Change Your Game Forever

[Dave Schwartz]

I am working on this new product titled "Change Your Game Forever." My plan will be to have it finished by next week some time.

This is not like anything I have done before. It is based upon the mentoring I have received in the past few months from a winning client. This has changed my outlook on racing and I want to pass it on.

Seriously, I cannot wait for you guys to watch this.

[proximity]

change the only constant!!:)

[Dave Schwartz]

I do not understand.

[Capper Al]

Dave,

You will talk about this in your weekly videos, won't you?

[Dave Schwartz]

I am reconsidering the "weekly" part of the show.

The feedback has simply not been sufficient to do one every week. My plan at this point is to wait until I have something more significant to say. In other words, the shows will be less often but more powerful.

I will discuss this product in more depth in this thread, as well as on our website (which is getting a facelift this week) and on our Facebook page.

The story of the mentorship I received is worth telling anyway.

[banacek]

Dave,

Will this be HSH based? (By that I mean using HSH screens throughout the presentation.) Or will it be a more general mentoring for handicapping, wagering, and psychology whichever techniques a handicapper uses?

Thanks

[Dave Schwartz]

No. There will be no discussion of handicapping factors whatsoever.

It is all about re-framing how you view and play the races.


The short version of this story is this:

About 4 months ago one of my highly successful users contacted me. He said that he had seen my posts on Skype and wanted to help. (Note that I have been struggling to reach the level of success at the window that I desire.)

He began by saying that he would be willing to coach me and that I would be both surprised and pleased by what I would learn.

Since I appreciate the value of coaching, and I know he is accomplishing what I wish to accomplish, I decided that I had nothing to invest beyond a little time.

Over the next 6 weeks or so, we spoke a couple of times per week. Each meeting was short - usually just 10-20 minutes. Only one session went longer than 30 minutes. Sometimes a lesson boiled down to just a couple of paragraphs or less. Unlike me, he is a man of few words. LOL

During these sessions, I took copious notes. The lessons were very direct and to the point. And they accomplished the stated goal: namely, to change my outlook on racing.

I was so amazed by what I learned that I decided to share it with others. I asked and received his permission to build a seminar. (The cost will be so low that you'd have to be nuts not to take advantage of it. It will be like going to a 3-D movie.)

Do not mistake this for one of those "An Old Guy Told Me How to Win at the Races and You Will Get Rich" sales pitches. It is nothing of the sort. It is, however, a different way to look at what we do and why we do it. The end result, at least for me, is an inspiration and excitement I have not had in years.

Anybody who purchases this and does not feel it was worthwhile can just return it for a full refund anyway.


I hope to have it ready by next week. (My current HSH users will be seeing it free on Tuesday night, if it is ready.)


Dave

[banacek]

Thanks Dave, sounds interesting - so I take it that it will not be HSH based?

[Dave Schwartz]

No. There will not be a single screenshot or discussion that includes HSH.

[dkithore]

Dave,

Looking forward to it.

DK

[Helles]

I am looking forward to it as well!

[Hoofless_Wonder]

change the only constant!!:)

Do you mean "change is the only constant?"

Verb to noun in two letters....

Looking forward to Dave's latest - great value in his products, IMHO.... :)

[aaron]

Sounds interesting. You are never too old to learn.

[jk3521]

You are never too old to learn.[/QUOTE]
As I get older, I'm beginning to wonder.

[Dave Schwartz]

Seriously, learning anything new as we age can be difficult. I experience the same thing.

I find it is easier if the ideas are presented to me on (say) a 5th grade level.

(Not joking.)

[Dave Schwartz]

This product is available in our store at the pre-release price of just $17.77!
($8 more for CD.)

You can order your advance copy now at this link:
Change Your Game Forever (http://store.thehorsehandicappingauthority.com/pre-release-deals/)

Target Release date is August 26th, 2013. That is just two weeks from today!

[Clocker]

This product is available in our store at the pre-release price of just $17.77!
($8 more for CD.)

Dave:

I'm not clear on the difference between the two versions. Is the non-CD version a printed book? Does the CD version have any additional info or videos?

Thanks.

[Dave Schwartz]

The two versions are exactly the same. Videos and accompanying materials in PDF.

We just make a CD version because there are people who prefer not to download the individual files.

[precisionk]

Sounds interesting, but I will wait for some reviews from some posters here before taking a peak.

[Clocker]

The two versions are exactly the same. Videos and accompanying materials in PDF.

We just make a CD version because there are people who prefer not to download the individual files.

I assume either version is fully printable. I'm old school. It ain't for real unless it's on paper. :p

[Dave Schwartz]

Clocker, it is a video. Sorry.

There are printed materials but without the video or at least audio you will miss the point.

[Clocker]

There are printed materials but without the video or at least audio you will miss the point.

That'll work. Thanks.

[pondman]

I ordered it! (I really did.)

Any time a seasoned handicapper/gambler has a Eureka moment, I believe it should be studied. Looking forward to it on August 26th.

[Dave Schwartz]

Just a short update. First, I am on schedule for shipping Change Your Game Forever Monday evening. Finishing the last of the video lessons this weekend.

What I really want to share with you guys is that during the making of these lessons, it has strengthened my convictions about just how strong this material really is.

Maybe I should say, "potentially strong," because some people will just not see much value in anything that does not improve their handicapping. Heck, I think that before I was exposed to these concepts I might have said that myself.

As a direct result of what I learned, Beth and I officially began playing for real this week. (We have only had three successful days thus far, but 3-for-3 is pretty good.)

I have not had results like this since before the Beyer number was added to the DRF in 1993.

Neither have I had this kind of belief.

[Chris Longshot]

I will purchase anything that doesn't involve handicapping...:D

[Jay Trotter]

I will purchase anything that doesn't involve handicapping...:DI've got a box with some old spalding golf balls, one rubber boot, a dog eared copy of Catcher and the Rye, and a pair of "stripper panties" from my batchelor party back in the day. You can have the whole lot for $25.00. Just send me your address. :jump:

[Chris Longshot]

I've got a box with some old spalding golf balls, one rubber boot, a dog eared copy of Catcher and the Rye, and a pair of "stripper panties" from my batchelor party back in the day. You can have the whole lot for $25.00. Just send me your address. :jump:

Big fan of Holden....:D

[davew]

I've got a box with some old spalding golf balls, one rubber boot, a dog eared copy of Catcher and the Rye, and a pair of "stripper panties" from my batchelor party back in the day. You can have the whole lot for $25.00. Just send me your address. :jump:

Do the golf balls have numbers written on them so I know who to bet?

[JustRalph]

I've got a box with some old spalding golf balls, one rubber boot, a dog eared copy of Catcher and the Rye, and a pair of "stripper panties" from my batchelor party back in the day. You can have the whole lot for $25.00. Just send me your address. :jump:

$30!!!

[Jay Trotter]

Do the golf balls have numbers written on them so I know who to bet?Most of the numbers are warn off but you can still see some green markings.

$30!!!$5.00 over asking price....who knew I was sitting on this gold mine.

Apologies to Dave....didn't mean to hijack your thread but Chris's post was a cherry just sitting there. I do support Dave's products and have purchased in the past. :ThmbUp:

[erikeepper]

Not to sound like a jerk which I probably will, but I always thought you are already playing everyday, are a winning player, a real horse handicapping authority. Now you are saying that you were struggling, this one dude gave you some lessons and finally you discovered how to win, well at least 3-for-3....

So the Basics of Winning (making you a sophisticated bettor, learn how to exploit any race) and Renegade Handicapper (make a powerful and balanced odds-line everytime), these didn't work so good after all? Or this new thing is just better? :confused:

And what does this mean "we began playing for real this week"? What have you done in the previous weeks? Are you only now testing if these ideas from this mystery-man really work?

[dkithore]

Do the golf balls have numbers written on them so I know who to bet?
That's a classic answer.

[traveler]

Not to sound like a jerk which I probably will, but I always thought you are already playing everyday, are a winning player, a real horse handicapping authority. Now you are saying that you were struggling, this one dude gave you some lessons and finally you discovered how to win, well at least 3-for-3....

So the Basics of Winning (making you a sophisticated bettor, learn how to exploit any race) and Renegade Handicapper (make a powerful and balanced odds-line everytime), these didn't work so good after all? Or this new thing is just better? :confused:

And what does this mean "we began playing for real this week"? What have you done in the previous weeks? Are you only now testing if these ideas from this mystery-man really work?

Reasonable questions to me

[traynor]

Reasonable questions to me

And more than likely to everyone else reading this thread.

[Dave Schwartz]

Not to sound like a jerk which I probably will, but I always thought you are already playing everyday, are a winning player, a real horse handicapping authority. Now you are saying that you were struggling, this one dude gave you some lessons and finally you discovered how to win, well at least 3-for-3....


Not being a jerk at all. It IS valid question.

We have played at a professional level in the past but not for several years. We had two very big years - where we had playing partners who made most of the wagers for us, using our software and my system.

There was actually a thread where I was goaded into discussing how much we had made the previous year, but as I said, this was several years ago.

I have, in the past 4 years, every day (played in streaks), sometimes for weeks at a time, but have found it difficult to maintain. My workload just does not allow me to play 20-25 hours per week and still run a viable business.

In addition, I could not get more than 3-4% ROI on my wagers after rebate. That DOES make me a winning player, just without the ability to make "serious" money.

With those kinds of ROIs it is very difficult to make the kind of money that allows for truly playing "full time."

As I have stated for years, it is my personal goal to earn enough money at the window to replace my income completely. For me, it is just not logical to play with (say) $60k per year as a potential target. Now we seem to have all that we need in place to "reach the stars" by comparison.


I hope this answers your question.


Dave

PS: Even now, we have a small stumbling block. For the first time in 20 years I am getting double-digit ROIs. Frankly, I did not think that was even possible anymore.

In addition, I am doing all of this with absolutely ZERO TOTE BOARD!

The key to success is a rather complex worksheet and it is taking me so much time to fill it out that I miss races. In addition, it is very fatiguing.

Once I get that worksheet semi-automated (by early next week) I will be able to play probably twice as many races.

[Tom]

Continual improvement.
The backbone of any endeavor.

[kingfin66]

Continual improvement.
The backbone of any endeavor.

That is a very simple yet highly elegant statement Tom. There is definitely a Plan - Do - Check - Act component to handicapping just as there is to any process. It would be interesting for someone who is well-versed in something like Lean to apply it to handicapping.

[thaskalos]

Dave,

Won't the performance of this new discovery be adversely affected by a wide distribution?

[Dave Schwartz]

Won't the performance of this new discovery be adversely affected by a wide distribution?

Since it has nothing directly to do with handicapping, I expect not.

I suppose that if it made 10 new professional level players there would be some impact, just as a new whale would have an impact, but no, I do not expect that it would have any measurable impact on anyone's bottom line.


Since there seems to be some confusion as to what this video actually does, I think I will post the exact description from the store here:

Several months ago one of my highly successful users contacted me. He said that he was aware that I had been struggling to reach the level of success at the window that I desire and that he wanted to help. He began by saying that he would be willing to coach me and that I would be both surprised and pleased by what he would teach me.

Since I appreciate the value of coaching, and I know that he is accomplishing what I wish to accomplish, I decided that I had nothing to invest beyond the little time.

Over the next six weeks or so we spoke a couple of times per week. Each meeting was short-usually just 10 to 20 minutes. Only one session went longer than 30 minutes. Sometimes a lesson boiled down to just the couple of paragraphs or less. Unlike me, he is a man of few words.

