Handicapping Robots: Are they bad for the sport?

[Charles54]

Like many other posters here, I have found it increasingly difficult to win this year, especially in the last few months. There are probably a number of reasons for this, but I wonder how much effect public handicapping robots such as the Compubet modeller at the WEG's Horse Player Interactive site and Ray's Robot are having. No offense is intended to management at WEG who must feel this is a good thing or to Ray, who obviously has the right to do whatever he choses with his program. But I am curious: Do you think public handicapping robots are bad for the sport?

Poker sites certainly make a big effort to keep their game free from "bots." Here is an excerpt from Pokerstars' official stance on the subject.

================================================== ===================================
As online poker has grown in popularity, people have developed tools and web-based services to help them play better online. We think it is okay for players to use some of these tools and services. However, we think that some go beyond what we consider acceptable as an aid to playing online.

There are many things that a player can do to improve their chances in a poker game. For instance, they can play a lot and gain experience, or they can read a book about poker. Both of these techniques are clearly appropriate. At the other end of the spectrum, they can work in collusion with a partner, sharing information about hole cards and teaming up against other players. This is clearly cheating.

In between those two extremes are many tools - some of which we consider to be too close to cheating. For example, there are people building huge databases with profiles of every player on PokerStars, and they are selling access to these databases. A player with access to such a database can call up detailed information about every one of his opponents without ever playing against those opponents himself. We believe this gives that player an unfair advantage against others at his table.

Obviously, knowledgeable people will disagree over what is appropriate and what is not. We have developed what we consider to be a reasonable compromise between letting players take every possible fair advantage, and prohibiting the unfair ones.

The following types of tools and services are prohibited:

1. Any program that shares hole card data with other players or programs is colluding, and is prohibited.
2. Any program that works off of a central database of player profiles or hands played is prohibited.
3. Any program that plays without human intervention (a 'bot') or reduces the requirement of a human playing.
4. The practice of datamining (observing games without playing in order to build up a database of hand histories for future reference) is prohibited.
5. Any software that offers direct game play advice on the appropriate action to take.
================================================== ===================================

As PokerStars says, "people will disagree over what is appropriate and what is not." I certainly think that books and basic systems, such as those offered by Pandy and others, have an important role in educating new players, but would Ray's Robot pass 2, 3, 4 or, especially 5 in the Pokestars prohibited criteria?

As a long time harness racing fan, I would like to see the sport given every opportunity to bounce back and, hopefully, become a viable industry again. One key to that is trying to insure that it is possible for skillful players to win (just as it is possible for skillful poker players to win.) That means lowering the takeout, excercising increased vigilance in maintaing the integrity of the sport and doing whatever is possible to reduce and discourage public handicapping "robots." Who wants to play a game where everyone loses?

[DeanT]

Good question!

With small pools, and so little dumb money now, any tool that helps one win will cut into prices.

I think, with software for harness and if those items are beginning to be overbet, helps the prices on people using other means (sneaky trainer changes, watching warm ups, nuanced replay watching etc), so it can be a wash. I am not too worried about it.

I think it is more difficult to win in harness due to some supertrainers (trainers winning like several do, 40-60% of the races they are in at 4-5) making some races unplayable, and the rest are shorter fields with some obvious monsters. (among many other factors).

What can we do to change that? That's the million dollar question, imo. But bigger pools, and perhaps some fixed odds betting, or low juice on the win side might help. Maybe larger field sizes, or distance racing or something? I know we fear change, but if it helps the racing become more complex, better players can be attracted to it, because of higher win prices, with a lower gross win rate.

My 2 cents!

[pandy]

I don't think computer programs are the problem, unless perhaps you are trying to win betting mostly favorites. But I do feel that this has been a tougher year than normal to win betting harness, and I know others that feel this way. The fast races hurt. At most tracks now there are a lot of poor flow races. The inner rail doesn't help. If you look at Yonkers, for instance, in many races the first over horse doesn't pull until the field is well into the third turn. Often the horse sitting third doesn't pull first over like it used to because there is an inner rail. So the horse sitting 4th or 5th goes first over and by the time the horse pulls, the leader has been able to get a nice breather. Often the first over horse never reaches the leader, and the outside horses are at a disadvantage. This leads to a lot of lucky inside post winners who don't really figure but just suck along and come up the open rail in the lane.

And this is just one of the problems. The juice trainers don't help either. But most of the problems the sport has were created by the harness racing industry itself, artificial insemination, allowance of lasix, inner rail, steel sulkies, etc.

