Computer Handicapping hits Rainbow Pick 6

[pandy]

This guy does not look at the pps. Proof that you can use a computer to handicap and win.


https://www.twinspires.com/blog/2013/11/26/self-employed-statistical-analyst-hits-175k-pick-6?btag=a_1164b_3&aid=43737&source=pepperjam&publisherId=43737&clickId=749204168

[traynor]

I think the most successful bettors are (and are going to be) those who put in the time and effort to develop their own approaches, based on their own research and analysis, and using their own software applications or data analysis applications.

I think the least successful bettors are (and are going to be) those who rely on the work of others to guide their selection processes. The opportunities are out there for those willing to do the work needed to take advantage of them.

[Stillriledup]

Maybe one day Ticketmaker from DRF will be sophisticated enough that it lets you plug in specific percentages (instead of As, Bs and Cs).

Is there anyone out there that's selling something more sophisticated than Ticketmaker? Or, do i have to go on Craigslist and hire a computer genius to do this for me?

[raybo]

I think the most successful bettors are (and are going to be) those who put in the time and effort to develop their own approaches, based on their own research and analysis, and using their own software applications or data analysis applications.

I think the least successful bettors are (and are going to be) those who rely on the work of others to guide their selection processes. The opportunities are out there for those willing to do the work needed to take advantage of them.

Agree! Even my own approach and software ("black box" approach) is only as good as the work I put into it, the constant daily updating, the constant reanalysis of the record keeping, etc., etc..

Those players who take the time and expend the effort, in both the initial methodological theorem and the ongoing evolution of that methodology, will be successful over time. But, the moment you cease to adhere to what works for you is the moment at which your results start going south.


The basics:

1. Good, sound premise
2. Testing and fine tuning
3. Evolution
4. Continual re-testing and re-analysis of record keeping
5. More evolution
6. Self analysis of consistent, disciplined, unemotional adherence to the approach
7. Repeat 4 through 6 infinitely

[DeltaLover]

Maybe one day Ticketmaker from DRF will be sophisticated enough that it lets you plug in specific percentages (instead of As, Bs and Cs).

Is there anyone out there that's selling something more sophisticated than Ticketmaker? Or, do i have to go on Craigslist and hire a computer genius to do this for me?

This is an program I have written long time ago to structure tickets based in multiple conditions:

http://www.kasosoft.com/LeftRightPane.aspx?contentid=1006
http://www.kasosoft.com/LeftRightPane.aspx?contentid=1016
http://www.kasosoft.com/LeftRightPane.aspx?contentid=1014

It is deployed as a click once app that should run on any box having the .NET stuck installed

Let me know if you need more info about.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I think the most successful bettors are (and are going to be) those who put in the time and effort to develop their own approaches, based on their own research and analysis, and using their own software applications or data analysis applications.

I think the least successful bettors are (and are going to be) those who rely on the work of others to guide their selection processes. The opportunities are out there for those willing to do the work needed to take advantage of them.

This is definitely where my journey has taken me.I have the work ethic but definitely need to be more technologically proficient to make my time as efficient as possible.I think I have a solid foundation and look forward to what awaits up around the bend for me.

[pondman]

. But, the moment you cease to adhere to what works for you is the moment at which your results start

"The method I use is totally different than most anybody you'd run into does"

This is the key.

He is also only playing when the pool size reaches multi-day carryover levels. So he's passing on whole cards until his break even is met. He doesn't play every card, everyday. He passes.

29 different tickets; 6 different levels. That in itself is a mind blower.

[raybo]

"The method I use is totally different than most anybody you'd run into does"

This is the key.

He is also only playing when the pool size reaches multi-day carryover levels. So he's passing on whole cards until his break even is met. He doesn't play every card, everyday. He passes.

29 different tickets; 6 different levels. That in itself is a mind blower.

Passing because your method tells you to is but one resultant expression of discipline and consistency. Sticking with one's rules as defined by the method is understood and necessary, otherwise you don't have a viable method.

[dnlgfnk]

"My program uses a multiple-ticket approach. It might spit out say six horses in one race, but it doesn’t like all six horses equally, but if you use all six horses on every ticket then you’re using the sixth-ranked horse as much as your top choice, and I don’t like doing that”...

Averaging 3 or 4 singles with 2 or 3 races of 2 horses per ticket, he likely juxtaposes heavy favorites with a longshot or two, or almost a whole ticket of solid 2nd to 4th favorites with a longshot and heavy favorite sprinkled in. Sunday's odds rank winners were 2-4-3-2-3-8.

