An Open Letter from Ross Gallo and Mike Mayo - Pace and Cap

Jeff Platt · 03-05-2009, 01:49 AM

Feedback on ideas which can help our game is vital. Two HANA members, Ross Gallo and Mike Mayo came up with an idea. Please let us at HANA know what you think.

An Open Letter from Ross Gallo and Mike Mayo:
http://blog.horseplayersassociation....-we-stand.html

-jp

.

mufasa · 03-05-2009, 09:19 AM

How would that workout for the participants since they have to bet anywhere from $50 to $100 on a single race along with a group, hopefully a large one as preferred. This group of individuals will necessarily bring down the odds to a point that they are below their normal expectations, especially on the 1-4 horses that are realistic contenders. A normal 5/2 horse will probably go off at 9/5 or less if it were not for the concentrated group bets. Generally there is just a finite number of really worthy horses to bet in a race and the expectation is that they will be over bet.

The above scenario has to happen more then once per week if you are to get the track managements attention, and as the participants grow the payoff odds become less inviting. I do not see how this can be any good for the participants who are being asked to risk their $50 or $100 or someday only $30 (many members), with almost guaranteed undervalue return on their investment, in the hopes that track management will do something they rather not because of the block of betters. It seems to be a steep cost to get someone’s attention for the participants, even though the intent to get better services is surely a worthy one.

Now I could be all wrong on this point of view but I was indirectly asked for my opinion.

Robert

RichieP · 03-05-2009, 09:42 AM

If it was a race I was interested in I would wager $20-$25 the level I am currently at with my play.

If it was a race with 0 interest I would not get involved.

Sorry man I don't have it like that to bet 2-4 times my current level especially on a race with no interest for me.

These racetracks and execs are killing themselves without our push. They will start closing up one by one in the coming years.

They will be forced to come around and open access and signals or they die plain and simple.

my 2c

Ted Craven · 03-05-2009, 02:08 PM

Mayo and Gallo suggest a directed and measured strategy, i.e. not one frothing at the mouth, but first building demonstrable strength, then judiciously wielding it. I support the goals and would like to join the strategy. However, I see 2 significant downsides to the strategy, and I echo what Robert and Richie have said as well:

1. To the extent that $50 - $100 on a single, directed race per week is above the percent of bankroll that a responsible horseplayer should be wagering (e.g. 2% of bankroll, or in any event proportionate to one's edge on the game) participation in the strength building phase of the strategy will be - should be - less among perhaps a significant segment of HANA's membership, regardless of how supportive of the larger, important goal they may be. And to that extent, the total handle will be less, or will take longer to build up to critical mass, and perhaps with diluted/deferred success.

2. As wagercappers, we're in the game for the money, not to pick winners. We should support and lend our weight to change in the industry out of self-interest (lest one day there be no game worth playing). As such, though, there's no point betting in a designated race if there's no value. I'm not sure if 1000 HANA members, with likely diverse approaches to analysis, will drive down odds on likely horses more than any other race - but the designated race each week is likely to be (or should be) passed by a given percentage of the HANA members who are participating simply because it offers no value according to their analysis approach i.e. a likely single horse (or synthetic entry, aka multi-horse wager) is lower than acceptable odds and thus the correct decision is to pass. Doing otherwise, merely out of enthusiasm for the cause, is indistinguishable from making a donation or gambling, and will take you and your bankroll out of the game. This approach would not support enlightened self-interest. As with point #1, this will also reduce the total HANA participation handle on a random basis (depending on the race chosen), again deferring/diluting the effectiveness of the strategy.

Notwithstanding, that's no reason not to participate if you have an edge in the track, surface and race description chosen for the week! If your unit wager is $10 or $20, well 5 individuals like that equal 1 individual capable of $50 - $100. If you participate in 13 out of 26 weeks in the next half year because 13 times the correct choice was no wager, well, better than nothing if the goals are advanced - and I think they need to be.

These seem to be some of the drawbacks, in the real world.

