Horse racing is rigged

[SandyW]

Originally Posted by BettinBilly

So true.

I Daytraded for a few years. Really got into it. Bought all the books, went to all the seminars, hung around trading rooms, read the stats. Just like a newbie Horseplayer, I studied the craft and traded my Axx off for years. Luckily, I did OK. Not great, but OK. It's a tough game trying to shave margins in one day on the market. In the early days, it was easier. Just watch CNBC in the morning. If Maria Bartimoro mentioned a stock, buy it. End of day, sell it. Good for a 2 or 3 point pop.

Yes it was easy in the old days, but those days sadly are gone forever.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

I went int depth on this in a recent thread started by thaskalos. I agree with you 100% and went on in that thread to demonstrate how these computer bettors who are in the pools artificially(they are at about -3% pre rebate wps and getting much fatter rebates than that) are basically bringing up the track take from 16% wps to over 20% wps(this doesn't even take into account breakage). Obviously they are taking the exacta and double pools way up there and lamboguy indicate they have access to the blind pools(I have no idea but it would not surprise me), if that is the case than forget about it.............everybody else is at there mercy. But there seems to be a lot of guys here that are getting rebates of their own, and are happy with that.

It is sort of a pound your chest, I am strong enough to overcome mentality here on this issue. This problem is so much more detrimental to this sport than any other issue that is talked about here on daily basis, it is indeed baffling. The big problem is this game will die and a lot sooner that everyone thinks, and everybody is going to continue to blame it on drugs and cheating and competition and marketing and ignore problem number 1, you cannot build this sport if newcomers not only cannot win but they cannot even lose less than 25% of each dollar bet. They will not even stay with the game long enough to know what pace is, or track bias is or learn how to trip handicap or any of the other key variables in this very complex game.

By the way can we not say life is rigged in every thread about drugs and past posting and supertrainers, and jockeys pulling up.....why is this subject different? I can spend all day going through threads saying life is rigged, get over it.

Hypothetical scenario.

SRU downs. Win takeout 15%, only 2 races on the card, both races only have 2 horses in each race. In Race 1, the only person who bets on the 1 horse is you and the only person who bets on the 2 horse is a rebate bettor, you bet 100 bucks to win on #1 and the rebate bettor bets 100 bucks to win on #2. Your horse wins. Race 2, same thing happens except the rebate player skips the race. You bet 100 bucks on the 1 horse and the 2 horse is bet by a non rebate player, who also bets 100 bucks to win. Your horse wins.

Now, here's the 64 dollar question. Do you cash for the exact same amount in both races?

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Hypothetical scenario.

SRU downs. Win takeout 15%, only 2 races on the card, both races only have 2 horses in each race. In Race 1, the only person who bets on the 1 horse is you and the only person who bets on the 2 horse is a rebate bettor, you bet 100 bucks to win on #1 and the rebate bettor bets 100 bucks to win on #2. Your horse wins. Race 2, same thing happens except the rebate player skips the race. You bet 100 bucks on the 1 horse and the 2 horse is bet by a non rebate player, who also bets 100 bucks to win. Your horse wins.

Now, here's the 64 dollar question. Do you cash for the exact same amount in both races?

Your persistent. Addressed this in the aforementioned discussion, but here is another try. Maybe this will help drive the point home. Then, maybe not. You are a tough sell. Here Goes:

