Has the individual handicapper been lost?

[Capper Al]

CXWONG in his book, PRECISION, talks about handicapping syndicates. A typical syndicate would consist of a statistician, a clocker who also would keep notes on physical appearance, a trip handicapper that would review all the entries last few races, data entry/computer/database people, a paddock inspector, and a team leader. Can an individual capper be able to compete with such a team? The overlays would be sucked up by these teams.

[andymays]

CXWONG in his book, PRECISION, talks about handicapping syndicates. A typical syndicate would consist of a statistician, a clocker who also would keep notes on physical appearance, a trip handicapper that would review all the entries last few races, data entry/computer/database people, a paddock inspector, and a team leader. Can an individual capper be able to compete with such a team? The overlays would be sucked up by these teams.

Not if you live in California and can't get rebates. The teams you're talking about have a significant edge. Rebates of 10%, 15%, and 20% add up by the end of the year.

[ranchwest]

It is not possible to suck up every overlay. This is a parimutuel endeavor. As the price on one horse goes down, the price on one or more others goes up and vice versa.

While syndicates can make matters more difficult, there are clearly still opportunities.

[ranchwest]

Not if you live in California and can't get rebates. The teams you're talking about have a significant edge. Rebates of 10%, 15%, and 20% add up by the end of the year.

While rebates make life good for the syndicate, that doesn't affect me unless they are on my horse. If I can find a winner the syndicates are not on, their rebates aren't affecting me at all.

[andymays]

While rebates make life good for the syndicate, that doesn't affect me unless they are on my horse. If I can find a winner the syndicates are not on, their rebates aren't affecting me at all.

If one of your competitors (parimutuel wagering) is getting a significant edge while you are not then it's hurting your ability to compete. It's almost like a 5 card stud game where a couple of people at the table get an extra card every hand.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=83357

[ranchwest]

If one of your competitors (parimutuel wagering) is getting a significant edge while you are not then it's hurting your ability to compete. It's almost like a 5 card stud game where a couple of people at the table get an extra card every hand.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=83357

The comparison to poker is totally bogus.

The edge the syndicate gets that affects the wagering public is in their ability to put their resources into their selections.

The parimutuel payouts I get are not affected AT ALL by the rebates someone else gets. Their rebates don't come out of my money in any way. The rebates come from the takeout. I've got to pay the same takeout no matter what anyone's rebate is.

Certainly there is a clear and huge monetary advantage to rebates, but that does not take money from people without rebates.

When a syndicate is on a winner, that might cut my payout by, say, 50%. However, when the syndicate is on a loser, that might boost my payout by, say, 100%. That's the parimutuel nature of racing.

Syndicates complicate matters because now I have to analyze how syndicates are impacting payouts and bet in a way that takes advantage of the winners the syndicates miss or don't bet. However, this complication has nothing to do with rebates.

The rebates just keep the syndicates in the game more effectively.

[andymays]

The comparison to poker is totally bogus.
You could be right.

If there were only you and one other player in the pool and the other player of equal skill was getting 10% rebates and you were getting 0% rebates who would end up with all the money at the end of the year? If you were more skilled but didn't get rebates the rebated player might still end up with more money. When it comes to the teams it's also a big advantage to only have one or two tasks instead of 6 or 7 tasks.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parimutuel_betting

Excerpt:

Unlike many forms of casino gambling, in parimutuel betting the gambler bets against other gamblers, not the house. The science of determining the outcome of a race is called handicapping.

It is possible for a skilled player to win money in the long run at this type of gambling, but overcoming the deficit produced by taxes, the facility's take, and the breakage is difficult to accomplish and few people are successful at it.

Independent off-track bookmakers have a smaller take and thus offer better payoffs, but they are illegal in some countries. However, with the introduction of Internet gambling has come "rebate shops". These off-shore betting shops in fact return some percentage of every bet made to the bettor. They are in effect reducing their take from 15-18% to as little as 1 or 2%, still ensuring a profit as they operate with minimal overhead. Rebate shops allow skilled horse players to make a steady income.

[ranchwest]

I've been betting horses for 38 years. When I started, I got no rebate. Today, I get a tiny rebate, one so small as to be of little effect.

So, I submit that I am contesting against the same onus takeout that I have faced for 38 years. That has nothing at all to do with the rebates others get.

While syndicates do pose other problems for me, their rebates do not take money out of my pocket. My enemy is my takeout, not their effectively reduced takeout.

[andymays]

I've been betting horses for 38 years. When I started, I got no rebate. Today, I get a tiny rebate, one so small as to be of little effect.

