PDA

View Full Version : Off-shore rebate shops and the small horseplayer


Dave_K
01-17-2004, 08:12 PM
Hi all, my first post here, and after surfing through several threads, I must say this is the most sophisticated handicapping/racing board out there.

How do people feel about rebate shops and the way they are changing the nature of pari-mutuel competition? I don't really like the fact that I pay an approximately 20% "tax" on my wagers, while higher-rollers WHO ARE BETTING INTO THE SAME POOLS (hence competing against me) are paying less than half that tax rate.

This situation makes it even harder than it already is for the small time bettor to beat the races. The big money chasing the few dollars left on the pari-mutuel table is getting bigger and bigger with rebates, squeezing out the little guy. Whatever "market inefficiences" there are (or, were) will be gobbled up by the "whales" betting through St. Kitts (or wherever else) at a reduced rate. This gives the big players (who already have the advantage of a big bankroll) a further, and perhaps insurmountable, competitive edge over the little guy.

Here are links to one article by Beyer and one by Matt Hegarty (DRF) about rebate shops:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A46003-2003Dec31&notFound=true

http://www.hbpa.org/newsdisplay.asp?section=3&key1=798

Figman
01-17-2004, 08:37 PM
One of the two winners of that gigantic pick six at Aqueduct today wagered through the rebater RGS-St. Kitts and the wager came into NYRA through the Lewiston, Maine hub used by the "high rollers."

andicap
01-17-2004, 08:43 PM
Doesn't Pinnacle give 7% on all wagers, big and small, thus leveling the playing field?

Dave_K
01-17-2004, 08:43 PM
I should note that it wouldn't matter much to the little guy if the people betting huge sums through rebate shops were only average handicappers -- but they're not. The tracks themselves acknowledge that the rebate players do a lot better than average.

Consequently, a large (and getting larger) percentage of the pari-mutuel pools is due to the betting of these sharp handicappers -- who the little guy has to compete against (at double the tax rate).

Someone might say, "well instead of complaining about these shops, why don't you join one?". You can't just sign-up -- it's by referral only (at least the ones offering decent rebates).

Dave_K
01-17-2004, 09:06 PM
Andicap, if bets through Pinnacle go into the host-track's pari-mutuel pools, and they do rebate at 7%, and they accept small wagers, then yes, that would appear to level the playing field for the smaller bettor -- if he's willing to bet off-shore.

If the rebate shops had separate pools, or made a fixed-odds book based on the on-track odds, I would have no problem. My problem is that wagers through these rebate shops go into the same pools that the $2 railbird at Aqueduct is betting into.

The irony of the situation is that rebate shops are proving what economists and horseplayers have been saying for years: lowering the takeout will increase handle to the point that more revenue is generated for the racetracks. The racetracks themselves now realize this (e.g., Magna cut the price for it's signal to St. Kitts last week) and don't want to lose the business of the rebate shops.

It's a really absurd situation where instead of directly lowering the takeout on-track, the take out is indirectly lowered via rebate shops. Not that I really care, but the racetracks are also implicitly encouraging American citizens to wager through Carribean betting shops (meanwhile, I can't open an account with UK-based Betfair, and NJ residents can't even wager with American companies).

Suff
01-17-2004, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Figman
One of the two winners of that gigantic pick six at Aqueduct today wagered through the rebater RGS-St. Kitts and the wager came into NYRA through the Lewiston, Maine hub used by the "high rollers."

Fig what did NY handle Today?

Figman
01-17-2004, 09:53 PM
Aqueduct-10 races
on-track-$1,379,175
InState -$3,745,002
OutOfSt -$10,586,632
TOTAL - $15,710,081 (or $1,571,008 per race)

Gulfstream-11 races
on-track - $1,857,415
InState - $ 621,551
OutOfSt - $8,077,638
TOTAL $10,556,604(or $959,691 per race)

Hosshead
01-18-2004, 10:23 AM
Let me see, does this sound right?

When a larger % of the pools is made up by Whale Money, you've got Whales betting against Whales? Looking for "market inefficiences", which there are fewer of. So even though they (whales) get the rebate money, there are not only fewer opportunities, but the payoffs are smaller, both because it is Whale vs. Whale? So they are making less money in that area, compared to what they were making before? Of course so are we. (I do think a lot of whale money goes into track pools.)

Hoss -- (Just a skipjack,....soon to be a Great White ! )

Dave_K
01-18-2004, 10:48 AM
Sounds right to me. Sort of a positive feedback loop, where "success breeds more success", i.e., smartest players bet big money, win money, bet even bigger money, win more money, until there's no more money to be won (the "market" becomes "efficient"). The nature of pari-mutuel competition ensures that only the smartest handicappers get into this feedback loop, a sort of survival of the fittest.

The rebate shops (and US racetracks who implicitly encourage their existence) artificially make it easier for big players to turn a profit, so they can bet more money, so they can gobble up more of the "market inefficiency" and so on, and so on -- all at the expense of the little fish betting on-track or through American account wagering companies.

A somewhat analogous situation would be if Home Depot were given all kinds of tax breaks and subsidies, while the mom-and-pop hardware store, that is directly competing against Home Depot, had to pay full taxes, got no breaks, etc.


Originally posted by Hosshead
Let me see, does this sound right?

When a larger % of the pools is made up by Whale Money, you've got Whales betting against Whales? Looking for "market inefficiences", which there are fewer of. So even though they (whales) get the rebate money, there are not only fewer opportunities, but the payoffs are smaller, both because it is Whale vs. Whale? So they are making less money in that area, compared to what they were making before? Of course so are we. (I do think a lot of whale money goes into track pools.)

Hoss -- (Just a skipjack,....soon to be a Great White ! )

cato
01-18-2004, 10:56 AM
I haven't been troubled by the whale impact on the game much becaue I have always asumed without investigation that the whales are generally going to be betting on the horses that are in the low, low odds ranges (and certainly if the horses were not in the low odds range in the ML, they will be after the whales start betting on them).

Since I am not all that interested in any horse that is at, say 5-2 or below, it seems that the whales would not have much impact on my betting, except in a positive way to drive the odds UP on the horses that I am interetsed in (that are normally in the range of 7-2--10-1)

To anyone who is fololwing the impact of the whales or has just thought about the issue, am I on point here or is it just wishful thinking?

Cato

penguinfan
01-18-2004, 11:26 AM
My understanding is of-shore rebate places like Pinnacle (whom I use on occasion) take your bets into a seperate pool, a nice advantage for those who play smaller tracks but bet decent size win tickets, HOWEVER I have been told by management that on occasion your off-shore wager will be put into the track pool if deemed necessary by the off-shore book. If I can get say a $200 win ticket on a 3-1 horse at Mountaineer and have that money kept out of the pool AND get 7% back, I think that is a huge advantage for a player like myself because honestly $200 at a track like Mountaineer could lower the price of a 3-1 horse.
Reguardless of what the whales are doing I think you have to look at your wager as just that "your wager" and decide where you can get the best value for "your wager".

Penguinfan

Dave_K
01-18-2004, 12:06 PM
Cato: good point. By definition, huge money is not bet on longshots. So, if in a particular race, there is a truly overlaid longshot, either: 1) the whales didn't bet this race, or 2) the whales were wrong. The thing is, at least according to the articles by Beyer and Hegarty, the whales are usually right.

Penguin: I agree that you have to evaluate each bet by itself in determining whether it has value, regardless of what the people in St. Kitts are doing. If you've found a "true" 3-1 shot who is paying 4-1, you've got a winning bet (in the long-term, that is), regardless of what anyone is doing.

The problem is, the bigger the proportion of the money in the pools that is smart money, the more rare the true 3-1 shots who pay 4-1 (or anything over 3-1, for that matter) are going to be.

Buckeye
01-18-2004, 12:50 PM
Cato,
This would explain the "pounding the chalk" syndrome that occurs-- late (whale) money coming in. They are looking for the best type of horses to grind the rebates with. Don't play in their sandbox. Eventually, they won't be able to make any money there either.

Buckeye
01-18-2004, 01:05 PM
There is no escaping the fact that if the whales are that good, they will eat up the small fishes no matter where they are, because the whales will start to look at the longer priced horses too. :eek:

Then it will just be the whales . . .

I'm not too worried about them being that good though :cool:

alysheba88
01-18-2004, 01:28 PM
If the "whales" were so good, why were there such GREAT GREAT prices at Aqueduct yesterday? Shouldnt the smart money have driven down the prices? One of the biggest myths there are in my opinion is how much "smart money" there is in the New York pools. Dont agree at all.

schweitz
01-18-2004, 02:00 PM
If the whales are so good why do they need the rebates to turn a profit?

Dave_K
01-18-2004, 02:28 PM
Well, of course they don't win every race, but they do a lot better than average, plus they get 10% back free.

Originally posted by alysheba88 (MW)
If the "whales" were so good, why were there such GREAT GREAT prices at Aqueduct yesterday? Shouldnt the smart money have driven down the prices? One of the biggest myths there are in my opinion is how much "smart money" there is in the New York pools. Dont agree at all.

Dave_K
01-18-2004, 02:42 PM
Based on the 2% profit margins cited in the Beyer article, I suppose they're not good enough to turn a profit without the rebates.

