E HORSE

[keenang]

I GOT A BROCHERE FROM AN OUTFIT CALLED E HORSE. THEY SAY YOU CAN BET A HORSE TO OR TO LOSE,AND THEY HAVE A QUINELLA THAT PAYS IF YOUR HORSES COME IN 1,2OR 3RD. DOES ANYBODY KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS OUTFIT?
P.S. THEY ALSO OFFER A REBATE OF 3TO5%.
THANKS GENE

[Larry Hamilton]

seach on "ehorse" for much more info

[redriver]

Good outfit They have betting exchange (x- horse) Bet to win or lose. Set your own odds. This is not part of the PM They also have a good horse book.

[Suff]

we Have a LONG THREAD on e-horse here.. You need to use the search function to find it. Long thread lots of stuff.. The guy that runs the Joint or does all the programming is a Member here.

Find that thread and You'll know more than the world about E-horse and X-HOrse.

[Suff]

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7904&perpage=15&highlight=eHorse&pagenumber=1

Inglewoodflamingo is his USERS name.



Gentlemen, While I have had limited posts on PA thus far as a handicapper, I would like to introduce myself and make some clarifications if I may.
As the Director of Marketing for eHorse and eHorse X, I would first like to say I KNOW first hand that wagers placed at eHorse, regardless of how small the track is, do NOT go into the pools. You are betting against eHorse. And yes, while we have had online outages in the past, let's hope they are all behind us. I say hope because as all computer users know, there will always be problems, no matter how much we try to avoid them. I just returned from Costa Rica, and we have recently upgraded our servers to provide an even better opnline wagering experience. In all my years in this business (over a decade), and after working at TVG, Hollywood, Santa Anita and Magna, I have never been as impressed with a wagering companys' facility and their staff. That is why I work for them, and eHorse truly is for the horseplayer, run by horseplayers.
Bill W, we pay full track odds, meaning what you get at the tote is what you get with eHorse, no double talk when it comes time to collect. Full odds on WPS and quinellas. Also, our caps on exotics are 275-1 on exactas and Daily doubles, and 500-1 on trifectas. An interesting point I would like to bring up: During a recent query of all exotic wagers placed by eHorse customers since opening "our book" for business back in April 2001, ONLY 9% of them were effected by the cap.
As Paul B said, the weekly rebates add up, even for the small guy. Trust me, I have seen what 3-5% can do for the all important bottom line, no matter how large or small a player you happen to be.
And as for eHorse X, exchange wagering really is the future of racing in my opinion. Just the ability to "lay" a horse, bet it to lose was enough to peak my interest as a handicapper, not to mention shopping for better value! Plus the more liquidity, the better. More bettors means more offers to be matched. Just like Priceline, you really can now name your own price. I welcome everyone to go to www.ehorse.com and give the free X demo a try. Don't forget to turn on your speakers.
In closing I would like to say that while Isbets comments do have some merit, I can relate much more to CJ these days. No only do the tracks treat us players, the very same people that make this merry-go-round turn like we don't exist, they don't treat employees that are horseplayers any better. Ask me how I know.
I welcome and and all comments/questions via e-mail at garett@betehorse.com and via telephone 805-729-0727 (9-5pm seven days a week). And Larry, when signing up tomorrow, I would certainly appreciate it if you would use my name how you heard about eHorse. Not that I receive any kick back for it (I am a salaried employee), but it lets my boss know I am doing my job... spreading the word about the best offshore racebook for horseplayers, plain and simple. Thanks for listening guys.


__________________

[keenang]

SUFF
THANKS FOR THE INFO. SOUNDS GOOD I MAY GIVE IT A TRY.
THANKS AGAIN
GENE

[Suff]

No problem Gene. If you sign up... after you run it through its paces... give us your impressions please.

Thanks

Mike

[Whirlaway]

Try Pinnacle Sports (http://www.pinnaclesports.com) instead. They give a 7% rebate, plus your wagers go into the pools (via Austrailia evidently) so you're supporting the game. A rebate without guilt.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

I know first hand that wagers at ehorse go directly into the pools. I can't understand why they deny (lie about) it so vigorously.

After a week or so, every new customer gets profiled. If you are profiled as a winner, or even a short term loser that shows the ability to win, every bet is instantly transfered thru a offshore rebate facility directly into the pools. Player profiles are obviously adjusted on a regular basis as more information is gained.

Their advanced software allows all bets to be held or sent in (ala Winticket, Brisbet and Youbet) to the pools immediately when the bettor confirms and the system accepts the bet. The system is so complex that it even recognizes MTP and will send the entire wager in or as to not be obvious if the bet is made early, hold the bet and break the bet into different increments while it waits until the last minutes to send the bets.

[kenwoodallpromos]

If ehorse is smart enough to hedge the winners and still let them play with kickback, ok by me!

[kenwoodallpromos]

Since you worked for tracks and Magna, do you how I would go about licensing my Track Prediction Method to track mangement for their track maintenance crews to utilize? Thanks!

[PaceAdvantage]

Suff never worked for Magna....

That paragraph Suff posted was NOT his own words. He was REPOSTING a note originally written by INGLEWOODFLAMINGO

[Turntime]

Inside The Pylons-MW

Thanks for your post. Ehorse is the largest customer of an offshore rebate operation that will go nameless here. Of course this is not a crime, but I don't understand why they choose to lie about it. At least Pinnacle is up front about their operation as well as giving a healthy 7% rebate, which adds up faster than 3-5%.

[Inglewood Flamingo]

InsideThePylons-MW & Turntime, Please elaborate on your comments regarding eHorse.

