Can you whales get greedier, please?

[Pensacola Pete]

With the last horse loading into the starting gate for race 5 at Gulfstream, #2 Zittman was 3-1 (4.2). This was barely acceptable, so I didn't bet it, because I knew what would happen. Surprise of surprises: the horse went down to 2-1 as the horses entered the far turn (3.1) and ended up at 8-5 (2.7). Now this wasn't likely to be past-posted money, because the horse was still buried about 7th as the horses entered the far turn.

Nope, it was just your usual greedy (CENSORED) whales, all seeing the delicious candy at 3-1 and shoving it down their throats as fast as they can. And this was just the latest example that I saw, as I type this. I've seen the same thing at least a dozen other times today (they don't all win), and it probably happens to some degree in every single race at every single track in North America (including greyhounds) that offers online betting at the mega-rebate shops for the Gobble Trolls.

Not for me.

About a year ago, somebody suggested a way to fix that: don't offer any rebates. I don't know how that would be implemented, if it could at all, but it certainly wouldn't hurt the serious bettor. That's correct: it would help. It does no good to get a 6% rebate if the guys getting 12% rebates are chowing down 10% of your edge in race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race.

Or have any of you database folks noticed that the same 30% winning factor in your favorite program now has an ROI of 0.86 instead of 0.92? I certainly have.

The whales don't even leave Australian racing alone. I'm back to playing that, now that they have the cheating better under control. Not long ago, somebody made a $6,000 bet in the North American pools on a horse in a mid-week race at a smaller track: said bet being made with about 1 minute to go. That may not seem like much to some of you, until you realize that 1) The average win pool size for that track that night was otherwise about $3,000, and 2) The horse was about the 10th best horse, by bookmaker odds, and was listed at 12.0 to 12.8 at various books.

"So what do you do, Pete?" I asked myself. I bet the horse for $20, of course. I took a horse that was 11-1 in Australia and bet it at 1-20 here. Yep, that was the smart move to make. Seriously. As sure as you can say "Jonah and the Air Spout," the money came in. About $2,000 made it into the pools on all of the other horses, That was probably the few other players who saw that money and decided to do their $20 all-but-overbet-horse or dutched it on AmWager. The race went off with $10,500 showing in the pool: $6,200 on the overbet horse and $4,200 on the others.

The race ended up with $18,750 bet on it. Only $8,750 more? Actually, about $14,500 more, because the bettor who shoved in the $6,000 removed it. And the rest was Moby Dick himself, chewing down on the perceived goodies. The horse in question went off at about 40-1; unfortunately, it was beaten by a nose by a 10-1 shot. And Woodbine (the host) probably got flooded the next day with calls by guys named Ahab, complaining about the bet pulled out of the pools. The only other Australian races that have $18,000+ in the North American win pool have purses of $1,000,000 AU and up or a horse named Winx running in them. Certainly not a Benchmark 58 race.

It's almost comical how these blubber-hunters do this race after race, still somehow stay in business, and don't break every other player in the process. What will be more comical is if they run off all of the recreational players (the few that are left) and end up fighting each other. Maybe they'll all go broke then. I won't lose any sleep if they do.

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by Pensacola Pete

With the last horse loading into the starting gate for race 5 at Gulfstream, #2 Zittman was 3-1 (4.2). This was barely acceptable, so I didn't bet it, because I knew what would happen. Surprise of surprises: the horse went down to 2-1 as the horses entered the far turn (3.1) and ended up at 8-5 (2.7). Now this wasn't likely to be past-posted money, because the horse was still buried about 7th as the horses entered the far turn.

Nope, it was just your usual greedy (CENSORED) whales, all seeing the delicious candy at 3-1 and shoving it down their throats as fast as they can. And this was just the latest example that I saw, as I type this. I've seen the same thing at least a dozen other times today (they don't all win), and it probably happens to some degree in every single race at every single track in North America (including greyhounds) that offers online betting at the mega-rebate shops for the Gobble Trolls.

Not for me.

About a year ago, somebody suggested a way to fix that: don't offer any rebates. I don't know how that would be implemented, if it could at all, but it certainly wouldn't hurt the serious bettor. That's correct: it would help. It does no good to get a 6% rebate if the guys getting 12% rebates are chowing down 10% of your edge in race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race.

Or have any of you database folks noticed that the same 30% winning factor in your favorite program now has an ROI of 0.86 instead of 0.92? I certainly have.

