You know who absolutely crushes it on mandatory payout days?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Don't forget the advantage offered by the unemotional computerized betting that the CAW employ. It's a huge advantage to take "emotion" out of a betting enterprise.

AMEN!

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I suspect that this is not quite as much of an advantage as some people think. My thinking is closer to yours.

If you were the only person/CAW group with this info it would be a huge advantage (same as if you were the only person that knew just about anything significant about any horse). But when there are multiple players/CAW groups with the same info, they are all going to make wagers on what appears to be the overlaid combinations. So the same overlays they all see will shrink. They could wind up with some underlaid tickets even if they have a process in place to estimate the likely betting.

I suspect (and I don't have any insights at all) that their main edge is solid handicapping, a good understanding of the likely betting patterns of the general public, and the bankroll to cover solid combinations likely to be left off the tickets of smaller bettors.

You are looking at things as a way of spotting overlays in a pool. Their is a predictive function in betting that speaks volumes to how much chance horses have or do not have. There have been many times I have been live to 2 horses in a pick 5, or maybe just live to my A choice, saw the betting and knew I was in some deep shit. Sure would have been nice prior to the sequence knowing that my A choice or my double had very little chance of getting there. If they are able to ascertain that information to some degree even with preliminary data, it is a huge edge, far bigger than worrying about what contender might be underplayed. Also you were the one who mentioned that some guys were telling you at some conference about being able to beat the races with tote analysis (as Nitro claims he can). Don't you think these teams are going to use every edge they can get, even if it means hiring someone to analyze this data and make sense of it, in a way that we are not able to. It is all big pieces to a very big puzzle. Isn't what they do about fitting the pieces together the best they can to give them the best insight into how much chance each horse has (no matter what pool they are playing).

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Also you were the one who mentioned that some guys were telling you at some conference about being able to beat the races with tote analysis (as Nitro claims he can). Don't you think these teams are going to use every edge they can get, even if it means hiring someone to analyze this data and make sense of it, in a way that we are not able to. It is all big pieces to a very big puzzle. Isn't what they do about fitting the pieces together the best they can to give them the best insight into how much chance each horse has (no matter what pool they are playing).

If I’m not mistaken, I was under the impression that this thread was about the Pick-6 carryover. No team (without exception) can use any form of a Tote analysis as a means of gaining an edge when playing any Pick-Whatever type bet. The only race that’s available for analysis is the 1st one in the sequence for that type of bet. How would anyone be able to analyze the remaining races when in fact no betting has taken place? I can only add that from my perspective the solution to the “puzzle” mentioned becomes much clearer and simpler in many respects when your only factor for making profitable selections is based on the controlling element that governs the entire game: Money.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Nitro

If I’m not mistaken, I was under the impression that this thread was about the Pick-6 carryover. No team (without exception) can use any form of a Tote analysis as a means of gaining an edge when playing any Pick-Whatever type bet. The only race that’s available for analysis is the 1st one in the sequence for that type of bet. How would anyone be able to analyze the remaining races when in fact no betting has taken place? I can only add that from my perspective the solution to the “puzzle” mentioned becomes much clearer and simpler in many respects when your only factor for making profitable selections is based on the controlling element that governs the entire game: Money.

My post is an extension of my prior posts in this thread where I claimed that I believed that some of the teams are probably able to gain access to every ticket combination played up to that point in time (this is strictly a hunch by me). Thus you have to read my prior posts in the thread to understand my point. If you are dealing with 3 million dollars worth of pick 6 combinations having been bet at say 2 minutes to post, if some of these teams were able to read the data and import into their system they would thus know that based off of the 3 million bet at that point in time the #4 in race 8 is equivalent to a 3/5 or 1/1 shot or 2/1 shot, whatever the case may be (and they would have that info for every horse in the sequence). If you believe that racing has that information tucked away and safeguarded from use by these teams, you can ignore the post. Call me skeptical. When big money is involved, crazy chit happens. See another topic I like to discuss in off topic.

[PaceAdvantage]

How does knowing that info from the Pick 6 help you, really? What if the Pick 6 pool is less efficient than other pools?

Is it known that the Pick 6 pool is highly efficient (I would think it would be WAY more inefficient, actually)?

What would your scenario be used for, exactly (knowing out of the $3M, the #4 in race 8 is 3/5, for example)?

[Jeff P]

What if for the sake of argument the #4 in race 8 was 3/5 in a mandatory payout pick-6 pool and you also knew the horse was unsound?

You would have an extreme edge either way.

But your edge would be bigger knowing an unsound horse had been bet down to 3/5 in the pool vs. having no idea the horse was bet down that much in the mandatory payout pool.

You'd probably bet more than normal (a lot more) covering other horses in that race knowing your competition was making a huge mistake.

Let's add to that.

Same race, same circumstances - unsound horse bet down to 3/5 in race 8 on a mandatory payout day.

What if, for the sake of argument you also knew a few seconds before the race was about to go off another horse with an outside chance in that same race was uncovered?