[ceejay]

Originally posted by kenwoodallpromos
If ehorse is smart enough to hedge the winners and still let them play with kickback, ok by me!

But if they are doing that they are lying about it (see item 14 in their FAQ's). I, for one, don't voluntarily do buisiness with those who lie to me, letalone a firm that holds my money on deposit.

[Buckeye]

Ceejay,
I don't think you need to worry about the security of accounts held by ehorse. :cool:

[Foolish Pleasure]

Flamingo why don't you tell us what part of Pylons post wasn't true?

[Inglewood Flamingo]

I would have to say all of it, particularly the part about eHorse having proprietary software than has the ability to launch the space shuttle and control security at Fort Knox. I know of nothing of the sort and until it can be verified I wouldn't believe it. Why doesn't he define first hand knowledge? Is it more so than mine? I work for them and have been to Costa Rica and worked in eHorse's wagering center.
As I said before wagers do not go into the pools at eHorse. I have a client who is allowed to bet above the normal limits at Golden Gate, $1000 to win. Since he wagers on longer priced horses and is a full time professional, I would have heard about odds drops and pool fluctuations from him by now for sure.

[lsbets]

Forgive my scepticism, but if he is indeed a full time professional player betting over $1000 per race, I would have to assume that he wins more than he loses, so E-horse would eventually go broke if they kept this customer and let him bet that amount of money. Or else, he is a professional player, but loses more than he wins, and that makes no sense at all.

Whirlaway - I looked on Pinnacles site, and couldn't find anything about going into the pools or not. How can I verify that they do go into the pools? As you said, rebates without the guilt.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Flamingo,

You compare a player being profiled a winner and a betting system that sends his bets in as being equal to "the ability to launch the space shuttle and control security at Fort Knox"?

You said: "I would have heard about odds drops and pool fluctuations from him by now for sure."

My question to you is: Has a player you know that has beat their brains in, ever bet a $50 Daily Double on two longshots into a $800-$1200 pool? Let me answer that one for you.......of course not.

I will stop here. Before you would like me to keep going with more specifics, I would suggest (strongly advise) you talk to someone (maybe the owner) who knows a little bit more than you do about what goes on there. I am sure that they will tell you that "silence is golden" and to leave this subject alone.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Isbets,

I am glad you see the obivous common sense approach to this question without having to get specific.

How does Flamingo's business model sound?

A winning professional player = Let's book all of his action, raise his limits, and give him a juicy rebate as icing on the cake to maximize his profits.

[Larry Hamilton]

Mr Flamingo, I must tell you the argument thus far is one-sided and damning. And, you did it to yourself by mentioning the heavy winner against whom you don't protect yourself. It is impossible to understand the circumstances in which a "bookie" would not maximize his profits while minimizing his losses.

[PaceAdvantage]

See, I hate it when stuff like this happens on here. Here you have a guy from a business saying what's going on at their business (a business, by the way, which is getting a LOT of free airtime here...but what can you do, right? The people want to talk about it, I can't stop it)

Anyway, now, inevitably, you get the "Deep Throat" post by Inside the Pylons, claiming to have first hand knowledge about the deep, dark inner workings of EHorse.

So, I will respectfully request of Inside the Pylons to e-mail me the specifics of his or her allegation. Anyone can post anything, but posting half-truths or untruths is a little dangerous.

I look forward to your e-mail.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

PA,

A couple of my friends always wonder why I waste my time and post what I know on message boards such as yours. My answer is that I always read them and once in a while will learn something useful so I feel an obligation to return the favor and inform other posters of what I know (isn't that the idea?).

I asked myself why you are questioning what I say and not what Garett (Inside Flamingo) proclaims about eHorse in this and the other post about them. Other eHorse thread (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68902#post68902) The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that he is a marketing director for a potential advertiser, and I am not.

I simply was responding in the current post to what he said in the previous topic about eHorse. If you read both posts, there are a few other posters who stated what I stated long before my post.

It definitely is my fault that I posted something here that I know to be true on this controversial subject without gaining the respect of fellow posters or having the credibility to be labeled anything but a "deep throat" poster. If my credibility is in question with you PA, why don't you go over to Major Wager's horse section and PM some of the respected posters on there and ask about my credibilty and vast understanding of these issues.

When forum operators start blindly taking the word of marketing directors and employees of wagering outlets over the statements of posters with no apparent agenda but the truth, the mass of posters end up losing.

PA, if you just use a little logic or common sense to think about this issue, you will see you are attacking the wrong poster.

Thanks,

ITP

[VetScratch]

eHorse is a subsidiary of the Irish company Horizon Twenty.

On the exchange side of eHorse's business, the model is certainly that of a traditional bookmaker. As of May 2003, eHorse was contracted with TradingSports Exchange Systems plc whereby eHorse could aggregate liquidity via TradingSports, which offers aggregation (i.e., layoff pooling) to a number of gambling service providers. This relationship is documented in the placement prospective for TradingSports, dated 22 May 2003, which also purports that eHorse handled a total of ($L)800,000 in exchange wagers on the 2003 Kentucky Derby. See: http://www.tradingsports.com/prospectus.pdf

America Tab is a leading provider of online toteboard/wagering services and live racing feeds under its own brand name and under third-party brands via licensing agreements. America Tab alleges that eHorse has been pirating its live audio/video feeds by offering eHorse customers links to America Tab services. Such a claim may lack merit, especially if customers of America Tab and its licensees pay nothing for the audio/video service. However, America Tab is restructuring its audio/video service to be fee-based or contingent on achievement of minimum wagering schedules by customers of America Tab. See: http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/todaysnews/newsview.asp?recno=37575&subsec=1

Links that reflect Horizon Twenty's interest in various enterprises include:
http://www2.betehorse.com/
http://www.betlaspalmas.com/signup/disclaimer.htm
http://www.parlaycardz.com/depositing/banking_info.asp
http://www.witeuro.com/depositimg/menu.htm

[Foolish Pleasure]

Pace the fact is no one and I mean no one, will book racing action and continue to get beat without doing one of three things.

