Statistical Proof

[traynor]

Being more than a little interested in how "statistics" can be used, abused, and interpreted to mean almost anything the researcher chooses, and--further--realizing fully that few on this site are willing to uncritically accept statistics or statements without substantial "proof," I am curious why so many seem to accept--without question--statements that "almost everyone who bets on horse races is a loser."

The current "statistic" making the rounds seems to be that only 1% of bettors win (and even that seems to be viewed with skepticism by anyone who fails to win consistently, possibly as an ego-saving strategy). Where--exactly--is the research, where was that research published, what was the composition of the population studied, what research instrument used (hopefully something a bit more sophisticated than, for example, a Cosmopolitan sex survey tucked between the pages of a magazine), and--most importantly--when was the study made?

From that base, once known, it should be easy to determine how accurate--if at all--that "statistic" is in defining the state of thoroughbred race wagering in 2013.

I am really curious because I heard a different "statistic"--from back in the Sartin days--of 95% losers, not 99%. That "statistic" seemed to be accepted--without question, apparently--by whole generations of bettors. It would add so much to snarky statements about how impossible it is to turn a profit wagering on horse races if solid, verifiable, peer-reviewed, "evidence" was provided for exactly how that figure is determined.

Rather than demanding proof that someone (or many. many someones) are winning, where--exactly--is the proof that they are NOT winning? Specifically, what is the basis for the claim that 99% (or whatever silly number is thrown out as salve for the wounded egos of losers) of bettors lose? I understand the use of such claims by system sellers (like Sartin) who wanted people to believe they were doing things that were "almost impossible" if they cashed a few tickets. I do NOT understand why it is not something that is questioned by anyone intent on winning.

If anyone is familiar with the research, please be so kind as to post the research instrument used as the basis for the conclusions of that research. That is assuming, of course, that there actually was some research conducted, somewhere, at some time, by someone, and that it was conducted rigorously enough to be credible. And not simply pulled out of someone's hat, or the result of asking a handful of disgruntled losers after the last race at Tampa Bay one day back in the 1960s.

[Greyfox]

I'll second that motion. :ThmbUp: (If that's what it is.)

This question has come up before and a large number of posters believe that you cannot win at the the track.

I don't believe it.

Furthermore, where is the research for the 5% win 95% lose. It's a statistic that was presented as "Gospel" at a lecture that I attended many years ago by an invited representative of Gambler's Anonymous.

I pooh poohed it then. I still do.

[traynor]

If you are not familiar with the term "research instrument" it is a critical component of "response-based" research. The responses given can be controlled by the precise construction of the questions asked, and the sequence in which they are asked. Marketers spend immense sums of money gathering data that is essentially junk, unless they hire an outside source to create the research instrument, and that outside source is competent enough to realize that open-ended, funneled, closed-ended, ambiguous, and other types of misleading and deceptive questions will produce desired responses, but not accurate responses.

[Robert Goren]

The takeout is so high that most bettors have to be losers. Whether it is 90% or 95% or 99 % is almost irrelevant.

[traynor]

I'll second that motion. :ThmbUp: (If that's what it is.)

This question has come up before and a large number of posters believe that you cannot win at the the track.

I don't believe it.

Furthermore, where is the research for the 5% win 95% lose. It's a statistic that was presented as "Gospel" at a lecture that I attended many years ago by an invited representative of Gambler's Anonymous.

I pooh poohed it then. I still do.

The part that I find amazing is how readily people accept something they want to believe, and regard that belief as an accurate representation of external reality. Pooh-pooh pretty well covers it.

[traynor]

The takeout is so high that most bettors have to be losers. Whether it is 90% or 95% or 99 % is almost irrelevant.

Sorry, that is technically a spurious, unsubstantiated response. "Everyone knows that" is not valid. The influence of track takeout is also a separate topic--and one I would like to explore at another time. Basically, to accept "the takeout" as being the cause for people losing assumes a perfect distribution that does not exist in reality.

[DeltaLover]

Rather than demanding proof that someone (or many. many someones) are winning, where--exactly--is the proof that they are NOT winning? .

Would you demand the same proof for roulette, baccarat or lotto?

[traynor]

Would you demand the same proof for roulette, baccarat or lotto?

Absolutely not. It can be objectively determined that a "house percentage" exists that is negative. To the best of my knowledge, no such equivalent exists in horse racing.

[Greyfox]

Absolutely not. It can be objectively determined that a "house percentage" exists that is negative. To the best of my knowledge, no such equivalent exists in horse racing.

:ThmbUp: In terms of gambling, few games give you a "skill" edge.

Poker, and horse racing give those who put the time and energy in a skill edge.

I've never played backgammon, but I knew a man who was a skill player at it.

Most other gambling activities, are just that, gambling.

Smart horse players don't "gamble." They know they have an edge.

[Dave Schwartz]

And not simply pulled out of someone's hat, or the result of asking a handful of disgruntled losers after the last race at Tampa Bay one day back in the 1960s.

I want to start a thread to find out if there actually was a Tampa Bay Downs in the 1960s.

:lol: :lol:

Oh, off-topic. Sorry, my bad.

[traynor]

:ThmbUp: In terms of gambling, few games give you a "skill" edge.

Poker, and horse racing give those who put the time and energy in a skill edge.

I've never played backgammon, but I knew a man who was a skill player at it.

Most other gambling activities, are just that, gambling.

Smart horse players don't "gamble." They know they have an edge.

I actually had the opportunity to play Joe Dwek once. I didn't last long.

[thaskalos]

It is virtually impossible to conduct anything that even resembles credible research into the topic of profitability in this game. The winners crave anonymity...and the losers are often prone to lying.

I am reminded of an admittedly unscientific bit of research that was conducted on this board about a year ago. Members were asked whether they were long-term winners, long-term losers, or close to break-even bettors at this game.

