JC / Railbird

Betting Archive

When the Board Talks

I read Brad Free’s column on tote board action earlier this week with much interest. The concept of smart money is ridiculous, he argues. Yet, “It is downright stubborn … to ignore unusual betting action without considering the possibility the action is meaningful” (Daily Racing Form — sub. req.). True. But what I’m wondering about, and what Free doesn’t really address, is how do bettors determine if the action is meaningful? The answer, I suspect, lies in the pattern of odds action.
I can think of three races in the past year where I observed truly unusual odds action that ended up pointing to the winner, and in each case, I dithered over whether what I was seeing was significant and whether I should incorporate it into any bets I made (I didn’t, to my regret). But I can also remember races where actual odds differed from the morning line in a way that indicated the “possible existence of factors not previously considered” and ended up pointing to nothing.
The difference lay in how the odds action played out: What was noticeable in the three races I recall with unusual action that was not apparent in the odds action of other races is that in each of those three races, the odds changes were sustained and balanced.
In last year’s MassCap, for example, Offlee Wild had a morning line value of 15-1, which he opened at. With the next flash of the board, his odds plunged to 6-5, and then stabilized at 3-1, which is where they remained until post time. Funny Cide, expected to be the overwhelming favorite at 8-5, drifted up to 2-1 — which might not seem significant, except that the MassCap crowd was made up of many casual fans who intended to bet Funny Cide regardless of any other factors. Neither horses’ odds fluctuated greatly after their new values were set, and the odds of other horses on the board hewed pretty close to the morning line. It was an instance of meaningful action on the tote board. And for anyone paying attention, it was a chance to cash a ticket.

Posted in Betting on March 31, 2005

Too Confusing

Paul Daley drove to Rockingham Park last Saturday looking forward to placing a Kentucky Derby future wager, only to be told by a teller that he couldn’t — the track wasn’t taking any pool two wagers, even though they had taken pool one bets. “Churchill Downs uses United Tote as its wagering system and we use AmTote, and we felt that the tickets, which would say ‘Oaks/Derby Future,’ would have been too confusing for the bettor. As the races will be run eight weeks from now, bettors may not remember whether they had a Derby or an Oaks ticket and that the winning number on one ticket may be different than the one on the other ticket,” explained Rockingham general manager Ed Callahan. Too confusing? May not remember? Thank you, Rockingham, for watching out for cognitively-challenged bettors. We need all the help we can get. (Lowell Sun)

Posted in Betting on March 16, 2005

Four Minutes Work

The appealing life of a pro punter who’s very good at what he does: “After the first race at Plumpton on Monday, I was all for chucking in my job. I was at the course with Dave Nevison, ace punter, the faces’ ‘face’, and he had just turned the 2.00 race, a low-grade hurdle, into a punting procession, pocketing £1,850. He had made more in four minutes than I could make in a fortnight, and all without the inconvenience of tax and National Insurance.” (Guardian)
Related: A professional player at home: “The bettor, who asked to be unidentified, has Internet access to real-time odds, accounts at betting exchanges and rebate shops, live races on HRTV and TVG, and a high-speed printer that spits out Daily Racing Form past performances and workout reports from local clockers.” (Daily Racing Form — sub. req.)

Posted in Betting on February 16, 2005

About These Rebate Shops …

Bill Finley’s recent column on rebate shops, in which he argued that their existence was win-win for all of racing, had me about 75% convinced that rebate shops were forces for good. I took exception only to this section:
“At the very worst, the three rebate shops involved in the indictment, none of which have been charged with any crimes, are guilty of nothing more than accepting bets from some allegedly disreputable characters without going to lengths to identify them. When the individuals opened accounts and apparently started betting huge amounts the three shops involved, Lakes Region Greyhound, Euro Off-track and one run by the Tonkawa tribe, didn’t ask many questions. Who would have? There’s not a racetrack in America that would have turned that level of business away or had any reason to do so.”
What Finley seems to be suggesting here is that if enough money is involved, there’s no need for ethics: If a bettor or a bunch of bettors all using the same social security number throw hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars at a rebate shop, there’s no reason to verify their identities or ensure that everything is on the up and up. Actually, doesn’t the shop have more of an obligation to check out these customers?
A couple of recent mentions (Left at the Gate, Derby List) of Oaklawn mutuel manager Bobby Kreiger’s remarks on the Del Mar forum site last summer have me rethinking the issue of rebate shops as a whole.
Finley basically argues that rebaters work for racing because they’ve substantially increased handle. What Kreiger says is that rebate shops create conditions that aren’t fair to all players, which is why Oaklawn cut them off during the 2004 meet. Two things stick out in his comments: Bets from rebaters do drive up handle, but none of that increased handle goes to purses; and,
“Direct access to the wagering network enables the computer player to electronically scan and analyze wagers placed by all other players. Just prior to the start of a race, the ‘linked’ computers comb pools seeking underplayed wagering combinations relative to the merits of the horses. The program pays special attention to exacta combinations; it can look at all of them in a blink.
“When the program robotically pulls the trigger, a complex array of wagers, mostly exotics, is spread over the underplayed combinations. Essentially claiming all overlay value the pools for that race had to offer. They are taking the cream off the top.
“Getting this electronic ‘last look’ enables the computer program a consistent win of 97-cents on each dollar wagered. That’s a steady loss of three cents on the dollar.
“However, add the ten cent rebate and it’s a seven cent winner on the dollar. Consistently!”
Oh my. That’s great news for a big bettor, but bad news for the industry.

Posted in Betting on February 8, 2005