"To bet or not to bet? That is the question."

[ManeMediaMogul]

Bet on Santa Anita because they have returned to your beloved dirt or not bet on Santa Anita because of the increased takeout?

[andymays]

Bet on Santa Anita because they have returned to your beloved dirt or not bet on Santa Anita because of the increased takeout?

Bet offshore. You can get your fix without betting into the pools. On top of that you get a decent rebate which is important if you live in California. ;)

[lamboguy]

why tell someone to break the law. betting offshore with illegal bookmakers is ILEGAL, ILEGAL, AND ILEGAL.

[andymays]

why tell someone to break the law. betting offshore with illegal bookmakers is ILEGAL, ILEGAL, AND ILEGAL.

And how many people are in jail for doing it? ;)

[thaskalos]

This is not about California only...racetracks all across the country are watching for the horseplayers' reaction to this takeout increase. All the states are experiencing the same financial problems that California Racing is facing.

The mutuel pools are declining all over the country...and they can no longer support the current purse structures. If the horseplayers are lackadaisical about this California takeout increase...you can expect the takeouts to slowly but surely escalate nationwide.

[andymays]

This is not about California only...racetracks all across the country are watching for the horseplayers' reaction to this takeout increase. All the states are experiencing the same financial problems that California Racing is facing.

The mutuel pools are declining all over the country...and they can no longer support the current purse structures. If the horseplayers are lackadaisical about the California takeout increase...you can expect the takeouts to slowly but surely escalate nationwide.

Yes, you're right. Everyone is watching this.

[lamboguy]

i don't know how many get caught for money laundering if any, all i know is if i do it i will be the first one to go away

[thaskalos]

i don't know how many get caught for money laundering if any, all i know is if i do it i will be the first one to go away

:D
Lambo...I get the impression that you don't consider yourself to be a lucky guy.

[andymays]

i don't know how many get caught for money laundering if any, all i know is if i do it i will be the first one to go away

Your'e the guy that always get caught? :lol:

[Charli125]

This is not about California only...racetracks all across the country are watching for the horseplayers' reaction to this takeout increase. All the states are experiencing the same financial problems that California Racing is facing.

The mutuel pools are declining all over the country...and they can no longer support the current purse structures. If the horseplayers are lackadaisical about this California takeout increase...you can expect the takeouts to slowly but surely escalate nationwide.

Very well said. The issue is so much bigger than California or even the upcoming meet.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Bet on Santa Anita because they have returned to your beloved dirt or not bet on Santa Anita because of the increased takeout?
Plenty of dirt tracks on the East Coast and Down South to choose from.

[lamboguy]

i am a very cynical person

[thaskalos]

i am a very cynical person
Years of serious play does that to a person. This game changes us all...

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Years of serious play does that to a person. This game changes us all...
It doesn't take long to make a horseplayer cynical. All it takes is a couple of cinch 2-5 shots running out of the money.

[thaskalos]

It doesn't take long to make a horseplayer cynical. All it takes is a couple of cinch 2-5 shots running out of the money.
Or a couple of 5-2 shots winning...when they should really be 12-1.

[Stillriledup]

Bet on Santa Anita because they have returned to your beloved dirt or not bet on Santa Anita because of the increased takeout?

The problem is that you're not betting on dirt. You're betting on BETS. And, the price of those bets is going up up up.

In a bad economy, where the housing market is tanking, many retail stores are offering great sales and discounts, the racing industry is RAISING their prices SUBSTANTIALLY. Not only is there no 'sale on bets' in the racing game, but they are going to charge you much more now to play.

Walk into any store in the country and you'll see the sign SALE somewhere in the store. Well, except racetracks, there's never a sale for any reason.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The problem is that you're not betting on dirt. You're betting on BETS. And, the price of those bets is going up up up.

In a bad economy, where the housing market is tanking, many retail stores are offering great sales and discounts, the racing industry is RAISING their prices SUBSTANTIALLY. Not only is there no 'sale on bets' in the racing game, but they are going to charge you much more now to play.

