Odds changes during races WHAT A JOKE

[Poindexter]

Oh that makes it so much better. The players that bet the horse thinking they were getting 12-1 ended up with 7.8-1. Now that truly is entertainment. Sort of like being mugged in the parking lot as you leave the track.

Dave S, Been a while since I have even thought about it, I am too busy adapting to the status quo (so much fun). Anyway this is the thread that I explained what I am talking about:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...st+conditional

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Oh that makes it so much better. The players that bet the horse thinking they were getting 12-1 ended up with 7.8-1. Now that truly is entertainment. Sort of like being mugged in the parking lot as you leave the track.

Dave S, Been a while since I have even thought about it, I am too busy adapting to the status quo (so much fun). Anyway this is the thread that I explained what I am talking about:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...st+conditional

I understood. But the very issue that ANYONE could get a bet in AFTER the gate opens means that SOMEONE is getting favored treatment.

We'd ALL like to make "conditional wagers." That would solve "the problem" for many near-break-even players.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I understood. But the very issue that ANYONE could get a bet in AFTER the gate opens means that SOMEONE is getting favored treatment.

We'd ALL like to make "conditional wagers." That would solve "the problem" for many near-break-even players.

They can't bet after the gate is open, I am just saying to provide the option of a past off conditional bet. Instead of your ADW processing their conditional wagers 3 minutes before the race goes off, give all players the option of making conditional wagers that will be determined after the race is off and all the money is in. If it is available to all players, how is anyone getting favorable treatment.

This is analogous to saying that anyone playing the stock market that places a limit order on xyz company is getting an unfair advantage. If the stock becomes available at the specified price the order is filled, if it doesn't no transaction. The same applies here. If 2-1 is available for your conditional wager it gets filled if it isn't, it will not get filled.

If I had a $100 conditional wager on a horse at 20-1 or better, he jumped from 15-1 to 30-1 after the horses left the gate and my $100 bet knocked him down to 27-1 only to drift up to 29-1 after all other conditional bets get filled., why would that be an unfair advantage that my order got filled. In fact why would anyone really care. If they bet the same horse they were expecting 15-1 anyways and if they bet another horse my $100 bet is perhaps driving up the price on their horse.

Not following your logic at all. Also, not sold that is would be the game changer you think it would be. It would just enable players to lock in bets that all represent true value. Plenty of "value" players are not making money in this game and often it has more to do with line errors than it does betting horses below fair value. Still as a value player, I have a strong desire to limit my bets to strictly value situations. This would be the only way to do so. However, I realize that doing so is hardly a guarantee that I will make money in this game .

[Dave Schwartz]

IMHO, it does not solve the problem of odds changes at all. It just allows the more sophisticated player to bet even later.

Do you really think the whales wouldn't hop on this bandwagon?

[Onion Monster]

I bet Instilled Regard @ 9-1 as they were forever approaching (in the GP sense of the word) the gate. Went off at 5-1 (5.7 per the charts). I was never happier to see a horse given a no shot ride or Rosario'd.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

IMHO, it does not solve the problem of odds changes at all. It just allows the more sophisticated player to bet even later.

Do you really think the whales wouldn't hop on this bandwagon?

Of course they would, but that is why I suggested a limit of $100 bets per player. It would be more of a courtesy/convenience to small players that might not even be getting rebates and are basically forgotten. It would be pointless if whales are putting in conditional wagers of $7000.


Yes I agree that it would not solve the problem of odds changes, but it would solve the problem of a player being a victim of odds changes(if they chose to go that route). Bottom line is as a value bettor I want to bet the 6 horse at odds of 5/2 or better. If I bet him at 5/2 as they are loading the gate and he drops to 6/5, I am pissed. If I have conditional past post wager on him at 5/2 and he drops to 6/5 I will not have a bet so I don't care. As far as I am concerned, problem solved. He may very well go onto win by 5, but I know over the long run I am better off without the bet. A lot of players may feel otherwise and may have zero interest in this type of technology(if it was available).

[GMB@BP]

Well I bet the 4 at 7/1 at Kee 5th, 8/1 into the gate, 9/2 at first flash.....

love this game, hey I won right!

[PaceAdvantage]

I SWEAR TO GOD, I AM GOING TO GIVE THIS ****ING JOKE OF A GAME UP

I just bet Ivy's College Fund at Keeneland in the 5th.

