What do you think is the most common mistake horse bettors are usually committing?

[DeltaLover]

Title says it all..

[Magister Ludi]

Trying to pick winners.

[cj]

Betting too many races.

[dannyhill]

Paying to much attention to the top speed figure horses. Wagering consistently on these types no longer can show a profit.

[Robert Goren]

vastly over betting their bankroll when they come upon what looks like great bet. Not else close. It knocks people out off action for while and makes otherwise good bettors start from scratch.

[classhandicapper]

Most of the biggies have been covered. I would add, trying to beat solid legitimate favorites too often.

[thaskalos]

They are overestimating their ability as players.

[BettinBilly]

My top 5

- Abandoning formal Handicapping in favor of simple betting by Odds, with our against the public, taking either Longshots or Chalk.

- Using Free Picks or Track Pick "Plays of the Day" rather than even looking at a Program and doing some of their own Handicapping

- Feeling compelled to bet on every race

- Betting outside their comfort zone

- Betting "On a Hunch"

[bugboy]

Then when you come across that "Solid Legitimate Favorite" hit 'em hard

You might only find that type once or twice a day....

So can ya make a profit in the "Long Run"?

Ya gotta wait, and wait, and wait , it might come slow, But if ya hit 'em hard it could work.

[Flysofree]

Betting too many races.
AGREED!

[lamboguy]

i would think that in the year 2014, mistake numero uno got to be
betting the Rainbow Pick Six pools Gulfstream offers before the last day of the meet.

[Greyfox]

Chasing losses instead of just wrapping up and going home.

[PaceAdvantage]

Betting too much money (on too many races)

[DeltaLover]

Obviously I agree with everything said so far!

I still think that the most common error I see among horseplayers, has to do
with them betting out of a very small bankroll, limiting their creativity and
effectiveness...

I wrote more about this error here:

http://www.themindofagambler.com/2014/04/08/yes-the-size-of-your-bankroll-matters/

[taxicab]

All of the previous posts in this thread are correct.
Know what your strength is as a punter.
Don't play races that you know you're not good at.
For example:
I'm terrible betting small fields.
Probably the worst on this board.
So I don't get near 6 horse fields or less(unless I really like something).
If a small field is part of a multi-win wager I won't turn in a ticket.
Don't play tracks you lose at heavily.
I don't play Churchill/FLA tracks(except big days...once maybe twice a year) because I'm horrible at them.
Play to your strengths.

[barn32]

Thinking that the jockey is important.

[olddaddy]

Betting too many races.

Most of the other responses posted here are true but they all circle, Betting too many races.

[Augenj]

Betting too many races. :ThmbUp:

[Delta Cone]

Trying to cover too many combinations or possible scenarios.

I recently had a friend who played $8 worth of exactas on a race. He then wanted to spend another $4 to "cover" his other bets "just-in-case." :lol:

[tanner12oz]

I'm guilty of playing multirace bets with the same kinda bankroll over and over when sometimes it warrants hitting repeat vs. Spreading

[PICSIX]

Betting too many races.

Agree that is #1....A close 2nd is creating bias that exist in their own mind & not in reality.

[ultracapper]

Betting too many races.

There it is, right there.

[Cratos]

Not putting as much effort on their wagering as they put on their handicapping. In over 40 years in this game, I have met far more good handicappers than good bettors.

[Stillriledup]

Biggest mistakes:

1) giving too much credit to the humans (Jocks, trainers and owners)

2) giving not enough credit to the humans (same as above)

3) Not knowing the REAL reason that the horse you bet on didnt run fast enough.

4) Letting emotion get in the way (i hate this, i love this, etc) Keep hate and love out of your process, as Gordon Gekko says "don't get emotional about stock buddy boy"

5) Letting the odds board sway your beliefs

6) Not letting the odds board sway your beliefs.

[whodoyoulike]

Betting too many races.

I agree with the above. Close is not having a big enough bankroll (really I was going to post this).

[fmolf]

C.J. nailed it.....betting too many races ...and also when you have an opinion spreading too much on losing combinations.

[whodoyoulike]

i would think that in the year 2014, mistake numero uno got to be
betting the Rainbow Pick Six pools Gulfstream offers before the last day of the meet.


I really like the way you think. Always two steps ahead.

[shots]

Importance of post position.

Importance of scratches.

[dannyhill]

Mistakes can be different depending upon a player's skill level. Advanced player's can also overcome the same mistakes that ruin less skilled.

[Tall One]

Not putting as much effort on their wagering as they put on their handicapping. In over 40 years in this game, I have met far more good handicappers than good bettors.



Not a bad post in this thread, but this one really stands out too me. In my early years in this game, this aspect alone made me lose not only countless dollars, but confidence as well. You can spend hours handicapping a nine or ten race card, but if you can't figure out how to bet your selection in your favor, you might as well get in the car and go back home.

And that's what I did.

I remember going went weeks/months "dry betting" the races until I could understand this aspect of the game. Frustrating? Yes, but it was damn cheaper than the other way I was learning.

Again, great thread guys.

[traynor]

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy often arises when a person has a large amount of data at their disposal, but only focuses on a small subset of that data. Some factor other than the one attributed may give all the elements in that subset some kind of common property (or pair of common properties, when arguing for correlation). If the person attempts to account for the likelihood of finding some subset in the large data with some common property by a factor other than its actual cause, then that person is likely committing a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

The fallacy is characterized by a lack of specific hypothesis prior to the gathering of data, or the formulation of a hypothesis only after data has already been gathered and examined. Thus, it typically does not apply if one had an ex ante, or prior, expectation of the particular relationship in question before examining the data. For example one might, prior to examining the information, have in mind a specific physical mechanism implying the particular relationship. One could then use the information to give support or cast doubt on the presence of that mechanism.

Alternatively, if additional information can be generated using the same process as the original information, one can use the original information to construct a hypothesis, and then test the hypothesis on the new data. See hypothesis testing. What one cannot do is use the same information to construct and test the same hypothesis (see hypotheses suggested by the data) — to do so would be to commit the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

[atlasaxis]

I would say lack of keeping detailed records. The vast majority of handicappers haven't the foggiest clue about their performance. How many out of a hundred could tell you their overall win percentage for the past X number of races or what is their average mutuel for those same races? What's your ROI in turf races? What's your ROI in dirt sprints? Etc. If someone were to wake you up in the middle of the night and ask you these questions, and you could answer them correctly, it's certain you're a winning handicapper. Keeping detailed records allows one to play to their strengths and would certainly eliminate most other problems mentioned.

