crw wagering

[Track Collector]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Here's a hypothetical example of how CRW helps.

Lets say there's a huge pentafecta carryover and mr CRW wants to invest 10k into the penta, it's a 12 horse field so there are 95,000 possible outcomes. The CRW can be programmed to invest the entire 10k in the most efficient manner covering the combos that exactly reflect the opinion of the bettor. The computer can spit out hundreds of small tickets that are structured in a perfect way as to not overlap....unless the user wants an overlap to get something twice. You can't do that nearly as well if you're doing this the old fashioned way. Try getting a pen and paper and writing out dozens of tickets by hand and then standing at a SAM machine at a live racetrack (or calling into a bet taker on the phone) it's not even close to being as efficient.

Rapid calculations and bet submission often become non-starters without more-accurate pool information.

Unfortunately, only a few industry folks have the knowledge and expertise to confirm/reject my hypothesis (that wagers are merged into the pools on a continuous basis and can be viewed/calculated in-between tote cycle times), and I'm not sure if it would be in their vested interests to share that info.

[Fox]

Does anyone have any actual proof or at least claim first hand knowledge that access to pool data not widely available is being furnished to a select few? Such pool data would be something like real time odds updates or access to probables in blind pools such as the trifecta. I hate the bogeyman as much as the next guy but have actually never met him or anyone who has. He scares me though and I feel very strongly that he must be stopped.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Fox

Does anyone have any actual proof or at least claim first hand knowledge that access to pool data not widely available is being furnished to a select few? Such pool data would be something like real time odds updates or access to probables in blind pools such as the trifecta. I hate the bogeyman as much as the next guy but have actually never met him or anyone who has. He scares me though and I feel very strongly that he must be stopped.

If big bettors had access to probable payouts and their computers were able to 'see' which combos had 0 dollars on them with 1 millisecond to post, would there ever be something that goes unhit?

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

If big bettors had access to probable payouts and their computers were able to 'see' which combos had 0 dollars on them with 1 millisecond to post, would there ever be something that goes unhit?

the numbers game run by the Massachusetts state lottery offers a 4 number play for the last 30 years. when they first started they were taking in about $100,000 a day on that 10,000-1 shot. today they do close to $1 million a day on the 4 digit. not once in those 30 years has a day gone by that the 4 digit wasn't hit.

years ago before the lottery i knew the biggest guy around who took in more than 5 times the state. he told me that he has often gone 2 weeks without a 4 digit number hit, and he was paying fixed odds. he also told me that he wouldn't book any state numbers because he didn't trust them.

about 3 weeks ago there was a superfecta some place that paid $11,000 for ten cents. there were 6 ten cent tickets on the winning combination. i looked at those horses and didn't think there could possibly be 1 lucky winner, but there were 6. i suppose its possible for 1 guy to have had all the tickets, but very unlikely. even more unlikely is 6 people to pick those lucky numbers on the very same race.

in this age of the computer and the internet anything is possible.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

If big bettors had access to probable payouts and their computers were able to 'see' which combos had 0 dollars on them with 1 millisecond to post, would there ever be something that goes unhit?

Yes. If the probability of hitting a certain combo was higher than a whole pool payout presumably you wouldn't want that bet.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Yes. If the probability of hitting a certain combo was higher than a whole pool payout presumably you wouldn't want that bet.

I think it would depend on how many uncovered combos were left vs the reward for being the only winner. For example, if a person has Millions in his adw account and there's a 250k carryover at Santa Anita with a million dollars of new money, and his computer sees that it only cost 2k to cover all the tickets that are uncovered, is he not just spend the 2k ?

you're right about the math, it does depend on a lot of factors, they also don't have to place money on all the uncovered combos, they can just get some of them.

I would assume bettors can't 'see' uncovered combos, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

[sharkie187]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

about 3 weeks ago there was a superfecta some place that paid $11,000 for ten cents. there were 6 ten cent tickets on the winning combination. i looked at those horses and didn't think there could possibly be 1 lucky winner, but there were 6. i suppose its possible for 1 guy to have had all the tickets, but very unlikely. even more unlikely is 6 people to pick those lucky numbers on the very same race.

in this age of the computer and the internet anything is possible.

Actually, its common for someone to pick the super without the use of computers...its called the "Quick Pick" on SAMs. A few years ago, I went to Mobile Greyhound Park, and there's a group of old men and the security guy who pool their money togethet and all they do is play 10 cent supers on races with 8 or more runners. All they do is have one guy put in a $5-10 voucher ($10-20 on big races) and he keeps hitting the QP at the SAM machine. They don't know the odds or the forums, but every so often, they hit one.

