Interesting Robotic Wagering discussion started by Frank Angst
 

Interesting piece by Frank Angst at Bloodhorse about Computer Robototic Wagering and whether it could fall under the lurching restrictions on DFS.. Many fascinating aspects to this whole arena including rebates, tote protocols and more..

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/wgoh/...ank-angst.aspx

Computer-Robotic Wagering (CRW)
By Frank Angst

Computer-robotic wagering (CRW) has helped prop up pari-mutuel handle in recent years but has made race betting less attractive for every other player by making it difficult for racing to attract new bettors. Now, based on law enforcement officials’ assessment of fantasy sports wagering, CRW may be illegal.

Considering one in five dollars bet into pari-mutuel pools in 2014 came from CRW, a determination that this betting form is illegal would devastate racing’s economic engine short-term. But long-term, eliminating this unfair advantage in which players use computers programmed to find value in pari-mutuel pools and then target wagers into those pools could lead to a healthier business model.

The instantaneous knowledge of probable payouts, ability to wager thousands of different combinations, and the capability to make those bets just a few seconds before the race when odds have settled, provide CRW players unfair advantages over other bettors. Even if that “human” bettor could instantly discover pool value, speech limitations and relatively slow fingertips would prevent punching in thousands of wagers to take full advantage of that insight.

This setup is especially damaging in converting new players into regular players. Even if new players don’t fully understand what is happening when they bet races, they soon recognize there are few instances where the winning payout is better than expected. The chance of finding that type of payout—an overlay—is race wagering’s real attraction, one of its few advantages over casino games. CRW players have helped reduce instances of such overlays, weakening the betting product for everyone else.

When racing has problems competing with casinos for wagering dollars, some experts will tell you it’s because pari-mutuel wagering is too complicated. Don’t buy that for a second. Poker players have invested countless hours reading books and attending camps to improve their games. Fantasy sports players devote days on end to reading stat sheets and news reports looking for ways to top their rivals and win money.

Pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing is the original daily fantasy sport and should be enjoying a renaissance as bettors look for a greater challenge than pushing a slot machine button. Casino executives at this year’s Global Gaming Expo acknowledged some floor space needs to be converted from mindless slot machines to games-of-skill preferred by younger bettors. But racing’s current model that relies on high takeout and a select few CRW players poaching off others has left pari-mutuel wagering ill-equipped to take advantage of these trends.

New horseplayers are no match for CRW players who receive lucrative rebates to encourage increased play. Those rebates are made possible, in part, by the high takeout paid by new players. If this sad cycle sounds criminal, it may be.

When New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman this month asked the two leading daily fantasy sites to stop operating in the state, he referenced unfair advantages for some players.

“… both companies consistently use deceptive advertising to lure consumers into an unregulated online gambling operation that, while marketed as a game that anyone can win, in fact distributes the vast majority of winnings to a small subset of experienced, highly sophisticated players,” Schneiderman said.

The New York Times and Wall Street Journal have reported the FBI is investigating similar problems in daily fantasy sports. The Times reported in October, “many of the professional (fantasy players) use automated processes that let them change hundreds, if not thousands, of lineups in seconds, a decided advantage when last-minute changes are made in the lineups in real football, basketball, or baseball teams.”

That description sounds a lot like CRW. It may be only a matter of time before law enforcement takes a look at horse racing’s unfair pari-mutuel model.

Despite the short-term pain, it’s time for racing to shake its unfair model. Perhaps CRW could gradually be phased out before law enforcement takes action. After all, the money pumped into the current system by CRW players has not been enough to offset the lack of new players sticking around, players reducing play, or players completely leaving the sport. Pari-mutuel wagering is declining or flat and CRW players are part of the reason other players are reducing play and new players aren’t sticking.

Eliminating CRW and putting in place optimal takeout rates for all players so that everyone competes equally would restore the attraction fantasy sports bettors currently enjoy—finding the edge. Millions of new players are finding that attraction in fantasy sports; they should be finding it in horse racing.

Here, here; about time :tro:

Why and for what? What about when these algorithms miss and exactas overpay? The CRW is in it for the rebate and are only looking to stay close to breakeven. Who says their money in the pools isn't a net gain?

The takeout question is a separate issue within this discussion as is the access the CRW has to interject at the last second. The unknown is what is the potential positive impact of the CRW money out of the pools might be and would their exit (exclusion) help trim takeout rates to bring bettors to the table?

There's a LOT of moving parts to this.

Here's Scott Jagow's extensive CRW piece from a couple years ago for added background..

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ra...race-wagering/

What do you mean by "overpay". If you mean that the exacta pays more than the last projected payout, okay. But if you mean the bettor is getting some kind of windfall, then no. Just because the CRW "misses" doesn't mean the payout becomes an overlay. More likely, the winning bet was still an underlay.

It may or may not be a net gain for the track. But it's definitely a net loss for the average bettor. This quote from Tampa Bay Downs's manager in your Scott Jagow link sums it up accurately:

"Effectively what happens when you have these high-volume outfits and they win more than the norm, you're effectively raising your takeout on the rest of the players in your pools. And that's just not good business.”

If takeout is 18% and some group or groups with a bet-timing advantage can breakeven while making up 1/3 of the pool, then the rest of the bettors will be losing at a combined rate of 27%.

Agree. But as far as computer access to the pool info and the ability to bet after all non-computer bettors, a CRW seems to have patently unfair advantages.

Can someone please post a couple of links to these types of CRW's?
I'm not necessarily going to give up the experience that picking my own winners brings, but not looking into this seems to be sticking my head in the sand.

If they can achieve the ability to stay close to breakeven while betting at a high volume and moving odds late -- they're terrible competition to have from a bettors prospective.

