Shaking off a losing streak

[Capper Al]

I've shaken it off yet. I'm still in it. The biggest one I ever had. What's gone wrong? First success. I moved up from a mini roller to a low roller. When I did this I had a losing streak. Then I changed my playing style out of desperation this weekend. Had I kept my old methods, I would have been out of it and probably recouped my losses. (If my Aunt had balls, she'd be my Uncle.) Other mistakes, and those of you who are developers would know, I found some new ways of looking at the game. Bang into production. No time for real testing just play. It killed me. The stuff I found is good, but knowing how and when to use it is another thing. Do these pitfalls sound familiar? The cure hopefully will be as follows:


Next weekend no wagering.
Gather more stats on new system
Go for a synthesis between the newly found stuff and the old winning ways.
Back to basics on wagering.

[thaskalos]

What sort of losing streak are you in, Al...can you be a little more specific?

Losing streaks come in all shapes and sizes...and not all of them are a reason for concern.

[Tom]

Get drunk, laid, sleep it off and go back.
Go to a movie, read a book not about racing - recharge the brain. Take a couple days off. Go fishing, bowling, exercise vigorously.
whatever you don't usually do - wake up the senses to other than class levels and speed figures. If you live in Denver, get all potted up.

[thaskalos]

If you live in Chicago, then go watch the Cubs...so you can be reminded that some losing streaks are a lot longer than your own.

[bob60566]

Al
Go to the Bingo and you can play as many cards as you like :)

[Robert Goren]

New ideas always cost money until you are able integrate them in to your play.

[iceknight]

Next weekend no wagering. - AGREE modify to "no wagering during the week for me"
Go for a synthesis between the newly found stuff and the old winning ways.
Back to basics on wagering. -NEED TO FIND OUT Which wagers work and which did not.
Wow. Thanks for your post, I was contemplating about my streak after this weekend too. I have been in a losing streak since late January after having a great start to the year (that's 6 weeks now).
What I have done though and which did not work:

* was increasing the # of PL/SH bets only to see some of those horses win.
* trying to save a few $ on multiple super/tri wagers and miss big scores.

So, for me, right now I have to set a budget limit per weekend (which I have been honest and good at adhering too), and then hit them hard early (not doing this) and if I don't have success, just close the computer and go do other stuff.

If I have success, increase the wagering amounts using Kelly criterion or something similar and still learn to quit every week at a certain profit level.

* The only positives this season for me has been that, I am getting better success at GP/Tampa and SA and am really sucking at AQU/LosAl.

# My only desperation streak was when I started betting Aussie tracks :lol: one week in Feb, trying to get some wins. :bang:

[traynor]

I've shaken it off yet. I'm still in it. The biggest one I ever had. What's gone wrong? First success. I moved up from a mini roller to a low roller. When I did this I had a losing streak. Then I changed my playing style out of desperation this weekend. Had I kept my old methods, I would have been out of it and probably recouped my losses. (If my Aunt had balls, she'd be my Uncle.) Other mistakes, and those of you who are developers would know, I found some new ways of looking at the game. Bang into production. No time for real testing just play. It killed me. The stuff I found is good, but knowing how and when to use it is another thing. Do these pitfalls sound familiar? The cure hopefully will be as follows:


Next weekend no wagering.
Gather more stats on new system
Go for a synthesis between the newly found stuff and the old winning ways.
Back to basics on wagering.


You might find that the testing part is the real difference between winning and losing. Something that looks like a profitable pattern in a small sample may be no more than random noise in a bigger sample. That is not to say that you need a million race database before you can bet. It is to say that if you find something that worked in a 50 race sample (or whatever) try it on another sample of the same size. If the results are similar, you may have something worth betting on.

One of the major advantages of being a miniroller or lowroller is that if you don't bet for a week or two--even if you "would have won if you had done yada yada"--it does not represent a significant loss. If your sytem/method/approach holds up during that period of time, you can always more than recover any (paper) losses when you start betting again.

[thaskalos]

Wow. Thanks for your post, I was contemplating about my streak after this weekend too. I have been in a losing streak since late January after having a great start to the year (that's 6 weeks now).
What I have done though and which did not work:

* was increasing the # of PL/SH bets only to see some of those horses win.
* trying to save a few $ on multiple super/tri wagers and miss big scores.

So, for me, right now I have to set a budget limit per weekend (which I have been honest and good at adhering too), and then hit them hard early (not doing this) and if I don't have success, just close the computer and go do other stuff.

If I have success, increase the wagering amounts using Kelly criterion or something similar and still learn to quit every week at a certain profit level.

* The only positives this season for me has been that, I am getting better success at GP/Tampa and SA and am really sucking at AQU/LosAl.

# My only desperation streak was when I started betting Aussie tracks :lol: one week in Feb, trying to get some wins. :bang:

IMO...you have to be playing your best game and still be losing in order to say that you are in a legitimate "losing streak".

When you start betting place and show instead of win because you've gotten desparate to cash a ticket...and you end up missing horses who win at big prices; when you get scared and start reducing your exotics wagers...and end up missing big payoffs that you would have otherwise collected; and when you start betting Los Alamitos and Australia...even though we have tons of more suitable races to pick from every day...then you can't blame the "losing streak" for your losses. You are playing BADLY...and you deserve to lose.

Whoever told you that you can play badly and still win in this game?

[Dave Schwartz]

Get drunk, laid, sleep it off and go back.

Oh, you mean Thursday.

[MPRanger]

If your average wager is 5 to 2 , after 1000 trials you can expect:

Chances of a loss per trial 71.43
Chances of a win per trial 28.57
Money Line 250
-------------------------

271 wins
729 losses

199 wins followed by a loss
200 losses followed by a win

53 streaks of 2 wins
148 streaks of 2 losses

11 streaks of 3 wins
103 streaks of 3 losses

5 streaks of 4 wins
71 streaks of 4 losses

2 streaks of 5 wins
52 streaks of 5 losses

1 streak of 6 wins
41 streaks of 6 losses

0 streaks of 7 wins
26 streaks of 7 losses

0 streaks of 8 wins
20 streaks of 8 losses

etc;

[Robert Fischer]

A big losing streak will test your mental and emotional fortitude.

Take a break.

Make a comeback. Come back to basics, back to your strengths, back to your best plays, back to a smaller wager size.

Never press losses, and when you start to see a few losses turning into a "streak", act before it turns into the mother of all losing streaks. :eek:

[MPRanger]

I think if you play long enough, you're going to get all your streaks in.
No matter what. You can change this or change that ... it doesn't matter.
Try to cheat the devil but he's gonna get his before it's over.

[salty]

remembering to win it is going off in australia in a minute, if he wins then hopefuly my losing streak is over. lol

[salty]

Looked ok until the wire, oh well, the streak continues. :bang:

[MPRanger]

This is Alan Boston. He's so good at betting college basketball if you
wrote a book about odds you'd have mention him in it.

My point is made in the first 1:10 seconds. You don't need to watch it
all. Here he is one of the very best and he is depressed about an 8 game
losing streak of underdogs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75jFxzHy2H4

Who knows what the spreads were but let's assume it was 2 pts in each
game for a chance of 47.62 to beat or break even against the spread.
He should have 2 winning streaks of 8 and 3 losing streaks of 8 in 1000
trials.

* Ok, he said 3 pts, nevertheless the point stands.

[iceknight]

IMO...you have to be playing your best game and still be losing in order to say that you are in a legitimate "losing streak".

When you start betting place and show instead of win because you've gotten desparate to cash a ticket... AGREE

and you end up missing horses who win at big prices; when you get scared and start reducing your exotics wagers...and end up missing big payoffs that you would have otherwise collected; AGREE

and when you start betting Los Alamitos and Australia...Australia, I played one night some week in Feb (with what was left in my diminishing bankroll that day) and it certainly was a hail mary and did nt work. And I have definitely not even looked at Oz, haha.

but Los Al is a track I have been playing for a long time and it is one of my most profitable tracks, (you didn't see my signature line?), hands down (not as thrilling ,but who cares, $ is $) . this is why I even started calling this as a losing streak because LosAl was easily providing me lot of money to playin Gp/Tampa etc. where I used to not do well before.

I am now adding all my wagers since Jan and horses to a spreadsheet to see what worked and what did not!

[iceknight]

Oh, you mean Thursday. :lol: Humor always helps in getting through tough streaks!

[Capper Al]

What sort of losing streak are you in, Al...can you be a little more specific?

Losing streaks come in all shapes and sizes...and not all of them are a reason for concern.

It's a combination of things. First, I believe, is playing at a higher leave. My wager size has doubled. Second, I just started off with the higher wager in a time of favorites winning which kills me. Third, I panicked and changed my ways. Fourth, I'm coding in some new concepts into my app and shouldn't be wagering on them until I fully understand them. Sounds like a recipe for losing. Bottom line, I lost the dicipline.

[Capper Al]

Get drunk, laid, sleep it off and go back.
Go to a movie, read a book not about racing - recharge the brain. Take a couple days off. Go fishing, bowling, exercise vigorously.
whatever you don't usually do - wake up the senses to other than class levels and speed figures. If you live in Denver, get all potted up.

Good advice. I'll be taking a break.

[Capper Al]

Thanks everyone for your input. I believe that the best way out of a losing streak is to admit you're having one and talking about it.

[Stillriledup]

Thanks everyone for your input. I believe that the best way out of a losing streak is to admit you're having one and talking about it.

To me, in 2013, and the state of the thoroughbred racehorse being so fragile, i feel one of the toughest things to get a grasp on when is the right day to bet a certain horse. Generally, for the most part, we gravitate towards horses who have either raced well in their last start, or horses who generally look good on paper. Horses don't always run strong races back to back, and if they do run two strong back to back races, there's usually a drop off ...the key is to get on the horse when he's about to peak that DAY and not go to the 'funeral and miss the wedding'.

Out of the bets that i lose, most of them are because i'm betting on a horse who probably raced SO well that he bounced a bit and wasnt as sharp in his next start, so, i went to the funeral on that one.

Since most of my plays come from careful video study, i'm usually betting on horses who look very good on tape...and when they look good on tape, it usually means they had a bang up race. My question to myself is "are they going to duplicate that race". The key to me is to find the 'hidden' bang up race, a situation where a horse raced really well and yet, on paper, doesnt look as good as he or she really raced.

