How Many Races to PlaY?

[rosenowsr]

How important is it to you, the number of races you play? Could you handle only betting 2 or 3 races a week if it showed a positive ROI?

[BlueChip@DRF]

The number of races to play depends on how many races one finds 'playable'. The answer is probably subjective.

[thaskalos]

It depends on how you view this game.

If you are mostly attracted to the handicapping side of things, and you are deathly afraid of losing money at the track...then wagering on 2 or 3 races a week might turn out to be an acceptable endeavor...

[Overlay]

If you have a handicapping model that you have confidence in, and that puts the percentages or probabilities of the game in your favor to the point where your wagers consistently have a positive expectation in terms of the bet's chance of success versus the payoff you receive when you win, then the more races you play, the greater the number of opportunities there will be for those probabilities to assert themselves. But odds/payoffs have to be closely monitored in that regard to assure that you're getting value. That's a more important consideration than "number of races played" taken as an isolated metric.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I couldn't handle 2-3 races a week or a day even but I'm not a complete churn and burn bettor either.With every form I get I do 2 cards then look at every turf and maiden race.Out of about 30-40 races(most) I'll bet 10-12 races.Some days I just want to concentrate on 1 card and a few hand selected races elsewhere and I'll do 5-8 races.Some races odds just beckon for a bet because the odds are so ridiculously high.

[wiffleball whizz]

How important is it to you, the number of races you play? Could you handle only betting 2 or 3 races a week if it showed a positive ROI?

If it's a sat night and my friend is in town it's 2-3 races every 15 min......keep in mind I'm a day to day horseplayer....def don't do it for a living but at the same time I like to think I'm better then 50/50 to walk out winning....

I don't have the patience to be a handicapper for a living

[thaskalos]

If it's a sat night and my friend is in town it's 2-3 races every 15 min......keep in mind I'm a day to day horseplayer....def don't do it for a living but at the same time I like to think I'm better then 50/50 to walk out winning....

I don't have the patience to be a handicapper for a living

I consider myself to be an EXCELLENT player...and I am only 40/60 to walk out winning.

[wiffleball whizz]

I consider myself to be an EXCELLENT player...and I am only 40/60 to walk out winning.

Oh HAHAHAHAHAHA.......well like I said im 50/50 to walk out winning.....I'm either gonna win or lose....

The different is I may win 60 and you win 2300......unless I can take out a pick 3 pool at Chester or Yonkers by spreading deep I'm no threat to make a big hit

Gambling wise I've been very reckless as of late....wanted to get a diamond card at harrahs so I could sell rooms during the summer....I got the card and lost 1300 in the process....now I was able to upgrade to a borgata black card and that was worth it now I can all the racing forms/harness books I want.....

Not saying the free programs were worth 1300 but I could have quit before I was stuck 1300 too.......as always anybody that's coming to the ac region and in need of accommodations feel free to pm me.....would love to help you guys out with free rooms....

What would be the right price for racing forms for the year...I'm taking before the computerized print out sheets most of you guys get

[thaskalos]

Oh HAHAHAHAHAHA.......well like I said im 50/50 to walk out winning.....I'm either gonna win or lose....

The different is I may win 60 and you win 2300......unless I can take out a pick 3 pool at Chester or Yonkers by spreading deep I'm no threat to make a big hit

Gambling wise I've been very reckless as of late....wanted to get a diamond card at harrahs so I could sell rooms during the summer....I got the card and lost 1300 in the process....now I was able to upgrade to a borgata black card and that was worth it now I can all the racing forms/harness books I want.....

Not saying the free programs were worth 1300 but I could have quit before I was stuck 1300 too.......as always anybody that's coming to the ac region and in need of accommodations feel free to pm me.....would love to help you guys out with free rooms....

What would be the right price for racing forms for the year...I'm taking before the computerized print out sheets most of you guys get

Luckily...I don't have to worry about the cost of my Racing Forms.