The whales don't even leave Australian racing alone. I'm back to playing that, now that they have the cheating better under control. Not long ago, somebody made a $6,000 bet in the North American pools on a horse in a mid-week race at a smaller track: said bet being made with about 1 minute to go. That may not seem like much to some of you, until you realize that 1) The average win pool size for that track that night was otherwise about $3,000, and 2) The horse was about the 10th best horse, by bookmaker odds, and was listed at 12.0 to 12.8 at various books.

"So what do you do, Pete?" I asked myself. I bet the horse for $20, of course. I took a horse that was 11-1 in Australia and bet it at 1-20 here. Yep, that was the smart move to make. Seriously. As sure as you can say "Jonah and the Air Spout," the money came in. About $2,000 made it into the pools on all of the other horses, That was probably the few other players who saw that money and decided to do their $20 all-but-overbet-horse or dutched it on AmWager. The race went off with $10,500 showing in the pool: $6,200 on the overbet horse and $4,200 on the others.

The race ended up with $18,750 bet on it. Only $8,750 more? Actually, about $14,500 more, because the bettor who shoved in the $6,000 removed it. And the rest was Moby Dick himself, chewing down on the perceived goodies. The horse in question went off at about 40-1; unfortunately, it was beaten by a nose by a 10-1 shot. And Woodbine (the host) probably got flooded the next day with calls by guys named Ahab, complaining about the bet pulled out of the pools. The only other Australian races that have $18,000+ in the North American win pool have purses of $1,000,000 AU and up or a horse named Winx running in them. Certainly not a Benchmark 58 race.

It's almost comical how these blubber-hunters do this race after race, still somehow stay in business, and don't break every other player in the process. What will be more comical is if they run off all of the recreational players (the few that are left) and end up fighting each other. Maybe they'll all go broke then. I won't lose any sleep if they do.

Fixed odds betting

Fixed odds betting

Fixed odds betting.

The same old saw.

Allan

[JerryBoyle]

Originally Posted by Pensacola Pete

With the last horse loading into the starting gate for race 5 at Gulfstream, #2 Zittman was 3-1 (4.2). This was barely acceptable, so I didn't bet it, because I knew what would happen. Surprise of surprises: the horse went down to 2-1 as the horses entered the far turn (3.1) and ended up at 8-5 (2.7). Now this wasn't likely to be past-posted money, because the horse was still buried about 7th as the horses entered the far turn.

Nope, it was just your usual greedy (CENSORED) whales, all seeing the delicious candy at 3-1 and shoving it down their throats as fast as they can. And this was just the latest example that I saw, as I type this. I've seen the same thing at least a dozen other times today (they don't all win), and it probably happens to some degree in every single race at every single track in North America (including greyhounds) that offers online betting at the mega-rebate shops for the Gobble Trolls.

Not for me.

About a year ago, somebody suggested a way to fix that: don't offer any rebates. I don't know how that would be implemented, if it could at all, but it certainly wouldn't hurt the serious bettor. That's correct: it would help. It does no good to get a 6% rebate if the guys getting 12% rebates are chowing down 10% of your edge in race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race.

Or have any of you database folks noticed that the same 30% winning factor in your favorite program now has an ROI of 0.86 instead of 0.92? I certainly have.

The whales don't even leave Australian racing alone. I'm back to playing that, now that they have the cheating better under control. Not long ago, somebody made a $6,000 bet in the North American pools on a horse in a mid-week race at a smaller track: said bet being made with about 1 minute to go. That may not seem like much to some of you, until you realize that 1) The average win pool size for that track that night was otherwise about $3,000, and 2) The horse was about the 10th best horse, by bookmaker odds, and was listed at 12.0 to 12.8 at various books.

"So what do you do, Pete?" I asked myself. I bet the horse for $20, of course. I took a horse that was 11-1 in Australia and bet it at 1-20 here. Yep, that was the smart move to make. Seriously. As sure as you can say "Jonah and the Air Spout," the money came in. About $2,000 made it into the pools on all of the other horses, That was probably the few other players who saw that money and decided to do their $20 all-but-overbet-horse or dutched it on AmWager. The race went off with $10,500 showing in the pool: $6,200 on the overbet horse and $4,200 on the others.