1)Lower max bet limits to $2 or cut off completely
2)Lay off the action into the pools
3)Lay off and piggyback the action into the pools

Pylon's is good people.

[VetScratch]

Even some racebooks at major Las Vegas casinos operate in a way that raises the question of pooling. They have purportedly been co-mingling for quite a few years, but the requirement for Supervisory Approval still gets triggered by serious wagers. In theory, it is impossible for them to get burned if they co-mingle... so why bother with Supervisory Approvals? A player can get shut out if the writer can't get a supervisor's attention.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm not attacking anyone. I'm asking for proof of allegations. The company states one thing, you are saying something entirely different. InsideThePylon is the one with the burden of proof here.

What I hate is people saying they "have something", but they won't say what it is, or prove what they say. We are supposed to take their word for it, no questions asked.

Who am I supposed to believe? A guy who WORKS for the company, or someone who DOES NOT, and WILL NOT (as far as I know) provide any other proof to their claims.

As for potential advertisers, I wouldn't be able to accept an ad from EHorse, since they are an off-shore operation, and as long as my forum is up on LetItRide.Com, I am not able to show any ads for any off-shore operations. So, you can nix the theory that I am giving preferential treatment to a potential advertiser right away, cause it is dead wrong. In fact, my association with LetItRide.Com, if anything, should prompt me to attack EHorse right off the bat.

Plus, I do NOT have ANY advertising on this site at all, except for free ad-exchange types. Any ad you see on this site hasn't earned me one cent ever. If I ever start displaying paid ads, you'll know it.

As I said on another unrelated thread, I am a questioning type of person. If the guy who works for the company says they don't do it, I will believe him, until someone PROVES otherwise.

I continue to await your e-mail.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

PA,

I am sorry I brought up the advertising issue because it was the only thing I could come up with after your quote from the previous post: "a business, by the way, which is getting a LOT of free airtime here...but what can you do, right? The people want to talk about it, I can't stop it"

Flamingo made a post on a public forum where issues are open for discussion. I made a reply to his post on a public forum stating the opposite of his view.

You said: "I am a questioning type of person. If the guy who works for the company says they don't do it, I will believe him, until someone PROVES otherwise."

You are the only one so far on this board (and possibly on this planet) that believes what Inglewood Flamingo (who works for the company) said about being the agent for a winning professional player that eHorse has increased his limits, books all of his action, and gives him a rebate as a bonus for his trouble.

I suppose that you believed that the $12 four singles and two alls Breeder's Cup pick six ticket was legitimate because the guy who managed the OTB said it was legit.

[PaceAdvantage]

Sport Of Kings bit the dust thinking they could beat the horseplayer....perhaps EHorse holds the same failed thinking?

In any event, if Inglewood is lying, isn't that bad for business?

[Foolish Pleasure]

PA,

Sport of Kings isn't relevant, because they could beat enough horseplayers to make money, but they couldn't beat the crooks. They went broke by trying to book fixed odds bets on bush league tracks, had they merely cut back the tracks to only top tier, they may have gone broke from a lack of business, but they would not have gotten beat for millions of dollars.

This is a clear case of a)a paid shill not being informed and towing the company line b)he has to know the truth as an agent and is lying thru his teeth.

Either way Pylon's speaks gospel, you should stop by our racing forum sometime, we are not rec. guys, nor do we post unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo. We strive to make as much money from horseracing as is conceivably possible, just like Ehorse.

The main reason that Ehorse' nefarious behavior is so detrimental to horseracing is, they are sucking the square money out of the pools and dumping the sharp money in, you obviously know the long term ramifications.


Have a happy holiday.

[PaceAdvantage]

Then substantiate it already....why is this so difficult?

Just because one believes something to be true or HAS to be true, does not always make it so. I guess I should have been born in Missouri, the SHOW ME state....

Isn't it possible that for this one winner that they claim to raise limits and rebate, there are THOUSANDS of losers making up for his winning action?

[VetScratch]

PA,Isn't it possible that for this one winner that they claim to raise limits and rebate, there are THOUSANDS of losers making up for his winning action?What is the rationale for keeping any consistent and substantial winners when the vast Internet marketplace is predominated by losers? With all due respect, generations of Irish/English/American bookmakers would find your optimism amusing.

eHorse definitely has the right to stop doing business at any time with any player, but many other questions arise when you carefully review what is published on the eHorse web site.

Legal Questions:
(1) While Costa Rican law is cited as the governing set of statutes, eHorse makes no attempt to forewarn players about any legal contingencies except those that may exist in the player's legal jurisdiction.
(2) What are the Costa Rican disclosure requirements alluded to in the Security and Confidentiality section of the eHorse Disclaimer statement?
Rules Issues:
(1) eHorse may assert that wagers did not get in "for any reason," notwithstanding confirmations issued to players or other implied assurances that wagers were accepted.
(2) eHorse will settle disputes "using industry standards as guidelines," but the standards of the Costa Rican gambling industry have been questioned in reports of player disputes with several companies (e.g., the NASA sportsbook).
Disclaimer Issues:
(1) eHorse clearly warns that participation in wagering events is void "for whomever and/or wherever prohibited by law." Given the many jurisdictions where this is true, eHorse would have full recourse in disputes with many players who will have no recourse.
(2) eHorse reserves the right to void winnings, confiscate account balances, and close accounts for several stated reasons. In some instances, these reasons lack the degree of specificity that is customary in the majority of product/service disclaimers published by U.S. and U.K. companies.