Obviously you'd cover that horse. And you might even be the only one if you're the very last player to submit a batch of tickets.

Imo, being one of a select few who know the exact makeup of a pick-6 pool right before the first race of the sequence goes off would be huge.



-jp

.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

How does knowing that info from the Pick 6 help you, really? What if the Pick 6 pool is less efficient than other pools?

Is it known that the Pick 6 pool is highly efficient (I would think it would be WAY more inefficient, actually)?

What would your scenario be used for, exactly (knowing out of the $3M, the #4 in race 8 is 3/5, for example)?

It is all part of the puzzle. It depends on the horse, the connections, the situation.....Just remember if you 3 have million in 20 cent pick six tickets played that is a whole lot of opinions that can be converted into a projected public odds line. Show me a database that doesn't have horses that are 3/5 winning more than horses that are 4/5.....down the line. Especially when dealing with the huge pools this is going to be a lot of vital information. While the information at 2 or 3 minutes to post is partial information it is a lot better then no information. If I have good reason to hate a horse that looks like he is about 2/5 in the pick 6 pool, I want that information. I might even take a shot against him. If some horse I know nothing about shipping from Europe is coming in, does it look like he is going to be about 2-1, 4-1 or 8-1. Vital information. As mentioned in previous posts, 1st time starters or even 2nd time starters who are often very dangerous, vital information. How about 1st time turf, 1st time route, 1st race in 6 months, 1st time new connections. Vital information. As handicappers, we guess on all of this. Give me access to the public's opinion (or a partial representation of it) on these horses and the guesses transform from guesses to educated guesses. That is a big difference when trying to beat these pools long run. Throw in real good ticket structure and the game becomes a lot easier to beat. The value of this information will vary on the player. For some handicappers it may prove useless or even hurt their performance (confuse them at least for a while). For others it could be the difference between hovering even and maybe showing a long run profit of 25 or 30%.

As Andy C says, make this information public so that everyone has access to it. Many would not know what to do with it, or would even look at it but for the players that do it can really help their game. Of course individual players for the most part do not have the ability to mark 160 pick six tickets and submit 160 pick 6 tickets in seconds as the caw does. That is something else that should be changed. I used to use Twinspires for that they took that feature away. xpressbet has that feature, I have tried and tried and cannot get it to work for me with any consistency. It is just easier for me to fill out my 20 tickets or less and abandon the strategies that require more tickets.
Right now I live in Vegas so all of that doesn't even mater. If I want to legally bet I have go to a race book.

Just because you don't consider something important to have success in this game doesn't mean it will not help provide success in this game for others. Once again I want people to understand. Everything I post about the flaws in this game are to try and inspire someone with power in this industry to make the game better for the bettor. Not the whale, the everyday bettor. Don't worry about the whales. You give them fish and they will feast (rebates, no rebates, whatever, they will figure it out). But ultimately when there are no fish they will go hungry too. They certainly aren't going to feast on each other.

[lamboguy]

the CAW game seems to be cutthroat amongst the other CAW. since they are the only ones that have last access to the information, one CAW can load up on a blind number or group of numbers to throw the other CAW off tilt. one could load up on the number and then cancel the bet at the precise time that would not allow the other team to react thereby creating a constant overlay. my latest example would be the 3rd, 4th and 5th race at Gulfstream this past Sunday. the winner in the 3rd race paid 18, the winner in a 4-horse field in the 4th race paid 4, and the winner in the 5th race paid 6. the pick 3 wound up paying $194. that is what i call a huge overlay. and when i take into consideration that every clocker from here to Shang-Hai loved the Pletcher horse that won the 2nd leg thought the horse was a lead pipe cinch 6 hours before the race was to be run and had other trainers scared enough to scratch their good horses in the body of the race.

i find it very rewarding to bang my head up against the wall with the CAW even though i know it's impossible to beat them at this game when i make one of the few wins against them i get quite overwhelmed with glee.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Don't forget the advantage offered by the unemotional computerized betting that the CAW employ. It's a huge advantage to take "emotion" out of a betting enterprise.

I agree with that, but I (me personally) haven't figure out a way of removing emotion but keeping intuition and interpretation. I'm a big believer that as we gain experience handicapping over time, we gain certain insights that we aren't always aware of an a conscious level. I can't program what I don't even know I know.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

What if for the sake of argument the #4 in race 8 was 3/5 in a mandatory payout pick-6 pool and you also knew the horse was unsound?

You would have an extreme edge either way.

But your edge would be bigger knowing an unsound horse had been bet down to 3/5 in the pool vs. having no idea the horse was bet down that much in the mandatory payout pool.

You'd probably bet more than normal (a lot more) covering other horses in that race knowing your competition was making a huge mistake.

Let's add to that.

Same race, same circumstances - unsound horse bet down to 3/5 in race 8 on a mandatory payout day.

What if, for the sake of argument you also knew a few seconds before the race was about to go off another horse with an outside chance in that same race was uncovered?