If you're an otherwise successful player and you really havent changed what you're doing, one of two things is possible. 1) The game hasnt changed in the short term and you're just going thru a random streak of losses and you'll come out of it eventually or 2) the game is changing and what you're doing is no longer good enough anymore and you need to find a way to get better.

For me, i feel that watching a replay of a horse is no longer good enough anymore, its not good enough just to see if a horse was blocked, how much run he had, how he galloped out, how much ground he lost, did he make a big middle move and flatten out, etc.

What i've found is that not only do i need to see each runner carefully and watch that horse's every movement, but i need to know the CONTEXT. I need to know the progression from that horse's previous 2 starts to today, i need to know the race shape and how that horse's performance was affected by what went on with the other horses and of course, the strength of the performance within the context of how the other horses performed within that same race.

Here's an example.

On March 14th, in the final race at Aqueduct, a horse named Galaxy Gal made a nice late move and finished a good 2nd from nomansland. Now, if you just watched that race on its own, you would see a horse who had some run, finished well in her first time going 2 turns and rate her according to her visual kick. But, with closer context of that DAY, her move was a little better than looked because she was the only horse who really came from that far back to get into the picture on that day. Her move wasnt one of many moves like that on the day, it was the only real one.

So, my advice is to just fight thru it, never doubt yourself, always believe that you're doing the right things and just maintain your confidence, every player goes thru streaks of failure, its part of the game.

[JohnGalt1]

For the last few weeks I was thinking of starting a thread like this. But the title of my thread would be SECOND-ITIS. Almost all my win bets, or horses I would have bet, have finished second regardless of the odds, and regarless of the track.

I've had periods of second-itis before, so this will pass.

Some recent horses I've bet that finished second were 6-1, 11-1 ( both at OP 3/16) and I really feel sorry for those who singled Don't Tell Sophia in the Azeri because that's who I thought would win and even though I don't play odds on horses she finished second, so when I'm infected with second-itis it will affect everyone.

Often when my horse finishes second I'll cash an exacta. If the horse's odds are high enough I'll play one two or three horses over mine in an exacta. This year my horse has lost to 25-1 type out siders that I gave no chance to even finish in the money.

But this too will pass, it always has.

Almost half the time I bet two horses to win, and in these periods they will finish 2nd and third. And I won't bet two horses win'place just to cash a ticket. When I bet two horses to win it is supposed to prevent long losing streaks.

This will pass too.

My win bets usually win between 35-40%, partly because of the times I bet 2 horses to win.

I have cashed some win bets, but not enough, and some do finish third, and a few don't run at all. I feel like my recent line would read something like this--30-60-20.

When I get the second-tis bug I lower my bets, the next time I play my win bets will be 1/3 normal size. I don't play pick 3's 4's or more, until I can win one in a row consistantly.

Good handicappers,like most of us here, when we lose, our horses still run well, so we all feel the frustration.

[traynor]

For the last few weeks I was thinking of starting a thread like this. But the title of my thread would be SECOND-ITIS. Almost all my win bets, or horses I would have bet, have finished second regardless of the odds, and regarless of the track.

I've had periods of second-itis before, so this will pass.

Some recent horses I've bet that finished second were 6-1, 11-1 ( both at OP 3/16) and I really feel sorry for those who singled Don't Tell Sophia in the Azeri because that's who I thought would win and even though I don't play odds on horses she finished second, so when I'm infected with second-itis it will affect everyone.

Often when my horse finishes second I'll cash an exacta. If the horse's odds are high enough I'll play one two or three horses over mine in an exacta. This year my horse has lost to 25-1 type out siders that I gave no chance to even finish in the money.

But this too will pass, it always has.

Almost half the time I bet two horses to win, and in these periods they will finish 2nd and third. And I won't bet two horses win'place just to cash a ticket. When I bet two horses to win it is supposed to prevent long losing streaks.

This will pass too.

My win bets usually win between 35-40%, partly because of the times I bet 2 horses to win.

I have cashed some win bets, but not enough, and some do finish third, and a few don't run at all. I feel like my recent line would read something like this--30-60-20.

When I get the second-tis bug I lower my bets, the next time I play my win bets will be 1/3 normal size. I don't play pick 3's 4's or more, until I can win one in a row consistantly.

Good handicappers,like most of us here, when we lose, our horses still run well, so we all feel the frustration.

I don't know if seconditis is the right term, but it is an interesting phenomena. I build models. One of the interesting things I have discovered in building place models is that the best bet for place often looks like the best bet to win. The factor that seems to most accurately predict whether a particular entry will win or place is improved speed or improved position relative to the leader in the latter part of the preceding race(s). In other words, some of the components that seem to indicate a horse "rounding into top form" are actually stronger indicators that the horse will place, rather than win. And that horse is often the favorite.

With a bit of analysis and study, one could probably isolate those specific attributes that indicate a horse is more likely to place, and use it on the bottom of exactas, rather than on top. Because such horses seem so good on paper, they are often overbet on top in the exacta pool.

[pele polo]

I'm also on a long losing streak. I've decreased my bankroll to $100 on a Saturday or $100 for the weekend but I find that I simply can't play the way I want to with type of money. Last year I was wagering anywhere from $10,000 to $20,000 a month. Either I'm out quickly or I'm making small wagers and unable to afford the cost of spreading too much. But it doesn't seen to matter, most of the time I'm way off on my predictions. I'm out of tune. Any words of advice?

Taking this weekend off and going to the dog races Friday night in Texas.

[JohnGalt1]

I'd like to add that I go through thease periods usually late Winter /early Spring even though I mostly play warm weather tracks.

I played more days this winter than usual because the weather sucks this year in Minnesota. I can only read and watch so smuch TV.

Another example of my second-itis I just remembered. The day after the Rainbow Six was hit I handicapped GP and was able to put together a $7.20 ticket. Two wins and 4 seconds. Of course.

After a lay off I have turned things around in the past.

I'll probably wait until the Cynthia pars come out. They emailed me. They should be ready late March.

[Stillriledup]

I'm also on a long losing streak. I've decreased my bankroll to $100 on a Saturday or $100 for the weekend but I find that I simply can't play the way I want to with type of money. Last year I was wagering anywhere from $10,000 to $20,000 a month. Either I'm out quickly or I'm making small wagers and unable to afford the cost of spreading too much. But it doesn't seen to matter, most of the time I'm way off on my predictions. I'm out of tune. Any words of advice?

Taking this weekend off and going to the dog races Friday night in Texas.

What is your typical process of handicapping a race?

[pele polo]

What is your typical process of handicapping a race?

Strictly a form and replays player. No systems or computer programs, very old school I suppose. I accept the obvious from what I see. I don't "reach much" but do try to find value.

[Ocala Mike]

Advice for JohnGalt1: BACKWHEEL everything plus your win bet.

Advice for Pele Polo: REACH a little more; the obvious is rarely value.

[Stillriledup]

Strictly a form and replays player. No systems or computer programs, very old school I suppose. I accept the obvious from what I see. I don't "reach much" but do try to find value.

I'm the same way, forms and replays.

[Robert Fischer]

1. You are working your gameplan to a tee , and going through the natural streaks that are guaranteed to occur.

2. You are down and are now pressing losses, betting more to catch up for the day and at times losing significantly more, your gameplan has gone out the window, and you are taking stabs at wagers and wager-types that were outside of your gameplan.


I think that scenario #2 happens more than people would like to admit.

[fmhealth]

Mr 'Capper, I feel your pain. I've been on a losing streak since 1957. The first time I went to the "Big A". Never had a winning year! I'm beginning to get the feeling that I'm not too good at this game.

I guess everything in life is about perspective.

Be Well,
fmhealth

[Jingle]

Capper--there is some consolation in knowing you are normal, just like all of us horseplayers, the good days just being breathers for the bad. You will live to fight (bet) another day.

YOU WILL PULL OUT OF IT AND I JUST WISH I COULD BE ALONG SIDE OF YOU BETTING WHEN YOU DO. NOTHING LASTS FOREVER.

[PICSIX]

Mr 'Capper, I feel your pain. I've been on a losing streak since 1957. The first time I went to the "Big A". Never had a winning year! I'm beginning to get the feeling that I'm not too good at this game.

I guess everything in life is about perspective.

Be Well,
fmhealth

I have a friend from Greece that told me if he hadn't bet horses for the last 20 years he'd easily have over $300,000. He loved to bet $500+ to show on heavy, heavy favorites. I would give him price horses I felt could hit the show slot but he would never play them. I even printed out an article that showed it was impossible for him to hit at the 90 plus percent he needed.

This was 15 years ago, I guess, and I can still hear him, "Mike, did you see that....they F'ing stiffed me again those sons a bitches." :lol:

[Stillriledup]

I have a friend from Greece that told me if he hadn't bet horses for the last 20 years he'd easily have over $300,000. He loved to bet $500+ to show on heavy, heavy favorites. I would give him price horses I felt could hit the show slot but he would never play them. I even printed out an article that showed it was impossible for him to hit at the 90 plus percent he needed.

This was 15 years ago, I guess, and I can still hear him, "Mike, did you see that....they F'ing stiffed me again those sons a bitches." :lol:

Ego hurts horseplayers, i can't tell you how many times i've given people winners only to have them 'play their own pick'.

[BlueChip@DRF]

What are you complaining about? Losing streak? The moment you make your first bet on horses is the beginning of a losing streak. That's all of us. :)

[raybo]

I've shaken it off yet. I'm still in it. The biggest one I ever had. What's gone wrong? First success. I moved up from a mini roller to a low roller. When I did this I had a losing streak. Then I changed my playing style out of desperation this weekend. Had I kept my old methods, I would have been out of it and probably recouped my losses. (If my Aunt had balls, she'd be my Uncle.) Other mistakes, and those of you who are developers would know, I found some new ways of looking at the game. Bang into production. No time for real testing just play. It killed me. The stuff I found is good, but knowing how and when to use it is another thing. Do these pitfalls sound familiar? The cure hopefully will be as follows:


Next weekend no wagering.
Gather more stats on new system
Go for a synthesis between the newly found stuff and the old winning ways.
Back to basics on wagering.


If you have properly researched your method, you will know what the largest likely losing streak will be, more or less. So, if you know that and your present losing streak is significantly longer than that, then it's time to go back to the drawing board.

If you have not reached that longest likely losing streak, and you have confidence in the method, then you MUST continue playing it, otherwise you are saying your research was worthless. If you can't handle that longest likely losing streak, emotionally, then you need to get out of horse racing. That's just something that comes with the game, either accept it or quit playing.