[PaceAdvantage]

VetScratch,

When you compare what is published on Ehorse with other similar off-shore sites, what do you find? Similar wording perhaps?

Nobody ever said using an off-shore book was 100% safe! LOL


In any event, I am finished defending Ehorse or questioning their detractors. It's not my job as moderator to come to the defense of anyone who voluntarily exposes themselves to this message board, but I reserve the right to still question those who make claims when no proof is offered.

And in this case, I still have not received any proof to the claims made by the Major Wager folks. My e-mail inbox still awaits evidence.

[Figman]

I don't know much about Costa Rican oversite but I do know about Venezuelan regulatory issues.....and it's a "big mess." There are two different groups claiming to be the sole regulator of racing and OTB in Venezuela. Both claim the other has no authority. I'd be very wary of wagering anywhere that was not regulated by England, Ireland, France or one of the States in the USA. Let the buyer beware anywhere else!

[highnote]

Turntime,
Inquiring minds want to know... who is this offshore rebate center Ehorse sends bets to? How do you know they do it?

Just curious.
Regards,
John


Originally posted by Turntime
Inside The Pylons-MW

Thanks for your post. Ehorse is the largest customer of an offshore rebate operation that will go nameless here. Of course this is not a crime, but I don't understand why they choose to lie about it. At least Pinnacle is up front about their operation as well as giving a healthy 7% rebate, which adds up faster than 3-5%.

[highnote]

Vet,
I agree with you that bookmakers do not want winners. Everyone I know who is from England and are winning bettors have been cut off. Those that still bet need to use commissioners to get their bets down and they have multiple accounts. They still win, but the bookmakers make it very difficult for them.

So with respect to Ehorse, whether they layoff their liabilities or not, I cannot say. And do they shut off winning players? I don't know. However, it would make sense that they either layoff liabilities or at least the liabilities of winning players.

Think about it. If Bill Benter, the winningest bettor in Hong Kong (he reportedly made millions betting on only about 700 pari-mutuel races per year) started betting on Ehorse, how long could Ehorse keep booking his wagers (assuming he was winning at the same rate as in Hong Kong)? They couldn't. They'd have to limit his action or lay it off or cut him off or go out of business.

Anyone who disagrees should do they math. And when you've done the math I'd like to see your results.

Now, I could be wrong and maybe there are enough losers to support Ehorse. It's hard for me to believe. There are a lot of sharks out there and if they could get an edge on Ehorse they would have done it and Ehorse would be out of business.

Personally, I don't care what they do with the money they bring in. If it gets funneled back into the US tote system that's good for the game.

Well, I'm meandering, but I found this thread very interesting, because I think these businesses have to shake out. And what is going on in the industry over the internet is still in its infancy. I think it's important to know where the industry is headed.

Regards,
John

[Larry Hamilton]

Though the logic is damning, I gotta tell you, two ANONYMOUSLY named guys from another board more interested in bickering that horses, show up, ravage Flamingo and each swears to the honesty/integrity of the other has me doubting. I have concluded they are affiliated with Pinnacle Sports (or some other competitor of Flamingo) and their remarks are just as biased as any. As for me, I am certain of less than when this thread started.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yeah, what am I missing here big picture-wise? Does E-horse pay off at track prices? If not, then who is getting hurt if they lay off into the pari-mutuel pools? In all this fussing back and forth, I have lost sight of the forest.....what is Ehorse again??? LOL

[highnote]

Clearly, one party calling another a liar is a serious allegation. However, to my way of thinking, the burden of proof falls on the accuser, not on the accused.

Innocent until proven guilty (IRS, notwithstanding).

No one on this board has presented evidence that Ehorse commingles wagers. To me, it makes sense for them to do it, but I don't know Ehorse's business, so I could be entirely wrong. I'm not going to accuse them of laying off risk just because I think they'd lose money if they didn't.

In fact, now that I think about it, PA, do you or the members of this board even want those kind of postings -- the accusational kinds without proof? Maybe you should just delete them? It's your board, does freedom of speech apply here?

Maybe a poll should be taken -- are postings that accuse someone of some wrongdoing but offer no proof of those wrong doings desirable or undesirable?

Maybe those type of posts violate this board's "code of conduct"?

Maybe controversy is good. I haven't posted for months, even though I read the board regularly. This topic piqued my interest. So this thread did spawn debate.

Thoughts?

Regards,
John

PS
I also think that anonymous posts with an accusational tone have to be discounted. How can they be taken at face value?

[VetScratch]

It should be obvious that eHorse has every incentive to deal fairly with customers who are net losers.

However, what eHorse has posted in black and white on their web site should discourage U.S. citizens who expect to win and collect.

eHorse reserves the right to void winnings, confiscate account balances, and close accounts:
(1) If player registration information is misleading or incorrect.
(2) If laws applicable to the player prohibit gambling with eHorse.

eHorse further reserves the right to choose method of payment, which is just one way among many options available to eHorse to thwart amateur attempts to disguise the legal jurisdictions of players.

To me, all of this is analogous to a medical doctor describing a procedure before he informs you that, "This is going to hurt a bit!"

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Ehorse do run an exchange side to their business (or at least are trying to get one going - when I looked a few months back there was very little business being done). There is no incentive for Ehorse to discriminate between winners and losers who play their exchange EhorseX.

