Betting harness is hopeless

[kuusinen27]

I bet harness racing for years, owned horses up until 2006 but finally
got tired of how futile it is. I now bet thoroughbred instead because it
is too much for me to deal with being disappointed by both horses and
also drivers. I don't know about thoroughbred but in all my years being
around harness racing I never met anyone coming out ahead overall. I
like to look at peoples picks on the forum and check to see how they did
and the majority of the time they do not do well. I am not slamming
the pickers, it is the nature of the beast, you cannot come out ahead.
Today I am bored, my wifes home from work so I escape to my
computer and turn on my Twinspires. Terrible thoroughbred tracks on
Tuesdays so I click on Meadows. I haven't bet harness for a few years
and want something to watch and bet. Ron Burke has an entry in the
eighth with Palone driving part of the entry and has the one hole at
even money. I'm just killing time not going after money so I play $5.00
to place in a weak field timewise, almost no way one of his horses can't
run second. You know the end of the story and I know why I do not
follow harness racing anymore.

[Muddy]

I like to look at it like this. I can go out and golf and spend 60 to 100 and get nothing out of it except some exercise. Go fishing take the boat out spend a couple hundred and maybe catch some fish. I can stay home watch some races on the pc or go to the track and make some bets and have a chance to win something. So if you look at it as entertainment are you really losing anything more than going golfing or fishing it all costs money.

[Zydeco]

I like to look at it like this. I can go out and golf and spend 60 to 100 and get nothing out of it except some exercise. Go fishing take the boat out spend a couple hundred and maybe catch some fish. I can stay home watch some races on the pc or go to the track and make some bets and have a chance to win something. So if you look at it as entertainment are you really losing anything more than going golfing or fishing it all costs money.
This is the way I look at it. I agree.

[baconswitchfarm]

The Burke horse in the 14th was worse. Must have gotten a bad batch. Bet them back next week.

[lamboguy]

in this game you need to do your own work. if you don't work, you don't win. its that simple you will lose the takeout or more. keep in mind in order to win, you have to overcome that takeout on a consistent basis.

[LottaKash]

The Burke horse in the 14th was worse. Must have gotten a bad batch. Bet them back next week.

Perhaps, being the day after a rainy track may have had something to do with the form that ran amuck on this day...Imo, that was it, today...On days such as these I play little or not at all....I will watch a few races and I will know soon enough what may be expected for the remainder of the card....

When most of the races and the horses on the day's card, have suspect form at best, it is often hard to tell, but on those types of cards I am always in guarded mode anyway...

This game isn't that hard to beat, and one can make some kash if patient enough to wait for the "lucky races" to come....For me, Good Luck happens when "preparedness" and "opportunity" COLLIDE !...

[precisionk]

I
like to look at peoples picks on the forum and check to see how they did
and the majority of the time they do not do well.

To answer this point, really depends on the public handicapper. Myself for example, I put the full card along with my top three picks for each race. I have always condoned betting every single race that I pick and have shown that on my website because like with any horse racing, betting every race is a losing proposition. I provide the picks to the public and let them decide what they want to do. Sure there are some races I favor over others and I note it, but betting every race should be left to the guys with too much money to lose and the action junkies.

Taking in the account if you were to bet every single race, of course alot of peoples picks do not do well as the amount of money having to spend to cover certain bets for every race can usually out number what you make back. That is where you will see my ROI on my website being terrible quite a bit cause dropping in $14 a race, every race is suicide based on my mythical wagering.

Pick your spots and roll those dice!

[mrroyboy]

I hope you are back John not just one post. Kussines, Lotta Kash wins at harness racing. I believ e some others on this site do too.
I recommend Pandys books and articles to learn more about the sport
But Muddy is right. Harness racing is exciting especially the summer meet at Meadowlands where you will see speed records broken every week.
So learn what you can and enjoy watching.

[cecil127]

I like to look at it like this. I can go out and golf and spend 60 to 100 and get nothing out of it except some exercise. Go fishing take the boat out spend a couple hundred and maybe catch some fish. I can stay home watch some races on the pc or go to the track and make some bets and have a chance to win something. So if you look at it as entertainment are you really losing anything more than going golfing or fishing it all costs money.

+1
but my fishing trips cost me a lot less....no boats for cecil127
:)

[Vinman]

I started with Yonkers/Roosevelt in college before switching to T-Breds when my family moved to the Jersey shore near Monmouth Park and I became enamored with Secretariat, as so many did. Every few years I re-focus on Harness, because I still enjoy it....especially trying to figure out why certain drivers become "dominant" at a given circuit. For example, just a few years ago, Jason Bartlett was "the man" at YR, consistently winning at 20%+ atop the standings. Then George Brennan took over, winning at well over 20%, even after Lou Pena got the boot and George lost all those "easy money" Pena drives. Most recently, Brian Sears decided to focus on Yonkers full-time and he's blowing everyone away, coming within a nose of an 8 win night a couple of weeks ago.

But as always, after awhile I'm reminded why Harness is so frustrating. Number one, as is the case with every Harness track except the Big M and Woodbine....very small pools. You wait until 30 seconds to post, even when betting with a Tiny Tim, and your 8/5 shot turns into 3/5 as the horses hit the first quarter. Your $14 exacta becomes $8. These are your slim profit margins eroding before your very eyes. Then there are those inevitable occasions when your driver makes a boneheaded, hyperagressive prolonged dueling move to the lead instead of "dropping in". By the time they get the lead, your doom is sealed. Breakers are part of the game, but I find "teeny pools" and "stupid driver tricks" the main reasons why I always gravitate back to the "Sport of Kings".

The Big M has taken the lead in expanding the opportunities to make a nice score with a Pick 5 and a second Pick 4, but IMHO, the Harness game needs to find a way for a bettor to make a "life changing score", like the guy who hit for 3.5MM in the dime Rainbow 6 at Gulfstream last month.


Vinman

[Sea Biscuit]

To answer this point, really depends on the public handicapper. Myself for example, I put the full card along with my top three picks for each race. I have always condoned betting every single race that I pick and have shown that on my website because like with any horse racing, betting every race is a losing proposition. I provide the picks to the public and let them decide what they want to do. Sure there are some races I favor over others and I note it, but betting every race should be left to the guys with too much money to lose and the action junkies.

Taking in the account if you were to bet every single race, of course alot of peoples picks do not do well as the amount of money having to spend to cover certain bets for every race can usually out number what you make back. That is where you will see my ROI on my website being terrible quite a bit cause dropping in $14 a race, every race is suicide based on my mythical wagering.

Pick your spots and roll those dice!

Mr Trifecta: Having said all that does it not make sense to you to put up only your best spot plays on your website for the public consumption?

As it is the people who bet the public handicappers picks are all that not very well informed about handicapping and asking them to pick and choose from your picks which races to bet and which races to avoid must be very difficult for them.

Talking about public handicappers in general. Love it when they give out their best bet of the day which usually pays $2.40 ( if it wins) or thereabouts. Try making money of that pick.

[Ray2000]

IMO

The one time wealthiest robot gambler in the world, (created by Pittsburgh's Bill Benter), has spawned new generations of computer players who went after North America TBred and are now invading the larger Harness Tracks. The late action from these bots are killing Win and Exacta play. Horizontal play will be the next to get pounded, leaving the Trifecta and Superfecta, with their exorbitant take outs, the only human game in town.


http://www.worlds-greatest-gamblers.com/gamblers/horse-racing/william-benter/

[Stillriledup]

I bet harness racing for years, owned horses up until 2006 but finally
got tired of how futile it is. I now bet thoroughbred instead because it
is too much for me to deal with being disappointed by both horses and
also drivers. I don't know about thoroughbred but in all my years being
around harness racing I never met anyone coming out ahead overall. I
like to look at peoples picks on the forum and check to see how they did
and the majority of the time they do not do well. I am not slamming
the pickers, it is the nature of the beast, you cannot come out ahead.
Today I am bored, my wifes home from work so I escape to my
computer and turn on my Twinspires. Terrible thoroughbred tracks on
Tuesdays so I click on Meadows. I haven't bet harness for a few years
and want something to watch and bet. Ron Burke has an entry in the
eighth with Palone driving part of the entry and has the one hole at
even money. I'm just killing time not going after money so I play $5.00
to place in a weak field timewise, almost no way one of his horses can't
run second. You know the end of the story and I know why I do not
follow harness racing anymore.

I'm not following...you're saying you're the best horseplayer/bettor in all of harness racing? The only way you can say that 'nobody can win' is if you feel nobody is better than you. You're saying "im the best and if i cant win, nobody else can".

Am i right, or am i missing something?

[Stillriledup]

Winning players are not betting Ron Burke to place..they're finding a way to bet against the overbet Burke horses. Burke loses 75 percent of the time, that means he's losing on a LOT of even money shots.....find a way to sniff out the burke 'bums' and if you get good at knowing which 75 percent of his horses are going to lose, you're on your way.

[pandy]

The gentleman who started this thread clearly hasn't been following harness racing that closely. Derick Giwner from Harness Eye (www.drf.com/harness) and Matt Rose have had positive ROI's at several meets doing public picks. On the USTA site (www.ustrotting.com) when I did The Grand Adventure which was my weekly exotic spot plays, after a year I had a positive ROI. Steve Carpenito showed a positive ROI in the same category. These are public handicappers.

This year I stopped selling picks on my Trotpicks website so I've been posting free picks and they are showing a profit.

You can still win betting harness racing if you are a good handicapper, have patience, pick your spots, know how to bet, and look for value.

[Sea Biscuit]

I'm not following...you're saying you're the best horseplayer/bettor in all of harness racing? The only way you can say that 'nobody can win' is if you feel nobody is better than you. You're saying "im the best and if i cant win, nobody else can".

Am i right, or am i missing something?

I don't think Kuusinen ever said that he was the best harness horse player.

[pacer]

I have not done any posting but been watching for sometime. The way to make money at the harness races is pick your spots with horse over 3-1 which have sharp form and never play horses at 1-1 espesially to place. I think it is all about value an patience. In addition play good drivers and horse with a good win PCT. Just some advice I try and go by. I find you get more overlays at the harness the the thorobreds not as many pros there. Imo

[precisionk]

Mr Trifecta: Having said all that does it not make sense to you to put up only your best spot plays on your website for the public consumption?

As it is the people who bet the public handicappers picks are all that not very well informed about handicapping and asking them to pick and choose from your picks which races to bet and which races to avoid must be very difficult for them.

Talking about public handicappers in general. Love it when they give out their best bet of the day which usually pays $2.40 ( if it wins) or thereabouts. Try making money of that pick.

I could very easily just do spot plays, but what differs from myself to say others, is I do a full card. Reasons for it is because of requests in the past of people wanting to see the full card. Some people like the action, so I provide my top three in each race.

I signify my pick of the night, longshot and lock of the night. So you can say I do provide spot plays based on that. $2.40 is a hard thing to make money on unless you have a very large bankroll, but I can't control payouts, only can pick who I think will do well.

My picks are what I use so there is no "super secret picks" I am keeping all for myself. I think many can vouch I have literally given away thousands of dollars in winning tickets on this forum and my website. Heck just gave away earlier in the month a $1 Pick-4 ticket that paid $5290 for $54.

[DeltaLover]

The gentleman who started this thread clearly hasn't been following harness racing that closely. Derick Giwner from Harness Eye (www.drf.com/harness) and Matt Rose have had positive ROI's at several meets doing public picks. On the USTA site (www.ustrotting.com) when I did The Grand Adventure which was my weekly exotic spot plays, after a year I had a positive ROI. Steve Carpenito showed a positive ROI in the same category. These are public handicappers.

This year I stopped selling picks on my Trotpicks website so I've been posting free picks and they are showing a profit.

You can still win betting harness racing if you are a good handicapper, have patience, pick your spots, know how to bet, and look for value.

Having a couple positive ROI handicappers out of a large pool of them does not prove neither that they are indeed better than their competition nor that the game can be beaten. A similar analogy would have been to conclude that roulette can be beaten just because several players managed to win during some specific period confusing pure luck to skill and ability.

[precisionk]

The gentleman who started this thread clearly hasn't been following harness racing that closely. Derick Giwner from Harness Eye (www.drf.com/harness) and Matt Rose have had positive ROI's at several meets doing public picks. On the USTA site (www.ustrotting.com) when I did The Grand Adventure which was my weekly exotic spot plays, after a year I had a positive ROI. Steve Carpenito showed a positive ROI in the same category. These are public handicappers.

This year I stopped selling picks on my Trotpicks website so I've been posting free picks and they are showing a profit.

You can still win betting harness racing if you are a good handicapper, have patience, pick your spots, know how to bet, and look for value.


This truly is the secret to be a winning player. Can't bold this enough.

[LottaKash]

Having a couple positive ROI handicappers out of a large pool of them does not prove neither that they are indeed better than their competition nor that the game can be beaten. A similar analogy would have been to conclude that roulette can be beaten just because several players managed to win during some specific period confusing pure luck to skill and ability.

With all due respect Delta, a silly analogy, imo....Roulette sucks as a model for long term gain...

So, what was the OP supposed to take from that ?...

I got your point about the luck and skill part of your post, but not your lack of encouragement to the OP about what it takes to get on the winning trail....Hey, as it is, the guy is disillusioned about this game that many of us love so much....

The game of Harness Racing, can and is being beaten...and I mean long term, at that....Of this I am certain...

And, of those public handicappers that Pandy referred to, I don't think that they are that lucky, I believe they are that good...Pandy included....:jump:

[mrroyboy]

To everyone reading this. What Lottakash just said is one of the most important things you can get from this forum.

He is right and usually is. If you like harness racing for what ever your reasons learning all you can about handicapping is good. You will do better and like it more.

[DeltaLover]

With all due respect Delta, a silly analogy, imo....Roulette sucks as a model for long term gain...

So, what was the OP supposed to take from that ?...

I got your point about the luck and skill part of your post, but not your lack of encouragement to the OP about what it takes to get on the winning trail....Hey, as it is, the guy is disillusioned about this game that many of us love so much....

The game of Harness Racing, can and is being beaten...and I mean long term, at that....Of this I am certain...

And, of those public handicappers that Pandy referred to, I don't think that they are that lucky, I believe they are that good...Pandy included....:jump:


Certainly I agree that what the OP describes here is not a proof about whether the game is beatable of not.

You state that the game can be beaten and I think you have a valid point. At least in theory this is possible.

Where our disagreement starts is when it comes to the methodology we need to follow in order to be sure that the game is indeed beatable or not.

In my posting I am not trying to validate what the OP says but to underline the fact that what pandy is implying as an indicator is not enough to make his case.

How good a handicapper really is, is something that cannot be decided by simple ROI calculations especially considering the full universe of races (meaning without assuming that some races will be passed and some will be bet).

Note that what the horse bettor is looking for, are situations where the crowd will be wrong by a margin large enough to overcome the take out which is not the same as merely trying to find the most frequent winners.