[Stillriledup]

If you have properly researched your method, you will know what the largest likely losing streak will be, more or less. So, if you know that and your present losing streak is significantly longer than that, then it's time to go back to the drawing board.

If you have not reached that longest likely losing streak, and you have confidence in the method, then you MUST continue playing it, otherwise you are saying your research was worthless. If you can't handle that longest likely losing streak, emotionally, then you need to get out of horse racing. That's just something that comes with the game, either accept it or quit playing.

Its like when Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) asked his assistant in the movie Moneyball "do you believe in this...or NOT"

[Robert Fischer]

If you have properly researched your method, you will know what the largest likely losing streak will be, more or less. So, if you know that and your present losing streak is significantly longer than that, then it's time to go back to the drawing board.

If you have not reached that longest likely losing streak, and you have confidence in the method, then you MUST continue playing it, otherwise you are saying your research was worthless. If you can't handle that longest likely losing streak, emotionally, then you need to get out of horse racing. That's just something that comes with the game, either accept it or quit playing.

good post.

[raybo]

Doing some thinking after my last post, I thought of something that may explain your longer than usual losing streak. If you are trying to play the same way, at all the tracks you play, that could very well explain your streak. Most good players realize that different tracks play differently. If your method is a "one run" type method, and a couple of the tracks you are playing have "evolved" then your losses will pile up quite quickly.

In short, it helps to have a method that is track specific, and tweaks itself as the environment at that track changes. I am fortunate to have such a method and it tends to keep those very long losing streaks in check.

[Capper Al]

If you have properly researched your method, you will know what the largest likely losing streak will be, more or less. So, if you know that and your present losing streak is significantly longer than that, then it's time to go back to the drawing board.

If you have not reached that longest likely losing streak, and you have confidence in the method, then you MUST continue playing it, otherwise you are saying your research was worthless. If you can't handle that longest likely losing streak, emotionally, then you need to get out of horse racing. That's just something that comes with the game, either accept it or quit playing.

Did you miss the part that I strayed but would have won? I added to the losing by changing my ways. It will end. And yes I have confidence in my system.

[raybo]

Did you miss the part that I strayed but would have won? I added to the losing by changing my ways. It will end. And yes I have confidence in my system.

I saw that part too. Changing your ways is included in not continuing to play your method. I posted my experience with this years ago, I changed the way I played. The problem wasn't the method, the problem was me. I had lost confidence in the method, even though all my exhaustive research over 20+ years of studying the game said the method had to succeed. I laid off the game for a year, and when I finally continued, the method worked just like it had prior to the losing streak.

I didn't mean to demean you, or your actions, we all go through this experience, if we play long enough. It's a learning experience, and the lesson I learned from my losing streak was to trust my research, and my method, or quit the game.

[iceknight]

I have a friend from Greece that told me if he hadn't bet horses for the last 20 years he'd easily have over $300,000. He loved to bet $500+ to show on heavy, heavy favorites. I would give him price horses I felt could hit the show slot but he would never play them. I even printed out an article that showed it was impossible for him to hit at the 90 plus percent he needed.

This was 15 years ago, I guess, and I can still hear him, "Mike, did you see that....they F'ing stiffed me again those sons a bitches." :lol: I am really glad friends like yours (with lot of spare money) play!

[Capper Al]

I saw that part too. Changing your ways is included in not continuing to play your method. I posted my experience with this years ago, I changed the way I played. The problem wasn't the method, the problem was me. I had lost confidence in the method, even though all my exhaustive research over 20+ years of studying the game said the method had to succeed. I laid off the game for a year, and when I finally continued, the method worked just like it had prior to the losing streak.

I didn't mean to demean you, or your actions, we all go through this experience, if we play long enough. It's a learning experience, and the lesson I learned from my losing streak was to trust my research, and my method, or quit the game.

Thanks for clarifying. Some lessons seem to be revisited from time to time. It was the doubling of my bets with the losing streak occurring together that flipped me out.

[raybo]

Thanks for clarifying. Some lessons seem to be revisited from time to time. It was the doubling of my bets with the losing streak occurring together that flipped me out.

Yes, I noticed that and when you had first mentioned it a while back, doubling your bets that is, I thought there was probably a better way to get from A to B (mini roller to high roller). Doubling your bet, in effect doubles your risk amount, and that can be dangerous, especially when you're also still in the evaluation process of your method. So, maybe your bet sizing needs some more thought? Seems pretty clear that doubling bet size, out of hand, is not the answer to leveraging your profits.

[Capper Al]

Doing well. Only bet two races to place this weekend and won them both. (These wagers were necessary to get my PPs for free from BRIS.) Otherwise, keeping my focus on just gathering data for now on the new systems, discipline.

[raybo]

Doing well. Only bet two races to place this weekend and won them both. (These wagers were necessary to get my PPs for free from BRIS.) Otherwise, keeping my focus on just gathering data for now on the new systems, discipline.

PDC, the cornerstone, Patience, Discipline, and Consistency.

[Dave Schwartz]

IMHO, "streaks" (whether good or bad) are usually simple aberrations in performance.

Of course, this presupposes that one has a winning strategy to begin with, otherwise, the perceived "losing streak" is just a regression to the mean; a correction towards what "normal" performance looks like.

I am of the opinion that about every 3,000 bets or so one can expect some kind of consistent result in their experience. It is logical that a player who (typically) bets lower-odds horses could expect to discover this consistency with a somewhat lower number of bets while a higher-odds player might need 4,000-to 5,000 or more.

For most weekend players (i.e. 10-20 bets per week), about three years a person should see their percentages hold true.

Now, I realize that this will not set well with the "weekend" player. This is not what you want to hear. It is, however, close to reality. Certainly closer to reality than what most players think is true.

Back in the days of Howard Sartin - a man I give great credit to for being an original thinker - he pushed the idea of the "twenty-race cycle." To this day, many people honestly believe that they should rarely lose over a cycle of 20 races.

No wonder they are so often disappointed!

No wonder a 20-race losing "streak" tears them up.

Ten times that number (i.e. a 200-race cycle, with about 400 wagers) should produce greater consistency, but still falls far short of anything like a sure thing for a player with a marginal edge of say 5% or less.

If one truly has a winning strategy, then by the 2,000 race-mark (4,000 bets), one should be winner almost all the time.


Just my opinion. Yours may differ.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[traynor]

IMHO, "streaks" (whether good or bad) are usually simple aberrations in performance.

Of course, this presupposes that one has a winning strategy to begin with, otherwise, the perceived "losing streak" is just a regression to the mean; a correction towards what "normal" performance looks like.

I am of the opinion that about every 3,000 bets or so one can expect some kind of consistent result in their experience. It is logical that a player who (typically) bets lower-odds horses could expect to discover this consistency with a somewhat lower number of bets while a higher-odds player might need 4,000-to 5,000 or more.

For most weekend players (i.e. 10-20 bets per week), about three years a person should see their percentages hold true.

Now, I realize that this will not set well with the "weekend" player. This is not what you want to hear. It is, however, close to reality. Certainly closer to reality than what most players think is true.

Back in the days of Howard Sartin - a man I give great credit to for being an original thinker - he pushed the idea of the "twenty-race cycle." To this day, many people honestly believe that they should rarely lose over a cycle of 20 races.

No wonder they are so often disappointed!

No wonder a 20-race losing "streak" tears them up.

Ten times that number (i.e. a 200-race cycle, with about 400 wagers) should produce greater consistency, but still falls far short of anything like a sure thing for a player with a marginal edge of say 5% or less.

If one truly has a winning strategy, then by the 2,000 race-mark (4,000 bets), one should be winner almost all the time.


Just my opinion. Yours may differ.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

That is the real world.

[CincyHorseplayer]

IMHO, "streaks" (whether good or bad) are usually simple aberrations in performance.

Of course, this presupposes that one has a winning strategy to begin with, otherwise, the perceived "losing streak" is just a regression to the mean; a correction towards what "normal" performance looks like.

I am of the opinion that about every 3,000 bets or so one can expect some kind of consistent result in their experience. It is logical that a player who (typically) bets lower-odds horses could expect to discover this consistency with a somewhat lower number of bets while a higher-odds player might need 4,000-to 5,000 or more.

For most weekend players (i.e. 10-20 bets per week), about three years a person should see their percentages hold true.

Now, I realize that this will not set well with the "weekend" player. This is not what you want to hear. It is, however, close to reality. Certainly closer to reality than what most players think is true.

Back in the days of Howard Sartin - a man I give great credit to for being an original thinker - he pushed the idea of the "twenty-race cycle." To this day, many people honestly believe that they should rarely lose over a cycle of 20 races.

No wonder they are so often disappointed!

No wonder a 20-race losing "streak" tears them up.

Ten times that number (i.e. a 200-race cycle, with about 400 wagers) should produce greater consistency, but still falls far short of anything like a sure thing for a player with a marginal edge of say 5% or less.

If one truly has a winning strategy, then by the 2,000 race-mark (4,000 bets), one should be winner almost all the time.


Just my opinion. Yours may differ.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Good stuff Dave.The worst losing streak I have had was 38% loss on all bets over the course of 20 days.Greed was the cause.I stopped win betting and stopped betting lower odds,never anything less than 2-1.My mind got warped with big payoffs.It happened after last year's BC too.Everything else can be worked out IMO.But greed you have to walk away from at times!

[proximity]

A big losing streak will test your mental and emotional fortitude.


last week at this time i was struggling with tons of seconds, several by like half an inch, but still ahead for the year with rebates. a friend observed that the horses were "really running" for me but inside i wondered whether the game had taken my best shot and was getting ready to hit back.

sure enough i got crushed on wednesday, friday, and saturday with my 3rd, 1st, and 4th worst nights of the year. thursday too was a losing night.

so now i'm a loser off of the track (i have no great career success) AND on it and when you put so much thought into the game and it becomes so much of your identity this can indeed be taxing on your mental and emotional fortitude.

one thing that is keeping me somewhat sane and that maybe thaskalos could talk more about here in handicapper's corner is racino poker. here in 2013 my game is really taking off and i do think a lot of the "skills" i've acquired from racing are quite helpful in this. stuff like patience, discipline, and living through some of the bad beats and losing streaks that a serious horseplayer will inevitably suffer through. percentile wise i still believe i'm a better handicapper than poker player even though it's becoming increasingly apparent to me that it is far easier to win CONSISTENTLY at poker than racing. and when you don't have a lot in life any kind of consistency can do wonders for your psyche.

sorry for the long rambling post.

