What things helped advance your success at the races?

[trying2win]

I'm guessing that many of the successful handicapppers today, had to struggle through many losing years of trial-and-error before they made some big advances towards profitability.

Without getting into the fine details that would give away your edge, would anyone care to generalize what kind of things that helped advance them to the next level? Was it a gradual thing of reading many handicapping books, discarding useless handicapping ideas, keeping good ideas and applying them? Was it something more specific like reading one particular handicapping book, then picking up some ideas that finally propelled them to profitability. Maybe it was purchasing a certain handicapping software to use as a tool, that made a big difference in their results. Perhaps it was a combination of things that included customized handicapping ideas, betting strategies, and adding some intangible ingredients such as more patience, persistence, perseverance, determination etc. that made a significant difference to their bottom line.


Thanks,

T2W

[Exactaman]

two words: odds line

[Whitehos]

Making fewer wagers.

Whitehos
2004 poster boy for rectal exams

[Rick]

The key is doing your own research and not just blindly accepting what's been written in handicapping books and is still being discussed here for the most part. I still keep hearing people say things that I know for a fact are no longer true, if they ever were. Almost all of the ideas come from books that are at least 10 years old. Handicapping celebrities are still assumed to be right about whatever they say without anyone checking their methods to see if they work. I don't want to know about what somebody says made them a ton of money in 1988. I want to know what works now. And the only way to find out is to do the research yourself.

Also, I found that sophisticated mathematical techniques were not very helpful. Trial and error seems to be more productive. When I found a good combination of independent factors that really works, I went back and tried analyzing the same data with statistical techniques. The statistical techniques produced an inferior set of weightings. I'm not sure of all of the reasons for why this would be true but it's something I've seen many times. It probably has a lot to do with false assumptions about distributions of the data, or maybe that selecting underbet winners is too much different than creating an accurate set of probabilities for all horses.

[schweitz]

Keeping records!!!
This allowed me to find out what I'm good at, and the most important part: having the will power and patience to stick to what I'm good at.

[Dave Schwartz]

1. Understanding that what works for one person does not seem to be easily transferable to another; that each person must find their own way to profitability.

2. Understanding that it is the relative playability of a given race that affords us the opportunity to find a potentially profitable scenario. That is, while one may certainly apply one or more systematic approaches to creating a probability for each horse, each race must then be analyzed individually looking for overlays.

One cannot blindly bet the top horse or top two horses. In fact, in this highly competitive age, one must generally search below one's top two horses for prfitable plays.

3. Individual exacta combinations are the way to profit.


Dave Schwartz

[delayjf]

Rick,

Care to share what you've found does not work?

[headhawg]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
3. Individual exacta combinations are the way to profit.

Dave Schwartz

Dave,

By individual, do you mean isolating a single, one-way exacta rather than boxing, or out of many combinations looking for one or two that provide "value"?

The key for me was learning to pass those races in which I had no real insight or that just didn't feel right (e.g., ML favorites that looked great on paper but were 3 or 4 to 1).

HH

[David McKenzie]

I've posted my GP odds lines for today in the selections section.

Look at the first race.

GP 01 Bet Int=7
Prg Horse Cont Odds Prob $Net Opt% Fair Odds
1 Yes Uconn C 5 25.9 $3.10 11.0 3
2 He's the Master C 5/2 23.7 $1.66 -6.8 7/2
4 Scattering Breezes C 3 21.7 $1.74 -4.3 4


Now, here's what I did not post:

Cont Prob= 71.3 Odds=0.4:1 Book Pct= 70 Dutch= 0.42:1

Exactas (Min DV=1.80) 2
1- 4 2.24
1- 2 2.14


Assuming the odds and payoffs go off exactly as anticipated (which never happens), the profitable exactas in this race would be the 1-4 box and 1-2 box. We can also see that the dutch odds needed to box all three horses are 0.4:1 and that we are getting 0.42:1. Therefore, in this race it will be profitable long term to box all three contenders.

I suspect this is what Dave meant, but I'll let him expound on the subject and answer questions.

Incidentally, I've intentionally avoided this exacta topic as some otherwise erudite people on this board can't seem to grasp the simple concept of wagering with an odds line. There's no way I was going to exacerbate the situation with exotic wagers.

However, Dave opened the proverbial can of worms. I'll let him spoon them out. :::running and ducking:::

[Dave Schwartz]

HeadHawg,

Imagine that I have a race with 4 contenders:

2/1 5/2 8/1 12/1

The 8/1-to-the-12/1 combination may well be very profitable, and, individually the those two can probably be bet to the two short prices. The two short-priced horses are probably a losing proposition.

In this race one could prbably make 10 reverse exactas, a $20 wager. (Actually, this depends upon the profitablity assessment of each combination but a simple explanation for now). The two lowest will probably lose money (UNLESS it is a short-field race in SoCal and there is at least one more horse under 3/1).



DavieMac said it really well with his example.

I isolate any "potentially profitable" combination that includes at least one of my contenders. In many races there could be as many as 25 profitable combinations.

Considering the following statements regarding my personal play:

1. The most rpofitable exactas for me are a very profitable long-priced contender with a profitable, long-priced non-contender. (They almost never hit but when they do, the exactas are gigantic. Payoffs in the $3k-$5k range are not unheard of.)

These hardly ever hit and, as such are worthy of only a very small wager.

While I was testing this approach in early September it bagged a $4,500 exacta at Pha and another for $3,600 at Belmont in October. That pays for a lot of losers.


2. The next most profitable combination are two long-priced contenders (generally both profitable as win bets) and these come in relatively regularly. Payoffs in the $400-$700 range come up from time to time.


3. The most common "nice hit" exacta is a profitable, high-priced contender linked with a low-priced contender. The low-priced horse is generally not a profitable win bet and most often the high-priced horse runs second.


This kind of exacta analysis is not how most people look at the races... it is simply too much trouble.

David alluded to using the "dutch odds" as a comparison with the "fair odds" to determine if one can just box all the contenders. I have found this to be an exceptionally powerful play. Two caveats: (1) Some tracks/race types are hospitable to long-priced horses getting into exactas. (2) All of this is predicated upon a strong contender process.

In other words, one cannot simply mark up a few contenders in the DRF and assume that they have a solid contender process. I use 4 contenders in an 8+ field and expect that my top 4 should at least equal the top 4 public choices for win% (if not outperform the public). That is not as easy to do as it sounds.

Profit is usually fueled by the races where either:

A. One or more low-priced horses are not contenders
B. Two or more long-priced horses have made into my top four. (Three is really what I am looking for.)


Hope this helps.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Rick]

delayjf,

I don't want to get too detailed, but here are some general findings.

1. Don't worry about recency since it's usually not a factor these days.

2. Don't focus too much on performance in recent races since everyone else does and you have so many "Power Ratings" and such that emphasize that data.

