Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Racing Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 08-14-2018, 02:03 AM   #16
clicknow
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 3,641
Aren't there certain tracks like OP and Tampa that "hit list" CRWs?
clicknow is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-14-2018, 09:52 AM   #17
castaway01
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 3,816
I was just reading a thread on Rotogrinders (it's a daily fantasy sports site). A guy was complaining about "whales" dominating a recent contest. There was a $55 entry contest that had 6191 entries (you can enter multiple times) and paid out money to the top 250 lineups. Well, four players won 55% of the money. One guy had 61 of the 250 entries that cashed, another 34 entries. How could this be, the poster asked. What's the point of our even playing if these guys dominate?

If you look at the results of the DFS DraftKings contests, 1% of the players win 50% of the money. Sound familiar? Also, keep in mind that there are "sharks" that lost money on that contest that might win in the next contest, just like in horse racing. The average DFS "whale" also has a huge bankroll but churns through it, winning about 3%. Strangely, we've heard that exact number used in horse racing to estimate the whales' profits after rebates.

I don't have an answer here, just saying that if you're gambling against others who are much better capitalized and more talented, this is an issue. An option that DFS players have is entering contests that are limited to a single entry per person, or just a few entries. Maybe that's their version of exchange wagering, at least in spirit---something similar that somewhat avoids direct combat with the whales.

Unfortunately, sometimes the advice was just "you need to get better". As a simple fact, it's clearly true---nearly all of us have to get better or get out if we want to win money.
castaway01 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-14-2018, 11:39 AM   #18
GMB@BP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 5,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by castaway01 View Post
I was just reading a thread on Rotogrinders (it's a daily fantasy sports site). A guy was complaining about "whales" dominating a recent contest. There was a $55 entry contest that had 6191 entries (you can enter multiple times) and paid out money to the top 250 lineups. Well, four players won 55% of the money. One guy had 61 of the 250 entries that cashed, another 34 entries. How could this be, the poster asked. What's the point of our even playing if these guys dominate?

If you look at the results of the DFS DraftKings contests, 1% of the players win 50% of the money. Sound familiar? Also, keep in mind that there are "sharks" that lost money on that contest that might win in the next contest, just like in horse racing. The average DFS "whale" also has a huge bankroll but churns through it, winning about 3%. Strangely, we've heard that exact number used in horse racing to estimate the whales' profits after rebates.

I don't have an answer here, just saying that if you're gambling against others who are much better capitalized and more talented, this is an issue. An option that DFS players have is entering contests that are limited to a single entry per person, or just a few entries. Maybe that's their version of exchange wagering, at least in spirit---something similar that somewhat avoids direct combat with the whales.

Unfortunately, sometimes the advice was just "you need to get better". As a simple fact, it's clearly true---nearly all of us have to get better or get out if we want to win money.
Most the handicapping contests i play with horses have max limits on entries, so at least there is that.
GMB@BP is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-14-2018, 12:29 PM   #19
Jeff P
Registered User
 
Jeff P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: JCapper Platinum: Kind of like Deep Blue... but for horses.
Posts: 5,257
Single-pool wagering opens up new bet types, but many find it too complex:
http://www.drf.com/news/single-pool-...it-too-complex

Quote:
Longitude officials contend that single-pool wagering will provide a multitude of benefits, including the ability to display real-time odds and an increase in pool liquidity, a term that supporters of the system use to describe the ability of a bettor to place a wager of any size without dramatically changing the odds. That ability would presumably enable bettors to make larger and larger bets. It would also give incentives to racetracks to offer new bet types that can’t be justified under the present system because they do not draw enough wagers, supporters say.

Under the system, most wagers – whether exacta, place, superfecta, etc. – would be combined in a single pool. Using patented mathematical techniques that were developed to analyze the prices of commodities and derivatives on exchanges, the pool’s calculator would analyze the amount of money on a specific finish-order outcome to determine payouts. In practical terms, if a horse is being played more heavily in exacta bets to finish first relative to the money bet on the horse to win, the win price for the horse would be lower than in a standard mutuel pool to reflect the positions taken by the exacta players.

I'm against this.

The proposed changes call for all pools to be merged into a single pool.

I predict that if adopted, the new system will cause the avg win mutuel for true longshots to go down (and not by an insignificant amount.)

Imo, this change, if adopted - would make it harder on a guy like me.

Imo this change, if adopted - would also make it easier on the whale syndicates. (They wouldn't need to go as deep in terms of coverage as they do now. They could bet even more money on the top 2 or 3 in the field than they do now.)

