Yuvetsi 8th Santa Anita

[fiznow]

Originally Posted by cj

It has been pointed out on this board that the will pays from other bets (DDs, P3s, P4s) give you a decent guess as to which way the odds are going to go. It certainly isn't ideal but it beats leaving it to chance.

Thank you cj

[fiznow]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

Agree. Good post by Parson

I agree too, very good reading.

[Ian Meyers]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

ARROGANT? The guy comes here, by request, and tells it like he knows it, like he's worked it, and like he's lived it...has used his real name in posting here...and we still have people DOUBTING and QUESTIONING and basically calling him a LIAR (none of them using their real names by the way).

I'd be "arrogant" too...but I wouldn't use the word arrogant. I'd use something a lot stronger.

No worries PA. Thanks for the support.

1) BCBC, it wasn't me that talked about the collusion. You're obviously thinking of someone else. I was happy I did as well as I did; I don't typically play tournaments. Truth is, I had zero interest in playing in the NHC. Prize money? I finished 17th. 15th was worth $10k. Wasn't going to change my life.

2) re arrogance. I can give you a sample of the usual exchange either online, in person, etc.

Them: I hear there's past posting at GP. I know you understand how the tote works. Do you think that happens with regularity?

Me: No, there are times when a track's pools remain open for a specific race after the gates open. Doesn't happen too often and it's not deliberate.

Them: Bullshit, my friend's cousin's nephew told me he knows a guy at XYZ Downs that bets GP after the bell all the time. He's making like 50% on his bets.



I use to have a boss when I worked in Cleveland..A good guy in many ways but we'd always say he'd never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

People ask for any insights I might have on a specific topic. I give it. When it doesn't match what they (typically) WANT to be true (see Thaskalos '30 PHDs couldn't even agree where to order lunch') they take shots.

I've got thick skin but what's the point of asking someone that might have more insight than you a question and then pissing on him when you don't hear what you want to hear. It's why I will answer guys likes PA, CJ, Andy, O-Crunk, ITP, Pullthepocket, Charlie Davis, etc both here and on Twitter when they ask something but usually won't get involved in discussions with people I don't know.

BTW, I ask those aforementioned guys stuff all the time, respect the time they take to answer my question, and don't piss on them if it's not what I want to hear.

[green80]

Originally Posted by Ian Meyers

No worries PA. Thanks for the support.

1) BCBC, it wasn't me that talked about the collusion. You're obviously thinking of someone else. I was happy I did as well as I did; I don't typically play tournaments. Truth is, I had zero interest in playing in the NHC. Prize money? I finished 17th. 15th was worth $10k. Wasn't going to change my life.

2) re arrogance. I can give you a sample of the usual exchange either online, in person, etc.

Them: I hear there's past posting at GP. I know you understand how the tote works. Do you think that happens with regularity?

Me: No, there are times when a track's pools remain open for a specific race after the gates open. Doesn't happen too often and it's not deliberate.

Them: Bullshit, my friend's cousin's nephew told me he knows a guy at XYZ Downs that bets GP after the bell all the time. He's making like 50% on his bets.



I use to have a boss when I worked in Cleveland..A good guy in many ways but we'd always say he'd never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

People ask for any insights I might have on a specific topic. I give it. When it doesn't match what they (typically) WANT to be true (see Thaskalos '30 PHDs couldn't even agree where to order lunch') they take shots.

I've got thick skin but what's the point of asking someone that might have more insight than you a question and then pissing on him when you don't hear what you want to hear. It's why I will answer guys likes PA, CJ, Andy, O-Crunk, ITP, Pullthepocket, Charlie Davis, etc both here and on Twitter when they ask something but usually won't get involved in discussions with people I don't know.

BTW, I ask those aforementioned guys stuff all the time, respect the time they take to answer my question, and don't piss on them if it's not what I want to hear.

on this forum, after you read a few comments you can usually tell how much a guy knows.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by green80

on this forum, after you read a few comments you can usually tell how much a guy knows.

I dont know that much, but I thought I knew alot about gambling on this sport.

Now I know better. kinda sad. Imagine the new player, what he is up against.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by Ian Meyers

No worries PA. Thanks for the support.

1) BCBC, it wasn't me that talked about the collusion. You're obviously thinking of someone else. I was happy I did as well as I did; I don't typically play tournaments. Truth is, I had zero interest in playing in the NHC. Prize money? I finished 17th. 15th was worth $10k. Wasn't going to change my life.

2) re arrogance. I can give you a sample of the usual exchange either online, in person, etc.

Them: I hear there's past posting at GP. I know you understand how the tote works. Do you think that happens with regularity?

Me: No, there are times when a track's pools remain open for a specific race after the gates open. Doesn't happen too often and it's not deliberate.

Them: Bullshit, my friend's cousin's nephew told me he knows a guy at XYZ Downs that bets GP after the bell all the time. He's making like 50% on his bets.



