18/1 in the gate 7/1 in the winners circle.

[Bustin Stones]

Some of the issue is that there exists a way to estimate final win odds in a race before it's run and bettors aren't using it. So, when the final odds converge on the predicted odds, there is some surprise.
For the uninitiated, all you need to do is divide the daily double will pays by the payoff in the preceding race and subtract 1.
Example when the daily double will pays are to $1...
last race payoff = $6(for a $2 bet) and the will pay is $24 for $1, the result of 24/3=8 minus 1 is 7/1 expected odds on the horse whose will pay is $24.
If the board shows 15/1 while they begin loading, I'm sure the odds will drop to somewhere in the neighborhood of 7-1. Do not be surprised.

[lamboguy]

in a world where people are using conditional wagering, it makes a ton on sense for someone to bet $11,652 two tenths of a second before the race go
off, this will guarantee you get the worst odds on your bet that you can ever expect.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Just some random points on this subject.

1) Rebates, are a partial cause of these extreme betdowns, because it changes the math. If we were old school make a horse 8-1 and bet value at 11-1 or better or maybe these guys are so sharp that they will take 10-1 or better with a smile, they are only knocking the horse down to maybe 12 or 13-1 just in case they have company. With rebates the math changes and their technique changes.

2)I would not assume anything as to what these teams can do. While the racetracks may not be providing them up to the second odds updates, if they are in the system why would I assume they cannot provide it to themselves. Someone on the technical end would have to provide me convincing evidence it cannot happen. These folks are betting and making a lot of money and will use any edge they can to make more and I don't blame them (common sense). On our many posts on this subject I don't recall seeing any of that convincing evidence. Maybe I am a hard sell, but doubt it. By the way a little off topic but I put past posting in the same boat.

3) The optics of this is beyond ridiculous. You assume that the betting public is completely naive if you think they are going to accept with a smile a horse being completely ignored in the betting throughout and then after off the get hammered from 18-1 to 7-1 and wins the race. There is no cure for this. The sport looks crooked, whether it is or not. I promise you that nobody is counting the 8 or 9 times that another horse gets pounded and loses ( assuming there are 8 or 9 times and they probably will not even notice anyhow). By the way if somebody keeps track of these types of bell betdowns, would be fascinating to see how they do long term. Are 18-1's bet down to 7-1 or similar winning 1 out of 5, 1 out of 10 or 1 out of 20. The answer to this question would shed a light on how serious this problem is. A query of something like roi of any horse that drops in half or less when final odds are say 5-1 + after the bell would do the trick. If the final roi sucks on these horses, who cares, but..................

Poindexter's (3) is the ballgame here. Too many of you are asking an ethics question as to whether what these guys are doing is fair. Repeat after me:

I DON'T GIVE A HOOT WHETHER THEY ARE BEING ETHICAL. IF IT LOOKS BAD, IT'S BAD FOR THE SPORT.

Those are the words to live by here. There is no freedom to bet on horse racing. The government can literally ban the sport tomorrow. A bet you make a lot of money on long term can be prohibited. The sport can be offered on any terms that the government and tracks want to offer it. There's no right to make a profit,, whatsoever. The issue is whether certain types of bets harm the sport by making it look crooked, not whether the people placing them are honest and honorable and have found a "fair" way to exploit the pools.

Horse racing, if it wants to compete with other forms of gambling, has to do something about dramatic odds drops followed by a win. Because a lot of people see that and assume it's some sort of insider trading or nefarious activity, WHETHER IT IS OR IS NOT, and decide that the sport isn't trustworthy or worth studying or betting on.

Horse racing can, and should, ban or regulate activities that make the game look crooked. It should do so even if it will put out of business someone who was honestly playing by, and successfully exploiting, the rules as they currently exist. Those people are smart and will find some sort of opportunity in another field. Or maybe they won't and will end up having to get jobs. I don't care- the sport should conduct its business in a manner that people see as honest, which goes beyond whether these players are "playing fair" and goes to the appearance of the betting pools as fair.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Poindexter's (3) is the ballgame here. Too many of you are asking an ethics question as to whether what these guys are doing is fair. Repeat after me:

I DON'T GIVE A HOOT WHETHER THEY ARE BEING ETHICAL. IF IT LOOKS BAD, IT'S BAD FOR THE SPORT.