Without a consistent outside flow, harness racing cannot, in my opinion, be successful. Therefore I feel that you will continue to see the handle decline and eventually harness racing will be a small sport, like dog racing, or will just be run a few weeks in the summer.

I've tried but no one really wants to make the changes that have to be made for the sport to survive.

[Postime]

I don't think computer programs are the problem, unless perhaps you are trying to win betting mostly favorites. But I do feel that this has been a tougher year than normal to win betting harness, and I know others that feel this way. The fast races hurt. At most tracks now there are a lot of poor flow races. The inner rail doesn't help. If you look at Yonkers, for instance, in many races the first over horse doesn't pull until the field is well into the third turn. Often the horse sitting third doesn't pull first over like it used to because there is an inner rail. So the horse sitting 4th or 5th goes first over and by the time the horse pulls, the leader has been able to get a nice breather. Often the first over horse never reaches the leader, and the outside horses are at a disadvantage. This leads to a lot of lucky inside post winners who don't really figure but just suck along and come up the open rail in the lane.

And this is just one of the problems. The juice trainers don't help either. But most of the problems the sport has were created by the harness racing industry itself, artificial insemination, allowance of lasix, inner rail, steel sulkies, etc.

Without a consistent outside flow, harness racing cannot, in my opinion, be successful. Therefore I feel that you will continue to see the handle decline and eventually harness racing will be a small sport, like dog racing, or will just be run a few weeks in the summer.

I've tried but no one really wants to make the changes that have to be made for the sport to survive.

I don't want to steal this thread, because I like the spreadsheets like Rays, but I would like to know what Pandys opinion is on the future of the Meadowlands with the current developments?

[pandy]

I have never met Jeff Gural. I would have to think that it's a longshot that he'll take over the Meadowlands. The tracks he runs, Vernon and Tioga, are much cheaper to operate because of their remote locations. The Meadowlands is in an area where there's a lot more expense and pressure.

I hope he does take the track over and makes it. I wish him the best. If he takes over the track, I'll do the best I can to promote it.

But I would think that this is wishful thinking. First of all, if he takes the track over without a casino, he has to get a promise, in writing, from the state that they will not open a casino or even off track betting centers anywhere near the track. From what I've heard, they wouldn't give that kind of assurance to the company that runs Penn National (who were interested).

The odds of this working aren't good.

[Charles54]

I'm curious as to why many people think it is unimportant that skillful handicapping be rewarded. Isn't that the basis of the game? Without skillful, individual handicapping, horse racing just becomes another casino game -- except with a much, much higher takeout. How can that be a viable business model?

The Problem
The pure "gamblers" have fled horse racing for the lower takeout at casinos. And, if you make it impossible to win, the handicappers will quit too. Eventually the whales and robots will have no one to play against and they will abondon ship as well. All that will be left is the shell of an industry supported by charity money from governments and slot machines. And, as in New Jersey, the plug will eventually be pulled on that as well.

The Solution
Racing needs to make sure it is possible to win and then promote that fact. Lower the takeout. Lower it again. Get rid of the bad apples. Make the whales and the robots play fair. Hold skill-based handicapping contests with huge prizes. I'm sure people can come up with lots of good ideas.

Look, no excuses, there is a ton of gambling money out there. There must be, because you can go on PokerStars and see upwards of 300,000 people playing at one time. Three hundred thousand players at one site! There has never been that kind of gambling money around, not even in racing's heyday.

On-line poker thrives because people see pros on television winning millions of dollars. They hear stories of kids winnning millions on-line. They see that there is some hope of winning at poker. And the reason there are winning players is that sites take a reasonable cut and ban robot play. If PokerStars started taking 17% out of every pot their business model would collapse just as fast as the Meadowlands'.

The number one problem harness racing faces is that the vast majority of the public believes "you can't beat the races" and the sophisticated kids who fill casino and on-line and card rooms aren't interested in sucker bets. Today, people want to invest their gambling dollars in a game where they believe they might eventually become good enough players to win.

It is the possibilty of winning that attracts new, young, intelligent players. That builds handle. That increases purses.

[Charles54]

...without a consistent outside flow, harness racing cannot, in my opinion, be successful. Therefore I feel that you will continue to see the handle decline and eventually harness racing will be a small sport, like dog racing, or will just be run a few weeks in the summer.

I've tried but no one really wants to make the changes that have to be made for the sport to survive.

Pandy, I agree with much of what you are saying. Outside flow makes races more competitive, more exciting and the outcome more true. And many of the changes you suggest would help. But... these are minor issues. After all, if they lowered the take to five percent and filled the win pool with unsophisticated money, do you think you could win consistently?

