http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/i-robot-the-future-of-horse-race-wagering/
Whatever happened to closing the pools 30 seconds to 1 minute before post? I liked when tracks did that. Guess the average player really has no standing in the game.
Dana Parham - interesting stuff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKqzD3jdBvc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf_Yno4Jg-8
Good article. Scherf has been around a long time. Very credible guy, IMO.
Well done piece on a subject that gets too little play.
The payoffs in the exotics change dramatically on the last flash based on whatever arb those guys are running on the race. No, they don\'t always get it right, but often enough.
I posted many months ago that some crew was betting 15k or more into the NY exacta pool early in the betting, nearly every race. Many times on insane combinations, skewing the odds badly. This went on for some time, with what looks like mediocre results (from what I could tell).
Gone now. Or changed the m.o.
For me, this is a bigger problem with the game than drugs. Trying to handicap a race when you don\'t have a reasonable approximation of what the final odds will be destroys the game in my opinion. The objective of handicapping is to find the overlays. It\'s just a guessing game if there are no reliable payoffs posted prior to the race.
Jim,
Some of the software I\'m aware of places the bets at the very last moment AND anticipates the approx bets that will be made until the machine locks.
Believe robo betting a ticking time bomb, a scandal waiting to happen.Computer propeller heads way to genius for the inept racing monitors.Doubt they can be stopped from someday devising a way to either past post or gain a substantial edge over average players.
The biggest players I know are far more concerned with pool integrity than all the bullspit legal drug issues/roundtables et al.Everyone wants illegal stuff out.
Mike
They still have to use the RIGHT horses. Not sure if they find that a trivial matter or not.
All the math in the world, you still need to hold a winning ticket.
Absolutely. Especially with doubles and exactas. Those payoffs can change as much as 50% from the last posted probable to the actual payoff.
Pool integrity is my biggest worry. I\'ve never seen such large percentage payoff changes from the last posted to the actual payoff. It\'s the truest indicator in handicapping any race. Just follow the money.
jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Absolutely. Especially with doubles and exactas.
> Those payoffs can change as much as 50% from the
> last posted probable to the actual payoff.
I\'ve seen exacta payouts drop nearly 50% inside the last minute. Agree Mike, at least as important than the drug issue.
The most interesting thing to me about the Parham interview was that he talked about betting tris and supers. Do these guys have access to data about those pools or are they just making informed guesses?
Mike,
I agree, in my opinion this concerns me more than the drug issues. I stated it in the write in part of the survey that was given recently from TGJB.
Beau
Just now figuring out been playing against HAL for the last 15yrs?
Can\'t make this stuff up.
really knowledgable guy-the Croat using a highly enriched version of the Benter/Woods software has been setting the prices for almost every race for a ridiculous amount of time.
comically a weakness is when multiple races go off at once-doesn\'t effect the batch entering arb guys like Elite and Wagner but it sure does make life rough on the croat and dana. So next time you feel like crying abt coincidental off times-remember crying to your own detriment-if ten races went off at once the general betting public would be much better off.
Nice lie abt the TDN race too or please tell me where I can get down for thousands on TDN out of the pools.
For reference, the Assateague/Cross Traffic double went from $267 to $160. The Assateague/Fort Larned double went from $212 to $105. God that late money is smart.
jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For reference, the Assateague/Cross Traffic double
> went from $267 to $160. The Assateague/Fort Larned
> double went from $212 to $105. God that late money
> is smart.
Not always . . . I\'d heard from multiple rumormongers (though not from anyone REALLY close to the horse) that Fort Larned\'s recent training was less than shiny/sparkly . . .
I wasn\'t surprised. I figured he\'d bounce off the big negative number. I just hoped he\'d pressure CT enough to knock them both out. CT didn\'t have much left at the end. Or was the weaving JV\'s idea? Certainly affected the momentum of the second and third place horses.
By the way, has anyone ventured a guess as to what kind of number Fort Larned might have earned 3 races back when he dumped his jockey at the start and then ran off to cross the wire something like 20 lengths in front sans jockey? Even adjusting for the weight I\'d guess he ran a big number. Just curious.
Cross Traffic 108 Beyer, like TG neg -1.75.Race won on first slow split,faster one turn, imo.
FL enigmatic or Wilkes not the sharpest knife in the draw.