Walk into any store in the country and you'll see the sign SALE somewhere in the store. Well, except racetracks, there's never a sale for any reason.

Right but the Cali racing store still offers a better bargain than many of the other stores.

[GaryG]

Right but the Cali racing store still offers a better bargain than many of the other stores.Yes...you don't want to pay $23.60 for at item at Chez Cali because they just raised the price. You would rather pay $26.00 for the item at Chez Big Apple because they have not raised their price recently. Or at Chez Bayou for $25.00 maybe.

[DeanT]

Yes...you don't want to pay $23.60 for at item at Chez Cali because they just raised the price. You would rather pay $26.00 for the item at Chez Big Apple because they have not raised their price recently. Or at Chez Bayou for $25.00 maybe.

Or alternatively, perhaps when Chez Cali sees no business loss they raise it to $26.00. And Chez Big Apple says $28 might be better, to be joined thereafter by Chez Bayou thinking $27 sounds good.

Hey, we'd all be skinnier I guess.

[Tom]

Yes...you don't want to pay $23.60 for at item at Chez Cali because they just raised the price. You would rather pay $26.00 for the item at Chez Big Apple because they have not raised their price recently. Or at Chez Bayou for $25.00 maybe.

Sounds logical to me. No stomach to boycott NYRA? :rolleyes:
I eagerly await SA to open. This is not a brotherhood of gamblers - we go against each other. The more whales who boycott the better the pickings will be. Easier money, better take out than the "in" tracks. What' not to love?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Or alternatively, perhaps when Chez Cali sees no business loss they raise it to $26.00. And Chez Big Apple says $28 might be better, to be joined thereafter by Chez Bayou thinking $27 sounds good.

Hey, we'd all be skinnier I guess.

Should I select the tracks I bet on based on what might happen with future takeout levels? No. Instead, I should look at current takeout rates across the country and determine which tracks offer competitive pricing currently. By looking at it this way, I believe Cali is still competitive. I know that pains many, but that's how most people will look at it.

[Stillriledup]

Sounds logical to me. No stomach to boycott NYRA? :rolleyes:
I eagerly await SA to open. This is not a brotherhood of gamblers - we go against each other. The more whales who boycott the better the pickings will be. Easier money, better take out than the "in" tracks. What' not to love?

But smaller pools, which means if you bet on a winner, you're winning more of your own money. There is a fallacy that if whales boycott, there will be better prices somehow. That's not true at all. You want as many whales as possible because the pools will be bigger, you want the pools as big as possible.

[turfnsport]

Should I select the tracks I bet on based on what might happen with future takeout levels? No. Instead, I should look at current takeout rates across the country and determine which tracks offer competitive pricing currently. By looking at it this way, I believe Cali is still competitive. I know that pains many, but that's how most people will look at it.

And that is exactly the reason the industry will continue in a downward spiral.

[Stillriledup]

Should I select the tracks I bet on based on what might happen with future takeout levels? No. Instead, I should look at current takeout rates across the country and determine which tracks offer competitive pricing currently. By looking at it this way, I believe Cali is still competitive. I know that pains many, but that's how most people will look at it.

But if you look at Cali and say, "Hmmm, still a good deal" than Cali says, "Hmmm, Saratoga Mike says we are still a good deal, maybe we ought to bump it up another point or two"

Other tracks are watching and if they see people betting Cali w two fists, they're going to say, "Hmmm" and then the little evil lightbulb will light up over their heads.

[Saratoga_Mike]

And that is exactly the reason the industry will continue in a downward spiral.

Perhaps, but I'm just telling you how most people will look at the situation.

[turfnsport]

i don't know how many get caught for money laundering if any, all i know is if i do it i will be the first one to go away

Geez, grow a pair dude.

[Saratoga_Mike]

But if you look at Cali and say, "Hmmm, still a good deal" than Cali says, "Hmmm, Saratoga Mike says we are still a good deal, maybe we ought to bump it up another point or two"Other tracks are watching and if they see people betting Cali w two fists, they're going to say, "Hmmm" and then the little evil lightbulb will light up over their heads.

