the whales and protecting the ones they do have as customers!

[markgoldie]

If their are guys betting that much money(and more than a few of them)the competition for their gambling dollars would be intense.Just the same as casinos competing for the whales and protecting the ones they do have as customers!
The analogy to casinos is not appropriate. The casinos, to my knowledge, have their games with their monstrous edges and they don't give rebates on their dice, roulette, and card games. They compete with perks.

The big rebaters, on the other hand, are restricted by the amount they pay for the signal and their basic overhead costs. They pay 3% to get the signal and the better ones are charging a 10% vig across the board from the customer. That means that if the customer is playing into superfectas with a 25% track takeout, the rebater will give back 15%. If the bettor plays win, place, or show with a 15% takeout, they will rebate 5% of those wagers. This is why a whale group can play into virtually any % takeout they want, since the rebate accelerates into the higher takeout pools. So they can play Philly Park and other high takeout venues and still pay only 10% vig.

I'm sure that a major whale or whale group will get even better than the terms I just mentioned. However, the rebater is working on 7% with their "mini" whale customers, so I don't know how much lower they would go to keep a whale from jumping ship.

[Irish Boy]

Andy,

All whales are parimutuel.


Dave

Definitely not true. There are whales in the casinos as well. There's certain guys that, even today, the casinos pray that they stay long enough to lose, because if they win, it's going to hurt badly.

[fmolf]

Definitely not true. There are whales in the casinos as well. There's certain guys that, even today, the casinos pray that they stay long enough to lose, because if they win, it's going to hurt badly.
I agree their are lots of whales in every big time casino and the hosts/hostesses provide them with anything they could want or need,barring most things illegal.I will say that the competition for the whales gambling dollar must be very intense if these people are gambling as many dollars as has been reported here and elsewhere.Off shores and the adw's are making a killing on each whale.If he wagers 100 million 3% is 3 million a lot of sheckles to just handle a transaction!Perhaps i am misinformed and todays game has passed me by!please explain if i am totally off base on this.

[markgoldie]

I agree their are lots of whales in every big time casino and the hosts/hostesses provide them with anything they could want or need,barring most things illegal.I will say that the competition for the whales gambling dollar must be very intense if these people are gambling as many dollars as has been reported here and elsewhere.Off shores and the adw's are making a killing on each whale.If he wagers 100 million 3% is 3 million a lot of sheckles to just handle a transaction!Perhaps i am misinformed and todays game has passed me by!please explain if i am totally off base on this.
The question is whether or not the casinos are holding the money themselves or are putting it through the parimutuel windows of the respective tracks. Dave is right. The casinos no longer hold any bets. They used to but no longer do so. And when they did do it in years past, they restricted the amount of money you could bet and did not pay full track odds on gimmicks (which they capped at a certain odds's figure).

The reason casinos cannot book whales is simple. Besides the obvious ability of a whale to fix a race and then destroy the casino-bookmaker, the whale could employ another simple strategy. Take a race in which there was an outstanding favorite at a smaller track. The whale could play several thousand to show on the worst horse in the race through the track mutuel system and then play $50,000 to show on the favorite with the casino. The on track money would boost the payoff on the favorite and the casino would get killed.

Some rebaters are throwing in certain perks as well as the rebate, but the casinos are not booking the action of the whales. Dave Schwartz, a man who knows whales personally, is correct.

Mark

[Irish Boy]

I should say that I meant there are blackjack whales, bacarrat whales, etc. It doesn't matter that the odds are losing in the long run. In the short run, the whales can destroy an institution.

[Charli125]

The analogy to casinos is not appropriate. The casinos, to my knowledge, have their games with their monstrous edges and they don't give rebates on their dice, roulette, and card games. They compete with perks.

I agree. By comping perks to whales, casinos are giving up something that is pretty much a sunken cost. Everything the whale loses at the tables, goes back to the casino. Yes, they spend some of it on taking care of the whale, but the majority of what they give out is of minimal cost.

With rebates, the rebater(is that even a word?) is giving up a cut of their profit in exchange for the hope that the whale will bet more.

I also don't see why Vegas wouldn't want large volume horse players around. With sports betting they can adjust the lines based on the whales bets, and guarantee themselves a profit. With casino games they are guaranteed a profit. With horse racing, they are getting a cut from the takeout even though it might be small due to rebates.

It seems to me that it's easy money for the casino.

[DeanT]

Some rebaters are throwing in certain perks as well as the rebate but the casinos are not booking the action of the whales.
If a multi-million dollar loser at a casino wants to bet a pile of money on red, heads up against a casino, you can bet your bottom dollar they are taking that bet.