3. Most of the highly touted pace methods are way overrated. The claims of higher win percentages don't hold up when tested. Even speed ratings do better. Early speed still has some value but not if it's too obvious.

4. You don't need very many factors for a good rating method. Three is plenty. If you use too many factors, you'll just lower your ROI.

5. Focus on one track or a few tracks. It's easier to find something that's profitable at one track than to find something that's profitable at all tracks.

6. Select a track that has a really long season. You have more data to work with and performances are more consistent. Also, they don't have as much time to radically change the track surface if they're racing all the time.

7. Short term pace biases usually have very little or no predictive value for future races.

[headhawg]

Thanks Dave and David. I'm assuming then that your profitable situations are discovered through records or through the HSH program? I really would love to increase profits through exacta play, but I have not mastered a solid technique for doing so, but you have given me food for thought.

I do remember reading somewhere (I think in Wm Scott's Total Victory book) that he discovered that in many winning exactas, the PT favorite finished second, and that putting his one or two longer priced contenders on top proved to be profitable. Can you (or anyone with a large db) verify that research?

Thanks, and sorry for turning this into an exacta thread.

HH

[Dave Schwartz]

HeadHawg,

I my case (of course) HSH finds the profitable situations. But I did not mean to infer that you could not do it without HSH.

In a much earlier thread I addressed this question in great detail. I suggest that you do this:

Handicap 100 races, isolating 4 contenders in a 8+ field and 3 in 7 or less. (Don't waste time with 4 horses or less.)

Considering just those contenders, give each race a grade (i.e. A,B,C,D, F). Don't make this too complicated.


For example:

Odds of 2, 5/2, 5/2, 3: This is an obvious F as on a good day you will just break even. (I am referring to what would happen if you bet all contenders to win.)

Odds of 2, 3, 7/2, 15. This race might be profitable but only if the 15/1 comes in. Since that is not too likely to happen, this race is a D. (Better than the F race but certainly nothing to write home about.)

Odds of 2, 3, 8, 15. Now we are moving into a more playable race, but still only a C. In order to make real money in this race you need your two longshots to come in 1st-2nd or at least the longest price must run 2nd or better.

Odds of 2,3, 12, 18. Similar to above but now you have two double-digit odds horses. If either of them get place you have a good chance for a reasonable hit and every once in awhile they will connect for 1st-2nd. This is a race that I'd call a B.

Odds of 2, 6, 8, 15. Ah, now this is clearly an A race. We have 3 nice shots. If any of them run 1st or second we are probably cashing a nice ticket.

Odds of 2, 8, 12, 15. This is an A+ race. We've got three nice chances and two are double digits.


Okay, so handicap 100 races, and then look at how the exacta boxes did in the A's and B's versus the C's, D's and F's. The results will, I believe, astound you.

Don't worry if your sample of A's does not make money. First notice the contrast between the A-B's and the C-D-F's. If you can buy into the concept it will just become a matter of improving your contender process a little to become profitable.


Dave Schwartz

[headhawg]

Thanks again, Dave. I will definitely try that!

[JustMissed]

Want to have a little fun?

Print the chart for a track you are familiar with but did not play.

If you find any race(s) where the winner went off at 8-1 to 12-1, handicapping that race in your usual way.

I bet you want find too damn many races where you would have played that horse or even played that race. The public and the wise guys are just too good to let a good horse go off that long.

Check it out.

JustMissed

P.S. I'm not saying you can't catch a good longshot angle horse every now and then but for the most part you better fiqure out how to build your wad with 4/5 - 5/2.

[schweitz]

Just Missed said "you better figure out how to build your wad with 4/5 - 5/2"

You have got to be kidding!

[cj]

Originally posted by JustMissed
P.S. I'm not saying you can't catch a good longshot angle horse every now and then but for the most part you better fiqure out how to build your wad with 4/5 - 5/2.

I don't buy this for a second. I don't bet these low priced horses. I live in the $10-30 range, and my wad is building. My percentage isn't always great, but I've been earning around 10% for over 4 years now. If I tried betting the low priced horses you mention, I'd be out of the game rather quickly.

[Secretariat]

Don't chase after bad bets, and find time for periodic breaks. Step away from the numbers and visualize the pace setup, potential race problems, and analyze if the horse can handle the conditions, and last when there's a horse that doesn't look like it belongs -- look again.

[cj]

Home wagering via the internet. It is so easy now to pick the races you want to bet and find other things to do between those races. How many bets were forced while at the track due to sheer boredome? Many in my case. Not to mention all the money saved in gas, DRFs, programs, food, drink, parking, etc.

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by schweitz
Just Missed said "you better figure out how to build your wad with 4/5 - 5/2"

You have got to be kidding!

Not kidding at all schweitz. Why would you say that.

JustMissed

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
I don't buy this for a second. I don't bet these low priced horses. I live in the $10-30 range, and my wad is building. My percentage isn't always great, but I've been earning around 10% for over 4 years now. If I tried betting the low priced horses you mention, I'd be out of the game rather quickly.

Hey CJ,

A $10 horse is 4-1, a $30 horse is 14-1. The average being 9-1.

If you put half a million ($500,000) through the window in a year with a 10% win rate, do you know how much profit you would make? NOTHING, ZERO, NADA!($500,000 x 10% x 9-1 = $500,000 minus $500,000 = 0)

The mean of 4-5 & 5-2 odds is 3.3-2 or 1.65. With a 40% win rate(which I consider low for prime bets;Davidowitz, if I recall correctly gets 60% on prime bets), your profit would be $30,000.

Old Mrs. Dalton back in elementary school taught us it was better to make $30,000 than to make nothing.

You guys just crack me up. You play $10--$30 horess, another guy won't bet unless the tote is 50% greater than his odds line, another guy demands 100% value.

Next thing I guess will be a thread: "My penis is bigger than your penis."

Give me a frigging break.

JustMissed
:(

[JustRalph]

How about this board.........

I have learned about race shapes and pace in here......

[ranchwest]

Yogi Berra once said that baseball was 50% physical and 90% mental. Well, he wasn't a mathematician, but his logic was in the right place.

That's the way horse racing is.

It takes a while, but eventually a person should have the understanding of which horses will run well. Many people have the mental capacity. What then determines whether the person can be a winner is their mental state. I haven't seen many people who can maintain a winning mental state long-term.

[BillW]

Originally posted by JustRalph
How about this board.........

I have learned about race shapes and pace in here......

Now Craig is getting a lesson on bankroll management. Pay attention Ralph you could learn something :D .

[hdcper]

So lets see Just Missed, if your win percentage drops to 37.73% you just break even.

But if I can raise my win rate to 11% at 9/1 and bet $500,000, I show a profit of $50,000.