Okay, you like Hypotheticals, here is one for you. SRU downs. #3 in his previous race breaks slowly, rushes up to push a strong pace on an anti speed track hold offs all speed, before fading to 5th of 12.. Races before #3 is about on par with other top contenders in todays race. Today #3 is lone speed on a speed favoring track. SRU Downs limits action to one whale who bets at the bell. The crowd is fooled by this horses last race and is giving me a generous 7-2 as the horses are about to load the gate. I am not that big of a bettor so based off my bet the horse should remain 7/2, but maybe 3-1 or possibly only 5/2 if some public smart money comes in. Now what happens when the Whale bets. Let’s say the actual chance of the horse winning is 35% based on a magic computer that is 100% accurate. How about 9/5. Then when the horse breaks out of the gate and the tote board reads 7/2, somebody on Pace advantage is going to watch the horse break out to a clear lead by 2, see the horse drop to 9/5 as he rounds the far turn clear by 3 and watch him proceed to win by 3 and pay 5.60. Then here comes that thread about past posting. Now this is a bit exaggerated only to bring home a point. This is what whales do to value. Since they do not have to make money because they are rebated, they can kill all value on the likeliest winners, make money, and the rest of the public (non rebated players) cannot. Now I realize that even if there were no rebates the whale is still going to pound this horse, BUT, he has to leave himself a profit margin. So while he is bad news for the small player either way, at least the smart bettors in the crowd that are not rebated are still able to make a profitable bet and not a bet that is either break even or below break even, after the whale gets done. This is why Rebates kill this game. The fact that the take is the same no matter who is betting does not change this fact as much as you would like it to.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Your persistent. Addressed this in the aforementioned discussion, but here is another try. Maybe this will help drive the point home. Then, maybe not. You are a tough sell. Here Goes:

Okay, you like Hypotheticals, here is one for you. SRU downs. #3 in his previous race breaks slowly, rushes up to push a strong pace on an anti speed track hold offs all speed, before fading to 5th of 12.. Races before #3 is about on par with other top contenders in todays race. Today #3 is lone speed on a speed favoring track. SRU Downs limits action to one whale who bets at the bell. The crowd is fooled by this horses last race and is giving me a generous 7-2 as the horses are about to load the gate. I am not that big of a bettor so based off my bet the horse should remain 7/2, but maybe 3-1 or possibly only 5/2 if some public smart money comes in. Now what happens when the Whale bets. Let’s say the actual chance of the horse winning is 35% based on a magic computer that is 100% accurate. How about 9/5. Then when the horse breaks out of the gate and the tote board reads 7/2, somebody on Pace advantage is going to watch the horse break out to a clear lead by 2, see the horse drop to 9/5 as he rounds the far turn clear by 3 and watch him proceed to win by 3 and pay 5.60. Then here comes that thread about past posting. Now this is a bit exaggerated only to bring home a point. This is what whales do to value. Since they do not have to make money because they are rebated, they can kill all value on the likeliest winners, make money, and the rest of the public (non rebated players) cannot. Now I realize that even if there were no rebates the whale is still going to pound this horse, BUT, he has to leave himself a profit margin. So while he is bad news for the small player either way, at least the smart bettors in the crowd that are not rebated are still able to make a profitable bet and not a bet that is either break even or below break even, after the whale gets done. This is why Rebates kill this game. The fact that the take is the same no matter who is betting does not change this fact as much as you would like it to.

But doesnt your example assume that you saw something on video that another player did not? Also, if the horse is 7-2 at 1 MTP that means nothing, if he's a "live" horse he is going to take money, you can't be mad that some other players have sniffed out the same horse you did.

If your selection is a good price and a plus ROI wager at 7-2 (in your opinion) and a break even long run winning bet at 5-2 and a losing proposition at 9-5, once the horse becomes a "losing proposition" at 9-5, that means some other horses will go up in price. If your own personal morning line says that 5-2 is a break even play and the horse goes off at 9-5, you have the option of betting someone else as some or all of the other runners will go up in price the more money that your original selection takes.

Another factor is this. You WANTED 7-2 and when the horse came down to 9-5, you blamed the rebate bettors, but isnt it possible that 9-5 was the true market value for everyone? In other words you thought 9-5 was an underlay, but maybe this horse was a better pick than you thought and 9-5 was the "correct" price and wasnt really an underlay.

One more factor is this. Rebate bettors are a pretty smart lot, they're not looking to wager on horses who are "supposed to be" 5-2 or 7-2 and taking 9-5 .....you have to remember that even rebate bettors are still paying an approximately 10% takeout, so they have to beat that takeout by at least 10% in order to break even, so they're not looking to make bad bets.

