Computer-Robotic Wagering

[kmart4503]

Interesting Article -

CRW Article - BloodHorse

KMart

[miff]

Track management at all main venues well aware of this but choose to allow it. Oaklawn Park has barred bots from their pools.

Players are at a substantial disadvantage vs bots which settlement with certain hubs clearly showing that.

In the fairest sense of things, bots should be banned by tracks but giving up 20% of their off track handle too tough for them to swallow.

NYRA is a well aware that bots dominate the average player but turn a blind eye in their desperation for handle.

[moosepalm]

I\'m probably pretty dense about this stuff, but it\'s not clear to me why this would be analogous to the Fantasy wagering currently under legal scrutiny.  I don\'t follow exactly how they work this to their advantage, but I\'ve never really studied or thought about it in detail.

[miff]

Moose,

Somewhat like the DFS inside info scandal, bots wired into a rebate houses pool data feed attach their handicapping software program. The program seeks out certain plays and make many bets in the last few seconds before the stop betting command locks the pools.Regular players cannot do that.

The debate is whether or not tracks should permit bots in the pool as they have a perceived,or real edge,over the average player.Data from the wagering MIS systems show a much stronger flow of net funds to hubs/ADW\'s that have high volume rebate whales using computer programs and batch betting.

So, would have to guess there\'s an edge.This gets back to high takeout and the resulting substantial rebates being given to a very select group.

Mike

[BitPlayer]

I think the Bloodhorse blog post is wrong in one respect.  It is not the fact that sophisticated players using computers have an advantage over unsophisticated players that would make DFS illegal.  I think the legal question is whether DFS constitutes gambling under state law.  The unfairness argument is political cover for the AG exercising his prosecutorial discretion to go after the DFS companies.

[jbelfior]

Found this interesting within the discussion section below. The part that struck me the most was his comment on the game being \"very difficult, if not mathematically impossible to beat.\"  

I\'ve personally met the biggest (arguably) of the CRW originators. I spent about 30 minutes talking with him. He\'s made hundreds of millions of dollars going back to when he first conceived of the idea. Super nice guy. Very interesting conversation. I was fascinated in listening to him discuss his operation. I can tell you the following anecdotes (beyond a shadow of a doubt) - since he made two things very clear to me. First: he would not be in the CRW business if it weren\'t for the rebates. He told me that anyone who doesn\'t seek a rebate is essentially foolish because it is very difficult (if not mathematically impossible) to turn a profit over the long term. So the rebate is the KEY to this issue (if you believe it is indeed an issue). Second: he was very clear that he didn\'t know a thing about horse racing. I tried discussing certain horses, even champions like Zenyatta, and he knew literally nothing. It is purely a math problem to this person. He is only looking for the positive expectation on the bet. While I was fascinated by the discussion, this realization made me sad. While I love handicapping and betting, I also love the stories within the game. I love reading Haskin and listening to Byk which adds so much more to the handicapping puzzle and dreams of a big score. I love going to the track. Love the buzz of the big event weekends. So, whether or not you think CRWs are a bad thing, make no mistake about it....the drivers are the rebate and most likely, these folks have no interest in the game...only in making money (which may or may not be horrible in your opinion). Just thought I\'d throw out my personal experience as it was relevant to the article at hand. Great discussion.

Good Luck,
Joe B.

[miff]

King:DRF

Posted May 3, 2015

Oaklawn Takes Aim At Robotic Wagering In Horse Racing

LITTLE ROCK — Sold on a horse that is 3-1 loading into the starting gate, a bettor wagers $2 to win, knowing the minimum payout is $8.

The handicapping is right on, but the winning mutuel is $5.20, the profit dramatically reduced by a far-away computer. A wad of money is required to drop the odds from 3-1 to 8-5 in the final click of the tote board, but it happens because high-volume players, including syndicates, establish computer-robotic wagering (CRW) that use algorithms to set up wagering programs. The idea is to take advantage of last-second odds anomalies by placing large wagers in a fraction of a second.

At Oaklawn Park, CRWs are on a hit list.

"We simply refuse to allow them into our pools," Bobby Geiger, Oaklawn's director of wagering and simulcast, said in an Email. He said Oaklawn realized more than 10 years ago that "these parasites would kill the grandstand player and ultimately the wagering component of the sport, so we eliminated them from our distribution

portfolio. "They've tried to sneak into our pools on multiple occasions ... but we constantly monitor our pools for the activity," he said. "WE ALWAYS CATCH THEM. The practice is so egregious and unfair to the other patrons in the pools that is impossible to disguise."