This condition is not a very frequent one since the public seems to be a very knowledgeable opponent that most of the times will have a better opinion than any individual handicapper no matter what is thought about his expertize and ability.

[Stillriledup]

I don't think Kuusinen ever said that he was the best harness horse player.

He didnt say it, but from what he said, he implied it by essentially saying "if i cant win, nobody can win".

Unless i misinterpreted what he said?

[mrroyboy]

I think Roulette was a very bad analogy. He could have used blackjack as a much better example. Blackjack is beatable but how many people actually do it? Not very many. Partially because greedy casinos want every dime they can get so bad rules like 6-5 on blackjacks.

Well, in Harness Racing the track take becomes the "Casino" which makes the game much tougher. Still can be beaten but not everyone might want to put in the time etc.
The answer? enjo:) y the sport itself. That way you win no matter what.!!!

[Ray2000]

LK's right and Delta's right.

I know that there are some top 'cappers who continually make a profit at this Harness game. I've tracked them. (Even paid for their Picks). Some have had the courage to publish their daily results on extended runs (ie. The Grand Adventure).

But Delta's right on being careful what conclusions you draw from the posted/blogged results. Small sample size will do you in every time.

If you're making $2 Win bets and don't have any idea what you're doing, then in the long haul you should expect to lose the Take-out percentage. The Take-out on Win betting is 17% at most tracks so on every $2 bet you should get back an average of $1.66. Call this number the "Expected Monkey Return"

Now take a look at some actual returns for the first 200 Win bets in the test run I was posting here. ROI was -8% (before rebate:)).



0 25.8 6.3 0
0 0 0 0
0 2.8 4.4 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 50.5 0
9.8 21.6 0 7
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 4.8 0 0
0 0 4.6 3.3
0 0 3.4 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 8.8 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 6.2 6.4 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 10.8 12 0
0 0 0 0
5.8 0 0 21
0 6 0 0
8.9 0 0 0
0 0 7.5 0
0 5 0 0
8 0 0 0
0 15.8 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 4.7
14 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 4.2
0 4.2 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 21
0 0 12.4 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 10.8 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 7.3
0 0 0 0
0 14 8.4 0



The average return (including goose-eggs) on my bets was $1.86 for 2$ bets. (The StDev is 5.48) Does this sample have any significance?
.......answer, very little. Here's how you test it.
Calculate what eggheads call a "Z-Score"

Z=(My average return-Expected Monkey Return) / (StDeviation of returns / SQRooT(Number of Bets))

Z = (1.86 - 1.66) / (5.48/sqrt(200)) = 0.51

A "Z Score" like 0.51 has a 31% chance to occur simply by dumb luck.

You need a Z-Score of 2 or more to believe the numbers aren't just by dumb luck.



btw
The associated "Happens by Luck" for Z Scores can be found in stat tables or Excel formulas

[thaskalos]

He didnt say it, but from what he said, he implied it by essentially saying "if i cant win, nobody can win".

Unless i misinterpreted what he said?

You are wrong, SRU.

What the OP really said was that, in all his years in the sport -- both as a player and as an owner -- he never met even one player who had beaten the game by betting, in the long run.

That's quite different than saying that he considered the game to be unbeatable, just because he himself couldn't win at it.

The funny thing about us horseplayers -- both harness and thoroughbred -- is how quick we are to assume that the game is beatable in the long run...even though, in the vast majority of the cases...neither we, nor anyone that we personally know, is actually out there beating this game on a regular basis.

We ASSUME that horse racing is beatable in the long run, because that assumption makes sense to us...but do we have any actual proof that this is really the case?

Do WE beat this game on a regular basis...or do we personally know of anybody out there who actually does?

The vast majority of us are just like the original poster of this thread; we are not beating this game on a regular basis...nor do we know of anyone who does. Considering how many years most of us have spent playing this game...shouldn't almost all of us be acquainted with a player who is actually beating this game on a regular basis...if winning was really the logical and straight-forward process that some make it out to be?

Pandy states that some public handicappers "have had positive ROI at several meets...". Is this actual proof that these public handicappers really are "winning players" in the LONG RUN?

And even if these public handicappers had positive ROI during entire years...does this actually mean that they bet the same with actual cash as they do when they bet on paper? Is making money "on paper" the same as actually making it in real life? Remember...there is no stress or adversity when you are betting "on paper"...:)

What am I really getting at...you might ask.

It IS possible to beat this game on a regular basis...and there ARE people out there who are actually doing it. But they are working a lot harder at it than most people think...and they are making sacrifices that most here would not even consider making.

The worst mistake to make is not the one that the original poster here seems to have made...by assuming that no one beats this game just because he himself has not met anyone who is actually beating it. This sort of mistake is easy to live with...because it won't cost you much by actually believing it.

The worst mistake to make is the mistake that a lot of the people on this board seem to have made...and that is...thinking that this game could be beaten without great effort and single-minded dedication. Thinking that it is possible to beat this game while just being a "hobbyist"...

THIS is the worst mistake a person could possibly make...because a belief like this figures to cost him a ton...

In the toughest gambling game in the world...how could there be money left on the table for the "hobbyist"? :)

[baconswitchfarm]

[QUOTE=thaskal





there ARE people out there who are actually doing it. But they are working a lot harder at it than most people think...and they are making sacrifices that most here would not even consider making.:)[/QUOTE]



You are correct sir.

[pandy]

I know three professional harness bettors, two that I communicate with on a regular basis. They do put a lot of work into it. One does his own figures and keeps careful track bias notes. The other watches replays carefully and takes trip notes. Both spend a lot of time at it.

[Stillriledup]

You are wrong, SRU.

What the OP really said was that, in all his years in the sport -- both as a player and as an owner -- he never met even one player who had beaten the game by betting, in the long run.

That's quite different than saying that he considered the game to be unbeatable, just because he himself couldn't win at it.

The funny thing about us horseplayers -- both harness and thoroughbred -- is how quick we are to assume that the game is beatable in the long run...even though, in the vast majority of the cases...neither we, nor anyone that we personally know, is actually out there beating this game on a regular basis.

We ASSUME that horse racing is beatable in the long run, because that assumption makes sense to us...but do we have any actual proof that this is really the case?

Do WE beat this game on a regular basis...or do we personally know of anybody out there who actually does?

The vast majority of us are just like the original poster of this thread; we are not beating this game on a regular basis...nor do we know of anyone who does. Considering how many years most of us have spent playing this game...shouldn't almost all of us be acquainted with a player who is actually beating this game on a regular basis...if winning was really the logical and straight-forward process that some make it out to be?

Pandy states that some public handicappers "have had positive ROI at several meets...". Is this actual proof that these public handicappers really are "winning players" in the LONG RUN?

And even if these public handicappers had positive ROI during entire years...does this actually mean that they bet the same with actual cash as they do when they bet on paper? Is making money "on paper" the same as actually making it in real life? Remember...there is no stress or adversity when you are betting "on paper"...:)

What am I really getting at...you might ask.

It IS possible to beat this game on a regular basis...and there ARE people out there who are actually doing it. But they are working a lot harder at it than most people think...and they are making sacrifices that most here would not even consider making.

The worst mistake to make is not the one that the original poster here seems to have made...by assuming that no one beats this game just because he himself has not met anyone who is actually beating it. This sort of mistake is easy to live with...because it won't cost you much by actually believing it.

The worst mistake to make is the mistake that a lot of the people on this board seem to have made...and that is...thinking that this game could be beaten without great effort and single-minded dedication. Thinking that it is possible to beat this game while just being a "hobbyist"...

THIS is the worst mistake a person could possibly make...because a belief like this figures to cost him a ton...

In the toughest gambling game in the world...how could there be money left on the table for the "hobbyist"? :)

I must have misinterpreted what the OP said. There's a sentence in his orig post that says:

I am not slamming
the pickers, it is the nature of the beast, you cannot come out ahead."

He says "YOU can not come out ahead".

Maybe you're right and what he wrote meant that he just had never met anyone who wins in the long run.

[pandy]

I also interpreted his post as meaning that harness races cannot be beat by anyone because he can't beat them and he never met anyone who could.

And by the way, when professional handicappers show a profit on their picks for an entire year, or an entire meet, yes, it does in fact provide pretty good proof that you can win betting harness races.

I think we also have to be realistic. Are there a ton of professional harness or thoroughbred players? No. But, with harness racing in particular, there are probably a lot of guys, like myself, who have won consistently betting harness races for a long time, including some of my colleagues that I mentioned earlier. You don't have to make a living betting on horses to be a winning player.

[LottaKash]

You don't have to make a living betting on horses to be a winning player.

Anything that I had posted previously in this thread, could be simply summed up by Pandy's above statement...That was the only point that I was trying to make, all along...

[Sea Biscuit]

And, of those public handicappers that Pandy referred to, I don't think that they are that lucky, I believe they are that good...Pandy included....:jump:

Far be it for me to talk or be critical about a fellow handicappers picks on a harness forum but I think public handicappers are fair game.

I asked Mr Trifecta if he can only put up some of his best spot plays specially when he believes and I quote "have patience, pick your spots, know how to bet, and look for value." but he refused to do it because and again I quote "because of requests in the past of people wanting to see the full card."

Is there anything in the rule book where it says where you cannot give out your best play spot picks with your full cards?

From time to time USTA has a column where they would invite one of the public handicappers and offered them $1000 hypothetical for them to make bets on live races and see if they come out ahead.

Pandy was one of them and I followed that column very closely and he got himself broke within a month just like many of his predecessors did.

Enuff said.

[precisionk]

Far be it for me to talk or be critical about a fellow handicappers picks on a harness forum but I think public handicappers are fair game.

I asked Mr Trifecta if he can only put up some of his best spot plays specially when he believes and I quote "have patience, pick your spots, know how to bet, and look for value." but he refused to do it because and again I quote "because of requests in the past of people wanting to see the full card."

Is there anything in the rule book where it says where you cannot give out your best play spot picks with your full cards?

From time to time USTA has a column where they would invite one of the public handicappers and offered them $1000 hypothetical for them to make bets on live races and see if they come out ahead.
Pandy was one of them and I followed that column very closely and he got himself broke within a month just like many of his predecessors did.
Enuff said.

I thought I made it clear in my previous post about my spot plays, but maybe I didn't. I signify my spot plays as my "Picks of the Night" on whatever card I do that evening. There is usually two a night if not three. Longshot Pick, My Pick of the Night (best bet) and my Lock (my best pick which I feel they will win hands down).

Each of those plays I mark every single card in bright bolded wording and colors. I am not sure how else I can mark them to make it more apparent, but I am welcome to suggestions.

I welcome criticism and others opinions. This is a public forum and I would expect said criticism full knowing I post my picks right out in the open.

[Sea Biscuit]

Check out Trackmaster Greg and his picks at at this site.

http://www.trackmaster.com/cgi-bin/axprodlist.cgi?tgf

This guy does umpteen tracks every day be it Canadian or American and his picks are not free. People are actually paying for this stuff.

At least this guy gives out his picks the day after the races, win or lose, and I should give him credit for that.

I checked for Woodbine (because thats the track I play) for Mar 18 and he had one winner in 11 races and that was the post time favorite. Maybe he had a bad night who knows. He claims

"This is the best system for playing the harness races out there. I've studied long and hard to finalize the formulas, and we've run all the speed, class, driver/trainer, post position, etc. numbers through the computer a million times to come up with these powerfully unique ratings."

If what he says is right, why even bother selling them. Just sit at home, bet via an ADW and mint money and run all the way to the bank every day.

[precisionk]

Here is my thoery: You have a product that you feel does well, there is a want for such product and people pay for it. Let's say I had this magic system and I knew I have the possibility of making $1k a day at the track with it.

I could use this system for just myself and not share it. Why wouldn't you? Why share what I call the "secret sauce"? On the other hand, I can take this "secret sauce" and share it with others. I sell it to them for X amount and CAN make $1k a day.

What's the difference? In my opinion, its knowing you are going to make that $1k a day from people buying it where areas using the system alone I have the "possibility" of making that same cash.

So it boils down to chance versus sure thing and reoccurring revenue versus burst revenue. Beyond that, its better to gamble with other peoples money then your own!

This is my theory on it. I can imagine Pandy could speak more to it as he used to sell his picks as to why.

[Muddy]

My picks are what I use so there is no "super secret picks" I am keeping all for myself.

What do you mean by this comment?

[precisionk]

My picks are what I use so there is no "super secret picks" I am keeping all for myself.

What do you mean by this comment?

What I mean is, people naturally assume when you give out picks that you are giving out so-so information and keeping the "good picks" for yourself. They always ask "Why share?" I ran into this alot last Summer with my Running Aces Handicapping Analyst gig.

People came up to me all the time and asked me why and do you make money?

I answered both with because I enjoy sharing my success with people and get satisfaction when people came up to me who was at the track for the first time and bet their $5 bankroll on my pick and now have $10. When asked if I make money, I said I do and I told them to be selective on when to bet. That selectiveness is based on the odds and to keep it simple, bet on my picks when they are 3/1 or better to win.

[davew]

Horses and drivers?

what about horses and jockeys (are they beyyer than drivers)?


you can go to greyhounds, but then it becomes dumb dogs crashing on the first turn, taking out half the field...

[Sea Biscuit]

What I mean is, people naturally assume when you give out picks that you are giving out so-so information and keeping the "good picks" for yourself. They always ask "Why share?" I ran into this alot last Summer with my Running Aces Handicapping Analyst gig.

People came up to me all the time and asked me why and do you make money?

I answered both with because I enjoy sharing my success with people and get satisfaction when people came up to me who was at the track for the first time and bet their $5 bankroll on my pick and now have $10. When asked if I make money, I said I do and I told them to be selective on when to bet. That selectiveness is based on the odds and to keep it simple, bet on my picks when they are 3/1 or better to win.

Mr Trifecta I hope you are not getting annoyed by this dialogue that we are having. Some might think that I maybe coming out too strong which is not my intention nor the case.

The thing I would love a see public handicappers do is make their own odds line for the horses they pick. That will give the public some idea how bad or good they really are.

How do you go about making your own odds line? For starters read my article which I posted here 4 years earlier. Here is the link

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46540

If three of your solid even money shots end up the track, I am afraid its back to the drawing board from square one.

[precisionk]

Mr Trifecta I hope you are not getting annoyed by this dialogue that we are having. Some might think that I maybe coming out too strong which is not my intention nor the case.

The thing I would love a see public handicappers do is make their own odds line for the horses they pick. That will give the public some idea how bad or good they really are.

How do you go about making your own odds line? For starters read my article which I posted here 4 years earlier. Here is the link

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46540

If three of your solid even money shots end up the track, I am afraid its back to the drawing board from square one.

Not annoyed at all! It would take alot more then internet forums to get to me.

