Can anyone tell me why the NYRA Belmont simulcast scroll and Tom Durkin\'s track change announcement both stated that Desormeaux was to ride horse #8 in the 12th race, when the chart indicates that he rode horse #9 - who was in Post Position #8?
My key horse was #10 - who finished 2nd. I put him in exactas with #2,5,11 & 8 because I thought that I was getting the other best turf riders in the race - namely Coa, Mig, C. Velasquez and DESORMEAUX!
I know that TVG often gives out the Post Position number instead of the saddlecloth/betting number in changes and even odds, but I am used to their incompetency and do not rely on their information (or lack thereof) for such information. Instead, I will watch the track feed for verification.
However, for the track itself to get it wrong is something else again.
What do you expect, they are idiots. They cut off many prominent rebate shops and are throwing millions of dollars in handle in the toilet every day because Greg Martin gave 1 horse in one race some baking soda. Not enough to toss millions in the receptacle, but apparantely they are concerned about \'image\'.
ONe day, someone is going to write a book called, \"the rise and fall of NYRA\"
No doubt, it will be a best seller.
Note to \"ImALWAYSin\":
Sure its easy to criticize NYRA. Because NYRA does business year around, year in, year out, in a tough market, NYRA and New York racing are closely scrutinized.
A lot of NYRA problems, including the trumped up charges against Greg Martin (1 count in a 75 count indictment) and Braulio Baeza (accused of doing something which was being done in almost every jocks room in the country for about a century) have been forced into the limelight by New York\'s state attorney general,who will not rest until he is elected President of the United States (both AG Spitzer and Senator Schumer are in a match race to become our nation\'s first Jewish president).
Lets review some of the major racing circuits in the US and see, as former NY Mayor Ed Koch would say, \"How\'s NYRA doin\'?
Lets start with the cradle of American racing, the Bluegrass state, where the inmates (owners, trainers, breeders) run the asylum. Can you say \"permissive medication\"? In terms of facilities, two world class facilities and two absolute dumps, Ellis (do they still grow soybeans in the infield?) and Latonia, er, Turfway. I haven\'t been to hEllish or Turfway in nearly 20 years, and some hardboot like BellsBendBoy will tell me that these two facilities have improved. Sorry, but you can\'t polish a turd, or to put it another way,any attempt to \"fix up\" these two places would be like \"fixing the drapes on the Titanic\".
I will be curious to see what happens to Keeneland\'s national handle after the installation of Polytrack.
Lets go to California. They insist on continuing to operate Bay Meadows and Golden Gate, they continue to have short fields at all tracks. Home of superior horsemen like Milkshake Mullins and Vladimir Syringe. How about the admirable and humane way the Cal powers that be handled the Sweet Catomine affair last year?
And soon Cal will be all poly all the time. We need to replace Bing Crosby\'s \"Where the Surf Meets the Turf\" with a grunge band singing \"Where the Pacific meets the Polytrack\". And of course they need Polytrack at Del Mar, where they run a 6-8 week meet under optimal weather conditions.
But I love betting Cal races. On Friday night, race 6, 12 horse field. 10/1 winner, place horse 16/1, exacta $101 for $1?
The most tragic circuit will be Maryland, because the Frankster controls the whole circuit. The Maryland circuit will be the sacrificial lamb when cash poorMagna makes its bid for NYRA. In light of the awful attitude of Maryland politicians towards Racing (\"Politicians to Maryland Racing-- Drop Dead\"), it is hard to imagine any operator taking over these facilities.
Florida also has Frankstro problems. The slot proceeds split (50/50 with the state/county) is not acceptable, and Magna\'s cash flow problems will prevent necessary purse increases (how long does Frank think Magna (Parent)shareholders will allow Magna (Parent) to float loans to Magna Entertainment)? (I believe the first shareholder derivative suits have been filed in Ontario courts). It was written this winter that non stake purses at Gulfstream were so low that horsemen were using Gulfstream and Palm Meadows as training facilities, waiting for the venues with more lucrative purses to open. The greatest shame in Florida is that one of the most beautiful racetracks ANYWHERE has become a fallow plot of ground.
So yes, NYRA has problems, and maybe a couple of idiots. But when New York racing has a big day, like Belmont Day or Travers Day or Breeders Cup Preview Day, its as good a day of racing as we have in this country. And I still contend that the day to day product year round is as good or better than anywhere in the U.S.
The simple answer is because nobody in this industry understands that the integrity of the information they provide is the bedrock of the game.
If you believe handicappers are investors, then you hire an information integrity manager whose job it is to make sure the players are getting the best information possible. If you believe they are degenerate gamblers, close enough is close enough.
Close enough seems to be the industry dynamic. Even the Racing Form seems to be operating under the principle of \"More ink, less integrity\" these days. (And if there is any entity that should have an information integrity ombudsmen whose contact information is prominently printed in every edition it is the Racing Form, if only to prevent them from reprinting mistake after reprinted mistake.)
And until the cavelier attitude towards providing the best information changes racing is going to be what it is. A business that draws in two dollar bettors with umbrellas with T-shirts and chases away potential two hundred dollar bettors with the sort of incident that happened to you yesterday.
My condolencess. Been there, got done like that.
I agree about that Fri night exacta at Hol, that was low. I\'m like, \"Where\'s the rest of it\"
You\'re right, obviously, other tracks, states and circuits have their problems. My post was in response to deb\'s post about nyra...if we want to open up a new thread criticizing everyone else, than by all means do so, i\'d love to participate in that.
Funny you singled out Cerin(ge) and Mullins because i can tell you that these guys are 2 of the better trainers out there. They aren\'t just \'drug\' guys.
Ask Jerry, he knows about Cerin\'s oxygen chamber and some other stuff he does that\'s on the up and up, so Vlado is a good trainer who\'s \'not just a drug guy\'
If you want to make a list of \'paper trainers\' Mullins and Cerin are not on that list. Not to say they don\'t take an edge, but they are good trainers also, not just \'edge\' guys.
I\'m not so sure giving ALL the So Cal tracks polytrack is a good idea. What happens when people decide that polytrack has cheapened the product and the \'spray\' and decide they don\'t want to bet the races because the \'spray\' will determine winners and losers.