[badcompany]

Obviously I agree with everything said so far!

I still think that the most common error I see among horseplayers, has to do
with them betting out of a very small bankroll, limiting their creativity and
effectiveness...

I wrote more about this error here:

http://www.themindofagambler.com/2014/04/08/yes-the-size-of-your-bankroll-matters/

It's okay to bet out of a very small bankroll. You just have to make very small bets.

How small?

I hear people say 2% a race. This is absurd.

For a person who makes several bets a day, IMO, a good standard bet size would be 1/10 of 1% a race.

Too small you say?

Should someone with a 2k roll be more than a $2 bettor. I don't think so.

[Maximillion]

It's okay to bet out of a very small bankroll. You just have to make very small bets.

How small?

I hear people say 2% a race. This is absurd.

For a person who makes several bets a day, IMO, a good standard bet size would be 1/10 of 1% a race.

Too small you say?

Should someone with a 2k roll be more than a $2 bettor. I don't think so.

Thats taking it too far, imo.
1% should protect you reasonably well,even with longer losing streaks.You can always scale down the bet size after a given number of losses.

[ultracapper]

vastly over betting their bankroll when they come upon what looks like great bet. Not else close. It knocks people out off action for while and makes otherwise good bettors start from scratch.

Err on the conservative. If straddling the fence, 9 times out of 10, not making the bet is the right thing. You'll miss a few winners, but avoid a ton of losses. Losses are more destructive than wins are constructive. Avoid as many meaningless losses as possible. Not sure about that 5/2? Walk away. You're not missing much of a reward if it wins anyway. And more in line with what you posted, even if very confident on that 5/2, don't overbet it. Again, there just isn't that much reward to be gained.

[Stillriledup]

It's okay to bet out of a very small bankroll. You just have to make very small bets.

How small?

I hear people say 2% a race. This is absurd.

For a person who makes several bets a day, IMO, a good standard bet size would be 1/10 of 1% a race.

Too small you say?

Should someone with a 2k roll be more than a $2 bettor. I don't think so.

So if your bankroll is 100k, you should bet 100 to win?

[dannyhill]

So if your bankroll is 100k, you should bet 100 to win?
A+ in math:ThmbUp:
I had to pull out the abacus to check the answer.

[raybo]

Worst mistakes?

1. Not keeping thorough records of all your wagers.

2. Keeping thorough records and still betting where your records show a negative performance.

3. Not being brutally honest with yourself about your abilities as a handicapper and a wagerer.

4. Not displaying patience, discipline, and consistency in your handicapping, and wagering.

5. Not taking a break when you go on tilt.

[badcompany]

Thats taking it too far, imo.
1% should protect you reasonably well,even with longer losing streaks.You can always scale down the bet size after a given number of losses.

This type of thinking is appealing as it provides a pretext for severely undercapitalized gamblers/traders to call themselves "Pros."

Given its importance, Position Sizing is remarkably under-studied. The standard Rule of Thumb you hear is 1% or 2% a bet/trade, but, what you never hear mentioned is the timeframe.

Is a ten minute daytrade the same as a long term trade where it might take a month before taking the loss? I don't think so.

Horseracing is more like day trading than long term trading, as bettors tend to make several bets a day, and, as all of us know, you can have really bad days.

So, with a 100k roll, betting 1% a race, an 0-10 day will result in a 10% hit to your roll in a single day. Is that good risk management?

[thaskalos]

It's okay to bet out of a very small bankroll. You just have to make very small bets.

How small?

I hear people say 2% a race. This is absurd.

For a person who makes several bets a day, IMO, a good standard bet size would be 1/10 of 1% a race.

Too small you say?

Should someone with a 2k roll be more than a $2 bettor. I don't think so.

A player should wait until his bankroll reaches $20,000 before he can bet $20 on a race? That's being way overly-cautious...IMO.

A bettor who makes several win-bets a day can get away with betting 2% of bankroll per race, if he recalculates his betting unit after every play. For flat betting, a bankroll with 100 betting units is good enough...IMO.

Of course, a much larger bankroll demands more caution...because it's much more difficult to replace.

[raybo]

My testing of percentage of bankroll amounts tells me about 0.25% to 0.5% will keep you from busting out in an extended losing streak. But basically, percentage of bankroll should be tied to hit rate, the higher the hit rate the higher the percentage of bank, and vice versa.

But, there are better ways of determining bet size than a straight percentage of bankroll method, if you have a long term positive ROI. If you don't have a long term positive ROI, then bet the minimum and you'll be able to participate in the game longer, before having to re-up.

[badcompany]

A player should wait until his bankroll reaches $20,000 before he can bet $20 on a race? That's being way overly-cautious...IMO.

A bettor who makes several win-bets a day can get away with betting 2% of bankroll per race, if he recalculates his betting unit after every play. For flat betting, a bankroll with 100 betting units is good enough...IMO.

Of course, a much larger bankroll demands more caution...because it's much more difficult to replace.

I'm surprised to hear this from you, as you're usually pretty spot on in this area.

Position Sizing is a form of insurance. You need it for when things go bad, really bad.

Betting 2% a race puts you in a position where even a moderate losing streak can cause irreparable damage to the bankroll.

Let's not forget that from a percentage standpoint, you need to make back even more just to get back to even. To recover from a 20% hit you need to grow your roll 25%; 25% requires 33%, and it gets exponentially worse.

[thaskalos]

I'm surprised to hear this from you, as you're usually pretty spot on in this area.

Position Sizing is a form of insurance. You need it for when things go bad, really bad.

Betting 2% a race puts you in a position where even a moderate losing streak can cause irreparable damage to the bankroll.

Let's not forget that from a percentage standpoint, you need to make back even more just to get back to even. To recover from a 20% hit you need to grow your roll 25%; 25% requires 33%, and it gets exponentially worse.

Yes...but you are forgetting that horse racing does not always abide by the rules of conventional investing. A $2 bettor needs no bankroll at all, as far as I am concerned...because his minimum-sized bets could easily be made out-of-pocket, with no associated risk.

Let's take your example...where the player must accumulate a $2,000 bankroll before he can make $2 wagers on his picks. Say that our player makes 10 bets a day...and shows an astounding profit of 10% a day on his investments. Even at that excellent rate of return...it would require around a thousand days of play before this excellent player is able to increase his wagers to the $4 level.