So, I submit that I am contesting against the same onus payout that I have faced for 38 years. That has nothing at all to do with the rebates others get.

While syndicates do pose other problems for me, their rebates do not take money out of my pocket. My enemy is my takeout, not their effectively reduced takeout.

Ok.

I kind of took the thread off track with the rebate stuff although all the 5 big teams get significant rebates. I think the intention of the thread was to concentrate on the advantages of the team concept.

[PhantomOnTour]

I don't think many of these syndicates exist. This thread reminds me of something mentioned by James Quinn in his book On Track Off Track.
While not a syndicate, he mentions the need for an apprentice. Boy could I use one of those.
My work load is heavy:

> daily pace and speed figs for the big 3 NY tracks, GP and Mth
> pace and speed figs for Graded Stakes on dirt run at most tracks including
CD, HOL, KEE, PRX, FG, PIM, DEL, OP, TAM, SA, DMR...all of which must be entered into my PP Gen program so they appear when I print the pp's.
> trip and bias notes for NY tracks (also input into PPGen)
> wagering log-updated weekly with +/- ROI
> the actual handicapping of races and formulating my plays

I need a lil help....throw in real life responsibilities and I don't sleep much, esp this time of year.
Guess I've stumbled upon this, but if anyone is willing to team up I would be more than willing to share my figs if someone has something to offer in the way of trip notes, workouts etc...
My figs are a variation of Quirin style pace n speed. I have been making my own numbers for about 10yrs now.

[Robert Goren]

Information is money. It is especially true in this game. If you are extremely smart you can make money just churnning the info in the DRF. But you could make more money if you know something useful that not in the DRF. The Poker anology is right on although the edge might not be that great. Rebates merely increase your profits, if you are ready profitable. Why settle for $20 when you can get $21 for the same action.

[Robert Goren]

The real question is how much is the profits of the large operations sucking out the money available to be bet. Are they taking money out faster than the new money is being reloaded. Obviously the "whales" and the track together are because the handle is dropping, but how much of it is the "whales" fault is the question.

[classhandicapper]

There's unquestionably more information in the hands of more people than there was years ago. So IMO the game is tougher. But I think there is still value in some of the subjective areas of the game that are not easily packaged and also in areas where understanding the data better gives you an edge.

Just look at this forum.

There are a lot of really sharp people here, yet even among the winners there are often disagreements about how fast a race really was, the impact of the pace, whether there was bias, how strong the field was etc...

You have to look for things that are not well understood and somewhat unique situations that may be falling between the cracks.

[rastajenk]

Can an individual capper be able to compete with such a team? If I had to guess, I'd say yes. A syndicate can have all the information it can stand, it still has to make good decisions.

For example, the data guy, the trip guy, and the odds guru all like the :2: . But the paddock inspector thinks he sees a little too much nervousness and agitation, and tries to talk the team out of it. The team leader has to make the call:

A) He goes with the majority opinions. :2: is rank down the backstretch, settles in and makes a good middle move, and poops out in the stretch. The syndicate loses; or

B) He goes with the paddock guy, they skip the race, and the :2: competes all the way around and draws off at the end.

There's also a C and D, I suppose, where the syndicate is in total agreement and they're either all right or all wrong, but the point is someone has to make the right call. I don't see the advantage of a team concept over an individual calling his own shots.

If the syndicate has deep resources, for sure that would give them the advantage of being able to miss more often, or go deeper into multiple-race bets, but that's different from the sifting through of more information. Personally, I would not want to participate in a syndicate as mentioned in the original post.

When I was in college studying the behavior of bureaucracies, I wanted to do some kind of risk-taking research, using horse racing, of groups vs. individuals. It was suggested that groups can be less cautious because the responsibility for poor decisions can be diffused throughout the group. On the other hand, a consensus pick lends itself to safety because riskier options can be argued against easily and voted away. I wanted to use racing because at the end of each example there would be a right response and several wrong ones. I never did it, because I was lazy, and the course didn't lend itself to that kind of a project. But my instincts have always been that an individual can assess risk and reward as well as a group in almost any situation.

The benefits of having more people gather more information can easily be lost by making poor decisions. And in our game, that is very easy to do.

[therussmeister]

I've been winning since 1988. I don't see any degradation in my profits since then. I see increased profits due to becoming a smarter player, and I see shifts in how the public bets due to different information available (Speed figures for example). That I can't see any loss of edge might be due to the tracks I play. I tend not to play the biggest tracks much, but even when I dip my toe into shark infested mutual pools, I don't see anything to make me think I would have trouble winning there consistently.


