Are harness bettors idiots?

[Stillriledup]

Seems like theyre far worse than Thoroughbred bettors. No offense, i'm sure that if you are one of the ones who are holds your own, i'm not talking about you, but i watch some of these races from YR and M1 and other tracks and it just seems like there are so many horses who are bet off the board who can't pace at all.

Couple examples come to mind.

Tonight at M1 in the 5th race, the 2 and 2A entry was 3-5 and both horses were total stinkers. The 2A got a dream trip right in behind the battling leaders, appeared to have horse turning for home and just came unglued and looked like she was worth about 25 cents.

Tonight at Yonkers in the 11th, Rockin Amadeus was 1-5 from post 1, he was handed the race, nobody tried to beat him, he was lone speed, unpressured and he stopped on a dime, barely hanging on for 3rd.



Why are these horses getting so heavily bet when they're no good?

I don't put in immense amounts of work on harness racing so i don't know who's good and who is not, but geez, who's betting these slugs down to 1-5 and 3-5?

I don't see too many 1-5s in thoro racing that get perfect trips and stop on dimes.

[Sea Biscuit]

Tonight at M1 in the 5th race, the 2 and 2A entry was 3-5 and both horses were total stinkers. The 2A got a dream trip right in behind the battling leaders, appeared to have horse turning for home and just came unglued and looked like she was worth about 25 cents.



Do you ever analyse the race fractions before commenting?

The fractions were 28-58.1-1:27:2-154.4. Pierce put the rest of the field on a treadmill when he got away with murderously slow fractions on the front end. There was nothing Sears could do about it but watch. He did well to finish 2nd by only 1/2 a length. I consider an even pace slow. This was a full 2 seconds slower than average.

Don't count out Designed To Be yet.

[Stillriledup]

My mistake, it was Race 4 not Race 5.

[Ray2000]

This is just MHO on the heavy bet 'Odds-on' favorites in Harness.

There are more and more board-watching, auto-betting programs hitting the standardbred market, probably from frustrated T-Bred players/programmers.
Due to the relatively small pool sizes, the last second queued up flood of wagers is causing many of these Overbets/Underlays.

here's 2

The Schumaker Northfield robot
http://robschumaker.com/publication... ss%20Races.pdf

The Parnham
http://www.harnessracingupdate.com/restricted/pdf/hru/hru040112.pdf

[wiffleball whizz]

Seems like theyre far worse than Thoroughbred bettors. No offense, i'm sure that if you are one of the ones who are holds your own, i'm not talking about you, but i watch some of these races from YR and M1 and other tracks and it just seems like there are so many horses who are bet off the board who can't pace at all.

Couple examples come to mind.

Tonight at M1 in the 5th race, the 2 and 2A entry was 3-5 and both horses were total stinkers. The 2A got a dream trip right in behind the battling leaders, appeared to have horse turning for home and just came unglued and looked like she was worth about 25 cents.

Tonight at Yonkers in the 11th, Rockin Amadeus was 1-5 from post 1, he was handed the race, nobody tried to beat him, he was lone speed, unpressured and he stopped on a dime, barely hanging on for 3rd.



Why are these horses getting so heavily bet when they're no good?

I don't put in immense amounts of work on harness racing so i don't know who's good and who is not, but geez, who's betting these slugs down to 1-5 and 3-5?

I don't see too many 1-5s in thoro racing that get perfect trips and stop on dimes.

It was a ****ed up race......if it was the race where the 7 won the whole field was coming back for the final next week.....think that purse was 40k the final prob goes for 450k

**** harness racing I'm done with it

[Sea Biscuit]

My mistake, it was Race 4 not Race 5.

The race fractions in the 4th race were 27.1-27.3-27.4-26.4.

The difference between the 3rd qtr and the 4th qtr was a full 1 second. Drop the ball who had the lead going into the stretch had the tactical advantage over the field.

Don't know about The Meadowlands but at Mohawk favorites win at the rate of 36.9%. So the public is wrong just about 63% of the time.

The notion that the favorite is the best horse in the race is erroneous too.

[mrroyboy]

I had the winner in the 4th but bet the entry in the fifth. So win one, lose one. But I agree. There seems to be some weird stuff going on. I'm not saying anyone is cheating. Don't know why.

[Poindexter]

Isn't this a good thing? The only thing I like more than trying to beat an over bet 3/5 favorite is an over bet 2/5 shot.......You motivated me.After looking at Saturdays Past Perfomances, Meadowlands here I come. :)

[traynor]

This is just MHO on the heavy bet 'Odds-on' favorites in Harness.

There are more and more board-watching, auto-betting programs hitting the standardbred market, probably from frustrated T-Bred players/programmers.
Due to the relatively small pool sizes, the last second queued up flood of wagers is causing many of these Overbets/Underlays.

here's 2

The Schumaker Northfield robot
http://robschumaker.com/publication... ss%20Races.pdf

The Parnham
http://www.harnessracingupdate.com/restricted/pdf/hru/hru040112.pdf

Anyone intent on having a positive ROI/breaking even/coming close to breaking even while having lots of fun would do well to learn all he or she can about automated wagering apps. Regardless of what anyone thinks of them, regardless of the (almost universal) complaints that they are "immoral, illegal, or fattening" the bottom line is that they are rapidly assuming dominance of the mutuel pools. That is NOT a trend that will go away.

