"Fed Up With the CAWs..."

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by castaway01

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.

Exactly! Andy Beyer was the same way. He wrote books and sold speed figures, so it was to his financial advantage to present our favorite game as a paragon of "honesty and virtue". But he chose to expose the warts of the game when others were reluctant to...and that's why he made the impact that he did among the handicappers. It's called "integrity", and it's a rare commodity...and getting rarer.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I’ve been saying the same things endlessly for years.

Obviously nothing personal in this, but every 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'm mystified as to why this concerns you.
There are those who are hardcore higher volume bettors who do this as a way to make a living.
They would not give so much as a tip to their best friend. That is their prerogative. Then their are those who parlay their handicapping skills into careers in print and electronic media.
Then there are handicappers employed by various racing entities who draw a salary and for that, they offer information to the betting public.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by thespaah

I'm mystified as to why this concerns you.
There are those who are hardcore higher volume bettors who do this as a way to make a living.
They would not give so much as a tip to their best friend. That is their prerogative. Then their are those who parlay their handicapping skills into careers in print and electronic media.
Then there are handicappers employed by various racing entities who draw a salary and for that, they offer information to the betting public.

Not only that...but if people didn't offer valuable products and services to the public...then we wouldn't be able to enjoy these products and services ourselves. Or are we supposed to compile accurate speed/pace figures, trip notes, track bias information, etc, for every track in the country...all by ourselves? We can't have our cake and eat it too. If the information wasn't available out there...then we wouldn't have it either.

[Poindexter]

Two questions.

1) if the caw is using huge rebates and sophisticated tools to print money, why to they care what anyone on twitter likes?

2) if the Caw (all caw in aggregate at a given track). is betting last and creating the final price, what difference does it make if what information is put out on twitter, other than the aspect of their program that takes into consideration the publics opinion on a horse.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thespaah

I'm mystified as to why this concerns you.
There are those who are hardcore higher volume bettors who do this as a way to make a living.
They would not give so much as a tip to their best friend. That is their prerogative. Then their are those who parlay their handicapping skills into careers in print and electronic media.
Then there are handicappers employed by various racing entities who draw a salary and for that, they offer information to the betting public.

It doesn't concern me much at all. I love the sport and like the challenge of winning at gambling, but if I can't do so profitably at horses I will quit and gamble more on basketball or start shooting pool again. Maybe I'll try to get much better at poker. Still, I'd rather be able to play horses profitably.

I don't hold it against someone trying to make a living selling their information, giving out selections, doing podcasts etc.. I worked at TimeformUS an DRF for a few years after I left data processing. I'm simply pointing that if you are very serious about making a profit gambling, the last thing you should be doing is educating others.

[Maximillion]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It doesn't concern me much at all. I love the sport and like the challenge of winning at gambling, but if I can't do so profitably at horses I will quit and gamble more on basketball or start shooting pool again. Maybe I'll try to get much better at poker. Still, I'd rather be able to play horses profitably.

I don't hold it against someone trying to make a living selling their information, giving out selections, doing podcasts etc.. I worked at TimeformUS an DRF for a few years after I left data processing. I'm simply pointing that if you are very serious about making a profit gambling, the last thing you should be doing is educating others.

We want more people playing the game,Imo there are no magic answers.You want to use good info to make good decisions,The last thing you want to do (imo) is to not bet until everything looks perfect and all the boxes are checked....I'm not sure if that's much better than betting every race.

[Robert Fischer]

I'm willing to post examples of how to thrive vs. the CAWs.

also willing to discuss some misconceptions about the current climate.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

I'm willing to post examples of how to thrive vs. the CAWs.

also willing to discuss some misconceptions about the current climate.

You're a good guy Robert, but there is no "thriving" against a group that is up to a third of the betting pools and loses only a few percentage points when the takeout is already 20-25%. Mathematically that's not how it works.

The misconception is these big bettors are all on the same horses. They're not. They're betting 50 or 100 of what their program says are overlays in the same race and trying to grind out a profit, which they get when they get big rebates. This style of betting can't be "gone against" because it's not one individual bet on a 4-5 shot that is overrated, or something else simplistic.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by castaway01

You're a good guy Robert, but there is no "thriving" against a group that is up to a third of the betting pools and loses only a few percentage points when the takeout is already 20-25%. Mathematically that's not how it works.

The misconception is these big bettors are all on the same horses. They're not. They're betting 50 or 100 of what their program says are overlays in the same race and trying to grind out a profit, which they get when they get big rebates. This style of betting can't be "gone against" because it's not one individual bet on a 4-5 shot that is overrated, or something else simplistic.

Respectfully, I would like to suggest an amendment to your statement.

I would change it to:

... there is no "thriving" against a group that is up to a third of the betting pools and loses only a few percentage points when the takeout is already 20-25%... without being willing to change your approach to the game.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

I'm willing to post examples of how to thrive vs. the CAWs.

also willing to discuss some misconceptions about the current climate.

I'm all for sharing of new ideas.

Ten yeas ago I would have stood up and applauded your willingness to do that.

Be aware the larger CAW teams are structured like small corporations and employ some really smart people.

Some of those people read these threads and make the occasional post.

If you post a successful methodology or thought process that truly does enable players to thrive vs. the CAW teams, guarantee you someone working for a CAW team will see what was posted, write code that captures the essence of it, and test it out.