It's good to "play for the long run"...but with caution like this...in the "long run", we'd all be dead. :)

[dannyhill]

The most important information needed to figure out % of bankroll is the odds on the horses. Obviously if wagers made are generally under 2/1 then the % of bankroll wagered can be greater than if betting on 22/1 shots.

[badcompany]

Yes...but you are forgetting that horse racing does not always abide by the rules of conventional investing. A $2 bettor needs no bankroll at all, as far as I am concerned...because his minimum-sized bets could easily be made out-of-pocket, with no associated risk.

Let's take your example...where the player must accumulate a $2,000 bankroll before he can make $2 wagers on his picks. Say that our player makes 10 bets a day...and shows an astounding profit of 10% a day on his investments. Even at that excellent rate of return...it would require around a thousand days of play before this excellent player is able to increase his wagers to the $4 level.

It's good to "play for the long run"...but with caution like this...in the "long run", we'd all be dead. :)

The difference with games like Horseracing and poker is that players play them recreationally. That's fine. I've never heard of anyone accumulating any wealth this way.

If you're treating it as an income stream, it must be taken seriously, and that means a bankroll and proper position sizing.

Rambo makes the good point that bet size should be tied to hit rate. With most of the money in exotic pools, these days, that would indicate a smaller, not larger, bet size.

[NY BRED]

thinking the morning line rates the ability of each horse
as against how the public will bet the specific race

[Stillriledup]

A+ in math:ThmbUp:
I had to pull out the abacus to check the answer.

What if you're betting even money shot types? If an even money shot has a 50% chance to win, and 42% after takeout, you arent going to lose too many bets in a row on a 42% probability.

If you only bet horses between 4-5 and 6-5 and you had a bankroll of 100k and the most you bet was 100 to win, it would probably take a REALLY long time to go bust, you probably wouldnt go bust in your lifetime even if you had no handicapping experience and just randomly bet on even money shot types. If you had serious handicapping skill and were very picky as to which even money shots you bet, it would take just that much longer to go bust.

[rastajenk]

My response to the original question would be forgetting why it was ever fun in the first place.

[Tom]

Not wearing a sweatband and cool sunglasses.

[thaskalos]

The difference with games like Horseracing and poker is that players play them recreationally. That's fine. I've never heard of anyone accumulating any wealth this way.

If you're treating it as an income stream, it must be taken seriously, and that means a bankroll and proper position sizing.

Rambo makes the good point that bet size should be tied to hit rate. With most of the money in exotic pools, these days, that would indicate a smaller, not larger, bet size.

It all depends on the player's particular betting style. Even in exotic wagering...it is possible to construct your ticket in such a way where your chances of cashing are pretty high. I have an exacta-betting strategy which I use exclusively for generating income from the rebates. I use this exacta strategy only in competitive, full fields...and I use as many as 3 horses on top, with 4 horses second. Sometimes I'll even box 4 horses. The worst I've ever done with this method is break even in a season...and the rebates are pure profit. My win rate with this method is good enough for me to be confident that I will never go broke, even if I bet 2% of my bankroll on each individual race.

The betting strategies we use, and the amounts that we bet, must be parts of a "main plan"; they can't be haphazardly thrown together...

[BettinBilly]

My response to the original question would be forgetting why it was ever fun in the first place.

That's accurate for some of the guys I see at the track. The fun of the sport has long since left them. It's all business and high blood pressure.



Not wearing a sweatband and cool sunglasses.

Be accurate, Tom. Not wearing a sweatband, cool Heart-Shaped sunglasses, a suit, and a tail. :)

[Dave Schwartz]

Betting as if they have a winning approach when they don't.

[badcompany]

It all depends on the player's particular betting style. Even in exotic wagering...it is possible to construct your ticket in such a way where your chances of cashing are pretty high. I have an exacta-betting strategy which I use exclusively for generating income from the rebates. I use this exacta strategy only in competitive, full fields...and I use as many as 3 horses on top, with 4 horses second. Sometimes I'll even box 4 horses. The worst I've ever done with this method is break even in a season...and the rebates are pure profit. My win rate with this method is good enough for me to be confident that I will never go broke, even if I bet 2% of my bankroll on each individual race.

The betting strategies we use, and the amounts that we bet, must be parts of a "main plan"; they can't be haphazardly thrown together...

You're citing an exception, not the rule, which is that players play exotics because they want a bigger per dollar payoff. With that bigger payout comes a lower hit rate.

Sure, some sharp players can get away with over betting, but , the bulk will get in trouble, fast, usually with the first nasty losing streak.

[thaskalos]

You're citing an exception, not the rule, which is that players play exotics because they want a bigger per dollar payoff. With that bigger payout comes a lower hit rate.

Sure, some sharp players can get away with over betting, but , the bulk will get in trouble, fast, usually with the first nasty losing streak.
I agree.

Another rule is that proper "money management" can only be useful when the expectation is positive...and the "advantage" players are obviously the "exception" rather than the rule. When you are a losing player...all you can hope for from proper money management is a slower rate of loss.

[raybo]

Betting as if they have a winning approach when they don't.

Yep, that's where the "thorough record keeping" and "being brutally honest with oneself" comes into play.

[Fingal]

Yep, that's where the "thorough record keeping" and "being brutally honest with oneself" comes into play.

The biggest lie is the one we tell ourselves.

[traynor]

Betting as if they have a winning approach when they don't.

And believing that because some particular strategy or tactic worked last week, last month, or last year, that somehow guarantees that future events will be forced into alignment with past results. Reality doesn't work like that.

[Valuist]

No question its betting too many races and we all are probably guilty of it. Just some worse than others.

[badcompany]

I agree.

Another rule is that proper "money management" can only be useful when the expectation is positive...and the "advantage" players are obviously the "exception" rather than the rule. When you are a losing player...all you can hope for from proper money management is a slower rate of loss.

True, but losing players/traders can and do become winners. Good Money Management buys you more time to do so.

I'm currently getting serious about currency trading. However, I'm still pretty green and am experimenting with different styles and timeframes. I'm not expecting to be immediately profitable, but I'm keeping my trade sizes so small that whatever losses I take get dwarfed by the money I feed into the account each month.

I like this line from my all time favorite Jesse Livermore:

"A trader’s capital is like a shop keeper’s inventory. Don’t lose it! “

[traynor]

The biggest lie is the one we tell ourselves.

Especially in lala land.

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/553-if-you-tell-a-big-enough-lie-and-tell-it

[thaskalos]

True, but losing players/traders can and do become winners. Good Money Management buys you more time to do so.