I thought you were questioning the MANNER in which the bets were entered into the system. That is what I was addressing.

Like I said, I was doing this a decade ago.

If your argument is the massive odds drop on an eventual winner, then that's an entirely different argument and HOW the odds got there is irrelevant IMO.

If he opened at 13-1 and was chopped down to 5/2 earlier in the betting in one flash, but drifted back up to 7/1 at the end, would that generate the same outrage?

[Bustin Stones]

A bettor who has calculated a strong opinion of the likely winners, doesn't need to wait until the final seconds to see the overlay. They just need to compare the expected final win odds to their opinion of each entrant's chances and can bet early.
The only reason to wait until late is to perform arbitrage. If the expected final odds are 7/1 and the board shows 15/1 while they are loading, one can trigger a series of bets to take advantage of the difference. And the reasons for placing multiple bets could be that the program recalculates whenever the win totals change and bets accordingly. From experience, the program would be created to include or exclude one's previous bets from the calculation based on expected delays in posting.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

A bettor who has calculated a strong opinion of the likely winners, doesn't need to wait until the final seconds to see the overlay. They just need to compare the expected final win odds to their opinion of each entrant's chances and can bet early.
The only reason to wait until late is to perform arbitrage. If the expected final odds are 7/1 and the board shows 15/1 while they are loading, one can trigger a series of bets to take advantage of the difference. And the reasons for placing multiple bets could be that the program recalculates whenever the win totals change and bets accordingly. From experience, the program would be created to include or exclude one's previous bets from the calculation based on expected delays in posting.

And, what's the problem with this?

If a player finds an edge in the game (a legal edge) and wishes to exploit it, I say more power to them. That's what we are all trying to do.

[metro]

Andy Beyer wrote an article on CAWs a couple of decades ago, and nothing has really changed, certainly not pari-mutuel technology that race tracks, ADW sites, etc. employ.

CAW programs are set up to hit the true value/odds based on metrics that Elite Club type teams/members use on horses they like. If the they set true win odds on Fast Buck at 7-1, then the CAW is going to keep betting until those odds are met.

If the CAW is getting updated odds every 1-2 seconds, as another poster stated, then that would explain the disparity in bet amounts. Their win bet amounts on Fast Buck fluctuate as more wagers from across the country hit the that pool and CAWs keep sending in corresponding bets based on the instantaneously updated odds.

Given the circumstance they do it in the exotic pools as well, obviously not nearly as cut and dry as win pools though.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I thought you were questioning the MANNER in which the bets were entered into the system. That is what I was addressing.

Like I said, I was doing this a decade ago.

If your argument is the massive odds drop on an eventual winner, then that's an entirely different argument and HOW the odds got there is irrelevant IMO.

If he opened at 13-1 and was chopped down to 5/2 earlier in the betting in one flash, but drifted back up to 7/1 at the end, would that generate the same outrage?

It would not generate outrage and for good reason. Now I want to clarify that I am talking about large handle tracks (Nyra, Gulfstream, Socal....). The general assumption is that the public is very smart. For the public to completely dismiss a horse and leave him at 18-1 entering the starting gate is a pretty good indication that the public doesn't see much in the horse. As mentioned by Bustin Stones you can use DD probables (I prefer to take the final double probables from the previous race load it into a spreadsheet to determine the projected odds ) as a further gauge, but you don't expect a horse that may be 15-1 in the double pools, 18-1 on the board go off at 7-1. When it happens and they win anyone's reaction is going to be WTF.

This is an easily solved problem. Everyone in this sport suffers when the sport looks bad. You have to make it clear to those betting that kind of money that they have to get at least some of their money in earlier. I suggested a few year back that all rebated bets should close at 2 minutes to post giving the non rebated public a chance of seeing a much clearer estimate of the final odds than they currently have and letting them (the non rebated public) react as they might to these kinds of late bet downs. But apparently that is way to inconvenient for the whales to make that kind of sacrifice. So they not only get rebates, they get the final peak of the pools and they get to bet what they want as late as they want (prior to the bell supposedly). Who is running the show? How did a rewards program evolve into kiss the whales asses until your lips bleed dry?