The race ended up with $18,750 bet on it. Only $8,750 more? Actually, about $14,500 more, because the bettor who shoved in the $6,000 removed it. And the rest was Moby Dick himself, chewing down on the perceived goodies. The horse in question went off at about 40-1; unfortunately, it was beaten by a nose by a 10-1 shot. And Woodbine (the host) probably got flooded the next day with calls by guys named Ahab, complaining about the bet pulled out of the pools. The only other Australian races that have $18,000+ in the North American win pool have purses of $1,000,000 AU and up or a horse named Winx running in them. Certainly not a Benchmark 58 race.

It's almost comical how these blubber-hunters do this race after race, still somehow stay in business, and don't break every other player in the process. What will be more comical is if they run off all of the recreational players (the few that are left) and end up fighting each other. Maybe they'll all go broke then. I won't lose any sleep if they do.

Removing rebates and leaving the rest of the cost structure the same, i.e. not alos lowering takeout, would decrease whale volume. However, they'll still bet and they'll still be better than you and I. And if instead we remove rebates but also lower the takeout (as rebates are really just a reduced takeout) you and I will be in the exact same position we are now.

The fundamental reason these guys are winning is because they are better at assessing a horse's chance of winning and they're better at assessing what a horse is likely to pay if it does win. Rebates are just an add on.

I'm not sure how you reduce volume by smart, large bettors, other than stop betting from any web based provider a few minutes prior to the race starting, while leaving the window open. Even this wouldn't be great. The sad fact is that horse racing is a large market that lends itself nicely to being modeled.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

JerryBoyle

The main reason that whales are better at assessing a horse's chances is because of the rebates

There is a direct relationship between takeout level and how much money you can extract from the tote pool. The higher the takeout rate the less money you can extract from the pool.

If the takeout is 20% you might be able to extract $3 million from the pool with high level play.
If the takeout is 10% you might be able to extract $6 million from the pool with high level play.
If the takeout is 5% you might be able to extract $12 million from the pool with high level play.

So a person with a big rebate can extract a lot more money from the pool than a person with no rebate. Which means they can afford to pay big money to full time form analysts which makes their system better at assessing a horse's chances

So if the pool takeout is 20% but the whale syndicate is only paying 10% takeout thanks to a 10% rebate they can extract $6 million from the pool while the non rebate player can only extract $3 million. The way it works is the whale syndicate will use this extra $3 million to spend on form analysis. The non rebate player now has no way to beat the whale syndicate as if they spend the same $3 million on form analysis they will show no profit

To further rub it in, the whale syndicate can now use their rebates to lock in the value prices at a level which is value to them but no value to the non rebate player. So if a horse is a 4.00 chance (3-1) then the whale bets it down to 3.80 (2.80-1) so that the bet is a loser for the non rebate player but a winner for the whale with 10% rebate. So the non rebate player can no longer extract even their $3 million from the tote pool. Instead they can extract a value closer to $0 from the pool as the whale syndicate corners the market on all the value bets using their rebates

The fact is if the whales lost their rebates they would lose their edge as they would no longer be able to afford their form analysts and would no longer have superior assessments of a horse's chances. The loss of rebates would also mean they could no longer corner the market on the value bets in the pool. So they could extract far less money from the pool as they would have to share the value bets with other players

In short the whale syndicates would be gone from the pools tomorrow if they lost their rebates today

Should the whale syndicates lose their rebates? Of course they should

[SkunkApe]

Originally Posted by Seabiscuit@AR

JerryBoyle

The main reason that whales are better at assessing a horse's chances is because of the rebates

There is a direct relationship between takeout level and how much money you can extract from the tote pool. The higher the takeout rate the less money you can extract from the pool.

If the takeout is 20% you might be able to extract $3 million from the pool with high level play.
If the takeout is 10% you might be able to extract $6 million from the pool with high level play.
If the takeout is 5% you might be able to extract $12 million from the pool with high level play.

So a person with a big rebate can extract a lot more money from the pool than a person with no rebate. Which means they can afford to pay big money to full time form analysts which makes their system better at assessing a horse's chances

So if the pool takeout is 20% but the whale syndicate is only paying 10% takeout thanks to a 10% rebate they can extract $6 million from the pool while the non rebate player can only extract $3 million. The way it works is the whale syndicate will use this extra $3 million to spend on form analysis. The non rebate player now has no way to beat the whale syndicate as if they spend the same $3 million on form analysis they will show no profit