It's something I have thought on doing and actually has come to mind as of late as I was talking to Pandy in another topic on how he comes up with his line.

For me when I handicap, the methods I use, I try to eliminate 75-80% of the field right off the bat. Usually can narrow it down to my selection lets say from a 10 horse field to 3-4 horses. From there I go more indepth into their lines, look at video replays etc. to determine who I like the best. Once I determine who I like, I watch the tote board religiously. In my mind, I have set odds or bare minimum of odds I am willing to gamble on. Strong picks or "locks" I will go down to 2-1 beyond that its a horse to horse case. Usually need 3-1 or higher bare minimum. Even if I get that, I may not necessarily bet as I prefer getting alot for a little. Overlays have a precedence even over winners for me.

In all honesty, the odds on what I am looking for all related to my experience at the track and its all up in the ol' noggin. I just have never bothered to write it down. If I did, I certainly wouldn't give every horse in the race an odds line, would only be those 3-4 contenders. I feel it would be too time consuming to justify and come up with odds on horses I have no interest in the race.

I hope this helps answer your question!

Edit: I think setting ML's would work well for straight win bets. For exotics, I think it becomes a touch more lenient. Say my top choice is below what I would like but my 2nd and 3rd choice are overlays. I would box em looking for that upset and shooting for some overlays to come out on top.

[thaskalos]

Here is my thoery: You have a product that you feel does well, there is a want for such product and people pay for it. Let's say I had this magic system and I knew I have the possibility of making $1k a day at the track with it.

I could use this system for just myself and not share it. Why wouldn't you? Why share what I call the "secret sauce"? On the other hand, I can take this "secret sauce" and share it with others. I sell it to them for X amount and CAN make $1k a day.

What's the difference? In my opinion, its knowing you are going to make that $1k a day from people buying it where areas using the system alone I have the "possibility" of making that same cash.

So it boils down to chance versus sure thing and reoccurring revenue versus burst revenue. Beyond that, its better to gamble with other peoples money then your own!

This is my theory on it. I can imagine Pandy could speak more to it as he used to sell his picks as to why.

I know that you are speaking hypothetically here...so I hope you will not take what I say here as an attack on your own personal point of view -- because this is not what my intention is.

You say that a system seller might be better off trying to make a "sure" $1,000 a day selling his "profitable" system to the public...rather than using it himself, and facing the "possibility" of not doing as well.

Is it reasonable to expect that a system seller can make $1,000 a day by selling systems to the public? Is this game's customer pool large enough to support profits of this magnitude, for the long haul?

You say that it is better to gamble with other people's money rather than your own. WHY? If the system seller is confident that he has a "winning" system in his hands...why should he be reluctant to wager his own money with it? Isn't this, after all, what he is asking his customers to do?

If there were millions of prospective buyers out there...then it would make sense to sell a winning system to the public, because of the possibility to make a rather large amount of money rather quickly, and effortlessly.

But such is not the case in this game. The pool of prospective buyers here is rather shallow...and most of these people are not likely to fall for the system seller's pitch -- because they have been burned too many times in the past.

The system seller today is taking a big risk by selling his "profitable" system to the general public, instead of using it himself. His "winning" system is sure to fail once it gets into the hands of even a small group of bettors...and he is not likely to make enough from the sales to compensate for this unfortunate occurrence.

So you can understand why most people are a little cautious when they see "winning" systems being put up for sale...for relatively small amounts of money.

It's because it doesn't make much sense.

[Ray2000]

....

The thing I would love a see public handicappers do is make their own odds line for the horses they pick. That will give the public some idea how bad or good they really are.


Sea, I don't care about their line, just "Show Me the Money". That's the measure of how good or bad they are.

I will say, It's getting harder and harder to show a profit. Win betting, even with rebates is now a break even game for me. Pick(x) bets are difficult to know where you stand. Too few opportunities sprinkled with a monster hit or two screws up the record keeping. Exacta betting is showing diminishing ROIs so I'm focusing on Trifectas now.

Here's my posted results for 1,397 picks back in 2008. (No redboarding, No rebates) Keeping track of PACE postings is tedious labor so for the next 4 years, I went with just daily results. If anyone wants to tabulate those years, please copy me. :D

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53590&page=2&pp=15&highlight=2008


Anybody have any links to a verifiable public handicapper's performance ?
(minimum 500 Win wagers, no registration or password needed to view)

[pandy]

Far be it for me to talk or be critical about a fellow handicappers picks on a harness forum but I think public handicappers are fair game.

I asked Mr Trifecta if he can only put up some of his best spot plays specially when he believes and I quote "have patience, pick your spots, know how to bet, and look for value." but he refused to do it because and again I quote "because of requests in the past of people wanting to see the full card."

Is there anything in the rule book where it says where you cannot give out your best play spot picks with your full cards?

From time to time USTA has a column where they would invite one of the public handicappers and offered them $1000 hypothetical for them to make bets on live races and see if they come out ahead.

Pandy was one of them and I followed that column very closely and he got himself broke within a month just like many of his predecessors did.

Enuff said.

Not true. As others here can attest to when I did the bankroll bets on the USTA site it was called The Grand Adventure. I post picks twice a week for over a year and not only did I show a flat bet profit but I was very consistent and grinded out a profit with most months being winning ones. I did not tap out as you say.

And let's be fair here, showing a profit as a public handicapper is tougher than betting on the same day because you don't have access to late changes such as track bias, late scratches, late driver changes, equipment changes, and betting patterns and final odds.

[traynor]

I know three professional harness bettors, two that I communicate with on a regular basis. They do put a lot of work into it. One does his own figures and keeps careful track bias notes. The other watches replays carefully and takes trip notes. Both spend a lot of time at it.

That is reality. I know "more than three" professional harness bettors, and the distinguishing characteristic is that NONE ever considers that he or she has The Answer. What eludes most bettors is that spinning one's wheels doing the same simplistic things over and over may be time consuming, but it is not "putting a lot of work into it." It is just consuming time, much on the order of doing crossword puzzles, jigsaw puzzles, (or posting on Internet forums).

Specifically, the cause of "losing" has little to do with "the current state of harness racing." It is directly related to the amount of (useful, innovative, creative, original, detailed, relevant) work one is willing to do to win.

You make a great point in emphasizing that it takes more than the latest gee-whiz bells-and-whistles computer app to win consistently. It is that "extra work" that goes into winning that make it profitable--going beyond the same simplistic set of numbers that everyone else has available at the click of a button, and going beyond the superficial "analysis" of races that most consider "handicapping." It doesn't matter if one takes an hour (or more) to ponder the outcome of each race if the depth of analysis is shallow.

The exact same thing(s) could be said of thoroughbred racing.

[traynor]

Not true. As others here can attest to when I did the bankroll bets on the USTA site it was called The Grand Adventure. I post picks twice a week for over a year and not only did I show a flat bet profit but I was very consistent and grinded out a profit with most months being winning ones. I did not tap out as you say.

And let's be fair here, showing a profit as a public handicapper is tougher than betting on the same day because you don't have access to late changes such as track bias, late scratches, late driver changes, equipment changes, and betting patterns and final odds.

Another great set of points. Some may not realize that races are complex events--meaning events that are a combination of influences. The late scratch of one entry can make a substantial change in race dynamics--which in turn exerts a strong influence on which entry wins and which entry loses.

Too many bettors look at individual horses, rather than at the race itself, and consider Horse A "better than" Horse B. Reality might be that Horse A and Horse B--in order to win--depend on some other factor. That "other factor" is the random variable that professional bettors look for before betting on either Horse A or Horse B.

In simpler terms, public handicappers make choices based on information available to them at the time of making the choices--not at the last minute before the race goes off. Anyone who understands racing should realize that it is amazing that such choices win as often as they do.

[traynor]

Here is my thoery: You have a product that you feel does well, there is a want for such product and people pay for it. Let's say I had this magic system and I knew I have the possibility of making $1k a day at the track with it.

I could use this system for just myself and not share it. Why wouldn't you? Why share what I call the "secret sauce"? On the other hand, I can take this "secret sauce" and share it with others. I sell it to them for X amount and CAN make $1k a day.

What's the difference? In my opinion, its knowing you are going to make that $1k a day from people buying it where areas using the system alone I have the "possibility" of making that same cash.

So it boils down to chance versus sure thing and reoccurring revenue versus burst revenue. Beyond that, its better to gamble with other peoples money then your own!

This is my theory on it. I can imagine Pandy could speak more to it as he used to sell his picks as to why.


It may be possible to make a decent profit selling selections (if enough win to generate dedicated repeat business) but I think the reality is more toward the fact that the selections don't win enough to make betting on them worthwhile. I think the basic motivation of most selection sellers (as well as more than a few software developers) is that the only profits available are from selling the selections, rather than betting on them. Regardless of endless rationalizations and excuses, the bottom line is that the profit margins available make dissemination of the information (if it has real value) counter-productive.

None of which is an attack on public selectors, or system sellers, or software developers. It is simply my opinion that if one wants to win, one had best be willing to do more than pay a couple of bucks for someone else's selections (or system, or software application) and expect to make a profit from them. The value of information is in direct proportion to the number of people who have that information.

[precisionk]

I know that you are speaking hypothetically here...so I hope you will not take what I say here as an attack on your own personal point of view -- because this is not what my intention is.

You say that a system seller might be better off trying to make a "sure" $1,000 a day selling his "profitable" system to the public...rather than using it himself, and facing the "possibility" of not doing as well.

Is it reasonable to expect that a system seller can make $1,000 a day by selling systems to the public? Is this game's customer pool large enough to support profits of this magnitude, for the long haul?

You say that it is better to gamble with other people's money rather than your own. WHY? If the system seller is confident that he has a "winning" system in his hands...why should he be reluctant to wager his own money with it? Isn't this, after all, what he is asking his customers to do?

If there were millions of prospective buyers out there...then it would make sense to sell a winning system to the public, because of the possibility to make a rather large amount of money rather quickly, and effortlessly.

But such is not the case in this game. The pool of prospective buyers here is rather shallow...and most of these people are not likely to fall for the system seller's pitch -- because they have been burned too many times in the past.

The system seller today is taking a big risk by selling his "profitable" system to the general public, instead of using it himself. His "winning" system is sure to fail once it gets into the hands of even a small group of bettors...and he is not likely to make enough from the sales to compensate for this unfortunate occurrence.

So you can understand why most people are a little cautious when they see "winning" systems being put up for sale...for relatively small amounts of money.

It's because it doesn't make much sense.

$1,000 was just a number I pulled from the air. That could realistically be any amount. I could't see why the person wouldn't use the system himself AND sell it if they have confidence in it. If they didn't use said system, I too would cautious and reluctant to purchase said system.

[PaceAdvantage]

You are wrong, SRU.

What the OP really said was that, in all his years in the sport -- both as a player and as an owner -- he never met even one player who had beaten the game by betting, in the long run.

That's quite different than saying that he considered the game to be unbeatable, just because he himself couldn't win at it.

The funny thing about us horseplayers -- both harness and thoroughbred -- is how quick we are to assume that the game is beatable in the long run...even though, in the vast majority of the cases...neither we, nor anyone that we personally know, is actually out there beating this game on a regular basis.

We ASSUME that horse racing is beatable in the long run, because that assumption makes sense to us...but do we have any actual proof that this is really the case?

Do WE beat this game on a regular basis...or do we personally know of anybody out there who actually does?

The vast majority of us are just like the original poster of this thread; we are not beating this game on a regular basis...nor do we know of anyone who does. Considering how many years most of us have spent playing this game...shouldn't almost all of us be acquainted with a player who is actually beating this game on a regular basis...if winning was really the logical and straight-forward process that some make it out to be?

Pandy states that some public handicappers "have had positive ROI at several meets...". Is this actual proof that these public handicappers really are "winning players" in the LONG RUN?

And even if these public handicappers had positive ROI during entire years...does this actually mean that they bet the same with actual cash as they do when they bet on paper? Is making money "on paper" the same as actually making it in real life? Remember...there is no stress or adversity when you are betting "on paper"...:)

What am I really getting at...you might ask.

It IS possible to beat this game on a regular basis...and there ARE people out there who are actually doing it. But they are working a lot harder at it than most people think...and they are making sacrifices that most here would not even consider making.

The worst mistake to make is not the one that the original poster here seems to have made...by assuming that no one beats this game just because he himself has not met anyone who is actually beating it. This sort of mistake is easy to live with...because it won't cost you much by actually believing it.

The worst mistake to make is the mistake that a lot of the people on this board seem to have made...and that is...thinking that this game could be beaten without great effort and single-minded dedication. Thinking that it is possible to beat this game while just being a "hobbyist"...

THIS is the worst mistake a person could possibly make...because a belief like this figures to cost him a ton...

In the toughest gambling game in the world...how could there be money left on the table for the "hobbyist"? :)Amazingly, nobody has said it yet regarding what thaskalos wrote above, so let me be the first...excellent stuff...the above should be required reading for anyone just starting out with visions of one day making a consistent profit at this game.

[precisionk]

It may be possible to make a decent profit selling selections (if enough win to generate dedicated repeat business) but I think the reality is more toward the fact that the selections don't win enough to make betting on them worthwhile. I think the basic motivation of most selection sellers (as well as more than a few software developers) is that the only profits available are from selling the selections, rather than betting on them. Regardless of endless rationalizations and excuses, the bottom line is that the profit margins available make dissemination of the information (if it has real value) counter-productive.

None of which is an attack on public selectors, or system sellers, or software developers. It is simply my opinion that if one wants to win, one had best be willing to do more than pay a couple of bucks for someone else's selections (or system, or software application) and expect to make a profit from them. The value of information is in direct proportion to the number of people who have that information.

I agree absolutely with the bolded part above. Information provided is just that information. One mans opinions is one mans opinions. What I pick is based on assuming there is a fast track, no equipment changes, no driver changes, scratches etc. Now we all know that never happens just like that thus the information on what is given may not necessarily be accurate at the time of the race.

I think there needs to be work on the part of the selection user's end to determine if that information holds true at the time of post and make changes accordingly. Problem is usually selection users don't do that thus when so and so's picks don't pan out they assume that person doesn't know what they are talking about. Everyone wants a turn key solution and I don't believe that exists.

[traynor]

I agree absolutely with the bolded part above. Information provided is just that information. One mans opinions is one mans opinions. What I pick is based on assuming there is a fast track, no equipment changes, no driver changes, scratches etc. Now we all know that never happens just like that thus the information on what is given may not necessarily be accurate at the time of the race.

I think there needs to be work on the part of the selection user's end to determine if that information holds true at the time of post and make changes accordingly. Problem is usually selection users don't do that thus when so and so's picks don't pan out they assume that person doesn't know what they are talking about. Everyone wants a turn key solution and I don't believe that exists.

This may seem preposterous on the surface, but it is not. In order to be successful with selections, aim for a selling price of $100 a day. The net effect is that several factors become immediately apparent.