Now I see the logic, make one method look good and the other guys bad.

I don't know about everyone else, but when I look at my records, most of my profits come from the big hits. Not grinding it out, day in and day out playing chalk.

But if you doing it Just Missed, more power to you. And any ideas you would like to share would be appreciated. Always interested in learning successful methods.

Hdcper

[Amazin]

Betting "Bush" tracks.

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by hdcper
So lets see Just Missed, if your win percentage drops to 37.73% you just break even.

But if I can raise my win rate to 11% at 9/1 and bet $500,000, I show a profit of $50,000.

Now I see the logic, make one method look good and the other guys bad.

I don't know about everyone else, but when I look at my records, most of my profits come from the big hits. Not grinding it out, day in and day out playing chalk.

But if you doing it Just Missed, more power to you. And any ideas you would like to share would be appreciated. Always interested in learning successful methods.

Hdcper

Hdcper, 10% is CJ's figures, not mine. I quoted 40% which I believe is too low and tend to believe that most of the good players that post on this board could hit 60% or better if they would learn to pass unplayable races.

You would not believe anything I said so I will post a little bit of what Jim Quinn has to say at his site; turfpedia.com:

[QUOTE}
THE AMOUNT OF MONEY YOU BET
Nobody can make a decent profit at the races by betting $2, $5, or $10 on key horses to win. Bet size should vary between $20 and $200, beginning at the smaller amount. Handicappers can increase the size as experience, proficiency, and confidence allow.
Because newcomers and casual handicappers invariably are curious to know, most leading handicappers and successful players bet $200 or thereabouts on the one, two, or three key bets to win they find on a day at the races. Some bet significantly more, and others bet less than half as much.

As a rule, handicappers can expect to find one, two, or three key bets to win each day, an average of two. If regular handicappers play 200 days in a year, the number of key bets to win will be 400 and the amount wagered will be between $8,000 ($20) and $80,000 ($200).
Now would-be handicappers have a basis for estimating how much money they might make when betting to win in any calendar year. Imagine yourself a successful horse player and plug yourself in at one or more of the handicapping and betting levels in the grid below.

$20 WIN BETTOR
WIN% ODDS EDGE BET BETS INVESTMENT PROFIT
25% 5-2 (.12) $20 400 $8,000 ($1000)
30% 5-2 .05 $20 400 $8,000 $400
33% 5-2 .15 $20 400 $8,000 $1,200
35% 5-2 .22 $20 400 $8,000 $1,760
40% 5-2 .40 $20 400 $8,000 $3,200

$200 WIN BETTOR
WIN% ODDS EDGE BET BETS INVESTMENT PROFIT
33% 5-2 .15 $20 400 $80,000 $12,000
35% 5-2 .22 $20 400 $80,000 $17,600
40% 5-2 .40 $20 400 $80,000 $32,000

In the age of full-card simulcasting, successful handicappers are playing multiple tracks each day, or more precisely, one-two-three bets at each of multiple tracks. Profits that formerly accumulated just at the local track can now accumulate at two, three, or four tracks each year. So dedicated handicappers, by all means, can multiply the potential profits resulting at one track from their skill by two, three, or four.

None of this has any relevance to exotic wagering. Successful handicappers also play the daily doubles, exactas, trifectas, and serial bets such as the Pick 3 and Pick 6 every day. The edge on any exotic wager depends upon the value expected from that specific betting situation, and is relatively unpredictable from year to year, or even from month to month, week to week, and day to day.

Effective strategies for playing the various exotic wagers are important, and they will be described in detail in this CD-ROM, but they are not related in any systemic way to the profits talented handicappers can expect year after year.

PRIME BETS TO WIN
A standard of excellence in handicapping is the ability to earn a 20 percent rate of profit on prime bets to win. A prime bet means a high-probability contender that has a clear decisive edge on the field and has been offered at a fair price. Numerous handicappers are talented enough to satisfy the 20 percent standard. But few do.

Handicappers who win 30 percent of their prime bets at average odds of 5-2 share a 5 percent edge on the game. For every dollar wagered to win, they receive $1.05 in return, a 5 percent profit.

A handicapper who can win as frequently as the crowd, 33 percent, but at 5-2 odds (the public averages 8-5), boasts a splendid 15 percent edge on the game. As Dick Mitchell has pointed out, by improving handicapping proficiency 10 percent, profits triple. This is the attainable goal all recreational handicappers should set sails to achieve 33 percent winners, average odds of 5-2, a 15 percent edge and profit margin. The reality for the casual majority is closer to 30 percent winners at odds of 5-2, a mere 5 percent profit margin.

The "edge" is important. A handicapper's true edge on the game suggests the optimal bet-size. It's the edge divided by the odds to $1.00. If the handicapper has a 5 percent and the horse is 5-2, the optimal bet is 5/2.5, or 2 percent.

To bet more is to bet too much in relation to actual proficiency, and guarantees a long-term loss. Overly aggressive betting is ruinous in horse racing. To bet less is to win at a rate of profit less than actual proficiency allows, a sad but not desperate circumstance.[END QUOTE]

Anyway, when I hear all the bullshit about 'only playing high odds horses' or 'value odds' or 'blended odds' or 'we're investors not gamblers' or 'making an odds line was the turning point in my life', I get to laughing so hard I sometimes crap in my pants.

JustMissed

P.S. If I couldn't hit more than 1 out of 10 races, I'd quit and start playing golf again.

[Exactaman]

Originally posted by ranchwest
Yogi Berra once said that baseball was 50% physical and 90% mental. Well, he wasn't a mathematician, but his logic was in the right place.

That's the way horse racing is.

It takes a while, but eventually a person should have the understanding of which horses will run well. Many people have the mental capacity. What then determines whether the person can be a winner is their mental state. I haven't seen many people who can maintain a winning mental state long-term.

Interesting point. I think you left out something between the understanding and the mental state though and that's proper betting. I'd wager every successful player has definite ideas about the correct way to bet and is applying them--though we may not agree with all of them, see above :) there's a direct connection to the mental state here. random betting methods are sure to induce certain negative thought patterns i'm sure we're all familiar with from ourselves and others at the track, and lead to even worse betting patterns. understanding betting and accepting the vagaries of gambling can lead to a positive mind set, and increase consistency.

of course the best way to build a winning mind set is--winning. riding out a long losing streak is a lot easier when you have a positive bankroll balance.

[superfecta]

Make it profitable for me.Without tris or supers I couldn't make enough to justify betting straight wagers.Too much money to invest for my win %.Also the ability to "see" the possibility in each race for a good score.And the ability not to force bets.But this only comes after years of betting and not ever thinking I know it all,because I don't,and remembering that many players think they do.

[GameTheory]

CJ said his profit was 10%, not his win percentage. Kind of a long rant when you misunderstood the original post...