Despite the many current complaints, today's racing will be looked back on with fondness in the not-too-distant future as "the good old days, when making money was easy." Bettors have a lot in common with armies. Both need to rapidly adjust to changes in the external environment, and to rapidly adopt tactics that neutralize the enemies advantage(s). Or perish.

[RaceTrackDaddy]

I have been in many contests over the years. Some were flat racing and others harness racing. Not until last year did I venture into the world of greyhound contests. Let me tell you, pound for pound the best handicappers in contest week in and week out are the puppy players.

Most contest I have entered have been 300 on up to a high of 700 players. This contest gives you credit for win and place money based on a two dollar play but limits the win price to $32 and place to $12 so the most one could receive is $44 on the longshot. No matter the week, when the dust cleared the field would be roughly 50/50 with half of the field with a positive ROI and the other half with a negative. To win these contests one needs to get about 2.50 ROI or there a bouts. Would be a lot easier to get that ROI without a limit of payouts.

Let us say I was humbled by the competition. The best I ever did in about 30 contests was 6th out of 500 contestants. Most times I was around 100th or a little lower.

[Stillriledup]

Isn't this a good thing? The only thing I like more than trying to beat an over bet 3/5 favorite is an over bet 2/5 shot.......You motivated me.After looking at Saturdays Past Perfomances, Meadowlands here I come. :)

yes, its a good thing, go get em! :D

[traynor]

I have been in many contests over the years. Some were flat racing and others harness racing. Not until last year did I venture into the world of greyhound contests. Let me tell you, pound for pound the best handicappers in contest week in and week out are the puppy players.

Most contest I have entered have been 300 on up to a high of 700 players. This contest gives you credit for win and place money based on a two dollar play but limits the win price to $32 and place to $12 so the most one could receive is $44 on the longshot. No matter the week, when the dust cleared the field would be roughly 50/50 with half of the field with a positive ROI and the other half with a negative. To win these contests one needs to get about 2.50 ROI or there a bouts. Would be a lot easier to get that ROI without a limit of payouts.

Let us say I was humbled by the competition. The best I ever did in about 30 contests was 6th out of 500 contestants. Most times I was around 100th or a little lower.

What do you use for greyhounds?

[RaceTrackDaddy]

What do you use for greyhounds?
My ADW is Betamerica and the contest (free) is run at http://www.bigjackpotbetting.com/contesthome.jsp. For pp's (free) at http://www.trackinfo.com/trakdocs/

If you were asking how to handicap greyhounds, I would use trip handicapping combined with speed handicapping. The most profitable angles is genetics. I have come to follow litters from strong dams.

Hope that answers your question..

[traynor]

My ADW is Betamerica and the contest (free) is run at http://www.bigjackpotbetting.com/contesthome.jsp. For pp's (free) at http://www.trackinfo.com/trakdocs/

If you were asking how to handicap greyhounds, I would use trip handicapping combined with speed handicapping. The most profitable angles is genetics. I have come to follow litters from strong dams.

Hope that answers your question..

Interesting. I used to use a (considerably expanded) version of Homberger's DRIS that I wrote in VB. Speed, class, consistency, early speed, break style, on and on. Difficult to code, easy to use. Oddly, (although I did it full time for several years, with decent return) I have never even considered genetics. Just about everything else, but not that. One can learn something new every day. Thanks!

[thespaah]

Seems like theyre far worse than Thoroughbred bettors. No offense, i'm sure that if you are one of the ones who are holds your own, i'm not talking about you, but i watch some of these races from YR and M1 and other tracks and it just seems like there are so many horses who are bet off the board who can't pace at all.

Couple examples come to mind.

Tonight at M1 in the 5th race, the 2 and 2A entry was 3-5 and both horses were total stinkers. The 2A got a dream trip right in behind the battling leaders, appeared to have horse turning for home and just came unglued and looked like she was worth about 25 cents.

Tonight at Yonkers in the 11th, Rockin Amadeus was 1-5 from post 1, he was handed the race, nobody tried to beat him, he was lone speed, unpressured and he stopped on a dime, barely hanging on for 3rd.



Why are these horses getting so heavily bet when they're no good?

I don't put in immense amounts of work on harness racing so i don't know who's good and who is not, but geez, who's betting these slugs down to 1-5 and 3-5?

I don't see too many 1-5s in thoro racing that get perfect trips and stop on dimes.
Apparently there are enough people with money betting these horses down who have no conception of value.

[thaskalos]

Anyone intent on having a positive ROI/breaking even/coming close to breaking even while having lots of fun would do well to learn all he or she can about automated wagering apps. Regardless of what anyone thinks of them, regardless of the (almost universal) complaints that they are "immoral, illegal, or fattening" the bottom line is that they are rapidly assuming dominance of the mutuel pools. That is NOT a trend that will go away.

Despite the many current complaints, today's racing will be looked back on with fondness in the not-too-distant future as "the good old days, when making money was easy." Bettors have a lot in common with armies. Both need to rapidly adjust to changes in the external environment, and to rapidly adopt tactics that neutralize the enemies advantage(s). Or perish.

