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 Handicapping Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 10-16-2022, 12:07 AM   #61
Magister Ludi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
The last one is part of it, but there are two much bigger parts.

First, this is kind of a 1A to the above, is the ability to fire many bets at the last possible second. The second is being able to do so while getting a much better price because of rebates.

The CAWs are playing a very different game than us, and it is at our expense. There are some playing at effective takeouts of less than 5% in my very informed opinion, and they are also essentially playing fixed odds when they bet.
You are correct. Double-digit rebates, in effect, cut the takeout to ~5%.

You are also correct about "fixed odds". In most races, the final odds aren't too difficult to model with a high degree of accuracy - hence, "fixed odds".
Magister Ludi is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-16-2022, 10:30 AM   #62
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,528
I must be the only guy on earth that doesn’t care that the CAWs get large rebates beyond the fact that I think the money would be better used by the industry in other ways. My problem with the CAWs is simply that they are very good handicappers and bettors and make the pools more efficient. Their impact on the game was kind of like taking a $10 and $20 poker player with an edge and adding Doyle Brunson, Phil Ivey etc.. to the game.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"

Last edited by classhandicapper; 10-16-2022 at 10:32 AM.
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-16-2022, 10:32 AM   #63
GMB@BP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 5,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustRalph View Post
This is the crux of the problem.

2nd biggest problem is field size
and you have to blame the tracks for this in my book, CAW just doing what they were allowed to do.
GMB@BP is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-16-2022, 11:39 AM   #64
castaway01
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 3,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula_2002 View Post
True I dont bet, but I probably put more time recording and analyzing tote board data, on a daily basis, than most if anyone here. I also have an extremely large database of toteboard data.
I earned my wings a long time ago.. ugh!!! .

And if I can go from CAA To CAW, then 24/7. 365 days a year.
Not for the money, but for the winning
But you had to ask what CAW even meant, so how can you then throw in a bunch of posts like you know what anyone is talking about? We're way beyond that level here, which is why people like you and me should let the experts talk.
castaway01 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-16-2022, 02:51 PM   #65
formula_2002
what an easy game.
 
formula_2002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 43,096
informative.
interview with a caw player.

https://pastthewire.com/horseracings-true-lifeline/
__________________
Peace on earth, good will to all
GOD BLESS AMERICA

" I pass with relief from the tossing sea of cause and theory to the firm ground of result and fact"
Winston Churchill
formula_2002 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-17-2022, 04:51 AM   #66
Poindexter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post
I must be the only guy on earth that doesn’t care that the CAWs get large rebates beyond the fact that I think the money would be better used by the industry in other ways. My problem with the CAWs is simply that they are very good handicappers and bettors and make the pools more efficient. Their impact on the game was kind of like taking a $10 and $20 poker player with an edge and adding Doyle Brunson, Phil Ivey etc.. to the game.
I don't think you are the only one that has/had that attitude. One of the reasons I started posting about it a number of years ago was because I grew tired of people rationalizing it and comparing it to airline rewards. If I fly from Vegas to New York, and pay the going rate in coach, doesn't affect me one iota (or anyone else on the plane for that matter) that some guy who makes that trip 200 times a year might be sitting in First class and paying half as much as I am. I pay the going rate, he pays a discounted rate because he provides value to the airlines and they are smart marketers. I am not paying more for my seat because he is paying less for his seat. He is entitled to his special rate as I would be if I chose to make the trip 200 times a year.

Racing is not like that. If some huge bettor is getting a 6 to 8% rebate in the win pool and working on -3%, he is netting 3 to 5% profit, which is fine. What is not fine is that he is driving up the takeout on the rest of the betting public and more importantly he is driving down the prices on the horses who have the best chance of winning long run. He (she/they, whatever) does not lose 3% long run betting huge amounts of money because they are lucky. They are darn good. Once again, them being good is not a problem and is fair game. The rebates are a problem because it motivates this person/group to drive prices down on all live horses below fair value. One can argue that by these groups hammering the 3-5-7-9-11 they are giving the public better prices on the other 6 horses. Agreed. But the net effect of all this is that they ultimately drop virtually all horses to below break even. The horse that was -40-% may now only be -24%, so if you bet this horse win and you bet him, you will be paid more the time that he wins, but over all races your are still losing money.