[fmolf]

If a multi-million dollar loser at a casino wants to bet a pile of money on red, heads up against a casino, you can bet your bottom dollar they are taking that bet.
i just read the ny times article about mr wolff...fascinating.Basically all you need is the capital behind you and a good handicapping /betting system or program.I agree with the poster who said remember when sitting at the track for nine races was a slice of heaven!This game is so much more complicated now!

[ryesteve]

I should say that I meant there are blackjack whales, bacarrat whales, etc. It doesn't matter that the odds are losing in the long run. In the short run, the whales can destroy an institution.Isn't there a limit on how much you can bet on a spin of the roulette wheel? I can't imagine that casinos would ever need to worry about getting taken down by someone on a hot streak. If you were able to stroll in and put a billion on red, then that's a different story.

Besides the obvious ability of a whale to fix a race and then destroy the casino-bookmaker, the whale could employ another simple strategy. Take a race in which there was an outstanding favorite at a smaller track. The whale could play several thousand to show on the worst horse in the race through the track mutuel system and then play $50,000 to show on the favorite with the casino. The on track money would boost the payoff on the favorite and the casino would get killed.Just a few days ago, someone posted about a Suffolk race where there was a large show bet on a 50-1 shot that ran out, resulting in a very generous show price on the winning favorite. My immediate thought was that someone pulling the scheme you just described.

[markgoldie]

If a multi-million dollar loser at a casino wants to bet a pile of money on red, heads up against a casino, you can bet your bottom dollar they are taking that bet.
As the context of my comment was clear, we are not talking about casino games, we are talking about booking action on racehorses. Of course the casinos will take a huge bet on red at the roulette wheel. But let's see what the casino does when a great whale customer says, "I want to bet $200,000 on a horse in the 5th at Evangeline Downs. It's easy money for you because the horse is 15-1 on the morning line. Just hold the bet and give me track odds if the horse is lucky enough to win."

See what the casino says to this prop.

Mark

[Irish Boy]

Isn't there a limit on how much you can bet on a spin of the roulette wheel? I can't imagine that casinos would ever need to worry about getting taken down by someone on a hot streak. If you were able to stroll in and put a billion on red, then that's a different story.

Only kinda-sorta. No casino will let a whale plunk down a billion a hand... and there's no whale in the world that big. But the limits don't stop with what you see in the high rollers' room, and if a whale requests to play $500,000 a hand blackjack, they'll let him do it. The edge is small for the house, but they'll be winners in the long run. Still, the whale could very easily leave up $10 million or more on any given occasion, and regardless of the size of the casino, that hurts quite a bit. I don't think there's any casinos that are so highly leveraged that they'd be taken down by a single whale, but it wasn't unheard of not that long ago. Given the climate in Las Vegas right now, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some added restrictions on upper level play (there's not as much money in the tills).

Also, the system you guys are discussing with the money bet into different places wouldn't probably work if I'm understanding it right, since the whale would be (at best) winning his own wagered money back. So what if he put a huge show wager on Glue Stick Charlie? He can't get any more back on his show bet then the rest of the money in the pool. He's not going to be interested in just winning his money back.

[markgoldie]

Only kinda-sorta. No casino will let a whale plunk down a billion a hand... and there's no whale in the world that big. But the limits don't stop with what you see in the high rollers' room, and if a whale requests to play $500,000 a hand blackjack, they'll let him do it. The edge is small for the house, but they'll be winners in the long run. Still, the whale could very easily leave up $10 million or more on any given occasion, and regardless of the size of the casino, that hurts quite a bit. I don't think there's any casinos that are so highly leveraged that they'd be taken down by a single whale, but it wasn't unheard of not that long ago. Given the climate in Las Vegas right now, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some added restrictions on upper level play (there's not as much money in the tills).

Also, the system you guys are discussing with the money bet into different places wouldn't probably work if I'm understanding it right, since the whale would be (at best) winning his own wagered money back. So what if he put a huge show wager on Glue Stick Charlie? He can't get any more back on his show bet then the rest of the money in the pool. He's not going to be interested in just winning his money back.
Here's how the potential scam works. The Whale bets $5000 to show on a 100-1 shot who hasn't seen the board in three years. He does this at the track or through the track's betting system. Then he wagers $50,000 to show with some entity (some guys here seem to think the casinos will book this action) on the outstanding favorite in the race and the bookmaking entity holds the wager for himself or itself. Hence, none of the $50,000 goes through the legitimate windows. After the race is over, the favorite hits the board, as expected and the 100-1 shot does not (as expected). The $5000 lost on the longshot drives up the show price on the favorite to, say, $4.00 (at many tracks it could be much higher than that, but let's say $4.00). The whale collects $50,000 profit from the person or institution that booked the wager and he loses $5000 that he bet on the longshot. Result: Net profit of $45,000. The problem is that even an idiot can see that something was going on here, since the favorite pays: $2.60, $2.20, $4.00 across the board. So only a stooge would continue to book the guys wagers seeing what happened. And trust me. The casinos know their business. They are no one's fools.

mark

[Irish Boy]

I get it now. The scam would only work if the second bets don't go into the pool. Casino bets feed into the pool though, and I don't know if bookies take money on horse racing (the ones I know don't).