As I recall, about 200 members participated...and the results were:

Winners : 33.33%

Losers : 33.33%

About even: 33.33%

I think the 1-2% winner figure came about because of the fact that hardly anyone has ever come in contact with a player who has proven conclusively that he is a long term winner at this game.

[traynor]

To prevent someone from going through a lot of wasted effort, that silly U of A paper that conjectured the rate of horses winning in the odds ranges of a very limited sample of races was "proof" of Truth-With-a-Big-T about horse racing, that wasn't even close to being acceptable proof.

[jdhanover]

It is virtually impossible to conduct anything that even resembles credible research into the topic of profitability in this game. The winners crave anonymity...and the losers are often prone to lying.

I am reminded of an admittedly unscientific bit of research that was conducted on this board about a year ago. Members were asked whether they were long-term winners, long-term losers, or close to break-even bettors at this game.

As I recall, about 200 members participated...and the results were:

Winners : 33.33%

Losers : 33.33%

About even: 33.33%

I think the 1-2% winner figure came about because of the fact that hardly anyone has ever come in contact with a player who has proven conclusively that he is a long term winner at this game.


That looks like a survey that a Republican or Democratic think tank would have done! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Robert Fischer]

seems like it would be a power law distribution

the statistical estimate seems like it would depend on takeout and how you define "bettor".

[traynor]

It is virtually impossible to conduct anything that even resembles credible research into the topic of profitability in this game. The winners crave anonymity...and the losers are often prone to lying.

I am reminded of an admittedly unscientific bit of research that was conducted on this board about a year ago. Members were asked whether they were long-term winners, long-term losers, or close to break-even bettors at this game.

As I recall, about 200 members participated...and the results were:

Winners : 33.33%

Losers : 33.33%

About even: 33.33%

I think the 1-2% winner figure came about because of the fact that hardly anyone has ever come in contact with a player who has proven conclusively that he is a long term winner at this game.

That could be a factor of the company they keep, rather than some objective fact.

[traynor]

seems like it would be a power law distribution

the statistical estimate seems like it would depend on takeout and how you define "bettor".

Surely some eager young stat whiz did a serious survey of the literature, found a hole, and devised a proper research protocol to verify the premise?

[DeltaLover]

Absolutely not. It can be objectively determined that a "house percentage" exists that is negative. To the best of my knowledge, no such equivalent exists in horse racing.

Great.

To paraphrase your response you (correctly) will never accept such a claim based in the analytical process of comparison of winning probability versus expected value.

Obviously horse betting cannot follow the same though process due to the fact that the probability of each starter cannot be defined using some objective mechanism and is created by the consensus of the participants to the mutual pool.

So again correctly, your hypothesis is that it is possible for an 'expert' to identify betting inefficiencies subjected to corrections or as we usually call them 'overlays' and capitalize base on them.

The problem with this view is that since the pools are open to everyone chances are that this 'expert' will not be the only one who can take advantage of the naïve bettors; he will have a large enough company of equally skilled handicappers who are betting in the same pool going after the same prey.

As you can see, assuming the existence of real expertise when it comes to betting horses has as an inevitable consequence the creation of an effective market that suffers from the extraction of the rake, thus converting it to a negative expectation for all the participants. Of course at this point we can make the point that the degree of this negative expectation will not be the same for all bettors, something that opens a window to reach profitability through rebates.

Based in these I more inclined to believe a phrase like 'he is a good gambler and handicapper and he is capable to make a big score but he can also have long loosing streaks' to a phrase like: 'he is making a living betting horses', 'horse racing serves like an ATM to him', 'he never had a loosing month'

[Robert Goren]

Absolutely not. It can be objectively determined that a "house percentage" exists that is negative. To the best of my knowledge, no such equivalent exists in horse racing.The house percentage is a lot less for roulette or baccarat than it is for horse racing even with best rebates out there. It is easily to find out what it is if you look. It does vary some from state to state and from type of bet to type of bet and from ADW to ADW.
Horse racing is a game of skill with the bettors competing against each other with the track taking a rake just like in a casino poker game. Only the casinos rake less in the poker games. They all can't be winners. Horse racing works different than poker. In most poker games there is one or two big winners, one or two big losers and rest more or less break even. In horse racing, there are very few big losers, just a bridgejumper here and there. There are still the big winners, the pros and the whales, a few small winners and that means there has be a whole lot of small losers. you can debate the %, but when add up the takeout, the money won by the whales and pros and toss in a few bucks for the small winners, that means the % of small losers has to be pretty high.

[traynor]

Great.

To paraphrase your response you (correctly) will never accept such a claim based in the analytical process of comparison of winning probability versus expected value.

Obviously horse betting cannot follow the same though process due to the fact that the probability of each starter cannot be defined using some objective mechanism and is created by the consensus of the participants to the mutual pool.

So again correctly, your hypothesis is that it is possible for an 'expert' to identify betting inefficiencies subjected to corrections or as we usually call them 'overlays' and capitalize base on them.

The problem with this view is that since the pools are open to everyone chances are that this 'expert' will not be the only one who can take advantage of the naïve bettors; he will have a large enough company of equally skilled handicappers who are betting in the same pool going after the same prey.

As you can see, assuming the existence of real expertise when it comes to betting horses has as an inevitable consequence the creation of an effective market that suffers from the extraction of the rake, thus converting it to a negative expectation for all the participants. Of course at this point we can make the point that the degree of this negative expectation will not be the same for all bettors, something that opens a window to reach profitability through rebates.

Based in these I more inclined to believe a phrase like 'he is a good gambler and handicapper and he is capable to make a big score but he can also have long loosing streaks' to a phrase like: 'he is making a living betting horses', 'horse racing serves like an ATM to him', 'he never had a loosing month'

That is an interestng observation, but does not answer the question of "where's the proof?"

