What will amaze you about a handicapper?

[NarrowRator]

What would you like to see done handicapping wise that will amaze you? Please post your comments below.

[sammy the sage]

Pick winners BEFORE the race and discuss WHY...before THE race :lol:

[NarrowRator]

What if they pick the winners but don't have the time to discuss it due to the amount of work and tracks to do?

[Maximillion]

What would you like to see done handicapping wise that will amaze you? Please post your comments below.

For myself,Im most interested in those who play day-in and out and are profitable or make their living from this game.
I am not one of those.Im an active player now and have bet on over 3700 races this year,and while I can keep my bankroll....I have a difficult time significantly growing it.So hearing from others (like some on this site) who I believe are able to do it are what "amazes" me.I enjoy the game and for the most part am not bored by it.......but if I didnt think I had a chance to win long-term I would probably give it up.

[Robert Goren]

Pick winners BEFORE the race and discuss WHY...before THE race :lol:I may try that one day. The major problem I have is that I am a slow and lousy typist. Maybe after the first of the year I might give it a shot for a day on the AQU inner.

[Robert Goren]

What would you like to see done handicapping wise that will amaze you? Please post your comments below.Turf performance ratings that are even half way accurate.

[PhantomOnTour]

A handicapper who picks at least three races a day for an entire meet (at one track) and shows a $2 win bet profit.
Okay, maybe I wouldn't be "amazed", but I damn sure would be impressed.

[lamboguy]

99 9/10% of everyone loses at this game. even if you are good at it, its a lot tougher than it ever was and there are no signs that it is getting any easier.

the way i am set up, i have lost every year for the last 10. through the years things have changed. there were days when they booked horses in Nevada and the money never went back to the track. there was no rebates back then either, yet the game was beatable. there were also house quinella's that were easy as pie.

today even with the big rebates its tougher to win. pari-mutuel is a zero sum gain, the more you bet, the less chance you have.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I'll just share how my life was as a fantasy.

Before the internet waaay back in the 1990's I was a library rat.Sure I could go out and party on a Friday night but the best thing was hanging out in the stacks on Saturday.Istill love that idea and do it.

It's not a fantasy.This is how I live.You love me or **** off!

[HUSKER55]

I wonder how many people, upon reflection, wish they had been library rats instead of party animals.

I have nothing against partying but being a smarter dog is better.

Damn it!
I wish I would have learned that when I was...oh I don't know....18? :D

[MJC922]

Turf performance ratings that are even half way accurate.

Which ones are you using these days?

[Robert Goren]

Which ones are you using these days?None because everything I have tried, I did not like or find useful. I open to suggestions if they don't cost too much. I would like something like a speed rating on a dirt track. I took a look at Quirin's last quarter method and did not find it useful.

[therussmeister]

pari-mutuel is a zero sum gain, the more you bet, the less chance you have.
Don't we wish it was. A zero sum game would mean no takeout and no breakage. Parimutuel is considerably worse than zero sum.

[antigeekess]

For myself,Im most interested in those who play day-in and out and are profitable or make their living from this game.
I am not one of those.Im an active player now and have bet on over 3700 races this year,and while I can keep my bankroll....I have a difficult time significantly growing it.So hearing from others (like some on this site) who I believe are able to do it are what "amazes" me.I enjoy the game and for the most part am not bored by it.......but if I didnt think I had a chance to win long-term I would probably give it up.

Ditto that, Max. And I think the answer is really just MATH, which has always been a weak area for me. I've read Crist's "Exotic Betting" to try to get a better idea about structuring wagers, but I not only need to get better at that, I 'also' need to be able to calculate payoffs in my head to be able to tell what's going to be profitable. I think I'm an 'okay' novice handicapper, and often successfully land on horses that the aforementioned "pros" don't seem to see coming, but I don't capitalize on my little bit of ability very well.

I need an easy-to-understand, step-by-step, 1-2-3 comprehensive MATH course (preferably on video rather than written form) that doesn't leave anything out, that focuses on both intrarace and multirace exotics, and that's taught by someone who's profitable year in and year out.

That type of quick mathematical acumen that leads to profitability, combined with the teaching ability to convey those betting techniques to an ADHD knucklehead like me who's borderline retarded in that area -- THAT would amaze me.

[MJC922]

None because everything I have tried, I did not like or find useful. I open to suggestions if they don't cost too much. I would like something like a speed rating on a dirt track. I took a look at Quirin's last quarter method and did not find it useful.

Wouldn't promote my stuff over any other but do have complete faith in it and use it daily. Budgets are a personal thing though and hard to say if something is worth paying x amount for.

[antigeekess]

99 9/10% of everyone loses at this game. even if you are good at it, its a lot tougher than it ever was and there are no signs that it is getting any easier.

today even with the big rebates its tougher to win. pari-mutuel is a zero sum gain, the more you bet, the less chance you have.

See, with all the data available online now, I would think it would have to be 'easier' than ever before.

I keep hearing about these rebates, though. Would like to find out more.

[Overlay]

I've always been especially impressed by any handicapper who can consistently make reliable judgments based on subjective/qualitative criteria such as visual inspection, intuition, or personal memory/experience, not just as to which horse is most likely to win a given race, but of what any particular horse's chance of winning a race is, and whether a horse or combination is worth a bet at its posted odds or probable payoff.

[Longshot6977]

What would you like to see done handicapping wise that will amaze you? Please post your comments below.

Someone who can win a pick 4, 5 or 6 with just singles.
Someone who can predict accurate final odds on a horse.
Anyone who can start with $10 on any given day and run it up to $1000 or more the same day.
Someone who can pick the winner in every race for a 10 race card.
Someone who can handicap a race full of first time starters and hit the superfecta with a single ticket.(one horse in each position)

There are many more, but any of the above would amaze me. I remember about 35 years ago when I first got my nifty new Mattel Electronics Horse Race Analyzer (still have this antique item in its box) that it picked the winner on top in 9 races in a row at the Meadowlands. I amazed myself, and was amazed on how well it did.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I'm amazed I posted on this thread after a 12 pack and half a fifth of Jameson.Total knuckledhead post earlier.Sorry boys.

[thaskalos]

Poker legends Phil Galfond and Tom Dwan started with a very modest bankroll playing at the lowest limits...and eventually elevated themselves to the highest levels that online poker had to offer.

I would like to see a horseplayer do the same thing in our game.

[antigeekess]

Poker legends Phil Galfond and Tom Dwan started with a very modest bankroll playing at the lowest limits...and eventually elevated themselves to the highest levels that online poker had to offer.

I would like to see a horseplayer do the same thing in our game.

I'd like to see that horseplayer, too. Preferably in the mirror. ;)

[Maximillion]

Didnt one poster awhile ago claim he was going to try to run $200 into a half a million in 3 years?

[JohnGalt1]

Turf performance ratings that are even half way accurate.

Michael Pizzola advises to use all turf races in the pp's in handicapping turf races.

As for accurate ratings, I use Cynthia's pars and use $10K as a baseline. To confirm my ratings I use the DRF speed rating--but not the variant--as a confirmation. Turf variants are unreliable as some tracks card only one turf race a day, or one at that distance.

Today's Miesque at Hollywood race 4. I've printed the Hambleton pace figs using the 10k pars for track to track and the DRF speed figure. Past races are form HP Dmr & SA.

E
6) Full Ransom 84 98/182 81

EP
2)Sushi Empire 82 90/172 77

5)Nesso 91 96/187 86
183 84 I use second best race to confirm best race is not abnormal.

P
1)Savings Account 83 89/172 77

S
3)Clenor 89 99/188 87
185 87

4)Love the Desert (sprint)


I don't use sprint races for route races and the DRF speed rating is useless in routes.

This is a 2 year old race with not as much to look at as a race with proven turf ability. But I wanted to post a race before it is run.

Before betting this race I will also determine class, form, jockey/trainer and other factors. Especially the odds.

Clenor is 9-5, and Nesso is 7-2 ML.

So if you don't want to purchase a par book for about $100, at least for turf, the DRF speed fig works well, as long as you don't use the variant. And since the Bris and Beyer speed figures incorporate the variants I don's use or even print them on my PP's.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm amazed I posted on this thread after a 12 pack and half a fifth of Jameson.Total knuckledhead post earlier.Sorry boys.This excuse isn't going to cut it anymore... :lol:

[CincyHorseplayer]

This excuse isn't going to cut it anymore... :lol:

I usually save it for the big race days and holidays though!!HAHA!! :p

[traynor]

Poker legends Phil Galfond and Tom Dwan started with a very modest bankroll playing at the lowest limits...and eventually elevated themselves to the highest levels that online poker had to offer.

I would like to see a horseplayer do the same thing in our game.

That is unlikely. Not because it doesn't happen, or couldn't happen, but because the emphasis changes dramatically during the journey. That was especially noticeable in the Sartin groups way back. Everyone was buddy/chummy until they started making a decent profit, then transformed into a me-me-me perspective. The more they made, the greater the tendency to "become invisible"--as in, "How ya doin'?" "Not so good. Maybe about even. Up a little, down a little. This is a tough game to beat. So ... who do you like in the seventh?"

I think the lack of people bragging about their wagering prowess or earnings shows signs of good sense in those people, more than anything else. As Katherine Jung (the young lady who is currently developing data mining apps for the Sha Tin/Happy Valley circuit) observed, "I don't need the accolades or recognition of others. I already have the money."

[traynor]

I think I would be really amazed at a successful handicapper who seemed to need validation of his or her skills in the form of "recognition" of those skills by others. That need seems to expose an underlying desire for acceptance and pats on the head derived from a lack of real self-confidence. And a lack of self-efficacy and the internal locus of control that seems (to me) to be the hallmark of successful, long-term bettors.

[antigeekess]

I think I would be really amazed at a successful handicapper who seemed to need validation of his or her skills in the form of "recognition" of those skills by others. That need seems to expose an underlying desire for acceptance and pats on the head derived from a lack of real self-confidence. And a lack of self-efficacy and the internal locus of control that seems (to me) to be the hallmark of successful, long-term bettors.

I think you're exactly right. I'll bet my neighbor does, too. He's a member of "Everything Anonymous" as he says, including Gamblers Anonymous, but he's dropped hints that he "used to" be successful at the horses.

Funny thing is, if I click the wireless icon in the right lower portion of this screen, the closest one it shows next to mine is called "Big Whale."

[VastinMT]

I think I would be really amazed at a successful handicapper who seemed to need validation of his or her skills in the form of "recognition" of those skills by others. That need seems to expose an underlying desire for acceptance and pats on the head derived from a lack of real self-confidence. And a lack of self-efficacy and the internal locus of control that seems (to me) to be the hallmark of successful, long-term bettors.

This quote makes me wonder what Traynor thinks an Internet forum about handicapping is REALLY about.

(Hope this isn't a hijack -- always found his thoughts stimulating.)

[thaskalos]

I think I would be really amazed at a successful handicapper who seemed to need validation of his or her skills in the form of "recognition" of those skills by others. That need seems to expose an underlying desire for acceptance and pats on the head derived from a lack of real self-confidence. And a lack of self-efficacy and the internal locus of control that seems (to me) to be the hallmark of successful, long-term bettors.

Great poker players don't sit in the bigger games because they want to impress the bystanders; they gravitate to the bigger games because that's where they can best utilize their skills.

I suspect the same can be said about the great horseplayers.

IMO...a great horseplayer would be wasting his talents if he were limiting himself to betting, say...$20 a race. It would be the equivalent of a man with a PhD in economics choosing to work at a minimum-wage job. It would make no sense at all.

Yes...horseplaying is much more "secretive" than poker playing is...because the horseplayer does not make his wagers in publc view. So, it would be highly unlikely that we would ever get to know how much a great horseplayer is really betting. But it would still be nice to see a professional horseplayer living in a million dollar+ home...and driving a $250,000 car -- like, say, Patrik Antonius does. I think it would be great advertising for all the horseplaying newcomers that our game is trying so desperately to attract.

Anyway...that's what I would find amazing about a handicapper.

Is there anything that would amaze YOU about a handicapper, Traynor?

[traynor]

Great poker players don't sit in the bigger games because they want to impress the bystanders; they gravitate to the bigger games because that's where they can best utilize their skills.

I suspect the same can be said about the great horseplayers.

IMO...a great horseplayer would be wasting his talents if he were limiting himself to betting, say...$20 a race. It would be the equivalent of a man with a PhD in economics choosing to work at a minimum-wage job. It would make no sense at all.

Yes...horseplaying is much more "secretive" than poker playing is...because the horseplayer does not make his wagers in publc view. So, it would be highly unlikely that we would ever get to know how much a great horseplayer is really betting. But it would still be nice to see a professional horseplayer living in a million dollar+ home...and driving a $250,000 car -- like, say, Patrik Antonius does. I think it would be great advertising for all the horseplaying newcomers that our game is trying so desperately to attract.

Anyway...that's what I would find amazing about a handicapper.

Is there anything that would amaze YOU about a handicapper, Traynor?

Not much. I think it is going to take a lot more than a car and a house to impress anyone who has spent any time at Sha Tin and seen how the betting professionals there live. Or Macau.

[thaskalos]

Not much. I think it is going to take a lot more than a car and a house to impress anyone who has spent any time at Sha Tin and seen how the betting professionals there live. Or Macau.
Sorry...

I don't get around much...so I am easily impressed.

[traynor]

Sorry...

I don't get around much...so I am easily impressed.

I gathered that from your comment about the person who didn't seem to be doing too well because he was betting on harness races in Paris.

I don't mean to demean the house and car routine, but bean counters, mid-level managers, fairly competent entrepreneurs, and marginally competent software developers can manage that type of acquisition. There is WAY more to life than that.

[thaskalos]

I gathered that from your comment about the person who didn't seem to be doing too well because he was betting on harness races in Paris.


You still remember that?

Well...I guess I can at least take solace in the fact that my comments are not easily forgotten...

[ubercapper]

A handicapper who picks at least three races a day for an entire meet (at one track) and shows a $2 win bet profit.
Okay, maybe I wouldn't be "amazed", but I damn sure would be impressed.

Does it matter if it's a short meet like Keeneland with only 145-165 races?

[DeltaLover]

What would amaze me about a handicapper? Not much, I have to admit. I believe that handicapping horse races is not very complicated and many of us, posses the ability to accurately analyze the chances of each starter. The crowd is also doing a remarkably good job when it comes to ranking win candidates while there exist completely automated routines that can successfully do so.

I can think of the following two components of a horse bettor that might amaze me about him:

- Deep understanding of the theoretical elements of the game, specifically meta-handicapping and technical analysis methodologies. The ability to conceive, understand and implement abstract concepts and systems to handicap any handicapping approach is something that I have never seen on print while I still consider one of the most important aspects of the game.

- Top level betting execution skills, showing the ability to score very highly while operating with small starting bankrolls. It seems to be that there is an abundance of over conservative players who feel ecstatic when reporting a 1.20 ROI over the last meeting despite the fact that their total winnings can barely buy them and their friends a diner to a high class restaurant in fifth avenue! Possessing such an aggressive mind set, to allow you to quickly go from rugs to riches, is an extremely important aspect of the bettor and one that I admire the most.

[raybo]

Does it matter if it's a short meet like Keeneland with only 145-165 races?

How about DeD, OP, EvD, FG, Bel, Sar, Bel Fall, among others? Not all short meets, and when you string them together, all having a $2 flat bet profit and more than 3 bets per card, on average, it's definitely not short.

[pondman]

I need to see a person make at least 10k on a single win ticket. Up until that point, they are an amateur.

[Robert Fischer]

I get amazed when someone teaches me something useful in handicapping or wagering.

Also when I think I have a unique insight, and then I see someone else touting the same insight.

maybe those are more about respect than 'amazement'.

[raybo]

I am impressed with anyone who makes a net profit, regardless of the degree, in this game. People who bet larger amounts just have larger cajones, and that doesn't impress me.

[Greyfox]

I get amazed when someone teaches me something useful in handicapping or wagering. .

:ThmbUp: Ditto. Bears repeating.

[limit2]

A very good question. As for me once in a while an advertisement appears on my computer that claims riches are available if you follow the rhetoric displayed. What I usually see is bold underlined black and red ink. A soliloquy repeated over and over without a shred of evidence of vital information. No workout. No statistics. No graphs. No daily logs. I would ask that the chap that issued this claim have a one-to-one with me, near a fireplace as I would supply the scotch.

[antigeekess]

I am impressed with anyone who makes a net profit, regardless of the degree, in this game. People who bet larger amounts just have larger cajones, and that doesn't impress me.

Me too. Just staying in the black is tough enough. After doing it my first year, I made the mistake of thinking it must be pretty easy. :D

As for people who bet larger amounts, I'm not sure it has much to do with cajones. I think usually it has to do with the fact that they can afford to lose the money, and this is for one of two reasons -- either it won't cause them any pain because they already have enough not to miss it, OR they have other people in their lives to rescue them if the screw up so bad they need rescuing. It seems every time I come across somebody who I think might actually be "self-made" in 'any' business, it turns out they're a trust fund baby, it's Daddy's money, or it's money that's dirty in one way or another.

I guess I am 'most' impressed with somebody who becomes a big winner in this game completely under their own steam and using their own smarts, who doesn't come from a family in the business, who learns this game from scratch, and who doesn't have a backup plan or a startup plan that involves somebody else's $$$ in either the beginning or the unfortunate bitter end.