Again, I'm not betting on the future takeout rate. I'm betting on the current takeout rate.

[Saratoga_Mike]

But smaller pools, which means if you bet on a winner, you're winning more of your own money. There is a fallacy that if whales boycott, there will be better prices somehow. That's not true at all. You want as many whales as possible because the pools will be bigger, you want the pools as big as possible.

If by whales you mean very well informed money looking for good value and betting large sums of money, then most ordinary bettors, like myself, would benefit from their absence.

[turfnsport]

Again, I'm not betting on the future takeout rate. I'm betting on the current takeout rate.

Wow, that is ignorant on so many levels.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Wow, that is ignorant on so many levels.

Cogent analysis on your part, I must say.

[Relwob Owner]

Wow, that is ignorant on so many levels.

Easy to say, but why not point out why?

[Stillriledup]

If by whales you mean very well informed money looking for good value and betting large sums of money, then most ordinary bettors, like myself, would benefit from their absence.

That's not the way it works. Not all whales bet the same horse, not all whales win in the short term, not all whales win all their bets and if a whale pounds a horse who is good value and makes him bad value, some other horse in the race becomes good value.....because, more than one horse has a chance to win. If there's a horse who is fair value at even money and he's sitting on the board at 7-5 with 2 mins to post and the whales pound him down to 4-5, you will be automatically getting value on someone else.

You benefit more from the amount of money in the pools rather than whales or no whales.

The Whales bet the Breeders Cup yet there are tons of 10 and 20-1 shots that have very good chances to win even though the whales are there betting large sums of money.

Also, without whales and with smaller pools, it takes a much smaller amount to suck value away from 'your pick'.

Here's another way to look at it. Lets say you absolutely love a horse in the Breeders Cup and with 2 mins to post he's 6-1. That horse is a horse you made on your personal oddsline at 3-1. There's virtually ZERO chance that horse is going to go from 6-1 to 3-1 as they're loading the gate because the whales have decided he's tremendous value. Even if the whales decide he's tremendous value and pound him with all their might, the size of the pools is protecting you. Its protecting your price. Same thing the upcoming Santa Anita meet.....the bigger the pools, the more chance that your value horse won't come down to an unplayable level right at the end of the betting cycle.

[turfnsport]

Easy to say, but why not point out why?

I think it has been hashed out here many times...If SA does not have a decrease in handle, where do you think the takeout is going to be a year from now? Two years from now? Three years from now? Four years from now?

Horseplayers pockets are only so deep. The "well" is well on its way to drying out.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Easy to say, but why not point out why?

Turfnsport loves Pepsi. He really likes to buy it in 2-liter bottles--drinks a couple per day. For the longest time, Wal-Mart had sold it for $1.59 per 2-liter bottle. But they just raised their price to $1.69. Meanwhile, Target and Kroger have maintained their prices at $1.99 for the same bottle of Pepsi. All the stores are equidistant from Turf's house, and he only shops for Pepsi. When Wal-Mart raised their price to $1.69, he started shopping at Target for his Pepsi. Sure he started paying $1.99 instead of the Wal-Mart price of $1.69, but he was consumed by the potential for an additional price increases at Wal-mart. He started handing out fliers in front on the Wal-mart urging shoppers to buy their Pepsi at Target. A few people joined his cause, but most kept asking him why wanted to pay $1.99 instead of $1.69. He just told them they were "ignorant."

[Saratoga_Mike]

That's not the way it works. Not all whales bet the same horse, not all whales win in the short term, not all whales win all their bets and if a whale pounds a horse who is good value and makes him bad value, some other horse in the race becomes good value.....because, more than one horse has a chance to win. If there's a horse who is fair value at even money and he's sitting on the board at 7-5 with 2 mins to post and the whales pound him down to 4-5, you will be automatically getting value on someone else.