The lessons were very direct and to the point. During the sessions I took very complete notes. And they accomplish the stated goal: namely, to change my outlook on racing.

I was so amazed by what I learned that I decided to share it with others. I asked and received his permission to build a seminar. (I have The costs so low that you would have to be nuts not to take advantage of it. People spend almost as much going to a 3-D movie.)

Do not mistake this for one of those “An Old Guy Told Me How to Win at the Races and You Will Get Rich” sales pitches. It is nothing of the sort. It is, however, a different way to look at what we do and why we do it. The end result, at least for me, is an inspiration and excitement I have not had for racing in years.

To be very clear, this is not a “How to Handicap” seminar. There is absolutely zero discussion of handicapping methods, contender selection, or how to make an odds line. Nevertheless, I believe it will change your game forever.

[dkithore]

Dave,

Won't the performance of this new discovery be adversely affected by a wide distribution?

Thask,

Dave could say, 'limited edition' or while the supply lasts. whatever makes sense to him. He has certainly made it intriguing and some who can not figure out without buying into it may just be skeptical. Nothing wrong with that either.

[thaskalos]

Thask,

Dave could say, 'limited edition' or while the supply lasts. whatever makes sense to him. He has certainly made it intriguing and some who can not figure out without buying into it may just be skeptical. Nothing wrong with that either.

I meant nothing by my question...it was just a thought. I have no doubt in my mind about Dave's level of integrity...and I have received value on every single purchase that I have made from him.

I would pay Dave $17.77 just to talk horse racing with him on the phone for 10 minutes...as I would any other winning player. We are all life-long students in this game...

[JJMartin]

Not being a jerk at all. It IS valid question.

We have played at a professional level in the past but not for several years. We had two very big years - where we had playing partners who made most of the wagers for us, using our software and my system.

There was actually a thread where I was goaded into discussing how much we had made the previous year, but as I said, this was several years ago.

I have, in the past 4 years, every day (played in streaks), sometimes for weeks at a time, but have found it difficult to maintain. My workload just does not allow me to play 20-25 hours per week and still run a viable business.

In addition, I could not get more than 3-4% ROI on my wagers after rebate. That DOES make me a winning player, just without the ability to make "serious" money.

With those kinds of ROIs it is very difficult to make the kind of money that allows for truly playing "full time."

As I have stated for years, it is my personal goal to earn enough money at the window to replace my income completely. For me, it is just not logical to play with (say) $60k per year as a potential target. Now we seem to have all that we need in place to "reach the stars" by comparison.


I hope this answers your question.


Dave

PS: Even now, we have a small stumbling block. For the first time in 20 years I am getting double-digit ROIs. Frankly, I did not think that was even possible anymore.

In addition, I am doing all of this with absolutely ZERO TOTE BOARD!

The key to success is a rather complex worksheet and it is taking me so much time to fill it out that I miss races. In addition, it is very fatiguing.

Once I get that worksheet semi-automated (by early next week) I will be able to play probably twice as many races.

So you are confident that applying this information to anyone will increase their ROI no matter how they play?

[Dave Schwartz]

So you are confident that applying this information to anyone will increase their ROI no matter how they play?

LOL - That sounds a lot like, "Can I keep doing stupid things like I do now and expect a better result?"

No, that probably isn't going to work. :lol:

However, if one is tired of the results they are getting AND they are willing to make changes... Yes, I believe it will raise their ROI.

If one is a pretty good player already - as I am - it has the potential to take one to heights that make one dizzy.

[HuggingTheRail]

I would pay Dave $17.77 just to talk horse racing with him on the phone for 10 minutes...

Well, that's cheaper than $3.99 / minute :)

[JJMartin]

LOL - That sounds a lot like, "Can I keep doing stupid things like I do now and expect a better result?"

No, that probably isn't going to work. :lol:

However, if one is tired of the results they are getting AND they are willing to make changes... Yes, I believe it will raise their ROI.

If one is a pretty good player already - as I am - it has the potential to take one to heights that make one dizzy.

Well, I didn't say anything about doing anything stupid I meant different types of play such as straight flat win betting to only playing exotics etc. But I have a feeling your idea might have something to do with some type of money management plan.

[Dave Schwartz]

JJ,

I did not mean to sound insulting. My point was that nothing overcomes bad handicapping, bad play, bad money management, etc. In fact there are a whole bunch of "bads," any one of which can nullify all your "goods."

I am concerned that my message is not getting across with regards to what the seminar is about.

It is all about changing your point of view; changing your attitude. There is absolutely zero handicapping or money management, etc.

The typical horse player will say, "If there isn't any new handicapping (or money management) then what good is it?"

Frankly, that would have been my position up until a few months ago.

I am completely convinced NOW that it was my PERSPECTIVE on the game
that most needed to change. I find it far more than coincidental that after changing my outlook, I am getting results that I have not gotten in over 20 years, results that I did not even think were possible in this age of common information.

[nat1223]

i have talked horse racing with him before a few times and he gave me a headache! However, I can say that Dave is very sincere about this game and that I respect even though I tend to disagree on his theories.

[Dave Schwartz]

LOL - Nat, I had a wife that said something like that about me once.

I had to let her go.
:lol:

[nat1223]

LOL - Nat, I had a wife that said something like that about me once.

I had to let her go.
:lol: i guess I don't feel bad for her

[speed]

Well, that's cheaper than $3.99 / minute :)
True but Dave's $3.99 per minute is shall i say, more stimulating. :)
Win lose or draw i will say you are one heck of a promoter.

[erikeepper]

Thank you Dave for the answer! And as you know, I have bought your products before and I will buy this one also. They have always added value to my game. I was just being curious....

[Dave Schwartz]

Thank you all for your continued support.

The product is finished, the videos rendered. What is left to do is creating the mp3 version, CD image, uploading to the streaming site, and getting the mailing list updated for tomorrow's release.

I would expect that emails with the download info should begin going out tomorrow around 1pm (pacific).

[davew]

I bought it last weekend from the email and tonight get ->

Invitation to Review Products You've Recently Purchased


Thanks for your recent order with us!


If you have a few minutes, we'd like to invite you to review the products you ordered. Just click on the link below to write a review and share your opinion with other shoppers.





Change Your Game Forever - Review this product (http://store.thehorsehandicappingauthority.com/change-your-game-forever/?src=prn#write_review)

?????????????
at the time purchased, I did not realize it was still in development, but the anticipation is growing..

[Dave Schwartz]

The store sends those automatically. I wish I could stop them.

[barn32]

This changed my life forever


-7owezvVnFs

[Dave Schwartz]

Oh, PLEASE tell us how it did that!

[jpren37]

This changed my life forever


-7owezvVnFs

I was under the impression that a negative expectation game such as roulette can never be converted to a positive expectation game in the long run regardless of method, bet progression or system of play. I guess in the short run (20-30 hours of play and depending on the amount bet) it's possible to remain ahead but how much longer can one sustain remaining ahead? I would think the casinos would eliminate roulette from their offerings if they thought the game could be beat.

Horse racing however can be a positive expectation game even though extremely difficult to achieve. Pleas enlighten me if I am wrong about this.

[thaskalos]

I was under the impression that a negative expectation game such as roulette can never be converted to a positive expectation game in the long run regardless of method, bet progression or system of play. I guess in the short run (20-30 hours of play and depending on the amount bet) it's possible to remain ahead but how much longer can one sustain remaining ahead? I would think the casinos would eliminate roulette from their offerings if they thought the game could be beat.

Horse racing however can be a positive expectation game even though extremely difficult to achieve. Pleas enlighten me if I am wrong about this.

Once you acquire a little more "seasoning" here...then you'll come to realize when people are just pulling your leg.

[Dave Schwartz]

The files are uploading but the web is just crawling. It looks like it might be a couple of hours.

I will fire the emails as soon as the files have finished uploading and I can test.

[PaceAdvantage]

This changed my life foreverOh barn, you little devil you...

[Dave Schwartz]

Emails to all people who ordered are being sent now.

Note that if you ordered a CD-ROM, you should still receive an email.


Dave

[AndyC]

Once you acquire a little more "seasoning" here...then you'll come to realize when people are just pulling your leg.

So is that what Dave is doing?

[Dave Schwartz]

So is that what Dave is doing?

Not that Dave is aware of.

[jdhanover]

Once you acquire a little more "seasoning" here...then you'll come to realize when people are just pulling your leg.

Darn... burst my bubble ... .and I was all ready to quit my job and make my living at the roulette table. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Always amazes me how people fall for something like this (paying for a 'system to beat slots, or roulette - blackjack is different as it is possible to tilt the expectation positive)

[dnlgfnk]

JJ,

I did not mean to sound insulting. My point was that nothing overcomes bad handicapping, bad play, bad money management, etc. In fact there are a whole bunch of "bads," any one of which can nullify all your "goods."

I am concerned that my message is not getting across with regards to what the seminar is about.

It is all about changing your point of view; changing your attitude. There is absolutely zero handicapping or money management, etc.

The typical horse player will say, "If there isn't any new handicapping (or money management) then what good is it?"

Frankly, that would have been my position up until a few months ago.

I am completely convinced NOW that it was my PERSPECTIVE on the game
that most needed to change. I find it far more than coincidental that after changing my outlook, I am getting results that I have not gotten in over 20 years, results that I did not even think were possible in this age of common information.

Dave,

Maybe one can go home again. Are you becoming a "specialist" ala Mr. Barile ("trainers are puppet masters...I'd rather bet on the professional then the athlete")? That's straight out of Beyer's "My $50k Year", and the advice of "Charlie". And eschewing the odds board implies a return to the days of selection handicapping over value, save for insisting on minimum odds?

[Dave Schwartz]

Well, I don't know if you'd call me a specialist or not.

I use:

1. NewPace
2. Renegade Handicapper
3. Trainer Stats (like nobody else).
4. Synthetic Pace Lines

And some other stuff.

[dkithore]

Once you acquire a little more "seasoning" here...then you'll come to realize when people are just pulling your leg.

Did you just change the Avatar or Avatar changed u? From Godfather to god like man? I like them both. LOL.

[thaskalos]

This FORUM has changed me.

It has forced me to look deeper inside... :)

[jpren37]

Once you acquire a little more "seasoning" here...then you'll come to realize when people are just pulling your leg.

Perhaps. I have been a member here since 2009 and have seen posts that I sometimes can't tell if the poster is serious or not. I'm sure other "seasoned" posters may have experienced the same. I guessed I missed this one. However, congrats a nice condescending post.

[thaskalos]

Perhaps. I have been a member here since 2009 and have seen posts that I sometimes can't tell if the poster is serious or not. I'm sure other "seasoned" posters may have experienced the same. I guessed I missed this one. However, congrats a nice condescending post.

Oh, come now...my reply was made in jest.

If that post was submitted by anyone other than barn32...then I might have been fooled too. :)

Friends? :ThmbUp:

[Saratoga_Mike]

This FORUM has changed me.

It has forced me to look deeper inside... :)

Be the Buddha

[rubicon55]

This FORUM has changed me.

It has forced me to look deeper inside... :)

Ramana Maharshi, a worthy spirtual leader untainted by scandal. His writings are very profound and powerful for those who are seeking meaning. His image makes me think about my mortality and what is important. Thanks for the reminder.

[jpren37]

Oh, come now...my reply was made in jest.

