Learning and studying to become better

[mikel9478]

Hi, I would like a bit of advice. I am new to handicapping and would like to study the fundamentals of it. As well as learn proper wagering structures and what to look for as well as avoid. I currently use the DRF to handicap, but i don't wager. What is the best way for one to learn without having to bet? I would greatly appreciate any help, thanks in advance!

[Grits]

You've taken your first, and your best step, on a long, long journey. There are so many here that you can learn much from. Read in earnest, all that you can. ;)

And most of all? Welcome to Pace Advantage!

[Tall One]

I currently use the DRF to handicap, but i don't wager. What is the best way for one to learn without having to bet?



Welcome aboard, Mike! Week before the BC, so you've joined up at the right time. I'd continue what you're doing until you feel comfortable with wagering. Watching the race replays at your track of choice is a great way to hone your skills as well as getting in said comfort zone.

That search tab up top is your friend...great group of posters on the forum that will help you along the way as well. :ThmbUp:

[Robert Goren]

Normally I am not fan of this writer, but this book is a good place to start. Just be sure to get the 2004 edition and not the 1987 edition.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Best-Thoroughbred-Handicapping-Leading/dp/0970014775/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1414153927&sr=1-4

As for this board, there is a lot of good advice here, but there is also a lot of bad advice. So take every thing with a grain of salt.(except what I post).
The first thing you need to figure out before you get to far into it is whether you want to be a handicapper or a system player. Good Luck.

[Capper Al]

Hi, I would like a bit of advice. I am new to handicapping and would like to study the fundamentals of it. As well as learn proper wagering structures and what to look for as well as avoid. I currently use the DRF to handicap, but i don't wager. What is the best way for one to learn without having to bet? I would greatly appreciate any help, thanks in advance!

This is most likely PA. But, if not, a couple of points to understand. First if you are under 50 study the stock market instead. The market has a positive expectation while horse racing has a negative expection. And, if the stock market does poorly, the government acts to correct. This is like guaranteeing 6 horses will cross the finish line and pay while only one pays for horse racing.

If you still want to study horse racing, start off by buying Brad Free's book, Handicapping 101. After reading it, on eBay or Amazon, purchase a pen and paper system for under $50. David Ventura (sp?) Is a good author as is Steve Wilson for P&P systems. Test the system out and when you are ready make a few $2 bets. After that buy Danny Holmes book Ten Steps to Winning. Holmes will get you to second base. After that you'll need to figure out where you want to go for yourself. Good luck.

[mikel9478]

Thank you all for the warm welcomes and advice.I was actually led here by Dave schwartz, who spoke highly of this site and its resources.He also recommended books "winning at the races" and "modern pace handicapping" among other things. @ capper Al what is PA? what are the 2 systems you mention? Thank you all

[GaryG]

Watch as many races as you can and take notes. Learning how to critically watch a race will pay dividends, however it is time consuming and can be tedious. I have concentrated on Southern California races for a long time. After a while you will know what the trainers can and can't do. To many players horses are numbers, but realize they are flesh and blood creatures who have preferences and also have bad days. There are some very good handicappers here, so you have come to the right place.

[Appy]

Best wishes to you Mike.
Gary just said a couple very important things to remember.
Here's another; Handicap and test, test, test before you pay, pay, pay to play. Keep good records and you'll figure out how to sort out what you're best at.
AS for being a student, I don't foresee ever NOT being a student.

If you're looking for an expansive source of general handicapping information I would recommend the Michael Wilding (also a friend of Dave's) website and library of articles, the Sartin Followups, and Pizzolla's magic.

[Capper Al]

Thank you all for the warm welcomes and advice.I was actually led here by Dave schwartz, who spoke highly of this site and its resources.He also recommended books "winning at the races" and "modern pace handicapping" among other things. @ capper Al what is PA? what are the 2 systems you mention? Thank you all

PA is the owner and system admin of this website(most likely you). I would recommend David Ventura's Quick Pick system. He also sells it under other names. Best to find him on eBay and send him a message. I wouldn't recommend Winning at the Races and Modern Pace Handicapping until you get to second base with Danny Holmes book. And before reading Modern Pace Handicapping, I would such Pace Makes the Race by Tom Hambleton and Dick Schmidt. You need more experience at first than theory. Holmes' book has a good section on how to wager.

[Robert Fischer]

Hi, I would like a bit of advice. I am new to handicapping and would like to study the fundamentals of it. As well as learn proper wagering structures and what to look for as well as avoid. I currently use the DRF to handicap, but i don't wager. What is the best way for one to learn without having to bet? I would greatly appreciate any help, thanks in advance!

1. Your first step is to see and understand the system.
By 'the system' I am referring to horse racing, the parimutuel pools, the physical things that the horses do, the entire thing. You have to first see it, and then understand it.

2. Your next step is going to involve knowing how to act with good judgement. You are going to have to apply that insight from step one in the best possible ways. This is going to involve things like understanding bankroll and wager size management.

3. In order to allow your fundamentals to determine your success, you will need to understand 'self control', and how that will be tested in an exciting gambling game.

Plenty of ways to write down a bankroll, and then practice on paper. We have a Selections Forum here as well.

[thaskalos]

Brad Free's handicapping book is the best first step for a beginner to take. The book is written in a conversational tone, which newcomers can easily understand. But when I say "read"...I mean read and DIGEST! Handicapping books should not be read as if they are novels. After Brad Free's book, read and digest Andy Beyer's book "The Winning Horseplayer". These two books will lay a good foundation for you, after which I would encourage you to start wagering at the minimum levels. It is a lamentable fact that there are some very important things that we can only learn by active participation.

I must disagree with the advice that Capper Al has given you, about buying any of those advertised "systems" out there. I have bought every single system out there over the last 30+ years, and, believe me, none of them -- NONE OF THEM -- are even CLOSE to being as good as advertised. Getting involved with those system-peddling shysters is a huge step backwards.

Keep you bets tiny at the beginning...so your tuition will cost you as little as possible. And welcome to our board. :ThmbUp:

[castaway01]

Thank you all for the warm welcomes and advice.I was actually led here by Dave schwartz, who spoke highly of this site and its resources.He also recommended books "winning at the races" and "modern pace handicapping" among other things. @ capper Al what is PA? what are the 2 systems you mention? Thank you all

Hi, and welcome. I wouldn't worry about any systems. Some of the basic books that lay a foundation for learning about the game have been mentioned here, and they are the best place to start. Something I would suggest when learning how to handicap (besides only betting a few dollars a race to start, which goes without saying) is to study the favorite each race. Get a feel for what makes for a good favorite and a bad favorite. If you look at a race and think there's no way a horse can lose at 3-5 but it does, why did it lose? Was there a speed duel you didn't see coming? Did the horse's performance peak in its prior start? Did the track conditions, trainer, jockey, etc. change from when it gave its best effort? Being able to pick out weak favorites is a good skill to have, and it's a way to try to develop your ability to analyze a race.

Good luck to you!

[Cratos]

Hi, I would like a bit of advice. I am new to handicapping and would like to study the fundamentals of it. As well as learn proper wagering structures and what to look for as well as avoid. I currently use the DRF to handicap, but i don't wager. What is the best way for one to learn without having to bet? I would greatly appreciate any help, thanks in advance!

I typically do not give out advice, but in this case I would advise you to first understand risk, self-discipline, and money management as they relate to gambling; particularly horserace gambling.

Handicapping is not easy, but it is less costly.

[mikel9478]

thank you all for everything. what i have been doing in addition is reading the form and watching a few days per week. Is this a good idea? It seems it has just not sure if that is something i want to hold off on.

[Stillriledup]

Hi, I would like a bit of advice. I am new to handicapping and would like to study the fundamentals of it. As well as learn proper wagering structures and what to look for as well as avoid. I currently use the DRF to handicap, but i don't wager. What is the best way for one to learn without having to bet? I would greatly appreciate any help, thanks in advance!


The game has an incredible learning curve, if i said to work on racing at least 5 days a week and at least 60 hours a week and don't even consider making a wager for the next 5 years, what would you say? Would you think that's crazy talk? (it might be, i'm just asking :D )

Even though you are a newbie, the idea that you're not ready to bet is incredibly smart of you to realize at this point. Its a good idea to actually hate "Action" because if you love the action, its just harder to skip races which is what gets many otherwise talented horseplayers beat.

The first book i read on horse racing was Ainslie's complete guide. Its really based in fundamentals. I've also read his harness racing book too, its an old school fundamental based approach, so that's the start that i got from a reading standpoint.

The first thing you could ask yourself is if you want to become a pen and paper based guy or a visual guy. Some handicappers rely mainly on video tape replay, learning the horses visually, how they move, how their careers are progressing (or regressing)on what their eyes are telling them and base their entire approach on what they see. Other handicappers are not as into the visual approach, but they formulate opinions on number crunching such as speed figures, pace figures and other paper based angles. Now, of course, you could do both if you can find the time, there's no wrong way to win.

[DeltaLover]

Do not fool yourself.. If you do not manage to burn real $$$ through the betting windows, you have no chance of learning the game... Something like this is equivalent of learning to swim without getting wet...

[Capper Al]

Do not fool yourself.. If you do not manage to burn real $$$ through the betting windows, you have no chance of learning the game... Something like this is equivalent of learning to swim without getting wet...

True. It's amazing how much better we all do on paper.

[jk3521]

True. It's amazing how much better we all do on paper.
You have to feel the pain! :bang:

[Stillriledup]

You have to feel the pain! :bang:

I think that's right. However, you don't need to feel the pain on day 1. I'd suggest to learn the fundamentals, make mind bets (try and not lose your mind!) and practice and learn the sport before you wade in parimutually.

You need a good base of knowledge in order to make those losses matter...you need to know enough so that you can know WHY you lost. Learning from the mistakes is the key to eventual success, but you have to be smart enough and experienced enough to know why you lost in the first place.

[Robert Goren]

Do not fool yourself.. If you do not manage to burn real $$$ through the betting windows, you have no chance of learning the game... Something like this is equivalent of learning to swim without getting wet...Not true. I won the first time I went to races in 1964 and have never been down lifetime since the 3rd race on that day. Thank you, Miss Risqué.

I will say this. It is easier to learn at the track. Keep your ears open and your mouth shut and keep track of how what you hear does. You find the people who do well down at one end of the windows or the other. This guys have lost their money learning the game. Learn from them. You will quickly learn who is a winner and who is not. If you can't figure that out then you have years of math ahead you trying figure it out. Raybo says it took him 20 years of crunching numbers to get there. He also says he didn't make a bet until he did. I have no reason to doubt him.

[Sinner369]

All the posts above offer good advice but there is one other factor that supersedes all of the other posts...........that is you have to know yourself!

You cannot be successful unless you know what makes you tick, what are your own weaknesses and your own strengths.

It's like a drunk the first step to recovery is to admit that you are in fact an alcoholic.

So, my friend what type of person are you?..........meticulous, detailed, studious?

A loud, life of the party type of guy or an easy going personality that goes with the flow?

[AndyC]

Hi, I would like a bit of advice. I am new to handicapping and would like to study the fundamentals of it. As well as learn proper wagering structures and what to look for as well as avoid. I currently use the DRF to handicap, but i don't wager. What is the best way for one to learn without having to bet? I would greatly appreciate any help, thanks in advance!

My advice would differ depending on your ultimate goal with handicapping and betting. While most people would answer that their personal goal is to be a winning bettor, their actions say otherwise. I think it is perfectly OK to approach handicapping and betting as a purely recreational endeavor. You win some you lose some, fun day with your friends at the track.