Topcat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jerry Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > For reference, the Assateague/Cross Traffic
> double
> > went from $267 to $160. The Assateague/Fort
> Larned
> > double went from $212 to $105. God that late
> money
> > is smart.
>
>
> Not always . . . I\'d heard from multiple
> rumormongers (though not from anyone REALLY close
> to the horse) that Fort Larned\'s recent training
> was less than shiny/sparkly . . .
Smart means you cash. Smart doesn\'t mean you didnt use a horse that wasn\'t 1000%.
PS Whoever that was, owned a big chunk of the DD INTO the Assateague win as well.
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Topcat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > jerry Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > For reference, the Assateague/Cross Traffic
> > double
> > > went from $267 to $160. The Assateague/Fort
> > Larned
> > > double went from $212 to $105. God that late
> > money
> > > is smart.
> >
> >
> > Not always . . . I\'d heard from multiple
> > rumormongers (though not from anyone REALLY
> close
> > to the horse) that Fort Larned\'s recent
> training
> > was less than shiny/sparkly . . .
>
> Smart means you cash. Smart doesn\'t mean you
> didnt use a horse that wasn\'t 1000%.
>
> PS Whoever that was, owned a big chunk of the DD
> INTO the Assateague win as well.
Not to mention that they took a ton the worst of it on the winning double, vis a vis the parlay price . . .
Topcat Wrote:
> Not to mention that they took a ton the worst of
> it on the winning double, vis a vis the parlay
> price . . .
Which might be a meaningful comparison, if anyone
actually made parlay bets anymore -- then, the
additional weight of parlay bets made would be
reflected in the win pool.
I can examine DD probables, and decide if I like the
the estimated value before I bet; can\'t do that with
parlay computations, where a ridiculous overlay
in any leg will throw the result out of skew.
My point is, the game is hard enough; second-guessing
winning payoffs on serial bets is worthless. They pay
what they pay. Attempts at correlating \"this pool\" to
\"that pool\" is an exercise in mathematical masturbation.
no, top cat is actually right.
for some reason they overbet some combos. not sure why, could be two or more \'whales\' doing the same thing at the bell, could just be bad judgement.
Rick B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Topcat Wrote:
> > Not to mention that they took a ton the worst
> of
> > it on the winning double, vis a vis the parlay
> > price . . .
>
> Which might be a meaningful comparison, if anyone
> actually made parlay bets anymore -- then, the
> additional weight of parlay bets made would be
> reflected in the win pool.
>
> I can examine DD probables, and decide if I like
> the
> the estimated value before I bet; can\'t do that
> with
> parlay computations, where a ridiculous overlay
> in any leg will throw the result out of skew.
>
> My point is, the game is hard enough;
> second-guessing
> winning payoffs on serial bets is worthless. They
> pay
> what they pay. Attempts at correlating \"this pool\"
> to
> \"that pool\" is an exercise in mathematical
> masturbation.
Clock the straights, and the DD involved, in races 9-10 at Monmouth, Saturday.
Any comment from this end would be superfluous.
Topcat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clock the straights, and the DD involved, in races
> 9-10 at Monmouth, Saturday.
They match almost perfectly, in the mid-sixties; why,
it must mean something. Right?
Those pools must have been indexed to Disney Co. stock,
which is also trading in the $65 range.
(Makes as much sense to me as any other imagined
correlation.)
Hi Rick,
Agree on separate pool correlation,but the $2.00 DD payoff of $35.40 is beyond absurb in light of the first leg paying $5.40 the second leg paying $36.00.Usually this would pay at least 2.5x that,at a minimum.Total DD pool was only like $15.5k
Mike
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agree on separate pool correlation,but the $2.00
> DD payoff of $35.40 is beyond absurb in light of
> the first leg paying $5.40 the second leg paying
> $36.00.Usually this would pay at least 2.5x
> that,at a minimum.Total DD pool was only like
> $15.5k
Hi Mike,
This is exactly what is wrong with these kinds of
comparisons: we get used to seeing some sort or
relationship between the pools, and then become
alarmed -- \"something is up!\" -- when the numbers
don\'t line up as expected.
This first thing I like to do is some calculations.
Of the $15.5K DD pool, about $700 was bet on the
winning combination. Nothing terribly strange about
that, since the first leg was the post time favorite.
(I\'m sure you know that some bettors wheel or \"proportion
bet\" a favorite in the first leg of the DD, in an attempt
to beat the win pool odds. This is the source of many
DD payoffs that \"seem\" low.)
