Computer-Robotic Wagering

[Kasept]

Australia\'s TAB apparently has/had a model to offer fixed odds wagering within the pari-mutuels. Stan Bergstein wrote about it and the studies Ainslie and Gomez offered while working with him:

An idea from past to push sport forward (Click for link)
By Stan Bergstein

[Boscar Obarra]

Tell you what, I discussed this with Ainslie and I didn\'t get it then or now.

 I get how the betfair model works, where it\'s essentially man to man bookmaking.

 Maybe there\'s some way to synthesize that in a parimutuel  setting, but I\'d have to see the math .    Is this brilliance public or just legend?

[GChandler]

JB,

They do NOT have any direct access to the tote.  All CAW players wager through licensed account wagering companies who push those bets to their individual tote provider.  Virtually all the major U.S. ADWs have CAW players.  So do a number of foreign ones.

As far as tracks identifying who these groups are, most of them have individual TRA codes, different from the ADW\'s TRA code, so tracks know exactly who they are. Virtually all of them go through background checks that very few players could pass from firms like Kroll.  The approval process can take as long as six months to a year at the larger tracks.

Most of what has been written or posted about how they operate is at best half true or in most instances flat-out wrong and I would be in a position to know.

GC

P.S.  Long time lurker first-time poster, I love the figure making and handicapping discussions your customers generate.  I\'m not being sarcastic.

[TempletonPeck]

Ok, I\'ll bite. What is everyone else getting wrong about these operations, and how do you know?

[GChandler]

I have already posted some of what the public gets wrong.

1) CAW teams don\'t have direct tote access.  They bet through an ADW like everyone else.

2)  There is no such thing as a \"hidden\" tote feed that lists tri or super probables.

3)  All of these teams are very thoroughly vetted by the big track groups (i.e CDI, Stronach Group & NYRA).

4)  These aren\'t the guys that take down big Pk 6 pools.  I don\'t know of any that even play that wager.

The \'advantage\' that some of these teams have comes down to intellect, hard work and capitalization.  The teams are almost always comprised of PHD mathematicians that have spent years of time and seven figures of capital to develop wagering tools, which at the end of the day is all they have.   I would think sheet players would welcomee the liquidity they add to the pools.  You all have a tremendous advantage in certain situations relative to the teams.  

I know these things because I am in a position to know and don\'t want to elaborate any more than that.

[Wild Again]

Mr Chandler

The tone of your answer speaks to me.  It tells me you have a dog in the fight and seek to sway opinion.  It also causes me to mistrust what you say.  I thought computer assisted wagering was something that gave and edge to some and takes edge away from me, and now I believe it more so.

Maybe you could try again to convince me I am wrong and net net it is actually a positive for recreational players like me.

Thanks In Advance

John Perona

[RICH]

G

Why would Oaklawn stop these guys if they do no harm?


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

[JimP]

Gchandler, you very well may be correct in everything you state. But you didn\'t address the issue of late large swings in the odds. I stopped playing when it became apparent that I could not reliably approximate what the final odds would be. Do you dispute that these computerized bet generators are a significant cause of that?

[miff]

A rebate house in Oregon approached me a few years back and flat out stated they would set me up with remote access to the feed they received and provide the ability to batch bet i.e. CAW. They were a start up operation and sent their rebate schedule also offering a referral fee for anyone I could get for them as a customer.

Perhaps Chandler would like to detail the precise MO now in use by the rebate shop whales since those of us on the board do not exactly know how this currently works.

[Ill-bred]

I also posted this on my twitter feed...it is an NTRA report from 2004 that deals with CRW, tote security, etc...

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/taskforceExeSummary.pdf

[moosepalm]

Thanks, ill-bred for posting that.  The section on CRW clarifies many of the issues for  me.  Basically, it seems like they have built a better mousetrap in doing some of the things all the rest of us attempt to do.  The problems appear to be related to the potential for diminished value that won\'t be known until the totes shut down, and the effect it has on public perception.  It feels somewhat analogous to what the internet has done to small independent retailers.  There\'s no foul play involved -- they just have enormous advantages.  If Oaklawn wants to give favored son status to the regular Joe\'s and JoAnn\'s, more power to them.  By and large, the CRW\'s don\'t swim in the same betting pools that I do, so it\'s not going to be a personal deterrent, but I understand the concerns expressed by those who feel it impacts value for them.

[JimP]

From the NTRA wagering task force report:\"United Tote has recently unveiled its "Enterbet," designed to facilitate players' ability to directly interface with the tote.\"

GChandler, how does this square with your comment that the CRWs have no direct access to the tote?

[TGJB]

Briefly, because I\'m on vacation. The question of whether they can see tri etc probables is irrelevant. That the public can\'t is not, if someone is past posting.

By definition, they have their own interface, whether there\'s another between them and the pools or not. And as you say they have the resources to hire the best.

Also by definition, it\'s a zero sum game, and the more they take out the worse is it for the rest. Whether that should be acceptable is another question.

Finally, last second access is a tremendous advantage. One way to neutralize that is to shut them down at 5mtp.

[Boscar Obarra]

Your enemy at the windows is ANYONE that wins in the long run .  Why single out large batch bettors?

  I don\'t get it.  Anyone can sent multiple bets to an adw with some fairly rudimentary software. This is not some secret edge only the \'boys\' have.

  There is no magic formula anyone is using.  If they have figured out some statistical anomaly in the pools that can produce a profit, how are you going to say they can\'t do that?

  Now, I\'ve been AGAINST some folks getting fat rebates while others have to bet into a confiscatory takeout from day one. That\'s a different issue.

  Using computers to bet?  Not a problem.

[Boscar Obarra]

http://www.unitedtote.com/products/enterbet-software

Same as that? Nothing there that isn\'t already available online.

Interfacing with the tote.  Not sure what that even means. The only \'edge\' you might get if you had some direct access is a faster odds change. That\'s supposed to be coming for everyone, when they get their act together.

AS long as they are not revealing blind pools to a subset of the playing population, then there\'s nothing about \'direct access\' that is an issue. This is not the stock market , where speed of execution is a big deal.