You benefit more from the amount of money in the pools rather than whales or no whales.

The Whales bet the Breeders Cup yet there are tons of 10 and 20-1 shots that have very good chances to win even though the whales are there betting large sums of money.

Also, without whales and with smaller pools, it takes a much smaller amount to suck value away from 'your pick'.

Here's another way to look at it. Lets say you absolutely love a horse in the Breeders Cup and with 2 mins to post he's 6-1. That horse is a horse you made on your personal oddsline at 3-1. There's virtually ZERO chance that horse is going to go from 6-1 to 3-1 as they're loading the gate because the whales have decided he's tremendous value. Even if the whales decide he's tremendous value and pound him with all their might, the size of the pools is protecting you. Its protecting your price. Same thing the upcoming Santa Anita meet.....the bigger the pools, the more chance that your value horse won't come down to an unplayable level right at the end of the betting cycle.

In general, people that consistently bet large sums of money are very shrewd players. If the proposed boycott removes some of those players from the equation, the less well informed bettor (me in this case) will benefit on the margin.

[turfnsport]

Turfnsport loves Pepsi. He really likes to buy it in 2-liter bottles--drinks a couple per day. For the longest time, Wal-Mart had sold it for $1.59 per 2-liter bottle. But they just raised their price to $1.69. Meanwhile, Target and Kroger have maintained their prices at $1.99 for the same bottle of Pepsi. All the stores are equidistant from Turf's house, and he only shops for Pepsi. When Wal-Mart raised their price to $1.69, he started shopping at Target for his Pepsi. Sure he started paying $1.99 instead of the Wal-Mart price of $1.69, but he was consumed by the potential for an additional price increases at Wal-mart. He started handing out fliers in front on the Wal-mart urging shoppers to buy their Pepsi at Target. A few people joined his cause, but most kept asking him why wanted to pay $1.99 instead of $1.69. He just told them they were "ignorant."

Really? :lol:
This kind of thinking is why the industry keeps trying to screw the horseplayer. Because some of you are just too ****ing stupid to realize we are getting ****ed.

And I drink Coke Zero.

[DeanT]

Should I select the tracks I bet on based on what might happen with future takeout levels? No. Instead, I should look at current takeout rates across the country and determine which tracks offer competitive pricing currently. By looking at it this way, I believe Cali is still competitive. I know that pains many, but that's how most people will look at it.
Mike,

It's about racing and the future, it always is.

During the Los Alamitos takeout hike, HANA, some in the press were telling players to take a stand and be heard. Almost like clockwork the argument we heard via email was "Why should I care, it is quarterhorses?"

We tried, via this board and on our blog to make the case that it is much more than about quarterhorses. We made the argument in January of 2010, that if we do not stand up now, thoroughbred racing in CA was next. For the most part, we were called alarmist. "No way they will touch thoroughbred racing; they would be nuts to" a lot of players said.

Comments like this were prevalent, and the best we could we tried to make the case.

Feb 2010 from HANA blog:

Watch out Hollywood, Santa Anita and Del Mar players - you're next.

Six months later, the takeout went up at those three tracks.

If horseplayers do not take a stand, in the short term very little revenue change will happen; and mark these words: Takeouts will go up again.

In Texas where they are having trouble, there is no need for them not to follow if CA works. In other states the same leadership could take the same path.

Los Al was a time to take a stand. It did not happen. And we are paying for that. Horseplayers, in my opinion, should not make the same mistake twice.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

In general, people that consistently bet large sums of money are very shrewd players. If the proposed boycott removes some of those players from the equation, the less well informed bettor (me in this case) will benefit on the margin.
Those who make money will continue playing until they can't make money anymore. Those most likely to boycott from the start are those who don't make money or break even. And as time goes on, the dummy money in the game will lose quicker, causing many dummies to quit or bet a lot less down the road....which will cause less value for shrewd players, so their handle will dwindle as well.

It is a vicious circle that has plagued racing the past 10 years especially.

[thaskalos]

Mike,

It's about racing and the future, it always is.