[Robert Goren]

Al, I will tell this you this. Back in my bridge playing days, I would hit those streaks where I could win. I blamed cards, partners, the phase of the moon, almost anything. What actually had happened was I was making a lot of dumb mistakes. Time off is a self correcting mechanism. I have them in betting horses. It almost always is because I have gotten some bad idea(s) in my head causing to make bad picks. Poker has term , Fancy Play Syndrome. It applies to horse racing too. Sometimes you over think a race. A little time off and back to the basics will cure that.

Or I am betting a new track and expecting horses to run like they did on the old one. NYRA is enter a stage that is wrought with danger for me. They are going to outer track for a month and then to Belmont. Horse shipping in from Florida and God knows where. Then there are horse who took the winter off complete WOs from training only tracks. I will be tempted with turf races. I will soon start to add an another track because I try to avoid turf races and I want to look at more than 5 races when I am handicapping. It is easy mix up track bias when betting two tracks. One big key for me is checking out the replay of a potential bets last race's replay. It has save me a lot of money and sometimes you see something good in another horse in the race. If don't already, I would start watching replays of soon to be made bets. I know this hard if you are betting 500 races a week.

[Capper Al]

PDC, the cornerstone, Patience, Discipline, and Consistency.

PDC it is!

[Capper Al]

IMHO, "streaks" (whether good or bad) are usually simple aberrations in performance.

Of course, this presupposes that one has a winning strategy to begin with, otherwise, the perceived "losing streak" is just a regression to the mean; a correction towards what "normal" performance looks like.

I am of the opinion that about every 3,000 bets or so one can expect some kind of consistent result in their experience. It is logical that a player who (typically) bets lower-odds horses could expect to discover this consistency with a somewhat lower number of bets while a higher-odds player might need 4,000-to 5,000 or more.

For most weekend players (i.e. 10-20 bets per week), about three years a person should see their percentages hold true.

Now, I realize that this will not set well with the "weekend" player. This is not what you want to hear. It is, however, close to reality. Certainly closer to reality than what most players think is true.

Back in the days of Howard Sartin - a man I give great credit to for being an original thinker - he pushed the idea of the "twenty-race cycle." To this day, many people honestly believe that they should rarely lose over a cycle of 20 races.

No wonder they are so often disappointed!

No wonder a 20-race losing "streak" tears them up.

Ten times that number (i.e. a 200-race cycle, with about 400 wagers) should produce greater consistency, but still falls far short of anything like a sure thing for a player with a marginal edge of say 5% or less.

If one truly has a winning strategy, then by the 2,000 race-mark (4,000 bets), one should be winner almost all the time.


Just my opinion. Yours may differ.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

A losing streak of four is not unusual. Yet the ramifications of four losses in a row for weekend warriors can be devastating. For me that would be a month without a winning day.

[Dave Schwartz]

A losing streak of four is not unusual. Yet the ramifications of four losses in a row for weekend warriors can be devastating. For me that would be a month without a winning day.

And for me, about 20 minutes.

[thaskalos]

last week at this time i was struggling with tons of seconds, several by like half an inch, but still ahead for the year with rebates. a friend observed that the horses were "really running" for me but inside i wondered whether the game had taken my best shot and was getting ready to hit back.

sure enough i got crushed on wednesday, friday, and saturday with my 3rd, 1st, and 4th worst nights of the year. thursday too was a losing night.

so now i'm a loser off of the track (i have no great career success) AND on it and when you put so much thought into the game and it becomes so much of your identity this can indeed be taxing on your mental and emotional fortitude.

one thing that is keeping me somewhat sane and that maybe thaskalos could talk more about here in handicapper's corner is racino poker. here in 2013 my game is really taking off and i do think a lot of the "skills" i've acquired from racing are quite helpful in this. stuff like patience, discipline, and living through some of the bad beats and losing streaks that a serious horseplayer will inevitably suffer through. percentile wise i still believe i'm a better handicapper than poker player even though it's becoming increasingly apparent to me that it is far easier to win CONSISTENTLY at poker than racing. and when you don't have a lot in life any kind of consistency can do wonders for your psyche.

sorry for the long rambling post.

I love long rambling posts. :)

You are absolutely right...in my opinion at least. It is much easier to win in poker than it is at the racetrack, and, for me, poker is much easier to handle psychologically too. Even after playing the horses for 30 years, I am still bothered by some of the things that I see going on in the game. Six-horse fields everywhere...miracle-working trainers...tons of money flooding the mutuel pools at the last second of betting..."smart" money at the minor tracks tilting the board for no apparent reason, but with much success -- all these things (and more) leave a bad taste in my mouth...and give me cause to worry about the future -- both mine AND the game's.

I too feel that I am a much better handicapper than I am a poker player...but that's not how to measure things in gambling...when you are really playing to win. The main thing in successful gambling is how "honest" the game is, and how well we stack up against the competition...and poker wins hands down in both these categories, IMO. In poker, I know why I lost when I lose...and this is not always the case in horse racing.

IMO, poker has just the right ratio of luck vs skill...and this keeps the rather unsophisticated player playing longer. Horse racing, on the other hand, is very unforgiving and demoralizing for the lesser player...and he gives up or is quickly relegated to the sidelines before too long. The player pool, talent-wise, is a lot stronger in horse racing than it is in poker.

I consider myself fortunate to have multiple gambling interests that I am comfortable with...and I submit that the same can be said about you. It's not wise for a serious gambler to keep all his eggs in one basket. :)

[Stillriledup]

The advantage that a great poker player has over a great horseplayer is that the poker player can win in ways that the horseplayer can't win in. The poker player can read PEOPLE and take advantage of weaknesses in 'tells' at the tables. I'm sure the greatest poker players in the game are some of the best at reading people, you need that skill in order to win because you can't always count on getting good/great cards.

The great thing about horse racing is that if you acquire some self generated information and you make a great score off that info, you don't have to trade that info in. You get to cash the ticket and keep the info in your brain at the same time. Now, that info might be less valuable because many times its going to be an opinion on a horse who looks average on paper but in real life is far superior to his PPs and when that horse wins, the 'bad pp' line goes away and you replace that with a GOOD pp line. But, you still have the info of knowing exactly how talented your horse is, even if you arent necessarily going to be able to benefit again by betting on this particular horse.

Horse handicapping is like wheel of fortune.....you guess a letter and the letter goes up there, but you still need more letters to guess the word....the more letters you have, the 'easier' the game becomes.

The amount of information you need to win is staggering. If there was a horse running at your favorite track and he had beaten so and so by 2 lengths and so and so showed up at some track 300 miles away 3 days ago and ran a very good 2nd with a rough trip, is that something you would know about off the top of your head? If an Aqueduct shipper who finished 4th in his most recent race at Aqu showed up at Philly Park to race in the 7th race and the 5th place finisher out of that same race had just raced 30 minutes earlier at Laurel Park and got blocked in the stretch and was beaten 8 lengths but galloped out on top of the field, is this something you would know, or, since you don't follow Laurel (hypothetically) you would have no clue about the 'puzzle' piece that ran 30 minutes earlier?

If Aqueduct is your main track and a Laurel shipper was in there to race, would you know the exact circumstances surrounding the Laurel Shipper's last race? Would you know the bias he raced against, or how hot his rider had been riding, or how the 2nd place finisher raced when he came back 3 days ago?

This is just the tip of the iceberg on the immense amout of detailed information you need in order to be able to make a brilliant betting decision, and quite frankly, there arent enough hours in the day for most horseplayers to dig out the stuff that they really need to win.


In almost every race, there are noses and millimeters and 1/100ths of inches that seperate you (and me) from major scores, minor scores and just ANY scores.

My newfound philosophy when i lose by a nose isnt that i had bad luck and the luck will turn around at some point, my philosophy is that i need to get better at picking horses. I need to work harder and form a more complete opinion and i need to bet better to maximize something that i've uncovered.

If i lose a bet, my first thought is "what did i miss" and my 2nd thought is "what do i need to do to get better".

The reason horse race handicapping is the greatest game on earth is because there's an unlimited amount of work you can do to form an opinion. You're never "done" handicapping, you can always research something else, watch another replay or dig up some more information.

If you feel that you know the game and have above average talent in handicapping horses and you KNOW for sure that you're really good at this, don't ever get 'down' after a tough stretch. Don't let "them" get to you, keep fighting the good fight, get pissed off at the losses, accept the blame for the losing and figure out a way to improve your game and your information.

Sorry for the long, rambling post, but i have a hunch that some of you actually like this stuff! ;)

[proximity]

The advantage that a great poker player has over a great horseplayer is that the poker player can win in ways that the horseplayer can't win in. The poker player can read PEOPLE and take advantage of weaknesses in 'tells' at the tables. I'm sure the greatest poker players in the game are some of the best at reading people, you need that skill in order to win because you can't always count on getting good/great cards.


i certainly wouldn't say i'm a great player or necessarily even a good player, but i do play good and this, "abc poker", and "not giving it away" is most of the battle. another big part of it, imo, isn't even necessarily identifying physical tells, but being able to quickly size up the table and establish ranges for most of the players and "who doesn't really know what they're doing" (calling with dominated hands, playing a lot of hands from poor position, bad bet sizing.........) and who is likely to go broke. several hours is an eternity to these players and this is one area where being a serious (trying) horseplayer can really be helpful.... when you're used to dealing with week and month long losing runs folding rags for four hours really is no big deal.

one big difference i think is what mikey said in rounders before he "started rounding" again. that being that you always remember the big losses more than how you built your bankroll and i think this is different than racing (think dick mitchell philosophy that you're going to usually be trading money except for a handful of "christmas" days every year where you win big). in racing you're just dealing with more failure than success, kinda like the percentages mpranger (post 11) and dave schwartz (post 48) were talking about.

don't mean to hijack the thread with this stuff, but it does kinda tie together in a gambling psychology sense.

