a question on losing streaks

[tanner12oz]

Obviously there is no right or wrong answer but kinda just want a feel for what others do in a bad rut...

when your in a funk is the better play for both your bankroll and sanity to take a break or is it a better bet to keep on trucking along?

there have been times in my wagering life where I feel like I am making solid plays but simply not connecting all the pieces which does become something that borders on torture after awhile...so when others hit these vast expanses of nothing do y'all take a break and focus on other aspects of life or do you stay the course and simply try to maintain sanity?

speaking from experience this game burns the hell outta me ( especially this time of year) and it simply feels good to take a break at times...i usually burn out post triple crown (although im on fumes at that point) and then again post BC.....

maybe im asking a few different questions but how important is some time away from the game?

[Robert Fischer]

Whether it's just your temperament at that time, or the rhythm of the game itself, or something in your life that is causing that frustration - The only plays that pay out long-term are the overlays. Those are hard to find, and they don't always like to appear when you "need" them.

It's often good to step away if you can, use some energy in another positive activity and let your head cool.

[JustRalph]

Time off is a great time to re-evaluate, study your losers........reset

I lost 43 in a row once.........and was DQ'ed a few times......sometimes time away is the only answer. Especially today.......

[BettinBilly]

I hear what you are asking, Tanner.

For me, I'm busy in my Vocation, so my breaks are "natural" and on-going. I've been at it since the mid 80's (in earnest) and over that time, I've probably taken a few years off cumulatively. Sometimes my work takes me to Europe or Hawaii and I'm buried for a few weeks, so I get a break from our sport. Sometimes I'm too busy to even pull out a laptop and do some quick Capping and wagering. Sometimes not. Other times, I'm at home for months at a stretch and dive into horse racing full time (or so it seams).

I've had losing streaks that lasted weeks, but I've never thought of giving up the quest. I love it still after almost 30 years, and can't imagine life without it. However, sometimes after a few weeks of bad picks, I wonder if I have learned anything since 1985.

Once I retire and spend 100 percent of my effort on Horse Racing, I'll have to address making myself take breaks because my career won't be there to interfere. I have a few other hobbies totally unrelated to Horse Racing, so I'll have to make sure that I rotate these in to our sport so I don't get burnt out when I retire and start playing without my career causing natural breaks.

[Augenj]

Obviously there is no right or wrong answer but kinda just want a feel for what others do in a bad rut...

when your in a funk is the better play for both your bankroll and sanity to take a break or is it a better bet to keep on trucking along?

there have been times in my wagering life where I feel like I am making solid plays but simply not connecting all the pieces which does become something that borders on torture after awhile...so when others hit these vast expanses of nothing do y'all take a break and focus on other aspects of life or do you stay the course and simply try to maintain sanity?

speaking from experience this game burns the hell outta me ( especially this time of year) and it simply feels good to take a break at times...i usually burn out post triple crown (although im on fumes at that point) and then again post BC.....

maybe im asking a few different questions but how important is some time away from the game?
Speaking as somebody who uses a unique computer algorithm for each track, I see long periods of losses interspersed with clumps of winners. Computers don't get discouraged and they just keep grinding along. By the end of the year and using the same conditional factors, they do OK. Just pretend to be a computer. :D

[pandy]

Cut back to smaller bets. I know you always hear people talking about making the same bet every time, or using some sort of plan, such as the Kelly, but a good gambler can maximize his return by pressing his bets when he's hot and cutting back when he's not.

[Augenj]

Cut back to smaller bets. I know you always hear people talking about making the same bet every time, or using some sort of plan, such as the Kelly, but a good gambler can maximize his return by pressing his bets when he's hot and cutting back when he's not.
That's not a bad idea. Some people use the square root of their bankroll for bet size. The more you lose, the less you bet and vice versa. ;)

[JustRalph]

Cut back to smaller bets. I know you always hear people talking about making the same bet every time, or using some sort of plan, such as the Kelly, but a good gambler can maximize his return by pressing his bets when he's hot and cutting back when he's not.

