Computer-Robotic Wagering

[Mathcapper]

Heh - saw that. Yeah, the tri and super both paid about half of what they figured to based on the win odds too.

As Boscar noted, when big bombs like that win, the gimmicks almost always come back light. Once you get up into those kinds of odds ranges, you\'re splitting hairs in terms of win probability (2% for a 50-1 shot vs. 1% for a 100-1 shot), so very small differences have a magnified effect in terms of odds.

[Boscar Obarra]

Sadly, the predictive power of the \'gyp\' payoff is near zero, since there are so many of them.

 In this case , it was a two speed number, and some may have been playing it off that alone.

 Of even more curiosity , the winner, 30-1 or so in the doubles coming INTO the race, went off at 45-1 to win, and with the doubles into the next race, an astounding 60-1.  

 So much for the bots.

[Boscar Obarra]

If they are past posting they are slipping it past me at NYRA. I have never seen even one race where I suspected that.  Other venues, I can\'t really speak for, but I suspect the same goes for them.

 I keep seeing this 2% Benter figure. Not really sure how that was derived, but it doesn\'t sit right.  So an exacta that would pay 277, now pays 270?  An 8.20-1 pays 8-1. Those are 2% hits.

 The betdowns I see on many winning numbers are an order of magnitude higher than that.  Maybe, after all losers and winners are netted out over time, the 2% MAY valid, but I suspect the real effect on most handicappers is much higher than that.

[TGJB]

Seriously, let these guys do what they want or we\'ll kill a thousand horses?  

I don\'t give a s--t about attracting new players. I do care if someone is past posting and/or has an edge they shouldn\'t have. And I care more that the people who run the game don\'t understand or care.

Playing the dead horses card did not help your credibility.

[Mathcapper]

The 2% figure was an off-the-cuff number Bill used in response to a question about what effect he felt computer teams\' winning had on the general public. Yes, overall, after everything is netted out.

I agree, the late money betdowns are much more than that, but they\'re only betting the horse\'s they see as overlays, so yeah, if you happen to have identified that same horse as an overlay and bet on it, it\'s a much bigger effect in that particular instance.

As far as past-posting, I haven\'t seen any evidence of it either. I did a real-time study not too long ago and posted on this board that I ended up discontinuing it because almost all the movements I was seeing were simply the odds converging into line with the odds in the Will Pays.

Still, I\'m always on the lookout, but even with horses that stumble badly out of the gate, I\'m not seeing evidence of canceled bets either.

That\'s not to say it isn\'t going on. A shrewd swindler could make a very good living popping as little as $100 win bets on early leaders virtually undetected if he has consistent access to the pools.

[wipitoga]

not surprisingly, initiation of trading by algo auto bots on all exchanges, especially commodity(CME in USa) and currencies has been going on for years. their ability to place servers near to exchanges give them an advantage on many exchanges over most. their programs can also \"read\" incoming trades to withdraw bids and offers before execution. Surely its in the betting space.

Regards,
BT

[Boscar Obarra]

The hysteria in the financial markets,  much of it justified,  over HFT (High Frequency Trading) makes the discussion here look like a tea party (no, not THAT Tea Party).

  If that case, HFT has an actual concrete edge over other participants, a structural edge, like KNOWING who would have the lead at the 1/4 pole before the race.

  In racing, all bets are in before the gate springs, so it\'s knowing the odds at the bell that they seem to be concerned with. I suspect that most players would fare little better if they knew the final odds, vs the current approximation they work with.

  Easy enough to test. Keep track of your minimum acceptable price, and see what the p&l is on only those runners that meet it, vs. all the bets that were placed.  We\'ll assume all bets are placed late, just not knowing the FINAL price.  There\'s really no way for the bots to know the exact FINAL price either, except for the  fact that they know who they\'re betting and that those odds will be depressed.

  I\'ve made the point, that the early odds on the tote have nothing to do with what the final odds will look like.  That juicy price on the obvious contender is usually a tease. You\'ll never (or rarely) get it.