However, the fact that as a group (and this is a group that bets 4.7 million annually per capita, according to Hegarty's article), they only lose 10 cents on the dollar at the track vs. 20 cents for everybody else (as a group) suggests they're pretty good horseplayers. I'm sure within that group there are individuals who are a lot better than that group average.

In my previous post, I shouldn't have said they are "usually right". I should have said they are "more right" than the average horseplayer.


Originally posted by schweitz
If the whales are so good why do they need the rebates to turn a profit?

Holy Bull
01-18-2004, 08:36 PM
The non level playing field just doesn't hold water. Yes, the rebate shots have tightened the pools and made it harder for
middle class players to beat the big tracks.
However its still a huge advantage to be a
middle class/small player because you don't kill your own price. Imagine if every horse you bet fell 2 odds points. Also, the middle class player has so many more tracks to choose from. The whale can't play Mountaineer or Sunland that seriously due to pool size but they are big enough to support the $200 player.

Dave_K
01-18-2004, 10:32 PM
They're effectively paying a 10% takeout, while everyone else pays 20% (approximately). How is that a level playing field?

While it is true that they can't bet $10,000 to win on a horse at Mountaneer, that doesn't change the fact the rest of us are still paying about 20% takeout to make that $200 bet at Mountaneer.

Originally posted by Holy Bull
The non level playing field just doesn't hold water. Yes, the rebate shots have tightened the pools and made it harder for
middle class players to beat the big tracks.
However its still a huge advantage to be a
middle class/small player because you don't kill your own price. Imagine if every horse you bet fell 2 odds points. Also, the middle class player has so many more tracks to choose from. The whale can't play Mountaineer or Sunland that seriously due to pool size but they are big enough to support the $200 player.

GameTheory
01-18-2004, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by Dave_K
They're effectively paying a 10% takeout, while everyone else pays 20% (approximately). How is that a level playing field?


Because their lowered takeout isn't coming at your expense. They may have an easier time making a profit, but that in itself does nothing to hurt you. Their superior handicapping is what is hurting you, if it is indeed superior.

Holy Bull
01-18-2004, 11:22 PM
Speak with your money and play lower take pools. Sam Houston's 12% p3's get no action.

Dave_K
01-18-2004, 11:25 PM
I agree with your post. Perhaps I'll have to avoid tracks known to attract rebate shop money....

Originally posted by GameTheory
Because their lowered takeout isn't coming at your expense. They may have an easier time making a profit, but that in itself does nothing to hurt you. Their superior handicapping is what is hurting you, if it is indeed superior.

Dave_K
01-18-2004, 11:30 PM
I was unaware of that, thanks for the info. I generally do try to avoid very high takeout tracks like Tampa (18.9% WPS), Mass. tracks (19%), some others)....


Originally posted by Holy Bull
Speak with your money and play lower take pools. Sam Houston's 12% p3's get no action.

alysheba88
01-18-2004, 11:39 PM
Parimutuel Competition is far more important than takeout. If you have more knowledge and expertise about your track you will beat your competition

sjk
01-19-2004, 07:33 AM
Dave_K

If the rebate players bet as much as reported, they must play often and surely they take their handicapping seriously.

I wouldn't consider an ROI of -10% to be particularly praiseworthy for a regular and serious player. It certainly doesn't intimidate me in any way.

If they are in fact operating on a 2% margin after rebate, they have more to fear than I do. Unless they are betting the purest of chalk, there must be some pretty fearsome losing streaks. As handicapping tools improve and the game gets tougher to beat, a +2% could turn into something negative and it would take a pretty long run out to know whether or not that has happened to you.

My main problem with CDI and others going along with the rebate game is from the horseman's standpoint. The signal is underpriced. At least Magna tried to get the price up. I regret that they had to back down.

If handle is going up and purses are going down, eventually field size and the number of races to bet will suffer and that will be a problem for me.

VetScratch
01-19-2004, 05:38 PM
I think some parts of Beyer's article are worth examination by curious minds.

Gamblers who look at Tampa Bay's takeout rates -- 22.5 percent on exactas, 25.9 percent on trifectas -- might reasonably say that the track is equally guilty of fleecing its customers.

This was a curious comment after noting that Tampa Bay has tried to shut out rebaters... these exotic takeouts are about average, and 22.5% on exactas is a bit below average for small tracks.

Nevertheless, the tracks realize this is hardly an ideal system. "In a perfect business environment, the only rebates would be offered by the host track," said Bill Nader, vice president of the New York Racing Association. NYRA would love to be able to target prime customers and develop their loyalty to NYRA instead of, say, an off-track operation in St. Kitts. But racetracks in New York and elsewhere are so heavily regulated that they don't have the flexibility to run their business as they would like. They may raise the rates that they charge the rebate shops (to 5 percent or so), but they have to do business with them. "The rebate sites have some of the best customers in the sport -- a customer base we can't ignore," Nader said.

Another curiosity, since non-rebate/on-shore wagering outlets like YouBet have filed financial statements with the SEC that reveal 8% to 13% rates. Makes you wonder... why would NYRA, MAGNA, and others still be charging less than 5% to off-shore rebate shops versus 8%-13% to on-shore shops? Certainly NYRA and MAGNA could "team up" to raise off-shore rates just as they have recently acted concurrently to squeeze Tampa Bay Downs and other Southern simulcast wagering providers.

Maybe Andy once caught something worse than a cold or ocean bass in Tampa. :)

GameTheory
01-19-2004, 05:52 PM
Two reasons:

-- The handle coming through rebate shops is huge.

-- A big reason it is huge is because of the rebates. (Also noted in the Beyer article.) If they raise the rates, the rebates will be lowered, and the handle will simply drop, not be redirected. Rebates generate betting by themselves, so you can't redirect that handle by taking the rebate away, except to someone that offers an equivalent rebate. So they have to find the optimal rate where they don't lose more than they gain by raising the rate.

Dave_K
01-19-2004, 05:59 PM
I also thought Beyer was a little bit off in singling out Tampa Bay. At least they're doing something about the situation. If he wanted to contrast Tampa Bay's stand against rebate shops with the high takeout rates charged US tracks generally, he might have said "Gamblers who look at tracks' high takeout rates, including Tampa Bay's, ....."

Other than that, I thought it was a good article coming at the right time (i.e., in the midst of the Magna debacle...we see Magna's true colors through their dealings with the rebate shops).

Is the 8-13% the % of handle that tracks charge simulcast outlets for thier signal? The only articles I've seen have tracks charging about 3% of simo handle for their signals, and rebate shops complaining they pay more than anyone else at about 4-5%

Dave_K
01-19-2004, 06:16 PM
Does anyone have any solutions to the rebate problem (that is, if you consider it a problem)?

The simplest solution to me (and NYRA VP Nader, apparently also) would be for the tracks themselves to lower takeout to about 7-9%. The only party that loses in this situation would be the rebate shop operaters, since they wouldn't be able to offer rebates anymore and would go out of business.

The situation for the people betting through the shops would not change much. The racetracks would profit big-time by re-claiming that percentage of handle that the rebate shop operaters were retaining for themselves.

Unfortunately, as mentioned by Nader, there are all kinds of political/legal problems associated with lowering the takeout. Why, exactly, I'm not sure. It seems to me that rebate shops have proven beyond a doubt that lowering the takeout will increase handle to a sufficient degree to cause racetracks to increase their overall revenue.

GameTheory
01-19-2004, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Dave_K
Unfortunately, as mentioned by Nader, there are all kinds of political/legal problems associated with lowering the takeout. Why, exactly, I'm not sure. It seems to me that rebate shops have proven beyond a doubt that lowering the takeout will increase handle to a sufficient degree to cause racetracks to increase their overall revenue.

Politicians have never, and apparently will never, understand that. They are simple-minded folk. To them, high tax = higher revenue, period. The fact that it is plainly not true doesn't seem to bother them....

sjk
01-19-2004, 06:45 PM
I don't think the betting handle is nearly as elastic (responsive to a change in the rebate level or take-out rate) as these posts would suggest.

Many people are accustomed to betting at a certain level and would be uncomfortable betting twice as much even if their chances of success were increased. Other people love to gamble high and would have a hard time doing without it.

I assume that some people betting off-shore are skillful enough to win without rebates and that the rebates are gravy. I can't imagine that these people will bet much less due to a few percent change in rebate.

At the same time, there must be people that love to gamble high and cannot win even with the rebates. These people are not going to change their behavior much over a few percent.

For those who are exactly skillful enough that they win 1-2% with the rebate, a change in the rebate might make a difference, but I would guess that anyone with a taste for betting $4 million a year might have trouble going cold turkey.

InsideThePylons-MW
01-19-2004, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by sjk
Dave_K

Unless they are betting the purest of chalk, there must be some pretty fearsome losing streaks.

It is very tough at first to not let them affect you. The key is to make yourself numb to them and realize that they happen in the short term but that in the long term you easily overcome them.

InsideThePylons-MW
01-19-2004, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by sjk
I don't think the betting handle is nearly as elastic (responsive to a change in the rebate level or take-out rate) as these posts would suggest.