During the Los Alamitos takeout hike, HANA, some in the press were telling players to take a stand and be heard. Almost like clockwork the argument we heard via email was "Why should I care, it is quarterhorses?"

We tried, via this board and on our blog to make the case that it is much more than about quarterhorses. We made the argument in January of 2010, that if we do not stand up now, thoroughbred racing in CA was next. For the most part, we were called alarmist. "No way they will touch thoroughbred racing; they would be nuts to" a lot of players said.

Comments like this were prevalent, and the best we could we tried to make the case.

Feb 2010 from HANA blog:



Six months later, the takeout went up at those three tracks.

If horseplayers do not take a stand, in the short term very little revenue change will happen; and mark these words: Takeouts will go up again.

In Texas where they are having trouble, there is no need for them not to follow if CA works. In other states the same leadership could take the same path.

Los Al was a time to take a stand. It did not happen. And we are paying for that. Horseplayers, in my opinion, should not make the same mistake twice.
I could not have said it better myself...:ThmbUp:

[Relwob Owner]

Really? :lol:
This kind of thinking is why the industry keeps trying to screw the horseplayer. Because some of you are just too ****ing stupid to realize we are getting ****ed.

And I drink Coke Zero.


As you said earlier, "wow"....first, why all of the anger, enough to call him stupid? Next, his explanation made perfect sense to me. Funny how instead of refuting it, you just called him stupid. What about his example didnt make sense? You get bonus points if you can complete the point without calling him a name..............

[Relwob Owner]

In general, people that consistently bet large sums of money are very shrewd players. If the proposed boycott removes some of those players from the equation, the less well informed bettor (me in this case) will benefit on the margin.


You have the Takeout Folks after you....good luck

[Saratoga_Mike]

Really? :lol:
This kind of thinking is why the industry keeps trying to screw the horseplayer. Because some of you are just too ****ing stupid to realize we are getting ****ed.

And I drink Coke Zero.

It's micro-economics.

[thaskalos]

Turfnsport loves Pepsi. He really likes to buy it in 2-liter bottles--drinks a couple per day. For the longest time, Wal-Mart had sold it for $1.59 per 2-liter bottle. But they just raised their price to $1.69. Meanwhile, Target and Kroger have maintained their prices at $1.99 for the same bottle of Pepsi. All the stores are equidistant from Turf's house, and he only shops for Pepsi. When Wal-Mart raised their price to $1.69, he started shopping at Target for his Pepsi. Sure he started paying $1.99 instead of the Wal-Mart price of $1.69, but he was consumed by the potential for an additional price increases at Wal-mart. He started handing out fliers in front on the Wal-mart urging shoppers to buy their Pepsi at Target. A few people joined his cause, but most kept asking him why wanted to pay $1.99 instead of $1.69. He just told them they were "ignorant."You do realize that, with this new takeout increase, the EXACTA pools - which happen to be the LARGEST wagering pools of every track in the country - will be taxed to the tune of 22.68%...easily the highest takeout of every decent track in the country, right? Only a couple of "bush league" tracks have a higher takeout than California will - in what is the most popular bet in the land!

You seem to have left this important fact out of your "Pepsi" example...

[Saratoga_Mike]

[QUOTE=DeanT]Mike,

It's about racing and the future, it always is.

During the Los Alamitos takeout hike, HANA, some in the press were telling players to take a stand and be heard. Almost like clockwork the argument we heard via email was "Why should I care, it is quarterhorses?"

We tried, via this board and on our blog to make the case that it is much more than about quarterhorses. We made the argument in January of 2010, that if we do not stand up now, thoroughbred racing in CA was next. For the most part, we were called alarmist. "No way they will touch thoroughbred racing; they would be nuts to" a lot of players said.
QUOTE]

You (who I very much respect) and others are looking for too much altruism out of people. Horseplayers aren't members of a union, all looking out for the good of the guy next to them.

In reality, what frustrates you and others is that you know I'm right - people are going to keep on buying the $1.69 Pepsi at Wal-Mart!