I don't bet with Ehorse though. Sending money to Costa Rica does not appeal. Also last time I looked their exchange was not working well enough (not enough liquidity) to justify sending money there.

The attractive side of Ehorse would be their exchange if they ever get enough liquidity. Not the tote betting side of things.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Just to show that I have no negative agenda against eHorse, let me clear up some other issues raised in this thread.

eHorse is a rock solid organization financially. Since they have been in business, and up to this day, they have never had a payout dispute, always pay promptly, have great customer service and are MORE than fair with all of their customers in any problems that may arise.

IMO, they are one of the safest places the regular public could possibly play horses with offshore. Their software is also user friendly and better than most available.

For 90% of all horseplayers (winners or losers), that don't make plays that exceed their 275-1 limits on exotics or will have any effect on the pools, I would STRONGLY suggest eHorse as a great place to play.

Their exchange, while a great idea with much potential, has had some problems and is still a work in progress which could be very positive for players in the years to come.


The whole problem with eHorse not revealing their actions of sending bets in through their pari-mutuel hub, is that if they advertise rebates, coupled with their admission that some of these bets go through their hub, the racetracks would have just cause to shut their hub down and that would cost them plenty.

I suspect (hope), that Inglewood Flamingo is smart enough to talk to somebody in charge "where he works" and tell them that this issue is being discussed here, after he brought it up, with much opposition. As I know that the this issue is taboo for any actual eHorse employee to be discussing on a public forum, I have a hunch that there will be no further discussion from IF.


Larry H.

I have absolutely no affiliation with Pinnacle. I would make a educated guess that Pinnacle would not have a representative come on the boards and state their position on what they do with their wagers.

I am 100% horseplayer.......Hated by offshore books, adored by offshore wagering hubs ;)

ITP

[VetScratch]

InsideThePylons,eHorse is a rock solid organization financially. Since they have been in business, and up to this day, they have never had a payout dispute, always pay promptly, have great customer service and are MORE than fair with all of their customers in any problems that may arise.How do you define a dispute? In their Disclaimer, the issue of legal jurisdictions raises an indisputable barrier to dispute for players who ignore prohibitions on wagering with eHorse. While eHorse may not be on your AWOL or Court-Marshalled lists, they clearly assert that they bear no obligation to pay players who have violated gaming laws. In other words, if you gamble illegally, all payouts are purely discretionary.

Since MW tracks off-shore so closely, what is your estimate of the percentage of U.S. players that gamble legally with outfits like eHorse?

[Larry Hamilton]

Oh, Now, that makes everything as clear as mud. The lying sobs are the best around.

I dont hate you, but I dont trust anyone who tries to get on every side of an issue.

[highnote]

eHorse was contracted with TradingSports Exchange Systems plc whereby eHorse could aggregate liquidity via TradingSports, which offers aggregation (i.e., layoff pooling) to a number of gambling service providers.

Just what is the nature of the relationship between eHorse and TradingSports?

Judging from the quote above from Vet it seems like eHorse does layoff some of its pool to TradingSports. I don't know what that means exactly. Can someone clarify this?

What is aggregation?

Does eHorse engage in aggregation with TradingSports?

Do they layoff their exchange pools or their tote pools?

Maybe we can answer the question ourselves instead of relying on dubious allegations by a "Deep Throat".

[PaceAdvantage]

VetScratch, I will ask again. Do any other off-shore books have similar disclaimers in their fine print?

If they do, it is quite unfair of you to single Ehorse out....

Can we just stop talking about Ehorse for a while??

[highnote]

PA,
Maybe this topic belongs somewhere else? Perhaps an industry category would be appropriate.
Regards,
John

[Hosshead]

I asked Pinnacle if bets went into track pools. They wrote back and said that they "lay-off bets to reduce risk, using exchanges". And that these bets would go into pools at the smaller tracks, but not necessarily at the larger ones.

They also said that they "manage risk" using information about a "customers play", and size of his bets!

To me, that means they use software to track the bets of winning players.
Which brings up another question. Is it possible for someone who works for these companies, and has a list of the most profitable players, to put an extra $100,$200,$300 etc., of their own money on the bets of a winning player, and never have to handicap at all?

[highnote]

Do you mean you asked Pinnacle if Pinnacle bets went into the pools or if eHorse bets went into pools?

In deference to PA, from this point forward I will use the word "eGelding" when referring to that oft mentioned company.

[Hosshead]

I asked Pinnacle about Pinnacle bets.

[highnote]

It makes perfect sense that a company would layoff their risk on the exchanges. It also makes sense that a company would layoff their risk in the tote -- especially if they can get a 10% rebate from a rebate shop and then turn around a pay their customers only 3-7%.

eGelding says they don't do that and I believe them until I see proof to the contrary. Although, it is hard to believe that they don't layoff some risk.

[cato]

yawn...........


Cato

[VetScratch]

PA,

Perhaps you deserve credit for inventing the wrap-around editorial policy. This would explain how you so nimbly traverse from one end of the spectrum to the other without touching down in the middle.

First posters are chided for lack of explicit and verifiable source materials, then they are chided for citing sources that are explicit and easily verifiable.

Which moderator is on duty today?

[LOU M.]

To quote Sonny and Cher " and the beat goes on":D

[Suff]

Originally posted by VetScratch
PA,

Perhaps you deserve credit for inventing the wrap-around editorial

Which moderator is on duty today?

By my math he's simply asking if the Language is "Boiler plate".

If so.. Then its Tabloid Journalism against e-horse.

