From Paulick on Twitter:

Horseplayers, I stand corrected. Now I am hearing the betting cutoff when first horse enters gate is for everyone-not just CAW. Sources say this is being considered by Stronach Group.

Silver -

In my mind, that\'s what everyone should be doing.  If a company raised prices or otherwise made its product less attractive, you would look elsewhere.  Why should betting on horses be any different?

The thing is, it\'s not happening.  The CAWs are all over the exacta pool in NY, but it consistently handles more than the win pool.  I was looking at handle at Saratoga this year for a project, and I was flabbergasted at how much money the early Pick-5 handled (almost as much as all other first-race pools combined).  Unlike the late Pick-5, it is CAW-infested, the complexity of structuring tickets plays to the strength of the CAWs, and you have no signal regarding where the first-race win odds are going to wind up.  Yet bettors are lining up to be slaughtered and then going to social media to complain about the CAWs.

From what I\'m reading, one of the NBA defendants is charged with disclosing nonpublic information to a bettor regarding an injury to Lebron James.  I\'m curious how significant the nonpublic information would have to be for this to constitute a crime and who would have a duty not to disclose it. In horse racing, I\'m assuming people disclose and bet on nonpublic information all the time.

Thanks.  I should have been able to figure that out for myself by looking at the chart.  That said, I think the X post is a little misleading.  Column E is just the total exacta pool minus takeout.  In parimutuel betting, it is always equal to the amount bet on a combo times the payoff on that combo.  \"Hedging parity\" suggests that the CAWs bet enough to make them indifferent to the outcome.  If that is what they were trying to do (which seems unlikely), they did it imperfectly.

Boscar -

Since you understand this, what is column C?  Is it (a) the amount invested in the last cycle or (b) the grand total invested after the last cycle?  If (b), that\'s just the math of parimutuel betting, but if (a) that\'s interesting to me.

Interesting that CD has gotten a pass so far.on the CAW-cutoff issue. Keeneland and all of the tracks that have cut off the CAWs at 2 MTP have a lower win takeout than CD.

I would not be surprised to find that CD is somehow involved in Keeneland\'s reticence on this issue.  CD may not want to see a precedent set in Kentucky and does own an ADW that services the CAWs.

Not the same.  The capital gains rules allow you to use a net loss to offset other income, within limits.

As for gambling loses, even under the prior rules, you could only use them to offset gambling winnings.  You could not use net gambling losses to offset other income.

Under the new rules, you are always required to pay tax on 10% of your winning wagers, even if you have a net gambling loss for the year.

As a practical matter, I assume that most people don\'t report gambling winnings on wagers for which they do not receive a W-2G.

Agreed.  There was an impact before the race was run.  As I said, I disagree with the decision.  It had a potentially negative impact on a great number of people to protect a few who had ample opportunity to get correct information.

They were busy getting bonus depreciation for thoroughbred owners.

Just to be clear, no one said the horse was scratched.  Andy Serling actually picked the horse on top and discussed why he liked it.  It was just a graphics error.  I feel sorry for the poor person who goofed.

On the flip side, I\'m guessing they broadcast the show on the monitors for those at the track and if you were at the track and just grabbing the scratches off the monitor without listening, and then never listened to the changes on the public address system, you would be misled.

The decision is not one I would have made, but questionable decisions from the NYS Gaming Commission steward (Braulio Baeza Jr.) are part of the landscape at NYRA.  Fortunately, since neither the purse-money-only horse nor the post-time favorite won, there was ultimately no impact on Pick-4, -5, or -6 players.

I notice that the sheets you posted for Belmont Stakes day do not include path (ground loss) information for the True North.  I\'m wondering if that\'s just a typo or if the ground loss information was inadvertently not incorporated in the figs.  I made my own path estimates, and your figs seem to tie together better without them than with them.

From Thoroughbred Daily News:

https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/gramm-mckinney-study-shows-late-caw-activity-in-ny-pools-is-growing/

According to DRF, both Gaming (shipped back to SA for today\'s Affirmed) and Chunk of Gold (waiting for Ohio Derby) are going to scratch.

Well, that opinion didn\'t work out.

I heard on the Fox show that, according to someone from Godolphin, they want to take him to Dubai next year.