Whales: A chink in the armor?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Nitro

That’s the problem! You can’t define it because it’s all relative to the track being played.
For instance check out these final Win pool totals for some of today’s races:
Race 10 at Indiana Grand with a 10 horse field - $8,460
Race 6 at Evangeline with a 7 horse field - $30,454.
Race 8 at Delaware Park with a 7 horse field - $59,822
Race 9 at Del Mar with a 10 horse field - $271,506
Race 10 at Saratoga with a 10 horse field - $290,616

If there was a whale among those betting on any of these races during a 20 to 25 minute betting cycle you could have fooled me! In fact, other then a few last minute odds changes at Del Mar today I doubt there was a whale on board today anywhere. Oh well, maybe they just don’t play on Wednesdays.

BTW true inside information IS NOT about race fixing! It’s ALL about INTENTIONS! You know, “We’re Trying Today”. Does the past performance data (at any level) provide that very basic information?

BTW Jeff that was really intriguing story, but I was looking for a more exciting ending. Like the whale coming up from the depths below only to demolish the raft and everyone on board.
(Maybe that's too dramatic)

What a load of horseshit.

Obviously, they bet RELATIVE to the pool size. They aren't going to kill their own prices just so they can match the betting levels of Hong Kong or wherever you're making your fantasy bets these days.

I guess you feel safe to jump back into "regular threads" now, for some reason.

Bad move. You look as misinformed as ever.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by Fox

What exactly is the meaning of direct tote information and how much does it cost? Thanks.

I was always under the impression that tote data was public domain. But I’m told that over the last 10 years or so that’s not the case. Apparently it’s being a bit more safe-guarded these days. (I wonder why)
The information today is being made available through betting hubs at specific tracks and through various ADW’s. I would assume you would have to have some sort of an association with these outlets in order to access the data. I don’t pay a thing for the tote data here in the States or from the Hong Kong Jockey Club.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

What a load of horseshit.

Obviously, they bet RELATIVE to the pool size. They aren't going to kill their own prices just so they can match the betting levels of Hong Kong or wherever you're making your fantasy bets these days.

I guess you feel safe to jump back into "regular threads" now, for some reason.

Bad move. You look as misinformed as ever.

No shit Sherlock! I wasn't comparing the betting in HK with the tracks the states.

I was simply trying to state a fact that apparently went right over your head. But no worries it's only a game.

BTW "Feel Safe"? I didn't realize there was any danger in posting opinions on PA. Please enlighten!

[menifee]

Dave,

Good work on this. The sport needs to adopt. Pari-mutuel wagering is dead. It is too expensive for the ordinary fan given the presence of the whales. It has been like that for a very long time. The solution is exchange wagering or fixed price wagering. Australia discovered this years ago.

You can keep pari-mutuel wagering for p4, p6s, etc. because that pricing model works for those wagers, but for your tradional wps and vertical wagers, you either need to dramatically lower takeout or create a new pricing model that generates more players that are profitable.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Nitro

I was simply trying to state a fact that apparently went right over your head.

Yes. The "fact" that no whales were betting that day...whatever man...totally clueless statement --> "If there was a whale among those betting on any of these races during a 20 to 25 minute betting cycle you could have fooled me! In fact, other then a few last minute odds changes at Del Mar today I doubt there was a whale on board today anywhere. Oh well, maybe they just don’t play on Wednesdays."

Add to that the fact you march right in here and crap all over Dave's posts as if you think you know what you're talking about.

But that's what you do best, isn't it?

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Follow me here:

You bet a hundred 9/1+ horses at $2 each...for a total investment of $200. If 12 of them win at a mutuel of at least $20 each...then you would collect at least $240 from these 12 winners...thus garnering at least a 20% return on your money without any handicapping at ALL. That's why I say that there is no way in hell that the $20 horses win at a 12% clip.

They don't win at a 12% clip, they win 12% of the races. There could be 5 horses 10/1 or higher in each of those 100 races, making 500 horses total 10/1 or higher. You would have to bet $1000 to cover each of the 10/1 or higher horses. 12 of them would win.

I didn't read anymore of the thread after your post, so maybe it was already addressed.

[vegasone]

All those stats really don’t prove to me that the whales are the cause of the lower long shots. (That is if I could really interpret them to begin with)
Relative to 2010 the number of low price horses has gotten lower, which can be attributed to smart money/whales and smaller fields; I could agree with that premise,

The number of really long shots has been going down gradually, till the last few years it seems, and I would have to check the in between years to really see if it took a drastic fall.(it sure seems that way but numbers would really tell me)

Again I have attributed that to the proliferation of computer users with decent software. Even then the amount of over $20 winners (that’s NOT 20/1 and NOT all the horses in the race) seems relatively constant (as a percentage of total races) with 2010.
You get a bunch of smart guys, like in this forum and they could definitely affect the prices of long shots. It wouldn’t take much betting to drop those prices.

Basically, blaming it on “whales” seems foolish

[pandy]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The game can ill afford the hasty retreat of the Whales...because there is no reliable way to replace the substantial handle that they contribute to the mutuel pools. If these Whales risk extinction in the future...then the game will probably seek to accommodate them even more than they do now, in order to keep them in the game as long as possible.