[Robert Fischer]

Surely some eager young stat whiz did a serious survey of the literature, found a hole, and devised a proper research protocol to verify the premise?


just guessing

I have a limited understanding,but it seems correct that a regular human contest of skill would follow a distribution like that. That's a parimutuel contest.

Then you have takeout which would in effect cannibalize some of the winners on the good end of the distribution. So instead of 80-20(popular current distribution) it might be 80-5*

*(with 15/20 of the winners being being the track-takeout).


or maybe i'm way off. :D

[traynor]

The house percentage is a lot less for roulette or baccarat than it is for horse racing even with best rebates out there. It is easily to find out what it is if you look. It does vary some from state to state and from type of bet to type of bet and from ADW to ADW.
Horse racing is a game of skill with the bettors competing against each other with the track taking a rake just like in a casino poker game. Only the casinos rake less in the poker games. They all can't be winners. Horse racing works different than poker. In most poker games there is one or two big winners, one or two big losers and rest more or less break even. In horse racing, there are very few big losers, just a bridgejumper here and there. There are still the big winners, the pros and the whales, a few small winners and that means there has be a whole lot of small losers. you can debate the %, but when add up the takeout, the money won by the whales and pros and toss in a few bucks for the small winners, that means the % of small losers has to be pretty high.

Those are assumptions. They may be perfectly accurate, but assumptions are not proof. Consider it as a hypothesis--"99% of the people who bet on horse races fail to make a profit from that betting." What proof could you offer to support that hypothesis?

[traynor]

just guessing

I have a limited understanding,but it seems correct that a regular human contest of skill would follow a distribution like that. That's a parimutuel contest.

Then you have takeout which would in effect cannibalize some of the winners on the good end of the distribution. So instead of 80-20(popular current distribution) it might be 80-5*

*(with 15/20 of the winners being being the track-takeout).


or maybe i'm way off. :D

With all due respect to Pareto, pari-mutuel pool betting is not exactly the contest that some may believe. Nor is winning necessarily a direct product of skill. I know some really skillful handicappers that do NOT do well.

The relationship of track takeout to winning assumes that if there were no track takeout, the money would somehow magically be distributed evenly between all those betting, in direct proportion to their wagers. Perhaps in George H. W. Bush's "kinder, gentler world." Not in this one. In this one, you have to bet on the right horse more often and at better prices than the other guy, regardless of how much the track rakes.

[Robert Goren]

It is possible to make a living betting horses. It may even be possible not to have a losing month although I have never met someone who could make the latter claim. And only two who could make the first. One died a long time ago. The other I lost touch with about 10 years ago. I have no clue if he still is doing it or moved on to other things. The last time I talked to him, he was considering moving on to a different life style. He had met a woman and was in love. She wasn't too fond of his gambling according to him. I know he moved to Omaha which is why I stopped seeing him at the Lincoln track.

[DeltaLover]

That is an interestng observation, but does not answer the question of "where's the proof?"

I think you are correct. Such a proof does not exist since we cannot be sure of the performance of all the bettors.

The opposite would have been considered 'argumentum ad ignorantiam'

[Greyfox]

Surely some eager young stat whiz did a serious survey of the literature, found a hole, and devised a proper research protocol to verify the premise?


The modern day"bookies," in effect on-line betting companies, would or could give a reasonably accurate answer w.r.t. percentage of winners vs. losers.

To my knowledge, "they ain't telling."

That doesn't matter to me. My wallet thickness (betting account), or slimness, is a an unobtrusive guide, for me.

Greyfox

[Robert Goren]

Those are assumptions. They may be perfectly accurate, but assumptions are not proof. Consider it as a hypothesis--"99% of the people who bet on horse races fail to make a profit from that betting." What proof could you offer to support that hypothesis? None and for the record, I think that number is a little too high. Showing a profit most years is not the same as making a living do it. Showing a profit most years is hard enough. Making a living betting the ponies requires some additional skills.

[traynor]

I think you are correct. Such a proof does not exist since we cannot be sure of the performance of all the bettors.

The opposite would have been considered 'argumentum ad ignorantiam'

Exactly. I have never met (at least to the best of my knowledge) a two-headed Martian. That does absolutely nothing to prove that two-headed Martians do not exist. The ONLY thing it proves is that (to the best of my knowledge) I have never encountered a two-headed Martian.

For me to then--based on my horrendously limited experience--declare that two-headed Martians could not possibly exist would be foolish. It would be even more foolish to compare experiences with a limited number of friends and associates and decide--based on the fact that not only had they never seen a two-headed Martian, they had never seen ANY Martians--that two-headed Martians, all Martians, and probably the planet Mars could not possibly exist.

[traynor]

The modern day"bookies," in effect on-line betting companies, would or could give a reasonably accurate answer w.r.t. percentage of winners vs. losers.

To my knowledge, "they ain't telling."

That doesn't matter to me. My wallet thickness (betting account), or slimness, is a an unobtrusive guide, for me.

Greyfox

Or one could assume that those who favor online betting companies are primarily confirmed losers anyway, so those statistics would be meaningless because they only include a segment of the population (of bettors).

Most of the "serious" bettors I have encountered wager ontrack, NOT with online betting companies. That is not really unusual, because most of the serious bettors I have encountered (at least the ones who were winning) were trip handicappers, and spent considerable time watching races (live--so they can watch the parts they want to watch, not just the parts the camera focuses on). Betting ontrack is a natural extension of that activity, just as paddock inspections and watching post parades are extensions.

I do not in any way claim that trip handicappers are more "successful" than computer handicappers, or pen-and-paper handicappers, or whatever else. Only that the records of online betting companies would only be a (very specific and) limited population from which to extrapolate generalities.

