Jason Servis...HOLY COW!

[rezlegal]

actually it was Harold Gould telling Robert Shaw to “place it on Lucky Dan” in some race at Riverside Park

[trackjohn]

\"Place it on Lucky Dan, third race, Riverside Park\"

[Chas04]

Servis by a few poles just now. Wow! Looked like a rocket ship while Pletch gets eased. This run is unreal. El Jugooooo

[Mathcapper]

Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>   The pools have been under \'attack\' for some time now.
>
>   Byk show had Paul Matties on yesterday discussing.


Most interesting thing about the Paul Matties segment was his thoughts on how to combat the late betting action of the computer teams, which echoed Fairmount’s comment earlier in this thread about putting every dollar bet into the pools on equal footing with every other dollar.

Paraphrasing some of Paul’s comments:

>>There’s at least one group that’s going through every pool and making sure that the market is correct on all of them based on the other markets. FF was 7/2 in all the other markets, but when the win bets came in at the last minute and dropped him to 5/2, he went down to 5/2 in the exactas as well based on the imputed odds the seconds after the win bets were made. That’s how fast these Totes and these computer models work. They can take the money that was bet to win and two seconds later analyze it make a bet on the exactas!

The right way to counter the late betting action is to give more weapons to the everyday players, who are the ones who are threatened the most by this. The player’s technology is lacking. In 2018, the player should have some kind of access, either through his ADW or through his phone, of a little bit of a way to counter and be able to play in the same manner as the computer guys do. With some ADWs, you can if they offer batch betting with file uploads and you can write a program, but the ease is not there. We need to get that ability to the players.

Getting more information to the players was the primary concern in the 1990’s. But in 2018 it’s got to be betting. The weapon that the players need now is a better betting tool. Some of the ADWs have gotten better at it, and some of the platforms are getting there, but they’re not advancing like the CAW’s are, and you’ve got to keep that playing field level.<<


NYRA has come a long way and done a terrific job with their NYRA Bets wagering interface, rewards program, ROI trackers, HD replay feeds, etc., but they’ve lagged badly in this respect. The betting public needs to be placed on the same level as the computer teams to make this a fair fight, which means file uploading and batch betting capability so that a high or low-volume player can match, dollar for dollar, exactly what the computer teams can do at the last second. Not having this capability is like using a Flinstone flip phone in the age of smartphones.

The other thing that\'s been proposed is to stop betting at say, 1 minute before post, but that wouldn’t change anything other than perception. The teams will still bet at the last second and the public will see the odds drop without a chance to react as always, they’ll just see it before the race goes off. The only thing that will change is the perception that any cheating may be going on related to past-posting (ala “Lucky Dan”).

Another idea, as Paul suggested, would be to put a stop on the computer teams a little earlier than everyone else. But as he says, >>that’s never going to happen. The only way to really counter it is to put more power into the hands of the player.<<


Other than that, the most useful tool in the horseplayer\'s arsenal is the good \'ole DD Will Pays, when they\'re available, and when some big plunger with \"magical\" handicapping skills doesn\'t come in at the last second.

[FrankD.]

Not having this capability is like using a Flinstone flip phone in the age of smartphones.

Rocky,
Great analogy considering I was trying to call our beloved Uncle Bill for 3 weeks, finally I called his wife’s phone. She told me since they put a new metal roof on the house, Billy can’t get phone calls at home...... You can’t make this up.

TGJB tried to get him to buy a smart phone, $800 no way, so he went to buy $144 flip phone to replace his 10 year old Flintstone version that was not working.
The guy looked at as dinosaur and did something to it so it works. It works great except at his Florida home where he spends 6 months a year not getting phone calls.  â˜Žï¸

Antonio Meucci

[johnnym]

“about putting every dollar bet into the pools on equal footing with every other dollar”

I’m not understanding the above statement,what exactly does that mean?
Ty

[BitPlayer]

The \"equal footing\" argument is usually made as an argument against rebates.  Rebates allow the computer groups (and others) to make a profit even when their bets (before rebate) are just break-even or slightly unprofitable.  Because of their access to the tote, their ability to use pool information to calculate expected values and optimal bet amounts almost instantly, and their ability to place large wagers in batches at the last minute, they can drive the odds down to a level that is profitable for them but not for those with no or smaller rebates.