Then I examine the morning lines. The Kelly Breen
horse in the first leg was never going to be 3-1,
but morning line makers routinely shade lines so as to
not signal a weak betting race.
The second piece was listed at 8-1. I have no idea how
this horse ended up paying $36, but...the DD bettors
couldn\'t have possible known that was going to happen.
It\'s pretty obvious that it was the win pool in race 10
that made the DD payoff appear short.
Like most of these situations, any notion of impropriety
usually dissolves upon further scrutiny.
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Rick,
>
> Agree on separate pool correlation,but the $2.00
> DD payoff of $35.40 is beyond absurb in light of
> the first leg paying $5.40 the second leg paying
> $36.00.Usually this would pay at least 2.5x
> that,at a minimum.Total DD pool was only like
> $15.5k
>
> Mike
Thanks for saving me the trouble . . . winner of the tenth drifted up in the straight betting as the money rushed to others in the field . . . but as noted, most mid-card Mth DD pools are skimpy, and it only takes a hundred or two on a straight combination to make for meaningful distortion.
didn\'t know anyone was suggesting impropriety where these overbet payoffs are concerned.
don\'t think they were.
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> didn\'t know anyone was suggesting impropriety
> where these overbet payoffs are concerned.
>
> don\'t think they were.
I had Mike\'s comment in mind...
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...but the $2.00 DD payoff of $35.40 is beyond
> absurd...
...when I mentioned impropriety.
Maybe he meant \"what with the brutal efficiency
of the Robo Betting software\". If so, point taken.
Nothing wrong,small pools can easily produced odd payoffs.
First time, long time. I've had the privilege of meeting many of you at the Spa seminars over the years, but never felt compelled to add to the discussions here before. I did want to respond to some comments made in this thread however, in order to clarify a couple of things:
Rick B. Wrote:
> Which might be a meaningful comparison, if anyone
> actually made parlay bets anymore.
> Second-guessing winning payoffs on serial bets is worthless.
> They pay what they pay.
> Attempts at correlating \"this pool\" to \"that pool\" is an exercise
> in mathematical masturbation.
The assertion that win pools cannot be correlated to their respective multi-race wager pools based on the equivalent win parlays is erroneous. Just because people don't bet parlays anymore doesn't mean the mathematical relationship no longer holds.
There is absolutely and unequivocally a nearly perfect long-term correlation between multi-race payoffs and the equivalent win parlay. The empirical evidence supporting this (both in academia as well as that done by myself) is overwhelming. And it's not just the Daily Double that correlates – it works just as well for the Pick 3, Pick 4, Pick 5 and even the Pick 6. I've got comprehensive records comparing Pick 6 payoffs to their equivalent win parlays for a variety of meets from the 2013 spring Gulfstream meet all the way back to the 1993 winter Aqueduct meet, and they all show a near perfect correlation.
The correlation between win pools and the multi-race pools is so good in fact, that by looking at the doubles pool from the prior race, I can calculate to an amazing degree of accuracy what the final odds of all the horses in the upcoming race will be – before the wagering for the race even opens!
And I've found that the correlations are just as good when using smaller pools at minor tracks. There are times of course when a particular horse's final odds vary to a significant degree from those indicated by the doubles, but those cases are more the exception rather than the rule. On such occasions, the win pool, which tends to be more efficient, gives a better indication of a horse's true probability of winning.
This leads to the second point discussed in this thread – the concern over pool integrity and late odds changes. When estimating final odds based on the equivalent win parlays from the doubles in the prior race, one quickly sees that what appears to be huge last-minute shifts in odds by the so-called "smart money" is in actuality completely predictable. In the vast majority of cases, the big changes in odds after the race goes off are simply the final odds getting in line with those already established by the previous race doubles.
The beauty of all this is that if one uses this approach, he no longer needs to be concerned with the vagaries of the prerace odds. Armed with a good idea of what the final odds for a race will be, he can construct his wagers long before the race goes off, with the confidence that he will be getting the value on the wagers that he's identified.
Mathcapper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is absolutely and unequivocally a nearly
> perfect long-term correlation between multi-race
> payoffs and the equivalent win parlay.
I\'ve been charting doubles, pick 3\'s and pick 4\'s
for 20 years, looking for \"hidden money\" on
hot horses. If your premise were true, I would
never find any overlay winners using this method,
and I find at least one of these every day I play.