Pandy makes a good point, let me take it another step. Don't forget, practicing is practically free. I've done that before. Buy the pp's and cap em. Watch and learn. Pay attention to practicing race shape etc.

[acorn54]

imo doesn't matter how competent you are in your field of expertise in gambling
i remember ed thorpe gaining the confidence of some mob guy to put up 10K in the early 60's as a bankroll to make a killing at the card game "21".
turned how that even though thorpe was a genious with the probilities of the game he was down 1/2 the bankroll (5000 dollars) before things started turning thier way. i think the mob guy who bankrolled thorpe 10 grand was very "unhappy" until fortunes turned for the better.

[traynor]

Cut back to smaller bets. I know you always hear people talking about making the same bet every time, or using some sort of plan, such as the Kelly, but a good gambler can maximize his return by pressing his bets when he's hot and cutting back when he's not.

The problem is that is a recipe for disaster for anyone who lacks a rather cold-blooded, realistic appraisal of his or her ability to self-calibrate. Most of the serious bettors I know, and have known, would consider "hot streaks" utter nonsense. With all due respect to those who may believe they have experienced such--complete with long, convoluted explanations of the hows and whys involved--the belief is based on what psychologists refer to as "magical thinking."

If someone's approach is so different from race to race that "hot streaks" and "cold streaks" appear regularly, he or she needs to get a better grip on her or his decision-making processes. Augenj has it right--pretend to be a computer. It might take a bit of the joy out of "hot streaks" but the elimination of "cold streaks" more than compensates.

[traynor]

imo doesn't matter how competent you are in your field of expertise in gambling
i remember ed thorpe gaining the confidence of some mob guy to put up 10K in the early 60's as a bankroll to make a killing at the card game "21".
turned how that even though thorpe was a genious with the probilities of the game he was down 1/2 the bankroll (5000 dollars) before things started turning thier way. i think the mob guy who bankrolled thorpe 10 grand was very "unhappy" until fortunes turned for the better.

Not just Thorpe. I lost count years ago of the number of "bankers" whining and complaining about losing their funds by backing some blackjack team or other--most "advised" or "organized" by "highly-respected blackjack gurus." By the time they realize there won't be a "turn for the better" the money is gone.

[pandy]

The problem is that is a recipe for disaster for anyone who lacks a rather cold-blooded, realistic appraisal of his or her ability to self-calibrate. Most of the serious bettors I know, and have known, would consider "hot streaks" utter nonsense. With all due respect to those who may believe they have experienced such--complete with long, convoluted explanations of the hows and whys involved--the belief is based on what psychologists refer to as "magical thinking."

If someone's approach is so different from race to race that "hot streaks" and "cold streaks" appear regularly, he or she needs to get a better grip on her or his decision-making processes. Augenj has it right--pretend to be a computer. It might take a bit of the joy out of "hot streaks" but the elimination of "cold streaks" more than compensates.

Streaks are an inevitable part of gambling. I'm not saying that it's easy to know when to press your bets, but some good gamblers are capable of doing it. I personally always bet more when I'm on a hot streak, and vice versa. The thing is, sometimes the hot streak is there for a reason. For instance, one time at Gulfstream Park years ago, I was not betting the track, but someone told me that he had been doing well betting sustained horses at all distances, and turn back horses in sprints. I started to do the same and got hot. So, the hot streak was not just dumb luck, it was because we had figured out the track profile and others were still playing speed. After the meet was over, there was no reason to expect the hot streak to continue, which it didn't.

[traynor]

Streaks are an inevitable part of gambling. I'm not saying that it's easy to know when to press your bets, but some good gamblers are capable of doing it. I personally always bet more when I'm on a hot streak, and vice versa. The thing is, sometimes the hot streak is there for a reason. For instance, one time at Gulfstream Park years ago, I was not betting the track, but someone told me that he had been doing well betting sustained horses at all distances, and turn back horses in sprints. I started to do the same and got hot. So, the hot streak was not just dumb luck, it was because we had figured out the track profile and others were still playing speed. After the meet was over, there was no reason to expect the hot streak to continue, which it didn't.

