In some respects, the future is already being seen if you live in New Jersey, where, through Betfair.com, you can select and bet on horses in races to win, but also perhaps NOT to win; you can also bet in the middle of a race, each time receiving real-time odds through something called Exchange Wagering.
The high-tech wagering system is intended to attract the so-called Millennial generation who are glued to their smartphones. The advertising tagline is: "Smart is the New Lucky." So, instead of holding up all those phones to take American Pharoah's picture as he crosses the finish line as he's winning the 2015 Belmont Stakes and also the first Triple Crown in 37 years, how about pressing the app button and start pumping in some wagers that he will, or won't do it, or, as he's at the to top the stretch and still got the lead, bet the house he's going to it--or maybe not.
A good deal remains to be understood about this type of wagering. Mr. Drape in his example gives us the example of Nyquist being quoted in Ireland at odds of 6-5 to win the Haskell. You either take him at those fixed odds, or you don't bet him. (Of course, this is all before we know Exaggerator won the race and Nyquist finished fourth. It is Joe's example before the Haskell.)
In the United States, where we have pari-mutuel wagering, Nyquist's odds will drift up or down depending on how much money people have bet on him in relation to the other horses in the race. The more money that flows toward Nyquist, the shorter his odds become, because the losers in the pool pay off the winner. And as that supply of money relatively diminishes against the volume going for Nyquist, there is less money per winning bet to payoff the Nyquist backers, should he of course win. (In pari-mutuel wagering, the odds are not really probability quotes whatsoever, but rather payoff approximations should the bet turn into a winning one.)
On a Betfair Exchange, Mr. Drape explains, a wager can be created by a bettor. From what I can gather from their website, in blue and pink colors, you get odds on the horse to win, but also odds on NOT winning.
So, you might get 4-1 odds on Nyquist not winning. Bet $2, on this, and if he doesn't win, you get a $10 payout. Not described in the story is the commission Betfair extracts on the profit. Their website doesn't lay out this percentage, but rest assured, someone will tell you what it is. No commission on losing bets. Their heart is with you.
But if that's not radical enough for you, here's the 'Wolf of Wall Street' part that is intended to appeal to tech-savvy Millennials--you can hedge your bet while the race is being run, up to say the point they reach the top of the stretch, I think.
You can back out of your Nyquist bet if it looks like he's not going to win, if you did bet on him to win. Or, back out of your bet for him to lose if it now looks to you like he's going to win. Hedging is tricky stuff. The smartphone appeal will only be successful if it reaches Millennials who are very good at math and can calculate odds and payouts in their head. Quickly. This might diminish the marketing pool a great deal.
But how exciting would it be if while watching Saturday's Jim Dandy you got the solid feeling that Laoban is not going to throw in the towel after leading up to the stretch and you got some form of odds on his now winning, and you didn't drop your phone with excitement and were able to find the right icon to press and were able to lock in a new wager. But would it be better than the 27-1 when the race started? Hardly. But you could at least become somewhat rewarded for becoming a late believer.
There can be a new world out there.
In my early years of learning about betting, perhaps nearly 50 years ago after absorbing a book by Tom Ainslie, I learned of a technique called "Dutching." This was described as betting on nearly every horse in the race, or every horse if you could calculate that fast, with varying amounts of win bets on each horse. A $50 win bet on the favorite, who for example might be going off at 1-1, say, with $15 win bet on the 5-1 shot.
We'll stick with a two horse example for illustration. It can get very hairy with a more natural-sized field and the vagaries of pari-mutuel odds that are still flipping around after the bell goes off and you can't get a wager in. (Shouldn't be happening, but it still is.) Successful "Dutching" really requires you to know the final odds. Hardly easy.
With a $65 total bet, you'll get back $100 if your even money shot wins; $35 profit. Nice work if you can get it. If your even money shot loses, and your 5-1 shot comes in with $15 bet on it, you'll get $90 back for the $65 you laid out, a $25 profit. But you didn't get burned as you would if your even money shot faltered and that was the only bet you made, the $50 to win. You "saved" your bet. You hedged.
Since according to folklore Dutchmen were considered cheap, as in not liking to lose (who does?), the technique came to be known as "Dutching."
In our salad days, my friend and I were mentored by a fellow who did his own quick version of "Dutching." He would sometimes bet three horses to win in the race (these were days when the most exotic wager was the Daily Double), each with varying amounts to win. It was always hard to get a straight answer when the race was over if he actually came out ahead financially, but once exactas came into existence our friend Les developed a far different form of hedging.
The best we can guess is that Les has long passed away. We don't think he lived long enough to see Pick Sixes and other multi-leg race bets. The dead can rest in peace.
http://www.onofframp.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment