I am concerned about exclusive ADW's. It can give insight into information such as wagering unintentionally not being closed. An ADW should, in my opinion, be independent of those who wager and should be available to the public. Maybe certify a number of separate clients -- like maybe 1,000 or something, with provisions for a startup.

While the last second wagering is very detrimental to the sport, I don't really know what to do about it. This person made 13 wagers in 40 seconds, so even limiting the size of a wager after a cutoff time has potential loopholes.

Maybe have a rule that after a pre-race cutoff time, wagers would be limited to, say, $500. If an individual is found to have violated the provision, their wagers would be held and invalidated. Tracks need to take such a measure, but I seriously doubt they ever will. They probably like those last second huge wagers.

The wagers came from an exclusive ADW and computer aided wagering was involved. Is this good for the sport? Is this type of wagering unfair? Does this type of betting affect the way you approach the game? — Tony Kofalt

Whales are bad for the game.
Period.

1. Because they draw out money on a regular basis, it is like playing Texas Hold 'em at a table with two dealers, each taking a rake.

2. It's also bad for the tracks because it makes it too hard for the other players to win, and, thereby they find other sports to gamble on.
________________________
3. The odds change drastically because the biggest wagerers (the whales) bet late and there are only a handful of them. It is much easier for (say) 4 of the big 6 to agree than if those same dollars were spread across (say) 200 players.
________________________
#3 is the CAUSE of the odds changes.

As for barring the whales, that's just not going to happen. And it SHOULDN'T HAPPEN anyway. They have every right to play!

The only real solution to the problem race mentioned by Paulick is to close the pools for 2 minutes BEFORE the horses enter the gate. While there would still be the exact same odds changes, and least the public's perception would not lead towards past posting.

As for limits on CAW, they'd just get around it by having multiple agents betting each race.

BTW, making a couple of win bets in a race are just not a big deal. It's the trifectas & supers that produce the big edge in CAW. So many tickets can be sent in the blink of an eye.

Maybe have a rule that after a pre-race cutoff time, wagers would be limited to, say, $500. If an individual is found to have violated the provision, their wagers would be held and invalidated. Tracks need to take such a measure, but I seriously doubt they ever will. They probably like those last second huge wagers. — RanchWest

You're spot on with this.

Dave and Ranch- I can always count on you guys for such insightful and well thought out comments!! I found it interesting that NYRA Bets and The Stronach Group are part owners in this particular ADW. Here are my thoughts regarding the article:

• last minute odds swings do create a negative impression of the game to most players
• the CAW teams are working withing the framework of current wagering laws
• any of us, or groups of us, could build a CAW team and enjoy the same benefits
• the fundamental problem in horse racing today results from the business model between tracks, horsemen and the ADW's

I'd like to focus for a minute on my last comment regarding the article. Existing contracts between tracks, horsemen and ADW's are bad for the business. Let's take a high level view of how tracks and purses are funded. When a wager is made, a blended 'takeout' is drawn from the paramutuel pools and the balance of the pool is split between winning tickets. Part of this 'takeout' is split between racetracks and horsemen to fund track expenses and purses. Prior to the computer era, a typical split of takeout would by 7% to each the track and horseman. The balance would go to taxes. Remember the betting pools then all came from on track wagers.
Upon the inception of OTB's and eventually ADW's different types of contracts were created that greatly affected the split of the takeout. Short-sighted track management and horsemen groups looked at revenue form OTB's and ADW's as extra revenue never taking into account the long term impact on 'on-track wagering. Most of the current ADW contract provide tracks and horsemen with a 1.5 to 4% of each dollar wagered. The remaining takeout belongs to the ADW's which is used to pay their bills and fund rebate programs.
If the wagering dollar was split in a more equitable fashion less money would be available through rebates resulting in fewer CAW's and the industry would be better positioned to sustain itself..

Thanks, Tony! Very insightful.

If they shut off betting 2 minutes to post time, there would be chaos at Gulfstream, where they leave the gat 25 minute after[/i post time.

If they shut off betting 2 minutes to post time, there would be chaos at Gulfstream, where they leave the gat 25 minute after[/i post time. — Tom

Incentive for that to be corrected.

IMHO, the biggest challenge to racing's continuity is that there is no governing body to manage the rudder.

Racing is pretty much the only sport that does not have an industry-wide C-suite of people to make policy & direction.

Worse, the tracks are completely oblivious to WHAT'S GOOD FOR RACING. Instead, they are completely self-centered, with most concentrating on squeezing the turnip until it is dry as opposed to helping it grow.

However, the bottom line is the takeout structure MUST change to something competitive with sports betting. Since I do not ever see that happening, I see this as just one more indicator of the impending death of racing.

A few months back, I ran across a business & marketing expert who (coincidentally) also had knowledge of racing. He uttered a great truth: "The racing world exists for just one group: old, white guys. Considering how different that demographic thinks from the younger generations, it is pretty obvious that there will be no new generation of horse players.

Hated admitting that he was spot on.