[traynor]

A very good question. As for me once in a while an advertisement appears on my computer that claims riches are available if you follow the rhetoric displayed. What I usually see is bold underlined black and red ink. A soliloquy repeated over and over without a shred of evidence of vital information. No workout. No statistics. No graphs. No daily logs. I would ask that the chap that issued this claim have a one-to-one with me, near a fireplace as I would supply the scotch.

A good, solid point-of-reference in such cases is to ask, "If it is so good, why do they need my money? Why can't they just use it and make all the money they need (or want)?"

That goes double for the offers that include workouts, statistics, graphs, and endless "endorsements."

[traynor]

Me too. Just staying in the black is tough enough. After doing it my first year, I made the mistake of thinking it must be pretty easy. :D

As for people who bet larger amounts, I'm not sure it has much to do with cajones. I think usually it has to do with the fact that they can afford to lose the money, and this is for one of two reasons -- either it won't cause them any pain because they already have enough not to miss it, OR they have other people in their lives to rescue them if the screw up so bad they need rescuing. It seems every time I come across somebody who I think might actually be "self-made" in 'any' business, it turns out they're a trust fund baby, it's Daddy's money, or it's money that's dirty in one way or another.

I guess I am 'most' impressed with somebody who becomes a big winner in this game completely under their own steam and using their own smarts, who doesn't come from a family in the business, who learns this game from scratch, and who doesn't have a backup plan or a startup plan that involves somebody else's $$$ in either the beginning or the unfortunate bitter end.

That is why professional bettors tend to regard such as being in the same category as recreational or hobby bettors--rather than serious professionals. The size of the bet--like the size of the bankroll--is not the criteria. Nor is the criteria whether or not one is "profitable" (however creatively that term is interpreted as a face-saving device).

The criteria is whether or not they can thrive (not just survive, break even, or win once in awhile) when wagering is their only (and much preferred) source of income.

[traynor]

In all the claims, counter-claims, and demands-for-proof (as well as some of the more creative offerings in the "proof" department) one should be continually aware of the fragile, delicate egos of most of those who wager, and the extent to which that fragile and delicate condition compels them to avoid cognitive dissonance.

It is way easier to declare something "incredibly tough to beat" or "impossible to beat" or "impossible" in general than it is to say, "it is incredibly tough to beat for me" or "impossible to beat for me" or "impossible for me." One's failures and shortcomings can then be "explained" as the result of external forces.

Few care to admit (even to themselves) that the real reason it is a "tough game to beat" is that they are betting on the wrong horses.

[raybo]

That is why professional bettors tend to regard such as being in the same category as recreational or hobby bettors--rather than serious professionals. The size of the bet--like the size of the bankroll--is not the criteria. Nor is the criteria whether or not one is "profitable" (however creatively that term is interpreted as a face-saving device).

The criteria is whether or not they can thrive (not just survive, break even, or win once in awhile) when wagering is their only (and much preferred) source of income.

You seem to constantly state the same things and state something similar to "the criteria is". The fact is that "your" criteria is, whatever. Some of us have no desire to be "professionals" in racing. But, to assign the terms "recreational or hobby bettors" is rather obtuse, wouldn't you say? If I had 2 professions, one of them being horse race wagering, and both are contributing to overall income, why would one be recreational or a hobby, and the other a profession? For example, a professional baseball player that also owns several profitable businesses would be considered a professional in only one of those activities, according to your line of thought.

I was a custom home building supplier professional most of my adult life, and contributed to my retirement all those years. Now I am retired from that business, so I am no longer a professional in that industry. Does that mean that all those years of toil and sweat didn't count towards your "criteria"? Does the fact that I supplement my retirement, to the tune of $40k-$60k per year from wagering also not count regarding your "criteria"?

You claim to have "paying clients" who you perform technical expertise for, that use it in their professions, racing or business. Who is the professional in that scenario, you or the clients? Both I presume. You also claim that you wager on horses, but you already receive income from your paying clients, so are you also a professional wagerer? I would say yes, but according to your statements and your criteria, the wagering portion is just recreational or a hobby.

You are not alone in this thinking, I can think of 4 or 5 others here who have made statements similar to yours, and constantly demean and insult anyone not using wagering as their sole source of income as being amateurs, recreational players, and hobbyists.

What's wrong with this picture? Are those of us who make steady consistent profit from racing, but not doing it as a sole source of income somehow less professional, or less successful than someone who does it as their only source of income? The accepted percentage of long term profitable players is 2% or less of the total population of players. Does it really matter where in that 2% or less we fall? Are we "2%'ers" not all successful in racing? Or, are only the top .05% of profitable players successful? Degrees of success does not wholly define success, does it? Really?

[thaskalos]

Here is how I see it:

Everyone has every right to be skeptical whenever personal claims of success are made on a message board. Every person -- regardless of who it is -- practically invites skepticism whenever he comes on here and talks about the level of success that he has achieved in this game. I have done it in the past too, and I have regretted it...and I wish I could take it all back.

All the personal claims of success that we make are impossible to prove or verify...so, IMO, they don't belong in the handicapping conversations that we engage in here.

There is a lot of deception in all the facets this game. Jockeys lie to trainers, trainers lie to owners, handicapping authors deceive their readers, software developers deceive their clients...and horseplayers lie to everyone -- even to themselves.

With this much deception circulating about...how can we expect people to believe the claims that WE make about ourselves? How can we blame people for being skeptical of the image of ourselves that we try to project here? What proof have any of us ever offered here to verify that we really are who we claim to be?

Here is my opinion...for what it's worth. Let's leave our personal tales of achievement out of our conversations from now on -- and let's get back to only sharing our handicapping experiences and opinions...as we once did on this site. This will create more lively conversations...it will generate more interest among the audience here...and it will put an end to this "mine is bigger than yours" syndrome, which inevitably permeates whenever tales of unsubstantiated achievement are being thrown about.

Sharing our experiences and our opinions about the game may help some of the other people out there, while talking about who we are is totally aimless...in my opinion at least.

As I said at the beginning...this is not aimed at anyone in particular -- as I've talked plenty about myself here as well. Let's put all this egotistic stuff behind us...and start talking about handicapping and betting again.

Isn't that what attracted us to this site to begin with?

[pondman]

Does the fact that I supplement my retirement, to the tune of $40k-$60k per year from wagering also not count regarding your "criteria"?

I hope you aren't running $4,000,000 through the window to do it. Because you could do the same thing with about 40 bets a year at $300.

[DeltaLover]

Half knowledge is worse than ignorance

[raybo]

Here is how I see it:

Everyone has every right to be skeptical whenever personal claims of success are made on a message board. Every person -- regardless of who it is -- practically invites skepticism whenever he comes on here and talks about the level of success that he has achieved in this game. I have done it in the past too, and I have regretted it...and I wish I could take it all back.

All the personal claims of success that we make are impossible to prove or verify...so, IMO, they don't belong in the handicapping conversations that we engage in here.

There is a lot of deception in all the facets this game. Jockeys lie to trainers, trainers lie to owners, handicapping authors deceive their readers, software developers deceive their clients...and horseplayers lie to everyone -- even to themselves.

With this much deception circulating about...how can we expect people to believe the claims that WE make about ourselves? How can we blame people for being skeptical of the image of ourselves that we try to project here? What proof have any of us ever offered here to verify that we really are who we claim to be?

Here is my opinion...for what it's worth. Let's leave our personal tales of achievement out of our conversations from now on -- and let's get back to only sharing our handicapping experiences and opinions...as we once did on this site. This will create more lively conversations...it will generate more interest among the audience here...and it will put an end to this "mine is bigger than yours" syndrome, which inevitably permeates whenever tales of unsubstantiated achievement are being thrown about.

Sharing our experiences and our opinions about the game may help some of the other people out there, while talking about who we are is totally aimless...in my opinion at least.

As I said at the beginning...this is not aimed at anyone in particular -- as I've talked plenty about myself here as well. Let's put all this egotistic stuff behind us...and start talking about handicapping and betting again.

Isn't that what attracted us to this site to begin with?

Ok, so no more talk about what method is best, and what methods cannot be profitable because they don't conform to some scientific proof of viability. No more talk about which of us is a professional and which of us are only amateurs, recreational players and/or hobbyists. No more talk about large samples versus small samples. No more talk about statistics or projections, viability of method or lack thereof, no more talk about higher mathematics and probability/statistical mumbo jumbo gained through formal education. No more talk about the measure of how successful a player is depends on how much money they make, or whether or not they do it as a sole source of income. No more talk about extravagant vacations and "living the good life" paid for by wagering on horses. No more talk about anyone showing long term profit or long term loss. And no more talk about how "formally educated" or how much "business experience" or how scientific "proof" is required, or whether it is the only truth to viability of method.

I could go on and on with this stuff all day long, and I could adhere to your request, but others won't and the inevitable clash of opinions, and sheer thoughtlessness, and lack of respect towards others will still persist. There are those here who think their way is the only way, or the only statistically sound way of proving viability, and yet there are those who have the money in the bank despite all that hogwash.

My contention is that wagering on horses comes in many colors, and the same size does not fit all. I will never say my way is the only correct way, but there are some here that insist on stating some theoretical or supposed statistical truth that their methodology, or their way of discerning viability of method, is more valid than others. Is our only recourse to "iggy" them, or just sit back and take the insults and unfounded criticism, without defending what we know to be viable, for us? Do we let people insinuate that we are liars and egotists who somehow need to express how much better we are than others?

Where do you draw the line between insult and simple difference of opinion? One must have some degree of respect for others here, or the same people will continue to state the same things, while having no foundation for stating them as true for everyone and every method. I've never, ever, stated that my way is the only way, but others here seem to think that their way is the only way, even though much proof has been presented that says the opposite.

There are a few personalities here that just can't accept that someone else is successful without jumping through all the statistical hoops, and drowning in all the huge sample malarkey that they espouse, constantly to the point of total boredom and disgust.

You say you are a professional bettor who supports his family and way of life quite nicely, and I take you at your word. Why can't others accept that there are others here who are also successful even though they aren't a "professional" full time horse player? The simple answer is that those people are simply so stuck in their own beliefs, and their own personal experience, and/or educational and business training, etc., that it is impossible for them to accept that any other possibilities exist and are just as viable or even moreso.

I joined this particular forum because I immediately knew that there was an inordinate number of very good players here, much higher than the national average. Those people are my peers, and I respect them for what they have accomplished. It's as simple as that. There are so many good players here that one can ask a question, or present a scenario, and actually get some highly intelligent responses, because of the above average level of player here. So why is it that some people don't recognize that there would be many more than 2% or less of the members here being profitable, long term, than what that nationally recognized 2% presupposes? Why is it that people refuse to believe that there are many profitable players here, much more than 2% of the people who actually post and participate in these discussions? Sure there are many losing players out there but many of them never participate in these discussions. That fact would seem to "fly in the face" of national averages, wouldn't you think? So, why the preponderance of disbelief in success here? I can see it regarding the lesser forums, but not this one. This one just has many more good players participating.

[raybo]

I hope you aren't running $4,000,000 through the window to do it. Because you could do the same thing with about 40 bets a year at $300.

This is the kind of mentality that amazes me. Have you never read any of my other posts? Have you ever read where I churn millions into a few percentage points of profit? Have you never read that I detest the thought of having to do such a thing?

[raybo]

Half knowledge is worse than ignorance

Typical. You and Traynor must have attended the same school.

[thaskalos]

Ok, so no more talk about what method is best, and what methods cannot be profitable because they don't conform to some scientific proof of viability. No more talk about which of us is a professional and which of us are only amateurs, recreational players and/or hobbyists. No more talk about large samples versus small samples. No more talk about statistics or projections, viability of method or lack thereof, no more talk about higher mathematics and probability/statistical mumbo jumbo gained through formal education. No more talk about the measure of how successful a player is depends on how much money they make, or whether or not they do it as a sole source of income. No more talk about extravagant vacations and "living the good life" paid for by wagering on horses. No more talk about anyone showing long term profit or long term loss. And no more talk about how "formally educated" or how much "business experience" or how scientific "proof" is required, or whether it is the only truth to viability of method.

I could go on and on with this stuff all day long, and I could adhere to your request, but others won't and the inevitable clash of opinions, and sheer thoughtlessness, and lack of respect towards others will still persist. There are those here who think their way is the only way, or the only statistically sound way of proving viability, and yet there are those who have the money in the bank despite all that hogwash.

My contention is that wagering on horses comes in many colors, and the same size does not fit all. I will never say my way is the only correct way, but there are some here that insist on stating some theoretical or supposed statistical truth that their methodology, or their way of discerning viability of method, is more valid than others. Is our only recourse to "iggy" them, or just sit back and take the insults and unfounded criticism, without defending what we know to be viable, for us? Do we let people insinuate that we are liars and egotists who somehow need to express how much better we are than others?

Where do you draw the line between insult and simple difference of opinion? One must have some degree of respect for others here, or the same people will continue to state the same things, while having no foundation for stating them as true for everyone and every method. I've never, ever, stated that my way is the only way, but others here seem to think that their way is the only way, even though much proof has been presented that says the opposite.

There are a few personalities here that just can't accept that someone else is successful without jumping through all the statistical hoops, and drowning in all the huge sample malarkey that they espouse, constantly to the point of total boredom and disgust.

You say you are a professional bettor who supports his family and way of life quite nicely, and I take you at your word. Why can't others accept that there are others here who are also successful even though they aren't a "professional" full time horse player? The simple answer is that those people are simply so stuck in their own beliefs, and their own personal experience, and/or educational and business training, etc., that it is impossible for them to accept that any other possibilities exist and are just as viable or even moreso.

I joined this particular forum because I immediately knew that there was an inordinate number of very good players here, much higher than the national average. Those people are my peers, and I respect them for what they have accomplished. It's as simple as that. There are so many good players here that one can ask a question, or present a scenario, and actually get some highly intelligent responses, because of the above average level of player here. So why is it that some people don't recognize that there would be many more than 2% or less of the members here being profitable, long term, than what that nationally recognized 2% presupposes? Why is it that people refuse to believe that there are many profitable players here, much more than 2% of the people who actually post and participate in these discussions? Sure there are many losing players out there but many of them never participate in these discussions. That fact would seem to "fly in the face" of national averages, wouldn't you think? So, why the preponderance of disbelief in success here? I can see it regarding the lesser forums, but not this one. This one just has many more good players participating.

No one knows which method is best...no one knows what anybody else is doing...and no one has any "absolute truths". I am a pencil-and-paper handicapper who might be considered "classical" in my gambling approach. I look at class, and speed, and pace, and condition, and that -- along with the sixth sense that I have developed through my many years of participation in this game -- is what guides me in my play. And I come here every day only to see people say that the days of pencil-and-paper handicapping are over...and that "classical" handicapping has become obsolete in today's "computer database" era. They tell me that pace and speed figures can no longer lead to profit...as if the speed and the pace figures have the power...when the real power and effectiveness lies not in the figures -- but in the competence level of the player who uses them.

I get frustrated as much as anyone else by these handicapping "elitists" that you mention...and I look at their lofty claims with a large dose of skepticism. They don't know what the other player does...so they should refrain from telling him what is or isn't "possible" in this game.

And if any "automated horseplayers" out there really happen to think that pencil-and-paper handicapping is dead, while THEIR handicapping approach is "alive"...then perhaps they could somehow be enticed to prove their hypothesis by participating in a handicapping contest against some of the pencil-and-paper handicappers of this site. I happen to have a little time on my hands presently...and I think it might end up being a pretty educational experience for everyone concerned.

A handicapper's approach might not be "fashionable"...but whether it's dead or not depends not on the "philosophy" of the approach...but on the individual player himself.

[Robert Fischer]

If I had 2 professions, one of them being horse race wagering, and both are contributing to overall income, why would one be recreational or a hobby, and the other a profession?
...

What's wrong with this picture? Are those of us who make steady consistent profit from racing, but not doing it as a sole source of income somehow less professional, or less successful than someone who does it as their only source of income?

Anyone who seriously attempts for-profit play on any level is running a business venture.

Whether it's bringing in $100 a week, or a $10,000 a week.

We are all free to undertake as many different business ventures as we can handle.

*Message board member amazement-levels may vary... ;)

[raybo]

Anyone who seriously attempts for-profit play on any level is running a business venture.

Whether it's bringing in $100 a week, or a $10,000 a week.

We are all free to undertake as many different business ventures as we can handle.

*Message board member amazement-levels may vary... ;)

That's my thinking also. In order to show long term profits, at any level, one almost has to approach it as a for profit business. I'm not saying that it can't be done without this approach but it would almost certainly be very difficult to accomplish on a consistent basis.

[raybo]

No one knows which method is best...no one knows what anybody else is doing...and no one has any "absolute truths". I am a pencil-and-paper handicapper who might be considered "classical" in my gambling approach. I look at class, and speed, and pace, and condition, and that -- along with the sixth sense that I have developed through my many years of participation in this game -- is what guides me in my play. And I come here every day only to see people say that the days of pencil-and-paper handicapping are over...and that "classical" handicapping has become obsolete in today's "computer database" era. They tell me that pace and speed figures can no longer lead to profit...as if the speed and the pace figures have the power...when the real power and effectiveness lies not in the figures -- but in the competence level of the player who uses them.

I get frustrated as much as anyone else by these handicapping "elitists" that you mention...and I look at their lofty claims with a large dose of skepticism. They don't know what the other player does...so they should refrain from telling him what is or isn't "possible" in this game.

And if any "automated horseplayers" out there really happen to think that pencil-and-paper handicapping is dead, while THEIR handicapping approach is "alive"...then perhaps they could somehow be enticed to prove their hypothesis by participating in a handicapping contest against some of the pencil-and-paper handicappers of this site. I happen to have a little time on my hands presently...and I think it might end up being a pretty educational experience for everyone concerned.

