Article re Large-Scale Computer Bettors

[VeryOldMan]

Thought this was a good piece on the Paulick Report - no earth-shattering revelations, but I thought the writer did a nice job summarizing the situation:

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ra...race-wagering/

I'm a sucker for Robocop which made me click the link in the first place, although perhaps the photo should have been the Terminator.

[Robert Goren]

There has to be a natural mathematical limit to how much of the handle CRW can be and still be profitable without manipulating the pool somehow even with huge rebates. It is hard to know what that limit is, but I suspect they may be approaching it.

Stock market HFT is coming under increased scrutiny finally. HFT, Trillium was just caught manipulating stock prices by spoofing. When the rewards are so high for cheating, it is hard to believe some won't become involved in it. Horse racing, unlike the stock market, not only has to worry about price manipulation, but the fixing of the races.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

There has to be a natural mathematical limit to how much of the handle CRW can be and still be profitable without manipulating the pool somehow even with huge rebates. It is hard to know what that limit is, but I suspect they may be approaching it.

Stock market HFT is coming under increased scrutiny finally. HFT, Trillium was just caught manipulating stock prices by spoofing. When the rewards are so high for cheating, it is hard to believe some won't become involved in it. Horse racing, unlike the stock market, not only has to worry about price manipulation, but the fixing of the races.

There's almost no judges who are "investigating" race fixing, jocks can just say the horse felt funny and they get off no questions asked, there's never any real investigation behind a jock who just decides to wrap up a horse and not urge him all the way. You had the situation at Fairmount where the guy got 60 days, but the winning jock, who was obviously trying to lose, got off scott free because his horse was just good enough to drag him to the wire. So, an obvious "fix" wasnt punished because the guy 'ran over the money' and won the race.

[Augenj]

Originally Posted by VeryOldMan

Thought this was a good piece on the Paulick Report - no earth-shattering revelations, but I thought the writer did a nice job summarizing the situation:

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ra...race-wagering/

I'm a sucker for Robocop which made me click the link in the first place, although perhaps the photo should have been the Terminator.

It really was an informative article. I've done some computer work over the years but not with the idea of looking for overlays. That requires last minute (or seconds) wagering and agreements with the tracks. As stated by others on this board, fine tuning your computer system based on past results in a data base does not always predict future winners. I was a believer in predictive analytics until I turned my profitable factors for the past around and used them for the future. They were greatly reduced in number although a few stood the "shock" and work year to year. I'll be back with more on that in another post.

[VeryOldMan]

P.S. - the embedded link in the article to the Parham interview is busted. Here is the working link:

http://www.standardbredcanada.ca/tro...ollar-man.html

[Augenj]

Originally Posted by VeryOldMan

P.S. - the embedded link in the article to the Parham interview is busted. Here is the working link:

http://www.standardbredcanada.ca/tro...ollar-man.html

Another good article and it wasn't busted for me.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

To me the obvious thing that computer-based robotic wagering brings up is the subject of rebates. If tracks can "afford" to give out higher rebates to the robo-bettors just because they churn, then the takeout for the tracks is too high to begin with.....wouldn't it be nice if the rebates were just built in to the payouts to begin with?

[baconswitchfarm]

My favorite part is where the head of the trpb says he knows there is nothing to see here.Well now that a made up llc with a few people with no investigative power, no subpoena power, and no legal authority to do anything say its all good. Well ok. Nice story.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

To me the obvious thing that computer-based robotic wagering brings up is the subject of rebates. If tracks can "afford" to give out higher rebates to the robo-bettors just because they churn, then the takeout for the tracks is too high to begin with.....wouldn't it be nice if the rebates were just built in to the payouts to begin with?

Its smart the way it now works...it puts the tracks in a position to get full price from bettors who havent seeked out rebates of their very own. They're available to everyone, whether you bet with NYRA Rewards, the BIG M Club or get non cash rebates in Las vegas (food comps, etc) they're available if you want them. If you don't seek them out, why should the racing industry just hand cash to someone who is willing to place bets WITHOUT getting free money?

