Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Racing Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 08-16-2022, 11:14 AM   #31
BarchCapper
Registered User
 
BarchCapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Clarksville, AR
Posts: 945
Quote:
Originally Posted by metro View Post
That's hard to believe. I thought the whole point of CRW groups was to find inefficiencies in wagering pools. When they are 70% of any pool how is that efficient? Wouldn't their systems stop betting at some point?
I'm thinking the "inefficiency" here is tied to the huge carryover. They can bet ALL the combinations of the horizontal proportionally in some fashion, and the combination of the takeout reduction/negation from the carryover along with the rebate makes their return on the winning wagers profitable overall despite the massive outlay.
__________________
Tom in NW Arkansas
——————
”Past performances are no guarantee of future results.” - Why isn't this disclaimer printed in the Daily Racing Form?
BarchCapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-16-2022, 12:00 PM   #32
Track Phantom
Registered User
 
Track Phantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 2,719
There is a lot problematic about these dramatic odds changes. Most notably is they are ALWAYS (or almost always) on the winner. And always dramatically down.

One question I have that I can't get my head around. If the 4 was so obvious (i.e. 3-2 in the daily double pools) why is it 4-1 at post time? So the general public is idiotic and only the computer players know? Something isn't right. It feels like pool manipulation (buoying other horses to make it appear they are live) and a combination of late money and cancelled wagers. The 3-2 odds on the favorite should be relative proportionate up to and through the big computer wagers. It NEVER is. Why?

There are a lot of things wrong with this game but this is easily #1 on the list. Finally, if fixed odds were a thing and the tracks were on the hook, I am positive betting anomalies would be stopped immediately. The oversight would be forensic-like.
__________________
www.trackphantom.com
full card analysis
Track Phantom is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-16-2022, 12:30 PM   #33
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 18,971
Quote:
One question I have that I can't get my head around. If the 4 was so obvious (i.e. 3-2 in the daily double pools) why is it 4-1 at post time? So the general public is idiotic and only the computer players know?
You are making a good point.

The general public is not going to be as sharp as the hardest working most experienced players and computer guys, but they aren't bumbling idiots and they also have access to the selections of sharp public public handicappers. You'd expect some corrections of the inefficiencies late, but there shouldn't be many huge ones.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-16-2022, 12:53 PM   #34
Onesome
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post
You are making a good point.

The general public is not going to be as sharp as the hardest working most experienced players and computer guys, but they aren't bumbling idiots and they also have access to the selections of sharp public public handicappers. You'd expect some corrections of the inefficiencies late, but there shouldn't be many huge ones.
At Mth the average joe does have access to a very sharp line now, the fixed odds market, it was saying 7/5 on the horse.
Onesome is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-16-2022, 12:59 PM   #35
The_Turf_Monster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 460
I've always thought that the solution was to offer different pools for on track vs simulcast/adw/crw

Either way, you'll save yourself a lot of headaches by not watching the races to avoid seeing these odds drops/rises which are inherent to a mutuel pool

For everybody not on track, it's that adage about complaining about traffic.....traffic is bad and by sitting in it, you're playing a role in causing it
The_Turf_Monster is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-16-2022, 01:21 PM   #36
Al Gobbi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by castaway01 View Post
If they got rid of CAW, handle would drop 50%. It's literally how racing survives in many places (that and slot machines). You have to wake up to reality at some point.

I finally shut down my NJ betting account this week. The game is virtually unplayable now, and that's not going to change when the thing making the game unplayable is also what is keeping it alive.
If California legalizes sports betting in a correct manner (online + retail locations) you can pretty much expect handle to take a dive at Santa Anita and Los Al when they get it up and running
Al Gobbi is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-16-2022, 05:35 PM   #37
biggestal99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onesome View Post
At Mth the average joe does have access to a very sharp line now, the fixed odds market, it was saying 7/5 on the horse.

exactly. equinedge had the horse at 6-5. 4s was a gross overlay.

i am sure the CRW software said bet big and they did.

fixed odds had the right price at 7-5.

the big winners were CRW, the losers were the players who bet on the other horses in the race.

Allan
biggestal99 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-16-2022, 06:37 PM   #38
AskinHaskin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Track Phantom View Post
There is a lot problematic about these dramatic odds changes. Most notably is they are ALWAYS (or almost always) on the winner. And always dramatically down.

One question I have that I can't get my head around. If the 4 was so obvious (i.e. 3-2 in the daily double pools) why is it 4-1 at post time? So the general public is idiotic and only the computer players know? Something isn't right. It feels like pool manipulation (buoying other horses to make it appear they are live) and a combination of late money and cancelled wagers. The 3-2 odds on the favorite should be relative proportionate up to and through the big computer wagers. It NEVER is. Why?

There are a lot of things wrong with this game but this is easily #1 on the list. Finally, if fixed odds were a thing and the tracks were on the hook, I am positive betting anomalies would be stopped immediately. The oversight would be forensic-like.


That’s completely clueless about the “number one” problem.


There is approximately zero past-posting ongoing, and you can tell that clearly by how quickly they catch and fully report each new loophole such as that which didn’t get wagering stopped on the recent nationwide gimmick wager until shortly after leg one of a five-race sequence.

