SPEED 2013

[Sly7449]

I have noticed an ad stating "an eye-popping +82% ROI."

Does anyone have any Reviews on this Product that was recently released?

http://horsebettingsuccess.com/speed-2013/

Thanks

Sly

[appistappis]

you should hurry and order, they might run out.

[MightBeSosa]

"After considering not making the method public at all, I stopped at 100 races (actual total in the published recap you receive with the method ran to 102 races by end of the betting day on Jan. 4th.) to write up the method for distribution."

I'm no statistics guru, but I suspect a 100 race trial would have less significance then say, a teen girl liking Justin Beiber.

[thaskalos]

A rare sight. An intelligent, seemingly well-informed con man. :)

[ArlJim78]

I like the last comment from Andrew Q. Serling today.


I’m concerned that as I accumulate great wealth with your method, I will
start to hurt the payoffs.
Can you offer any sustenance?

[andicap]

you should hurry and order, they might run out.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[shouldacoulda]

"After considering not making the method public at all, I stopped at 100 races (actual total in the published recap you receive with the method ran to 102 races by end of the betting day on Jan. 4th.) to write up the method for distribution."

I'm no statistics guru, but I suspect a 100 race trial would have less significance then say, a teen girl liking Justin Beiber.

@ +$0.82 ROI I would be dipped in "you know what" before I would write a book. :eek: I would accumulate great wealth instead at the track. :ThmbUp:

[VastinMT]

I used this method at the track two days ago and became wealthy beyond my wildest dreams!

Then I spent yesterday buying up all the other copies available!

Sorry, you snooze, you lose!!!

[traynor]

This provides a great example of the use of small models. With a bit of digging, one can find clumps of races to "prove" almost anything. There is not much difference between a 100 race "model," a 300 race "model," and a 1000 race "model." None are especially predictive. The only thing they show is what happened in the past, not what will happen in the future.

[thaskalos]

This provides a great example of the use of small models. With a bit of digging, one can find clumps of races to "prove" almost anything. There is not much difference between a 100 race "model," a 300 race "model," and a 1000 race "model." None are especially predictive. The only thing they show is what happened in the past, not what will happen in the future.
This is not a case of being misled by using small models.

This is a case of someone telling outright lies in order to profit from the ignorance of the gullible public.

If a system like this really existed...it would never be sold by its creator.

[lamboguy]

This is not a case of being misled by using small models.

This is a case of someone telling outright lies in order to profit from the ignorance of the gullible public.

If a system like this really existed...it would never be sold by its creator.its no different than all of our politians

[timtam]

I purchased this method and after reading it over I realized it was pretty
much the same as Tom Consoles FG. He actually advocates betting as
many as 3 horses in one race but usually 2. Got had again :mad:

[shouldacoulda]

I purchased this method and after reading it over I realized it was pretty
much the same as Tom Consoles FG. He actually advocates betting as
many as 3 horses in one race but usually 2. Got had again :mad:
Thanks for the review. Sorry you got burned.

[timtam]

The reason I was upset was because it advocated 2 or 3 horses per race.
I've been using it to get contenders in exactas and tris. With some tweeking
its ok but I was under the impression it narrowed the field to one horse thus
the high percentage is somewhat deceiving.

[Mike A]

Was this written by Clint Tracy, or Dick Eastwood?

[Ted Craven]

The reason I was upset was because it advocated 2 or 3 horses per race.
I've been using it to get contenders in exactas and tris. With some tweeking
its ok but I was under the impression it narrowed the field to one horse thus
the high percentage is somewhat deceiving.

Some entire methodologies have been created around betting more than 1 horse in the Win pool (see Dave Schwartz, see Howard Sartin, etc). It depends on what your hit rate is, what your mutuel payout range is. You can dutch 2 or 3 (or more) horses quite happily to get a positive return. You can dutch ALL the horses in a race but one to Lay a horse (e.g. a vulnerable favourite).

People betting major sums in the Win pool are often betting multiple horses.

The object is to identify contenders from amongst whom you can make money, not pick 1 horse (IMO).

I was going to order that - you never know where an idea comes from. I'll buy yours if you like ...

cheers,

Ted

[raybo]

I think he feels he was deceived by the 82% hit rate. He thought that was for a single selection. Probably should have known better. That being said, I agree completely with Ted on multiple horse betting, if done correctly, it has much merit. But, if done incorrectly, you'll lose your money much faster than single horse betting.

[thaskalos]

I have not bought this method -- nor do I intend to -- but I did read the author's description of it. He says that the method restricts wagering to speed horses only...although this does include horses that like to stay close to the lead.

When the method suggests wagering on 2 or 3 horses in the same race, one would think that this is because there is no lone early speed contender present...and more than one or two horses figure to contest the early going in a given race.

Wouldn't this be the type of race where the closers might be expected to have a better chance?

When we are dutching a race...should all our "dutched" horses have similar running styles?