My local OTB has a pretty good "players reward" program. If you prove to them that you wager in the neighborhood of $5,000 a day...then they give you the racing forms for free.

For $10,000 a day wagered...the OTB manager will comp you your meal...provided you don't order the steak.

[davew]

How important is it to you, the number of races you play? Could you handle only betting 2 or 3 races a week if it showed a positive ROI?

Yes, but hit/cash frequency and length of losing streaks are important to me as well. I would not like a 5% win rate with $42 average mutual, even though a positive ROI. Also important to me is how much time I need to spend to find those 2-3 races playable, and how big the mutual pool is where those races are held.

[precocity]

only bet sat, unless got a good stable alert! on sat 15-25 races to bet homey! and did great on a sunday? go figure..OH THANXS CHRISLONGSHOT! :cool:

[Dave Schwartz]

I have a difficult time with only 2-3 races an hour.

Seriously, right now I am seeing playable races at an 18% clip. That is less than 1-in-5. Very difficult for me to handle passing so many races.

[wiffleball whizz]

I have a difficult time with only 2-3 races an hour.

Seriously, right now I am seeing playable races at an 18% clip. That is less than 1-in-5. Very difficult for me to handle passing so many races.

Really?!!,!?!? Wow I figure u wouldn't mind passing on some races,....

Like I said when I'm at the track I'm there for action and or exitment....just got done betting Los al balmoral and Pocono.......now it's 12:23am and I slept all day and have nothing to do.....up 300 from equines now I can only get into trouble.....maybe I'll go home and cut the grass hahahaha it will prob be cheaper

[Ocala Mike]

I'm pretty much like CincyHorseplayer. I scan 3-4 tracks, concentrating on maiden races and certain trainers I follow. If I eyeball 40 races, I might bet 8-10 that day.

[Dave Schwartz]

Cincy, as I recall, makes 50 bets per YEAR.

[Track Collector]

How important is it to you, the number of races you play? Could you handle only betting 2 or 3 races a week if it showed a positive ROI?

For those whose main motive is profit, the number of races you play (and they should obviously be limited to only those where you have a demonstrated edge), is of extreme importance.

The number of races you play, impacted by the amount of money you wager, determines what you think you can make in a given year. If this amount is too small, one might determine the time and efforts put into your handicapping process is not worth the return.

For me, if I could only find 2 or 3 profitable races a week, I am quite sure I would not be doing it. I play lots of races, but with a reasonable amount of "selectivity". For 2013, I would project the following:

Races Handicapped --> 31000
Races Played --> 2200 (or about 6 per day)

I do play other races where I might not specifically have a demonstrated edge, but they are when I am visiting various tracks or OTBs. The wagering unit size for "those" races is significantly less than for the "edge" plays listed above.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Cincy, as I recall, makes 50 bets per YEAR.

You've got me confused with somebody else Dave.This is the 2nd time you've said this and you're still wrong.

[Lasix67]

I have recently changed my betting methods dramatically. I was taking a given card and just about playingthe entire card and once that was done I would move on to the evening tracks and select a track and do the same. I considered this as more of a entertainment style of wagering. Now I have buckled in and focused on my handicapping. Yes, I use a handicapping software and download all of the tracks running that day and very methodically go through and select my strike plays for the day. Today for example I only found 1, however it is Monday. Saturday I played 6 plays and had a good day winning 4 of them with a really nice profit on the day. So now I guess it varies from day to day with more plays coming on Thursdays through Sundays. I also like playing P3's, however I have back off quite a bit recently with playing them lately.

[raybo]

For win play, I bet every race that is not "Pass" notification in the program, depending on the method I am using (some methods offer alternate plays in some pass situations). That could be no bettable races, or all of them, depending on the races on the card, and which method I am using for that track. Some tracks and cards offer more opportunities for betting and others offer fewer. So, I bet when I should bet, and pass when I should pass. I don't ever, ever, bet for the action, not ever!

In my superfecta play, I bet very few races because I am looking for good opportunities at excellent values. Pool size and contentiousness/field size of the races is very important to me.