I think that if you switch ALL the tracks in Cali to polytrack, there\'s going to be no \'allure\' of difference. People might think it ruined Del Mar because it makes it too much like the other places.
Also, how is polytrack going to affect the races in the summer? Turfway ran their previous meet in the winter, so who knows how SA or DMR are going to react.
How are they going to keep water in the track at SA on one of those hot desert days w santa ana winds? If they water w 20 mins to post, the track will be bone dry at post time. Are they going to be watering up until 3 mins to post? Are the watertrucks going to be circling the horses who are warming up?
Time will tell. I think they were supposed to switch hollywood to Polytrack and see for a year how that experiment went before committing every track to this.
one addition to my post...i don\'t know about polytrack in the \'water\' sense. Is this a surface that gets watered between races? I shouldnt have jumped to that conclusion, because i dont know the maintenance habits of plytrack.
Deb,
Tough beat and I don\'t know how but I had Kent D marked on the 9 and I only had the NYRA feed on CH 71.From memory I heard Durkin announce the change.
Mike
They must have made the change at some point because Xpresbet had the correct info up last night. But my husband didn\'t arrive at Del Mar until @ the 4th race and he asked me if I saw the change to Desormeaux on #8...after watching the scroll. It was at that point that I watched it again and still saw and heard announced jockey changes on #\'s 4 and 8 with no names given for the horses. Otherwise, I would have figured out the mistake!
Hey, I have a better one for you...an employee in the Santa Anita racing office accepted and listed a scratch that was announced on the morning radio shows and in the initial batch of changes. He then allowed the trainer to withdraw the scratch, but no announcement was made to this effect.
Standing in the paddock and watching the horses go to post, here comes the scratched horse (who would have been a single on a lot of Pick 6 tickets), and even a different trainer - Bill Spawr - went nuts when he saw the \"scratch\" wearing the 10 saddlecloth!
In fact, there was so much made about this incident, that the truth of what happened finally came out. Up until that time, the track kept denying that the horse was ever shown or announced as a \"scratch\". The guy lost his job here, so maybe he\'s with NYRA now!
Hoarse-- You know what? You may have really hit on something here, seriously. I like the idea of an \"Integrity Manager\", or Ombudsman, appointed by the NTRA. It would have to be someone owing nothing to the industry, but if we could get that, there would at least be someone to write to about integrity issues in the game, and not just about misinformation. Hmmm...
Imallin said;>>>>>\"What do you expect, they are idiots. They cut off many prominent rebate shops and are throwing millions of dollars in handle in the toilet every day because Greg Martin gave 1 horse in one race some baking soda. Not enough to toss millions in the receptacle, but apparantely they are concerned about \'image\'.
ONe day, someone is going to write a book called, \"the rise and fall of NYRA\"
No doubt, it will be a best seller.\"<<<<<
Imallin, The NYRA has had many problems but ,imho, cutting off the so-called rebate shops is not one of them.
Suggest you read the NTRA task force report:
http://www.bloodhorse.com/pdf/NTRATaskReportSep04.pdf
especially the section on Computerized Robotic Wagering (CRW).
To me, allowing someone\'s computer to be the bettor, the OTB, the Tote, and the track all at once with instantaneous direct electronic access to the track\'s tote system\'s information to configure their bets(via their software) and then directly processing their bets to the track\'s tote system at the last possible minute in nanoseconds gives these (skimming?) operations a tremendous unfair advantage over the rest of us bettors(see the report for some of the apparent successes of the shops using CRW).
Don\'t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with using computer programs to determine your wagers....what is wrong is to give a priviledged few direct electronic access to the track\'s wagering systems.
To my knowledge,in spite of the task force\'s conclusions, the only tracks that have attempted to stop these operations(mostly SPMO\'s--i.e.non-track otb\'s) are the NYRA and Woodbine......good for them!
These unfair wagering operations should be universally banned but it appears most tracks are willing to garner short term profits via the larger handles (at woefully low commissions) from SPMO\'s at the expense of the long term welfare of horseracing (and, of course, to the detriment of the vast majority of horseplayer\'s wallets).
Asfufh
So then, cut off the computer bettors...what does that have to do with the other 99.9 pct of the people who pick up a phone and call the bet into a live teller?
I agree with you, a computer shouldn\'t be allowed to place the wagers, they should be done by a person with his or her voice.
Imallin, The problem is the whales use CRW and make up the bulk of the money bet through these channels. Here\'s a couple of quotes from various articles/reports discussing this :
\"By 2003 RSI\'s off-track handle had grown from $9 million to $214 million a year. Amazingly, according a state representative\'s floor speech in the North Dakota legislature, around $130 million of the handle came from one man. Even after that statement, state officials refused to identify the bettor until his name emerged in the RSI bankruptcy. He turned out to be a little-known professional gambler from Las Vegas named Peter Wagner. According to a complaint from a racetrack that denied RSI its betting signal, Wagner used elaborate computer software to make his picks and a direct link to the betting terminal to enter his wagers seconds before race time\"
\"According to a September 2004 report from a racing industry Wagering Systems Task Force, the majority of this handle goes through what it called Secondary Pari-Mutuel Organizations, or rebate shops, which remit five to 10 percent of the cost of a bet to high-volume customers. These clients often use computerized robotic wagering, giving them a last-second edge in placing bets.
Research for this highly sophisticated report was contributed in part by the consulting firm of former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. The report singled out \'\'Native American gaming facilities\'\' as a key component of this new industry, which was targeted by the New York cutoff.\"
\"The incentive to lobby for a rebate program, a movement opposed by downstate off-track betting corporations, followed NYRA\'s decision last year to cease doing business with 10 offshore and domestic simulcast operations, which paid a small fee for the satellite signal and kicked back as much as 15 percent to those playing at a level that will now qualify for the maximum approved by New York regulators. These firms provide their best clients with computer access to pool data, which allows the use of batch-betting programs that place multiple wagers within seconds of post time, an advantage widely regarded as unfair.\"
Asfufh,
There are several write ups about batch betting. Still surprising that many bettors do not fully understand that batch betting represents an additional take out on players. It\'s not past posting or anything like that.
NYRA was approached by several big bettors who were assured that no rebate shops, which allowed batch betting, were into the NYRA pools.I understand it is easy for any track to detect batch bets.
