Looking forward to Del Mar -- a track that I attend every day. Does anyone know if Del Mar is restricting the play by CAWs in any of the pools, (thinking that I heard they will). I would like to avoid their play when possible. Thanks.
TMW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looking forward to Del Mar -- a track that I
> attend every day. Does anyone know if Del Mar is
> restricting the play by CAWs in any of the pools,
> (thinking that I heard they will). I would like to
> avoid their play when possible. Thanks.
Well, answering my own question after some research the answer is CAW play allowed in all pools. They bet up tp 38% of the total in several pools. Their track betting rebates reduce as time gets closer to post time. Other than that -- no restriction at Del Mar unlike NYRA tracks.
TGJB has some thoughts on CAW play at thoroughbreddailynews.com
Thanks Jerry, maybe they will get it.
It's getting a lot of reaction. The idea is to get the Lexington crew to understand that they too are at risk, cause they don't give a rat's patooty about horseplayers.
It was literally a chronological order of my wagering in the last 20 years, instead of betting every weekend , Sat/Sun, and 1 or 2 times a weekday, to maybe 15 to 20 times a year. With the odds changing and the CAW\'s sucking out value from the pools like a Dyson vacuum, hard to wager your hard earned dollars to support them. Good for you for speaking out, sad that you have to literally tell them the problem bullet point by bullet point.
I don\'t disagree with anything TGJB wrote, but I have a couple of thoughts:
I wonder how much certain industry players view handle as their lifeblood.
CDI, for example, is a casino company using horse racing to gain lucrative casino licenses. Ask anyone from Illinois and look at how fast the Kentucky legislature acted when a court ruled that historical horse racing is not parimutuel wagering.
I also doubt breeders are that focused on handle. They are more focused on breeders awards and expanding ownership. They love the fractional ownership thing. And look how fast the Kentucky legislature reacted when the Jockey Club tried to limit the number of mares a stallion could cover in a year (at 140!!).
The group I don\'t understand is horsemen. (Full disclosure: I only know what I have read about signal fees and rebates and have no way to verify it.) I have heard and read that rebates are structured such that the net takeout for a rebate recipient is pretty much the same regardless of what pool they are playing in. That makes no sense to me. I don\'t bet enough to earn rebates, and when I occasionally wander out of the win pool and into an exacts or daily double, my takeout increases. And that makes sense. I am getting to express two opinions for one price. Why should rebate players get to express multiple opinions for the same price as one? And why do the horsemen sign off on signal fee agreements that do not increase the signal fee for exotics. For example, why would a track not have an increased signal fee for a jackpot bet on a mandatory payout day, and why would the horsemen not insist upon that.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's getting a lot of reaction. The idea is to
> get the Lexington crew to understand that they too
> are at risk, cause they don't give a rat's
> patooty about horseplayers.
I will read your article tonight. The reasoning at Del Mar is the race purses are dependent on handle since no gaming is involved in the equation. But, without having additional data -- it seems apparent that while the CAW handle increases (at a lower takeout due to rebates) effectively diminishing track returns, at the same time regular non-CAW handle is decreasing at a much higher takeout due to no-rebates. Not sure what the net results are.
Jerry,
No doubt that today\'s Twitter discussions by horse racing folks was dominated by this piece. Terrific job of stirring up this topic which needs to continue to be scrutinized along with attempts to persuade meaningful change.
I have heard and read in the past that the rebates the CRW\'s receive are similar to rebates high volume customers in various businesses would receive.
My problem with this distinction is that as you called us, we are \"horseplayers\" or \"gamblers.\" I do not believe I am a \"customer\" of the racetrack when I put my dollar through the window to gamble. I am a competitor for dollars in a zero sum game of that particular pool. When I pay to get in the track, when I buy a concession, when I purchase a seat in the grandstand, when I buy a souvenir,.... those are examples of customers at the racetrack. But when I gamble, how am I \"customer?\"
As gamblers, specifically parimutuel ones, I don\'t see anyone placing money in the pool as a customer b/c I am competing for the other dollars in the pool after the lawful takeout is removed once the event begins. I am not \"purchasing\" anything as customers do. I see no reason that any dollar should receive a \"rebate\" over another dollar on this \"customer\" premise. In fact, I wonder if a creative attorney could craft an argument as such in court that a true retail, non-rebate receiving gambler is damaged by not treating parimutuel participants equally. Before anyone laughs this out the building, the numerous states that have racing likely have different definitions of parimutuel wagering and I think it could be pulled off somewhere. Look at how creative the attorneys for trainers are when it comes to positive tests. Often, businesses like to take approaches that are profitable first and find out later that their methods aren\'t \"ethical\" or possibly are \"illegal.\" I wonder if that could be the tale here if someone would take the tracks to task in various states on this rebate issue which isn\'t only a CRW issue.
