Computer-Robotic Wagering

[prist]

I\'ve been playing around with this for years. Not only do they have an edge when it\'s time to make a wager, but they also have an edge because they have figured out a way to produce fair odds without actual handicapping. Handicapping, on a daily basis, can take a lot out of you ... it\'s tiresome when it\'s done by hand, like I do it. I\'m lucky if I can [thoroughly] handicap a handful of races per day. They, on the otherhand, can generate fair odds for all the races, at all tracks, everyday ... the computer never gets tired. The amazing thing to me is that the data their computer uses to compute fair odds is done from data you can find in the DRF ... as far as i\'m aware. I\'ve never heard of any of these computer teams feeding their computers Thoro-Graph numbers. My methodology utilizes what I consider the single most important factor ... speed figures ... Thoro-Graph speed figures.

[Mathcapper]

prist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not only do they have an edge when it\'s time to make
> a wager, but they also have an edge because they
> have figured out a way to produce fair odds
> without actual handicapping. Handicapping, on a
> daily basis, can take a lot out of you ... it\'s
> tiresome when it\'s done by hand, like I do it. I\'m
> lucky if I can  handicap a handful of races per
> day. They, on the other hand, can generate fair
> odds for all the races, at all tracks, everyday
> ... the computer never gets tired.

\"Without a computer, every time you try to analyze a race, you\'re starting from scratch. It requires a heroic effort every day. The great beauty of the computer is that the knowledge is stored and readily available to be implemented on race day.

The entire technical component of our system is really three and a half people. And this is enough to bet at all of the races across North America. All of the data comes by downloads over the internet, all of the bets are placed electronically, the scheduling of the bets -- nearly every aspect of the process can be automated. In terms of actual betting on racing, it\'s possible to set up a computer that can be completely programmed to play a day\'s races. So you sort of hit a button or click on something to start the program, go out for the day and then come back, and it\'s bet at every racetrack across the country and will have a result there for you whether it won or lost, because it can time the races, check the updated odds, make all of the decisions.\" -- B. Benter

Sources: \"The Billion Dollar Men,\" South China Morning Post; \"Beating the System,\" 13th International Conference on Gambling and Risk-Taking

[reboundman]

NHC qualifier who uses CRW. My favorite quote: "I just know what my computer spits out," Zhou says. "I ran my model – it took me, like, a minute, maybe two minutes – and I just plugged the numbers in. I don't know a single horse or a single name, I just know they offered the right value."

I qualified over the weekend. If I only beat one player, I hope it\'s him.

http://www.ntra.com/en/nhc/nhc-player-profiles/2015/11/25/nhc-player-profile-tony-zhou/

[Fairmount1]

Several interesting things of note in Hegarty\'s article.

http://www.drf.com/news/betfair-gains-first-exchange-wagering-license-us

U.S. critics have said they fear the practice (exchange betting) could cannibalize the industry\'s existing parimutuel revenue streams.

But if you didn\'t make it to the last paragraph, here it is on point with this thread---70 PERCENT??:

Zanzuccki said that the New Jersey license prohibits betting on the exchange by robotic programs that are designed to scour the propositions offered on the site and quickly match or propose wagers. Betfair officials have told the commission that 70 percent of its business is generated by the programs, and Zanzuccki said the racing commission may reconsider the prohibition after a study of the robotic programs\' existing practices are conducted by an independent consulting group that conducts audits of gambling operations on behalf of state gambling agencies.

[Boscar Obarra]

Not surprised. Bots would be trading in and out on the same event, taking and laying odds as the prices fluctuate. You bet once, they bet 100 times.

Anyone familiar with the stock/futures markets knows how high frequency traders operate. Same idea.

Banning them in NJ. Not really feasible, and not sure its a good idea to try. Would make it \'better\' for manual players if they could, but I don\'t think they can enforce it.

Looking forward to exchange betting here, will make the game a lot more interesting.

[miff]

Symposium: Sophisticated number-crunching may be future of handicapping
By Matt Hegarty DRF

TUCSON, Ariz. – The era of Big Data is likely to usher in the widespread availability of sophisticated handicapping and betting programs that closely resemble the type of high-dollar systems that have operated in the shadows of the racing industry for the past 15 years, according to officials speaking at the University of Arizona Symposium on Racing and Gaming on Tuesday morning.

Whether the programs will be readily embraced by handicappers accustomed to less data-intensive but far more personal methods is entirely unclear. But presentations at the Symposium during a session devoted to Big Data – the term that has been given to current-day efforts to exploit the glut of information being churned out by applications connected to the internet – indicated that the day is soon coming when horseplayers of all budgets and experience will have access to the programs, for better or for worse.

Already, one company, predicteform.com, has developed a program using proprietary algorithms that analyze past-performance information over a range of races, applies that analysis to real-time odds feeds, and then spits out recommended bets based on those analyses. The lead investor in the company, Tom Grossman, appeared during the panel to describe the program, which is currently being marketed commercially.

For 15 years, investor-owned computerized robotic wagering programs, or CRWs, have performed the same dual analyses, but those programs are provided with a direct interface into the bet-processing system so that the programs can see every detail of the betting pools in real time and send thousands of wagers into the pools in a matter of seconds. Those systems are also operated exclusively at off-track betting outlets that reward the operators with rich rebates on their handle, allowing the owners of the systems to post profits at a lower return on investment than the typical bettor in the parimutuel pool.

It is not clear if the new commercially available systems will be as valuable to individual players if they are not also provided with a direct link into the pools and generous rebates. However, the new systems could provide competition to the existing computerized wagering systems, a dynamic that could upset the market in much the same way that the first widespread publication of speed figures decades ago led to a reduction in the advantage held by players who produced their own figures, as pointed out during the session by David Siegel, the president of a handicapping-products division of Equibase.