First, if someone pays $100 a day for selections, they would ONLY do so if those selections generated enough profit to be worth the price. And they would never buy another day if the first day didn't pan out. That means some serious selection process--not a quickie once-over looking for likely contenders, but a thorough (and accurate) race evaluation process. And leveraging whatever additional information, data, insights, techniques, or processes that increase the accuracy/profitability of the selections.

Second, the $5 bettors who are likely to bet the rent money on a list of "selections" purchased for $5-10 are weeded out upfront. In sales, it is called "pre-qualifying." If someone pays $100 for selections, it can be safely assumed that he or she will follow whatever instructions are provided, and will approach wagering in the most useful way--as a profit-generating activity, rather than as a "sport" or "recreation."

Third--and most valuable--it frames a goal for the selector. If his or her selections are not worth a $100 price tag, that means more work is needed. It eliminates the "good enough" syndrome of rejoicing in occasional wins and ignoring the losses. No one really has The Answer. Picking a few winners and deciding one is an "expert" pretty much guarantees failure overall. If one approaches his or her own selection process as that of generating recommendations worth a $100 a day price tag--and intends to build her or his business on happy, repeat customers--everything else seems to work much better than if one approaches his or her selection process as enabling amateurs to "have a lot of action and possibly even win a few bucks."

Am I suggesting selling selections for $100 a day? Not really. I am suggesting that selections that the selector does not consider worth that amount should be viewed with skepticism--both by the selector and by those for whom the selections are made. Such a perspective can go a long, long way toward improving one's own selection skills.

[traynor]

Mandatory qualifier: I do not sell selections and have no intention of doing so. The suggestions I made are for a frame of reference for race analysts--NOT a sales pitch, explicit or implicit.

[raybo]

Amazingly, nobody has said it yet regarding what thaskalos wrote above, so let me be the first...excellent stuff...the above should be required reading for anyone just starting out with visions of one day making a consistent profit at this game.

Maybe because it's been said many times before, on this and other forums/sites. If one is a beginning player, I agree, this is required reading, whether it is from Thask or anybody else. But, this is not anything that hasn't already been said before, and only one person here, that I remember, has ever said consistently that winning doesn't require this kind of work. By the way, that poster has yet to produce any proof that he, both/either, wins consistently and also doesn't work hard to do it.

[pandy]

In my book, TROTPICKS: Modern Harness Handicapping, I write about professional gamblers that I know and their work ethic. I've also written about this in columns.

That being said, I think some are over stating this hard work thing. Yes, if you want to be a professional gambler you most likely will have to do a lot of work.

But, most horse players have no intention of trying to make it as a professional gambler. And, quite frankly, once you have to spend all day doing something it often becomes a lot less fun. It reminds me of woman I saw on TV once. She loved baking. Her friends and family told her that her cakes were better than anyone's and she should sell them. So she started her own company. Her cakes sold very well. The only problem was once she went from baking one or two cakes a week to 20 a day she began to despise baking.

You do not necessarily have to work long hours to show a profit betting the horses. Winning has a lot more to do with knowing how to bet than picking horses anyway. If you have patience to wait for good overlays and you are a smart better, you can show a profit using a good computer based handicapping system.

Being a professional gambler is much different. First of all, having to rely on betting to pay your bills is a lot of pressure and most people will not make good decisions under that type of pressure. I know from my personal experience, if I bet anywhere from $10 to $75 on a race (depending how well I'm going, I bet in the higher range when I'm hot and vice versa), I tend to do well. When I try to bet $100 or more I always seem to cool off.

Another thing, we throw the words "professional bettors" around but in reality there are very few bettors who actually don't have other forms of income. Most successful professional bettors have cash flow from other investments or a business.

[Ray2000]

pandy

I'd say you're right on with those comments.

I have just one curious question, you might be able to answer.

Are any of those professional gamblers you refer to, exclusively betting Harness or is most of their action in T-Breds?

[raybo]

Maybe it should have been stated better. What I mean at least, is that one must put in much work "before" becoming successful. Once you have that successful method, the workload can decrease, especially if you have automated that method. But, there is still some ongoing work involved in its maintenance and updating. Successful players, like Thask who, assumably, do not have an automated method, must still put forth much ongoing work. Others who do have an automated method, like me for instance, only have the maintenance and updating work to do on a continual basis.

[pandy]

pandy

I'd say you're right on with those comments.

I have just one curious question, you might be able to answer.

Are any of those professional gamblers you refer to, exclusively betting Harness or is most of their action in T-Breds?


I know three people I would call pros and they all bet harness. Back in the old Roosevelt Raceway days there were quite a few professional harness bettors and all of the regulars knew who they were. One was Ernie Dahlman, who posts on this forum but switched to thoroughbreds years ago. Many if not most harness pros did switch to thoroughbreds when Roosevelt/Yonkers became chalky.

[traynor]

In my book, TROTPICKS: Modern Harness Handicapping, I write about professional gamblers that I know and their work ethic. I've also written about this in columns.

That being said, I think some are over stating this hard work thing. Yes, if you want to be a professional gambler you most likely will have to do a lot of work.

But, most horse players have no intention of trying to make it as a professional gambler. And, quite frankly, once you have to spend all day doing something it often becomes a lot less fun. It reminds me of woman I saw on TV once. She loved baking. Her friends and family told her that her cakes were better than anyone's and she should sell them. So she started her own company. Her cakes sold very well. The only problem was once she went from baking one or two cakes a week to 20 a day she began to despise baking.

You do not necessarily have to work long hours to show a profit betting the horses. Winning has a lot more to do with knowing how to bet than picking horses anyway. If you have patience to wait for good overlays and you are a smart better, you can show a profit using a good computer based handicapping system.

Being a professional gambler is much different. First of all, having to rely on betting to pay your bills is a lot of pressure and most people will not make good decisions under that type of pressure. I know from my personal experience, if I bet anywhere from $10 to $75 on a race (depending how well I'm going, I bet in the higher range when I'm hot and vice versa), I tend to do well. When I try to bet $100 or more I always seem to cool off.

Another thing, we throw the words "professional bettors" around but in reality there are very few bettors who actually don't have other forms of income. Most successful professional bettors have cash flow from other investments or a business.

That is where the rubber meets the road. It might be more appropriate to consider those who have cash flow from other investments or a business as "talented amateurs" rather than professionals. Unless, of course, the other investments or business were financed with money won from betting.

There is nothing wrong with betting modest amounts of money, nor of declaring one's self a "winner" if any kind of profit is realized, however short-lived it may be. That is definitely not "professional" though. The term "professional" implies someone who derives all or a major part of his or her income from wagering. That takes a whole lot more than simply making large wagers from a "betting bankroll" derived from other sources.

The equivalent would be the typical kitchen-table "programmer" declaring himself or herself to be a "professional software developer."

[mrroyboy]

Only one way to deal with all of this. John you have to start writing and teaching again. When people see how much you know they will all have a better attitude.

[raybo]

Only one way to deal with all of this. John you have to start writing and teaching again. When people see how much you know they will all have a better attitude.

Who is John?

[Sinner369]

Who is John?


I believe that is LottaKash..............?

[mrroyboy]

correct.

[traynor]

I know three people I would call pros and they all bet harness. Back in the old Roosevelt Raceway days there were quite a few professional harness bettors and all of the regulars knew who they were. One was Ernie Dahlman, who posts on this forum but switched to thoroughbreds years ago. Many if not most harness pros did switch to thoroughbreds when Roosevelt/Yonkers became chalky.

I started betting harness races the year after a group of four Big Guys From New York supposedly won half a million at Bay Meadows in the 55 day summer meet. My employer at the time had made something like $30K just sidling up behind them at the $50 window and betting what he could hear of their wagers. That was before the track had a security guard at their disposal to assure no one could get close enough to hear their bets.

It was a neat time, and my first exposure to dutching exactas. They used a chart and last minute odds to calculate amounts to bet. Very proficient on the wagering and money management end.

[pandy]

One thing I'll say about harness racing, although it's still a good bet, back before they screwed up the sport with the steel bikes harness racing was the best bet a gambler could make and there were a lot of winning players. A good handicapper really had no excuse not to win. But when they went to the faster bikes it changed the sport so much that it's really a completely different game now, especially on the half and five eighth tracks.

Years ago if I saw a horse do something in a race that indicated improved form, such as make a bold three wide brush around the final turn before flattening out, I would bet that horse back the following week from any post at any price and the horse would pace or trot a huge mile and either win or be right there. Now the same horse would be at the mercy of the pace, the bias, the post, the outer flow, everything has to break right. It's all about trips now, the best or sharpest horse in the race doesn't win as often as it used to. I'm sure that's why Ray's computer did better in 2008. This latest generation of off-centered bikes were the worst.

But the smart players are learning and have moved their action to the one mile tracks. The three top tracks in handle this year, Meadowlands, Balmoral, Cal Expo, the only three one mile tracks that have been racing. At these tracks the best horse still has a chance.

[traynor]

One thing I'll say about harness racing, although it's still a good bet, back before they screwed up the sport with the steel bikes harness racing was the best bet a gambler could make and there were a lot of winning players. A good handicapper really had no excuse not to win. But when they went to the faster bikes it changed the sport so much that it's really a completely different game now, especially on the half and five eighth tracks.

Years ago if I saw a horse do something in a race that indicated improved form, such as make a bold three wide brush around the final turn before flattening out, I would bet that horse back the following week from any post at any price and the horse would pace or trot a huge mile and either win or be right there. Now the same horse would be at the mercy of the pace, the bias, the post, the outer flow, everything has to break right. It's all about trips now, the best or sharpest horse in the race doesn't win as often as it used to. I'm sure that's why Ray's computer did better in 2008. This latest generation of off-centered bikes were the worst.

But the smart players are learning and have moved their action to the one mile tracks. The three top tracks in handle this year, Meadowlands, Balmoral, Cal Expo, the only three one mile tracks that have been racing. At these tracks the best horse still has a chance.

I think more than a few have headed for Australia. Every track seems to be a different size, the races different distances (some even go the wrong way around), and the drivers all seem to be headed off for a cold beer until the final run to the wire. A crazy place. A trip handicapper's paradise. If they didn't have such barbaric blackjack rules, I would move there in a second.

[Sinner369]

I bet harness racing for years, owned horses up until 2006 but finally
got tired of how futile it is. I now bet thoroughbred instead because it
is too much for me to deal with being disappointed by both horses and
also drivers. I don't know about thoroughbred but in all my years being
around harness racing I never met anyone coming out ahead overall. I
like to look at peoples picks on the forum and check to see how they did
and the majority of the time they do not do well. I am not slamming
the pickers, it is the nature of the beast, you cannot come out ahead.
Today I am bored, my wifes home from work so I escape to my
computer and turn on my Twinspires. Terrible thoroughbred tracks on
Tuesdays so I click on Meadows. I haven't bet harness for a few years
and want something to watch and bet. Ron Burke has an entry in the
eighth with Palone driving part of the entry and has the one hole at
even money. I'm just killing time not going after money so I play $5.00
to place in a weak field timewise, almost no way one of his horses can't
run second. You know the end of the story and I know why I do not
follow harness racing anymore.

Owning harness horses and betting on them does not make you good at handicapping them.

I only know one method of how to successfully bet harness horses but in thoroughbreds there are many approaches.......hence you can tell by the ratio of handicapping thoroughbred books compared to harness books.

You can fluke at thoroughbreds but to win consistently at harness require a more systematic approach!

[precisionk]

So tonight's picks I posted with my odds line for the first time. Positive results so far! Still needs alot of tweaking and a better way to present the info, but promising!

[Sea Biscuit]

So tonight's picks I posted with my odds line for the first time. Positive results so far! Still needs alot of tweaking and a better way to present the info, but promising!

Good luck Mr Trifecta:ThmbUp:

[Stillriledup]

One thing I'll say about harness racing, although it's still a good bet, back before they screwed up the sport with the steel bikes harness racing was the best bet a gambler could make and there were a lot of winning players. A good handicapper really had no excuse not to win. But when they went to the faster bikes it changed the sport so much that it's really a completely different game now, especially on the half and five eighth tracks.

Years ago if I saw a horse do something in a race that indicated improved form, such as make a bold three wide brush around the final turn before flattening out, I would bet that horse back the following week from any post at any price and the horse would pace or trot a huge mile and either win or be right there. Now the same horse would be at the mercy of the pace, the bias, the post, the outer flow, everything has to break right. It's all about trips now, the best or sharpest horse in the race doesn't win as often as it used to. I'm sure that's why Ray's computer did better in 2008. This latest generation of off-centered bikes were the worst.

But the smart players are learning and have moved their action to the one mile tracks. The three top tracks in handle this year, Meadowlands, Balmoral, Cal Expo, the only three one mile tracks that have been racing. At these tracks the best horse still has a chance.


Anything that makes the races 'shorter' is bad for bettors because shorter races mean shorter prices for the most part. Let me explain what i mean by the races getting 'shorter'.

There are certain tracks, especially in thoroughbred racing, where the tracks are so speed favoring, that a 6F race may as well be a 2F race. (Santa Anita anyone?) But, you look at a track like Aqueduct....some of these 6F races are going 115, 116 and visually, the key is visually, it seems to take FOREVER for the leading horses to get to the wire....you have time if you are a closer to make some hay. The 'wire never comes' in some of these races if you need it to and you can get there from behind if you have a good enough horse.

Improved equipment in harness racing made the races 'shorter' and speed better as well as tremendously athletic, young, daring and light drivers who lean back under the bike and almost create a situation where the horse isnt pulling any real weight, the weight is lifted off the horse's back as well as this style helping aerodynamically.

You didnt really have this a few decades ago....all these 'improvements' have made races shorter.

If speed 'never loses' you'll get parades of chalk...if speed collapses and you have horses circling from the back, you get chaos and possible boxcar prices and that's why players prefer mile tracks in harness racing, its more likely for the "Shadows!!" to appear.

[pandy]

So tonight's picks I posted with my odds line for the first time. Positive results so far! Still needs alot of tweaking and a better way to present the info, but promising!


That's awesome, now I'll start following it.

[pandy]

Anything that makes the races 'shorter' is bad for bettors because shorter races mean shorter prices for the most part. Let me explain what i mean by the races getting 'shorter'.

There are certain tracks, especially in thoroughbred racing, where the tracks are so speed favoring, that a 6F race may as well be a 2F race. (Santa Anita anyone?) But, you look at a track like Aqueduct....some of these 6F races are going 115, 116 and visually, the key is visually, it seems to take FOREVER for the leading horses to get to the wire....you have time if you are a closer to make some hay. The 'wire never comes' in some of these races if you need it to and you can get there from behind if you have a good enough horse.

Improved equipment in harness racing made the races 'shorter' and speed better as well as tremendously athletic, young, daring and light drivers who lean back under the bike and almost create a situation where the horse isnt pulling any real weight, the weight is lifted off the horse's back as well as this style helping aerodynamically.