If that post was submitted by anyone other than barn32...then I might have been fooled too. :)

Friends? :ThmbUp:

we're good.

[thaskalos]

Ramana Maharshi, a worthy spirtual leader untainted by scandal. His writings are very profound and powerful for those who are seeking meaning. His image makes me think about my mortality and what is important. Thanks for the reminder.

I do what I can... :)

[Hoofless_Wonder]

This FORUM has changed me.

It has forced me to look deeper inside... :)

Hmmm. I thought the new avatar was the "I've been on a bad run lately, and have LOST MY SHIRT" indicator....

Downloaded the new product. Dave, thanks for putting it all in a bundle file. Chrome didn't like the file when downloaded, and I had to rename the .exe extension, since I quit without confirming....looking forward to going through the materials.

[Greyfox]

I do what I can... :)

In the 1960's I once met a man with a similar name, in person, except it had an additional "i" in it....he founded Transcendental Meditation...
I'm sure....om....that he had good intentions....but to learn his techniques....
I just omed my way out of his "om" ideas.
Om...by the way works....just as well as any other mantras...in fact any round sounding incantation will do the same thing. I did not buy his...om....offering
But Thask...from the Godfather to Ramana M....what gives????

[thaskalos]

In the 1960's I once met a man with a similar name, in person, except it had an additional "i" in it....he founded Transcendental Meditation...
I'm sure....om....that he had good intentions....but to learn his techniques....
I just omed my way out of his "om" ideas.
Om...by the way works....just as well as any other mantras...in fact any round sounding incantation will do the same thing. I did not buy his...om....offering
But Thask...from the Godfather to Ramana M....what gives????

You must be thinking of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi...

[thaskalos]

But Thask...from the Godfather to Ramana M....what gives????

I guess the Religious thread had a bigger effect on me than I thought...

[Greyfox]

I guess the Religious thread had a bigger effect on me than I thought...

Or your stance previously stated about William L. Scott perhaps?? as I look deeper.

[thaskalos]

Or your stance previously stated about William L. Scott perhaps?? as I look deeper.

:D Who knows...?

[thaskalos]

I'd like to apologize to Dave Schwartz for helping lead this thread astray...and I promise to refrain from any further distractions.

[Dave Schwartz]

LOL - It has been most interesting, my guru.

"What is the sound of one hand clapping?"


Say, do you think there is a video in this?

:D

[dnlgfnk]

Perhaps a compromise could be achieved by addressing "How to Change Your Game Forever" in terms of cow races.

[erikeepper]

I have mixed thoughts about this product after watching it once, doing the exercises and thinking them through. Others? Reviews?

[Clocker]

I have mixed thoughts about this product after watching it once

Which you are not going to share?

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I have mixed thoughts about this product after watching it once, doing the exercises and thinking them through. Others? Reviews?

A little more detail would be nice - "mixed thoughts" is not very specific. Some pros and cons maybe?

I've gone through the first two lessons, and Dave's approach for his products is very consistent. I attended the Basics of Winning, and have his Vulnerable Favorites and Longshot Contenders products. All of the products are laid out logically, but do require some effort to "think like Dave" to gain the most insight. To simplify complex methods takes some effort. They are not like reading a book where a single sentence or paragraph can instantly be transformed into an angle or method, though there are a few of those in there.

ChangeYourGameForever is clearly described as a "non-handicapping" product, so going in I've been prepared to attempt to "think like Dave" to an even higher degree. The first two lessons on personal handicapping style and the self-discovery on how effective it is I can see are clearly laying the groundwork for further insight. The mental aspect of the game is often mentioned, but rarely dealt with in detail by authors and pros, since the "road to confidence" is traveled in so many ways. So I'm looking forward to the rest of the course (seminar), and I'm anticipating that this product will show me one path, and provide me the building blocks to follow my own - assuming I'm capable.

I'll post more comments once I've completed the remaining lessons.

[Clocker]

I've gone through the first two lessons, and Dave's approach for his products is very consistent.



I'll post more comments once I've completed the remaining lessons.

I have also gone through the first two lessons. I realized from the coaching that there were a couple of things in my handicapping methodology that need attention. As suggested in Lesson 2, I intend to make the needed changes, analyze the results, and start over again with Lesson 1. I figure that will take a couple of weeks at a minimum.

The program was released less than 48 hours ago. I find it difficult to imagine that anyone could have completed the entire program effectively in such a short time.

[Dave Schwartz]

Guys, I have to tell you just how encouraging it is to hear that you guys are "getting it."

Thank you.

I am sure that some people will not grasp what I was aiming for here. Hopefully, those people will give it a second listen before giving up.

Remember that this advice actually did not originate with me. Instead, it is my re-telling of the lessons I received from someone else.

In retrospect, I think that Lesson 4 should have come before lesson 3. IMHO, Lesson 4 is worth the price of admission several times over.


Thanks again for the feedback.

[thaskalos]

Guys, I have to tell you just how encouraging it is to hear that you guys are "getting it."

Thank you.

I am sure that some people will not grasp what I was aiming for here. Hopefully, those people will give it a second listen before giving up.

Remember that this advice actually did not originate with me. Instead, it is my re-telling of the lessons I received from someone else.

In retrospect, I think that Lesson 4 should have come before lesson 3. IMHO, Lesson 4 is worth the price of admission several times over.


Thanks again for the feedback.

I have a question about lesson 4, Dave...and I will be careful with my remarks because a more thorough discussion might reveal what this product is about -- and that would be unfair to you.

Why were you using the morning line rather than the actual line in your handicapping and value estimations in lesson 4? Even in the example that you presented...the winner of the race (the #3 horse) was regarded as a 10-1 choice in your pre-race analysis...even though it ended up paying only $12 when it won. What is the advantage in using the morning line instead of the opening line?

My next question has to do with your admission in the video that you -- before you were given this coaching -- would often make wagers on horses that really had no realistic chance of ever winning the race. Why were you making bets on these horses in the first place?

[Dave Schwartz]

Why were you using the morning line rather than the actual line in your handicapping and value estimations in lesson 4? Even in the example that you presented...the winner of the race (the #3 horse) was regarded as a 10-1 choice in your pre-race analysis...even though it ended up paying only $12 when it won. What is the advantage in using the morning line instead of the opening line?

Almost a year ago I came to the conclusion that value handicapping using the tote board is, essentially, dead. There is just too much movement. At high rebate tracks around 75% of all winners are bet down from the time the horses enter the gate. The losers go up and the winners go down. It is as simple as that.

I concluded at that time that I had to re-calibrate my handicapping against an adjusted morning line. That re-calibration has worked. A significant percentage of the time the winning horse is still bet down, but I am no longer caught in the trap of "Well, he was a good bet when I bet him."

The bottom line is that it is clearly working for me, as it is for many of my software users.

Just to be clear, we use an adjusted morning line. Adjusted for scratches as well as conformation to a reasonable number of "booking points" at this track (which is determined by the takeout but easily computed ONCE for each track).

BTW, using this approach, I find a remarkable number of races where I wager multiple horses in a dutch against (my version of) the morning line, and the largest bet I make actually pays double digits. That is why I live with the races where I get back less than expected: there are just so many of the other kind that they make my day.

My most profitable races are not the $70 winners because I usually have small wagers on them. It comes from the $11 winner that I loaded on, in a race that called for a large wager and he was (say) only 3/1, thereby gathering the largest wager.


My next question has to do with your admission in the video that you -- before you were given this coaching -- would often make wagers on horses that really had no realistic chance of ever winning the race. Why were you making bets on these horses in the first place?

What I actually meant by that could be best described as "betting pure value."

Imagine that you have a race with 4 contenders. They are, in your perceived order of value:

8/1
12/1
6/1
2/5

I don't care how bad I think that 2/5 horse is, he is still going to win half the races or more.

But with that horse being one of my contenders, his hit rate is probably more like 65% minimum.

This means that however I bet the other 3 others, at best I am winning 35% of the races, and probably no more than 25-30% of the time (split between all 3 horses).

That is an example of a race where you either bet the 2/5, pass the race or wager a relatively small amount of money on the other 3 horses.

If you pick one... say the 12/1 horse. Just follow the math here. Let's say that you figure your edge on 12/1 horses is about 20%. That means your expectation in 100 such wagers would be a return of about $240. Since that horse will pay $26, he is going to win about 9% of the time. ($240 / $26 = 9.2%)

The point is that betting pure value sometimes puts one in a spot where they are going to lose most of the time. 9-times-out-of-10 should cause one to re-think how they play.

[Rwahi1]

Hi Dave,

I just bought this product even though I'm not investing in thoroughbred handicapping at present. Your products always intrigue me. :)

[thaskalos]

I realize the truth of what you are saying, Dave...and that's why I have never been attracted to "pure value" wagers. I might be in the minority...but I have never allowed "numbers" to skew my judgement about a horse's chances of winning the race. I have been "painting" races in my mind ever since I started playing.

If you don't mind...I'd like to offer some friendly criticism about this latest project of yours:

I thought that lesson 4 was overshadowed by your own handicapping and "ranking" system...for which you -- understandably -- did not supply any information. I found your own "point" and "ranking" system more thought-provoking than your coach's advice.

[Dave Schwartz]

I thought that lesson 4 was overshadowed by your own handicapping and "ranking" system...for which you -- understandably -- did not supply any information. I found your own "point" and "ranking" system more thought-provoking than your coach's advice.

That was the idea, Thaskalos.

It is the UNDERSTANDING of the application of the idea that has the greatest value.

Had I not demonstrated How I Paint the Picture I believe the lesson would have been missed by many.

The point was that we must all "paint the race." This was ONE way to do it.

[AndyC]

What I actually meant by that could be best described as "betting pure value."

The problem is never betting "pure value", the problem is how to bet pure value.

[thaskalos]

The problem is never betting "pure value", the problem is how to bet pure value.

IMO...the problem is that we can never really be sure if this "pure value" is even there.

[Dave Schwartz]

IMO...the problem is that we can never really be sure if this "pure value" is even there.

That is, of course, always the case. Only over a large sample can you really be sure that you are consistently correct in your assessment.

By "Pure Value," I mean the horse that has a potential for huge payoff that we give a better-than-normal chance of winning (for his odds), yet is not even remotely close to being in the top 2 or 3 contenders.

Bankrolls are destroyed waiting for those $80 horses with a 4% chance of winning. Of course, many horse players actually believe such a horse has (say) a 30% chance of winning THIS race despite the fact that their hit rate on such horses historically (if they bothered to keep track) might only be 4-5%.

Such a play may be hugely profitable but not an appropriate play with a substantial bet (relative to bankroll).

[thaskalos]

Imagine that you have a race with 4 contenders. They are, in your perceived order of value:

8/1
12/1
6/1
2/5

I don't care how bad I think that 2/5 horse is, he is still going to win half the races or more.

But with that horse being one of my contenders, his hit rate is probably more like 65% minimum.

This means that however I bet the other 3 others, at best I am winning 35% of the races, and probably no more than 25-30% of the time (split between all 3 horses).

That is an example of a race where you either bet the 2/5, pass the race or wager a relatively small amount of money on the other 3 horses.

If you pick one... say the 12/1 horse. Just follow the math here. Let's say that you figure your edge on 12/1 horses is about 20%. That means your expectation in 100 such wagers would be a return of about $240. Since that horse will pay $26, he is going to win about 9% of the time. ($240 / $26 = 9.2%)

The point is that betting pure value sometimes puts one in a spot where they are going to lose most of the time. 9-times-out-of-10 should cause one to re-think how they play.