Many people are accustomed to betting at a certain level and would be uncomfortable betting twice as much even if their chances of success were increased. Other people love to gamble high and would have a hard time doing without it.

I assume that some people betting off-shore are skillful enough to win without rebates and that the rebates are gravy. I can't imagine that these people will bet much less due to a few percent change in rebate.

The key to utilizing rebates to the fullest is quantity. It amazes me how tough it is for people to adapt and increase their wagers even when they know this. Most are comfortable where they are at wagering wise and some are scared (bothered greatly) to go through those losing swings I mentioned above. It is the very very few players that can adapt who have the great success. The rare player who goes from betting 1 million a year with a ROI of .15 + rebate .10 (250K profit) and loosens his wagering standards while increasing his bet size to go to 6 million a year with a ROI of .02 + rebate of .10 (720K profit) is the one who takes full advantage of the situation he is in.

GameTheory
01-19-2004, 07:47 PM
The rebates and take-out rate have a HUGE effect on the high-rollers. I'm talking about the people that bet 100K or more A DAY (some as high as a million a day). Every percentage point of the rebate allows a greater increase in churn -- they are looking to bet as much as possible (which maximizes profit), not maximize ROI.

Don't kid yourself -- attractive opportunities attract very sophisticated and well-funded bettors. I think the handle is much MORE elastic than people realize. When the fed raises or lowers interest rates by only a quarter point, it is big news on Wall Street, right? Same thing here on a smaller scale...

sjk
01-19-2004, 07:54 PM
For people who have no psychological barrier to betting more and who have no financial barrier to betting more and who are profitable, how do they determine bet size? Do they calculate how much they might cut their own odds by betting more, or is there another limiting factor?

InsideThePylons-MW
01-19-2004, 08:00 PM
A couple of other points.....

If the main worry (not that it is valid) is about too much sharp money being bet from rebate players, one simple solution: Go where they ain't. There are many tracks out there that are astronomically easier to beat than the major circuits. Why not try them and figure them out. Anybody that can break even or win on a major circuit track, could be comatose and beat a minor circuit track with the same effort.

As mentioned, there are opportunities for the smaller player. Pinnacle offers 7% rebate on all wagers. 7% rebate on WPS wagers at So. Cal. or NYRA tracks is better than even the largest of rebate player can get on those particular wagers. The aprehension of playing offshore is squashed by the fact that appx. 80% of the rebate handle comes from offshore so that point is mute.

Do $25 a hand blackjack players at the Bellagio play on the same level playing field as a $25K a hand player? Are the $25 players mad that they don't get the $50K of comps per trip that the $25K player receives? The odds of the actual game are the same for both players. I know this isn't a exact comparison, but it is very close.

Suff
01-19-2004, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by GameTheory
The rebates and take-out rate have a HUGE effect on the high-rollers. I'm talking about the people that bet 100K or more A DAY (some as high as a million a day). Every percentage point of the rebate allows a greater increase in churn -- they are looking to bet as much as possible (which maximizes profit), not maximize ROI.

Don't kid yourself -- attractive opportunities attract very sophisticated and well-funded bettors. I think the handle is much MORE elastic than people realize. When the fed raises or lowers interest rates by only a quarter point, it is big news on Wall Street, right? Same thing here on a smaller scale...

Heres a Direct quote from a proffesional Gambler that was on the Betting Panel at the racing symposium last month..


Cuscuna continually attempted to convey that players who receive rebates would not be betting without the awards, and that the racing industry would lose hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues if rebates were prohibited. He cited figures showing that two rebate shops have paid $149.6 million in commissions to the racing industry since 2000, and estimated that rebate shops currently account for more than $1 billion in handle, or approximately 7 percent of the national total.

As another example, Cuscuna said that a computer program he uses to calculate the optimal size of a wager would tell him that he should bet $13,438 in trying to hit a fictional $50,000 carryover pool when he receives a 9 percent rebate. On the other hand, without the rebate, the program instructs him to bet $2,356

GameTheory
01-19-2004, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by sjk
For people who have no psychological barrier to betting more and who have no financial barrier to betting more and who are profitable, how do they determine bet size? Do they calculate how much they might cut their own odds by betting more, or is there another limiting factor?


In the cases I know of, a Kelly-based system (with an error margin) to determine the optimal wagers (which becomes mathematically tricky when making multiple wagers into the same pool) that also takes into account the effect of the wagers on the pool and therefore the odds. It can be handled by a computer quite easily. Normally, a series of wagers will be made as post-time approaches, and the exotic pools are those most agressively attacked.

InsideThePylons-MW
01-19-2004, 08:12 PM
Suff,

Great example from Cuscuna.

He is one of the few that understands that quantity is the key element to take full advantage of rebates.

GameTheory
01-19-2004, 08:16 PM
It is important to point that the definition of "edge" (or advantage) changes with a rebate. You recalculate the odds (in effect) to account for the rebate, and are able to make wagers you don't actually have a positive edge. The rebate puts you in the black by 1% or 2% (which equals big $$$).

VetScratch
01-19-2004, 08:17 PM
The Beyer article claims 10% of handle comes through rebate shops, presumably at rates under 5% (i.e., 3%-4%). Since this is unlike 3%-4% deals between racetracks, which support the racing industry on both ends of each transaction, it is not in the best interests of racing... it merely reflects the indifference or stupidity of the racetrack operators with respect to the future of the industry.

BTW, if $1.5-billion was correct in the Beyer article, then rebate players account for closer to 15% of handle than 10%.

Beyer asserts that big-time rebate players are achieving a 2% profit after let's say a 10% rebate. This would mean they outperform the nominal 20% loss rate by 12%, or they achieve an average return of 92% before rebates as opposed to a nominal 80% return.

If this dramatic difference between an 8% loss and a 2% profit has only shifted 10%-15% of handle to rebate shops, then observers might suggest that rebate players have begun to confront the problem of diminishing returns inherent in pari-mutuel wagering at any given level of net takeout effect. In other words, we might wonder or think that unless the rebate players improve productivity by raising their return before rebates above 92%, how much more upside potential for handle can the racetrack operators expect if sizable rebates require much more action than average everyday players will ever bet?

Many players may buy the argument that whales with sophisticated computer systems will be naturally constrained by competition among whales. Others say whales will only hurt chalk players, but the bets logged at Gulfstream from the original North Dakota whale suggest otherwise... with sophisticated computer systems come sophisticated wagering tactics.

Given superior arms-length computer handicapping augmented with extraordinary but traditional gamesmanship for gathering unpublished information together with new technology for monitoring toteboard odds, I happen to believe quasi-honest whales could be tolerated.

The problem that I see is more temptation to cheat, which is the simplest way for competing whales to increase their productivity. If an individual or group has invested the time, intellect, and money to achieve true whale status, wagering $25-million to $200-million per year, the best way to compete with other whales is to sponsor cheating, and you can buy a lot of that on any backside when you have a true whale-sized bankroll.

Quasi-honest whales will bet in accordance with optimized pari-mutuel wagering tactics and from a better set of probability estimates than square money, but at some point they reach a ceiling that only cheating will crack. Unfortunately, when they reach this ceiling, they are in a position to buy the cheating.

Here is the reality that track operators and even racing columnists are reluctant to reveal:
(1) Rebate shops truly have spawned a much larger population of sophisticated whales.
(2) Rebate shops have also attracted most hopelessly addicted high-rollers, especially horse owners, who come no where close to achieving a 92% return before rebates, and thereby distort the averages reported by Beyer... they merely get to play an extra year or two or three, etc.
(3) The most expensive methods of cheating have proliferated beyond what purse structures would support in many races (since none are infallible)... and someone is footing the bill.
(4) Rebate shops are bound to attract tainted wagering.

Draw your own conclusion!

If you can handicap profitably but don't subscribe to cheating, I think rebates will end up biting you in the ankle unless you want to work much harder to subsist at a lower rate of return. Honest racing, including old-fashioned gamesmanship, can be beaten by a lot more of us than sophisticated dishonest racing that is outpacing the industry's investment in science and surveillance.

GameTheory
01-19-2004, 08:33 PM
Some points:

-- Rebates can generate handle out of thin air. It is not neccessarily good for the industry long-term, however.

-- Rebates can be eliminated only one way: make the takeout so low they can't feasibly be offered. (5% to 10% max) This will be good for the industry long-term. In fact, it would take off like a rocket.

-- Corrupt people with lots of money can sponsor cheating no matter what the take-out rate. But if a low takeout or rebate makes it easier to make money without cheating, then logically that lowers the incentive to cheat. At least it doesn't increase it.

-- If the pool of whales becomes large enough, they start to cancel each other out. Our handle is puny compared to Hong Kong & Japan. Is their racing hopelessly corrupt?

Dave_K
01-19-2004, 09:04 PM
VetScratch, good point about ceiling effects. If the rebate players are as sophisticated as Beyer and Hegarty paint them, then they probably already are extracting as much profit as they can from the pari-mutuel pools.

In order to make more money, they need either 1) bigger rebates, 2) more stupid money in the pools (i.e., bad handicappers, birthday-numbers-players, etc), or 3) they'll have to improve their handicapping.

As I don't see any one of the three happening, maybe the current situation is as "bad" as it will get.

