Interesting Robotic Wagering discussion started by Frank Angst

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Why and for what? What about when these algorithms miss and exactas overpay?

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.

Originally Posted by Kasept

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?

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%.

Originally Posted by Kasept

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.

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.

[odbaxter]

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.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by odbaxter

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.

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.

[JolyB]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Having a discussion with Maury Wolff this afternoon to get the best understanding possible of the topic in its' entirety. .

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?

[Port Conway Lane]

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.

[Benny]

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

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

...
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.

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.

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

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.

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.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by JolyB

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?

Yes.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

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.

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..

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%.

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).

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.

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..

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Kasept

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..

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.

Originally Posted by Kasept

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

Originally Posted by Kasept

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?

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.

Originally Posted by kasept

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

Absolutely!

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Kasept

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..

I think you are viewing this example from a "one trial" perspective rather than "in the long run". This matters more in a Pick 6 or other low probability wager because the volatility in success is much higher with a lower bankroll, but the net ROI over many trials for an equal player doesn't matter given the bankroll (assuming they are betting the same percentage of their bankroll to equalize the risk of ruin). Example:

Player (a) has a bankroll of $9,600 for the year and bets 100 pick 6's, all for the same $96. He hits 1 out of 100 (1%) for $10,000, for an ROI of +4.167%.

Player (b) has a bankroll of $150,000 for the year and bets 100 pick 6's, all for the same $1500. Because his "skill" is equal to player (a), he hits at the exact proportion to the amount wagered by player (a), so 15.625 of his pick 6's for the year for $10,000 each. His return is 4.167% as well.

The issue is volatility, which on a low probability wager is extremely high even with a large bankroll. Because player (a) wins at a much less frequent rate, it feels like he's a net loser to player (b), but in the long run their percentage returns would converge.

Similar situation: One player bets only even money shots. The other only bets 10-1 shots. Assuming the likelihood that the even money shot is exactly 10x more likely to win any given bet, the only difference in their long term returns would be how effective their selections are. But the paths to that final return would be very different.

[odbaxter]

How big a roller do you have to be to get in on this? I still haven't been able to find computerized access to instantaneously place a last second wager? Should I be approaching the tracks directly?
I would love to know that the 5/2 I'm about to jump on is actually going off at 8/5 and that the 7/2 is going out to 5/1. I'm not going to move the board but if I can bet it at the last second like a robot, I don't need a robot!