2 seperate pools on the same race

[Imriledup]

Tell me why this wouldn't work.

Have pool A and pool B. Both pools will have different odds, so you can shop for your best price.

Interestingly enough, in sports betting, you can shop for odds and spreads at many different sportsbooks or private (illegal) bookies, one guy might have a team getting 7 points and another guy might have 7.5, you can pick and choose which spread you want to bet with.

In horse racing, its all one pool, you are forced to accept the price they give you.

In the feature race today there was a horse who went off at 8-5 who was 5-1 morning line. She had the slowest Beyer fig in the race and was a maiden in a stakes race. If there were two seperate pools, you might have been able to get more than 8-5 on her as whoever loved her. The whale who put 10 grand to win on her first flash might have split up his bet and put 5k in each pool. Or, he might have bet 10k in one pool and left the other pool alone. If you are a small fish and wanted to get more than 8-5 on this 'wiseguy' horse, you couldn't do it. You had to accept the price up there or pass the race.

[Imriledup]

Feature race at Del Mar i should have added.

[macguy]

One issue I see with this is liquidity.

Most pools are small enough as it is. Generally people play New York and California because the pools are big and if they're going to put a few hundred on a horse to win, the odds will likely not be affected.

I think as long as all the same people have access to both pools, you will find that the odds would likely stay fairly close in both pools. Much like you can buy a share of General Electric on the New York stock exchange or the NYSE Arca. They are separate exchanges, but the prices rarely fluctuate more than a few cents between the two exchanges, people will naturally gravitate toward the better price, which in turn keeps both markets fair and pretty near identical.

I think you'd find that simply making two separate pools would have little effect on odds.

[OTM Al]

First off, this was exactly the situation at tracks before there was interstate simulcasting. Tracks would have their own pools for out of state races. If you were able somehow to communicate outside of the track, I'm sure there were opportunities. So what you discuss is a step back, not a step forward. Secondly, macguy is correct, the pools will tend to equalize anyway.

I find it interesting that you refer to a standard straw man arguement here as well. "the odds they give you" They is us, not the bookies you seem to prefer. BTW I wouldn't touch the horse in your example anyway. Its my money and I choose when to bet it

[FenceBored]

First off, this was exactly the situation at tracks before there was interstate simulcasting. Tracks would have their own pools for out of state races. If you were able somehow to communicate outside of the track, I'm sure there were opportunities. So what you discuss is a step back, not a step forward. Secondly, macguy is correct, the pools will tend to equalize anyway.

I find it interesting that you refer to a standard straw man arguement here as well. "the odds they give you" They is us, not the bookies you seem to prefer. BTW I wouldn't touch the horse in your example anyway. Its my money and I choose when to bet it

That reminds me of a story in Marvin Draper's book The Most Glorious Crown, broken by NYT's Tom Rogers from the '73 Triple Crown. Seems there was a man who, on the morning of each of the races came in to the Times Square OTB and made ever larger wagers on Secretariat. Rogers seems to have talked to the man, because the story is that he then went to the various tracks to watch the races live. For the Derby he got $5.80 from the OTB while Churchill paid $5.00. For the Preakness the OTB paid $2.80 vs. $2.60 from Pimlico. For the Belmont the OTB merged into NYRA's pool so he ended up with the track price. He still would have made a small profit on the Belmont, if he hadn't also placed a $5k exacta on Secretariat/Sham.