Fixed Odds Wagering

[classhandicapper]

It never caught on in here in the US because Track Management and Horsemen made a concerted effort to deny major track signals to exchange platforms.

Jeff,

I agree. They have to come up with a model that works for them, but how can you have any confidence in any track management to do that when there are no signs of high competency anywhere to be found.

[Onesome]

Originally Posted by TrifectaBox

Don't they post fixed odds long in advance..... which would negate any peek at multi race wagers , or the tote?

Define long in advance? You have antepost fixed odds betting where all bets have action irregardless if the horse runs or not (i.e. this year's Arc in October https://www.oddschecker.com/horse-ra...riomphe/winner). Usually non antepost markets open 24ish hours out after final declarations have been made (like tomorrows finale at Hereford in about 11 hours from now https://www.oddschecker.com/horse-ra...d/17:10/winner)

[Robert Fischer]

[QUOTE=Poindexter;2929603]Right now most people are just betting into the pools. The caw catches these live horses because they are granted access to the pools and when juiced (live) runner gets pounded late they take that info and incorporate it into their betting. If the people who bet these live runners are able to bet at fixed odds of 10-1 they aren’t going to bet them nearly as much in the regular pools. So the pools that you find so predictive, will be less predictive. I know how bookmakers work, they want risk free money. When they get crushed and they will get crushed, all they are going to be able to do is damage control and guys like you who likely will beat them fairly consistently will be limited.


Basketball players and entertains

Your offenses most agressive intro.... sum mau be freai9su PLuc e! how to spellcuss



help pleeasee information and tuglkine and BETH, hde edch other wheter listen to FRICN
\??START AFRICAN FACT1

3

[MJC922]

I'll have what he's having.

[Sheffwed]

[quote=Robert Fischer;2930110]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Right now most people are just betting into the pools. The caw catches these live horses because they are granted access to the pools and when juiced (live) runner gets pounded late they take that info and incorporate it into their betting. If the people who bet these live runners are able to bet at fixed odds of 10-1 they aren’t going to bet them nearly as much in the regular pools. So the pools that you find so predictive, will be less predictive. I know how bookmakers work, they want risk free money. When they get crushed and they will get crushed, all they are going to be able to do is damage control and guys like you who likely will beat them fairly consistently will be limited.


Basketball players and entertains

Your offenses most agressive intro.... sum mau be freai9su PLuc e! how to spellcuss



help pleeasee information and tuglkine and BETH, hde edch other wheter listen to FRICN
\??START AFRICAN FACT1

3

something something Kenilworth - actually makes more sense than many of the posts here...

[castaway01]

The CAW doesn't "catch" live horses, it "creates" live horses on the board, just when it's too late for anyone else to bet them.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by castaway01

The CAW doesn't "catch" live horses, it "creates" live horses on the board, just when it's too late for anyone else to bet them.

My understanding is Benter's models we're basically not profitable (or barely so) until he incorporated the crowd's odds. The whole bit about the horse eating its breakfast is often quoted. Notice he's not just contrasting his odds with the crowd's odds at the end of the process as most of us do, though he seemed to do that in the early attempts. I think it's safe to say he absolutely did detect action and piled on to it, and that was actually the real breakthrough. He in fact changed everything up by starting his process with the crowd's odds which presumably already do include to some degree the perceived raceday status of the horse's health and stable intent. It was a game-changer that he apparently said was his biggest innovation and allowed him to win many millions of dollars at 19% takeout with no rebate. Nowadays there's much more competition doing this and rebates are available besides but I don't think any of these CAW teams would do so well without detecting action. I suspect they won't be keen on anything whatsoever being introduced (like fixed odds) which might obscure their ability to detect action. I'm open to being corrected about this as I do not know any CAW teams nor do I know Mr. Benter, only what I've read about him over the years.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by castaway01

The CAW doesn't "catch" live horses, it "creates" live horses on the board, just when it's too late for anyone else to bet them.

So if trainer x has a cheap claimer juiced up, the caw just knows. Okay.

[Poindexter]

[quote=Sheffwed;2930161]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

something something Kenilworth - actually makes more sense than many of the posts here...

Have no idea what Robert Fisher is saying or what something, something kenilworth means. But if you disagree with a post challenge it. If you want t challenge anything I post I am more than happy to explain my reasoning. But implying a number of posts make no sense is weak. What posts make no sense and why?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by MJC922

My understanding is Benter's models we're basically not profitable (or barely so) until he incorporated the crowd's odds. The whole bit about the horse eating its breakfast is often quoted. Notice he's not just contrasting his odds with the crowd's odds at the end of the process as most of us do, though he seemed to do that in the early attempts. I think it's safe to say he absolutely did detect action and piled on to it, and that was actually the real breakthrough. He in fact changed everything up by starting his process with the crowd's odds which presumably already do include to some degree the perceived raceday status of the horse's health and stable intent. It was a game-changer that he apparently said was his biggest innovation and allowed him to win many millions of dollars at 19% takeout with no rebate. Nowadays there's much more competition doing this and rebates are available besides but I don't think any of these CAW teams would do so well without detecting action. I suspect they won't be keen on anything whatsoever being introduced (like fixed odds) which might obscure their ability to detect action. I'm open to being corrected about this as I do not know any CAW teams nor do I know Mr. Benter, only what I've read about him over the years.

I understand how incorporating the crowd's odds into your model helps you create a more accurate odds line, but I don't understand how it helps you win.

If I make a horse 2-1 and the crowd makes him 9-1, let's say the using both makes his new line 5-1. I'm still going to bet him at 9-1.

If I make a horse 2-1 and the crowd makes him 4-1, let's say the using both makes his new line 3-1. I'm still going to bet him at 4-1.