[JJMartin]

"My program uses a multiple-ticket approach. It might spit out say six horses in one race, but it doesn’t like all six horses equally, but if you use all six horses on every ticket then you’re using the sixth-ranked horse as much as your top choice, and I don’t like doing that”...

Averaging 3 or 4 singles with 2 or 3 races of 2 horses per ticket, he likely juxtaposes heavy favorites with a longshot or two, or almost a whole ticket of solid 2nd to 4th favorites with a longshot and heavy favorite sprinkled in. Sunday's odds rank winners were 2-4-3-2-3-8.

You mean post time odds which nobody would know what they would be except for the first leg, but the M/L was 1-2-1-2-2-8. So is it still as impressive?

[dnlgfnk]

Not saying impressive, but rather playing the percentages, of course. The morning line reflects, even more than the actual odds last Sunday, that if he's going to play the 8th ranked horse in one of the legs, his program likely directs him to single 1st or second ranked horses in 3 or 4 other legs--almost like saying the ranked winners should add up to something like 18, depending on preferences.

[JJMartin]

Not saying impressive, but rather playing the percentages, of course. The morning line reflects, even more than the actual odds last Sunday, that if he's going to play the 8th ranked horse in one of the legs, his program likely directs him to single 1st or second ranked horses in 3 or 4 other legs--almost like saying the ranked winners should add up to something like 18, depending on preferences.

Yes I see what you mean. If the guy doesn't use pp's I'm thinking he just lets the m/l do the handicapping and he probably ran some tests against a database to get some ideas. It makes sense to go after the biggest payout for the least amount of investment especially with carryovers, but there still has to be some logic to his system so it doesn't surprise me to see all the 1-2 ranked horses in the m/l he had. The tickets would cost a fortune with too many long odds in it.

[dnlgfnk]

I've been toying with this myself, on a smaller scale. However, the "Gambler's fallacy" argument, regarding any random pick-6 sequence, seems to always steer me back to looking at a single leg as having no relation to the others in terms of probability.

[dnlgfnk]

Yes I see what you mean. If the guy doesn't use pp's I'm thinking he just lets the m/l do the handicapping and he probably ran some tests against a database to get some ideas. It makes sense to go after the biggest payout for the least amount of investment especially with carryovers, but there still has to be some logic to his system so it doesn't surprise me to see all the 1-2 ranked horses in the m/l he had. The tickets would cost a fortune with too many long odds in it.

It doesn't take much testing to find the average ranked winner is "3". Looking at the Bris page,I'm not saying he doesn't handicap. The 1st or second ranked horses may be his own which, Sunday, were also the M/L's. But 29 tickets for only a fifth of what Steven Christ claims to invest at times, means he's doing a lot of mixing and matching, whereas Christ has A's and B's on almost every ticket.

[Robert Goren]

The guy hit a small lottery, let revisit him in a year and see how well he is doing. I knew a guy who hit a pick 6 for $140k and three years latter he was broke. I want to see him do it over several years before I declare him a genius at betting horses.

[raybo]

The guy hit a small lottery, let revisit him in a year and see how well he is doing. I knew a guy who hit a pick 6 for $140k and three years latter he was broke. I want to see him do it over several years before I declare him a genius at betting horses.

“My biggest one was for about $800,000 in 2004, and I’ve had a couple around $500,000, but I’ve lost count of all the six-figure scores.

He says he's a professional gambler, meaning no other income I assume. If he is not lying about the big hits he has had since 2004, I would say that he has already proven it "over several years". But, there are people like you who will never believe that anyone can call themselves successful in horse racing.

Just how long does someone have to remain profitable before you finally agree that they are a long term profitable player? Is it 5 years, 10 years, or a lifetime? Does he have to submit tax reports for every year from the time he became profitable until after he has died? What does it take? Do you consider yourself successful in racing? If so how long have you been successful? Can you pass your own litmus test for declaring yourself long term profitable?

According to you, and others here, nobody will ever be successful in horse racing, not even yourself. Or, do you hold yourself to a different standard than others, are you successful after 4 or 5 years but everyone else must be profitable for 20+?

The worst year I've had since starting serious betting 2004 was a net profit of $4600, and that was after I experienced an 80 consecutive bet losing streak. It is now 2013 (almost 2014) so must I go for another 9 or 10 years ( or 20 or 30 or 50 years) before I am allowed to declare myself long term profitable? I'm now 64 years old, will I ever live long enough for you to agree?

[Robert Goren]

He says he's a professional gambler, meaning no other income I assume. If he is not lying about the big hits he has had since 2004, I would say that he has already proven it "over several years". But, there are people like you who will never believe that anyone can call themselves successful in horse racing.