[Greyfox]

The problem is that even an idiot can see that something was going on here, since the favorite pays: $2.60, $2.20, $4.00 across the board.
mark

A very rare event if at all,
Can you give us an example from a track that we can check?

[Dave Schwartz]

I'll tell you guys a story that was told to me by an old bookmaker friend of mine about 25 years ago.

He starts by setting the stage - it was the mid-70s. Las Vegas is not parimutuel. He and a friend were in las Vegas for several days waiting for the right time for "the play." A confederate of theirs was back in Maryland.

It was a rainy, sloppy Wednesday at Laurel or Pimlico. Almost nobody is at the track. There is a 5-horse field. The buddy in at the track spreads around a few thousand dollars in the show pool on every horse except the favorite who is just about the dead nuts to win.

Meanwhile, back in Las Vegas the two guys are going all over town betting show bets on this favorite. (Back then a lot of clubs made you put money on the front end if you wanted to bet much to show so sometimes they had to add a small win bet as well.)

The favorite wins in the slop and pays like $4.00, $3.00 and $12.00! They have managed to get down over $25k on this favorite to show!


Whether the story is true or not, I really do not know. It had the ring of truth when I heard it except for the amounts. Back in those days it was very hard to get that kind of show money on a horse, even a favorite.

But the story does illustrate how it is done.

[Greyfox]

I'll tell you guys a story that was told to me by an old bookmaker friend of mine about 25 years ago.

He starts by setting the stage - it was the mid-70s. Las Vegas is not parimutuel. He and a friend were in las Vegas for several days waiting for the right time for "the play." A confederate of theirs was back in Maryland.

It was a rainy, sloppy Wednesday at Laurel or Pimlico. Almost nobody is at the track. There is a 5-horse field. The buddy in at the track spreads around a few thousand dollars in the show pool on every horse except the favorite who is just about the dead nuts to win.

Meanwhile, back in Las Vegas the two guys are going all over town betting show bets on this favorite. (Back then a lot of clubs made you put money on the front end if you wanted to bet much to show so sometimes they had to add a small win bet as well.)

The favorite wins in the slop and pays like $4.00, $3.00 and $12.00! They have managed to get down over $25k on this favorite to show!


Whether the story is true or not, I really do not know. It had the ring of truth when I heard it except for the amounts. Back in those days it was very hard to get that kind of show money on a horse, even a favorite.

But the story does illustrate how it is done.

You might see something like that with a horse that will vie for the front.
It either wins or quits. Betting is on the win or place. Having said that....

The operative line is "whether the story is true or not....

Can anyone anywhere on this board, give us an example where the favorite has won and this happened and we can check it out along with Goldies claim?

[InsideThePylons-MW]

There is a 5-horse field. The buddy in at the track spreads around a few thousand dollars in the show pool on every horse except the favorite who is just about the dead nuts to win.

Don't repeat this story.

Nobody would bet every horse but the favorite. It kills all the other prices because 2 of the 4 also finish ITM and their is no way the favorite would have paid $12.00 to show.

[Dave Schwartz]

While I have no stake in the story being true or not, it seems that it does not work.

LOL - I bet I have told this story 20 times over the years without ever working it out.

Funny.

[Imriledup]

Don't repeat this story.

Nobody would bet every horse but the favorite. It kills all the other prices because 2 of the 4 also finish ITM and their is no way the favorite would have paid $12.00 to show.

Vegas was not pari mutuel in the 1970s, so Vegas actually just booked the bet and paid off track prices.

[ryesteve]

A very rare event if at all,
Can you give us an example from a track that we can check?
The Suffolk race I mentioned a few posts back was the 7th on 7/1. The favorite paid $5.80, $3.60, $5.00

[ryesteve]

While I have no stake in the story being true or not, it seems that it does not work.

LOL - I bet I have told this story 20 times over the years without ever working it out.

Funny.
I think your story is the result of distorted retellings of an incident that really DID happen. I apologize for not having more details, but this was back in the 70's, and I'm going strictly by memory. It was definitely an east coast track, so the Pim/Lrl part could be correct... or it could've been Keystone.

The guys working the scheme actually targeted 4 races, I believe. I think all of their out-of-pool bets hit the board, but I remember that one of the longshots they bet at the track actually hit the board, which killed their payout on that race. I also remember that the show payouts weren't grossly distorted... probably more in line with the type of payout on the Suffolk race I mentioned above.

