Gural getting rid of the drag betweeen races. Does CAW wagering even care?

[pocketrocketwinner]

If you believe the last two posters, which I happen to, then it just verifies what is in the back
of all of our minds: We are suckers to bet horses or at least the tracks that are known to have
 CAW participation. Not that we are gonna stop.

The numbers in thoroughbred are staggering. Caw play way way up and human play way way down. We really don't know much of anything about them in harness. It's information that is concealed and you are insulted and directed to go bet some other form of gambling if you ask about it.

[pocketrocketwinner]

the Cella family, which owns Oaklawn Park, will not allow CAWs into any of their pools...and they didn't before they received historical racing machines

they know that the average bettor is getting fleeced everyday

Thoroughbred tracks are actually now promoting new wagers where they don't allow CAWs. Says alot about the other 95% of wagers they offer with them in the pools doesn't it?

[Papillon]

Thoroughbred tracks are actually now promoting new wagers where they don't allow CAWs. Says alot about the other 95% of wagers they offer with them in the pools doesn't it?

Yes, I have seen pick 5s that do not allow CAW play advertised

as far as CAWs in harness--for sure Mohawk and M1--due to large human handle

I don't think they would bother at tracks like Ocean Downs or Bangor--but other entities like the hub in Kentucky and another hub in Oregon for sure bet after the bell--not with pool analyses--just with their eyeballs watching lineups and pounding them on the first turn

[getreal]

I think this is a big mistake by Jeff, while I applaud him for trying, I think from a business point of view
this will make handle go down and possibly significantly.

[Papillon]

I think this is a big mistake by Jeff, while I applaud him for trying, I think from a business point of view
this will make handle go down and possibly significantly.

He pretty much assumes his bettors don't know about Elite Turf Club

he doesn't think they are very bright-and generally speaking-he is correct about his fans

[pocketrocketwinner]

Gulfstream park added a middle pick 5 tomorrow that prohibits caws. "Retail players only"

Makes the 2 other pick 5s seem real fair to the human bettors.
I don't see jeff gural taking this route but who knows

[Grandstand Handicapper]

Gulfstream park added a middle pick 5 tomorrow that prohibits caws. "Retail players only"

Makes the 2 other pick 5s seem real fair to the human bettors.
I don't see jeff gural taking this route but who knows

Excellent point. More importantly, personally, I hope this is the beginning of massive change re the CAW's. Gural is not a moron. He's very smart. He had a meeting with some major bettors late in the meet last year. He is supposed to have another series of meetings this year. Another poster here was invited to last year's meeting. The message given to Gural, without any misunderstanding possible was that CAW's are not just "reality" and not just annoying, an inconvenience, or even frustrating. They, without question, are a contributor to a lack of integrity in wagering. They are a serious problem!

In short, the solution offered to Gural was simple-----all wagering, from all sources and origins-----must cease before the start of the race. One major bettor-----a professional, who is well respected, who has been in this game for 40 years, and his one of the few people who actually make a living betting on horses-----went further and said all wagering should be cut off when the control of the race is given to the starter. One response-----which was given in the context of a larger topic-----was that it cuts both ways as when a horse breaks well before the start of the race, the facts show that horse's odds go up. Great, that's like saying today is Friday. While it's factually correct, it doesn't impact or solve the problem at hand. My position is that while CAW's certainly impact the pools in a major way, but they are not solely or exclusively responsible for all odds swings and changes after the start of a race. Show me a horse that is on the gate, moving forward, on the engine, in the bridle, and that horse leaves, and an overwhelming most of the time, that horse's odds go down after the start. And this was before CAW's. That occurence is older than dirt. It's becoming less noticable and less significant because more handle comes from off-track than on, but that's not the point.

I couldn't care less if a 3-1, or 5-2 ML favorite goes down to even money after the start of the race-----and X % comes from CAW's and Y % comes from everywhere else, it doesn't matter. It's unacceptable. Period. It doesn't matter where it comes from and why.

When Gural says, "handle will go down"-----my response is, that might be true. At first. But for how long? It might go down in the short-term (and yes, that's a relative term). But, in the end, long-term, I am not sure handle won't go up. No different than throwing out a leading, high percentage trainer, who fills races, and who is highly questionable or scrutinized. People say, you can't throw him/her out because they fill races, they have too many horses, we'll have short fields, and so on. Some true, some not. But if you throw that trainer out.....you might have more difficulty filling races, you might struggle immediately, etc., but, when people start to hear they don't have to race against that trainer, they will start shipping horses there to race! It's true. The first guy through the door always gets bloody, LOL.

[Papillon]

Excellent point. More importantly, personally, I hope this is the beginning of massive change re the CAW's. Gural is not a moron. He's very smart. He had a meeting with some major bettors late in the meet last year. He is supposed to have another series of meetings this year. Another poster here was invited to last year's meeting. The message given to Gural, without any misunderstanding possible was that CAW's are not just "reality" and not just annoying, an inconvenience, or even frustrating. They, without question, are a contributor to a lack of integrity in wagering. They are a serious problem!