"We saw that as those products suddenly got into the hands of everyday consumers," Siegel said.

Much of the discussion of computerized-robotic wagering programs occurred after the session's formal presentations, largely spurred on by comments made by Todd Bowker, the general manager of Premier Turf Club, an account-wagering company that has CRW clients. Bowker defended the use of such programs, which have been the topic of debate in the racing industry for as long as they have existed, even if the most fervent debates have taken place in small corners of the industry.

However, the debate has widened over the past year as more and more racing constituencies have embraced calls for the sport to dramatically expand the amount of free data available to racing fans, including detailed betting data. Supporters of the concept have said that all other sports provide enormous amounts of data free of charge and that racing should do the same in order to keep pace in an increasingly data-centric world. Those calls have dovetailed with the debate over CRWs because of the robotic programs' seemingly favored access to parimutuel wagering pools and the benefits provided by the real-time look.

Equibase, the racing industry's official data collector and supplier, has made a sizeable amount of its in-house data available online in the past five years, but it has kept in place restrictions that prevent people from scraping the database for patterns, as some sports allow. At the same time, earlier this year the company forged a partnership with a sports-data marketing company, STATS, that develops proprietary predictive data tools for other sports, largely for the benefit of fantasy-sports players.

Jim Corelis, the senior vice president of STATS, said during his presentation at the symposium that the company "is setting [the algorithm] guys loose" on the Equibase database in an attempt to come up with new, simple predictive tools the company can provide to new and existing racing fans. He also said the company is working on a "dashboard" that can be used by customers to develop their own data-mining tools.

The effort by STATS and the effort by Grossman's company share a goal. Grossman acknowledged that his program "takes the work out of handicapping," while Siegel of Equibase said that much of the effort to create simple representations of complex interplays of handicapping factors would work best for new visitors to the racetrack.

\"I think that new fan wants to be told what to do, not be bothered with the particular data analysis,\" Seigel said.

That leads to a larger question as to whether the sport can attract and retain fans if the vast majority of the handicapping is done by computerized entities. And, it should be noted that after the advent of publicized speeds figures, data providers started publishing more data, not less.

Meanwhile, the sport's most ardent fans usually cite the richness of the sport's handicapping process as one of its most attractive features. In the future, the question might be: \"So who's yer robot like?\"

[Boscar Obarra]

Not sure why there\'s all this angst over \'real time\' access to pools. imo, many CRW\'s bet well before the bell, throughout the wagering. Do folks imagine they are all sitting there waiting for 0 seconds to post?

 Maybe there\'s this massive edge I\'m not seeing, and that\'s why so many are upset by this \'direct connection\' to the  tote mothership.

[miff]

\"Maybe there\'s this massive edge I\'m not seeing\"



If you saw the net daily settlements with hubs that handle the CRW\'s vs the rest,you would see it.

[Boscar Obarra]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"Maybe there\'s this massive edge I\'m not seeing\"
>
>
>
> If you saw the net daily settlements with hubs
> that handle the CRW\'s vs the rest,you would see
> it.


What I\'d see are their profits. I assume profits since they would not play otherwise.

That would tell me nothing about how the profit was achieved.

I\'ve said repeatedly , I have seen NO evidence of anyone betting after the gates have opened. If you want to see massive late money, check the Hong Kong Q pools. I guess they are past posting too. ;-)

If you\'re only thinking that a last look at the pools is some kind of massive edge, well, that\'s also overstated.

[TGJB]

I went into this earlier in the string. If what I suspect is happening actually is, you can\'t see it.

[miff]

The CRW issue has nothing to do with past posting.The ability of CRW to make many late bets is critical to that model and can\'t see how it would be successful without it.

Daily, there are people trying to past post. On several occasions, the stop betting command failed and wagering was open after the race started. On one occasion SAM machines failed to lock and substantial bets were made after the race.

Guess if I had to bet,think there is some past posting, where, who, how,dont know but do know the high level of incompetence of racing execs in general vs very savvy genius level computer propeller heads.

[Boscar Obarra]

Well, I can\'t vouch for the competence of those monitoring the pools. If they are stealing, they are doing it subtly for the most part. Or not doing it at all.

 9th TRI at AQU today, looks pretty light, 4.40 3.95  16.00 and only $234 for your trouble.  Doubt any chicanery, just overbet.

 Not sure how much leeway they give CRW in terms of posting their wagers. Do they demand the bets be transmitted and received by 1 or 2  seconds after the pool is closed, or do they only look at a timestamp (that would be very bad).

 If all bets must  in, then it would be near impossible to cheat without insider help.

[TGJB]

I\'ve been raising the t word (timestamp) for a few years now.

Basically, policing of this is at the same general level as drug policing. No assumptions of competence are safe.

[Boscar Obarra]

I\'d really like to see some examples of where people think something underhanded has happened.  Nebulous accusations based on misunderstanding how the pools trade isn\'t proof of larceny. Yeah, I know they scammed the Breeders Cup, can we use that one forever? ;-).

  We had a crowd insisting that 99-1 mistaken ringer was the coup of the century. Folks say a lot of things.

  I know Jerry doesn\'t fall into the tin foil hat category, so I\'m open to the possibility of fraud, but damn, I watch the pools pretty close when I watch them at all , and I aint seen it yet.

[Mathcapper]

Boscar Obarra Wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------
> Do they demand the bets be transmitted and received
> by 1 or 2  seconds after the pool is closed, or do
> they only look at a timestamp (that would be very bad).

God, if they\'re using timestamps, then there\'s almost assuredly rampant past-posting going on.

I haven\'t seen any evidence of it either, but then again I wouldn\'t expect to. I\'d expect it would be done shrewdly, under the radar, like mobsters skimming profits from a casino.