From there, if significance testing shows it to have value:

That CAW team will quietly incorporate it into their process.

Afterwards, the average odds for plays identified by the successful thought process posted will take a hit.



-jp
.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

If you post a successful methodology or thought process that truly does enable players to thrive vs. the CAW teams, guarantee you someone working for a CAW team will see what was posted, write code that captures the essence of it, and test it out.

-jp

I agree with your assessment 100%.

The key is to do something that would be antithetical to their approach to the game.

Their approach is a global system with local optima models added.

IMHO, a Topological Data Analysis approach would fit the bill nicely.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by castaway01

You're a good guy Robert, but there is no "thriving" against a group that is up to a third of the betting pools and loses only a few percentage points when the takeout is already 20-25%. Mathematically that's not how it works.

Thank you Castaway. You seem like a good guy yourself.

It's a parimutuel system game with a takeout, so Moses himself couldn't lead everyone to thriving profitability.

It still comes down to current winners, tournament players, near-winners, hobbyists looking to reduce losses, etc... And they have to be interested in learning. Some of that adaptability/approach, Understanding what's going on. Discussing races and discussing the wagering.

Originally Posted by Jeff P

...

...

From there, if significance testing shows it to have value:

That CAW team will quietly incorporate it into their process.

Afterwards, the average odds for plays identified by the successful thought process posted will take a hit.



-jp
.

Jeff, your posts are often of value. Informative and respected.

I agree.
These syndicate teams are adaptive and employ some sharp people. There is a seriousness to the situation.

By and large; my focus here as far as shared content is on fundamental things and/or systemic things.

for example; "Understanding 'will-pay' pools and loosely projecting odds rankings".

CAW teams may not like informed horseplayers, but they aren't going to stop playing doubles and multi-race wagers. Neither are other teams/whales/moderate-heavy players who are sharp and privy to information...
So, other than 'blind pools' much of the final odd, and any late-odds action or odds swings is always going to be relatively predictable in the majority of these races.

That's just one example, and not trying to go to deep into everything.

Of course, being well-informed is not enough to have an 'edge'.
The big, rare opportunities are when we have a useful model (or we may see multiple significant models that are moving in the same direction) that gives us an understanding, yet certain pools (which include or are even driven by CAW teams) happen to have it 'mispriced'. This is often times favorite-centric. Opportunities when we clearly understand how, and why the CAW teams are pricing it differently than us, and that they are in fact wrong.

I will not be naming, explaining, teaching those specific models or the exponential effects of multiple models . This is where I believe we should draw the line.

Methodology can still be demonstrated and discussed, with simply a general reference such as "a 'positive model' calls for keying the horse", or perhaps something like "a 'negative model' calls for playing against this favorite ...
Relatively safe, and still informative for a shared discussion.

[JustRalph]

Lots of ten dollar words being thrown around here.


But I think it comes down to there not being enough decent races to play or whether there are enough races with an opening.

In fact I’m sure there’s not

[Maximillion]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Lots of ten dollar words being thrown around here.


But I think it comes down to there not being enough decent races to play or whether there are enough races with an opening.

In fact I’m sure there’s not

If you don't need them to be stakes or alw races their is plenty,Expensive doesen't always equal formful anyway...just look at that Saratoga race from the thread you were in earlier (with the 4 claimed horses for 50k or whatever it was)From a form perspective that was one of the shakier races I've seen all week.This includes the minor tracks.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

The game has been priced to fail forever....

Fixing this game is not about getting back a bunch of guys in their 60 and 70's. Fixing this game is about reaching a brand new generation of young people in their 20's, 30's and 40's. ... I do suspect at least some of them are probably using tote access to their advantage (have a field of first time starters in leg 3 of the pick 6, it is nice to know how much is being bet on each horse in the multi legs etc). If that is happening I do have a big problem with that, because that is a huge advantage. We will never know. Racing will vehemently deny it and nobody taking advantage is going to raise their hand and say yeah we peak ahead into the other pools to determine how much action each horse is getting in every race. Theoretically they should not have tote access. ... I don't trust anything the racing industry says. ...
Not everybody that gambles needs to win. They just need to lose comfortably and they need to know they have a reasonable chance to win (not long term, but often enough that the game is fun).

This is really a great post. There are very good points sprinkled in here.
I highlighted a few that caught my attention.

I totally agree that a younger audience has to be intrigued to play to carry the game forward. I would love to know what the current demographic is compared to say the 1950's, 1980's, etc.

I do not believe there is past posting. Most of the late odds drops that I've captured on my Twitter feed actually show the odds change in the first few seconds after they break. I do, however, believe the CAW's have proprietary knowledge of hidden pool coverage. I can't prove it but I do not trust the industry at all in this area. Some of those who are part of the integrity and oversight have a highly profitable CAW in play. Only in horse racing can this be true.

Losing comfortably is a great term that I am going to steal and call it my own. This is true. One doesn't need to win consistently or even over the long term. They need the ability to stay afloat longer. Horse racing loses in this area.

Last thing: Regarding CAW play. I'm not at all bothered by the late odds move even though I post a lot of screen shots on that. I'm much more bothered with the obvious toteboard manipulation up to the last second and the accuracy of the identified live (tote manipulated) runner. My personal opinion is this phenomenon will end horse racing. Period.