On the other hand if its Propriatary to E-horse then its a Point worth Highlighting. Imho.

[Rexdale You]

I think Bob Dylon said best in his 'Sundown in the Union"

"if you don,t make it in the U.S.A they will just make it some

where else." Informative post,,,,Heavy Hitters

Regards

Rex You

[Dave Schwartz]

My understanding of the off-shore industry (from talking with people on the inside) is that (as a general rule) the more sophisticated bookies use the profiles of winning players to "take a minor position" in a pool.

What does that mean?

It means that they make sure they balance the books on all the horses that are being hit by the "winning players" by laying off. At the same time, they will accept a little risk on horses being ignored by the "normal" (non-winners?) group.


Let this sink in because it has a huge negative potential for those of us that consider ourselves winning players.

In other words, if the Tom Brohamers of the world are betting off shore, the prices on all their horses will be "somewhat" reduced at the track because much of the money wagered on those horses (not just those wagered by the Brohamers) will get sent to the track pool as a layoff.

Another way to look at it is that the "losers'" bets will NOT go to the track.

Result: The better bets (overlays) become less of an overlay!


But don't worry. Help is on the way.

The owners of American race tracks are not stupid. One day they will wake up and competitive rebates (i.e. 5+%) WILL come to stateside wagering.


And what is another way of saying "rebate?"

Well, the result is a lower track take, isn't it?

But actually, "rebate" is a better word because it means that the larger bettors (that is us) will get more money back than the smaller bettor. Doesn't that sound fair?


So, my opinion (I know; You never asked for it. <G>) is that it does not specifically matter if eXYZ offshore betting shop is or isn't profiling... if they are smart, they are. (I know I would.) ... You just have to assume that they are.

Otherwise, why would they take YOUR bets? There are only two possibilities:

1. You aren't a winning player
2. Even though you are a winning player they are counteracting your wins SOMEHOW.


Just my opinion.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[LOU M.]

While I agree with you on the ideals of your statements, the reality may be another matter. Everyone is waiting for the tracks to respond to this offshore situation.The reason they won't IMHO is that the books, like you assume ,are laying off the winners and keeping the losers. There aren't to many losers that can keep putting money ,large money, through the windows for long. How many losers does it take to make up for one whale?. The tracks still get the action when the books lay off the action without lowering the take or offering a rebate. While I agree with the concensus on this board that the track operators give the impression that they are brain dead , I doubt that they are. They probably have actuaries hammering out numbers to understand the impact of these books and are more concerned like the rest of corporate america by funneling money to politicians for legislation to get tax breaks or slots rather than going out and earning the money by running a successful business.Sorry for the political slant, but I had to get it out,Lou.

[Dave Schwartz]

Lou,

I didn't see anything where you and I disagree.

I think your assessment is right on.

As far as actuaries go, I am not convinced that the track owners have yet realized that it is time to move beyond the abacus.

But the truth is that in this case it may not really be the tracks. Does BrisBet offer a signficant rebate to a HUGE player? I don't know, but my guess would be probably not. Does anyone stateside (besides an Indian casino or two)?

I know PhillyPark offers a small rebate but by today's standards 3% is laughable.

And look at Nevada. Rebates here are illegal. I know they still exist, but not legally.

Like you, I believe that the local bet-takers will get smarter.

Actually, it is kind of ironic that we could not get the tracks to lower the takeout but we can get the satellites to split their commissions with us (through a rebate), effectively doing the same thing.

Now for the really funny part - If the tracks lowered the take then the hubs and satellites would not have as much commission to rebate. In other words, the tracks essentially have a higher takeout for the serious player than the satellites. No wonder they can't get anyone to go to the track.


Dave

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by VetScratch
First posters are chided for lack of explicit and verifiable source materials, then they are chided for citing sources that are explicit and easily verifiable.

A) Your "source material" did nothing to answer the allegations that ehorse lays off its bets with regards to winning players. This is what I "chided posters" over....they claimed Ehorse was doing something that Ehorse itself claims it is NOT doing. Your posts did nothing to further or hinder this argument, however, it did open up another question that I posed, which you still have not answered......thus....

B) I believe my question to you still stands. You can't expect to make an example out of Ehorse (which is what you did by citing their "terms of service") WITHOUT comparing it to other similar operations. Suff crystalized my position nicely.....

[VetScratch]

PA,By PA:
A) Your "source material" did nothing to answer the allegations that ehorse lays off its bets with regards to winning players. This is what I "chided posters" over....they claimed Ehorse was doing something that Ehorse itself claims it is NOT doing. Your posts did nothing to further or hinder this argument, however, it did open up another question that I posed, which you still have not answered......thus....Thus... I suggest that you choose to ignore the request that started this thread, as posted by Keenang:I GOT A BROCHERE FROM AN OUTFIT CALLED E HORSE. THEY SAY YOU CAN BET A HORSE TO OR TO LOSE,AND THEY HAVE A QUINELLA THAT PAYS IF YOUR HORSES COME IN 1,2OR 3RD. DOES ANYBODY KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS OUTFIT?Keenang didn't specifically ask about layoffs, and I didn't focus on the layoff question simply because it seems a bit naive to speculate whether U.K. bookmakers (Horizon Twenty) will fail to manage risks. They say they "are not a pari-mutuel racebook" but what that means is open to interpretation (as was so skillfully demonstrated in semantic arguments presented by Bill Clinton during his sex scandal controversies).By PA:
B) I believe my question to you still stands. You can't expect to make an example out of Ehorse (which is what you did by citing their "terms of service") WITHOUT comparing it to other similar operations. Suff crystalized my position nicely.....This thread is specifically about e-Horse. Furthermore, if Suff articulated your position, then you both disagree with the common understanding of "Boiler Plate." When both Visa and MasterCharge comply with Truth In Lending disclosure requirements, that is Boiler Plate material, but it may still merit consideration if you are shopping for the lowest APR. The same is true when numerous companies comply with universal disclosure standards formulated by the SEC, FDA, ICC, Federal Reserve, state insurance/banking commissions, medical/bar associations, and literally thousands of enacted legal statutes. The way you an Suff apparently look at it, if all registered sex offenders volunteered to tatoo "Registered Sex Offender" on their wrists, it would qualify as Boiler Plate and should not evoke caution because all such offenders pose a threat. In the case of e-Horse, they volunteer information which explains that they offer accounts to players who violate legal prohibitions while disavowing an obligation to pay these same players. Without regard to what other companies may choose to disclose, why is this insignificant?