So, I might play 2 or 3 tracks per week, 3-4 days per week, and make 15-20 win bets per week, but only a couple of superfecta bets per week. Just depends on the track and the races carded.

But, to answer the OPs question, it doesn't bother me to go days without betting a single race.

[DeltaLover]

But, to answer the OPs question, it doesn't bother me to go days without betting a single race.

For my taste it sounds inconceivable to go not days but only an hour without betting.

Such a dull approach not only turns me off but is bad for my bottom line as well.

Although I can skip some races per day ( these with a lot of first time starters or very small fields), I try to bet every other race on my main betting track (Belmont) and most of them on the other tracks I bet (Monmouth, Woodbind and Churchill).

As my friend Thaskalos says, you never know where and when you are going to hit it, so you better be all over!

[raybo]

For my taste it sounds inconceivable to go not days but only an hour without betting.

Such a dull approach not only turns me off but is bad for my bottom line as well.

Although I can skip some races per day ( these with a lot of first time starters or very small fields), I try to bet every other race on my main betting track (Belmont) and most of them on the other tracks I bet (Monmouth, Woodbind and Churchill).

As my friend Thaskalos says, you never know where and when you are going to hit it, so you better be all over!

Each to his/her own. "Dull" has nothing to do with it, to me. I play this game for one reason, to make money, so "dull" is just another part of the cost of doing business.

[DeltaLover]

Each to his/her own. "Dull" has nothing to do with it, to me. I play this game for one reason, to make money, so "dull" is just another part of the cost of doing business.


I never enjoyed boring job assignments and been assigned a dull task has been the reason for me to resign more than once, even while been occupied in very high profile spots.

For me betting horses should never be an exercise of patience but of skill and heart. More than this, I am also convinced that I maximize my profitability by maximizing the number of races and the amount I bet.

I think that spot playing is just an illusion and nothing else. It is impossible to make any serious money betting a race every couple of days and more than this if you think that following this tactic you can find a sure bet that is so significantly superior than any other you are certainly kidding yourself.

[raybo]

I never enjoyed boring job assignments and been assigned a dull task has been the reason for me to resign more than once, even while been occupied in very high profile spots.

For me betting horses should never be an exercise of patience but of skill and heart. More than this, I am also convinced that I maximize my profitability by maximizing the number of races and the amount I bet.

I think that spot playing is just an illusion and nothing else. It is impossible to make any serious money betting a race every couple of days and more than this if you think that following this tactic you can find a sure bet that is so significantly superior than any other you are certainly kidding yourself.

Every job I've ever had was boring, at some point. Doesn't mean anything to me. But, this "job" is not a full time one for me, so, I don't expect to make full time pay. I am retired and this game provides additional income, income that I don't depend on to live. And even though you stated as a fact that it's "impossible to make any serious money betting a race every couple of days", I hope you realize that that statement is simply not true for everyone. And, if you think that it is, you are the one that's kidding yourself.

[DeltaLover]

I am retired and this game provides additional income, income that I don't depend on to live.

Nothing wrong with that, if this is what you are looking for.

For me though, additional income is not my motto by any means. My objective is to win as much possible always shooting for the big score having as the alternative the risk of ruin. I have put so much effort to my game that I am not satisfied by anything less.

I just see no reason to wait days to make a modest bet that will just allow me to marginally grind a few bucks, but again this is a personal decision and nothing more.

My second top level satisfaction is when I make a bet large enough to move the payout to the point that people will start complain about how low the payout will be if I hit it . I think you understand what is my top one.

Now about making significant money following a very sparse strategy of betting, I really do not think I am kidding my self, this is something than be proven mathematically and is not a matter of opinion but I will not get into the details of it in this posting.

[kingfin66]

Cincy, as I recall, makes 50 bets per YEAR.

I am thinking, but could very well be mistaken, that you are confusing Cincy with pondman.

[raybo]

Nothing wrong with that, if this is what you are looking for.