A handicapper's approach might not be "fashionable"...but whether it's dead or not depends not on the "philosophy" of the approach...but on the individual player himself.

I agree, there's nothing wrong with pencil and paper handicapping, other than that it is maybe a bit more prone to human error. I was a pencil and paper handicapper too at one time, and simply started automating repetitive processes as a time and error reducing approach. One thing led to another until most of my handicapping processes are now automated. But, it took years of work to get it to that point. Now I can't imagine ever going back to pencil and paper, not that I couldn't do it, but I can't see any positives in doing so.

I think one of the major differences between pencil and paper handicappers and automated handicappers is that the pencil and paper player tends to look at individual races much more than the automated player, and probably varies the amount of individual wagers more than automated players, based on perceived higher or lower value with those individual plays. My experience with automated handicapping is that I tend to look at the long term much more than individual races, except for the big stakes races. In those races I tend to use a bit of "old school" capping in conjunction with my automated methods, because of the typically higher rewards available from the larger pools, and the typically larger number of quality horses in those races. More contention in the bigger races requires a little more work by the capper, IMO.

You won't catch me saying a pencil and paper capper has to change or perish, because that is an individual thing, you can either do it or you can't, you either want to do it that way or you don't. What works for the player is the only thing that counts, IMO.

[Jeff P]

Ok, so no more talk about what method is best, and what methods cannot be profitable because they don't conform to some scientific proof of viability. No more talk about which of us is a professional and which of us are only amateurs, recreational players and/or hobbyists. No more talk about large samples versus small samples. No more talk about statistics or projections, viability of method or lack thereof, no more talk about higher mathematics and probability/statistical mumbo jumbo gained through formal education. No more talk about the measure of how successful a player is depends on how much money they make, or whether or not they do it as a sole source of income. No more talk about extravagant vacations and "living the good life" paid for by wagering on horses. No more talk about anyone showing long term profit or long term loss. And no more talk about how "formally educated" or how much "business experience" or how scientific "proof" is required, or whether it is the only truth to viability of method.

I could go on and on with this stuff all day long, and I could adhere to your request, but others won't and the inevitable clash of opinions, and sheer thoughtlessness, and lack of respect towards others will still persist. There are those here who think their way is the only way, or the only statistically sound way of proving viability, and yet there are those who have the money in the bank despite all that hogwash.

My contention is that wagering on horses comes in many colors, and the same size does not fit all. I will never say my way is the only correct way, but there are some here that insist on stating some theoretical or supposed statistical truth that their methodology, or their way of discerning viability of method, is more valid than others. Is our only recourse to "iggy" them, or just sit back and take the insults and unfounded criticism, without defending what we know to be viable, for us? Do we let people insinuate that we are liars and egotists who somehow need to express how much better we are than others?

Where do you draw the line between insult and simple difference of opinion? One must have some degree of respect for others here, or the same people will continue to state the same things, while having no foundation for stating them as true for everyone and every method. I've never, ever, stated that my way is the only way, but others here seem to think that their way is the only way, even though much proof has been presented that says the opposite.

There are a few personalities here that just can't accept that someone else is successful without jumping through all the statistical hoops, and drowning in all the huge sample malarkey that they espouse, constantly to the point of total boredom and disgust.

You say you are a professional bettor who supports his family and way of life quite nicely, and I take you at your word. Why can't others accept that there are others here who are also successful even though they aren't a "professional" full time horse player? The simple answer is that those people are simply so stuck in their own beliefs, and their own personal experience, and/or educational and business training, etc., that it is impossible for them to accept that any other possibilities exist and are just as viable or even moreso.

I joined this particular forum because I immediately knew that there was an inordinate number of very good players here, much higher than the national average. Those people are my peers, and I respect them for what they have accomplished. It's as simple as that. There are so many good players here that one can ask a question, or present a scenario, and actually get some highly intelligent responses, because of the above average level of player here. So why is it that some people don't recognize that there would be many more than 2% or less of the members here being profitable, long term, than what that nationally recognized 2% presupposes? Why is it that people refuse to believe that there are many profitable players here, much more than 2% of the people who actually post and participate in these discussions? Sure there are many losing players out there but many of them never participate in these discussions. That fact would seem to "fly in the face" of national averages, wouldn't you think? So, why the preponderance of disbelief in success here? I can see it regarding the lesser forums, but not this one. This one just has many more good players participating.

Speaking strictly for myself, there's no need to draw a line.

For my money, Ray, you nailed it with the following sentence:

"My contention is that wagering on horses comes in many colors, and the same size does not fit all."

The posts of every single one of us posting on this board are based on a unique set of past experiences (both good and bad) that are in turn the result of our own unique and personal approaches to this game.

Ray, it is exactly like you said it is. Every single one of us views the races, the horses in those races, and the market created by the other players betting those races in a slightly different way.

Player A proclaims: "You cannot win unless you do 'X!'"...

You, or I, or anyone else reading, might see that post and know from our own hard won past experience that 'X' (whatever it happens to be) plays a very minor role (if any at all) in our own personal approach to the game.

But to Player A, 'X' is everything.

I have come to believe that when another player proclaims: "You cannot win unless you do 'X!'"...

What that player is really communicating is this:

"My own personal approach to the game only works (or works best) when I do 'X!'"

I can be as strongly opinionated as anyone - and depending on available free time and level of disagreement - I used to jump into threads when I disagreed with 'X.'

But lately I've gotten further and further away from that.

FWIW, 'X' in my own approach to the game centers around record keeping. (The longer I play, the more I'm convinced of the importance of my own version of 'X' as it relates to MY OWN approach to the game.)

By now I'm pretty much convinced I KNOW what works for me. (Just as other players with their own unique approaches to the game and accompanying past experiences based on those approaches know what works or doesn't work for them.)

Speaking strictly for myself, the opinions of other players relative to the merits (or lack of merit) about my own approach to the game matters not at all - not one iota.

Speaking strictly for myself, my own live play involves mapping out the races each day - and drawing circles on the map - where inside each of my circles you will find ONLY those races I have decided to play that day (and nothing else.)

From there, the ONLY thing that matters, in terms of measuring success or failure, is what happens P&L-wise inside the lines as I have drawn them.

Are you satisfied with the results inside your own lines as you have drawn them?

If so, congrats (and keep doing what you are doing.)

If not, maybe take it as a sign your own approach to the game is in need of some (minor) adjustment.

It's as simple as that.


-jp

.

[Tom]

"My contention is that wagering on horses comes in many colors, and the same size does not fit all."

What amazes me is how many people fail to grasp this truth. :ThmbUp:

[PhantomOnTour]

Where's the OP, Narrow Rator?
He posed the question - maybe he'll amaze us ?

[traynor]

Or, more appropriately, shoot first and whatever you hit, call it the target. Good for the ego. And much easier than learning to shoot accurately.

"The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed. From this reasoning a false conclusion is inferred. This fallacy is the philosophical/rhetorical application of the multiple comparisons problem (in statistics) and apophenia (in cognitive psychology). It is related to the clustering illusion, which refers to the tendency in human cognition to interpret patterns where none actually exist.
The name comes from a joke about a Texan who fires some shots at the side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the biggest cluster of hits and claims to be a sharpshooter."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

[traynor]

Basically, I think every bettor should devote the time he or she spends making excuses for why she or he is not doing better, or in (usually vain) attempts to justify what he or she is doing, or in creative rationalization for why the world (as she or he sees it) could not possibly be any other way to the task at hand--picking better horses at better prices.

Endless streams of words do little to convince me that anyone would obsess over handicapping for 20 years or so with the end goal in mind of breaking even. Or "being profitable." Or "showing a positive ROI." Or "having a good time." That is not just unbelievable--it is insulting to readers assumed so foolish that they would accept such as the poster's end goal throughout her or his handicapping career. Those are not goals--they are after-the-fact justification for failure.

Similarly, declaring things impossible for every other bettor because one has found that he or she cannot do a given thing is little more than face-saving. NLP had it down pat--if what you are doing is not working, change it. Pretty simple stuff.

The first step in finding a solution is to recognize there is a problem. That recognition is what all the streams of words avoid by attempts to justify the current state, the current strategy, the current "reality" as the only ones possible. Or to gain the approval of others by endlessly repeating the same old litanies that no one believed to begin with, for no other reason than that--superficially--they "seem reasonable."

If you are not doing well, or you are not doing as well as you would like to do, spend your time learning how to do better. That is what I did. And it works really, really well.

[antigeekess]

Basically, I think every bettor should devote the time he or she spends making excuses for why she or he is not doing better, or in (usually vain) attempts to justify what he or she is doing, or in creative rationalization for why the world (as she or he sees it) could not possibly be any other way to the task at hand--picking better horses at better prices.

Endless streams of words do little to convince me that anyone would obsess over handicapping for 20 years or so with the end goal in mind of breaking even. Or "being profitable." Or "showing a positive ROI." Or "having a good time." That is not just unbelievable--it is insulting to readers assumed so foolish that they would accept such as the poster's end goal throughout her or his handicapping career. Those are not goals--they are after-the-fact justification for failure.

Similarly, declaring things impossible for every other bettor because one has found that he or she cannot do a given thing is little more than face-saving. NLP had it down pat--if what you are doing is not working, change it. Pretty simple stuff.

The first step in finding a solution is to recognize there is a problem. That recognition is what all the streams of words avoid by attempts to justify the current state, the current strategy, the current "reality" as the only ones possible. Or to gain the approval of others by endlessly repeating the same old litanies that no one believed to begin with, for no other reason than that--superficially--they "seem reasonable."

If you are not doing well, or you are not doing as well as you would like to do, spend your time learning how to do better. That is what I did. And it works really, really well.

I'm all about education. I buy a lot of books. Write one, and I'll buy it. As brusque as some of your posts are, they're perfectly written. But you know that already.

And kudos for not using the word "criteria" even once in this post. That's enough to start my day off with a warm and fuzzy feeling right there. :)

I do think you're right in a lot of cases about a LOT of folks who end up on the losing end and then basically say, "Oh, I didn't want that ole million anyways. I was just doing it for fun," but people have all sorts of motivations for doing things. My co-workers think it's just great to go to Del Mar and jump up and down when they win $2. Whoopee.

There are those who just aren't particularly materially ambitious, or those who are already set financially and just passing the time. There are those who have a true gambling addiction and love the action too much. There are even those who have personalities that demand they self-sabotage so they can reinforce their identities as "victims." Assuming everyone has the same motivation (whether conscious or unconscious) is perhaps a little naive, I think.

Personally, I am not one of the above. I want to WIN, and if I end up in a low-end board and care in a few years with a paid stranger wiping my ass and changing my diaper, it will be because I failed miserably to figure this or anything else out and make it work well enough to prevent that fate.

How is their English and overall friendliness in the Chinese casinos, BTW? Can a pitifully monolingual American operate there?

[traynor]

I'm all about education. I buy a lot of books. Write one, and I'll buy it. As brusque as some of your posts are, they're perfectly written. But you know that already.

And kudos for not using the word "criteria" even once in this post. That's enough to start my day off with a warm and fuzzy feeling right there. :)

I do think you're right in a lot of cases about a LOT of folks who end up on the losing end and then basically say, "Oh, I didn't want that ole million anyways. I was just doing it for fun," but people have all sorts of motivations for doing things. My co-workers think it's just great to go to Del Mar and jump up and down when they win $2. Whoopee.

There are those who just aren't particularly materially ambitious, or those who are already set financially and just passing the time. There are those who have a true gambling addiction and love the action too much. There are even those who have personalities that demand they self-sabotage so they can reinforce their identities as "victims." Assuming everyone has the same motivation (whether conscious or unconscious) is perhaps a little naive, I think.

Personally, I am not one of the above. I want to WIN, and if I end up in a low-end board and care in a few years with a paid stranger wiping my ass and changing my diaper, it will be because I failed miserably to figure this or anything else out and make it work well enough to prevent that fate.

How is their English and overall friendliness in the Chinese casinos, BTW? Can a pitifully monolingual American operate there?

Good, very good, and definitely. The same goes for the Sha Tin/Happy Valley thoroughbred circuit.

I understand that people have different motives in wagering. I just think way too many started out with high hopes and expectations, flopped, and then declared the flopping as the end goal to save face. Of that group, an emphasis on improving their skills might be more useful for them than endless attempts to justify what they are doing (mostly wrong).

[CincyHorseplayer]

Ok, so no more talk about what method is best, and what methods cannot be profitable because they don't conform to some scientific proof of viability. No more talk about which of us is a professional and which of us are only amateurs, recreational players and/or hobbyists. No more talk about large samples versus small samples. No more talk about statistics or projections, viability of method or lack thereof, no more talk about higher mathematics and probability/statistical mumbo jumbo gained through formal education. No more talk about the measure of how successful a player is depends on how much money they make, or whether or not they do it as a sole source of income. No more talk about extravagant vacations and "living the good life" paid for by wagering on horses. No more talk about anyone showing long term profit or long term loss. And no more talk about how "formally educated" or how much "business experience" or how scientific "proof" is required, or whether it is the only truth to viability of method.

I could go on and on with this stuff all day long, and I could adhere to your request, but others won't and the inevitable clash of opinions, and sheer thoughtlessness, and lack of respect towards others will still persist. There are those here who think their way is the only way, or the only statistically sound way of proving viability, and yet there are those who have the money in the bank despite all that hogwash.

My contention is that wagering on horses comes in many colors, and the same size does not fit all. I will never say my way is the only correct way, but there are some here that insist on stating some theoretical or supposed statistical truth that their methodology, or their way of discerning viability of method, is more valid than others. Is our only recourse to "iggy" them, or just sit back and take the insults and unfounded criticism, without defending what we know to be viable, for us? Do we let people insinuate that we are liars and egotists who somehow need to express how much better we are than others?

Where do you draw the line between insult and simple difference of opinion? One must have some degree of respect for others here, or the same people will continue to state the same things, while having no foundation for stating them as true for everyone and every method. I've never, ever, stated that my way is the only way, but others here seem to think that their way is the only way, even though much proof has been presented that says the opposite.

There are a few personalities here that just can't accept that someone else is successful without jumping through all the statistical hoops, and drowning in all the huge sample malarkey that they espouse, constantly to the point of total boredom and disgust.

You say you are a professional bettor who supports his family and way of life quite nicely, and I take you at your word. Why can't others accept that there are others here who are also successful even though they aren't a "professional" full time horse player? The simple answer is that those people are simply so stuck in their own beliefs, and their own personal experience, and/or educational and business training, etc., that it is impossible for them to accept that any other possibilities exist and are just as viable or even moreso.

I joined this particular forum because I immediately knew that there was an inordinate number of very good players here, much higher than the national average. Those people are my peers, and I respect them for what they have accomplished. It's as simple as that. There are so many good players here that one can ask a question, or present a scenario, and actually get some highly intelligent responses, because of the above average level of player here. So why is it that some people don't recognize that there would be many more than 2% or less of the members here being profitable, long term, than what that nationally recognized 2% presupposes? Why is it that people refuse to believe that there are many profitable players here, much more than 2% of the people who actually post and participate in these discussions? Sure there are many losing players out there but many of them never participate in these discussions. That fact would seem to "fly in the face" of national averages, wouldn't you think? So, why the preponderance of disbelief in success here? I can see it regarding the lesser forums, but not this one. This one just has many more good players participating.

I learn a lot in these tug-of-war ideological discussions but it does get tedious at times.Your post here is not only one of the best in this thread but one of the best I have ever read on here.Good stuff Ray.

[dkithore]

Amazed in reverence!

When I see a person remain cool in the midst of excitement of dueling pair to the wire, win or lose!

When I see a person pass a race with the least conflicted mind, (should, could would..)

When I see that they can truly see racing as a pastime or a business and seldom lose balance of mind and chase their losses;

When I see them unfailingly, unselfishly contribute their know-how and experience here; (there are quite a few to mention and the reader knows them by now who they are).

When I see (s)he never flaunt success or failures for glory or sympathy;

When I see there is a forum that allows various viewpoints without judgement;

That to me is amazing.

[porchy44]

Endless streams of words do little to convince me that anyone would obsess over handicapping for 20 years or so with the end goal in mind of breaking even. Or "being profitable." Or "showing a positive ROI." Or "having a good time." That is not just unbelievable--it is insulting to readers assumed so foolish that they would accept such as the poster's end goal throughout her or his handicapping career. Those are not goals--they are after-the-fact justification for failure.



I know handicappers who said 30 years ago when they started betting horses, from day 1, saying "I cannnot beat the races". They still buy the racing form every day and go to the track. They still say 'I can not beat the races" 30 years later. How can this be after the fact justification for failure ?

[raybo]

I know handicappers who said 30 years ago when they started betting horses, from day 1, saying "I cannnot beat the races". They still buy the racing form every day and go to the track. They still say 'I can not beat the races" 30 years later. How can this be after the fact justification for failure ?

It can't, but it is a cause of failure, for dang sure. I knew almost from the first day that the game was beatable, and that I would someday figure out how to do it. With that kind of confidence the whole world opens up for you, if you put in the time and effort required.

[porchy44]

A lot of people on this board are educated and logical in their thinking about handicapping and money. In reality a lot (ok several) people who frequent the track are quite the opposite.

[antigeekess]

I learn a lot in these tug-of-war ideological discussions but it does get tedious at times.Your post here is not only one of the best in this thread but one of the best I have ever read on here.Good stuff Ray.