[Robert Goren]

A small time bookie who took my football bets once confided to me that about 90% of his customers were losers at the end of the year. He only took football and hoops bets. I believe him because he use to be an accountant, so I am sure he kept pretty good records and why would he lie about a number that high. I was one of his losers for a few years, then I quit betting football when I realised that I would always be one of the 90%.

[traynor]

None and for the record, I think that number is a little too high. Showing a profit most years is not the same as making a living do it. Showing a profit most years is hard enough. Making a living betting the ponies requires some additional skills.

I agree. However, you illustrate several substantially different scenarios. Wagering as a sole means of income is way different than showing a profit from betting, or never having a losing month. Each scenario represents a different outcome, and often a very different strategy.

I think very few of those who consider themselves successful bettors could rely solely on wagering for income. Not because it is more difficult, but because without the safety net of other assets available, they would tend to panic and alter the strategies that had enabled them to win as "too risky." The assumption that because they have won while other assets were available they can continue winning if those assets become unavailable is only conjecture. Something that most (for better or worse) will never find out.

[Greyfox]

Most of the "serious" bettors I have encountered wager ontrack, NOT with online betting companies.


While you and I share the same scepticism about the 5% winners and 95% losers, I don't share that opinion at all.

You may have met "serious" bettors who wagered on track many times, it would be my opinion that far more serious bettors who weren't at the track you wagered at, nor have you ever met them. Just my opinion.

[Robert Goren]

Very few horseplayers talk about it at work even winning ones. And for good reason! All gambling has a stigma attached to it, but none worse than horse racing betting.

[Greyfox]

All gambling has a stigma attached to it, but none worse than horse racing betting.

Really? What do you base that idea on? :confused:

[thaskalos]

Those are assumptions. They may be perfectly accurate, but assumptions are not proof. Consider it as a hypothesis--"99% of the people who bet on horse races fail to make a profit from that betting." What proof could you offer to support that hypothesis?

Some things are impossible to prove...or disprove. So...where do we go from here?

[thaskalos]

Exactly. I have never met (at least to the best of my knowledge) a two-headed Martian. That does absolutely nothing to prove that two-headed Martians do not exist. The ONLY thing it proves is that (to the best of my knowledge) I have never encountered a two-headed Martian.

For me to then--based on my horrendously limited experience--declare that two-headed Martians could not possibly exist would be foolish. It would be even more foolish to compare experiences with a limited number of friends and associates and decide--based on the fact that not only had they never seen a two-headed Martian, they had never seen ANY Martians--that two-headed Martians, all Martians, and probably the planet Mars could not possibly exist.

Yes...but the burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists rather than on the claim that X does not exist. It is improper for a person to claim that "X exists"...and when asked to prove it, then the person who made the claim uses as a defense of "X exists" the next claim that no one has proven that X does not exist.

[thaskalos]

And if you disagree with what I have stated above...I assure you that I can prove you wrong. :)

[Tom]

Some things are impossible to prove...or disprove. So...where do we go from here?

To the next race.

[barn32]

Oh my, what a thread.

Question 1: Let's assume that at PA downs there is no rake. Now how many people win? (Estimate if you like.)

Question 2. Let's assume that at PA downs there is a 99% rake. Now how many people win? (Again, estimations are fine.)

[traynor]

While you and I share the same scepticism about the 5% winners and 95% losers, I don't share that opinion at all.

You may have met "serious" bettors who wagered on track many times, it would be my opinion that far more serious bettors who weren't at the track you wagered at, nor have you ever met them. Just my opinion.

Of course. And that same caveat applies to virtually everyone who believes their (horrendously limited) experience enables them to extrapolate generalities that apply to external reality as Truth-With-a-Big-T.

[traynor]

Very few horseplayers talk about it at work even winning ones. And for good reason! All gambling has a stigma attached to it, but none worse than horse racing betting.

Totalmente de acuerdo. That makes virtually all conclusions based on "response research" pretty much worthless. People who broadcast specifics about their personal business are usually trying to manipulate the perceptions of others, rather than "self-disclosure." Most "I am a winner!" claims vary little from the impression management motivation of cod pieces.

Similarly, claims of "I am a little behind" or "I am down 10 large for the month, and I have a boxful of losing tickets to prove it" should be viewed with equal skepticism. There is very, very little profit to be derived from "proving you are a winner" and a whole lot of downside. I think anyone who doesn't realize that is probably not doing too well in his or her wagering efforts.

[Capper Al]

May I suggest an upper limit to our expectation and the forum can narrow it down from there?

Out right random, one race a year in an 8 horse field:

1 / 8 = .125

Once one keeps playing their chances go down, the take-out has to be included, and other unkwown factors.

[traynor]

Yes...but the burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists rather than on the claim that X does not exist. It is improper for a person to claim that "X exists"...and when asked to prove it, then the person who made the claim uses as a defense of "X exists" the next claim that no one has proven that X does not exist.

I disagree. There are two opposing positions. Declaring that one requires "proof" while the other does not is unacceptable. A statement that 99% of all bettors on horse races lose is the substantive equivalent of a null hypothesis warrant that "no one ever wins" and requires supporting proof.

[traynor]

May I suggest an upper limit to our expectation and the forum can narrow it down from there?

Out right random, one race a year in an 8 horse field:

1 / 8 = .125

Once one keeps playing their chances go down, the take-out has to be included, and other unkwown factors.

I think it is more reasonable to narrow it down to an answer to the original question--where is the research that proves 99% (or 95%) of all people who bet on horse races are losers overall? Who did the research, where was it published, who reviewed it, and what research instrument was used to collect the data?

[therussmeister]

In 1984, before I had ever been to the track, I read that 2% of horse players are long term winners. This was the only reason I decided to get involved with horse racing. I have zip, zero, zilch interest in any form of gambling, except that which I believe it is possible to win long term.