> The empirical evidence supporting this (both in
> academia as well as that done by myself) is
> overwhelming. And it's not just the Daily Double
> that correlates – it works just as well for the
> Pick 3, Pick 4, Pick 5 and even the Pick 6. I've
> got comprehensive records comparing Pick 6 payoffs
> to their equivalent win parlays for a variety of
> meets from the 2013 spring Gulfstream meet all the
> way back to the 1993 winter Aqueduct meet, and
> they all show a near perfect correlation.
Call me a skeptic, not just of you, or your numbers...
but of \"near perfect\" anything. Life isn\'t that neat.
Would it be possible for you to post some of your
elaborate evidence?
I can tell you he can tell me with a great degree of accuracy what the win odds will be at Saratoga before the first flash.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can tell you he can tell me with a great degree
> of accuracy what the win odds will be at Saratoga
> before the first flash.
He\'s wasting his time at the track, then; he should
be on Wall Street, with the Big Boys.
All these years, I was led to believe that a given
mutuel pool is independent of each and and every
other pool, and now along comes Jones with evidence
of \"near perfect\" correlation of the win pool to
ALL of the serial pools...driven only by the highly
predictable force of horseplayer betting behavior...
...and he has complete records for 10 years of it
to prove it!
I\'m sold! Where do I send the money?
He has his laptop set to automatically convert the multiple race pools into win odds and they come out damn close. Having said that, a) Saratoga has big pools, which smoothes out some rough edges, and b) there are always going to be occasional situations where a horse gets hot-bet and they only go into the win pools.
There have been lots of situations where a horse has been 6-1 with 3 minutes to post, Rocky says it will be 3-1, and it ends up 3-1 or 7/2.
Rick,
Some rather famous charters in NY and elsewhere.Think you may be seeing differently but there is zero \"edge\" to knowing where the board will open or close in the second half of any DD pool.Traditional charters somewhat thwarted by robotic late money and racings antiquated software cycle.In the earliest of my gambling days in NY,a young Jewish math whiz was just gambling(beating the game) off charting at Yonkers and Roosevelt,big time harness tracks at the time with fairly liquid pools.
Not sure Im reading you correctly that you would send someone money for that info,it\'s useless other than showing where \"they\" are betting.Lotta charters/math guys on the Bowery!
Mike
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there is zero \"edge\" to knowing where the board
> will open or close in the second half of any DD
> pool.
I disagree.
If I know in advance that a horse I want to bet in
race 2 will close at 2-1, and I can structure my DD
bets in race 1 so that I can get a composite 5-1 on
my horse in the 2nd leg...wouldn\'t that be some useful
information? I think so.
I\'m just skeptical that such (relative) precision on
win pool odds can be obtained simply by crunching the
numbers on any or all of the serial pools -- before,
during, or after the betting period is open. I would
need to see the program code,or the various formulae
involved, and I can imagine what the answer would be
if I asked to inspect either or both...something like,
\"Fat Chance!\"
Rick,
Hear you, that\'s not an edge to me, can see what you mean though.
As far as precision, it does not exist but many will come very close, very often to predicting based on what they see in charting.
Mike
Sorry Guy\'s,
I just can\'t see it; as miff says I know many math/computer guys that ended up in the Bowery. This game is a million miles away from an exact science.
What possible advantage is knowing the probable odds? The horses still have to complete the circle and odds are merely a reflection of public opinion. In this day of \" robo betting\" it\'s not even an opinion it\'s a bunch of big bettors plunging into the pools with every logical conclusion; hoping to break close to even and grab their 7-12 % rebate money.
It\'s not handicapping, it\'s not finding an angle, TGJB we had this very discussion on Saturday. The dead rail horse is one of the few angles \" A sharp guy \" has anymore in this age of robo betting, information over load and blabber mouths spewing every bit of semi inside information.
My main focus is on pick 3 and pick 4 horizontal wagers for 2 reasons.
A) I\'m betting into a 8.33 % or 6.25 % take out by spreading out in 3 or 4 races.
B) Without pool manipulation which we also discussed about hacking into an existing pool via the all all button or changing a number; the horizontal pools are uncontaminated by the \" robo or batch betting programs\" because they cannot reflect the odds 2 or 3 races in advance.
IMHO this is a bigger issue than drugs, illegal or stacking of legal drugs.
Good luck,
Frank D.