Originally posted by VetScratch

If this dramatic difference between an 8% loss and a 2% profit has only shifted 10%-15% of handle to rebate shops, then observers might suggest that rebate players have begun to confront the problem of diminishing returns inherent in pari-mutuel wagering at any given level of net takeout effect. In other words, we might wonder or think that unless the rebate players improve productivity by raising their return before rebates above 92%, how much more upside potential for handle can the racetrack operators expect if sizable rebates require much more action than average everyday players will ever bet? ....

Quasi-honest whales will bet in accordance with optimized pari-mutuel wagering tactics and from a better set of probability estimates than square money, but at some point they reach a ceiling ....

VetScratch
01-19-2004, 09:10 PM
Game Theory.

There is no infallible method of cheating, but rebates are going to attract cheating and large wagers premised on cheating because they change the net return on persistent cheating. This in turn funds more risk taking by cheaters. Rebates are certainly not an incentive against cheaters on the backside, and you can take that to the bank!

Do you have information to share about comparative honesty or corruption in Hong Kong racing? All I really know is that China is a frequent target for critics of patent and copyright violations, so maybe Hong Kong racing is corrupt... or becoming more so under Chinese supervision.

InsideThePylons-MW
01-19-2004, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by Dave_K

In order to make more money, they need either 3) they'll have to improve their handicapping.

As I don't see any one of the three happening, maybe the current situation is as "bad" as it will get.

WHAT! :rolleyes:

Every day the handicapping gets sharpened, refined, and better.

Dave_K
01-19-2004, 09:26 PM
Well, maybe the handicapping can keep improving indefinitely, but the increase in profits realized by that improved handicapping can't. As you say, at some point they'll hit a ceiling. I'd imagine they're already pretty close to that ceiling.

alysheba88
01-19-2004, 10:50 PM
In some ways I think handicapping has gotten worse (which I like for selfish reasons). For two different reasons.

1. There is WAY to much reliance on data bases and the search for the "magic number" that will lead to riches. Thinking on your feet and understanding value is a lost art or even worse an unknown one. People who let the computer dictate who they play. And constantly look to refine and tweak their numbers in a futile search for the magic bullet.

2. On a more positive side there is much more information readiliy available, like trainer stats. However, with increase availability to the information it is a more competitve game. Fortunately there are still enough players caught in the first trap.

GameTheory
01-20-2004, 12:14 AM
The idea that rebates in particular would attract cheating doesn't make any sense that I can see. You can argue that larger pools in general might attract cheating (more money to steal = more incentive to steal it), but then you'd have to argue against the basic well-being of the industry (larger pools = industry in better shape).

Rebates are a form of low takeout -- that's all. So if rebates attract cheating, then low takeout direct from the host track would also attract cheating. I guess we should keep takeouts nice and high to keep the cheaters away.

But the fact is, lower takeout makes it easier to profit without cheating. So why cheat when you don't have to? And if at some point the increased competition nullifies that advantage (which doesn't make sense either -- lower takeout is intrinsically easier to beat than higher takeout regardless of the competition), then how would that be different from the situation without rebates at all? If they're gonna be cheating at that point, we'd have to assume they're already cheating now. I can't find any extra incentive to cheat that is peculiar to rebates...

breakage
01-20-2004, 02:37 AM
The rewards programs many tracks have now are just a thinly veiled name for a rebate program. If only they didn't have those darned expenses ( purses, track maintenance, etc.) they could match the offshore deals. Since getting the takeout lowered countrywide seems like an impossible dream, the best the tracks will do is probably just "reward" their best players. I think the rewards will gradually improve the next few years for larger players but they will never match the betting services' rebates. I don't see how tracks can keep losing their biggest players to rebaters and survive, unless of course they have a tankfull of slot fuel.

GameTheory
01-20-2004, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by breakage
The rewards programs many tracks have now are just a thinly veiled name for a rebate program. If only they didn't have those darned expenses ( purses, track maintenance, etc.) they could match the offshore deals. Since getting the takeout lowered countrywide seems like an impossible dream, the best the tracks will do is probably just "reward" their best players. I think the rewards will gradually improve the next few years for larger players but they will never match the betting services' rebates. I don't see how tracks can keep losing their biggest players to rebaters and survive, unless of course they have a tankfull of slot fuel.

That's the question -- are they really losing that money? If a big player stops playing on-track and starts playing at a rebate shop, chances are he's going to be betting some factor of magnitude more than he was before (because the rebate allows him too). So it is quite possible his increasing wagering makes up for the lower cut the track will be getting of his bets. Plus the rebates are drawing new big bettors that simply weren't betting much or anything before. It sure seems that the rebate shops are generating a net gain of revenue for the track -- they're not losing anything.

However, this situation could drive away bettors who are unwilling or unable to bet with a rebate shop, and other such problems that have been mentioned (although I don't think potential cheating is one of them, as I explained before).

Bottom-line: lower the base takeout (significantly) and the tracks won't have to worry about rebates. (Which will not hurt purses nor make it harder to pay the bills -- it will make it easier.)

VetScratch
01-20-2004, 04:44 AM
When all rebate considerations are said and done... any discounted wagering scheme with floor-level action qualifications (i.e., big rebates for big action) will make cheating attractive because it improves the cheater's edge over Joe Q. Player. The whole point of cheating is to make large wagers less risky... and betting $.90 on the $1.00 accomplishes this.

Only a completely level playing field neutralizes this, and I agree that universally low net takeout would serve this purpose to everyone's benefit. Until this happens, rebates will just continue to alienate Joe Q. Player.

The fastest way to universally force lower takeouts may ironically be opposite to what many think. The motivation to wade through reforms (much of it involving legislative initiatives) to straighten out the tangled maze of inequities that impact players, horsemen, and tracks is tempered by the increased handle flowing from rebate shops. This simply allows racing to forestall confronting the crisis that really threatens the industry... very lukewarm response to marketing the product to new fans. The lack of reforms to make racing more appealing to new entry level players, such as universally lower takout, overlooks the fact that both big and small fish only get one vote, a nuance that we may miss but was certainly recognized in Maryland when the legislative Speaker said, "Who cares? The average age of players who bet horses is deceased!"

Other causes will supercede racing as beneficiaries of legislated subsidies unless racing addresses the fan population issue, and rebate handle from big players merely diminishes the sense of urgency to tackle the more difficult problems.

IMHO, if you need a rebate to play, you probably can't understand why folks climb Mount Everest. At the top, the numbers are few but the air-o-gance is exhilarating! :)

The very few times that I have been invested in big rebate action left me with a double sense of guilt... like reaching back in for the last cookie when my other hand was already full. I almost always say, "Don't bother," then go my own way without overreaching.

I may not see Heaven, but I like my arrogance as guilt-free as possible. :)

PMDIC
01-20-2004, 05:38 AM
Where can a New Jersey resident bet online if anywhere?

GameTheory
01-20-2004, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by VetScratch
When all rebate considerations are said and done... any discounted wagering scheme with floor-level action qualifications (i.e., big rebates for big action) will make cheating attractive because it improves the cheater's edge over Joe Q. Player.That does not follow. Cheating will improve the cheater's edge no matter what the takeout or rebate -- he's cheating, after all. If the playing field is level, then the potential cheater may feel he needs to cheat to secure an advantage. If he has a rebate that Joe Q. doesn't have, he already has an advantage. There is nothing about a rebate that begs a dishonest person to cheat any more than he otherwise would.


The whole point of cheating is to make large wagers less risky... and betting $.90 on the $1.00 accomplishes this
Exactly. With a 10% rebate he accomplishes that -- his wager is less risky. No need for cheating. My god, it isn't all that hard to acheive a -8% ROI. If you can do that and bet dozens of races a day into several different pools a race and you're raking in the dough -- that is somehow an incentive to go through all the trouble to fix a race here and there? How many races can you fix? (It would amount to a fraction of a percent of the total races you play -- what's the point?) Big-time rebate players play every race they can -- they don't sit around picking their spots.

A race fixer, on the other hand, is going to be making a huge play on the fixed race to make his big score. Why fix races when you can win a lot easier just with the rebate?

Makes no sense, and again, there is nothing about getting a rebate that would make someone more likely to fix a race than if they weren't getting it. (If your bank gives you a higher interest rate on your savings account, does that then make it more likely for you to rob the bank? Where's the connection?)

VetScratch
01-20-2004, 09:36 AM
First, let's address pure backside plays. Many plays that used to be made on-track (or as a play by barn insiders that might be on-track and at simulcast locations) now go to a rebate shop as a shared play in someone's name. This moves a lot of action to the places that feed the least back to the racing industry. This unfortunatly is backside money that should be least inclined to bet through rebate shops but has jumped on the rebate bandwagon because others have. At this level, almost all play is aimed at winning by pulling out all the stops to maximize the probability of success... but rebates factor into the decision process since a discount may be counted as just one more edge factor. However, unilateral plays based on stiffing are less common than one might imagine when only natural enemies like competing barns are involved.

