CRW Impact On Display in Gotham Stakes, NYRA Policy Leads Sport

[affirmedny]

https://racingthinktank.com/blog/crw...-gotham-stakes



In approximately the last 30 seconds of Gotham Stakes betting, less than 42% of the final exacta pool is wagered while only about 17% of the final win pool was staked.

During this same period, the win odds on eventual race winner, #12 Raise Cain, drifted higher from 21.5-1 to 23.5-1. In the same time frame, the eventual winning $1 exacta combination of Raise Cain with #11 Slip Mahoney crashed from $138.75 to $81.25, a 43% decline in the probable payout.

While just 9.7% of the successful win bets were placed in these final four cycles, almost 66% of the winning exacta bets were placed in those last seconds.

[classhandicapper]

This looks like an example of the computers seeing a significant overlay on the winner, but they were locked out of the WIN pool at that point. So a ton of money flowed onto the horse in the verticals. Had they not been locked out, it's possible (maybe probable) the winner would have gotten knocked down to 10-1 or 15-1 (give or take) in the Win pool.

The value was in the Win pool.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

This looks like an example of the computers seeing a significant overlay on the winner, but they were locked out of the WIN pool at that point. So a ton of money flowed onto the horse in the verticals. Had they not been locked out, it's possible (maybe probable) the winner would have gotten knocked down to 10-1 or 15-1 (give or take) in the Win pool.

The value was in the Win pool.

those computers sure are great

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

This looks like an example of the computers seeing a significant overlay on the winner, but they were locked out of the WIN pool at that point. So a ton of money flowed onto the horse in the verticals. Had they not been locked out, it's possible (maybe probable) the winner would have gotten knocked down to 10-1 or 15-1 (give or take) in the Win pool.

The value was in the Win pool.

That is where I'll be sticking from now on, because frankly I'm tired of this shit. I honestly thought I was making a huge score in the trifecta after the race here, but it turns out I'm better off just betting win. I still did well in that pool but the whole thing is becoming a bad joke. I also had the winner of the Kilroe, a horse that was 20+ to 1 in the gate and got 10-1 at the wire.

When you can have a very profitable day and still be mad at the end of the day, something isn't right in this sport.

Twitter

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by cj

That is where I'll be sticking from now on, because frankly I'm tired of this shit. I honestly thought I was making a huge score in the trifecta after the race here, but it turns out I'm better off just betting win. I still did well in that pool but the whole thing is becoming a bad joke. I also had the winner of the Kilroe, a horse that was 20+ to 1 in the gate and got 10-1 at the wire.

When you can have a very profitable day and still be mad at the end of the day, something isn't right in this sport.

https://twitter.com/TimeformUSfigs/s...35704770670592

nice picking, and i do feel bad for you, but honestly check out Gulfstream, its much worse and they are in every pool in that place.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

When you can have a very profitable day and still be mad at the end of the day, something isn't right in this sport.

I blew the Gotham and had a bad day, but I'm blaming it on Patty. It was her birthday and she wanted attention, dinner and all that crap. After all these years you'd think she'd be so sick of me she'd want me to lock myself in my office and concentrate on horses.

Seriously, I'm not sure what to do strategically.

I try to make most of my plays on horses and situations I think will be overlooked, glance at the board and exotics, make the play if the price looks reasonable, and hope I was right that it's not going to get crushed late. Some get bet hard, but what choice do I have.

If I was making precise odds lines and horses I bet were dropping below my price all the time, I'd be fuming.

(nice handicapping by you, TLG, and my DRF buddy Kenny Peck in that race)

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by cj

That is where I'll be sticking from now on, because frankly I'm tired of this shit. I honestly thought I was making a huge score in the trifecta after the race here, but it turns out I'm better off just betting win. I still did well in that pool but the whole thing is becoming a bad joke. I also had the winner of the Kilroe, a horse that was 20+ to 1 in the gate and got 10-1 at the wire.

When you can have a very profitable day and still be mad at the end of the day, something isn't right in this sport.

https://twitter.com/TimeformUSfigs/s...35704770670592

The outcry posts of low/hyper-efficient exactas and tris for NY racing that I give consideration to all have two factors. 1) the lack of CRW in the win pool,
and 2) a short priced contender or two that takes less action late in the exacta pool.