I must voice a rare disagreement with you here, Traynor. IMO...the game will die out long before the racing of today gets called "the good old days"...

[traynor]

I must voice a rare disagreement with you here, Traynor. IMO...the game will die out long before the racing of today gets called "the good old days"...

I don't think horse racing is dying out. That perception may be because one only looks at a limited subset of the industry (US) as an indicator.

In any case, what is ... is. Whatever one has to work with at the moment is whatever one has to work with. I ignore most of the races that seem to be the source of chagrin for many (especially short fields). Any voids are more than adequately filled by the opportunities presented by Austalian, UK, and South African races. Swedish harness races are like a candy store.

LOTS of opportunities out there. The biggest plus currently is the HK circuit. How can anyone believe racing is dying out when he or she can wager on races at Sha Tin with the click of a mouse?

I like what is much more than what was. Life was really tough when WPS and DD were the only bets available. It started improving with exactas, but the track(s) I started on only allowed exacta wagering on three races a day. And trying to dutch exactas at the last minute when the mutuel clerks had to punch out $5 tickets by hand was a real drag.

And yet many seem to recall how much better it was in the good old days. I was there. It wasn't all that good. I like now better.

[RaceTrackDaddy]

Interesting. I used to use a (considerably expanded) version of Homberger's DRIS that I wrote in VB. Speed, class, consistency, early speed, break style, on and on. Difficult to code, easy to use. Oddly, (although I did it full time for several years, with decent return) I have never even considered genetics. Just about everything else, but not that. One can learn something new every day. Thanks!
You're welcome.
I have come to follow up on new litters that are out of my favorite puppies. Case in point, is Kiowa Producer, who I followed from the maiden up to the top class and followed him when he moved to the big stake tracks. The next litter out of his dam went back to the same sire. I usually give a nickname to the litter and this one was The Underdog litter in that most of the names were characters in the Underdog cartoon. They all made it to the top of the classification ladder.

The most recent successful litter was the "Rewards litter" who sent in four into the puppy stakes at Palm Beach and after all the elims got three into the final. Think they had first and second when the race was over. Most of them moved on to Southland Park (track with the best purses).

I have found that if you get one decent runner out of the litter you will see his siblings have similar success once they hit the track. The problem is when you get 8 litters and with some time racing, they all will be bumping heads against each other. Then it is when you have to go to trip handicapping more than anything else.

Horse racing produces one offspring per mating (with some exceptions with twins) so greyhounds gives us more of a chance to make some money when they are racing in the maiden class and moving up.

[thaskalos]

I don't think horse racing is dying out. That perception may be because one only looks at a limited subset of the industry (US) as an indicator.

In any case, what is ... is. Whatever one has to work with at the moment is whatever one has to work with. I ignore most of the races that seem to be the source of chagrin for many (especially short fields). Any voids are more than adequately filled by the opportunities presented by Austalian, UK, and South African races. Swedish harness races are like a candy store.

LOTS of opportunities out there. The biggest plus currently is the HK circuit. How can anyone believe racing is dying out when he or she can wager on races at Sha Tin with the click of a mouse?

I like what is much more than what was. Life was really tough when WPS and DD were the only bets available. It started improving with exactas, but the track(s) I started on only allowed exacta wagering on three races a day. And trying to dutch exactas at the last minute when the mutuel clerks had to punch out $5 tickets by hand was a real drag.

And yet many seem to recall how much better it was in the good old days. I was there. It wasn't all that good. I like now better.

Well...I'd like to master the game in THIS country before I venture into international waters.

[traynor]

Well...I'd like to master the game in THIS country before I venture into international waters.

That doesn't make any sense. If you like horse racing, and you think horse racing here (US) is dying, suffering from onerous takeouts, short fields, whales, and whatever else, why would you not find a more advantageous place/venue to wager? Horse races are horse races.

[Stillriledup]

That doesn't make any sense. If you like horse racing, and you think horse racing here (US) is dying, suffering from onerous takeouts, short fields, whales, and whatever else, why would you not find a more advantageous place/venue to wager? Horse races are horse races.

Why is horse racing suffering from Whales? Without them, the pools would be much smaller.

No?

[RaceTrackDaddy]

Let me chime in with my two cent opinion.

I have to agree that the sport is on the decline but the causation is complicated.

First as I see it with the advent of the phone wagering and then television broadcasts permitted people to wager away from the track. The growth of the horse or dog racing depended on replacing the older fans of their sport as they pass on. Most people love to go the the track and would bring friends along, many whom have never wagered two dollars on any horse or dog. New fans is the life's blood to the revenue stream of wagering.

Now add the high speed internet connection that permits the wagerer to not only bet at home but with simulcasting, bet many different tracks. No longer will it be a weekly night out bringing friends but me in my pj's betting till midnight on my computer.

As track attendance declines, the new players fail to appear to replace those that no longer bet or are alive.

Another cause of loss of favor among current enthusiasts is the concentration of top horses into too few stables. Sure you can race them as uncoupled entries for betting purposes but who can be sure which of those entered is the stable trying to win.

Look to this year's Hambo, only 11 entered as the Takter team of three scares many away and choosing to race elsewhere. I always looked forward to heat racing and with 11, we have only the final without a elimination.