Hi Frank – Agree with your rationale for playing the horizontal wagers (see study results below). Have to disagree though on those wagers not being a reflection of the prior race odds (see same study results below). The computer guys use a couple of different techniques to estimate the likely odds of upcoming races for which they cannot see into the pools. On a related note, some of the computer guys are indeed just arb guys looking to bet as much as they can and collect the rebates. Many of the teams however, actually have a great deal of "handicapping" programmed into their algorithms. They typically use a multinomial logit model composed of upwards of 100 factors (ie. performance figures, trainer stats, jockey stats, finishing position, etc), often refined using things like exponentially recency-weighted averages, to assess each horses true probability of winning. And while some of them have indeed gone bust trying to get their systems to work, many have gone on to launch what are widely considered to be the most successful professional gambling ventures of all time (even Benter and Woods lost their intitial $100k stake before going on to make $100's of millions apiece).
Miff - I don\'t know what "charters" are and I'm not a computer guy, but for me - and I think I agree with Rick on this - the "edge" comes from knowing whether or not you're going to get the value you think you are on the horses you're wagering on. If you're looking at keying a horse at 3MTP because he's an overlay at 6-1 but you know he's going to go off around 3-1 (and thus be an underlay), that constitutes a nice edge to your bottom line IMO.
There's also a huge arbitrage opportunity in the Betfair pools, but the liquidity isn't there yet in early prerace wagering.
RickB - I understand your skepticism, I shared it myself when I first looked at this stuff (btw, when I say "near-perfect," I'm referring to overall long-term results, not all individual cases).
I first became aware of the merit of using parlays to estimate multi-race payouts (and upcoming race final odds) back in 1993 when Steve Crist gave a presentation at a DRF Expo on the topic with respect to Pick 6 payouts. One point he made is that an adjustment needs to be made to account for the difference in takeout between a win bet and a multi-race bet, along with (and more importantly) the fact that you only get hit with the takeout once in a multi-race wager. Because of this, a multi-race wager should generally pay a good deal more than the straight win parlay.
For instance, at the SoCal circuit, where the win takeout is 15.43% and the Pick 6 takeout is 23.68% with a 30% payout to consolations, the Pick 6 should pay (1-.2368)x(1-.30)/(1-.1543)^6 -1 = 46% more than the straight win parlay on noncarryover days.
Similarly, at NYRA, which has a win takeout of 16% and a Pick 6 takeout of 15% with a 25% payout to consolations, the Pick 6 should pay (1-.15)x(1-.25)/(1-.16)^6 -1 = 81.5% more than the straight win parlay on noncarryover days.
For the record, here's the Pick 6 results of the 1993 winter Aqueduct meet Crist examined, along with the other meets I've tracked:
Aqu'93 (39 noncarryover days): Estimated average payout was $15,368 (49.1% more than straight win parlay); Actual average payout was $14,265.
Dmr'97 (33days): Estimate: $25,498; Actual: $25,959
Hol'97 (29 days): Estimate: $23,760; Actual: $20,289
Bel'98 (38 days): Estimate: $13,524; Actual: $10,196
Dmr'98 (32 days): Estimate: $39,570; Actual: $31,804
Sar'98 (25 days): Estimate: $25,656; Actual: $20,212
Sar'12 (27 days): Estimate: $18,275; Actual: $14,641
The correlation is even better when looking at the average payouts for Pick 3's, Pick 4's and Pick 5's:
SA/Hol'12 (80 days): Pick 3 Estimate: $75; Pick 4 Actual: $72
SA/Hol'12 (80 days): Pick 4 Estimate: $123; Pick 4 Actual: $114
SA/Hol'12 (80 days): Pick 5 Estimate: $516; Pick 5 Actual: $509
The same concept applies to the Daily Doubles, which at NYRA should pay on average 15.5% more than the equivalent win parlay (at SoCal they should pay 8.11% more).
The correlation between the odds based on the doubles pool and those of the win pool allows me to estimate final odds for horses in every race that has a daily double associated with it. There's no rocket science involved – it's just a matter of plugging the correct equations defining the mathematical relationship into an Excel spreadsheet. It's a closed-form solution, but you do need to look at all of the combinations in the pool (at least for those involving the first few favorites from the first leg anyway), because the doubles-based odds are interdependent. If you base final odds estimates on the win pool odds from the first leg rather than those of the doubles, the results will be less accurate, especially when dealing with a long-priced winner in the first leg.