[PaceAdvantage]

In short, you are implying that what Ehorse is doing is somehow unusual in the off-shore arena. I don't care much one way or the other, since I have never been a customer of an off-shore operation, nor do I plan to be one in the future.

If every other off-shore operation has similar "small type" restrictions on their terms of service, then what you posted isn't worthy of much discussion. However, if Ehorse is unique in its verbiage, then it would become much more interesting.

However, you have been successful in keeping this thread alive, while continuing to duck my original question to you...bravo!

[VetScratch]

PA,
You question is rhetorical until you post some links like the one in this thread which lead us to eHorse. In fact, you go to the brink of asserting that all off-shore outfits are alike... provide some links!

[azibuck]

Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999), boilerplate

BOILERPLATE

boilerplate, n. 1. Ready-made or all-purpose language that will fit in a variety of documents. 2. Fixed or standardized contractual language that the proposing party views as relatively nonnegotiable. -- boilerplate, adj.


Now you can argue over what the definition means.

This is a good thread, for, in a basic sense, what you two are arguing.

VS, I agree with you, because what you say is what I think..., but;

PA, I agree with you, because no one's come close to proving it. However, you're sort of asking to prove there's no Santa Claus. I doubt the proof you're asking for can be provided, at least not here.

az

[cj]

I have no proof one way or the other on the issue at hand. In my humble opinion, common sense says bets of winning players will find their way into the track pools. Why would eHorse or any other provider not do this? The question becomes is this a good tradeoff for the amount of the rebates. Those rebates really add up in a hurry in my experience.

Here is an example:

Let's say I bet $300 a day, 5 days per week. Not a crazy amount, far from it. Further, lets say 7 weeks a year, I am not betting due to lack of interest, burnout, whatever. That leaves 45 weeks at $1500 per week. Total for the year: $67500...A fairly average recreational player I would imagine.

With a mere 3% rebate, you have an extra $2025 in your pocket. I'm not saying its worth the risk, but it sure gives you something to think about.

[VetScratch]

TO ALL:

If you go to eHorse, you will find that what I have reported about them is not in "fine or small print."

The tricky part for some may be finding what I have discussed.

Goto http://www.betehorse.com/.

From the <Home> page, select menu tab <Rules>.

In the upper right-hand corner, the innocuous word "Disclaimer" is NOT a sub-title for the rules; it is a navigation button.

Select <Disclaimer> to examine some very important considerations for any prospective player.

[PaceAdvantage]

Like I said, I don't use offshore books, and I haven't said one word anti-Ehorse or Pro-Ehorse. I have simply questioned.

Thus, it isn't worth my time to search out links for you VetScratch. You're the one pointing out "important considerations" prospective players should make before joining Ehorse. WHY? Are their "disclaimers" ANY DIFFERENT from any other SIMILAR offshore operation?

[VetScratch]

PA,

This debate seems pointless. How would comparisons modify the importance or significance of representations made by eHorse? This thread was started specifically to discuss eHorse, and I think it predominately stayed on topic. When the next off-shore site is discussed, it will also deserve scrutiny.

Wherever consumer protection is murky, the most common pitfall is that consumers forget that nothing should be taken for granted. Uniform Commercial Codes and other familiar protective umbrellas apply to legal jursidictions that are not expanded by the fact that business is conducted in a familiar language (i.e., English).

I'm done... except to ask if anyone knows any good recruiting firms in Costa Rica? :)

[PaceAdvantage]

Well, I'm disappointed my question was never answered. I guess I'll have research it myself, but I'm not that motivated.

I only asked the question to be FAIR to Ehorse. You posted all these "spooky" disclaimers meant to scare people away, yet in all fairness, we have no idea if this is common practice among all off-shore operations. It's called one-sided and biased reporting in my book....

[InsideThePylons-MW]

The only thing that is the same with all offshore operations is:

There are no rules and regulations. There are no guarantees of any kind. They can do whatever they want because they are in a jurisdiction that has no control over them whatsoever.

All of the nonsense terms of service and regulation mumbo jumbo mean absolutely nothing.

Each offshore outfit is only as good as the person/people behind it.


Dave Schwartz is spot on with his posts.

[VetScratch]

By PA:
I'm not attacking anyone. I'm asking for proof of allegations. The company states one thing, you are saying something entirely different. InsideThePylon is the one with the burden of proof here.

What I hate is people saying they "have something", but they won't say what it is, or prove what they say. We are supposed to take their word for it, no questions asked.First you assail unsubstantiated opinions, then you are disappointed by easily substantiated issues... what is left in the middle?

Tweedledee: I don't know what to think about eHorse.
Tweedledum: I think about it all the time!
Keenang: Thanks for the feedback!