For me though, additional income is not my motto by any means. My objective is to win as much possible always shooting for the big score having as the alternative the risk of ruin. I have put so much effort to my game that I am not satisfied by anything less.

I just see no reason to wait days to make a modest bet that will just allow me to marginally grind a few bucks, but again this is a personal decision and nothing more.

My second top level satisfaction is when I make a bet large enough to move the payout to the point that people will start complain about how low the payout will be if I hit it . I think you understand what is my top one.

Now about making significant money following a very sparse strategy of betting, I really do not think I am kidding my self, this is something than be proven mathematically and is not a matter of opinion but I will not get into the details of it in this posting.

Well, if you think $20k-$60k per year is just grinding it out then to you, you are correct. In my life, that is serious money.

[raybo]

I am thinking, but could very well be mistaken, that you are confusing Cincy with pondman.

Yeah, that's not even close to what Rod (Cincy) does.

[dilanesp]

If you have a handicapping model that you have confidence in, and that puts the percentages or probabilities of the game in your favor to the point where your wagers consistently have a positive expectation in terms of the bet's chance of success versus the payoff you receive when you win, then the more races you play, the greater the number of opportunities there will be for those probabilities to assert themselves. But odds/payoffs have to be closely monitored in that regard to assure that you're getting value. That's a more important consideration than "number of races played" taken as an isolated metric.

This is true in theory.

In practice, I would recommend people read this blog post by Jesse, who is a great, winning limit poker player whom I have played against:

http://jessetakesashot.blogspot.com/2013/04/delusion-and-arrogance.html

The point is, gamblers are always and forever overestimating their abilities, their chances of success, and their ability to beat the game under whatever conditions are prevailing.

And what I would take from this in the horse racing context is that if you think a spot is marginally profitable, the chances that it is actually unprofitable are pretty high and you should be passing rather than betting.

[dilanesp]

For my taste it sounds inconceivable to go not days but only an hour without betting.

Such a dull approach not only turns me off but is bad for my bottom line as well.

You should be very careful about the second conclusion. We all have a bit of the compulsive gambler in us. And many gamblers have ADD-type personalities. They need constant stimulus.

It's really convenient and easy to believe that the thing you want to do (bet lots of races and never get bored) is the thing that is best for your bottom line. That doesn't mean that it is.

If I were you, I'd come up with a system where I rated my confidence in particular races. Say, I'd give a race an A if I felt very strongly that I had a very profitable play. A B is a race where I thought I had a solid play. And a C is a race where I felt I had an edge, but it was only a small edge. An F is a race that I pass.

Then, after you get a nice significant sample of races, compute your winrates in the B's and the C's. See if you are really profiting in the marginal spots or whether you should be playing fewer races.

[burnsy]

This is true in theory.

In practice, I would recommend people read this blog post by Jesse, who is a great, winning limit poker player whom I have played against:

http://jessetakesashot.blogspot.com/2013/04/delusion-and-arrogance.html

The point is, gamblers are always and forever overestimating their abilities, their chances of success, and their ability to beat the game under whatever conditions are prevailing.

And what I would take from this in the horse racing context is that if you think a spot is marginally profitable, the chances that it is actually unprofitable are pretty high and you should be passing rather than betting.

Great post, Jesse is a sharp guy. You are about as half as good as you think you are...and gambling is twice as hard as you THINK it is, no matter what form. When i realized this i became a way better horse player. This is hard...these people that claim they are playing all these races at so many different tracks..(and winning).....its hard for me to believe. But then again, i'm a dinosaur, i handicap every race myself by reading and forming an opinion. I KNOW what races i have an edge in and its still hard to win. I stick to high class, high stakes races.......usually i don't move until after the 5th race. I want horses that run a close to a simuliar effort, EACH race. The cheaper the race, the less chance of that happening. Some of these people make it sound so easy, i'd like to spend a few days with them.....to learn their secret...:rolleyes:

[DeltaLover]

You should be very careful about the second conclusion. We all have a bit of the compulsive gambler in us. And many gamblers have ADD-type personalities. They need constant stimulus.