[sharkie187]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

I think it would depend on how many uncovered combos were left vs the reward for being the only winner. For example, if a person has Millions in his adw account and there's a 250k carryover at Santa Anita with a million dollars of new money, and his computer sees that it only cost 2k to cover all the tickets that are uncovered, is he not just spend the 2k ?

you're right about the math, it does depend on a lot of factors, they also don't have to place money on all the uncovered combos, they can just get some of them.

I would assume bettors can't 'see' uncovered combos, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

Sure he/she can spend the 2k on uncovered pick 6 spreads, but what are the odds of that uncovered spread coming in? Really really low! Esp if one of the uncover spreads were 40/1, 30/1, 30/1, 20/1, 25/1, and 50/1. He/she can add that money into the pool and help the payoff to the bettors who cover all the favorites.

[Robert Goren]

All I know is that pre simulcast days, I did not see the kind of odds drops after the gates open that I see now. To quote the Buffalo Springfield " There's something happening here, But what it is ain't exactly clear". And whatever it is, it is not good for my bottom line. And it probably is not good for the bottom lines of most of the posters at this site either.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by sharkie187

Sure he/she can spend the 2k on uncovered pick 6 spreads, but what are the odds of that uncovered spread coming in? Really really low! Esp if one of the uncover spreads were 40/1, 30/1, 30/1, 20/1, 25/1, and 50/1. He/she can add that money into the pool and help the payoff to the bettors who cover all the favorites.

You would be surprised at how many times a logical 4 or 5 dollar winner comes in and still nobody hits. He can tell the computer that he only wants to see uncovered combos with his best bet, which is a 1-1 shot in leg 1 (for example).

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by green80

What I was trying to determine if the average bettor's bottom line is any better at the tracks that do not cater to the CRW players in the form of low signal fees to their ADW's (or anything else). I know for the last couple of years my ROI is better at Oaklawn than any other track. Could this be because the CRW's aren't milking all the "juice" out of the pools?

Not exactly sure what you mean by the "juice", and I don't know the exact relationship between signal fees and rebates, but IN THEORY it's possible your higher ROI at Oaklawn is because your winners are paying more - versus tracks where prices paid include the overhead of higher rebates to the whales. Since we're not privy to the balance sheets of all parties involved, it's speculation. But at least a couple of racetracks understand that concentrating "the edge" of rebates in the hands of the few is detrimental to handle in the long run.

Unless you have years worth of plays over the OP meet, it's more likely your handicapping is a bigger factor in the difference between your play at OP and other tracks. After all, just a few nice hits during their relatively short meet can cause you to be in the black. I know at the end of the year my ROI by track varies from 0.00 to 1.65, and it's not the CRW influence that's causing that....

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

Not exactly sure what you mean by the "juice", and I don't know the exact relationship between signal fees and rebates, but IN THEORY it's possible your higher ROI at Oaklawn is because your winners are paying more - versus tracks where prices paid include the overhead of higher rebates to the whales. Since we're not privy to the balance sheets of all parties involved, it's speculation. But at least a couple of racetracks understand that concentrating "the edge" of rebates in the hands of the few is detrimental to handle in the long run.

Unless you have years worth of plays over the OP meet, it's more likely your handicapping is a bigger factor in the difference between your play at OP and other tracks. After all, just a few nice hits during their relatively short meet can cause you to be in the black. I know at the end of the year my ROI by track varies from 0.00 to 1.65, and it's not the CRW influence that's causing that....

I don't understand how a private transaction that happens after the prices are official has any affect on those very prices. A horse who pays 8.20 pays 8.20 whether of not a rebate shop gives a gratuity to their customers.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

I don't understand how a private transaction that happens after the prices are official has any affect on those very prices. A horse who pays 8.20 pays 8.20 whether of not a rebate shop gives a gratuity to their customers.

Sigh. SRU, we've been down this path many times. You seem to think the money that flows to rebates magically appears from nowhere. Let's use your example.

Let's say we have two tracks, CRW Park and SRU Downs. They have exactly the same handle, the same takeout, the same signal fees, the same purses, the same costs, etc. SRU Downs has a nicer turf course. They run at different times during the year, so they even have the same announcer, and poor concessions.

You bet $10,000 at each of those tracks in one year, making 1000 $10 bets, and your average winning mutual was $8.20. Fortunately for you, your strike rate is a whopping 30%, cashing 300 times at each circuit, returning $12,300.