Even if everybody but you had the advantage on that day - just how great was that edge?

You ‘approximately’ never read anymore about random clerks at tiny tracks ‘past-posting’ in the way you used to get every last detail as to what combinations and what denominations and at which precise second he/she punched the tickets.

The solution is concise and simple for the visible elements of it all, and that equates to putting the public on the live horses to begin with.

If you are of the belief that “dramatic odds changes” are “almost always on the winner” AND “always dramatically down” then there is probably a lot more which you “can’t get your head around”…


beginning with parimutuel wagering.


.
.
.
AskinHaskin is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-17-2022, 01:15 AM   #39
Track Phantom
Registered User
 
Track Phantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 2,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by AskinHaskin View Post
That’s completely clueless about the “number one” problem.


There is approximately zero past-posting ongoing, and you can tell that clearly by how quickly they catch and fully report each new loophole such as that which didn’t get wagering stopped on the recent nationwide gimmick wager until shortly after leg one of a five-race sequence.

Even if everybody but you had the advantage on that day - just how great was that edge?

You ‘approximately’ never read anymore about random clerks at tiny tracks ‘past-posting’ in the way you used to get every last detail as to what combinations and what denominations and at which precise second he/she punched the tickets.

The solution is concise and simple for the visible elements of it all, and that equates to putting the public on the live horses to begin with.

If you are of the belief that “dramatic odds changes” are “almost always on the winner” AND “always dramatically down” then there is probably a lot more which you “can’t get your head around”…


beginning with parimutuel wagering.
Wow is this some gibberish. Thanks.
__________________
www.trackphantom.com
full card analysis
Track Phantom is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-17-2022, 03:09 AM   #40
SharpCat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 697
If you watched the race anywhere else but TVG network the 1st flash of odds you saw was 6/5 and that was roughly 3/16th into the race. TVG used their own odds graphic and the odds went down from 4/1 to 6/5 roughly 3-1/2 furlongs into the race.

SharpCat is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-17-2022, 03:49 AM   #41
Track Phantom
Registered User
 
Track Phantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 2,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharpCat View Post
If you watched the race anywhere else but TVG network the 1st flash of odds you saw was 6/5 and that was roughly 3/16th into the race. TVG used their own odds graphic and the odds went down from 4/1 to 6/5 roughly 3-1/2 furlongs into the race.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5oaHk-Y-r0
Why was that 4 at 4-1 at post time to begin with? That is the underlying question. Virtually all of these "betdown winners" were lower in the will-pays but much higher at post before the late odds change.

I'll bet if you could see the wagering information, you'd see significant cancellations at post on other horses. It's toteboard manipulation. Plain and simple.

What it doesn't explain is how the overall money is getting it right so often. Much more than at any time in the past.
__________________
www.trackphantom.com
full card analysis
Track Phantom is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-17-2022, 01:47 PM   #42
metro
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Track Phantom View Post

I'll bet if you could see the wagering information, you'd see significant cancellations at post on other horses.
Transparency ain't walking through that door.
metro is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-17-2022, 02:56 PM   #43
Elkchester Road
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Near Lexington, KY
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Track Phantom View Post
Why was that 4 at 4-1 at post time to begin with? That is the underlying question. Virtually all of these "betdown winners" were lower in the will-pays but much higher at post before the late odds change.

I'll bet if you could see the wagering information, you'd see significant cancellations at post on other horses. It's toteboard manipulation. Plain and simple.

What it doesn't explain is how the overall money is getting it right so often. Much more than at any time in the past.
Exactly, Track Phantom.

This is a Track that WELCOMED both Jorge Navarro and Jason Servis. If people either didn't know, or forgot, Monmouth's great past history, and only knew about it's RECENT history in the last few years...it would be easy to conclude that this is one Shady place.
__________________
Just when you least expect it...just what you least expect-The Pet Shop Boys.
Elkchester Road is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-17-2022, 03:26 PM   #44
Boomer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 3,746
Also the same state New Jersey as Freehold Raceway. Home of convicted juicer and ( my observance) tremendous board manipulator Nick Surick. Huge amounts of money was bet on his horses early. But if you watched the board carefully, the "dead" ones had lots of $$$$$ in the win pool cancelled very late.


I knew, why didn't the judges?

Last edited by Boomer; 08-17-2022 at 03:28 PM.
Boomer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-17-2022, 05:11 PM   #45
Onesome
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Track Phantom View Post
Why was that 4 at 4-1 at post time to begin with? That is the underlying question. Virtually all of these "betdown winners" were lower in the will-pays but much higher at post before the late odds change.

I'll bet if you could see the wagering information, you'd see significant cancellations at post on other horses. It's toteboard manipulation. Plain and simple.

What it doesn't explain is how the overall money is getting it right so often. Much more than at any time in the past.
I think this post is close to the equine version of a QAnon supporter. It's like you're willfully ignorant to the fact betmakers, who are probably just as good as the best CAW teams, were laying at 7/5. Ask them why their models are better then the average punter.
Onesome is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2022 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.