[Relwob Owner]

That's not the way it works. Not all whales bet the same horse, not all whales win in the short term, not all whales win all their bets and if a whale pounds a horse who is good value and makes him bad value, some other horse in the race becomes good value.....because, more than one horse has a chance to win. If there's a horse who is fair value at even money and he's sitting on the board at 7-5 with 2 mins to post and the whales pound him down to 4-5, you will be automatically getting value on someone else.

You benefit more from the amount of money in the pools rather than whales or no whales.

The Whales bet the Breeders Cup yet there are tons of 10 and 20-1 shots that have very good chances to win even though the whales are there betting large sums of money.

Also, without whales and with smaller pools, it takes a much smaller amount to suck value away from 'your pick'.

Here's another way to look at it. Lets say you absolutely love a horse in the Breeders Cup and with 2 mins to post he's 6-1. That horse is a horse you made on your personal oddsline at 3-1. There's virtually ZERO chance that horse is going to go from 6-1 to 3-1 as they're loading the gate because the whales have decided he's tremendous value. Even if the whales decide he's tremendous value and pound him with all their might, the size of the pools is protecting you. Its protecting your price. Same thing the upcoming Santa Anita meet.....the bigger the pools, the more chance that your value horse won't come down to an unplayable level right at the end of the betting cycle.


Lets say there is a smaller pool....yes, there is a better chance the whales can lower your price. However, what if you dont have the same pick as the whales and then you benefit from the smaller pool? Seems like your examples are tied to you and the whales having the same picks, no?

At the track I bet at, there are very small pools and I love it.....it is clear when the whales pound a horse and when they do, it creates the best opportunities

[Saratoga_Mike]

You do realize that, with this new takeout increase, the EXACTA pools - which happen to be the LARGEST wagering pools of every track in the country - will be taxed to the tune of 22.68%...easily the highest takeout of every decent track in the country, right? Only a couple of "bush league" tracks have a higher takeout than California will - in what is the most popular bet in the land!

You seem to have left this important fact out of your "Pepsi" example...

How does win takeout compare?

[Relwob Owner]

You do realize that, with this new takeout increase, the EXACTA pools - which happen to be the LARGEST wagering pools of every track in the country - will be taxed to the tune of 22.68%...easily the highest takeout of every decent track in the country, right? Only a couple of "bush league" tracks have a higher takeout than California will - in what is the most popular bet in the land!

You seem to have left this important fact out of your "Pepsi" example...


You just changed the guidelines, as far as I can tell....he was following the thread up to that point with his example, no?

[DeanT]

You (who I very much respect) and others are looking for too much altruism out of people. Horseplayers aren't members of a union, all looking out for the good of the guy next to them.

In reality, what frustrates you and others is that you know I'm right - people are going to keep on buying the $1.69 Pepsi at Wal-Mart!

I have no control over what people do or do not do Mike; and no, it does not frustrate me at all, quite frankly. It's not about altruism. A good deal of people like myself really want to see racing grow, and start putting some policies in to grow. I'm not some union rah, rah dude; just a guy who likes watching horses go around in a circle and would like to see more people join us in enjoying racing, instead of leaving it to watch other gambling games.

[thaskalos]

How does win takeout compare?
Oh, sorry. I didn't realize that we were concerned with WIN betting only...

[Saratoga_Mike]

Oh, sorry. I didn't realize that we were concerned with WIN betting only...

Come on, that was deeply embedded in my thrilling Pepsi example! :)

[Stillriledup]

Lets say there is a smaller pool....yes, there is a better chance the whales can lower your price. However, what if you dont have the same pick as the whales and then you benefit from the smaller pool? Seems like your examples are tied to you and the whales having the same picks, no?

At the track I bet at, there are very small pools and I love it.....it is clear when the whales pound a horse and when they do, it creates the best opportunities

You just don't benefit from the smaller pool because you're hurting your own price. If you are a 2 dollar bettor than yes, i think that could totally take advantage of small pools, they can be your friend.