Now if you have found a leak in their game and do better today than you did many years ago, more power to you. The majority of folks playing this game are either lying to themselves, getting really good rebates themselves, or are flat out losing and don't care. There is a reason a lot of people who enjoy this sport, don't even play it anymore. It became futile to try to win. Maybe some have just transitioned into tournament play (Derby Wars etc where everyone is on a fair playing field I believe).


Now the one thing I omitted from this post was late odds drops. Obviously if caws are betting in the last seconds and knocking every solid contender that is above fair value to below fair value, then a lot of times you will see huge odds drops. If they are knocking a horse down from 3-1 to 4/5 (which often shows up after the race starts) you can bet your last dollar that somewhere around 4/5 is the correct price not 3-1. We know a 4/5 shot should win about 48% of the time, so there is little reason to be shocked that the horses that are bet like that win often. TLG, has posted that Caws are not in the win pool and that he is not seeing the same kind of late odds changes he was prior to them being told they had to bet by 2 or 3 minutes to post (whichever it is).

So basically caws getting big rebates just about eliminates all value from the pools and creates bigger last second odds drops (if they were not getting big rebates the 3-1 to 4/5 would be more like 3-1 to 6/5). It thus makes it mandatory for anyone else to get big rebates themselves to beat the game unless they are handicapping with strategies that are far different from conventional handicapping wisdom. If you have found a way to beat the game using strategies that consistently put you on horses that have odds that go up rather than down after the race goes off, than the caws are your best friend. For every person that can say this there are at least 99 others than cannot. Not exactly a great way to build a sport that has a heck of a lot of competition these days.

Bottom line is that the fact that this real smart money is not in the Win pool at NYRA, should be a huge welcome sign to anyone that bets horses. The majority should do better with them either out of the pool or in it minimally. They also have nickel breakage which is a lot better than dime breakage. Keeping Caws out of the win pool and the pick 6 pool and cross country pick 5 pool is not exactly the solution to horse racing's problems but at a circuit as huge as NYRA is definitely a step in the right direction. If you enjoy betting horses and you aren't beating this game and you want to beat this game, I cannot think of a better idea than to play only win bets at NYRA.
Poindexter is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-17-2022, 09:19 AM   #67
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,528
Quote:
Racing is not like that. If some huge bettor is getting a 6 to 8% rebate in the win pool and working on -3%, he is netting 3 to 5% profit, which is fine. What is not fine is that he is driving up the takeout on the rest of the betting public and more importantly he is driving down the prices on the horses who have the best chance of winning long run.

First, I agree the CAW betting makes the pools more efficient. That's a problem for everyone (including them) because there are fewer overlays or even horses that are close to break even. I'm not even really complaining about it. It's a free market and we are all competing.

Second, their ability to bet so late is also problematical. Their use of computers to bet is an edge, but so is my use of a database now and so was taping replays from the Harvey Pack show before everyone had them etc..

Third, the money for their rebates has ZERO impact on my profits and losses.

If the track take is 16%, the public is going to lose 16% plus breakage regardless of whether the CAWs are in the pool or not and regardless of whether they get no rebates or large rebates. It's a separate budget that cuts into the track's/ADW's bottom line not the public's.

The most you can argue is that if they weren't giving large rebates to the CAWs, they could lower the take a small amount across the board instead and keep their bottom line steady.

Are they better off giving rebates based on volume or operating with a lower take across the board?

That's a business decision.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"

Last edited by classhandicapper; 10-17-2022 at 09:27 AM.
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-17-2022, 10:45 AM   #68
Poindexter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post
This is a mathematical fallacy. I've tried to explain it in the past.

First, I agree the CAW betting makes the pools more efficient because they are so good. That's a problem for everyone (including them) because there are fewer overlays or even horses that are close to break even. I'm not even really complaining about it. It's a free market. It just sucks for people putting a lot of work into trying to win.