This one had both. (the 11 slip mahoney was bet as much or more late, than 13 eyeing clover in some probables)

Most of them don't feature #2 and mostly come down to the whiners not reading the will pays or handicapping comprehensively.

some of them (and I can't say it's definitely more than the expected share) take less money as well as underperform.

#2 is the place where inside-information reveals as being used.

Then, along with other patterns ( 'underperformance', and it's interpretation is important here), I question whether the inside-information is always being uprightly handicapped (paid for by syndicates to handicapping and horseracing experts) as opposed to being 'created'.

In this case, Eyeing Clover did NOT 'underperform', and was known to be a bit of a patsy or at least should have been a known underlay to above average players.
If Eyeing Clover was a little 'cold' in late money CRW exacta matrices, it didn't raise any flags for me, due to things like race shape being clearly on the table.

It's a nice pick by you, CJ. And fair to be disappointed at some of the payouts.

[Robert Fischer]

Some good handicapping by several leading names CJ included.

I speed-watched "Talkng Horses" Gotham day. Had a bit of a personal meltdown with spouse and car issues having a flat tire replaced most of the day after a cold and stressful blowout incurred the night before.

Arrived at Laurel 15 minutes before the race (those are my excuses ) essentially had the 4thplace Clover and winner Cain reversed, and not redundant in what was a close, yet relatively dumb ~$13 worth of dime superfecta coverage loser.

IIRC (about 80% trust my memory) TLG had the winner as his top selection, and also 100% sure that TLG clearly spelled-out how the pace played into the banker horse General?Banker who perhaps not a win play, figured about 25/1 in the win pool but did have a nice chance at third or fourth w/out having to do unusual running.
exacta tri being 'too low' or not, the dime still paid I think about $600, and it was an 'easy' dime that leveraged more than one opinion(s) for a good handicapper who happened to be organized, prepared, and focused. Such a player should have had the ticket for more than a dime given both Slip Mahoney or whatever the name of the place cox horse 2ND, AND General Banker 3rd.
That's if you didn't think much of Cain winner horse; other than that he was a closer with some upside and relatively high odds.

Probably at least a dollar if you felt as positive about the winner as TLG.

those opportunities happen every day, and in racing it all evens out, so I'm not frustrated.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by cj

That is where I'll be sticking from now on, because frankly I'm tired of this shit. I honestly thought I was making a huge score in the trifecta after the race here, but it turns out I'm better off just betting win. I still did well in that pool but the whole thing is becoming a bad joke. I also had the winner of the Kilroe, a horse that was 20+ to 1 in the gate and got 10-1 at the wire.

When you can have a very profitable day and still be mad at the end of the day, something isn't right in this sport.

https://twitter.com/TimeformUSfigs/s...35704770670592

Seems to me like a contradiction....but maybe it just doesn't matter anyway....

[o_crunk]

So the questions are....

Is it better to cut CRW off at 2 minutes and have these situations where there is *more* inefficiency between the WIN (displayed odds) and the place/show/exotics? (I kinda like having more inefficiency as a stand alone player)

Or is it better to not cut CRW off at 2 minutes and have Raise Cain get bet down commensurate with the place / show / exotics?

I mean, the common complaint was that it just "looks bad" to see these odds drops. OK, so we've removed the odds drops. And now, it's something else that's wrong? I get it but the genie is not being put back in the bottle. Everybody wants to go back to 1980 when only a select few had speed figures and everybody bet at 10 minutes to post and there was 1 daily double a day and maybe an exacta and a tri on the last race. Is this what people want? Only dumb money? It's not gonna happen.

For me, you aren't putting the genie back in the bottle. Let the CRWs run wild. But the rebate remains the issue. If "racing" believed that reduced takeout would be good for business, the CRW rebate would be toast with reduced takeout. But they don't believe that. They believe the takeout doesn't matter except for the very high volume players.

So this is where we are. It seems it would be more complicated for a recreational bettor to play racing now with all these somewhat known or unknown rules about what type of players are involved in which pool and what that means for the other pools. Seems silly to me. Maybe just cut the rebate, reduce the take and give it an honest shot for a couple years to see where the industry is at. Instead we get these cockamamie schemes that aim to appease but wind up making things *way* more complicated than necessary.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by o_crunk

So the questions are....

Is it better to cut CRW off at 2 minutes and have these situations where there is *more* inefficiency between the WIN (displayed odds) and the place/show/exotics? (I kinda like having more inefficiency as a stand alone player)

Or is it better to not cut CRW off at 2 minutes and have Raise Cain get bet down commensurate with the place / show / exotics?