If you desire you can take the gist of this post and add it to any thread complaining about, can't beat this game because of: cheating trainers, late odds change, bad rides by jockeys, incompetent stewards, wagering companies adding a few bucks on the winners after the race is over, yadda, yadda, yadda...

[rastajenk]

Amen to that. There's no shortage of excuses these days.

[davew]

you are assuming all these people could put all the information together so that they could make such an accurate odds line that they could do better than all individuals

I do not believe that is the case


I do believe that such a group could be better in the muliple race exotics, as long as their accumulative odds line was fairly accurate

as many handicappers hit a few or many races well, but miss others completely

[thaskalos]

There is an opinion shared by some of the game's smartest players (Andy Beyer included) that the game is getting very hard to beat on a consistent, month-by-month basis...using a grind-it-out style of play.

In fact, in one of his books (I think it was "Beyer On Speed"), Andy Beyer stated that he discovered - to his amazement - that he was no longer able to beat the game using his regular style of play...eventhough he was using his figures, trip notes and bias information with optimum efficiency.

His self-confidence was restored after he collected 2 six-digit payoffs on two twin-trifecta wagers...in which he placed a sizeable (even by HIS standards) investment.

He concluded that...since the game's competition was getting progressively better and more sophisticated...the wise player would do well to try to beat the races by..."beating the race" -- meaning, by swinging for the fences in the large-paying but also expensive super-exotics.

Steve Davidowitz also has stated that he provides his handicapping skills for a Pick-6 betting syndicate...and that it has been a "mutually rewarding experience."

For the player who discovers that he can no longer beat the game using his normal methods...creating a betting syndicate and attacking these "super-exotics" may prove a viable alternative.

[Stillriledup]

[QUOTE=andymays]You could be right.

If there were only you and one other player in the pool and the other player of equal skill was getting 10% rebates and you were getting 0% rebates who would end up with all the money at the end of the year? If you were more skilled but didn't get rebates the rebated player might still end up with more money. When it comes to the teams it's also a big advantage to only have one or two tasks instead of 6 or 7 tasks.


I don't understand why one bettor cares if an ADW keeps his entire takeout or shares it with someone else.

If Joe Blow owns a rebate shop and his best friend is John Doe and John Doe is one of the rebate shop's customers, what's the difference if John Doe is a customer of the rebate shop or part owner?

Bettor A loses 20 percent on his bet, so, hypothetically, Joe (rebate shop owner) gets 10 pct and John (rebate shop customer) gets 10 pct....are you telling me that somehow its detrimental to Bettor A that Joe doesnt get the entire 20 percent?

If you're Bettor A and you lose the takeout (20 pct lets say) what do you care where the money ends up?

What's the difference if the betting pools are filled with rebate bettors money or money from a bunch of people who just inherited money from their long lost grandma? To you, Bettor A, if there's 100k in the win pool of rebate money or 100k in the pool of zero rebate money, there's still 100k in the pool for you to win, or lose.

Maybe i'm just not getting what you're trying to say. Ranchwest makes a good point in his post, he says that rebates don't affect his payouts. If he bets on a 5-2 shot, he gets 7 dollars, the pool doesnt change the prices because of where the bettors got their money from. The odds don't care if the person betting got his bankroll from rebates or an inheritance from a long lost grandma.

[Stillriledup]

I don't think many of these syndicates exist. This thread reminds me of something mentioned by James Quinn in his book On Track Off Track.
While not a syndicate, he mentions the need for an apprentice. Boy could I use one of those.
My work load is heavy:

> daily pace and speed figs for the big 3 NY tracks, GP and Mth
> pace and speed figs for Graded Stakes on dirt run at most tracks including
CD, HOL, KEE, PRX, FG, PIM, DEL, OP, TAM, SA, DMR...all of which must be entered into my PP Gen program so they appear when I print the pp's.
> trip and bias notes for NY tracks (also input into PPGen)
> wagering log-updated weekly with +/- ROI
> the actual handicapping of races and formulating my plays

I need a lil help....throw in real life responsibilities and I don't sleep much, esp this time of year.
Guess I've stumbled upon this, but if anyone is willing to team up I would be more than willing to share my figs if someone has something to offer in the way of trip notes, workouts etc...
My figs are a variation of Quirin style pace n speed. I have been making my own numbers for about 10yrs now.