[Stillriledup]

i certainly wouldn't say i'm a great player or necessarily even a good player, but i do play good and this, "abc poker", and "not giving it away" is most of the battle. another big part of it, imo, isn't even necessarily identifying physical tells, but being able to quickly size up the table and establish ranges for most of the players and "who doesn't really know what they're doing" (calling with dominated hands, playing a lot of hands from poor position, bad bet sizing.........) and who is likely to go broke. several hours is an eternity to these players and this is one area where being a serious (trying) horseplayer can really be helpful.... when you're used to dealing with week and month long losing runs folding rags for four hours really is no big deal.

one big difference i think is what mikey said in rounders before he "started rounding" again. that being that you always remember the big losses more than how you built your bankroll and i think this is different than racing (think dick mitchell philosophy that you're going to usually be trading money except for a handful of "christmas" days every year where you win big). in racing you're just dealing with more failure than success, kinda like the percentages mpranger (post 11) and dave schwartz (post 48) were talking about.

don't mean to hijack the thread with this stuff, but it does kinda tie together in a gambling psychology sense.

This is an excellent post, you're right (or Dick is right) that most of the days are just trading, win a little, lose a little, but your 'year' is made on the handful of 'christmasses' per year.

[Capper Al]

Keeping up the PDC:

"PDC, the cornerstone, Patience, Discipline, and Consistency."

Made another $1.20 this week. That's two $1.20 in a row. Two more times and that's a cup of coffee at Starbucks. It is the only course of action to take for now while updating my system. A developer needs to understand what they have created. This always blows my mind when developing. Applying theory and code, and understanding how to use a system are two different things. Need to acquire stats for the new system. A slow and boring process.

[raybo]

Keeping up the PDC:

"PDC, the cornerstone, Patience, Discipline, and Consistency."

Made another $1.20 this week. That's two $1.20 in a row. Two more times and that's a cup of coffee at Starbucks. It is the only course of action to take for now while updating my system. A developer needs to understand what they have created. This always blows my mind when developing. Applying theory and code, and understanding how to use a system are two different things. Need to acquire stats for the new system. A slow and boring process.

Sounds like you're consistent anyway. Figure out what your longest losing streak is likely to be, decide on a starting bankroll size (disposable income only), then use the attached bet sizing app (Excel workbook). it should help you grow your bankroll, giving you some structure to your bet sizing, rather than just making an off the top of your head decision on what to bet.

[JohnGalt1]

Keeping up the PDC:

"PDC, the cornerstone, Patience, Discipline, and Consistency."

Made another $1.20 this week. That's two $1.20 in a row. Two more times and that's a cup of coffee at Starbucks. It is the only course of action to take for now while updating my system. A developer needs to understand what they have created. This always blows my mind when developing. Applying theory and code, and understanding how to use a system are two different things. Need to acquire stats for the new system. A slow and boring process.


Congrats. Glad you got in the plus column for a couple of days.

As for me, I went back and reviewed what I was doing and found I had changed a few things without realizing it.

I make/use Hambleton pace figs from the Sartin book and use Williem L. Scott's Performance Class Ratings and his form ratings.

Scott usually uses the most recent pace line when making a pace figure, but when he doesn't he puts the pace figure in parenthesis.

For some reason I stopped doing that so a rating from a race 6 months ago looked to me as valuable as the most recent race's pace rating.

So I decided to play Gulfstream and Oaklawn 3/18 and bet it at Canterbury because I was in the neighborhood.

I made smaller bets than usual. At OP I won a 50 cent pick 4, but the 4 win bets lost. At GP I made 3 win bets, 2 won and paid $12.40 and $14.80. I lost $7.05.

I played GP Saturday and made 6 win bets, 3 won, but the 3 races where I liked low priced favorites that I didn't put win money on all won--which wasn't happening during the lo-o-ng second-itis period. I also won the early pick 4 and two pick 3's.

Because the pick 5 at FG was done on Sunday I handicapped the last 5 races. I only played FG once last year so I'm unfamiliar with the track. I put my bets in before I left my house for Easter. My win bets went 2 for 5 but collected a $70 and $67 exacta and $118 50 cent trifecta.

I made money Saturday and Sunday.

What I had been doing earlier in the year was almost good enough to win so I kept doing it longer than I should have. Heck, the horses were running well, (a few wins, lots of seconds and almosts,) but not quite winning enough, so I stuck with it too long.

I have a tendency to get into bad habits or get lazy or slipshod or rushed until I realize what I've been doing to myself.

My method didn't go bad. I went bad.

Three good days in a row doesn't mean I'm out of the woods, but I'm now handicapping like I used to.

If I don't go back to bad habits, I have a chance in this game that I love.

[raybo]

Congrats. Glad you got in the plus column for a couple of days.

As for me, I went back and reviewed what I was doing and found I had changed a few things without realizing it.

I make/use Hambleton pace figs from the Sartin book and use Williem L. Scott's Performance Class Ratings and his form ratings.

Scott usually uses the most recent pace line when making a pace figure, but when he doesn't he puts the pace figure in parenthesis.

For some reason I stopped doing that so a rating from a race 6 months ago looked to me as valuable as the most recent race's pace rating.

So I decided to play Gulfstream and Oaklawn 3/18 and bet it at Canterbury because I was in the neighborhood.

I made smaller bets than usual. At OP I won a 50 cent pick 4, but the 4 win bets lost. At GP I made 3 win bets, 2 won and paid $12.40 and $14.80. I lost $7.05.

I played GP Saturday and made 6 win bets, 3 won, but the 3 races where I liked low priced favorites that I didn't put win money on all won--which wasn't happening during the lo-o-ng second-itis period. I also won the early pick 4 and two pick 3's.

Because the pick 5 at FG was done on Sunday I handicapped the last 5 races. I only played FG once last year so I'm unfamiliar with the track. I put my bets in before I left my house for Easter. My win bets went 2 for 5 but collected a $70 and $67 exacta and $118 50 cent trifecta.

I made money Saturday and Sunday.

What I had been doing earlier in the year was almost good enough to win so I kept doing it longer than I should have. Heck, the horses were running well, (a few wins, lots of seconds and almosts,) but not quite winning enough, so I stuck with it too long.

I have a tendency to get into bad habits or get lazy or slipshod or rushed until I realize what I've been doing to myself.

My method didn't go bad. I went bad.

Three good days in a row doesn't mean I'm out of the woods, but I'm now handicapping like I used to.

If I don't go back to bad habits, I have a chance in this game that I love.

So, you play win, pick 3,4 and 5 (probably 6 too?), exactas and trifectas (with a couple of supers thrown in for good measure?)? Whew, that's certainly diversifying! I'd go nuts trying to figure out and place all those bets, and more than likely go broke too.

[iceknight]

Ray,
thanks for posting the excel file. I plan to use it to properly size my bets!

[raybo]

Ray,
thanks for posting the excel file. I plan to use it to properly size my bets!

You're welcome! It is posted in another thread, in the Software section, but probably is lost in the shuffle by now, so I thought I'd post it here. Cincy and I came up with that bet sizing method and we think it's just what the doctor ordered. User tailored for optimum bet sizing, with protection against going broke while allowing bet sizing to be tied to current bankroll (percentage of bank), and your own "target profit percentage" before bet increases occur, so you don't increase bet sizes until you achieve your target profit percentage. Very easy to use, as long as you have a version of Excel on your computer.

[Valuist]

IMO, here's the best ways to shake off a losing streak.

First, cut back the number of plays. Maybe its just a bad distribution of results. Maybe you have made some incorrect hypotheses. Maybe the track wasn't biased and you thought it was; or vica versa. Maybe a couple fields you thought were strong were actually subpar. Maybe you were playing the races in the wrong pools. Maybe you weren't putting in the preparation time to get an advantage over other bettors to beat the high takeout.

Or just take a little time off. If you are burned out, you're less likely to be prepared if you mentally aren't into it.

For whatever reason, it seems like things come and go in streaks. You probably aren't as good as you think when things are going good, and you probably aren't as bad as you think you are when you are in the middle of a slump.

[MPRanger]

IMO, here's the best ways to shake off a losing streak.

First, cut back the number of plays. Maybe its just a bad distribution of results. Maybe you have made some incorrect hypotheses. Maybe the track wasn't biased and you thought it was; or vica versa. Maybe a couple fields you thought were strong were actually subpar. Maybe you were playing the races in the wrong pools. Maybe you weren't putting in the preparation time to get an advantage over other bettors to beat the high takeout.

Or just take a little time off. If you are burned out, you're less likely to be prepared if you mentally aren't into it.

For whatever reason, it seems like things come and go in streaks. You probably aren't as good as you think when things are going good, and you probably aren't as bad as you think you are when you are in the middle of a slump.

My philosophy is:

You cannot shake off a losing streak. They are predictable mathematical
facts of nature. You must ride them out. Your only defense is to reduce
your exposure while it's running. Horse racing has more longer losing
streaks than winning streaks.

Losing streaks are a result of betting on anything which has less than
an even chance to win. Sure, you can lose when you have the best of it.
But the number and length of losing streaks are a direct quantifiable
result of the chances you are bucking.

[raybo]

My philosophy is:

You cannot shake off a losing streak. They are predictable mathematical
facts of nature. You must ride them out. Your only defense is to reduce
your exposure while it's running. Horse racing has more longer losing
streaks than winning streaks.

Losing streaks are a result of betting on anything which has less than
an even chance to win. Sure, you can lose when you have the best of it.
But the number and length of losing streaks are a direct quantifiable
result of the chances you are bucking.

"Shake off a losing streak" really means not letting it affect your play, not going "on tilt", in poker venacular. "Riding it out" just means to keep betting the way you were, but if you haven't been able to "shake off a losing streak", you are likely to bet differently, or handicap differently, or both, because you're now "on tilt" and not making good decisions and analysis.

[JJMartin]

I have a friend from Greece that told me if he hadn't bet horses for the last 20 years he'd easily have over $300,000. He loved to bet $500+ to show on heavy, heavy favorites. I would give him price horses I felt could hit the show slot but he would never play them. I even printed out an article that showed it was impossible for him to hit at the 90 plus percent he needed.

This was 15 years ago, I guess, and I can still hear him, "Mike, did you see that....they F'ing stiffed me again those sons a bitches." :lol:

That guy in your story was clearly a 'gambler' not a handicapper. But I like that ending quote, lol.

[pondman]

Horse racing has more longer losing
streaks than winning streaks.

A player will have more losing tickets than winning tickets throughout the year, that's the nature of the game. But this doesn't alway equate to long losing streaks. Long losing streaks are the result of not focusing on picking a high enough % of winners. There is a different crowd at the OTB today, then there was before the .10 exotics. The player today is worrying to much about losing money. If a player is too shacken by the thought of a loss and needs insurance, they probably should stay home.