Mike
it seems appropriate to locate these type of machines along side slot and scratch-off lottery ticket machines ... who knows - the whole phenomena might have a reverse effect on the industry and they\'ll find that bettors would perfer to do things \" monkey style \" or the old fashion way ...
technology should not be allowed to give certain players an unfair advantage when it comes time base an opinion on odds - perhaps betting from these locations could be stoped a moment or two early before post , so that in terms of information , the rest of the pool is on a level playing feild and not having to deal w/ artificial odds .
Explain to me again why this betting is no good. After all, its not like the bets are being placed after the race starts, right?
Isn\'t it good to have more money in the betting pools?
i definately want these guy\'s in - but their ability to wager so to close to pool closing is something which everyone should have the abilty to do regardless of the location of where the wager originates from , it\'s an issue that needs to be addressed ... i don\'t advocate closing these practices down but the technology does give an unfair advantage to the user - of course they still have to pick a winner .
marcus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i definately want these guy\'s in - but their
> ability to wager so to close to pool closing is
> something which everyone should have the abilty to
> do regardless of the location of where the wager
> originates from , it\'s an issue that needs to be
> addressed ... i don\'t advocate closing these
> practices down but the technology does give an
> unfair advantage to the user - of course they
> still have to pick a winner .
That\'s just it, these bettors have more sophisticated technology than the race tracks, or at least it seems so. We\'ve all seen horses odds drop from the time they leave the gate until the time they finish. Tracks say they need 45 seconds to \"batch\" their bets from simulcasting outlets, causing the delay in odds posting, yet the whales evidently have techonology that does it in a matter of seconds.
Everyone DOES have the ability. If you bet 10 or 20 million (or more) a year, i\'m sure some rebate shop will gladly take your action and if you can write your own computer program, i\'m sure they will let you in on this computer betting.
I could see if they said that only certain people could do it, but if you are a big bettor, i\'m sure there\'s a rebate shop that will take your action and give you whatever you want.
If you think this \"scourge\" is going away, think twice.
Here\'s some excerpts from Youbet\'s May/06 conference calls. You have to read between the lines. Like saying the CRW whales don\'t win all the time...yea, right thats because they are grinders using historical probabilities....over time they win (big!, especially with the benefit of rebates) because of their unfair advantage of timing and access.
How many times have you tried to bet at the last possible minute only to be shutout or see the odds change against you after you bet. The tracks let these guys bet thousands at the last second and, in addition, let them electronically access the track\'s tote system to calculate the correct amount to bet ,for example, on each exacta combination that is more than their model determines is historically correct. As someone suggested, one possible way to screw up these systems is to require them to process their bets a couple of minutes before the pools close...I think the end result if this rule was instituted would be they wouldn\'t bet anymore. These guys are not horseplayers!!! Asfufh
Youbet.com Q1 2006 Earnings Conference Call Transcript (UBET)
Related Stocks: UBET
Youbet.com (UBET)
Q1 2006 Earnings Conference Call
May 4, 2006, 9:00am Eastern
Executives
Richard Land, Investor Relations Counsel
Chuck Champion, Chairman, President and CEO
Gary Sproule, CFO
Scott Solomon, General Counsel
Lonn Powell, VP Public Affairs.
Analysts
Ryan Worst, Brean Murray, Carret & Co.
Mark Agento, Craig-Hallum Capital
Todd Eilers, Roth Capital Partners
Traci Mangini, Think Equity Partners
Steve Altabrando, Sudotee and Company
Presentation/Champion:
Also, we're in the process with the ORC, Oregon Racing Commission, in testing CRW. CRW is Computer Robotic Wagering. We're working on an individual basis with tracks a well. What CRW allows is high end individuals to place bets in a paramutual pool through the same type of transparent compliant systems that others do. They don't have any incremental access to data. Obviously their bets have to be taken like everyone else's prior to post. We're scrutinizing and watching that business very carefully. By allowing this process to take place we're attracting larger bettors to the pools. We think it's going to be very positive in the long run and we're working on that test. We expect that at the completion of that test in June we should be having CRW integrated in our overall operating plan in Oregon and will be offering it to others.
Q&A:
Traci Mangini.
And then just lastly on the CRW system, the robotics wagering. If you could give a little more detail on the mechanics of how that system works. I'm assuming that it's going to diversify your high volume customer, maybe make more of a younger demographic than say your Wales and IRG. Is that correct?
Chuck Champion.
Actually, I'm not sure about the demographic mix. A couple of individuals that we've talked to about this and are engaged in it are frankly not 22 years old, they're probably 45-50 years old. Basically, what the system allows is that a person using mathematical formulas looks at all of the race data available and handicaps each and every horse on a statistical basis and then determines, based on these statistics, exactly what the horse should go off at, and the monitors that up until about 2 minutes before the pools close and make bets, makes a bet into the pool where they believe value exists. It's really, in some senses it's not different than what another handicapper will do. It's crunching a lot more data a lot more quickly and then giving the individual the opportunity to place a number of bets fairly quickly. Again, they're not batch bets, they're individual transactions. We don't allow anyone to batch 50 bets and send them in. we don't allow an individual to collect bets from other people and then send them in. this is something that comes off of their computer programs and they have to place the bets.
We've given the individual the technology in order fro them to do that and also maintain full transparency into what they're doing, how they're doing it, track each and every piece of their business. But, it's basically individuals that are not your ordinary handicapper, if you will. They're not individuals that have been around horses and racing all their life. These are guys for the most part that are extremely intelligent, well-educated and have spent time in the mathematically world and in the gaming world, as well, playing skill-based games. One individual, for example, is a chess master and a backgammon champion and he's got the most amazing mathematical mind one can meet. He's developed programs that find the value in the pools and he places bets against them. He doesn't win all the time, by the way. So it's not like it's a foolproof system where the guy places the bet and he's absolutely sure he's going to win. He just improves his chances because of all the statistical information that he can crunch. But he's getting no different statistical information than anyone else in the industry has access to. So, he doesn't have a special advantage from that standpoint. He's getting his information from the same data providers that everybody else is. He's just doing it in a faster way and with different types of programs that he's written.
