|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
10-27-2017, 10:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Arbitrage in the BC.
As I've mentioned before and Paul Matties has mentioned, I'm a big opponent of allowing organizations access to pools and running algorithms on those pools and betting into them through direct pipelines.
This accounts for up to 20% of nationwide handle and, of course, it's hard to give up. However, it does take value from the player. I think it eventually erodes racing, since people make less on their good bets and feel cheated. This is why horses change from 7/2 to 8/5 as the race is run. I know this is more effective on smaller handle tracks. But was interested to know how this affects the BC. These are bigger pools. Also, the BC goes through their own pool. Can these people go through Oregon and do the same ? Is it profitable to them in this scenario ? Curious. Heard that the BCBC was about 20% of handle. That's great. I think we are all getting whacked on this betting. Arbitrage, style. However, can any venue deny 25% of their handle ? Because of the payouts, they will lose the horseplayers. It's parasitic. Short-term gain for long term loss. You discourage and penalize your customers. If racing venues and ADW's don't realize this problem and refuse the 25% of their handle from this source, they will end up destroying the racing industry in the United States. By being short sighted on this, they will ruin the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. This is like somebody giving you an envelope of cash and saying "Shhhhh". The once-in-a-while horseplayer sees his odds change in the race and assumes it's fixed. I can't blame that person. The obsession with handle will ruin US racing. It has to be quality, not quantity. You have to grow the product. Somebody who feels they are screwed won't come back. This has to be fixed. Screw Oregon. They put nothing into horse racing and most of the bets in the US go through there. Plus they allow arbitrage access into the pools. They stole horseracing form all of us. Disgusted. 
|
|
#2
10-27-2017, 10:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can you explain what you mean by " the bcbc is 20 percent of the handle". Are you saying the live money bet in the Breeders Cup Betting Challenge is 20 percent of total money wagered on Breeders cup?
|
|
#3
10-28-2017, 04:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
10-28-2017, 08:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's like paying to get into a contest where you get a $10 bankroll and other players $2500.
Or some players at poker table get to draw twice. If some are allowed special access, why would the average player bother to play anymore? Might as well play the lottery.
|
|
#5
10-28-2017, 11:26 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
How is this related to arbitrage?
|
|
#6
10-29-2017, 03:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Curlin and Hard Spun finish 1,2 in the 2007 BC Classic, demonstrating how competing in all three Triple Crown races ruins a horse for the rest of the year...see avatar photo from REUTERS/Lucas Jackson
|
|
#7
10-29-2017, 09:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ranger is right, it was 20% at Santa Anita when it was only an on-track contest. Last year they expanded it to a few other sites, AQU was one. This year it is expanded even more to on-line participation. However, the BCBC people should have a definite number on the handle, if they release it. I don't see why they shouldn't.
That is not the issue that can hurt horseplayers. The BCBC handle only helps pools. I'm concerned with the large volume outfits that get substantial rebates and are allowed access (data) from pools we can't even see. We get a display of EX and DD payoffs, but can't see what a Pick 3 will pay before the first leg. This info is available, in digital form, to certain groups and from there they can run programs (algorithms) on the data which looks for under played combinations. All done without human intervention. These same access connections make it possible for these groups to make a large variety of wagers into multiple pools in seconds. The rectifying of these bets result in the changing odds and payouts during the running of a race. An EX has a payout of $58.00 on all the boards before the race. One horse is 5-2 and the other 5-1. They run 1-2 and the EX comes back $38.00 and the winner ends up 3-2 and the 2nd horse 5-2. Nobody picked those horses, the program identified anomalies in the pools, all of them (DD, Pick 3, Pick 4,5,6 TRI) and made bets based on discrepancies. In a Belmont Race that handled $1 million, up to $200,000 of the bets were made this way. Most in the last 2 minutes. Plus, due to volume, these groups are rebated up to 10% of their wagers. We have to combat a takeout of 15% to 25%, take 10% off that. Most of these groups look for at least a 1% return. Doesn't sound like much, but they are getting big volume rebates and making high volume wagers. It's a can of worms and I think it can have a horrible effect on racing. Remember 10 years ago we could hit a bet that surprised us and paid more than we thought it would. Not anymore.Usually the surprise is it pays 1/2 of what you hoped. The impact is that it will take the average bettor out eventually. The wins can't cover the losses and it makes the game almost a sure loser for the average person. You finally get to a point and say "Screw this, I have no chance". Why have you seen handle go up ? Why did you see Keenland raise takeout when regular people objected ? Why did they not even acknowledge it ? This will shrink racing, not grow it. Biggest threat to the racing game. Tracks run on handle. They don't care it if comes from you or I or a computer. If we love the game and the sport, we have to thing about this.
|
|
#8
10-31-2017, 10:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Just some recordkeeping...
This is not arbitrage. Arbitrage is when you can buy something for a set price and sell it at the same price somewhere else at the same time. This is information exploitation.
__________________
please use generalizations and non-truths when arguing your side, thank you
|
|
#9
11-02-2017, 06:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#10
11-03-2017, 05:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
philcski, First, you didn't state that correctly even though I know you understand it. There wouldn't be much point in buying something and selling it "at the same price somewhere else at the same time." You meant to write 'sell it at a higher price somewhere else...' Second, arbitrage can mean any simultaneous transactions (or bets) where a risk-free profit is guaranteed. When you have different pools offering different ways to make win bets, it's certainly theoretically possible for there to be arbitrage opportunities. The simplest example would be if there was an extremely underbet horse in the Exacta Pool. It's fairly straight forward to construct an equivalent win bet from a series of exacta bets with your chosen horse as the 1st horse in the exacta. If the discrepancy of the implied win odds from the Exacta Pool compared to the win odds in the Win Pool is great enough, than an arbitrage could be created by betting every other horse to win in the Win Pool. Betting every other horse to win is equivalent to betting the one horse to lose, ie 'selling', thus satisfying the arbitrage definition. So you'd be simultaneously betting the same horse to win and lose. I agree that the vast majority of what's done with the preferential last-second data access is not arbitrage, but the search for price discrepancies is similar.
__________________
Curlin and Hard Spun finish 1,2 in the 2007 BC Classic, demonstrating how competing in all three Triple Crown races ruins a horse for the rest of the year...see avatar photo from REUTERS/Lucas Jackson
|
|
#11
11-03-2017, 09:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 The availability of these opportunities is really limited, no? Not saying they aren't there, but the liquidity would be too low to make the kind of money they need, right?
__________________
please use generalizations and non-truths when arguing your side, thank you
|
Hybrid Mode
