Betting at the Big M rigged?

[The Giss]

FWIW, New Jersey facilities have been notorious for odds manipulations (or their bettors have been). Nearly EVERY disappearing wager at Northfield from 2009 until I was let go was a Jersey wager.

[pezz97]

More actual facts than some conspiracy

By Bill Finley   Harnessracing update

By Bill Finley
If "cartel wagering" put more money into the pocket's of
horsemen racing at the Meadowlands would Joe Faraldo be
in favor of it? Faraldo would probably rather get scurvy than
see Jeff Gural make more money at the Meadowlands and
he's never exactly been a champion
of the bettor. But that's fine. He is
not paid to represent the
horseplayer and whether or not a
New Jersey track operator is making
money is not really his concern. But
as the head of the Standardbred
Owners Association of New York
Faraldo has been a fierce fighter
when it comes to horsemen, their
rights and how much money they
make. So would Faraldo be in favor
of something that has added to the
total in the purse account? Of
course he would.
So what was Faraldo thinking
when he penned an incendiary
column the other day criticizing what
he called "cartel wagering" at the
Meadowlands? Was his calculator on the fritz? And as the
head of the group representing horsemen at Yonkers why
hasn't he been demanding that management at Old Hilltop start doing more to attract huge bettors, like the
Meadowlands has?
The mistake Faraldo made the other day when he
bashed the Meadowlands and, basically, called the handle
increases there a fraud, was that he hit the send button
before he had all the facts straight. By giving rebates to a
single large player the Meadowlands has increased its
handle, made more money for itself and this particular
bettor, and, yes, put more money into the purse account.
It's obvious where Faraldo made his mistake when he
wrote "The addition of gross handle in this fashion
produces a zero-sum effect, resulting in no additional
revenue being generated to increase purses or add a race
day. Sadly, it has done nothing for increasing on-track
wagering heralded as a major accomplishment at the New
Meadowlands." He based his claims on handle "tripling"
because of the rebate being given to the big player. If that
is all that had happened, Faraldo wouldn't have been too
far off. The Meadowlands wouldn't have accomplished
much of anything rather than shifting a lot of money into
the pocket of one player.
But the handle from the player didn't triple. It increased
by 700 percent. The same player that had bet $1 million at the prior meet when not getting a rebate has wagered $8
million.
According to industry sources, the Meadowlands sells its
signal for $5.375 percent, with half that total going to the
track and half going to horsemen. That means that when the
player bet $1 million, the track made $28,000 and the
horsemen made $28,000.
Faraldo was correct
when he claimed that by
giving the customer the
rebates the Meadowlands
was effectively selling its
signal for 2 percent. That's
because the Meadowlands
is giving the big player a
rebate of roughly 3
percent, which comes off
the 5.375 percent it gets
paid by the ADW operator
that processes the player's
bets.
So, what's 2 percent of 8 million? It's $160,000, $80,000 for
the Meadowlands, $80,000 for the horsemen. It's only March
and the horsemen have already made an additional $52,000.
If the big player continues to wager at the same rate the
horsemen will have made about $150,000 extra before the
meet is over thanks to the Meadowlands' policy of rebating
the player.
The rest of Faraldo's accusations are nonsense. Yes, there
is someone who often bets $2,000 on more than one horse
at the very beginning of the wagering. It is not the "cartel" but
a particular bettor with some odd wagering habits who has
never once canceled his bets. Yes, a daily double at the
Meadowlands came back too low, but it was because the
owner of one of the winning horses personally made a large
bet on the winning combination.
The Meadowlands is having a good meet and is doing so
without any funny business. In a way, at least with the
rebates, it got lucky. Probably no one ever imagined the
player would increase his betting by so much, the reason
why the rebate program has been such a success. But the
track was smart enough to insert an out clause in the
contract with the bettor. Had he not increased his betting by
a significant amount the deal would have been off.
Faraldo is not alone. The industry has always
misunderstood rebates and how they are most often a
win-win. Even the Meadowlands once blew this. Last year
they were offered the same proposal by the bettor and
turned him down.
The primary reason why betting on race horses is not more
popular is because the takeout is so enormous that, really,
no one can win. There just aren't enough people out there
willing to consistently lose their shirts, especially when every
other gambling game but the lottery offers fairer odds. By
giving the player a rebate you are essentially reducing the
takeout and making the game beatable. The big player knows that with rebates they may have a 2 or 3 percent
edge and the only way to make serious money is to churn
huge amounts through the windows. The slice of the pie
may be smaller but the pie grows much bigger and
everyone wins. And that's precisely what has happened
at the Meadowlands. What they have accomplished with
the rebates and this bettor is a perfect example of how,
when this is done right, everyone (the horsemen included)
benefits.
The irony is that Yonkers needs the "cartel" much more
than the Meadowlands and welcoming them could have a
huge positive impact on handle there. The Meadowlands
says that the big bettor has added money into the pools,
which has enticed other bettors to play more. I'm not sure
that's the case. The Meadowlands pools are by far the
biggest in the sport and probably didn't need any extra
money to pump up handle from other bettors. That's not
the case at Yonkers. The pools are so small there that a
lot of big bettors who won't play there. If the "cartel" were
ever to come to Yonkers its play would likely have an
impact that goes beyond the money it bets.
Then again, maybe the "cartel" won't do for Yonkers
what it did for the Meadowlands, but Faraldo should at
least look into enticing some of these big bettors to wager
more on Yonkers races by offering them rebates. He
shouldn’t be criticizing the Meadowlands. He should be
copying them.