[MPRanger]

A player will have more losing tickets than winning tickets throughout the year, that's the nature of the game. But this doesn't alway equate to long losing streaks. Long losing streaks are the result of not focusing on picking a high enough % of winners. There is a different crowd at the OTB today, then there was before the .10 exotics. The player today is worrying to much about losing money. If a player is too shacken by the thought of a loss and needs insurance, they probably should stay home.


Let me clarify:

I'm talking about mathematical streaks which occur even if a player does
everything right.

If you flip a coin 100 times there will be longer and shorter streaks.
Maybe even a streak of 9.

If heads wins and there are 9 tails in a row then you have a losing streak
of 9. This isn't about skill. The chances are 50 - 50 on each trial but the
streaks are inevitable. Regardless of skill. Skill doesn't even matter at
50% of a chance other than to get you to the 50% point.

Ok, say you have skillfully handicapped a race and determined the Six
horse has a 33% chance to win. You are correct about the chance of
the Six horse to win. (33% or 2 to 1)

You will have more losing streaks on a 2-1 horse than you will flipping
a coin. Even though you did everything right. Even though your skill is
true. These are unavoidable. These streaks are a mathematical fact of
nature.

You will have more longer losing streaks on a 3-1 shot.
And even more on a 4-1 etc;

If a player is developing bad habits, by all means make an adjustment.
But losing streaks come even with perfect play.

[thaskalos]

Let me clarify:

I'm talking about mathematical streaks which occur even if a player does
everything right.

If you flip a coin 100 times there will be longer and shorter streaks.
Maybe even a streak of 9.

If heads wins and there are 9 tails in a row then you have a losing streak
of 9. This isn't about skill. The chances are 50 - 50 on each trial but the
streaks are inevitable. Regardless of skill. Skill doesn't even matter at
50% of a chance other than to get you to the 50% point.

Ok, say you have skillfully handicapped a race and determined the Six
horse has a 33% chance to win. You are correct about the chance of
the Six horse to win. (33% or 2 to 1)

You will have more losing streaks on a 2-1 horse than you will flipping
a coin. Even though you did everything right. Even though your skill is
true. These are unavoidable. These streaks are a mathematical fact of
nature.

You will have more longer losing streaks on a 3-1 shot.
And even more on a 4-1 etc;

If a player is developing bad habits, by all means make an adjustment.
But losing streaks come even with perfect play.

I agree, losing streaks are unavoidable...and their existence is why we only wager a tiny part of our bankroll on each individual race.

If it weren't for the unavoidability of losing streaks...win-bettors would never wager only 1% of their bankroll per individual play.

[MPRanger]

I agree, losing streaks are unavoidable...and their existence is why we only wager a tiny part of our bankroll on each individual race.

If it weren't for the unavoidability of losing streaks...win-bettors would never wager only 1% of their bankroll per individual play.



So, maybe there should be a thread on the best way to manage a losing
streak. You don't necessarily have to lose money just because you are
losing more trials. Every winning horse player knows this. All five of us. :cool:

[traynor]

Lee Rousso had the best idea about "losing streaks"--"If you are not picking winners, don't bet as if you are." Special emphasis on the "don't bet" part. I think way too many use "losing streaks" as rationalization for irrational behavior. The best way to handle a "losing streak" is to eliminate it by not betting.

That should be no harder to understand--and no harder to implement--than getting up from a blackjack table and walking while a negative shoe is dealt out. The principle is the same--if you don't have an advantage, don't bet. If you can't tell the difference between having an advantage and not having an advantage (in your own application of whatever you are doing) stop betting until you learn the difference.

No one expects a perfectly even distribution of results. Wagering involves ups and downs--that is the "even distribution." In the real world, there is no reason to chase losses with money. If you are not winning, stop betting until you either discover what you were doing that caused the "losing streak" (and eliminate it) or you show significant wins with "paper bets."

Anyone who thinks that betting into a losing streak to "break out of it" makes sense should watch a few $100,000 blackjack team banks evaporate before they really get started chasing "statistical advantage." Guaranteed to give one a different perspective on "mathematical certainty."

[Capper Al]

Let me clarify:

I'm talking about mathematical streaks which occur even if a player does
everything right.

If you flip a coin 100 times there will be longer and shorter streaks.
Maybe even a streak of 9.

If heads wins and there are 9 tails in a row then you have a losing streak
of 9. This isn't about skill. The chances are 50 - 50 on each trial but the
streaks are inevitable. Regardless of skill. Skill doesn't even matter at
50% of a chance other than to get you to the 50% point.

Ok, say you have skillfully handicapped a race and determined the Six
horse has a 33% chance to win. You are correct about the chance of
the Six horse to win. (33% or 2 to 1)

You will have more losing streaks on a 2-1 horse than you will flipping
a coin. Even though you did everything right. Even though your skill is
true. These are unavoidable. These streaks are a mathematical fact of
nature.

You will have more longer losing streaks on a 3-1 shot.
And even more on a 4-1 etc;

If a player is developing bad habits, by all means make an adjustment.
But losing streaks come even with perfect play.

Agree. I would venture a guess that the chances of a losing streak verse a winning streak happening at 50/50 are equal, but when we talk 4/1 or 1 out of 5 the probability of winning we are 4 times more likely to be in a losing streak verse a winning streak. Thank good that most of the time it's not a streak because it's more likely to be a losing one.

[thaskalos]

Lee Rousso had the best idea about "losing streaks"--"If you are not picking winners, don't bet as if you are." Special emphasis on the "don't bet" part. I think way too many use "losing streaks" as rationalization for irrational behavior. The best way to handle a "losing streak" is to eliminate it by not betting.

That should be no harder to understand--and no harder to implement--than getting up from a blackjack table and walking while a negative shoe is dealt out. The principle is the same--if you don't have an advantage, don't bet. If you can't tell the difference between having an advantage and not having an advantage (in your own application of whatever you are doing) stop betting until you learn the difference.

No one expects a perfectly even distribution of results. Wagering involves ups and downs--that is the "even distribution." In the real world, there is no reason to chase losses with money. If you are not winning, stop betting until you either discover what you were doing that caused the "losing streak" (and eliminate it) or you show significant wins with "paper bets."

Anyone who thinks that betting into a losing streak to "break out of it" makes sense should watch a few $100,000 blackjack team banks evaporate before they really get started chasing "statistical advantage." Guaranteed to give one a different perspective on "mathematical certainty."

I can't recall if we've ever defined what a "losing streak" really is...and I suspect we would get varied definitions if we tried. Some bettors think that they are in a losing streak when they lose five races in a row.

You say "If you are not winning, stop betting...", and then you cite the blackjack player -- who abandons a "bad shoe" -- as an example. But there is a big difference between a blackjack player's refusal to sit through a bad shoe...and a horseplayer's refusal to play out a "losing streak"; by doing so, the blackjack player is passing on hands where he KNOWS that he will be at a disadvantage...whereas the horseplayer is passing on races in which his advantage is still intact. The horseplayer cannot assume that he had lost his advantage, nor can he assume that he is playing badly, just because he finds himself in a losing streak.

How would you define a losing streak at the race track?

[raybo]

How would you define a losing streak at the race track?

You could look at that from at least 2 perspectives: 1) recent hit rate below the average or median, 2) recent ROI below the average or median.

If hit rate is lower but ROI is ok, then keep playing. If ROI is lower but hit rate is ok, then keep playing. Otherwise, you need to do some checking to see what the problem is, are you the problem, or have things at the tracks you play changed?

It's probably a good idea to have a lower threshold set, bank drawdown, etc., that when you fall below that threshold, you take a break and do some analysis of your selection method and your play.

[magwell]

I find as long as I stay in my betting "comfort zone" losing streaks even out, just like photos and dq's do ......

[thaskalos]

You could look at that from at least 2 perspectives: 1) recent hit rate below the average or median, 2) recent ROI below the average or median.

If hit rate is lower but ROI is ok, then keep playing. If ROI is lower but hit rate is ok, then keep playing. Otherwise, you need to do some checking to see what the problem is, are you the problem, or have things at the tracks you play changed?

Yes...but this "average" does not really exist; it's just an artificial number that we create whenever we try to better understand a situation. Ten men are in a room...and we say that they "average" 200 pounds each in weight. But there probably isn't one 200-pound man in the place.

A horse has run two recent races, earning Beyer figures of 70 and 80 respectively. We can say that the horse has "averaged" a 75 Beyer figure...but that isn't what has really happened. Given the circumstances in a race, the horse may either be an 80 or a 70; but it is WE who have turned this horse into a "75".

A player says that his average "hit rate" at the track is 27%. What does this mean? In reality, it means that he spends half of his time playing at a level where he wins LESS than 27% of the time. And the same could be said about his "average" ROI.

These "averages" don't really exist; they are man-made. And we spend at least half of our gambling time "underperforming", according to our "averages".

How then can we use them as indicators of whether or not we are in a losing streak?

[MPRanger]

Agree. I would venture a guess that the chances of a losing streak verse a winning streak happening at 50/50 are equal, but when we talk 4/1 or 1 out of 5 the probability of winning we are 4 times more likely to be in a losing streak verse a winning streak. Thank good that most of the time it's not a streak because it's more likely to be a losing one.


Al, I'll just plug your 4 to 1 odds into Oddsmaster and run a simulation:

Notice if you add up the total win streaks it will equal the total wins
and the same for the losing streaks. This is a mathematical oddity I
discovered after writing this program. Streaks are predictable and
quantifiable if you know the chances of a win.


4-1
20% chance to win
1000 trials


Results:

196 wins
804 losses


Winning Streaks of:

1 = 156
2 = 30
3 = 5
4 = 3
5 = 2
6 up = 0


Losing Streaks of:

1 = 157
2 = 125
3 = 97
4 = 75
5 = 62
6 = 51
7 = 43
8 = 36
9 = 28
10 = 24
11 = 20
12 = 17
13 = 12
14 = 11
15 up = 8

[traynor]

I can't recall if we've ever defined what a "losing streak" really is...and I suspect we would get varied definitions if we tried. Some bettors think that they are in a losing streak when they lose five races in a row.

You say "If you are not winning, stop betting...", and then you cite the blackjack player -- who abandons a "bad shoe" -- as an example. But there is a big difference between a blackjack player's refusal to sit through a bad shoe...and a horseplayer's refusal to play out a "losing streak"; by doing so, the blackjack player is passing on hands where he KNOWS that he will be at a disadvantage...whereas the horseplayer is passing on races in which his advantage is still intact. The horseplayer cannot assume that he had lost his advantage, nor can he assume that he is playing badly, just because he finds himself in a losing streak.