[BitPlayer]

Actually, you wouldn\'t need to attract new players to the sport.  If existing non-bots just kept losing the amount they are losing now, and all of it went to the tracks instead of some of it winding up in the hands of the bots, the tracks would end up with more money, not less. Of course, that would require existing players to bet more, since they would be losing at a slower rate.  I don\'t know enough about churn to speculate how likely that is and how long it would take to occur.

Long-term, I think that closing of the smaller venues and movement of their handle to a few large venues is the most logical arc for continuing the sport.  That would, however, mean fewer horses and fewer horsemen.

[jma11473]

BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, you wouldn\'t need to attract new players
> to the sport.  If existing non-bots just kept
> losing the amount they are losing now, and all of
> it went to the tracks instead of some of it
> winding up in the hands of the bots, the tracks
> would end up with more money, not less. Of course,
> that would require existing players to bet more,
> since they would be losing at a slower rate.  I
> don\'t know enough about churn to speculate how
> likely that is and how long it would take to
> occur.
>
> Long-term, I think that closing of the smaller
> venues and movement of their handle to a few large
> venues is the most logical arc for continuing the
> sport.  That would, however, mean fewer horses and
> fewer horsemen.

The number of races run in a year has dropped from 50,120 in 2008 to 41,277 in 2014, so we\'re rapidly moving in that direction, just by cutting races instead of wholesale closure of tracks.

[TGJB]

Rocky-- that\'s not the kind of past posting I\'m talking about, which can\'t be seen. See my post from a couple of days ago.

[TGJB]

More on this.

1-- Because of the huge rebates (which I have no problem with), the industry gets half the amount from every dollar bet they do from others. So the net effect would be losing half that amount of handle, even if we stipulate the 3B.

2-- If they\'re not winning that money others would have more and churn more. At higher takeout rates.

3-- there is a horse shortage, not a surplus. Tracks are cutting days because they can\'t fill races. If some closed, those horses would end up on other circuits, making for bigger fields, and higher handle there-- both because of field size and players not having the other tracks to bet. That\'s what\'s going to end up happening anyway.

[miff]

\"That\'s not to say it isn\'t going on. A shrewd swindler could make a very good living popping as little as $100 win bets on early leaders virtually undetected if he has consistent access to the pools\"


According to people responsible for pool integrity, once the \"stop betting\" command locks all pools, a picture is taken of all bets.After the race ends, another picture is taken and must match exactly to ensure no alterations were made after the stop betting command. In a time of genius propeller heads computer geeks, still not convinced,too many loose leaders continue to drop in odds after the race is well underway.

The perception of past posting is very real whether its happening or not.

[Mathcapper]

Jerry - correct me if I\'m wrong but I think you were talking about things like that Fix Six scheme where they were able to go into the Pk6 pool after the 4th leg and put in a Winner-Winner-Winner-Winner-All-All ticket.

Yeah, if that kind of thing is still happening, that\'s much worse than just getting a bet down a few moments after the gates open. That\'s outright theft -- basically an ATM machine directly linked into the pools.

I\'ve always been concerned this might still be going on. If those fix sixers won\'t so greedy as to put in multiple winning tickets, even an absolute monster score like that might have gone completely undetected. A shrewd crook could easily siphon out a ton of money in small increments on a regular basis and we\'d never know about it.

[Mathcapper]

I don\'t know if that picture-taking stuff went into effect recently, but I remember Mike Maloney giving a talk one of the annual gambling conferences a few years or so ago where he told a story of how he was standing at the window placing win bets on a simulcast race showing on the tv behind the teller all the way into deep stretch before he finally got shut out.

I guess the only way to truly ensure this kind of thing can\'t happen is to close the pools a couple minutes to post (maybe put a seconds countdown timer on the screen), so that by the time the gates open, all off-track and bot bets are reflected in the pools and the odds are set.

Doubt tracks would ever do this though, since they realize that 25%+ of the handle comes in those last couple of minutes. They want every last cent they can get and would probably be afraid they\'d give up handle by closing the pools early.

[miff]

The technology to display up to second odds is available, racing does not want to pay for it.On Wall Street the skimmers have only a few seconds to beat the trades to being populated. Banks via its Chips system also move zillions with postings termed live time(up to the second)