Others do the same thing, their programs are just slightly different. They are very large players. They add liquidity to the pool because, again, they don't win all the time. They have better percentages, but they don't win all the time. So when other handicappers figure out one horse is better than another, there's usually greater odds spreads. So those individuals who really figured out when the big guys lose, they're usually rewarded to a greater extent. And that's why we think it's positive for the pools. But we also believe it's up to each track to decide. Each track is making the decision as to whether or not they want computer robotic wagering in the pools or not. So we turn it on at certain places and it's turned off at others. It's part of the conversations we have with the track.
The guy described is fairly well known and was SUPPOSEDLY stopped from betting into the NYRA pools.
1. He was about break even and after rebate made app5-6% on volume.
2.The Ceo Champion is either a liar or misinformed.
3.There is no \"value\" or inefficiency being exploited.
4.The computer software indentified opportunities to place many bets,seconds before post with a high probability to break even or lose up to 6/7% mainly on exactas. The rebate was 10% yielding a consistent small profit.
5.Each time the computer saw the opportunity to prfit/small loss it executed accordingly.In all of those instances the PAYOFF of the winning exacta went DOWN and if YOU had it also, you got less(unable to say how much).
6.The one I am familiar with was nothing more than a \"skim\" off all players.
I understand it only works in big pools(NY, So Cal)I understand that more than one guy doing it basically renders the skim close to useless.There is NO JUSTIFICATION for anyone to have access to \"belly of the beast\" pool info unless ALL players can have it.
Mike
Just so we all understand what\'s involved here-- this is basically a) someone creating a betting line and betting using it, b) a discount for volume (rebate), and c) software used to facilitate transactions (like in the stock market). The discount for volume is the same as in any business (again, like the stock market). If the line you come up with (meaning the handicapping) is bad, it doesn\'t matter what software you use to put in bets with, although the rebate will certainly help. But that\'s true whether you use software or not.
The big concern here is security, past posting. If that is dealt with, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone using technology to beat this market, just as many have used it in others.
JB,
Given the brilliant computer minds of today, I find it unacceptable to let anyone with a computer program remotely near the pool data even to facilitate multiple large late wagers.
I do not have enough confidence in race track managers to ensure 100%integrity,I do on Wall street(in this regard) where there is all kinds of external oversight.
Mike
Miff-- this brings up an entirely different question, and while I don\'t agree about the betting software (they could simply be shut off when they start to load the gate), I do agree on the bigger issue. That suggestion about having an ombudsman (and not just re betting, more for drugs) would be a step in the right direction. But if ever an industry cried out for federal oversight, this is it-- my hope is that if (when?) Congress gets busy with baseball, it will scare the crap out of \"the industry), and make them take all this stuff seriously. Baseball\'s pain could be our gain.
JB,
Not to waste your time but any betting software is not TOO FAR from the amateur bettors(yet computer geeks)that past posted the pick six just two years ago.
Can you imagine if the amateur bettors were sophisticated gamblers who made a \"real\" looking or multiple pick six ticket.They could have spot played and maybe never been caught.
My point is that if guys like E.D. need that type of accomodation and there are external checks and balances, then OK,otherwise no.
Mike
Mike,
all players Do have it. You just have to bet 10 million (or more), be signed up with a place that permits it and have the intelligence to construct the software and implement it and all that good stuff.
It SEEMS like we all don\'t have access, but we do. Its not the fault of the whales that you don\'t have the financial power to bet 10-20 mil or more a year.
What it comes down to is this. We SAY \"if all players don\'t have access, no one should\" but we MEAN, \"because i\'m not financially able to get access myself, i want to condemn the bigger bankrolled players way of doing things\"
Now, what WOULDNT be fair is if you DID have the ability to wager millions upon millions per year and were with a certain company and they told you, \"no, this is only for a certain few\"
Believe me, if you find a place and were betting millions (and making that place a fortune) the first thing they want to do is put you in a position to be able to bet as much as you possibly can.
Who\'s to say that that particular way is NOT the best way to do things? Because most horseplayers don\'t have the intelligence, bankroll or desire to bet in this fashion, doesn\'t mean that we should condemn those taking an edge where they can get it.
More power to em.
I WANT these guys in the pools...they aren\'t handicappers, they are \'dutchers\'. They spread money on tons of different combos....its not like they are hammering one or 2 numbers...they are betting hundreds and sometimes thousands of combos...thats good for me and you the way i see it because only one combo can win. If you get the winner, their losses on the other combos help boost your price.
TGJB -
Preventing past-posting may be your chief concern but it\'s not mine. What I want is disclosure of the rules.
I\'ll start taking your stock market comparisons seriously when horse racing prohibits trainers (the ultimate insider traders) from betting and giving tips to others. Efficient markets, in theory at least, benefit us all by efficiently allocating resources. Efficient pricing of exacta combinations makes losers of us all.
Horse racing is not a market. It is an entertainment; a zero-sum game that I can choose to play or not. In most games, the ability to take advantage of technology is limited in the interest of fairness. Think aluminum bats or NASCAR.
I think, and I think most would agree, that in a parimutuel game, the ability to bet last, knowing what everyone else has bet, is an advantage. If tracks are giving batch bettors that advantage, I want to know it, so that I can decide whether to play. I would also like to know if some players are being given access to Pick-3, Pick-4, trifecta or superfecta wagering data before wagering has closed.
What irritates me is that whenever these issues start to be addressed, people who either don\'t understand my issues or want to sweep them under the rug, change the subject to past-posting. Yes, past-posting is unfair, but I think other things associated with rebate shops are also unfair. I\'m not asking to make the rules. I\'m asking to be told what they are, so that I can decide whether I want to play.
Imallin,
From your post you do not understand the skim I\'m talking about.You never get more on your winning combo, always less, they bet every combo(for different amounts) with the software I\'m talking about.
There are several variations of this I hear but I\'m only familiar with one.As far as big gamblers/rebaters just handicapping without software, I agree, let them all in.
Mike
imallin - though what your saying is true , your changing the subject a little bit ...
JB, I don\'t think a pari-mutual pool is a true market like the stock market.
In the stock market, there has to be two sides(i.e a buyer and a seller) to every specific transaction at a specified price at a specified time .
In a pari-mutual situation,there is no matching of specific transactions like in the stock market.A horseplayer(at least here in the USA) doesn\'t know the final price (odds) of a transaction until after the player has made the purchase(bet) and the pari-mutual pool closes.