There is no conflict whatsoever. I think way too many confuse cashing a few tickets (a cluster of random points on a broad field of possible results) as a "hot streak." What you describe is a logical, rational alteration of your betting approach in response to a real-time change in the external environment.

That is the essence of "thinking like a computer."

[Some_One]

there have been times in my wagering life where I feel like I am making solid plays but simply not connecting all the pieces which does become something that borders on torture after awhile

I bolded the key word there, you need to know you are making solid plays, that you are making the +EV, long run profitable play. Then the result of the race doesn't matter, it's just variance, it can be a <bleep>, but it'll work out in the long run.

[whodoyoulike]

Obviously there is no right or wrong answer but kinda just want a feel for what others do in a bad rut...

when your in a funk is the better play for both your bankroll and sanity to take a break or is it a better bet to keep on trucking along?

there have been times in my wagering life where I feel like I am making solid plays but simply not connecting all the pieces which does become something that borders on torture after awhile...so when others hit these vast expanses of nothing do y'all take a break and focus on other aspects of life or do you stay the course and simply try to maintain sanity?

speaking from experience this game burns the hell outta me ( especially this time of year) and it simply feels good to take a break at times...i usually burn out post triple crown (although im on fumes at that point) and then again post BC.....

maybe i'm asking a few different questions but how important is some time away from the game?

Finally, a topic I may be able to comment with some authority. Remember to do as I say not as I do.

I feel like I am making solid plays but simply not connecting all the pieces which does become something that borders on torture after awhile...

Take a break (1 to 3 weeks??). If I don't, I find myself betting odds instead of the best horse that fits the situation.

Do as JustRalph suggests in his two posts.

[thaskalos]

The nature of my play practically INVITES losing streaks...so I have learned to endure them. To me...losing streaks are what DEFINES the player...and the means through which he discovers who he really is...and what the depth of his maturity is.

As long as I know that I am still playing the right way...then I continue on unperturbed -- regardless of the losses. A losing streak doesn't necessarily mean that mistakes are being made. If, on the other hand, I feel that the losing streak is affecting my play...then I cease play and reassess the situation.

Self-awareness and self-mastery are the keys during turbulent times...if the player wants to remain afloat.

[wiffleball whizz]

The nature of my play practically INVITES losing streaks...so I have learned to endure them. To me...losing streaks are what DEFINES the player...and the means through which he discovers who he really is...and what the depth of his maturity is.

As long as I know that I am still playing the right way...then I continue on unperturbed -- regardless of the losses. A losing streak doesn't necessarily mean that mistakes are being made. If, on the other hand, I feel that the losing streak is affecting my play...then I cease play and reassess the situation.

Self-awareness and self-mastery are the keys during turbulent times...if the player wants to remain afloat.


After getting sandblasted at old hilltop today I'm sitting home reassessing the situation......wonder if I had a dime in my pocket would I still be reassessing the situation :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[cashmachine]

The nature of my play practically INVITES losing streaks...
What range of odds you are playing?

[tanner12oz]

What range of odds you are playing?

i play mainly pick 4s and pick 5s...cant imagine being a pick 6 player and trashing 99.9% of your tickets...tough racket

[pandy]

The nature of my play practically INVITES losing streaks...so I have learned to endure them. To me...losing streaks are what DEFINES the player...and the means through which he discovers who he really is...and what the depth of his maturity is.

As long as I know that I am still playing the right way...then I continue on unperturbed -- regardless of the losses. A losing streak doesn't necessarily mean that mistakes are being made. If, on the other hand, I feel that the losing streak is affecting my play...then I cease play and reassess the situation.

Self-awareness and self-mastery are the keys during turbulent times...if the player wants to remain afloat.


Good point. If you're a longshot bettor, or someone who goes for the big hit with Pick 4's, losing streaks are part of the process.