I recall an article in the Daily News (probably Russ Harris... I assume he was writing as early as back then), that pretty much praised their ingenuity and l left you wondering why no one had thought of this sooner.

[Cangamble]

While I have no stake in the story being true or not, it seems that it does not work.

LOL - I bet I have told this story 20 times over the years without ever working it out.

Funny.
I think you just had a Larry King moment.:)

[lamboguy]

the only problem with this story is the horse paid $12.00 to show. back when dave was talking about there were limits on the amount's of payoff's that churchill down's, the rose bowl, leroy's or gary austin's would pay. they were all the same. their limits were $42 for win $ 18.00 for place and $10.00 for the show. i remember those limits only to well. i would love to have the money i lost on not getting paid on horses that paid more than those limits. of course i would also love to see vegas go back to non-parimutuel as well!

[showbet]

A very rare event if at all,
Can you give us an example from a track that we can check?

The Suffolk race I mentioned a few posts back was the 7th on 7/1. The favorite paid $5.80, $3.60, $5.00
I agree that this very rarely happens at any thoroughbred track, but I see it occurring fairly regularly at small harness tracks such as Saratoga Harness and Pocono Downs.

Attached are jpgs of the WPS pools for Suffolk Downs, race 7 on July 1, Pocono Downs, race 1 on June 27, and Saratoga Harness, race 13 on June 21.

In the Pocono race the 4/5 favorite paid $5.60 to show. The 8/5 second choice paid $7.00 to show. Note the show money on horse 8.

In the Saratoga race the 8/5 favorite paid $5.50 to show. The 2/1 second choice paid $11.20 to show. Note the show money on horse 7.

The difficulty in trying to exploit this is that the money never appears on the tote until the very last flash, which of course makes it impossible for us to act on.

[ryesteve]

Nice job on the screen caps.

Do you have something rigged to automatically grab them, or are you tied to the PC watching, and doing it manually? I'd wonder why you happened to be tracking places like Pocono.

[showbet]

Nice job on the screen caps.

Do you have something rigged to automatically grab them, or are you tied to the PC watching, and doing it manually? I'd wonder why you happened to be tracking places like Pocono.
I watch the toteboards on SuperTote and Twin Spires and do the screenshots manually. All of my wagering decisions are based solely on the WPS pools.

I track places like Pocono and Saratoga Harness because it is much easier to find "inefficiencies" in smaller pools.

[lamboguy]

this is the funniest story i have ever seen in my life. i bet a race @pocono last night across the board my horse won and i looked at the show pool, a 60 shot had $800 to show on him. it was the 1 horse, i see the results the 1 runs third, same thing happened to me a few weeks ago @ monticello.

if you think this guy doing this is going to let you wait for him to come so you can see his money, you are completely nuts!! do you really think he wants to share his scores with you?

[showbet]

this is the funniest story i have ever seen in my life. i bet a race @pocono last night across the board my horse won and i looked at the show pool, a 60 shot had $800 to show on him. it was the 1 horse, i see the results the 1 runs third, same thing happened to me a few weeks ago @ monticello.
There were two instances last night at Pocono where this strategy didn't work. In the 1st race Horse 1 was 25/1. This horse had $634 bet on it to show out of a total show pool of $1356. The even money favorite only had $230 to show on it, and the 6/5 second choice only had $226 to show on it. Horse 1 finished third in this race, so that killed the potential show payoff for the favorite. Horse 1 paid $2.10 to show.

In the 5th race Horse 1 was 25/1 and it had $735 bet on it to show out of a total show pool of $1785. The 1/2 favorite only had $314 bet to show on it. Horse 1 finished second and paid $16.20 to place and $2.10 to show. The favorite won the race and paid $2.20 to show, which obviously would have been much higher if Horse 1 had finished off the board.

if you think this guy doing this is going to let you wait for him to come so you can see his money, you are completely nuts!! do you really think he wants to share his scores with you?
When you say "you" are you referring to me? If so, of course I understand why the person doing this waits until the last second to place the large (relative to the pool size) show wager. By the way, I should have said that this money almost never appears in the pools until the last flash. In that Suffolk Downs race from July 1 the large show bet was made well before the start of the race, in plenty of time to take advantage of it.

None of this has anything to do with the thread subject, so I will refrain from posting any more about it in this thread.

[lamboguy]

hey show man, i saw all the same things you do. i am 99% sure i know who the guy is that is making those bets. it has been going on now for the last 6 months. i wish i knew who the guy or guys are that are taking these show bets from a guy like this one. we have a nickname for the guy doing it, we call him "the great gambini"