Are CAWs in the pools they are supposedly banned from?
That is a big question in my view — and not because I think tracks are lying, but because I understand gambling, human nature, and history.
There is no debate that banning CAWs from any wagering pool is a step in the right direction for the future of the sport. Even if we hold aside, for the moment, the lost revenue the industry would suffer, the intent is clear: restore balance, protect retail players, and rebuild trust. Whether outright bans are the best long-term solution is another matter entirely — and one I’ve addressed in my CAW reform proposal — but progress is progress.
So let’s look at the situation honestly.
NYRA bans CAWs from the Late Pick 5 and Pick 6 as well. Some tracks embrace them everywhere and do not even throttle the late win bets. There is no uniform policy, no national standard, and no transparent verification process for the betting public.
Recently, Andy Serling, a respected NYRA analyst and handicapper pointed out on X what many already believe to be true: CAWs are banned from the NYRA Late Pick 5 and Pick 6. I take that statement seriously. Andy has a vast understanding of every aspect of this sport, and more importantly, he understands NYRA’s wagering infrastructure far better than any outsider — myself included. Based on that alone, I am comfortable saying his comment is accurate.
But I would be remiss if I didn’t raise the obvious concern.
We all know CAWs are, at their core, just players — albeit players using highly sophisticated models to analyze races, past performances, betting trends, odds movement, pool inefficiencies, and data most of the public has no time or means to compute. They are not robots; they are people making decisions.
And that leads to the uncomfortable but unavoidable question:
If a CAW player sees a sequence — or a single horse — they love, what exactly is stopping them from betting it through a beard?
This is not an accusation. It’s a reality problem.
Policing that kind of behavior is almost impossible, and you can’t fairly blame NYRA or any other track for facing 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 bypassed in practice. It is a long list. Sometimes it surprises us.
Would a sharp player really pass up a sequence where their key horse looks like massive value at 20-1 just because that pool is technically off limits? That is a fair question, not a cynical one.
Yes, doing so could violate a contract or a TRA code agreement. But who would know? How could it be proven if the wager were made through someone close, trusted, and compensated? There is no practical way to distinguish a “beard” bet from a genuine independent bettor without forensic-level investigation — something no track is equipped or incentivized to do on a routine basis.
And here’s another uncomfortable truth:
Foregoing a rebate on a single wager might be an acceptable tradeoff if the score is large enough — especially if rebates are still being collected on thousands of other bets elsewhere. From a purely economic standpoint, that’s not irrational; it’s strategic.
Which brings us to the core issue.
When push comes to shove, I believe the CAW player — not necessarily the CAW entity, if you understand the distinction — ultimately has their money wherever they want it. At the least some of them.
That doesn’t mean the bans are meaningless. It doesn’t mean NYRA is acting in bad faith. It means partial bans rely heavily on trust in a system that was never designed to monitor intent, relationships, or indirect participation. Does anyone believe there is no collusion in the big horse racing tournaments? I certainly don’t believe that.
And in a gambling sport, trust without verification is fragile currency.
If the industry truly wants to restore confidence, the answer isn’t 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 takeout, and the same visibility. I applaud NYRA’s efforts as I pointed out right here, but I’m afraid we need more.
Because perception matters. And right now, the perception among serious retail bettors is simple:
If something can be exploited, eventually it will be.
That’s not paranoia.
That’s gambling reality — dissected and delivered.