[limit2]

First consider losing streaks. For chalk or mid-range or longshot players the size of losing streaks are different. Some may involve progression wagering. I recommend 2 predetermined bankrolls of the same size and play with one of them. If it exhausts, back off, fix the problems. then begin with the back-up bankroll. I have determined, as a longshot player, that I average 5-6 race losing streaks. So, I feel safe with a series of 15 potential losing races for win slot wagering. Five (5) out of 6 day consecutive day cycles I am OK. A moderate increase/decrease in $$$$ per ticket helps also.

[traynor]

"Losing streak" is a rather ambiguous term, and is based on normal sequences for whatever wagering strategy one employs. Obviously a Pick 6 betting syndicate does not consider a week with no returns as a "losing streak" while a win bettor playing multiple tracks would consider such a disaster.

A good rule-of-thumb might be to consider a "losing streak" as something more specific--like 1.5 times the length of the longest previous string of losses (using whatever wagering approach one favors).

I didn't pull that number out of my (hat?). It is the value I have coded in my computer apps to flag me if a particular model is not performing as I expect it to perform. Because I wager on a variety of tracks using a variety of approaches, it saves me a lot of guesswork (and money).

When I build models, I increment a "missout counter" for each strategy, that is re-set to zero each time it wins. For every strategy, there is a specific number of events defined as the maximum number of (sequential) missouts from previous results.

If one is using computer apps, it is a trivial function to code. The advantages are many--not the least of which is recognizing when a random string of events is actually a "losing streak" or is no more than a perfectly normal distribution.

If one has been wagering (using consistent, well-defined decision-making strategies) for many months (or years) and the longest string of losses between wins has been X during that period, a sequence of losses 1.5 times X might be cause for alarm (and possibly re-thinking one's strategy because it may no longer be performing as expected due to changes in the wagering strategies of others).

[traynor]

First consider losing streaks. For chalk or mid-range or longshot players the size of losing streaks are different. Some may involve progression wagering. I recommend 2 predetermined bankrolls of the same size and play with one of them. If it exhausts, back off, fix the problems. then begin with the back-up bankroll. I have determined, as a longshot player, that I average 5-6 race losing streaks. So, I feel safe with a series of 15 potential losing races for win slot wagering. Five (5) out of 6 day consecutive day cycles I am OK. A moderate increase/decrease in $$$$ per ticket helps also.

I think most serious bettors using well-defined wagering strategies would agree with that "moderate increase/decrease in $$$$ per ticket." Progressive wagering strategies (as many have written) will not change a losing strategy into a winning strategy. Progressive wagering strategies will, however, give considerable (additional) leverage to bettors using a well-defined, consistent (positive return) wagering strategy.

[Robert Fischer]

For a recreational gambler, the term "losing streak" is also going to be expanded to cover periods of wagering plagued by irrational play.

For these players, it is more than simply expected-vs.-actual outcome probabilities.

If/When that happens, it's best to take a break and reset.

Ideally you have as rational an approach as possible, because that then simplifies losing streaks to one question; 'Whether or not your probability estimates are accurate'.

[traynor]

For a recreational gambler, the term "losing streak" is also going to be expanded to cover periods of wagering plagued by irrational play.

For these players, it is more than simply expected-vs.-actual outcome probabilities.

If/When that happens, it's best to take a break and reset.

Ideally you have as rational an approach as possible, because that then simplifies losing streaks to one question; 'Whether or not your probability estimates are accurate'.

Well said. And very good advice.

[Dark Horse]

Counterintuitive and not approved by mathematicians. ;) For sports or anywhere where you have two choices. If you have a strong model that unmistakably has flipped, bet against the 'right' play. If the losing streak is real this will make money. Until the model turns back to normal, of course, when the flipped plays will produce a few losses (before the return to normal is realized).

Typically, a losing streak is an invitation to look deeper and keep improving. So it's great for a time-out to go over old data.

[Dark Horse]

To elaborate a little more on the learning process (to which losing streaks invite). In my own approach I recognize three levels. In an abstract sense:

1) the model
2) the exemptions to the model
3) changes to the environment in which the model operates.