Because of the way pari-mutual pools work, a tremendous advantage is created for anyone who knows the final prices(odds-payoffs) just before they place their bets in a pari-mutual setting...an advantage that ,by definition, doesn\'t exist in the stock market.
It\'s like having the button in every deal in Texas Hold\'em.
Computer robotic wagering gives this advantage to a few at the detriment of the other pool participants and should be banned in order to keep pari-mutual betting fair and equitable. Otherwise, we ought to change the whole wagering process over to a betting exchange system (eg. Betfair) . Asfufh
Splain to me how they \'skim\' by betting every combo?
Can\'t be done. You have to have some kind of an opinion, and leave something out.
You all are correct, that overall, they probably REDUCE the payoff on the winning combo most of the time, but that\'s because they have some opinion/info that lets them focus on the live numbers.
The Legendary Stan Bergstein has some audio interviews on the net, the most recent talks of rebates, state of racing , etc.
http://www.harnesstracks.com/worldinharness/archives/archivepage.htm
Boxcar,
What I know for certain with the skim is that:
1.It only worked in large wagering pools. I understand that in 2003 at the entire SPA meet the computer made something like 75 thousand wagers in the exacta and tri pools but only half of that amount during the entire fall Belmont meet.
2.There are only certain races where the opportunity to make an overall profit presents itself,not every race.The rebate was of paramount importance in this instance.
3.Handicapping had very little, if anything, to do with this particular program but maybe there were tosses. I do not have every exact detail.The guy had $100k when he started and researched this for one year before pulling the trigger.
4.The guy who used it for 3 years made $1.2 million in profits on overall wagers of app $35million, app3.5% net net.The guy is out of business.
5.There was NOTHING illegal about what he did making the bets.
I have heard of several other variations, computer software, that is out there which involves more of a handicapping thing(as you stated)
I am as concerned about this as performance enhancing drugs. Who knows what the next genius geek will come up if allowed access to realtime betting pool info.
Mike
Miff-- at some point in the process handicapping is done by somebody, before the program is applied. The person with the program usually hires others to do it. The computer then plays all combinations, that AT THE REDUCED TAKEOUT (after rebate) are overlays, according to the handicapping. It is worth noting that if they are winning at a rate where they would be losing or breaking even without the rebate, they have no significant negative effect on the pools for other players-- the profit is then coming from the tracks etc. taking a lesser share, which they are compensated for in the form of increased handle. The guy you described who was a gross loser but a net winner of 3.5% was good for the tracks (huge handle) and not a significant factor for others playing in the pools against him.
JB
It was my understanding that these computer programs generated a bet on each horse (or combination in exotics) in the race (amount according to odds) thus ensuring a certain profit margin. This type of betting would lower any winning payouts. Is this not the case?
First of all, there is no way to do that and win-- if you do it in the most efficient manner, you will still lose the takeout, whatever it may be after rebate. Second of all, if someone dutched all the horses, it would have a neutral effect on the pool.
Jerry, I know its tempting to think these guys dont impact your results but I\'m skeptical.
If that were true, they could bet UNLIMITED amounts.
Since they can\'t do that, there must be an impact on the payoffs that self limit the bet size. They stop betting when they start to kill the return below an acceptable level.
I\'m not sure what kind of mathematical proof needs to be offered here, but my instinct tells me it\'s true.
Would love to know exactly what that guy , who is now out of business was actually doing.
TGJB -
You wrote: \"It is worth noting that if they [large rebate players] are winning at a rate where they would be losing or breaking even without the rebate, they have no significant negative effect on the pools for other players-- the profit is then coming from the tracks etc. taking a lesser share, which they are compensated for in the form of increased handle.\"
Your statement is factually incorrect. If, for example, the track takeout on a pool (without regard to rebates) is 20%, for every dollar that one person loses (without regard to rebates) LESS than 20%, someone else has to lose MORE than 20%. It is, in that respect, a zero-sum game.
The way I think of it is as follows: The track is in the business of collecting and redistributing the non-takeout portion ($0.80) of every dollar bet. As to that amount, the track pays out 100% of what it takes in. Bettors pay for the privilege of being able to wager into that pool. For on-track players, the price to the bettor of doing so is the takeout ($0.20), and the track gets the whole $0.20. Rebate players get in for less. They only have to pay the difference between the takeout and the rebate (say $0.10; I\'m just making up numbers). That $0.10 is split between that track as a fee for the signal (say, $0.04) and the rebate shop (say $0.06, to cover expenses and profit to the proprietor).
The track\'s incentive to allow the player into the pool for a measly $0.04 is that the track gets nothing if the player doesn\'t play, and the player won\'t pay $0.20. In most cases, he can\'t afford to do so and still make money. Whether that\'s a smart economic decision for the track is an issue that is hotly debated.
The economics for any player are simple. To win, his or her profit on the $0.80 portion of the pool has to be large enough to cover the cost of getting into the pool (20 cents for the on-track player and 10 cents for the rebate player). That profit has to come from the other players. Even if the rebate player is winning only 85 cents for every dollar bet, and thus suffering a 5% net loss after rebates, his effect on the other players in the pool is negative. When he jumps in and starts betting, for every 5 cents above 80 that he gets back, someone else has to lose an additional 5 cents.
Accordingly, as you have posted, the rebate player needs a significant handicapping edge or he\'ll leave the business quickly. If he has that edge, other players in the pool will be negatively affected by his presence. The better the rebate player does, the bigger the negative effect on the other players. That\'s the nature of the game.
The question isn\'t whether the rebate players are winning money from other players. They are. Read the NTRA study that asfufh mentioned. The question is whether the technological advantage (direct pool access) they are using to enhance their edge is fair to other players and in the long-term best interests of the sport.
BitPlayer.....great post.
JBTG, Here\'s a extract from the introduction (p. 4) of the NTRA task force report:
\"The Task Force identified the following areas for intensive review:
· Changing wagering patterns (e.g., from on-track to off-track);
· Rebating (e.g., under current regulatory rules and as practiced by some OTB or account
wagering operators);
· Reductions in normal winning payoffs due to computer-assisted pari-mutuel wagering;
and
· Internet-based betting exchanges.\"
Please note that item 4 uses the term, \"reductions\".