How can we change this? You might look to Jeff Gural's approach in doing things that make the track experience more akin to that of a County Fair racetrack with the Corncob eating contest. Free ice cream for the kids who pick up the bean bags that missed the car give a way contest. The tracks have to have the will to expand their customer base.

Sadly, tracks like the Meadows refuse to promote their biggest race of the year. While watching the news, I have seen numerous commercials on my evening news that promote table-games of chance and slot machines. They also ran a lot of them promoting their boxing card (night of the Adios). I never saw one commercial promoting the upcoming Adios Day event.

The sport is on the decline and some tracks really don't care. The Meadows promotions are paid for and ran by the MSOA Meadows Standardbred Owners Association. At least the horsemen get it. Maybe someday those that run the Meadows will actually do something to improve the sport instead of usurping it.

[Stillriledup]

Let me chime in with my two cent opinion.

I have to agree that the sport is on the decline but the causation is complicated.

First as I see it with the advent of the phone wagering and then television broadcasts permitted people to wager away from the track. The growth of the horse or dog racing depended on replacing the older fans of their sport as they pass on. Most people love to go the the track and would bring friends along, many whom have never wagered two dollars on any horse or dog. New fans is the life's blood to the revenue stream of wagering.

Now add the high speed internet connection that permits the wagerer to not only bet at home but with simulcasting, bet many different tracks. No longer will it be a weekly night out bringing friends but me in my pj's betting till midnight on my computer.

As track attendance declines, the new players fail to appear to replace those that no longer bet or are alive.

Another cause of loss of favor among current enthusiasts is the concentration of top horses into too few stables. Sure you can race them as uncoupled entries for betting purposes but who can be sure which of those entered is the stable trying to win.

Look to this year's Hambo, only 11 entered as the Takter team of three scares many away and choosing to race elsewhere. I always looked forward to heat racing and with 11, we have only the final without a elimination.

How can we change this? You might look to Jeff Gural's approach in doing things that make the track experience more akin to that of a County Fair racetrack with the Corncob eating contest. Free ice cream for the kids who pick up the bean bags that missed the car give a way contest. The tracks have to have the will to expand their customer base.

Sadly, tracks like the Meadows refuse to promote their biggest race of the year. While watching the news, I have seen numerous commercials on my evening news that promote table-games of chance and slot machines. They also ran a lot of them promoting their boxing card (night of the Adios). I never saw one commercial promoting the upcoming Adios Day event.

The sport is on the decline and some tracks really don't care. The Meadows promotions are paid for and ran by the MSOA Meadows Standardbred Owners Association. At least the horsemen get it. Maybe someday those that run the Meadows will actually do something to improve the sport instead of usurping it.

Tracks need to use BAR.

Just let the superhorses race for purse money only. The Adios, for example, would have been a "good betting race" had the Coleman horse been barred. No reason to "ruin" a betting race when there's a horse who 'cant lose'. (and even if he can theoretically lose, you don't want to be betting against)

[thaskalos]

That doesn't make any sense. If you like horse racing, and you think horse racing here (US) is dying, suffering from onerous takeouts, short fields, whales, and whatever else, why would you not find a more advantageous place/venue to wager? Horse races are horse races.

You mean you are serious? I thought you were putting me on.

You want me to join the crowd that bets those foreign races while using those sketchy past performances?

[RaceTrackDaddy]

Tracks need to use BAR.

Just let the superhorses race for purse money only. The Adios, for example, would have been a "good betting race" had the Coleman horse been barred. No reason to "ruin" a betting race when there's a horse who 'cant lose'. (and even if he can theoretically lose, you don't want to be betting against)
I can see using the BAR on many cases in these races. As a bettor, I find it frustrating though when I was going to bet against the Barred horse and end up beating him outright on the track. Forget the year but was at Delaware County Fair and this Bakerfield colt was barred from betting racing for purse only. My pick ended up the favorite of the rest of the field and paid $4.40 to win. If that barred horse was in the betting pool, I would have netted at least 7/2. Oh well. I would be in favor of the barred horse in the Adios, that would have helped in the exotics, big time for me.

[Stillriledup]

I can see using the BAR on many cases in these races. As a bettor, I find it frustrating though when I was going to bet against the Barred horse and end up beating him outright on the track. Forget the year but was at Delaware County Fair and this Bakerfield colt was barred from betting racing for purse only. My pick ended up the favorite of the rest of the field and paid $4.40 to win. If that barred horse was in the betting pool, I would have netted at least 7/2. Oh well. I would be in favor of the barred horse in the Adios, that would have helped in the exotics, big time for me.

Its tricky to know which horses to bar.....maybe have 2 betting pools incase you want to bet the race but don't want to bet on or against the heavy chalk.

[RaceTrackDaddy]

Its tricky to know which horses to bar.....maybe have 2 betting pools incase you want to bet the race but don't want to bet on or against the heavy chalk.
I can only relate to that race at the Delaware Co Fair back all those years. The horse they barred was a three year old Ohio bred in a sire stake with 7 wins in 7 starts. The horse I wanted was a late bloomer who won his last three starts out of 8 races run that year. I probably would have bet is lot more nto the pool that had the horse eligible to race as a wagering option as I bet lightly when my horse became the favorite as they listed the horse barred. I recall telling my friends that day that I wished he was entered to be bet upon as I would unload my wallet...as it turned out, $4.40 on a $20 bet got me $44...