Hear, hear! Even a relative newbie like me can see that Raybo is one of the classiest acts in this field. I'd bet $2 on him any day. ;)

[Exotic1]

Hear, hear! Even a relative newbie like me can see that Raybo is one of the classiest acts in this field. I'd bet $2 on him any day. ;)

Win, Place or Show?

Sorry. Of course raybo is a class act. In addition to publishing his excel handicapping platform free of charge, he's generous with his time answering questions and is always courteous. Certainly a big thumbs up.

[raybo]

Win, Place or Show?

Sorry. Of course raybo is a class act. In addition to publishing his excel handicapping platform free of charge, he's generous with his time answering questions and is always courteous. Certainly a big thumbs up.

Thanks guys! I decided a while back that I didn't want racing to go away, because it is to my advantage to keep it around. So, I thought, how can I help that situation? My answer was "help the player stay in the game", so I created a way that is cheap, and easy enough for most to learn, for getting their PPs and results on their computer, because most everybody has a computer and a copy of Excel and can afford a buck and a quarter for the card and results files. We eventually automated everything, from importing files, to processing all the data, all within Excel, (THANKS HARRY!!!) and even created an Excel database program to work in conjunction with the PPs to enable people to create models that produce live selections. The workbooks are fully customizable too, so our users can "make it their own", with a little work and research. Making these 2 workbooks free was a no-brainer, after all, we weren't hurting ourselves, or the odds we get, by creating them, and it only cost us some time and effort.

Yes, later on I created a program that is "not free", but that was an accident, something I created for my own use that turned out to be valuable for the win/exacta bettor (which I was not at the time), so for an initial few bucks by the purchaser they can up their game, make some money, bet more dollars into the pools, and continue participating in the game, while not betting the same horses the other users are betting. It's a win-win-win for me, the users, and the industry.

Treating people with respect and offering my knowledge, when asked, is also a no-brainer, because that promotes good will and further interest in the game.

I'm not the only one doing things like this, Handi and headhawg also jumped into the fray with their free software, and another member here offered his data parser for free. There are dutching apps, odds line creators, and many other racing tools offered within these pages, all free to the user. My hat is off to everyone who has offered their work and expertise to others, receiving only the satisfaction of helping others begin participating and/or remaining in the game, because it's for dang sure the game needs all the help it can get!

[JJMartin]

Raybo :ThmbUp:

[CincyHorseplayer]

Perfect timing to all as it is the holiday season! :ThmbUp:

[BIG HIT]

You and handi and headwig.Are the kind of people the world need more of.This is 2013 just unbeliveable.THANK"S for all you have done and happy holiday's two all.Horse raceing got some real pathetic people as we all know so even though i don't know you really nice two know your out there and may your horse always be the winner

[raybo]

You and handi and headwig.Are the kind of people the world need more of.This is 2013 just unbeliveable.THANK"S for all you have done and happy holiday's two all.Horse raceing got some real pathetic people as we all know so even though i don't know you really nice two know your out there and may your horse always be the winner

Not to speak for Handi and Headhawg or the others who have offered free stuff here, but for my part, there are many others involved and I would be remiss to not mention them, as they deserve a huge percentage of the credit for what became the "AllData Project". A project of this scope and complexity could never have been created without those people.

First, my best friend in the world, and a fellow custom woodworker who worked with, and for, me for almost 20 years, starting in 1978, Jim Hooper, who introduced me to the game, and mentored me for many years and eventually became my handicapping and wagering partner, and who never turned on a computer until the late 90s. I had to drag him into the computer world and force him to use it. Without him, I doubt seriously that I would have ever bet a single race. But, because of him, I am the player I am today. And he in turn dragged me into the world of "living below your means" and demanding value for every investment. This guy worked for me but was able to retire at 50, via investments in the market and in horse racing. I had to keep working until 62 - LOL.

Second, a guy named Tony, from New York. I don't remember his last name, if I ever knew it, but without his introducing me, via the internet, to a little data parser named "Infotran", free on the Brisnet website, and his endless explanations and examples of the program and the Control File that makes it work, I would never have been able to create my original "RaceCap1" workbook, back in the early/mid 90s. That workbook went through many evolutions, to the point of running out of memory space in the very early version of Excel I was using at the time. That workbook eventually evolved into the first version of AllData, the "AllData PPs" workbook, which needed the data parser to import the Bris files. So, Tony, if you're out there, and you know who you are, give me a shout, and thanks a million!!

Third, and this guy is phenomenal, Harry, known here as "Hcap". Harry stepped up early on and joined the "Project" with both feet! It was Harry who took AllData PPs from an idea, to a full fledged, completely self contained handicapping program. He wrote the code to import the Bris, and later the JCapper files into the program, from within Excel itself, no need for an external data parser. He is also the one who changed it from a single card program to a batch processing, multiple card and results program, which then lead the way to the creation of "AllDataBase", our Excel racing database program that takes the output from the various evolutions of the "AllData Batch" version workbooks and allows the creation of models for research and live selections. Harry wrote the whole "AllDataBase" program, I just added some "eye candy" to spruce it up some. So, without Harry the AllData Project would probably never have happened in the first place.

And last, but certainly not least, all the users of the project's workbooks who acted as beta testers and collaborators in its evolution, which continues to this day, with no end in sight. People like Fred and his "Custom Printsheets" version, Tim for his help with the velocities and knowledge of the Sartin Methodology, Dwight and Kevin for their continued support, mode creation and testing activities, Bobby P. for all the "old school" reality checks and friendship through it all, Bill "partsnut" for his support of the idea and his racing knowledge, Jeff Platt who mapped his JCapper files so they could be imported into AllData, Randy Giles for his PPG (pace pressure gauge)methodology, the original backbone of "AllData RS Black Box", Jacob for his long time contributions to my overall philosophy and approach to the game, and Rod "Cincy" for, well you know man, we go back a ways!

And the list goes on and on, way too many to list here, but you guys know who you are.

My sincere thanks and unending appreciation for all of your unselfish work, moral support, and ideas!! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Now let's get back to the thread topic. :confused: :lol:

[cutchemist42]

I'd be impressed by a few elements that shows a good gambling mind

-Sometimes walking away after a big win is a good idea
-Not chasing losses
-Admitting you don't get a race and don't bet on it.
-Handicapping is done before the toteboard even starts
-I'd be impressed with a $1/day profit.

I appreciate anyone who actually likes these animals and handles/jockeys/anyone involved, and can feel sadness for a fallen horse or jockey/handler. I personally stop betting for the day after an accident.

[raybo]

I'd be impressed by a few elements that shows a good gambling mind

-Sometimes walking away after a big win is a good idea
-Not chasing losses
-Admitting you don't get a race and don't bet on it.
-Handicapping is done before the toteboard even starts
-I'd be impressed with a $1/day profit.

I appreciate anyone who actually likes these animals and handles/jockeys/anyone involved, and can feel sadness for a fallen horse or jockey/handler. I personally stop betting for the day after an accident.

I agree, I'd imagine, of the profitable players, there are more of them that are great gamblers than there are that are great handicappers. Lots of players can recognize good horses when they see them, but they self-destruct on the money side.

[Overlay]

I'd be impressed by a few elements that shows a good gambling mind.

-Handicapping is done before the toteboard even starts.
Do you mean handicapping in the sense of having an opinion on each horse's chance of winning, or in the sense of knowing which horse(s) you're going to bet, how much you're going to bet, and what type of bet you're going to make?

[limit2]

I would be amazed by a balanced approach that includes predictability of results ( within a standard deviation of 10%) after a duration of 3 months of play. This would elevate the player's method over the threshold where gambling becomes investing.

[raybo]

I would be amazed by a balanced approach that includes predictability of results ( within a standard deviation of 10%) after a duration of 3 months of play. This would elevate the player's method over the threshold where gambling becomes investing.

What do you mean by "within a standard deviation of 10%"?

[antigeekess]

I would be amazed by a balanced approach that includes predictability of results ( within a standard deviation of 10%) after a duration of 3 months of play. This would elevate the player's method over the threshold where gambling becomes investing.

On the idea of "balance," I'd love to see a massive tome entitled "The Horseplayers' Encyclopedia" published. I'm sure it's an idea that's past its time, but how neat would it be to see something along the lines of one of the Expos in book form, with chapters written by proven winners in their various areas of specialty? The "Horseplayers Hall of Fame" suggested in another thread, in book form.

Utterly impossible for a variety of reasons I'm sure, but neat to think about, nonetheless.

[traynor]

On the idea of "balance," I'd love to see a massive tome entitled "The Horseplayers' Encyclopedia" published. I'm sure it's an idea that's past its time, but how neat would it be to see something along the lines of one of the Expos in book form, with chapters written by proven winners in their various areas of specialty? The "Horseplayers Hall of Fame" suggested in another thread, in book form.

Utterly impossible for a variety of reasons I'm sure, but neat to think about, nonetheless.

It is a nice idea, but goes against the trend. While many writers may be "recognized authorities" in the application of "classical" techniques, that is not necessarily the same as "proven winners." Puffery and marketing aside, there seems to be a total lack of writing by those who are "proven winners." Lots of theory, lots of stuff that sounds perfectly reasonable, lots of stuff that sounds like it might/should work--but little more than that. That is, there seems to be a lack of "how to do it" that goes beyond the obvious of "read all the old books, stir the ideas into a pot, have a bowl or two, then go forth and seek fame and fortune."

Specifically, I see little (published information) from those making their livings from wagering. Writers, columnists, academics--yes. Not the ones who are actually doing it. It is a sorry (and often frustrating) state of affairs. Fortunately, the same situation exists in blackjack--the writers and theorists write about it and theorize, which is often in direct opposition to the tactics and strategies actually used by professional bettors. So my expectations were lowered considerably in regard to horse racing.

There is good stuff out there, but I think it is unlikely that it will be handed to anyone in a widely disseminated format. That would tend to indicate it is (relatively) worthless and unlikely to diminish the profit of those currently using it.

As for "proven winners" it reminds me of an old saying from the pre-digital days: Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Picking winners is not that tough. Picking enough winners--at high enough mutuels--to earn a consistent and substantial profit over time is a bit tougher. Again, it is like blackjack. Winning a few hands, having a winning day, a winning week, a winning month, even a winning year--none establish that one is a "proven winner." That is not a claim that only the results of 20+ years of wagering are sufficient--spend a week playing blackjack with Katherine Jung and it will be crystal clear what "professional blackjack" is all about.

[antigeekess]

It is a nice idea, but goes against the trend. While many writers may be "recognized authorities" in the application of "classical" techniques, that is not necessarily the same as "proven winners." Puffery and marketing aside, there seems to be a total lack of writing by those who are "proven winners." Lots of theory, lots of stuff that sounds perfectly reasonable, lots of stuff that sounds like it might/should work--but little more than that.

This is pretty much what I thought. Winners are too busy winning, and it's a bit counterintuitive to expect them to spend time disseminating information probably better kept to themselves anyway. Not to mention the fact that for many of them, writing probably isn't their forte.

That is, there seems to be a lack of "how to do it" that goes beyond the obvious of "read all the old books, stir the ideas into a pot, have a bowl or two, then go forth and seek fame and fortune."

Damn. That won't work, huh? So much for studiousness and diligence.

Specifically, I see little (published information) from those making their livings from wagering. Writers, columnists, academics--yes. Not the ones who are actually doing it. It is a sorry (and often frustrating) state of affairs. Fortunately, the same situation exists in blackjack--the writers and theorists write about it and theorize, which is often in direct opposition to the tactics and strategies actually used by professional bettors. So my expectations were lowered considerably in regard to horse racing.

For some reason, the initials BC always pop into my head as soon as I see your avatar pop up, Traynor, but I'll take it from this comment you haven't actually written any books on blackjack. Care to share your system? Sticking with simple Hi-Lo or perhaps Omega? It's another area of interest for me. I just detest the idea of having to hang out in casinos, so I haven't pursued it. (That and the fact that it would seem to require a larger initial stake to do oneself any real good than does horse racing.)

There is good stuff out there, but I think it is unlikely that it will be handed to anyone in a widely disseminated format. That would tend to indicate it is (relatively) worthless and unlikely to diminish the profit of those currently using it.

As for "proven winners" it reminds me of an old saying from the pre-digital days: Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Picking winners is not that tough. Picking enough winners--at high enough mutuels--to earn a consistent and substantial profit over time is a bit tougher. Again, it is like blackjack. Winning a few hands, having a winning day, a winning week, a winning month, even a winning year--none establish that one is a "proven winner." That is not a claim that only the results of 20+ years of wagering are sufficient--spend a week playing blackjack with Katherine Jung and it will be crystal clear what "professional blackjack" is all about.

Proven winners in horse racing to me would include those that either make their living from it or have won more than one large handicapping tournament (which still wouldn't prove they know how to bet).

I'm not sufficiently dialed in to the world of blackjack to know who Katherine Jung is, and probably shouldn't be surprised that she doesn't Google up all that readily. Any thoughts on the boys at BlackJackApprenticeship.com and the adventures of the "Church Team?"

[antigeekess]

Not to speak for Handi and Headhawg or the others who have offered free stuff here, but for my part, there are many others involved and I would be remiss to not mention them, as they deserve a huge percentage of the credit for what became the "AllData Project". A project of this scope and complexity could never have been created without those people.

First, my best friend in the world, and a fellow custom woodworker who worked with, and for, me for almost 20 years, starting in 1978, Jim Hooper, who introduced me to the game, and mentored me for many years and eventually became my handicapping and wagering partner, and who never turned on a computer until the late 90s. I had to drag him into the computer world and force him to use it. Without him, I doubt seriously that I would have ever bet a single race. But, because of him, I am the player I am today. And he in turn dragged me into the world of "living below your means" and demanding value for every investment. This guy worked for me but was able to retire at 50, via investments in the market and in horse racing. I had to keep working until 62 - LOL.

Second, a guy named Tony, from New York. I don't remember his last name, if I ever knew it, but without his introducing me, via the internet, to a little data parser named "Infotran", free on the Brisnet website, and his endless explanations and examples of the program and the Control File that makes it work, I would never have been able to create my original "RaceCap1" workbook, back in the early/mid 90s. That workbook went through many evolutions, to the point of running out of memory space in the very early version of Excel I was using at the time. That workbook eventually evolved into the first version of AllData, the "AllData PPs" workbook, which needed the data parser to import the Bris files. So, Tony, if you're out there, and you know who you are, give me a shout, and thanks a million!!

Third, and this guy is phenomenal, Harry, known here as "Hcap". Harry stepped up early on and joined the "Project" with both feet! It was Harry who took AllData PPs from an idea, to a full fledged, completely self contained handicapping program. He wrote the code to import the Bris, and later the JCapper files into the program, from within Excel itself, no need for an external data parser. He is also the one who changed it from a single card program to a batch processing, multiple card and results program, which then lead the way to the creation of "AllDataBase", our Excel racing database program that takes the output from the various evolutions of the "AllData Batch" version workbooks and allows the creation of models for research and live selections. Harry wrote the whole "AllDataBase" program, I just added some "eye candy" to spruce it up some. So, without Harry the AllData Project would probably never have happened in the first place.

And last, but certainly not least, all the users of the project's workbooks who acted as beta testers and collaborators in its evolution, which continues to this day, with no end in sight. People like Fred and his "Custom Printsheets" version, Tim for his help with the velocities and knowledge of the Sartin Methodology, Dwight and Kevin for their continued support, mode creation and testing activities, Bobby P. for all the "old school" reality checks and friendship through it all, Bill "partsnut" for his support of the idea and his racing knowledge, Jeff Platt who mapped his JCapper files so they could be imported into AllData, Randy Giles for his PPG (pace pressure gauge)methodology, the original backbone of "AllData RS Black Box", Jacob for his long time contributions to my overall philosophy and approach to the game, and Rod "Cincy" for, well you know man, we go back a ways!

And the list goes on and on, way too many to list here, but you guys know who you are.

My sincere thanks and unending appreciation for all of your unselfish work, moral support, and ideas!! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Now let's get back to the thread topic. :confused: :lol:

Wowza. Sounds like it took a village. :)

Another nice post.

[Robert Goren]

Raybo, you convinced me to spring for the Randy Giles book.

[traynor]

This is pretty much what I thought. Winners are too busy winning, and it's a bit counterintuitive to expect them to spend time disseminating information probably better kept to themselves anyway. Not to mention the fact that for many of them, writing probably isn't their forte.



Damn. That won't work, huh? So much for studiousness and diligence.



For some reason, the initials BC always pop into my head as soon as I see your avatar pop up, Traynor, but I'll take it from this comment you haven't actually written any books on blackjack. Care to share your system? Sticking with simple Hi-Lo or perhaps Omega? It's another area of interest for me. I just detest the idea of having to hang out in casinos, so I haven't pursued it. (That and the fact that it would seem to require a larger initial stake to do oneself any real good than does horse racing.)



Proven winners in horse racing to me would include those that either make their living from it or have won more than one large handicapping tournament (which still wouldn't prove they know how to bet).

I'm not sufficiently dialed in to the world of blackjack to know who Katherine Jung is, and probably shouldn't be surprised that she doesn't Google up all that readily. Any thoughts on the boys at BlackJackApprenticeship.com and the adventures of the "Church Team?"

Carlson had the audacity to suggest that several of the most "highly regarded experts in blackjack" essentially sold stuff because they couldn't use it to win (actually playing blackjack). The "creative" explanations of why they "give their stuff to the public" are often remarkable--a lot like horse racing writers and system developers.