I'm currently getting serious about currency trading. However, I'm still pretty green and am experimenting with different styles and timeframes. I'm not expecting to be immediately profitable, but I'm keeping my trade sizes so small that whatever losses I take get dwarfed by the money I feed into the account each month.

I like this line from my all time favorite Jesse Livermore:

"A trader’s capital is like a shop keeper’s inventory. Don’t lose it! “

I am too. What I found most interesting about currency trading is the "24-hour" aspect of it. As a notorious insomniac...I may have finally found something constructive to do in the wee-hours of the morning.

[badcompany]

I am too. What I found most interesting about currency trading is the "24-hour" aspect of it. As a notorious insomniac...I may have finally found something constructive to do in the wee-hours of the morning.

Yes, getting up in the middle of the night to take a leak will never be the same ;)

[barn32]

I like this line from my all time favorite Jesse Livermore:

"A trader’s capital is like a shop keeper’s inventory. Don’t lose it! “Jesse Livermore won and lost many fortunes in his life, and he died broke (suicide).

Jesse Livermore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Lauriston_Livermore)

[Sapio]

Assuming the crowd is betting value and the odds reflect it.

Thomas Sapio

[DeltaLover]

Since it was mentioned in the thread, can somebody provide the the definition of 'money management' in respect to horse betting ?

[whodoyoulike]

Yes, getting up in the middle of the night to take a leak will never be the same ;)

So, you're really saying to take a peek when you take a leak?

[badcompany]

Since it was mentioned in the thread, can somebody provide the the definition of 'money management' in respect to horse betting ?

Money Management deals with the question of "How much."

Given your bankroll and financial situation, how much should you be betting per race or per day/week/month.

[badcompany]

So, you're really saying to take a peek when you take a leak?

If you get up at 3 or 4 a:m est the London Session is just getting started.

[barn32]

Since it was mentioned in the thread, can somebody provide the the definition of 'money management' in respect to horse betting ?No. No one can do that to your satisfaction, and you know it...so obviously your question is rhetorical.

[Cratos]

Since it was mentioned in the thread, can somebody provide the the definition of 'money management' in respect to horse betting ?

I am sure that many posters on this forum have their own definition of money management. But to me it is the process of knowing where you are placing your wagers and on which race on the race card; and having a well-thought-out plan in place for where you want to wager on the next race(s) on the card.

I wager on about 60 races per year starting with the Kentucky Derby and ending with the Breeders’ Cup races.

My strategy is to bet only stake races. I don’t always do that because sometime I will spot what I believe to be a good wagering opportunity in either a claiming race or an allowance and I will bet it.

However I manage my money by making an earnest attempt to know what horse I will bet, how much I will bet, and at what odds long before I get to the race track and I never bet exotics of any kind.

[badcompany]

Jesse Livermore won and lost many fortunes in his life, and he died broke (suicide).

Jesse Livermore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Lauriston_Livermore)

Your link states he had 5 million, not exactly chicken feed in 2014 much less 1940.

Livermore had some mental problems which surely contributed to his misfortunes, but, as a trader he's Michael Jordan, and one of the few people whose insights are valuable even if he didn't always abide by them.

[thaskalos]

Since it was mentioned in the thread, can somebody provide the the definition of 'money management' in respect to horse betting ?
"Money management":

The way we manage our money when we bet.

[Onion Monster]

Rushing headlong against the toteboard instead of redirecting its force.

[HUSKER55]

Good One!

Who flat bets on a 4/5 horse?

[dkithore]

Thask:

Will u include this strategy in your book? I will want to pre-order it now!
Seriously!

DK

pm. me the publishing date.

[Robert Goren]

I have noticed no one has mentioned one thing which I think people do all time and cost them a bundle. Betting a horse that figures to take a lot of money but isn't. I am not talking about some long shot you have uncovered here. I am talking about that looks really good in the PPs and is getting no action. 5/1 on a horse that should be 8/5 off its PPs is no bargain.

[HUSKER55]

Good One! :ThmbUp:

[depalma113]

They are not persistent.


"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan press on has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."

- Woodrow Wilson

[Overlay]

I have noticed no one has mentioned one thing which I think people do all time and cost them a bundle. Betting a horse that figures to take a lot of money but isn't. I am not talking about some long shot you have uncovered here. I am talking about that looks really good in the PPs and is getting no action. 5/1 on a horse that should be 8/5 off its PPs is no bargain.
If I can identify a reason why the public is overlooking the horse (usually because of being oversold on the merits of one or more other horses in the same race), I wouldn't hesitate to take those 5-1 odds. I've seen too many cases where the public makes exactly that kind of collective misjudgment.

[comet52]

Most of the other responses posted here are true but they all circle, Betting too many races.

How many is too many?

Zen-like answers are acceptable. :cool:

[jfdinneen]

A view from left Field:

When handicapping horse races, it is critical to focus on those markets in which there is at least one overlay. However, contrary to received wisdom, the professional sportstrader does not just trade the specific overlays but instead trades one or more additional horses (possibly including an underlay) with the goal of spreading his risk while maximizing his long-term median income. An excellent worked example of this approach is detailed in Appendix V of Taking Chances (http://www.amazon.com/Taking-Chances-Probability-John-Haigh/dp/0198526636/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347486802&sr=1-9) .

John

[raybo]

A view from left Field:

When handicapping horse races, it is critical to focus on those markets in which there is at least one overlay. However, contrary to received wisdom, the professional sportstrader does not just trade the specific overlays but instead trades one or more additional horses (possibly including an underlay) with the goal of spreading his risk while maximizing his long-term median income.

John

In the win pool, exactly! Could probably be applied to exotics also. This is my philosophy for, the most part.

[jfdinneen]

raybo,

By focusing on exotic bets, we are less disadvantaged than in the standard WPS markets. Even Benter concedes this point when he states that "...In ultra-exotic bets such as the Pick-6, even a handicapping model with only modest predictive ability can produce advantage bets..." (Benter, 1994).

John

[raybo]

raybo,

By focusing on exotic bets, we are less disadvantaged than in the standard WPS markets. Even Benter concedes this point when he states that "...In ultra-exotic bets such as the Pick-6, even a handicapping model with only modest predictive ability can produce advantage bets..." (Benter, 1994).

John

I agree and the superfecta is my primary profit maker. I use the win pool for cash flow to support the super play.