[ranchwest]

No matter how you select, if you push two handfuls of cash through the window at the right time with the right frequency, you're going to do well.

[hdcper]

Just Missed,

You said, " Hdcper, 10% is CJ's figures, not mine". But you better take another look at his post.

It says, " My percentage isn't always great, but I've been earning around 10% for over 4 years now".

He isn't hitting 10% winners, but showing a 10% profit.

Why don't you risk it and post some of your wisdom. Quinn's ideas are his and your right, I generally don't just believe what someone says, but how they back it up!!!

Hdcper

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by GameTheory
CJ said his profit was 10%, not his win percentage. Kind of a long rant when you misunderstood the original post...

GameTheory, You seem like a bright lad.

According to Jim Quinn, the following is true.

Win% OddsEdge Bet #Bets TBets Profit
40% 5-2 .40 $20 400 $80,000 $32,000

If CJ's profit is 10%, what is his win percentage?

Looking for to your reply professor!

JustMissed
:cool:

[schweitz]

Just Missed, When you said " you better build your wad with 4/5-5/2" it sounds to me that you think that is the only way. I can assure you its not. That's what I mean.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by JustMissed
GameTheory, You seem like a bright lad.

According to Jim Quinn, the following is true.

Win% OddsEdge Bet #Bets TBets Profit
40% 5-2 .40 $20 400 $80,000 $32,000

If CJ's profit is 10%, what is his win percentage?

Looking for to your reply professor!

JustMissed
:cool:

About 15%.

BTW, Jim Quinn has a very narrow view of what is possible/achievable. That's his way of doing things -- 2 or 3 nice overlays a day (and he wrote all that over 10-15 years ago, so I think we was talking about on a single racing card).

But that's not the only way -- lots of people make money betting practically every race...

[hdcper]

It depends on his average payoff. If his average payoff is $20, then his win percentage is 11%.


.11 times 20 = 2.20 (a profit of 10% on every dollar).


Again his average payoff certainly effects his necessary win percentage to return 10% on the dollar.

Hdcper

[jackad]

Game Theory,
How? By betting overlays?

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by jackad
Game Theory,
How? By betting overlays?

If they're making money, they're betting overlays by definition. Does that mean they're using an oddsline and computing this horse is an overlay and that one isn't? Beats me!

My point is there are as many methods to play profitably as there are profitable players, and James Quinn's way is only one of them. In the end, anyone making money is betting overlays, but not all of them do it "explicitly". (Take a look at Rick's recent posts, for instance.)

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by GameTheory
About 15%.

BTW, Jim Quinn has a very narrow view of what is possible/achievable. That's his way of doing things -- 2 or 3 nice overlays a day (and he wrote all that over 10-15 years ago, so I think we was talking about on a single racing card).

But that's not the only way -- lots of people make money betting practically every race...

GameTheory,

So Jim had "a very narrow view"?

I wonder why he said the following:

[QUOTE]In the age of full-card simulcasting, successful handicappers are playing multiple tracks each day, or more precisely, one-two-three bets at each of multiple tracks. Profits that formerly accumulated just at the local track can now accumulate at two, three, or four tracks each year. So dedicated handicappers, by all means, can multiply the potential profits resulting at one track from their skill by two, three, or four.[END QUOTE].

Yeah, Jim Quinn has a 'narrow view'.

Opps, gotta go, I was laughing so hard I fell out of my chair.


You guys are killing me!

JustMissed
;)

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by JustMissed
GameTheory,

So Jim had "a very narrow view"?

I wonder why he said the following:

[QUOTE]In the age of full-card simulcasting, successful handicappers are playing multiple tracks each day, or more precisely, one-two-three bets at each of multiple tracks. Profits that formerly accumulated just at the local track can now accumulate at two, three, or four tracks each year. So dedicated handicappers, by all means, can multiply the potential profits resulting at one track from their skill by two, three, or four.[END QUOTE].

Yeah, Jim Quinn has a 'narrow view'.

Opps, gotta go, I was laughing so hard I fell out of my chair.


You guys are killing me!



Why did he say it? Maybe to confirm that his view was still narrow? Sounds like the same old stuff. 2 or 3 overlays a day can now be multiplied by two, three, or four! WOW! All the way to four! That means a REALLY DEDICATED professional might make up to 12 bets a day!

Now I'm starting to laugh...

[JustMissed]

Hey GT,

Give it up man, maybe it will look bigger in the morning!

JustMissed
:cool:

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by GameTheory
Why did he say it? Maybe to confirm that his view was still narrow? Sounds like the same old stuff. 2 or 3 overlays a day can now be multiplied by two, three, or four! WOW! All the way to four! That means a REALLY DEDICATED professional might make up to 12 bets a day!

Now I'm starting to laugh...

I've known some talented handicappers. For most of them, if they could get 12 bets a day, they'd be carrying a cell phone so they could find out which bank would offer them the best interest on their money.

[Dave Schwartz]

JustMIssed,

There are as many ways to skin the handicapping cat as there are people doing the skinning.

James Quinn has his approach. Dick Schmidt has his and Tom Brohamer his. I know about a dozen "professional players." To a man (okay a couple are women) they all do things differently.

Nobody that I know says they are doing it with low-priced horses... except you. But I would never dream to tell you that you are laughable because you say you are doing it that way.

I know a few highly successful players that ROUTINELY wager on 50+ races per day.

I know one (that posts here periodically) that bets about 30 races per day and 2-4 horses per race. He claims an 18% ROI (and his lifestyle supports that claim).

There are people who claim to beat the races with speed numbers. Doesn't work for me but how arrogant must I be to claim that someone else can't do it simply because I can't?

I am once again a pace handicapper, albeit in a strange no contender/paceline and use an odds line way. But people certainly win without being focused on pace.

I know a guy that claimed to be getting over 60% winners betting a single horse (and a 70% ROI). NOt many plays but, hey, you don't need many like that. One day he calls me up and says, "You don't really believe me, do you?" I said, "No, I really don't." So, he gave me a demonstration. Short, not an empirical study, but he did hit 5 of the 7 races we watched live via the web together and the prices were not all odds-on. I was impressed.

I know a woman that made $400k betting $1 trifectas. (She bets lots of them in each race.) Shee is only interested in big hits. Make that HUGE hits.

Had an old friend (Ron Cox) who made his living from big hits. Pick sixes, pick threes, heck, anything with the word "pick" in it, I guess. He made $250k per year like five years in a row. Qualified for a mortgage as a professional gambler.

I met a guy several months ago that showed me a multi-million dollar tax return from betting on horse races. I was astounded. And encouraged.

I share these stories because they are all different.

The issue is not what can or can't be done; who is or isn't telling the truth or exagerating. The issue always boils down to the $64k question: "How can I do it?" And that is all any of us should really be concerned with.