If your pick is supposed to be 5-2 as a fair market value price and he's on his way down to 9-5, smart bettors, whether or not they're getting a rebate, arent likely to take 5.80 on a horse who is fair value at 5-2 just to get the rebate, they're looking to make good bets, if you are making bad bets all the time, the rebate isnt going to save that bettor.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

But doesnt your example assume that you saw something on video that another player did not? Also, if the horse is 7-2 at 1 MTP that means nothing, if he's a "live" horse he is going to take money, you can't be mad that some other players have sniffed out the same horse you did.

If your selection is a good price and a plus ROI wager at 7-2 (in your opinion) and a break even long run winning bet at 5-2 and a losing proposition at 9-5, once the horse becomes a "losing proposition" at 9-5, that means some other horses will go up in price. If your own personal morning line says that 5-2 is a break even play and the horse goes off at 9-5, you have the option of betting someone else as some or all of the other runners will go up in price the more money that your original selection takes.

Another factor is this. You WANTED 7-2 and when the horse came down to 9-5, you blamed the rebate bettors, but isnt it possible that 9-5 was the true market value for everyone? In other words you thought 9-5 was an underlay, but maybe this horse was a better pick than you thought and 9-5 was the "correct" price and wasnt really an underlay.

One more factor is this. Rebate bettors are a pretty smart lot, they're not looking to wager on horses who are "supposed to be" 5-2 or 7-2 and taking 9-5 .....you have to remember that even rebate bettors are still paying an approximately 10% takeout, so they have to beat that takeout by at least 10% in order to break even, so they're not looking to make bad bets.

If your pick is supposed to be 5-2 as a fair market value price and he's on his way down to 9-5, smart bettors, whether or not they're getting a rebate, arent likely to take 5.80 on a horse who is fair value at 5-2 just to get the rebate, they're looking to make good bets, if you are making bad bets all the time, the rebate isnt going to save that bettor.

Re read my post and try again. His fair value is 9/5(remember 100% computer said 35%). He was a generous 7/2 on the board(never said I wanted or even expected 7/2), and I acknowledged that the smart money might drive him down to 3-1 or even 5/2. This has how racing has always been. But even if 5/2 he is still good value. Enter the Whale, and now instead of seeing 5/2 or good value, I will see 9/5 or fair value at best. This is the whale rebate age. Why, simply because the Whale has no motivation to leave the horse above fair value, since his rebates make him money anyhow. Thus the flaw in the system. Never said rebates will save every bettor. You still have to be well above average to win with rebates. These guys are the creme de la creme or they wouldn't be able to put in the huge amounts they are putting into the pools. The point I am trying to drive home is when Whales can drive a horse down to fair value and win money via rebate, they will, and they take virtually all value from the pool. What do you question? Their ability to do so or their will to do so. They have both. When you give them access to exacta pools and double pools and who know what other pools they have access to they will do the same thing in those pools as well. It is a recipe for failure. What is happening? Is the industry thriving? I know it the drugs and cheating and competition (yawn!).

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Re read my post and try again. His fair value is 9/5(remember 100% computer said 35%). He was a generous 7/2 on the board(never said I wanted or even expected 7/2), and I acknowledged that the smart money might drive him down to 3-1 or even 5/2. This has how racing has always been. But even if 5/2 he is still good value. Enter the Whale, and now instead of seeing 5/2 or good value, I will see 9/5 or fair value at best. This is the whale rebate age. Why, simply because the Whale has no motivation to leave the horse above fair value, since his rebates make him money anyhow. Thus the flaw in the system. Never said rebates will save every bettor. You still have to be well above average to win with rebates. These guys are the creme de la creme or they wouldn't be able to put in the huge amounts they are putting into the pools. The point I am trying to drive home is when Whales can drive a horse down to fair value and win money via rebate, they will, and they take virtually all value from the pool. What do you question? Their ability to do so or their will to do so. They have both. When you give them access to exacta pools and double pools and who know what other pools they have access to they will do the same thing in those pools as well. It is a recipe for failure. What is happening? Is the industry thriving? I know it the drugs and cheating and competition (yawn!).

If a whale bets on a horse who is above value and his bet knocks the horse to market value, you're right, the whale will win by breaking even on his real life bets and showing a profit because of the rebate.