I bet the horse at 0mtp when it was 9 to ****ing 1.

8-1 morning line. These are NOT tiny pools.

****ING HORSE IS 9/2 when they cross the wire.

**** THIS SHIT

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Of course they would, but that is why I suggested a limit of $100 bets per player. It would be more of a courtesy/convenience to small players that might not even be getting rebates and are basically forgotten. It would be pointless if whales are putting in conditional wagers of $7000.


Yes I agree that it would not solve the problem of odds changes, but it would solve the problem of a player being a victim of odds changes(if they chose to go that route). Bottom line is as a value bettor I want to bet the 6 horse at odds of 5/2 or better. If I bet him at 5/2 as they are loading the gate and he drops to 6/5, I am pissed. If I have conditional past post wager on him at 5/2 and he drops to 6/5 I will not have a bet so I don't care. As far as I am concerned, problem solved. He may very well go onto win by 5, but I know over the long run I am better off without the bet. A lot of players may feel otherwise and may have zero interest in this type of technology(if it was available).

I'm sorry but this is an idea that I just cannot get behind for several reasons.

1. Just not practical. No business or industry is ever going to give the little guy an edge over the big guy. If anything, it just pisses off the big guy.

Example: If I go to Walmart and am told that I'd get a better deal if I spend less, that is exactly what I'd do.

2. Players are not "victims." Want to bet like a whale? Then hook up with an ADW that allows you to upload a bet file. This is so common these days that there is actually an "industry standard." Unfortunately, it isn't a standard for the mainstream guys (i.e. ExpressBet, etc.). Solution? Go to a little guy.

3. While I feel your pain (I, too, get stung by Winners'-Odds-Crash-Syndrome" (WOCS), guess what? So do the whales. How do they overcome it? The make the effort to build models that predict what the odds will be. You and I could do that.

In fact, I've been doing it for almost 4 years. I've even created products that show people how to do it and done free webinars that demonstrate the technique.


[B]4[/] The best solution - and it does not stop WOCS - is to close the pools then hold the gate for 2 minutes, locking out all wagers received after that time.

This solution only stops the public perception that cheating is going on. It does not change the fact that with 2 minutes to post you made your bet on a horse that was 6/1 and when the gate opens he was only 3/1.


Just my opinion.

Dave

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I SWEAR TO GOD, I AM GOING TO GIVE THIS ****ING JOKE OF A GAME UP

I just bet Ivy's College Fund at Keeneland in the 5th.

I bet the horse at 0mtp when it was 9 to ****ing 1.

8-1 morning line. These are NOT tiny pools.

****ING HORSE IS 9/2 when they cross the wire.

**** THIS SHIT

I was wrong, 9/1 into the gate, i had not updated my tvg and still had the gate odds...it was worse.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I'm sorry but this is an idea that I just cannot get behind for several reasons.

1. Just not practical. No business or industry is ever going to give the little guy an edge over the big guy. If anything, it just pisses off the big guy.

Example: If I go to Walmart and am told that I'd get a better deal if I spend less, that is exactly what I'd do.

2. Players are not "victims." Want to bet like a whale? Then hook up with an ADW that allows you to upload a bet file. This is so common these days that there is actually an "industry standard." Unfortunately, it isn't a standard for the mainstream guys (i.e. ExpressBet, etc.). Solution? Go to a little guy.

3. While I feel your pain (I, too, get stung by Winners'-Odds-Crash-Syndrome" (WOCS), guess what? So do the whales. How do they overcome it? The make the effort to build models that predict what the odds will be. You and I could do that.

In fact, I've been doing it for almost 4 years. I've even created products that show people how to do it and done free webinars that demonstrate the technique.


[B]4[/] The best solution - and it does not stop WOCS - is to close the pools then hold the gate for 2 minutes, locking out all wagers received after that time.

This solution only stops the public perception that cheating is going on. It does not change the fact that with 2 minutes to post you made your bet on a horse that was 6/1 and when the gate opens he was only 3/1.


Just my opinion.

Dave

It's cool. I posted the thread and very little response to it. Sounds like a good idea to me, but doesn't seem as too many others agree. Doubt racing would implement it anyhow, even if there was a strong demand for it.

Why would a whale care if a bunch of everyday players were opting in or off of horses after the race went off. When all is said and done the final odds will be very close to what they are today. If anything it would help their cause, because they are the ones who drive the price up and down on horses that would become bets or non bets for people at the new after off price. Don't see why creating a technology that provides for a better betting product that we have existing could ever be a bad thing. Just because it will not be of great value to whales due to the limits, they certainly could use it as part of their approach.