[traynor]

You mean you are serious? I thought you were putting me on.

You want me to join the crowd that bets those foreign races while using those sketchy past performances?

It depends on whether you think you are handicapping horse races, or just shuffling around (equally, if not more limited, but in different areas) Equibase numbers. Some very serious bettors in Australia, the UK, and the Hong Kong circuit manage to do quite well without Equibase. For someone who is actually handicapping horses (rather than data files), it is an easy task to make the transition to (or addition of) "foreign" races.

With all due respect to those who believe Ultimate Truth involves little more than shuffling numbers a bit, I think a leisurely few months on the Swedish harness circuit is far more interesting than many other things. I didn't get to watch those sunsets in Madagascar by spending daddy's money. I got them courtesy of some very nice payoffs on the South African thoroughbred circuit.

Freedom is not worth much if it is not used. I speak (and understand) a little more than 10 words of Swedish, and even less Norwegian. That did absolutely nothing to prevent me from winning. In fact, it might be considered an advantage--by focusing on analyzing the horses rather than on analyzing the Equibase numbers.

[traynor]

Why is horse racing suffering from Whales? Without them, the pools would be much smaller.

No?

Some seem to believe that the only ones earning a profit by wagering on horse races are the "whales" betting $100m+ a year. I am skeptical of the notion that only a handful of people are doing well, and that they are essentially taking most of the "available profit." I am even more skeptical of the notion that it requires a crew of 20 and a multi-million dollar starting bankroll to make money betting on races. Most of the bettors I know (who do quite well, thank you) dismiss such notions as nonsense.

[traynor]

You're welcome.
I have come to follow up on new litters that are out of my favorite puppies. Case in point, is Kiowa Producer, who I followed from the maiden up to the top class and followed him when he moved to the big stake tracks. The next litter out of his dam went back to the same sire. I usually give a nickname to the litter and this one was The Underdog litter in that most of the names were characters in the Underdog cartoon. They all made it to the top of the classification ladder.

The most recent successful litter was the "Rewards litter" who sent in four into the puppy stakes at Palm Beach and after all the elims got three into the final. Think they had first and second when the race was over. Most of them moved on to Southland Park (track with the best purses).

I have found that if you get one decent runner out of the litter you will see his siblings have similar success once they hit the track. The problem is when you get 8 litters and with some time racing, they all will be bumping heads against each other. Then it is when you have to go to trip handicapping more than anything else.

Horse racing produces one offspring per mating (with some exceptions with twins) so greyhounds gives us more of a chance to make some money when they are racing in the maiden class and moving up.

That is radically different from anything I have ever done in greyhound handicapping. Have you ever applied those ideas to races in the UK or Australia? It seems it would give you quite an advantage there.

[Poindexter]

Some seem to believe that the only ones earning a profit by wagering on horse races are the "whales" betting $100m+ a year. I am skeptical of the notion that only a handful of people are doing well, and that they are essentially taking most of the "available profit." I am even more skeptical of the notion that it requires a crew of 20 and a multi-million dollar starting bankroll to make money betting on races. Most of the bettors I know (who do quite well, thank you) dismiss such notions as nonsense.

What do you consider quite well. 3% roi, 5% roi, 10% roi and is this before or after rebates.

Just want to clarify in case you have me as being part of the "some". I have been vocal on this subject not because I am consumed with the fact that I have to go against a team of 20 experts betting millions in the pools. That doesn't concern me one iota. As mentioned above the only thing I like better than betting against an over bet 3/5 is betting against and over bet 2/5.They zig I zag. Also, whether I win or lose is irrelevant. I get rebates and I enjoy the game when I have the time to play it and that is all that matters to me personally. If I did not get rebates, it would be too expensive and hard to win and I would not bother. It doesn't bother me that these guys are making millions a year betting. If I was as good as them I would be doing the same thing. These guys are good and they earn their money. What bothers me is that this game can not grow in its current format(and the powers that be are too stupid to realize this). Why? because unlike me and others in this forum and the bettors you know who are versed enough at this game that they are willing to take on the handicaps of it, use rebates as a tool to stay in the game if not win and really find the game enjoyable, the vast majority of "new blood" is going to bet without rebates of any significance, get pounded at the races(without even having the faintest idea why) and will eventually transition into other gambling activities which they perceive to give them a better chance of winning or losing less (bang for their gambling buck).

This failing of this sport is so silly. Throughout my young life I would drive to Santa Anita(45 minutes away from my home), Hollywood park(25 minutes away from my home), Los Alamitos(45 minutes from my home) and even Pomona(LA county fair which was close to an hour away from my home). If I wanted trip notes I had the watch the replay at the track either right after the race or come an hour early the next day to watch the previous days replays. Sometimes I would go drive from one track in the day to another at night then home again. No rebates. Just enjoyed the sports(harness, thoroughbreds and even quarter horses-was betting Los Al quarter horses when Wayne Lukas and Bob Baffert were quarter horse trainers). Now anyone can bet any track from anywhere almost any time a day, get race replays right over the net for free and these racetracks one by one are dying off?