I see your argument here as an indictment against the entire concept of "value wagering"...simply because this argument does not only apply to those races which are dominated by 2/5 contenders; it applies to ALL the races which are dominated by short-priced favorites -- although to a lesser degree.

Let's say that we have an 8/5 legitimate favorite in the race, and that this 8/5 deserves its short price and does not present any wagering value to us. Let's also say that the best value in this race is represented by the 12-1 fourth-choice in the wagering...which is also a contender of ours.

We should know going in that we will be losing the vast majority of the time when we wager on horses like this. In fact...it shouldn't bother us in the LEAST if we lose 90% of the time in such a scenario...because the reward more than compensates us for the risk.

If losing 9 races out of 10 causes someone to "re-think how he plays"...then this someone is not cut out for "value wagering".

[Dave Schwartz]

If losing 9 races out of 10 causes someone to "re-think how they play"...then this someone is not cut out for longshot wagering.

I completely agree.

IMHO, there are very few successful players winning 1 race of 10 or less.

There are always stories, but I have never met anyone who is making big dollars on very low hit rates.


BTW, that "8/5" horse could also be a race where there are 3 horses under 7/2. They have a similar cumulative effect.

Part 2 of that would be, "How does one even know that they will get 8/5? Or 6/5? or 4/5?"

[pondman]

The point was that we must all "paint the race." This was ONE way to do it.

I believe you've got yourself the makings for a good seminar-- should take it on the road.

It's thought provoking.

I believe the majority of players could benefit from "Change your Game Forever." My play is a hundred miles away from yours...but I know if I get away from my strengths I'll pay the price. I'm going to keep your 1st step around for awhile as a reminder.

I like the idea of creating a quasi worksheet, invoice prior to the race, which I'd like to do several days before the race. I think I'll do it in access, and link it to excel. That way I could just print it out for my wife or a friend, if they needs to run the bet. I scribble stuff on paper and record my play in excel, and know what I want to see, but I think something formal will help me.

The only disagreement I'd have is-- don't bet short price horses for any reason.

Good job.


Think people should buy it.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I have also gone through the first two lessons. I realized from the coaching that there were a couple of things in my handicapping methodology that need attention. As suggested in Lesson 2, I intend to make the needed changes, analyze the results, and start over again with Lesson 1. I figure that will take a couple of weeks at a minimum.

The program was released less than 48 hours ago. I find it difficult to imagine that anyone could have completed the entire program effectively in such a short time.

I agree that one could go between lessons 1 and 2 for a while before moving on, but I wanted to see if I could go the "two hours" and get the initial value from the product. I spent about 35-40 minutes detailing the requested info from the exercises, so I felt comfortable continuing to lesson 3. I've now completed the course, but as is often the case, I will need to go back and repeat portions.

Overall ChangeYourGameForever offers excellent value. The first couple of lessons are applicable to an ongoing analysis of one's game. Lessons 3 and 5 provided the "new info" sort of material I was anticipating, and I do believe they will be game changers. Ironically, lesson 4 was not much value for me (pun intended), as my current handicapping approach is similar to what's described. However, I can see from Dave's point of view and from others who make selections off rigorous rules how this could be a real eye-opener. I also did not quite make the connection from Dave's example how he jumped from single digit ROIs to much higher returns, but I'll go back to lesson 4 and listen again.

There are some players who won't like the approach of the materials, as they would rather be given the fish than taught how to fish (again, pun intended). On the other hand, I'm looking for those building blocks, and there's plenty of them with the product. Two reasons I like Dave's approach are that he has an approach that's far different from mine, and he seems to excel at what is my weakest point - discipline and/or focus.

Thanks Dave! :)

[Dave Schwartz]

Wow! Great review! And just the kind I was hoping for: people who would see this is a starting point.

BTW, for me the biggest changes came as a result of:

Lessons 1 and 4, which ultimately led to confidence in my system and wager sizing. By far the wager sizing has made the difference.

[PICSIX]

I completely agree.

IMHO, there are very few successful players winning 1 race of 10 or less.

There are always stories, but I have never met anyone who is making big dollars on very low hit rates.


BTW, that "8/5" horse could also be a race where there are 3 horses under 7/2. They have a similar cumulative effect.

Part 2 of that would be, "How does one even know that they will get 8/5? Or 6/5? or 4/5?"

I believe this problem with "value wagering" is why Dick Schmidt made this post in another thread:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1041081&postcount=11

[thaskalos]

I believe this problem with "value wagering" is why Dick Schmidt made this post in another thread:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1041081&postcount=11

IMO...the negatives of "value wagering" are not discussed enough on this board.

If I weren't as experienced or as jaded as I am, and I just went by what I read on this board... then I would get the impression that there are many winning players out there who are in possession of accurate betting lines...which are capable of accurately assessing the supposed value presented on the tote board. And that all these winning players, who possess these accurate betting lines, have nothing at all to fear from this avalanche of late money that shows up during the last seconds of wagering.

I've never seen even one of the "value player" here explain how he handles this "late money" problem. How can this late money not wreck the long-term plans of all these non-whale "value players"? Do they think that the affect of this late money evens out in the long run?

[Hoofless_Wonder]

IMO...the negatives of "value wagering" are not discussed enough on this board.

If I weren't as experienced or as jaded as I am, and I just went by what I read on this board... then I would get the impression that there are many winning players out there who are in possession of accurate betting lines...which are capable of accurately assessing the supposed value presented on the tote board. And that all these winning players, who possess these accurate betting lines, have nothing at all to fear from this avalanche of late money that shows up during the last seconds of wagering.

I've never seen even one of the "value player" here explain how he handles this "late money" problem. How can this late money not wreck the long-term plans of all these non-whale "value players"? Do they think that the affect of this late money evens out in the long run?

I have not noticed the late money to move the odds on that large of percentage of races - maybe one in five? With the exception of the Aussie racing at night with the ultra small pools, it seems the odds are usually within a tick or two of what they were with a couple minutes to post.

But I completely agree that an accurate betting line is outside the ability of most players - one of the dangers of using a computer is that if you want a "betting line" calculated, you can get one. How accurate it might be is a whole different ball game.

[PICSIX]

IMO...the negatives of "value wagering" are not discussed enough on this board.

If I weren't as experienced or as jaded as I am, and I just went by what I read on this board... then I would get the impression that there are many winning players out there who are in possession of accurate betting lines...which are capable of accurately assessing the supposed value presented on the tote board. And that all these winning players, who possess these accurate betting lines, have nothing at all to fear from this avalanche of late money that shows up during the last seconds of wagering.

I've never seen even one of the "value player" here explain how he handles this "late money" problem. How can this late money not wreck the long-term plans of all these non-whale "value players"? Do they think that the affect of this late money evens out in the long run?

In all honesty, the "value wagering" discussed here took me from a profitable weekend warrior to a losing one. I spent a long long time trying to figure out why.

It's really very simple, but, I couldn't see it through the "value" haze I was in...."value" doesn't equal winner. Who in their right mind bets a horse to win that isn't the most likely winner (in his or her estimation)?

If I were in a fight with Mike Tyson, would you bet on me because the odds of Iron Mike dropping dead, just before he hit me, offered "value" :confused:

[thaskalos]

I have not noticed the late money to move the odds on that large of percentage of races - maybe one in five? With the exception of the Aussie racing at night with the ultra small pools, it seems the odds are usually within a tick or two of what they were with a couple minutes to post.

But I completely agree that an accurate betting line is outside the ability of most players - one of the dangers of using a computer is that if you want a "betting line" calculated, you can get one. How accurate it might be is a whole different ball game.

I would go as far as to say that a profitable betting line is outside the ability of all but the very few.

As far as the late changes in the odds are concerned...it isn't a matter of how often these drastic late changes come about; it's about whether or not we feel comfortable betting on a supposed overlay...when we know that it could become an underlay by the time the race is over.

I recently bet on a horse at Woodbine which went off at odds of 3/2 in a full field. The race actually started with the horse showing 3/2 on the board...which I thought presented great value. The horse eventually paid $3.80 to win.

It may not happen very often...but it erodes one's confidence in "value wagering" just the same.

And it happens much more often at the minor tracks.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I would go as far as to say that a profitable betting line is outside the ability of all but the very few.

As far as the late changes in the odds are concerned...it isn't a matter of how often these drastic late changes come about; it's about whether or not we feel comfortable betting on a supposed overlay...when we know that it could become an underlay by the time the race is over.

I recently bet on a horse at Woodbine which went off at odds of 3/2 in a full field. The race actually started with the horse showing 3/2 on the board...which I thought presented great value. The horse eventually paid $3.80 to win.

It may not happen very often...but it erodes one's confidence in "value wagering" just the same.

And it happens much more often at the minor tracks.

Excellent example. I forgot about those sudden "steam" avalanches at Woodbine. I've been stung on a few horses there at say 8 or 10-1 that have their odds cut in half as they run the race.

I guess you have to take something like Dave's approach and come up with an adjusted line that calculates what the final odds will be, or just live with it. Sometimes the odds drops are somewhat predictable, but certainly not always.

This is one of the reasons I miss the "fixed odds" wagering that IASBET offers, but of course not to U.S. citizens any more. There was no guessing if you thought late money was going to come down on your selection.

[AndyC]

Such a play may be hugely profitable but not an appropriate play with a substantial bet (relative to bankroll).

I don't know of a money management system that suggests an inappropriate sized wager for a low probability winner. So people making substantial wagers on low probability horses that have "pure value" really need a better grasp on money management.

[AndyC]

It's really very simple, but, I couldn't see it through the "value" haze I was in...."value" doesn't equal winner. Who in their right mind bets a horse to win that isn't the most likely winner (in his or her estimation)?

Let me reverse the question. Who in their right mind would bet a horse simply because they were the most likely winner but the odds were far less than the probability of winning? So let's roll some dice. I will let you bet on a 7, 4, or 10. The odds for a 7 will be 3-1 and the odds on the 4 and 10 will both be 20-1. If this were horse racing you would tell me I am not in my right mind if I didn't bet the 7. Most likely winner doesn't equal profit.

Your problem has nothing to do with "value betting" and everything to do with your ability to assess value.

[PICSIX]

Your problem has nothing to do with "value betting" and everything to do with your ability to assess value.


Me and 99% of the people that post here!! That's my point....it's nearly impossible to make an accurate odds line and even more impossible to incorporate the late odds changes of today.

Most of us are better off handicapping the most likely winner and betting when the odds are 2-1 instead of passing and watching the win because our acceptable odds were 5-2.

[AndyC]

Me and 99% of the people that post here!! That's my point....it's nearly impossible to make an accurate odds line and even more impossible to incorporate the late odds changes of today.

Most of us are better off handicapping the most likely winner and betting when the odds are 2-1 instead of passing and watching the win because our acceptable odds were 5-2.

It all depends on your objective. If you just crave the action then fire away. If you are trying to end up in the black then you really need to know that what you are betting is more likely than not an overlay.

I believe that the best way to find value is to specialize. Be it tracks, trainers, types of races, types of bets, physical handicapping, trip handicapping, etc. Be one of the best at a specialty and finding value will become much easier. Too many people "play" the races expecting to win. They have enough knowledge to make enough winning plays to keep them coming back but lack the expertise necessary to become a regular winner.

[garyscpa]

In all honesty, the "value wagering" discussed here took me from a profitable weekend warrior to a losing one. I spent a long long time trying to figure out why.

