"Fed Up With the CAWs..."

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I find it mind boggling.

Granted, I don't look at a lot of races. I pass the races where I know I don't have the knowledge or information needed to find a legitimate overlay. But when I do consider a race, I feel like I know almost everything I need to know to potentially find an overlay. Yet, I am constantly passing on races I handicap because the odds seem fair enough to not be worth a play. To find that many playable races, have the size of your bets reduce your advantage, and still have profits before rebates is amazing.

I have found Beyer to romanticize somewhat in his narratives, whereas I took him word-for-word in my younger days. But perhaps America is just now catching up to the Australia of 30 years ago, as regards slim edges and the pursuit of them...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-25c1238d03e5/

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I have found Beyer to romanticize somewhat in his narratives, whereas I took him word-for-word in my younger days. But perhaps America is just now catching up to the Australia of 30 years ago, as regards slim edges and the pursuit of them...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-25c1238d03e5/

I was talking about computer betting, efficient pools, and that kind of stuff the other day with regard to Hong Kong and other places that are still doing very well.

Despite very efficient pools, the game remains extremely popular in some places. I find that interesting given the way people are complaining and even dropping out because of the use of computers in the US.

That was an interesting article in that his computer model didn't seem particularly sophisticated. He used it as a starting point and then added in some subjective analysis. I like that approach. IMO, some things are too complex to be coded for, but I guess a lot can because these guys in the US are killer good.

This was pretty funny.

I thought I would be able to use American-style speed- handicapping methods and come up with 50-1 shots that I love. And, indeed, I've found plenty of them. Unfortunately, they all have run exactly like 50-1 shots.

I don't want to go on another of my rants about the problems with speed figures. The times of races are obviously important, but there are clearly "issues". It seems to me the correct approach these days is not to find fast horses (that everyone else finds). It's to find horses that are better/worse than their recent speed figures indicate. The obviously fast ones all get bet.

[GMB@BP]

I asked this question a long time ago and was told they are in every pool but shouldnt the smaller the track/pool the more likely they wont be there? How can they bet 80% of a pool and make any profit? The math in my head just doesnt add that up with the high takeout rates.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

I asked this question a long time ago and was told they are in every pool but shouldnt the smaller the track/pool the more likely they wont be there? How can they bet 80% of a pool and make any profit? The math in my head just doesnt add that up with the high takeout rates.

If they are betting at the CA Fair tracks I'd be shocked. When I used to play those tracks a bit I had to be careful or I'd move the odds.

I'm not sure who is doing the betting, but IMO the betting at some tracks is sharper than others.

[Jeff P]

The charts data has pool size for each race.

Based on pool size history, day of week, field size, etc. it's not hard to estimate (ballpark) pool sizes for the race in front of you.

During a phone conversation with members of a CAW team several years ago I was told they were in every pool at every track that distributed a signal.

Except for special event days like KY Derby, Preakness, Belmont, BC, etc., they were looking to have their handle end up being no more than 1.50% to 1.75% of every pool.

If they ended up with less than that they were leaving money on the table.

If they ended up with more than that they were cannibalizing their returns.

The most interesting part to me was their approach to special event days which can easily be 8X or 10X the handle of a good Saturday card.

They were willing to increase their handle on special event days to maybe 1.4X or 1.5X that of a good Saturday card.

But they weren't willing to risk doing 8X or 10X even though the pools could easily support that.

When I asked "Why Not?" I was told "Because that would be gambling."

It's possible not all CAW teams share that same view.

But it was obvious consistency mattered to them.


-jp
.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

I asked this question a long time ago and was told they are in every pool but shouldnt the smaller the track/pool the more likely they wont be there? How can they bet 80% of a pool and make any profit? The math in my head just doesnt add that up with the high takeout rates.

Not 80% of the pool.

80% of the pools.

Thus, they are in almost every pool.

[Dave Schwartz]

Except for special event days like KY Derby, Preakness, Belmont, BC, etc., they were looking to have their handle end up being no more than 1.50% to 1.75% of every pool.