I understand the reasoning behind your negative outlook, but how can you let a venerable American institution like harness racing die without making an all out attempt to clean it up, modernize the wagering structure and give it a fighting chance. I see absolutely no reason horse racing can't thrive under the right conditions.

[pandy]

I agree with you about the take out but I don't expect to see major takeout reductions. With a takeout of even 10% across the board and the proper marketing and ATW setup, I would think that the tracks could raise handle by three or four times what they do now, but the people that are in charge, politicians and track owners, are short sighted. Their bottom line is today and if you tell them that lowering the takeout will increase profits they want immediate results, which won't happen, it takes time.

As for harness racing, I don't agree that the bad flow problems are minor. I once knew most of the professional harness players in New York and some in Jersey, and almost every one stopped betting harness racing and switched to thoroughbred racing (not Poker), because harness racing had become too speed favoring and inside post biased.

Almost all everyday players or pros need to be in a situation where they can bet a horse because they feel the horse is the best. It's getting harder and harder to do that in harness racing. You have to try to figure out who's leaving and whether your horse is going to get into position to win the race. That's not really handicapping. Years ago I could simply watch the races, take notes on sharp horses that raced well and bet those horses back the following week, regardless of post position. Now I often throw out the best horse in the race and bet a horse that I think will be sitting in a good spot, and then hope that I don't get stuck behind dull cover.

The bottom line is, thoroughbred racing hasn't changed that much, that's why it will survive. Harness racing is drastically different than it used to be, which is the reason why it won't. When I first started going to Roosevelt Raceway, the attendance was 20,000 on Saturday nights. But the racing was much more exciting, and I knew a lot of regular players who either won consistently or held their own. Harness racing was the best thing to bet on back then. A smart handicapper had to do well. Not now.

I handicap both sports each day and in thoroughbred racing, I bet the horse that I think is the best horse, especially if it is an overlay.

[Ray2000]

IMO

It's not only the bots or computer generated picks but the abundance of picks by expert human cappers available on the net either for free or for sale. Seems like every ADW has a resident expert capper nowadays. This is making the game harder and harder to beat every day. There has always been a ratio of skilled money to dumb money and that ratio has shrunk to where only a few can adapt their ways to overcome the high takeouts.

I had a hard time deciding my vote but finally went with "A problem" not because of the currently available bots, or even all the silent bots in use (I would love to know how many there are), but because of the next generation of bots "Watching" the board and this coupled with the availability of conditional wagering to allow robotic submission of last second wagers.

Adjusting MAO and Minutes to Post to maximize success while searching for early/late patterns and W/P/Ex pool disparities would be close to an unfair advantage.

If we get to the point where the "crowd" always sets the odds right, then there is no good bet.




.

[LottaKash]

At most tracks now there are a lot of poor flow races. The inner rail doesn't help. If you look at Yonkers, for instance, in many races the first over horse doesn't pull until the field is well into the third turn. Often the horse sitting third doesn't pull first over like it used to because there is an inner rail. So the horse sitting 4th or 5th goes first over and by the time the horse pulls, the leader has been able to get a nice breather. Often the first over horse never reaches the leader, and the outside horses are at a disadvantage. This leads to a lot of lucky inside post winners who don't really figure but just suck along and come up the open rail in the lane.

And this is just one of the problems.

Without a consistent outside flow, harness racing cannot, in my opinion, be successful.

Pandy you've definitely got this one right....The FLOW ain't what it used to be....Why is that ?....You nailed that one too...

The Inside Passing Lane is what did it, IMO, at least...

I remember when I went to my first racetrack, it was Yonkers (47 yrs ago), and it was packed, but more than that, I remember how excited I got waiting to see how the race would play out at the finish....The finishes back then were just more exciting, or maybe, it just seemed so....Still, back then the finishes weren't so black and white as they are today, and that IS what I remember...

At that time, Drivers such as Billy Haughton, and Stanley Dancer, and soon after and along with them, the great Herve Filion, and these guys turned Harness Racing upside down, as up until then, Harness races were a single file, and a one-run close to the wire, affair....The "new" guys busted that all up, and then they were cranking the races up, presenting challenges much, much earlier in the contests....The races had suddenly become more exciting as a result of these new racing tactics...After awhile the other drivers became more adept at the new way to drive a race, and as a result the races got even more competitive....These are the days that Pandy remembers, and me too.....But, harness racing began to stagnate and to counter that this "Brilliant" new idea came, it was the inside passing lane.....At first I loved this idea, and it worked for a good while, that is, until everyone figured it out, meaning what is what we have today.....Dull Flows, on the smaller tracks...