If you want to play for recreation read all of the books about racing and handicapping that you can find. If you want to play to win learn everything you can about gambling, probabilities, etc. and then apply that knowledge to racing. There are many really good handicappers who will never consistently make money because they don't know how to gamble.

[MJC922]

Hi, I would like a bit of advice. I am new to handicapping and would like to study the fundamentals of it. As well as learn proper wagering structures and what to look for as well as avoid. I currently use the DRF to handicap, but i don't wager. What is the best way for one to learn without having to bet? I would greatly appreciate any help, thanks in advance!

You can certainly learn much about handicapping without betting a penny and that's a good idea to play on paper for a long while, however, no matter how knowledgeable you become it's going to be how well you can manage your money which determines whether or not you'll have what it takes to make any consistent money.

Books are a great resource, I'm old school, started at age ten with Ainslie's Encyclopedia for the basics, then in my teens it was skipping school and going to the library instead to read Beyer & Davidowitz. Bill Quirin's books came along about then and I thoroughly enjoyed those too, good stuff. Andy Beyer's books are a great read, several people I knew including me practically worshipped Beyer in those days. I remember being within a few feet of him at Saratoga and it was like a devout Catholic getting near the Pope. LOL Even though it's ancient now, Pittsburg Phil's Maxims and Methods teaches some of the very best lessons, that is, discipline, hard work and paying attention to what most people never even think to look for is often what separates the consistent winners from the losers.

[mikel9478]

Thank you all so much for you're time and help its much appreciated. And @ sinner369 So, my friend what type of person are you?..........meticulous, detailed, studious? Im very much all of these things. i believe i excel at certain things since these are some of my strengths.

[mikel9478]

If someone can address one thing that i find impossible to deal with thus far that i also find interesting. In inclimate weather i see faster horses getting beat by slower ones in times much slower then the faster ones have raced in PP. How does one manage this situation? Thanks in advance

[jahura2]

Mike, some non technical advice....don't even start if you don't love the sport. If you do, welcome to the most challenging,thought provoking, game on the planet.

[raybo]

Not true. I won the first time I went to races in 1964 and have never been down lifetime since the 3rd race on that day. Thank you, Miss Risqué.

I will say this. It is easier to learn at the track. Keep your ears open and your mouth shut and keep track of how what you hear does. You find the people who do well down at one end of the windows or the other. This guys have lost their money learning the game. Learn from them. You will quickly learn who is a winner and who is not. If you can't figure that out then you have years of math ahead you trying figure it out. Raybo says it took him 20 years of crunching numbers to get there. He also says he didn't make a bet until he did. I have no reason to doubt him.

The 20 years of studying the game is certainly true, but we need to emphasize that we entered the betting arena, to win long term, not just to play and have fun. Which leads me to propose a first step for the OP.

1. Be honest with yourself, even if it's the first time you've been honest in your life. What do expect to accomplish by playing the horses? If your expectation is NOT to make long term profit, then your job is much easier. But, if profit is the overriding motivation for playing, then look forward to a long , tough journey. DO NOT bet until you completely understand the workings of the parimutuel system, recognize the risk versus potential reward game, and can consistently make sound decisions without letting the money get in your way. While one must have a healthy respect for money, one cannot let that respect hamper what you know is proper betting.

There will come a time to learn how to bet, but that is a ways down the road. Develop good habits through paper betting first, I mean really get that ingrained in your noggin. Your goal is to grow that paper bankroll, by treating it as real money. Never let yourself think, "what the heck, it's just play money".

Study the game with an eye on value (risk versus reward) and keep good records of every paper bet you make, noting track, distance, surface, class of race, track condition, etc., and your contenders and pick(s) and the reasons you made them contenders and picks, and of course, the finish positions and odds/payouts, making note of things that happened during the running of races that affected the performances of your contenders and picks.

Welcome to the game! It can be very satisfying, and profitable, if you are willing to perform the due diligence necessary to be successful.

[Sinner369]

Thank you all so much for you're time and help its much appreciated. And @ sinner369 comSo, my friend what type of person are you?..........meticulous, detailed, studious? Im very much all of these things. i believe i excel at certain things since these are some of my strengths.

Mike........I know who I am.........I have taken this course.......obviously you have not..........I am not been sarcastic...!!!

Check out this website...........www.tracomcorp.com.............. !!!

[PaceAdvantage]

This is most likely PA.This comes from the bottom of my heart. I say this with all seriousness and whatever compassion I can muster for a person who continually called me vile names on off-topic.

Get some help.

Now back to the thread...

[GaryG]

Mike, all of this diverse advice must be overwhelming. Look at it like this. There are many different paths to where you want to go. Those giving you advice are talking about the road that they take. You will find the one that is best for you.

[JohnGalt1]

Since there are so many profitable methods in betting this game, and many more that aren't profitable, whichever method of handicapping and betting you decide on, my advice is to keep it simple.

I use the KISS principal in my method and betting.

When I add additional factors that I think might be valuable, I do worse.

Using 821 factors will not make me a winner.

[traynor]

My initial experience is similar to Robert Goren's--no doubt bolstered by the fact that the people who "taught" me initially were clueless, and believed that all it took to win huge profits was to follow the members of a New York betting syndicate to the mutuel windows and replicate their bets.

Being easily bored, I spent most of my initial time at the track reading programs and the DRF, looking for patterns. Rather than reading about (and trying to follow) the (perhaps well-intentioned but often horrendously biased and misleading) personal experience of others, I looked at the race winners, THEN at the program and/or Daily Racing Form, and asked myself. "Hey, self, what should I have seen in this BEFORE the race that would have predicted the outcome?" Pretty simple stuff. Not rocket science.

That basic process replicates--without all the nine-dollar-words implying immense reserves of "knowledge"--processes used currently in "machine-learning." "artificial intelligence," and "regression analysis." It will also get you a great deal further a great deal faster than reading endless old books about how things were back in the good old days. I was there. The good old days were pretty much like now, with funny looking clothes and boring television programs.

Because I didn't initially read all the books and theories and methods others advocate studying endlessly, I had no conception of the notion that years of "study and losing" had to precede "winning." I won a healthy exacta my second day at the track, and never looked back. That was a LONG time ago.

By the time I started reading the available literature on the topic, I had accumulated enough personal experience to view it critically, rather than as The Words of the Great Ones, to be endlessly pondered and internalized as Truth-with-a-Big-T. Rather than "body of knowledge," much of it can be dismissed as irrelevant distraction, or viewed as nothing more than (highly subjective) personal experience--not as prescriptive formulas for how to pick winners at the track.

[EMD4ME]

1) pick one track/circuit
2) watch every race, head on and with the normal pan shot
3) take notes on as many horses as you can (I use formulator to capture my notes)
4) buy a spiral notebook. On every sheet, write down the days races. List the class of the race to the left, distance in the middle, fractional/final times to the right and finally the 'pace' position of the top 3 finishers all the way to the right.

By doing number 4 every day, you can see which races had abnormally fast paces, slow come homes etc. Take those notes and document them. You will pick up on biases, path trends etc.

Keep notes of all your bets and why you bet well, didn't bet well.

Handicapping is step 1. If you dont bet well, it's a waste of handicapping skill.

Finally, always learn. No one knows it all. Keep learning.

[traynor]

I should have added that one of the downsides of "following the conventional wisdom" is that one spends an inordinate amount of time doing little more than picking the favorite as the "best horse in the race." Understand that most are looking at exactly the same things, and applying exactly the same "logic"--that they learned from exactly the same source(s).

Yes, favorites win a lot of races. They lose way more than they win, roughly twice as many races lost as races won. It shouldn't take half an hour of nitpicky dissection of past performances to "select" the obvious choice in a race. A quick glance at the morning line or tote board can tell you that. You are likely to progress much faster as a handicapper if you look for things that your own analysis reveals, rather than looking at races with blinders on, conceptually restricted to seeing only that which agrees with the "accepted wisdom of experts"--most of whom are unable to make a profit doing what they advise others to do.

[MJC922]

I should have added that one of the downsides of "following the conventional wisdom" is that one spends an inordinate amount of time doing little more than picking the favorite as the "best horse in the race." Understand that most are looking at exactly the same things, and applying exactly the same "logic"--that they learned from exactly the same source(s).

Yes, favorites win a lot of races. They lose way more than they win, roughly twice as many races lost as races won. It shouldn't take half an hour of nitpicky dissection of past performances to "select" the obvious choice in a race. A quick glance at the morning line or tote board can tell you that. You are likely to progress much faster as a handicapper if you look for things that your own analysis reveals, rather than looking at races with blinders on, conceptually restricted to seeing only that which agrees with the "accepted wisdom of experts"--most of whom are unable to make a profit doing what they advise others to do.

FWIW, I think it's safe to say favorites don't lose way more than they win when they're going off at 2/5 or less, nor do I suspect they still win just a third of the time in three horse fields. Point being, taken at face value it's a meaningless stat which like all other stats in racing requires a deeper examination to be understood. I agree with where you're going to the extent that reading books to gain the conventional wisdom only goes so far as a fair amount of what's in the books was never rigorously tested and is either flat out wrong or outdated in the modern game. With that being said we all start out somewhere and then move on from there, some of the books are a good place to start IMO unless you're lucky enough to have some really good mentor(s).

[traynor]

FWIW, I think it's safe to say favorites don't lose way more than they win when they're going off at 2/5 or less, nor do I suspect they still win just a third of the time in three horse fields. Point being, taken at face value it's a meaningless stat which like all other stats in racing requires a deeper examination to be understood. I agree with where you're going to the extent that reading books to gain the conventional wisdom only goes so far as a fair amount of what's in the books was never rigorously tested and is either flat out wrong or outdated in the modern game. With that being said we all start out somewhere and then move on from there, some of the books are a good place to start IMO unless you're lucky enough to have some really good mentor(s).

I was fortunate enough to have been a member of a blackjack team with Katherine Jung--when she knew little or nothing about horse races. Not that long ago (6-7 years). I asked her to help me put together a quickie tutorial on handicapping for the other members, as a respite from (and cover for) blackjack.

Katherine is brilliant. She does not look at the world (and probably does not see the world) the same way everyone else does. It took her less than week to figure out how to "beat the races" consistently. She is currently a (very well paid) consultant to a (very profitable) wagering syndicate specializing in the Sha Tin/Happy Valley circuit.

Do her original ideas still work? Not in their original form. Racing is dynamic, and constantly changing as new information is generated. Her basic strategy--that the only way to succeed is to get ahead of the curve, rather than shuffling along after the crowd--remains quite successful.

[traynor]

Do not fool yourself.. If you do not manage to burn real $$$ through the betting windows, you have no chance of learning the game... Something like this is equivalent of learning to swim without getting wet...

That is an interesting perspective, but I don't understand what would compel anyone to wager "real $$$" unless he or she was winning "real $$$$" by so doing. That implies that one has already learned how to generate a profit by wagering BEFORE wagering "real $$$.". Anything else seems incredibly foolish, regardless of the (subjective) justification or belief that leads to that behavior.

I agree with Lee Rousso's admonition, "If you are not picking winners, it doesn't make sense to wager as if you are." The only thing losing does--regardless of the amounts involved--is to give one practice in losing.

[whodoyoulike]

1) pick one track/circuit
2) watch every race, head on and with the normal pan shot
3) take notes on as many horses as you can (I use formulator to capture my notes)
4) buy a spiral notebook. On every sheet, write down the days races. List the class of the race to the left, distance in the middle, fractional/final times to the right and finally the 'pace' position of the top 3 finishers all the way to the right.