About the only time it might change your bet is if I make a horse 2-1 and the crowd makes him 3-1. Let's say the using both makes him 5/2. I might not bet him at 5/2 because there's not enough margin of safety.

Someone explained it to me one time and it made a little sense, but I can't remember what the thinking was.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I understand how incorporating the crowd's odds into your model helps you create a more accurate odds line, but I don't understand how it helps you win.

If I make a horse 2-1 and the crowd makes him 9-1, let's say the using both makes his new line 5-1. I'm still going to bet him at 9-1.

If I make a horse 2-1 and the crowd makes him 4-1, let's say the using both makes his new line 3-1. I'm still going to bet him at 4-1.

About the only time it might change your bet is if I make a horse 2-1 and the crowd makes him 3-1. Let's say the using both makes him 5/2. I might not bet him at 5/2 because there's not enough margin of safety.

Someone explained it to me one time and it made a little sense, but I can't remember what the thinking was.

Maybe something so obvious as to be 2-1 on your fundamental model loses money at 9-1. Maybe something of yours at 6-1 on the fundamental model makes money at 9-1. I don't want to pretend to know because I don't, but live and dead on the board plays into it, otherwise he probably wouldn't start with the 9-1 and bend it, he'd just finish with it the way we do.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I understand how incorporating the crowd's odds into your model helps you create a more accurate odds line, but I don't understand how it helps you win.

If I make a horse 2-1 and the crowd makes him 9-1, let's say the using both makes his new line 5-1. I'm still going to bet him at 9-1.

If I make a horse 2-1 and the crowd makes him 4-1, let's say the using both makes his new line 3-1. I'm still going to bet him at 4-1.

About the only time it might change your bet is if I make a horse 2-1 and the crowd makes him 3-1. Let's say the using both makes him 5/2. I might not bet him at 5/2 because there's not enough margin of safety.

Someone explained it to me one time and it made a little sense, but I can't remember what the thinking was.

I don’t pretend to have the answer either. My guess is it also varies on the horse. A horse that hasn’t raced in 6 months or a first time starter or even a horse in a new barn is probably a lot more tote board dependent then a hoerse that has been racing regularly on todays surface.

Just looking at it from a logic standpoint, these teams use rebates to earn. They bet large amounts of money and huge errors can be devastating to their bankroll/profit loss. In a simple sense a horse that I make 2-1 that is going off at 10-1 is not going to win 33 percent of the time long run (I should say the group of horses that I make 2-1 going off at 10-1). So any adjustment above 2-1 makes my line more accurate. I am sure that these teams have many thousands of races in their database to help them learn and earn.

An interesting aside. In the bet with the best podcast with Barry meadow he actually shared some interesting information. I think he retired in 2011. But he explained that he played horses that were 50 percent or higher above his line at up to 6-1 on his line. Over his entire career I believe he said that he netted 1 percent pre rebate in the win pool. That is what I heard so if that is incorrect someone can correct me as I only listened once.This is a guy that knew every horse on the southern and Northern California circuit like they were his kids and watched every replay thoroughly. Much of this betting took place when caw wasn’t around and then later not nearly as significant as they are today. For Joe fan to bet the races sans rebate and have any chance of winning in today’s game is a complete pipe dream. Whether fixed odds betting can change this fact remains to be seen. I am highly skeptical. I stand by my zillion previous posts that rebates need to be eliminated and takeout corrected. Of course the racing industry is going to be all in on this fixed odds wagering because it enables them to stick with their beloved status quo. When it fails, oh well.

[Sheffwed]

[quote=Poindexter;2930227]

Originally Posted by Sheffwed

Have no idea what Robert Fisher is saying or what something, something kenilworth means. But if you disagree with a post challenge it. If you want t challenge anything I post I am more than happy to explain my reasoning. But implying a number of posts make no sense is weak. What posts make no sense and why?

what makes you think I was talking about you?

plenty of good thoughtful posts here of course, just a lot of ridiculous arguments also

what I don't get as others have posted on this thread is that you can wager on "fixed odds" or what they call in the UK "I'll take the price" at any betting shop on any High Street in the UK, and you can do the same in Ireland and Australia, but somehow that won't work here

exactly the sort of stuck thinking that got this sport into the mess it is in today

rather than focusing on giving people more reasons to have a chance to be treated fairly and have a nice day out - the places the sport thrives here and elsewhere is when people get a positive environment and entertainment and social gathering opportunities - like Derby Week, the Preakness, a nice day at Hot Springs, Saratoga (except for last year's debacle, here's hoping the June long weekend is a big success and we put that in the past quickly) and Del Mar, Keeneland and similar, also Nashville and Far Hills and similar - people don't want to show up to 70's factory racing, and why would they, Mountaineer in season of course is successful at the B level in this age of simulcasting thanks to the great Mark and Peter - quality entertainment being again the common denominator here

speaking of "taking the price" - please pretty please bring back on course bookmakers, the same three countries above have that today, would require people to show up on track to participate (and systems could be tied in so that takeout occurs just the same)

has the sport sunk so low that racetrack owners don't care who shows up or not or whether gamblers feel like they have a fair shake or not?

[the little guy]

Perhaps educating yourself on the purse issues in the UK because of how little bookmakers contribute from their handle would educate you at least a little bit.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[TrifectaBox]

Originally Posted by castaway01

The CAW doesn't "catch" live horses, it "creates" live horses on the board, just when it's too late for anyone else to bet them.

Nice to see at least some folks here get it .



And here's a tidbit from someone who knows a little about betting on horses

Karl Broberg

@KarlBroberg


Fixed-Odds Wagering for years many have dreamed about it but the maximum wager allowed will be so small because of the venues they are going to start it off with they won’t be able to prove concept. If there is no max wager they will get crushed