Of course, the argument depends on the assumption that their algorithms enable  the computer groups to very accurately identify the probability of each possible outcome of races.  That assumption is not unreasonable if one also assumes that, if the algorithms were not accurate, the computer groups would rapidly go out of business.

[banditbeau]

Rocky, your comment that horse players need more help with betting echoes what I was trying to get to in a post about six weeks ago on the red board issue. Horseplayers don’t know how to bet, as a whole,  and can’t make fast enough updates and changes compared to the computers if they have that preparation . The problem seems to be the computer guys don’t have to worry about how to “bet” as they cover all possible angles and then as was mentioned if they can be close to breaking even, the rebates make up the difference in terms of net profit. Otherwise it seems each time computers have taken on humans in  almost every venue computers prevail.  Computers versus human at blackjack, computers win, computers versus humans at chess, computers win. Computers versus humans in the stock market, computers again . Vegas did as Mr. Wolff suggested and doesn’t allow  computers. Wall Street, that’s  another story. Horse racing’s future of humans versus computers seems to be pretty clear with a predictable outcome.   It would be interesting to hear from some of the board watchers who follow Oaklawn closely where they apparently don’t allow the batch bettors and see what is going on there? You still have the issue of betting protocols for the public but at least they are all on someone equal  terms of the pools.  Every day players, can you show a greater profit percentage at a track like versus NYRA?

[BitPlayer]

Mathcapper -

I didn\'t understand Matties\'s argument that the ability of the computer groups to analyze the betting in one pool and then make another pool align with it is particularly valuable.  If a favorite is overbet in the win pool, there is no advantage to making him overbet in the exacta pool.

I do understand from your previous posts that there is a \"wisdom of crowds\" factor built into the models.  Maybe there is also a \"wisdom of unexpected late money\" factor involved?

I\'m not sure I agree with the arm-the-players solution.  While that might benefit some players, it might also discourage more casual players. At the end of the day, the industry depends on somebody losing money.

I wonder if any ADW or track is considering using DD will-pays to make projected odds for the public (e.g., an updated morning line).  I seem to remember responding to a survey where I was asked whether I would find such a thing useful.  In many cases, it would make late odds shifts less suspicious.

[Boscar Obarra]

Matties has a pretty good handle on what\'s happening, but I think he\'s a little off on the \'adjust\' thing.  Pretty sure of it actually.

 What is really happening is they are simultaneously betting into all the pools.

 So it wasn\'t an \'adjust\' based on the win pool, but money that was bet at the same time into the exacta.

 Why would the bots blindly follow the win pool money?

[Mathcapper]

FrankD. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not having this capability is like using a
> Flinstone flip phone in the age of smartphones.
>
> Rocky,
> Great analogy considering I was trying to call our
> beloved Uncle Bill for 3 weeks, finally I called
> his wife’s phone. She told me since they put a
> new metal roof on the house, Billy can’t get
> phone calls at home...... You can’t make this
> up.
>
> TGJB tried to get him to buy a smart phone, $800
> no way, so he went to buy $144 flip phone to
> replace his 10 year old Flintstone version that
> was not working.
> The guy looked at his dinosaur and did something to
> it so it works. It works great except at his
> Florida home where he spends 6 months a year not
> getting phone calls.  â˜Žï¸
>
> Antonio Meucci

Antonio Meucci â€" LOL!  Bill and I had the same conversation recently. Apologies to TGJB but I’m afraid I may have nudged Uncle Bill in that direction as I speak from experience. Still got a Flinstone myself â€" $50 model that rings as loud as a siren and gets crystal clear reception (notwithstanding metal roofs of course). Never found much need for a “smart”phone (I carry around my laptop instead when needed which has the horsepower to run big spreadsheets), although it does elicit some strange looks from millennials..


BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The \"equal footing\" argument is usually made as an
> argument against rebates.  Rebates allow the
> computer groups (and others) to make a profit even
> when their bets (before rebate) are just
> break-even or slightly unprofitable.  Because of
> their access to the tote, their ability to use
> pool information to calculate expected values and
> optimal bet amounts almost instantly, and their
> ability to place large wagers in batches at the
> last minute, they can drive the odds down to a
> level that is profitable for them but not for
> those with no or smaller rebates.