It doesn't make much sense to me...

[thaskalos]

I think he feels he was deceived by the 82% hit rate. He thought that was for a single selection. Probably should have known better. That being said, I agree completely with Ted on multiple horse betting, if done correctly, it has much merit. But, if done incorrectly, you'll lose your money much faster than single horse betting.
This is a great point! :ThmbUp:

Dutching greatly increases our total investment in the race...so it has to be done competently.

Every time we lose, we lose a much bigger percentage of our bankroll than we would have lost had we wagered on a single horse in the race.

That's why I questioned the practice of always dutching horses with similar running styles.

It seems foolish to me...

[Ted Craven]

I think he feels he was deceived by the 82% hit rate.

Not 82% hit rate - 82% ROI (on his admittedly limited sample). Slight difference.

Ted

[MightBeSosa]

This is a great point! :ThmbUp:

Dutching greatly increases our total investment in the race...so it has to be done competently.



Actually, it's more accurate to say it DECREASES your return.

You can control the investment, say $100, spread out any way you like. What you get on the dutch is a much smaller roi when you win.

dutch two 3-1 shots, one wins, your return is 1-1.

[thaskalos]

Actually, it's more accurate to say it DECREASES your return.

You can control the investment, say $100, spread out any way you like. What you get on the dutch is a much smaller roi when you win.

dutch two 3-1 shots, one wins, your return is 1-1.
Moment please...as Charlie Chan would say:

When you dutch two or three horses in a race...don't you end up wagering more than you would have if you had only wagered on a single horse? Isn't this the standard operating procedure?

When you bet on a single horse, you may well decide to wager only 1% of your bankroll on it, because of the relatively low likelihood of winning, and the long losing streaks likely to be endured.

But dutching two or three horses in the same race greatly increases our winning percentage...and begs that we invest a greater % of our bank than we would otherwise consider risking.

That's the great benefit of dutching...and the reason why it is still employed even though it lowers the overall ROI. It allows us to bet more money than we would otherwise bet.

But this also means that we will LOSE more money...if we don't dutch in a proficient manner.

[DeltaLover]

You can dutch ALL the horses in a race but one to Lay a horse (e.g. a vulnerable favourite).

Ted,

Can you please give an example from a real race in real time?

Pick any race you want and show us how you would distribute your total bet in the win pool securing a win if the favorite loses. Also please provide the amount that can be won in each case.

(Of course this process has to be done before the race is over)

Chances are that your ducth will be completely out of line.

Give it a try please...

[raybo]

I have not bought this method -- nor do I intend to -- but I did read the author's description of it. He says that the method restricts wagering to speed horses only...although this does include horses that like to stay close to the lead.

When the method suggests wagering on 2 or 3 horses in the same race, one would think that this is because there is no lone early speed contender present...and more than one or two horses figure to contest the early going in a given race.

Wouldn't this be the type of race where the closers might be expected to have a better chance?

When we are dutching a race...should all our "dutched" horses have similar running styles?

It doesn't make much sense to me...

I depends on the total makeup of the field, but basically you're correct. If you're betting multiple horses, to win, you want to cover the best of those advantaged by the lack of speed, as well as the best of those who are advantaged by the presence of speed, because you never know, for sure, what the pace will actually be, or how many horses will actually contest the pace.

We do the same thing, basically in superfectas, at least I do, I want different running styles represented on the ticket, in a lone speed horse race, for example, I might have that lone speed horse singled on top, with other styles in the other finish position lines, etc..

[raybo]

Not 82% hit rate - 82% ROI (on his admittedly limited sample). Slight difference.

Ted

Ahhh - that's a different story completely.

[raybo]

Actually, it's more accurate to say it DECREASES your return.

You can control the investment, say $100, spread out any way you like. What you get on the dutch is a much smaller roi when you win.

dutch two 3-1 shots, one wins, your return is 1-1.

Yes, but your hit rate is much bettor than singling a horse. Hit rate x average odds is the equation, payouts are only a portion of the return.

[raybo]

I don't dutch, but I do bet multiple horses, to win, investing the same amount on each horse, regardless if it's a singled horse or 3 horses. I am investing more in a multiple horse bet, but the hit rate is much better, so yes, one would probably be better off betting more in those races than in a single horse bet, because of the higher hit rate.