If we can glean some piece of advice or an idea from someone's story, something we can use, it just might be that something that we needed to propel us on to our own personal stardom (whatever that might entail).

Keep a positive thought.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[cj]

JM,

WOW, I go to bed, wake up, and all hell has broken loose. I never said my WIN % was 10%, I said I earn 10%. I'll dig into BRIS when I get home and post some stats. Off the top of my head, my win % is around 10% I think. The fault with your logic is in assuming my average win payoff. Just because I say I bet horses who average 4-1 to 14-1 does not mean the average odds of horses I bet is 9-1. I tend to make many more bets in the higher range, as anyone who hangs out in the War Room with me can attest. I basically tread water at 4-1 to 5-1, and get better as the odds increase until about 15-1, where I tread water until about 20-1. Over 20-1, I show a slight loss, but there aren't many bets. I've learned to only bet over 20-1 in the big stakes races, I do nicely there.

A You can't make assumptions without the proper data. I gave one hard number, and one very loose one. From this you could have approximated WIN % as some others here have accurately done, but you didn't even get that right.

[FirstTimeLasix]

just wanted to quickly say that i appreciate the insight here.

lived in lexington in 1998, took a class from Tom Walters,
have been intrigued ever since. now i need to learn how to win.

thanks again, folks.

[karlskorner]

To quote Ray Taulbot (R.I.P.) from an article he wrote "The Professional Way to Play" the following 2 paragraphs.

"Whereas the average fan has a fondness for long prices, which often leads him into taking excessive risks, price is of secondary consideration to the pro. Like all of us he prefers a good price, but he never permits price to become the deciding factor.

He knows that price is "no value" if after. the race he has to tear up his tickets. As John Barsell once remarked. "Any price is better than a loser". a difficult argument to refute. Thus, the pro places safety ahead of "maybe"".

To me it boils down to one thing, If I won, how much did I win ?.

[delayjf]

He knows that price is "no value" if after. the race he has to tear up his tickets. As John Barsell once remarked. "Any price is better than a loser". a difficult argument to refute. Thus, the pro places safety ahead of "maybe

That makes sence in the short run, but I'm not sure if would hold up long run.

Dave Schwartz,

Had an old friend (Ron Cox) who made his living from big hits. Pick sixes, pick threes, heck, anything with the word "pick" in it, I guess. He made $250k per year like five years in a row. Qualified for a mortgage as a professional gambler.

I understand Ron passed a way, did anybody continue with his "Northern California review"?

I met a guy several months ago that showed me a multi-million dollar tax return from betting on horse races. I was astounded. And encouraged.

Obviously no need to get specific, but how much does this guy bet? Or is he a pick six player or one of those whales everybodies been talking about?

[Dave Schwartz]

delay,

Ron Cox: I am not the best to comment on this, beyond what a fine human being Ron was. Perhaps Dan Montillon is around. They were partners at one time, as I recall.

The other guy is not someone I can discuss beyond saying that I am aware of his existence. My point was that there are people doing it. And doing it way beyond what some of the so-called experts say can be done.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[cj]

My win %, according to BrisBet, over the last 3 years, is 14.27%. That is win bets only. My ROI is +9.7 percent. The average odds would be around 6.7 to 1. I don't know how accurate the average odds are as the bet size isn't a fixed number, but it would have to be pretty close.

On win/place bets, I hit 20%, but that counts when the horse runs 2d as well as winning. My ROI on these bets is +6.0%.

Exactas, I hit only 7%, but my ROI is 14%.

I do well on P3s, not so well on tris, but there aren't enough bets of these types to really mean much one way or the other.

The whole point is, I don't need to bet chalk as asserted by JM to make a profit. This works for me, it doesn't mean betting short prices can't work. It's just not my cup of tea.

[jackad]

cj,
I'm curious. On your w/pl bets, do you bet the same amont to win and place? Do you know your win % and ROI on your place bets?
Thanks.

[cj]

Know jackad, I don't. I didn't start keeping my own records until a short time ago, mostly because I'm not happy with the limited categories that BRIS does have. My gut feeling is that had I bet made the WP bets to win only, I'd have made more money. In the future, I will know for sure.

My usual methods, if I think a horse is best in a race, I bet to win. If I think a horse is a good overlay in a contentious race, I bet win only at less than 10-1, and WP at more than 10-1. Seems to me very few of these actually run second for me, its all or nothing.

I do bet the same amount win I bet WP.

[Jeff P]

There are four areas that have really helped me become a profitable bettor-

Database
I honestly believe that a good database can be one of the best tools you can have when learning to beat this game- if you use it right. Some of the best ideas I've come up with are a direct result of running queries against my own database to discover what the crowd isn't betting vs what they are betting. Find scenarios where the crowd repeatedly looks the other way and you are well on your way to becoming a winner.

Track Bias
Over the years I have invested hundreds of hours in evaluating track biases. Or, more accurately, I have created specific software tools to establish and evaluate my own metrics concerning track biases. One of the best plays that I can think of is betting clear speed at a long price on a speed favoring track.

Condition
In the past 2-3 years I have started paying attention to, and tracking, the physical appearance of my contenders as they step out onto the track and go through their pre race warmups. The results here have been most encouraging. Get the Joe Tackach videos. Read The Body Language of Horses by Bonnie Ledbetter. But, above all, spend some serious time in the paddock. And pay attention to the appearance of every winner as he is galloped back to the winner's circle.

Discipline
This, in my opinion, is the single most important thing of all. Without discipline, as a bettor, you simply have no chance. Before going to the track or otb (or playing online) formulate a game plan. Then stick to it. Execute your game plan and go home. If my own game plan doesn't work on a given day- fine. I'm willing to accept that I lost on that day. There's always tomorrow. I'm no longer willing to add to my losses by making action bets while waiting around for my real plays to come up. If I've done my homework, and I have to believe that I have- otherwise I wouldn't be betting in the first place- I know the hit rate, average mutuel, roi, and longest expected losing streak of the plays (by play type, race type, and within each odds range) that I came to make. Thus, my goal as a player is now one of simply executing my own game plan. If I can do that, and do it often enough, the winning takes care of itself.

Understand that each player has different tendencies and abilities. So different game plans will work for different players. That's okay. Find one that works for you. Remember, there are as many ways to win at this game as there are individual players. My way works for me but it is not the only way.