To further rub it in, the whale syndicate can now use their rebates to lock in the value prices at a level which is value to them but no value to the non rebate player. So if a horse is a 4.00 chance (3-1) then the whale bets it down to 3.80 (2.80-1) so that the bet is a loser for the non rebate player but a winner for the whale with 10% rebate. So the non rebate player can no longer extract even their $3 million from the tote pool. Instead they can extract a value closer to $0 from the pool as the whale syndicate corners the market on all the value bets using their rebates

The fact is if the whales lost their rebates they would lose their edge as they would no longer be able to afford their form analysts and would no longer have superior assessments of a horse's chances. The loss of rebates would also mean they could no longer corner the market on the value bets in the pool. So they could extract far less money from the pool as they would have to share the value bets with other players

In short the whale syndicates would be gone from the pools tomorrow if they lost their rebates today

Should the whale syndicates lose their rebates? Of course they should

Interesting.

I'm not sure myself exactly what's happening, but I hit 5 winners at Gulfstream yesterday, and every damned one of them had their odds drop between post payout.

I'm not that good of a handicapper - you'd think once in a while I'd get lucky and pick the wrong horse, and his odds would go UP. But, no - every damned time.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Seabiscuit@AR

.......The main reason that whales are better at assessing a horse's chances is because of the rebates......

Nonsense. Assessing a horse's probability of winning has no relationship to rebates or the amount of rebates.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Nonsense. Assessing a horse's probability of winning has no relationship to rebates or the amount of rebates.

Nailed it.

If the rebate was gone, they'd make less money because there would be fewer golden opportunities. They'd have to settle for silver or bronze opportunities instead. :-)

Very few players get that some others are just light years faster than they are.

It is not a hopeless situation unless one is unwilling to change because what will work today is not what worked 25 years (if it ever did).

[thaskalos]

When I saw Garry Kasparov lose to a chess-playing computer...then I realized that the days of the "independent winning horseplayer" were numbered. Yes...the competent horseplayer can still engage in some sort of "guerrilla warfare" against the mighty Whales...but, for how long? The guerrillas have the mountains and the jungles to take refuge in...but the battling horseplayer has no-where to rest his head, in his lone struggle against the Whales' powerful armies.

The only chance we have might be in creating a conglomerated horse-playing team of our own. A horseplayer won't survive for long by playing a "lone hand" in this game...IMO.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Nonsense. Assessing a horse's probability of winning has no relationship to rebates or the amount of rebates.

Okay, a retired horseplayer, says nonsense, so nonsense it is. Let's ignore the fact that Ian Meyers (that is working for some of these upcoming teams) claims these teams of phd's are investing millions of dollars before they make their first bet. The millions of dollars they are investing must be because they hate money and not because they know there is a leak in the system (rebates) that will reward them well beyond their initial investment. I know my corner store (the 3 that are left) offers rebates, why shouldn't racing (I have gone through that at least 10 times by now).

It's funny in the off topic forum I always read about how much people hate wealth redistribution. This is wealth redistribution from the everyday horseplayer to teams betting hundreds of million of dollars a year. Every dollar they are able to bet at below takeout will drive up the takeout on the rest. Since they bet huge amounts of money at well below takeout, the public gets hammered (encouraged by and strongly supported by a racing industry that is completely lost in how to grow their sport).

But that will not resonate with a lot of you. What is coming across loud and clear is that horseplayers are getting tired of their horses constantly paying lower than the toteboard indicates as the horses are loading the gate. This is mainly because of rebates. Have the Whales have just gotten better and more precise in their estimations? Possibly. Is racing is getting more desperate and whales are taking up a higher percentage of the pools than ever before and is now forced to make backroom deals giving the whales better deals than ever before? Possibly. Whatever the case this is not a game most of us have a reasonable chance of beating and for the vast majority of horseplayers it is just a major leak in their gambling dollar until it gets replaced by another form of gambling.

Hey if you are currently beating this game, more power to you. If you are not, I would think strongly about what this game has become. This game is extremely time consuming. If it provides recreation and you don't mind losing some to pay for it, great. I agree, it is a very fun game. But if you think there is a light at the end of the tunnel, I would think again. This game was tough enough to beat when weren't seeing 20 to 40 % reductions in payoffs between the gate springing and the horse entering the winners circle which happens with regularity now.

[Franco Santiago]

Originally Posted by Pensacola Pete

That's correct: it would help. It does no good to get a 6% rebate if the guys getting 12% rebates are chowing down 10% of your edge in race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race after race.