[ultracapper]

I agree and the superfecta is my primary profit maker. I use the win pool for cash flow to support the super play.

Not trying to be a wise ass or anything, but if the super is your profit play, why do you need win bets to support it? Seriously, just wanting to know what you're saying because I think I do, but not sure.

[raybo]

Not trying to be a wise ass or anything, but if the super is your profit play, why do you need win bets to support it? Seriously, just wanting to know what you're saying because I think I do, but not sure.

I don't need win betting, but it certainly adds another supporting revenue stream to the mix. As a few have mentioned, being properly financed is a major requirement for any business. The more of that you have, the more aggressively you can afford to operate, without increasing your risk of ruin, or putting other more conventional revenue in jeopardy. Being able to support your wagering, without dipping into other revenues, is a tremendous advantage. Win wagering is more consistent, which helps one stay positive minded, while waiting for the less consistent hits in the exotics. It's more of a psychological edge than a material necessity for me. It's important to keep your head on straight, and that is made easier when you have less pressure on you, that is what the consistent cash flow of win betting does for me.

[098poi]

Worst mistakes?

1. Not keeping thorough records of all your wagers.

2. Keeping thorough records and still betting where your records show a negative performance.

3. Not being brutally honest with yourself about your abilities as a handicapper and a wagerer.

4. Not displaying patience, discipline, and consistency in your handicapping, and wagering.

5. Not taking a break when you go on tilt.

No question everyone would improve if this advice was followed! (I don't)

[JimG]

What do you think is the most common mistake horse bettors are usually committing?

1) Failure to pass races.
2) Being influenced by the odds board toward chalkier horses.
3) Insufficient Preparation
4) Hesitation or lack of thought regarding how to bet.
5) Making excuses for horses they pick that lose.
6) Cannot handle losing races.
7) Allowing others to influence their opinion.
8) Spending too much time talking about racing with others instead of focusing on handicapping/wagering.
9) Trying to bet too many tracks without sufficient knowledge.
10) Poor frame of mind when attending the races and lack of rest.
11) Betting with money they cannot afford to lose.
12) Ignoring takeout.
13) Listening to the hype and over betting stakes races.
14) Trying to "get out" for the day in the last race.
15) Failure to try new approaches when what they are doing is not working.

The above came to mind. Forgive me if they have already been mentioned as I did not read the thread in advance.

Jim

[Tom]

I agree with two things in this thread - betting too many races and note keeping records. How do how what you are good at if your don't.

That is how I got my betting horses over 4-1 1 unit win and 3 units place. My records told me that group of horses placed more than they won, by a good margin. I make more money that way than just betting win at those odds.

[traynor]

I agree with two things in this thread - betting too many races and note keeping records. How do how what you are good at if your don't.

That is how I got my betting horses over 4-1 1 unit win and 3 units place. My records told me that group of horses placed more than they won, by a good margin. I make more money that way than just betting win at those odds.

I am impressed. And I am definitely not one to be impressed easily by the comments of others on their wagering or handicapping strategies. I took several months of very serious research recently (using computer models to isolate factors predictive of place finishes, rather than win finishes) to reach the same conclusion. Specifically, there are scenarios at which place wagers on well-defined categories of selections can become quite profitable.

[traynor]

Scott McMannis was a big advocate of place bets as a backup to win bets. Some tried it and flopped, declaring it ineffective (or foolish). What they failed to grasp is that McMannis' selection process was geared to his particular style of wagering. The entries he picked placed as often (or more often) than they won, and he bet accordingly. Someone else, with a different method of selection that focused exclusively on the win position, could try to implement that strategy and fail.

One of the things that McMannis realized (that many others still do NOT recognize) is that the selection process for the place position is way different than the selection process for the win position.

[Overlay]

One of the things that McMannis realized (that many others still do NOT recognize) is that the selection process for the place position is way different than the selection process for the win position.
Dick Mitchell's Commonsense Betting also contained a section on place wagering and place-horse "types" that I found very useful.

[Tom]

Sartin place a lot emphasis on getting the place horse as opposed to the winner. The 55% Solution. That mindset has paid off many times over the years.

[traynor]

Sartin place a lot emphasis on getting the place horse as opposed to the winner. The 55% Solution. That mindset has paid off many times over the years.

Indeed. Especially the notion of looking for complimentary (although often opposite) characteristics, like EP and SP or "class" and "speed." I think the most useful was--as you say--the mindset of realizing that winners and placers may be two distinctly different types.

[Tom]

Not to mention that in many races, you just could not/can not find a pace line to use. Many horses are just outside the limits of a pace methodology.

[Sunday Silence]

I know from my personal experience it's betting too many races and too many tracks. For me, more than anything, it's having a grasp of trainers at certain tracks and sticking with those circuits. That alone would give me a greater return.

And it's ironic that some people only play stakes races. My biggest scores have been maiden claimers at the lowest levels. So many horses can be tossed for the win just because of connections that rarely win, while good trainers can win at prices even though their horses haven't shown much in past performances.

Today was a perfect example. Tampa Bay race 2. I took the 2 trainers with high win percentages (Ness and Bennett) in the win spot, then I liked the 10-11-12. Ness's even money runs out, Bennett wins at 9-2, the 11 is 46-1 in 2nd, 10 is 10-1 in 3rd and the 12th runs 4th at 14-1 or so. Tri paid almost 2K, great hit for me, and the super (didn't have it, should have) paid 13K. Did the same at Golden Gate and hit a 10K tri a few years ago. Miyadi and Steve Sherman were dominating at the time, played both of those on top and keyed a 40-1 ML horse 2nd and 3rd to all. Sherman wins at 11-1, my 40-1ML runs 2nd at 80-1, and a 55-1 gets the photo for 3rd. Best hit of my life. I'm much better at verticals than horizontals. I'm not a professional by an stretch. If I can play and have fun with the occasional score (betting relatively little to have a chance to win a lot) I'm happy. I'm not trying to grind a bunch of 6/5's.

[thaskalos]

I know from my personal experience it's betting too many races and too many tracks. For me, more than anything, it's having a grasp of trainers at certain tracks and sticking with those circuits. That alone would give me a greater return.

And it's ironic that some people only play stakes races. My biggest scores have been maiden claimers at the lowest levels. So many horses can be tossed for the win just because of connections that rarely win, while good trainers can win at prices even though their horses haven't shown much in past performances.