To stop at the first level would open one up to losing streaks. To stop at the second level would still leave the door open to losing streaks, but far less frequently. To complete the process through level three would translate into mastery of one model.

[traynor]

An interesting idea that seems dependent on a binary outcome. Horse races are almost never that simple.

[whodoyoulike]

Just ran across this article. I found it interesting.

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/are-lucky-streaks-real-science-says-yes?dom=PSC&loc=recent&lnk=3&con=are-lucky-streaks-real-science-says-yes

[Stillriledup]

I think the concept of the "streak" suggests that the series of losses (whether consecutive or not) has something more to do than just any random series of wins or losses.....possibly some confidence loss or karma situation is going on, so if the "Streaker" feels a loss of confidence or just "bad karma" or something like that, you have to ask yourself if its more than just making bad picks or bad bets.

If you lose X amount of races in a row, you're probably just making bad picks and you are also possibly betting too many races. Its hard to go into much of a losing streak if you make 1 or 2 wagers per week.

[AndyC]

Its hard to go into much of a losing streak if you make 1 or 2 wagers per week.

If you only play 1-2 wagers per week you could easily go for a couple of months without winning unless you restricted your play to odds-on favorites.

[whodoyoulike]

I thought it pretty much concluded what I had previously posted in post #15.

...

Take a break (1 to 3 weeks??). If I don't, I find myself betting odds instead of the best horse that fits the situation ...

..."The result is ironic: Winners worried their good luck was not going to continue, so they selected safer odds," the researchers wrote. "By doing so, they became more likely to win. The losers expected the luck to turn, so they took riskier odds. However, this made them even more likely to lose. The gamblers’ fallacy created the hot hand." ...

I wonder if Tanner12oz will follow suggested comments or not?

[dannyhill]

If you only play 1-2 wagers per week you could easily go for a couple of months without winning unless you restricted your play to odds-on favorites.
Not SRU, he doesn't pick bad horses like we do.

[Stillriledup]

If you only play 1-2 wagers per week you could easily go for a couple of months without winning unless you restricted your play to odds-on favorites.

I'm assuming that if you're only playing 1 or 2 races per week, you are REALLY picky and won't have as long of a streak as someone who's betting a ton of races per day or per week.

If a good handicapper waits, waits, waits till he LOVES something and only bets on the "loves" and passes the "likes" and the "action bets" he's going to have less "losing streaks" than a guy who's hammering cash thru the windows and betting dozens of races per day.

[tanner12oz]

I've laid off the past week or so...feel good not like I'm missing out or anything. Going into pimlico tomorrow with a clear head.

[AndyC]

I'm assuming that if you're only playing 1 or 2 races per week, you are REALLY picky and won't have as long of a streak as someone who's betting a ton of races per day or per week.

If a good handicapper waits, waits, waits till he LOVES something and only bets on the "loves" and passes the "likes" and the "action bets" he's going to have less "losing streaks" than a guy who's hammering cash thru the windows and betting dozens of races per day.

So what does "love" mean? Does it mean you think your selection has a 50% chance of winning? A 33% chance of winning? I sincerely doubt that you will find too many bets where you feel that you have a 70% chance of winning yet the odds are north of even money.

[whodoyoulike]

I've laid off the past week or so...feel good not like I'm missing out or anything. Going into pimlico tomorrow with a clear head.

Good to know. I'd hate to think you're guessing like PA is doing in his contest with Mad Scientist.

[traynor]

I'm assuming that if you're only playing 1 or 2 races per week, you are REALLY picky and won't have as long of a streak as someone who's betting a ton of races per day or per week.

If a good handicapper waits, waits, waits till he LOVES something and only bets on the "loves" and passes the "likes" and the "action bets" he's going to have less "losing streaks" than a guy who's hammering cash thru the windows and betting dozens of races per day.

More than a few would argue that the complete opposite is true--that it is the "I have a good feeling about this bet" bettors who set themselves up for losing streaks, and the high volume bettors with consistent, well-defined decision making strategies are the LEAST likely to have losing streaks of significant duration.