It's really very simple, but, I couldn't see it through the "value" haze I was in...."value" doesn't equal winner. Who in their right mind bets a horse to win that isn't the most likely winner (in his or her estimation)?

If I were in a fight with Mike Tyson, would you bet on me because the odds of Iron Mike dropping dead, just before he hit me, offered "value" :confused:

Yes.

[TrifectaMike]

IMO...the negatives of "value wagering" are not discussed enough on this board.

If I weren't as experienced or as jaded as I am, and I just went by what I read on this board... then I would get the impression that there are many winning players out there who are in possession of accurate betting lines...which are capable of accurately assessing the supposed value presented on the tote board. And that all these winning players, who possess these accurate betting lines, have nothing at all to fear from this avalanche of late money that shows up during the last seconds of wagering.

I've never seen even one of the "value player" here explain how he handles this "late money" problem. How can this late money not wreck the long-term plans of all these non-whale "value players"? Do they think that the affect of this late money evens out in the long run?


It doesn't even out. The effect is NOT a nice normal distribution which has symmetry. It is a very complicated process, which requires several different oddslines.

Mike

[Dave Schwartz]

It doesn't even out. The effect is NOT a nice normal distribution which has symmetry. It is a very complicated process, which requires several different oddslines.

Oh, we have a new contestant, Johnny!

Please expand on THIS idea! I am all ears.

(Not something completely foreign to me, though.)

[cj]

I've never seen even one of the "value player" here explain how he handles this "late money" problem. How can this late money not wreck the long-term plans of all these non-whale "value players"? Do they think that the affect of this late money evens out in the long run?

Easy, avoid short prices. If you are betting horses 5 to 1 and up, it not only evens out, the odds swings tilt in your favor. You just have to be good at picking horses 5 to 1 and up!

[TrifectaMike]

Oh, we have a new contestant, Johnny!

Please expand on THIS idea! I am all ears.

(Not something completely foreign to me, though.)

Now, Dave calm yourself down. You don't believe I would give details. Just enough info to let Thask know that it is being done and what maybe required.

Mike

[ElKabong]

Easy, avoid short prices. If you are betting horses 5 to 1 and up, it not only evens out, the odds swings tilt in your favor. You just have to be good at picking horses 5 to 1 and up!

something we totally agree on here.

however just last weekend I bet 2 horses at 5-1 (1 mtp) or better, one went down to 5-2 from 5-1.....the other was 6-1, bet down to 3-1. Lost both the bets, to be honest seeing the odds drop made the losses easier, as strange as that sounds

But the 5-1 rule is one to live by (at least at the simo), imo

[Robert Goren]

something we totally agree on here.

however just last weekend I bet 2 horses at 5-1 (1 mtp) or better, one went down to 5-2 from 5-1.....the other was 6-1, bet down to 3-1. Lost both the bets, to be honest seeing the odds drop made the losses easier, as strange as that sounds

But the 5-1 rule is one to live by (at least at the simo), imoWhat track were you betting?

[TrifectaMike]

There are many misconceptions and misinformation on how a useable oddsline is created.

Here are the steps in general:

Step 1: Data analysis

Each predictor has to be carefully studied. The majority of predictors are hierachical and should be modeled as such. Models for the predictors need to be defined.

Step 2: Binary Regression ( winners and losers )

Determine the structure of the model...test, test, and more testing.
Confounding variables, random effects, overfitting problems, etc. Compare with other modelling procedures (for ex: compare Binary to Random Forest for confirmation of significance).... combine Binary with Random Forest, etc.

Step 3: Model the public

Determine apriori what you expect the public to do. test, test and more testing.

Step 4: Follow the odds or Maximize ROI

Optimize the model by odds smoothing or NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Penalize model for coincidence with tote-odds and optimize model with respect to the inverse of the public's confidence.

Step 5: Know the distribution about each predictors coefficient

The odds for each horse are not deterministic. They also have a distribution. ( Ex: Horse A 4/5 to 1-1 with a probability of .90)

Finally tweak, test and test some more and monitor the process carefully.

This is it in a general sense. There are many details along the way that need to be addressed.

Mike

[erikeepper]

Which you are not going to share?

English is not my native language so it's hard for me to explain everything in detail. I have also received PMs agreeing with me.

I honestly thought (oh btw, and I am not going to ask my money back, I will support Daves work) there wasnt really nothing new FOR ME. Maybe I am just lucky. I have been a very close friend with a guy who plays almost 10 million euros per year. He has taught me a lot of things and also subsconsiously I have learned a lot from wathing him. I was like "yes, that is true, tell me what I dont already know" during the whole course and then it ended....

I will give it 2nd go, maybe I misunderstood something. Like I said earlier, that was my first impression of the course.

I agree with Thask that the "point" and "ranking" system the most thought-provoking, although I do that already also.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

English is not my native language so it's hard for me to explain everything in detail. I have also received PMs agreeing with me.

I honestly thought (oh btw, and I am not going to ask my money back, I will support Daves work) there wasnt really nothing new FOR ME. Maybe I am just lucky. I have been a very close friend with a guy who plays almost 10 million euros per year. He has taught me a lot of things and also subsconsiously I have learned a lot from wathing him. I was like "yes, that is true, tell me what I dont already know" during the whole course and then it ended....

I will give it 2nd go, maybe I misunderstood something. Like I said earlier, that was my first impression of the course.

I agree with Thask that the "point" and "ranking" system the most thought-provoking, although I do that already also.

Erikeepper, thank you for providing more details on your thoughts about the product. While I can understand and relate to much of the content being in the "I already know that" category for individual bits and pieces, I found the context and the examples "putting it all together" quite fresh and new. I was able to draw the line from an abstract concept to a pragmatic application of my approach to the game, which isn't always easy. If you're thinking "tell me what I don't already know" for all the lessons, then indeed you are lucky and a far more advanced than average player. Sounds like you have an awesome mentor.

BTW - your English is excellent. :)

[Hoofless_Wonder]

There are many misconceptions and misinformation on how a useable oddsline is created.

Here are the steps in general:

Step 1: Data analysis

Each predictor has to be carefully studied. The majority of predictors are hierachical and should be modeled as such. Models for the predictors need to be defined.

Step 2: Binary Regression ( winners and losers )

Determine the structure of the model...test, test, and more testing.
Confounding variables, random effects, overfitting problems, etc. Compare with other modelling procedures (for ex: compare Binary to Random Forest for confirmation of significance).... combine Binary with Random Forest, etc.

Step 3: Model the public

Determine apriori what you expect the public to do. test, test and more testing.

Step 4: Follow the odds or Maximize ROI

Optimize the model by odds smoothing or NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Penalize model for coincidence with tote-odds and optimize model with respect to the inverse of the public's confidence.

Step 5: Know the distribution about each predictors coefficient

The odds for each horse are not deterministic. They also have a distribution. ( Ex: Horse A 4/5 to 1-1 with a probability of .90)

Finally tweak, test and test some more and monitor the process carefully.

This is it in a general sense. There are many details along the way that need to be addressed.

Mike

Impressive. Logical and concise.

Except I don't quite get part of step 4 - why penalize the model for coincidence with tote odds? Shouldn't the model always be compared to the results of the races? So of course there will be times when the public odds and "true" chances to win are very close.....

[Capper Al]

There are many misconceptions and misinformation on how a useable oddsline is created.

Here are the steps in general:

Step 1: Data analysis

Each predictor has to be carefully studied. The majority of predictors are hierachical and should be modeled as such. Models for the predictors need to be defined.

Step 2: Binary Regression ( winners and losers )

Determine the structure of the model...test, test, and more testing.
Confounding variables, random effects, overfitting problems, etc. Compare with other modelling procedures (for ex: compare Binary to Random Forest for confirmation of significance).... combine Binary with Random Forest, etc.

Step 3: Model the public

Determine apriori what you expect the public to do. test, test and more testing.

Step 4: Follow the odds or Maximize ROI

Optimize the model by odds smoothing or NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Penalize model for coincidence with tote-odds and optimize model with respect to the inverse of the public's confidence.

Step 5: Know the distribution about each predictors coefficient

The odds for each horse are not deterministic. They also have a distribution. ( Ex: Horse A 4/5 to 1-1 with a probability of .90)

Finally tweak, test and test some more and monitor the process carefully.

This is it in a general sense. There are many details along the way that need to be addressed.

Mike

Mike your math is good and has helped me out, but the game here is horse racing not complex stats. If it was complex stats then all the statisticians would be rich.

[Dave Schwartz]

Mike your math is good and has helped me out, but the game here is horse racing not complex stats. If it was complex stats then all the statisticians would be rich.

Using that logic, then all the handicappers would be rich.

[TrifectaMike]

Impressive. Logical and concise.

Except I don't quite get part of step 4 - why penalize the model for coincidence with tote odds? Shouldn't the model always be compared to the results of the races? So of course there will be times when the public odds and "true" chances to win are very close.....

Excellent question HW.

The model can take two paths. One is to use the tote-odds as additional information to strengthen the oddsline model (2-step regression as performed by the majority of modelers like Benter). This procedure has the effect of strengthening the oddsline in the direction of winners that have a strong public confidence.

Hmm, ok here it goes. Another is to use the inverse of the public's confidence. We are looking for betting opportunities that have a high confidence of winning that also pay high dividends with low public confidence.

For the mathematically inclined the departure results in a modified likelihood that also requires regularization in an effort to avoid over fitting and reduce the effect of colinearity.

The end result is different oddsline looking at the same race through different lenses.

Mike

[TrifectaMike]

Dave,

Apologies for hijacking the thread.

Mike

[Dave Schwartz]

LOL - Everybody keeps saying that. I just wish you'd discuss "multiple odds lines," although I can guess what that means.

[TrifectaMike]

LOL - Everybody keeps saying that. I just wish you'd discuss "multiple odds lines," although I can guess what that means.

Dave,

Why the interest? Who have you been talking to. You have a source?

Mike

[Dave Schwartz]

I have no source. I thought of it a while back myself.

In fact, I am doing more and more high-level stuff in my own handicapping.

That is, using (internally) 50 factors instead of 5. Why not do the same thing with line making? Or estimating what the odds will be?

[TrifectaMike]

I have no source. I thought of it a while back myself.

In fact, I am doing more and more high-level stuff in my own handicapping.

That is, using (internally) 50 factors instead of 5. Why not do the same thing with line making? Or estimating what the odds will be?

Dave,

Read up on the background of Random Forest as regression for continuous data. The clues are there.

Mike

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Capper Al, I don't see TM's method simply as "complex stats". There is a difference between:

a. analyzing 5000 races and calculating mean, variance, std. dev., etc
b. modeling/handicapping a race to calculate a horse's odds in winning

Whether or not you do 'b' in your head, on paper, with a PC, or using the high-speed computing environment at your local university - you're still trying to understand the race to a point to find "value" or an overlay. I think Mike's response does support Thask's view that only a view reach the rarified air of a decent odds line calculation, so if that was your point I'd agree.

Mike, your response implies that by the tote board we can determine a degree of confidence the public has in their selections. I always understood that the tote board reflected the most accurate "odds line" in existence, which I thought indicated the confidence factor was relatively constant. Interesting.

Oh, and I don't see this topic of odds line theory completely hijacking Dave's thread, as value is discussed extensively in lesson 4. And Dave was "all ears" when you added to the thread....

[Magister Ludi]

Mike your math is good and has helped me out, but the game here is horse racing not complex stats. If it was complex stats then all the statisticians would be rich.