You didnt really have this a few decades ago....all these 'improvements' have made races shorter.

If speed 'never loses' you'll get parades of chalk...if speed collapses and you have horses circling from the back, you get chaos and possible boxcar prices and that's why players prefer mile tracks in harness racing, its more likely for the "Shadows!!" to appear.

Great post, and I totally agree. I've said this a few times in my columns. Years ago when Harness Racing was immensely popular, the one mile races on all tracks including half mile tracks were true route races where stamina (class) prevailed. Now they are essentially sprint races where leavers and first over horses win almost every race, so basically you either have to be on the lead or stalking the pace from close range. This is bad for many reasons, bottom line it's a bad product.

You mention the drivers leaning back. Another problem with this is that it creates a larger gap back to the trailing horses. Years ago if a horse was third over at the half it was usually about 4 or 5 lengths behind the leader, well within striking distance. Now, with the drivers leaning back, and the usual gaps because the leader is stepping on the gas pedal and trying to bottom out the field with a blistering third quarter, the third over horse is often 8 to 10 lengths back. You combine this with, as you say, the faster times, it often becomes mathematically impossible for a closer to catch up. If the last half is :55 seconds and a horse is 8 lengths back, the horse could be the fastest and classiest horse in the race but it is not going to get up, it just has too much to do.

Tiring tracks always create more exciting racing. Last year's Breeders Cup at Santa Anita was a good example. This was one of the worst if not the worst Breeders Cup I've ever watched. Santa Anita's speed bias took the element of surprise out of it, comprised the classy closers and sustained types, and basically made it a race between two or three horses, the pacesetter and one or two stalkers.

[Stillriledup]

Great post, and I totally agree. I've said this a few times in my columns. Years ago when Harness Racing was immensely popular, the one mile races on all tracks including half mile tracks were true route races where stamina (class) prevailed. Now they are essentially sprint races where leavers and first over horses win almost every race, so basically you either have to be on the lead or stalking the pace from close range. This is bad for many reasons, bottom line it's a bad product.

You mention the drivers leaning back. Another problem with this is that it creates a larger gap back to the trailing horses. Years ago if a horse was third over at the half it was usually about 4 or 5 lengths behind the leader, well within striking distance. Now, with the drivers leaning back, and the usual gaps because the leader is stepping on the gas pedal and trying to bottom out the field with a blistering third quarter, the third over horse is often 8 to 10 lengths back. You combine this with, as you say, the faster times, it often becomes mathematically impossible for a closer to catch up. If the last half is :55 seconds and a horse is 8 lengths back, the horse could be the fastest and classiest horse in the race but it is not going to get up, it just has too much to do.

Tiring tracks always create more exciting racing. Last year's Breeders Cup at Santa Anita was a good example. This was one of the worst if not the worst Breeders Cup I've ever watched. Santa Anita's speed bias took the element of surprise out of it, comprised the classy closers and sustained types, and basically made it a race between two or three horses, the pacesetter and one or two stalkers.

Excellent post Bob, i'm forever searching for the 'closing' track, i want the 'dumb favorite' to get the lead and just hit the wall.

I remember a few years ago the Hollywood meet opened up in late April and speed was dead, closers ruled the roost, the track was deep and tiring, good bombs/value galore. Than, some top trainers 'complained' about the track so what happened? They tightened up the track and the speed bias was gone.

This is the lure of winter racing on the east coast, you have wind and cold and moisture making it good for closers on occasion, there are really no 'elements' in So Cal, so the track is usually carrying speed.

Also, at Santa Anita, the stretch run is UPHILL. Yep, the homestretch on the dirt, to my knowledge, has a slight 'incline' so its just that much tougher for closers to get going.

[thaskalos]

Anything that makes the races 'shorter' is bad for bettors because shorter races mean shorter prices for the most part. Let me explain what i mean by the races getting 'shorter'.

There are certain tracks, especially in thoroughbred racing, where the tracks are so speed favoring, that a 6F race may as well be a 2F race. (Santa Anita anyone?) But, you look at a track like Aqueduct....some of these 6F races are going 115, 116 and visually, the key is visually, it seems to take FOREVER for the leading horses to get to the wire....you have time if you are a closer to make some hay. The 'wire never comes' in some of these races if you need it to and you can get there from behind if you have a good enough horse.


This may sound good in theory...but I have not found it to hold up in actual practice...in my experience at least.

I find sprint races to be more complicated affairs than routes from a handicapping standpoint...and I spend more time handicapping a sprint than I do a route. And I disagree with your statement that shorter races generally mean shorter prices. In my own experience...the biggest mutuel prices -- and the biggest surprises -- seem to me to occur more regularly in sprints.

I also do not see the stretch runners having an unfair advantage in races where the six furlongs are negotiated in something like 1:15 and change...nor is it obvious to me that front runners win more when the six furlongs go in 1:08.

It all seems rather random to me...but, I could be wrong, of course.

I am not as sharp now as I used to be...:)

[Stillriledup]

This may sound good in theory...but I have not found it to hold up in actual practice...in my experience at least.

I find sprint races to be more complicated affairs than routes from a handicapping standpoint...and I spend more time handicapping a sprint than I do a route. And I disagree with your statement that shorter races generally mean shorter prices. In my own experience...the biggest mutuel prices -- and the biggest surprises -- seem to me to occur more regularly in sprints.

I also do not see the stretch runners having an unfair advantage in races where the six furlongs are negotiated in something like 1:15 and change...nor is it obvious to me that front runners win more when the six furlongs go in 1:08.

It all seems rather random to me...but, I could be wrong, of course.

I am not as sharp now as I used to be...:)

I feel that speed is 'overbet' in sprint races, so, if someone wires the field at 6F its most likely going to be a short priced contender and i disagree with you when you say you're not as sharp as you used to be.

That's Poppycock. :D

[traynor]

Owning harness horses and betting on them does not make you good at handicapping them.

I only know one method of how to successfully bet harness horses but in thoroughbreds there are many approaches.......hence you can tell by the ratio of handicapping thoroughbred books compared to harness books.

You can fluke at thoroughbreds but to win consistently at harness require a more systematic approach!

That does NOT mean that other methods do not exist. And as far as the ratio of harness books to thoroughbred books, I think that might be more an issue of writers pandering to a readership grasping at straws and willing to buy almost anything that promises a few winners.

I bought Kusyshyn's Harness Professional Point Count for $200 back in the 1980s and won consistently with it for quite awhile. He wrote Harness Gold as a watered down version to market the HPPC. If you don't recognize the name, Kusyshyn is a tenured professor in math and computer science at York University in Ontario (or was, he could be dead for all I know), and also developed the Hi-Opt II blackjack method that was (and still is) a favorite of more than a few professional blackjack players.

Various others have developed and marketed equivalent material for harness races since then. The useful ones are generally pricey, with a limited distribution. I didn't stop using Kusyshyn's HPPC because it "stopped working"--I stopped using it because I was introduced to serious trip handicapping as a "replacement." As far as I know, it is still useful, although probably not as profitable as it was at the time.

[traynor]

I bet harness racing for years, owned horses up until 2006 but finally
got tired of how futile it is. I now bet thoroughbred instead because it
is too much for me to deal with being disappointed by both horses and
also drivers. I don't know about thoroughbred but in all my years being
around harness racing I never met anyone coming out ahead overall. I
like to look at peoples picks on the forum and check to see how they did
and the majority of the time they do not do well. I am not slamming
the pickers, it is the nature of the beast, you cannot come out ahead.
Today I am bored, my wifes home from work so I escape to my
computer and turn on my Twinspires. Terrible thoroughbred tracks on
Tuesdays so I click on Meadows. I haven't bet harness for a few years
and want something to watch and bet. Ron Burke has an entry in the
eighth with Palone driving part of the entry and has the one hole at
even money. I'm just killing time not going after money so I play $5.00
to place in a weak field timewise, almost no way one of his horses can't
run second. You know the end of the story and I know why I do not
follow harness racing anymore.

One of the things that has changed most in harness racing is that more people recognize improving horses. It is not rocket science--especially for anyone who understands the training side of racing, and how horses are trained to peak in specific races, through progressive training efforts.

Well, so what? The easy picks are ground down to chalk. Well, so what? No one ever said it would be easy. The days of quickie picks that pay $7-8 and win 35-40% of their races may be gone forever. It's like my friend Slick used to say about heat on the street--its good for business because it keeps the rookies out of the game.

It is not as easy to make money betting on harness races today as it was 20-30 years ago. All that means to me is that in order to profit, one has to outthink, outmaneuver, and outsmart the competition. Not much new in that.

[mrroyboy]

Tray that is the ultimate truth. Those who work hardest usually do well in anything.

[badcompany]

Tray that is the ultimate truth. Those who work hardest usually do well in anything.

The issue then becomes one of Opportunity Cost, as the time spent pouring over PPs could be devoted to something else.

For me, there's a small window during NYSS season when I can be consistently profitable. Knocking my brains out the rest of the year trying to beat a cheap claimer game with an inflated takeout just isn't worth the time or effort.

[traynor]

The issue then becomes one of Opportunity Cost, as the time spent pouring over PPs could be devoted to something else.

For me, there's a small window during NYSS season when I can be consistently profitable. Knocking my brains out the rest of the year trying to beat a cheap claimer game with an inflated takeout just isn't worth the time or effort.

That depends. I don't spend a whole lot of time poring over the PPs, because I have reverse-engineered what I would do into a computer app that does most of the "heavy lifting." I spend a lot of time researching, looking for patterns in results, and building wagering models. Most of that is programming, and I really like to program, so it isn't much of a chore.

However, I wholeheartedly agree that it is most useful to pick your spots and lay into them, rather than chasing "action." My OCD is not strong enough to do the 20 tracks a day, every day, week in and week out. I get bored way too easily for that. If anything is a model, it is Beyer's "total immersion" (for example) at the winter meet at Gulfstream (or whatever track). That seems to work the best for me. I don't get much "psychic reward" from betting--it is like playing Monopoly, with wins and losses little more than a way to keep score.

I don't have much awe for money. I like to have it, but it is like most other things--a tool that is only really useful when it is being used. I don't find much difference emotionally between betting a small amount and betting a large amount. I think anyone who does is way too impressed with money, or has spent too much of their lives pinching pennies and chasing nickles. I would much rather go full blast for a period of time and then go bow hunting or something completely different, way away from racetracks and casinos. With the "excitement" removed from wagering, racetracks and casinos are two of the most boring places in existence.

[Sinner369]

That does NOT mean that other methods do not exist. And as far as the ratio of harness books to thoroughbred books, I think that might be more an issue of writers pandering to a readership grasping at straws and willing to buy almost anything that promises a few winners (#).

I bought Kusyshyn's Harness Professional Point Count for $200 back in the 1980s and won consistently with it for quite awhile. He wrote Harness Gold as a watered down version to market the HPPC. If you don't recognize the name, Kusyshyn is a tenured professor in math and computer science at York University in Ontario (or was, he could be dead for all I know), and also developed the Hi-Opt II blackjack (#) method that was (and still is) a favorite of more than a few professional blackjack players.

Various others have developed and marketed equivalent material for harness races since then. The useful ones are generally pricey, with a limited distribution. I didn't stop using Kusyshyn's HPPC because it "stopped working"--I stopped using it because I was introduced to serious trip handicapping as a "replacement." As far as I know, it is still useful, although probably not as profitable as it was at the time.


Traynor, I also have Professor Kusyshyn's Harness Gold............but the author that influenced me the most was Al Stanley's book..........called Stanley's Law.......it was the first book on Harness Racing that made sense to me.........I have used his methods (with updated changes for the last 20 years)..........and it still works!

[traynor]

Traynor, I also have Professor Kusyshyn's Harness Gold............but the author that influenced me the most was Al Stanley's book..........called Stanley's Law.......it was the first book on Harness Racing that made sense to me.........I have used his methods (with updated changes for the last 20 years)..........and it still works!

I might have it wrong, but wasn't he the clocker from Windsor? Used to work at the Ford plant there? I don't remember the specifics of the method he used, but I will have to look into it. Thanks for the tip.

[LottaKash]

I might have it wrong, but wasn't he the clocker from Windsor? Used to work at the Ford plant there? I don't remember the specifics of the method he used, but I will have to look into it. Thanks for the tip.

That is correct Traynor....In fact in some of Al Stanley's early work, he delved into the how to of Clocking the Harness...

Way back when, I was to a seminar in Toronto, and another in NJ....The guy left me with an impression and a good foundation for growing and evtually finding "my own way"....

He was (is?) the real deal, imo....

I have all of his books, and mostly all of his monthly newsletters....I review them from time to time, for inspiration you know....And much of his handicapping truisms and logic still stand the test(s) of time....

[Sinner369]

If any of you are interested in Al's newsletter here is the site where you can download and read his methodologies!

http://www.handicappingharness.com/al-stanley-sunday/

Lottakash........I believe Al passed away a few year's ago.........!

[LottaKash]

Lottakash........I believe Al passed away a few year's ago.........!

That's too bad, about the passing...But, then again, we're all just passing thru...:(

Imo, if there was ever to be a "Hall of Fame for Handicappers"...Al Stanley would be up at the top of the stature hierarchy....Thru the years I had met many another player who was influenced by A.S. and his ways....Some were very good, some remained losers, but mostly the ones who were the break even types or at worst sane enough gamblers, enjoyed the game all the more because of that influence....I would be counted among that number...

His models for identifying formful running lines still remain at the heart of my own personal methodologies, even today, alongside with all my cute little hard earned tricks....

[Sea Biscuit]

Lottakash........I believe Al passed away a few year's ago.........!


Not true Sinner. Al is still alive and well.

Just spoke to him on the phone. Had a nice 10 minute chat with him.He said he was 75 years old but doesn't sell anything anymore.

He, however, still plays the Woodbine/Mohawk tracks.

[Sinner369]

Not true Sinner. Al is still alive and well.

Just spoke to him on the phone. Had a nice 10 minute chat with him.He said he was 75 years old but doesn't sell anything anymore.

He, however, still plays the Woodbine/Mohawk tracks.


I stand corrected....thought I read somewhere that he was gone!

[Sea Biscuit]

I stand corrected....thought I read somewhere that he was gone!

Thats OK Sinner. Mistakes happen.

Dan Nance once posted on his forum that I was dead.

:D :D :D

[pandy]

I like Al Stanley's stuff, top notch.

[traynor]

If any of you are interested in Al's newsletter here is the site where you can download and read his methodologies!

http://www.handicappingharness.com/al-stanley-sunday/

Lottakash........I believe Al passed away a few year's ago.........!

