FrankD. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not having this capability is like using a
> Flinstone flip phone in the age of smartphones.
>
> Rocky,
> Great analogy considering I was trying to call our
> beloved Uncle Bill for 3 weeks, finally I called
> his wife’s phone. She told me since they put a
> new metal roof on the house, Billy can’t get
> phone calls at home...... You can’t make this
> up.
>
> TGJB tried to get him to buy a smart phone, $800
> no way, so he went to buy $144 flip phone to
> replace his 10 year old Flintstone version that
> was not working.
> The guy looked at his dinosaur and did something to
> it so it works. It works great except at his
> Florida home where he spends 6 months a year not
> getting phone calls. ☎️
>
> Antonio Meucci

[color=#FF0000][b]Antonio Meucci – LOL! Bill and I had the same conversation recently. Apologies to TGJB but I’m afraid I may have nudged Uncle Bill in that direction as I speak from experience. Still got a Flinstone myself – $50 model that rings as loud as a siren and gets crystal clear reception (notwithstanding metal roofs of course). Never found much need for a “smart”phone (I carry around my laptop instead when needed which has the horsepower to run big spreadsheets), although it does elicit some strange looks from millennials..[/b]
[/color]

BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The "equal footing" argument is usually made as an
> argument against rebates. Rebates allow the
> computer groups (and others) to make a profit even
> when their bets (before rebate) are just
> break-even or slightly unprofitable. Because of
> their access to the tote, their ability to use
> pool information to calculate expected values and
> optimal bet amounts almost instantly, and their
> ability to place large wagers in batches at the
> last minute, they can drive the odds down to a
> level that is profitable for them but not for
> those with no or smaller rebates.

[color=#FF0000][b]Wish there was a like button I could hit for this. Excellent response, sums things up precisely and succinctly. Part of the reason why horses that used to pay $6.60 are now paying $5.20.[/b]
[/color]

banditbeau Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rocky, your comment that horse players need more
> help with betting echoes what I was trying to get
> to in a post about six weeks ago on the red board
> issue. Horseplayers don’t know how to bet, as a
> whole, and can’t make fast enough updates and
> changes compared to the computers if they have
> that preparation . The problem seems to be the
> computer guys don’t have to worry about how to
> “bet” as they cover all possible angles and
> then as was mentioned if they can be close to
> breaking even, the rebates make up the difference
> in terms of net profit. Otherwise it seems each
> time computers have taken on humans in almost
> every venue computers prevail. Computers versus
> human at blackjack, computers win, computers
> versus humans at chess, computers win. Computers
> versus humans in the stock market, computers again
> . Vegas did as Mr. Wolff suggested and doesn’t
> allow computers. Wall Street, that’s another
> story. Horse racing’s future of humans versus
> computers seems to be pretty clear with a
> predictable outcome. It would be interesting to
> hear from some of the board watchers who follow
> Oaklawn closely where they apparently don’t
> allow the batch bettors and see what is going on
> there? You still have the issue of betting
> protocols for the public but at least they are all
> on someone equal terms of the pools. Every day
> players, can you show a greater profit percentage
> at a track like versus NYRA?

[color=#FF0000][b]Never really looked into Oaklawn, but I should be able to tell pretty quickly if there’s any discernable effect of the ban on bots. Tampa too(?)[/b][/color]


BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mathcapper -
>
> I didn't understand Matties's argument that the
> ability of the computer groups to analyze the
> betting in one pool and then make another pool
> align with it is particularly valuable. If a
> favorite is overbet in the win pool, there is no
> advantage to making him overbet in the exacta
> pool.

[color=#FF0000][b]I think he was referring to using one pool (the win pool most likely, which is generally the most efficient) to establish the fair odds in the other pools, from which they can determine the positive EV bets. But yeah, when the win pools are off, everything else would be too. An argument can be made that the $60K win bet on FF in the Dwyer made him an underlay and hence all the related exotics too. Then again, in hindsight the way he won made him look like a big overlay.

The argument I think Paul is trying to make is that modern-day handicapping has evolved with some of these computer teams to where instead of using the pure handicapping approach of a traditional Benter-like multifactor probability model, they’re just using the imputed odds from the (win) pool to clean up the inefficiencies in the other pools.[/b][/color]

> I do understand from your previous posts that
> there is a "wisdom of crowds" factor built into
> the models. Maybe there is also a "wisdom of
> unexpected late money" factor involved?

[color=#FF0000][b]There’s almost certainly an element of that too. The academic studies have shown that the later the money is bet, particularly just before post time, the “smarter” it is. The win pool is the most efficient pool, and of that pool, the marginal late money is even more efficient than the overall pool (FWIW, FF's late marginal odds in the Dwyer looked to be around 3/5).[/b][/color]

> I'm not sure I agree with the arm-the-players
> solution. While that might benefit some players,
> it might also discourage more casual players. At
> the end of the day, the industry depends on
> somebody losing money.
>
> I wonder if any ADW or track is considering using
> DD will-pays to make projected odds for the public
> (e.g., an updated morning line). I seem to
> remember responding to a survey where I was asked
> whether I would find such a thing useful. In many
> cases, it would make late odds shifts less
> suspicious.

[color=#FF0000][b]Agreed. I’m surprised more horseplayers aren’t already computing it themselves (maybe they just aren't aware?). It would certainly make my life easier, and it might help the everyday player to grab some of that money that the computer guys are siphoning through their methods of cleaning up inefficiencies noted above (ie. they could bet down horses to their implied Will Pay odds before the computer guys come in with their late action). Of course, the computer guys would probably make quick adjustments, including possibly messing with the Will Pay pools to throw off the public as to a horse’s true fair odds.[/b][/color]


Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Matties has a pretty good handle on what's
> happening, but I think he's a little off on the
> 'adjust' thing. Pretty sure of it actually.
>
> What is really happening is they are
> simultaneously betting into all the pools.
>
> So it wasn't an 'adjust' based on the win pool,
> but money that was bet at the same time into the
> exacta.
>
> Why would the bots blindly follow the win pool
> money?

[color=#FF0000][b]Tend to agree, unless the thinking is that since the win pool is generally the most efficient pool, it can be used to compute the fair odds in the other pools and clean up inefficiencies as noted above. But I’m with you, I think it’s more likely that all pools are hit simultaneously based on the algo’s implied fair odds.[/b][/color]