Late changing odds

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by JerryBoyle

It's pretty clear that I'm pro tech savvy player re my posts on the board. But we constantly get people on here complaining about late odds changes and how it's unfair that larger players get so much down so late...just trying to think of ways that might reduce that percieved inequity. I think you could come up with a threshold that has minimal impact on computer players but makes the "smaller" bettor feel like he's not getting run over.

Do you suppose that someone in the industry cares if the "smaller" bettor is getting run over...or if he complains about it?

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Do you suppose that someone in the industry cares if the "smaller" bettor is getting run over...or if he complains about it?

That's really the root cause of the problem. The perception of the importance of the player gravitated to handle as the sport declined, and the industry lined up with the whales - offering them larger rebates. They didn't stop to think that their actions for short term gains of attracting more handle would eventually squeeze out the casual "smaller" players who turned a profit. And in turn lead to the death spiral we're seeing now.

Is there anyone here who can, with a clean conscience, recommend a young person to get involved with the sport? I think we'll be seeing more and more posts like this as even the devout give it up:

https://www.horseraceinsider.com/mar...nd-my-friends/

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

Is there anyone here who can, with a clean conscience, recommend a young person to get involved with the sport?

Over the last few years, I've introduced two young people to this game. Neither talks to me anymore...and I can't say that I blame them. This game is definitely an acquired taste.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Over the last few years, I've introduced two young people to this game. Neither talks to me anymore...and I can't say that I blame them. This game is definitely an acquired taste.

They stopped talking to you because you "introduced" them to racing?

That's just silly. Come on.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by the little guy

They stopped talking to you because you "introduced" them to racing?

That's just silly. Come on.

All true. Both got into considerable credit card trouble because of their betting "overzealousness"...and they somehow hold me partially responsible for that. I thought about arguing my case with one of them...but finally decided against it. After all...I should have known that I wasn't exactly doing them any favors with my "introduction"...although it was they who were asking for the initiation into the game. This game leaves a lot of casualties, TLG...and the vast majority of the participants end up regretting the experience. No surprise there...IMO.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

All true. Both got into considerable credit card trouble because of their betting "overzealousness"...and they somehow hold me partially responsible for that. I thought about arguing my case with one of them...but finally decided against it. After all...I should have known that I wasn't exactly doing them any favors with my "introduction"...although it was they who were asking for the initiation into the game. This game leaves a lot of casualties, TLG...and the vast majority of the participants end up regretting the experience. No surprise there...IMO.

This is very foolish. Have a great night.....maybe in the morning we can joke about this.

[sammy the sage]

Originally Posted by the little guy

This is very foolish. Have a great night.....maybe in the morning we can joke about this.

Now who's foolish....MOST people NEVER want to look in the mirror and ADMIT they are at fault...

For example...I sale plants...people go outta town for 3/4 days...doesn't get watered...what am I going to do about it..now they're dead...I sold them bad plants....yeah right...all mine that are still on the shelf...am taking care of...all look very good...I'm doing NADA...

[Jayhawk6191]

Originally Posted by AndyC

What's fair about a system with 2 sets of rules? Why should a smart technologically savvy player be penalized?

This is the most absurd or disingenuous statement in this thread. There currently are 2 sets of rules or games; those with direct access and those without.



Until there are restrictions on those with direct access, the system will always be bifurcated and unfair.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Get me a teller's license. Can't imagine a better job than to be a key person for a betting syndicate.

You do know that there are cameras everywhere and that you would probably end up in jail?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

Agree. In addition, since the bulk of the handle comes from off site, why would anyone think penalizing those that bet the most is going to be good for business? There is no chance in hell that any additional on track handle would make up for lost off track handle.

It's not penalizing.

How many people, off track, really need to bet at the last second? I think honest players would adapt easily and manipulators would be shut out.

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

It's not penalizing.

How many people, off track, really need to bet at the last second? I think honest players would adapt easily and manipulators would be shut out.

That really has nothing to do with what I said. As long as nothing illegal is going on, why would you make a rule to help 10% of your revenue and hurt 90%? (I don't know the actual numbers, but the point is the same).

[Jayhawk6191]

While OTB and direct access are technically the same "off-track", in reality they are different sets of players. I understand that direct access players probably provide a substantial chunk of money to the pool(s) and that the tracks will cater to them. But it comes with the baggage of disparity.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by cj

That really has nothing to do with what I said. As long as nothing illegal is going on, why would you make a rule to help 10% of your revenue and hurt 90%? (I don't know the actual numbers, but the point is the same).

my guess is that if you get rid of direct access and after the bell players the handle's will probably double within a year.

i was watching Mountaineer on Sunday evening, they were doing about $17,000 in some of their win pools while the Betfair match was $25,000 for the same race. i know that Betfair is not the only exchange in business. with better control over their pools i am sure some of those exchange players would head back to the pari-mutuel side of things.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

That really has nothing to do with what I said. As long as nothing illegal is going on, why would you make a rule to help 10% of your revenue and hurt 90%? (I don't know the actual numbers, but the point is the same).

Because perceptions of race fixing can result in handle crashes?

We used to have harness racing in Southern California, for decades Good crowds. Now there is none. The sport died because of perceptions of race fixing.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

You do know that there are cameras everywhere and that you would probably end up in jail?

Making sure that a bet is placed is not a crime.