I'd obviously much rather bet against hunch players or people who overbet popular jockeys. That said, most decent handicappers/horseplayers are not close to being long-term breakeven players. When I was 18-years-old and worked primarily as a teller but also occasionally customer service for Players Card members, I was able to monitor all the Off-track Wagering patrons who bet on a card. I knew the people and I could (and did) view and print out all their action over long stretches.

I don't play Daily Fantasy Sports, but I would also guess that similar people with sophisticated algorithms do well in relation to the average competent player.

That said, an algorithm will probably be more effective in DFS than it would assessing value on a horse race -- as I think more human skill and judgement can be applied to the latter.

Just as the exactas pay less than the late probable displayed, they 'should' pay more when unidentified exacta targets come in. But the robotics cover an inordinate amount of potential results and widely depress the prices, yes..

Right. That's the whole question though the working number is 15-20% of total handle and the WPS/exacta pools are their area. And you don't necessarily know where the target is at any particular time. You can gravitate toward tracks like OP and TAM to avoid them or play in pools where their programming is neutered (tris, super, multis).

I'm not an economics guy, but aren't most equity markets less than a level playing field? Isn't there a patently unfair advantage for any whale getting rebates or with players that can punch $1,500 P6 tix over a typical $96 or $244 play? Where is the line between unbalanced and unacceptable? They certainly have an advantage and make it hard(er) for everyone else, but is that reason to exclude them from the pools?

The whole thing is a fascinating debate and emblematic of how complex the game and its' vexing issues are..

What's interesting about that is the 'human skill and judgement' factor is equally what the CRW creators/operators count on as their grind-it-out edge..

Haven't seen where the CRW's have ever made that public offering opportunity suggested in Jagow's piece.. Having a discussion with Maury Wolff this afternoon to get the best understanding possible of the topic in its' entirety. Will find out.

This topic could make for a very interesting interview on ATR.

Will there come a point at which the CRW's ruin the assumptions of the other CRW's if too many of them are in the mutual pool at the same time?

There is something that doesn't add up about the assumption, or the given that these programs are privy to the "final" odds and then have the ability to wager accordingly. The split second their last wager is placed the "final" odds change yet again.

While I understand that the return to a bettor who may have had the $20 winner may have been diminished by 15% in one circumstance, in another race the return on an $11 horse may have been 15% more than he would have had without the benefit of the CRW.

dana parham interview
 

http://www.harnesslink.com/News/Inte...-gambler-79610

* sorry viideo links dead

Try this Oaklawn article http://swtimes.com/sports/sports-col...g-horse-racing

... “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.”

- See more at: http://swtimes.com/sports/sports-col....4iTVPWiH.dpuf

If someone is routinely breaking even, then the rest of the bettors must be doing worse than the track takeout. There's nothing abnormal or intrinsically unfair about that. The question here is whether the people who are breaking even have an unfair advantage given to them by their access to digital pool information and ability to bet after everyone else.

The bottom line remains that the rest of the bettors do worse than they would do if the breakeven late bettors weren't in the pool.


I don't get why CRW's wouldn't be betting trifectas. I thought they did, in fact. Maybe you can ask Maury Wolff.

Those are good points about the rebate and bankroll advantages. But IMO no one should be given an information advantage that is not available to other bettors. That's where the line should be drawn. The CRWs get two types of information advantage. First, they get a digital form of the complete pool breakdown, allowing them to instantly spot overlays. Second, they can bet at the last second, giving them payoff information that is better than what other bettors can know.

I can't think of any other (legal) gambling situation where one group is preferentially allowed to bet last. Who would ever sit down at a Hold'em game if he or she had to always bet from early position? Only a total rube.

Absolutely!

Yes.

It would be an unfair advantage if they had up to the second updates and I didn't. But that info would't help me unless I knew what their wager was first. Even if I know what the final odds are, I still have to pick the winner.
If everyone had set odds the only thing that changes is the reshuffling of decision making. The same amount of money is lost by all horseplayers.

They're trimming the top end of payoffs and raising the lower end.
My job is to select the winner.
I have to accept the payoff and know that sometimes I will get more than I expected and sometimes less.

It should be a live ticker for everyone. Even if it was I'm responsible for my decision making. I struggle with it all the time. Do I bet the 5-1 or the 6-1 or both. Maybe I should pass the race.

They're betting every horse in the race, correct? You can't bet all of them, or can you? Money flows in on who they believe are the best values and on everyone else to a lesser degree to minimize losses. Am I wrong about this?
Shouldn't we just get the rebates they get?

I welcome their money. I would like to know why pool info isn't similar to a stock ticker with time and sales.

I dont have an issue with crw. Its simply a sign of the times and is happening in every other financial, gambling market. Smart people with big wallets taking advantage of a situation..i applaud them

Really?

Where in a casino is one gambler given access by the casino to information that is not available to all other players?

Where in a casino can one gambler gain a clear advantage by being the last to bet.

As I mentioned, poker players have an advantage when they are the last to bet. That's why in Hold'Em the dealer button passes on every round. A blackjack card counter gets an advantage by being the last to play his or her hand, but any gambler who wants that position can sit down and take it. It is not reserved for favored customers or those with fat wallets.

I must be missing something here, but I see crw money as a good thing also. It was stated earlier that most of that money is bet into WPS and exacta pools. In a 10 horse race there is a 10% chance that money is on the horse that I bet. That would mean 90% of the time I am getting extra value on the horse that I bet. Also there are 90 different exacta combinations in a 10 horse field. The chances that their last second big exacta bet is on my combination is very slim, thus giving me extra value. Can someone give me the scenario that crw hurts my wallet on an ongoing basis?