Second, the money for their rebates has ZERO impact on my profits and losses over and above that greater efficiency.

If the track take is 16%, the public is going to lose 16% plus breakage regardless of whether the CAWs are in the pool or not and regardless of whether they get no rebates or large rebates. It's a separate budget that cuts into the track's/ADW's bottom line not the public's.

The most you can argue is that if they weren't giving large rebates to the CAWs, they could lower the take a tiny amount across the board instead and keep their bottom line steady.

Are they better off giving rebates based on volume or operating with a lower take across the board?

That's a business decision.
Mathematical fallacy?

I was following this stuff more a few years back when I actually cared. But everything I read back then lead me to believe my numbers are somewhat accurate. I remember posting about what I heard in a CHRB meeting and how much they were giving out in rebates to players that bet x amount of dollars. I am speaking primarily win pool. The exotics are a different animal with some players in some pools at some tracks receiving ridiculously high rebates making those pools a donation for any non rebated player. Different subject.

No matter whether there are rebates are not, smarter bettors make it harder for other bettors. Dumber bettors make it easier for other bettors. Why do horse players like touristy tracks with big pools? Dumb money. Even back in the day (when some folks were betting numbers and colors and jockey and public selectors galore) people preferred playing into big weekend crowds with a lot more novice money in the pools. On weekdays, the serious, sharp players made up a much higher percentage of the betting pools than they did on weekends.

Do not think about the fact that rebates are coming from adw's. Irrelevant. Think about what the long term net (in the actual pool) is for these caws in the win pool at a major circuit. My guess is that they comprise about 35% of the pool (it could be 25% it could be 40%+) whatever it is the fact that there is dumb money in the pools on some days should be fairly meaningless since they (the Caws) can bet as much as they want to negate it. My guess is that whatever the percentage is, it probably grows each year, which will only make things tougher on other players. If I am correct with 35% of the pool working at -3 % then explained in my post above the other 65% is losing a lot more than the track take. There is no way to escape that. I don't know why you think there is?

Don't get me wrong, if they eliminated rebates forever, these caws would still make money, they would still hurt other players and they will still iron out a lot of value from the pool. But they would have to leave themselves a profit margin. Without rebates they cannot drive horses below fair value and make money. They would have to leave horses above fair value to make money. Read the article that formula posted. Everyday player making money goes caw and suddenly he is betting exponentially more. ITP, says the same thing in his podcasts. These are players that were winning before rebates. You give them rebates it becomes a different game. They bet much more and with a different objective and they knock out just about all the value from the pools.

Thus the game becomes what the game has become. It goes nowhere, Caws bet more everyday players bet less and unless some steps are taken and this one by NYRA is a small baby step, the game will likely dry up as another poster posted above. Eliminate the caw money, and look at todays total betting and compare it to 1997 adjusting for inflation. Make any excuse you want, bottom line is bad policy makes for bad economy. Whether it is the actual economy or the horse racing economy. Now you can be like ITP and claim that tv touts giving bad pick 4 plays is the reason the game is failing (while cashing in on big rebates) or you can use some logic and realize that the system is broken and basically set up to transfer money from the least informed and least rebated to the most informed and most rebated. By the way I am not saying I disagree with some of ITP's points, I am saying that if you don't fix the game, it doesn't matter.

Regarding the end of your post. There is only one way to make this game successful. Eliminate all rebates and make the WPS takeout 8%, the exotic takeout (double/exactas)10-12%, and super exotic (tris/supers, multi picks...) 15%. These are numbers that will make the sport comparable to its main competition. But no major track is willing to take the risk or make the leap. So the entire industry is on borrowed time. At least NYRA is trying something. I don't believe it is too late to fix the game, because gambling is so popular right now. But the game has to be fairly priced or other gambling games will just crush this sport. It is just so futile to try to market the sport when it is priced so poorly. Folks might stick around for a week, a month a year, but unless they are really good, they will move over to the competition. It is just inevitable.
Poindexter is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-17-2022, 11:29 AM   #69
davew
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustRalph View Post
This is the crux of the problem.