If i told you to try and experiment and just stop making figures and spend all your time on trip notes, bias notes and watching replays, do you think you would be worse? You would be relying on Beyer figs and maybe if you can afford Thorograph, but your trip notes (im assuming you're getting trip notes from watching replays) would be much better. For every winner you lose because of not having your own figures, you might pick up a winner on an improved trip note.

There's a famous saying: jack of all trades, master of none. You might be pretty good at a bunch of different things, but not great at one thing. Maybe beating the races requires you to be great at one thing and just sink all your time and effort into that?

[dnlgfnk]

"There is an opinion shared by some of the game's smartest players (Andy Beyer included) that the game is getting very hard to beat on a consistent, month-by-month basis...using a grind-it-out style of play..."

Thask, I think they believe this (I do not) because
1. They themselves have provided the public with more info (speed figs., etc.)
2. They, like the overwhelming majority of players, evaluate a horse off his sexiest performance(s), rather than his less impressive looking race(s).

[dnlgfnk]

"For every winner you lose because of not having your own figures, you might pick up a winner on an improved trip note..."

After attempting to emulate Beyer's "Charlie" in "MY 50k Year", and "The Winning Horseplayer" since 1980, by focusing solely on visual judgements, I came to the conclusive insight, backed by personal results and explanations of the outcomes of races often shared by few, that there is a link to successfully judging trips that has to do with accurate figures.
I've witnessed what I thought was a seemingly impressive trip, based upon position on the track, jockey actions, the whole bag of tools for the tripper...and watched a horse mystifyingly perform poorly in successive races. Contrarily, I've witnessed the opposite phenomenon, an easy lead after a few strides, a garden spot trip, an easy rally after a pressured pace of all other entrants, and watch the beneficiary win again under a seemingly more difficult scenario next out. The clue was correct interpretation was in a certain figure, in a certain race or races run by the horse, which suggested a different view of the trip than I would have relying solely on visual judgements.
I don't dispute the success of "Beyer's "Charlie", but the figures/trips union points to many more plays than Beyer described "Charlie" as having made.

[PhantomOnTour]

If i told you to try and experiment and just stop making figures and spend all your time on trip notes, bias notes and watching replays, do you think you would be worse? You would be relying on Beyer figs and maybe if you can afford Thorograph, but your trip notes (im assuming you're getting trip notes from watching replays) would be much better. For every winner you lose because of not having your own figures, you might pick up a winner on an improved trip note.

There's a famous saying: jack of all trades, master of none. You might be pretty good at a bunch of different things, but not great at one thing. Maybe beating the races requires you to be great at one thing and just sink all your time and effort into that?
I wish...don't have time. Those notes come from the charts (NY chart caller is extremely descriptive...love him). Plus, my DVR went berserk and I had to turn it in to the cable co. and get a new one. All the replay shows and other junk i had saved on it went out the window.

I also want to mention trainer angles. From 2008-2010 I cut and saved the winning pp's for every horse in every race run at Bel and Sar....i will never do that again, but i did learn a lot about which trainers do what and who they do it for. That really helped with lesser known but very good barns like George Weaver (8-1 winner yesterday...around 18% winners this year), Tom Bush and Robert Barbara.
Gotta go...need to do yesterday's figs :D

[speculus]

........
It is possible for a skilled player to win money in the long run at this type of gambling, but overcoming the deficit produced by taxes, the facility's take, and the breakage is difficult to accomplish and few people are successful at it.

.......

How few can be guessed from a recent statement by Betfair when they said that their new rule of taking away 60% of profits from big winners will affect only 500 customers out of a total base of 3.8 million players!

That's about 1% of 1%, or just 1 in 10,000!

[Capper Al]

If one of your competitors (parimutuel wagering) is getting a significant edge while you are not then it's hurting your ability to compete. It's almost like a 5 card stud game where a couple of people at the table get an extra card every hand.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=83357


Agree. We compete against each other in a parimutuel pool. Someone with deep resources and a information advantage should have the edge.

[Capper Al]

If I had to guess, I'd say yes. A syndicate can have all the information it can stand, it still has to make good decisions.

For example, the data guy, the trip guy, and the odds guru all like the :2: . But the paddock inspector thinks he sees a little too much nervousness and agitation, and tries to talk the team out of it. The team leader has to make the call:

A) He goes with the majority opinions. :2: is rank down the backstretch, settles in and makes a good middle move, and poops out in the stretch. The syndicate loses; or

B) He goes with the paddock guy, they skip the race, and the :2: competes all the way around and draws off at the end.

