Founder of Barstool Sports and horse-racing bettor Dave Portnoy has turned up the volume on the emerging battle over computer-assisted wagering, known in the industry as “CAWs,” arguing the system is undermining the sport and harming casual bettors.
In recent social-media posts and interviews, Portnoy declared that CAWs—algorithm-powered programs used to place large, automated bets at scale—are tipping the playing field in favour of insiders and electronic squads, leaving traditional horseplayers on the outside looking in. “CAWs. No other sport would ever allow this in a billion years,” he wrote on X. According to Portnoy, the average bettor is being squeezed out as CAWs access late data feeds, sprint to place volume bets in tote pools, and benefit from high rebate arrangements.
Portnoy went further: “I will say the CAWs have basically forced me to stop betting horses except the huge days,” he said in a recent interview, signalling a shift away from daily wagering toward marquee events only. The timing matters: horse-racing is already grappling with fan decline and betting-pool erosion, and the CAW controversy is being flagged as a catalyst for deeper structural trouble.
Industry watchers say CAWs are not new—they have been building for years—but in 2025 the tension has spiked. One article described CAWs as using “advanced algorithms and high-speed computing to analyze vast data sets on horses, pool sizes, odds movements … then execute thousands of large-scale, automated bets in the blink of an eye.” The concern is two-fold: first that this activity can accelerate odds compression, reducing the value of bets for typical players; and second that it raises questions about the sport’s integrity and fairness.
Portnoy’s criticism isn’t confined to rhetoric. On X he called out race-tracks for “making money hand over fist with the CAWs” while caring little for everyday gamblers. He said that because tracks benefit from rebates and greater volume via CAWs, the system perpetuates itself—and the average bettor pays the price via worse odds or increased competition for limited pool liquidity.
Support for his view is showing up elsewhere. Prominent owners and bettors in the sport have publicly backed Portnoy’s stance, urging regulators and track operators to step in. One noted that “every track in the U.S. must cut off the CAWs at a minimum of 2…” in a posted comment endorsing Portnoy. Legal filings and shareholder discussions are reportedly turning toward this issue.
Critics of CAWs say the problem is not that the technology exists—after all, sportsbooks and exchanges have long used algorithms—but that the sport of thoroughbred racing has lacked transparency and infrastructure to handle this scale of automated play. Experts argue racing’s analogue roots make it especially vulnerable to sudden structural stress when new bet-type volumes and data-latency disparities arise.
Portnoy’s entrance into this debate matters because his voice reaches beyond the traditional horse-racing community. His audience—millions of listeners, followers, and bettors—gives the CAW issue a spotlight it might otherwise lack. When he says he’s stepping away from regularly wagering because the game isn’t fair, it draws attention from regulators, media and the broader sports-betting ecosystem.
From a bettor’s perspective, the concern is simple: if large algorithm-driven players can anticipate odds swings, access better pools, and extract rebates, then the remaining crowd is left facing worse value. For racing to thrive, betting pools need broad participation, competitive odds, and confidence in fairness. Portnoy argues all three are at risk.
Track operators and racing commissions are responding. Some are reviewing futures on rebate programs, scrutinising data-feed timings and access, and considering whether automated bet-bots should face the same regulatory treatment as other forms of wagering. But change is slow, and the summer of 2025 may be remembered as when the “CAW fight” went from whisper to headline.
What happens next will be consequential for racing’s business model. If casual bettors continue feeling disadvantaged, they may withdraw, reducing pool sizes, lowering handle and shrinking margins for tracks and operators. Portnoy sees that chain reaction as very real. He argues that unless racing acknowledges the CAW threat and reforms accordingly, what might have been incremental erosion could become systematic decline.
In launching his critique, Portnoy also issued a challenge—to the sport, to regulators and to himself. He said he’s stepping back from everyday wagering for now, but not retreating from the sport. Instead, he said he will pick his spots, recalibrate his strategy and push for change. The wager now is whether racing will hear it.
As the betting machines hum in the background, Dave Portnoy is telling racing’s stewards that this race is already underway—and the audience may decide how much time is left before the finish-line bell rings.