In the win pool, the highest rebates available for people betting a million or more a year are not at 12%, especially on the major tracks. You can get 17% at AJAX downs or 12% at Assiniboia Downs, but that ain't happening at GP, BEL, SA, etc.

[Franco Santiago]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Nailed it.

It is not a hopeless situation unless one is unwilling to change because what will work today is not what worked 25 years (if it ever did).

As the one rich guy in 48 Hours said, "Indeed, Mortimer.....inDEEEEEEED".

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Okay, a retired horseplayer, says nonsense, so nonsense it is. Let's ignore the fact that Ian Meyers (that is working for some of these upcoming teams) claims these teams of phd's are investing millions of dollars before they make their first bet. The millions of dollars they are investing must be because they hate money and not because they know there is a leak in the system (rebates) that will reward them well beyond their initial investment. I know my corner store (the 3 that are left) offers rebates, why shouldn't racing (I have gone through that at least 10 times by now).

It's funny in the off topic forum I always read about how much people hate wealth redistribution. This is wealth redistribution from the everyday horseplayer to teams betting hundreds of million of dollars a year. Every dollar they are able to bet at below takeout will drive up the takeout on the rest. Since they bet huge amounts of money at well below takeout, the public gets hammered (encouraged by and strongly supported by a racing industry that is completely lost in how to grow their sport).

But that will not resonate with a lot of you. What is coming across loud and clear is that horseplayers are getting tired of their horses constantly paying lower than the toteboard indicates as the horses are loading the gate. This is mainly because of rebates. Have the Whales have just gotten better and more precise in their estimations? Possibly. Is racing is getting more desperate and whales are taking up a higher percentage of the pools than ever before and is now forced to make backroom deals giving the whales better deals than ever before? Possibly. Whatever the case this is not a game most of us have a reasonable chance of beating and for the vast majority of horseplayers it is just a major leak in their gambling dollar until it gets replaced by another form of gambling.

Hey if you are currently beating this game, more power to you. If you are not, I would think strongly about what this game has become. This game is extremely time consuming. If it provides recreation and you don't mind losing some to pay for it, great. I agree, it is a very fun game. But if you think there is a light at the end of the tunnel, I would think again. This game was tough enough to beat when weren't seeing 20 to 40 % reductions in payoffs between the gate springing and the horse entering the winners circle which happens with regularity now.

Perhaps you should re-read my comment. I said it was nonsense that getting rebates would help assessing a horse's chance of winning. I didn't say it was nonsense that rebates helped bettors win money. Getting rebates doesn't make you smarter or better at assessing probability, it just gives you a better price. If you're good in the assessment area it is a big edge. Is your viewpoint different?

[Franco Santiago]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

When I saw Garry Kasparov lose to a chess-playing computer...then I realized that the days of the "independent winning horseplayer" were numbered. Yes...the competent horseplayer can still engage in some sort of "guerrilla warfare" against the mighty Whales...but, for how long? The guerrillas have the mountains and the jungles to take refuge in...but the battling horseplayer has no-where to rest his head, in his lone struggle against the Whales' powerful armies.

The only chance we have might be in creating a conglomerated horse-playing team of our own. A horseplayer won't survive for long by playing a "lone hand" in this game...IMO.

After the match with Deep Blue, GK said he could beat Deep Blue if he was allowed to study Deep Blue as much as Deep Blue was "allowed" to study him. So, maybe those that bet the win pool need to study up on what the whales are betting on and bet something else.

For my part, I don't believe the win pool can be conquered (i.e. beat) because of the high takeout and non-competitive fields...there simply is not enough mathematical room for mistakes large enough to exploit to a point where there is a profit - even with a great rebate.

[DGroundhog]

Yesterday in Prairie Meadows 8th race the 5 horse was 2-1. By the time they finished the race the odds had changed to 4-1.

Stupid whales.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Franco Santiago

After the match with Deep Blue, GK said he could beat Deep Blue if he was allowed to study Deep Blue as much as Deep Blue was "allowed" to study him. So, maybe those that bet the win pool need to study up on what the whales are betting on and bet something else.

For my part, I don't believe the win pool can be conquered (i.e. beat) because of the high takeout and non-competitive fields...there simply is not enough mathematical room for mistakes large enough to exploit to a point where there is a profit - even with a great rebate.

Are you under the impression that whales only wager to win?

But your point is a good one. That is precisely what I suggested in another thread.

More specifically, get to the wagers and key horses in such a different way that you will be on different horses often enough to have them not slicing into your pie as often.