Whoever told you that was completely out to lunch.

Recently there was an article posted on here somewhere that spoke of how they were above 30% of all handle - I believe it was in California.

The estimates I had 10-15 years ago (from a VERY reliable source) that win pools ranged from a high of around 34% at high rebate tracks down to as low as 4% at tracks with very low rebates.

That's why I was shocked at the article about the California tracks.

Perhaps this is the article (according to ChatGPT).

https://paulickreport.com/horseplaye...ering-markets/

[iamt]

I think Jeff was talking about a specific individual group, not their combined total.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Except for special event days like KY Derby, Preakness, Belmont, BC, etc., they were looking to have their handle end up being no more than 1.50% to 1.75% of every pool.

So, if an average of 20 teams are in the mix at a certain track, we're looking at combined teams total handle being 30-35% of every pool...Sounds right.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

So, if an average of 20 teams are in the mix at a certain track, we're looking at combined teams total handle being 30-35% of every pool...Sounds right.

Except there aren't 20 teams of note.

There are 6.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Not to mention that the size of their wagers should nullify whatever profit expectation they might have.

and to not mention, a mention that flat betting at a profit is basically a mistake/error by them.

totally made up numbers here

but say

a) this particular focus batch of wagers is into an exacta pool w/ $1 min

b) trainer Ernest Hemmingway tells them when a horse is under the weather or not in stock of his EPO blood builder and his anabolic PEDs this month

c) jockey Roberto Clemente and two closely knit partner jockeys(who happen to be on 2 of the 3 early speeds) all agree to ride out of the top two finishing positions because Roberto is riding a ml favorite for an out of town jockey who doesn't typically provide Roberto w/ 1st-call trainer/owner and because it happens to be a non mega-purse/highstakes race.

d) ml maker instills the horse as ml fav

e) it somehow doesn't rain and race stays on turf with a full field



So the CAWs are foaming at the mouth...

18.5% raw takeout to general public and I'm making this figure up, and say it's a 13% rebate to the CAW syndicate.

last batch of wagering cycle comes in, and although the public bets a lot on the Roberto Clemente chalk, the actual total exacta combos slightly favor the the Roberto Clemente chalk, but the syndicate actually bets more on a lone speed runner (well he's lone speed now that Clemente's two partner jocks aren't sending) and the syndicate also mainly bets the 3 other non fixed entrants in combo with that lone speed...

In a world of perfection they spread a max churn in order to lose 12% total before rebates, so they get their 13% rebates and earn 1.0% profit on a large churn.
Rinse repeat.

but 75% (or four of six) of these guys are screwing up badly and winning 19% leaving a lot of churn on the table, and the other 25% are 'within a rounding error' so they are screwing up and winning 18.4% or something...

forgive me if I'm making a brain fart through this fog (and correct if you see mistakes, i take no offense)

or so says Pat Cummings executive source mole, who for all I know has handle and co-workers supported by the CAW whose info he kindly shares with CAW alarmist Cummings.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by iamt

I think Jeff was talking about a specific individual group, not their combined total.

That's exactly right.

I was talking about one team (not the combined total of all teams.)

They said they were betting north of $100M/year.

I suspect they were the 5th or 6th largest in terms of annual handle at the time. (Haven't spoken to them recently.)



The Paulick Report article Dave linked to takes a look at all handle bet through both RGS and Elite:

The story for all customers other than Elite and RGS CAWs looks rather different.

Real per-race or per-opportunity handle from everyone else wagering on Del Mar's races is down in nine of 11 pools, with declines in the show and pick four pools the most substantial, at 15.2% and 19.2%, respectively.

Real win pool growth is only 1.6% over the period.

The most substantial growth has come in Del Mar's pick six pool, a single-ticket jackpot offering, now with a low minimum investment since 2021 ($0.20), and which carries an effective daily takeout rate of more than 46%.

“It's pretty much all bad news on this front,” said TIF executive director Patrick Cummings.