I mean, the common complaint was that it just "looks bad" to see these odds drops. OK, so we've removed the odds drops. And now, it's something else that's wrong? I get it but the genie is not being put back in the bottle. Everybody wants to go back to 1980 when only a select few had speed figures and everybody bet at 10 minutes to post and there was 1 daily double a day and maybe an exacta and a tri on the last race. Is this what people want? Only dumb money? It's not gonna happen.

For me, you aren't putting the genie back in the bottle. Let the CRWs run wild. But the rebate remains the issue. If "racing" believed that reduced takeout would be good for business, the CRW rebate would be toast with reduced takeout. But they don't believe that. They believe the takeout doesn't matter except for the very high volume players.

So this is where we are. It seems it would be more complicated for a recreational bettor to play racing now with all these somewhat known or unknown rules about what type of players are involved in which pool and what that means for the other pools. Seems silly to me. Maybe just cut the rebate, reduce the take and give it an honest shot for a couple years to see where the industry is at. Instead we get these cockamamie schemes that aim to appease but wind up making things *way* more complicated than necessary.

If a track reduced takeout a great deal to where whoever was providing the rebate no longer made money, they'd just drop that track and/or the whales would bet on the tracks that did offer rebates. It would be death for the track that tried it. The only way it would work is if all tracks were run by the same entity and acted at the same time, but they're competitors. Your ideas are great in a fantasyland but the current system is too entrenched to change.

[o_crunk]

Originally Posted by castaway01

If a track reduced takeout a great deal to where whoever was providing the rebate no longer made money, they'd just drop that track and/or the whales would bet on the tracks that did offer rebates. It would be death for the track that tried it. The only way it would work is if all tracks were run by the same entity and acted at the same time, but they're competitors. Your ideas are great in a fantasyland but the current system is too entrenched to change.

Of course it’s fantasy on its current face. But 70% of handle in the US is controlled by 3 entities. Is it that outlandish? I don’t think so. And those big 3, their market share is getting bigger over time. So eventually, I would think the imaginary competition between them evaporates simply from a survival standpoint. Keep in mind, we are talking about rebating being done by the big 3 entities themselves. They are acting together on HISA are they not? Why couldn’t they act together on the betting side? It seems like if consolidation continues, which it will, it will become an eventuality.

At the end of the day, equilibrium is needed between the volume rebating and everybody else. I don’t think cutting off the volume players from X pool at Y time addresses any of the equilibrium questions or makes things “more fair” or whatever.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by o_crunk

...Maybe just cut the rebate, reduce the take and give it an honest shot for a couple years to see where the industry is at.

Agree with you.

Fyi, a few years ago I had a conversation with the head of one of the highest volume teams on the planet.

He told me, and I'm paraphrasing:

We (my team) would be more than ok if our rebates were reduced provided the takeout was reduced proportionately and we ended up with the same net effective takeout on each wager that we have now.

They should create a level playing field and just give EVERYBODY the same net effective takeout as us.

They'd at least have a chance at attracting and keeping new players, and the game would be better off as a result.

He said that with a surprising amount of conviction in his voice.

I've always thought he was right.

But I don't think the idea ever sees the light of day.

They ARE entrenched.


-jp

.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by o_crunk

So the questions are....

Is it better to cut CRW off at 2 minutes and have these situations where there is *more* inefficiency between the WIN (displayed odds) and the place/show/exotics? (I kinda like having more inefficiency as a stand alone player)

Or is it better to not cut CRW off at 2 minutes and have Raise Cain get bet down commensurate with the place / show / exotics?

We are unquestionably way better off with what we have now at NYRA than if the Win odds were also dropping sharply late. Any inefficiency in any pool is a good thing. However, the game remains tough because if you hate some short priced horse and want to key against it, there’s greater leverage in the exotics leaving it out completely. But that’s not true if the race is bet properly in the exacta, trifecta, and super. So we do need something bigger on the rebate/take side.

I don’t see much changing.

The trick may be to focus on intuitive/subjective type things that computers are not that good at. That’s easier said than done when computers are the best way to test most ideas.

[cj]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Seems to me like a contradiction....but maybe it just doesn't matter anyway....

Two different tracks, meant the first part for NYRA.