Katherine Jung is a very private person that many professional bettors know (or have seen in action). She was on the blackjack team comprised of graduate business majors at a university in the southwest some years back that did quite well, then helped form a thoroughbred betting syndicate within the same group that also did quite well. I was fortunate enough to have been involved with both groups.

I don't think much of Hi-Lo, Omega II, or similar simplistic strategies. I think even less of the Red 7 genre. I learned to play blackjack from Revere, using the APC, then later used Uston's APC. It is a complex topic, but many professional blackjack players get the giggle fits when reading the "exploits" and claims of various authors.

[raybo]

Raybo, you convinced me to spring for the Randy Giles book.

I doubt you will be disappointed. I read many of his "free" articles and that jump-started the whole running style versus field dynamics thing for me. Sure I'd used running styles and Quirin points before that, but he put it all together in a way that makes a whole lot of sense, those who are advantaged and those who are disadvantaged by the makeup of the field. Great stuff! Of course, like the Sartin stuff, I just read the basics and took it in my own direction. As I've said before, the only racing book I've ever read front to back was the Pittsburgh Phil book my mentor told me to read back in the late 70's or early 80's. I pick up bits and pieces lots of places and then try to find ways to make them my own.

[jerry-g]

I just ordered his book at the website for $9.95 PDF version and have it
downloaded now for reading. I like PDF cause I can enlarge the screen and
take off my glasses. ;) I have skimmed the first few chaps and am excited
to take on a more in depth reading. I just wanted people to know it is
available in PDF for a low price.

[raybo]

I just ordered his book at the website for $9.95 PDF version and have it
downloaded now for reading. I like PDF cause I can enlarge the screen and
take off my glasses. ;) I have skimmed the first few chaps and am excited
to take on a more in depth reading. I just wanted people to know it is
available in PDF for a low price.

I've had a few email conversations with him, really nice guy and very knowledgeable!

[antigeekess]

Carlson had the audacity to suggest that several of the most "highly regarded experts in blackjack" essentially sold stuff because they couldn't use it to win (actually playing blackjack).

See now, that just sounds like you to me. You sure you ain't him? ;)

Katherine Jung is a very private person that many professional bettors know (or have seen in action). She was on the blackjack team comprised of graduate business majors at a university in the southwest some years back that did quite well, then helped form a thoroughbred betting syndicate within the same group that also did quite well. I was fortunate enough to have been involved with both groups.

Thanks for the info. I'll wait for your book regarding those "exploits." (I won't hold my breath.) Curious as to how many pro blackjack players are female, and if they tend to be on teams rather than solo acts. Any opinion on whether that's a plus or a minus as far as being conspicuous? Do they draw more/less heat? Or have more/less problems internationally than in the U.S.?

I don't think much of Hi-Lo, Omega II, or similar simplistic strategies. I think even less of the Red 7 genre. I learned to play blackjack from Revere, using the APC, then later used Uston's APC. It is a complex topic, but many professional blackjack players get the giggle fits when reading the "exploits" and claims of various authors.

I'm afraid "simplistic" is about all I'm geared for, but I'll put Revere and Uston on my list and try to work up some nerve for 2014. Gracias.

[pondman]

lots of stuff that sounds like it might/should work--but little more than that. That is, there seems to be a lack of "how to do it" that goes beyond the obvious of "read all the old books, stir the ideas into a pot, have a bowl or two, then
Specifically, I see little (published information) from those making their livings from wagering. Writers, columnists, academics--yes. Not the ones who are actually doing it. It is a sorry (and often frustrating) stateh of affairs. Fortunately, the same situation exists in blackjack--the writers and theorists write about it and theorize, which is often in direct opposition to the tactics and strategies actually used by professional bettors. So my expectations were lowered considerably in regard to horse racing.

Blackjack? That's slow suicide. Where in the world are you finding these countable games? I haven't seen a playable black jack game in years.

On most days I see a double digit play, somewhere in racing land. That means I'm not using popular principles. In and out one race. You won't see me at the window often, because I'm not interested until a horse gets to about 8-1. Why would I want to tell anyone? Why give up an income stream?

The advantage in racing can be huge.

[Robert Goren]

In order to play blackjack profitably for very long, you have to use trickery and skullduggery. In racing you just have to wait. Oh yeah, there is a lot of waiting in blackjack too.

[traynor]

Blackjack? That's slow suicide. Where in the world are you finding these countable games? I haven't seen a playable black jack game in years.

On most days I see a double digit play, somewhere in racing land. That means I'm not using popular principles. In and out one race. You won't see me at the window often, because I'm not interested until a horse gets to about 8-1. Why would I want to tell anyone? Why give up an income stream?

The advantage in racing can be huge.

I agree about "slow suicide" if one is following the "advice" of self-proclaimed "blackjack experts"--simplistic high-low, plus-minus counts and decision matrices, with "advantage" focused on dramatic escalations of bet size under "favorable conditions." Works great in theory, not so well in practice, and is mainly of value to those promoting rainbow chasing to bean-counter types dazzled by "21" and the "MIT team exploits" and eager to drift happily even further into lala land. Make a modest change to some of the terms, and the same thing applies to thoroughbred bettors--who fail to distinguish between "handicapping horse races" and "handicapping Equibase data files."

Blackjack is way more complex than that, and at the same time simpler. Yes, computer simulations of millions of hands indicate that bet increases under certain circumstances will produce a "mathematical advantage." Left out of that equation is the fact that hands are played one at a time--not in the millions. There is a flip side to Schlesinger's comment about the "statistically meaningless" results of Anderson's three years of full-time play that no one (except the professional blackjack players--a quite different group from the blackjack writers, forum hosts, and software marketers) wants to look at.

If Anderson's three years of full-time play were "statistically meaningless," what foolishness would make someone think that dramatic bet increases on individual hands in that three years of full-time play would have conferred some "statistically significant" advantage to the player? It is equally likely that such activity would have resulted in losses--at 10-12 times the rate of (relatively) flat betting. That is not rocket science, and it is not new. Revere understood it. Uston understood it. Katherine Jung understands it. Many (if not most) of those actually playing blackjack at a professional level understand it.

[traynor]

See now, that just sounds like you to me. You sure you ain't him? ;)



Thanks for the info. I'll wait for your book regarding those "exploits." (I won't hold my breath.) Curious as to how many pro blackjack players are female, and if they tend to be on teams rather than solo acts. Any opinion on whether that's a plus or a minus as far as being conspicuous? Do they draw more/less heat? Or have more/less problems internationally than in the U.S.?



I'm afraid "simplistic" is about all I'm geared for, but I'll put Revere and Uston on my list and try to work up some nerve for 2014. Gracias.

I have to respect Carlson for having the nerve to diss "the writer with the Chinese-sounding name that is really a veiled reference to anatomical details" as well as using the reference "Hans Christian" as a euphemism for another popular blackjack writer.

Lots of professional blackjack players are female. Most are unconcerned with "being detected" because the strategies they use do not require conspicuous actions. The whole "hiding from the pit crew" thing is a lure for the James Bond wannabes with Quixotic fantasies. It is based on the assumption that the only way to win is to escalate wagers dramatically under certain (and extremely obvious) circumstances. That assumption is incorrect.

[traynor]

In order to play blackjack profitably for very long, you have to use trickery and skullduggery. In racing you just have to wait. Oh yeah, there is a lot of waiting in blackjack too.

Not really. The trickery and skullduggery is more to lure in the wannabes than something actually required. It is salve for the egos of those who might otherwise be distressed by providing the solace of "Well, I dumped 10 grand, but at least they didn't catch me counting."

[antigeekess]

Lots of professional blackjack players are female. Most are unconcerned with "being detected" because the strategies they use do not require conspicuous actions. The whole "hiding from the pit crew" thing is a lure for the James Bond wannabes with Quixotic fantasies. It is based on the assumption that the only way to win is to escalate wagers dramatically under certain (and extremely obvious) circumstances. That assumption is incorrect.

Well allrighty, then. Any method that does not automatically cause a huge risk of being "backroomed" or other unpleasant interactions with unfriendlies is infinitely more appealing. Hopefully one does not have to be the intellectual equivalent of Kim Peek to pull it off. So you're saying the best available breadcrumbs to follow have been distributed by Revere and Uston?

[limit2]

If I predict a 40% return after 3 months play going from putting $500 into the well and the return is plus $180-$220 then I have accomplished my goal. Most preferred is to do better than that.

[Vigorish]

Blackjack? That's slow suicide. Where in the world are you finding these countable games? I haven't seen a playable black jack game in years.

On most days I see a double digit play, somewhere in racing land. That means I'm not using popular principles. In and out one race. You won't see me at the window often, because I'm not interested until a horse gets to about 8-1. Why would I want to tell anyone? Why give up an income stream?

The advantage in racing can be huge.

Blackjack is not necessarily 'slow suicide,' even in today's game. Admittedly, it's a very high variance game because the edges are very small - at least playing a game that will not result in quick detection and disbarment from the casino premises.

Some of the complicating factors undermining today's player are automatic shufflers (which eliminate shuffle tracking), poor penetration, and unfavorable rules that limit the window of profitability. However, a savvy player can make adaptations and still play a positive ROI game. Granted, one has to be extremely selective in choosing their game, patient, and tactful. On the positive side, the casino rebates are very lucrative in today's game. In my history of advantage play, I have only been barred from one facility and they still allow me in to play all games besides blackjack.

[JJMartin]

Blackjack is not necessarily 'slow suicide,' even in today's game. Admittedly, it's a very high variance game because the edges are very small - at least playing a game that will not result in quick detection and disbarment from the casino premises.

Some of the complicating factors undermining today's player are automatic shufflers (which eliminate shuffle tracking), poor penetration, and unfavorable rules that limit the window of profitability. However, a savvy player can make adaptations and still play a positive ROI game. Granted, one has to be extremely selective in choosing their game, patient, and tactful. On the positive side, the casino rebates are very lucrative in today's game. In my history of advantage play, I have only been barred from one facility and they still allow me in to play all games besides blackjack.
Are you really going try to count six decks in bj, why not just get good at poker instead?

[raybo]

Basically, if a player knows how to play black jack, he/she can reduce the house advantage to about 1%. So, such a player needs to overcome that 1% disadvantage. Can it be done? Of course it can. But there can be some pretty wild swings that can indeed wipe out the player's bankroll. IMO, one can be profitable playing black jack, but the amount of profit will probably be pretty low compared to the amount being put at risk, for rather obvious reasons. Losing streaks can be disastrous when betting the large amounts that would be necessary for significant profits, depending on the amount of one's bankroll, or house credit level. And remember, the house can shut you down at any time by simply asking you to leave. It's a slippery slope but one can make small profits without getting the boot.

[antigeekess]

Basically, if a player knows how to play black jack, he/she can reduce the house advantage to about 1%. So, such a player needs to overcome that 1% disadvantage. Can it be done? Of course it can. But there can be some pretty wild swings that can indeed wipe out the player's bankroll. IMO, one can be profitable playing black jack, but the amount of profit will probably be pretty low compared to the amount being put at risk, for rather obvious reasons. Losing streaks can be disastrous when betting the large amounts that would be necessary for significant profits, depending on the amount of one's bankroll, or house credit level. And remember, the house can shut you down at any time by simply asking you to leave. It's a slippery slope but one can make small profits without getting the boot.

These have been my concerns, based on the information I've been exposed to thus far -- ROI, risk of ruin, and getting backed off/backroomed. Seems a hell of a lot more stressful and not likely to be as profitable as betting the horses. Still interesting if these issues can be overcome, as Traynor suggests. (Those who insist that it's all a matter of mathematics will insist that if one manages to avoid the heat, blackjack is a sure thing, of course.)

[thaskalos]

These have been my concerns, based on the information I've been exposed to thus far -- ROI, risk of ruin, and getting backed off/backroomed. Seems a hell of a lot more stressful and not likely to be as profitable as betting the horses. Still interesting if these issues can be overcome, as Traynor suggests. (Those who insist that it's all a matter of mathematics will insist that if one manages to avoid the heat, blackjack is a sure thing, of course.)

It's interesting that Traynor gives favorable mention to Ken Uston...while also adding that this whole "hiding from the pit crew" thing is nothing but a lure.

Wasn't Uston also known as a "master of disguise"?

[raybo]

These have been my concerns, based on the information I've been exposed to thus far -- ROI, risk of ruin, and getting backed off/backroomed. Seems a hell of a lot more stressful and not likely to be as profitable as betting the horses. Still interesting if these issues can be overcome, as Traynor suggests. (Those who insist that it's all a matter of mathematics will insist that if one manages to avoid the heat, blackjack is a sure thing, of course.)

I agree, one can make better profits in horse racing, both having the same amount risked, because in racing you get odds, which you don't get in black jack, except of course for a black jack where you receive 3/2 odds.

In black jack, once one has become skilled enough to lower the house advantage to about 1%, one must still overcome that 1%. This can be done, legally, but you still face the possibility of the house shutting you down at any time. The key seems to me to be "flying under the radar" and not getting greedy and/or flaunting your success. This means that your profits must be kept relatively low, in order to not incense casino management, because if that happens you will get shut down or otherwise further disadvantaged (each game has a set of rules, and some of those rules can be changed at any time).

The dealer's advantage lies in playing last, allowing the player to bust out first. The players offset to that advantage is in receiving 3/2 odds for a black jack, which reduces the house advantage somewhat, but that 1% disadvantage is still there and must be dealt with in one way or another for the player to make profit.

[thaskalos]

I agree, one can make better profits in horse racing, both having the same amount risked, because in racing you get odds, which you don't get in black jack, except of course for a black jack where you receive 3/2 odds.

In black jack, once one has become skilled enough to lower the house advantage to about 1%, one must still overcome that 1%. This can be done, legally, but you still face the possibility of the house shutting you down at any time. The key seems to me to be "flying under the radar" and not getting greedy and/or flaunting your success. This means that your profits must be kept relatively low, in order to not incense casino management, because if that happens you will get shut down or otherwise further disadvantaged (each game has a set of rules, and some of those rules can be changed at any time).

The dealer's advantage lies in playing last, allowing the player to bust out first. The players offset to that advantage is in receiving 3/2 odds for a black jack, which reduces the house advantage somewhat, but that 1% disadvantage is still there and must be dealt with in one way or another for the player to make profit.

The disadvantage against the basic strategy player is .65% in an eight deck game...and it doesn't take much skill to reach that level of competence; all it takes is the memorization of some simple rules.

I would dare say that over 90% of the horseplayers out there are playing their game of choice at a much bigger disadvantage than .65%...even if few of them are really aware of it. IMO...these horseplayers would be much better off playing blackjack.

There are also simple counting methods out there, which could be learned pretty quickly...even by a relative dummy like me. They may not be powerful enough to give the player a sizable edge...but they do negate the negative expectation that he would normally face.

My point is that it's pretty easy for the ambitious player to become a "break-even" player in blackjack. In horseplaying...the player has to become a legitimate "expert" before he can expect to break even.

In my opinion, at least.

[raybo]

The disadvantage against the basic strategy player is .65% in an eight deck game...and it doesn't take much skill to reach that level of competence; all it takes is the memorization of some simple rules.

I would dare say that over 90% of the horseplayers out there are playing their game of choice at a much bigger disadvantage than .65%...even if few of them are really aware of it. IMO...these horseplayers would be much better off playing blackjack.

There are also simple counting methods out there, which could be learned pretty quickly...even by a relative dummy like me. They may not be powerful enough to give the player a sizable edge...but they do negate the negative expectation that he would normally face.

My point is that it's pretty easy for the ambitious player to become a "break-even" player in blackjack. In horseplaying...the player has to become a legitimate "expert" before he can expect to break even.

In my opinion, at least.

Point taken, I was rounding up to 1%. And yet you prefer racing and poker to black jack, is that not true? If so, why? Is it because even the expert black jack player only has an advantage of about 1%? Rebates in racing are more than that. True it is harder to achieve 1% disadvantage in racing, but not impossible and the rebates available are more than 2% at most ADWs that offer rebates.

[thaskalos]

Point taken, I was rounding up to 1%. And yet you prefer racing and poker to black jack, is that not true? If so, why? Is it because even the expert black jack player only has an advantage of about 1%? Rebates in racing are more than that. True it is harder to achieve 1% disadvantage in racing, but not impossible and the rebates available are more than 2% at most ADWs that offer rebates.

I prefer poker above all...and I have been playing poker more and more in recent months. The no-limit cash games out there are very "live"...and the profit potential is great, IMO.

Horse racing is losing favor with me, especially during the winter months. The game is quickly losing its luster from a wagering standpoint -- for various reasons -- and I would tend to dissuade a newcomer from entering our game at this point and time. The newcomer would be better off in poker...IMO.

[raybo]

I prefer poker above all...and I have been playing poker more and more in recent months. The no-limit cash games out there are very "live"...and the profit potential is great, IMO.

Horse racing is losing favor with me, especially during the winter months. The game is quickly losing its luster from a wagering standpoint -- for various reasons -- and I would tend to dissuade a newcomer from entering our game at this point and time. The newcomer would be better off in poker...IMO.

I agree, poker is much more interesting to me than black jack, for sure, and maybe racing also. I think both racing and poker are games where the best "gambler" has the advantage, not the best technically enabled, because in both games we are playing against other players, whereas in black jack you are simply playing against the inherent, known advantage of the house.

The fact that you can win in poker with a losing hand means that the technical expertise does not necessarily advantage you. The same can be said of racing, as one can have a horse that is not the best horse and yet still win the race, and often at lucrative payouts.