These two tracks have the same accountant, say AndyC, who does their books so we can validate these numbers. Now let's say CRW Park is going to lower their signal fee to Offshore ADW, hoping to attract more handle when Offshore ADW offers their clientele rebates. Because their income from signal fees is slightly lower, they have to raise the takeout 2.5% to balance the books. They hope to make additional profits from the increase in handle, but we won't know that until the end of the year.

Year two, your wagers now look like this:

CRW Park - $10,000 bet, average mutual $8.00, now returns $12,000 for the year
SRU Downs - $10,000 bet, average mutual $8.20, still returns $12,300 for the year

Now we hear of anywhere from 3 to 5 to 8 or 10 percent on rebates. So after several years of adjusting signal fees and takeouts, lets say the whales betting CRW Park through Offshore ADW are getting back 5% on their bets, and the small players at either track don't get rebates. You would now see:

CRW Park - $10,000 bet, average mutual $7.80, now returns $11,700 for the year
SRU Downs - $10,000 bet, average mutual $8.20, still returns $12,300 for the year

You review your wagers for the year, and think it's okay, I'm still making a profit at CRW Park. But then the odds drop late in the betting there. The payoffs get lower. The "overlays" become more difficult to spot. The Whales are now making up an ever larger portion of the handle. You're thinking, "Man, that track is getting tougher." The handle may vary between the tracks, but all of it being funneled to rebates at CRW Park is coming out of the mutual pools at some point. Mathematically, you are getting lower payouts since you get no rebate. And, if you think a higher handle is bettor for the track, it may very well be - but chances are the increase in profits is going to flow to the executive's bonuses or the horsemen's pockets long before you see a lowering of takeout.

As the competition for ever shrinking handle between racetracks gets worse, which track do you think the small players will want to bet on?

[green80]

Very well put, Hoofless Wonder

[baconswitchfarm]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

Sigh. SRU, we've been down this path many times. You seem to think the money that flows to rebates magically appears from nowhere. Let's use your example.

Let's say we have two tracks, CRW Park and SRU Downs. They have exactly the same handle, the same takeout, the same signal fees, the same purses, the same costs, etc. SRU Downs has a nicer turf course. They run at different times during the year, so they even have the same announcer, and poor concessions.

You bet $10,000 at each of those tracks in one year, making 1000 $10 bets, and your average winning mutual was $8.20. Fortunately for you, your strike rate is a whopping 30%, cashing 300 times at each circuit, returning $12,300.

These two tracks have the same accountant, say AndyC, who does their books so we can validate these numbers. Now let's say CRW Park is going to lower their signal fee to Offshore ADW, hoping to attract more handle when Offshore ADW offers their clientele rebates. Because their income from signal fees is slightly lower, they have to raise the takeout 2.5% to balance the books. They hope to make additional profits from the increase in handle, but we won't know that until the end of the year.

Year two, your wagers now look like this:

CRW Park - $10,000 bet, average mutual $8.00, now returns $12,000 for the year
SRU Downs - $10,000 bet, average mutual $8.20, still returns $12,300 for the year

Now we hear of anywhere from 3 to 5 to 8 or 10 percent on rebates. So after several years of adjusting signal fees and takeouts, lets say the whales betting CRW Park through Offshore ADW are getting back 5% on their bets, and the small players at either track don't get rebates. You would now see:

CRW Park - $10,000 bet, average mutual $7.80, now returns $11,700 for the year
SRU Downs - $10,000 bet, average mutual $8.20, still returns $12,300 for the year

You review your wagers for the year, and think it's okay, I'm still making a profit at CRW Park. But then the odds drop late in the betting there. The payoffs get lower. The "overlays" become more difficult to spot. The Whales are now making up an ever larger portion of the handle. You're thinking, "Man, that track is getting tougher." The handle may vary between the tracks, but all of it being funneled to rebates at CRW Park is coming out of the mutual pools at some point. Mathematically, you are getting lower payouts since you get no rebate. And, if you think a higher handle is bettor for the track, it may very well be - but chances are the increase in profits is going to flow to the executive's bonuses or the horsemen's pockets long before you see a lowering of takeout.

As the competition for ever shrinking handle between racetracks gets worse, which track do you think the small players will want to bet on?

Very well written. If not for the fact it is complete fantasy with no basis in fact, it would be a powerful argument. All adw pay a higher signal fee , not lower. No adw has had their signal fee lowered . While brick and mortar tracks pay a lower fee , they have more overhead. The adw pays a higher fee and choses to try to operate on on a thin margin. No take out has ever been raised because of low fees to adw companies. It is fine to hate rebates but your argument should at least be based in fact. This one is based in something that is in your head but has never actually happened in real life.