[Stillriledup]

Some seem to believe that the only ones earning a profit by wagering on horse races are the "whales" betting $100m+ a year. I am skeptical of the notion that only a handful of people are doing well, and that they are essentially taking most of the "available profit." I am even more skeptical of the notion that it requires a crew of 20 and a multi-million dollar starting bankroll to make money betting on races. Most of the bettors I know (who do quite well, thank you) dismiss such notions as nonsense.

I think one of the biggest misconceptions out there is that there's a "finite" available profit.

Now, while there is probably a finite amount of profit in any one individual race, as long as the sport doesnt go under, aren't there always chances for profit?

[traynor]

What do you consider quite well. 3% roi, 5% roi, 10% roi and is this before or after rebates.



Much better.

[traynor]

I think one of the biggest misconceptions out there is that there's a "finite" available profit.

Now, while there is probably a finite amount of profit in any one individual race, as long as the sport doesnt go under, aren't there always chances for profit?

Yes. And they are virtually guaranteed in areas in which computer-assisted wagering does not do well at all. People have been chasing "inefficiencies in the mutuel pools" in one form or another since the Ziemba days. Programming apps to detect those inefficiencies (as well as inefficiencies in the exotic pools) is not exactly rocket science. Applying the strategies in the real world takes a decent computer, a decent program, and a few mouse clicks.

While the "Benter dream" of a crew of flunkies and million-dollar apps is all quite romantic, I am typing this on a computer with capabilities that would have been the envy of most corporations and more than a few government agencies--back in the old days when Benter was flourishing.

Anyone who thinks that shoveling $100k (or $1m, $10m, or $100m) through the windows to eke out a 2-3% profit with rebates is a sustainable business plan has not been doing it very long. I wish them all the luck in the world.

There is money to be made in racing. Most of the bettors I know who are doing well (a particularly aggressive bunch) are the antithesis of the beancounter/grinder model. They use computers, but not in the way that seems the "accepted wisdom" for handicapping horse races.

[Poindexter]

Much better.


Okay, are we speaking the same language? When I say 10% roi, I mean bet a million a year(not hard to do) and win $100,000(very hard to do). You are claiming they are doing much better than that. Wow, impressive. I assume this includes rebates.

Just to put this in perspective, your best sports bettors(do not think there are many guys alive that can even do this) will hit about 56% over say 1000 games a year. So 560-440 +76 units over 1100 units risked or about +7% roi. This is into a game with only a 4.5% take(not 15 to 25% take).

[traynor]

Okay, are we speaking the same language? When I say 10% roi, I mean bet a million a year(not hard to do) and win $100,000(very hard to do). You are claiming they are doing much better than that. Wow, impressive. I assume this includes rebates.

Just to put this in perspective, your best sports bettors(do not think there are many guys alive that can even do this) will hit about 56% over say 1000 games a year. So 560-440 +76 units over 1100 units risked or about +7% roi. This is into a game with only a 4.5% take(not 15 to 25% take).

I don't know anyone who bets every day, day after day, all year, and makes (or tries to make) some modest percentage of profit on a very large number of wagers, or by wagering very large amounts for a modest profit. That is a conceptual favorite of software developers and writers, but anyone who has ever wagered seriously understands clearly how foolish the premise is.

First, horse racing is not static. Someone gets lucky, makes a few scores, turns a nice profit--it is absolutely, positively no guarantee that he or she can replicate that performance in the next month/year/whatever.

Second, whatever one does that is successful will be replicated in short order by others. That is reality. There are no Ultimate Truths or Golden Strategies. There are only things that work for awhile, and the smart bettors are those who take maximum advantage of them while they last. Again, that is reality.

I think the wagering activities of the beancounter/grinder/"statistical advantage" mentality--whether betting hundreds or hundreds of millions--are a near-perfect way to dump an immense amount of money while consoling one's self that he or she is simply "in a negative swing." (Blackjack bankers lose almost as much, almost as fast, but probably have more fun.)

[thaskalos]

I don't know anyone who bets every day, day after day, all year, and makes (or tries to make) some modest percentage of profit on a very large number of wagers, or by wagering very large amounts for a modest profit. That is a conceptual favorite of software developers and writers, but anyone who has ever wagered seriously understands clearly how foolish the premise is.

First, horse racing is not static. Someone gets lucky, makes a few scores, turns a nice profit--it is absolutely, positively no guarantee that he or she can replicate that performance in the next month/year/whatever.

Second, whatever one does that is successful will be replicated in short order by others. That is reality. There are no Ultimate Truths or Golden Strategies. There are only things that work for awhile, and the smart bettors are those who take maximum advantage of them while they last. Again, that is reality.

I think the wagering activities of the beancounter/grinder/"statistical advantage" mentality--whether betting hundreds or hundreds of millions--are a near-perfect way to dump an immense amount of money while consoling one's self that he or she is simply "in a negative swing." (Blackjack bankers lose almost as much, almost as fast, but probably have more fun.)
When I started in the game, I was of the opinion that "beancounting/grinding" was the thing to do when you had an "edge". That's what all the OTHER winning gamblers do...no matter WHERE they ply their trade. They grind their edge over time...and they consider their entire gambling career to be one very long and frequently interrupted gambling session.