[cato]

Jeez, Vet Scratch, get a grip. PA has done nothing but try to put this boring thread to an end.

You are not providing breaking news that the off shore books have 4,228 very nasty disclaimers that say, "when in doubt, we will keep your money and if you don't like it, you can appeal to the local gaming board of [fill in your favorite bannana republic]"

There is nothing to refute or research on this issue (at least the minutia that has been dribbling in lately)

You appear to have twisted off again into one of those week long rants where you just wanna fight about something and get in the last word while citing to an obscure publication and quoting a 14th century philosopher (and this is coming from someone who likes most of your posts and is definitely a fan some of your earlier avatars)

we get it...can we move on now?

Cheers, cato

[PaceAdvantage]

InsideThePylons,

With my admitted limited knowledge of off-shore operations, I agree with your most recent post completely.....


==PA

[highnote]

I have been following this thread with interest. I, like PA, agree with Insidethepylons latest post. So far, it makes the most sense to me.

All these off-shore places can tell you whatever they want about how safe your money is with them, but what recourse do you have if they flee the country with your money? I lost about $50 in an account with a UK based bookmaker whose URL was/is Inter-bet.com. The URL is no longer active. Here was a company that was based in England. If I have no recourse with them, what chance does one have of ever collecting money on deposit from some Caribbean sports book that goes belly up?

Enron was supposed to be a safe place to invest your money, too.

[Holy Bull]

I doubt anyone will agree with me on this
but I play with a large # of offshores and
at least the top rung I feel a lot safer than I would with a TVG or a winticket. I remember earlier this year all the oregon places stiffed the bettors on the tri on the Wood memorial because "the wagers didn't get comingled correctly"....there's just no accountability or honor code like there is offshore where reputation and trust is everything. I had a problem with eHorseX a few months ago, I thought a bet was matched after the horses left the gate.....they credited my account immediately.

[VetScratch]

Holy Bull,

I believe your tale of good experience, but just like Inside The Pylons' assertion that eHorse (Inglewood Flamingo) distorted the layoff question, what you (both) offered is merely unsubstantiated opinion. PA took ITP to task for his opinion, took me to task for references that can be substantiated, and now should logically take you to task also.

I have been prodding for a new gimmick that would help put an end to many credibility issues (but not specifically the layoff question).

In other threads, I have suggested that we can look forward to tiered-security accounts from Internet wagering providers. For a "probable" fee based on access volume, handicapping vendors or regular players would be able to let others view (but not use or maintain) their wagering accounts, including transaction history. This would be a great way for vendors to advertise, for players to go head-to-head with each other, and to automatically score published picks by betting them.

I have been lobbying... and hope to be a beta/test-pilot account holder sometime in 2004. The concept is that account holders will have to legally authorize the third-party access feature. Access will be controlled by new access code(s) for read-only-access, which the account holder can distribute on a narrow or broad basis, and which the account holder can change at any time (e.g., if access volume fees start getting steep). A pending idea is a feature like phone calling cards where access codes would automatically expire after predetermined access volume limits. There is also some chance that moderate access could be offered free.

The access fee structure and other matters of due diligence are still items that need additional consideration. However, there is a strong incentive for wagering sites to whip up some competitive excitement with this gimmick... which will bring new traffic to their sites. If the access fees are not prohibitive, we may see a dramatic decline in the BS quotient at sites that tout and sell their picks. Everyone can simply assume that straight talkers will put their money where their mouth is or deserve losing credibility.

I just hope nothing pops up that will squash the preliminary planning and work that has already been accomplished. BTW, I am not affiliated with a wagering service... just a busybody user who is persistent when I want to get the attention of decision makers (even off-shore if that's where someone will listen).

[JustRalph]

I haven't read all of this thread......ok...maybe all of it. But I keep reading about these "off shore" options and services. Can anybody tell me where the hell the money goes when it is used off shore? I can't get past the statement made by many that none of that money comes back to racing in the U.S. If this is true, I don't want to support any off shore services. Can anybody give me a good reason why I shouldn't think this way?

[Larry Hamilton]

I can think of only two. You MAY have the opportunity to bet 200 to win at Hoosier without betting against yourself.

If you can think this way, you have the opportunity to set the odds on a horse and become the bookie.

Whether any money comes back to the track of not is meaningless to me. No one here worried about my last check, nor did I expect them to.

[Larry Hamilton]

I am sure there are some who would hold me responsible for the closure of some tracks with my attitude. My response is: if what I wanted to do with my money was available at the track, the money wouldn't leave. It isnt.

[VetScratch]

JustRalph,

This is just my candid opinion... for U.S. horseplayers, I think off-shore wagering is the kind of issue where the Worm Test is helpful.

The Worm Test is an expression of Reincarnation Theology and is often epitomized by this aphorism: "In matters of ethics and morality, ask yourself what advice a worm might offer."

[Dave Schwartz]

Ralph,

In my opinion Larry Hamilton is absolutely right in his assessment of the off shore situation.

We should not permit some psuedo-morality to be imposed upon us based upon "what am I doing for racing?" It must be considered that we (the bettors) ARE racing and they are choosing to ignore our needs by not creating a more competiive environment for us to wager in. (Competitive to what the offshore books are offering.)

That being said, I have no intention of sending my money offshore, but for different reasons. I do not like the idea that they could conveniently go out of business with my cash and I have no recourse. I was slightly burned in the Aces Gold thing. Never again.

Just my opinion.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Buckeye]

Can anybody give me a good reason why I shouldn't think this way?

MONeY

that is, unless that's not important.

[takeout]

I agree. Why should bettors care about an industry that could care less about us?