It's really convenient and easy to believe that the thing you want to do (bet lots of races and never get bored) is the thing that is best for your bottom line. That doesn't mean that it is.

If I were you, I'd come up with a system where I rated my confidence in particular races. Say, I'd give a race an A if I felt very strongly that I had a very profitable play. A B is a race where I thought I had a solid play. And a C is a race where I felt I had an edge, but it was only a small edge. An F is a race that I pass.

Then, after you get a nice significant sample of races, compute your winrates in the B's and the C's. See if you are really profiting in the marginal spots or whether you should be playing fewer races.

Surely enough I have done a lot of thinking, research and experimentation through what you describe here.

I concluded that this is not the way to go when betting horses...

I have worked very hard to convert my 'feeling' to a binary signal as opposed to a scale of very string, solid, weak etc.

For me it is either bet or not, that's all. No action bets and small opinions. Either I bet seriously or stay out....

Most of the times I bet.

I am passing some races, especially those with a lot of FTO or very small fields (although not all of them)....

My handicapping and betting process are both very structured and well defined. My final pick is always one horse, usually over or close to natural odds which I bet in exactas, doubles and win.

The amount I am going to bet, depends on the size of the pool and nothing else. I usually try to pick up at least 2% of the expected pool size but there are cases where I might shoot for 4% or more.

I also never bet on covers as I consider them to be one of the major reasons to get broke.

If I hit it will be a large score, otherwise I will throw all my tickets to the floor, nothing in between....

Of course I dot bet all the tracks!

Usually I have one main track (like Belmont) a couple of secondary (like Monmouth and Woodbine) so assuming 30 races a day, I might bet anywhere from 20 to 25 of them..

My criteria for selecting what tracks to bet have to do with the size of the pool ( as large as possible) and my familiarity with the circuit.

For example although South Cal has very large pools I never bet there as I have limited familiarity of the circuit. For other tracks that I have enough data and familiarity (I follow them to be able to handicap shipers from there), like Philly and Pen I also do not bet due to the small pools (setting aside trasparency which is also an important factor)...

[Dave Schwartz]

I am thinking, but could very well be mistaken, that you are confusing Cincy with pondman.

King,

You are correct! Thank you for straightening me out!


Dave

[MJC922]

How important is it to you, the number of races you play? Could you handle only betting 2 or 3 races a week if it showed a positive ROI?

Not me personally, too few bets. I recently finished up a condition study mentioned in another thread. The research led to the identification of 120 spot plays (some are relatively small samples unfortunately) which appear to be very promising, median payoffs are all large enough to show solid profits of 20% or more, and most of these ROIs are much much larger than that. The problem is, only several plays per week qualify, something like one play every several hundred horses qualify. Honestly I haven't even bothered playing these things yet. The Win% is typically low 20's , and with a low win% and very infrequent plays, I quite frankly don't feel compelled to invest. Now if I start to process double the number of cards every day this might become a more attractive investment but for now I'm looking into other options. In the past for me, profitable seasons of fulltime play came from using the Beyer money management plan, you know the plan in Picking Winners that he ultimately hated? Worked great for me, look it up. Also in those days I never passed races, I bet on one track, attended live racing every day. Things are a bit different now, so many more tracks are available, I don't attend live racing anymore just a weekend warrior with a day job. It makes much more sense these days to pass races and just move on to the next track looking for a prime bet. Even so, I still believe in the notion of making small action bets, i.e. after handicapping a race fully and finding no prime bet at overlay odds I don't see harm in a small play bet to stay engaged in the race watching, the post-race assessement of the result etc. I believe staying engaged leads to key information that you can use later on. While I was away racing has changed a lot though, more opportunities exist and my approach to money management could end up changing with the times. IMO bankroll growth rate is still a key metric, by that I mean consistent profits not one winning month and then lose the next three but because you caught some giant triple you're still slightly ahead, IMO you should be reliably ahead month to month and that requires a lot of plays allowing racing luck to somewhat even out -- lack of plays and low win percentage plays, make strong steady growth rate very difficult.