2nd biggest problem is field size
and the resulting affect on breakage.




last week I had a $2.58 pay-off at Keeneland which would have been $2.40 at most places and $2.50 at some like NYRA
davew is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-17-2022, 01:26 PM   #70
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,528
Quote:
Mathematical fallacy?
I was taking about rebates. The money for rebates is not coming out of the pools. So the rebates have ZERO impact on the prices you are getting for your horses or your ROI. The only thing that's impacting the prices and your ROI is the fact that those guys are good and are making the pools more efficient.

Quote:
If I am correct with 35% of the pool working at -3 % then explained in my post above the other 65% is losing a lot more than the track take. There is no way to escape that. I don't know why you think there is?
That doesn't prevent you from being on the same horses if you are also good. Plenty of other people are on the same horses much of the time and net out to winners, losing less than the take or the take. It's the really bad players that lose more than the take.

Forget about rebates and focus on pool efficiency.

The rebate debate is about the best use of that money.

Should they give volume discounts to attract the biggest potential players or possibly lower the take for everyone by an amount that nets to a similar hit to their bottom line. My guess is they already thought about that and think the large volume rebates are better for them. I'm not sure I agree when discussing the very long term as opposed to medium term.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"

Last edited by classhandicapper; 10-17-2022 at 01:39 PM.
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-17-2022, 01:35 PM   #71
Franco Santiago
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 117
For those of you that are frustrated by lower odds after the gate opens, I ask you to do this: track 100 of your win bets and note whether or not the odds go up or the odds go down after the gate opens. Then, I ask you to review two sets of your bets: those in which the odds went down and those in which the odds went up.

I can almost guarantee that your ROI on the wagers in which your odds went down will be higher than the your ROI on the wagers in which your odds went up (as well as your win percentage). In fact, I will bet that you are losing a LOT of money on those bets in which your odds went up.

After you do this and you discover that what I am saying is true, you will be HOPING and PRAYING that your odds flash lower when the horses are on the backstretch. But don't take it from me....do yourself a favor and keep track as I suggested above. This might be the greatest advice anyone has ever given you in this game. I know that it totally enlightened me and never bitched about my odds going down again.

Best to you,

Franco

Last edited by Franco Santiago; 10-17-2022 at 01:36 PM.
Franco Santiago is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-17-2022, 01:50 PM   #72
JohnGalt1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by usedtolovetvg View Post
I am getting so tired of the odds changing well after the horses leave the gate. I haven't posted for a while but I just made a big bet on the 1 at MNR race 5. Leaving the gate the horse broke on top and the odds dropped to 3-1 from 7-2. OK, I can accept that. Turning for home the horse open up by 5 and miraculously the horse dropped from 3-1 to 6/5. I have seen this happen at many of the smaller tracks but MNR is the worst offender.

The bigger problem I'm seeing now is that the same shit is happening at NYRA and SoCal tracks. I think it is time for the feds to look into this and see wtf is going on. I am not a huge punter but this kind of activity is driving me away from the sport I love.
This the first post.

Everyone is hung up about CAWS's

I think a major factor is ADW's and when they put in the bets mad at their sites.

Years ago, I put in all my bets for Turf Paradise before the first race. When the pools came up or the 5th or 6th race my horse was 99-1. I checked the pools and the horse had $2 in the win pool. My $20 bet was placed two hours before. Twin Spires had not sent in the bets yet, probably waiting for enough money.

If ADW's send money in intervals, wouldn't the last dump be the largest of all? And using the example above, if many betters at the last minute saw 7-2 and decided to bet or add to their bet, the odds would drop.

I would guess the last drops of ADW's and the track's simulcast site would be more than 40% affecting odds on all bets.
JohnGalt1 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-17-2022, 03:52 PM   #73
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnGalt1 View Post
This the first post.

Everyone is hung up about CAWS's

I think a major factor is ADW's and when they put in the bets mad at their sites.

Years ago, I put in all my bets for Turf Paradise before the first race. When the pools came up or the 5th or 6th race my horse was 99-1. I checked the pools and the horse had $2 in the win pool. My $20 bet was placed two hours before. Twin Spires had not sent in the bets yet, probably waiting for enough money.