[NIATROSS]

thnaks for posting the article pezz !

[MichiganDale]

thnaks for posting the article pezz !

Ditto that.  Long, but good read.

[careless hal]

The truth is often what you want to hear or want to believe.  Sure, Faraldo and Gural most likely hate each others guts.  Those who worship Gural will believe his version as the "truth"  Those who don't--won't.  No doubt, Gural deserves praise for his efforts to save the BigM, no matter what his motives.
This is how I see it.  You can't compare casinos and racetracks.  The tracks are pari-mutual, the casinos are putting up their money versus yours.   The churn at a casino is much faster than at a track.  Thus, they can offer lower takes than a track.  If you lose at a track, the other bettors get most of your money.  Lose at a casino, they get it all.  The way I see it, cheaters and odds manipulators are stealing my money. Gural is trying to crack down on cheating by horsemen and that is good.   In the long run, these huge cartels IMHO can't be good for racing.   I'm lucky to get only a 15% take on some bets, while they get a 2% take.  Sorry, I just don't see the wisdom of that.

[Jeremy]

The truth is often what you want to hear or want to believe.  Sure, Faraldo and Gural most likely hate each others guts.  Those who worship Gural will believe his version as the "truth"  Those who don't--won't.  No doubt, Gural deserves praise for his efforts to save the BigM, no matter what his motives.
This is how I see it.  You can't compare casinos and racetracks.  The tracks are pari-mutual, the casinos are putting up their money versus yours.   The churn at a casino is much faster than at a track.  Thus, they can offer lower takes than a track.  If you lose at a track, the other bettors get most of your money.  Lose at a casino, they get it all.  The way I see it, cheaters and odds manipulators are stealing my money. Gural is trying to crack down on cheating by horsemen and that is good.   In the long run, these huge cartels IMHO can't be good for racing.   I'm lucky to get only a 15% take on some bets, while they get a 2% take.  Sorry, I just don't see the wisdom of that.

They are only bad when they win the same time you do.

[tonyb147]

They are only bad when they win the same time you do.

  Exactly. It goes both ways. That $2000 bettor doesn't seem to win often. I've caught inflated prices a few times thanks to his losing wagers being in the pool.

[careless hal]

Would one of the plethora of Gural ass kissers lend me their rosé colored  glasses?
Need them to improve my shity attitude!

[pezz97]

Would one of the plethora of Gural ass kissers lend me their rosé colored  glasses?
Need them to improve my shity attitude!

Amazing that you keep posting about a track that you claim to never bet anymore. If you don't bet it anymore, why do you give a shit about what is going on there?

Your favorite track is the most corrupt in the game and yet you find a way to post anything negative you can about a track that most people love. Looks to me that only one person here has an agenda and that is you!

Gural told everyone way back in January that this group was doing this. Why the big surprise now? There is no surprise, but you happened to read an article bashing the place, and felt you needed to post it. Well that article was put to shame the minute this goof who has done nothing for racing wrote it, and he didn't even have the facts correct at the same time. But you wanna believe it go right ahead.

Yet you still bet balmoral, talk about a hypocrite...

[careless hal]

Thanks for proving my point!