How much is it worth to NOT have robotic wagerers in the pools?

[Redboard]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

So yesterday I put in a Pick 5 at Oaklawn and missed the first leg where I used 3 horses. Didn't think much about it after that. Later I find that it paid on 4 of 5 for $1600. That can't happen 99% of the time with the large robotic wagerers can it?

I didn't think that the track/ADWs gave out odds (before the first leg) of multirace bets with more legs than the pick 3. In other words, I've never seen will-pays for pick 4s, pick 5s, & pick 6s.

Has anybody here seen this?

[cj]

Originally Posted by Redboard

I didn't think that the track/ADWs gave out odds (before the first leg) of multirace bets with more legs than the pick 3. In other words, I've never seen will-pays for pick 4s, pick 5s, & pick 6s.

Has anybody here seen this?

All those will pays are available before the last leg, none are available to the public beforehand, not that I've ever seen anyway.

[Redboard]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

With these robotic wagers in play does it make sense to play at smaller tracks with smaller pools? I would have to believe that pool size has to go a long way in their ability to generate money.

There was a guy here EMD, or something like that, who used to love raiding the pools at Portland Meadows every year, for the reason you mentioned.

I guess it works for some people but I'd rather lose money at Saratoga than win at Portland Meadows.

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

in the old days at Rockingham, a good chunk of the handle was coming from bookmakers. there must have been 500 of them on track taking bets and laying them off in the pools. Lou Smith was a legend and he allowed them to do their business on his property, because the net result was there was more handle being pumped through the window's. i suppose the same thing could happen with exchange wagering. they can both thrive at the same time.

maybe things were a bit different back in the 60's and 70's. there was no such thing as an otb, but there were thousand's of bookmaking shops all over in places like dry-cleaner's, restaraunts and bars and small variety shops. but almost everyone you knew bet on horse racing every day. when the law closed down those places for good, people started betting on sports over the telephone.

well the Allan @ Monmouth Bookmakers certainly would not use the PM system at all.

we'd use betfair odds (a nearly round book between 100-102 usually)
and charge a 5% commission on winning bets.

For instance the horse Big Awesome paid 7.40 on track at Tampa. Price would
have paid 12.74 - .64 cents commission. paying a nice round 12.10 at Allan @ Monmouth Bookmakers.

No breakage. We leave the PM system behind and let the robots and AW money to fight it out for the crumbs on the table. On track people would benefit from fixed odds wagering.

There are a million ways to be inventive regarding on track minnow betting instead of forcing people on track to fight the robots of the world in the PM system for the 7.40 payoff.

Allan

Allan

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Seabiscuit@AR

Racetracks that allow rebaters to infest their pools are insane. All they are doing is enabling the rebaters to get rick quick while the racetrack over the long run goes bust as it slowly loses all the non rebate customers who are paying the full takeout

The more people win the more they bet. The more they lose the less they bet until they reach the point where they quit the game altogether. If you let rebaters infest your pools then the non rebate players basically only have poor value bets to choose from at -20% or worse. They are guaranteed to only ever be small players in the pools and to eventually quit forever. Meanwhile the rebate players are able to corner the market on all the value bets in the pool and make a mint

If the rebate player and non rebate player back the same horse, the rebates work to make that bet positive expectation for the rebate player but negative expectation for the non rebate player. So the rebate player and non rebate player can make exactly the same bets but the rebater makes a fortune while the non rebate player goes broke in the long run. The ultimate in unfair play

I can't follow your logic. Why would non-rebate players only have poor value bets at -20% or more to choose from? If the rebate players are only betting the so-called value plays the poor value plays will necessarily be brought back to less than poor value. After all it is a mutuel pool.

Presumably a bettor makes a bet because they believe they have value. If a rebate bettor makes the same bet as a non-rebate player it shouldn't change the belief of the non-rebate player that they are making a value bet.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

AndyC

The pool has to balance to whatever the overall pool takeout is

So if the overall pool takeout is -20% and all horses are equal value then all horses will be -20% plays. So in a 4 horse field we get

Horse A -20%
Horse B -20%
Horse C -20%
Horse D -20%

OK now let's look at a race where Horse A is a value play. Let's call the rebate player Zeljko to pick a random name. OK so Zeljko's computer program tells him to hammer Horse A as it is a value pick. Zeljko has a 10% rebate and hammers this Horse A down to -5% before any rebates so it becomes a +5% value bet for Zeljko post rebate

The pool now becomes
Horse A -5%
Horse B -25%
Horse C -25%
Horse D -25%

The non rebate player has 2 options. Back the same horse as Zeljko the rebate player. If they do this they will lose -5% and go broke slowly in the long run (while Zeljko books a handsome profit at +5% after rebate). OR they can bet against Zeljko and bet on either Horse B, C or D and cop a -25% play and go broke quickly

Bottom line there are no value plays left in the pool for the non rebate player. Their only choice is to either go broke slowly (same play as Zeljko) or go broke fast (go against Zeljko)

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I can't follow your logic. Why would non-rebate players only have poor value bets at -20% or more to choose from? If the rebate players are only betting the so-called value plays the poor value plays will necessarily be brought back to less than poor value. After all it is a mutuel pool.

Presumably a bettor makes a bet because they believe they have value. If a rebate bettor makes the same bet as a non-rebate player it shouldn't change the belief of the non-rebate player that they are making a value bet.