By doing number 4 every day, you can see which races had abnormally fast paces, slow come homes etc. Take those notes and document them. You will pick up on biases, path trends etc.

Keep notes of all your bets and why you bet well, didn't bet well.

Handicapping is step 1. If you dont bet well, it's a waste of handicapping skill.

Finally, always learn. No one knows it all. Keep learning.

I've noticed we seem to be frequently in agreement in regards to handicapping importance which I think is a good thing for me. But, if he is really starting out, I wonder if he will understand the value of your advice. How does one relay to someone else the importance to understand Speed, Class, Fitness, Connections and especially Pace in handicapping horses? It took me many years but, I'm still always learning something new.

[classhandicapper]

That is an interesting perspective, but I don't understand what would compel anyone to wager "real $$$" unless he or she was winning "real $$$$" by so doing.

Years ago, there were no personal computers, databases, or other types of software available you could use to accelerate learning. There weren't even forums where you could discuss racing online and pick up tidbits that would accelerate the process. You read books and compiled information by hand.

That was a very tedious and time consuming process that took many years.

Basically I learned by trial and error with real money.

If it wasn't for a handful of trainer patterns I picked up very early in the process that lead to a few big scores, I would have been a net losing player for better than 10 years. Pull out those scores and I was. But it was stuff like that kept me grinding (that and the fact that I love the sport and intellectual challenge).

If I was starting now, it would be way different. I could probably learn in 1 year what took 10 years, years ago.

[mikel9478]

I've noticed we seem to be frequently in agreement in regards to handicapping importance which I think is a good thing for me. But, if he is really starting out, I wonder if he will understand the value of your advice. How does one relay to someone else the importance to understand Speed, Class, Fitness, Connections and especially Pace in handicapping horses? It took me many years but, I'm still always learning something new.

Speed figures, class, pace and form are invaluable to me. they are what i learned along with some other things thus far. I dont want you to think i dont at all understand these. Im looking to continuously learn the right way. I appreciate all of youre help.

[whodoyoulike]

Speed figures, class, pace and form are invaluable to me. they are what i learned along with some other things thus far. I dont want you to think i dont at all understand these. Im looking to continuously learn the right way. I appreciate all of youre help.

So, you aren't a newbie to this sport. Read a book on Pace Handicapping, then re-read Emd4me's post (you should write it down) until you're able to see and predict the pace scenario of a race. Just realize that no one is able to do this for every race. See which type of races you have strengths and weaknesses.

Good luck, while you're in a learning mode which track(s) do you wager?

[mikel9478]

So, you aren't a newbie to this sport. Read a book on Pace Handicapping, then re-read Emd4me's post (you should write it down) until you're able to see and predict the pace scenario of a race. Just realize that no one is able to do this for every race. See which type of races you have strengths and weaknesses.

Good luck, while you're in a learning mode which track(s) do you wager?
Ive been handicapping belmont as much as i can. I figure its better to learn one track and all it entails then trying to be everywhere.

[Dark Horse]

Hi, I would like a bit of advice. I am new to handicapping and would like to study the fundamentals of it. As well as learn proper wagering structures and what to look for as well as avoid. I currently use the DRF to handicap, but i don't wager. What is the best way for one to learn without having to bet? I would greatly appreciate any help, thanks in advance!

Find a mentor. Somebody who has been in racing for decades and is willing to share his wisdom. This will shave many years off your learning curve. Books will not open the door. They will offer insight, but that insight won't come together. You need somebody who understands everything about this microcosm, and can point it out to you, and answer any question you may have when it pops up. That will provide the foundation. What you build on it is up to you. (building without a foundation in place is pointless, isn't it?)

If you don't find a mentor, BRIS has a free library that contains good stuff.

[BettinBilly]

Ive been handicapping belmont as much as i can. I figure its better to learn one track and all it entails then trying to be everywhere.

Good approach.

Like others have stated before, learning today is not like learning in the mid 80's when I first started Handicapping. You are fortunate to have all the tools you do. Personally, I am not a fan of reading Handicapping books. Yes, there are good ones out there, but just about every book I have read in the last 30 years has been a fairly dry read, especially if you are a beginning handicapper. Unless you like reading textbooks, your pace through these books will be tedious at best. Since you mentioned DRF many posts ago, a fairly decent first read for you might just be Brad Free's "Handicapping 101". This is a DRF Press based book and Brad does a fairly decent job of at least TRYING to keep the attention of a beginning handicapper. Another book I happened to enjoy was Richard Eng's "Betting on Horse Racing for Dummies". Richard, I believe, was a LV Sports Book manager and has also been plugged into Thoroughbred racing on many levels including Handicapping for the LV Paper. I found his book to be a fairly compelling read as far as this type of reading goes. Many will recommend one of Quinn's books or similar old Gurus of the Horse Handicapping World. Man, I appreciate these works, but as I said before, they are a VERY dry read. Be prepared to put yourself in STUDY mode big time.

Personally I'd start off economically and simply by scrounging through Youtube videos with keywords like "Beginning Horse Handicapping" or "Learning to bet on horses". Some videos are done extremely well, others are a bit lean in any knowledge you can glean from them. Brad Free even has some decent free videos via DRF you can view called "Learn to Play the Races" You can find these videos free online by plugging in "Brad Free Learn to Play the Races" on any search engine. Because he's using the DRF like you are, it may be a good thing for you to start.

I was lucky enough to have an older guy at a track near me take me under his wing and teach me his method of handicapping - back then - a DRF, highlighter and a pen. That's all we needed. Today, I use TimeformUS electronic handicapping via my tablet when at the track that I get free from wagering via TVG. I also make plenty of ADW bets when I am in the office or just can't get to the track but I am SELECTIVE. I don't feel compelled to bet on every race. That's the first pitfall you need to lookout for. Be selective. Look for opportunity selectively, not bulk quantity. I.E., look for value. This will take some time to perfect, but keep it in the back of your mind.

Stick around here and ask a lot of questions. Don't take any ONE word for ANYTHING. See what we ALL have to say before you decide. Just like you are probably doing with this thread. Collectively, we are smarter than individually.

Most importantly, have some fun. I love playing after over 30 years of wagering because I have kept it a sport, not a business. It's not a grind for me, it's exciting, fun, and a bit regal (thus the Sport of Kings). I happen to have grown up around horses and find them majestic animals, so just being around them, I am happy.

Good luck. Learn well. Enjoy.

-Billy

[EMD4ME]

I've noticed we seem to be frequently in agreement in regards to handicapping importance which I think is a good thing for me. But, if he is really starting out, I wonder if he will understand the value of your advice. How does one relay to someone else the importance to understand Speed, Class, Fitness, Connections and especially Pace in handicapping horses? It took me many years but, I'm still always learning something new.

Great minds think alike? Or misery loves company :lol:

Just kidding :)

[EMD4ME]

Ive been handicapping belmont as much as i can. I figure its better to learn one track and all it entails then trying to be everywhere.

That's the best circuit around. Good choice.

I'd add.... try to find nuggets. Nuggets being small details that no one knows. For example: race 5 today at Belmont. The 9 showed a pp line that had him loose and quitting in a turf route 2 races back. On my notes it said: dueled by loose horse with dumped jockey, was not loose. I liked the 1 & knew the 9 would be loose on the lead. I played a 19 box. Paid huge! 9/1 and 30/1 plus to one.

Those nuggets are just like real gold nuggets, valuable.

[mikel9478]

So, my friend what type of person are you?..........meticulous, detailed, studious?
I wasnt being sarcastic myself either. these sum me up well. thank you

[mikel9478]

That's the best circuit around. Good choice.

I'd add.... try to find nuggets. Nuggets being small details that no one knows. For example: race 5 today at Belmont. The 9 showed a pp line that had him loose and quitting in a turf route 2 races back. On my notes it said: dueled by loose horse with dumped jockey, was not loose. I liked the 1 & knew the 9 would be loose on the lead. I played a 19 box. Paid huge! 9/1 and 30/1 plus to one.

Those nuggets are just like real gold nuggets, valuable.
Awesome play! I liked the 8 in that race.

[mikel9478]

4) buy a spiral notebook. On every sheet, write down the days races. List the class of the race to the left, distance in the middle, fractional/final times to the right and finally the 'pace' position of the top 3 finishers all the way to the right.

thank you for this. the only part im not sure of is "pace position' i dont know what this means.

[whodoyoulike]

That's the best circuit around. Good choice.

I'd add.... try to find nuggets. Nuggets being small details that no one knows. For example: race 5 today at Belmont. The 9 showed a pp line that had him loose and quitting in a turf route 2 races back. On my notes it said: dueled by loose horse with dumped jockey, was not loose. I liked the 1 & knew the 9 would be loose on the lead. I played a 19 box. Paid huge! 9/1 and 30/1 plus to one.

Those nuggets are just like real gold nuggets, valuable.

Although, we may have similar approaches to handicapping, I see your powers of observation are greater. Nice play.

I have a question. Did the odds of the 30/1 drift up or did the morning line show it around 30/1? Usually a 30/1 in my computer model is ranked 7th or 8th in an 8 horse field and I wouldn't consider it. But, if it was one of my contenders at 20/1 and the odds drifted up, I'd still consider it.

Since, I don't keep notes of individual horses as you do, I don't think I would have picked up on this unless I noticed it in the replay if it was one of my contenders but, I doubt it.

[whodoyoulike]

... thank you for this. the only part im not sure of is "pace position' i dont know what this means.

Emd4me can provide his own answer but a simple suggestion from me to you would be to watch one of the network broadcasts of a horse race where Randy Moss, Jerry Bailey and/or Gary Stevens describes how they think the race will play out. I think they're the only analysts on TV, I've seen do this.

Pace position to me involves the strategy employed by the jockey with his horse given the horse's running style.

[Fingal]

Hi, I would like a bit of advice. I am new to handicapping and would like to study the fundamentals of it. As well as learn proper wagering structures and what to look for as well as avoid. I currently use the DRF to handicap, but i don't wager. What is the best way for one to learn without having to bet? I would greatly appreciate any help, thanks in advance!

Going back to your initial question...........

At the end of the day keep you DRF, & after awhile you'll have your own "library" of races & results. And race patterns along with human ( trainer & jockey ) strengths will start to present themselves more often than not. Go back over them occasionally & see why a particular horse won.

Learn to discern contenders. There's a song from the 1920's that really nails it- Accent the positive, eliminate the negative & don't mess with Mr. In Between

Practice visualizing a race, aka where YOUR projected contenders will be during the race. It's easy for people to watch a race, actually seeing is a bit more difficult.

Remember what Einstein said- Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. Horses are not motorcycles, they're made of muscles, bone, tendons & heart. The future can be predicted with a degree of certainty, but it is not guaranteed.

[green80]

Hi, I would like a bit of advice. I am new to handicapping and would like to study the fundamentals of it. As well as learn proper wagering structures and what to look for as well as avoid. I currently use the DRF to handicap, but i don't wager. What is the best way for one to learn without having to bet? I would greatly appreciate any help, thanks in advance!


Just make your bets on paper. Keep accurate detailed records. Don't bet until you figure out what works for you long term. (if anything). If you can show a profit after several hundred wagers, it may be time to go to the window. In my opinion, the best book on handicapping is "maxims and methods of Pittsburgh Phil. Written over 100 years ago and still applies today.