I say get rid of the "lightning lanes" and just watch and see, over time what will happen to the flow of the races.....Years ago, I remember having my horses/picks get caught in a "Blindswitch" with regularity....For those who may not know what a blindswithch may be, it is a horse that is surrounded on three sides, front, L-side, and R-side by other horses, with no place to go....A boxed horse on the other hand is a horse who is hemmed in by the rail (pylons now) and a horse in front of him and a horse to his outside....My point being, before the passing lane was introduced, there used to be more horses getting blindwitched than nowadys....Why is that ?...Perhaps the aggression that was present before the passing lane was implemented, may have something to do with it ?.... Races just, generally, seemed more exciting throughout the running of a race much more so than today....

I have always had this idea about small track racing,(1/2 & 5/8) ever since the implementation of the passing lane.....How does this sound to any?...

Instead of having the passing lane "only" on the last go round why not have it earlier in the race....

On the half mile track, instead of having the passing lane open up the second and final time around....OPen the passing lane the first time around (approaching the half mile pole), and then the leader of the race would more or less be obliged to shift his positon to one of a first over horse, and the new leader would be the horse that came up the inside passing lane, along with the guys who came with him....This would result in the original leader now forced to be the first over horse, and the one(s) who were following him would ber the 2d and 3rd over horses....And, the now the ones who came up the rail the first time it came up, would now be the leader and the 2-hole horse.....For added excitement, the 2d time around to the wire, the new leader would have to shift over and let a new passing lane horse try to make his bid.....It would be chaos I know, but how about the excitement part.....WOW !....Who would win a race like that....?....How could you handicap that ?....

On a 5/8 almost the same thing, the passing lane would be open just past the quarter as they are approaching the 3/8's, and the rest would be just like the 1/2 mile track.....

I don't know about anyone else, handicapping aside, it would make for some incredible racing and finishes.....If they don't change the passing lane and close it, I don't hold out much hope for the 1/2's...

OTHERWISE, for my money you can close up ALL the 1/2 mile tracks, I bet very little these days at YR or Fhld, and never Harr....Too bad tho, YR & RR & Fhld raceways were my home tracks, and it seemed I did better there a long time ago....Nowadays,,,these tracks are the epitome of mundaneness, imo....I don't know how anyone can take it....Sure there are bets to be made and won there, but the waiting interval for me to find those bets, is much too tedious for me these days....Since abandoning 1/2 mile track racing, my bottome line picked up remarkably in more modern times.....If they went away (1/2's), I would lament that, as it would take away some or much of the diversity that is so necessary for harness racing to survive, but to be honest with everyone, from a bettors standpoint, I would'nt be crying all that much....

(RAY, I don't know how you and Robot do it)

[badcompany]

On-line poker thrives because people see pros on television winning millions of dollars. They hear stories of kids winnning millions on-line. They see that there is some hope of winning at poker. And the reason there are winning players is that sites take a reasonable cut and ban robot play. If PokerStars started taking 17% out of every pot their business model would collapse just as fast as the Meadowlands'.



While high takeout is certainly an issue, horse racing, IMO, will never have the on-line popularity of poker. With poker, essentially a limitless number of games can be created. So, a player can play a tourney or sit n go 24/7/365. Horseracing can never replicate this.

[LottaKash]

While high takeout is certainly an issue, horse racing, IMO, will never have the on-line popularity of poker. With poker, essentially a limitless number of games can be created. So, a player can play a tourney or sit n go 24/7/365. Horseracing can never replicate this.


I agree Badco....Poker has won the hearts of great many smart people, who like to gamble....Harness Racing, is IMO, on it's death knell.....Casino's are the only reason that they are still there....I mean Big-Time Harness Racing....I don't think harness racing will completely die, but it won't be what it used to be, is all....

Heck, I am old, still, I am at a very advanced stage in my handicapping now, and that is always what I wanted it to be...So, I know it will still be around for a while yet, and I want my share of learning expenses back now....This game is so much fun when you know how...A long hard struggle tho, as probably half of my waking life was spent on Hoss'....

I like Poker much, and I have learned a lot, but not enough to kick ass for the long haul, that is why I have stayed, and took a stand, on Harness as my game....We are the last of the big-time, or at worst, above average players now...We shall carry on until it's time to say goodbye...

best,