Asfufh
Think of it this way....
A person betting 20 million a year needs a rebate to compensate for the amount of money he\'s knocking his own price down by, which a 2 dollar bettor doesn\'t have to worry about. Here\'s an example.
If you bet 5,000 to win on a horse that\'s paying 8 bucks, you knock it down to 7 bucks (just throwing numbers out there).
If you bet 2 dollars on that same horse paying 8 bucks, it pays 8 bucks.
So, the large volume guy is actually paying a higher takeout rate because he\'s only getting a 7 dollar win price on a horse that you are getting 8 dollars on. The rebate goes to compensate that.
Why should a big bettor reduce his juice by 10 or 20 percent just because he bets a fortune? If people got locked in at their price, that would be one thing, but if no one got a rebate, the guy betting the 5,000 to win would go under very fast if he\'s taking 7 dollars on horses that the 2 dollar bettor is getting 8 dollars on.
So, the rebate is actually compensation and incentive to BET 5k on a horse. It wouldn\'t be fair to \'charge\' the larger volume guy a worse price.
When you buy in bulk in this country, you get discounts, thats just the way any smart business does it.
Imallin -
Actually, I don\'t object to rebates. As you say, rebates can be viewed as volume discounts for large players, and, as my previous post indicates, they come out of the track\'s hide, not mine (at least not directly). If the rebate players happen to be good enough handicappers to take my money, so be it.
My hot buttons are direct pool access and batch wagering. Admittedly, they are tools that are useless in the hands of a bad handicapper, but in the hands of a good handicapper, they provide an additional edge that allows the player to drain more money from other players. I think the sport would be better off without them. Horse racing should be a contest that rewards superior handicapping, not superior ability to access and process pool data. Moreover, batch wagering produces late odds changes that make the game less fun for everyone, and the big money involved increases the incentive to cheat.
At the very least, I would like to be told what tracks are accommodating the use of these tools, so that I can avoid playing against them if I so choose. Tracks tend to announce loudly that they have cut off the rebate shops to protect smaller bettors, and then let them back into the pools without saying a word.
Bit--
1-- The odds changes can be dealt with by closing batch bettors out a minute or two early. Some of us think they should close EVERYONE out when they start loading the gate, to remove even the appearance of past-posting.
2-- Should they bar software from the stock market too? How about barring TG, since it helps people win?
TGJB -
I like your suggestion about closing the batch bettors out a minute or two early. I don\'t think you\'ll get a lot of takers amongst the batch bettors. As I recall, a similar suggestion was once taken up by the CHRB, and rejected.
I also like your suggestion about closing all betting when the first horse starts to load. In addition to eliminating the suspicion of past-posting, it eliminates giving some bettors the advantage of being able to watch for who acts up in the gate.
I have no objection to handicapping software or TG. I have previously posted (without response from you) my objections to your stock market analogy (see \"it\'s not a market, it\'s a zero-sum game\"). Nevertheless, if you insist on the analogy, I think the closest analogy to direct pool access would be concern preferential order execution and access to data regarding unfilled orders. I\'m no expert, but I\'m guessing you\'ll find both are highly regulated to ensure fair treatment of all investors.
By the way, TG doesn\'t just help people win, it\'s \"everything you need to win.\"
But, you can say that the ability to process pool data IS part of superior handicapping. Who\'s to say what is and what is not \'handicapping\'.
Here\'s an example of something that would not be considered \'handicapping\'.
Lets say you are able to predict the weather and know that you are going to bet dirt specialists in the 3rd leg of the pick four at Saratoga and pray for rain and for the race to come off the turf. They have changed the rules in some instances to consider that race an \'all\'but why should someone who handicapped \'the weather\' be punished? Isn\'t that part of handicapping? I\'ve actually done that at the Spa....when there were ominous clouds, i would ask myself, \"if this race comes off the turf, who would i like\". Sometimes i\'ll take a shot and single a dirt horse and do my raindance. Crazy i know, but if thats handicapping to me, who\'s to argue? Anything we do could be considered \'handicapping\'.
My last point about the \'direct pool access\' is this. Anyone has the ability to have this access, thats why i can\'t be mad at it. If you were a multimillion dollar bettor who was a software/computer genius and were hooked up with a place that offers that service, you\'d take advantage of that too. Its not like they would tell you no. You do have the ability to access the pools yourself...its hard because you have to be a big enough bettor and get hooked up with the right place.
Since I have a minute--
1-- It\'s both a market AND a zero sum game. And on that point, racing would do well to get involved with Betfair or follow their lead-- head to head fixed odds betting gives a big player a chance to bet a lot of money without affecting his odds, leading to more big bets.
2-- ANY player that does better than lose 20 cents on the dollar (before rebates) costs the others money-- that\'s the nature of the game. That has nothing to do with rebates or batch betting-- which is why the NYRA inquiry is misleading. It should be \"effect of good handicappers on the pools\". And it\'s in racing\'s interests to facilitate big players, who by their very nature must be doing better than the others to stay in business.
3-- The guy Miff mentioned, who was making only 3.5% AFTER rebates, was having a negligible effect on the pools overall, though of course he could hurt you with an individual result. Or help you on another.
4-- Again, most of the computer programs just bet YOUR opinion efficiently-- I know a fair amount about this. If your opinion is no good, it doesn\'t help at all, and if it\'s really bad...
5-- Thoro-Graph. Along with rebates and batch betting software, it\'s all you need to win.
Not as catchy.
There are several opinions here and perhaps even one agenda.I do not believe that eveyone fully understands the big picture here.To me, it\'s painfully simple, everything is fine EXCEPT someone being able to access the live pools with computer software which generates many wagers in the last few seconds.
To that end, I have called Bill Nader SVP,NYRA to confirm that no one is being permitted access to the live NYRA pool data by any means whatsoever .He assured a group of us that was not happening some time ago but I wonder if NYRA lifted that restriction for pure financial reasons.I\'ll post his reply when/if he returns my call.
Mike
imallin - Very good points made on rebates and well taken , after consideration of much of what was disscused by You and Jerry ( and others too - everyone has made some good points pro or con ) on this thread , I think of the situation with Rebaters as fair and equitable and I\'m really not giving up any edge either - perhaps I was too quick to take a negative view without a full understanding of issues .