That's true, you need big bettors. What's hurt harness racing is that when it started to generate a higher percentage of winning favorites, the whales left. There is still a computer generated whale betting into the Meadowlands harness pool, around $400,000 a night reportedly, but years ago when the percentage of winning favorites was around 34%, there were professional harness bettors in New York, Chicago, and Canada, in particular, who kept the pools big. Now the pools are too small at most tracks.

[pandy]

From what I see in my handicapping, if you have a race with 8 or more horses in it and it's competitive, the chances of getting a longshot winner as as good as they were when I first started betting horses. There have been plenty of races in New York this year that were extremely difficult to handicap that were won by longshots. If the race is difficult to handicap, the favorite is probably not going to win. The races that look like good "longshot" races still tend to produce longshot winners.

[jasperson]

Dave, did you run this data on turf only and dirt only?

[vegasone]

Relative to 2010 the number of low price horses has gotten lower


Should have been number of low price horses has gotten higher...

[racenarios]

"and not dutching the wagers as equally in the past"

IDK how true the above statement is. Sure, it's become axiomatic that the odds of "too many" winners drop radically in odds between 0 mtp & off time, the info coming in too late for anyone to use. And unless you have actual realtime access to odds fluctuations (and the computing power to calculate, and actually take advantage of, such an edge in such a short window of time), IDK how one goes about confirming or denying this - but I'm seeing more and more very low priced horses @ 0 MTP actually drift UP in odds by the time they spring the wire. If there's any truth to that observation, it could be explained by the whales using their computing power as suggested above, moving $ around in reaction to late odds changes before they're generally viewable...or just simply by the proposition that, collectively, whales bet more than one horse per race. I could be mistaken, or misunderstand what we're trying to explain here, but it seems to me that the flattening of the $NET curve YOY runs counter to the proposition that whales bet fewer horses per race as in the past.

[vegasone]

Originally Posted by ZippyChippy423

Can someone define what they believe a whale is other then the one in an ocean? Is it someone who plunks down a ton of money on 1 horse ? Anyone betting that kind of money is not some great handicapper they have inside info. If that is the case then inside info can be considered race fixing or manipulation. I’ve seen whales get burned plenty of times bridge jumping.

It used to be that a whale was someone that bet a lot of money.......win or lose.


The ones that are betting a lot of money "directly" into the pools should be considered computer teams.......just like in the past there was one in Vegas that was betting in sports.....


When there were rebates in Vegas, there were a bunch of people betting 40k a day or more...not all of them were winners but the rebate made the pain less.
Sooooo...take your pick as to what you want to call big bettors.....I would stick with whales as a general term......they don't necessarily win.

[mikesal57]

I wanna throw something at you....

These are stats of horses PAYING $10 for period 6-1-17 to 7-25-17 and same for 2018

and


6-1-17 to 7-25-17

     SQL:  SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
           WHERE [DATE] >= #06-01-2017# 
           AND [DATE] <= #7-25-2017# 
           AND ODDS >= 4


     Data Summary          Win         Place          Show
     -----------------------------------------------------
     Mutuel Totals    60074.90      60061.90      60142.60
     Bet             -84256.00     -84256.00     -84256.00
     -----------------------------------------------------
     P/L             -24181.10     -24194.10     -24113.40

     Wins                 2796          6902         11847
     Plays               42128         42128         42128
     PCT                 .0664         .1638         .2812

     ROI                0.7130        0.7129        0.7138
     Avg Mut             21.49          8.70          5.08

6-1-18 to 7-25-18

SQL:  SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
           WHERE [DATE] >= #06-01-2018# 
           AND [DATE] <= #7-25-2018# 
           AND ODDS >= 4


     Data Summary          Win         Place          Show
     -----------------------------------------------------
     Mutuel Totals    56457.20      57225.90      56210.50
     Bet             -80356.00     -80356.00     -80356.00
     -----------------------------------------------------
     P/L             -23898.80     -23130.10     -24145.50

     Wins                 2688          6697         11391
     Plays               40178         40178         40178
     PCT                 .0669         .1667         .2835

     ROI                0.7026        0.7122        0.6995
     Avg Mut             21.00          8.55          4.93

there were maybe 100 less $10+ winners between the 2 periods...

Whats your take?

Mike

[acorn54]

Originally Posted by racenarios

"and not dutching the wagers as equally in the past"

IDK how true the above statement is. Sure, it's become axiomatic that the odds of "too many" winners drop radically in odds between 0 mtp & off time, the info coming in too late for anyone to use. And unless you have actual realtime access to odds fluctuations (and the computing power to calculate, and actually take advantage of, such an edge in such a short window of time), IDK how one goes about confirming or denying this - but I'm seeing more and more very low priced horses @ 0 MTP actually drift UP in odds by the time they spring the wire. If there's any truth to that observation, it could be explained by the whales using their computing power as suggested above, moving $ around in reaction to late odds changes before they're generally viewable...or just simply by the proposition that, collectively, whales bet more than one horse per race. I could be mistaken, or misunderstand what we're trying to explain here, but it seems to me that the flattening of the $NET curve YOY runs counter to the proposition that whales bet fewer horses per race as in the past.

as far as the benter group, i can't speak for stateside betting, they use the kelly
criterion and dutch EACH, field of horses, according to the edge they believe they have on each individual horse in the race, in wong's book he illustrates as an example dutching SIX horses, in a particular race.