There's also a C and D, I suppose, where the syndicate is in total agreement and they're either all right or all wrong, but the point is someone has to make the right call. I don't see the advantage of a team concept over an individual calling his own shots.

If the syndicate has deep resources, for sure that would give them the advantage of being able to miss more often, or go deeper into multiple-race bets, but that's different from the sifting through of more information. Personally, I would not want to participate in a syndicate as mentioned in the original post.

When I was in college studying the behavior of bureaucracies, I wanted to do some kind of risk-taking research, using horse racing, of groups vs. individuals. It was suggested that groups can be less cautious because the responsibility for poor decisions can be diffused throughout the group. On the other hand, a consensus pick lends itself to safety because riskier options can be argued against easily and voted away. I wanted to use racing because at the end of each example there would be a right response and several wrong ones. I never did it, because I was lazy, and the course didn't lend itself to that kind of a project. But my instincts have always been that an individual can assess risk and reward as well as a group in almost any situation.

The benefits of having more people gather more information can easily be lost by making poor decisions. And in our game, that is very easy to do.

According to the book (Precision), a green light from everyone is needed for a wager. So if the paddock inspector disagrees with the clocker, no wager. The syndicate will make only a few races a day, 2 or 3. The syndicate will definitely have the information advantage when they bet.

[Capper Al]

I've been winning since 1988. I don't see any degradation in my profits since then. I see increased profits due to becoming a smarter player, and I see shifts in how the public bets due to different information available (Speed figures for example). That I can't see any loss of edge might be due to the tracks I play. I tend not to play the biggest tracks much, but even when I dip my toe into shark infested mutual pools, I don't see anything to make me think I would have trouble winning there consistently.


If you desire you can take the gist of this post and add it to any thread complaining about, can't beat this game because of: cheating trainers, late odds change, bad rides by jockeys, incompetent stewards, wagering companies adding a few bucks on the winners after the race is over, yadda, yadda, yadda...

Count your blessings. Take the money and run. For the rest of us, we have to deal with it.

[Capper Al]

Amen to that. There's no shortage of excuses these days.

It's how you handle the excuse. First one has to determine if the threat is real. Second one has to determine how sever will it be. And third, they'll have to figure if there is anything that they can do to minimize it effect or a method to avoid it.

When you have people like Andy Beyer saying the racing world has changed then there might be something to it.

[Capper Al]

There is an opinion shared by some of the game's smartest players (Andy Beyer included) that the game is getting very hard to beat on a consistent, month-by-month basis...using a grind-it-out style of play.

In fact, in one of his books (I think it was "Beyer On Speed"), Andy Beyer stated that he discovered - to his amazement - that he was no longer able to beat the game using his regular style of play...eventhough he was using his figures, trip notes and bias information with optimum efficiency.

His self-confidence was restored after he collected 2 six-digit payoffs on two twin-trifecta wagers...in which he placed a sizeable (even by HIS standards) investment.

He concluded that...since the game's competition was getting progressively better and more sophisticated...the wise player would do well to try to beat the races by..."beating the race" -- meaning, by swinging for the fences in the large-paying but also expensive super-exotics.

Steve Davidowitz also has stated that he provides his handicapping skills for a Pick-6 betting syndicate...and that it has been a "mutually rewarding experience."

For the player who discovers that he can no longer beat the game using his normal methods...creating a betting syndicate and attacking these "super-exotics" may prove a viable alternative.

Steve Davidowitz, some say the best living handicapper, joined a syndicate. He must see an advantage for himself, or he wouldn't of joined.

[pondman]

Can an individual capper be able to compete with such a team? The overlays would be sucked up by these teams.

I'm supporting a team of freeloaders who bring nothing to the table with them...

I met a team of math teachers in N. California who play large pick 6's. They have the cost of a bet down. I personally don't think their ability to single out a horse is very good. I think a team probably is a good idea for complex exotics.

They're not going to beat me on the single.

[The Judge]

when they are betting large amounts of money into the pool. We never know when they will be correct, but they will always effect the odds even when they are wrong. They have got to land on your horse sooner or later even when they don't you have take a long look at the horses they do land on.

More then one team or a team betting multiple horses can effect more then one horse. So now you have the public in general to deal with and the team/teams.

Now you have to wait until the stars line up for you on races such as the Belmont or the Breeders Cup and hope you hit a home run.

[Stillriledup]

The trick of a 'team' is that unlike pro sports teams, this betting team needs to have all its members 'equal' in handicapping talent....or else, why would the 'best guy' need to put himself in a position to have a lesser guy screw it up for him?