[timtam]

My original complaint was why would I bet 2 or 3 speed horses in a race,
watch them burn each other out and see a closer win by 5 down the stretch.
I know all about methods such as George Thackers betting progressively the
3rd,4th,5th and 6th choices for incredible amounts to clear the due.
I'm 62 and this stuff precedes me by 100 years. I talk to guys who bet
proportionatly ( Earl Thomas used to sell books on betting more than one horse per race) to clear a profit. $ 35 on the 2/1 14 on the 9/2 etc.
Everyone I talked to used to tell me have $ 5-15 grand in reserve to overcome the dry spells. Anyway Speed 2013 has some good points and
like a former poster stated there are good points to this method but you must
watch out if you have too many speedballs.
Thanks,
Timtam

[raybo]

My original complaint was why would I bet 2 or 3 speed horses in a race,
watch them burn each other out and see a closer win by 5 down the stretch.
I know all about methods such as George Thackers betting progressively the
3rd,4th,5th and 6th choices for incredible amounts to clear the due.
I'm 62 and this stuff precedes me by 100 years. I talk to guys who bet
proportionatly ( Earl Thomas used to sell books on betting more than one horse per race) to clear a profit. $ 35 on the 2/1 14 on the 9/2 etc.
Everyone I talked to used to tell me have $ 5-15 grand in reserve to overcome the dry spells. Anyway Speed 2013 has some good points and
like a former poster stated there are good points to this method but you must
watch out if you have too many speedballs.
Thanks,
Timtam

The key in multi-horse play is to try to cover what actually happens in races, did the predicted pace happen and did the predicted horses actually get involved in a pace battle? Or, did the pace break down and an off the pace horse win? Covering the best of both types of runners gets you a higher hit rate, overall. You will always lose individual races, regardless of your method, but long term is what counts, is your hit rate and your average payout good enough to make money overall?

[timtam]

Raybo,
I understand what your saying. There is a book Making Money at the Races
by David Barr written in the 50's which I keep going back to. I start with a
$500 bankroll bet no more than 3 horses per race usually 2 (closer / front runner) increment by $1 if I win the race but still lose money and have been
doing fine with it as long as i stick with it. I use speed 2013 for my front runner most of the time (thats why i wanted only one horse). I was eaten up
alive doing the proportionate betting so I am interested in how you do it.
I go back to the 6/4 bet used by Roger Mitchell back in the 80's.
Enough about me and my antiquated books I am totally interesed in YOUR way. You seem to be ahead of me and I am always willing to learn.

Thanks,
Timtam
One thing I still go to the OTB and wager there I have no access to real time
odds like the computer so sometimes while my horse is winning I think I'm getting back $11 and actually get back 9.

[raybo]

Raybo,
I understand what your saying. There is a book Making Money at the Races
by David Barr written in the 50's which I keep going back to. I start with a
$500 bankroll bet no more than 3 horses per race usually 2 (closer / front runner) increment by $1 if I win the race but still lose money and have been
doing fine with it as long as i stick with it. I use speed 2013 for my front runner most of the time (thats why i wanted only one horse). I was eaten up
alive doing the proportionate betting so I am interested in how you do it.
I go back to the 6/4 bet used by Roger Mitchell back in the 80's.
Enough about me and my antiquated books I am totally interesed in YOUR way. You seem to be ahead of me and I am always willing to learn.

Thanks,
Timtam
One thing I still go to the OTB and wager there I have no access to real time
odds like the computer so sometimes while my horse is winning I think I'm getting back $11 and actually get back 9.

I, like many others had been using a straight percentage of bankroll bet sizing method, until I realized that I was increasing my bets too soon and was also being punished after losing a bet, because the bet size would decrease, so if I won a race shortly after that decrease I would be betting more on losing horses than on winning ones, that's not good!

So, after getting involved in a bet sizing thread here, I had an idea occur that I think addresses that problem quite well. I created a method in Excel that uses the base percentage of bankroll method, but you set a percentage of profit as well, and the bet size only increments after you have reached that profit amount. The bet size never decreases unless you manually decrease it. So, with this method you're betting the same amount on winners as losers. Then when you reach your percenatge of profit target, your bet size is increased by percentage of bankroll and also by a percenatge of the profit you just reached, you get 2 increases at the same time. Then you are in a new profit target level, your new bet size remains the same until you reach the new profit target, then it increases again as before, 2 increases at the same time. There is a "stop/loss" notification that pops up if you lose your previously won profit, allowing you to decide if you want to continue at the present bet size or if you want to lower that bet amount and start over.

Basically what this does is slow down the bet increases, no increases after a win and no decreases after a loss. You are only putting your previously won profit at risk, your other profits are not at risk until you first lose your last profit, then the pop up occurs and you decide what you want to do, continue or start over with a lower bet size.

here's the link to the Excel workbook I posted:% bank and % profit bet sizing (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=100881&page=2&pp=48)

The latest version of the workbook is in post #48 of that thread, in case the link doesn't take you to that particular post.

here's the workbook too:

[HUSKER55]

guys, got a question. when you "dutch" a race, (regardless of how many horses you bet on), don't you bet a different amount on each horse according to their odds so that your return is the same on all of them?

From reading these posts I think I am missing something.

Thanks, I appreciate your input.

[raybo]

guys, got a question. when you "dutch" a race, (regardless of how many horses you bet on), don't you bet a different amount on each horse according to their odds so that your return is the same on all of them?

From reading these posts I think I am missing something.

Thanks, I appreciate your input.

In a true dutch, yes.