the slide continues

[Redboard]

Originally Posted by Afleet

I had two horses that i bet fairly heavily yesterday at Indiana, one tossed the jockey at the start and another clipped heels on the first turn and was taken out of the race. Just think if those were the first horses you ever bet-you didn't even get a chance but you still lost-doubt a new bettor would be signing up for more of that. I think Indiana had 3 horses not finish races-all in stakes races. That was the kind of day I had yesterday.

During the last royal ascot meet that was televised by NBC, in one of the races the horse refused to budge out of the starting gate, which is rare; I've seen it only a handful of times through the years. Anyway, the announcers mentioned that the bookies would be forced to give back any bets made on that horse. It's the same when the jockey is tossed out of the gate.

The system there is the bookies are independent of the track. The track losses no money on this.

[JeremyJet]

Eddie Olczyk likes the way the business is run over there. He said when he was there for Royal Ascot he saw someone plunk down $200,000 to win on a horse. Said you can't do that here because that horse would be 1/9 under the pari-mutuel system.

[bob60566]

Originally Posted by JeremyJet

Eddie Olczyk likes the way the business is run over there. He said when he was there for Royal Ascot he saw someone plunk down $200,000 to win on a horse. Said you can't do that here because that horse would be 1/9 under the pari-mutuel system.

You read stories all the time of bookies losing millions on individual wagers, this is the nature of the industry, punters collectively can beat the bookie but it rarely happens. You will only ever hear a bookmaker moan when they lose, they stay very quiet the 99% of times that they make a profit.

[JeremyJet]

I think the horse was JAPAN. He won the race.

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by JeremyJet

As sports betting continues to expand, how does racing expect to compete under the current pari-mutuel system? The first time a newbie encounters a situation where there is late odds fluctuation that person will never bet another race again. It's just common sense. I don't see how racing can go forward without fixed odds wagering.

There’s newbies?

[Jayhawk6191]

Originally Posted by JeremyJet

As sports betting continues to expand, how does racing expect to compete under the current pari-mutuel system? The first time a newbie encounters a situation where there is late odds fluctuation that person will never bet another race again. It's just common sense. I don't see how racing can go forward without fixed odds wagering.

I agree. Preservationist last Sat is a great example. Was in the starting gate at 7-1 and paid 3.95-1

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by ronsmac

There’s newbies?

There was one guy, but he quit when he saw odds drop from 8-1 to 5-1 after the race started. He's a slots player now.

RIP Newbie. We hardly knew ye.

[the little guy]

I will never understand why people simply refuse to acknowledge a horse's odds based on multi-race wagers, and are thus aware of ( at least roughly )what price a horse ( like Preservationist ) will be when wagering closes. I was talking about this with Aaron at Belmont the other day and he is as incredulous as I am.

I get that it's not a great look, but the world changes, and you adapt or die. The people on this board have been playing horses for a LONG time and are extremely knowledgeable. Surely they have, and do, look at willpays ( they are available on NYRA Bets and I assume all other ADWs as well as on TV ). I am fairly confident most of us have adapted to more complicated changes in the game over the years.

[JeremyJet]

Originally Posted by the little guy

I will never understand why people simply refuse to acknowledge a horse's odds based on multi-race wagers, and are thus aware of ( at least roughly )what price a horse ( like Preservationist ) will be when wagering closes. I was talking about this with Aaron at Belmont the other day and he is as incredulous as i am.

I do that. Unfortunately, "roughly" isn't good enough. But that's just me.

The New York circuit betting pools are very efficient. Others not so much.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by JeremyJet

I do that. Unfortunately, "roughly" isn't good enough. But that's just me.

The New York circuit betting pools are very efficient. Others not so much.

Exactly what I was thinking. The tracks with smaller pools are an exercise in futility.

[JeremyJet]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Exactly what I was thinking. The tracks with smaller pools are an exercise in futility.

I mean, it happens all the time in New York too. I'm looking at the 10th at Saratoga yesterday. The chalk in the doubles was 7/5 and ended up going off at even money? Is that good enough for some of you guys? Not me. If it's not asking too much, I would like to know "exactly" what odds I'm getting when I bet.

[JeremyJet]

Originally Posted by Jayhawk6191

I agree. Preservationist last Sat is a great example. Was in the starting gate at 7-1 and paid 3.95-1

PRESERVATIONIST was actually one of those horses that "roughly" matched his D-D odds: 7/2. But I haven't seen any comments on the chalk in that race. CATHOLIC BOY was 8/5 in the doubles. Went off at 6/5.

[JeremyJet]

Originally Posted by JeremyJet

PRESERVATIONIST was actually one of those horses that "roughly" matched his D-D odds: 7/2. But I haven't seen any comments on the chalk in that race. CATHOLIC BOY was 8/5 in the doubles. Went off at 6/5.

My mistake. CATHOLIC BOY was 9/5 in the doubles.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by JeremyJet

I mean, it happens all the time in New York too. I'm looking at the 10th at Saratoga yesterday. The chalk in the doubles was 7/5 and ended up going off at even money? Is that good enough for some of you guys? Not me. If it's not asking too much, I would like to know "exactly" what odds I'm getting when I bet.

Totally concur. Given that willpays only represent live tickets, it is totally reasonable to expect that actual prices can vary significantly, especially when a long price is part of a sequence. In the instance of Preservationist the daily double willpays were based on roughly $12,200 of live tickets, the P-3 on about $5,600 and the P-4 on about $8,400. Not exactly sample sizes you can rely on for any kind of precision.

[classhandicapper]

The interesting thing about the late price moves is not that there are big players looking for extra value in each pool. I was trying to do that with pen and paper 30 years ago. It was a struggle, but if you have an automated process, that's great. I didn't.

It's that the W/P/S pools are often way out of line with the Will Pays all through the betting and then suddenly get in line late.

It makes perfect sense when you are looking at the exacta and double "probables" going forward that you might be able to squeeze out better value depending on whether you bet the horse to Win, in an Exacta or in a Double. So if a lot of people are doing looking for extra value (and they should be) those pools should stay roughly in line. They are current open pools.

The Will Pays are done. Those pools are closed.

The late money that's bringing WPS into line with Will Pays is either assuming that the Will Pays are always the most accurate and fair line (which could easily be false) and correcting the win prices or the late win betting volume is so massively larger and smarter it just swamps the early money and more or less randomly comes into line with the Will Pays.

The Will Pays clearly have excellent predictive value, but they could just as easily be less efficient than the Win pool at times and often are at smaller tracks.