Just how long does someone have to remain profitable before you finally agree that they are a long term profitable player? Is it 5 years, 10 years, or a lifetime? Does he have to submit tax reports for every year from the time he became profitable until after he has died? What does it take? Do you consider yourself successful in racing? If so how long have you been successful? Can you pass your own litmus test for declaring yourself long term profitable?

According to you, and others here, nobody will ever be successful in horse racing, not even yourself. Or, do you hold yourself to a different standard than others, are you successful after 4 or 5 years but everyone else must be profitable for 20+?

The worst year I've had since starting serious betting 2004 was a net profit of $4600, and that was after I experienced an 80 consecutive bet losing streak. It is now 2013 (almost 2014) so must I go for another 9 or 10 years ( or 20 or 30 or 50 years) before I am allowed to declare myself long term profitable? I'm now 64 years old, will I ever live long enough for you to agree? I never said that. He could be very successful. All I was saying that I want to see it year in and year out in the case of people who bet pick 6s. There are people who hit a big score and never have another year.
I do think most pros win almost every year though. It would be tough to be a pro and not to unless you had outside income or were rich. I have known one pro and that was 40 years ago. He had his losing streaks and he talked to me about to me about them. (I think he was worried about my career path) I doubt if he ever had a losing year though. I had 8 kids to raise and no other income. I am not a pro bettor nor do I bet large amounts of money. I have had 2 losing years since I started betting in 1964. There were 3 or 4 years where I didn't bet in starting in 2001 because of my job and playing poker instead of betting horses. That does not make me a pro because I have never depended on that money. I am sure people can make a living betting the ponies, but it is not easy. And one huge score does not make you a pro. If you are living off your betting, you are a pro in my eyes. But my eyes are not worth much, it is your eyes that count. You know whether your a pro or not. You and the IRS. That is all that matters.
From what I seen of the way you operate, you probably make money, maybe quite a bit of it. It is little tough for me to guess how well you do because our approaches are so different, but you seem to have one thing I think you need to make money in any endeavor, attention to detail, even small ones.

[raybo]

I never said that. He could be very successful. All I was saying that I want to see it year in and year out in the case of people who bet pick 6s. There are people who hit a big score and never have another year.
I do think most pros win almost every year though. It would be tough to be a pro and not to unless you had outside income or were rich. I have known one pro and that was 40 years ago. He had his losing streaks and he talked to me about to me about them. (I think he was worried about my career path) I doubt if he ever had a losing year though. I had 8 kids to raise and no other income. I am not a pro bettor nor do I bet large amounts of money. I have had 2 losing years since I started betting in 1964. There were 3 or 4 years where I didn't bet in starting in 2001 because of my job and playing poker instead of betting horses. That does not make me a pro because I have never depended on that money. I am sure people can make a living betting the ponies, but it is not easy. And one huge score does not make you a pro. If you are living off your betting, you are a pro in my eyes. But my eyes are not worth much, it is your eyes that count. You know whether your a pro or not. You and the IRS. That is all that matters.
From what I seen of the way you operate, you probably make money, maybe quite a bit of it. It is little tough for me to guess how well you do because our approaches are so different, but you seem to have one thing I think you need to make money in any endeavor, attention to detail, even small ones.

Ok, so are you saying that because the guy stated that he had made all those 6 figure hits since 2004, and that he says he bets for a living (not in those words but that's the meaning I got from his statement about what he tells people who ask what he does for a living), that he is long term profitable? I think he is, without any further proof, simply by his statements in the interview. I personally would find it difficult, if not impossible, to lie about that in an interview that likely will be published and made public.

I also didn't say I am a "pro", a "pro" meaning to me that you play full time and have no other income. I said I was long term profitable since 2004. The analogy being that both a pro, and a long term profitable player, are both beating the game. One does not have to be a pro in order to be profitable in horse racing. Being a pro, to me, is only different in that one is relying on that income to survive, and some here think that the only way one can declare themselves "successful" in horse racing is to be a pro. Successful means just that successful, making more than you spend. Any other arguments for or against is just ego speaking, IMO. To me, anyone who makes more than they spend, in this game, is successful and among the very best players alive, maybe not the best but among the best. If that isn't enough then God help them because they will never accept anyone who is not a pro as being successful. Success is in the eye of the beholder, and that's all that matters. Do we score it by big dollars in the bank, or do we score it by a net long term profit? It's up to the individual to decide, for him/herself, but not up to the individual to define success for everyone else.