[MV McKee]

I have had 2 major realizations that have elevated my play. The 1st was to place an emphasis on total profits as opposed to R.O.I. The second was to take "what the race is giving me".
In regards to the first realization, my highest ROI has always been (and probably always will be) win betting. A seemingly obvious method to increase my total profit would be to either a)increase the size of my win bets or b)increase the number of races I am betting. Because of the tracks I play, and the amount I bet, "a" is not an option, and "b" (for what I feel are obvious reasons) does not work either, at least in regards to exclusively win betting.
For me, the answer to this dilemma was my second realization. In many races, my methods give me no edge in the win pool, or in the first slot of any of the exotics. But there may be a big edge in a horse likely to run second in the exacta, third in the tri, or fourth in the superfecta. So I invest in that pool. My betting records are relatively easy to track, because I know that if I invested in the exacta, I almost always singled a horse in the second position, the same applies to 3rd and 4th places respectively in trifectas and superfectas. I refer to my method of play as "taking what the race is giving me".
Anyone who has played with me in the WarRoom can probably testify to the fact that I play this way. It appears to be somewhat half-hazard on the surface, and I certainly don't hit at some phenomonal rate, but it works for me, and therein (IMO) lies the key. I constructed a betting method that fit my personal preferences and MO, rather than trying to mold my personality and natural inclinations to a betting regimen that may actually make more business sense.

[Rick]

M V,

You've brought up a very important point about maximizing total returns. People are constantly talking about ROI as if that was the measure of success instead of making money. Well, you can probably get any ROI you want if you play very few races but I'm looking for the maximum return on bankroll over the year as being most desirable. Heck, I might even consider making a break-even or slightly losing bet if I'm getting enough of a rebate to come out ahead. I also like to keep my download costs down and the amount of time I need to spend handicapping to a minimum. So net profit after expenses per hour of work would be my measure of success.

[trying2win]

I concur with many of the things mentioned in the posts on this thread. I wish to especially thank these members for their wise advice and reminders:

RICK: -----Doing your own research.

----------Going through trial and error to see what works for you

----------If you use too many factors, you'll just lower your ROI

----------Focus on just a few tracks


SCHWEITZ : --Keeping records



CJ: -------Betting higher-priced horses to win, or win/place

-------------Home wagering via the internet


AMAZIN: --Betting "bush" tracks


JEFF P --Having discipline

-----------Having a game plan


DAVE S.--There are many ways to win at the thoroughbred races

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What were some other things that made a difference, in helping me make progress at playing the thoroughbred races? Before
making that list, of course it helps to read many good thoroughbred handicapping books to learn the basics. I would have to say some of the positive influences were:

1. Isi "Rip" Newborn -- A sentence from the book 'Helpful Hints for Horseplayers', went something like this..."Learn to develop a rugged individualism when playing the races". I believe what this author meant by his statement, was "Develop your own approach to handicapping the races, and don't do what everybody else is doing." That's right. You have to march to your own drummer, so to speak. Never mind what your critics or the so-called experts think, do, or say about your methods.

2. Mark Cramer -- Another big influence on my style of playing the races. As you know or may not know, Mark Cramer is a proponent of doing research from past data, looking for 'racing angles' that have wager value.

3. Handicapping software -- What a great tool I've found this to be! Of course if you go this route, you have to find one or two programs that fits your style. With this age of simulcasting and the variety of tracks you can play, handicapping software is a real time-saver in the area of ranking contenders, and contender selection itself. I use two different programs to find different plays. I would venture to guess that most users of handicapping software, use only one program as an tool for choosing their contenders.

4. Finding a style of betting that suits you. Right now, I prefer win/place bet together on the longer win prices. That may change back to just win betting only, or some horses to win only and others to place only. I'm not good at betting the gimmicks, so I'll just bide my time on the straight wagering aspect for now.
Then of course it helps to decide what bet size fits your temperment.

5. I do the oddball thing of using the ML as an aid in choosing bets. I realize it's probably not as proficient as using a fair odds line, but like I mentioned before, it works okay for me. Most of the horses I bet on are in the 8-1 to 15-1 ML odds range. A few are 6-1 ML odds. I have no interest in learning how to make an odds line. Even if I did, when you're sometimes playing two or three tracks at the same time, I don't have time to study several online toteboards for last-minute odds, then anxiously trying to get your bet down before getting shut out. After getting the scratches, I then prefer to make my bets well ahead of time. Some of the winning horses I bet on, produce win prices that are below the ML, and some are above the ML.

6. Do some fine-tuning now and then. After a recent review, I noticed that a couple of angles were showing minus ROI'S, and some were showing plus ROI's after a series of bets. Naturally, I have crossed the losing angles off my list.

7. Using some of the intangibles. Being organized. Having confidence in your methods of play. Developing patience.


T2W

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by karlskorner
To quote Ray Taulbot (R.I.P.) from an article he wrote "The Professional Way to Play" the following 2 paragraphs.

"Whereas the average fan has a fondness for long prices, which often leads him into taking excessive risks, price is of secondary consideration to the pro. Like all of us he prefers a good price, but he never permits price to become the deciding factor.

He knows that price is "no value" if after. the race he has to tear up his tickets. As John Barsell once remarked. "Any price is better than a loser". a difficult argument to refute. Thus, the pro places safety ahead of "maybe"".

To me it boils down to one thing, If I won, how much did I win ?.

Karl, Great post as usual and thanks for the support. I know, you know and a few other guys know it, that most that has been written since Taulbot and Ainsle is pretty much b.s. and 'Spin' in order to sell books, software, data or whatever.

When ever I get the urge to change what I'm doing I like to go over to Gordon Pines' website, netcapper.com, I think it is, and read his example of value betting.

You may need a good laugh so I'll print a little bit of it for you"

[QUOTE]Using the betting line I posted for the Kentucky Derby in Capper’s Corner the night before the race (assuming $20 win/place/show bets and $5 exacta bets) here’s how this betting method worked

Fair Bet Track
P# Horse Odds Odds Odds
3 Balto Star 5/2 4/1 8/1
8 Congaree 7/2 5/1 7/1
17 Point Given 4/1 6/1 9/5
16 Monarchos 7/1 9/1 10/1

$20 Win 3,8,16 = $60
$20 Place 3 = $20
$5 Exacta, 18 combinations = $90
(3+8+16 with 10+17, 10+17 with 3+8+16, and 3-8-16 box)

Total Bet $170
Collected $230
Profit $60

[END QUOTE]

Don't get me wrong, I like Gordon's stuff, but what cracks me up is why a pro would post a play where he risk $170 to net $60. Holy Crap Batman, at 5 to 2 a guy would cash for $595 with a net profit of $425. xacpe,xu, Opps, sorry, I got to laughing so hard my hand slipped.

Hell, if I had my own website I'd be posting plays where I at least got 1 to 1, how about you?

Anyway, I appreciate all your post.

JustMissed


:)

[Dan Montilion]

Becoming a full time player.

Having Ron Cox as my mentor.

Wagering and handicapping for the big score.

Born with the lack of a need for wagering action.