[Overlay]

This is true in theory.

In practice, I would recommend people read this blog post by Jesse, who is a great, winning limit poker player whom I have played against:

http://jessetakesashot.blogspot.com/2013/04/delusion-and-arrogance.html

The point is, gamblers are always and forever overestimating their abilities, their chances of success, and their ability to beat the game under whatever conditions are prevailing.

And what I would take from this in the horse racing context is that if you think a spot is marginally profitable, the chances that it is actually unprofitable are pretty high and you should be passing rather than betting.
I don't deny that there's a psychological component to betting (even more so with poker than with horse racing, it would seem to me), in which the possibility of overestimating one's own skill could play a role. But I would think that a proficient poker player, and especially a consistent high-stakes winner, would also have a "second-nature" awareness of the objective probabilities present in any particular situation that could be used to minimize subjectivity, and serve as a basis for playing decisions that are profitable in the long term.

The same can be achieved with the probabilities associated with thoroughbred performance. Marginally favorable situations can be distinguished from more pronounced ones, and can be dealt with based on their degree of risk in terms of both selection for play and the amount wagered on them.

[Capper Al]

How important is it to you, the number of races you play? Could you handle only betting 2 or 3 races a week if it showed a positive ROI?

Couldn't handle it. I need action. I should play less, but I play only on Saturdays and on one card.

[mlbelang]

5k a day?

good god, now that sounds fun. if only i could afford/have the skill or balls to wager like that..:jump:

[raybo]

Nothing wrong with that, if this is what you are looking for.

For me though, additional income is not my motto by any means. My objective is to win as much possible always shooting for the big score having as the alternative the risk of ruin. I have put so much effort to my game that I am not satisfied by anything less.

I just see no reason to wait days to make a modest bet that will just allow me to marginally grind a few bucks, but again this is a personal decision and nothing more.

My second top level satisfaction is when I make a bet large enough to move the payout to the point that people will start complain about how low the payout will be if I hit it . I think you understand what is my top one.

Now about making significant money following a very sparse strategy of betting, I really do not think I am kidding my self, this is something than be proven mathematically and is not a matter of opinion but I will not get into the details of it in this posting.

To you, everything can be proven mathematically. Your math is evidently not telling you the whole truth. Your bank account is the only truth. "Walk the walk" before you "talk the talk".

[Robert Goren]

How Many Races to PlaY?
Getting fewer every day. Down to 1 or 2 a day. Some days only to keep the PPs free. This a bad time of year for a track bias like me.

[dilanesp]

I don't deny that there's a psychological component to betting (even more so with poker than with horse racing, it would seem to me), in which the possibility of overestimating one's own skill could play a role. But I would think that a proficient poker player, and especially a consistent high-stakes winner, would also have a "second-nature" awareness of the objective probabilities present in any particular situation that could be used to minimize subjectivity, and serve as a basis for playing decisions that are profitable in the long term.

The same can be achieved with the probabilities associated with thoroughbred performance. Marginally favorable situations can be distinguished from more pronounced ones, and can be dealt with based on their degree of risk in terms of both selection for play and the amount wagered on them.

One crucial difference between poker and horse racing actually cuts the other way-- in horse racing the probabilities are not objective in the same way they are in poker.

In poker, your odds of drawing to an inside straight draw do not change no matter how many times you play poker. The only thing that is different is the number of outs you actually have-- sometimes your opponents will be bluffing and you will have additional outs to a pair, and other times your opponents may have hands that will beat a straight even if you make one-- and the range of hands your opponent will have, which depends on their style of play.