I use to have a boss when I worked in Cleveland..A good guy in many ways but we'd always say he'd never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

People ask for any insights I might have on a specific topic. I give it. When it doesn't match what they (typically) WANT to be true (see Thaskalos '30 PHDs couldn't even agree where to order lunch') they take shots.

I've got thick skin but what's the point of asking someone that might have more insight than you a question and then pissing on him when you don't hear what you want to hear. It's why I will answer guys likes PA, CJ, Andy, O-Crunk, ITP, Pullthepocket, Charlie Davis, etc both here and on Twitter when they ask something but usually won't get involved in discussions with people I don't know.

BTW, I ask those aforementioned guys stuff all the time, respect the time they take to answer my question, and don't piss on them if it's not what I want to hear.

Usually the most knowledgeable, and/or plugged-in-to-the-industry-guys that come through here get tired of the scene pretty quick. It's a shame, but there are a number of posters in this forum that have decided why they have the results they have, and nothing is going to get them off that spot. It's really their own problem, but it does make guys like you disappear pretty quick. That's a bigger shame. Again, thanks for coming through. Real educational.

[cj]

That was some drop on For Honor in the finale at Aqueduct today.

[gabe]

I bet the #4 in the last race at SANTA ANITA and he was 7-1 one minute before post. Horse ends up at 9/2...

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by gabe

I bet the #4 in the last race at SANTA ANITA and he was 7-1 one minute before post. Horse ends up at 9/2...

A gift from the Gods!

[Tom]

Nothing to see here.
What could possibly be a problem?

The people to time races and measure distances are monitoring this whole thing.

[bks]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Screw parity and screw the newbie. There's nothing stopping a newbie from going to the track, picking up a program, and doping out a winner just like everyone else.

This game is about finding a long term EDGE. From the player's perspective, it has always been that way and always WILL be that way.

Listing things that are clearly ILLEGAL and trying to equate them to betting activity and handicapping edges that are clearly NOT illegal is the height of ignorance.

Maybe we should go back to horse and buggies too so the Amish are on equal ground to the rest of the country? Those poor newbies...

This might be the dumbest post you've ever made, and that's saying something.

Every newbie at the track I've ever known (including me), went in there thinking that exact same thing...when we won, we thought "WOW, how long has THIS been going on."

Then we got our clocks cleaned (and wow, there WEREN'T ANY REBATES BACK THEN, OR COMPUTER ROBOTIC WAGERING, or whatever the latest complaint is).

When you get your clock cleaned as a newbie, that's the crossroads. You either leave the game, or you become an even bigger fan and set out to IMPROVE YOUR GAME, because UNLIKE THE LOTTERY, you CAN IMPROVE YOUR GAME.

Thank me very much.

Let's be clear what Mike's "IMPROVE YOUR GAME" means in actual practice: it means "become more robotic yourself," w/r/t your betting. It cannot mean anything else, because if you're a human making bets at a large enough scale, your leaks will eventually be exploited by the data analytics companies deploy to do just that. You won't even know it.

And those programs you devise to bet for you: they'll have patterned behaviors too. Those patterns will be picked up on by the ADWs that have the data collection capacity and analytics to pick through them. If it's not happening already, soon you'll be individually targeted by the ADWs in an effort to increase your handle based on those patterns (and when those patterns change, they'll be already searching for your new ones and be better at finding them than you are about yourself). It's an arms race. Not only are you competing with other bettors armed with their own precision softwares, you're trying to outwit the ADWs that want to learn as much about you as they can.

If that's your game, more power to you.

[Denny]

Just spent the last couple of hours reading this entire thread from the beginning. I'm up to page #11 and stopped to make this comment.

THREE CHEERS for:

Andy Asaro
Thaskalos
Poindexter
cj

In no particular order. Add a few more that i can't remember the names of right now.

THREE BOOS for:

Pace Advantage and his horrible attitude of "Adapt or Die" and "screw" the horseplayer.

Back to page 11.

[Denny]

Thanks to the industry insider Ian for his posts, as disturbing as they are to me.

Have no desire to become a robotic batch bettor.

I'm just a regular guy that plays for fun and the challenge.

If that disappears, I'm gone too.

10% takeout for all. People would come out from everywhere to play this fascinating game and it could be alive again.

No rebates.

To hell with the bots and their advocates.

Go back to Wall Street you crooks. You know who you are.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

I am talking about normal, small scale gamblers. Guys that start with a $10,000 Poker Bankrolll and sports betting bankroll and try and grow a roll. Let me refresh your memory in case you miss Ian's post.

As posted by Ian:

3. CAW teams sink millions of dollars into developing their models and will labor for YEARS spending money collecting and analyzing data before they make even one bet. I’m not going to call out anyone specifically but there are guys on this board and others like it (including Twitter) that bitch if they have to pay for PPs and you believe that you’re going to be on a level playing field with guys that spend $50,000+ a year on back data? Last year alone I made $75,000 of data purchases on behalf of U.S. & International CAW clients.