I know where I saw this 2% stat. I read it in a magazine, probably Psychology Today, but in those days there was similar magazine published, it may have been that other one. There was an article about a study done about winning horse players in New York that included this 2% winners stat. The article probably didn't detail how this 2% stat was determined. The focus of the study was on what intellectual qualities winners had. I do remember the study said IQ was irrelevant, that's about all I remember.

In the 90's I bumped into a reference to this study, and wrote down the author's name and tried to look it up on this newfangled thing called the internet. Couldn't find it. Couldn't find any reference to that author. I kept his name in my wallet for many years, but now I can't find it, and can't remember it.

[turninforhome10]

May I ask this question, in the context of poker.
While playing Texas Hold Em, you get two aces in the hole. The flop gives you the third ace and pairs nines. You get action from the guy most likely holding the other ace thinking his two pair should be good enough with King high. The last two cards are four and six. No flushes.
Do you handle this as "Finally I get a good hand" or "How do I extract every penny from this high percentage opportunity"?

[DeltaLover]

Do you handle this as "Finally I get a good hand" or "How do I extract every penny from this high percentage opportunity"?

Both!

[Tom]

If it is 5% or 25%......what benefit is there in knowing?
All I care about is that I am in that percentage, whatever it is! ;)

[Robert Goren]

May I ask this question, in the context of poker.
While playing Texas Hold Em, you get two aces in the hole. The flop gives you the third ace and pairs nines. You get action from the guy most likely holding the other ace thinking his two pair should be good enough with King high. The last two cards are four and six. No flushes.
Do you handle this as "Finally I get a good hand" or "How do I extract every penny from this high percentage opportunity"? neither, you should be thinking what can beat me?(9-9 in the hole) How good is this guy and is he dumb enough to go all in with A-K hole cards? These kind of full houses are big trap hands in No Limit Holdem. A good player with an A-K hole cards with that flop is going to test the waters and fold if he meets any resistance. IF he bets and calls any of your action he has the 9-9 in the hole. he will make what looks like a small value bet on the river and then re-raise you all in. Remember he is putting you on a hand too. He is thinking what kind of action he is going from what hole cards. After a bet and your 3 bet and his call pre flop. He can peg your hand pretty well. You have to have TT+ AK AQ unless you are one of those jokers who 3 bet there with something like suited connectors or Ax suited. He will know if you are one of those jokers too. None of those hands except AA is going to do much on the flop and he knows it. Now the fish on the other hand just sees his 2 pair bets for all he thinks its worth which in his case is a lot. Just be sure you are not the fish with full house.

[thaskalos]

May I ask this question, in the context of poker.
While playing Texas Hold Em, you get two aces in the hole. The flop gives you the third ace and pairs nines. You get action from the guy most likely holding the other ace thinking his two pair should be good enough with King high. The last two cards are four and six. No flushes.
Do you handle this as "Finally I get a good hand" or "How do I extract every penny from this high percentage opportunity"?

You handle this as the classic "how do I extract every penny from this high percentage opportunity" situation.

The action you get post-flop is not likely to come from a player holding the case ace; it will most likely come from a player holding a nine. And this player will be willing to invest plenty of money in the pot...given the opportunity.

The idea of you folding a hand like this -- as Robert Goren has suggested -- is absurd.

[thaskalos]

neither, you should be thinking what can beat me?(9-9 in the hole) How good is this guy and is he dumb enough to go all in with A-K hole cards? These kind of full houses are big trap hands in No Limit Holdem. A good player with an A-K hole cards with that flop is going to test the waters and fold if he meets any resistance. If he bets and calls any of your action he has the 9-9 in the hole. he will make what looks like a small value bet on the river and then re-raise you all in. Remember he is putting you on a hand too. He is thinking what kind of action he is going from what hole cards. After a bet and your 3 bet and his call pre flop. He can peg your hand pretty well. You have to have TT+ AK AQ unless you are one of those jokers who 3 bet there with something like suited connectors or Ax suited. He will know if you are one of those jokers too. None of those hands except AA is going to do much on the flop and he knows it. Now the fish on the other hand just sees his 2 pair bets for all he thinks its worth which in his case is a lot. Just be sure you are not the fish with full house.

Ridiculous!

He will bet and call your action even when he has a single 9 in the hole.

Any player who is even remotely thinking of folding a hand like A-A in this spot should not venture outside his kitchen-table poker games.

[traynor]

I am a big fan of Ruth Ellen Boetcher-Joeres, and her definition of much commentary as "obfuscatory prose." It is far more elegant than the more colloquial version, "If you can't convince them with logic, dazzle them with (whatever pops into your head)."

[Ray2000]

I think it is more reasonable to narrow it down to an answer to the original question--where is the research that proves 99% (or 95%) of all people who bet on horse races are losers overall? Who did the research, where was it published, who reviewed it, and what research instrument was used to collect the data?


The proof you seek lies in the database of the larger ADWs

They know (within some confidence limits, I assume +99%) the percentage of players who have and/or will have a positive ROI. Some may even be tempted to 'piggyback' those few.

I wish they would publish that data.....

[classhandicapper]

The proof you seek lies in the database of the larger ADWs

They know (within some confidence limits, I assume +99%) the percentage of players who have and/or will have a positive ROI. Some may even be tempted to 'piggyback' those few.

I wish they would publish that data.....

I wonder if even that's a good test.

Right now I have 4 accounts and sometimes I also play with cash at the track. It's not uncommon for me to be a loser in 1 account at the end of the year, but net to profits overall. I've probably even had years where I lost in 2 accounts but netted to profits. Others may have the opposite experience.