You just can't see the random forest through the decision trees.

[nat1223]

Mike your math is good and has helped me out, but the game here is horse racing not complex stats. If it was complex stats then all the statisticians would be rich. can't agree more!

[thaskalos]

Now, Dave calm yourself down. You don't believe I would give details. Just enough info to let Thask know that it is being done and what maybe required.

Mike

Hi Mike...

I hope you know that I hold you in high regard...both, for the depth of your opinions...AND for the way you interact with the rest of us here. I don't converse with you much, nor do I participate much in your threads...but the fault for that is strictly mine. I simply lack the sophistication to follow along in mathematical threads.

Yes...I readily acknowledge that proper line-making is being done. That's not what I am debating. What I am saying is that proper line-making is a much more difficult endeavor than the "cut-and-dry" process that so many "value handicappers" here present it to be.

Even the above-average handicapper makes a big mistake when it comes to understanding this game. We call this game, a game of "incomplete information"...but we are wrong. POKER is a game of incomplete information. There are hidden aspects to poker which cannot be known by the player...but these hidden aspects remain unknown to ALL the players alike...thus placing no player at a great "information advantage" over his competition.

Horse racing, on the other hand, can be better described as a game of "WITHHELD information". There are hidden aspects of it, sure...but some of these hidden aspects are well known by some of the players...and this hidden knowledge places them at a great information advantage over the rest of us.

I've tried the conventional type of "value wagering" that is so often talked about on this board. I have created what I considered to be sophisticated betting lines, which I thought accurately reflected the abilities of the horses...and I tried to put them to use in finding this elusive "value" that I knew had to be listed on the board. But I was frustrated time and again.

I kept running into the uncomfortable realization that something more than the "cold dope" was being reflected in the prices of some of the horses listed on the tote board. Some of the horses were bet as if their past performances were forgeries. They would be listed at odds of 7-1...when anyone with even half a brain could readily see that they should have been no better than 5-2. These inflated prices were screaming "value" to me in one ear...but my paranoid nature was whispering words of caution to me in my other ear...and my paranoid nature was proven right time and again.

These "dead-on-the-board" horses RARELY won...even if all the handicapping information I had at my disposal indicated that they should have won a good percentage of the time. This "mystical" opinion sometimes reflected on the tote board proved to be more accurate -- in these cases -- than my own handicapping opinions...which had taken many years to be refined. I realized that I couldn't trust some of the best value situations that my carefully crafted betting line would uncover...so I theorized; if I couldn't bet my biggest overlays with confidence...then what good was a betting line at all?

Of course, the fact that I can't do something doesn't mean that other competent players will fail at it as well. More than a few players claim to be winning at the track by using their own betting lines...and I have no reason to disbelieve them.

Some of these high-betting whales are getting super-rich...and I am confident that line-making plays a big role in their operation.

But I also know that value assessment in this game is a lot more complicated than it's usually portrayed. It has to be. Otherwise...it wouldn't have confounded a skilled player like me all these years... :)

[Dave Schwartz]

Forgive me for responding, Thask. I am sure that Mike will have his own answer. However, I am not stuck for a response. ;-)

Yes...I readily acknowledge that proper line-making is being done. That's not what I am debating. What I am saying is that proper line-making is a much more difficult endeavor than the "cut-and-dry" process that so many "value handicappers" here present it to be.

:ThmbUp:

It is easy to make a line.

Make a GOOD line is another matter.

And betting into WHAT? - That is still another issue.

It has to be. Otherwise...it wouldn't have confounded a skilled player like me all these years...

And yet there must be VALUE in your game or else winning is impossible.

[AndyC]

I kept running into the uncomfortable realization that something more than the "cold dope" was being reflected in the prices of some of the horses listed on the tote board. Some of the horses were bet as if their past performances were forgeries. They would be listed at odds of 7-1...when anyone with even half a brain could readily see that they should have been no better than 5-2. These inflated prices were screaming "value" to me in one ear...but my paranoid nature was whispering words of caution to me in my other ear...and my paranoid nature was proven right time and again.

These "dead-on-the-board" horses RARELY won...even if all the handicapping information I had at my disposal indicated that they should have won a good percentage of the time. This "mystical" opinion sometimes reflected on the tote board proved to be more accurate -- in these cases -- than my own handicapping opinions...which had taken many years to be refined. I realized that I couldn't trust some of the best value situations that my carefully crafted betting line would uncover...so I theorized; if I couldn't bet my biggest overlays with confidence...then what good was a betting line at all?

Why not adjust your lines for information obtained after making your original lines? I would think that a player who watches horses in the paddock and warming up would have similar issues.

[thaskalos]

And yet there must be VALUE in your game or else winning is impossible.
In reference to my own play...it appears that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Value seems to be connected with the totality of my play...but I never know how it got there. Nor do I know how long it will remain...

[Dave Schwartz]

Why not adjust your lines for information obtained after making your original lines? I would think that a player who watches horses in the paddock and warming up would have similar issues.

Andy,

I think you have brought to light one of the biggest issues facing the horse player.

How do you adjust a line for anything?

If you make a horse 7/2 and he is washing in the paddock, what do you make him after that assessment? 9/2? 7/1?

And what if he looks great? Does he become 3/1? 5/2?

How does one quantify an opinion?

[AndyC]

Andy,

I think you have brought to light one of the biggest issues facing the horse player.

How do you adjust a line for anything?

If you make a horse 7/2 and he is washing in the paddock, what do you make him after that assessment? 9/2? 7/1?

And what if he looks great? Does he become 3/1? 5/2?

How does one quantify an opinion?

Many things are opinions. Do you use pacelines or speed figures?

But I go back to my statement regarding specialization. If I was good at physical inspection and I kept records of how horses looked and warmed up from one race to the next, I would have to believe that my experience would give me a comfort level in assessing or quantifying what I see. If I didn't have the expertise I would simply pass the race.

With regard to tote action, records of how horses ran (for which trainers and what circumstances) when dead on the board, would also give a comfort level when forming an opinion. Often times there is more value in knowing that a horse won't run well rather than hoping one will.

[Dave Schwartz]

Many things are opinions. Do you use pacelines or speed figures?

I do. They are part of an algorithm that makes probabilities.

But I go back to my statement regarding specialization. If I was good at physical inspection and I kept records of how horses looked and warmed up from one race to the next, I would have to believe that my experience would give me a comfort level in assessing or quantifying what I see. If I didn't have the expertise I would simply pass the race.

Your position is that the answer lies in having a database so that you know that a "bad warm up" is worth a deduction of 17% or something like that?

If so, you would be the only player I have ever met that keeps a database of his opinions.

Not saying it is a bad idea. In fact, it is a GREAT idea. I just doubt that anyone here actually does that.

Or, are you saying that you (personally) can adjust the line or probability based upon your wisdom and experience?


Please note that I am not being sarcastic. I am being serious. Is this really what you do?


Dave

[banacek]

Or, are you saying that you (personally) can adjust the line or probability based upon your wisdom and experience?


That's what I do. I handicap a race, visualize the race (in a couple of ways), look at all the information and set an odds line. If something happens, I change it based on my experience.

[TrifectaMike]

Andy,

I think you have brought to light one of the biggest issues facing the horse player.

How do you adjust a line for anything?

If you make a horse 7/2 and he is washing in the paddock, what do you make him after that assessment? 9/2? 7/1?

And what if he looks great? Does he become 3/1? 5/2?

How does one quantify an opinion?

Search for the thread that has Mike's update

Mike

[Jeff P]

...Your position is that the answer lies in having a database so that you know that a "bad warm up" is worth a deduction of 17% or something like that?

If so, you would be the only player I have ever met that keeps a database of his opinions.

Not saying it is a bad idea. In fact, it is a GREAT idea. I just doubt that anyone here actually does that.

Or, are you saying that you (personally) can adjust the line or probability based upon your wisdom and experience?


Please note that I am not being sarcastic. I am being serious. Is this really what you do?


Dave

Hi Dave,

My name is Jeff Platt.

Now you've officially met somebody who actually does both. :)

(Also thinking I can't be the only one.)


-jp

.

[AndyC]

I do. They are part of an algorithm that makes probabilities.

Selecting a paceline or pacelines is an opinion. Making speed figures is far from an exact science and often requires opinions. Pacelines and speed figures are derived in part by opinions. So I guess you factor in opinions in your lines.



Your position is that the answer lies in having a database so that you know that a "bad warm up" is worth a deduction of 17% or something like that?

I personally don't do any physical handicapping because I am not at the track. I do know some very successful players who study every horse in the paddock and watch the warmups. They have extensive databases. They know when certain horses wash out that they have no chance. They know when certain shoes or bits are used by trainers that chances will go up or down.

I suppose somebody could quantify physical handicapping with a deduction of some sort but I think that type of information lends itself to use another method. If you knew (or were reasonably sure) that one of the favorites of a race was not going to finish in the top 3 would you worry about adjusting your lines? You would be pretty much guaranteed of betting an overlay.

If so, you would be the only player I have ever met that keeps a database of his opinions.

Not saying it is a bad idea. In fact, it is a GREAT idea. I just doubt that anyone here actually does that.

You don't have pre-race notes about how you think the pace and tactics will unfold? I review my opinions everyday to see where I went right and where I went wrong. I handicap my handicapping. I don't know how many times I have heard people tell me that a certain horse is the lone speed and can't be beat or that there will be a certain speed duel only to have something quite different develop. Do I have a database of all my opinions? No. But I have a damn good idea as to what I am good at predicting and where I am only guessing.

Or, are you saying that you (personally) can adjust the line or probability based upon your wisdom and experience?

Please note that I am not being sarcastic. I am being serious. Is this really what you do?Dave

I think a good player needs to blend the art and the science of handicapping to get the best results. Making late adjustments is more an art than a science and yes I rely heavily on my wisdom and experience. Sometimes the best scores happen because of adjustments that you make late. What I do is specialize in certain types of races and certain types of bets. As such I find my opinions of value to be quite good.

[Dave Schwartz]

Jeff (and others),

You watch horses warm up and record the results?

I am amazed!

That is the answer I would expect from someone who used physicality successfully. I just never met anyone before who was able to look up in a database and say, "When I think a horse is _____ (fill in the blank) he performs ______ (fill in the blank with some kind of performance number)."

This is the kind of handicapping I can respect.

I knew a couple of guys who worked for Benter in H.K. in the early '90s. He said that they had "data observers" that added their own opinions but it was all done numerically. That is, there was a category and the D.O. put in an opinion that had been translated into a number.

Kudos to you all who make the effort to do such a thing. No wonder you are winners.


Dave

[Jeff P]

Jeff (and others),

You watch horses warm up and record the results?Yes. I watch horses warm up and record the results. No. Not all horses everywhere. (Just the ones I am thinking about betting on.) I've been doing it for so long that it's become part of my every day process.

I am amazed!There's really nothing to be amazed about. The important thing is to treat it (no matter what subjective thing you are scoring) like any other data point. Understand what you are looking at and make the effort to "score" it the same way every single time to the best of your ability.

What you end up creating is a new data point that's available to you. From there it becomes a matter of analyzing your data points in terms of usefulness and incorporating them into a model. (And yes, it's entirely possible to spend an inordinate amount of time "scoring" some subjective thing only to discover it has no usefulness whatsoever in your betting.)