An argument that could be specific to the CRW\'s is that the tracks \"own\" some of these \"teams\" or rather \"employ\" them. Now back to the people that say we are \"customers.\" How many customers have to compete against the business they are supposedly patronizing when the product is \"dollars\"? Anyway. . . while I wait for an even slight comparison. . . I once again would like to see a creative attorney craft an argument about the parimutuel pools being manipulated by the tracks to the detriment of a retail customer, sharing information with CRW\'s that they don\'t with retail players, competing against the retail gambler, etc etc. Defining one\'s damages through historical records of retail players might be easier to prove than one might think at first.
As for the lifeblood of the industry, your comment is true about betting handle. Unfortunately, the tracks have basically admitted (as I referenced a few months ago in a post on the board) that without the CRW handle, they would be dealing with pools so small, the small tracks would shutter their businesses. Transitioning from the deal they made with themselves (the devil) back to the deal that should be in place with retail gamblers is near impossible now. But that doesn\'t mean the gamblers can\'t ring them up or at least try.
Last, a small quibble on your piece. You mention they don\'t want to kill their price. It sure seems to me that they don\'t care whatsoever sometimes and willing to take 1-5 far more often than ever seen before full well knowing that their late bets will kill their price. I agree they may not want to kill their price but they are willing to take it all the way down to the quick if that\'s what their model says will at least break them even especially at the small tracks (before rebate).
Fairmount-- as a retired " creative lawyer " several points in response to your post. Even assuming arguendo ( lawyers love that word)I agree with everything in your post, it is mostly irrelevant to the real issue posed by the CAW's and the tracks who support them. . There is no claim those players have done anything wrong and indeed they are to be admired for their hard work in creating algorithms that are effective. And the "zero sum" argument you invoke, while perhaps true is equally irrelevant. Your seeking to analogize the high rebates received by the bots with customers in a business setting receiving a discount because they buy in bulk actually highlights the issue horseplayers face. If I go to my local supermarket to buy a gallon of milk and pay $10 it is meaningless to me that someone buying 100 gallons only pays $8 a gallon. I only have room or need for 1 gallon and I need that gallon. Horseplayers who want to bet ( mere mortals) do not have that option. Wherever I bet the CAW players will cut into my potential profits, and if they break even they make millions. Horse players have no real alternative except to stop betting on horse racing. That is the problem. I have played this game for more than 50 years, turned a lot of people onto it and made friends ( including TGJB) along the way. If someone like me walks away because my PERCEPTION is that this very difficult game to beat is not fair, and others are getting a deal not available to me, the game is in trouble. And it is! To make matters worse, the tracks are now hostage to the CAW players. They have desperately tried to keep their ownership interests in Elite Turf quiet and desperately need those numbers to boost their handle. ( When NYRA issued a press release that the Spring meet showed an 8% increase my first question was why don't you tell me- your consumer- how much of that handle comes from bots not mere mortals.Did anyone in the New York Legislature ask that question when they approved the $450mm bond offering for NYRA?)).And if the CAW players, because of theoretical reduced rebates in the future in response to pressure from consumers,I.e. bettors, take their game to the Isle of Mann or some other overseas bookie, the tracks crater- all of them. I had an ADW account with XPRESS bet. When news started to trickle out that STRONACH had an interest in Elite Turf, I raised the issue with XPRESS bet and advised I would not fund the ADW if what ai was hearing was reading was accurate. The response from XPRESS BET was to simply lie and advise me in writing that Stronach had no such interest. When I pressed them to state unequivocally they had neither a direct or indirect interest in Elite there was no response. Some transparency! No disrespect to the racetrack owners, breeders , and politicians but there is zero game without bettors and notwithstanding that somewhat obvious fact horseplayers have historically allowed themselves to be shat upon on many levels starting in 1970 when NY OTB, shunned by NYRA and the Phipps, thought it was a good idea to impose a 5% surcharge for the right to bet off track. I could go on and on. The only way to even begin to even out the playing field ( and please don't tell me that a player getting a 7-8% rebate does not have a huuuge advantage over us mere mortals) is for bettors to send an unequivocal message of their growing unhappiness by not betting until the game approaches some degree of being level for all bettors.
Richard-
1- remind me to teach you about paragraphs.