I guess what the discussion comes down to is this. If you take rebate bettors out of the pools, will 5 dollar and 80 cent horses start paying 7 dollars. IF this is true and the 5 dollar and 80 cent horses start going off at 5-2, won't that mean other horses in the race are going DOWN in price? If the 9-5 shot morphs into a 5-2 shot with all rebate bettors out of the pools, doesnt that mean the 2nd choice, who is supposed to be 4-1 and the 3rd choice who is supposed to be 5-1 be 7-2 and 9-2 respectively? (just making up numbers as an example).

You arent going to be able to find "free money" in the betting pools because if a 9-5 shot goes up to 5-2, other horses come down in price, regardless of whether rebate bettors are in the pools or not.

You do mention that rebate bettors have the ability to hammer down a real life 5-2 shot to 9-5 because of the rebate, but you fail to mention that there are plenty of rebate bettors and do you know what else happens when rebate bettors are betting into the pools with a rebate? They're betting more than one horse. You cite the example of the "good looking" 5-2 shot who pays 5.80 and the value gets sucked out by rebate bettors, but you need to also think about the horse who goes off at 30-1 who has virtually no chance and should be 50-1, but he's 30-1 because rebate bettors are betting him down 'because they can'.

There are a lot of rebate bettors and plenty of rebate dollars and those dollars are spread all over, they're not just all congregating on your sneaky 5-2 shot......rebate bettors can be less vigilant at making good bets, rebate bettors can box 9 horses in the tri for 504 dollars and spread like crazy because of the rebate....but if you took that rebate away, that same excellent handicapper wouldn't be spreading his money around, he would be forced to be a smarter bettor, he wouldnt be buying 504 combinations in a tri without a rebate.......that's a factor that you also need to realize.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

If a whale bets on a horse who is above value and his bet knocks the horse to market value, you're right, the whale will win by breaking even on his real life bets and showing a profit because of the rebate.

I guess what the discussion comes down to is this. If you take rebate bettors out of the pools, will 5 dollar and 80 cent horses start paying 7 dollars. IF this is true and the 5 dollar and 80 cent horses start going off at 5-2, won't that mean other horses in the race are going DOWN in price? If the 9-5 shot morphs into a 5-2 shot with all rebate bettors out of the pools, doesnt that mean the 2nd choice, who is supposed to be 4-1 and the 3rd choice who is supposed to be 5-1 be 7-2 and 9-2 respectively? (just making up numbers as an example).

You arent going to be able to find "free money" in the betting pools because if a 9-5 shot goes up to 5-2, other horses come down in price, regardless of whether rebate bettors are in the pools or not.

You do mention that rebate bettors have the ability to hammer down a real life 5-2 shot to 9-5 because of the rebate, but you fail to mention that there are plenty of rebate bettors and do you know what else happens when rebate bettors are betting into the pools with a rebate? They're betting more than one horse. You cite the example of the "good looking" 5-2 shot who pays 5.80 and the value gets sucked out by rebate bettors, but you need to also think about the horse who goes off at 30-1 who has virtually no chance and should be 50-1, but he's 30-1 because rebate bettors are betting him down 'because they can'.

There are a lot of rebate bettors and plenty of rebate dollars and those dollars are spread all over, they're not just all congregating on your sneaky 5-2 shot......rebate bettors can be less vigilant at making good bets, rebate bettors can box 9 horses in the tri for 504 dollars and spread like crazy because of the rebate....but if you took that rebate away, that same excellent handicapper wouldn't be spreading his money around, he would be forced to be a smarter bettor, he wouldnt be buying 504 combinations in a tri without a rebate.......that's a factor that you also need to realize.

I believe your point is that the players betting undervalued horses already(the horses the whales are not touching) will get a better price after the Whale bets and that absent the Whale they would be getting an even lower price. I will agree with that, but these horses are typically going to lose anyways, so usually it is irrelevant. Also sometime the weak player will pick the undervalued horse and get a bigger price on the loser, but when he picks right and bets the valued horse the whale kills his price. The bigger problem is that the whale knocking out all value, punishes non rebated players who are actually making good choices and prevents them from being able to make money with their good choices(without a rebate). If the smarter non rebated players can't win, how long do you expect anybody to reasonably stay in the game.