I don't keep records on their precision, but after doing it for thousands of races now, I've found that the majority of the time the estimates are very close to the final odds. Of course any one individual horse's odds can vary a bit (for instance a horse that is 8-1 in the doubles may go off at 10-1 in the win pool) but when looked at on an overall basis over thousands of races, the correlation is excellent. You see more variation at high odds, but that's simply because the difference between the winning probability for a horse at say 35-1 and one at 45-1 is very small.
I have toyed with the idea of tweeting the final odds estimates at the beginning of each race to help Serling and company with their prerace prattle about this and that horse's value based on odds that are nowhere near where they're going to end up, but it's a lot of effort on my part and I doubt they'd pay any attention to it anyway – LOL. I wouldn't mind doing it for a day's card though if anyone's interested in seeing how they stack up to the true final win odds. Or if you're ever up at the Spa seminars, just ask me and I'd be happy to tell you more about it.
Btw, you can find a good deal of the academic literature providing supporting evidence for the efficiency of wagering pools in general amongst the papers presented in an anthology called, "Efficiency of Racetrack Betting Markets:"
http://www.amazon.com/Efficiency-Racetrack-Betting-Markets-Edition/dp/9812819185/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376494947&sr=8-1&keywords=efficiency+of+racetrack+betting+markets
Best,
Rocky
Hi Math,
Charters are simply people who observe the exacta or DD pools to see where sharp drops or blowouts show up esp for certain outfits. Some do not handicap,they just follow the money flow.They believe they can distinguish dead pieces from live ones by charting.
Re the over used word \"value\" a quote from Tony the Gypsy(speedboy desciple 1965 about)\"Kid, every sucker talks value as they tear up their tickets.Like beauty,value is strictly in the eyes of the beholder and most need glasses\"
Guy never worked a day in his adult life.
Best,
Mike
miff Wrote:
> Charters are simply people who observe the exacta
> or DD pools to see where sharp drops or blowouts
> show up.
Miff – Thanks for clarifying. I've actually been doing something like that myself with respect to DD pools since my Dad showed me how almost 30 years ago. We used to (and I still do) simply divide the morning lines of the horses in the second leg into their respective DD payoffs, which gave us a pretty good sense of who was getting bet by the "sharp money," especially when public handicappers didn't mention the horse. I've done a separate study covering over 2,200 such horses from June'10 to Feb'12 showing that a win wager on each of them virtually eliminates the track take (-2% ROI) without any handicapping whatsoever, which is surprising when you consider that these horses are all big underlays relative to their morning lines.
I usually find that this "sharp money" is not confined to the DD pools – it also shows up in the win pools, as the final odds tend to agree with those estimated by the DD pools, just like they do for all the other horses in the race.
On rare occasions this is not the case. For instance, in this year\'s Belmont (I rarely see "sharp money" in big races like this btw), Palace Malice was a huge \"play\" in the DD pools at 7-1 off a 15-1 ML. I kept waiting for his win pool odds to drop from the 13-1 they were sitting at, but with an enormous pool like that I knew it wasn't going to happen.
Rocky
Yes,big days attract more dead money than on a regular day.Good days to step out as chop is somewhat mitigated.
https://www.thorograph.com/phorum/read.php?1,81163,81163#msg-81163
Of the many \'disciplines\' that can be applied at the track, probably the least well understood is what goes on in the betting pools.
And a simple, unsophisticated attempt to track and mirror \'smart\' money will most likely result in an early demise of your bankroll.
FrankD. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I just can\'t see it; as miff says I know many
> math/computer guys that ended up in the Bowery.
> This game is a million miles away from an exact
> science.
Frank:
A little disappointed in you and Miff for falling behind the times. Hipsters have
been seen slinking around the Bowery recently and you could do a lot worse than to
end up there.
Frank, I read that the owner of the Alabama favorite is a Schenectady homeboy.
Will he be prepping for the race at Uncle Ben\'s Saturday morning and/or
celebrating there afterwards?
Outstanding weather continues upstate and downstate, hope it stays through Labor
Day.
Rocky,
I hope to see you this weekend. You sure made a splash with your first post after years of observing on here!!!! LOL.
My point on the horizontals \" not being fully contaminated\" should have been clarified, that their programs do not have access to the will pays and probables 2 races out. It seems this is where the last minute bombing comes in per the exacta pools where it is noticed the most.