There's nothing in it for the actual most talented team member unless all the other team members are seriously great. Its hard for the top dog to give authority to guys he can't trust to make the right decisions.

[Snag]

I guess I don't fullly understand the premis here.

Four or five people go to a track after doing their homework and bet the races. That means they have maybe 10 races a day. I don't think they would bet every race, do you? The paddock guy would be useless in the Pick 3,4,6's. Anything he came up with would only be of value in the single race bets.

My guess is that there are not very many of these groups that we have to worry about.

JMHO!

[The Judge]

the question for me is , are they knocking me out of bets ? I am being fooled into betting races that I really don't understand, because the odds appear to be in my favor. I think a horse should be 5-1 and he is 4/1 morning line I look up and he is 8/5. I know I can't play him but does that NOW mean I can play my second/third choice? At one time the answer for me was always YES. I assumed the public made a mistake. Now I'm not so sure I can't be as confident ?

Did I and the M/L maker make a mistake , am I getting lucky on my second/third choice. Why would the public be on my FIRST horse when I had him at 5/1 and the M/L also thought the public would be betting elsewhere? May be its not the public and maybe its not a mistake.

With the public being so good at win betting, high take outs, information at the fingertips, short fields, odds changes after the race is off, do I need any other real problem?

I would not open up a shop and "book" their bets.

I think its one more real problem in line of real problems. Are all these problems enough to stop me from handicapping, NO. Is it enough for me to change how and when I bet, YES. I make less bets and I play more exotics and more minor tracks with full fields then I use too. I assume the teams are betting into large pools. I always take a "LOOK" at the big races to see if anything has been overlooked. Note, I said more small tracks not exclusively small tracks.

[Dave Schwartz]

I guess I don't fullly understand the premis here.

Four or five people go to a track after doing their homework and bet the races. That means they have maybe 10 races a day. I don't think they would bet every race, do you? The paddock guy would be useless in the Pick 3,4,6's. Anything he came up with would only be of value in the single race bets.

My guess is that there are not very many of these groups that we have to worry about.

I think you (and perhaps others) have misunderstood the magnitude of these "teams."

First, a "team" is not really a "team," but rather a corporation.

Second, they have between 40 and 175 employees.

Third, they do not wager maybe 10 races per day: They wager hundreds of races, to the tune of 1.6 billion a year.

That is a bit larger magnitude than you are thinking.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Snag]

Thanks Dave. That is MUCH bigger than I was thinking. Please excuse me if I missed it, but where does the $1.6 B figure come from?

[rwwupl]

If large rebates do not bring more money to the bottom line for an individule , then why rebate?

The pool does not expand ,it is final in pari-mutuel wagering after the facilitator takes from the top. If one man receives more than his share due to rebates ,it leaves less for the next man without rebates betting the same amount on the same horse ,the same original ticket at the same track on the same day.

Take out could be lowered to all without rebates.

All money comes from the take out(customers), even if the original payoff is the same, and then a kickback is made to some called rebates.

The man getting a substantial rebate can bet more ,get more back, last longer, and has a huge advantage over non-rebaters.

Otherwise, if not, why do it? the money returned is not free.

Pari-mutuel (between us) is COMPETITION between the players. It has been corrupted by rebates.

You could say the man without rebates is paying extra for the man getting rebates.


ALL money returned (rebates) comes from customers purchasing tickets.

[Dave Schwartz]

Thanks Dave. That is MUCH bigger than I was thinking. Please excuse me if I missed it, but where does the $1.6 B figure come from?

Figures reputed to the top 6 corps.

There are many others in the "lower" end that total maybe another $500m.

[The Judge]

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.03/betting.html

Thanks Dave Schwartz for the Link

[Stillriledup]

If large rebates do not bring more money to the bottom line for an individule , then why rebate?

The pool does not expand ,it is final in pari-mutuel wagering after the facilitator takes from the top. If one man receives more than his share due to rebates ,it leaves less for the next man without rebates betting the same amount on the same horse ,the same original ticket at the same track on the same day.

Take out could be lowered to all without rebates.

All money comes from the take out(customers), even if the original payoff is the same, and then a kickback is made to some called rebates.

The man getting a substantial rebate can bet more ,get more back, last longer, and has a huge advantage over non-rebaters.

Otherwise, if not, why do it? the money returned is not free.

Pari-mutuel (between us) is COMPETITION between the players. It has been corrupted by rebates.

You could say the man without rebates is paying extra for the man getting rebates.