In horse racing, by contrast, the probabilities are not fixed. Indeed, we don't have actual "probabilities" at all, only statistics, which are very different. The fact that Trainer X has won with 30 percent of his first time starters does not actually mean that he has a 3 in 10 chance of winning each time he starts a first time starter, in the same way that you have a 4 in 46 chance of hitting your inside straight on the river. The cards are fixed and fix the odds; horse racing is dynamic and the game is constantly changing. The trainer's winrate can drop if he has a subpar group of young horses this year or loses a key assistant; it can increase if he discovers an doping regimen that is undetectable in testing. And of course, racing luck factors into it as well. Bear in mind, poker players consider 10,000 to 15,000 hands the minimum necessary to confirm the utility of a winrate statistic-- you never get anywhere near this with any statistic in horse racing. A bunch of bad trips and track biases and suddenly that winrate statistic goes way down; that doesn't mean anything other than statistical noise, and yet it gets factored into every computer program as if it is an accurate description of the probability of the trainer winning races in the future.

I am not, of course, decrying the use of math and statistics in handicapping. It's essential, in fact. But what I am saying is that it is easy to slip from the mindset that math and statistics are tools for analyzing what is an infinitely complex gambling game to the mindset that math and statistics state the actual probabilities of things happening (as they do in poker or blackjack or craps) and that therefore all one has to do is wager according to the statistics and one is guaranteed a profit over the long term. And as I said, this is what a lot of people would LIKE to believe-- it's both damaging to the ego and no fun to admit that you haven't established a real edge in a race and have to pass it.

And now, to circle back to poker and to Jesse's post. I think a lot of losing poker players are losers because they pay too much attention to things they would like to believe. For instance, they play too many hands because they are convinced that they can "outplay" the other players at the table with their weak holdings. Whereas, the winning players are aware of their psychological biases and distrust conclusions that would allow them to do what they really want to do. That's got to be true in horse racing as well; indeed, given that the math and statistics are so much more slippery here, it's got to be more true.

[DeltaLover]

To you, everything can be proven mathematically. Your math is evidently not telling you the whole truth. Your bank account is the only truth. "Walk the walk" before you "talk the talk".


Based on such a tight race filtering as you describe above where you are stating that you might go over several days of not finding a bet, I think it is safe to assume that you can find anywhere from 3 to 6 bets per week. If your bet sizing is $300 then you are putting in action $1,800 / week or around 100K per year. If you happen to be an expert bettor and handicapper you can expect to show anywhere from 6 to 10% ROI which means than the expected value of this strategy is going to be from 6K to 10K per year.

This amount is certainly not significant since even your operational expenses will be more than 10% of it! (In my case my BRIS account costs me close to 2.5K / year).

[JohnGalt1]

I never thought I'd ever do it, since years ago I found bets in 80%+ of races handicapped.

But in the last couple of years I've not made a single bet in about 15 cards, and I handicap with pen on paper. Some races I selected odds on horses or didn't like anything.

And I can't count the times I've made 3 or fewer bets on a race card.

One reason is I make my full bet on all wagers and never play "action" bets for smaller amounts.

If a wager, a horse that almost qualifies, isn't worth my normal bet, I pass the race.

[raybo]

Based on such a tight race filtering as you describe above where you are stating that you might go over several days of not finding a bet, I think it is safe to assume that you can find anywhere from 3 to 6 bets per week. If your bet sizing is $300 then you are putting in action $1,800 / week or around 100K per year. If you happen to be an expert bettor and handicapper you can expect to show anywhere from 6 to 10% ROI which means than the expected value of this strategy is going to be from 6K to 10K per year.

This amount is certainly not significant since even your operational expenses will be more than 10% of it! (In my case my BRIS account costs me close to 2.5K / year).

For win betting I might have 3-6 bets per track per day, not per week. I average much higher than 6-10% ROI, more around 20-40%, depending on the tracks I'm playing. And that's not even counting my superfecta play, which is more profitable than that.

I said going several days without betting does not bother me, and that was in reference to my superfecta play. In my win betting, it is rare that I go a single card without at least a bet or 2, and usually several more than that, depending on the track and the rankings method I am using for that track, and of course the races on that day's card.

As I said, math does not always tell you what you think it does, if you apply it to the wrong set of numbers/data.