Your contention that racing offers less profit potential than in the past, I suppose for most, is true. But for some the profit potential is still alive and well. It's just a matter of approach. Poker also went through severe changes during the TV broadcast boom, showing each players hold cards. But, some players found ways of overcoming the improved abilities of the public. So, even though the perceptions of some that both games seem less profitable, for the masses, there is still a percentage of players that have overcome the hurdles.

It saddens me to hear people say that racing offers less value now than in the past, as I know my game has not suffered, and as a matter of fact has become even more profitable. Evolution is an amazing thing!

[thaskalos]

I agree, poker is much more interesting to me than black jack, for sure, and maybe racing also. I think both racing and poker are games where the best "gambler" has the advantage, not the best technically enabled, because in both games we are playing against other players, whereas in black jack you are simply playing against the inherent, known advantage of the house.

The fact that you can win in poker with a losing hand means that the technical expertise does not necessarily advantage you. The same can be said of racing, as one can have a horse that is not the best horse and yet still win the race, and often at lucrative payouts.

Your contention that racing offers less profit potential than in the past, I suppose for most, is true. But for some the profit potential is still alive and well. It's just a matter of approach. Poker also went through severe changes during the TV broadcast boom, showing each players hold cards. But, some players found ways of overcoming the improved abilities of the public. So, even though the perceptions of some that both games seem less profitable, for the masses, there is still a percentage of players that have overcome the hurdles.

It saddens me to hear people say that racing offers less value now than in the past, as I know my game has not suffered, and as a matter of fact has become even more profitable. Evolution is an amazing thing!

The profit potential is still there, Ray...but for how long? The future of the game does not inspire confidence...and even the winning players cannot be blamed for looking around for better games to play.

To me...it becomes a straight-forward business decision: Where is my time better spent...profit-wise?

If there is more profit potential in poker -- and, IMO, there is -- then my decision is made for me.

[raybo]

The profit potential is still there, Ray...but for how long? The future of the game does not inspire confidence...and even the winning players cannot be blamed for looking around for better games to play.

To me...it becomes a straight-forward business decision: Where is my time better spent...profit-wise?

If there is more profit potential in poker -- and, IMO, there is -- then my decision is made for me.

I agree, racing is on the decline, and has been for years. I think it all depends on whether or not the "powers that be" finally get it and start making changes that focus on its customers, rather than on its principals. Without the customer, the principals cannot survive. I would probably move towards poker if it was legal to play it, for money, in Texas. Again, the principals involved have the control, and they can either help the game prosper or ruin it for all. Both games face the same obstacles, how they are dealt with will determine the future of both.

[thaskalos]

I agree, racing is on the decline, and has been for years. I think it all depends on whether or not the "powers that be" finally get it and start making changes that focus on its customers, rather than on its principals. Without the customer, the principals cannot survive. I would probably move towards poker if it was legal to play it, for money, in Texas. Again, the principals involved have the control, and they can either help the game prosper or ruin it for all. Both games face the same obstacles, how they are dealt with will determine the future of both.

If I were to assign odds to it...I would call this a 50-1 proposition. :)

[raybo]

If I were to assign odds to it...I would call this a 50-1 proposition. :)

LOL - pretty high odds! The question is, "How important is it that the game survive?". If it is deemed very important, to the interests of the people in the industry, then it is also in their interest to assure that it survives. So, looking at it from that perspective, perhaps in the future those "50-1" odds will begin to reverse. If the game dies, so does the income for those people in the industry.

I asked the TRC chairman the same question in my email correspondence with him. If the racing industry in Texas dies, which it surely will at some point in the future if things are not reversed regarding internet wagering, what happens to your job, and to the TRC itself, and to the horsemen, grooms, track employees, etc., etc..? I got no further response from him.

[traynor]

Well allrighty, then. Any method that does not automatically cause a huge risk of being "backroomed" or other unpleasant interactions with unfriendlies is infinitely more appealing. Hopefully one does not have to be the intellectual equivalent of Kim Peek to pull it off. So you're saying the best available breadcrumbs to follow have been distributed by Revere and Uston?

And Carlson. Especially his encounter with the counting couple who were using Revere's APC.

[traynor]

The disadvantage against the basic strategy player is .65% in an eight deck game...and it doesn't take much skill to reach that level of competence; all it takes is the memorization of some simple rules.

I would dare say that over 90% of the horseplayers out there are playing their game of choice at a much bigger disadvantage than .65%...even if few of them are really aware of it. IMO...these horseplayers would be much better off playing blackjack.

There are also simple counting methods out there, which could be learned pretty quickly...even by a relative dummy like me. They may not be powerful enough to give the player a sizable edge...but they do negate the negative expectation that he would normally face.

My point is that it's pretty easy for the ambitious player to become a "break-even" player in blackjack. In horseplaying...the player has to become a legitimate "expert" before he can expect to break even.

In my opinion, at least.

Uhhh. That is not quite correct. That break even thing only exists until the first card is dealt. It starts seesawing seriously thereafter--whether one is tracking the cards or not.

Eight deck shoe. Six players. Every card on the first round is a paint. Do you seriously expect that playing basic strategy is going to make a break even game?

[traynor]

It's interesting that Traynor gives favorable mention to Ken Uston...while also adding that this whole "hiding from the pit crew" thing is nothing but a lure.

Wasn't Uston also known as a "master of disguise"?

What Uston was hiding (way back in the olden times, long, long ago) was the fact that he was playing with a team of counters.

[thaskalos]

Uhhh. That is not quite correct. That break even thing only exists until the first card is dealt. It starts seesawing seriously thereafter--whether one is tracking the cards or not.

Eight deck shoe. Six players. Every card on the first round is a paint. Do you seriously expect that playing basic strategy is going to make a break even game?

I honestly don't see what you are trying to say here. That "break even thing" only exists until the first race is run, as well. So? All forms of gambling seesaw back and forth in their results...don't we all know that? Does the "break even" player seriously expect to break even every day? Doesn't he already know that his results will fluctuate wildly day-to-day? Must we really always state the obvious?

And where did I say that basic strategy makes for an even game? I said that the basic strategy player faces a .65% disadvantage with an eight-deck shoe. And I also said that this .65% disadvantage can be negated by implementing a rather simple counting system...which only takes a couple of weeks to learn. This counting system will not make the player rich...but it is easy to learn, and does not advertise the user as the typical "counter".

I know...because I use it myself.

[traynor]

I honestly don't see what you are trying to say here. That "break even thing" only exists until the first race is run, as well. So? All forms of gambling seesaw back and forth in their results...don't we all know that? Does the "break even" player seriously expect to break even every day? Doesn't he already know that his results will fluctuate wildly day-to-day? Must we really always state the obvious?

And where did I say that basic strategy makes for an even game? I said that the basic strategy player faces a .65% disadvantage with an eight-deck shoe. And I also said that this .65% disadvantage can be negated by implementing a rather simple counting system...which only takes a couple of weeks to learn. This counting system will not make the player rich...but it is easy to learn, and does not advertise the user as the typical "counter".

I know...because I use it myself.

Once more "the basic strategy player faces a .65% disadvantage with an eight-deck shoe" is true if--and only if--no card has been dealt. You make it sound as if a player using basic strategy in an eight deck game always has a 0.65% disadvantage. Or--stated differently--a player using only basic strategy will never have worse than a 0.65% disadvantage. That is simply not true.

[thaskalos]

Once more "the basic strategy player faces a .65% disadvantage with an eight-deck shoe" is true if--and only if--no card has been dealt. You make it sound as if a player using basic strategy in an eight deck game always has a 0.65% disadvantage. Or--stated differently--a player using only basic strategy will never have worse than a 0.65% disadvantage. That is simply not true.

It's exactly the same in every other form of gambling as well, Traynor. The gambler's expected advantage or disadvantage in a game is only measured with the long-run in mind. The results vary in individual hands...or races...or stock transactions.

That's all elementary...IMO.

[antigeekess]

It's exactly the same in every other form of gambling as well, Traynor. The gambler's expected advantage or disadvantage in a game is only measured with the long-run in mind. The results vary in individual hands...or races...or stock transactions.

That's all elementary...IMO.

I think Traynor's talking about hand-by-hand odds fluctuations within the individual game itself, based on what's already been dealt. (Which is exactly what I would expect the focus of a counter to be.) Of course, I don't think he's officially fessed up to being a counter.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. </Seinfeld> ;)

[thaskalos]

I think Traynor's talking about hand-by-hand odds fluctuations within the individual game itself, based on what's already been dealt. (Which is exactly what I would expect the focus of a counter to be.) Of course, I don't think he's officially fessed up to being a counter.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. </Seinfeld> ;)

Is Traynor debating against the fact that the basic strategy player faces a long-term disadvantage of .65% in an eight-deck game?

Isn't that all that I've said here?

Did I ever say that the player faces this disadvantage in every single hand that he plays?

[traynor]

It's exactly the same in every other form of gambling as well, Traynor. The gambler's expected advantage or disadvantage in a game is only measured with the long-run in mind. The results vary in individual hands...or races...or stock transactions.

That's all elementary...IMO.

It doesn't really matter much if one's mind is on the long run. In the real world, one's money is going to be in the casino coffers. That is what matters. If one is playing multi-million hand simulations, that "long run" may be significant. Behaving as if the same advantage/disadvantage applies in the (extremely) finite number of hands an individual actually plays in a casino as would apply in a multi-million hand computer simulation strikes me as unusually self destructive.

I thought Schlesinger's comments would have made that obvious.

[traynor]

Is Traynor debating against the fact that the basic strategy player faces a long-term disadvantage of .65% in an eight-deck game?

Isn't that all that I've said here?

Did I ever say that the player faces this disadvantage in every single hand that he plays?

I am not debating. If I were, I would declare you the winner. Life is way too short to waste it debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[traynor]

I think Traynor's talking about hand-by-hand odds fluctuations within the individual game itself, based on what's already been dealt. (Which is exactly what I would expect the focus of a counter to be.) Of course, I don't think he's officially fessed up to being a counter.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. </Seinfeld> ;)

In essence, that is exactly the point. One may develop strategies based on multi-million hand simulations, but--as Schlesinger pointed out--the application of those strategies on a specific "small sample" of hands may not work out quite the way it does in simulations.

As I wrote before, the concept is not new, and it is not original with me.

[thaskalos]

In essence, that is exactly the point. One may develop strategies based on multi-million hand simulations, but--as Schlesinger pointed out--the application of those strategies on a specific "small sample" of hands may not work out quite the way it does in simulations.

As I wrote before, the concept is not new, and it is not original with me.
These "small samples" of hands which may not work out quite the way they do in the simulations...they could easily work out better than expected too...no?

[lansdale]

Well allrighty, then. Any method that does not automatically cause a huge risk of being "backroomed" or other unpleasant interactions with unfriendlies is infinitely more appealing. Hopefully one does not have to be the intellectual equivalent of Kim Peek to pull it off. So you're saying the best available breadcrumbs to follow have been distributed by Revere and Uston?

Hi ag,

If you are interested in learning about blackjack, I suggest you ignore the advice of Traynor, who knows little about the game, and apparently nothing about probability and statistics. His references and the tenor of his comments suggest that he's been out of touch with the game for about 25 years. Revere and Uston were influential figures in their time, but the former died in 1977, and the latter, I believe, in 1989. Some significant discoveries have been made in the game since that time, and, with the proliferation of casino gambling, game conditions have changed dramatically (mostly for the worse) since the era of Revere and Uston.

Your fears about potential backrooming are groundless. You may have seen this in '21' but the incident, like much of the film, were fabricated for entertainment purposes. However, things like this did happen when the mob was running the show in Vegas. However, since James Grosjean successfully won his $400,000 suit against the Griffin Agency a few years back, effectively putting them out of business, the practice is nearly extinct.

If you're interested in learning about blackjack, you can do a search on a thread that was on this site's poker page a few months back, or go to the sites of Mike (Wizard of Odds) Shackleford, or Stanford Wong's bj21.com, which both have very accurate information about the math and real world aspects of the game.

Cheers,

lansdale

[Magister Ludi]

Well allrighty, then. Any method that does not automatically cause a huge risk of being "backroomed" or other unpleasant interactions with unfriendlies is infinitely more appealing. Hopefully one does not have to be the intellectual equivalent of Kim Peek to pull it off. So you're saying the best available breadcrumbs to follow have been distributed by Revere and Uston?

It is my opinion that Mr. Lansdale is the most knowledgeable and experienced blackjack practioner on this site. His above post is accurate. As he states above, "...game conditions [for blackjack card counters] have changed dramatically (mostly for the worse) since the era of Revere and Uston."

There is a very small and elite class of advantage players who use extraordinarily complex counting strategies in casino games other than blackjack to attain edges of as much as an order of magnitude greater than that of professional blackjack counters. Sometimes they use other esoteric and complex techniques and strategies in conjunction with advanced counting techniques to attain even higher edges. However, they aren't leaving a trail of breadcrumbs to follow.

[lansdale]

I honestly don't see what you are trying to say here. That "break even thing" only exists until the first race is run, as well. So? All forms of gambling seesaw back and forth in their results...don't we all know that? Does the "break even" player seriously expect to break even every day? Doesn't he already know that his results will fluctuate wildly day-to-day? Must we really always state the obvious?

And where did I say that basic strategy makes for an even game? I said that the basic strategy player faces a .65% disadvantage with an eight-deck shoe. And I also said that this .65% disadvantage can be negated by implementing a rather simple counting system...which only takes a couple of weeks to learn. This counting system will not make the player rich...but it is easy to learn, and does not advertise the user as the typical "counter".

I know...because I use it myself.

Hi Thask,

Haven't been around here for awhile, but I little surprised you're hanging in there with blackjack. I see you mention elsewhere in this thread that you're gravitating toward poker, and that makes sense - it seems like much more your game. No question it's much more interesting than blackjack.

I'm not a poker player, so I would be interested in your take on this, but I would say that BJ has only one advantage over poker in that it scales better. I know a number of poker players that make say, $30-$40 per hr. playing 2-5 NL cash games, but they seem to have trouble moving up, and the same seems to be true at the next level.

When I ask these guys if they think they'll eventually be able to move up to say, 10-20, they look like I'm asking if they can climb K2. OTOH, there' very little difference in skill between a BJ player making $25/hr. and $100/hr..


Cheers,

lansdale

[thaskalos]

Hi Thask,

Haven't been around here for awhile, but I little surprised you're hanging in there with blackjack. I see you mention elsewhere in this thread that you're gravitating toward poker, and that makes sense - it seems like much more your game. No question it's much more interesting than blackjack.

I'm not a poker player, so I would be interested in your take on this, but I would say that BJ has only one advantage over poker in that it scales better. I know a number of poker players that make say, $30-$40 per hr. playing 2-5 NL cash games, but they seem to have trouble moving up, and the same seems to be true at the next level.

When I ask these guys if they think they'll eventually be able to move up to say, 10-20, they look like I'm asking if they can climb K2. OTOH, there' very little difference in skill between a BJ player making $25/hr. and $100/hr..


Cheers,

lansdale

Hi lansdale,

Yes...I have stuck with blackjack, although on a limited basis. It is my misfortune to live in a place where blackjack game selection is not what you might call "ideal". But I intend to stay with the game...and become as good a blackjack player as my ability will allow. And I agree, of course, with your assessment of the "scaling" differences between poker and blackjack. In fact...that was one of the main things that attracted me to horseplaying many years ago. You don't have to worry about facing tougher competition when you play higher in horse racing and blackjack...you just need to make sure that you can handle the psychological strain that is the byproduct of the much more turbulent swings associated with higher-limit play.

My intention is to move up in stakes as much as I can in no-limit holdem...and I pray that I'll have the good sense to know when I've met my match. :)

It's nice talking with you again...and thanks again for your helpful suggestions.

[traynor]

These "small samples" of hands which may not work out quite the way they do in the simulations...they could easily work out better than expected too...no?

Very much so.

[traynor]

Rather than all that heavy thinking, newbies might be better suited to following Stanford Wong's premise of dice manipulation as the way to profit. A better way to preserve precious cognitive resources than blackjack.

http://www.blackjacktheforum.com/archive/index.php?t-160.html

[traynor]

Best source of information on playing blackjack:

http://www.amazon.com/Blackjack-Blood-Card-Counters-Complete-Winning/dp/0935926232

[traynor]

Given the abundance of low-hanging fruit available to relatively inexperienced blackjack players using easily-learned and simple plus-minus playing strategies--and the ease with which it may be plucked--one must wonder why anyone who enjoys gambling would even consider anything else.

For example, how long would one need to study and practice his or her handicapping skills to consistently, reliably, and easily earn $100+ per hour for her or his efforts handicapping thoroughbred races? Not just an occasional "good day" but mechanically repetitive, long-term profits guaranteed by the inexhorable force of statistical pressure?

I am certainly convinced. And I have not even considered the advantages of casino comps.

[antigeekess]

Hi ag,

If you are interested in learning about blackjack, I suggest you ignore the advice of Traynor, who knows little about the game, and apparently nothing about probability and statistics. His references and the tenor of his comments suggest that he's been out of touch with the game for about 25 years. Revere and Uston were influential figures in their time, but the former died in 1977, and the latter, I believe, in 1989. Some significant discoveries have been made in the game since that time, and, with the proliferation of casino gambling, game conditions have changed dramatically (mostly for the worse) since the era of Revere and Uston.


Such as, generally?

Your fears about potential backrooming are groundless. You may have seen this in '21' but the incident, like much of the film, were fabricated for entertainment purposes. However, things like this did happen when the mob was running the show in Vegas. However, since James Grosjean successfully won his $400,000 suit against the Griffin Agency a few years back, effectively putting them out of business, the practice is nearly extinct.