ALL money returned (rebates) comes from customers purchasing tickets.

You still haven't explained how one person getting a rebate hurts another player's chances to make money. When a non rebate bettor bets into a pool, he's betting against his own effective takeout. Now, that particular bettor would make more money if he had a rebate of his very own, but someone else getting a rebate has no effect on that players bottom line. A 5-2 shot is a 5-2 shot and a 10-1 shot is a 10-1 shot, the odds don't care where the money came from.

[Dave Schwartz]

The problem is not that someone else is getting a rebate. The problem is that the level of competition created by the availability of rebates has made the game tough.

Cutting rebates out will not put the game back where it was. You simply cannot get the manure back into the horse that easily.


Dave Schwartz

[rwwupl]

You still haven't explained how one person getting a rebate hurts another player's chances to make money. When a non rebate bettor bets into a pool, he's betting against his own effective takeout. Now, that particular bettor would make more money if he had a rebate of his very own, but someone else getting a rebate has no effect on that players bottom line. A 5-2 shot is a 5-2 shot and a 10-1 shot is a 10-1 shot, the odds don't care where the money came from.


The odds on the board are influenced by the rate of take out. the take out is done behind the windows so the customer does not know the take out without research.

I will take the rebate, and you play without it. It all comes from the same dollar bet. I can (with the rebate) play more horses, bet more on them with the same dollar we start out with. My rebate and skill will out perform your skill every day.

Have you not heard that many large bettors count on the rebate to make it worthwhile? Some bet ridiculous amounts to show at $2.10 and get a rebate to make a profit.That is not skill, that is manipulating a broken system.

It all comes from the same dollar bet, no matter how it is cut up and by who. It is like giving a horse a head start in a race, unless you do not think pari-mutuel betting was designed to be "competion" between the players. Rebates have corrupted the pari-mutuel process.

We have 3rd parties rebating some and not others.

Why don't they rebate new people to give them an advantage to come join us and raise the take for experienced people to pay for it?

Ridiculous, damn right, one low price for all should be the goal.

[thaskalos]

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.03/betting.html

Thanks Dave Schwartz for the Link
Here is what heaven would look like...if the serious horseplayer had any say in the matter:

Three or four racetracks operating year round...with big fields and huge betting handles.

What we have now is the equivalent of "hell"...

The major tracks - where you can still make a decent bet - are plagued by small fields, which are reduced even further by late scratches -- to the point where few if any overlays can be found...while at the minor tracks - where the fields are often full - a decent bet creates havoc on the odds board.

[Stillriledup]

The odds on the board are influenced by the rate of take out. the take out is done behind the windows so the customer does not know the take out without research.

I will take the rebate, and you play without it. It all comes from the same dollar bet. I can (with the rebate) play more horses, bet more on them with the same dollar we start out with. My rebate and skill will out perform your skill every day.

Have you not heard that many large bettors count on the rebate to make it worthwhile? Some bet ridiculous amounts to show at $2.10 and get a rebate to make a profit.That is not skill, that is manipulating a broken system.

It all comes from the same dollar bet, no matter how it is cut up and by who. It is like giving a horse a head start in a race, unless you do not think pari-mutuel betting was designed to be "competion" between the players. Rebates have corrupted the pari-mutuel process.

We have 3rd parties rebating some and not others.

Why don't they rebate new people to give them an advantage to come join us and raise the take for experienced people to pay for it?

Ridiculous, damn right, one low price for all should be the goal.


Most or all of the current players who are getting rebates are veterans of horse race betting who have paid their dues, went thru the wars and have not only accumulated decades of experience, but have found a way to raise their bankrolls high enough for someone to offer them a profit sharing deal.

As far as 'one price fits all' goes it sounds nice in theory, but the problem is that the betting pools in North America are small for the most part and it would really be close to impossible for a person betting thousands of dollars per race to survive without a rebate. With the big bettor having to accept 2-1 on every natural 5-2 shot he likes, there's no way that person can survive without some help.

If Charles Barkley bets a million dollars on the super bowl, he bets 1.1 million to win 1 million. (unless he gets a special rate, but that's another discussion). The sportsbook doesnt say "well, since you're risking 1.1 million, we're going to only pay you 800k because your bet is so large, you're knocking down your own price" No, they dont say that because Barkley's bet doesnt knock down his price one penny. Whatever amount the sportsbook accepts from the round mound of rebound he's betting at the rate of 110 to win 100.