Wish there was a like button I could hit for this. Excellent response, sums things up precisely and succinctly. Part of the reason why horses that used to pay $6.60 are now paying $5.20.


banditbeau Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rocky, your comment that horse players need more
> help with betting echoes what I was trying to get
> to in a post about six weeks ago on the red board
> issue. Horseplayers don’t know how to bet, as a
> whole,  and can’t make fast enough updates and
> changes compared to the computers if they have
> that preparation . The problem seems to be the
> computer guys don’t have to worry about how to
> “bet” as they cover all possible angles and
> then as was mentioned if they can be close to
> breaking even, the rebates make up the difference
> in terms of net profit. Otherwise it seems each
> time computers have taken on humans in  almost
> every venue computers prevail.  Computers versus
> human at blackjack, computers win, computers
> versus humans at chess, computers win. Computers
> versus humans in the stock market, computers again
> . Vegas did as Mr. Wolff suggested and doesn’t
> allow  computers. Wall Street, that’s another
> story. Horse racing’s future of humans versus
> computers seems to be pretty clear with a
> predictable outcome.   It would be interesting to
> hear from some of the board watchers who follow
> Oaklawn closely where they apparently don’t
> allow the batch bettors and see what is going on
> there? You still have the issue of betting
> protocols for the public but at least they are all
> on someone equal  terms of the pools.  Every day
> players, can you show a greater profit percentage
> at a track like versus NYRA?

Never really looked into Oaklawn, but I should be able to tell pretty quickly if there’s any discernable effect of the ban on bots. Tampa too(?)


BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mathcapper -
>
> I didn\'t understand Matties\'s argument that the
> ability of the computer groups to analyze the
> betting in one pool and then make another pool
> align with it is particularly valuable.  If a
> favorite is overbet in the win pool, there is no
> advantage to making him overbet in the exacta
> pool.

I think he was referring to using one pool (the win pool most likely, which is generally the most efficient) to establish the fair odds in the other pools, from which they can determine the positive EV bets. But yeah, when the win pools are off, everything else would be too. An argument can be made that the $60K win bet on FF in the Dwyer made him an underlay and hence all the related exotics too. Then again, in hindsight the way he won made him look like a big overlay.

The argument I think Paul is trying to make is that modern-day handicapping has evolved with some of these computer teams to where instead of using the pure handicapping approach of a traditional Benter-like multifactor probability model, they’re just using the imputed odds from the (win) pool to clean up the inefficiencies in the other pools.

> I do understand from your previous posts that
> there is a \"wisdom of crowds\" factor built into
> the models.  Maybe there is also a \"wisdom of
> unexpected late money\" factor involved?

There’s almost certainly an element of that too. The academic studies have shown that the later the money is bet, particularly just before post time, the “smarter” it is. The win pool is the most efficient pool, and of that pool, the marginal late money is even more efficient than the overall pool (FWIW, FF\'s late marginal odds in the Dwyer looked to be around 3/5).

> I\'m not sure I agree with the arm-the-players
> solution.  While that might benefit some players,
> it might also discourage more casual players. At
> the end of the day, the industry depends on
> somebody losing money.
>
> I wonder if any ADW or track is considering using
> DD will-pays to make projected odds for the public
> (e.g., an updated morning line).  I seem to
> remember responding to a survey where I was asked
> whether I would find such a thing useful.  In many
> cases, it would make late odds shifts less
> suspicious.

Agreed. I’m surprised more horseplayers aren’t already computing it themselves (maybe they just aren\'t aware?). It would certainly make my life easier, and it might help the everyday player to grab some of that money that the computer guys are siphoning through their methods of cleaning up inefficiencies noted above (ie. they could bet down horses to their implied Will Pay odds before the computer guys come in with their late action). Of course, the computer guys would probably make quick adjustments, including possibly messing with the Will Pay pools to throw off the public as to a horse’s true fair odds.


Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Matties has a pretty good handle on what\'s
> happening, but I think he\'s a little off on the
> \'adjust\' thing.  Pretty sure of it actually.
>
>  What is really happening is they are
> simultaneously betting into all the pools.
>
>  So it wasn\'t an \'adjust\' based on the win pool,
> but money that was bet at the same time into the
> exacta.
>
>  Why would the bots blindly follow the win pool
> money?

Tend to agree, unless the thinking is that since the win pool is generally the most efficient pool, it can be used to compute the fair odds in the other pools and clean up inefficiencies as noted above. But I’m with you, I think it’s more likely that all pools are hit simultaneously based on the algo’s implied fair odds.