Imallin -
You\'re right. There\'s no correct answer here any more than there\'s a correct answer to the designated-hitter debate in baseball. Horse racing is a game, and the rules can be anything that the tracks and their regulators say they are. They can formulate the rules to reward any skills they choose. For trainers, the favored skills may include the ability to move a horse up by the administration of steroids or undetected medications. For bettors, the favored skills may included weather forecasting or the ability to set up a batch wagering operation.
My own view is that catering to batch wagering will ultimately drive more dollars from the sport than it attracts, but I don\'t pretend to have my finger on the pulse of mainstream horseplayers.
TGJB said:-- Should they bar software from the stock market too? How about barring TG, since it helps people win?
They haven\'t barred Program Trading in the stock market but they sure have instituted a bunch of rules to restrict it in the interests of fairness to all investors.
Check out this:
http://invest-faq.com/articles/exch-circuit-brkr.html
Restrict it? It\'s so restricted its over 50% of the NYSE volume. Please.
asfufh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB said:-- Should they bar software from the
> stock market too? How about barring TG, since it
> helps people win?
>
>
> They haven\'t barred Program Trading in the stock
> market but they sure have instituted a bunch of
> rules to restrict it in the interests of fairness
> to all investors.
> Check out this:
>
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Restrict it? It\'s so restricted its over 50% of
> the NYSE volume. Please.
>
>
Boscar O., Ok,Program trading may be 50% but the NYSE volume....so what?
My point is the stock exchanges quickly put in the needed restrictions to control the obvious negative side effects of program trading on the stock market as a whole. The racing industry can do the same thing with Computerized Robotic Wagering instead of looking the other way until it gets out of hand.
Asfufh
According to Bill Nader, SVP NYRA, there is NO access to live NYRA pool data by anyone making Robotic bets(last second multiple wagers)from any licensed signal operator.
The site/s that were allowing last minute Robotic wagers are still barred and there are internal programs combing the live NYRA pools looking for any possible offenders.NYRA is comfortable with the current integrity of it\'s pools.
Mike
Truth be told, NYRA, Youbet , and the others should already be offering batch wagering to EVERYONE.
The online interfaces are primitive and slow at best, and as usual , decades behind other markets.
No reason I shouldn\'t be able to send a 10 or 100 bets in at once from a personal computer, calculated from an Excel spreadsheet.
Done all the time with stocks. Is racing so narrow minded ?
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Truth be told, NYRA, Youbet , and the others
> should already be offering batch wagering to
> EVERYONE.>
> The online interfaces are primitive and slow at
> best, and as usual , decades behind other
> markets.>
> No reason I shouldn\'t be able to send a 10 or 100
> bets in at once from a personal computer,
> calculated from an Excel spreadsheet.>
> Done all the time with stocks. Is racing so
> narrow minded ?
Boscar, Yes, all the tracks,Youbet, etc. should be offering batch betting to EVERYONE (and immediate electronic access to the info in the tote pools)....that should do away with the unfair advantage now enjoyed by a chosen few.
Can\'t you see it now, every bettor waiting until the last possible milli-second to click their \"process wager\" button on the 8th race at Belmont. The win and exotic pools would go from a couple of 100 bucks with a minute to go to post to 3 or 4 million just as the race goes off. The final odds would still be changing after the race is over. All hell would break loose as a 15-1 shot at one minute to go wins the race and pays $4.20.
The stock market and a pari-mutual pool are two different animals....what works in the stock market doesn\'t necessarily work in a pari-mutual setting.
They should ban batch/stream betting and electronic access to tote pools as has been done in several other countries or get rid of pari-mutual betting altogether.
Asfufh
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to Bill Nader, SVP NYRA, there is NO
> access to live NYRA pool data by anyone making
> Robotic bets(last second multiple wagers)from any
> licensed signal operator.
>
> The site/s that were allowing last minute Robotic
> wagers are still barred and there are internal
> programs combing the live NYRA pools looking for
> any possible offenders.NYRA is comfortable with
> the current integrity of it\'s pools.
>
>
> Mike
Miff/Mike, Thanks for checking with NYRA.....Good for them!
It\'s too bad but ,as far as I can tell, the NYRA and Woodbine (and possibly Tampa) are the only North American tracks that currently ban this type of betting. The Churchill and Magna appear to wholeheartedly allow it.
It\'s hard enough trying to stay afloat in this great game without this type of crap going on.....why isn\'t the NTRA being heard from on this?
Asfufh
I\'m afraid you don\'t understand what the batch bettors are doing, so of course, you fear them.
Anyone has the right to bet anything they want , anytime , until the pool closes.
If they want to bet 100k on a 200-1 exacta, and have it pay 2.60, thats allowed. You think anyone is going to do that?
Pro\'s have always bet late, thats nothing new.
Race fixers and other insiders can bet from bell to bell, since the price they get is secondary to them.
Late betting is not the issue, large rebates for a select few is.
When I sell my stocks, my broker doesn\'t call me 5 minutes later saying the price went down because 100,000 shares were sold after me. My price is locked the moment I sell them.
I am not saying my odds should be locked in, but wild fluctuations in odds moments before post time is unfair to the majority of players who don\'t batch. So the poor slobs that actually attend live racing should just live with it while some guy at a computer can batch wager until his heart\'s content??
I don\'t want to hear anyone around here mention how sad it is that attendance at race tracks is so low, and in the same breath tell me how batch wagering should be allowed. I guess they should all carry laptops, right??
I agree wholeheartedly.
As long as a person isn\'t betting after the start, any amount they bet at any time in any way is acceptable.
Once they start letting the best customers wager a few seconds AFTER the start is when we have problems.
Hey, life isn\'t fair. I want to date a nice chick who\'s a 10, but i don\'t have 50 million in the bank to put her feet to sleep at night. Thats not fair either, but i live with it and go on.
Like i\'ve said here ad nauseum, you DO have the ability to batch bet yourself. Its not like you are being excluded.
It is the perception that batch wagering causes which is bad for the industry. Again I ask how is it that the some of these players have better technology than the tracks themselves? A sophisticated player can program a system to search for, and bet, value within a host track\'s pools within seconds, yet the host track themselves cannot \"batch\" these same wagers, from the various simulcast outlets, after the pools supposedly close, until 45 seconds into a race.
