Interesting Robotic Wagering discussion started by Frank Angst

[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.