Obviously you'd cover that horse. And you might even be the only one if you're the very last player to submit a batch of tickets.

Imo, being one of a select few who know the exact makeup of a pick-6 pool right before the first race of the sequence goes off would be huge.



-jp

.

First, we ae assuming they actually have this extra pool information.

I agree with everything you are saying.

My counter to that from my previous post was that extra information is only super valuable when you are the only one that has it. As more people have it, it loses value. In most cases of extra info, the CAWs are competing with other CAWs who are also huge bettors and who will also have the same information. So that incremental information loses value quickly.

[kyle r]

I may not know much about the topic. But based on my limited knowledge I’m going to offer a slightly different perspective. If I’m talking out my ass give me a good spank. It’s my impression the CAW business model is focused on losing as little as possible, that is, reducing effective take; betting as much as possible while limiting risk and profiting from the rebate. Considering that, wouldn’t their focus be first on identifying what they see as “dead money.” And instead of primarily benefiting from being able to compute imputed odds on contenders - not that they couldn’t realize some benefit from that - but wouldn’t it be of more value to them to know what percentage of public money they consider hopeless?

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

First, we a[r]e assuming they actually have this extra pool information.

Agreed for purposes of this discussion.

Likewise, I'm not sure this extra pool information ever sees the light of day.

Shifting gears a bit to financial markets --

In their book "Follow The Smart Money" the authors Jon and Pete Najarian cite a handful of cases where as floor traders they were burned by "unusual options activity" that later turned out to be based on inside information.

They also make the point that inside information has a funny way of showing up in the markets as "unusual options activity."

Shifting gears back to horseracing --

If it exists in the data, somebody (likely a select handful of trusted individuals) at the host track or tote company have access to the raw data - and thus the extra pool information.

As horseplayers every single one of us are trusting the industry to ensure this extra pool information stays out of harm's way.



As to your other point:

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

My counter to that from my previous post was that extra information is only super valuable when you are the only one that has it. As more people have it, it loses value. In most cases of extra info, the CAWs are competing with other CAWs who are also huge bettors and who will also have the same information. So that incremental information loses value quickly.

I fully agree.

Which gets back to AndyC's point in post #54.

If the data exists why not make it available to everybody?



-jp

.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by kyle r

I may not know much about the topic. But based on my limited knowledge I’m going to offer a slightly different perspective. If I’m talking out my ass give me a good spank. It’s my impression the CAW business model is focused on losing as little as possible, that is, reducing effective take; betting as much as possible while limiting risk and profiting from the rebate. Considering that, wouldn’t their focus be first on identifying what they see as “dead money.” And instead of primarily benefiting from being able to compute imputed odds on contenders - not that they couldn’t realize some benefit from that - but wouldn’t it be of more value to them to know what percentage of public money they consider hopeless?

No spanking. If this information is available to them and being used, I assume they will use it in all ways possible. Who is extremely dead, who is extremely live, who is over bet, who is under bet. (There is a distinction between being over bet and very live and being under bet and being dead and I would imagine that most of these guys are pretty good at making these distinctions). The true pro is going to leave no stone unturned.

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

No spanking. If this information is available to them and being used, I assume they will use it in all ways possible. Who is extremely dead, who is extremely live, who is over bet, who is under bet. (There is a distinction between being over bet and very live and being under bet and being dead and I would imagine that most of these guys are pretty good at making these distinctions). The true pro is going to leave no stone unturned.

And when you have the kinds of rebates they get the bar is low for how accurate they need to be to keep going.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Agreed for purposes of this discussion.

Likewise, I'm not sure this extra pool information ever sees the light of day.

Shifting gears a bit to financial markets --

In their book "Follow The Smart Money" the authors Jon and Pete Najarian cite a handful of cases where as floor traders they were burned by "unusual options activity" that later turned out to be based on inside information.

They also make the point that inside information has a funny way of showing up in the markets as "unusual options activity."

Shifting gears back to horseracing --

If it exists in the data, somebody (likely a select handful of trusted individuals) at the host track or tote company have access to the raw data - and thus the extra pool information.

As horseplayers every single one of us are trusting the industry to ensure this extra pool information stays out of harm's way.



As to your other point:


I fully agree.

Which gets back to AndyC's point in post #54.

If the data exists why not make it available to everybody?



-jp

.

I think it's unreasonable to expect the tote systems to have to push data for long horizontals and the like out to the ADWs. Let's be realistic. IMO the current state of available tote info is adequate for players to work with, the problem is the players for the most part aren't able to work with it. I mean no disrespect if someone can't wrap their head around the likely odds of the next race using a two leg DD matrix, they surely don't stand a chance with data streaming in from a four, five or six leg pool. More data only helps if you can use it but very very few players would ever be able to use that. Like PA suggested that data probably isn't going to be very efficient anyway. I totally agree. Would it help to have it? Yes, I'm sure the CAW will be in favor of more data streams that will help them win and which the average player can't possibly wrangle.