[traynor]

The proof you seek lies in the database of the larger ADWs

They know (within some confidence limits, I assume +99%) the percentage of players who have and/or will have a positive ROI. Some may even be tempted to 'piggyback' those few.

I wish they would publish that data.....

Again, that is an assumption based on the customers of ADWs being a representative cross section of the overall population of all bettors. That is not necessarily the case. Assumptions made by a sub-group that members of all other groups are "just like them, and could not pass up free money" may be unwarranted. That is, ADWs are far more appealing to those who are losing, who are breaking even, or who are marginally profitable than to those who may be earning a substantial return and choose not to broadcast the details of that return (or leave a paper trail of the details across a half dozen unsecured servers off in lala land).

[classhandicapper]

For some reason my memory of the "95% of all horse players are losers" stat was that it didn't apply to the long term. For some reason I always thought it applied to any given DAY. 5% of the players went home a winner for the day. I always thought the number of long term winners was WAY less than 5%.

The other thing to consider is that the percentage of long term winners is probably changing.

I think horse players are MASSIVELY better now than even back in the early/mid 90s when I first started to break through consistently. Back then I had information and insights that very few other people had. In fact, I didn't know anyone else that knew some of the things I knew. They were original insights using numbers I calculated for myself. Now very similar stuff is mass marketed and everyone has it and many understand it. So the number of long term winners almost has to be shrinking.

[traynor]

I wonder if even that's a good test.

Right now I have 4 accounts and sometimes I also play with cash at the track. It's not uncommon for me to be a loser in 1 account at the end of the year, but net to profits overall. I've probably even had years where I lost in 2 accounts but netted to profits. Others may have the opposite experience.

The usefulness of keeping accurate records is huge, not the least of which is an amicable relationship with the IRS. As you stated above, viewing only one or two components of the overall wagering activity may be misleading.

[PhantomOnTour]

Many players here show a documented positive ROI in the contests run on this board; not just 1% or 5%.

Look up the top ROIs in the Del-Toga contest or just about any other contest held here.
Quite a few show that they are documented winners. Who knows what they bet in real life, but the paper proof is there.

That's proof enough for me that the 1% to 5% number is bogus

[traynor]

For some reason my memory of the "95% of all horse players are losers" stat was that it didn't apply to the long term. For some reason I always thought it applied to any given DAY. 5% of the players went home a winner for the day. I always thought the number of long term winners was WAY less than 5%.

The other thing to consider is that the percentage of long term winners is probably changing.

I think horse players are MASSIVELY better now than even back in the early/mid 90s when I first started to break through consistently. Back then I had information and insights that very few other people had. In fact, I didn't know anyone else that knew some of the things I knew. They were original insights using numbers I calculated for myself. Now very similar stuff is mass marketed and everyone has it and many understand it. So the number of long term winners almost has to be shrinking.

One might think so, but the opposite view may be more correct. That is, the old stuff may suffer diminishing returns, but the new stuff is doing quite well. As in, "information and insights that very few other people had." Again, with a reference to the Efficient Market Hypothesis, the value of information is in direct proportion to the number of people who have that information.

One of the major advantages of wagering in 2013 is the proliferation of computer users, in conjunction with the closed system of Equibase data. Almost everyone is crunching the same set of numbers, looking for an edge. Probably great for hobbyists seeking fun, excitement, and things to do to keep busy, but perhaps not so great for those seeking profit as their primary motivation.

[traynor]

Many players here show a documented positive ROI in the contests run on this board; not just 1% or 5%.

Look up the top ROIs in the Del-Toga contest or just about any other contest held here.
Quite a few show that they are documented (on paper, albeit) winners.

That's proof enough for me that the 1% to 5% number is bogus

I can't accept that. If I did, it would put me in the position of relying on one set of apocryphal results as "meaningful" (because they happened to agree with me) while ignoring other similarly apocryphal results as "worthless" (because they did not agree with me).

I think the dreck about "only 1% winning" or "only 5% winning" is utter nonsense, based on my own experience and the experience of others I have known over the years.

Pick a group of (realtively) poor MBA students who are prohibited by law from working or earning money through normal means (foreign students), who are well-educated, highly motivated, and whizzes at math, programming, and statistics, and show them a way to swap long hours alone in the dorm studying for beer, pizza, and partying--all funded by the locals betting on the wrong horses at the local track--and see what happens. Some really interesting stuff.

[Dave Schwartz]

Traynor, I just realized who you are partnered with.

I knew I had heard this before!

[bob60566]

One might think so, but the opposite view may be more correct. That is, the old stuff may suffer diminishing returns, but the new stuff is doing quite well. As in, "information and insights that very few other people had." Again, with a reference to the Efficient Market Hypothesis, the value of information is in direct proportion to the number of people who have that information.

One of the major advantages of wagering in 2013 is the proliferation of computer users, in conjunction with the closed system of Equibase data. Almost everyone is crunching the same set of numbers, looking for an edge. Probably great for hobbyists seeking fun, excitement, and things to do to keep busy, but perhaps not so great for those seeking profit as their primary motivation.

You just let the cat out of bag is it still 1632 :(

[Robert Goren]

Ridiculous!

He will bet and call your action even when he has a single 9 in the hole.

Any player who is even remotely thinking of folding a hand like A-A in this spot should not venture outside his kitchen-table poker games.What hand wouldhe have to call a 3 bet preflop with a 9 in it? Or don't you 3 bet A-A preflop?

[Dave Schwartz]

What hand would to call a 3 bet preflop with a 9 in it? Or don't you 3 bet A-A preflop?

Poker: It's like another language.

For me, Pre-flop would be like before ThoroBrain 4.

:lol:

[thaskalos]

What hand wouldhe have to call a 3 bet preflop with a 9 in it? Or don't you 3 bet A-A preflop?
Go back and look at the guy's original question...and show me where you see a 3-bet preflop mentioned.