It's that 'nearly' part I'm concerned about. It know it still happens occasionally, with counters being 'detained' against their will, although thankfully I haven't read any reports of anyone being physically abused.

If you're interested in learning about blackjack, you can do a search on a thread that was on this site's poker page a few months back, or go to the sites of Mike (Wizard of Odds) Shackleford, or Stanford Wong's bj21.com, which both have very accurate information about the math and real world aspects of the game.

I've visited the Wizard of Odds site before, but hadn't seen Wong's yet. Thanks, lansdale.

[antigeekess]

It is my opinion that Mr. Lansdale is the most knowledgeable and experienced blackjack practioner on this site. His above post is accurate. As he states above, "...game conditions [for blackjack card counters] have changed dramatically (mostly for the worse) since the era of Revere and Uston."

Neither of you are specifying, but I assume you mean rule changes regarding things like splitting, payouts, and the rarity of single or double-deck games.

There is a very small and elite class of advantage players who use extraordinarily complex counting strategies in casino games other than blackjack to attain edges of as much as an order of magnitude greater than that of professional blackjack counters. Sometimes they use other esoteric and complex techniques and strategies in conjunction with advanced counting techniques to attain even higher edges. However, they aren't leaving a trail of breadcrumbs to follow.

Then that doesn't do me much good, does it?

[antigeekess]

Rather than all that heavy thinking, newbies might be better suited to following Stanford Wong's premise of dice manipulation as the way to profit. A better way to preserve precious cognitive resources than blackjack.

http://www.blackjacktheforum.com/archive/index.php?t-160.html

I heard or read about this somewhere. As I recall, the author was skeptical, as was I. If precise physical manipulation of dice is even possible, is it not also about as obvious as counting?

[antigeekess]

Best source of information on playing blackjack:

http://www.amazon.com/Blackjack-Blood-Card-Counters-Complete-Winning/dp/0935926232

Already on my shelf, Traynor. Which is why I said your earlier posts reminded me of him. :) It's been a while since I read it, though. I intend to revisit it soon.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Where's the best (current) place to play blackjack in the US?

In my opinion, it was Tunica, MS, in the late 90s. At that time, there were 9 or 10 casinos battling ferociously for business. MS gaming laws are patterned after NV (certainly not NJ), allowing the casinos a lot of freedom as far as the types of games offered. In the late 90s, I believe all of the casinos offered double-deck bj and several offered single deck. At one point, Harrah's owned two casinos in Tunica. At the lessor property, they would offer lots of single-deck games--it wasn't unusual for dealers to run out of cards with just one player at the table.

[lansdale]

Where's the best (current) place to play blackjack in the US?

In my opinion, it was Tunica, MS, in the late 90s. At that time, there were 9 or 10 casinos battling ferociously for business. MS gaming laws are patterned after NV (certainly not NJ), allowing the casinos a lot of freedom as far as the types of games offered. In the late 90s, I believe all of the casinos offered double-deck bj and several offered single deck. At one point, Harrah's owned two casinos in Tunica. At the lessor property, they would offer lots of single-deck games--it wasn't unusual for dealers to run out of cards with just one player at the table.

Hi SM,

This is too open-ended a question to answer easily. Re Tunica, as you say, it was a gold-mind for counters in the '90 and into early '00s, but it never recovered from Katrina and the incursion of Harrah's (The Evil Empire in counter lexicon) and it's ilk. Now a BJ dead zone, at least for counters.

Probably most relevant question is whether you're a counter or basic strategy player. If the latter, I can't help you as much, since your decision is probably guided by available comps, and since I play unrated (when I'm playing) my knowledge of that subject is limited.

If you can provide more detail, and specify a geographic region, I could probably be of more help.

Cheers,

lansdale

[lansdale]

Hi lansdale,

Yes...I have stuck with blackjack, although on a limited basis. It is my misfortune to live in a place where blackjack game selection is not what you might call "ideal". But I intend to stay with the game...and become as good a blackjack player as my ability will allow. And I agree, of course, with your assessment of the "scaling" differences between poker and blackjack. In fact...that was one of the main things that attracted me to horseplaying many years ago. You don't have to worry about facing tougher competition when you play higher in horse racing and blackjack...you just need to make sure that you can handle the psychological strain that is the byproduct of the much more turbulent swings associated with higher-limit play.

My intention is to move up in stakes as much as I can in no-limit holdem...and I pray that I'll have the good sense to know when I've met my match. :)

It's nice talking with you again...and thanks again for your helpful suggestions.

Everything you say make sense - as usual. I understand why you're rolling with poker - sounds like better opportunities available in that game than with BJ in your area. I realize I've many posts on BJ here recently, but I believe poker to be a much better, in fact the best, way to make a living as a gambler if you have the skill. I think you might agree, that if we think of the ratio of pro poker to pro BJ to pro horseplayers we can think of, poker has a large advantage.

Best of luck and thanks for all your posts here.

Cheers,

lansdale

[lansdale]

Such as, generally?




It's that 'nearly' part I'm concerned about. It know it still happens occasionally, with counters being 'detained' against their will, although thankfully I haven't read any reports of anyone being physically abused.






I've visited the Wizard of Odds site before, but hadn't seen Wong's yet. Thanks, lansdale.

1. Don Schlesinger's I18, Dr. Brett Harris' formulation of N0 (long-run expectation) and bet ramping, in general.

2. It doesn't happen unless the casino believes you're cheating or you're winning large sums of money and they believe you're counting. Could either of those apply to you?

Neither the casino nor their rent-a-cop security personnel have a legal right to detain anyone. If you want to know how to respond if they do attempt to detain or assault you, I recommend you read, 'Beat the Players: Casinos, Cops, and the Game within the Game' by Bob Nersesian. Bob is the go-to attorney for all blackjack pros. He's won a number of lucrative suits vs. the casinos, including the Grosjean case, cited above, on behalf of backroomed, assaulted, spindled, folded, and mutilated blackjack players. His number is high on the speed dial list of most BJ pros.

Cheers,

lansdale

[lansdale]

It is my opinion that Mr. Lansdale is the most knowledgeable and experienced blackjack practioner on this site. His above post is accurate. As he states above, "...game conditions [for blackjack card counters] have changed dramatically (mostly for the worse) since the era of Revere and Uston."

There is a very small and elite class of advantage players who use extraordinarily complex counting strategies in casino games other than blackjack to attain edges of as much as an order of magnitude greater than that of professional blackjack counters. Sometimes they use other esoteric and complex techniques and strategies in conjunction with advanced counting techniques to attain even higher edges. However, they aren't leaving a trail of breadcrumbs to follow.

Hi ML,

Thanks for your positive words. I do try to convey as accurate a sense of what the game is about as I can.

Best,

lansdale

[Saratoga_Mike]

Hi SM,

This is too open-ended a question to answer easily. Re Tunica, as you say, it was a gold-mind for counters in the '90 and into early '00s, but it never recovered from Katrina and the incursion of Harrah's (The Evil Empire in counter lexicon) and it's ilk. Now a BJ dead zone, at least for counters.

Probably most relevant question is whether you're a counter or basic strategy player. If the latter, I can't help you as much, since your decision is probably guided by available comps, and since I play unrated (when I'm playing) my knowledge of that subject is limited.

If you can provide more detail, and specify a geographic region, I could probably be of more help.

Cheers,

lansdale

I really meant for counting.

That's a shame about Tunica. I remember Fitzgerald's and the acquired Harrah's casino (can't remember what brand it was prior to the acq) were the best places in Tunica in the mid to late 90s. You could sit and count at Fitzgerald's and they'd still comp you a steak dinner!

[traynor]

Already on my shelf, Traynor. Which is why I said your earlier posts reminded me of him. :) It's been a while since I read it, though. I intend to revisit it soon.

Look for the comment about the fellow with the "Chinese-sounding name." It is close to the comment about "Hans Christian." Interesting perspective.

[antigeekess]

1. Don Schlesinger's I18, Dr. Brett Harris' formulation of N0 (long-run expectation) and bet ramping, in general.

2. It doesn't happen unless the casino believes you're cheating or you're winning large sums of money and they believe you're counting. Could either of those apply to you?

Neither the casino nor their rent-a-cop security personnel have a legal right to detain anyone. If you want to know how to respond if they do attempt to detain or assault you, I recommend you read, 'Beat the Players: Casinos, Cops, and the Game within the Game' by Bob Nersesian. Bob is the go-to attorney for all blackjack pros. He's won a number of lucrative suits vs. the casinos, including the Grosjean case, cited above, on behalf of backroomed, assaulted, spindled, folded, and mutilated blackjack players. His number is high on the speed dial list of most BJ pros.


Sounds like valuable info, lansdale. Thanks.

[antigeekess]

I really meant for counting.

That's a shame about Tunica. I remember Fitzgerald's and the acquired Harrah's casino (can't remember what brand it was prior to the acq) were the best places in Tunica in the mid to late 90s. You could sit and count at Fitzgerald's and they'd still comp you a steak dinner!

Mike, the best info for VEGAS only is right here:
http://wizardofvegas.com/guides/blackjack-survey/?sort=hedge

BlackjackApprenticeship.com was working on a member-compiled similar list for the rest of the country a few months back, which was growing, but it appears to be a member's only page, the "Casino 411 Blackjack Directory" under "Member Resources."

[traynor]

Some may be overlooking (or intentionally minimizing) the fundamental differences (in both potential and strategy) between playing team blackjack and playing solo blackjack. Those differences are substantial.

[antigeekess]

Some may be overlooking (or intentionally minimizing) the fundamental differences (in both potential and strategy) between playing team blackjack and playing solo blackjack. Those differences are substantial.

I have no doubt that's a valid point. As far as the site named above, its founders are best known as leaders of the team documented in this film, which I saw for the first time last year and which piqued my initial interest:

http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Rollers-Story-Counting-Christians/dp/B007HJC3IE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1386954450&sr=8-1&keywords=holy+rollers

If you forgive the clumsy title -- which would of course be much better if they were shooting craps instead of playing blackjack -- it's a pretty entertaining doc. (I have yet to see "21," BTW.) Some team players had trouble, made errors, could not pass their retest, eventually quit, etc., while one temporary team member pretty clearly ripped them off.

As for the two founders, Ben Crawford and Colin Jones, they appear to be very capable on their own. I know Ben posted this past summer on his FaceBook account that he "came out of retirement" and played a little blackjack for the first time in a looooong time while on vacation in some island locale. When pressed, he said he was able to pay for the vacation. (And with 6 kids, one would imagine his vacations are a bit pricey.) Colin has a mathematics degree -- I think his noggin's pretty much a supercomputer and I don't doubt his abilities, either.

The two of them do "Boot Camps" in Vegas every few months. Cost is $1000, I think. I've considered it. I'm not sure it would accomplish anything more for me than just working through their site material and practicing, but Vegas is fairly close and it might be fun.

I'd be interested to know if any of the published works offer a comparison of team vs. individual play.

[raybo]

I have no doubt that's a valid point. As far as the site named above, its founders are best known as leaders of the team documented in this film, which I saw for the first time last year and which piqued my initial interest:

http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Rollers-Story-Counting-Christians/dp/B007HJC3IE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1386954450&sr=8-1&keywords=holy+rollers

If you forgive the clumsy title -- which would of course be much better if they were shooting craps instead of playing blackjack -- it's a pretty entertaining doc. (I have yet to see "21," BTW.) Some team players had trouble, made errors, could not pass their retest, eventually quit, etc., while one temporary team member pretty clearly ripped them off.

As for the two founders, Ben Crawford and Colin Jones, they appear to be very capable on their own. I know Ben posted this past summer on his FaceBook account that he "came out of retirement" and played a little blackjack for the first time in a looooong time while on vacation in some island locale. When pressed, he said he was able to pay for the vacation. (And with 6 kids, one would imagine his vacations are a bit pricey.) Colin has a mathematics degree -- I think his noggin's pretty much a supercomputer and I don't doubt his abilities, either.

The two of them do "Boot Camps" in Vegas every few months. Cost is $1000, I think. I've considered it. I'm not sure it would accomplish anything more for me than just working through their site material and practicing, but Vegas is fairly close and it might be fun.

I'd be interested to know if any of the published works offer a comparison of team vs. individual play.

I would imagine team play would have many advantages over solo play. Being able to split duties would allow all involved to perform their duties at a higher level, while a solo player has to do all of them at the same time, while keeping his emotions and actions completely under control, and avoiding sending up the red flags that casino security looks for to spot counters. Team play, if you had several teams working, would allow the exploiting of different games/tables/casinos at the same time, which theoretically would mean more cash flow, and more consistent team wide average profits, day to day.

[antigeekess]

I would imagine team play would have many advantages over solo play. Being able to split duties would allow all involved to perform their duties at a higher level, while a solo player has to do all of them at the same time, while keeping his emotions and actions completely under control, and avoiding sending up the red flags that casino security looks for to spot counters. Team play, if you had several teams working, would allow the exploiting of different games/tables/casinos at the same time, which theoretically would mean more cash flow, and more consistent team wide average profits, day to day.

Not to mention less intimidating and lonely. I really don't know how one avoids sending up red flags if you're raising bet amounts when the count gets high. It just seems extremely obvious. Even if cameras/pit bosses aren't watching, the dealer should notice immediately.

The "Church Team" reportedly took about $3 mil over a 4-year period, I believe, and that includes a period when they appeared to get ripped off to the tune of about $900,000 by one team member. (I think these were the numbers, if I remember correctly.) So they would have done about a million a year. They were 'very' well funded, using not only their own cash, but other investors' as well, including some parents. They did document 5-figure losses on single evenings, but were always able to recover soon thereafter, having sufficient bankroll to sustain such losses and keep playing.

[lamboguy]

my idea of a good handicapper is someone that can handicap the horses and do a good job with risk assessment at the same time.

[raybo]

Not to mention less intimidating and lonely. I really don't know how one avoids sending up red flags if you're raising bet amounts when the count gets high. It just seems extremely obvious. Even if cameras/pit bosses aren't watching, the dealer should notice immediately.

The "Church Team" reportedly took about $3 mil over a 4-year period, I believe, and that includes a period when they appeared to get ripped off to the tune of about $900,000 by one team member. (I think these were the numbers, if I remember correctly.) So they would have done about a million a year. They were 'very' well funded, using not only their own cash, but other investors' as well, including some parents. They did document 5-figure losses on single evenings, but were always able to recover soon thereafter, having sufficient bankroll to sustain such losses and keep playing.

One of the keys is to raise your bet after a winning hand, not after a losing hand. But, there are other keys to staying under the radar, one being to keep your min/max bet spread within reason, among other things. Casinos are used to seeing players raise and lower their bet amounts, you just want to appear to be doing it when non-counters would do it, not when less security conscious counters would do it.

It's kind of like how good pro poker players operate, they switch gears occasionally to throw off players that are trying to get into their heads by watching for betting patterns and playing patterns. Sometimes you have do some "zigging" instead of "zagging", even though "zagging" is the obvious thing to do at the time, even though you might lose a bit short term. It's the long term that matters most.

[traynor]

I have no doubt that's a valid point. As far as the site named above, its founders are best known as leaders of the team documented in this film, which I saw for the first time last year and which piqued my initial interest:

http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Rollers-Story-Counting-Christians/dp/B007HJC3IE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1386954450&sr=8-1&keywords=holy+rollers

If you forgive the clumsy title -- which would of course be much better if they were shooting craps instead of playing blackjack -- it's a pretty entertaining doc. (I have yet to see "21," BTW.) Some team players had trouble, made errors, could not pass their retest, eventually quit, etc., while one temporary team member pretty clearly ripped them off.

As for the two founders, Ben Crawford and Colin Jones, they appear to be very capable on their own. I know Ben posted this past summer on his FaceBook account that he "came out of retirement" and played a little blackjack for the first time in a looooong time while on vacation in some island locale. When pressed, he said he was able to pay for the vacation. (And with 6 kids, one would imagine his vacations are a bit pricey.) Colin has a mathematics degree -- I think his noggin's pretty much a supercomputer and I don't doubt his abilities, either.

The two of them do "Boot Camps" in Vegas every few months. Cost is $1000, I think. I've considered it. I'm not sure it would accomplish anything more for me than just working through their site material and practicing, but Vegas is fairly close and it might be fun.

I'd be interested to know if any of the published works offer a comparison of team vs. individual play.

I have no opinion about the statements made on the site, in written materials, or in the movie. I have no prejudice either way, other than a normally skeptical attitude toward claims that all sound like re-runs of Uston's Big Player. That is not to say that I would be convinced by "proof"--I have seen way too much doctoring of past accounts, records, bank deposits, etc., to be any more impressed by "proof" as by the claims. It all may have been (and continues to be) exactly as they say. I don't know--I wasn't there, I didn't witness it in real time as it happened--so I have no real opinion about it. Like most things involving gambling, on a balance scale with pure puffery and BS on one side, and absolute fact on the other, it is probably somewhere in between.

[lansdale]

It's really too bad this thread was hijacked, for those who were interested in the thread subject. Maybe this site needs a blackjack rather than a poker page.

Re teams, I would guess ca. 70% or more of pros are on a team. The basic (and I would think obvious) reasons for their existence are to take advantage of both the increased bet-sizing possible -10 players pooling $100k can now bet to a $1 million bank and simultaneously reduce ROR (risk-of-ruin) by cutting their Kelly fraction. Also, as Raybo pointed out, it dramatically reduces variance - compared to a lone player at a game with a 25k long run (say 7 weeks of full-time play) with the associated swings of variance, a 10-person team is now into the long run in about 3-4 days.