4. I’m not trying to sound harsh; the guys that make up CAW teams are a lot smarter than you are. They’re a lot smarter than I am too and I’m a well-educated guy. These guys are rocket scientists, literally. One guy I know on a start-up team I’m working with has a dual PHD in Nuclear Physics and Aeronautical Engineering. Don’t you think that is some kind of advantage when you’re working with numerical data? Dave Schwartz is a brilliant guy, smarter than I am and has worked with teams in the past. I know he can attest to how hard this is.


This job opportunity is not exactly open to everyone. Huge startup costs, huge educational requirements and technical knowledge. These are teams of
very smart people and then you have to have a huge betting bankroll on top of that.

I am not saying that guys like Ultracapper cannot raise themsleves to be huge profit makers in this game. Of course they can. I believe poster Bacornswitchfarm did so himself. Of course it can be done. But when other
winning gamblers (poker players, dfs players, sports bettors,....) look at this game and look at the other games, most of them are choosing the other games and are doing so for a very good reason. Also even though a few can rise up in todays game, for the masses it is going to be the same old song year after year, -20 to -30% before breakage. When they can lose a fraction of that playing other games, I wonder where there gambling dollar ends up?

How do you play alongside these teams and win? Do I call Ian and say I want to become an investor or would like a daily ridealong. Maybe they will program my laptop to make 1000 bets in a 1/4 of a second? Moreover if they are getting 18% rebates and I am getting a 7% rebate in a trifecta, they win and I lose. I don't want to follow them anyways, I want to bet against them. But I can't even do that in today's game because I don't who the heck they bet until the far turn.

I get it, your mantra is adapt or die. That Mantra would apply just as well if they eliminated rebates and lowered takeout to the propler levels. But in todays game too many are dying and too few adapting and the result is the game will not sustain long term. In the game I propose that would not be the case. That is the difference.

Take the RED out of this sentence, and I don't shy away from this statement at all. I started playing in 1982. My first profitable year was 2008. I've had 3 losing years since.

I fell into the niche I occupy as a player, and the more I learn about the betting environment, the more I understand why I am where I am now. Also, reading CJ's comments about his action, I understand his frustration.

I did a number of payoff studies in the early 2000's in SoCal, and found a subset of conditions that not only paid higher average win returns, but a higher mean, so I dedicated my game to those conditions. They just happen to be the conditions that would seem to me, by what I've learned about the bot-teams, the conditions that their feeding system would have the least effect, whereas I believe CJ is playing in an environment where he is dramatically effected by the bot-team's action. CJ plays Stakes, allowances and MSW that he feels have promising impact on future stake races. He bets the better maidens, for a lack of a better way to put it. These are all high-handle races, and provide these bot-teams their best opportunity to effect the tote in almost every pool. It would seem to me that the very best feeding ground for these teams would be the higher handle races.

I did my price studies when, it seems to me, the CRW infiltration of the pools was really gaining ground and becoming more prominent, meet to meet. It really was a perfect storm for me to ride, and purely luck on my part. Entirely lucky as the timing would have it. I play the lower handle races at the higher handle tracks, and I think the success that followed can be attributed to that subset of conditions I fell into. I know they are in the pools I'm playing. But I'm only in the win and place pool, and on very long shots, I will venture into the show pool. Castaway noted earlier in this thread that a lot of the bot-teams "suckage" is carried out in the exotic pools, pools I haven't really had any serious involvement in for a decade. In the races I handicap, I would say the favorites are underlaid close to 75% of time, and the second choice, easily more than 50% of the time. The half of the field that is the longer shots, are usually overlaid, sometimes as much as 25%. They hammer these "cheaper" races, where the discrepancy between the top 2 or 3 horses and the bottom 3 or 4 horses is very pronounced, and they overplay the shorter horses. Since 2008, the average winning pay in my subset of races has risen close to 10%, while the mean has pretty much stayed put. From what I'm understanding, it would seem to me it's the bot-teams that are causing this effect. I don't see any other reason. Their models just don't seem to weigh accurately the bottom half of these fields, and I think it's because the top half looks so strong in comparison in many cases.

The beauty of this sport, not the gambling, I mean the sport, horse racing, is in watching the top athletes compete, so it's very understandable why CJ and others like him, concentrate on those particular conditions. But they are the marquis races and conditions at every track, and attract the most action and highest handle, which is the best feeding ground for these bot operations, IMHO. It sucks that this is the case, but these teams are just looking at the $s, and those are the races and pools they must design their models on because that is where the big bucks are.

[cj]

Just so I'm clear, I'm actually doing quite well sticking to those kinds of races. It is the claimers and maiden claimers and starters and stuff like that which I'm avoiding.