2- if those guys were only getting 7-8% rebates they would be out of business.
Fairmount— I agree that horseplayers are participants, I've tried to explain that often. But in terms of the people that piece was aimed at we are customers. If they see it as just a fight between participants they could care less.
I know a lot of you guys will be there Whitney weekend. I won't. The Jockey Club CAW panel is that Thursday, and if you contact me privately I'll try to get you in.
\"2- if those guys were only getting 7-8% rebates they would be out of business. \"
Interesting. You dont think they can play a \'break even\' game with all the millions they spend on research and surety of final pricing ?
My point is they're getting a lot more back than that.
If racetrack execs had to publish profit and loss instead of handle figures none of this s—t would be going on. They're making almost nothing on each CAW dollar bet, just trying to make it look like they're succeeding.
So far all the response on the TDN site is from horseplayers. Which is extremely disheartening, I didn't write it for them. I wrote it to wake the rest of the industry the f—k up.
Dear Mr. Brown,
I want to thank you for your article. I never realized the CAWs\' power and feel I am being robbed. Picking a winner is tough enough as we all know but knowing that these CAWs are taking money out of our pockets is just reprehensible. I cannot understand why racetrack management condones this. The game will be over when the smaller players are eliminated. We all see it coming and it\'s coming faster than anyone thinks.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My point is they're getting a lot more back than
> that.
>
> If racetrack execs had to publish profit and loss
> instead of handle figures none of this s—t would
> be going on. They're making almost nothing on
> each CAW dollar bet, just trying to make it look
> like they're succeeding.
>
> So far all the response on the TDN site is from
> horseplayers. Which is extremely disheartening, I
> didn't write it for them. I wrote it to wake the
> rest of the industry the f—k up.
I know the #1 and #2 at Del Mar. I will see them this weekend and will realize how \"transparent\" they are about this topic. I understand (as an owner) the CAW bets add to the horse purses that are based on handle. It still sucks that 33% of the handle get a -- say -- 10% rebate when normal bettors get hit with 20% plus takeout. Any economist would say you are crazy to participate in this, even though I will. My feeling is if they feel the CAWs are necessary, then open up some pools (my original post\'s question) without the CAWs getting rewarded with rebates.
As a small player, do I get a \"fairer shake\" if I play exclusively in tournaments on horsetourneys.com, or does Stronach and their 1st bet gouge me there as well? I play 2/5 no limit because that\'s where I belong based on my bankroll and skill, not the 25/50 game. The dominance of CAWs has turned all the pools into a 100/200 game, and I don\'t belong there. I know enough to know when I\'m the fish at the table, and I\'m definitely the fish at the table when it comes to pari-mutuel horse racing.
Jerry,
A sincere Thanks for the potential invite. I fly up Thursday, and on two flights at that, so I can\'t see pulling that off when the OG TG-ers are so kind to help with my transportation.
Any chance you can make it Labor Day weekend?
Not impossible but unlikely.
Does anyone else find it easy to root against these two?
As someone who has transitioned much of his play to horsetourney.com and horseplayer.com the CAW players have less impact particularly in those tournaments where the format is "pick and pray" meaning all bets are locked in and cannot be changed once the first race of the contest starts. In those contests where the bets are live,meaning you can change or make your bet until post time, and where the odds have significant impact on your strategy in choosing your bet, the CAWs will still have an impact, I.e. You select a 6-1 shot because you believe it will put you in the money and horse closes at 5-2! I have become a big fan of the contests- in most there is a premium on handicapping rather than betting since the bets are mythical. The contests also enable responsible players to manage their bankroll efficiently while enabling you to pick good betting races to bet live. And use of Thorograph gives you an edge. Oh, and it is a lot of fun when you see you are leading going into the last few races of any contest. You can qualify for NHC championship for as little as $18 and for BCBC for a little as $20. Go for it!
Yes , very easy.
I thought Mike was beloved.
Thanks for the response, Rresnik. I couldn\'t agree more with the pick and pray format. I can really focus on handicapping, and, with the head to head format, playing a favorite actually makes sense, since you are forced to make a choice and can\'t skip races looking for the right\" price/fair odds.\" Head to head pick and pray may be the purest handicapping money making opportunity there is.
I went ahead and opened a horsetourneys account this past saturday and played one head to head pick and pray sat, sun and today. Probably beginners luck, but I\'ve won all three. Takeout is only 10% for this format. I\'ve stuck to the $22 format, so I\'m sure the competition will get tougher if I go up in stakes.
There is a plethora of different opportunities, and seems there are some big players on the site.