In short, the solution offered to Gural was simple-----all wagering, from all sources and origins-----must cease before the start of the race. One major bettor-----a professional, who is well respected, who has been in this game for 40 years, and his one of the few people who actually make a living betting on horses-----went further and said all wagering should be cut off when the control of the race is given to the starter. One response-----which was given in the context of a larger topic-----was that it cuts both ways as when a horse breaks well before the start of the race, the facts show that horse's odds go up. Great, that's like saying today is Friday. While it's factually correct, it doesn't impact or solve the problem at hand. My position is that while CAW's certainly impact the pools in a major way, but they are not solely or exclusively responsible for all odds swings and changes after the start of a race. Show me a horse that is on the gate, moving forward, on the engine, in the bridle, and that horse leaves, and an overwhelming most of the time, that horse's odds go down after the start. And this was before CAW's. That occurence is older than dirt. It's becoming less noticable and less significant because more handle comes from off-track than on, but that's not the point.

I couldn't care less if a 3-1, or 5-2 ML favorite goes down to even money after the start of the race-----and X % comes from CAW's and Y % comes from everywhere else, it doesn't matter. It's unacceptable. Period. It doesn't matter where it comes from and why.

When Gural says, "handle will go down"-----my response is, that might be true. At first. But for how long? It might go down in the short-term (and yes, that's a relative term). But, in the end, long-term, I am not sure handle won't go up. No different than throwing out a leading, high percentage trainer, who fills races, and who is highly questionable or scrutinized. People say, you can't throw him/her out because they fill races, they have too many horses, we'll have short fields, and so on. Some true, some not. But if you throw that trainer out.....you might have more difficulty filling races, you might struggle immediately, etc., but, when people start to hear they don't have to race against that trainer, they will start shipping horses there to race! It's true. The first guy through the door always gets bloody, LOL.

doesn't this infer that what I have bolded is not happening?

[pocketrocketwinner]

I see no evidence whatsoever of Gural's alleged superior intelligence translating to the wagering aspect of the meadowlands. Simply put, regarding all things wagering, I think is in way over his head. He might be brilliant in lots of aspects but in life but that doesn't mean he's running the gambling side of the meadolands well. I don't think there is a track, any breed, in north America where you see more of a caw affect on the win odds.

[Stan durbread]

CAWS bet after the bell. Kentucky can bet after the bell. Heard this for years but absolutely no proof. Tracks and wagering companies make their money no matter the outcome. What benefits the track and tote owners to allow this??

[Papillon]

CAWS bet after the bell. Kentucky can bet after the bell. Heard this for years but absolutely no proof. Tracks and wagering companies make their money no matter the outcome. What benefits the track and tote owners to allow this??

there would be a massive loss in handle if they cut off everyone before the gate leaves

[Scooteroo]

Back in the 70's at the old Brandywine Raceway, the bell rang 1 or 2 seconds after the start but the machines didn't lock for another 5 or 6 seconds. A bunch of us would be watching the TV screen to see what horses are leaving in front of the windows and the teller would punch out the tickets for us. We either bet exacta boxes or straight win bets.

[pocketrocketwinner]

CAWS bet after the bell. Kentucky can bet after the bell. Heard this for years but absolutely no proof. Tracks and wagering companies make their money no matter the outcome. What benefits the track and tote owners to allow this??

Thorough studies have been conducted. We know caws bet after retail players (i call them human players) by a fraction of a second.
The strategy is to entice large Caw money into your pools by giving them a technology edge to allow them to bet after humans and also by charging then a fraction of what humans get charged to bet. In turn, this increased handle in the pools will attract more human handle cause humans can then bet more money into the larger pools.

Studies have proven that the strategy didn't work, across the board. Caw handle keeps increasing and it chased human dollars out of the game (pool scoops, late odds changes eventually proved to direct human handle out of the game and to other forms of gamling).

Caw handle is fpr sure 30% of all handle in the u.s. some believe that number has since surpassed the 40% mark. Eventually, the majority of the pools will be Caw money and at some point the whole thing crashes to the ground.

[Grandstand Handicapper]

doesn't this infer that what I have bolded is not happening?

Well, there is nothing to debate about the starter point. That is simply not the case. I don't know anybody who would debate that. Period.

As far as "all wagering, from all sources and origins-----must cease before the start of the race"-----well, two things. One, that's for you to decide. It's what you believe. And two, directly related to that, is that this discussion opens the door as to timing aspects of this------the flushing of the pools, when certain hub/external pools, etc., actually get processed and posted to the pools where the live race is being run.  Before and after? Like I said, that's for you to decide. Even if they cut off wagering when the race is handed over to the starter-----there will still be monies coming into the pools after the start of the race, and there will still be changes in odds after the start of the race. But, if you think CAW's or some individual(s) are simply making bets after the race goes off, or even as late as heading into the first turn, or whatever-----that's for you to decide.

[Locked in with pace]

    CAWs have been around, but for some reason, this year, the amount of dollars they bet on win, place, and show on a horse far exceeds years past. We have never seen so many 1/5 or even 1/9 shots at the Meadowlands.  And the CAW.s MAKE THIER MONEY ON THE AMOUNT OF DOLLARS THEY BET. $2.20 payoffs don't bother them.
    And they are betting more for they are making more.  Simple Math