HORSEPLOP.COM
General Category => Harness Racing => Topic started by: Grandstand Handicapper on March 20, 2024, 06:29:25 PM
-
https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/computer-assisted-wagering-anatomy-of-a-deal/
FYI...
-
Just a reminder that not all handle is good handle
Gural provides huge rebates to these CAWs--and when they handle $3 million--everyone thinks that is just great.
It isn't.
Rebates and CAWs have basically eliminated the middle man--a trend across all sectors in the USA these days.
The entire system is rigged for the rich to get richer, have access that the rest of us do not. These false high handles--especially in CA and NJ where slots don't fund purses seem to have fooled a lot of people.
-
Knew of it, but not the details. Like it said in there, the tracks participating don't like to discuss it.
You know Jeffie doesn't like to see that story. Reaching those thresholds to maintain subsidies
with the use of this seems at the least shady, at the most detrimental to the bettors they claim
to be catering to. I don't bet or watch them, aside from a couple of big days like Hambo. Nice
posts from both you guys tmbz1
-
I highly doubt the big CAW bettors wager on the buggy races, they are too smart to bet on the Carnies
-
Do you invest in the stock market? No different. The little guy goes along for the ride as the corporations are the ones driving the sales of stocks which keeps the companies afloat every day. $2.00 bettors are not keeping racing going these days. Increasing handles is what racing is all about.
-
Do you invest in the stock market? No different. The little guy goes along for the ride as the corporations are the ones driving the sales of stocks which keeps the companies afloat every day. $2.00 bettors are not keeping racing going these days. Increasing handles is what racing is all about.
handle means little in harness racing as slots fund the purses
so increasing handles mean almost nothing
-
been using AI for years in Betting, it's nothing new. Not going to make you rich.... ngc3
-
Does anyone know how much if any of the Meadowlands handle is from CAW?
-
handle means little in harness racing as slots fund the purses
so increasing handles mean almost nothing
At non-casino tracks the handle is everything.
-
Just a reminder that not all handle is good handle
Gural provides huge rebates to these CAWs--and when they handle $3 million--everyone thinks that is just great.
It isn't.
Rebates and CAWs have basically eliminated the middle man--a trend across all sectors in the USA these days.
The entire system is rigged for the rich to get richer, have access that the rest of us do not. These false high handles--especially in CA and NJ where slots don't fund purses seem to have fooled a lot of people.
Your right on the money. The optics of the handles are not what they seem. As you pointed out more so in CA and NJ.
-
At non-casino tracks the handle is everything.
California is the only state with non casino tracks
NJ subsidizes purses via legislation
all other tracks fund purses through gaming
another misconception is that bettors are betting into bigger pools which they think is a good thing-what they don't realize is that the bigger pools are full of CAWs, artificial intelligence assisted bets,pool analyses aided bets, and bets after the bell--all with monster rebates
so when the M1 handles $3 mil-many folks think that is good--but I would rather not bet into pools which use those tools to help make those bets--it is not a level playing field
to answer an earlier question--i would estimate that at least half of M1 handle is CAW/heavily rebate related
wake up people
-
I highly doubt the big CAW bettors wager on the buggy races, they are too smart to bet on the Carnies
100% incorrect
they will bet on anything they have an advantage
-
Here's the precursor article...CAW 101...
https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/computer-assisted-wagering-101-for-california-stakeholders/
-
California is the only state with non casino tracks
NJ subsidizes purses via legislation
all other tracks fund purses through gaming
another misconception is that bettors are betting into bigger pools which they think is a good thing-what they don't realize is that the bigger pools are full of CAWs, artificial intelligence assisted bets,pool analyses aided bets, and bets after the bell--all with monster rebates
so when the M1 handles $3 mil-many folks think that is good--but I would rather not bet into pools which use those tools to help make those bets--it is not a level playing field
to answer an earlier question--i would estimate that at least half of M1 handle is CAW/heavily rebate related
wake up people
All well said. You NEVER see an "out of line" payoff at M1 when the CAW handles are in play. The algorythm funneling of money into each and every pool, in every race, levels the playing field across the board and completely eliminates any so called advantage that a smart individual bettor may be able to take advantage of. Minus CAW cash the pools might be around 1.5 million for 14 races, at best. Gural and Settlenuts love to tout their pool sizes but fail to tell average bettors that these pools do not benefit them, by far.