I am 100% against banning anyone. But you can set up some kind of regulations to avoid the negative consequences such as talked about in this thread. Even if it is a requirement of 40% of their bet in by 2 minutes to post. Something to help stabilize the odds and prevent these dramatic odds swings that drive people away from the sport.

[PaceAdvantage]

The whales are getting their asses kissed because they are kind of the reason why the game hasn't completely drifted off into oblivion...

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

...
If a player finds an edge in the game (a legal edge) and wishes to exploit it, I say more power to them. That's what we are all trying to do.

That is where I am at.

Every market has a 'story'.
including;

• What are the (most) significant models ( 'things' ) that happened?
• What direction did they move?
• How did they interact with each other (tradeoff?, or all the same direction?, did any synergy occur?, did anything exponential happen?

Simple specific stuff here are;

1. What did the multis predict for odds range?
2. did anything happen before the race
3. did anything happen in the gate or break?

There is a such thing as a 'dark' horse who is taking money in the lead-in multis. Not that uncommon. Depending on the size of the race, the 'dark horse' may not take the money until late.

(If someone will do the work for posting the lead-in pools, I'll comment. I have not looked into this race, but this is the most probable general occurrence.)

Easiest way to say it is "bad morning line", but ml makers aren't making selections, and they aren't superhuman perfect information chess teams.

If the horse was much higher in predictive multis, then that rules out the most common event.

In that case it could be considered simply a 'big swing' by a player (opinion play), rarely a mis-punch, or it could be inside-information (sometimes called a 'betting coup').
Usually these are the smaller(late only) betting coups, as the larger ones tip their hat by taking a slice of the lead-in multis, and overlap into the category of live horse or dark horse.

All of this is COOL.

The actual bad stuff would include;

• fixing, negative intent
• late betting
• late cancellng
• access to pools (such as 'outgoing' multis) that aren't available to players

[Bustin Stones]

There can be a legitimate reason why at a small track the odds may change so dramatically in the 30 minutes after the daily double will pays. Things happen including late scratches or a horse's looking unready to race in the paddock or last second rider changes or the word goes out from the stable. At smaller tracks inside money can represent a sizable share of the small pools. Some trainer steps up to the window late with $3,000 to win and he doesn't want to share that inside tip.....It's the price one pays for agreeing to bet into those pools. You are coupling the instability of small pools with the instability of parimutuel systems.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

The whales are getting their asses kissed because they are kind of the reason why the game hasn't completely drifted off into oblivion...

Rebates, stupid idea, stupid prizes. By the way when there isn't enough public money for them to extract a profit then what happens? I really don't think requiring them to have 40% of their bet in by 2 minutes to post would be a deal breaker (100% would be ideal, but 40% would be a big help and a step in the right direction). When you help mitigate problems, everyone wins including the Whales.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Rebates, stupid idea, stupid prizes. By the way when there isn't enough public money for them to extract a profit then what happens? I really don't think requiring them to have 40% of their bet in by 2 minutes to post would be a deal breaker (100% would be ideal, but 40% would be a big help and a step in the right direction). When you help mitigate problems, everyone wins including the Whales.

I don't disagree that their needs to be some mitigation...and some major outlets have been doing just that...while others are just too greedy to care

[classhandicapper]

Maybe it’s not feasible, but a possible improvement would be to bar computer assisted wager submission.

You could still use computers to help you handicap and calculate fair odds.

You could still use computers to find inefficiencies between pools.

However, you have to enter the bets manually. That keeps us in the computer age for handicapping and finding value, but brings us back to a time when the big bettors bet manually late anyway. They’d have to do it earlier for more complex bets to avoid getting shut out. So the rest of us could also see what was going on to at least some degree. The tracks and computer guys might not find that acceptable, but it would help.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Maybe it’s not feasible, but a possible improvement would be to bar computer assisted wager submission.

So...punish innovation and technological advancements....interesting

What's next? Ban high frequency trading in the equity markets?