If ADW's send money in intervals, wouldn't the last dump be the largest of all? And using the example above, if many betters at the last minute saw 7-2 and decided to bet or add to their bet, the odds would drop.

I would guess the last drops of ADW's and the track's simulcast site would be more than 40% affecting odds on all bets.
Times have changed. This isn't the issue, it is the CAWs.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-17-2022, 05:55 PM   #74
Poindexter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco Santiago View Post
For those of you that are frustrated by lower odds after the gate opens, I ask you to do this: track 100 of your win bets and note whether or not the odds go up or the odds go down after the gate opens. Then, I ask you to review two sets of your bets: those in which the odds went down and those in which the odds went up.

I can almost guarantee that your ROI on the wagers in which your odds went down will be higher than the your ROI on the wagers in which your odds went up (as well as your win percentage). In fact, I will bet that you are losing a LOT of money on those bets in which your odds went up.

After you do this and you discover that what I am saying is true, you will be HOPING and PRAYING that your odds flash lower when the horses are on the backstretch. But don't take it from me....do yourself a favor and keep track as I suggested above. This might be the greatest advice anyone has ever given you in this game. I know that it totally enlightened me and never bitched about my odds going down again.

Best to you,

Franco
I am sure you are correct. That however is not consolation to most. If they are watching the race live not paying attention to the final odds and they have bet $50 to win on a 3-1 shot and then watch him win, they think won $150. When they look at the tote board and see $5.20 and they only actually made $80, it is pretty frustrating. When the vast majority of horses they are betting that actually do win are paying less than they expected because of the late money, thoughts of the game be rigged start to enter their head. Add in the fact that most of the time their horse loses the odds went higher or stayed the same and they become more suspicious. It is a very poor optic for the game.

You are looking at it from the perspective that if I want to make money on a play in general, I know I have a lot better chance of that happening if the smart money validates my play. One can also look at it from a perspective that when I win I usually get paid less than expected when I made the bet. I don't have that problem if I am playing poker, or betting sports or even playing casino games but in racing I do. Now maybe they can come up with a new kind of conditional betting where your bet only stays in the pool if the odds go down from post time to off time. I would not hold my breath waiting for that option.
Poindexter is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-17-2022, 06:12 PM   #75
Poindexter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post
I was taking about rebates. The money for rebates is not coming out of the pools. So the rebates have ZERO impact on the prices you are getting for your horses or your ROI. The only thing that's impacting the prices and your ROI is the fact that those guys are good and are making the pools more efficient.

As previously stated the rebates motivate betting actions of the rebated bettors to knock horse below break even (that contradicts your point that rebates have zero impact on the prices we are getting). The fact that they are good as you state just ensures that the non rebated public is almost guaranteed to lose long run



That doesn't prevent you from being on the same horses if you are also good. Plenty of other people are on the same horses much of the time and net out to winners, losing less than the take or the take. It's the really bad players that lose more than the take.

Yes, but if I am Joe Public (who should be the backbone of this industry), I am not getting rebates then I am looking at Monty Hall telling me behind curtain #1 is horse 3 -3%, behind curtain #2 is horse 6 at -6% and behind curtain number 3 is horse #9 at -28% and behind curtain #4 is horse at -23%. No matter what curtain Joe picks he is losing money long run. Moreover even if Joe could match handicapping wits with the guys that spend millions of dollars researching before making their first bet, Joe is not going to know what his final odds will be on his horse, while as CJ & Magister Ludi posted many of the caws do


Forget about rebates and focus on pool efficiency.

The rebate debate is about the best use of that money.

Should they give volume discounts to attract the biggest potential players or possibly lower the take for everyone by an amount that nets to a similar hit to their bottom line. My guess is they already thought about that and think the large volume rebates are better for them. I'm not sure I agree when discussing the very long term as opposed to medium term.
They obviously think about it, they are just not thinking about it very intelligently.

Last edited by Poindexter; 10-17-2022 at 06:15 PM.
Poindexter 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 04:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- 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.