There are also non-horsemen who corrupt matters and share interests in plays where the non-horsemen may "fund" a stiff or otherwise encourage cheating via monetary influence. This is the worst kind of cheating when horsemen "work" in a sense for someone that has no investment in horses... because losing can produce winnings, especially for sophisticated non-horsemen... even though this violates the instincts of most horsemen who are accustomed to trying to get the best of each other in an atmosphere of mutual mistrust. Like the first instance, rebates factor into the decision process by offering a risk reduction. Admittedly, just pure technology has encouraged "wiseguys" to seek corrupt alliances on a broader scale than in the old days before simulcasting, but rebates and "wiseguys" flock together because stiffs are best exploited by sophisticated decision making tools.

BTW, I look at "fixing" as different than a unilateral effort that pulls out all the stops in order to enhance the probability of winning. To me, fixing implies a jockey conspiracy, or occasions when more than one barn cooperates to compromise competion in some way more sinister than occasionally helping the racing secretary (or even a friend) to get a race to go by running a horse that may need some work.

You can't look at cheating as a guarantee... it is covert and illegal probability management, and rebates are privileged means of reducing risk in a game of probabilties.

No matter what you do to gain a competitive edge, every trainer knows that they all enter the gate with plenty of possible excuses to lose.

In reality, lots of cheating efforts go unrewarded, which is why cheating and rebating are synergistic while remaining predjudicial against small-time players.

The shame is that either cheating or selective rebating privileges are truly embraced by anyone. Most trainers say they would like true cheating eliminated to level their playing field, but just like rebating, chiseling at the expense of peers seems to have become a way of life for too many folks.

VetScratch
01-20-2004, 09:54 AM
Game Theory,

Makes no sense, and again, there is nothing about getting a rebate that would make someone more likely to fix a race than if they weren't getting it. (If your bank gives you a higher interest rate on your savings account, does that then make it more likely for you to rob the bank? Where's the connection?)Your no sense gambit again... sorry, but your arguments falter because you treat cheating as a sure thing (i.e., fix) instead of a probability influence that is synergistic with rebating. I think you really know better. :)

cj
01-20-2004, 10:07 AM
I have occasionally used eHorse and earned smallish rebates, but I generally bet into the pools through BrisBet. I just don't see what the big stink is about the rebate guys having an unfair edge. My ROI has gone up each of the last 3 years not including the small rebates I received. I think, and I could be wrong, that the rebate guys are killing the lower priced horse players. I swim in a different pond. I almost exclusively bet horses that are 9-2 and up, and these seem to be avoided by the so-called smart guys. Obviously, this causes the price to go up on the longer priced horses, probably why my ROI has increased. I don't think I've gotten any better, just the horses I consider overlays are now "bigger" overlays.

If they are making 2%, they are still losing money to people who made a profit before the rebate days. I want their money in the pool.

Dave_K
01-20-2004, 10:29 AM
CJM, interesting idea that long-shot players may be immune to (or even helped by) by the action of the rebate players. After all, if these guys are inclined to bet $11,000 to win on a horse in Maiden race at Hollywood (as cited in Hegarty's article), they're probably not betting many winners whose final odds are over about 2-1. Perhaps longshot players and whales can peacefully co-exist?....

The implications for the small-time horseplayer of the effects of the rebate players is more complicated than I first thought.

alysheba88
01-20-2004, 10:35 AM
PMDIC, nowhere legally.

Can only go offshore (like E-horse)

Absurd but true

breakage
01-20-2004, 01:21 PM
I definitely agree with Game Theory that rebating would not cause increased cheating. The theories Vet Scratch supplies seem farfetched to me. To me as a horseplayer rebates and rewards are a good thing and are finally a step in the right direction for the customer. Also, I don't see rebates hurting the smaller player in any way. It only irritates those who resent bigger players that get the rebates. It has not changed the amount they get back on their betting dollar in any way shape or form.

InsideThePylons-MW
01-20-2004, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by breakage
I definitely agree with Game Theory that rebating would not cause increased cheating. The theories Vet Scratch supplies seem farfetched to me. To me as a horseplayer rebates and rewards are a good thing and are finally a step in the right direction for the customer. Also, I don't see rebates hurting the smaller player in any way. It only irritates those who resent bigger players that get the rebates. It has not changed the amount they get back on their betting dollar in any way shape or form.

100% correct

A+

Dave_K
01-20-2004, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by breakage
It has not changed the amount they get back on their betting dollar in any way shape or form.

By definition, everybody can't do better than the track take. If a particular group of horseplayers does better than the take (talking about before rebates are applied), than others must necessarily do worse than the take.

If the the former subgroup represents a bigger and bigger proportion of the pari-mutuel pools, what happens to the latter subgroup? By the same token, what happens to the former subgroup? I not sure if NOTHING happens....

Dave_K
01-20-2004, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by breakage
It only irritates those who resent bigger players that get the rebates.

PS, I'm not jealous of the rebaters (i.e., I wouldn't want to trade places with them). I just want half a chance to win at this game.

alysheba88
01-20-2004, 01:59 PM
If I go to the track three times a month, I am competing with the people who play those specific days. Whether they get rebates on their action is irrelevant to me.

breakage
01-20-2004, 01:59 PM
Dave K, everybody wants half a chance to win at this game. Rebates and rewards give a few borderlne players ( those on the borderline of winning or losing ) a little bit better chance to accomplish that. After years and years of getting nothing I don't see how anyone argues against rebates.

alysheba88
01-20-2004, 02:22 PM
If anything I could make a case that rebates help even the non-rebate player.

Specifically, if the marginal winning player needs the rebates to stay afloat, he/she would supposebly run out of money one day without them and stop playing. If they are a marginal player at best that is one less marginal player I am competing against. If I plan on being a winning player every year I also need to have my parimutuel competitors stay in the game. If they run out and the only ones left are the big winning players and the lifetime soon to be broke losers it hurts me.

GameTheory
01-20-2004, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by VetScratch
Game Theory,

Your no sense gambit again... sorry, but your arguments falter because you treat cheating as a sure thing (i.e., fix) instead of a probability influence that is synergistic with rebating. I think you really know better. :)

And once again you dodge a direct question with a smokescreen, and put words into my mouth. AS USUAL. All I need to know...

If you were to argue that the explosion of exchange betting where you can bet a horse to lose might encourage cheating, I'd agree with you. But there to, the benefits outweigh the negatives for the horseplayer.

I'm done.

cj
01-20-2004, 05:13 PM
One possible negative...if someone is getting a big enough rebate, say 10%, and knows for a fact a horse likely to receive moderate betting action has no chance, he is now playing a positive expectation game with no handicapping whatsoever.

It would be tough to know if this ever happens, but I guy like Lake, or Shuman, or someone with large volumes of horses could certainly supplement his income rather nicely at my expense. This doesn't mean I think it is happening, but I don't think it is that far fetched.

GameTheory
01-20-2004, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by cjmilkowski
One possible negative...if someone is getting a big enough rebate, say 10%, and knows for a fact a horse likely to receive moderate betting action has no chance, he is now playing a positive expectation game with no handicapping whatsoever.

It would be tough to know if this ever happens, but I guy like Lake, or Shuman, or someone with large volumes of horses could certainly supplement his income rather nicely at my expense. This doesn't mean I think it is happening, but I don't think it is that far fetched.

I agree with that, but that would be the case as well if there was a low takeout across the board direct from the host track. It is not the inequity of the rebate compared to everyone else that causes the temptation -- it is simply the low takeout. In which case if you are arguing against rebates for that reason (I know you're not, CJ), you are really arguing against low takeout period.

And even with normal takeout, if the horse was a heavy heavy favorite that had no chance, the same situation would still exist, rebate or not.

Dave_K
01-20-2004, 05:44 PM
It appears to me that the consensus on this thread is that rebates are a good thing for everybody, and especially for the non-rebated player. Am I correct?

I think it would be interesting if people here voted "yes" or "no" on whether rebates are good for the small-time, non-rebated (but still serious) horseplayer. Is there a poll function on this board?

I'm inclined to vote no. However, I do understand that it may be a much more complicated issue than would be implied by a Yes/No poll.

VetScratch
01-20-2004, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by GameTheory
And once again you dodge a direct question with a smokescreen, and put words into my mouth. AS USUAL. All I need to know...

If you were to argue that the explosion of exchange betting where you can bet a horse to lose might encourage cheating, I'd agree with you. But there to, the benefits outweigh the negatives for the horseplayer.

I'm done. Put words in your mouth? Read your own post silly boy! You did purposefully discuss cheating as if was a sure thing (i.e., a fix), and you do know that's not true. There is no sure thing!

Well, maybe one sure thing... You were the champion of RSI in North Dakota when that was discussed, but now the Feds have busted RSI. You argue that past-posting, as discussed by Roger Stein, doesn't or cannot happen, but the Guliani Report clearly shows it can happen. You encourage folks to violate clearly printed warnings and pilfer copyrighted charts from EquiBase when Equibase charges only $14/month for all the charts anyone could want. You are the sure thing... a weasel, always looking for a hole instead of a level playing field.

Folks can believe what they want about rebate shops, but that is where the cheaters bet.

GameTheory
01-20-2004, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by VetScratch
Put words in your mouth? Read your own post silly boy! You did purposefully discuss cheating as if was a sure thing (i.e., a fix), and you do know that's not true. There is no sure thing!
And you are at it again. I never said any such thing. I never said anything about sure things. What are you talking about?