Dan Montilion

[Speed Figure]

Originally posted by JustMissed
Karl, Great post as usual and thanks for the support. I know, you know and a few other guys know it, that most that has been written since Taulbot and Ainsle is pretty much b.s. and 'Spin' in order to sell books, software, data or whatever.

When ever I get the urge to change what I'm doing I like to go over to Gordon Pines' website, netcapper.com, I think it is, and read his example of value betting.

You may need a good laugh so I'll print a little bit of it for you"

[QUOTE]Using the betting line I posted for the Kentucky Derby in Capper’s Corner the night before the race (assuming $20 win/place/show bets and $5 exacta bets) here’s how this betting method worked

Fair Bet Track
P# Horse Odds Odds Odds
3 Balto Star 5/2 4/1 8/1
8 Congaree 7/2 5/1 7/1
17 Point Given 4/1 6/1 9/5
16 Monarchos 7/1 9/1 10/1

$20 Win 3,8,16 = $60
$20 Place 3 = $20
$5 Exacta, 18 combinations = $90
(3+8+16 with 10+17, 10+17 with 3+8+16, and 3-8-16 box)

Total Bet $170
Collected $230
Profit $60

[END QUOTE]

Don't get me wrong, I like Gordon's stuff, but what cracks me up is why a pro would post a play where he risk $170 to net $60. Holy Crap Batman, at 5 to 2 a guy would cash for $595 with a net profit of $425. xacpe,xu, Opps, sorry, I got to laughing so hard my hand slipped.

Hell, if I had my own website I'd be posting plays where I at least got 1 to 1, how about you?

Anyway, I appreciate all your post.

JustMissed
:)
He made 7 bets, of those 7 bets the win bet on monarchos came in. Better to win $60 than lose $170. I was just looking at that race. I still have the DRF for it.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Dan Montilion
Born with the lack of a need for wagering action.

care to elaborate on this one?

[Dan Montilion]

JustRalph,

I have never had the need to wager for action or entertainment. In my play the ability to pass races is important and I have never had a problem doing this. I don't become bored when a race or even card does not offer any chances. I suppose the reason I mentioned this trait was that I know many good players that are too action hungry and need to be involved in too many races that do not offer real wager value. Now with that said, I understand and respect any and all players that are on the good side of the ledger via much more action than myself. However, I would venture a guess that those players are still only involved in races they perceive to have wager value.

Dan Montilion

[karlskorner]

Having Mike Fiori as my mentor

Being able to "handicap" a 10 race card

Setting a daily goal

[Thomason]

Damn, what a good thread!

[JimG]

Originally posted by MV McKee

Anyone who has played with me in the WarRoom can probably testify to the fact that I play this way. It appears to be somewhat half-hazard on the surface, and I certainly don't hit at some phenomonal rate, but it works for me, and therein (IMO) lies the key. I constructed a betting method that fit my personal preferences and MO, rather than trying to mold my personality and natural inclinations to a betting regimen that may actually make more business sense.

Yep, Michael plays this way. And, he hits some real bombs in the exotics. Never seen a guy that can pick more 20-1+ shots that finish 2nd, 3rd, or 4th. I get excited over hitting the exacta, and Michael starts worrying about what the super will pay..LOL

Kinda reminds me of the old days at the racetrack with some of my cronies.

JimG

[JimG]

Originally posted by karlskorner

Being able to "handicap" a 10 race card



Karl:

Can you elaborate on this? Not sure what you meant. Thanks.

JimG

[JimG]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz

Had an old friend (Ron Cox) who made his living from big hits. Pick sixes, pick threes, heck, anything with the word "pick" in it, I guess. He made $250k per year like five years in a row. Qualified for a mortgage as a professional gambler.



Ron is a guy I wish would have written a book. That is so impressive winning that kind of money year after year. Too bad he was taken away from the horseplayer community at a relatively young age. RIP Ron. I still listen to your tapes.


JimG

[MV McKee]

Oh, I forgot to mention perhaps the most important thing I ever forced myself to realize:

A horse's chances to win, place or show have nothing to do with his chances to run 2nd, 3rd or 4th.

It sounds silly, and is probably obvious to everyone here, but it is definitely one thing the wagering public as a whole does not understand.

[keilan]

MV A horse's chances to win, place or show have nothing to do with his chances to run 2nd, 3rd or 4th.

If you don't mind would you restate this thought. I for one didn't get it the 1st time.

TIA

[DealMe3]

Keep betting records It showed me that I was having a much higher ROI on win/place wagers than with place/show, or exotic wagering.

Keep issues of the Daily Racing Form Everytime I might have found a new angle; I'm able to back check it and run my own simulations.

Keep from playing too many races A couple of times I just sat at the OTB without betting. I reasoned that an undisciplined player is always a loser. There are guys that wager race after race and go home barely ahead of the game. I felt that if they just disciplined themselves, then they might just drive home in a nicer car instead of the beaters. I've had my biggest scores just by sitting there and waiting for the high odds. Patience has kept me in the black.

Keep from following the crowd It's amazing how many losing bets (in the begining of my horseplaying career) I've made because some guy, that spent $5.50 for a bottle of beer, liked a horse and I listened!

Always, always, always read! Horse racing is not a game, it's a business. So it's safe to assume that horseplaying is not a hobby, but a profession. I always read other people's claims and discoveries. I usually test their claims by looking through my files/stacks of past DRFs and test them. I've picked up bits and pieces, and have added them to my arsenal.

[MV McKee]

Keilan,


I probably should have said "little" instead of "nothing".

My point was that to place a horse can run 1st or 2nd. A show horse can run 1st or 2nd or 3rd. In an exacta, trifecta or superfecta the horses have to run in the positions you use them in, there is no "show", but there is a 3rd place.
So, under most circumstances, I only key off the 2nd place slot in an exacta because I like a horse that I feel will add value to a horse(s) highly likely to finish in front of him, whereas the horse that wins (generally lower odds than the horse I use in slot 2) will subtract value from my selection. Same line of thought applies to the trifecta and superfecta 3rd and 4th spots respectively.
If a race is not giving me anything of value in the win pool, then I look to the exactas and horses I did not consider as win candidates, but as solid contenders to run 2nd. Again, in the absence of anything there I look at the tri in the same manner, and subsequently the superfecta.
I have some rough guidelines regarding price requirements, but bend the rules dependant on the situation:

To play a horse 2nd in an exacta I need odds of 8-1 or higher, and the horse needs to be the 4th choice or higher.

To play a horse 3rd in a tri I need odds of 17-1 or higher, and the horse needs to be the 6th choice or higher.

To play a horse 4th in a super I need odds of 30-1 or higher, and the horse needs to be the 8th choice or higher.

I only play the horse in the position I want him in and 1 spot higher.