Look at my Big awesome example on track bettors got 7.40, exchange bettors got 12.74.

Big awesome great value at 5.37; a lot less value at 2.70.

If I got 2.7 and other people got 5.37. well....how would you feel?

Allan

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Now if there were no rebates for Zeljko or anyone else then the 2nd scenario would look like this

Horse A +4%
Horse B -28%
Horse C -28%
Horse D -28%

Now the non rebate player has a chance to make a value bet on horse A

The presence of the rebate player Zeljko in the pools has improved the returns on Horses B, C and D from -28% to -25%. But big deal. This means you go broke fast but not quite as fast. Betting against Zeljko still returns you worse than the -20% return in the first scenario where all horses are equal value

The reason the returns on B, C and D have improved is that the total pool takeout has reduced with rebates. If you reduced the takeout across the board for all players not just Zeljko then Horse B, C and D will have ROI -25% instead of -28% with no rebates

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Seabiscuit@AR

.....OK now let's look at a race where Horse A is a value play. Let's call the rebate player Zeljko to pick a random name. OK so Zeljko's computer program tells him to hammer Horse A as it is a value pick. Zeljko has a 10% rebate and hammers this Horse A down to -5% before any rebates so it becomes a +5% value bet for Zeljko post rebate

The pool now becomes
Horse A -5%
Horse B -25%
Horse C -25%
Horse D -25%

......Bottom line there are no value plays left in the pool for the non rebate player. Their only choice is to either go broke slowly (same play as Zeljko) or go broke fast (go against Zeljko)

Here is what I believe you are missing. Before Zeljko bets the pool looks like this:

Horse A +10
Horse B -30
Horse C -30
Horse D -30

The overwhelming majority of bettors will be helped because they won't be on horse A in the first place. They are getting better prices on their underlays. Underlays do win sometimes.

My problem is not with the rebate players, it is with the PM system. I only care what price I am getting when I bet, it is irrelevant what someone else gets. But when I don't know what price I am getting when I bet it essentially becomes a guessing game and not one where I evaluate the probability of a horse winning and bet when the odds are favorable to my evaluation.

[classhandicapper]

Anyone that is sharp enough to recognize overlays will make the pools more efficient with their bets. Their money will make it harder to find real overlays and beat the game. If the biggest bettors at the track are sophisticated, everyone has a problem on their hands.

It's an odd dynamic.

The larger the pools and more unsophisticated the money in them, the more attractive they become to sophisticated money which then corrects the pools.

I could probably argue that someone like me is better off betting against a 18% take at some 3rd string track than a 16% take at AQU. I feel certain I am better off at Saratoga than AQU because there's so much extra tourist and casual money in the pools at Saratoga. But my ideal spot is probably the double at Pleasanton on a day there is mule racing in the 1st.

Of course the other issue is that what's in my best interests is not necessarily in the tracks best interests. They are worried about their own bottom line. I would only argue that what is in the best interests of the track now may not be in their best interests over 20 years.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

in the old days at Rockingham, a good chunk of the handle was coming from bookmakers. there must have been 500 of them on track taking bets and laying them off in the pools. Lou Smith was a legend and he allowed them to do their business on his property, because the net result was there was more handle being pumped through the window's. i suppose the same thing could happen with exchange wagering. they can both thrive at the same time.

maybe things were a bit different back in the 60's and 70's. there was no such thing as an otb, but there were thousand's of bookmaking shops all over in places like dry-cleaner's, restaraunts and bars and small variety shops. but almost everyone you knew bet on horse racing every day. when the law closed down those places for good, people started betting on sports over the telephone.

Exchange wagering is yet another entity that is going to eat racing alive, just like the ADWs and rebate shops (and to some extent, simulcasting) are currently doing. The only way anyone who cares about the sport should be in favor of exchange wagering is if it's owned by the sport where the profits are put back into the sport. Otherwise, it's the death knell should it ever get nationwide approval.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Exchange wagering is yet another entity that is going to eat racing alive, just like the ADWs and rebate shops (and to some extent, simulcasting) are currently doing. The only way anyone who cares about the sport should be in favor of exchange wagering is if it's owned by the sport where the profits are put back into the sport. Otherwise, it's the death knell should it ever get nationwide approval.

Where else would the profits go? The commissions paid to the exchange for making a bet are in the same category as takeout from the mutuel pools.

[Fox]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Where else would the profits go?

Betfair's coffers.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The larger the pools and more unsophisticated the money in them, the more attractive they become to sophisticated money which then corrects the pools.

I could probably argue that someone like me is better off betting against a 18% take at some 3rd string track than a 16% take at AQU. I feel certain I am better off at Saratoga than AQU because there's so much extra tourist and casual money in the pools at Saratoga. But my ideal spot is probably the double at Pleasanton on a day there is mule racing in the 1st. ..

Your first statement above contradicts your feel about Saratoga. If unsophisticated money truly is going in the wrong direction at the windows then there will be even more money poured in by the sophisticated bettors. Saratoga can yield many "good' prices because the races can have large fields and be very competitive, much like a Derby or a BC race.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Fox

Betfair's coffers.

I am sure Betfair would get paid for providing a service but they must contract with the tracks for the percentage they will keep.