[EMD4ME]

4) buy a spiral notebook. On every sheet, write down the days races. List the class of the race to the left, distance in the middle, fractional/final times to the right and finally the 'pace' position of the top 3 finishers all the way to the right.

thank you for this. the only part im not sure of is "pace position' i dont know what this means.

You might get a different answer from different people but to me:

It's where horses settled after a 1/4 part of the race. If you keep note and keep seeing 1 2 3, 2 1 3, 1 2 4, 1 3 2 more than likely it was a pro speed track. I say more than likely as many times the best horses are just the speed types. On same days you might notice a lot of outside closers. That's HUGE info as you can downgrade the outside closers on that days card and bump up horses who showed speed on the rail.

[EMD4ME]

Although, we may have similar approaches to handicapping, I see your powers of observation are greater. Nice play.

I have a question. Did the odds of the 30/1 drift up or did the morning line show it around 30/1? Usually a 30/1 in my computer model is ranked 7th or 8th in an 8 horse field and I wouldn't consider it. But, if it was one of my contenders at 20/1 and the odds drifted up, I'd still consider it.

Since, I don't keep notes of individual horses as you do, I don't think I would have picked up on this unless I noticed it in the replay if it was one of my contenders but, I doubt it.


Thanks pal. I didn't notice but he was long throughout the betting.

[mikel9478]

so the position of the winning 3 at the quarter? or between 1st and 2nd fr?
Thank you.

[EMD4ME]

so the position of the winning 3 at the quarter? or between 1st and 2nd fr?
Thank you.

If it's a 5F to 5 1/2 race, I count after the first 3/16
If it's a 6 to 1M race, I count after the first 1/4
If it's anything above, I'll count after the horses have settled down into positions, anywhere between the first 3/8 and first 1/2.

It's not black and white but just a simple gage.

[EMD4ME]

Or you can simply go off of the official result charts. That's a simpler option. Just look at the first call (after the horses post position and start).

[raybo]

so the position of the winning 3 at the quarter? or between 1st and 2nd fr?
Thank you.

In racing, in general, we have 4 calls (after the start call): 1st, 2nd, stretch, and final. "Pace" is generally measured at the 2nd call (1/2 mile in races of less than a mile, and 3/4 mile in races of 1 mile or more - the longer the race above 1 mile, the longer the 2nd call point (at 1 1/4 mile, for instance, the 2nd call is at 1 mile instead of 3/4 mile)). So, when you see or hear someone refer to the "pace call", they are referring to the 2nd call.

So, "pace position" would mean the horse's running position at the 2nd call. At the 2nd call, over 1/2 of the race has already been run, and horses/jockeys have usually been getting themselves in position to make the final run, which usually begins in earnest between the 2nd call and the stretch call, but can happen before the 2nd call for horses with early running styles, or after the stretch call for horses with a closing running style.

I would suggest recording the running positions for both the 1st and 2nd call positions, as this combination is more indicative of horses' preferred running style.

[Stillriledup]

4) buy a spiral notebook. On every sheet, write down the days races. List the class of the race to the left, distance in the middle, fractional/final times to the right and finally the 'pace' position of the top 3 finishers all the way to the right.

thank you for this. the only part im not sure of is "pace position' i dont know what this means.

Doing this would only be a good idea if you decide that you're not going to be a replay guy and you're going to be a pen and paper handicapper who is formulating opinions from what you see in the PPs and what your number crunching says.

[EMD4ME]

Doing this would only be a good idea if you decide that you're not going to be a replay guy and you're going to be a pen and paper handicapper who is formulating opinions from what you see in the PPs and what your number crunching says.

What???

Did you read suggestion #2?

Doing #4 without #2 is not wise. Both are needed. If you want to play this game well, you must put the time in and utilize ALL tools

[raybo]

Doing this would only be a good idea if you decide that you're not going to be a replay guy and you're going to be a pen and paper handicapper who is formulating opinions from what you see in the PPs and what your number crunching says.

Hmmm. So, what exactly are you getting at with that statement? Are you saying that "replay guys" don't keep records, don't look for patterns from which to learn things that they didn't see before, don't use computers, and don't crunch any numbers, etc,?

I do all of the above, and I also watch replays. Some people watch replays with individual horses in mind, then wait for those horses to run again. That is only one way to approach racing, and who's to say that it's any better than any other approach?

[Stillriledup]

Hmmm. So, what exactly are you getting at with that statement? Are you saying that "replay guys" don't keep records, don't look for patterns from which to learn things that they didn't see before, don't use computers, and don't crunch any numbers, etc,?

I do all of the above, and I also watch replays. Some people watch replays with individual horses in mind, then wait for those horses to run again. That is only one way to approach racing, and who's to say that it's any better than any other approach?

There's only so many hours in the day, if you're spending an hour or two a day writing numbers in a notebook, that's an hour or two a day that you could be watching replays instead.

Its the jack of all trades master of none theory.

[raybo]

There's only so many hours in the day, if you're spending an hour or two a day writing numbers in a notebook, that's an hour or two a day that you could be watching replays instead.

Its the jack of all trades master of none theory.

How is the master of one thing working out for you? I believe what you should have said was that it's a comprehensive approach thing, not a jack of all trades thing. And, with computers it's not too difficult to develop a comprehensive approach. Who says the OP has to stick with pen and paper, he's just learning the game at this point, and record keeping is probably the most important thing he can be doing. He can develop his own style of play later, after he becomes thoroughly familiar with the various aspects of analysis.

[ReplayRandall]

I do all of the above, and I also watch replays. Some people watch replays with individual horses in mind, then wait for those horses to run again. That is only one way to approach racing, and who's to say that it's any better than any other approach?


Raybo, after watching over 200,000 replays since 1983, starting at the antiquated Stardust racebook replay kiosk, my record-keeping tells me that all replays expire after 35 days since noted race was run. With very few exceptions does a horse fire a winning effort after this amount of time, thus showing a huge negative ROI...... BTW, I'm in total agreement with your post.......

[Stillriledup]

How is the master of one thing working out for you? I believe what you should have said was that it's a comprehensive approach thing, not a jack of all trades thing. And, with computers it's not too difficult to develop a comprehensive approach. Who says the OP has to stick with pen and paper, he's just learning the game at this point, and record keeping is probably the most important thing he can be doing. He can develop his own style of play later, after he becomes thoroughly familiar with the various aspects of analysis.

Its working out pretty well, thanks for asking.

[mikel9478]

DRF formulator VS timeformus anyone have a preference? ive been using the form for a couple of weeks is one better designed etc?

[Stillriledup]

Hmmm. So, what exactly are you getting at with that statement? Are you saying that "replay guys" don't keep records, don't look for patterns from which to learn things that they didn't see before, don't use computers, and don't crunch any numbers, etc,?

I do all of the above, and I also watch replays. Some people watch replays with individual horses in mind, then wait for those horses to run again. That is only one way to approach racing, and who's to say that it's any better than any other approach?

Any approach that is successful is a good approach. Plenty of ways to skin a cat.

[EMD4ME]

There's only so many hours in the day, if you're spending an hour or two a day writing numbers in a notebook, that's an hour or two a day that you could be watching replays instead.

Its the jack of all trades master of none theory.

I do both. That's why I stick to NYRA and EMD. No time for other tracks.

[EMD4ME]

DRF formulator VS timeformus anyone have a preference? ive been using the form for a couple of weeks is one better designed etc?

I like formulator because it allows me to permanently keep all the work (saves it forever) that I do intertwined into each running line.

[Stillriledup]

I do both. That's why I stick to NYRA and EMD. No time for other tracks.

If you do 1 track or 2 tops, you can pull it off. If you're a simo player who likes to play many tracks, its hard to get all that done, just not enough hours in the day if you want to do it right.

Do you think the time you save if you stopped betting EMD could give you just a little bit more time to work on NYRA?

[mikel9478]

very good thanks.

[EMD4ME]

If you do 1 track or 2 tops, you can pull it off. If you're a simo player who likes to play many tracks, its hard to get all that done, just not enough hours in the day if you want to do it right.

Do you think the time you save if you stopped betting EMD could give you just a little bit more time to work on NYRA?

It's only rough in August as the SPA runs 58-60 races a week. Thankfully EMD only runs for 6 months a year and only has 3 cards a week. I actually do a lot of my note taking and workbook work as the races run live.

since Sep 28th, I'm only working on NYRA races so it's a bit easier.

[EMD4ME]

By keeping the workbook you can also find races where the "figure" is a guess. (only turf sprint of the day, only 2 turn route, etc.)

Also, you will find many mistakes on figures assigned. Those are true nuggets.

But nothing gets me more nuggets than watching every aspect of every race. You can't extract from numbers or figs what you see with your eyes.

That's where formulator helps a lot. As you watch a replay you can toggle between the days charts and check the lifetime pp's of every horse in that replay.

[ReplayRandall]

By keeping the workbook you can also find races where the "figure" is a guess. (only turf sprint of the day, only 2 turn route, etc.)

Also, you will find many mistakes on figures assigned. Those are true nuggets.

But nothing gets me more nuggets than watching every aspect of every race. You can't extract from numbers or figs what you see with your eyes.

That's where formulator helps a lot. As you watch a replay you can toggle between the days charts and check the lifetime pp's of every horse in that replay.

Couldn't agree more....My opinion on advanced technology impacting horse racing is this: Do your own work and quit relying on "other" opinions. Watch the replays of the races and make your own charts, make your own morning line and make up your own mind.........just MY opinion.... Don't trust Trakus or Equibase, trust your judgment. If you have the time, watch the replays and you'll see accurately. What more is there to handicapping and life but the truth YOU discover?

[ultracapper]

Couldn't agree more....My opinion on advanced technology impacting horse racing is this: Do your own work and quit relying on "other" opinions. Watch the replays of the races and make your own charts, make your own morning line and make up your own mind.........just MY opinion.... Don't trust Trakus or Equibase, trust your judgment. If you have the time, watch the replays and you'll see accurately. What more is there to handicapping and life but the truth YOU discover?

I could work with you.

[EMD4ME]

Couldn't agree more....My opinion on advanced technology impacting horse racing is this: Do your own work and quit relying on "other" opinions. Watch the replays of the races and make your own charts, make your own morning line and make up your own mind.........just MY opinion.... Don't trust Trakus or Equibase, trust your judgment. If you have the time, watch the replays and you'll see accurately. What more is there to handicapping and life but the truth YOU discover?

I one MILLION % agree.

[Stillriledup]

I one MILLION % agree.

I know that there are probably people out there who don't watch replays and glean nuggets from the video and do fairly well, so to each his own, i know personally, i have to get my edge from tape, if i wasn't able to watch tape i wouldn't even know where to start.

[Poindexter]

Earlier in this discussion there was some debate on whether new players should be there own money vs playing on paper. Personally, I think it is better to play on a small bankroll and try to build it, rather than making hypothetical bets(which are just that). But putting that aside, here is an exercise that will give the novice player a feel for the game. Now I would argue that more would be gained by lining an entire field horse by horse, but that is a long, tedious process, and as has beens stated by many(I do not agree) it is hard to differentiate whether a horse should be 15-1 or 30-1 or even 50-1. But what one can do is gauge the top contenders in each race. I have pasted below an alternative to lining races. Basically you determine what description best describes the key contenders and use the chart to determine the fair odds. Obviously it is not as accurate as actually lining each race horse by horse, but it is a fairly easy alternative. The player can than come up with an objective fair value based on his personaly opinion and can use that as a gauge to see where the value lies in the race. For the novice he can make hypothetical plays on all value horse say 2 ticks above this fair value(so a 3-1 would have to pay 4-1 to justify a play) and start tracking his plays. Keep a running tab and see if they are able to show a profit or what percentge they are losing per dollar bet. A great way to get your feet wet, get a feel for probabilities and see if you advanced to the point you can make this game profitable.

