<html><body style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><p><font size="5">Hi Rob and Ausracers,</font></p><p><font size="5">I know deductions only affect us as punters from time to time but everybody should have a look </font></p><p><font size="5">at the new policy - the IWS_Re Frame, which, on further investigation, seems to be universally </font></p><p><font size="5">adopted in Oz. I'm slowly beginning to get the point you're making Rob. I went </font></p><p><font size="5">through the Dominic Beirne slideshow/Q&A that 2 ausracers sent or pointed me to and</font></p><p><font size="5">I could probably accept it, if I could get my head around, not so much the</font><font size="5"> "fairness" of it. </font></p><p><font size="5">I saw the examples but Beirne says it consists of hundreds of look up tables (written into an </font></p><p><font size="5">algorithm </font><font size="5">obviously) covering numerous 'anomalous' situations </font></p><p><font size="5"></font> </p><p><font size="5">but if a bookie has to return </font><font size="5">all the money held on a scratched medium shot at say 11/1 ($12.00) but the fave, </font></p><p><font size="5">on which he stood to </font><font size="5">lose the most, if it won, goes unplaced, then it works against the punter even at </font></p><p><font size="5">low aggregate betting percentages.</font></p><p><font size="5">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.</font></p><p><font size="5">(The winner paid $7.50; the fave was unplaced) They can't both be answering the same question. </font></p><p><font size="5">Perth aggregate betting percentages often get close to or above 140% win. The TAB fixed odds, permanently.</font></p><p> </p><font size="5"></font><p>With the example you quote isn't the IWS algorithm deducting 50% once the winners price </p><p>is over 50/1 ... Beirne alluded to it or something like that, in the Q&A presentation... I feel a semantic </p><p>discussion on the meaning of "fairness' coming on.. :-)</p><p>cheers Tony</p><p><br />
Message: 1<br />
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:42:37 +1100<br />
From: "Rob Waterhouse" <robbie@robwaterhouse.com><br />
To: "'AusRace Racing Discussion List'" <racing@ausrace.com><br />
Cc: "'warren woodcock'" <warrenwwoodcock@gmail.com><br />
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of<br />
horses scratched at the barrier<br />
Message-ID: <00c601d346e9$36482b60$a2d88220$@robwaterhouse.com><br />
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br /><br />
Further to the deduction discussion: Last Saturday in the last at Randwick, the 4/1 chance was scratched. The winner was 100/1. <br /><br /><br /><br />
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.<br /><br /><br /><br />
Had the winner been odds-on, it may well have been more than a 20-cent deduction. <br /><br /><br /><br />
The black box cleverly answers the wrong question. <br /><br /><br /><br />
From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces@ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Rob Waterhouse<br />
Sent: Thursday, 12 October 2017 10:55 AM<br />
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing@ausrace.com><br />
Subject: Re: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier<br /><br /><br /><br />
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..<br /><br /><br /><br />
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?<br /><br /><br /><br />
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.<br /><br /><br /><br />
Rob W<br /><br /><br /><br /></p></body></html>