Today was a perfect example. Tampa Bay race 2. I took the 2 trainers with high win percentages (Ness and Bennett) in the win spot, then I liked the 10-11-12. Ness's even money runs out, Bennett wins at 9-2, the 11 is 46-1 in 2nd, 10 is 10-1 in 3rd and the 12th runs 4th at 14-1 or so. Tri paid almost 2K, great hit for me, and the super (didn't have it, should have) paid 13K. Did the same at Golden Gate and hit a 10K tri a few years ago. Miyadi and Steve Sherman were dominating at the time, played both of those on top and keyed a 40-1 ML horse 2nd and 3rd to all. Sherman wins at 11-1, my 40-1ML runs 2nd at 80-1, and a 55-1 gets the photo for 3rd. Best hit of my life. I'm much better at verticals than horizontals. I'm not a professional by an stretch. If I can play and have fun with the occasional score (betting relatively little to have a chance to win a lot) I'm happy. I'm not trying to grind a bunch of 6/5's.
You say that you took the hot trainers for the top spot...but you didn't say how you decided on the bombs that came underneath. :)

[glengarry]

This thread really is too broad. It's like asking what the biggest mistake most golfers make. That depends on the player's handicap. The mistakes made by a tour pro with no wins in majors is different than the mistakes made by the weekend 90 hack. So let's start with this: Anyone who bets horses and loses can improve their bottom line starting today by betting less money. The average long time player that fills the grandstand of racetracks all over America loses the takeout over the course of the year. They put $50,000 through the machines, they will lose about 10K, year in and year out. A handicapper who makes a few nice hits a year can have an occasional plus year, but will revert to losing the takeout most years. There is no hope for this group, as they are there to bet, not win. They will not change their methodology, no matter how poor their results are. They are the guys constantly blaming the jockey for a poor ride, or yelling fix, or some other excuse.

If someone that was losing wanted my advice, I would tell them to start the year with a goal. Most people bet hoping to win, but not putting in place a strategy to win. Hoping to win doesn't mean you go to the races to win. Improving your skills by reading everything you can about the game, and finding what both works for you and fits the way your brain works is essential. If you have issues with processing math, don't try to follow Quirin and guys like that. Perhaps you can master trip handicapping, or maiden races by reading up and mastering breeding. Perhaps you can become an expert on trainers. Then stick with what you are good at. Above all else, demand value with every bet, show great discipline, even if you miss a winner here and there. Remember, most bets are losing bets, so you really are better off skipping a lot of races. Become friendly with serious players, as you can learn a lot.

Final word of advice is to respect your money. I hate losing. I consider a losing day as interfering with other things that truly make me happy, like buying a second home, or traveling to an exotic location, or whatever works for you. The game should never be an end all, be all for anyone. That's not really experiencing what life is all about. If so, what good is winning? If all you do is put it back in the next racing day, then the money is just a way to keep score.

[ultracapper]

I know from my personal experience it's betting too many races and too many tracks. For me, more than anything, it's having a grasp of trainers at certain tracks and sticking with those circuits. That alone would give me a greater return.

And it's ironic that some people only play stakes races. My biggest scores have been maiden claimers at the lowest levels. So many horses can be tossed for the win just because of connections that rarely win, while good trainers can win at prices even though their horses haven't shown much in past performances.

Today was a perfect example. Tampa Bay race 2. I took the 2 trainers with high win percentages (Ness and Bennett) in the win spot, then I liked the 10-11-12. Ness's even money runs out, Bennett wins at 9-2, the 11 is 46-1 in 2nd, 10 is 10-1 in 3rd and the 12th runs 4th at 14-1 or so. Tri paid almost 2K, great hit for me, and the super (didn't have it, should have) paid 13K. Did the same at Golden Gate and hit a 10K tri a few years ago. Miyadi and Steve Sherman were dominating at the time, played both of those on top and keyed a 40-1 ML horse 2nd and 3rd to all. Sherman wins at 11-1, my 40-1ML runs 2nd at 80-1, and a 55-1 gets the photo for 3rd. Best hit of my life. I'm much better at verticals than horizontals. I'm not a professional by an stretch. If I can play and have fun with the occasional score (betting relatively little to have a chance to win a lot) I'm happy. I'm not trying to grind a bunch of 6/5's.

Lemons Forever in the Ky. Oaks a few years ago sure was a crappy hit for you.

[green80]

Most of the other responses posted here are true but they all circle, Betting too many races.

I'm going against the grain here but if you truly have any advantage over the game, betting more races is better. If you don't, by betting fewer races it will just take longer to lose all your money.

[1st time lasix]

Today was a perfect example. Tampa Bay race 2. I took the 2 trainers with high win percentages (Ness and Bennett) in the win spot, then I liked the 10-11-12. Ness's even money runs out, Bennett wins at 9-2, ......the 11 is 46-1 in 2nd, ...... *****Wish the 11 had actually won...he completely blew the turn for home-- not turning cost him two or three lengths....had him covered in the 2nd leg of a winning pick three. Might have taken down the whole pool! :bang:

[Track Phantom]

A lot of good ones are covered.

One additional would be that most horse players, including high profile types, don't know how to differentiate between true trends and patterns and coincidental data. (A trainer has two wins in last four starts going sprint to route can be very coincidental).

[Tom]

I'm going against the grain here but if you truly have any advantage over the game, betting more races is better. If you don't, by betting fewer races it will just take longer to lose all your money.
Unless your edge is knowing what races to avoid.

[glengarry]

I'm going against the grain here but if you truly have any advantage over the game, betting more races is better. If you don't, by betting fewer races it will just take longer to lose all your money.

Betting more races is a good strategy for those that enjoy betting. Betting less races is good for those that enjoy winning. If you bet for entertainment, bet every race available. It's more fun. Unless you like money. Most gamblers I know have no use for money other than the mutuel tickets that can be purchased. They honestly believe they go to win, but their strategy is a failed one. The premise that betting more races is better assumes that the skilled player has an equal edge on each race. The skilled bettor seeks value and bets only when he sees a real edge. That doesn't happen all that often. The only reason to bet more races is to play for rebates. I read that many professional players are content with breaking even each year, and living off of the rebate money.

[AndyC]

Betting more races is a good strategy for those that enjoy betting. Betting less races is good for those that enjoy winning. If you bet for entertainment, bet every race available. It's more fun. Unless you like money. Most gamblers I know have no use for money other than the mutuel tickets that can be purchased. They honestly believe they go to win, but their strategy is a failed one. The premise that betting more races is better assumes that the skilled player has an equal edge on each race. The skilled bettor seeks value and bets only when he sees a real edge. That doesn't happen all that often. The only reason to bet more races is to play for rebates. I read that many professional players are content with breaking even each year, and living off of the rebate money.