Well, maybe one sure thing... You were the champion of RSI in North Dakota when that was discussed, but now the Feds have busted RSI. You argue that past-posting, as discussed by Roger Stein, doesn't or cannot happen, but the Guliani Report clearly shows it can happen.
None this is true either. I did not champion RSI, nor did I say past-posting doesn't or can't happen. I never said that. Never. We discussed RSI, yes. We discussed past-posting, yes. But those are not my opinions on the matter.


You encourage folks to violate clearly printed warnings and pilfer copyrighted charts from EquiBase when Equibase charges only $14/month for all the charts anyone could want.What?! That is just an outrageous lie. I never have encouraged anyone to violate anything. In fact, I regularly point people to the Equibase archive so they can purchase said charts. I do not condone or encourage stealing, and I have been criticized on this board before for being TOO CRITICAL of people I thought were encouraging just that. VS, you really need to be more careful with making sure you comprehend the things that you allegedly read. It is quite clear that you rarely if ever understand anything I write. I would be concerned that I am just a bad communicator, but no one else seems to have this problem. If you are going to make attacks on my character & ethics in a public forum, which are more important to me than ANYTHING, you had better make DAMN SURE you get your facts straight. And yours couldn't be more wrong.[/b][/quote]


You are the sure thing... a weasel, always looking for a hole instead of a level playing field.And now with the names. A string of lies and name-calling. Nice.

Holy Bull
01-20-2004, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by VetScratch

Folks can believe what they want about rebate shops, but that is where the cheaters bet.


Theres not 1 documented case of past posting at a rebate shop. There have been numerous at non rebate places. The RSI incident the owners were cheating on taxes, 0 to do with the customers or wagering.

VetScratch
01-20-2004, 09:13 PM
In a previous post I said, "Given superior arms-length computer handicapping augmented with extraordinary but traditional gamesmanship for gathering unpublished information together with new technology for monitoring toteboard odds, I happen to believe quasi-honest whales could be tolerated." If rebate shops attracted only average players and quasi-honest whales, I would have no axe to grind.

The sophisticated computer teams bet in a way that the rebate shops would have to be quick and nimble to take advantage... but profiling would certainly identify the most successful accounts... and mirroring the action of a very successful account would be tempting.

However, I think folks should be concerned about big barn plays getting mirrored because that used to be a scam in the old days in Las Vegas racebooks, especially before co-mingling, and I can't imagine the rebate shops are angels compared to the racebooks.

Sort of like the Pete Rose question... did his bets and non-bets signal anything to bookmakers? Pete was an addicted gambler and lousy horseplayer at TP, so his bets on the Reds were probably too frequent to be profitable, but when he resisted his addiction and passed on Reds games, those who claim to know say a lot of money was made by the books.

If XYZ Rebate Shop is taking bets from a dozen or so barns (that you can select from your own experiences), profiling and a little sleuthing would definitely be worthwhile for an unscrupulous operator.

Would you like to know when barns that you follow are taking the rubber bands off of their bankrolls? What is certainly potentially wrong (and IMHO is already wrong) with rebate shops is that they are magnets that collect and concentrate the kind of information that invites abuses.

VetScratch
01-20-2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Holy Bull
Theres not 1 documented case of past posting at a rebate shop. There have been numerous at non rebate places. The RSI incident the owners were cheating on taxes, 0 to do with the customers or wagering. As examined and discussed time and again, the tracks have no pure financial incentive to determine exactly when money that enters the pools 45-90 seconds after the gate opens was bet, and that includes the hubbing facilities that RSI claimed to operate off-shore. Do you actually think someone betting $150-million per year through RSI was dumb enough to think Bala and Diaz were Mary and Joseph? Get real!

No documented cases... the racing industry has always been reluctant to investigate, expose, punish, and certainly publicize cheating. NYRA spent millions trying to protect the cheating mutuel clerks.

To get documented, you need to get busted and charged... and the majority of white-collar crimes result in a negotiated settlement before any charges are brought.

If you feed the industry in some manner, to get publically denounced by racing, you would practically have to take a dump on national TV in the Derby winner's circle!

=====
Are we having fun yet? :)

Holy Bull
01-20-2004, 09:43 PM
Barns betting is cheating? Thats news.

As for "mirroring", I'd put the odds as 3 or 4 hundred times as likely, that if these same barns bet at a teller window at the track, the bet would be "mirrored" than if it were made at a rebate place. And I still don't get how this is cheating, they'd just kill each others price.

Holy Bull
01-20-2004, 09:46 PM
Also, your points are that cheating can take place, but what do the rebate places have to do with this? How are they different than any OTB?

VetScratch
01-20-2004, 09:52 PM
Holy Bull,

The information was not concentrated via technology, and barns always tried to play through the windows in a way that minimized the impact of copy-catting.

Rebates are the incentive that concentrates information about wagering sources that would be better left dispersed. If we can't stamp out cheats, let's at least channel their action back to the windows where it better subsidizes racing.

Pace Cap'n
01-20-2004, 10:12 PM
What is the (your) definition of "arms-length computer handicapping?

What is meant by "extraordinary but traditional gamesmanship"?
Is it traditional or extraordinary? Or extraordinarily traditional? Or perhaps tradtionally extraordinary?

Would not a barn wonder what is happening to cause the drop in its expected odds, and soon arrive at mirroring as a likely cause and take corrective action? And why distinguish "big" barns from other barns? Would the size of a barn have an effect on the size of the wager?

What is a "quasi-honest whale"? How many categories of whale exist, and what are they?

In which post(s) has Game Theory advocated pilfering of copyrighted information?

VetScratch
01-20-2004, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by Holy Bull
Barns betting is cheating? Thats news.

As for "mirroring", I'd put the odds as 3 or 4 hundred times as likely, that if these same barns bet at a teller window at the track, the bet would be "mirrored" than if it were made at a rebate place. And I still don't get how this is cheating, they'd just kill each others price. If an unscrupulous rebate shop mirrors profiled and consistently successful barn accounts by wagering of tiny percentage of the action played, the rebate is easily recaptured with little fuss, and some profit is feasible. If they pound so hard that they break the glass, they will lose these accounts.

I have a hunch that several PA board members work with a network of barns and fully understand why such restraint makes sense... it keeps the phone ringing!

Holy Bull
01-20-2004, 10:23 PM
How about a new hub open up where the hosts fees are all 30% so there is a negative rebate and all owners and trainers are only allowed to bet through this hub. Also the clerks have to fail an IQ test to get the job so they don't get the idea of copying the bets.

VetScratch
01-20-2004, 11:45 PM
Pace Cap'n,
Originally posted by Pace Cap'n
What is the (your) definition of "arms-length computer handicapping?

What is meant by "extraordinary but traditional gamesmanship"? Is it traditional or extraordinary? Or extraordinarily traditional? Or perhaps tradtionally extraordinary?

Would not a barn wonder what is happening to cause the drop in its expected odds, and soon arrive at mirroring as a likely cause and take corrective action? And why distinguish "big" barns from other barns? Would the size of a barn have an effect on the size of the wager?

What is a "quasi-honest whale"? How many categories of whale exist, and what are they?

In which post(s) has Game Theory advocated pilfering of copyrighted information? A) Arms-length Computer Handicapping: the best you can do with published electronic data.
B) Extraordinary But Traditional Gamesmanship: courting information from backside sources (trainers, exercise riders, jockey agents, clockers, jockeys, etc.) that becomes extraordinary only if you can influence such things as workout reports and official training race efforts in the finest tradition of the notorious Speck syndicate that operated in Louisiana.
C) New Technology For Monitoring Toteboard Odds: real-time analysis of pools and odds to optimize complex betting strategies such as that revealed by Gulfstream when the original North Dakota Whale's high-velocity wagering stream was examined and partially published.

A + B + C = Very Serious Quasi-Honest Horseplay! :) :) :) :)

Mirroring: yes, you lose your most valuable sources if you get too greedy. However, if you have reasons to be confident, mirroring to the extent that you are hedging your own rebates is probably not going to cause much fuss.

Big Barns: my poor semantics... any barn that beats the game in a big way through wagers. Statistically, most don't beat the game in a big way because gambling addiction is certainly not just a handicapper's disease. An admittedly small minority do very well... but profiling of accounts could reveal who is worth monitoring.

See http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5086&highlight=chartget then read the restrictions published by EquiBase at the bottom of each chart. Cheap chart downloads are certainly available at costs predicated on bandwidth impact and the utility value of information downloaded. I am certainly no admirer of the marketing strategies and shoddy product documentation that seem to be a standard among data providers, but neither was I receptive to a PM after I joined PA from a member who wanted to exchange expensive racecard downloads. I said no thanks, I don't save them, because I was intimidated by the offer even though I certainly do archive my own downloads. Everyone raves that ChartGet is an excellent program, and Game has a perfect right to create such intellectual property, but using it is the rub... maybe folks who use such progams really need to save the chump change... what do you think?

Pace Cap'n
01-21-2004, 12:13 AM
Thanks for the answers.

Re: Chartget

From Equibase:

Proprietary to and © 2004 Equibase Company LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Republication or dissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of Equibase Company LLC.
Use (including viewing) of the material contained herein constitutes acceptance of these terms.