If this technology would turn some losing or struggling players into winning players, that would be a good thing for everyone, no? They bet more, whales can bet more.......Whales can't keep making money if it is just them against each other. If this technology could make the game more enjoyable for some, because they now are only making bets they want to make, instead of having numerous bad bets sandwiched in between, that also is a good thing for the industry, no? I only see positive, not negative. You see a whole bunch of negative and I am not really understanding why. You see it as a screw you to whales, I see it as a chance for smaller player to compete with whales, without going through the extremes you talk about and actually play a gambling game where they have some sort of control of the final odds they get (I know betting exchange, but until that actually happens on a wide scale, I am assuming it will not happen).

[Dave Schwartz]

Why would a whale care if a bunch of everyday players were opting in or off of horses after the race went off.

Because it hurts their prices and, hence, their bottom line.

I mean no disrespect here, but this is like Horse Racing Math 101.


There is no way that the big boys would ever stand for the little guys being able to do something that they cannot do. Frankly, they shouldn't have to anyway.

Of course, they would just do it themselves. I mean, if you could make a conditional wager that was allowed AFTER the pools were closed, then they would do the same thing.

If you put a limit on the size of the bet, then they would have multiple accounts.

If this were implemented, the only thing that would happen is that the visible odds changes would happen LATER THAN NOW.

(And to be clear, what you are advocating is that SOME PEOPLE should be allowed to PAST POST based upon the odds. Imagine the can of worms THAT would open up.)


Dave

[BCOURTNEY]

Since the wagers are not submitted using a stateful protocol with two way handshaking, the timestamps could be easily altered in an undetectable way, seems easy enough to do. Who audits this, since they don't require the ADW's to connect and submit with stateful protocols? Easy to hide bets in a queue when the back end can't complete the processing until later, of course, what do I know.

What is the security around the timestamps since the protocol is non stateful? If the answer is none - easily exploited. Just ask the wall street flash boys.

Technically saavy federal audit would be great.

Preemptively before the detractors start with with conspiracy theory talk, verse yourself in stateful and non stateful protocols and security around timestamps and how they are a major concern in every other secured system in the world, particularly in trading environments.

[Elkchester Road]

Maybe I am being too simplistic here, but...how could stopping wagering with 1 or 2 minutes before loading begins be seen as anything but inherently fair? The final odds will be the final odds, of course, but would at least be known before the race starts. Perception matters. Tracks can, and do, delay start times of races... 7-8 minutes at times. But... is it SO unreasonable to give either 1 or 2 minutes back to the bettors? The tracks are practically broadcasting their "indifference". If the whales and tracks don't like it...close shop. Players will find another game to gravitate to. Too many tracks racing, anyway.

These odds changes are happening 2 and 3 times from the time half of the field is loaded until after the finish of the race. Past posting??? Don't know, but what I do know is this is happening almost regularly. What ISN'T happening is a horse who wins whose odds go UP 2 or 3 times from load to finish of the race. Sometimes they go up once...none of the going up more than that. That only happens on the down elevator.

It isn't my intent to seem like a doomsayer. I am a somewhat serious Friday-Sunday player who plays 15-20 races over the course of a weekend (fields of 10 or more). That gives a LOT of time to observe happenings in the races with shorter fields. It is sometimes mind-boggling. The game just, at times, feels too "tilted".

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Because it hurts their prices and, hence, their bottom line.

I mean no disrespect here, but this is like Horse Racing Math 101.


There is no way that the big boys would ever stand for the little guys being able to do something that they cannot do. Frankly, they shouldn't have to anyway.

Of course, they would just do it themselves. I mean, if you could make a conditional wager that was allowed AFTER the pools were closed, then they would do the same thing.

If you put a limit on the size of the bet, then they would have multiple accounts.

If this were implemented, the only thing that would happen is that the visible odds changes would happen LATER THAN NOW.

(And to be clear, what you are advocating is that SOME PEOPLE should be allowed to PAST POST based upon the odds. Imagine the can of worms THAT would open up.)


Dave

Dave I responded completely hit one wrong key and everything went. Must have been a message from upstairs. We are in complete disagreement on just everything. So I will agree to disagree and leave it at that.