Here is the chart below. Now in some of my descriptions you may find that a horse might be between 2 categories, I would just average the 2. For instance not really a standout, but stronger than a strong A in a 6 horse field I would go with 1-1 as the fair price. Also you can use this as a guide and adjust from there as you see fit. For instance maybe this chart comes up with
2) 3-1
4) 9-2
5) 9-2
6) 9-2
but you feel that it should be
2) 7/2
4) 4-1
5) 5-1
6) 9-2

DEFINITIONS(A=top choice b=2nd/3rd and sometimes 4th choice)
A(0) Complete Standout
A(1) Strong "A" who looks clearly best
A(2) Good "A" who looks best in open race
A(3) Two "A's" that are clearly best yet close in ability
A(4) Lukewarm "A" somebody must get nod
B(0) Clearly 2nd best to A(0-2)
B(1) Clearly 2nd best to A(4)
B(2) "B" that is not as good as other B or lackluster group of B's especially when 3 of them(add 1 point to odds if 2 more b's with a B(0) or B(1) in race
B(3) Co "B's" against an A(0) or 2 A(3's)(add 3 points to odds if 3 b's thus 6-1 if two b's would be 9-1 on 3 b's
B(4) Co "B's" against an A(1) add 1 point to odds if 3 B's
B(5) Co "b's" against and A(2) or A(4) add 1 point to odds if 3 b's).

Field Size
7 or less 8 TO 10 11 TO 12
A(0) (3/5) (4/5) (1-1)
A(1) (7/5) (8/5) (9/5)
A(2) (2-1) (5-2) (3-1)
A(3) (2-1) (5-2) (3-1) fair odds
A(4) (3-1) (7-2) (4-1)
B(0) (3-1) (7-2) (4-1)
B(1) (7-2) (4-1) (9-2)
B(2) (5-1) (6-1) (7-1)
B(3) (6-1) (7-1) (8-1)
B(4) (4-1) (9-2) (5-1)
B(5) (7-2) (4-1) (9/2)

[EMD4ME]

I know that there are probably people out there who don't watch replays and glean nuggets from the video and do fairly well, so to each his own, i know personally, i have to get my edge from tape, if i wasn't able to watch tape i wouldn't even know where to start.

If I couldn't watch replays, I'd quit horse racing. It's that simple.

And you're right, to each his/her/their own.

[Robert Goren]

I know that there are probably people out there who don't watch replays and glean nuggets from the video and do fairly well, so to each his own, i know personally, i have to get my edge from tape, if i wasn't able to watch tape i wouldn't even know where to start. Watching replays takes a lot of time. While it can be helpful, it is probably over rated. Unless you are trying to make living by betting the horses, it probably is not worth it except when you think you see something in the PPs (like a unexpected race) you want to check out. I always check it out when the PPs say horse had trouble leaving the gate. Those comments are wrong a lot.

[ultracapper]

The race is run on the track, not on paper. I believe any SERIOUS horseplayer that doesn't use replays is making it that much harder for himself. I have found that what I envision a run looking like by looking at the running line, and what I see on the replay can be a very different thing, even when the running line is as correct as can be.

[Stillriledup]

Watching replays takes a lot of time. While it can be helpful, it is probably over rated. Unless you are trying to make living by betting the horses, it probably is not worth it except when you think you see something in the PPs (like a unexpected race) you want to check out. I always check it out when the PPs say horse had trouble leaving the gate. Those comments are wrong a lot.

How do you think its overrated?

[Nitro]

Hi, I would like a bit of advice. I am new to handicapping and would like to study the fundamentals of it. As well as learn proper wagering structures and what to look for as well as avoid. I currently use the DRF to handicap, but i don't wager. What is the best way for one to learn without having to bet? I would greatly appreciate any help, thanks in advance! Unfortunately you’re putting the carriage in front of the horse. (No pun intended) Because before you can accomplish anything you have to decide on what it is that you actually want. In other words, what are your goals and expectations? In this game it’s normally about making money. The goal is how much and over what period of time. So betting becomes and should always remain the priority. Besides what fun is it if you’re not making money as a result of all your efforts.

Part of reaching that goal is determining if your expectations are realistic or not. In other words, if you decide on becoming a casual player, you shouldn’t plan on relying on your own insight to the game very much. Why? Well plain and simple you just won’t have the same immediate knowledge and betting confidence as a seasoned player. Solution? Find a reasonably good public handicapper and use their selections wisely. Forget about bolstering your own ego with a winning pick here and there. Instead focus on making some solid winning plays that produce a valued return even if the selections aren’t your own. The bottom line is having fun by making some money. Besides those type of learning experiences are invaluable when later on you’re able to determine why certain winning selections prove to be worthwhile. Certainly an earlier suggestion on this thread about having a good mentor will cut the learning curve down substantially and provide indelible experiences for future reference.

You’ve already gotten a lot of advice here that’s pretty much in line with the many aspects of traditional handicapping. I’m sure there are many others too. Unfortunately, the generalities they prescribe really don’t address the many unique facets of this game. For instance, you’re not going to handicap a 7 furlong Claiming race on fast dirt track for 3 year olds and older horses in the spring, as you would a Stakes race at 1 1/16 miles on yielding Turf course for 4 year olds and older horses in the fall. So with that in mind I would recommend that before you get caught up in all the handicapping quagmire, learn how to read the race Condition book inside and out. You always have to keep in mind that you’re an outsider playing an insider’s game. The insiders or connections use the Condition book to generally find the best place to race their horse for any number of reasons, but not always to win. So, once you understand it better the more insight you’ll have as to why they’re entering their horse to begin with. It’s called defining the pre-race “intentions”. After all do you think for a minute that the majority of players know a horse’s actual condition at any given time?

Someday you might discover as I did that uncovering these intentions are one the most prolific aspects of this game. Traditional handicapping and everything written about it (even on this thread) would have you believe that the horse’s past performances should be the primary focus of a player’s attention. When in fact those in control of these animals govern everything about them, and every now and then try to reap the rewards of their endeavors. So consider for a moment the difference in knowing that a 6/1 shot is trying today versus the favorite who looks best on paper, but may just be entered for conditioning purposes for a future event. Which one would you bet?

[dnlgfnk]

Unfortunately you’re putting the carriage in front of the horse. (No pun intended) Because before you can accomplish anything you have to decide on what it is that you actually want. In other words, what are your goals and expectations? In this game it’s normally about making money. The goal is how much and over what period of time. So betting becomes and should always remain the priority. Besides what fun is it if you’re not making money as a result of all your efforts.

Part of reaching that goal is determining if your expectations are realistic or not. In other words, if you decide on becoming a casual player, you shouldn’t plan on relying on your own insight to the game very much. Why? Well plain and simple you just won’t have the same immediate knowledge and betting confidence as a seasoned player. Solution? Find a reasonably good public handicapper and use their selections wisely. Forget about bolstering your own ego with a winning pick here and there. Instead focus on making some solid winning plays that produce a valued return even if the selections aren’t your own. The bottom line is having fun by making some money. Besides those type of learning experiences are invaluable when later on you’re able to determine why certain winning selections prove to be worthwhile. Certainly an earlier suggestion on this thread about having a good mentor will cut the learning curve down substantially and provide indelible experiences for future reference.

You’ve already gotten a lot of advice here that’s pretty much in line with the many aspects of traditional handicapping. I’m sure there are many others too. Unfortunately, the generalities they prescribe really don’t address the many unique facets of this game. For instance, you’re not going to handicap a 7 furlong Claiming race on fast dirt track for 3 year olds and older horses in the spring, as you would a Stakes race at 1 1/16 miles on yielding Turf course for 4 year olds and older horses in the fall. So with that in mind I would recommend that before you get caught up in all the handicapping quagmire, learn how to read the race Condition book inside and out. You always have to keep in mind that you’re an outsider playing an insider’s game. The insiders or connections use the Condition book to generally find the best place to race their horse for any number of reasons, but not always to win. So, once you understand it better the more insight you’ll have as to why they’re entering their horse to begin with. It’s called defining the pre-race “intentions”. After all do you think for a minute that the majority of players know a horse’s actual condition at any given time?

Someday you might discover as I did that uncovering these intentions are one the most prolific aspects of this game. Traditional handicapping and everything written about it (even on this thread) would have you believe that the horse’s past performances should be the primary focus of a player’s attention. When in fact those in control of these animals govern everything about them, and every now and then try to reap the rewards of their endeavors. So consider for a moment the difference in knowing that a 6/1 shot is trying today versus the favorite who looks best on paper, but may just be entered for conditioning purposes for a future event. Which one would you bet?

If he were able to pull this off, he wouldn't be a "casual" anymore. If he's able to "use their selections wisely", he's "relying on his own insight".

[dilanesp]

I typically do not give out advice, but in this case I would advise you to first understand risk, self-discipline, and money management as they relate to gambling; particularly horserace gambling.

Handicapping is not easy, but it is less costly.

This. Strategy / gameplay / handicapping is actually the least important part of any form of gambling for profit, because it is straightforwardly learnable.

The stuff Cratos talks about often involves fundamentally altering one's habits and worldview and resisting the pleasure centers of the brain. It's a lot more difficult.

If you want a sort of wacky suggestion for a handicapping book, watch "The Karate Kid". Notice how Mr. Miyagi spends a long time teaching the kid about discipline before he teaches him any strategy / techniques. That's the approach.

[Stillriledup]

This. Strategy / gameplay / handicapping is actually the least important part of any form of gambling for profit, because it is straightforwardly learnable.

The stuff Cratos talks about often involves fundamentally altering one's habits and worldview and resisting the pleasure centers of the brain. It's a lot more difficult.

If you want a sort of wacky suggestion for a handicapping book, watch "The Karate Kid". Notice how Mr. Miyagi spends a long time teaching the kid about discipline before he teaches him any strategy / techniques. That's the approach.

Love the post. I've always said you can't really "enjoy" gambling and the rush you get from the wager if you want to be really successful.

If anyone is betting a card of racing, with races going off every 30 mins, if you skip one race, its an hour between bets. Do you have any advice at all in what a person can do or think to himself so that the urge to bet is gone?

[thaskalos]

This. Strategy / gameplay / handicapping is actually the least important part of any form of gambling for profit, because it is straightforwardly learnable.

The stuff Cratos talks about often involves fundamentally altering one's habits and worldview and resisting the pleasure centers of the brain. It's a lot more difficult.

If you want a sort of wacky suggestion for a handicapping book, watch "The Karate Kid". Notice how Mr. Miyagi spends a long time teaching the kid about discipline before he teaches him any strategy / techniques. That's the approach.

Betting horses isn't like Karate. In horse betting...strategy must come before discipline. In gambling, "discipline" means always making the proper move...and the "proper move" is dictated by strategy.

[dilanesp]

Betting horses isn't like Karate. In horse betting...strategy must come before discipline. In gambling, "discipline" means always making the proper move...and the "proper move" is dictated by strategy.

I actually think gambling is exactly like many other human endeavors, including karate, in that respect. We are programmed as humans to want to skip all the difficult discipline parts and get right to the glory.