Of course, theft and trust issues are the key problems (as the church example ironically demonstrates) and, as a result, teams comprised of groups of very close friends or family often fare better then all-pro teams. Tommy Hyland's team seem to be the best example of this - he also destroyed the myth than BJ is the sole province of brainiacs initiated into some kind of mysterious voodoo ritual that only an elite can ever hope to grasp. Hyland trained friends and neighbors, blue collar and middle-class people, most without college degrees and all without background in higher math, to play winning blackjack. They became one of the most successful teams ever formed, making millions and even closing one Canadian casino.

Cheers,

lansdale

[raybo]

It's really too bad this thread was hijacked, for those who were interested in the thread subject. Maybe this site needs a blackjack rather than a poker page.

Re teams, I would guess ca. 70% or more of pros are on a team. The basic (and I would think obvious) reasons for their existence are to take advantage of both the increased bet-sizing possible -10 players pooling $100k can now bet to a $1 million bank and simultaneously reduce ROR (risk-of-ruin) by cutting their Kelly fraction. Also, as Raybo pointed out, it dramatically reduces variance - compared to a lone player at a game with a 25k long run (say 7 weeks of full-time play) with the associated swings of variance, a 10-person team is now into the long run in about 3-4 days.

Of course, theft and trust issues are the key problems (as the church example ironically demonstrates) and, as a result, teams comprised of groups of very close friends or family often fare better then all-pro teams. Tommy Hyland's team seem to be the best example of this - he also destroyed the myth than BJ is the sole province of brainiacs initiated into some kind of mysterious voodoo ritual that only an elite can ever hope to grasp. Hyland trained friends and neighbors, blue collar and middle-class people, most without college degrees and all without background in higher math, to play winning blackjack. They became one of the most successful teams ever formed, making millions and even closing one Canadian casino.

Cheers,

lansdale

All makes perfect sense to me. :ThmbUp:

[traynor]

I think anyone who has ever played blackjack seriously (rather than reading about it, talking about it, or advising anyone who will listen to them about it) understands clearly that the advantage of team play is that it completely eliminates bet escalation. There is no purpose in, and no reason for, changing bet size. The counters count, usually table minimum. The bettors bet--when the counters signal them that the deck/shoe is advantageous enough to warrant larger bets.

"Training" counters is fairly simple--all they need to do is count, not make playing decisions based on that count. Anyone who can learn basic strategy and basic counting can be trained as a team counter quite easily. Not exactly rocket science.

[raybo]

I think anyone who has ever played blackjack seriously (rather than reading about it, talking about it, or advising anyone who will listen to them about it) understands clearly that the advantage of team play is that it completely eliminates bet escalation. There is no purpose in, and no reason for, changing bet size. The counters count, usually table minimum. The bettors bet--when the counters signal them that the deck/shoe is advantageous enough to warrant larger bets.

"Training" counters is fairly simple--all they need to do is count, not make playing decisions based on that count. Anyone who can learn basic strategy and basic counting can be trained as a team counter quite easily. Not exactly rocket science.

I think you better clear up the bolded statements above! You say one thing then reverse it in the next. There is definitely a need for bet sizing, or else you give away your edge, completely.

[antigeekess]

It's really too bad this thread was hijacked, for those who were interested in the thread subject. Maybe this site needs a blackjack rather than a poker page.

Re teams, I would guess ca. 70% or more of pros are on a team. The basic (and I would think obvious) reasons for their existence are to take advantage of both the increased bet-sizing possible -10 players pooling $100k can now bet to a $1 million bank and simultaneously reduce ROR (risk-of-ruin) by cutting their Kelly fraction. Also, as Raybo pointed out, it dramatically reduces variance - compared to a lone player at a game with a 25k long run (say 7 weeks of full-time play) with the associated swings of variance, a 10-person team is now into the long run in about 3-4 days.

Of course, theft and trust issues are the key problems (as the church example ironically demonstrates) and, as a result, teams comprised of groups of very close friends or family often fare better then all-pro teams. Tommy Hyland's team seem to be the best example of this - he also destroyed the myth than BJ is the sole province of brainiacs initiated into some kind of mysterious voodoo ritual that only an elite can ever hope to grasp. Hyland trained friends and neighbors, blue collar and middle-class people, most without college degrees and all without background in higher math, to play winning blackjack. They became one of the most successful teams ever formed, making millions and even closing one Canadian casino.


Just wanted to point out that the apparent thief was the one guy they let in who was NOT a Christian and/or a close friend. Bad idea.

[antigeekess]

I think you better clear up the bolded statements above! You say one thing then reverse it in the next. There is definitely a need for bet sizing, or else you give away your edge, completely.

I understood him, Raybo. My comments about changing bet size were in regard to the solo player. His comments are about teams, in which the one counting would not raise his/her bet, but the signaled partner comes in and does bet the larger amount. So nobody actually changes their bet size.

Maybe I 'did' see "21." I know I've seen it done in some film or another.

[raybo]

I understood him, Raybo. My comments about changing bet size were in regard to the solo player. His comments are about teams, in which the one counting would not raise his/her bet, but the signaled partner comes in and does bet the larger amount. So nobody actually changes their bet size.

Maybe I 'did' see "21." I know I've seen it done in some film or another.

That's only if the bettor is not already in the game. I doubt many teams sit on the sidelines and then only come in when the count is in their favor. I suppose it happens but that would require that there be several teams working at different tables in order to make much profit. I believe it is much more common for teams to play before the count is in their favor, otherwise security would soon notice what is going on. As I said you must misdirect security by not doing what they are looking for in order to not get the boot. Just sitting in when the count is high will immediately get the attention of security because they are counting too. Do it in the same casino more than a time or two and you'll be asked to leave and never come back.

[antigeekess]

That's only if the bettor is not already in the game. I doubt many teams sit on the sidelines and then only come in when the count is in their favor. I suppose it happens but that would require that there be several teams working at different tables in order to make much profit.

Oh, I dunno. I remember reading a thread on the BJA site where one guy was doing this with just him and his wife, and they were cleaning up by his standards. I don't see why just a partnership of two couldn't do that. I wouldn't be surprised to find that there's some literature on 2-person partnerships. I haven't read a huge amount on the subject yet.

I believe it is much more common for teams to play before the count is in their favor, otherwise security would soon notice what is going on. As I said you must misdirect security by not doing what they are looking for in order to not get the boot. Just sitting in when the count is high will immediately get the attention of security because they are counting too. Do it in the same casino more than a time or two and you'll be asked to leave and never come back.

Of course they will, if they can recognize you. I understand some people regard this as part of the "fun." ;)

[Saratoga_Mike]

I understood him, Raybo. My comments about changing bet size were in regard to the solo player. His comments are about teams, in which the one counting would not raise his/her bet, but the signaled partner comes in and does bet the larger amount. So nobody actually changes their bet size.

Maybe I 'did' see "21." I know I've seen it done in some film or another.

I thought that's what he meant. Pit bosses are on the lookout for this, so it isn't as easy to pulloff as Traynor implies. Lansdale you're the expert - what do you think?

[traynor]

At any given table, there is a betting spread. The counter always plays the low end. The bettor always plays the high end. Anyone who has ever played serious blackjack in the real world would not need an explanation of the advantages of team play.

[traynor]

I thought that's what he meant. Pit bosses are on the lookout for this, so it isn't as easy to pulloff as Traynor implies. Lansdale you're the expert - what do you think?

Quite the contrary. Pit bosses are on the lookout for rookie wannabes trying to increase their bets in "favorable situations" and "put in the hours" to "take advantage of their statistical edge." The dead giveaway is the increased bet size.

And for those who believe (or try to convince others) that they can "increase bets without heat"--most are not betting black or better. Playing nickel and dime with a few shades of green, one can do spectacular things and be ignored. Play black and up, and bet changes are scrutinized considerably more closely.

[raybo]

I agree that team play is the way to go, the problem I see with 2 man teams is that it's going to become obvious pretty quick that the same 2 people do the same things every time they sit down at a table, one plays the table minimum, never raising after a win or otherwise, the other one only sits down when the count is high and always bets high until the count advantage goes away then he/she leaves. Just sounds way to easy for people working for the casinos to put things together. I've never played on a team, but if I were going to, it wouldn't be a two person team, and if I did the counter would never just play the minimum and the bettor would never just play the high end. They would both mix it up a bit, making a little bit less profit, but lasting much longer. After all, you're not going to get rich overnight, you're going to have to play often, for many hours, and for a lengthy period of time, and grind it out, taking your losses along with your winnings. It's the average of those that I would be focusing on.

[traynor]

I think some would have difficulties doing relatively simple things in any field without totally screwing them up. Competent team play in blackjack is not that difficult.

[antigeekess]

Quite the contrary. Pit bosses are on the lookout for rookie wannabes trying to increase their bets in "favorable situations" and "put in the hours" to "take advantage of their statistical edge." The dead giveaway is the increased bet size.

And for those who believe (or try to convince others) that they can "increase bets without heat"--most are not betting black or better. Playing nickel and dime with a few shades of green, one can do spectacular things and be ignored. Play black and up, and bet changes are scrutinized considerably more closely.

This is what I had thought. I know I saw thread on the aforementioned site in the past about which casinos are hypersensitive to black chip action and which aren't. Also, some players have stated that in certain casinos, nobody seems to be watching the graveyard shift. I would think a counter would stick out like a sore thumb even more if there are fewer people to watch in the middle of the night, but the suggestion has been simply that no one is watching. *shrug* Possibly less true in Vegas?

[antigeekess]

I agree that team play is the way to go, the problem I see with 2 man teams is that it's going to become obvious pretty quick that the same 2 people do the same things every time they sit down at a table, one plays the table minimum, never raising after a win or otherwise, the other one only sits down when the count is high and always bets high until the count advantage goes away then he/she leaves. Just sounds way to easy for people working for the casinos to put things together. I've never played on a team, but if I were going to, it wouldn't be a two person team, and if I did the counter would never just play the minimum and the bettor would never just play the high end. They would both mix it up a bit, making a little bit less profit, but lasting much longer. After all, you're not going to get rich overnight, you're going to have to play often, for many hours, and for a lengthy period of time, and grind it out, taking your losses along with your winnings. It's the average of those that I would be focusing on.

Sure. I don't think anyone would recommend heading to the same casino & pulling the same routine over and over with the same 2 faces. Switch casinos, switch positions, change your physical appearance when you rotate back to one that's been hit before. If one is playing Vegas, for example, it could take quite a while to make the rounds.

Of course, there are some casinos that I know are VERY unfriendly to counters. Even the FIRST time. :) As for Vegas, I 'think' it was the Mandalay Bay I heard was particularly nasty. Would have to check.

And I do know that if you're busted at one Harrah's, you're busted at all of them. So I would be inclined to not go until VERY well prepared and well bankrolled, because it sounds like it could be a one-shot deal.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Quite the contrary. Pit bosses are on the lookout for rookie wannabes trying to increase their bets in "favorable situations" and "put in the hours" to "take advantage of their statistical edge." The dead giveaway is the increased bet size.

And for those who believe (or try to convince others) that they can "increase bets without heat"--most are not betting black or better. Playing nickel and dime with a few shades of green, one can do spectacular things and be ignored. Play black and up, and bet changes are scrutinized considerably more closely.

Totally agree on the increased bet size. But the pit bosses are trained to look for everything (granted your scenario is less obvious).

[traynor]

Totally agree on the increased bet size. But the pit bosses are trained to look for everything (granted your scenario is less obvious).

A key element in team play is the percentage of time that decks/shoes are actually advantageous enough to warrant large wagers. While dramatic scenes of a frantic BP in various disguises racing from table to table to win hundreds of thousands in an hour or two may make good Hollywood, reality is considerably more mundane. Specifically, the actual percentage of high player advantage are relatively rare--most will be a little up, a little down, and mostly close to even.

That is what makes solo counters stick out so much, and why solo counters are so easy to spot. That is also what makes the relationship of the team counters to the BP much less conspicuous.

[traynor]

Sure. I don't think anyone would recommend heading to the same casino & pulling the same routine over and over with the same 2 faces. Switch casinos, switch positions, change your physical appearance when you rotate back to one that's been hit before. If one is playing Vegas, for example, it could take quite a while to make the rounds.

Of course, there are some casinos that I know are VERY unfriendly to counters. Even the FIRST time. :) As for Vegas, I 'think' it was the Mandalay Bay I heard was particularly nasty. Would have to check.

And I do know that if you're busted at one Harrah's, you're busted at all of them. So I would be inclined to not go until VERY well prepared and well bankrolled, because it sounds like it could be a one-shot deal.

That sounds like a recipe for disaster. Do yourself a favor and make a trial run (or, preferably, numerous trial runs), playing normally with minimal bet variation (no increases other than doubling down, splitting pairs, etc.). Practice keeping an accurate count, and make whatever strategy changes your particular counting method uses but don't increase wagers.

That will not only finetune your playing skills in the real world, it will give you an idea of how often the count runs into the "very advantageous" area, and how long that "advantage" actually lasts. Again, that is for blackjack in the real world--not blackjack in the lala land of wishing, hoping, and fantasizing after reading the "exploits" of others.

[cj]

Enough of the blackjack stuff.

[raybo]

I apologize for my part in this hijacking. I couldn't even remember what the original thread topic was until I scrolled up to see it. LOL :ThmbUp:

[antigeekess]

I apologize for my part in this hijacking. I couldn't even remember what the original thread topic was until I scrolled up to see it. LOL :ThmbUp:

I think I did it. (If it wasn't me, it was Traynor.) Saaahhhhreeee. :)

[dansan]

If he handicapped like me that would amaze me :lol:

[overthehill]

its usually pretty easy to predict the final odds on clear cut favorites. is much harder to predict final odds on non favorites with any accuracy, but who cares? i would be impressed with anyone who puts together a strategy that allows them to make a profit every month.

[mkkash]

I know handicappers who said 30 years ago when they started betting horses, from day 1, saying "I cannnot beat the races". They still buy the racing form every day and go to the track. They still say 'I can not beat the races" 30 years later. How can this be after the fact justification for failure ?

Beat one race and go home!!!

Horse racing is a business. I knew this after I returned a part of my first day winnings as a newbie. I had to learn and I am still learning.



Raybo:
"It can't, but it is a cause of failure, for dang sure. I knew almost from the first day that the game was beatable, and that I would someday figure out how to do it. With that kind of confidence the whole world opens up for you, if you put in the time and effort required."

I agree with you.

MK KASH

[Mystic]

I just ordered his book at the website for $9.95 PDF version and have it
downloaded now for reading. I like PDF cause I can enlarge the screen and
take off my glasses. ;) I have skimmed the first few chaps and am excited
to take on a more in depth reading. I just wanted people to know it is
available in PDF for a low price.
Downloaded it last night too.. Spent about an hour reading some of it and so far it looks a bit mind boggling. I hope it will eventually make sense. :)

[Robert Goren]

Downloaded it last night too.. Spent about an hour reading some of it and so far it looks a bit mind boggling. I hope it will eventually make sense. :)It takes a little work and a lot of going back and checking early parts of the book. But it is worth it.

[Mystic]

Perhaps I should read the "Modern pace Handicapping" first?
Or maybe the two are two different types of books?

[Magister Ludi]

Perhaps I should read the "Modern pace Handicapping" first?

Don't waste your time and money.

[Robert Goren]

Perhaps I should read the "Modern pace Handicapping" first?
Or maybe the two are two different types of books? I think so. I also agree Ludi.

[Mystic]

Don't waste your time and money.

O.k Thanks :).. I may have already wasted $9.95 if I can't get a grasp of the Extreme Cappin'. I will see how it goes once I get through the 1st 100 pages... lol

[raybo]

O.k Thanks :).. I may have already wasted $9.95 if I can't get a grasp of the Extreme Cappin'. I will see how it goes once I get through the 1st 100 pages... lol

If you give it enough time, it won't be a waste of money.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Yeah 24hrs later the book might be worthless because a Herman Hesse ripoff poster told you it wasn't wise=pure brilliance.

[pondman]

If you give it enough time, it won't be a waste of money.

It's another method, that will require serious discipline, and I believe a serious player that passes most races. It's probably more suitable for screening races rather than as a primary belief. It's not for someone who wants to run to the OTB and play every race.

[raybo]

It's another method, that will require serious discipline, and I believe a serious player that passes most races. It's probably more suitable for screening races rather than as a primary belief. It's not for someone who wants to run to the OTB and play every race.

As you probably know, Randy is a very "picky" player and waits for his "characters" to show up, and at the right odds. So, yes, he passes a lot of races. As I stated earlier, I got info from Randy's site for the basic pace pressure gauge (PPG) and then modified it for my own use. Depending on which track I am playing, and which method I play at that track, I could play 3 races, or I could play 8 or 9 races on a card. All of my work is automated so no need to pre-screen races, or do much manual handicapping at all. So, I guess it really boils down to what info from his book one decides to use, and how you want to use it. For me, Randy's ideas work hand in hand with my program and only requires that I have enough discipline to pass the races the program tells me to pass.

Whether one uses Randy's work for contender selections, or for win contender eliminations, either way $9.95 is a steal!

[Sapio]

If someone could develop an odds pressure and/or a speed pressure gauge.

Mike Sapio

[Longshot6977]

If someone could develop an odds pressure and/or a speed pressure gauge.

Mike Sapio

Like this?: