Payoff was low

[sharkey11]

hence the NY tracks have an avg. win above 6-1 evidence that the CAW s are not in the win pool ect . and are one of the few above 6-1 avg.i never have bet those tracks very much but i will be in the future . the avg. win prices are from the at a glance from bris .

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

The problem for them is other bettors would absolutely follow the money, and not just in the win pools. Without the cutoff, nobody can follow them.

That would be one adjustment they'd potentially have to make to their margin of safety if it started happening.

For me, it would work the other way around.

If I liked #1 at 3-1 but he was only 5/2, then at 2 minutes they came in and pounded the #2 down and drove the #1 up to 7/2, I'd have a bet, where before I wouldn't have the time. They would be fine with that because the new money would be going away from them.

Of course, if he was 7/2 and they pounded him to 5/2 with 2 minutes left, now I would know not to bet.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

That would be one adjustment they'd potentially have to make to their margin of safety if it started happening.

For me, it would work the other way around.

If I liked #1 at 3-1 but he was only 5/2, then at 2 minutes they came in and pounded the #2 down and drove the #1 up to 7/2, I'd have a bet, where before I wouldn't have the time. They would be fine with that because the new money would be going away from them.

Of course, if he was 7/2 and they pounded him to 5/2 with 2 minutes left, now I would know not to bet.

I'm not sure assuming the smartest money in the pool is giving you value on another horse would work out very well. In spots, sure, but you better have a good reason to think they are wrong.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

I'm not sure assuming the smartest money in the pool is giving you value on another horse would work out very well. In spots, sure, but you better have a good reason to think they are wrong.

I hear you. I usually don't bet unless I have a reason to think I know why the board is wrong. When I disagree with the board and don't understand why, I typically assume my figures are wrong or that clockers/insiders know something about a change in a horse's condition that I don't know etc... I'm more cautious.

[o_crunk]

Decided to take a closer look at this.

There have been 2,579 races at NYRA since the 2 min cutoff was instituted. This comprises races from 7/28/21 through today.

7.77 avg field size
35.94% fav strike
$1.69 fav ROI
$8.40 median win payoff
$12.52 avg win payoff
$41.60 median exacta payoff ($2)
$76.89 avg exacta payoff ($2)
$188.00 median tri payoff ($2)
$477.86 avg tri payoff ($2)

If we look at the trailing 2,579 races at NYRA *before* this 2 min cutoff was instituted, this would comprise races from 12/28/19 through 7/27/21.

7.72 avg field size
35.90% fav strike
$1.69 fav ROI
$7.90 median win payoff
$11.95 avg win payoff
$38.40 median exacta payoff ($2)
$74.33 avg exacta payoff ($2)
$177.00 median tri payoff ($2)
$460.72 avg tri payoff ($2)

Since the cutoff:
median win payoff increased 6.32%
avg win payoff increased 4.70%
median exacta payoff increased 8.33%
avg exacta payoff increased 3.44%
median tri payoff increased 6.21%
avg tri payoff increased 3.72%

Comparing the 2 periods, handle overall at NYRA increased 13.4% (+$402M).

The wps pools increased 7.34% (+$68.4M)
The exacta pool increased 18.95% (+$123.4M)
The tri pool increased 15.23% (+$54.97M)

I don't know how people can look at these numbers with a straight face and say some of the things being said in this thread.

[classhandicapper]

That looks more like a change in payoffs from one period to the next that had little to do with the cutoff change since both WIN and EXOTICS changed similarly in the same direction. It's still an advantage for players like me to see fewer late odds changes.

They are either still in the WIN pool to some degree or maybe their betting is not quite as efficient as we thought.

It would be nice to know if their bets are tagged in some way that would allow someone to publish the exact numbers in each pool, their aggregate ROI etc..

[o_crunk]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It would be nice to know if their bets are tagged in some way that would allow someone to publish the exact numbers in each pool, their aggregate ROI etc..

NYRA or any track could publish this but I suspect that it would be too much of a shocker for the general public to stomach.

Having looked at this for other tracks, their WPS ROI is lower for WPS than it is for the other intra-race exotics, though marginally so. Volume is volume though, so ROI will suffer from simply the size of the outlay versus the return of the straight pools. Their ROI for WPS barely breaks 90 cents on the dollar where as some of the other intra-race exotics come back in the 95 cents on the dollar range.

The teams are significantly better now at the inter-race exotics than they were before, even five years ago. And they are substantially better than the public in this regard.

The ironic thing is they probably get a better rebate in the exotic pools than the WPS pools and this is where the public is at a disadvantage, even more so in the jackpot pools where they are simply getting creamed compared to the teams.

My opinion would be for tracks to look more at rebate equilibrium than to deal with cutoffs. The teams are just better than the non-team public. Having cutoffs isn't going to change much for them and while everybody seems happy with the perception that there aren't as many late odds shifts....it's just one pool and as the data has shown, not much has actually changed. The general public is not getting the full picture on the true odds of horses across all pools like the teams can do.

As an aside, my belief is their most valuable asset is not so much the handicapping aspect. Everybody and their mother can come up with reasonably accurate pricing from just the handicapping data. It's not that hard a task. The hard thing is spitting out the bets in relation to the public and computing it all as all the pools come to a close. Basically there's 2 types of data - the data about the horses (handicapping) and the data about the betting (tote). By far the biggest upside for teams is dealing with the betting data - the general public is very poor at understanding it and the teams can deploy much more robust and speedy calculations than Joe Blow can. The handicapping data is not as important as many think. Having good handicapping data is like a quarter of the battle.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by o_crunk

Decided to take a closer look at this.

There have been 2,579 races at NYRA since the 2 min cutoff was instituted. This comprises races from 7/28/21 through today.

7.77 avg field size
35.94% fav strike
$1.69 fav ROI
$8.40 median win payoff
$12.52 avg win payoff
$41.60 median exacta payoff ($2)
$76.89 avg exacta payoff ($2)
$188.00 median tri payoff ($2)
$477.86 avg tri payoff ($2)

If we look at the trailing 2,579 races at NYRA *before* this 2 min cutoff was instituted, this would comprise races from 12/28/19 through 7/27/21.

7.72 avg field size
35.90% fav strike
$1.69 fav ROI
$7.90 median win payoff
$11.95 avg win payoff
$38.40 median exacta payoff ($2)
$74.33 avg exacta payoff ($2)
$177.00 median tri payoff ($2)
$460.72 avg tri payoff ($2)

Since the cutoff:
median win payoff increased 6.32%
avg win payoff increased 4.70%
median exacta payoff increased 8.33%
avg exacta payoff increased 3.44%
median tri payoff increased 6.21%
avg tri payoff increased 3.72%

Comparing the 2 periods, handle overall at NYRA increased 13.4% (+$402M).

The wps pools increased 7.34% (+$68.4M)
The exacta pool increased 18.95% (+$123.4M)
The tri pool increased 15.23% (+$54.97M)

I don't know how people can look at these numbers with a straight face and say some of the things being said in this thread.

I have no idea what your last sentence is trying to say but regarding the numbers you posted they look pretty good to me. Since this change was made as long as you were not on the favorite you were paid significantly higher. Moreover you concurred that teams were not in the win pool in a significant fashion which opens up at least the possibility that a non rebated player can actually find value once in a while. This is hardly going to save racing but it is better for the recreational bettor than what we had before. I guess your assumption that is that since exacta and trifecta payoffs went up similar amounts to win payouts that the increase in win payouts are irrelevant. I do no see it that way at all. There are a huge number of variables involved.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by o_crunk

As an aside, my belief is their most valuable asset is not so much the handicapping aspect. Everybody and their mother can come up with reasonably accurate pricing from just the handicapping data. It's not that hard a task. The hard thing is spitting out the bets in relation to the public and computing it all as all the pools come to a close. Basically there's 2 types of data - the data about the horses (handicapping) and the data about the betting (tote). By far the biggest upside for teams is dealing with the betting data - the general public is very poor at understanding it and the teams can deploy much more robust and speedy calculations than Joe Blow can. The handicapping data is not as important as many think. Having good handicapping data is like a quarter of the battle.

You are probably right.

When I was at DRF, I was brought in on a meeting with some Ivy League statistics/computer experts. These guys said they built an automated self learning model that was beating the horses consistently around the country. They didn't want to give up that model, but they thought DRF could use aspects of it to create metrics from the betting pattern data that could then be used to help with marketing DRFBets to improve handle and market share. That's what they were trying to sell. I asked a LOT of questions. From what I could gather, they were mostly monitoring pool data and betting patterns. Their own handicapping knowledge was not what I would call extensive even though it was part of the model.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by cj

I'm not sure assuming the smartest money in the pool is giving you value on another horse would work out very well. In spots, sure, but you better have a good reason to think they are wrong.

If an obvious contender (meaning Fav or near-fav odds) is on my 'Bet' radar, as long as the horse isn't crushed down to ridiculous underlay territory, then I actually see 'Cold' board action as a negative model rather than an overlay opportunity.

I'd rather decide whether a ~2/1 horse is a bettable 8/5 fair-overlay in advance. ~2/1? fine. >8/5? fine. If he's cold in will-pays and/or goes up to 3/1-7/2 while another contender is taking money, then I just realized that I don't understand the race or the market here.

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I hear you. I usually don't bet unless I have a reason to think I know why the board is wrong. When I disagree with the board and don't understand why, I typically assume my figures are wrong or that clockers/insiders know something about a change in a horse's condition that I don't know etc... I'm more cautious.

I agree.
When I come up with a long-shot or a vulnerable favorite to bet, these are contrarian type of plays. I have an opinion on something that is not obvious. The money may not get it right. This is kind of an opposite case as what I just replied to CJ.
Here, I do not want the market to significantly agree with me. If my ml:2/1 false favorite is cold on the board and no longer a favorite it's just a 'Pass' for me.