And while a part of "discipline" is always making the proper move:

1. The part that's often hard isn't learning what the proper move is, but always making it. In other words, the problem for many players isn't coming up with a nice play at good odds; it's passing the last race on the card when its unbettable, or waiting three or four days before making a significant play because all the races are terrible betting propositions, or not trying to make their money back after two bad beats early in the day.

2. A lot of discipline goes beyond making the proper move every time-- e.g., things like bankroll management, not playing when you are not at your best or you don't have time to fully analyze the races, etc.

[JJMartin]

To the replay guys: Do you also watch the pre-race elements when the horses warm up, are in the paddock and in the post parade? In other words, visual or "physical appearance" handicapping.

There was a video posted about this in another thread recently. It points out and shows the various physical cues that can be detected from a horse's behavior before a race that can serve as a good assessment for their performance that day. That is provided your perception allows you to judge what you see effectively of course. I tried it myself for a couple of days and compared what I saw to my own numbers from my program. I must say that the visual cues had a definite positive impact when taken into consideration before making a final selection.

[thaskalos]

I actually think gambling is exactly like many other human endeavors, including karate, in that respect. We are programmed as humans to want to skip all the difficult discipline parts and get right to the glory.

And while a part of "discipline" is always making the proper move:

1. The part that's often hard isn't learning what the proper move is, but always making it. In other words, the problem for many players isn't coming up with a nice play at good odds; it's passing the last race on the card when its unbettable, or waiting three or four days before making a significant play because all the races are terrible betting propositions, or not trying to make their money back after two bad beats early in the day.

2. A lot of discipline goes beyond making the proper move every time-- e.g., things like bankroll management, not playing when you are not at your best or you don't have time to fully analyze the races, etc.

I have written more about discipline on this board than practically any other poster...but I have found that this concept of "discipline" is often misunderstood. In today's full-card simulcasting era...the player who sits on his hands for three to four days is not really "disciplined". He is paralyzed by fear.

What I really meant about the strategy coming first is really elementary...and hard to argue against. Whether you define discipline as "always making the proper move"...or, "never making the improper move"...or, "employing the proper bankroll management"...the assumption always is that we KNOW what this proper way of operating is. We can't make the proper move, or avoid the mistake...if we don't know what the right move is. And knowing what the right move is, is a matter of STRATEGY.

We have to know what to be disciplined about.

[Fwizard]

I have written more about discipline on this board than practically any other poster...but I have found that this concept of "discipline" is often misunderstood. In today's full-card simulcasting era...the player who sits on his hands for three to four days is not really "disciplined". He is paralyzed by fear.

What I really meant about the strategy coming first is really elementary...and hard to argue against. Whether you define discipline as "always making the proper move"...or, "never making the improper move"...or, "employing the proper bankroll management"...the assumption always is that we KNOW what this proper way of operating is. We can't make the proper move, or avoid the mistake...if we don't know what the right move is. And knowing what the right move is, is a matter of STRATEGY.

We have to know what to be disciplined about.


Using a baseball analogy--who is more dangerous the runner who ends the year with 10 stolen bases in 10 attempts or the runner who stole 50 out of 70.???

[Nitro]

Instead focus on making some solid winning plays that produce a valued return even if the selections aren’t your own.If he were able to pull this off, he wouldn't be a "casual" anymore. If he's able to "use their selections wisely", he's "relying on his own insight". Yes perhaps as a bettor that might be true but that’s not the type of "insight" I was referring to. You’re apparently confusing the selection process with the betting process: One is certainly not dependent upon the other. In fact, since you’ve made a comparison to Poker then you’ll probably recognize the analogy between being dealt 4-of-a-kind and being given 4 top selections at 4-to1 and better. Even the most casual player could recognize the potential value in either case and bet accordingly. In the horseracing game “casual” might be defined as being less informed, but it certainly doesn’t mean that one lacks the ability to make a solid bet.
.
.

[Robert Goren]

How do you think its overrated?There are not that many things to find. There is also a lot things that can be seen that look like they could something that would hamper a horses effort but in reality don't or at least they seem to matter in the horse's next race. Trapped on the inside does not matter much. Neither does racing wide. It takes an expert like TLG to know when they matter. I will say this. A horse sometimes looks more impressive on film than it does on paper. That is a useful edge for the video watcher.

[ultracapper]

There are not that many things to find. There is also a lot things that can be seen that look like they could something that would hamper a horses effort but in reality don't or at least they seem to matter in the horse's next race. Trapped on the inside does not matter much. Neither does racing wide. It takes an expert like TLG to know when they matter. I will say this. A horse sometimes looks more impressive on film than it does on paper. That is a useful edge for the video watcher.

And vice versa. Most 2nd place finishes, when seen on film, are very ordinary runs. Finishing position, whether 1st or 5th, isn't a real gauge on how well, or poorly, a horse ran.

There is a ton to be found on film if you know how to watch. I've found it's not that I'm looking for anything in particular, but rather something just looking impressive or common.

[thaskalos]

And vice versa. Most 2nd place finishes, when seen on film, are very ordinary runs. Finishing position, whether 1st or 5th, isn't a real gauge on how well, or poorly, a horse ran.

There is a ton to be found on film if you know how to watch. I've found it's not that I'm looking for anything in particular, but rather something just looking impressive or common.

Does the replay of the horse's last representative race tell you all you need to know...or do you watch several replayed races of each horse?

[ultracapper]

To Thaskalos.

To categorize a lack of activity as being paralyzed with fear is ridiculous. There are many reasons for lack of activity. I haven't made a bet on the past 7 races I've handicapped, and I'm just chomping on the bit. I'm begging for something right now, anything. But it just hasn't been there, and I haven't missed a thing. In not one of those seven races did a horse win that I was even remotely on the fence about. The races I've chosen have just been duds. I've been quite happy with my performance over the past 3 cards I've looked at simply because I haven't budged.

I've been afraid at the window many in times in my life. I know what it feels like. That hasn't been an issue for me in quite some time, and I've gone as many as 20-30 races without placing a bet, and I've bet 5 races in a day as recently as Del Mar.

[ultracapper]

Does the replay of the horse's last representative race tell you all you need to know...or do you watch several replayed races of each horse?

The last race will direct me to the horse, leave me neutral, or indicate whether my initial feeling is negative. A positive assessment of it's last race just demands additional viewing, and that will be the first horse I dig into. If it turns out that this race isn't right for him, I may just stop right there and move on. If there is some memory or notes I have of another in the race, I'll investigate that one further. If I land on one of the horses, then I'm in for a long one. I can look at as many as 4 or 5 replays per horse if necessary. I had Patriots Rule when he won his StAlw race in the spring at Santa Anita in an 11 or 12 horse field and I spent about 2 1/2 hours on that race alone. It stands out because I remember he was the 11 horse and I shut it down at 11:11 that night. (I know, kind of flakey. Bizarre, the stuff that sticks with us.)

[thaskalos]

To Thaskalos.

To categorize a lack of activity as being paralyzed with fear is ridiculous. There are many reasons for lack of activity. I haven't made a bet on the past 7 races I've handicapped, and I'm just chomping on the bit. I'm begging for something right now, anything. But it just hasn't been there, and I haven't missed a thing. In not one of those seven races did a horse win that I was even remotely on the fence about. The races I've chosen have just been duds. I've been quite happy with my performance over the past 3 cards I've looked at simply because I haven't budged.

I've been afraid at the window many in times in my life. I know what it feels like. That hasn't been an issue for me in quite some time, and I've gone as many as 20-30 races without placing a bet, and I've bet 5 races in a day as recently as Del Mar.

You are free to disagree any time you want...but if you are going to call someone's comment "ridiculous"...at least try to really understand what he is saying. I never said anything about making no bets in the last seven races that we handicap...I often wait that long (and even longer) myself. Dilanesp's post that I responded to didn't say "no bets in the past seven races"; it said no bets in three or four DAYS! Are you going to tell me that "disciplined play" means making no plays in three or four DAYS? In today's racing environment? Are you kidding me?

[Stillriledup]

To the replay guys: Do you also watch the pre-race elements when the horses warm up, are in the paddock and in the post parade? In other words, visual or "physical appearance" handicapping.

There was a video posted about this in another thread recently. It points out and shows the various physical cues that can be detected from a horse's behavior before a race that can serve as a good assessment for their performance that day. That is provided your perception allows you to judge what you see effectively of course. I tried it myself for a couple of days and compared what I saw to my own numbers from my program. I must say that the visual cues had a definite positive impact when taken into consideration before making a final selection.

Warmup and post parade all gets put in my notes, if a horse looks particularly good or particularly bad, that gets noted as well as how the horse warms up, i believe it to be very important.

[ultracapper]

No I'm not. 7 races for me has been 3 days. I placed a bet Thursday at SA, handicapped 2,3,2 races Fri, Sat, and Sun, and didn't bet. I think it ends tomorrow. Right now, Crux in the 6th looks like action.

BTW, the 6th is the only race tomorrow that holds any interest to me. Only race I've looked at, or will look at.

[thaskalos]

No I'm not. 7 races for me has been 3 days. I placed a bet Thursday at SA, handicapped 2,3,2 races Fri, Sat, and Sun, and didn't bet. I think it ends tomorrow. Right now, Crux in the 6th looks like action.

BTW, the 6th is the only race tomorrow that holds any interest to me. Only race I've looked at, or will look at.

I'm not going to disagree with you, because we all have our own purpose for playing...and our own, unique, methods of play; but I will say that this style certainly doesn't suit me, or my purpose. I only make back a tiny percentage of what I bet...so I have to be a little concerned with the volume of my betting. I have had to expand my betting horizons...because I am not there just to pass the time.

[ultracapper]

We do all have our own styles. For instance, I'm not just putting $20 on Crux tomorrow.

[Stillriledup]

I'm not going to disagree with you, because we all have our own purpose for playing...and our own, unique, methods of play; but I will say that this style certainly doesn't suit me, or my purpose. I only make back a tiny percentage of what I bet...so I have to be a little concerned with the volume of my betting. I have had to expand my betting horizons...because I am not there just to pass the time.

Maybe UC is betting horses like his own "stock market" and he can wait for a while, just like individual investors do when purchasing stocks in the market.

[thaskalos]

We do all have our own styles. For instance, I'm not just putting $20 on Crux tomorrow.

Even so...in the long run, you will only make back a small percentage of what you bet. If your ROI is +1.10...then that means that even a $300 bet will only net you $30 profit in the end. It sure beats losing...but it isn't much of a return for three days play...IMO.

[ultracapper]

Horse racing gives you the opportunity to turn a handful into a bucket full in 1:10.

I'd only been playing the horses for a couple months when, at the age of 19, it came to me. If I can eliminate all those losers and take all that money and throw it down on the one I really like, I can make a good chunk, just like that. The goal for me, since the first bet I ever made at Longacres on Memorial Day 1982 was to make money. That's it. Make money. If I go to the track with $100, I could bet $10 a race and maybe win a couple and get out of there with $60, or maybe $160. Or I could put it all on that one I really like in the 4th at 9/2 and get out of there with $500+. I always understood I could lose it also, but I could lose it $10 at a time just as easily, and usually did.

A huge majority of winning days are due to one big hit. It's a tough row to hoe trying to win $20 here, $30 in the next, another $25 in the next. Tough row to hoe. The big one makes the day.

If you're there for the action, have at it. But making a reliable, steady profit that way, well, that's a challenge I can't stand up to.

[thaskalos]

Horse racing gives you the opportunity to turn a handful into a bucket full in 1:10.