“With the exception of the pick six pool, which carries the highest effective takeout rate and the lowest chance of actually winning, real handle in nearly every pool from all customers that are not playing through Elite and RGS is down.”

-jp
.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

and to not mention, a mention that flat betting at a profit is basically a mistake/error by them.

totally made up numbers here

but say

a) this particular focus batch of wagers is into an exacta pool w/ $1 min

b) trainer Ernest Hemmingway tells them when a horse is under the weather or not in stock of his EPO blood builder and his anabolic PEDs this month

c) jockey Roberto Clemente and two closely knit partner jockeys(who happen to be on 2 of the 3 early speeds) all agree to ride out of the top two finishing positions because Roberto is riding a ml favorite for an out of town jockey who doesn't typically provide Roberto w/ 1st-call trainer/owner and because it happens to be a non mega-purse/highstakes race.

d) ml maker instills the horse as ml fav

e) it somehow doesn't rain and race stays on turf with a full field



So the CAWs are foaming at the mouth...

18.5% raw takeout to general public and I'm making this figure up, and say it's a 13% rebate to the CAW syndicate.

last batch of wagering cycle comes in, and although the public bets a lot on the Roberto Clemente chalk, the actual total exacta combos slightly favor the the Roberto Clemente chalk, but the syndicate actually bets more on a lone speed runner (well he's lone speed now that Clemente's two partner jocks aren't sending) and the syndicate also mainly bets the 3 other non fixed entrants in combo with that lone speed...

In a world of perfection they spread a max churn in order to lose 12% total before rebates, so they get their 13% rebates and earn 1.0% profit on a large churn.
Rinse repeat.

but 75% (or four of six) of these guys are screwing up badly and winning 19% leaving a lot of churn on the table, and the other 25% are 'within a rounding error' so they are screwing up and winning 18.4% or something...

forgive me if I'm making a brain fart through this fog (and correct if you see mistakes, i take no offense)

or so says Pat Cummings executive source mole, who for all I know has handle and co-workers supported by the CAW whose info he kindly shares with CAW alarmist Cummings.

Granted I'm no and stats guru but someone would have to explain to me how 1% profit on a wager via returns is any different from getting back 1% on a wager via rebate. Not sure where churn enters into the picture here at the most basic level it is what it is.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by MJC922

Granted I'm no and stats guru but someone would have to explain to me how 1% profit on a wager via returns is any different from getting back 1% on a wager via rebate. Not sure where churn enters into the picture here at the most basic level it is what it is.

not sure if this is exactly what you are asking, but based on how i'm reading the question;

they are getting the rebate regardless

so the difference between 1% on a regular wager flat bet profit vs 1% after rebates is

if flat bet they are then getting 14% total profit, because of the rebate coming in regardless.

sounds obviously better, but it is not.


someone would have to do the math for me, and pool-size enters the equation as well to avoid the 6 teams cannibalizing each other too much, but there is an optimum balance of ROI and churn.

(also side note an error from my example: 4/6 = 2/3 not 3/4 , i'm serious when i say brain is funked)

the idea with churn is you are getting exponential growth by pushing a lot more through the window, you're able to bet more chalk which unfortunately brings a lower ceiling ROI than if you were some sniper passing a ton of races to ocassional hit a mid-range shot at lower wager-size but the positives outweigh in that you may bet a lot more on chalks w/out hurting prices, and it brings higher hit% and lower variance(lower risk and losing streaks) due to chalk winning more and having more coverage

i could be leaving stuff out and making mistakes, so no offense taken if members would like to debate or correct

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

That's exactly right.

I was talking about one team (not the combined total of all teams.)

They said they were betting north of $100M/year.

I suspect they were the 5th or 6th largest in terms of annual handle at the time. (Haven't spoken to them recently.)



The Paulick Report article Dave linked to takes a look at all handle bet through both RGS and Elite:





-jp
.

if all the people that don't bet as CAW's would stop playing into these pools, the CAW boys could have a great time battling each other for those 1% profit margins.