For the most part you are correct. However, there are different types of players and methods that may lead to far more play by one type versus another. For example there are many good players who only look to bet a certain horse in a race and if they don't get their odds it's a pass. Others prefer to let the odds dictate which horse they will bet out of several contenders. Clearly the second type of player will play more races.

[badcompany]

When you consider the lifetime profitability percentage among horseplayers, the most common mistake is betting at all.

[glengarry]

When you consider the lifetime profitability percentage among horseplayers, the most common mistake is betting at all.

You are right. The pros don't need the advice from anyone on this board. They should be giving advice. But most on this board and in grandstands everywhere can improve their bottom line by following the advice in this thread.

I assume that every poster runs with other players. That is part of their circle of friendships. They can see the mistakes that they make, and that their friends make. I watch in disbelief as I watch fellow players incinerate money. These people, and most gamblers, aren't interested in changing. That's better for the rest of us. There is enough smart, insider money in each pool. We need uninformed dollars as well. The DRF had a great article on or around New Year's Day. The author talked of setting goals, and deciding whether you are there for entertainment, which is fine, or there to make a profit. I would emphasize to most players the need to lose less as a first step. No one is going from being a loser to a winner overnight. You need to set attainable goals, and move forward each year.

[raybo]

You are right. The pros don't need the advice from anyone on this board. They should be giving advice. But most on this board and in grandstands everywhere can improve their bottom line by following the advice in this thread.

I assume that every poster runs with other players. That is part of their circle of friendships. They can see the mistakes that they make, and that their friends make. I watch in disbelief as I watch fellow players incinerate money. These people, and most gamblers, aren't interested in changing. That's better for the rest of us. There is enough smart, insider money in each pool. We need uninformed dollars as well. The DRF had a great article on or around New Year's Day. The author talked of setting goals, and deciding whether you are there for entertainment, which is fine, or there to make a profit. I would emphasize to most players the need to lose less as a first step. No one is going from being a loser to a winner overnight. You need to set attainable goals, and move forward each year.

Hear, hear! That covers it.

[thaskalos]

You are right. The pros don't need the advice from anyone on this board. They should be giving advice. But most on this board and in grandstands everywhere can improve their bottom line by following the advice in this thread.

I assume that every poster runs with other players. That is part of their circle of friendships. They can see the mistakes that they make, and that their friends make. I watch in disbelief as I watch fellow players incinerate money. These people, and most gamblers, aren't interested in changing. That's better for the rest of us. There is enough smart, insider money in each pool. We need uninformed dollars as well. The DRF had a great article on or around New Year's Day. The author talked of setting goals, and deciding whether you are there for entertainment, which is fine, or there to make a profit. I would emphasize to most players the need to lose less as a first step. No one is going from being a loser to a winner overnight. You need to set attainable goals, and move forward each year.

I think the nature of this game contributes to the self-delusion that most players seem to be operating under.

The poker player never takes solace in the fact that his hand proves second-best...nor is the blackjack player ever encouraged when his hand almost beats the dealer's. But the horseplayer is encouraged when his bets almost win...even as he rips up his tickets. A close finish -- especially at high odds -- is a vindication of his handicapping expertise, even if he wasn't rewarded...this time.

With this way of thinking, the handicapper can convince himself that he is an "expert"...even as he is walking around with empty pockets.

[Stillriledup]

I think the nature of this game contributes to the self-delusion that most players seem to be operating under.

The poker player never takes solace in the fact that his hand proves second-best...nor is the blackjack player ever encouraged when his hand almost beats the dealer's. But the horseplayer is encouraged when his bets almost win...even as he rips up his tickets. A close finish -- especially at high odds -- is a vindication of his handicapping expertise, even if he wasn't rewarded...this time.

With this way of thinking, the handicapper can convince himself that he is an "expert"...even as he is walking around with empty pockets.

Picking ONE winner turns some people into 'full fledged experts' and you won't ever be able to convince them otherwise. (which is good for us obviously!)

[glengarry]

Since we all agree that most gamblers are beyond help, and that their money is needed in the pools, I want to do my part in keeping them flush with cash by offering " The Schnorrer's Guide to the Happy Horseplayer". These ideas are really more of a philosophy on living for the game, culled from the real-life strategies employed by real-life degenerates I know.

1. Home: Do not overspend. It's best to buy a modest home early in your working life, so it is paid off (hopefully with the help of parents or in-laws) when you retire, freeing up necessary capital for gambling. General rules: If forced to renovate, formica is better than granite, and always buy cheap materials and knockoff brand appliances.

2. Get married, provided the the woman: a) works b) is not too bright c) has no expensive wants or desires. Women are good savers. You will need her 401K and social security to hand to the mutuel clerks when you retire.

3. If you choose to have kids, always use the prepaid plan for state schools. Convince them to go to a commuter school serviced by public transportation to avoid car, dorm and dining costs.

4. Vacations. To avoid hotel costs, only visit places where you can stay with friends or family. If you want to splurge, a hotel stay is acceptable only if you pay next to nothing by attending a time share presentation.

5. Gifts to wife: Jewelry? Are you kidding me? An appliance like a washing machine is OK, but only after you make a decent score.

6. Dining. Bring a sandwich to the track; it's a long day. If forced to buy food, only the clam chowder combined with many packets of free crackers as an appetizer. At home, frozen pizzas or TV dinners. If forced to eat out to cater to a visiting relative, only low end restaurants should be considered. And make them pay.

Remember, the name of the game is feeding the tellers. Free up as much leisure capital as possible by avoiding expenditures that normal, well rounded people enjoy, and then using that leisure capital exclusively on the game.

[thaskalos]

Since we all agree that most gamblers are beyond help, and that their money is needed in the pools, I want to do my part in keeping them flush with cash by offering " The Schnorrer's Guide to the Happy Horseplayer". These ideas are really more of a philosophy on living for the game, culled from the real-life strategies employed by real-life degenerates I know.

1. Home: Do not overspend. It's best to buy a modest home early in your working life, so it is paid off (hopefully with the help of parents or in-laws) when you retire, freeing up necessary capital for gambling. General rules: If forced to renovate, formica is better than granite, and always buy cheap materials and knockoff brand appliances.

2. Get married, provided the the woman: a) works b) is not too bright c) has no expensive wants or desires. Women are good savers. You will need her 401K and social security to hand to the mutuel clerks when you retire.