I'd only been playing the horses for a couple months when, at the age of 19, it came to me. If I can eliminate all those losers and take all that money and throw it down on the one I really like, I can make a good chunk, just like that. The goal for me, since the first bet I ever made at Longacres on Memorial Day 1982 was to make money. That's it. Make money. If I go to the track with $100, I could bet $10 a race and maybe win a couple and get out of there with $60, or maybe $160. Or I could put it all on that one I really like in the 4th at 9/2 and get out of there with $500+. I always understood I could lose it also, but I could lose it $10 at a time just as easily, and usually did.

A huge majority of winning days are due to one big hit. It's a tough row to hoe trying to win $20 here, $30 in the next, another $25 in the next. Tough row to hoe. The big one makes the day.

If you're there for the action, have at it. But making a reliable, steady profit that way, well, that's a challenge I can't stand up to.

The goal for me is to make money too...but I am willing to work hard for this money. You say that there is only one race tomorrow at Santa Anita that you will even be looking at; if my own method of play was as "restrictive" as yours...then I would try to add another track to my betting menu. We can't expect to make the money without the effort... :)

[ultracapper]

Purely an example.

Crux is 6-1 morning line. Let's say he goes off at that. Purely an example remember. Let's say you have $300 on him and he wins. $1800. Is that worth a week's work? If that's all you did, all week, would it be worth it? It would to a lot of people on this board, and in the real world in general.

Purely an example. Same as above, but Crux loses. Patience, patience, patience. Sunday, another 6-1, and this one wins. $1500 profit for the week. Is it worth it for a week's work? To a lot of people on this board, and in the real world, sure is.

I'm sure there are lots of people on this board that start out with $600 a week. Everyone of them, if they are so disposed, can try to do it this way with no more exposure than they presently have.

Some people tick different than others. I wouldn't be as effective handicapping 80 races a week as I am 8 a week. Others would get so bored and bogged down the way I do it that they'd end up hating the game. You have to behave in a way that optimizes your effectiveness. Getting back to the initial comment that got this rolling. There are many reasons for inactivity. I initially felt like your statement that fear was the reason came across as the only reason for inactivity. I may have responded a bit strongly, but I don't think it should be a blanket statement, or even a general statement. I'm sure it's true for some, but it certainly isn't true for all.

[thaskalos]

Purely an example.

Crux is 6-1 morning line. Let's say he goes off at that. Purely an example remember. Let's say you have $300 on him and he wins. $1800. Is that worth a week's work? If that's all you did, all week, would it be worth it? It would to a lot of people on this board, and in the real world in general.

Purely an example. Same as above, but Crux loses. Patience, patience, patience. Sunday, another 6-1, and this one wins. $1500 profit for the week. Is it worth it for a week's work? To a lot of people on this board, and in the real world, sure is.

I'm sure there are lots of people on this board that start out with $600 a week. Everyone of them, if they are so disposed, can try to do it this way with no more exposure than they presently have.

Some people tick different than others. I wouldn't be as effective handicapping 80 races a week as I am 8 a week. Others would get so bored and bogged down the way I do it that they'd end up hating the game. You have to behave in a way that optimizes your effectiveness. Getting back to the initial comment that got this rolling. There are many reasons for inactivity. I initially felt like your statement that fear was the reason came across as the only reason for inactivity. I may have responded a bit strongly, but I don't think it should be a blanket statement, or even a general statement. I'm sure it's true for some, but it certainly isn't true for all.

I'm not trying to be a smart guy here...and I try hard not to offend. I am just someone who likes gambling discussions...even if people disagree with my point of view. IMO...it can't be much of a discussion if everyone agrees.

What you say in the shaded part above sounds good in theory...but reality doesn't work like that (yes, I realize you said it was purely an example). In real life...to net a thousand a week you will have to wager at least $6,000-$7,000. That is...if you are mortal.

[ultracapper]

My point was that inactivity wasn't necessarily fear. I know it took 4 posts and a zig zag discussion to get there, but that's where I was trying to go throughout that.

[raybo]

I'm not trying to be a smart guy here...and I try hard not to offend. I am just someone who likes gambling discussions...even if people disagree with my point of view. IMO...it can't be much of a discussion if everyone agrees.

What you say in the shaded part above sounds good in theory...but reality doesn't work like that (yes, I realize you said it was purely an example). In real life...to net a thousand a week you will have to wager at least $6,000-$7,000. That is...if you are mortal.

$7000 x 52 weeks = $364,000 per year

Dang, I haven't bet that much in my whole life much less in a single year, and $1000 x 52 weeks = $52,000 a year, which I have come very close to attaining a few times in the last 10 years. I realize Ultra is probably talking about win betting, which I agree, would make that kind of money tough to attain, without putting lots of money through the windows, on lots of races, and getting a healthy rebate to boot, but you of all people know that there are other, more lucrative, ways to wager. I'm not trying to hijack the discussion, but for those out there who might be scared away thinking that significant money can't be won without mortgaging the house (several times), let's be clear in our scenarios about the amount required to be bet, in order to make significant money over time.

No offense intended, Gus, just one of my pet peeves I guess. Superfectas rule! :lol:

[thaskalos]

$7000 x 52 weeks = $364,000 per year

Dang, I haven't bet that much in my whole life much less in a single year, and $1000 x 52 weeks = $52,000 a year, which I have come very close to attaining a few times in the last 10 years. I realize Ultra is probably talking about win betting, which I agree, would make that kind of money tough to attain, without putting lots of money through the windows, on lots of races, and getting a healthy rebate to boot, but you of all people know that there are other, more lucrative, ways to wager. I'm not trying to hijack the discussion, but for those out there who might be scared away thinking that significant money can't be won without mortgaging the house (several times), let's be clear in our scenarios about the amount required to be bet, in order to make significant money over time.

No offense intended, Gus, just one of my pet peeves I guess. Superfectas rule! :lol:

No offence taken, Raybo...as I've said several times before, I speak strictly from experience. My own profit margin in this game has been pretty slim...and even the ambitious Mr James Quinn has recently revised his possible profit expectations to a 15% return on investment. If you can do better...then more power to you. :)

Superfectas do indeed rule...at least on the weekends.

[raybo]

Superfectas do indeed rule...at least on the weekends.

Yeah, ain't it nice to take Monday through Thursday off? Well, I guess there are those who would get the "jones" if they could only bet weekends. :lol:

[thaskalos]

Yeah, ain't it nice to take Monday through Thursday off? Well, I guess there are those who would get the "jones" if they could only bet weekends. :lol:
Sure is. I wish I could afford it.

[raybo]

Sure is. I wish I could afford it.

I'm lucky, I don't live in Chicago, or any other place with that kind of cost of living. And, the kids have been on their own for years, so it don't take that much for me and my wife to get by down here. Heck, I'm so tight with money I squeak, the only guy I know that has me beat is my long time mentor and racing partner, and he's still driving a '78 Chevy pickup he bought new - and wearing 20 year old shirts and jeans he bought at Goodwill - LOL. Different strokes for different folks!

That damn DirecTV bill sure is getting excessive though!!!

[castaway01]

$7000 x 52 weeks = $364,000 per year

Dang, I haven't bet that much in my whole life much less in a single year, and $1000 x 52 weeks = $52,000 a year, which I have come very close to attaining a few times in the last 10 years. I realize Ultra is probably talking about win betting, which I agree, would make that kind of money tough to attain, without putting lots of money through the windows, on lots of races, and getting a healthy rebate to boot, but you of all people know that there are other, more lucrative, ways to wager. I'm not trying to hijack the discussion, but for those out there who might be scared away thinking that significant money can't be won without mortgaging the house (several times), let's be clear in our scenarios about the amount required to be bet, in order to make significant money over time.

No offense intended, Gus, just one of my pet peeves I guess. Superfectas rule! :lol:

Whether you're betting to win or betting superfectas, why would you have to mortgage the house to bet $50,000 in a year, unless you're getting very little return on what you're betting? Even if you're a net losing player who only gets $45,000 back for that $50,000 bet, you're still betting the "same" money, over and over. I thought you were an experienced, winning bettor? I don't even understand how you could think that, much less argue it.

.

[raybo]

Whether you're betting to win or betting superfectas, why would you have to mortgage the house to bet $50,000 in a year, unless you're getting very little return on what you're betting? Even if you're a net losing player who only gets $45,000 back for that $50,000 bet, you're still betting the "same" money, over and over. I thought you were an experienced, winning bettor? I don't even understand how you could think that, much less argue it.

.

I was talking about people who bust out and have to replenish their bankrolls. The point is that in order to play win bets, and make an average of $1000 per week, one would probably have to bet many more races, and tracks than what Ultra mentioned.

[ultracapper]

No wonder you guys gripe about the take so much. Grind, grind, churn churn. High take out exotics as a bet of choice. Now it's much clearer.

[raybo]

No wonder you guys gripe about the take so much. Grind, grind, churn churn. High take out exotics as a bet of choice. Now it's much clearer.

I never complain about takeouts, it's a fact of life that we all deal with in our own way. I simply look at the prices/potential profit offered and if they aren't good enough I pass. I never consider the takeout other than in discussions on here. Do I think they are too high? Yes, but that is what it is, why worry about it? The takeouts on exotics may be higher than win betting but that doesn't change the fact that huge, life changing, profits can still be mad with them. My base superfecta bet costs $12, how many win bettors, that are serious about making profit, bet that small?

[ultracapper]

There was a thread just recently titled "Greatest hindrance to making a profit", or something of that nature. The two most popular responses were too many bets and high take out. I know it's all just opinion, but some very knowledgeable people are way on the other side of the fence from you.

I said in a previous post, I know your back story. And I know I couldn't do it, in any way, shape or form.

[thaskalos]

There was a thread just recently titled "Greatest hindrance to making a profit", or something of that nature. The two most popular responses were too many bets and high take out. I know it's all just opinion, but some very knowledgeable people are way on the other side of the fence from you.

I said in a previous post, I know your back story. And I know I couldn't do it, in any way, shape or form.
The high takeout alone is not the problem. The problem is when the high takeout is combined with other damaging factors...like short fields and performance-enhansing drugs. That's what creates this great "hindrance to making a profit".

[dilanesp]

You are free to disagree any time you want...but if you are going to call someone's comment "ridiculous"...at least try to really understand what he is saying. I never said anything about making no bets in the last seven races that we handicap...I often wait that long (and even longer) myself. Dilanesp's post that I responded to didn't say "no bets in the past seven races"; it said no bets in three or four DAYS! Are you going to tell me that "disciplined play" means making no plays in three or four DAYS? In today's racing environment? Are you kidding me?

Disciplined play means no plays in three or four DAYS if there are no identifiable underlays during that period of time.

It could also mean 50 plays in three or four days, but only if you have intensively studied every one of those 50 bets and you honestly conclude that every single one of them is an overlay.

What it DOESN'T mean is some sort of rationalization that since there are so many betting opportunities, something out there must be worth playing. No-- you need a constant, careful evaluation of every play on its own merits.

[thaskalos]

Disciplined play means no plays in three or four DAYS if there are no identifiable underlays during that period of time.

It could also mean 50 plays in three or four days, but only if you have intensively studied every one of those 50 bets and you honestly conclude that every single one of them is an overlay.

What it DOESN'T mean is some sort of rationalization that since there are so many betting opportunities, something out there must be worth playing. No-- you need a constant, careful evaluation of every play on its own merits.
Like I said...I disagree. We cannot expect to profit in a difficult game such as this without fully applying ourselves...and the player who can't find a play in four days -- in today's betting atmosphere -- is not fully applying himself. That's my opinion...and I am sticking to it.