In horse racing, it doesnt work that way.....big bettors in horse racing crush their own price and therefore, need some kind of relief in order to sustain that level of play.

Lastly, bettors don't get a rebate on minus show pools from what i understand.

[Native Texan III]

On rebates:

http://www.horserace-betting.net/horse-racing-rebates/

[Capper Al]

Should little guys be teaming up in an information exchange group? In this type of group, the capper makes their own bets. How would i find a clocker without paying the big bucks, or a trip handicapper willing to review at least the last two races of every entry? And a paddock guy, etc? Issues of trust and everybody working hard, also, crop up. Without a common fund between players, one never really knows about their team mates.

[Stillriledup]

Should little guys be teaming up in an information exchange group? In this type of group, the capper makes their own bets. How would i find a clocker without paying the big bucks, or a trip handicapper willing to review at least the last two races of every entry? And a paddock guy, etc? Issues of trust and everybody working hard, also, crop up. Without a common fund between players, one never really knows about their team mates.

Here's another problem with the 'team concept'. lets say there are 5 team members and the group hits a 100k pick 6. Do the members split the proceeds 5 ways and each cashes for 20k? Seems like it would be much harder to win in the long run if you are splitting your good hits with 4 other people.

This particular team would have to have a 500k+ year in order for each person to clear 100k. Seems like you would really have to be making over a million dollars a year, every year, for this to be worth it for each team member.

[Capper Al]

Here's another problem with the 'team concept'. lets say there are 5 team members and the group hits a 100k pick 6. Do the members split the proceeds 5 ways and each cashes for 20k? Seems like it would be much harder to win in the long run if you are splitting your good hits with 4 other people.

This particular team would have to have a 500k+ year in order for each person to clear 100k. Seems like you would really have to be making over a million dollars a year, every year, for this to be worth it for each team member.

Not a problem for me. The most I'll ever do is an information exchange group. I'll make my own bets.

[bob60566]

Should little guys be teaming up in an information exchange group? In this type of group, the capper makes their own bets. How would i find a clocker without paying the big bucks, or a trip handicapper willing to review at least the last two races of every entry? And a paddock guy, etc? Issues of trust and everybody working hard, also, crop up. Without a common fund between players, one never really knows about their team mates.
Question
How did the normal handicapper make out before the information age pre seventies or did he exsist.
Mac:)

[Capper Al]

Question
How did the normal handicapper make out before the information age pre seventies or did he exsist.
Mac:)

I don't know. There was the Sartin group, Dick Mitchell's gang, and others. But these teams were famous for their books. Andy Beyer did, i believe, team up with others too.

[bob60566]

]I don't know[/b]. There was the Sartin group, Dick Mitchell's gang, and others. But these teams were famous for their books. Andy Beyer did, i believe, team up with others too.
So who made the $
Mac:)

[Capper Al]

So who made the $
Mac:)

Well they had to sell books. Those who can do, those that can't teach.

[Tom]

The Sartin groups was never a betting team.

[Robert Goren]

Question
How did the normal handicapper make out before the information age pre seventies or did he exsist.
Mac:)He did just what he does today. He lost his shirt, but he did it more slowly because the takeout rates were lower.

[thaskalos]

He did just what he does today. He lost his shirt, but he did it more slowly because the takeout rates were lower.
Another reason why he lost more slowly back then was because he didn't have 200 races a day at his disposal.

[Tom]

We didn't all lose.;)

[thaskalos]

We didn't all lose.;)
C'mon...you had to be a "baby" back then...:)

Pre-70s?

[WPL]

I think that Wong's book really delivers what he says it will, with just enough applied technique to whet the appetite for good decisionable data and with the breadth of it describing how beating the game is just not that easy without using the data properly whether as an individual or whether embedded within a team.

[Capper Al]

I think that Wong's book really delivers what he says it will, with just enough applied technique to whet the appetite for good decisionable data and with the breadth of it describing how beating the game is just not that easy without using the data properly whether as an individual or whether embedded within a team.

I agree.

[buffaloxp]

Should little guys be teaming up in an information exchange group? In this type of group, the capper makes their own bets. How would i find a clocker without paying the big bucks, or a trip handicapper willing to review at least the last two races of every entry? And a paddock guy, etc? Issues of trust and everybody working hard, also, crop up. Without a common fund between players, one never really knows about their team mates.
A good paddock guy and a speed handicapper is all you need in the team. is work for any single race,

[Tom]

C'mon...you had to be a "baby" back then...:)

Pre-70s?

I was making my own variants in 1969.
Started playing about 1964.