That is the answer I would expect from someone who used physicality successfully. I just never met anyone before who was able to look up in a database and say, "When I think a horse is _____ (fill in the blank) he performs ______ (fill in the blank with some kind of performance number)."There was a lot of work involved. Here's a link to an old thread where I once posted about betting one race card per week on physicality alone: http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24655

At first my "scores" were hit and miss. But I stayed with it and ultimately got to the point where filling in the blanks from the above quote brings a smile to my face.

This is the kind of handicapping I can respect.

I knew a couple of guys who worked for Benter in H.K. in the early '90s. He said that they had "data observers" that added their own opinions but it was all done numerically. That is, there was a category and the D.O. put in an opinion that had been translated into a number.That's exactly what I do... watch a horse and write down individual scores for a handful of attributes of my own making. From there the individual attribute scores are easily translated into a single number which is then committed to a database as a phys score. (But again, even through it's a useful data point, it's just one data point among many.)



-jp

.

[Jeff P]

I think a good player needs to blend the art and the science of handicapping to get the best results. Making late adjustments is more an art than a science and yes I rely heavily on my wisdom and experience. Sometimes the best scores happen because of adjustments that you make late. What I do is specialize in certain types of races and certain types of bets. As such I find my opinions of value to be quite good.Very well stated... especially the bolded part.


-jp

.

[nat1223]

Yes. I watch horses warm up and record the results. No. Not all horses everywhere. (Just the ones I am thinking about betting on.) I've been doing it for so long that it's become part of my every day process.

There's really nothing to be amazed about. The important thing is to treat it (no matter what subjective thing you are scoring) like any other data point. Understand what you are looking at and make the effort to "score" it the same way every single time to the best of your ability.

What you end up creating is a new data point that's available to you. From there it becomes a matter of analyzing your data points in terms of usefulness and incorporating them into a model. (And yes, it's entirely possible to spend an inordinate amount of time "scoring" some subjective thing only to discover it has no usefulness whatsoever in your betting.)

There was a lot of work involved. Here's a link to an old thread where I once posted about betting one race card per week on physicality alone: http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24655

At first my "scores" were hit and miss. But I stayed with it and ultimately got to the point where filling in the blanks from the above quote brings a smile to my face.

That's exactly what I do... watch a horse and write down individual scores for a handful of attributes of my own making. From there the individual attribute scores are easily translated into a single number which is then committed to a database as a phys score. (But again, even through it's a useful data point, it's just one data point among many.)



-jp

. very good point made here and people on this board should take notice!

[traynor]

Jeff (and others),

You watch horses warm up and record the results?

I am amazed!

That is the answer I would expect from someone who used physicality successfully. I just never met anyone before who was able to look up in a database and say, "When I think a horse is _____ (fill in the blank) he performs ______ (fill in the blank with some kind of performance number)."

I knew a couple of guys who worked for Benter in H.K. in the early '90s. He said that they had "data observers" that added their own opinions but it was all done numerically. That is, there was a category and the D.O. put in an opinion that had been translated into a number.


This is the kind of handicapping I can respect.



Kudos to you all who make the effort to do such a thing. No wonder you are winners.


Dave

That isn't new, nor is it exclusive to Benter. Jim Selvidge was training observers in a numerical coding approach to inspection handicapping back in the 1980s. You may recall (or even been involved) when he was putting together a network of local observers at each track to feed the information into a central repository. A group of bettors from Argentina has been doing it routinely at the majors in the US for at least 20 years.

It also is not as difficult as it may seem. Compared to coding psychological profiles based on the semantics, grammar, and intonations in a human conversation, watching horses is pretty simple stuff.

[traynor]

Yes. I watch horses warm up and record the results. No. Not all horses everywhere. (Just the ones I am thinking about betting on.) I've been doing it for so long that it's become part of my every day process.

There's really nothing to be amazed about. The important thing is to treat it (no matter what subjective thing you are scoring) like any other data point. Understand what you are looking at and make the effort to "score" it the same way every single time to the best of your ability.

What you end up creating is a new data point that's available to you. From there it becomes a matter of analyzing your data points in terms of usefulness and incorporating them into a model. (And yes, it's entirely possible to spend an inordinate amount of time "scoring" some subjective thing only to discover it has no usefulness whatsoever in your betting.)

There was a lot of work involved. Here's a link to an old thread where I once posted about betting one race card per week on physicality alone: http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24655

At first my "scores" were hit and miss. But I stayed with it and ultimately got to the point where filling in the blanks from the above quote brings a smile to my face.

That's exactly what I do... watch a horse and write down individual scores for a handful of attributes of my own making. From there the individual attribute scores are easily translated into a single number which is then committed to a database as a phys score. (But again, even through it's a useful data point, it's just one data point among many.)



-jp

.

Many decisions (and tons of research) is based on a cumulative score of Likert values for specific categories. Each category can be evaluated on a scale--"with 1 as the best and 7 as the worst, how would you rate this horse's ... (whatever)?

Just as you describe, it is a process--not scalping through a database looking for mystical insights that no one else has. Like any other process, if one practices seriously, one gets better and better at it.

[Rwahi1]

You might find this interesting...I have followed Kerry Thomas past three Kentucky Derby's and read his book. He's been right so far!

About Kerry Thomas

"Kerry Thomas is a groundbreaking researcher of behavioral genetics in horses. He created emotional conformation profiling, which measure’s the mental and emotional capacities of the equine. Horse owners around the world use him to profile and unlock the minds of their horses both in training and pre-purchase evaluations. Thomas’ work in the field of equine behavioral genetics has pioneering applications in all the sport horse industries, including Thoroughbred racing and breeding"...

http://kentuckyconfidential.com/author/kthomas/
http://www.thomasherdingtechnique.com/

[Overlay]

I kept running into the uncomfortable realization that something more than the "cold dope" was being reflected in the prices of some of the horses listed on the tote board. Some of the horses were bet as if their past performances were forgeries. They would be listed at odds of 7-1...when anyone with even half a brain could readily see that they should have been no better than 5-2. These inflated prices were screaming "value" to me in one ear...but my paranoid nature was whispering words of caution to me in my other ear...and my paranoid nature was proven right time and again.
What I've found useful in situations like that has been compartmentalizing and quantifying my handicapping from a full-field probability standpoint, rather than basing odds on an overall subjective estimate or opinion, or focusing exclusively on narrowing a field down to one horse through a process of elimination. In cases such as you describe, this has helped me in accounting for horses that are either higher or lower in odds than they "should" be. Horses that appear "dead on the board" can occur as a result of the presence of other horses in the race that have been overbet because of one or more factors that I have recognized, and to which I have given proper weight, but that the public has misjudged, causing the odds of other well-placed horses to rise by default, and to offer even more value than they otherwise might have.

[traynor]

What I've found useful in situations like that has been compartmentalizing and quantifying my handicapping from a full-field probability standpoint, rather than basing odds on an overall subjective estimate or opinion, or focusing exclusively on narrowing a field down to one horse through a process of elimination. In cases such as you describe, this has helped me in accounting for horses that are either higher or lower in odds than they "should" be. Horses that appear "dead on the board" can occur as a result of the presence of other horses in the race that have been overbet because of one or more factors that I have recognized, and to which I have given proper weight, but that the public has misjudged, causing the odds of other well-placed horses to rise by default, and to offer even more value than they otherwise might have.

You may have defined a key problem (that) many otherwise astute race analysts encounter--evaluating entries in isolation, rather than within the context of a specific race, comprised of a specific set of entries, each with a specific set of attributes. That problem seems to have become more acute as the reliance on computer output has increased. (It is easier to code evaluations of one entry's attributes than it is to code evaluations of the attributes of that entry that take into consideration the presence, lack, and/or relative strength of each attribute and combination of attributes in each of the other entries.)

The same situation occurs when viewing past peformances to evaluate the entries. For example, some (or many) of the higher mutuels may be primarily the result of flukes (such as heavily bet favorites running into bad racing luck) rather than of a handicapping process (and hence are unlikely to be repeated).

Of course, the reverse is also true--there are cases in which the public is so blinded by the one best horse/one best number/one best whatever that profit can be found in considering other criteria.

[PaceAdvantage]

Me and 99% of the people that post here!! That's my point....it's nearly impossible to make an accurate odds line and even more impossible to incorporate the late odds changes of today.

Most of us are better off handicapping the most likely winner and betting when the odds are 2-1 instead of passing and watching the win because our acceptable odds were 5-2.The bottom line is, if you don't bet on value, you will lose. Plain and simple. Mathematically, it can't work any other way.

If all you bet is 5-1 shots, if they don't win more than 1 out of 6 times (in other words, offer VALUE), then you can't win. It's as simple as that.

So if you are a winning player, you are a VALUE PLAYER, whether you know it or not...

[Robert Goren]

The bottom line is, if you don't bet on value, you will lose. Plain and simple. Mathematically, it can't work any other way.

If all you bet is 5-1 shots, if they don't win more than 1 out of 6 times (in other words, offer VALUE), then you can't win. It's as simple as that.

So if you are a winning player, you are a VALUE PLAYER, whether you know it or not...That is true. The problem is the way many of the self-called Value Players figure value. If they are mincing whales they as many are, they haven't a chance.

[andicap]

Dave Schwartz wrote

My most profitable races are not the $70 winners because I usually have small wagers on them. It comes from the $11 winner that I loaded on, in a race that called for a large wager and he was (say) only 3/1, thereby gathering the largest wager.

You mean he was 3-1 on your "value" line, correct?

[Dave Schwartz]

You mean he was 3-1 on your "value" line, correct?

I do not use a "value line."

No, I was expecting him to be 3/1 on MY version of the morning line.

[erikeepper]

Sounds like you have an awesome mentor.



He sure is awesome. He has been a professional gambler for 40+ years and is still going strong :) It was a turning point in my betting career when I met him couple of years ago and we became friends. He has been to Hong Kong, US, UK, all over Europe, knows math-models, does a lot of research but is also very grounded and uses intuition and just good old common sense.

edit: and I am out hijacking this thread. The value-discussion is far more interesting... :ThmbUp:

[AndyC]

I do not use a "value line."

No, I was expecting him to be 3/1 on MY version of the morning line.

If your line doesn't represent fair value or some function of value what good is it?

[PICSIX]

The bottom line is, if you don't bet on value, you will lose. Plain and simple. Mathematically, it can't work any other way.

If all you bet is 5-1 shots, if they don't win more than 1 out of 6 times (in other words, offer VALUE), then you can't win. It's as simple as that.

So if you are a winning player, you are a VALUE PLAYER, whether you know it or not...

If you are a good handicapper...it makes the most sense to bet your contender(s) that offer the MOST "value". It is much easier for the majority of handicappers to find value in their contenders vs. setting an odds line for all horses in a race.

Yes, I understand that makes one a Value Player.

[Dave Schwartz]

If your line doesn't represent fair value or some function of value what good is it?

That is what I would have said a year ago.

Instead, I (like many others) assess value in a different way.

Suppose you used data to determine which factors historically produce the greatest return. Theoretically, you are measuring public error. Thus, the horse with the highest expected return (i.e. greatest public error in your favor) should be the most profitable horse in the field. Same applies for the 2nd best, 3rd best etc.

Thus, the "line" has no value to me except as an estimate of how the public USUALLY wagers a race like today.

I bet my units based upon THAT wagering and take back what I get.

All I can say is that it works (for me) far better than making a line, betting into it, and finding that the line moved (after the gate was open) such that I mis-bet the race.

The key phrase is it works for me.

[AndyC]

That is what I would have said a year ago.