Why does use of a program to obtain downloads versus the use of a mouse violate their copyright, as long as the downloaded material is not published, sold, or disseminated by the downloader?

GameTheory
01-21-2004, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by VetScratch
See http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5086&highlight=chartget then read the restrictions published by EquiBase at the bottom of each chart. Cheap chart downloads are certainly available at costs predicated on bandwidth impact and the utility value of information downloaded. I am certainly no admirer of the marketing strategies and shoddy product documentation that seem to be a standard among data providers, but neither was I receptive to a PM after I joined PA from a member who wanted to exchange expensive racecard downloads. I said no thanks, I don't save them, because I was intimidated by the offer even though I certainly do archive my own downloads. Everyone raves that ChartGet is an excellent program, and Game has a perfect right to create such intellectual property, but using it is the rub... maybe folks who use such progams really need to save the chump change... what do you think?

ChartGet helps you download FREE charts from the website -- it saves keystrokes & mouseclicks -- that's it. Copyright prohibits you from then taking those charts and republishing them on your own website or elsewhere, or redistributing them (i.e. selling them). ChartGet downloads the FREELY AVAILABLE charts to your own computer for your own use (the exact same thing your web browser does everytime you look at a web page). It just speeds up a cumbersome chore. No pilfering, no stealing, no infringment of copyright.

The parser extracts data from the charts after you have them on your hard drive. (Again, your web browser is doing the same thing when it displays the chart -- it doesn't show it to you in raw form.) Are you saying it is stealing to do something like extract the final odds from a chart so you can analyze them more easily? Because it isn't. There is NOTHING, and I repeat NOTHING illegal (or unethical) about the existence or the USE of my programs provided you do not "republish or disseminate" the data. By the way, this restriction is EXACTLY THE SAME as that of your $7 data files. Are you stealing something by actually using the data files once you acquire them? Another by the way -- I've talked with people at Equibase about my programs, and they have no problem with them (in fact, they helped me). And there are at least two commercial handicapping programs I know of that have built-in the same functions (more or less -- acquiring & parsing the results charts).

As I said above (you know, in the post you've totally ignored in your subsequent replies), I don't take kindly to attacks on my moral character, and I believe an apology is owed to me.

PaceAdvantage
01-21-2004, 12:16 AM
because Vet says so???!!!??? :confused:

cj
01-21-2004, 06:48 AM
Vet,

You are dead wrong on the Chart Get issue. You can only use it to get charts that are available for FREE. You are not stealing anything. If he were in turn selling archived charts, that is a different story, but you need a new issue this time. This one is a loser.

VetScratch
01-21-2004, 08:48 AM
CJ,

You are mistaken about "free" and copyright law when holders declare restrictions on usage. Only "fair use" exclusions apply, and "free" is not one of them. Judicial opinions have consistently upheld usage restrictions on free materials, such as the restrictions stated by EquiBase. The principle is that restrictions protect the copyright holder's potential to realize value from materials, which is what EquiBase in fact already does via other options and marketing channels.

That notwithstanding, Game Theory seems to be confident that EquiBase approves of his program despite their stated usage restrictions, so I presume the written permission waiver might be granted to any individual who asked in compliance with this stipulation.

I have researched, and will continue to look for, a precedent based on decisions that focus on the issue of "facts" which holds some promise since one cannot a copyright a crystal clear fact by itself (e.g., "2 = 2").

What you "can" do with your mouse/keyboard command options or with software tools in no way compromises this issue, but I will have no problem acknowledging that I was grievously in error and apologize to Game Theory if we can really establish that my understanding of this copyright issue is flawed.

VetScratch
01-21-2004, 10:03 AM
Maybe a brief post on "fair use" is in order to explain what I meant in my previous post.

In general, fair use exclusions allow materials to be used without express written permission for such purposes as:

news reporting,
critiques & commentary,
parody,
education & research,
etc.

with some considerations involving the scope and extent of what is used, so long as such use is not merely disguised misappropriation of copyrighted materials or a usage that circumvents subscriptions and the like.

In this case, I would be utterly flabbergasted if EquiBase did not post their restrictions to prohibit circumvention of options to purchase or subscribe to result charts.

=========

I urge anyone that doubts this to simply ask EquiBase via email in a manner that won't cause a witch hunt. Here is an example and Shelby Cook (scook@equibase.com), Online Services Coordinator, might be a good person to ask:

Is it acceptable for me to use a program that will automatically retrieve free result chart pages that you offer, parse the HTML in each page of charts, and extract the data in a format that will be used exclusively by me on my PC?

It is my firm understanding that EquiBase unequivocally prohibits automated retrieval of their free charts.

Show Me the Wire
01-21-2004, 10:22 AM
VS:

Please remember the content is not copyrighted, only the format. The fractions, running positions, beaten lengths and the like are in the public domain. The fromat and the chart caller's comments should fall under copyright protection.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

VetScratch
01-21-2004, 10:27 AM
SMTW,

Please research further or ask EquiBase, who will promptly set you straight on this matter.

Show Me the Wire
01-21-2004, 10:32 AM
VS:

I do not have to ask Equibase. Equibase knows the content is not copyrghted. You ask them if they copyright the content I referred to or the format.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

VetScratch
01-21-2004, 10:43 AM
SMTW,

Did that... unequivocal response, as I indicated previously.

BTW, public domain is another interesting issue with respect to information and software... but not applicable here.

GameTheory
01-21-2004, 11:17 AM
I still am strongly offended with the idea that I am trying to "circumvent" anything (or encourage others to). ChartGet downloads webpages to your computer, just like your browser. That's it. Are you circumventing buying a subscription to the charts by viewing of the free ones? As far as the parser, it doesn't care if you use the free charts or charts you purchased from the archive, because they are exactly the same charts. Do you seriously believe that editing of a webpage (that you've downloaded for free or purchased) for your own use is illegal? What you're saying is outrageous. It is akin to saying that I buy a book from a bookstore, I am not allowed to go home and cut out some pages if I feel like it. The copyright restriction is about the RIGHT TO COPY something -- copying meaning "republishing or disseminating" (I do not have the right to republish sections of that book I buy from the bookstore, for instance, but I can damn well do what the hell I want with it in my own house). And once again, your data files are copyrighted in exactly the same way. All handicapping programs that use data files must be "circumventers", I guess, because they manipulate the data once they get it.

About those "restrictions" on the Equibase site, besides the general copyright. From the Equibase site:


5. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF DATA
You understand that information acquired hereunder is for your personal use. You agree that you will not disseminate information acquired hereunder to any third party without having first obtained the written permission of EQUIBASE.


Exactly. Personal use. No third party. Thank you.


Just what are the charts up there for if you're not allowed to use them?

Steve 'StatMan'
01-21-2004, 01:48 PM
Vet, I don't understand your motives. Why does this have you upset, and causing distress for your fellow board members?

As for getting charts using a program vs. a browser and a mouse - all a browser really is is just a program that determines and issues the correct commands to get web pages as desired from websites. Doesn't matter what browser you use. If you can write your own routines to get to the free web pages, (not pay web pages), what difference does it make if you use Explorer, Netscape, or ChartGet?

Once those pages are on your computer, if you're using them just for yourself, why should anyone care? If a person isn't re-selling them, or reformatting them and selling them, that shouldn't matter to anyone. Sharing them with others, even for free, could be a bit of an issue perhaps, because it is making a copy of something, rather than giving an object (like a used lamp or TV set - something that can't be copied like a page from a magazine).

What has Game offered others, or others either have or could create themselves, that would violate anything? Nothing.

VetScratch
01-21-2004, 01:49 PM
Game Theory,

I have no idea how restrictions on use may have been stated back when you developed your programs. However, the literature of copyright law and its judicial interpretations make it clear that restrictions on use are valid for free materials just as they are for materials you pay for.

EquiBase is quite adament their policy is to deny permission to download and extract data from their free charts.

Why doesn't this make sense to you, since they have every incentive to protect the value of charts that are marketed through several other channels?

Steve 'StatMan'
01-21-2004, 01:56 PM
Who is causing any harm to the value of any other chart service? What is putting that data into a readable format, vs. physically retyping selected info into a database for your own use, or just writing in on a sheet of paper to learn something?

cj
01-21-2004, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by GameTheory

... Another by the way -- I've talked with people at Equibase about my programs, and they have no problem with them (in fact, they helped me). And there are at least two commercial handicapping programs I know of that have built-in the same functions (more or less -- acquiring & parsing the results charts).


Does anything else matter if the above is true? I have no reason to believe it is not. Further, GT doesn't sell his program, he gives it away. It is INSANE to give him a hard time about this. The above proves Equibase has no problem with it, so whatever problem Vet has it totally irrelevant. Don't waste your time replying GT, its not worth it.

Shacopate
01-21-2004, 02:19 PM
I know I'm a little late for the party, but how can I get CHARTGET?

GameTheory
01-21-2004, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by VetScratch
I have no idea how restrictions on use may have been stated back when you developed your programs. However, the literature of copyright law and its judicial interpretations make it clear that restrictions on use are valid for free materials just as they are for materials you pay for.

EquiBase is quite adament their policy is to deny permission to download and extract data from their free charts.