Simple observation: Look at the wps pool amounts and percentages for any horse paying a big win mutuel under the current system.

True longshots have a really tiny percentage of total win pool vs. the other horses in the race.

But generally that same true longshot ends up with a higher percentage of the total place and show pool than it does for the win pool.

If the new system is adopted and all pools are merged together into a single pool:

What do you think is going to happen to the win mutuel of a true longshot?

Hint: I don't see it going up.



-jp

.
__________________
Team JCapper: 2011 PAIHL Regular Season ROI Leader after 15 weeks
www.JCapper.com
Jeff P is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-14-2018, 12:54 PM   #20
GMB@BP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 5,870
Jeff,

Thats why I posted the article and tied it in with this thread, its another step to help the CRW teams.

What I find so disgusting is how open the JC and the report are at stating they need to do all this things which clearly will not grow the game but are needed to keep feeding the whales.

And then they get to pay a management fee (increase in takeout?) to this company to run it.

What a farce.
GMB@BP is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-14-2018, 01:48 PM   #21
AltonKelsey
Veteran
 
AltonKelsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,831
Jeff P, I'm a little fuzzy on the workings of merging, but Im pretty sure that place and show money have no impact on win prices.



How could it?


Merging consolidates LIKE position money, Top horse in EX,TRI,SUPER, etc.


As I said, Im not up to speed on the details, but I believe that's correct .

Last edited by AltonKelsey; 08-14-2018 at 01:50 PM.
AltonKelsey is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-14-2018, 02:25 PM   #22
Poindexter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by AltonKelsey View Post
Jeff P, I'm a little fuzzy on the workings of merging, but Im pretty sure that place and show money have no impact on win prices.



How could it?


Merging consolidates LIKE position money, Top horse in EX,TRI,SUPER, etc.


As I said, Im not up to speed on the details, but I believe that's correct .
I agree. Also like this aspect quite a bit (exactly what I proposed in a post a while back).

from the drf article Jeff linked


The system would allow bettors to place wagers that are akin to Wall Street plays, such as limit orders. For example, a bettor could place a $100 win wager on a horse, but the bet would be accepted only if the horse’s odds remained above a certain price, say, 5-1, at the time betting closed. Bettors could even designate portions of a large bet to go into the pool at different prices.


-----------------------------

If I am understanding correctly (and I very well may not be) they are basically just ironing out inefficiencies in various pools(horse is 2-1 on top in the win pool, 3-1 on top in the trifecta pool, 4-1 on top in the exacta pool and the algo adjusts all the prices to reflect say a blended 3-1 in all pools. For the most part it is probably something whales are going to do in the closing seconds anyhow (at a point other bettors cannot take adavantage) so in my eyes it is probably a good thing, provided we don't see a takeout hike to pay for it. Obviously I need a lot clearer understanding how it works than the drf article gave to really give an intelligent decision, so this is just an initial reaction for me.

Last edited by Poindexter; 08-14-2018 at 02:28 PM.
Poindexter is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-14-2018, 07:13 PM   #23
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by AltonKelsey View Post
I still say giving someone a 7% discount is an unfair advantage.


How would you feel if they gave someone a zero takeout account?
It depends if I was that person.

Seriously, I think the whole things is BS. I just don't know if there is a solution.

Let's say they eliminated rebates and lowered the take across the board for everyone instead (for a theoretical net of zero to the industry bottom line).

I don't think the net would end up being zero.

The take reduction would be worth less than the rebate amounts to the biggest customers. If the biggest customers then left, the handle would take a big hit.

The only thing they could do is give everyone the same large rebate (effectively lowering the take substantially). That would be fair and what everyone has been wishing for for along time. But I think if they lowered the take that much they would certainly take a big hit in the short term and it would probably not be optimal for the tracks over the long term either.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"

Last edited by classhandicapper; 08-14-2018 at 07:20 PM.
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-14-2018, 07:19 PM   #24
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P View Post
Single-pool wagering opens up new bet types, but many find it too complex:
http://www.drf.com/news/single-pool-...it-too-complex

Simple observation: Look at the wps pool amounts and percentages for any horse paying a big win mutuel under the current system.

True longshots have a really tiny percentage of total win pool vs. the other horses in the race.

But generally that same true longshot ends up with a higher percentage of the total place and show pool than it does for the win pool.

If the new system is adopted and all pools are merged together into a single pool:

What do you think is going to happen to the win mutuel of a true longshot?