Instead, I (like many others) assess value in a different way.

Suppose you used data to determine which factors historically produce the greatest return. Theoretically, you are measuring public error. Thus, the horse with the highest expected return (i.e. greatest public error in your favor) should be the most profitable horse in the field. Same applies for the 2nd best, 3rd best etc.

Thus, the "line" has no value to me except as an estimate of how the public USUALLY wagers a race like today.

I bet my units based upon THAT wagering and take back what I get.

All I can say is that it works (for me) far better than making a line, betting into it, and finding that the line moved (after the gate was open) such that I mis-bet the race.

The key phrase is it works for me.

So you measure public error by how far off it is from a line that may or may not have any correlation to actual probability?

So how does public error tie into actual handicapping or do you just play the odds?

So walk me through your thought process. Horse #1 is by your handicapping the most probable winner, he is listed at 2-1 on the morning line. What needs to happen for you to make a bet?

[AndyC]

So if you are a winning player, you are a VALUE PLAYER, whether you know it or not...

Or a very lucky one who thinks they are betting value.

[PICSIX]

Don't want to hijack Dave's thread, so, I've posted a single selection for each race at Saratoga here:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=106066

All players that see this, and make an odds line, please post your fair odds for each selection.

Thanks,

Mike

[Capper Al]

Using that logic, then all the handicappers would be rich.

Not so. Statistics is a closed process with a certain outcome over a long range application. The horse game is an open process with variables unknown. That's why no two races are the same while the number crunching is the same.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Or a very lucky one who thinks they are betting value.

I never bet anything less than 2-1.I bet about 40-50% of the races on a card.The favorite wins 15% of the races I play.Is that luck?

[DRIVEWAY]

I never bet anything less than 2-1.I bet about 40-50% of the races on a card.The favorite wins 15% of the races I play.Is that luck?

If you can select over time approximately 50% of the race on a racecard and have the favorite consistently loose 85% of the time, then you must be a very wealthy man.

Congratulations!

[Dave Schwartz]

So you measure public error by how far off it is from a line that may or may not have any correlation to actual probability?


I measure TYPICAL public error on a horse like this.

In other words, I might say that the #7 horse is PROBABLY the best bet in the race without having any idea what its odds will be.


It is not essential to my success that anyone agrees with this approach.

[AndyC]

I never bet anything less than 2-1.I bet about 40-50% of the races on a card.The favorite wins 15% of the races I play.Is that luck?

It matters little what I think. Results are all that matters.

If indeed the favorites were only winning at a rate of 15% on the races that you bet wouldn't it make sense to wager on the favorites in the races you aren't betting? At a hit rate of about 50% I would have to believe that would be a positive ROI.

[AndyC]

I measure TYPICAL public error on a horse like this.

In other words, I might say that the #7 horse is PROBABLY the best bet in the race without having any idea what its odds will be.


It is not essential to my success that anyone agrees with this approach.

If the underlined words was meant to be a link, I was unable to access it.

[Dave Schwartz]

Sorry. I meant to bold that instead of underline.

I go into a race with what I call my OOP. That means "order of preference." It is my rank for each of my contenders, taking into consideration hit rate and profitability.

Essentially, I feed my horses onto the ticket based upon that OOP order, stopping when I reach a given percent of return. Not as much as you would expect.

The bets are sized on each horse relative to the horses' line. Thus, if the #1 OOP horse happens to be (say) 4/5 on my line, I will single that horse.

If the #1 OOP horse was (say) 12/1 then I would be adding another horse. If, after that second horse was added, there was still room - that is, my net odds were high enough, I would add still a 3rd horse.

Once I have decided WHO I am going to bet and the ratio of the total bet on each one, I decide HOW MUCH to bet. This is a relatively simple formula that I have adopted that sizes the bets as close to perfect as I have ever seen.

IMHO, Kelly doesn't work. It can't work. Oh, it works in theory but not in reality.

Kelly is based upon 2 things: Profitability and odds. Thus, an advantage of 20% with odds of 2/1 calls for a 10% wager. We all get that. Great formula.

However, we NEVER really know the hit rate - it is only our perception.

And we NEVER really know the odds - because they change so much after we've made our bets.

I had to develop something better.

[nat1223]

Sorry. I meant to bold that instead of underline.

I go into a race with what I call my OOP. That means "order of preference." It is my rank for each of my contenders, taking into consideration hit rate and profitability.

Essentially, I feed my horses onto the ticket based upon that OOP order, stopping when I reach a given percent of return. Not as much as you would expect.

The bets are sized on each horse relative to the horses' line. Thus, if the #1 OOP horse happens to be (say) 4/5 on my line, I will single that horse.

If the #1 OOP horse was (say) 12/1 then I would be adding another horse. If, after that second horse was added, there was still room - that is, my net odds were high enough, I would add still a 3rd horse.

Once I have decided WHO I am going to bet and the ratio of the total bet on each one, I decide HOW MUCH to bet. This is a relatively simple formula that I have adopted that sizes the bets as close to perfect as I have ever seen.

IMHO, Kelly doesn't work. It can't work. Oh, it works in theory but not in reality.

Kelly is based upon 2 things: Profitability and odds. Thus, an advantage of 20% with odds of 2/1 calls for a 10% wager. We all get that. Great formula.

However, we NEVER really know the hit rate - it is only our perception.

And we NEVER really know the odds - because they change so much after we've made our bets.

I had to develop something better. better than HMI?

[Dave Schwartz]

HMI is the money management method for sizing the available bankroll in a given race.

What I am speaking of here is the amount of that bankroll that should actually be wagered in this race and how it is apportioned per horse.


IOW, I use both.

[Capper Al]

After reviewing your videos 'Change Your Game Forever' and 'The Basics of Winning', I can see why I have been winning for the last five years. One might wonder without your videos how many years of winning would it take to convince me that I'm winning? Well, I had to overcome a major disbelief in my results that made me feel only lucky. I know my speed and pace figures have an average hit rate, something someone just reading Modern Pace Handicapping for the first time could duplicate. Overcoming this disbelief was major.

I stick with value play (the one and only absolute truth), but I do have my own versions of your worksheet.

[Overlay]

Dave,

Could you clarify a point for me? Based on what you said at the outset of the thread about Change Your Game Forever not involving handicapping or money management, I take it that your comments in the thread (such as in posts #90, 161, and 171) about the mechanics of making an adjusted morning line are not addressed in Change Your Game Forever, but instead refer to features of the latest version of your software. Is that correct?

[Dave Schwartz]

Overlay,

Yes, our software does it at the click of a button.

But it is not a complicated process. All you do is add up the "booking percentages" of the Morning Line for each horse (i.e. 5/2=29, 4/1=25, etc).

It is a good idea to normalize it for the particular track's takeout, which is, again, not difficult. Just do the same thing using the final odds from a handful of charts from the track to determine what the "normal" pool totals to.

How to create an adjusted morning line is discussed in depth the Renegade Handicapper product. There is also a spreadsheet.

[Dave Schwartz]

Overlay,

This is really very easy to do. As such, I have created a simple Excel spreadsheet in the last few minutes to accomplish the task.

I added that worksheet to the Materials folder at the Change Your Game Forever download links.

Here are download links for people who did not invest in CYGF:

Download Excel 2010 version here (http://www.practicalhandicapping.com/desktop/package/Users/FreeStuff/Adjust%20ML.xlsx)

Download Excel 2003 version here (http://www.practicalhandicapping.com/desktop/package/Users/FreeStuff/Adjust%20ML.xls)

Note that the older version throws a cosmetic error for a scratched horse. If someone with older Excel wisdom wishes to fix that and email it to me I will be happy to put it up.


Instructions
1. Put each horse's morning line in the ML column. (Leave out scratched horses.)
2. Put the "normal" sum of the points at this track in the yellow area above "Norm Pct."

http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/AdjML-01.jpg

That's it.

Dave Schwartz

[CincyHorseplayer]

If you can select over time approximately 50% of the race on a racecard and have the favorite consistently loose 85% of the time, then you must be a very wealthy man.

Congratulations!

You missed a few key words here.I don't select 50% winners on a card I will bet about 40-50% of the races on a card.If there is a favorite I think is legitimate at less than 2-1 I skip the race.In the races left over the favorite wins at about 15%,with obvious fluctuations.That's been the case over my last 150 races.This year I'm struggling with win % at 24%(13.13 avg mutual).Last year it was 30%.In the last 11 years it's slightly higher than 28%.There was nothing technical in my decision.I just said to myself it's not worth betting less than 2-1.All the other realizations came much later.It's a nice foundation.I haven't reached dave's comfort level of betting 70% of the races though!

[CincyHorseplayer]

It matters little what I think. Results are all that matters.

If indeed the favorites were only winning at a rate of 15% on the races that you bet wouldn't it make sense to wager on the favorites in the races you aren't betting? At a hit rate of about 50% I would have to believe that would be a positive ROI.

Other than an include(maybe)on a pick 4 etc,I see zero value in even indulging the thought.Last year I bet one of these types roughly 1 time in every 100 bets.

[njcurveball]

I bought the product and went through the whole thing. I would say if you get one thing out of it, you got your $18 worth. I definitely got one thing out of it.

I have a few suggestions.

1.) If you want people to do something, just say it and then play about a minute of music. All the momentum is lost when you stop and do an exercise and then come back to be scolded to do the exercise 3 or 4 more times.

2.) Unfortunately if you are giving a generic selection criteria, spending extra time to explain your own point system only adds to the confusion. You can suggest proper metrics and ratios, but when you give specific numbers to point out a winner, horseplayers want to know how you got it.

3.) The contender "systems" are a good touch (if you do it that way). I would find it confusing to eliminate horses statistically one way, but then add them back another way. Again, since it was supposed to be generic, one contender selection system should apply.

4.) The lessons were very uneven and at the end of each it would have been a good example to tell the listeners how your procedure had changed with the coaching. My take on it was that you used the same procedure, but were just more disciplined and confident in your selections.

Thanks for all your efforts Dave. :ThmbUp:

[Krudler]

One big takeaway for me from the Dave's CYGF seminar was the Monty concept. Here's how I'm working it at the moment:

METHOD 1: Strength of Race Speed Rating
I start with the Strength of Field rating Dave talked about in his first Handicapping Live Seminar - find the mean of the top 3 or 4 (depending on the field size) 2nd Best Speed Figs in the field to determine a strength speed rating for the race. Then, I look to see which horses have run at or above that strength rating in their best race of the last 10 in the PPs. This usually narrows the field down to 4 or 5 horses.

METHOD 2: Class Rating
Using the "good" (Quirin's definition + up close at a higher class) races from the most recent form cycle, I find the mean of the BRIS Race Ratings for each horse. Then, I consider those horses that are within 1 or 1.5 points of the top horse, as the BRIS website info states that a gap of 1 point is significant when it comes to race ratings.

Horses that qualify on both speed and class become my contenders and those that qualify on just one method are the maybes that warrant closer consideration.

A simplistic system but it's quick and helps me separate the wheat from the chaff pretty quickly while giving me a good sense of what it will likely take to win today's race in terms of speed and class.

[Dave Schwartz]

Glad this is working for you.

Some of the concepts you mentioned are in videos from these links:

Monty Hall Problem (http://thehorsehandicappingauthority.com/show-3-horse-handicapping-live-with-dave-schwartz/)

Strength Ratings (http://thehorsehandicappingauthority.com/handicapping-live-00001-june-27-2013/)