"Fed Up With the CAWs..."

[SilverAlley]

I only bet three tracks. All have low rebates.

I don't know why Sumja thought the P6 paid badly. There were four low priced winners, and a .20 parlay paid $2,026. The P6 paid $3,216.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by SilverAlley

I only bet three tracks. All have low rebates.

I don't know why Sumja thought the P6 paid badly. There were four low priced winners, and a .20 parlay paid $2,026. The P6 paid $3,216.

Reached the same conclusion when I read the article. I didn’t calculate the parlay but the payoff seemed within line to me. He wanted to get paid for the long shot but he needed another long shot or more horses in the 4 to 6 to one range to really benefit imo. The straw that broke the camels back. Reading pat cummins stuff certainly fed into his frustration.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by castaway01

Are there races where longshots win? Sure. Are there races where the CAW bettors go in the wrong direction (though as I said, they don't all bet the same horse)? Sure.

Some people seem to believe that, just because some longshots win, this means that the CAW bettors aren't as competent as they are made out to be...and that we common folk can "exploit" them. Let's not forget that there is a great amount of unpredictability in this game , and this "chaos" factor can't be completely accounted for by anybody...whether mere mortal or machine. The longshot winners aren't an indication that the CAW groups have weaknesses that can be exploited; these longshot winners are a stark reminder of the uncertainty inherent in this game.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by cj

https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.co...x-horseplayer/

I agree in principle with his observation that the tracks should close the pools earlier.
He states "significantly ahead of the horses being loaded into the gate".
I would be more inclined to have the pools close once the first horse loads.
This allows a full wagering period and cuts down on "betting the bell".
Also, I think the rebates should be limited to exotic wagers only.
Some will claim that the large volume players would revolt and take their wagering elsewhere. I say nonsense. These people are not going to upset their entire world and shift away from horse racing.

[dilanesp]

Nobody would ever implement this, but the solution that would really hose the CAW people is to make the close of betting RANDOM, i.e., at some random point after, say, the horses reach the starting gate. Then they would have no way to time their bets and would have to get them in earlier.

Of course ordinary players who like to bet at the last second would also complain.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Nobody would ever implement this, but the solution that would really hose the CAW people is to make the close of betting RANDOM, i.e., at some random point after, say, the horses reach the starting gate. Then they would have no way to time their bets and would have to get them in earlier.

Of course ordinary players who like to bet at the last second would also complain.

Two things...I'm not looking to 'hose the CAW players"....The normal volume players who'd complain about rules that inhibit betting the bell, are potentially less than 20% of the handle.
To clarify my earlier post. I think "loaded" means the back gates of the first horse to load being closed, would define "first horse loaded"....One other idea, When the assistant starter calls "ONE OUT", the track could use that moment to close wagering.
Anyway, an adjustment is needed.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by castaway01

This is a really, really bad argument.

Every NFL pregame show has a whole panel of people giving detailed game selections, point spreads scrolling across the screen. Explain to me how it has hurt that sport's popularity.

The people who are watching and reading other people's horse racing selections are not the ones driving CAW handle. Shows like Saratoga Live are awesome but they are NOT making a CAW that bets $50 million a year change their computer algorithms to account for selections made there.

The people on TV discussing football and betting lines etc.. are entertaining the public and trying to promote betting ACTION. To the extent they add useful information they are also making it HARDER for the average sports bettor to beat football because the lines become more accurate.

The people on TV discussing racing are entertaining the public, promoting betting action, and "some" of them are also very sharp and educating the public. I can't blame them. That's what they get paid to do.

But beyond that there are quite a few excellent podcasts, excellent handicappers giving away picks and insights, terrific products etc.. that are making the public as a whole WAY better and the odds more efficient than they used to be. The CAWs themselves are almost certainly using figures and insights that come from outside their own models.

That's just the reality of what we are up against and why.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by castaway01

Are there races where the CAW bettors go in the wrong direction ...?
... I don't personally believe that you or almost anyone else can see those races coming in advance often enough to turn a profit...

I'll do it.
once. One session.

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I think the horseplayers want to look over a winning horseplayer's shoulder and see how this "winning" player handicaps and bets on a day-to-day basis.
No "selections" or after-the-race analysis, but the complete thinking process that a winning player employs as he breaks the races down in real time, and then constructs his wagers.