But I slowly realized that I couldn't beat the horses by "grinding"...no matter how hard I tried. So, I adopted a more wide-open style of play...and started casting my net in the deeper waters. Not necessarily swinging for the fences...but more like aiming for the extra base-hit down the line. The game became more turbulent for me...but I liked the long-term results...and I felt so much more "alive".

My question to you is...how would you advise the non-beancounting/grinding player to keep score of his results? By the month...three months...year? You leave the safety of the seashore when you stop grinding...

[Stillriledup]

When I started in the game, I was of the opinion that "beancounting/grinding" was the thing to do when you had an "edge". That's what all the OTHER winning gamblers do...no matter WHERE they ply their trade. They grind their edge over time...and they consider their entire gambling career to be one very long and frequently interrupted gambling session.

But I slowly realized that I couldn't beat the horses by "grinding"...no matter how hard I tried. So, I adopted a more wide-open style of play...and started casting my net in the deeper waters. Not necessarily swinging for the fences...but more like aiming for the extra base-hit down the line. The game became more turbulent for me...but I liked the long-term results...and I felt so much more "alive".

My question to you is...how would you advise the non-beancounting/grinding player to keep score of his results? By the month...three months...year? You leave the safety of the seashore when you stop grinding...

I found this to be completely true. In order to be a winner, you need to hit a HUGE pick 5 or pick 6 every once in a while.

[traynor]

When I started in the game, I was of the opinion that "beancounting/grinding" was the thing to do when you had an "edge". That's what all the OTHER winning gamblers do...no matter WHERE they ply their trade. They grind their edge over time...and they consider their entire gambling career to be one very long and frequently interrupted gambling session.

But I slowly realized that I couldn't beat the horses by "grinding"...no matter how hard I tried. So, I adopted a more wide-open style of play...and started casting my net in the deeper waters. Not necessarily swinging for the fences...but more like aiming for the extra base-hit down the line. The game became more turbulent for me...but I liked the long-term results...and I felt so much more "alive".

My question to you is...how would you advise the non-beancounting/grinding player to keep score of his results? By the month...three months...year? You leave the safety of the seashore when you stop grinding...

Step One ... avoid defining "ROII" (return on initial investment) as "ROI." Specifically, the general (ego-enhancing) interpretation goes along the lines of "I deposited $1000 in my ADW account last year. I have $1200 in it now. My ROI for the year was 1.20, so I have a 20% advantage with my handy dandy little toy method of handicapping." As comically absurd as such a statement is in reality, more than a few seem to accept such as "fact." It may be "fact," but it doesn't mean what they think it means.

ROI is calculated on the total wagers made--not the amount in or out of pocket at the end of some arbitrary time period. The related POI is a very important value--and ALSO calculated on the basis of total amount wagered, NOT money in or out of pocket at some point in time.

More than a few seem unable to grasp the significance of "advantage" and "creatively define" it as being "equivalent" to ROI. Obviously (or at least it should be obvious) when a "true" ROI (based on total wagers) is calculated, the "advantage" is based on the number of wagers made--not just the ROI.

The "safety of the seashore" that beancounters/grinders seem so eagerly to seek is an illusion. There is no safety--only a small run of luck (in a best case scenario) when things went well for a little while. I think the beancounters/grinders would do better if they sought some form of investment other than horse racing.

As for keeping score, that is a serious question. It involves a variety of topics from float to the future value of money. The quick answer would be that there are two (basic) ways of keeping score. The first, for research, is ROI (with data cleansing and statistical processing measures applied to assure valid information is gained). That is essential to create useful models.

The second way of keeping score is the amount withdrawn from wagering activities and applied to the real world. That is purely practical, not theoretical. Much like any other business. If one is not making relatively frequent and relatively substantial withdrawals for his or her wagering accounts/wagering funds and applying those funds to non-wagering activities, purposes, and/or investments one mind usefully ask one's self if he or she is doing as well wagering as one believes herself or himself to be doing. And whether he or she could be doing even better (profit wise) by putting the funds in another type of investment. Even something as basic as leveraging the float provided free-of-charge to ADWs holding the purse strings.

[traynor]

I found this to be completely true. In order to be a winner, you need to hit a HUGE pick 5 or pick 6 every once in a while.

The point that many seem unable (or unwilling) to understand is that the miniscule "advantage" provided by grinding is in no way a certainty, and the addition of more wagers into the various pools will (in almost all cases) eliminate what seemed to be a "positive ROI" in retrospect, based on the results of races not wagered. Nice ego-stroking for the hobbyists who believe that they have discovered the keys to the candy store, but never collect the candy because they know deep down that the keys don't work.

I agree wholeheartedly that the best (fastest and perhaps only) way to win significant returns is with leverage, NOT volume. Rebates or no, chasing returns of a few percentage points in return for an immense amount of effort and wagers made is not a sustainable business strategy for wagering on horse races.

[mrroyboy]

Andy Beyer and others agree with the long ball philosophy. It's very tough to do and there is a lot of variance.
But I am not sure that some kind of grinding out won't work. The profits might be smaller but there would be less ulcers!!