Hint: I don't see it going up.



-jp

.

You would hope the algorithm is smart enough to understand that the probabilities of a horse placing or showing are related to his chances of winning, but not perfectly. So the payoffs would reflect that in the same way they sometimes get reflected in current pools.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-14-2018, 08:01 PM   #25
Jeff P
Registered User
 
Jeff P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: JCapper Platinum: Kind of like Deep Blue... but for horses.
Posts: 5,257
From the article :
https://www.drf.com/news/single-pool...it-too-complex

Quote:
The new system tweaks the way money is distributed from the pools. In the system, it’s possible – in fact, it’s probable – that a portion of the money bet by players of one bet type will be distributed instead to players of another bet type.
The above quote has me thinking this could turn out to be a huge can of worms.

As a horseplayer: I want to know what my odds are going in.

I don't want my win mutuel on a longshot diluted because the whales boxed my horse with the favorite in the exacta. (Or boxed my horse with the first and second favorites in the tri.)




-jp

.
__________________
Team JCapper: 2011 PAIHL Regular Season ROI Leader after 15 weeks
www.JCapper.com
Jeff P is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-14-2018, 09:03 PM   #26
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P View Post
From the article :
https://www.drf.com/news/single-pool...it-too-complex



The above quote has me thinking this could turn out to be a huge can of worms.

As a horseplayer: I want to know what my odds are going in.

I don't want my win mutuel on a longshot diluted because the whales boxed my horse with the favorite in the exacta. (Or boxed my horse with the first and second favorites in the tri.)




-jp

.
What is the purpose of this wagering plan other than to cause even more chaos on the odds-board than what we have now? Is this just a prop so the Whales can have a deeper overall pool to swin in? How does the non-whale benefit by the implementation of this new idea?

If they are just inventing new toys for the Whales to play with...why don't they just come out and tell us to find something else to do with our time?
__________________
Live to play another day.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-14-2018, 09:34 PM   #27
GMB@BP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 5,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
What is the purpose of this wagering plan other than to cause even more chaos on the odds-board than what we have now? Is this just a prop so the Whales can have a deeper overall pool to swin in? How does the non-whale benefit by the implementation of this new idea?

If they are just inventing new toys for the Whales to play with...why don't they just come out and tell us to find something else to do with our time?
With the statements that have been made I would contend that they are being very transparent, so if one choses to bet into it then seems like at least they warned the smaller player.
GMB@BP is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-14-2018, 11:49 PM   #28
Seabiscuit@AR
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 659
One clarification from this report. The whales are not just looking to bet at the biggest tracks. The whales want to bet in the biggest pools they can find. They want the Kentucky Derby pools to appear every day if possible. But they will bet at every track they can find a betting advantage. They will bet at Yavapai Downs/Arizona Downs if they can find a bet there

In fact they likely make up a bigger percentage of handle at the smaller tracks as they get bigger rebates there

The proposal by the Jockey Club to buy up small tracks that fail is insane. The whales get massive rebates at these tracks and then send them bust by driving all the non rebate players away. But now the Jockey Club is proposing buying these failing small tracks just so the whales can keep making a mint
Seabiscuit@AR is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-14-2018, 11:55 PM   #29
GMB@BP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 5,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabiscuit@AR View Post
One clarification from this report. The whales are not just looking to bet at the biggest tracks. The whales want to bet in the biggest pools they can find. They want the Kentucky Derby pools to appear every day if possible. But they will bet at every track they can find a betting advantage. They will bet at Yavapai Downs/Arizona Downs if they can find a bet there

In fact they likely make up a bigger percentage of handle at the smaller tracks as they get bigger rebates there

The proposal by the Jockey Club to buy up small tracks that fail is insane. The whales get massive rebates at these tracks and then send them bust by driving all the non rebate players away. But now the Jockey Club is proposing buying these failing small tracks just so the whales can keep making a mint
in a win pool of 4k i dont see how they can make much profit given they can only wager small amounts every race. Maybe I am wrong but seems like they are bit stuck at those tracks.
GMB@BP is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-15-2018, 12:51 AM   #30
Seabiscuit@AR
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 659
I have never understood how they can make much profit in a pool of 4K or 5K. But they still do form on these races and bet into them. Maybe the small tracks offer them some super rebate deal on small pools to keep their tracks alive. It does not make sense but I have no doubt they still play the tiniest of pools
Seabiscuit@AR is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.