I think anyone interested in wagering on harness races who does NOT take advantage of this opportunity is doing himself (or herself) a great disservice. The thing that seems to elude many of the "latest, greatest idea since sliced bread" crowd is that there are bettors who have been using methods quite successfully for many years. The reason they don't change them regularly is because they work, and continue to work. Unlike Al Stanley, however, most of those who have developed successful methodologies strongly prefer not to tell everyone else how they do it.

Thanks for posting the link! This is great material for anyone serious about wagering on harness races.

[beaucap]

Self-discipline

Self-discipline can be defined as the ability to motivate oneself in spite of a negative emotional state. Qualities associated with self-discipline include willpower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-control), hard work, and persistence.

Self-discipline is the product of persisted willpower. Whereas willpower is the strength and ability to carryout a certain task, self-discipline is the ability to use it routinely and even automatically (as if through reflex). An analogy for the relationship between the two might be defined as follows: Where willpower is the muscle, self-discipline is the structured thought that controls that muscle. In most cultures, it has been noted that self-discipline is the ultimate path towards success.

[raybo]

Self-discipline

Self-discipline can be defined as the ability to motivate oneself in spite of a negative emotional state. Qualities associated with self-discipline include willpower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-control), hard work, and persistence.

Self-discipline is the product of persisted willpower. Whereas willpower is the strength and ability to carryout a certain task, self-discipline is the ability to use it routinely and even automatically (as if through reflex). An analogy for the relationship between the two might be defined as follows: Where willpower is the muscle, self-discipline is the structured thought that controls that muscle. In most cultures, it has been noted that self-discipline is the ultimate path towards success.

There you go! :ThmbUp:

[precisionk]

Thanks to those about the Al Stanley information and link to those newsletters. Never hurts to have more insight and should some things to read for awhile!

[imofe]

When I ordered my first book from Al Stanley he put a complimentary HHN in with the order. I think the newsletter was in the 40's. I was so impressed that I called him and asked for a price for all of the back issues. He quoted me a very reasonable price so I ordered them. He said that the mail was extremely slow and he would send the newsletters off that day and just cash my check when he received it. Great guy with great information.

[mrroyboy]

AlStanleys definition of a good race is just as true today as it was back then.

1. Horse has to do something early in the race

2. Horse has to maintain that "something" through the middle of the race.

3. Horse has to finish competitively

When any of these are missing it may be an acceptable race or an excuseable race but not a good race,

I forget that sometimes and it cost me alot.

[thaskalos]

AlStanleys definition of a good race is just as true today as it was back then.

1. Horse has to do something early in the race

2. Horse has to maintain that "something" through the middle of the race.

3. Horse has to finish competitively

When any of these are missing it may be an acceptable race or an excuseable race but not a good race,

I forget that sometimes and it cost me alot.
Did he offer some sort of definition for that "something"?

[mrroyboy]

Yes
1 2 or 3 or parked out first qtr or 2nd qtr
Same for the 2nd and 3rd call. Finish must be 1 or 2 or 3/4 within 3 lengths or any finish with 1 lengths

Read Pandy's article about his version of Bread and Butter horses. He upgrades Stanley's stuff.
Usta site or harness eye site

[Sinner369]

Did he offer some sort of definition for that "something"?

thaskalos...........download (#) Al's newsletters..........cannot remember what issue but it is explained in the newsletter!

[traynor]

Self-discipline

Self-discipline can be defined as the ability to motivate oneself in spite of a negative emotional state. Qualities associated with self-discipline include willpower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-control), hard work, and persistence.

Self-discipline is the product of persisted willpower. Whereas willpower is the strength and ability to carryout a certain task, self-discipline is the ability to use it routinely and even automatically (as if through reflex). An analogy for the relationship between the two might be defined as follows: Where willpower is the muscle, self-discipline is the structured thought that controls that muscle. In most cultures, it has been noted that self-discipline is the ultimate path towards success.

Because of the philosophical nature of your comment, it might be useful to add that good sense should precede will power. One can develop "will power" by consistently doing things one does not "want" to do--as in, "Do this. Do that. It builds character--and will power." If one has "will power" one can do incredibly stupid things while believing that one is doing something beneficial for one's self.

My comments are not frivolous. I have spent a considerable amount of time studying the topic. I think it is essential that good sense precede both "self-discipline" and "will power."

One could consider the below as both a demonstration of will power and of self-discipline:
[Lawrence has just extinguished a match between his thumb and forefinger. William Potter surreptitiously attempts the same]

William Potter (/name/nm0288714/?ref_=tt_trv_qu): Ooh! It damn well 'urts!

T.E. Lawrence (/name/nm0000564/?ref_=tt_trv_qu): Certainly it hurts.

Officer: What's the trick then?

T.E. Lawrence (/name/nm0000564/?ref_=tt_trv_qu): The trick, William Potter, is not minding that it hurts.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056172/trivia?tab=qt

I would call it a demonstration of stupidity. (Moreover, I thought Seven Pillars of Wisdom was much better than the movie.)

[traynor]

Yes
1 2 or 3 or parked out first qtr or 2nd qtr
Same for the 2nd and 3rd call. Finish must be 1 or 2 or 3/4 within 3 lengths or any finish with 1 lengths

Read Pandy's article about his version of Bread and Butter horses. He upgrades Stanley's stuff.
Usta site or harness eye site

Less specifically, it is called "signs of life." People who make endless excuses for horses losing, and consistently choose to bet on horses that failed to show signs of life in their most recent races might usefully spend a bit of time in introspection to uncover the reasons for such behavior.

They might also spend a bit of time reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Training-Trotter-Pacer-James-Harrison/dp/0686206185

Of particular interest to bettors is the process of training-by-racing, and the inclusion of races in the normal form cycle/training cycle of the horse.

[traynor]

I think one of the major reasons why harness bettors (and thoroughbred bettors) have difficulties in showing a profit is uncritical acceptance of what might be called "apocryphal evidence."

For example, someone "analyzes" a specific race, or even a small group of races, and believes that he or she has discovered some "truth" about racing. All they have really discovered is an anomaly in a small sample that is descriptive, but definitely NOT predictive.

For example, in a given race--or group of races--an entry wins off a couple of lousy races. Basically, it saunters around the track in the company of other entries, with little or no indication of effort or potential. However, the third race back was a good effort. Could the last two races be "excused," and the entry be considered a good contender in today's race?

Seeing such a pattern a few times and remembering it, while completely ignoring the countless times the same scenario has been evident in the past races of losers could get really expensive. It could also lead one to believe that harness races are "unbeatable." Poppycock.

That is why one uses databases. Find that "greatest thing since sliced bread" idea, set it into a query or algorithm, and see what the result would be of applying it over a large number of races. It quickly becomes clear that the "generous mutuels" earned in the few races that won exist for one reason and one reason only--the entries win so rarely that no one wants to bet on them.

[marksinger]

I like to look at it like this. I can go out and golf and spend 60 to 100 and get nothing out of it except some exercise. Go fishing take the boat out spend a couple hundred and maybe catch some fish. I can stay home watch some races on the pc or go to the track and make some bets and have a chance to win something. So if you look at it as entertainment are you really losing anything more than going golfing or fishing it all costs money.
So true muddy.
If you even come close to getting even you're way ahead. Just go out and have fun with it. Pure entertainment.
Just don't bet money you can't afford to lose.
Mark

[traynor]

So true muddy.
If you even come close to getting even you're way ahead. Just go out and have fun with it. Pure entertainment.
Just don't bet money you can't afford to lose.
Mark

I think most would agree who bet recreationally. It is when the recreational bettors believe they are only a few clicks away from being professionals that problems arise.

[imofe]

Yes
1 2 or 3 or parked out first qtr or 2nd qtr
Same for the 2nd and 3rd call. Finish must be 1 or 2 or 3/4 within 3 lengths or any finish with 1 lengths

Read Pandy's article about his version of Bread and Butter horses. He upgrades Stanley's stuff.
Usta site or harness eye site

Anyone have a link for Pandolfo's article updating Al Stanley's stuff?

[traynor]

And right on the topic of harness races being hopeless, does anyone have an opinion about tonight's fifth at Balmoral?

#8 MariansMan and #2 Whit look good, but I have not been keeping up with Balmoral recently. Any ideas?

[pandy]

Anyone have a link for Pandolfo's article updating Al Stanley's stuff?


That column was not archived anywhere. Harness Eye keeps about four months posted and USTA hasn't been updating the archive section.

So, I posted the original column on my website --

http://www.trotpicks.com/handicapping.htm

[jefftune]

Winning players are not betting Ron Burke to place..they're finding a way to bet against the overbet Burke horses. Burke loses 75 percent of the time, that means he's losing on a LOT of even money shots.....find a way to sniff out the burke 'bums' and if you get good at knowing which 75 percent of his horses are going to lose, you're on your way.

Winning Meadows players are also betting against Dave Palone who is ALWAYS overbet.

[jefftune]

Funny, I sometimes feel the same way about the thoroughbreds. How often does a horse not run his race and you hear the excuses - "he didn't take to the track," "today just wasn't his day," "he bounced." The standardbreds are simply more consistent. They run the same distance at the same track nearly every week. It takes some extra work but watch replays and/or take trip notes and you should do ok.

-Jeff Tune
www.angelfire.com/pa/tune

[badcompany]

Winning Meadows players are also betting against Dave Palone who is ALWAYS overbet.

Dobson, the top driver at Saratoga harness, burns more short priced faves than any driver I've ever seen.

[SchagFactorToWin]

I think one of the major reasons why harness bettors (and thoroughbred bettors) have difficulties in showing a profit is uncritical acceptance of what might be called "apocryphal evidence."

For example, someone "analyzes" a specific race, or even a small group of races, and believes that he or she has discovered some "truth" about racing. All they have really discovered is an anomaly in a small sample that is descriptive, but definitely NOT predictive.

For example, in a given race--or group of races--an entry wins off a couple of lousy races. Basically, it saunters around the track in the company of other entries, with little or no indication of effort or potential. However, the third race back was a good effort. Could the last two races be "excused," and the entry be considered a good contender in today's race?

Seeing such a pattern a few times and remembering it, while completely ignoring the countless times the same scenario has been evident in the past races of losers could get really expensive. It could also lead one to believe that harness races are "unbeatable." Poppycock.

That is why one uses databases. Find that "greatest thing since sliced bread" idea, set it into a query or algorithm, and see what the result would be of applying it over a large number of races. It quickly becomes clear that the "generous mutuels" earned in the few races that won exist for one reason and one reason only--the entries win so rarely that no one wants to bet on them.

Thinking along these lines is the best (maybe the only) way to become a profitable handicapper.

[riskman]

If any of you are interested in Al's newsletter here is the site where you can download and read his methodologies!

http://www.handicappingharness.com/al-stanley-sunday/

Lottakash........I believe Al passed away a few year's ago.........!

Thanks for posting that link.When I first started handicapping it was with the Harness races at Yonkers back in the 80's. I gravitated to the thoroughbreds
and spent many hours at the simo center at Yonkers until they rehabbed for the Casino.Stanley is the real deal and anyone revisiting his books and newsletters will certainly pick up some useful information on Harness. Will be rereading his newsletters, thanks to the link.

[traynor]

And right on the topic of harness races being hopeless, does anyone have an opinion about tonight's fifth at Balmoral?

#8 MariansMan and #2 Whit look good, but I have not been keeping up with Balmoral recently. Any ideas?

This was not intended to be a frivolous post. It was an interesting race (and still is) because much can be learned from it.

First, the horse that many considered as close to a mortal lock as it gets in harness racing, #1 Southwind Kean, was a perfect example of something I have stated repeatedly recently about place models in harness racing. The very criteria that made Southwind Kean look like a great bet were exactly the criteria I use for place--the Big Move at the end, that looks like a horse rounding into top form and prepared for ... finishing second in its next race. Exactly as it played out.

The only "surprise" (and not much of a surprise) was that Ronan won. Given the win mutuels on the top pair, the exacta was quite generous. That is what happens when a lot of people are swayed by that "improving form" scenario, especially the big rush in the stretch last out by Southwind Kean.

Well, so what? So #8 MariansMan and #2 Whit did little except sit back and watch the show. Their odds will be enhanced when they run back, and their drivers appear smart enough not to get involved in a cavalry charge to be second or third.

Watch closely. There is much to be learned from such races. In particular, note the prior race of Southwind Kean. That is almost a template for a place horse that will be overbet on the front end in the exacta pool. And watch MariansMan and Whit in their next race.

1 Southwind Kean ToddLaFountaine 1.98 JaredMoyer 1.88 BmlP Mar24 R05 Trot 5000
Mar17 BmlP 5 - 8.25 5 - 6 6Z - 8.25 4 - 9 2 - 1 117.95 29.09 5000 3.20
Mar09 BmlP 10 - 0 8Z - 10.75 7Z - 9.5 6 - 9.5 4 - 6 119.27 30.57 5000 12.00
Mar02 BmlP 5 - 9.75 5Z - 4.75 4Z - 4.25 6 - 6.5 5 - 6.5 119.00 29.20 5000 2.40

[Sinner369]

Thanks for posting that link.When I first started handicapping it was with the Harness races at Yonkers back in the 80's. I gravitated to the thoroughbreds
and spent many hours at the simo center at Yonkers until they rehabbed for the Casino (http://#).Stanley is the real deal (#) and anyone revisiting his books and newsletters will certainly pick up some useful information on Harness. Will be rereading his newsletters, thanks to the link.

I played both Thoroughbreds and Harness......but harness racing is the one I prefer because I can understand why a race is won or lost..........with the thoroughbreds......some races I do not have a clue even if I had the winner.

I guess is because the T-breds lose their form so fast.....!

[imofe]

This was not intended to be a frivolous post. It was an interesting race (and still is) because much can be learned from it.

First, the horse that many considered as close to a mortal lock as it gets in harness racing, #1 Southwind Kean, was a perfect example of something I have stated repeatedly recently about place models in harness racing. The very criteria that made Southwind Kean look like a great bet were exactly the criteria I use for place--the Big Move at the end, that looks like a horse rounding into top form and prepared for ... finishing second in its next race. Exactly as it played out.

The only "surprise" (and not much of a surprise) was that Ronan won. Given the win mutuels on the top pair, the exacta was quite generous. That is what happens when a lot of people are swayed by that "improving form" scenario, especially the big rush in the stretch last out by Southwind Kean.

Well, so what? So #8 MariansMan and #2 Whit did little except sit back and watch the show. Their odds will be enhanced when they run back, and their drivers appear smart enough not to get involved in a cavalry charge to be second or third.

Watch closely. There is much to be learned from such races. In particular, note the prior race of Southwind Kean. That is almost a template for a place horse that will be overbet on the front end in the exacta pool. And watch MariansMan and Whit in their next race.