-
All well said. You NEVER see an "out of line" payoff at M1 when the CAW handles are in play. The algorythm funneling of money into each and every pool, in every race, levels the playing field across the board and completely eliminates any so called advantage that a smart individual bettor may be able to take advantage of. Minus CAW cash the pools might be around 1.5 million for 14 races, at best. Gural and Settlenuts love to tout their pool sizes but fail to tell average bettors that these pools do not benefit them, by far.
The hope is that one day, operators like Gural will be forced to provide complete transparency to the public. Until then, huge hidden CAW play certainly would help with the continuation of the subsidy from the state
-
Imagine Gural admitting half his handle is CAWs--and its not good for them?
he wouldn't like that very much if these truths came out.
-
You can write all the algorithms you want. But they will never factor in track bias, horse form warming up or a driver that is on point that night. And for the moron that says they can late punch. Read the F…ing article most tracks are shutting them off early.
-
been using AI for years in Betting, it's nothing new. Not going to make you rich.... ngc3
You sound like a real innovator since AI has only become mainstream in the past year. Unless of course your referring to the use of algorithms, which is not AI. You keep that pretty little head above water now, you hear. tmbz1
-
A lot of interesting and intriguing comments here. Thanks for that. Real gamblers, professionals, need to bet into large pools. It's just a fact. They have to be able to bet without substantially impacting the odds. Period. They could not care less about CAW handle...UNTIL it impacts them. Name me one professional who is complaining about the CAW player(s). Show me one on record. You can say that the rebates paid, the mere existence of the CAW player(s) impacts me -- but I say it doesn't. One professional, one of the biggest bettors in the game told me off the record, that if it weren't for the Meadowlands and Woodbine/Mohawk "paying" for the CAW player(s) -- they would lower the takeout? Really? Lowering the takeout always eliminates the track's competition (offshore for example). He then told me that those same tracks, or any other major track that attracts my play could provide me with incentives, and not the CAW player(s). Chicken and egg. I don't see one track changing their business model to me or for me because of the CAW player. They were around a lot longer than most people knew about them.
All that said, the CAW player(s) are not betting on horses. They are using objective science and algorithms, analyzing data, and playing math, numbers, formulas, whatever you want to call them. Me, I am handicapping races. I am picking and choosing the races I want to bet on. I handicap horses and the race. I watch them, look at them, gather information, and yes, I watch the odds, very, very closely. But I know the very few, select tracks I play, I know when they cut off the CAW player(s). Drag, delays, overlap reactions, whatever, all of it. That's valuable information to me. That impacts me. That information is perhaps priceless. Not to oversimplify, but I don't want to play a horse "strong" at 6-1, only to have him go off as the 2-1. CAW or late money aside, whether or not I would have bet the horse at 2-1 is not the question -- and I wouldn't answer that question anway, LOL -- but the odds change absolutely changes the structure of my bet, how I bet into the race, it changes my number(s) and perception, and quantification of "value" (yes, I quantify value).
But every professional I know, and I know most of them, none of them are boycotting, changing their career, or anything of the like because of CAW. If the $2 bettor is, so be it. Good luck to you. If you tell me 50% of the handle at the Meadowlands is coming from CAW -- tell me the difference if it disappeared tomorrow. Other than the handle being 50% lower, what impact is that going to have on the players who make up the remaining 50%?
-
The recent article mentioned player 17 has a positive 5% ROI before rebates, correct? Quite simply, all factors aside, if you are playing CAW 17's track, would you prefer they are in the pools or not in the pools?
-
A lot of interesting and intriguing comments here. Thanks for that. Real gamblers, professionals, need to bet into large pools. It's just a fact. They have to be able to bet without substantially impacting the odds. Period. They could not care less about CAW handle...UNTIL it impacts them. Name me one professional who is complaining about the CAW player(s). Show me one on record. You can say that the rebates paid, the mere existence of the CAW player(s) impacts me -- but I say it doesn't. One professional, one of the biggest bettors in the game told me off the record, that if it weren't for the Meadowlands and Woodbine/Mohawk "paying" for the CAW player(s) -- they would lower the takeout? Really? Lowering the takeout always eliminates the track's competition (offshore for example). He then told me that those same tracks, or any other major track that attracts my play could provide me with incentives, and not the CAW player(s). Chicken and egg. I don't see one track changing their business model to me or for me because of the CAW player. They were around a lot longer than most people knew about them.