[Robert Goren]

May I ask this question, in the context of poker.
While playing Texas Hold Em, you get two aces in the hole. The flop gives you the third ace and pairs nines. You get action from the guy most likely holding the other ace thinking his two pair should be good enough with King high. The last two cards are four and six. No flushes.
Do you handle this as "Finally I get a good hand" or "How do I extract every penny from this high percentage opportunity"? You get action from the guy post flop so you had to get action from pre flop . That means he sits in front of you. So that means you had a chance to 3 bet flop. Do you call with AA instead of instead of 3 betting there? I seen people do it, but........
There is one other possiblity. You sit in front of him, bet your AA preflop and he calls. Then you check post flop and he bets. but I have never seen a person check Aces full post flop. If you bet the post flop and he raises what could he have? What could he think you have.
This assumes that this guy not a total fish. If he is a fish, you bet and you keep betting because he going keep call no matter what.

[thaskalos]

You get action from the guy post flop so you had to get action from pre flop . That means he sits in front of you. So that means you had a chance to 3 bet flop. Do you call with AA instead of instead of 3 betting there? I seen people do it, but........
There is one other possiblity. You sit in front of him, bet your AA preflop and he calls. Then you check post flop and he bets. but I have never seen a person check Aces full post flop. If you bet the post flop and he raises what could he have? What could he think you have.
This assumes that this guy not a total fish. If he is a fish, you bet and you keep betting because he going keep call no matter what.

Robert...I'll be brief.

With pocket aces...flopping aces-full is a dream flop for you.

If you are overcome with fear at the sight of a little action, because you think that your opponent flopped quads...then you are obviously not cut out for poker.

They tell me that gin rummy for a penny a point is a nice game...

[therussmeister]

Most of the "serious" bettors I have encountered wager ontrack, NOT with online betting companies.
If there are serious bettors only playing online, how would you meet them?

[Robert Goren]

Robert...I'll be brief.

With pocket aces...flopping aces-full is a dream flop for you.

If you are overcome with fear at the sight of a little action, because you think that your opponent flopped quads...then you are obviously not cut out for poker.

They tell me that gin rummy for a penny a point is a nice game...I love to play poker with you As Doyle said "AA will small pots and lose big ones." The same can be said for full houses with no flush possible. People don't give up much money with 2 pair anymore. Maybe some still do live, but they didn't online the last time I played. It took me a few years to learn that. It pretty clear you haven't yet.

[traynor]

If there are serious bettors only playing online, how would you meet them?

That is an intersting question, and the answer is not as obvious as it may seem. It would be, "Exactly the same way I meet serious bettors who wager at the track."

That might seem an oversimplification, but it really is not. There are a number of mutual interests that seem to attract serious bettors. One is blackjack. Another (obviously, from the content on this thread recently) is poker.

Additionally, because I develop custom race analysis and race modeling software applications as well as multimedia training applications for a very specific clientele, my clients (and their friends and associates that recommend them, and who have recommended me to them) are pretty much pre-qualified as relatively serious bettors.

One thing that most serious bettors I have encountered--ontrack and offtrack--have in common is that they want it their way, and they can afford to get it their way. Good for me, good for them, everybody is happy. Life is sweet, the sun is shining, and the birds are singing.

[Robert Goren]

There are 3 types of horse players. Live track, simulcast or OTB and internet. Although there are over laps, each approach the game differently.

[turninforhome10]

You handle this as the classic "how do I extract every penny from this high percentage opportunity" situation.

The action you get post-flop is not likely to come from a player holding the case ace; it will most likely come from a player holding a nine. And this player will be willing to invest plenty of money in the pot...given the opportunity.

The idea of you folding a hand like this -- as Robert Goren has suggested -- is absurd.
If they were on the 9 it should pay like a slot machine.
Also played a hand the other day of interest.
Got a 35 suited down and limped in Flop come A24. Next card is the A which pairs the board. I get raised on a limp call. What next? I will tell you the river after you answer. It was good.

[Aner]

The feature article in the December 2012 issue of the Smithsonian is " Innovators Who Are Rocking the World". One the the inventors was Dr. NakaMats who claims to be a cross between Steve Jobs and Leonardo da Vinci. The inventions he claims are the floppy disc, the CD, the DVD, the fax machine, the karaoke machine, an invisible B-bust bra, a self defense wig, and a libido- boosting potion along with hundreds of others. Not all his claims are undisputed.

Dr NakaMats says creativity has three essential elements: suji (theory), pika (inspiration) and iki (practicality). To be a successful invention, all three are needed. Many inventors have the pika, but not the iki to realize their dream.

In recent discussions about horse race betting, I see a lot of suji and pika, but almost no iki.

It is said that 82.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot- which accounts for possibly 93.4% of Dr. NakMats scientific calculations. He confides that his LoveJet is " 55 times more powerful than Viagara and makes sex 300% more fun". Among the other seemingly magical properties of this liquid lust are memory improvements and skin rejuvenation. "I have tested LoveJet on 10,000 women," Dr. NakaMats said solemnly.
"I do not do the sex. I just check the meters".

And that seems to be the problem here. Almost everyone is checking the meters instead of making good bets.

[MightBeSosa]

.....
And that seems to be the problem here. Almost everyone is checking the meters instead of making good bets.

Seriously. I mean how could you not have the 500 exacta Jupiter/Saturnus at GP today. I mean sometimes the planets do align.

[thaskalos]

If they were on the 9 it should pay like a slot machine.
Also played a hand the other day of interest.
Got a 35 suited down and limped in Flop come A24. Next card is the A which pairs the board. I get raised on a limp call. What next? I will tell you the river after you answer. It was good.