1 Southwind Kean ToddLaFountaine 1.98 JaredMoyer 1.88 BmlP Mar24 R05 Trot 5000
Mar17 BmlP 5 - 8.25 5 - 6 6Z - 8.25 4 - 9 2 - 1 117.95 29.09 5000 3.20
Mar09 BmlP 10 - 0 8Z - 10.75 7Z - 9.5 6 - 9.5 4 - 6 119.27 30.57 5000 12.00
Mar02 BmlP 5 - 9.75 5Z - 4.75 4Z - 4.25 6 - 6.5 5 - 6.5 119.00 29.20 5000 2.40

I would like to analyze a race with you and many others ( especially Balmoral) , but I did not download the card because I could not make it to the track and I can not bet online here in Illinois. So I am in the dark about the above race. But I think these kind of discussions about figuring out a race and possibly finding some low priced horses that can be beat are very useful. Maybe in the future.

[traynor]

I would like to analyze a race with you and many others ( especially Balmoral) , but I did not download the card because I could not make it to the track and I can not bet online here in Illinois. So I am in the dark about the above race. But I think these kind of discussions about figuring out a race and possibly finding some low priced horses that can be beat are very useful. Maybe in the future.

The betting part is great, but the understanding part is even better. One of the most useful things I have learned in harness racing is to recognize before the race when the "best" horse in the race is more likely to finish second than it is to win.

I compared "win models" with "place models" and the differences are in areas that most would consider strong indicators of an upcoming win--especially a strong finish (improving position, closing gap to leader, and improved 3Q, 4Q, and/or ART). Those indicators, oddly enough, more frequently point to a placer than to a winner.

Southwind Kean looked like a world beater going in--and perfectly fit the profile for place. It might surprise you how much that one minor detail can improve your bottom line. Specifically, knowing when to put the world beater in the place position (and when to ignore it for the win position) in exactas.

I will look for other such "informative" races--that have more going on than appears on the surface--and I would be happy to compare notes before the race (or after, it doesn't really matter--a good bet based on logic and reason is still a good bet whether it wins or loses. If you wouldn't make the exact same bet again, it wasn't a good bet to begin with).

[imofe]

I'm a little confused about how to read Southwind Kean's March 17th line like it would appear in a program with parked out positions indicated from your post.
Can you provide this?

[precisionk]

This was not intended to be a frivolous post. It was an interesting race (and still is) because much can be learned from it.

First, the horse that many considered as close to a mortal lock as it gets in harness racing, #1 Southwind Kean, was a perfect example of something I have stated repeatedly recently about place models in harness racing. The very criteria that made Southwind Kean look like a great bet were exactly the criteria I use for place--the Big Move at the end, that looks like a horse rounding into top form and prepared for ... finishing second in its next race. Exactly as it played out.

The only "surprise" (and not much of a surprise) was that Ronan won. Given the win mutuels on the top pair, the exacta was quite generous. That is what happens when a lot of people are swayed by that "improving form" scenario, especially the big rush in the stretch last out by Southwind Kean.

Well, so what? So #8 MariansMan and #2 Whit did little except sit back and watch the show. Their odds will be enhanced when they run back, and their drivers appear smart enough not to get involved in a cavalry charge to be second or third.

Watch closely. There is much to be learned from such races. In particular, note the prior race of Southwind Kean. That is almost a template for a place horse that will be overbet on the front end in the exacta pool. And watch MariansMan and Whit in their next race.

1 Southwind Kean ToddLaFountaine 1.98 JaredMoyer 1.88 BmlP Mar24 R05 Trot 5000
Mar17 BmlP 5 - 8.25 5 - 6 6Z - 8.25 4 - 9 2 - 1 117.95 29.09 5000 3.20
Mar09 BmlP 10 - 0 8Z - 10.75 7Z - 9.5 6 - 9.5 4 - 6 119.27 30.57 5000 12.00
Mar02 BmlP 5 - 9.75 5Z - 4.75 4Z - 4.25 6 - 6.5 5 - 6.5 119.00 29.20 5000 2.40

Southwind Kean was overbet cause he made up 8 lengths to lose by a length to a runaway leader. I definitely bet on him last time out as I liked that late kick especially at Balmoral where it tends to favorite closers more then front speed. The weather conditions certainly played a factor as there was a 23 mph headwind in backside of the track along with whiteout conditions so if you were either on the lead or 8+ lengths off the lead you were cooked.

Pack or stalking paid the bills on that night.

[traynor]

I'm a little confused about how to read Southwind Kean's March 17th line like it would appear in a program with parked out positions indicated from your post.
Can you provide this?

Mar17 BmlP 5 - 8.25 ..... 5 - 6 ..... 6Z - 8.25 ..... 4 - 9 ..... 2 - 1 ..... 117.95 29.09 5000 3.20
The Z is the equivalent of the superscript designation for "parked out." At the three-quarter, Southwind Kean was sixth, parked wide, 8-1/4 lengths behind the leader.

[traynor]

Southwind Kean was overbet cause he made up 8 lengths to lose by a length to a runaway leader. I definitely bet on him last time out as I liked that late kick especially at Balmoral where it tends to favorite closers more then front speed. The weather conditions certainly played a factor as there was a 23 mph headwind in backside of the track along with whiteout conditions so if you were either on the lead or 8+ lengths off the lead you were cooked.

Pack or stalking paid the bills on that night.

I understand. The point is that the exact same criteria that some consider a strong indication of an impending win is an even stronger indication of a (more) probable place. Southwind Kean did not make up eight lengths to lose by a length to a runaway leader; Southwind Kean's driver used up a lot of his horse in a failed attempt to win. That was what made it such an interesting race--the probability that the failed effort would be seen as a strong indicator of an impending win. It was not.

[precisionk]

I understand. The point is that the exact same criteria that some consider a strong indication of an impending win is an even stronger indication of a (more) probable place. Southwind Kean did not make up eight lengths to lose by a length to a runaway leader; Southwind Kean's driver used up a lot of his horse in a failed attempt to win. That was what made it such an interesting race--the probability that the failed effort would be seen as a strong indicator of an impending win. It was not.


I can see your point. He definitely wasn't going to win the prior race, but he sure did want 2nd bad.

[Sinner369]

I'm a little confused about how to read Southwind Kean's March 17th line like it would appear in a program with parked out positions indicated from your post.
Can you provide this?

Can anyone post the past performance lines for this race......for all the horses?...........that way we can comment on what they see?

[thaskalos]

I understand. The point is that the exact same criteria that some consider a strong indication of an impending win is an even stronger indication of a (more) probable place. Southwind Kean did not make up eight lengths to lose by a length to a runaway leader; Southwind Kean's driver used up a lot of his horse in a failed attempt to win. That was what made it such an interesting race--the probability that the failed effort would be seen as a strong indicator of an impending win. It was not.

There was another interesting facet to this race, IMO...which has not been mentioned yet.

In spite of Southwind Kean's apparent superiority going into the race, the eventual runaway winner (#6 Ronan) went off at almost the same odds as him...even though the past performances hardly warranted support of this magnitude at the windows.

It would be easy to make a case for Southwind Kean finishing second in the race...but can anyone possibly make a case for taking Ronan on top at those odds?

I too found this race fascinating, and actually had a wager on it, which, unfortunately did not bear fruit (I bet on the #2 at 7/2 odds...and it went off-stride mid-race). The race was a wonderful testament to the difficulty associated with properly assessing "value" in this game.

Things are seldom what they appear to be...

[traynor]

I can see your point. He definitely wasn't going to win the prior race, but he sure did want 2nd bad.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind about how they handicap races. I am just going by what real world results indicate--that (especially at Balmoral) certain things that seem key indicators of an upcoming win are in effect a double whammy. That is, they win far less than it seems they would (should, could), and they are seriously overbet. Current model for Balmoral below:

BmlP Pace GainInStretchLast All 353 36.83 % ROI 0.33
BmlP Trot GainInStretchLast All 66 48.48 % ROI 0.14

BmlP Pace Gain2CToFinishLast All 353 50.14 % ROI 0.38
BmlP Trot Gain2CToFinishLast All 66 59.09 % ROI 0.45

In fact, a good case could be made for betting against Southwind Kean based on the realities of Chicago racing:

BmlP Pace CloseToPaceFinLast All 353 24.65 % ROI 0.39
May Pace CloseToPaceFinLast All 203 28.57 % ROI 0.28

[imofe]

I like Balmoral because horses that show form do win a lot. What do I mean by show form. Exclude races where a horse was up in class or stuck in the back with a bad post.

Now look for horses that:

Left for the lead and were competitive until at least the 3Q.
Brushed to the lead and were competitive until at least the 3Q.
Went 1st over and was competitive until at least the 3Q.
Parked out the middle quarters and either won or finished less than a length of the winner.

These horses win a ton of races. But this is just a starting point. You now must consider who was driving then and now. What were their odds last time. If they won, how much are they moving up. Most importantly, what are the odds today.

You may say big deal, everyone notices these horses. But these horses pay nice prices at Balmoral all the time.

[traynor]

There was another interesting facet to this race, IMO...which has not been mentioned yet.

In spite of Southwind Kean's apparent superiority going into the race, the eventual runaway winner (#6 Ronan) went off at almost the same odds as him...even though the past performances hardly warranted support of this magnitude at the windows.

It would be easy to make a case for Southwind Kean finishing second in the race...but can anyone possibly make a case for taking Ronan on top at those odds?

I too found this race fascinating, and actually had a wager on it, which, unfortunately did not bear fruit (I bet on the #2 at 7/2 odds...and it went off-stride mid-race). The race was a wonderful testament to the difficulty associated with properly assessing "value" in this game.

Things are seldom what they appear to be...


I agree. In searching for the logic of why I discounted Ronan's chances in that race, I noticed a slight discrepancy in the data file. That in turn led me to spend several hours tracking down and eliminating a minor bug in the data files that I would not have noticed if I had not spent the time intensely studying Ronan's prior races.

Thank you for posing the question. Indeed, things are seldom what they appear to be ...

[traynor]

I like Balmoral because horses that show form do win a lot. What do I mean by show form. Exclude races where a horse was up in class or stuck in the back with a bad post.

Now look for horses that:

Left for the lead and were competitive until at least the 3Q.
Brushed to the lead and were competitive until at least the 3Q.
Went 1st over and was competitive until at least the 3Q.
Parked out the middle quarters and either won or finished less than a length of the winner.

These horses win a ton of races. But this is just a starting point. You now must consider who was driving then and now. What were their odds last time. If they won, how much are they moving up. Most importantly, what are the odds today.

You may say big deal, everyone notices these horses. But these horses pay nice prices at Balmoral all the time.

I agree with most of the above, with the exception of the bolded section. Wins are fine, but a finish less than a length behind the winner is an indication of a failed attempt to win. Because it is perceived as such a strong indicator, it is seriously overbet in subsequent races--hence the dismal ROI.

I would much prefer to see a horse driven by a competent driver who is in the competition, but who recognizes that--given the relative rates of travel in the drive to the wire--winning is probably not going to happen. There is a fine line between an aggressive driver going as far as possible as fast as possible, and an aggressive driver with the good sense to save something for a better opportunity in a subsequent race.

In the Balmoral fifth race on the 24th, the gap from third to fourth is interesting. If it were a thoroughbred race, the description would be that the fourth and fifth place finishers "never fired." Which is why I said,"Well, so what? So #8 MariansMan and #2 Whit did little except sit back and watch the show. Their odds will be enhanced when they run back, and their drivers appear smart enough not to get involved in a cavalry charge to be second or third."

Similarly, Southwind Kean's performance should not be taken as a "solid effort, doing as much as possible." The gap to the leader was too large to consider winning, so the apparent strategy was to stay just far enough ahead of Classy Chassy to pick up an easy place.

All three horses--Southwind Kean, Marian's Man, and Whit--could be considered in subsequent races as capable of more than they superficially displayed in the fifth race on the 24th.

[Charli125]

That is why one uses databases. Find that "greatest thing since sliced bread" idea, set it into a query or algorithm, and see what the result would be of applying it over a large number of races. It quickly becomes clear that the "generous mutuels" earned in the few races that won exist for one reason and one reason only--the entries win so rarely that no one wants to bet on them.

I agree completely.

But, the reason that betting harness is hopeless for me, is that I can't get a database. I've spoken with quite a few people that should know and it seems impossible to get either past data or a program that will allow you to build and query a database. Or if it is available, it's going to be prohibitively expensive.

[Ray2000]

Charli125

You're correct in that the data is expensive to buy, that is because the businesses that own the data know this is a dying industry and they intend to milk it for as much as they can get.

There is an alternative.

The Canadian charts are free (for private use) up to 7 days from the race date, same for USA charts for 3 days. But you have to do the work and collect that data for yourself. It is tedious and you do need some technical savvy to build the database but it is possible. Also, if you're willing to work with out-dated data you might get some reasonable price on buying charts from years past.

Good Luck

[traynor]

I agree completely.

But, the reason that betting harness is hopeless for me, is that I can't get a database. I've spoken with quite a few people that should know and it seems impossible to get either past data or a program that will allow you to build and query a database. Or if it is available, it's going to be prohibitively expensive.

It is not that difficult to build your own. And it is not prohibitively expensive to have someone build (program) it for you. The results more than compensate for any expended time, effort, or money.

[traynor]

I agree completely.

But, the reason that betting harness is hopeless for me, is that I can't get a database. I've spoken with quite a few people that should know and it seems impossible to get either past data or a program that will allow you to build and query a database. Or if it is available, it's going to be prohibitively expensive.

The least painful--if you are starting from scratch--is probably downloading data from Trackmaster (in database format), then building (or have built) a data analysis/querying application of your own. Databases of years and years of races are not especially useful for other than historical data. A couple of months will give you all kinds of data to query, and the queries will be searching current, relevant data.

[imofe]

I agree with most of the above, with the exception of the bolded section. Wins are fine, but a finish less than a length behind the winner is an indication of a failed attempt to win. Because it is perceived as such a strong indicator, it is seriously overbet in subsequent races--hence the dismal ROI.

I would much prefer to see a horse driven by a competent driver who is in the competition, but who recognizes that--given the relative rates of travel in the drive to the wire--winning is probably not going to happen. There is a fine line between an aggressive driver going as far as possible as fast as possible, and an aggressive driver with the good sense to save something for a better opportunity in a subsequent race.

In the Balmoral fifth race on the 24th, the gap from third to fourth is interesting. If it were a thoroughbred race, the description would be that the fourth and fifth place finishers "never fired." Which is why I said,"Well, so what? So #8 MariansMan and #2 Whit did little except sit back and watch the show. Their odds will be enhanced when they run back, and their drivers appear smart enough not to get involved in a cavalry charge to be second or third."

Similarly, Southwind Kean's performance should not be taken as a "solid effort, doing as much as possible." The gap to the leader was too large to consider winning, so the apparent strategy was to stay just far enough ahead of Classy Chassy to pick up an easy place.

All three horses--Southwind Kean, Marian's Man, and Whit--could be considered in subsequent races as capable of more than they superficially displayed in the fifth race on the 24th.