[Relwob Owner]

You just don't benefit from the smaller pool because you're hurting your own price. If you are a 2 dollar bettor than yes, i think that could totally take advantage of small pools, they can be your friend.



Not a 2 dollar bettor.... Your point still seems to be based on agreeing with the whales. In a small pool, the whales will hammer down the price of a horse I dont like and the odds will be impacted more than in a big pool, no? I dont bet as much as the whales so their impact will be much greater than mine comparatively on my wager and the whole pool size as well, correct?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Not a 2 dollar bettor.... Your point still seems to be based on agreeing with the whales. In a small pool, the whales will hammer down the price of a horse I dont like and the odds will be impacted more than in a big pool, no? I dont bet as much as the whales so their impact will be much greater than mine comparatively on my wager and the whole pool size as well, correct?
Whales collectively rarely bet only one horse, and if there is value out there because one whale or just one big gambler hammers a horse or just an international good thing from backstretch information, they automatically scan the odds of the rest of the field for value.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I have no control over what people do or do not do Mike; and no, it does not frustrate me at all, quite frankly. It's not about altruism. A good deal of people like myself really want to see racing grow, and start putting some policies in to grow. I'm not some union rah, rah dude; just a guy who likes watching horses go around in a circle and would like to see more people join us in enjoying racing, instead of leaving it to watch other gambling games.

I always respect your point of view. I just don't think people are going to boycott Cali racing en masse when their pricing is still competitive. If I'm wrong, I'll come on and say so.

[Stillriledup]

Not a 2 dollar bettor.... Your point still seems to be based on agreeing with the whales. In a small pool, the whales will hammer down the price of a horse I dont like and the odds will be impacted more than in a big pool, no? I dont bet as much as the whales so their impact will be much greater than mine comparatively on my wager and the whole pool size as well, correct?

Not necessarily, whales (or, big bettors) won't overbet the pool. If they normally bet 2,500 to win at santa Anita or Belmont, they might only bet 200 at Thisledown or Finger Lakes. In other words, they'll adjust to the pool size.

[highnote]

I'll join the boycott and not make any wagers at HOL, SA, DMR or GG.

It's been a rough meeting for me at HOL and GG, so this is definitely in my short term interest!

As far as the long term, I hope everyone benefits from a horseplayers' boycott.

[Relwob Owner]

Whales collectively rarely bet only one horse, and if there is value out there because one whale or just one big gambler hammers a horse or just an international good thing from backstretch information, they automatically scan the odds of the rest of the field for value.



Read and follow the thread and you will see that I was responding to this portion of his post, which is an example of liking the same horse as the whales.....



Here's another way to look at it. Lets say you absolutely love a horse in the Breeders Cup and with 2 mins to post he's 6-1. That horse is a horse you made on your personal oddsline at 3-1. There's virtually ZERO chance that horse is going to go from 6-1 to 3-1 as they're loading the gate because the whales have decided he's tremendous value. Even if the whales decide he's tremendous value and pound him with all their might, the size of the pools is protecting you. Its protecting your price. Same thing the upcoming Santa Anita meet.....the bigger the pools, the more chance that your value horse won't come down to an unplayable level right at the end of the betting cycle

[Relwob Owner]

Not necessarily, whales (or, big bettors) won't overbet the pool. If they normally bet 2,500 to win at santa Anita or Belmont, they might only bet 200 at Thisledown or Finger Lakes. In other words, they'll adjust to the pool size.


How do you know this? Do you have any stats to back it up?

Also, then arent you saying that pool size is evened out by how much the whales bet, essentially disproving your own contention earlier that big pools are better?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

How do you know this? Do you have any stats to back it up?

Also, then arent you saying that pool size is evened out by how much the whales bet, essentially disproving your own contention earlier that big pools are better?
Dale Parham was interviewed recently and said that he bets at Flamboro Downs. That is proof enough for me that whales bet smaller if pools are smaller.