Its kind of like going into a car dealership to buy a car. Some people hate haggling and just go in and pay MSRP, they want the car and dont really care about saving money and just pay what the sticker says. Many people however, will "haggle" at least a little bit...most people know if you go in and say "i'll give you 1k off MSRP" they know the dealer will say "deal". They saved 1k just by asking.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Racing needs the biggest tracks to stop paying rebates to these computer groups. Turnover/Handle will go down but this does not matter if long term you make more money as you will be receiving a higher share of every dollar bet

Racing's most valuable customers are the average Joe bettors who just bet all their money away most Saturdays and are long term losers with their betting. They end up paying for everyone else in racing (jockeys, trainers, other winning bettors). If you are going to pay rebates then you should pay rebates to these customers not the computer teams who prey on them. But the simplest thing is just no rebates for anyone

The UK bookies know who their most valuable customers are

[dkithore]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

There has to be a natural mathematical limit to how much of the handle CRW can be and still be profitable without manipulating the pool somehow even with huge rebates. It is hard to know what that limit is, but I suspect they may be approaching it.

Stock market HFT is coming under increased scrutiny finally. HFT, Trillium was just caught manipulating stock prices by spoofing. When the rewards are so high for cheating, it is hard to believe some won't become involved in it. Horse racing, unlike the stock market, not only has to worry about price manipulation, but the fixing of the races.

Robert,

do you consider the race fixed, if the upon the instruction from the trainer (owner) the jockey does not extend his horse fully as bettors hoped for?

dk

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by dkithore

Robert,

do you consider the race fixed, if the upon the instruction from the trainer (owner) the jockey does not extend his horse fully as bettors hoped for?

dk

That is not an easy question to answer. I believe that horse coming off of layoff are often told that. I suspect, but don't know, that some physically challenged horse's jockey are often told not to fight for third place. While all of this frustrating to the bettor, it was not what I was talking about. I was talking about predetermined winners or as they were once known "boat races". I think they are pretty rare today if they happen at all. It has been reported that the Mafia fixed some races in the 1930s and 1940s. I even heard rumors of it in the late 1960s. Some of the trainers I knew back then were really suspicious of Sportsman's Park in Chicago. Take that for what it is worth which probably isn't much.
With so much money on the line by some bettors, I worry that it could start happening again. We know of point shaving in college BB in the 1950s and 1960s and a ref fixing games in the NBA not to long ago. So it is not as far fetched as it sounds.
As of right now, price manipulation is bigger threat. IMO

[pondman]

The only concern I have is not being given a 30 second cancellation opportunity. I'm finding that I can cancel with seconds to go at the local OTB, because of low attendance, while Xpressbet shuts down sometimes as early as 3 minutes to go. This is the only advantage a bot has. I'm still playing double digit spots; I actually believe my rate has increased because of these scalper bots and whales.
It's either that or everyone is a speed handipper.

What they are doing is making it impossible to play favorites. You don't want to play the way they do.

[davew]

I still have to wonder if they have access to more/better data than the average Joe. With computer technology, the bets on all combinations for trifectas, superfectas, rolling exotics... could be in a file, and in a small amount of time, a computer could bet all overlays from 'their model'.

I have been to dog tracks with more info than I see at horse tracks and/or feeds.

An example is a trifecta screen. showing dollars bet on each entry in each position...

entry 1st 2nd 3rd

1 54 77 66
2 222 186 122
3 115 91 115
4 188 202 220
5 33 41 55
6 84 92 99
7 133 142 102
8 168 166 218

total 997 997 997

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by davew

I still have to wonder if they have access to more/better data than the average Joe.

There is no doubt that data play a huge role in this game and of course there are data that are unknown to the public. The main source of these type of data is coming from the cycle of each horse making it impossible for somebody, not matter how large of bettor he is, to have access to them, unless of course he is somehow related to the connections.

What I believe consist the most valuable data are exactly those used by the 'average Joe' and how he is perceiving them. I do not believe that more or better data are needed (with the exception I stated above) to beat this game.

What is needed is the analysis of the available data with the intend of revealing the weakness of the public.