I will look over the horses that have finished within a length to see if this is something I can get rid of. Your thoughts on this may be correct. I am not surprised about the results you gave on closers. Most of my better prices come from horses that were up close at the 3Q and then faded a bit.

[traynor]

I will look over the horses that have finished within a length to see if this is something I can get rid of. Your thoughts on this may be correct. I am not surprised about the results you gave on closers. Most of my better prices come from horses that were up close at the 3Q and then faded a bit.

That is a great area to look at, because a lot of bettors look (almost) only at the finish. I thought I had The Answer with up close finishers. Then I realized that there was a significant difference between a horse that finished a length or less behind the leader (which--if not culled--includes every winner with zero beaten lengths) and a horse that did not win and finished a length or less behind the leader. If you factor out the repeat winners, the up close finish last race statistics are dismal.

Just for your own information, try handicapping a few races while ignoring the finish position--handicap the race as if the stretch call was the finish, ignoring the actual finish. Bob Heyburn wrote a book with just that premise (for thoroughbreds). It is an interesting idea, and can often be productive.

While everyone else seems to be agonizing over precise figures and speed ratings, I am becoming more convinced every day that paying much more attention to what goes on from the start to the stretch will produce more useful information (for betting purposes) than looking at the whole race.

[pandy]

That's pretty much how I handicap thoroughbreds.

[raybo]

That is a great area to look at, because a lot of bettors look (almost) only at the finish. I thought I had The Answer with up close finishers. Then I realized that there was a significant difference between a horse that finished a length or less behind the leader (which--if not culled--includes every winner with zero beaten lengths) and a horse that did not win and finished a length or less behind the leader. If you factor out the repeat winners, the up close finish last race statistics are dismal.

Just for your own information, try handicapping a few races while ignoring the finish position--handicap the race as if the stretch call was the finish, ignoring the actual finish. Bob Heyburn wrote a book with just that premise (for thoroughbreds). It is an interesting idea, and can often be productive.

While everyone else seems to be agonizing over precise figures and speed ratings, I am becoming more convinced every day that paying much more attention to what goes on from the start to the stretch will produce more useful information (for betting purposes) than looking at the whole race.

I've been saying for a long time that if a player can figure out the 4 leaders at the stretch call, he has 80% of all winners, of all running styles, right there.

[imofe]

That is a great area to look at, because a lot of bettors look (almost) only at the finish. I thought I had The Answer with up close finishers. Then I realized that there was a significant difference between a horse that finished a length or less behind the leader (which--if not culled--includes every winner with zero beaten lengths) and a horse that did not win and finished a length or less behind the leader. If you factor out the repeat winners, the up close finish last race statistics are dismal.

Just for your own information, try handicapping a few races while ignoring the finish position--handicap the race as if the stretch call was the finish, ignoring the actual finish. Bob Heyburn wrote a book with just that premise (for thoroughbreds). It is an interesting idea, and can often be productive.

While everyone else seems to be agonizing over precise figures and speed ratings, I am becoming more convinced every day that paying much more attention to what goes on from the start to the stretch will produce more useful information (for betting purposes) than looking at the whole race.

I actually use the 3Q instead of the stretch call for horses first over and ones that left right away. I think a case can be made for both stretch call and 3Q. However, the horses that win off the pace, especially the ones parked out in the middle quarters, are serious players. If these horses are moving up, they sometimes get off at decent odds. Some that are running in the same condition as last time are solid chalks where the race should probably be passed on. I was at Balmoral a week ago Saturday ( March 16th) and in the 8th and 9th races Peace and Thunder Seelster moved up off of dominating performances to win again. I do not think these horses can be handicapped by their 3Q or stretch performance.

[Vinman]

Just saw a posting on the Meadowlands website saying that starting on 4/5, a winning late Pick 4 ticket will be credited with a 10% bonus, to a maximum of $500, if wagered at the Big M or at Winners Bayonne. You must use a Big M club card on the wager to get the bonus.

In their example, hit a $3,000 late pick 4 and receive a $300 bonus, credited to your Big M Club account within 48 hours. Not bad Mr. Gural!

Vinman

[traynor]

There was another interesting facet to this race, IMO...which has not been mentioned yet.

In spite of Southwind Kean's apparent superiority going into the race, the eventual runaway winner (#6 Ronan) went off at almost the same odds as him...even though the past performances hardly warranted support of this magnitude at the windows.

It would be easy to make a case for Southwind Kean finishing second in the race...but can anyone possibly make a case for taking Ronan on top at those odds?

I too found this race fascinating, and actually had a wager on it, which, unfortunately did not bear fruit (I bet on the #2 at 7/2 odds...and it went off-stride mid-race). The race was a wonderful testament to the difficulty associated with properly assessing "value" in this game.

Things are seldom what they appear to be...

RONAN
Mar24 BmlP 5000 6 2 2 2 1 1 119.40 28.31 29.50 60.00 90.70 119.40 3.00 8.00 5000
Mar09 Nor 4000 9 9 9 6 4 5 124.20 30.20 29.40 61.40 93.20 123.60
Feb28 WDB 17000 9 9 9 8 6 6 120.60 29.40 28.60 59.00 89.40 119.60
Feb14 WDB 16000 5 7 4 1 1 2 120.40 29.40 28.80 60.80 91.00 120.20

[traynor]

And something for those who believe that betting on harness races is hopeless:

FLMD Trot 3rdOrBetter2CLast+Odds All 526 15.59 % ROI 1.52
FLMD Trot 3rdOrBetter3CLast+Odds All 526 15.59 % ROI 1.52
FLMD Trot 3rdOrBetterStrLast+Odds All 526 15.78 % ROI 1.39
FLMD Trot 3rdOrBetterFinLast+Odds All 526 21.86 % ROI 1.09

Translated, it means that at Flamboro Downs, entries that were third or better at the three-quarter mile marker in their last race that went off at odds of 3/1 or less in that race returned $1.52 for every dollar bet. Approximately one in six entries qualified for such a wager.

Or, conversely, one could bet the mortgage payment at Yonkers and hope to get (on a good day) chump change in return for winning. Betting a lot to win a little is silly.

You might consider what the above matrix means when applied to the top end of exacta wagers.

[imofe]

Traynor,

Are lengths behind if 2nd or 3rd a factor or do you find this meaningless?

[traynor]

Traynor,

Are lengths behind if 2nd or 3rd a factor or do you find this meaningless?

Lengths behind are a separate (but similar) factor.
FLMD Trot CloseToPace2CLast+Odds All 526 11.79 % ROI 1.47
FLMD Trot CloseToPace3CLast+Odds All 526 10.65 % ROI 1.46
FLMD Trot CloseToPaceStrLast+Odds All 526 10.84 % ROI 1.44
FLMD Trot CloseToPaceFinLast+Odds All 526 10.84 % ROI 1.47

The ROI is better for "close to pace" (meaning less than 2 lengths) but fewer selections (roughly 1 in 10 as opposed to roughly 1 in 6 using position).

For comparison purposes, the same criteria of close to pace WITHOUT the odds qualifier:

FLMD Trot CloseToPace2CLast All 526 27.95 % ROI 0.99
FLMD Trot CloseToPace3CLast All 526 22.24 % ROI 1.00
FLMD Trot CloseToPaceStrLast All 526 23.95 % ROI 1.01
FLMD Trot CloseToPaceFinLast All 526 22.62 % ROI 0.87
A lot more bets, but it looks too much like Yonkers returns to me. I think anything with an ROI less than 1.20 or so isn't worth betting on. All that stuff that looks so good on paper (or on a computer screen) has a way of disappearing in real life.

[raybo]

I think anything with an ROI less than 1.20 or so isn't worth betting on. All that stuff that looks so good on paper (or on a computer screen) has a way of disappearing in real life.

I agree! 1.20 or higher gives you some room for variance. Less than that, and you are at the mercy of losing streaks, and it takes too long to recoup those losses before getting back in the black.

[traynor]

To avoid errors (and inevitable losses) caused by aberrant mutuel prices uncritically tossed into the mix, the models above automatically truncate higher mutuels to 1.5 times the mean of the interquartile range of mutuel prices. In the real world, that means the actual return is almost invariably more than the ROI indicates, and is rarely--if ever--less than the ROI indicates.

Specifically, all mutuels are sorted and ranked, the central 50% used (the "interquartile range") to determine the average/mean mutuel price. That figure is multiplied by 1.5, and that establishes a top value allowed for modeling. For example, if the average/mean mutuel of the interquartile range is $8.00, a $20 mutuel would be truncated to $12 (1.5 times $8) for inclusion in the betting model. The ROI figures above are based on such automatic correction for outliers.

Wagering on harness races is not hopeless if a bit of good sense and basic statistics are used in creating models.

[raybo]

To avoid errors (and inevitable losses) caused by aberrant mutuel prices uncritically tossed into the mix, the models above automatically truncate higher mutuels to 1.5 times the mean of the interquartile range of mutuel prices. In the real world, that means the actual return is almost invariably more than the ROI indicates, and is rarely--if ever--less than the ROI indicates.

Specifically, all mutuels are sorted and ranked, the central 50% used (the "interquartile range") to determine the average/mean mutuel price. That figure is multiplied by 1.5, and that establishes a top value allowed for modeling. For example, if the average/mean mutuel of the interquartile range is $8.00, a $20 mutuel would be truncated to $12 (1.5 times $8) for inclusion in the betting model. The ROI figures above are based on such automatic correction for outliers.

Wagering on harness races is not hopeless if a bit of good sense and basic statistics are used in creating models.

I like to use the "median", which IMO gives one a better idea if a model is consistent enough for consistent profits going forward, or not. An "average" can easily be skewed by one or two big payouts.

[raybo]

I've been approached a few times about creating a spreadsheet for harness. Not having ever played harness, I could offer nothing.

Is there, in fact, delimited data files available for harness?

[Ray2000]

raybo

Trackmaster sells the data files in RAR zipped form, self extracts into (8) files with .dbf file format.


http://www.trackmaster.com/harness/hppx.htm

[raybo]

raybo

Trackmaster sells the data files in RAR zipped form, self extracts into (8) files with .dbf file format.


http://www.trackmaster.com/harness/hppx.htm

Yeah, I just looked at their sample files. The running lines file is already in .xls format, which has most of the basic paceline data. But, the other files are database files which means all those files would have to have renamed to change their extension to .xls, then each file would have to individually imported into Excel, a royal pain in the butt! Probably on separate worksheets, then a "main" worksheet could be created to grab data from all the other worksheets.

Would be much better if they offered a single file format file, rather than a multi-file format.

Are there any other sources besides Trackmaster?

I would be willing to create a workbook similar to AllData if some of these file problems could be resolved. So, if someone can solve the multifile problem and the extension issue, I'd be willing to do the workbook free.

If single files with naming conventions similar to Brisnet/JCapper, etc (Aqu0326 plus 3 letter file extension) could be done, then that would allow auto-importing and processing as well as batch processing multiple files for historical research. Without the necessity of using a full blown DB app, which I refuse to mess with, having tries that many times in the past without any success at all.

[SchagFactorToWin]

I download the Trackmaster XML files, which open in Excel 2013.

[imofe]

Lengths behind are a separate (but similar) factor.
FLMD Trot CloseToPace2CLast+Odds All 526 11.79 % ROI 1.47
FLMD Trot CloseToPace3CLast+Odds All 526 10.65 % ROI 1.46
FLMD Trot CloseToPaceStrLast+Odds All 526 10.84 % ROI 1.44
FLMD Trot CloseToPaceFinLast+Odds All 526 10.84 % ROI 1.47

The ROI is better for "close to pace" (meaning less than 2 lengths) but fewer selections (roughly 1 in 10 as opposed to roughly 1 in 6 using position).

For comparison purposes, the same criteria of close to pace WITHOUT the odds qualifier:

FLMD Trot CloseToPace2CLast All 526 27.95 % ROI 0.99
FLMD Trot CloseToPace3CLast All 526 22.24 % ROI 1.00
FLMD Trot CloseToPaceStrLast All 526 23.95 % ROI 1.01
FLMD Trot CloseToPaceFinLast All 526 22.62 % ROI 0.87
A lot more bets, but it looks too much like Yonkers returns to me. I think anything with an ROI less than 1.20 or so isn't worth betting on. All that stuff that looks so good on paper (or on a computer screen) has a way of disappearing in real life.

Do you find that the horses that run close to the pace at the 3Q or stretch do better at 1/2 mile, 5/8, or bigger tracks? Or is this just track to track without regard to track size?

[raybo]

I download the Trackmaster XML files, which open in Excel 2013.

You still have multiple files to deal with, and that is my problem in creating an automated workbook, and I wouldn't waste the time to create one that can't be automated, might as well just use PDFs and hand manipulate the data.

[traynor]

Do you find that the horses that run close to the pace at the 3Q or stretch do better at 1/2 mile, 5/8, or bigger tracks? Or is this just track to track without regard to track size?

I use very specific models for each track, that are based as much (or more) on how people bet at those tracks as they are based on how the horses perform. If you are asking if I apply models from one half-mile track to another half-mile track (in the sense of using generalities that apply generically to half-mile tracks) I would have to say no.

The ROI figures are track-specific, not track-size specific.

[SchagFactorToWin]

You still have multiple files to deal with, and that is my problem in creating an automated workbook, and I wouldn't waste the time to create one that can't be automated, might as well just use PDFs and hand manipulate the data.
I guess I'm missing something. Each track's daily card opens in one worksheet. I assume you mean something else?

[raybo]

I guess I'm missing something. Each track's daily card opens in one worksheet. I assume you mean something else?

Can you describe the procedure you use to open the xml file in Excel? I've never seen or used an xml file in Excel. Also, must you use Excel 2007 or 2010 for this? If so, that will be a problem for many players, as most of them have pre2007 versions of Excel.

[SchagFactorToWin]

Can you describe the procedure you use to open the xml file in Excel? I've never seen or used an xml file in Excel. Also, must you use Excel 2007 or 2010 for this? If so, that will be a problem for many players, as most of them have pre2007 versions of Excel.

I open Excel, click Open File, and click on the day's card. Excel gives 3 xml formatting options, grinds away, and then the file opens. I don't have earlier version installed now and didn't try xml before installing 2013.

I'm just starting to learn using xml. Right now, I'm looking at the 3 different formatting options. I think it's best to use the TM xml schema: http://www.trackmaster.com/xmlSchema/harnessPPXMLData.xsd

[raybo]

I open Excel, click Open File, and click on the day's card. Excel gives 3 xml formatting options, grinds away, and then the file opens. I don't have earlier version installed now and didn't try xml before installing 2013.

I'm just starting to learn using xml. Right now, I'm looking at the 3 different formatting options. I think it's best to use the TM xml schema: http://www.trackmaster.com/xmlSchema/harnessPPXMLData.xsd

Thanks!