[AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of

[Rob Waterhouse]

What you do mean by universally adopted in OZ? My calculation is that it covers but 1% of fixed odds betting.

 

As regards fairness: Any “bunch ’em up” bookie last Saturday (one making a balanced book, laying every runner) would be suicidal at this deduction. He could have held, say, $10,600 on the race, have had everything taking out about $10,000. With the scratching, he would have had to refund $2000 on the scratching and retrieve but $200.50 from the punter if he had bet, say, $10,000 to $25 the winner. The late “Digger” Lobb would have called for a hot bath, a bottle of brandy and razor blades.

 

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of chiron1 at iinet.net.au
Sent: Thursday, 19 October 2017 4:54 PM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of

 

Hi Rob and Ausracers,

I know deductions only affect us as punters from time to time but everybody should have a look 

at the new policy - the IWS_Re Frame, which, on further investigation, seems to be universally 

adopted in Oz. I'm slowly beginning to get the point you're making Rob. I went 

through the Dominic Beirne slideshow/Q&A that 2 ausracers sent or pointed me to and

I could probably accept it, if I could get my head around, not so much the "fairness" of it. 

I saw the examples but Beirne says it consists of hundreds of look up tables (written into an 

algorithm obviously) covering numerous 'anomalous' situations 

 

but if a bookie has to return all the money held on a scratched medium shot at say 11/1 ($12.00) but the fave, 

on which he stood to lose the most, if it won, goes unplaced, then it works against the punter even at 

low aggregate betting percentages.

My bet was deducted 14c/$1 via the on course bookie I laid it with but only 8c/$1 via the TAB fixed odds system.

(The winner paid $7.50; the fave was unplaced) They can't both be answering the same question. 

Perth aggregate betting percentages often get close to or above 140% win. The TAB fixed odds, permanently.

 

With the example you quote isn't the IWS algorithm deducting 50% once the winners price 

is over 50/1 ... Beirne alluded to it or something like that, in the Q&A presentation... I feel a semantic 

discussion on the meaning of "fairness' coming on.. :-)

cheers Tony


Message: 1
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:42:37 +1100
From: "Rob Waterhouse" <robbie at robwaterhouse.com <mailto:robbie at robwaterhouse.com> >
To: "'AusRace Racing Discussion List'" <racing at ausrace.com <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> >
Cc: "'warren woodcock'" <warrenwwoodcock at gmail.com <mailto:warrenwwoodcock at gmail.com> >
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of
horses scratched at the barrier
Message-ID: <00c601d346e9$36482b60$a2d88220$@robwaterhouse.com <mailto:00c601d346e9$36482b60$a2d88220$@robwaterhouse.com> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Further to the deduction discussion: Last Saturday in the last at Randwick, the 4/1 chance was scratched. The winner was 100/1. 



The ?black box?, predictably, declared a parsimonious 2 cent deduction. I understand the intellectual argument but a working bookie could have $10,600 on the race, have everything taking out $10,000, have to refund $2000 on the scratching and retrieve but $200.50 from the punter he bet $10,000 to $25.



Had the winner been odds-on, it may well have been more than a 20-cent deduction. 



The black box cleverly answers the wrong question. 



From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Rob Waterhouse
Sent: Thursday, 12 October 2017 10:55 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com <mailto:racing at ausrace.com> >
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier



The new way of calculating is a source of contention and hated by on-course bookies and ignored by the betting firms and TABs, notwithstanding it is intellectually sound..



This ?new way? is a black box (meaning it?s algorithm is secret) answers, cleverly, the question: what would a new market look like after a scratching?



It has faults. Firstly, people don?t understand it. Secondly, an eccentric bookmaker who only lays long-priced runners is very short-changed. Thirdly, it answers the wrong question, which should be how should the bookmaker be compensated for the loss of field money on the scratching. Fourthly, through no fault of the ?new way? the deductions are based on the large-percentage corporate betting market rather than the razor sharp, low-margin on-course market. Fifthly, when a horse is being considered to be scratched, it blows with the corporates, and the deduction isn?t based on the price it was averagely traded.



Rob W




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20171019/b4df3c2d/attachment.html>