Ted

03-05-2009, 09:42 AM	#3
RichieP Grade 1 Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 7,019	If it was a race I was interested in I would wager $20-$25 the level I am currently at with my play. If it was a race with 0 interest I would not get involved. Sorry man I don't have it like that to bet 2-4 times my current level especially on a race with no interest for me. These racetracks and execs are killing themselves without our push. They will start closing up one by one in the coming years. They will be forced to come around and open access and signals or they die plain and simple. my 2c __________________ "Grampy I'm talking to you!" Last edited by RichieP; 03-05-2009 at 09:45 AM.

03-05-2009, 02:08 PM	#4
Ted Craven Grade 1 Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada Posts: 9,257	Mayo and Gallo suggest a directed and measured strategy, i.e. not one frothing at the mouth, but first building demonstrable strength, then judiciously wielding it. I support the goals and would like to join the strategy. However, I see 2 significant downsides to the strategy, and I echo what Robert and Richie have said as well: 1. To the extent that $50 - $100 on a single, directed race per week is above the percent of bankroll that a responsible horseplayer should be wagering (e.g. 2% of bankroll, or in any event proportionate to one's edge on the game) participation in the strength building phase of the strategy will be - should be - less among perhaps a significant segment of HANA's membership, regardless of how supportive of the larger, important goal they may be. And to that extent, the total handle will be less, or will take longer to build up to critical mass, and perhaps with diluted/deferred success. 2. As wagercappers, we're in the game for the money, not to pick winners. We should support and lend our weight to change in the industry out of self-interest (lest one day there be no game worth playing). As such, though, there's no point betting in a designated race if there's no value. I'm not sure if 1000 HANA members, with likely diverse approaches to analysis, will drive down odds on likely horses more than any other race - but the designated race each week is likely to be (or should be) passed by a given percentage of the HANA members who are participating simply because it offers no value according to their analysis approach i.e. a likely single horse (or synthetic entry, aka multi-horse wager) is lower than acceptable odds and thus the correct decision is to pass. Doing otherwise, merely out of enthusiasm for the cause, is indistinguishable from making a donation or gambling, and will take you and your bankroll out of the game. This approach would not support enlightened self-interest. As with point #1, this will also reduce the total HANA participation handle on a random basis (depending on the race chosen), again deferring/diluting the effectiveness of the strategy. Notwithstanding, that's no reason not to participate if you have an edge in the track, surface and race description chosen for the week! If your unit wager is $10 or $20, well 5 individuals like that equal 1 individual capable of $50 - $100. If you participate in 13 out of 26 weeks in the next half year because 13 times the correct choice was no wager, well, better than nothing if the goals are advanced - and I think they need to be. These seem to be some of the drawbacks, in the real world. Ted __________________ RDSS - Racing Decision Support System™

03-05-2009, 01:49 AM	#1
Jeff Platt Maiden Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 3	An Open Letter from Ross Gallo and Mike Mayo Feedback on ideas which can help our game is vital. Two HANA members, Ross Gallo and Mike Mayo came up with an idea. Please let us at HANA know what you think. An Open Letter from Ross Gallo and Mike Mayo: http://blog.horseplayersassociation....-we-stand.html -jp .

03-05-2009, 09:19 AM	#2
mufasa Grade 1 Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 310	How would that workout for the participants since they have to bet anywhere from $50 to $100 on a single race along with a group, hopefully a large one as preferred. This group of individuals will necessarily bring down the odds to a point that they are below their normal expectations, especially on the 1-4 horses that are realistic contenders. A normal 5/2 horse will probably go off at 9/5 or less if it were not for the concentrated group bets. Generally there is just a finite number of really worthy horses to bet in a race and the expectation is that they will be over bet. The above scenario has to happen more then once per week if you are to get the track managements attention, and as the participants grow the payoff odds become less inviting. I do not see how this can be any good for the participants who are being asked to risk their $50 or $100 or someday only $30 (many members), with almost guaranteed undervalue return on their investment, in the hopes that track management will do something they rather not because of the block of betters. It seems to be a steep cost to get someone’s attention for the participants, even though the intent to get better services is surely a worthy one. Now I could be all wrong on this point of view but I was indirectly asked for my opinion. Robert