It may surprise some of the members here, but this exact type of service already exists in poker...for a modest fee, or even for free on youtube. But poker has a huge player pool and horse racing doesn't.
[/B].and this causes justified paranoia among the best horseplayers which prevents them from sharing their innermost handicapping and betting "secrets".

I don't expect everyone to participate and contribute in a discussion afterwards. I expect it to be ignored and then the same echos will commence.
Would like it to be acknowledged. Would like some discussion w/ some critical thinking, and some of you are horseplayers in genuine pursuit of profitable play...

Originally Posted by castaway01

Are there races where the CAW bettors go in the wrong direction ...?
... I don't personally believe that you or almost anyone else can see those races coming in advance often enough to turn a profit. ...

this is like a pet peeve at this point.

Not in regards, or in regard to any specific Pceadvantage poster. I don't care. If we disagree, I respect that 100%, Even if I quote you in this post, it's not personal whatsoever.

I'm not dead yet. I'm still delusional that in regard to applying my skillset/insight/understanding of this great game, this global game, somewhere, somehow in a gainful self-sustaining modest fashion.

So regarding the I can't do any 'demoralizing vibes.
It's a tough racket. And gambling itself is a thing that is not for everyone. I'll keep it at that, but that unfortunately covers some of the long-time regular players.

In regards to the pet peeve, or you could say my best bet for today is actually this post. An exposé. Hidden truths about the the game, and this 'bêtes noire' be but a babbling bedevilment.




Thaskalos suggested the following idea about an "over the shoulder" perspective for a winning horseplayer.

Topic is annoying enough to me, that I am motivated to produce one episode.

full quote;

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I think the horseplayers want to look over a winning horseplayer's shoulder and see how this "winning" player handicaps and bets on a day-to-day basis. No "selections" or after-the-race analysis, but the complete thinking process that a winning player employs as he breaks the races down in real time, and then constructs his wagers.

It may surprise some of the members here, but this exact type of service already exists in poker...for a modest fee, or even for free on youtube. But poker has a huge player pool and horse racing doesn't...and this causes justified paranoia among the best horseplayers which prevents them from sharing their innermost handicapping and betting "secrets".

..

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

...[E]very time some sharp player is on social media, a podcast, TV, or forum making selections, giving away their best insights, developing new tools for sale or public use, they are making the game tougher for everyone else.

There seems to be a quality to horse players that goes beyond generosity that makes them want to give away insights and horses, when smart actually means keeping your mouth shut about where you still have an edge and which horses you are going to play.

In what other competitive business do people give away all their secrets?

[I]
I can do 'OVER THE SHOULDER', without giving away my few edges.
Speak in terms of a positive model or a negative model as what is driving my decions and process.[/I

Not worried

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

In order to be able to spot the weaknesses in someone else's game, and be able to exploit them...you have to have a more thorough understanding and a more complete game yourself. Otherwise...you yourself become exploitable by the other person, and you can't claim any sort of "advantage" over him. If we "rarely" exploit them on one thing, while they exploit us "more regularly" on something else...then they have the overall edge over us, and it's curtains for us.

Don't forget...we can't spot their "weaknesses" until it's too late to act upon them. And even if we think that you can anticipate their moves ahead of time, this may not carry out into the future...because they have the resources to improve their game much quicker than we can.

I agree with everything except the word "complete".

Loads of sharp horse players out there are better than me overall and especially in some types of races and situations. However, I believe I understand a handful of race types/situations better than the majority of even serious players.

I am always working find situations that are misunderstood and I try to understand everything I can about every horse in any race that I might play.

I stick to my very limited areas of competence.

I NEVER EVER venture outside that area into the loads of areas where other people are as good or better than me, more informed than me etc..

I do ZERO work on a LOT of races. I turn the page without even looking.

I can't out-handicap CAWs or most serious horseplayers race for race, but that's not my job. My job is to find the progressively rarer occasions the odds are wrong because CAWs and most serious players are thinking along other lines.

When/if I find a situation like that, the horse I like generally stays the price I want. When/if I see others catching on and prices falling, I move on.

This is the only thing that has worked for me long term. It's highly likely I would lose long term if I was playing a lot more races. I don't want my life to be several hours of handicapping, several hours of gambling, and several hours of work and preparation every day anyway.

[Robert Fischer]

This is a challenge.