This last rule takes some explaining.
If I am playing a horse in a superfecta, I am using him in the 4th spot, and the 4th spot only. I will also play some trifectas with the horse in 3rd, but not in near the denomination I play the super. So while I may dutch to an expected 15-1 return on the super, I may only have enough invested in the tri to get 4-1 back on my total (tri and super) investment.
The hardest part of this is when one of my 40-1 horses wins, or runs 2nd. I actually (if I had wagered this way) would have shown a slight positive return in the win and exacta pools with horses I had at 30-1 or better that I opted to use in the 4 hole. But that money shows a much higher return in the back slots, so that's where I direct it. It gets tough though when you see a bomb stroll across the line on top and you get nada...I find myself often cheering things like ....."c'mon, get a move on" on the turn, only to find myself pleading with the same horse to hang in the final sixteenth. Oftentimes I am fortunate that the same inept rider that was in part responsible for my 40-1 price, is also successful in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Back to your question though, it is in many ways miraculous how accurately the distribution of money in the win pools is reflected in the exotics. We all encounter scenarios on a regular basis in which (as good handicappers) we project a horse as having a 40% chance of winning, and a 5% chance of finishing 2nd. The exotic pools tend to correlate to the win odds, and that horse will generally have @40% of the 1st place pool, and @24% of the 2nd place pool.
When I am handicapping a race, there are always a plethora of "ifs" I have to make some attempt to answer, primarily concerning condition and pace. In the end result, it turns out that the "ifs" concerning the winner are answered in the affirmative, maybe I guessed right, maybe I didn't. But quite often there is a horse or two in the race that doesn't have a whole lot of "ifs" surrounding him. Probably too slow to hurt himself (no condition "ifs"), too slow to worry about a bump out of the gate or get caught in a pace duel (no trip "ifs"), but just enough ability to pass a few pace casualties and horses who answered the condition question with a resounding thud. Throw in an obscure jockey and or trainer who actually does try to get up for a minor award and you've got your prototypical 40-1 shot on the back end of a tri or super.
The "most likely to show" award usually belongs (rightfully so) to the 8/5 shot in the race, but the most likely to run 3rd award usually lies elsewhere.

(BTW, I don't want to be misunderstood. If I like a horse to win, I don't play him in 4th just because he is 50-1, I play him to win. I pick a horse(s) for 4th, and if one of their odds are sufficient, then I'm in the super pool up to my ears.)

This was a bit drawn out, but I hope it answers you're question Keilan.

[keilan]

Now damn why didn't I get it the first time you said it? :D

Funny enough I think I did I just wasn't 100% sure. I also play supers the same way when the prices are right. I'll generally key the horse in only the 3rd and 4th spots with lots of shots in the other spots. Matter of fact I'll be betting a race tomorrow using this strategy. Great way to structure bets cost wise with a huge upside when they cross the wire as designed.

Your filters/rules are an interesting twist. A couple of weeks ago I played a 7 horse for 3rd and 4th only and he ran 2nd at huge odds so I know exactly how that feels.

Tri's for me are when I like something a lot at juicy odds and I key only in the win spot, with one or two horses for 2nd and three or four horses in the 3rd spot. The key to this wager for me is that it should be played multiply times. Of course one has to wait for the right opportunity and attack aggressively.

Thanx for sharing :)

[Cratos]

Computers, Attitude, Affordability, Discipline, and Patience

[JackS]

The probibility of a 50-1 shot of filling the fourth slot in a 12 horse race is only 6.25-1. The same horse filling any slot between 1st and 3rd would be only about 7-1(2%,4%,8%). This would all assume that a 50-1 had a reasonable chance to hit the board. The diff between 50 and 100-1 is only 1% so errors in judgment can get expensive. New here so , be kind.

[schweitz]

When playing tri's I pay no attention to the odds except in the win spot where I strive for a minimum of 5/1. Of course I have to pass a lot of races.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by keilan
Tri's for me are when I like something a lot at juicy odds and I key only in the win spot, with one or two horses for 2nd and three or four horses in the 3rd spot. The key to this wager for me is that it should be played multiply times. Of course one has to wait for the right opportunity and attack aggressively.

Thanx for sharing :) The way I play is similar,(one horse keyed on top,several horses in the other spots.But I only want to win one ticket,unless the play is so obvious that the only way to make any money is on multiple tickets on short horses.The surpising thing is how a tri or super can pay so much in relation to the exacta price.tris usually are 10x,supers can be 100x.With low price exactas,it makes more sense to spread out for the tri and super in many cases instead of hammering a single exacta combo.But it also take patience,which can be hard to find.So its not for everyone.

[OTM Al]

As someone still relatively new to the game, I'd like to list the things that have helped me the most for those also fairly new

1. Learn Speed Figs. Learn what they mean and how to interpret them. Learn why the best fig doesn't mean the best horse. To me the best use of speed figs is not to pick the winner (except in very rare cases) but to eliminate the non-contenders.

2. Learn about the class levels and biases at your favorite track. I only bet two tracks at most still (unless I feel like putting an action bet on an interesting race elsewhere, which I'll generally lose, but I can afford $2-$5 worth on straight fun). What horses can contend moving up in class and which look to improve moving down. Speed figures here can help as part of the judgement but should again not be the be all and end all. For biases, a very simple yet extremely useful tool I've been using to look at race shape and how bias may come into play is Quinn/Davidowitz's speed points. They helped me see how the race should take shape, especially in sprints, and how to judge the field against the prevailing bias. I've gone from scratching my head at the inner track at Aqueduct to being able to grasp what is likely to happen very quickly with the inclusion of this extremely simple tool.

3. Learn how to read trainer lines and recognize who the good trainers are, what their specialties are and what jockey/trainer combos tend to do well

4. As many have said, keep records and develop your own database. I do some hand entry along with automated stuff in my db. It takes time, but its also time where I'm looking at each past race again as I put it in the db. Helps some things to stick and takes away from the coldness of the data.

5. Know when not to bet. I think this is the hardest thing for newcomers to learn. If you can't figure how the race will take shape or have way too much trouble eliminating non-contenders, don't drop money on it. If you have to, make a $2 win or place wager but nothing more. You might get lucky, but probably not. I have stopped betting turf races entirely because I simply don't know enough about them. I've also gotten myself away from the exotics fever that dominated my early betting ways and will back down to simple wps bets. Also, decide what your bets are going to be and how much before you set foot at the track or OTB. Don't change unless scratches affect your selections or you see the horse acting badly. And never up your bet amounts if you win a couple big ones early. Its a great way to give all your winnings back to the track.

6. Lastly, keep researching and reading and keep an open mind. No system or formula will work forever or in all situations. If you hit a prolonged losing streak, back off and figure out what's going wrong. I'll buy the DRF, cap the races, and watch them on TV to practice my form. Had a pretty good weekend at it. It helps build confidence and gives great practice.