Why doesn't this make sense to you, since they have every incentive to protect the value of charts that are marketed through several other channels?

I am not making any distinction between the free charts or the archived (for pay) charts. I respect the copyrights on both versions, always have, and have discussed this with Equibase before. It was confirmed that as long as you don't redistribute anything, you can do anything you want with the chart. The user has rights too, you know. They can't just make arbitrary policies like "You are forbidden from viewing charts on your home computer on Tuesdays." (FYI, very few people use the parser at all. Most people who use chartget -- which is in the dozens at most -- just save the charts for later reference.)

Here is another little something from the Equibase terms of use:

(b) This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the parties hereto.

That means that the agreement doesn't contain any hidden amendments that only VetScratch knows about. There is nothing in the published terms of service that a user of my programs is violating. If they are telling you something different now that isn't in there, maybe it is because they know that position would be legally untenable, and they simply are trying to discourage you. Which is not surprising, and it is the same reason I contacted them in the first place, as I didn't want to ruffle any feathers. But if they're going to say something different every time you ask them, and none of it is actually published anywhere on the site, then I'll stick with the written agreement that is published on the site. (Also, as I've mentioned, there is more than one commercial piece of handicapping software that automatically updates itself via Equibase free result charts. Don't you think Equibase knows about those?)



And to end this episode, I would just like to point out that this is supposed to be a thread about rebates, and when I accused you of dodging a question (about rebates), you accused me of encourging stealing! No dodge there! You're unbelievable. Is it so hard to confront a possible hole in your argument that you have to stoop so low as to make egregious character attacks? (And we haven't even discussed the 3 or 4 other misrepresentations you made about me in the same post.)

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how rebates cause cheating...

[Anyone wanting to continue the other discussion can email me or PM me.]

Show Me the Wire
01-21-2004, 02:23 PM
VS:

Sometimes are cups are too full to contain more. If the cup is emptied more can be added. So I respectfully ask for this discussion you make room in your cup.

If someone creates an item that specific someone is afforded protection from another taking credit or profiting from the creation. Copyrights protect the creator from usurpation of the created work.

The fact against the result chart owner having copyright over facts and data contained in the chart is the chart maker does not create the facts and data. The reported facts and data are created through an independent competitive race. The chart maker creates a report of this independent event.

For illustrative purposes it may be beneficial to compare reporting of other independent sporting events to racing. Let’s suppose two competing newspapers send reporters to cover a sporting event, a football game. Both reporters write a column stating the final result; the big plays, the score by quarter, etc. Both reporters copyright their stories and specifically mention the Philadelphia Eagles were facing a 4th down and 26 to keep their winning drive alive. Which reporter violated copyrights?

The answer neither, what is copyrighted is the presentation of the facts and data, not the data itself.

Reporting race results and any data created through an independent race is the same scenario. The facts, i.e. the type of race, the purse, the participants, etc are not created by the chart caller, it is a mere recital of the conditions of the race which was created by a racing secretary. As you know the racing secretary disseminates this information freely because he wants people to wager on the race. The racing secretary does not specifically create this information for the chart creator so the chart creator cannot claim any proprietary interests or copyright on information created by another person, i.e. a racing secretary.

Additionally, the chart creator does not create the data resulting from the competition. The data is created by the competition, i.e. the stages of the race and merely reported by the chart creator. Further, the chart creator does not have any ownership interest in the participants, the only interest the chart creator has, at the live event, is being a spectator like the sports reporters.

The chart owner creates a specific way of presenting facts and data resulting from the sporting event. This presentation or format is protected through copyright, like a newspaper sports column, and not the data contained in the presentation.

I hope the above is beneficial.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

GameTheory
01-21-2004, 02:47 PM
SMTW --

All of that is true, but I believe that they CAN claim some restrictions over the data itself -- specifically you can't redistribute it. In other words, the labor they expended in collecting the data is also protected. To use your football example, reporter #2 would be violating copyright if he got all his facts by reading the article written by reporter #1 (if reporter #2 intends to publish his article). This restriction comes up most often when people write books on history. If one researcher spends a lot of time uncovering facts previously unknown, then a second author is not allowed to come along and simply restate the facts in his own book without doing any additional research and citing his own sources (he is usually required to show he did some interviews himelf). So you have to have a semi-direct connection to the acquistion of the facts.

But again, all this comes down to redistribution to a 3rd party. But for your personal use, just as the newspaper can't tell you that you are not allowed to collect game scores each day from their newspaper and put them in a spreadsheet to do football handicapping, Equibase can't tell you that you are disallowed from loading the charts into Excel to do horse handicapping. And since Equibase is now the "official" data-collector for the industry, they may actually be contractually required to make the data available in some form for free. (Don't know the specific agreement there.)

Show Me the Wire
01-21-2004, 03:04 PM
"All of that is true, but I believe that they CAN claim some restrictions over the data itself -- specifically you can't redistribute it. In other words, the labor they expended in collecting the data is also protected. "

No, they cannot. The data is not created by them. You can only copyright what you create. If a newspaper writer gets his facts from another column, it goes to his work ethics, moral fiber and credibility. but it is not a copyright violation unless he phrased his work like the original authors.

Research is a different matter. By research you are creating, but reporting of facts is just reporting and reportable underlying facts are not copyrighted.

Any how it is not a big deal and as far as I am concerned.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

GameTheory
01-21-2004, 03:10 PM
Well, they do make that claim (Equibase prohibits you from redistributing the data as well as copying the form it is in). So I guess the debate is whether it is valid. I do know this mainly comes up with history books and math textbooks (things like square root tables in math books have intentional errors so that one publisher can sue another if they find the same error in a competing textbook), but maybe it doesn't apply to sports reporting...

Show Me the Wire
01-21-2004, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by GameTheory
Well, they do make that claim (Equibase prohibits you from redistributing the data as well as copying the form it is in). So I guess the debate is whether it is valid. I do know this mainly comes up with history books and math textbooks (things like square root tables in math books have intentional errors so that one publisher can sue another if they find the same error in a competing textbook), but maybe it doesn't apply to sports reporting...

GT:

I know I said it was not that big of a deal to me, but I would like to clarify a point. The part of reproducing the format (form it is in) is the copyright. The way they try to prevent you from redistributing reportable facts is through voluntary agreement, not copyright.

In other words, they are trying to make a contract with you in that you agree in return for using their chart you agree not to redistribute the underlyng non-copyrighted data.

I hope this clarifies the base issues of redistribution and copyright and puts this issue to bed (pun intended).

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

InsideThePylons-MW
01-21-2004, 04:54 PM
A useful thread with valuable information in it about rebates turned into a debate over $10 a month chart copyright violations.

Dave K,

This is the exact reason why rebate shops are not a issue to the regular player.

PaceAdvantage
01-21-2004, 05:17 PM
Good point...I'm closing this thread in a little while...get your last words in now while you can....

Shacopate
01-21-2004, 05:33 PM
Where can I get CHARTGET?

Shacopate
01-21-2004, 05:39 PM
thanks GT, got it.

GameTheory
01-21-2004, 05:40 PM
I'm deciding where I'm gonna wager. With one service, I get the standard takeout; with another, I get a rebate. So I go with the rebate. Apparently, that makes me more likely to cheat.

To me, the above logic does not follow. I wanted it explained so I could understand it. That's all I wanted to know...

VetScratch
01-21-2004, 07:07 PM
SMTW,

Why all this fuss? EquiBase clearly stated their usage restrictions, and I find it hard to believe no one thought to ask EquiBase before proceeding. Why didn't anyone ask?

From Shelby Cook (scook@equibase.com), Online Services Coordinator, up through the ranks at Equibase, when someone complies with the printed stipulation to ask for permission, EquiBase denies such permission and says they will even block access by folks using programs to get, scan, and extract free chart data.

Why did anyone who read Equibase's restrictions printed on every page of free charts fail to realize that their intent was to protect the other marketing channels for data?

You folks are too smart not to understand this issue and fully appreciate why EquiBase protects other marketing channels that charge for chart data files. Why would resellers contract with EquiBase if the commercial value of the data was not protected by EquiBase?

Game Theory's glib arguments on this issue should annoy folks unless he is merely a very casual hobbyist... because guidelines for software developers abound in hardcopy and on the Internet. I don't know any professional software developers who would be able to plead ignorance on this issue. Some folks may believe Game's indignation in this thread, but I am not ready to buy it unless he simply acknowledges that he really didn't know any better.

Steve 'StatMan'
01-21-2004, 08:09 PM
Most of us are in this as a hobby and for our own pursuits. I'm not aware of anyone reselling the data.

Vet, I used to enjoy some of your posts, it sure seems to me that you're just turning nasty on a bunch of hobbists. These aren't data resellers.

I don't know if you're mad at people's politics or what. I may not agree with all your political arguments, but I'm not going to ask questions that would bring in the snoop police on anyone.

What are you thinking?:eek:

Steve 'StatMan'
01-21-2004, 08:10 PM
What you're doing IS THE FUSS!

Steve 'StatMan'
01-21-2004, 08:24 PM
Did you have permission to use the Xena image? I don't care if you do or don't. Did you manipulate it in any way? Doesn't matter to me.