Honestly I think many tracks allow a few extra seconds for all wagers to hit their pools, and most of this is coming from the \"batch\" operations, or offshore type accounts. If you were a mutual manager and knew that 25% of your pool hit right at post wouldn\'t you allow a few seconds, after the horses break, to close your pools? Oh, they will close the pools when the bell rings on the regulars at the live event, but if they know that $50K is on it\'s way through North Dakota they will leave a light on for them.
Good point about perception.
Also, i agree with the technology and how sophisticated players have better technology than the tracks themselves is insane. There should be a way to process wagers every 10 seconds or so, as soon as the bet comes in, it shows up on the tote board.
The last minute of the betting cycle is HUGE. Tons of money comes in with 60 seconds to post, but no one sees that money till its too late. Even if they had a 30 second update that would matter a lot because half of that late money would show up in the pools.
http://www.edbain.com/archives2.htm#drfexpo at the DRF Expo
We broke for lunch and during that time I had an interesting conversation with one of the owners of United Tote regarding the really big bettors in racing that were betting millions. He stated that there are only eight players or consortiums betting on racing in the world and almost all were individuals who headed a group.
I said there is this impression that there are thousands of big players betting millions each day. He laughed and said no believe me I know them all, there are only eight because he has tried to recruit them to bet through United Totes host tracks, but with out much success. He stated this was because they can't offer the rebates that an off shore rebate shop can. We talked about how these consortiums bet by using computer programs hooked into the tote systems and the advantages they have. He stated that these groups of bettors could not beat the take, without the rebate, they would lose money. I shook my head, and said it would seem to me you would have to show a positive Return On Investment before you could bet millions through a rebate shop. He stated no, they have found a way to beat the system by betting millions each month by enticing off shore rebate shops to take their bets and use their influence and computers, which were hooked directly to the betting pools. He stated "they also have another advantage other than exploiting betting pools with their computer programs. They have about a ¼ of a mile run before the tote companies betting windows close". I said "A ¼ of a mile?" He nodded "Yes."
I happen to be standing with Ed Bain at the DRF expo that day. We were shocked that the tracks/tote companies allowed money to come into the pools up to twenty seconds after the gates opened. From that moment on...I have tried to avoid tracks that allow this money to come in late. {Calder} Ed and I figured that someone with an early speed program would hammer that meaningful advantage. Since I don\'t know all the tracks that allow it....I also stay away from the win pools where I see dramitic drops in odds on front runners. I mention this fact to Matt Hegerty of the Form. he said he had no evidence of it. I responded by saying open your eyes to the odds board after the gates open. Very unfair.
I don\'t pay much attention to racing pools outside of NY, and not even that most of the time these days.
I will assume NYRA is not one of the 20 second tracks. I will also state that any track that allows that is engaging in a criminal enterprise.
Wall street just (last few years) had a scandal where certain LARGE players (sound familiar) were able to buy and sell Mutual Funds after price changes in stocks were known but not reflected in the funds pricing. They were stealing from the little guy, with the blessing of the fund managers or brokers.
Hundreds of millions in fines were paid.
Since horseplayers are the lowest form of life on the planet, no one cares about this?
A class action lawsuit might shake them up.
Also, Wall St again. I can place an order from my home computer that is displayed to the WORLD in about 10 millseconds. That racetracks would still be talking about 90 or 45 second lags, is ludicrous.
Boxcar,
Fyi, at NY tracks I still occasionally notice the odds changing after the start, especially loose front runners that are favorite.I would not be shocked if some money is coming in after the race starts (20 SECS)
Another thing I have also noticed is that the odds on all the OTHER runners in the race go up.
Mike
Considering today\'s performance level of information and communication technology, there is no valid reason why odds should change after a race starts. If Colonial Downs can offer 1,000,000 USD for one race then most tracks can afford the systems upgrades if need be... there is obviously a lot at stake here. At the very least they should close the pools early to allow final calculations in time. (wasn\'t this happening for a while?)... what\'s the downside of setting a fixed point in time for pool closing and display a countdown clock to the second? Less handle? how about compared to no handle?
As long as odds are still changing after the gate opens I will be suspicious of criminal activity because that would be the only logical reason why it is still happening.
Maybe everyone here can post incidents of this that they witness and with enough of a sample we can draw some conclusions of where this is occuring. This might be the only way... studying charts is useless. There is no reason why a track (or circuit of tracks) won\'t step forward one day and guarantee no late odds changes to the betting public. I imagine if they did this combined with effective publicity it would increase handle and create market pressures.
I\'ve seen incidents at NYRA... Miff & I can\'t be the only ones. I wonder about Kentucky and the Cal circuits.
The one that sticks in my mind was Monarochos in the Florida Derby.
From 1999-2002 a buddy and I would be in the grandstand with our binoculars
EVERY day for Gulfstream and Calder.As someone else mentioned it would always be the frontrunners dropping and it happened constantly.We did document and go to the head of mutuels who gave you the stock answer,late simulcast money,etc.Nobody cares, as long as the hanlde comes in the degenerate gamblers can just bend over and take it,that\'s the attitude we got.
I remember a race at Gulfstream going back a bunch of years, probably 4 or 5, there was a 4-5 shot that looked fantastic on paper, top jock and trainer. The horse broke 5 lengths slow and i don\'t remember if i bet the race or not, but i noticed the horse went off at 6-5 final price. There\'s no way a horse that looks great on paper with no negatives to speak of goes up 2 ticks unless people are seeing the start and getting massive refunds on the cancel.
I think a lot of the odds changes are not necessarily money coming in after the start, but someone may make 2 or 3 large win bets...watch the first 100 yards and if the speed horse looks sharp, they cancel the other 2 bets...thats why the speed horse will go down in price...because there are refunds on the others who are not near the lead.
exactly how it could be done. It stinks! Also a computer progam that only handicaps speed to the first call along with liklyhoods of finishing first could easily be configured. I know Calder lets that money in...so I avoid the win pool there. Wouldn\'t be surprised that Gulfstream does it too. Tampa announced last year that it wasn\'t going to do it and the handle increased there dramatically. {of course this wasn\'t the only reason for that}