Anything could have happened on the river...and it wouldn't make a bit of difference, in the grand scheme of things. The main point in holdem poker is this:

Big hands are hard to come by...and you play them smart when you get them. The good player cannot always afford to wait for the immortal "nuts" before he commits serious amounts of money to the pot.

In limit holdem...these types of hands practically play themselves. You don't fold the nut straight on an unraised flop -- or a raised one, for that matter -- just because the board paired on the turn. Your straight demands that you see the hand all the way to the end...and you bite the bullet if you get outdrawn on the river. The pot is offering you odds that you cannot refuse.

No-limit is a lot trickier, of course...because your entire stack is in play during any given hand. In no-limit...all sorts of different variables come into play -- and the hand does not play itself. But selective aggressiveness is still king...and you don't allow yourself to be pushed around when you hold powerhouse hands.

In your prior example...pocket aces in the hole would kill for an A-9-9 flop...and there isn't a competent player in the world -- Robert Goren excluded, of course -- who would ever consider laying this hand down. Doing so is called GUTLESS poker...and it's the most unimaginative, most exploitable type of poker there is.

[thaskalos]

In your prior example...pocket aces in the hole would kill for an A-9-9 flop...

I shouldn't have written it like that, of course...but I initially wrote "aces in the hole" -- and forgot to erase it when I decided to go with "pocket aces".

I don't want anyone to think that I am not aware of what "pocket aces" means...:)

[turninforhome10]

Anything could have happened on the river...and it wouldn't make a bit of difference, in the grand scheme of things. The main point in holdem poker is this:

Big hands are hard to come by...and you play them smart when you get them. The good player cannot always afford to wait for the immortal "nuts" before he commits serious amounts of money to the pot.

In limit holdem...these types of hands practically play themselves. You don't fold the nut straight on an unraised flop -- or a raised one, for that matter -- just because the board paired on the turn. Your straight demands that you see the hand all the way to the end...and you bite the bullet if you get outdrawn on the river. The pot is offering you odds that you cannot refuse.

No-limit is a lot trickier, of course...because your entire stack is in play during any given hand. In no-limit...all sorts of different variables come into play -- and the hand does not play itself. But selective aggressiveness is still king...and you don't allow yourself to be pushed around when you hold powerhouse hands.

In your prior example...pocket aces in the hole would kill for an A-9-9 flop...and there isn't a competent player in the world -- Robert Goren excluded, of course -- who would ever consider laying this hand down. Doing so is called GUTLESS poker...and it's the most unimaginative, most exploitable type of poker there is.

The river comes 4 and if he is holding Ace he wants crush me like a bug without getting to crazy. I call he bets half the stack. I pause . I called him.
Took half the stack on just the call with the slow play. He was putting me on the other Ace and two pair same as him and figured a push.
I feel the reraise on the river would have been too much.

[Robert Goren]

The river comes 4 and if he is holding Ace he wants crush me like a bug without getting to crazy. I call he bets half the stack. I pause . I called him.
Took half the stack on just the call with the slow play. He was putting me on the other Ace and two pair same as him and figured a push.
I feel the reraise on the river would have been too much.You slow played pocket aces preflop, and aces full post flop and on the turn. amazing. You don't see that very often. If you think he has 2 pair or trip 9 or even 9s full, why don't shoove all in on the river. He has got to call with trip 9s or 9s full, He might even call with his 2 pair and king kicker because he is almost pot committed. You still have too worry about the four 9s, but the way you played the hand it is a late for that. If you have been slow playing all this time, Don't you want to be all in on the river? or else you are the tighest player I have ever seen.
How much of fish is this guy. Very few good players would bet half their stack on the river after 3 calls. Most would bet about 10-15% of the pot no matter what they had. It is what they call a value bet. It gets a likely call from you with any 2 pair and raise that he could fold if you had trips or a set or a full house or four 9s without losing half his stack. A half of stack bet like he made would seldom get called by a good player without a hand that beats top 2 pair. You have to put him on a bluff to call a half of stack call with 2 pair there.

[turninforhome10]

You slow played pocket aces preflop, and aces full post flop and on the turn. amazing. You don't see that very often. If you think he has 2 pair or trip 9 or even 9s full, why don't shoove all in on the river. He has got to call with trip 9s or 9s full, He might even call with his 2 pair and king kicker because he is almost pot committed. You still have too worry about the four 9s, but the way you played the hand it is a late for that. If you have been slow playing all this time, Don't you want to be all in on the river? or else you are the tighest player I have ever seen.
How much of fish is this guy. Very few good players would bet half their stack on the river after 3 calls. Most would bet about 10-15% of the pot no matter what they had. It is what they call a value bet. It gets a likely call from you with any 2 pair and raise that he could fold if you had trips or a set or a full house or four 9s without losing half his stack. A half of stack bet like he made would seldom get called by a good player without a hand that beats top 2 pair. You have to put him on a bluff to call a half of stack call with 2 pair there.
See my note to Thask. This is different hand

[Robert Goren]

Most of the time the hand would go like this in NL holdem Villain with AK you with pocket aces
pre flop
Villain bet 3 times the pot
You raise 3 times the villians bets
Villian calls
Post flop
Villain bets half the pot with two top two pair
You raise the size of his bet
Villian calls
Turn
Villian checks
You bet half the pot
Villian calls
River
Villian checks
You value bet 10-15% of the pot
He calls
OR
Post flop
Villain bets half the pot
You call ( you, sandbagger, you)
Turn
Villain bets half the pot
You call (I have seen raises here, but the good villian usually folds agonizing, if you do)( the fish calls a raise most of the time,but won't bet the river, but will likely call a value bet)
River
Villain value bets
You raise all in
Villian folds

You almost never see a good player call with pockets AA anymore pre flop although fish do it all the time as do skilled sandbaggers.(a very rare breed)
How you play the hand depends on whether the villian is a fish, a donkey or decent player.