[Relwob Owner]

Dale Parham was interviewed recently and said that he bets at Flamboro Downs. That is proof enough for me that whales bet smaller if pools are smaller.


I dont consider a person to be a stat....also, did he mention that he bets less there or are you making the assumption based on pool sizes? I would consider a stat to be something like an analysis of pools and an instance where it appears that the oft discussed "whales" have participated.....I continue to see them referred to in order to back up opinions yet dont see hard evidence. I am not saying it doesnt exist, just curious to actually see it, which I realize is hard to do.

[thaskalos]

I dont consider a person to be a stat....also, did he mention that he bets less there or are you making the assumption based on pool sizes? I would consider a stat to be something like an analysis of pools and an instance where it appears that the oft discussed "whales" have participated.....I continue to see them referred to in order to back up opinions yet dont see hard evidence. I am not saying it doesnt exist, just curious to actually see it, which I realize is hard to do.If I remember right, Dale Parham stated that his computer programs tell him what the "real" odds of the horses should be...and how much money to bet on the "overlaid" horses in order to put them at their "realistic" odds.

So yes...they do analyze the size of the betting pools.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I dont consider a person to be a stat....also, did he mention that he bets less there or are you making the assumption based on pool sizes? I would consider a stat to be something like an analysis of pools and an instance where it appears that the oft discussed "whales" have participated.....I continue to see them referred to in order to back up opinions yet dont see hard evidence. I am not saying it doesnt exist, just curious to actually see it, which I realize is hard to do.
I think it is a very logical assumption. In context of the entire video, he states his team is looking for value anywhere he can get it. In other words, if a horse is 6-1, and his program believes the horse should be 4-1, the computer program approximates and bets money that should bring the horse down to 9-2 or 5-1 (he still wants a premium on a horse he gives a 20% chance to win.

This is essentially how all whale teams operate.

[Stillriledup]

How do you know this? Do you have any stats to back it up?

Also, then arent you saying that pool size is evened out by how much the whales bet, essentially disproving your own contention earlier that big pools are better?

Big pools are always better for many reasons, but that has nothing to do with whales betting or not betting. People who know the game really well and are winning players aren't betting the same amount at Belmont as they are at Thisledown. Its just common sense really. If a whale has the capability to bet 2,500 to win per race at Belmont, he's not betting that same exact 2,500 on his picks at Thistle.

[Relwob Owner]

I think it is a very logical assumption. In context of the entire video, he states his team is looking for value anywhere he can get it. In other words, if a horse is 6-1, and his program believes the horse should be 4-1, the computer program approximates and bets money that should bring the horse down to 9-2 or 5-1 (he still wants a premium on a horse he gives a 20% chance to win.

This is essentially how all whale teams operate.


That is what I was looking for. Thanks. I am assuming that there is a way to see how the pending wagers they will be making will impact the pools?

As you can tell, I am not too familiar with how "whales" specifically operate and appreciate the insight.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I think it is a very logical assumption. In context of the entire video, he states his team is looking for value anywhere he can get it. In other words, if a horse is 6-1, and his program believes the horse should be 4-1, the computer program approximates and bets money that should bring the horse down to 9-2 or 5-1 (he still wants a premium on a horse he gives a 20% chance to win.

This is essentially how all whale teams operate.

I know this is getting off-topic, but hopefully it won't upset Pace too much. Could you please explain exactly how conditional wagers work? When are they executed?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I know this is getting off-topic, but hopefully it won't upset Pace too much. Could you please explain exactly how conditional wagers work? When are they executed?
Since I don't have conditional wagering, I'll link you to one of my competitors:
http://www.twinspires.com/content/conditionalwagering
When it comes to whales, I'm sure they can program even more precisely to when races begin.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Since I don't have conditional wagering, I'll link you to one of my competitors:
http://www.twinspires.com/content/conditionalwagering
When it comes to whales, I'm sure they can program even more precisely to when races begin.

Thanks, I'll move my follow-up question to the ADW thread.