For profitability, and specifically how we win when CRW/CAW syndicate teams proliferate pools.

as far as your fears - There are some races where it's simply fundamentals that are an edge, but then some races involve esoteric models where the significant thing that is mispriced, is not universally known or not universally understood as far as how significant it is.

In those cases, I will not tell what specific models I used, but instead will just mention that it's a significant 'positive' or 'negative' model that represents a mispriced horse



I expect you guys to participate.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I agree with everything except the word "complete".

Loads of sharp horse players out there are better than me overall and especially in some types of races and situations. However, I believe I understand a handful of race types/situations better than the majority of even serious players.

I am always working find situations that are misunderstood and I try to understand everything I can about every horse in any race that I might play.

I stick to my very limited areas of competence.

I NEVER EVER venture outside that area into the loads of areas where other people are as good or better than me, more informed than me etc.. I do ZERO work on a LOT of races. I turn the page without even looking.

I can't out-handicap CAWs or most serious horseplayers race for race, but that's not my job. My job is to find the progressively rarer occasions the odds are wrong because CAWs and most serious players are thinking along other lines.

When/if I find a situation like that, the horse I like generally stays the price I want. When/if I see others catching on, I move on.

You might believe this...but how can you know that your belief is really true? What can each one of us know about what the other "serious players" know, or what they are doing?

Haven't you already said that you bet very rarely...and that you wager only a fraction now of what you had been betting before? I have seen the same thing happen to my own play. Doesn't this mean that we might be losing ground to the competition...and that things might get even worse for us in the future? Where is the proof that either of us is more informed than the other serious players...even in a "handful of race types/situations"?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by castaway01

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how CAWs operate. They don't all bet on the same horse. They might bet 100 different combinations that they think are overlays, trying to get enough value that they show a profit with rebates. They are a bunch of threads describing this process.

I understand much of what they do because people have been doing the same things as them for decades. The CAWs just do it better and faster with the aid of computers and more sophisticated math.

You think people didn't compare the win, exacta, and double payoffs to see which pool offered the best value 40 years ago?

Of course they did. I did it manually and so did others. The pools used to slowly correct and come more into sync 40 years ago. The CAWs just made it all faster and even more efficient.

Just because they are so good doesn't make them equally adept at analyzing every situation.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

I'll do it.

wow, this is interesting.

maybe i can learn from this, or I will get an idea from this, or maybe I can prove you wrong by showing how it is indeed impossible.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You might believe this...but how can you know that your belief is really true? What can each one of us know about what the other "serious players" know, or what they are doing?

Haven't you already said that you bet very rarely...and that you wager only a fraction now of what you had been betting before? I have seen the same thing happen to my own play. Doesn't this mean that we might be losing ground to the competition...and that things might get even worse for us in the future? Where is the proof that either of us is more informed than the other serious players...even in a "handful of race types/situations"?

I know whether it's true or not by testing my ideas against 1000s of races, by listening to what other serious players are saying that I disagree with, and by my bottom line.

I was at Saratoga yesterday. I made 2 plays. That's a typical day for me now if I'm playing.

I would say I am almost certainly losing ground. It's tougher to profit, but I did go 1-2 yesterday. I loved Aspray.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Some people seem to believe that, just because some longshots win, this means that the CAW bettors aren't as competent as they are made out to be...and that we common folk can "exploit" them. Let's not forget that there is a great amount of unpredictability in this game , and this "chaos" factor can't be completely accounted for by anybody...whether mere mortal or machine. The longshot winners aren't an indication that the CAW groups have weaknesses that can be exploited; these longshot winners are a stark reminder of the uncertainty inherent in this game.

Right. I think some are using the idea "well I don't have to bet every race, I'll just pick my spots", which of course TRADITIONALLY was the smart way to play. But these CAWs, whales, whatever the name are taking the value out of every race, whether a longshot wins or not, by sucking up any liquidity in the pools. Of course you can win individual races, but over the long haul the current wagering dynamics will grind almost anyone down.

Whatever anyone thinks of Jerry Brown and the Thorograph product, he's been very vocal in how toxic the current wagering landscape is for the average bettor. This is a man who sells a product that depends on people wanting to wager on racing, and who would best be served by as many people as possible thinking they can win. The fact he's potentially hurting his own business by saying how unfair this all is shows how serious he thinks the CAW problem is.