Obviously when making a pick 4 in the 2nd race they have that info for the first 2 legs and are at the mercy of the morning line & their handicapping software going beyond that.
Boscar is a good one to weigh in here as he has been a pool watcher and charter for over 30 years. Before co mingling of pools you could see the moves in the exacta pool of the raggies/Thoro guy\'s and spot that money. I had a lot of TV time with my clip board in the 80\'s.
TGJB mentioned he would like to see wagers limited to a certain amount once you get to 2 minutes to post to protect pool integrity some what.
It\'s funny because last Saturday this was the major topic of discussion at the table.
good luck,
Frank D.
FrankD. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rocky,
>
> > TGJB mentioned he would like to see wagers limited
> to a certain amount once you get to 2 minutes to
> post to protect pool integrity some what.
>
> It\'s funny because last Saturday this was the
> major topic of discussion at the table.
>
> good luck,
>
> Frank D.
\'WAY too easy to circumvent by any monied, well-organized group, alas . . .
Rocky,
Has your analysis allowed you to form an opinion about the integrity of the pools you observe?
Raz, this is a great question for rocky about pool integrity. If someone is betting after the start (similar to what Drexel boys did) in to the So Cal pick 6s, it would sort of show an anomaly in the prices. Would love to hear Rocky\'s take on this.
Raz – From what I've observed, the vast majority of late odds changes after the gates open is simply the win odds getting into line with those I've estimated from the DD pools. That doesn't mean I don't think past-posting isn't still happening though.
What needs to be done - and I haven't done this yet – is to see if there is a correlation between horses that get the early lead and their win odds being less than those established by the DD pools, however minor the effect might be, because that's where these guys are most likely focusing.
Steve Klein examined over 200,000 races in "The Power of Early Speed," and he found that just by betting on the horse that has the lead after the first call, you can achieve a whopping 66% ROI. With that kind of expected return, a careful cheater can make a pretty good living without even affecting the odds very much.
Mike Maloney, the VP of Regulatory Affairs at HANA, has been a pretty strong advocate in this area. He shared an interesting anecdote at the 34th Symposium on Racing & Gaming back in '07 (see attached pp.18-21) about how he himself was able to bet a race long after the race had started. He railed against the lack of upgraded modern infrastructure to protect the integrity of the pools back then, and I have no reason to believe much has changed since.
Once I gather enough data to make a statistically significant conclusion about frontrunners and the correlation of their final odds with DD pool estimates I will share it with everyone.
Best,
Rocky
34th Annual Symposium on Racing & Gaming (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fua-rtip.org%2Fsites%2Fua-rtip.org%2Ffiles%2Fa_perspective_on_racing_abstr.pdf&ei=YkYNUqmkB4POyAG2lYDgCg&usg=AFQjCNHf82mlS-B1QiAbnvsT1lOu__9jVw&sig2=pXGanYl_A-j1dJMZV5rekQ&bvm=bv.50768961,d.aWc)
Thank you. I remember the Maloney story. I look forward to more from your research.
Rocky, i think something that could also be researched is to see if there\'s also any association between higher than normal win prices and horses who break 1 or 2 lengths \"slow\". That would show that there\'s some money coming off those runners after the bettor or bettors see one or two jumps of the race. Betting on speed horses after seeing a few steps is not as easy to accomplish than getting refunds on slow starters.
Raz-- if you want to do a public service, and since you presumably got the survey yourself by email, you might want to point out to Sherman (who did not read the survey) that the article he posted a link to (written by someone who also didn\'t read the survey) misquoted the questions. There was no \"are drugs bad\" question, and the questions re betting gave a choice of no difference, more or less. I wrote that one myself. It was not \"do you bet less\".
I let TDN know that when I have some time I\'ll be writing a letter to the editor about the public reaction to the Round Table. Which has been f______ shameful. To say nothing of dangerous.
Nothing I\'ve seen at the majors would imply any past posting in any pool.
Unless they are going out of their way to bet losers.
You\'re right, being able to cancel a bet on a slow breaker would be an \'edge\' , but again, I\'m not seeing it.
since so much money is bet late, if the bet was not in the high 1000\'s, any \'cancel\' would be near impossible to detect without access to the internal tote records.
JB:
Is it true that the survey was limited to HANA members and T-Generates? 800 plus
people total?