All that said, the CAW player(s) are not betting on horses. They are using objective science and algorithms, analyzing data, and playing math, numbers, formulas, whatever you want to call them. Me, I am handicapping races. I am picking and choosing the races I want to bet on. I handicap horses and the race. I watch them, look at them, gather information, and yes, I watch the odds, very, very closely. But I know the very few, select tracks I play, I know when they cut off the CAW player(s). Drag, delays, overlap reactions, whatever, all of it. That's valuable information to me. That impacts me. That information is perhaps priceless. Not to oversimplify, but I don't want to play a horse "strong" at 6-1, only to have him go off as the 2-1. CAW or late money aside, whether or not I would have bet the horse at 2-1 is not the question -- and I wouldn't answer that question anway, LOL -- but the odds change absolutely changes the structure of my bet, how I bet into the race, it changes my number(s) and perception, and quantification of "value" (yes, I quantify value).
But every professional I know, and I know most of them, none of them are boycotting, changing their career, or anything of the like because of CAW. If the $2 bettor is, so be it. Good luck to you. If you tell me 50% of the handle at the Meadowlands is coming from CAW -- tell me the difference if it disappeared tomorrow. Other than the handle being 50% lower, what impact is that going to have on the players who make up the remaining 50%?
This "betting into a bigger pool" mentality is flawed, when about half the money is computer related
that half is professional, advantaged, heavily rebated money you would be better off without having that in the pools
same as the carryover--some folks think it is a "negative takeout" when in fact the CAWs are more involved when there is a carryover-so your imaginary takeout is nullified
the old mindset is outdated
-
So what is the difference in CAW and going to a casino and playing poker against a regular that gets rebates and comps? 5% ROI is good but still leaves money out there for a good handicapper
-
So what is the difference in CAW and going to a casino and playing poker against a regular that gets rebates and comps? 5% ROI is good but still leaves money out there for a good handicapper
duh, pari-mutual wagering is not the same as getting free hotel rooms and meals
those don't come out of everyone elses pocket
in horse racing-you are betting against entities that receive a huge rebate--you cant compete with that
-
So what is the difference in CAW and going to a casino and playing poker against a regular that gets rebates and comps? 5% ROI is good but still leaves money out there for a good handicapper
Not as much money for the good Handicapper as their would be without the 5% caw in the long term.
That caw's existence reduces a 1% roi player to about a -1% player. Long term. Approximately
-
The recent article mentioned player 17 has a positive 5% ROI before rebates, correct? Quite simply, all factors aside, if you are playing CAW 17's track, would you prefer they are in the pools or not in the pools?
I don't believe the 5% number, and the rebate is simply impossible to overcome. Thus, you can't make it all factors aside because that's not even hypothetical, it's unquantifiable. I also don't believe that the % of CAW groups at the Meadowlands is 50% or more. Regardless, all factors considered, of course I don't want them in the pools. But they are. This is the business I am in, LOL.
-
Not as much money for the good Handicapper as their would be without the 5% caw in the long term.
That caw's existence reduces a 1% roi player to about a -1% player. Long term. Approximately
Did you quantify that, or is that just a guess? Even a guess, what variables did you include? Thanks.
-
Did you quantify that, or is that just a guess? Even a guess, what variables did you include? Thanks.
It is a guess. Its impossible to quantify exactly but I firmly believe 5% roi player in the pools to the magnitude of player 17 will reduce an equally as sharp individual player about a point or 2. I have no idea how good the cCAW is at the meadowlands. They seem to bet vastly different from the others
-
It is a guess. Its impossible to quantify exactly but I firmly believe 5% roi player in the pools to the magnitude of player 17 will reduce an equally as sharp individual player about a point or 2. I have no idea how good the cCAW is at the meadowlands. They seem to bet vastly different from the others
the monster rebate player #17 receives must also be factored in.
The regular player has absolute no chance over the long haul.
-
If any average player would read how the JACKPOT pools are seeded and dispursed they would play into them again! Woodbine had the down to the dime breakdown in an article among or so ago! It is worth looking for this information without a doubt!
-
the monster rebate player #17 receives must also be factored in.
The regular player has absolute no chance over the long haul.
I do not believe "no chance" is accurate. But, it's way tougher betting into a successful CAW like 17. I'm less concerned about their rebate as I am them paying to get last call service. I think that's illegal. They can fire as many bets as they want after seeing the final poolsmin a millisecond. Obviously, no human can do that. Completely unfair