Are CAWs in the pools from which they are supposedly excluded?
That’s a big question in my opinion – and not because I think the numbers lie, but because I understand gambling, human nature and history.
There is no arguing that banning CAWs from any betting pool is a step in the right direction for the future of the sport. Even if we ignore for the time being the lost revenues that the sector would suffer, the intention is clear: to restore balance, protect retail players and restore confidence. Whether an outright ban is the best solution in the long term is another matter – and one I also discussed in my CAW reform proposal – but progress is progress.
So let’s look at the situation honestly.
Myra also bans CAWs from Late Pick 5 and Pick 6. Some numbers embrace them everywhere and don’t even limit late win bets. There is no uniform policy, no national standard and no transparent verification process for the gambling public.
Recently, Andy Serling, a respected NYRA analyst and handicapper pointed out at X what many already believe to be true: CAWs are excluded from the NYRA Late Pick 5 and Pick 6. I take that statement seriously. Andy has a tremendous understanding of every aspect of this sport, and more importantly, he understands the NYRA betting infrastructure far better than any outsider – including myself. Based on that alone I can say that his comment is correct.
But I would be remiss if I didn’t bring up this obvious concern.
We all know that CAWs are essentially just players, even though players use highly sophisticated models to analyze races, past performance, betting trends, odds movements, pool inefficiencies, and data that most of the public doesn’t have the time or resources to calculate. They are not robots; it is people who make decisions.
And that leads to the uncomfortable but inevitable question:
If a CAW player sees a series – or a single horse – he likes, what exactly is stopping him from betting on it through his beard?
This is not an accusation. It’s a reality problem.
Controlling that kind of behavior is nearly impossible, and you can’t blame NYRA or any other circuit for having to deal with it. History teaches us that where there is a will, there is a way. Gambling history in particular is littered with examples of rules being followed in spirit – and quietly circumvented in practice. It’s a long list. Sometimes it surprises us.
Would a sharp player really pass up a series where his top knight at 20-1 seems like a huge value just because that pool is technically off-limits? That’s a fair question, and not a cynical one.
Yes, this may violate a contract or TRA code agreement. But who would know? How could it be proven if the bet was made through someone close, trusted and compensated? There is no practical way to distinguish a ‘beard’ bettor from a genuine independent bettor without forensics – something no track is routinely equipped or encouraged to do.
And here’s another uncomfortable truth:
Forgoing a rebate on a single bet may be an acceptable trade-off if the score is high enough – especially if rebates are still being collected on thousands of other bets elsewhere. From a purely economic point of view, this is not irrational; it’s strategic.
That brings us to the heart of the problem.
When push comes to shove, I believe that the CAW player – not necessarily the CAW entity, if you understand the distinction – ultimately has his money where he wants it. At least some of them.
That does not mean that the bans are meaningless. It does not mean that NYRA is acting in bad faith. It means that partial bans rely heavily on trust in a system that was never designed to monitor intentions, relationships or indirect participation. Does anyone believe there is no collusion in the major horse racing tournaments? I certainly don’t believe that.
And in a gambling sport, trust without verification is a vulnerable means of payment.
If the industry really wants to restore trust, the answer is not more selective bans that are impossible to police. The answer is structural reform that creates a level playing field – where all players operate under the same rules, the same timing, the same results and the same visibility. I applaud NYRA’s efforts, as I have indicated here, but I fear we need more.
Because perception is important. And right now, the perception among serious retail gamblers is simple:
If something can be exploited, eventually it will be.
That’s not paranoia.
That is gambling reality – dissected and presented.
#Banned #paper #practice