This game is never going to be easy, but most people expect to lose gambling so not a big deal. It becomes a problem when they lose too much too quickly. It becomes too frustrating and many will leave. It is just basically bang for your buck. Nobody goes to Vegas expecting to win, and most do not care if they drop $500 or $1000 bucks as long as they have fun. Racing should tbe the same. This game will thrive with churn, not by subjecting the weakest players to takeouts that will knock them out of the game before they can even build a game. It's a balance, and rebating the sharpest just puts the balance way out of whack.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

I believe your point is that the players betting undervalued horses already(the horses the whales are not touching) will get a better price after the Whale bets and that absent the Whale they would be getting an even lower price. I will agree with that, but these horses are typically going to lose anyways, so usually it is irrelevant. Also sometime the weak player will pick the undervalued horse and get a bigger price on the loser, but when he picks right and bets the valued horse the whale kills his price. The bigger problem is that the whale knocking out all value, punishes non rebated players who are actually making good choices and prevents them from being able to make money with their good choices(without a rebate). If the smarter non rebated players can't win, how long do you expect anybody to reasonably stay in the game.

This game is never going to be easy, but most people expect to lose gambling so not a big deal. It becomes a problem when they lose too much too quickly. It becomes too frustrating and many will leave. It is just basically bang for your buck. Nobody goes to Vegas expecting to win, and most do not care if they drop $500 or $1000 bucks as long as they have fun. Racing should tbe the same. This game will thrive with churn, not by subjecting the weakest players to takeouts that will knock them out of the game before they can even build a game. It's a balance, and rebating the sharpest just puts the balance way out of whack.

"Staying in the game" isnt reasonable because unless you do massive amounts of work and the work you do is correct and your opinion is amazing, you arent going to win. If rebate bettors left the pools and all betting was non rebated, horses who are destined to pay 5.80 are still going to pay 5.80, they're not going to pay 7.00. AND, the pools will be smaller so the 50 and 100 dollar bettor might be depressing his own price more than he would otherwise.

Personally, i view racing as a fairly efficient market, there isnt "free money" lying around like there used to be and i think that the intelligence of the players and the massive amounts of great information out there is what is making it harder to win. That's the reason its hard to win, the competition is pretty darn good and the takeout is pretty high and that high takeout, combined with a lot of sharp players makes winning a daunting task.

Its very hard to win, so i don't think its a particularly good idea for decent handicappers who are currently not good enough to win to buy into the idea that rebate players are the reason they're losing. 5.80 is 5.80, you're not getting 7 bucks on a horse who is supposed to pay 5.80 if the rebate whales left the game, that's just not the way it works.

[tzipi]

PA had a great reply.

Anyway sure things are rigged. What is rigged and how they do it, I have no idea but I will say twice in the last couple weeks I saw a lukewarm favorite at Aqu from an outside post get bet down in price on the clubhouse turn once it got out cleanly and in front. I remember this because I had both and was mad the price lowered after the race started. I never see favorites bet down more in a race when they get out slowly. Ugh, who knows.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

the stock market makes horse racing look like a bunch of choir boys going to church.

Not sure about that. When I buy a stock, they don't take 20% right off the top.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Showonly is correct, horse racing has a massive problem with unfair advantages given to some players over other players

Stillriledup the problem with your examples from SRU Downs is you keep considering scenarios where the rebate player is backing a different horse to the non rebate player. The scenario where the rebate player is a problem for the non rebate player is when they both back the same horse. When this happens the non rebate player is much worse off. The rebate player has to bet big to qualify for their rebates and by dumping big bets on a runner they can drive the bet from positive ROI to negative ROI for the non rebate player. But the rebate player still enjoys a positive ROI bet after rebate

Several studies have all shown the same thing which is that rebate players perform much better than the tote takeout. This tells us that the horses they are not backing are performing worse than the tote takeout. So if you back a different horse to the rebate players your bet might go from -22% to -20%. Which still makes the bet a massive losing bet. But the point is the same benefit of -22% to -20% could still be achieved by scrapping rebates and instead of paying 10% rebate to 20% of the turnover (which is supplied by rebate players) cut the takeout by 2% for all players

[goatchaser]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I have news for you...you may want to sit down for this...