[Clocker]

Andy Beyer and others agree with the long ball philosophy. It's very tough to do and there is a lot of variance.
But I am not sure that some kind of grinding out won't work. The profits might be smaller but there would be less ulcers!!

That was one of Sartin's arguments for betting 2 horses in a race. Your profits per race are lower, but so is your variance.

[traynor]

Consider what happens (and doesn't happen) to the betting bankroll on deposit with your friendly neighborhood bookie or ADW:

"Money value fluctuates over time: $100 has a different value than $100 in five years. This is because one can invest $100 today in a bank account or any other investment, and that money will grow/shrink due to interest. Also, if $100 today allows the purchase of an item, it is possible that $100 will not be enough to purchase the same item in five years, because of inflation (increase in purchase price).

An investor who has some money has two options: to spend it right now or to invest it. The financial compensation for saving it (and not spending it) is that the money value will accrue through the interests that he will receive from a borrower (the bank account on which he has the money deposited).

Therefore, to evaluate the real worthiness of an amount of money today after a given period of time, economic agents compound the amount of money at a given interest rate. Most actuarial calculations use the risk-free interest rate which corresponds the minimum guaranteed rate provided the bank's saving account, for example. If one wants to compare their change in purchasing power, then they should use the real interest rate (nominal interest rate minus inflation rate).

The operation of evaluating a present value into the future value is called a capitalization (how much will $100 today be worth in 5 years?). The reverse operation which consists in evaluating the present value of a future amount of money is called a discounting (how much $100 that will be received in 5 years- at a lottery, for example -are worth today?).

It follows that if one has to choose between receiving $100 today and $100 in one year, the rational decision is to cash the $100 today. If the money is to be received in one year and assuming the savings account interest rate is 5%, the person has to be offered at least $105 in one year so that two options are equivalent (either receiving $100 today or receiving $105 in one year). This is because if you cash $100 today and deposit in your savings account, you will have $105 in one year."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_value

Hobbyists need not worry about such details. Those intent on profit should consider if their ROI in the real world is actually an advantage.

[traynor]

Andy Beyer and others agree with the long ball philosophy. It's very tough to do and there is a lot of variance.
But I am not sure that some kind of grinding out won't work. The profits might be smaller but there would be less ulcers!!

A point missed by many is that what they consider grinding may in fact be an illusion. An example is an ROI based on a small sample of races with anomalies in the mutuels. Just like the Ray Taulbot, et al "workouts" that showed a supposed profit over some small, select group of races (generally called "back-fitting") the majority of "positive expectation" strategies developed by handicapping software apps don't work very well when one attempts to wager on their recommendations in the real world.

The basic strategy is to find an approach that generates (relatively) frequent winners while including larger returns. Specifically, by truncating outliers in the modeling stage, application of the models (almost) invariably outperforms the ROI projected by the model. Failure to truncate outliers when building models reverses that performance--application of the models (almost) invariably fails to match the ROI projected by the model.

Grinding is fine, but NOT when the "advantage" is miniscule.

[traynor]

That was one of Sartin's arguments for betting 2 horses in a race. Your profits per race are lower, but so is your variance.

It was a great idea, but rarely worked in the real world. Specifically, the much-touted "win percentage times average mutuel divided by cost of wagers equals ROI" formula only worked when the values were stable--something that almost never happened. It kept a lot of hobbyists and recreational bettors snuggled cozily in lala land believing they could "turn pro" anytime they wanted to do so (or needed to do so), but the bottom line is that the consistency implied by the formula rarely existed.

[traynor]

If anyone is unfailiar with the term "float" it refers to the free use of money, and is the primary (or at least secondary) source of income for many businesses, the most notable of which are supermarket chains. Specifically (and simply stated), "float" is the money held by the business between the time they sell a product or service and the time they pay the supplier for that product or service. The same situation exists with prime contractors with slow billing cycles--the "float" is the use of capital gained by sale of the product or services provided by a vendor or subcontractor between the time of sale and the time of payment.

[traynor]

For those who may believe that leaving their money in an ADW is a wise move, consider the tendency of casinos to "change up"--to encourage more (and larger denomination) wagers. That "comfortable cushion" in an ADW betting fund--in addition to providing the float to the ADW and passing any opportunity to earn on that amount--creates a situation in which a (relatively minor) run of bad luck (not "poor handicapping") can wipe it out.

Just like any other business, it isn't really money until it is taken out of the till. Way too many thought otherwise and wound up with an empty till. Ask any blackjack banker in the world--especially those who were "going for the major money."

[traynor]

All of which is related to why some horses are bet off the board, that have no real chance of winning. The bettors making those bets--from the $2 bettor to the "whales" (however defined by betting level) have distorted views of reality. Why? Because they have flattered their own egos with self-serving biases that make them believe they are more highly skilled than they really are.

The whole thing gets way easier when one really understands that the primary driver is not profit--it is being right. The sheeple flock after the leader (who may have been one of the first n the pool with a modest bet that tweaked seriously because there were no competing bets) and it becomes a stampede the more bettors jump on the "somebody knows something and I don't want to be left out and look foolish" bandwagon.

"In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

"This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

I prefer the simpler term, "the foolishness of crowds."