How would you define a losing streak at the race track?

The point is that when the horseplayer is passing on races in which his advantage is still intact, that advantage may be a purely subjective state of self-deception based on the illusion that the results of a short sample of prior races somehow exerts an influence on current and future races. The results only indicate what happened--not what will happen.

I refer you back to Schlesinger's comment that Anderson's results after three years of full-time blackjack play were "statistically irrelevant." Presumed advantages that are based on the results of a few hundred or few thousand races are similarly irrelevant. Good as indicators, not much else. The "losing streak" may be the real sample, with the few wins (that created the illusion of an "advantage") being little more than a cluster of anomalies in a widely scattered distribution of near-random data points.

I cannot define a losing streak at the track for anyone except myself, and then only within the constraints of the models I use. I have explained this previously. Each pattern has a frequency over a large number of races. One of the calculations of that frequency uses a counter to determine missouts. The application I use monitors the frequencies of each pattern continually, and when a particular pattern reaches 1.5 times the maximum number of missouts that happened in the extended sample from which the pattern is derived, it is flagged. That is when I either locate the problem and resolve it, or I kiss off that pattern--at least for the moment.

As I have indicated previously, in very general terms if I am in red ink for two weeks running, I stop betting completely until I figure out what is wrong and correct it. I really like to win. I really, really hate to lose. I don't buy into the theory of chasing rainbows during a "losing streak" to prevent losing the opportunity to catch a few winners. There are always more winners out there, just waiting for me to bet them.

[traynor]

I can't recall if we've ever defined what a "losing streak" really is...and I suspect we would get varied definitions if we tried. Some bettors think that they are in a losing streak when they lose five races in a row.

You say "If you are not winning, stop betting...", and then you cite the blackjack player -- who abandons a "bad shoe" -- as an example. But there is a big difference between a blackjack player's refusal to sit through a bad shoe...and a horseplayer's refusal to play out a "losing streak"; by doing so, the blackjack player is passing on hands where he KNOWS that he will be at a disadvantage...whereas the horseplayer is passing on races in which his advantage is still intact. The horseplayer cannot assume that he had lost his advantage, nor can he assume that he is playing badly, just because he finds himself in a losing streak.

How would you define a losing streak at the race track?

It may be as important--or even more so--to define what a bettor considers his or her advantage to be, and what criteria are used to determine that advantage. That is not trivial. Many seem to consider the results of a small sample of races as representative of some larger reality, to their detriment.

Bettor A looks back at 200 races and thinks, "Aha! I picked the winner in 30% of the races as my top choice, for an ROI of 120%. If I bet $1000 on each of the next 200 races, I will win a neat profit of $40,000." With any luck, and more than likely after substantial losses, Bettor A may discover that what happened yesterday doesn't really replicate endlessly into the future. All it can do is tell you what happened yesterday--not what will happen today or tomorrow.

[Maximillion]

As I have indicated previously, in very general terms if I am in red ink for two weeks running, I stop betting completely until I figure out what is wrong and correct it. I really like to win. I really, really hate to lose. I don't buy into the theory of chasing rainbows during a "losing streak" to prevent losing the opportunity to catch a few winners. There are always more winners out there, just waiting for me to bet them.

If I can ask,how many plays do you generally find in 2 weeks?

[traynor]

If I can ask,how many plays do you generally find in 2 weeks?

A lot. Most are "bread and butter" almost-mechanical bets made on the basis of wagering models. Those run anywhere from 20 (weekdays) to 70-80 (weekends) a day. "Prime" bets are way more selective, and are limited (usually) to 20-25 a week. That is during "the season" (May through October). Off-season could be anywhere from none to about half that amount.

By "red ink" I mean exactly that, not two weeks of losing every (or almost every) bet. I mean that if I do not at least break even, I stop betting until I discover the cause of the problem.

[Capper Al]

Al, I'll just plug your 4 to 1 odds into Oddsmaster and run a simulation:

Notice if you add up the total win streaks it will equal the total wins
and the same for the losing streaks. This is a mathematical oddity I
discovered after writing this program. Streaks are predictable and
quantifiable if you know the chances of a win.


4-1
20% chance to win
1000 trials


Results:

196 wins
804 losses


Winning Streaks of:

1 = 156
2 = 30
3 = 5
4 = 3
5 = 2
6 up = 0


Losing Streaks of:

1 = 157
2 = 125
3 = 97
4 = 75
5 = 62
6 = 51
7 = 43
8 = 36
9 = 28
10 = 24
11 = 20
12 = 17
13 = 12
14 = 11
15 up = 8

Your program is generating one out of four but I'm not understanding how it applies to streaks. I would expect the patterns to be distributed such that most of the time the results are mixed and not in a streak.

[thaskalos]

The point is that when the horseplayer is passing on races in which his advantage is still intact, that advantage may be a purely subjective state of self-deception based on the illusion that the results of a short sample of prior races somehow exerts an influence on current and future races. The results only indicate what happened--not what will happen.

I refer you back to Schlesinger's comment that Anderson's results after three years of full-time blackjack play were "statistically irrelevant." Presumed advantages that are based on the results of a few hundred or few thousand races are similarly irrelevant. Good as indicators, not much else. The "losing streak" may be the real sample, with the few wins (that created the illusion of an "advantage") being little more than a cluster of anomalies in a widely scattered distribution of near-random data points.

I cannot define a losing streak at the track for anyone except myself, and then only within the constraints of the models I use. I have explained this previously. Each pattern has a frequency over a large number of races. One of the calculations of that frequency uses a counter to determine missouts. The application I use monitors the frequencies of each pattern continually, and when a particular pattern reaches 1.5 times the maximum number of missouts that happened in the extended sample from which the pattern is derived, it is flagged. That is when I either locate the problem and resolve it, or I kiss off that pattern--at least for the moment.

As I have indicated previously, in very general terms if I am in red ink for two weeks running, I stop betting completely until I figure out what is wrong and correct it. I really like to win. I really, really hate to lose. I don't buy into the theory of chasing rainbows during a "losing streak" to prevent losing the opportunity to catch a few winners. There are always more winners out there, just waiting for me to bet them.

Traynor...we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I respect your point of view...but my approach on the matter is entirely different.

I don't rely on patterns which may lose their effectiveness over the short-term. I rely on careful, in-depth handicapping...and I fight through these "losing streaks", becauae I consider them nothing more than a normal, inescapable part of the game. The only thing I worry about at that time is making sure that I continue playing my "A" game throughout...without losing my composure.

In my mind, the outcome of one race has nothing to do with the next...so I refuse to allow the results of prior races to affect my future bets...regardless of whether these prior results are good or bad.

In my way of thinking...losing streaks don't really exist; they are only a figment of my ego's imagination -- because my ego would prefer to sail through calm waters...rather than the stormy weather that the gambler's chosen path must occasionally travel through.

Every race in a new opportunity to me...and this opportunity does not hinge on anything that might have occurred in the past.

The most I can do is to make sure that I play as well as I could NOW.

[Capper Al]

Minimally a streak starts when we extend passed our win ratio. If my hit rate 4/1 or 1 out of 5, when I go 5 times without a win the losing streak has begun. Most gamblers won't sweat this. Probably when the streak goes twice the minimal most gamblers will take notice. Mathematically for me a streak is the square of the expected. In our 1 out of 5 example, I would consider losing 5 groups of 5 without a profit is a streak. Emotionally for me a streak is three Saturdays in a row. I dig in to shake a losing streak based on my emotions not ln my mathematical logical view. A gambler is nothing without his head. The logic and the math are secondary.

[MPRanger]

Minimally a streak starts when we extend passed our win ratio.


I'll let it go at this:

The TAO of the Ranger

Every trial is a streak. Even a streak of one. In repetitive trials
you are always involved in a streak to some extent or the other.
There is no point where a streak ends for a while and another starts
some time later. They are all connected back to back.

This is my way. I'm not saying your way is wrong. Let me suggest if
it interests you that research "trailing stop losses". It will help you frame
a plan to deal with a losing streak once you have identified one.

I got interested in streaks after reading a book called I Want To Quit
Winners by Harold Smith who used to own Harold's Club in Reno.
Harold Smith just say's bet more when your winning and less when
your losing. So simple. So powerful.

[traynor]

Traynor...we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I respect your point of view...but my approach on the matter is entirely different.

I don't rely on patterns which may lose their effectiveness over the short-term. I rely on careful, in-depth handicapping...and I fight through these "losing streaks", becauae I consider them nothing more than a normal, inescapable part of the game. The only thing I worry about at that time is making sure that I continue playing my "A" game throughout...without losing my composure.

In my mind, the outcome of one race has nothing to do with the next...so I refuse to allow the results of prior races to affect my future bets...regardless of whether these prior results are good or bad.

In my way of thinking...losing streaks don't really exist; they are only a figment of my ego's imagination -- because my ego would prefer to sail through calm waters...rather than the stormy weather that the gambler's chosen path must occasionally travel through.

Every race in a new opportunity to me...and this opportunity does not hinge on anything that might have occurred in the past.

The most I can do is to make sure that I play as well as I could NOW.

There is no disagreement. I think you have the topic nailed tight, in view of your personal approach to wagering. That is why I qualified that my "definition" of a losing streak only applied to me, and to the specific way I use models for wagering.

The patterns losing their effectiveness in the short term is a problem. Every pattern is based on situations in which knowledge of the pattern did not exist--everything is determined looking backwards. That is a problem built in to using regression analysis (otherwise known as "looking at old races") for indicators of what might be profitable today.

One comment. I think you might find that your definition of "in-depth handicapping" and my definition of "patterns" are more similar than divergent. "In-depth handicapping" could be described as "applying numerous patterns" in analyzing a specific race. Parsing a specific race using multiple patterns could be described as "in-depth handicapping."

[raybo]

I'll let it go at this:

The TAO of the Ranger

Every trial is a streak. Even a streak of one. In repetitive trials
you are always involved in a streak to some extent or the other.
There is no point where a streak ends for a while and another starts
some time later. They are all connected back to back.

This is my way. I'm not saying your way is wrong. Let me suggest if
it interests you that research "trailing stop losses". It will help you frame
a plan to deal with a losing streak once you have identified one.

I got interested in streaks after reading a book called I Want To Quit
Winners by Harold Smith who used to own Harold's Club in Reno.
Harold Smith just say's bet more when your winning and less when
your losing. So simple. So powerful.