Life is rigged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hna9KZd5mYo

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Another point SRU Downs might want to consider is this. If SRU Downs offers rebates it will make less money than if it did not offer rebates. So the track is worse off for offering rebates

Rebate players are like private tax collectors and they have priority claims over the track that is running the races

Consider these examples

Example One

You have 2 equally matched players who both put $100 into their accounts (Player A and Player B). Over time both players will simply lose their money to the SRU Downs track takeout as they are equally matched in skill

So at the end of a period of betting the score is
Player A $0 (lost $100)
Player B $0 (lost $100)
SRU Downs $200 (collected the $200 in takeout from the bets of Player A and Player B)

Example Two

You have the same two equally matched players A and B who each put $100 in. But now you have a 3rd player of above average skill who asks for a rebate from SRU Downs and gets one. Let's call this 3rd player Zeljko. Zeljko puts $200 into his account as he is a bigger player than the others. Players A and B will both just lose their money to the takeout as before but Zeljko as a winning player will win money from A and B

At the end of a period of betting the score is
Player A $0 (lost $100)
Player B $0 (lost $100)
Zeljko $220 (deposited $200 plus won $20)
SRU Downs $180 (collected $180 in takeout from the bets made)

So here is the interesting part. The rebate player has increased the turnover at SRU Downs. But SRU Downs has collected less money by the time Player A and Player B have lost all their deposits. This is because the rebate player is like a tax collector with a priority claim over SRU Downs

So maybe SRU Downs might want to reconsider how much it pays in rebates

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Seabiscuit@AR

Another point SRU Downs might want to consider is this. If SRU Downs offers rebates it will make less money than if it did not offer rebates. So the track is worse off for offering rebates

Rebate players are like private tax collectors and they have priority claims over the track that is running the races

Consider these examples

Example One

You have 2 equally matched players who both put $100 into their accounts (Player A and Player B). Over time both players will simply lose their money to the SRU Downs track takeout as they are equally matched in skill

So at the end of a period of betting the score is
Player A $0 (lost $100)
Player B $0 (lost $100)
SRU Downs $200 (collected the $200 in takeout from the bets of Player A and Player B)

Example Two

You have the same two equally matched players A and B who each put $100 in. But now you have a 3rd player of above average skill who asks for a rebate from SRU Downs and gets one. Let's call this 3rd player Zeljko. Zeljko puts $200 into his account as he is a bigger player than the others. Players A and B will both just lose their money to the takeout as before but Zeljko as a winning player will win money from A and B

At the end of a period of betting the score is
Player A $0 (lost $100)
Player B $0 (lost $100)
Zeljko $220 (deposited $200 plus won $20)
SRU Downs $180 (collected $180 in takeout from the bets made)

So here is the interesting part. The rebate player has increased the turnover at SRU Downs. But SRU Downs has collected less money by the time Player A and Player B have lost all their deposits. This is because the rebate player is like a tax collector with a priority claim over SRU Downs

So maybe SRU Downs might want to reconsider how much it pays in rebates

The case you're making is that rebate players are going to do better than non rebate players all things being equal. I'm pretty sure we all agree that's true. The point i'm trying to make is that a non rebate player's success or failure is totally dependent on their own betting talents, if all rebate players left the pools, the non rebate player would do WORSE because the pool sizes would be smaller. A 7 dollar horse pays 7 dollars whether or not there's a lot of rebate players in the pools, or none.

I tried to explain to Poiny that you're not going to find "free money" lying around if rebate players left the pools and/or stopped getting rebates. That has nothing to do with the price that the non rebate player gets on his or her selection. A 5-2 shot is a 5-2 shot, you're not going to magically get 8 dollars on legit 5-2 shots if all the rebates went away, but what you will get is smaller pools and the smaller pools will not only make it harder to win, but you'll be winning more of your own money if you're anything more than a 50 dollar a race bettor.

[dannyhill]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

rebate bettors can be less vigilant at making good bets, rebate bettors can box 9 horses in the tri for 504 dollars and spread like crazy because of the rebate.

You certainly have you're finger on the pulse of a rebate player.