I am aware that there were time constraints, but, in my opinion, for this survey
to have more influence, it needed to be much larger. Go to racetracks and
simulcast facilities all over the US, distribute 20,000 surveys, give out a $3
betting voucher for each completed survey.
I do not want to belabor this but there are two distinct groups: The Jockey Club
does not really represent horseplayers; it represents breeders, owners, people
who rely on racing and breeding to make a living. The Jockey Club is supposed to
be dedicated to the improvement of the breed and the preservation of the Sport,
and partially because of drugs but mostly due to greed and short sightedness, it
has not been very successful.
Horseplayers quitting the game because of the abuse of performance enhancing
materials? I know horseplayers who quit when they tapped out, when they got
married, when they found a hobby they enjoyed more, but the same horseplayers
who say they will quit the game because of the unlevel playing field will be
saying the same thing in five years. Am I wrong?
Not to paint with broad strokes, but the HANA group seems takeout obsessed, so
if the takeout was cut in half and the permissible level of bute was doubled, I
think everything would be OK. And before some HANA member goes off on me, my
tongue is somewhere inside my cheek, which some might believe difficult as my
foot is very close to my mouth right now.
Trainers/Owners/Breeders getting out because they can\'t compete with the cheats,
I am sure it happens all the time.
I did take the survey, and I liked it. I have not seen the results, nor had I read Ken\'s post until you mentioned it. I don\'t think Ken uses either product so I doubt if further comment would be of use.
No poll is perfectly free of bias. Therefore all polls are vulnerable to criticism, whether informed or not. A quick read of the write-up Ken cited reeks of the uniformed naysayer variety.
I think it is an unfortunate paradox that those who use the patterns of TG or Rags as a primary handicapping tool are likely to be more sensitive to the effects of enhancers, yet, if one samples TG and Rags users, one introduces selection bias.
Similarly, if it were a poll about the integrity of the pools, or costs of ownership, capturing my responses in an attempt to broaden the survey base would be detrimental since I do not focus enough on either to have a useful opinion.
Where are the full poll results posted? Can anyone access the poll questions now?
Sent from my iPad
Richie--
1-- I have only dealt with the JC since 2008, so I can\'t speak to before that. But they do not \"represent\" breeders or ay other group. Sure, there are breeders among them, and I am not naive enough to think nobody has an agenda. But from dealing with the last two top guys (Marzelli and Gagliano) I can tell you their concern as an organization is the overall welfare of both the sport and the industry.
2-- They were looking for serious horseplayers who bet serious money-- customers. They wanted to show that there was a real price to pay for inaction. They came to us for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks.
Hegarty, who has had a h_____ for me for a long time, took a shot because he could. The people who bet serious money are sophisticated and watch closely because they have to, and they see the jumpups and draw conclusions. A lot of sophisticated players also use TG. So there is overlap-- that\'s why they think what they do, not because I talk about it here.
3-- The issue is not whether horseplayers quit. It\'s whether they avoid races or bet less because of drugs. I know I do.
http://www.jockeyclub.com/roundtable_replay_2013.html
Yes, the poll was trying to prove a point. But the article Sherman posted wasn\'t just uninformed, it was a blatant misrepresentation. The guy who wrote it (not Sherman) can\'t be considered credible going forward.
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing I\'ve seen at the majors would imply any
> past posting in any pool.
After tracking the late wagering shifts at the major circuits for the past couple of weeks, I have to agree with Boscar, I\'m just not seeing any evidence of it.
Almost all of the late shifts in win pool odds are in the direction of those already established by the DD Will Pays, whether it relates to a frontrunner or one that\'s stumbled from the gate.
If it\'s going on, the cheaters are smart enough to keep their bets small enough so that it\'s not readily detectable on the toteboard.
Math,
Pool integrity way more complicated than tracking the late money.In NY there is a review of a large wager cancelled AFTER the bell when a very short priced horse broke bad and went from 1-2,in the gate,to 4-5 after the race began,unheard of as no other runner got a large bet to drive up the price.
The cancel feature at a rebate shop may be the culprit and highlights the danger of a select few having remote access to the live pools.If any one thing could ruin the game it is pool manipulation/integrity yet the Clueless Clowns rarely speak of it.New software to deal with this coming in November yet very little is published about it.Spoke to former NYRA CEO Charlie Hayward about this back a few years and he swore the systems and checks were rock solid and past posting was impossible.I\'m not certain.
Mike