[ultracapper]

All due respect Thaskalos, but I don't think you've thought this through. You're almost endorsing chasing down a bet because it just has to be out there. It doesn't have to be out there, and to suggest that the entire betting menu at every track, every day, is there for us to access on a whim, seems a bit cavalier.

Discipline also can mean sticking to your "galaxy" and not racing through the universe just because it's there. $10 on a 4-1 on Sunday has the same value as $2 on a 4-1 Wed-Sun. No need to run hog wild for the sake of a play.

My opinion, anyhow.

[thaskalos]

All due respect Thaskalos, but I don't think you've thought this through. You're almost endorsing chasing down a bet because it just has to be out there. It doesn't have to be out there, and to suggest that the entire betting menu at every track, every day, is there for us to access on a whim, seems a bit cavalier.

Discipline also can mean sticking to your "galaxy" and not racing through the universe just because it's there. $10 on a 4-1 on Sunday has the same value as $2 on a 4-1 Wed-Sun. No need to run hog wild for the sake of a play.

My opinion, anyhow.
With all due respect, you are overdramatizing. There is nothing "hog wild" about making a bet every couple of days. The player who sits on his hands for four days in today's game isn't being "disciplined"; he is in semi-retirement.

[ReplayRandall]

My base superfecta bet costs $12, how many win bettors, that are serious about making profit, bet that small?


Are you playing dime supers, base bet of $12?

[raybo]

With all due respect, you are overdramatizing. There is nothing "hog wild" about making a bet every couple of days. The player who sits on his hands for four days in today's game isn't being "disciplined"; he is in semi-retirement.

Well, I am retired, but not from racing (at least, not since I found a US based ADW that will let this Texas boy bet). I sometimes don't bet for days or weeks at a time, but then I don't have to make $500 wagers to make something from a 2/1 shot either. I agree that if you are after significant profit, with win betting, you either have to risk large amounts of money on individual races, and/or wager on lots of races. Unless, you somehow have a 50+% hit rate on 10/1 and up horses! If I can't make $300 or more on a $12-$18 ticket, I'm not betting that race.

[raybo]

Are you playing dime supers, base bet of $12?

No, that would be $1.20 for a dime. I bet $1 supers, sometimes $2 if I expect the pool is going to be large enough, except for my "savers" in the TC and BC races, when I will "cover" the race, and my primary wagers, with a large dime ticket.

[ReplayRandall]

No, that would be $1.20 for a dime. I bet $1 supers, sometimes $2 if I expect the pool is going to be large enough, except for my "savers" in the TC and BC races, when I will "cover" the race, and my primary wagers, with a large dime ticket.


I'm sorry if I miscommunicated. I thought your base ticket was 120 combos at a dime for a total of $12. You have to thread a pretty fine needle to cash playing $1 supers with only a total bet of $12.

[raybo]

There was a thread just recently titled "Greatest hindrance to making a profit", or something of that nature. The two most popular responses were too many bets and high take out. I know it's all just opinion, but some very knowledgeable people are way on the other side of the fence from you.

I said in a previous post, I know your back story. And I know I couldn't do it, in any way, shape or form.

I'm not saying that takeout isn't a problem, it just isn't a problem for me. Betting too many races, would be a problem for most people, IMO, unless they are getting a good rebate and are fully computer automated. I could bet lots of races per day, sure, but I wouldn't be profitable if I did.

[DeltaLover]

With all due respect, you are overdramatizing. There is nothing "hog wild" about making a bet every couple of days. The player who sits on his hands for four days in today's game isn't being "disciplined"; he is in semi-retirement.

There is no doubt that discipline represents one of the fundamental components of a successful gambler but it is not a goal by itself. If you cannot find four or five bets while offered two full card simulcast, you should certainly rethink your approach.. Now that we talk about this, I am tempted to refer to one of the worst gambling books ever, that seems to confuse passivity to discipline, giving out completely wrong advice:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Lt4jp5uoL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-v3-big,TopRight,0,-55_SX278_SY278_PIkin4,BottomRight,1,22_AA300_SH20_ OU01_.jpg

[raybo]

I'm sorry if I miscommunicated. I thought your base ticket was 120 combos at a dime for a total of $12. You have to thread a pretty fine needle to cash playing $1 supers with only a total bet of $12.

Exactly, it's a fine line, but not set in stone either. That "base" wager is for 8 horse fields and below, at smaller tracks with smaller pools, in less contentious races. As field size goes up, or pool sizes go up, or contentiousness of the race goes up, so do the cost of my tickets. Cost versus potential reward. Win bets, yes I do play win bets now that I have my program for that, is simply support/cash flow for my superfecta wagering, and most of my superfecta hits just pay the bills ($300 - $1000 payouts or so). The real profit comes from the several large hits I get during the year. Yes, there are long dry spells involved (I hit about 8-9% of my supers), but the bounce back comes quickly when I hit a couple, and it only takes one or two big hits to make the whole year.

Heck, when I was testing my new ADW to see if they would actually accept my bets, I bet a dang quarter horse race, off the tote board without any handicapping, bet a dime super that cost me $1.80, I think, and paid $30. And I've never even watched a quarter horse race before. :lol:

[barn32]

Ive been handicapping belmont as much as i can. I figure its better to learn one track and all it entails then trying to be everywhere.When I first discovered horse racing I told all of my horse racing friends what fools they were to try and beat a game with such a high rake.

Then I actually started playing the game, and I was hooked. I thought it was one of the most fascinating things I'd ever done.

The pendulum swings. I don't think I've bet on a horse race in over twelve years.

I really can't offer you any advice. It's a game where you never stop learning. Everyone has their own style. Following the crowd almost always loses.

Find your own way. Beat your own path. Take it nice and slow.

Don't expect miracles.

Good luck.

[Stillriledup]

Purely an example.

Crux is 6-1 morning line. Let's say he goes off at that. Purely an example remember. Let's say you have $300 on him and he wins. $1800. Is that worth a week's work? If that's all you did, all week, would it be worth it? It would to a lot of people on this board, and in the real world in general.

Purely an example. Same as above, but Crux loses. Patience, patience, patience. Sunday, another 6-1, and this one wins. $1500 profit for the week. Is it worth it for a week's work? To a lot of people on this board, and in the real world, sure is.

I'm sure there are lots of people on this board that start out with $600 a week. Everyone of them, if they are so disposed, can try to do it this way with no more exposure than they presently have.

Some people tick different than others. I wouldn't be as effective handicapping 80 races a week as I am 8 a week. Others would get so bored and bogged down the way I do it that they'd end up hating the game. You have to behave in a way that optimizes your effectiveness. Getting back to the initial comment that got this rolling. There are many reasons for inactivity. I initially felt like your statement that fear was the reason came across as the only reason for inactivity. I may have responded a bit strongly, but I don't think it should be a blanket statement, or even a general statement. I'm sure it's true for some, but it certainly isn't true for all.

Gino's best bet.

You're not Gino, are you? :D

[ultracapper]

Good for Gino. I wonder how he came up with Crux. He seldom catches one like this that I've seen.

[ReplayRandall]

No I'm not. 7 races for me has been 3 days. I placed a bet Thursday at SA, handicapped 2,3,2 races Fri, Sat, and Sun, and didn't bet. I think it ends tomorrow. Right now, Crux in the 6th looks like action.

BTW, the 6th is the only race tomorrow that holds any interest to me. Only race I've looked at, or will look at.


It pays to watch replays! Nice hit on CRUX! 1st-$14.40 $7.40 $4.00

[Stillriledup]

Good for Gino. I wonder how he came up with Crux. He seldom catches one like this that I've seen.

he reads PA, what else could it be????

[ultracapper]

It pays to watch replays! Nice hit on CRUX! 1st-$14.40 $7.40 $4.00

Totally replay action. In about 5 of his 7 races he had been passed by a horse at the top of the stretch only to re-pass that horse inside the 1/16th pole. He had all the look of a first flight/engine in this one and I felt if he was side by side at the 1/16th, he'd out finish the other horse. Without watching the replays, you never would have known his inclination to let a horse come to him and/or pass him, only to re-rally and outfinish him. If you would have asked me before the race what I would have thought his margin of victory would be, I would have confidently said a hard earned head.

I loved the comments below the pps in the form. The commentator questioned his stamina. Totally wrong. Entirely wrong. He'd lost his last 2 because he'd been outrun, not because he'd faded/stopped.

Thanks RR. You know where to find the gold. It's on the screen.

[Stillriledup]

Totally replay action. In about 5 of his 7 races he had been passed by a horse at the top of the stretch only to re-pass that horse inside the 1/16th pole. He had all the look of a first flight/engine in this one and I felt if he was side by side at the 1/16th, he'd out finish the other horse. Without watching the replays, you never would have known his inclination to let a horse come to him and/or pass him, only to re-rally and outfinish him. If you would have asked me before the race what I would have thought his margin of victory would be, I would have confidently said a hard earned head.

I loved the comments below the pps in the form. The commentator questioned his stamina. Totally wrong. Entirely wrong. He'd lost his last 2 because he'd been outrun, not because he'd faded/stopped.

Thanks RR. You know where to find the gold. It's on the screen.

Trivia for you, lets see how good you are.

There's currently a horse racing at Santa Anita who is a fantastic looking horse with a big stride, he's usually a longshot, he usually sets the pace and he rarely wins, hasn't won in a while, but he "comes back" at the pack on the gallop out and passes rivals into the first turn and almost always gallops out "full of run" after the race is over. His PPs suggest he's "tiring" but he's really not tired, he's just not quick enough to keep up in the furious final 16th, but he keeps going thru the wire and after the race.

Name. That. Horse.

[Stillriledup]

Totally replay action. In about 5 of his 7 races he had been passed by a horse at the top of the stretch only to re-pass that horse inside the 1/16th pole. He had all the look of a first flight/engine in this one and I felt if he was side by side at the 1/16th, he'd out finish the other horse. Without watching the replays, you never would have known his inclination to let a horse come to him and/or pass him, only to re-rally and outfinish him. If you would have asked me before the race what I would have thought his margin of victory would be, I would have confidently said a hard earned head.

I loved the comments below the pps in the form. The commentator questioned his stamina. Totally wrong. Entirely wrong. He'd lost his last 2 because he'd been outrun, not because he'd faded/stopped.

Thanks RR. You know where to find the gold. It's on the screen.

Congrats on this horse, awesome pickin, i was watching the race and with 70 yards left i thought, "man UC's horse ran well, hope he bet place or keyed underneath the fave in exa" and the horse came back to win and i yelled "ULTRACAPPER!!!" I really did, no lie. :D

[ultracapper]

Thanks SRU.

Trying to picture your horse trivia. I'm sitting here with jaw in hand, stroking my chin. I feel like I'm going to get this. Give me a minute.

[ultracapper]

Man, you're going to tell me, and I'm going to go....."ahhhhh, damn. Shoulda had that"

It's going to come to me. I'm thinking it's a gray.

[Stillriledup]

Man, you're going to tell me, and I'm going to go....."ahhhhh, damn. Shoulda had that"

It's going to come to me. I'm thinking it's a gray.

Not a grey.

Here's a hint. He's been running on the turf, but its possible he's a better dirt horse.

[Stillriledup]

It pays to watch replays! Nice hit on CRUX! 1st-$14.40 $7.40 $4.00

He should have won today, the guy rode bad, no reason to not set the pace in there, he grabbed much too much.