Oaklawn's approach to the CRWs is one of the issues that Mark Lamberth will mention as he visits racing jurisdictions throughout the country in his new role as chairman of the Association of Racing Commissioners International. A highway contractor from Batesville and a member of the Arkansas Racing Commission, Lamberth also will present the case that non-racing Advance Deposit Wagering sites are short-changing horsemen and racetracks.

Oaklawn's handle for its recent 52 days of racing underlines the significance of off-track wagering. This year, Oaklawn averaged $3.35 million per day, including more than $2.6 million per day off track.

When a track sends its signal to another track, purse money gets a bump at both tracks. When that same signal goes to a non-racing ADW, that site pays for the signal but does not contribute to purses. As a result, horsemen suffer. In addition, the ADW is able to offer a rebate to customers — in effect, a discount to the bettor.

"This discourages wagering and attendance at the track," Lamberth said. He will try to convince racing jurisdictions to mandate that ADWs contribute more money to purses.

"If the online ADW did not fund purses somewhere, they would not receive the signal," Lamberth said. "Vegas is trickier since their patrons are on site and not on line and I'm not sure the track would choose to lose such a large handle. But with that being said, I think purses should be supported by everyone that uses the product, including those that wield a big stick."

Unlike many other sports, there is no central authority in thoroughbred racing, and each racing jurisdiction acts independently so Lamberth must sell his recommendations from state to state.

Unquestionably on point are Lamberth's conclusions that less racing is more and that America cannot support year-round racing.

The number of foals each year has finally stabilized at about 22,000, down from a high of 50,000 less than 30 years ago, but fewer foals means smaller fields and less wagering. A small-time exacta player, a six-horse field is of little interest. Oaklawn, Keeneland, Del Mar, and Saratoga are successful with limited days because they put a quality product on the racetrack.

"Most tracks are suffering from a shortage of horses (not Oaklawn)," Lamberth said. "Fewer racing days would mean less overlapping and conflicts. Fewer race days would mean bigger fields and opportunities for more exotic wagers for the big score.

"Racing once again could be a profitable endeavor as opposed to a broken and unsustainable business model in which gaming is subsidizing unprofitable racing," he said. Lamberth makes good sense. Hopefully, racing jurisdictions are open-minded.

[RICH]

I for one will be checking out oaklawn now just because of this

[elkurzhal]

jbelfior - That is a very interesting description of a race tracks best/most rewarded customer...

[TGJB]

This general subject is interesting enough to get me to post from vacation at Lake Atitlan. Aside from the issues discussed, you\'re giving people direct electronic access to the pools, making hacking, past posting etc., that much easier.

One big problem is the industry doesn\'t have any real ability to police this stuff. A key element would be to know bet structure of winning bets-- for example, if you saw the ticket those guys played in the BC pick six and changed manually, you would see right away something was going on. I have requested that info about suspicious payouts, with help from someone at the highest level of the industry. It is not available, not kept anywhere. Which is outrageous.

[miff]

A request to NYRA to reveal where large winning pick 6 payoffs were purchased and the cost, no names of course,was declined.Smug NYRA said \"No one else does, why should we\" Speaks volumes affirming I was talking to a Clueless Clown.

As JB stated, racing does not have the wherewithal or desire to ensure absolute pool integrity.

[BitPlayer]

Miff -

Are these guys in pools like trifecta, superfecta, Pick-4, Pick-6 where the odds are not displayed before the pool closes?

[miff]

Bit,

While we can\'t see it, there is detailed info on all pools available at the host track. Just how much of that is fed to a rebate house, don\'t know.

My understanding is that the win and exacta pools are where much of the bot money is played.Would think multi race pools beyond rolling daily doubles would not be affected unless bots have that data also.

Without question, racing knows full details of bots/rebate houses but are not being forthcoming as eyebrows will be raised.With app $1.6 billion of total handle at stake it\'s doubtful full disclosure is forthcoming.

Mike

[TGJB]

Bit-- Or after the polls close, until before the last leg. Hence the easier ability to past post multi race bets, as well as tris and supers.

[SoCalMan2]

RICH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I for one will be checking out oaklawn now just
> because of this


I agree about this.

I would like to see tracks like Oaklawn publicized and see if there can be a groundswell.

Question, can CRWs survive if they are the only ones in a pool?