That's pretty much true. If you're winning you should be betting more, but when you're losing decreasing your bets can minimize bankroll drawdown until you start hitting again. If you are pretty consistent and your losing streaks are infrequent, or short lived, then probably just keep betting the same amount during a losing streak, and then start increasing your bets again. Of course, you have to be conscious of over betting the pools/tracks and actually start betting against yourself by decreasing the odds with your large bets. This is all basic, general stuff, there are better ways of betting though.

[raybo]

There is no disagreement. I think you have the topic nailed tight, in view of your personal approach to wagering. That is why I qualified that my "definition" of a losing streak only applied to me, and to the specific way I use models for wagering.

The patterns losing their effectiveness in the short term is a problem. Every pattern is based on situations in which knowledge of the pattern did not exist--everything is determined looking backwards. That is a problem built in to using regression analysis (otherwise known as "looking at old races") for indicators of what might be profitable today.

One comment. I think you might find that your definition of "in-depth handicapping" and my definition of "patterns" are more similar than divergent. "In-depth handicapping" could be described as "applying numerous patterns" in analyzing a specific race. Parsing a specific race using multiple patterns could be described as "in-depth handicapping."

Agree, most everyone uses "models" whether they are physical computer models or models created in your own brain's memory through experience (and a good memory definitely helps, lol). I use them too, in RS, but they aren't called models, just groupings of related data drawn from the database, indicative of what worked in the recent past.

And, yes, models are subject to short term losing streaks like anything else. You just have to be able to determine if it's temporary or not, that's the key, what's causing the draw-down, is it normal randomness, or have things changed at the track, or is it weather related, etc..

[Capper Al]

I'll let it go at this:

The TAO of the Ranger

Every trial is a streak. Even a streak of one. In repetitive trials
you are always involved in a streak to some extent or the other.
There is no point where a streak ends for a while and another starts
some time later. They are all connected back to back.

This is my way. I'm not saying your way is wrong. Let me suggest if
it interests you that research "trailing stop losses". It will help you frame
a plan to deal with a losing streak once you have identified one.

I got interested in streaks after reading a book called I Want To Quit
Winners by Harold Smith who used to own Harold's Club in Reno.
Harold Smith just say's bet more when your winning and less when
your losing. So simple. So powerful.

I agree with bet more when you're winning and less when you're lossing. There isn't any mathematical explanation for this since all events are assumed to be independent. But in reality the events are not independent since they are effecting the wherewithal of the gambler.

What I'm not seeing in your example is how many times a number came up in a row. I seriously doubt that you are saying the #1 lost 157 times straight.

[MPRanger]

I agree with bet more when you're winning and less when you're lossing. There isn't any mathematical explanation for this since all events are assumed to be independent. But in reality the events are not independent since they are effecting the wherewithal of the gambler.

What I'm not seeing in your example is how many times a number came up in a row. I seriously doubt that you are saying the #1 lost 157 times straight.


No. That's not what I meant. Maybe this will be clearer:

4-1
20% chance to win
1000 trials

Winning Streak of 1 occurred 156 times in a thousand trials
Winning Streak of 2 occurred 30 times in a thousand trials
Winning Streak of 3 occurred 5 times in a thousand trials
Winning Streak of 4 occurred 3 times in a thousand trials
Winning Streak of 5 occurred 2 times in a thousand trials
Winning Streak of 6 up occurred 0 times in a thousand trials

Losing Streaks

Losing Streak of 1 occurred 157 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 2 occurred 125 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 3 occurred 97 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 4 occurred 75 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 5 occurred 62 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 6 occurred 51 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 7 occurred 43 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 8 occurred 36 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 9 occurred 28 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 10 occurred 24 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 11 occurred 20 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 12 occurred 17 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 13 occurred 12 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 14 occurred 11 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 15 up occurred 8 times in a thousand trials

[Capper Al]

No. That's not what I meant. Maybe this will be clearer:

4-1
20% chance to win
1000 trials

Winning Streak of 1 occurred 156 times in a thousand trials
Winning Streak of 2 occurred 30 times in a thousand trials
Winning Streak of 3 occurred 5 times in a thousand trials
Winning Streak of 4 occurred 3 times in a thousand trials
Winning Streak of 5 occurred 2 times in a thousand trials
Winning Streak of 6 up occurred 0 times in a thousand trials

Losing Streaks

Losing Streak of 1 occurred 157 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 2 occurred 125 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 3 occurred 97 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 4 occurred 75 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 5 occurred 62 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 6 occurred 51 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 7 occurred 43 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 8 occurred 36 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 9 occurred 28 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 10 occurred 24 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 11 occurred 20 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 12 occurred 17 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 13 occurred 12 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 14 occurred 11 times in a thousand trials
Losing Streak of 15 up occurred 8 times in a thousand trials

Ok. Got it. Thanks.

[traynor]

Al, I'll just plug your 4 to 1 odds into Oddsmaster and run a simulation:

Notice if you add up the total win streaks it will equal the total wins
and the same for the losing streaks. This is a mathematical oddity I
discovered after writing this program. Streaks are predictable and
quantifiable if you know the chances of a win.


4-1
20% chance to win
1000 trials


Results:

196 wins
804 losses


Winning Streaks of:

1 = 156
2 = 30
3 = 5
4 = 3
5 = 2
6 up = 0


Losing Streaks of:

1 = 157
2 = 125
3 = 97
4 = 75
5 = 62
6 = 51
7 = 43
8 = 36
9 = 28
10 = 24
11 = 20
12 = 17
13 = 12
14 = 11
15 up = 8

I don't know who coded Oddsmaster. You may find interesting differences in the results if you re-seed the random number generator after each generation. Specifically, rather than using the same seed for all 1000 events, put the generator inside a loop to create a new seed for each iteration--not just a new random number from the same (starting) seed. That will more closely approximate a random selection (rather than a predictable pattern).

[MPRanger]

I don't know who coded Oddsmaster. You may find interesting differences in the results if you re-seed the random number generator after each generation. Specifically, rather than using the same seed for all 1000 events, put the generator inside a loop to create a new seed for each iteration--not just a new random number from the same (starting) seed. That will more closely approximate a random selection (rather than a predictable pattern).



I coded it. It's seeded from the system clock initially for all 1000 trials.
To run the simulation again would give similar but different results.
196 wins is within 1 standard deviation. It's four wins from fair.

I agree that nested reseeding is a powerful random number technique.
It's what I would use to simulate a quantum leap. But for these purposes
I believe this is adequate. You disagree? I'm open minded. Feel free to explain.

Do you think the sequence is predictable? If I provided you with the first
980 results, could you predict the remaining 20?

With all that said, I don't see how you could have determined the random
number technique I used from the results I posted as they are simply
totals of occurrences.

But, if you have something to add I'm all ears. It will be a couple of days
before I can get back to this.

[Capper Al]

Good news. I'm out of my losing streak and back to square one for the year, that is even. Thank God! My major flaw seemed to be ignoring my top pick at low odds. Saying it in a James Bond manner, I was shaken not stirred. And yes, changing from a mini roller up to a low roller had something to do with the losing streak.

[Tall One]

The advantage that a great poker player has over a great horseplayer is that the poker player can win in ways that the horseplayer can't win in. The poker player can read PEOPLE and take advantage of weaknesses in 'tells' at the tables. I'm sure the greatest poker players in the game are some of the best at reading people, you need that skill in order to win because you can't always count on getting good/great cards.

The great thing about horse racing is that if you acquire some self generated information and you make a great score off that info, you don't have to trade that info in. You get to cash the ticket and keep the info in your brain at the same time. Now, that info might be less valuable because many times its going to be an opinion on a horse who looks average on paper but in real life is far superior to his PPs and when that horse wins, the 'bad pp' line goes away and you replace that with a GOOD pp line. But, you still have the info of knowing exactly how talented your horse is, even if you arent necessarily going to be able to benefit again by betting on this particular horse.

Horse handicapping is like wheel of fortune.....you guess a letter and the letter goes up there, but you still need more letters to guess the word....the more letters you have, the 'easier' the game becomes.

The amount of information you need to win is staggering. If there was a horse running at your favorite track and he had beaten so and so by 2 lengths and so and so showed up at some track 300 miles away 3 days ago and ran a very good 2nd with a rough trip, is that something you would know about off the top of your head? If an Aqueduct shipper who finished 4th in his most recent race at Aqu showed up at Philly Park to race in the 7th race and the 5th place finisher out of that same race had just raced 30 minutes earlier at Laurel Park and got blocked in the stretch and was beaten 8 lengths but galloped out on top of the field, is this something you would know, or, since you don't follow Laurel (hypothetically) you would have no clue about the 'puzzle' piece that ran 30 minutes earlier?

If Aqueduct is your main track and a Laurel shipper was in there to race, would you know the exact circumstances surrounding the Laurel Shipper's last race? Would you know the bias he raced against, or how hot his rider had been riding, or how the 2nd place finisher raced when he came back 3 days ago?

This is just the tip of the iceberg on the immense amout of detailed information you need in order to be able to make a brilliant betting decision, and quite frankly, there arent enough hours in the day for most horseplayers to dig out the stuff that they really need to win.


In almost every race, there are noses and millimeters and 1/100ths of inches that seperate you (and me) from major scores, minor scores and just ANY scores.

My newfound philosophy when i lose by a nose isnt that i had bad luck and the luck will turn around at some point, my philosophy is that i need to get better at picking horses. I need to work harder and form a more complete opinion and i need to bet better to maximize something that i've uncovered.

If i lose a bet, my first thought is "what did i miss" and my 2nd thought is "what do i need to do to get better".

The reason horse race handicapping is the greatest game on earth is because there's an unlimited amount of work you can do to form an opinion. You're never "done" handicapping, you can always research something else, watch another replay or dig up some more information.

If you feel that you know the game and have above average talent in handicapping horses and you KNOW for sure that you're really good at this, don't ever get 'down' after a tough stretch. Don't let "them" get to you, keep fighting the good fight, get pissed off at the losses, accept the blame for the losing and figure out a way to improve your game and your information.

Sorry for the long, rambling post, but i have a hunch that some of you actually like this stuff! ;)



Great post!

And the sentence I highlited above is gospel. I try to learn from my mistakes, remember why I made them, and how I corrected them. Whether it be wager choice, or the horse got a bad trip, bias, etc..ive made my notes, and when he's entered again...hope for a better outcome!