3. If you choose to have kids, always use the prepaid plan for state schools. Convince them to go to a commuter school serviced by public transportation to avoid car, dorm and dining costs.

4. Vacations. To avoid hotel costs, only visit places where you can stay with friends or family. If you want to splurge, a hotel stay is acceptable only if you pay next to nothing by attending a time share presentation.

5. Gifts to wife: Jewelry? Are you kidding me? An appliance like a washing machine is OK, but only after you make a decent score.

6. Dining. Bring a sandwich to the track; it's a long day. If forced to buy food, only the clam chowder combined with many packets of free crackers as an appetizer. At home, frozen pizzas or TV dinners. If forced to eat out to cater to a visiting relative, only low end restaurants should be considered. And make them pay.

Remember, the name of the game is feeding the tellers. Free up as much leisure capital as possible by avoiding expenditures that normal, well rounded people enjoy, and then using that leisure capital exclusively on the game.

7. And remember...you can borrow money from friends and family if you need help covering the bills...but always make sure you keep enough money on hand for your betting. After all, your bankroll is the tool of your trade...and we all know how vital tools are to a craftsman. No self-respecting carpenter would ever sell his tools when money got tight.

[glengarry]

7. And remember...you can borrow money from friends and family if you need help covering the bills...but always make sure you keep enough money on hand for your betting. After all, your bankroll is the tool of your trade...and we all know how vital tools are to a craftsman. No self-respecting carpenter would ever sell his tools when money got tight.

Thank you for that. Can't believe I missed it. Hope that others come along to help as well.

[BettinBilly]

Remember, the name of the game is feeding the tellers. Free up as much leisure capital as possible by avoiding expenditures that normal, well rounded people enjoy, and then using that leisure capital exclusively on the game.

:p:ThmbUp:

Abso-Freakin'-Lutely.

You list slayed me. Too funny. Thank you.

[Stillriledup]

Thank you for that. Can't believe I missed it. Hope that others come along to help as well.

8.

There's always another day....you know, remember that winner you picked in 1961? That wasnt a fluke, you really did know what you were talking about....the next winner is right around the corner, all of us get discouraged on occasion, but the elite players (YOU!) mustnt ever give up, remember, your Friday paycheck is only a few days away!

[glengarry]

9. If you need a car to get to the track, follow these rules:
a) never buy new
b) cloth beats leather any day.
c) AM/FM only. Satellite radio cuts into your action.
d) Buy American. If buying foreign, remember Korea trumps Germany and Japan.
e) Never, ever buy a car that requires premium gasoline.

[Verticalplay]

Excellent point, never thought in those terms before, but you are right. Coulda, woulda, shoulda....

[glengarry]

10. Never deviate from your plan. If betting second time lasix and turf to dirt has resulted in 50 straight losing years, then keep it up. Being a creature of habit is a good thing (caveat: provided you are a hedgehog or earthworm). If you find comfort in never questioning your deficient handicapping skill sets, don't change for us. Be true to yourself. Remember, the masses questioned Copernicus too. Now he is considered one of the great mathematical and scientific minds. It can happen for you if you just wait your turn. Don't want to miss the next horse that wins turf to dirt. Wouldn't that suck?

[Sunday Silence]

Actually a great question.

In my 10K trifecta, the 80-1 horse that I keyed in the 2nd and 3rd slots to all had the lead at the half first out and still fought to hang on for 3rd. Then in 2nd start same level was done early and faded. Thought he looked like typical bounce horse and that he would run more like his first out. At 80-1 I had NO win money on him and he was 2 lengths up turning for home. Huge pit in my stomach until I saw one of my horses flying to win easily by 2. 80-1 was 2nd by several lengths.

The one I hit the other day Lynne Scace was the trainer of the 47-1. 15% trainer - why not? Running hot and had a good outside post. Most of the inside horses were all by .02 type connections and I threw them all out. I'll key post positions a lot, especially outside posts in 7 furlong races (there was a time at Hollywood where you would see 12-14-11-10 supers all of the time). If I can toss a favorite in a grab bag I'll look for a probable winner and a high priced key. I think the 10K tri cost me $48 and the 2K tri the other day cost me $33. I know the horizontals have better take outs but I just don't have the results with Pick 4's, 5's and 6's as I do in verticals.

[BlueChip@DRF]

Title says it all..

Besides picking the wrong horse(s)?

[DeltaLover]

Besides picking the wrong horse(s)?

Can you give the definition of the wrong - correct horse(s)??

[Robert Goren]

Can you give the definition of the wrong - correct horse(s)??The one that wins.

[Pensacola Pete]

Title says it all..

Betting.

[parshooter]

Horse sense is what a horse has, that keeps him from betting on people
:lol: :lol: :lol:

All kidding aside many good posts on this topic :)

[limit2]

Very good responses to "What are the common mistakes". Chapter 26 of the book, "Betting Horse Racing for Dummies" lists 10 of them ( many of which have already been covered.

[Flysofree]

If the old stat of 98% of horseplayers are losers, they must have several of the same faults in common and without them the other 2% would not play... I'm part of the 98% :D

[BlueChip@DRF]

If the old stat of 98% of horseplayers are losers, they must have several of the same faults in common and without them the other 2% would not play... I'm part of the 98% :D

Then going by this premise to answer the topic question:
Doing the same thing they've been doing over and over again but expecting different results.

[raybo]

I agree. But, really when you think about it, the majority of the public plays to bet, not to make money, so they inevitably play too many races, and too many bets or bet types in the same races, trying to cover every possibility.

Of the minority of players that don't have those 2 problems, most of them are just bad gamblers. They can be good handicappers but the wagering portion kicks their butt. As an example, there are some very good poker players, but not a heck of a lot of good poker players that are also good gamblers.

I really think that once one learns the game well, it all falls back on patience, discipline, and consistency. If you don't have those 3 qualities now, and don't or can't develop them, you probably will never beat the game.

[JohnnyU31]

Obviously I agree with everything said so far!

I still think that the most common error I see among horseplayers, has to do
with them betting out of a very small bankroll, limiting their creativity and
effectiveness...

I wrote more about this error here:

http://www.themindofagambler.com/2014/04/08/yes-the-size-of-your-bankroll-matters/

^ This. I've always noticed that the less I have to wager, the worse I do. Like you said, getting creative is difficult. And, if you get off to a bad start, you're day is going to be a challenge.