Would Buffet's advice work in horse betting?

[Stillriledup]

Buffet told everyone how to win (in investing) 30 years ago, and people didn't listen. ( see atricle link at bottom)

Is there someone in horse racing that has told us how to beat the races a few decades ago and yet, we haven't listened?

Is it possible someone has given us the "winning formula" and we've just glossed over it and lumped it with all the other "formulas" that we have heard over the years?

Who's the "buffet of horse racing" that has dispensed such valuable advice on how to successfully invest?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/30-years-ago-warren-buffett-130500288.html

[Some_One]

How have people like Buffet done over the last 10-15 years? From my knowledge, no where close to the numbers previous to that time. Sounds a lot like how profitable speed figures were when they first came out in the 70s (or whenever) and today. Buffet (and Beyer) had huge infomational advantages then which no longer apply and hence why I say they can not possibly achieve the results that they used to in the 70's as the infomational edge they have is gone with modern technologies.

[raybo]

If you know individual horses and their trainers and jockeys as intimately and thoroughly as Buffet knows companies and the people who run them, accurately assessing their "true" worth, and you keep "value" at the forefront of your investments, there is no reason why you couldn't be successful in racing. But, that is a daunting task indeed.

[Stillriledup]

Good posts guys, agree with both of you.

I think it comes down to "intimate knowledge" . Also, another key would be you can't bet on horses who cant run a lick. This is why i'm very leery of first time starters because i know that a certain percentage of them aren't ready or have no talent, that would weigh down my ROI. I need to be on runners, horses who i'm pretty sure have talent and aren't 'over the top' in some fashion.

The key to great horsebetting isn't sniffing out horses with talent because i think great horse bettors can sniff out plenty of strong performers, rather, its the ability to not be on these talented horses when their "bad race" is about to happen.

Losing money on talented horses when its "not their day" is probably what separates very good from great in the handicapping arena.

[raybo]

Good posts guys, agree with both of you.

I think it comes down to "intimate knowledge" . Also, another key would be you can't bet on horses who cant run a lick. This is why i'm very leery of first time starters because i know that a certain percentage of them aren't ready or have no talent, that would weigh down my ROI. I need to be on runners, horses who i'm pretty sure have talent and aren't 'over the top' in some fashion.

The key to great horsebetting isn't sniffing out horses with talent because i think great horse bettors can sniff out plenty of strong performers, rather, its the ability to not be on these talented horses when their "bad race" is about to happen.

Losing money on talented horses when its "not their day" is probably what separates very good from great in the handicapping arena.

Agree, and when you relate back to Buffet, the "timing" of investing in the good company (good horse) is just as important as recognizing the good company/horse in the first place, and Buffet, from the beginning, understood that "intimately".

[thaskalos]

Buffett likes to portray himself as this folksy, no-frills, buy-and-hold/type investor...who never seems to sell a stock. "Don't sell your stocks"...the Oracle of Omaha likes to tell the frenzied reporters who hang on his every word.

The truth is that Buffett isn't your typical "buy-and-hold" investor. Yes, he will hold a stock for many years...but that's only when he buys entire companies. When he buys common shares like everyone else...then Buffett knows better than to buy-and-hold. Do you suppose he is still holding on to his shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Buffett isn't sharing any secrets of investing...he is just providing a few timely soundbites, just so he doesn't appear to be as closed-mouthed about investing as he really is. Proper "Value Investing" isn't as simple as he makes it sound...nor is Benjamin Graham as ignored an author as Buffett portrays him to be. There have been MANY "Value Investment" disciples...and MILLIONS of investors have read the books of Benjamin Graham.

And yet...there is only one Warren Buffett.

[thaskalos]

Buffet told everyone how to win (in investing) 30 years ago, and people didn't listen. ( see atricle link at bottom)

Is there someone in horse racing that has told us how to beat the races a few decades ago and yet, we haven't listened?


I think there is, SRU...and there has been mention made of this before on this very board. Predictably...it was largely ignored then too. :)

I bought a book many years ago...written by a guy who said that he had been a blacksmith at the track for 30 years. It took him that long to figure out what it took to win at the races...he says in the book...but he also claims that what he eventually discovered enabled him to experience early retirement...something that he never thought he'd see.

When I first read this, I thought it was the typical junk that I would often see passing itself off as legitimate handicapping literature at that time...and I put the book on the shelf after only giving it a brief glance...and it stayed there for at least 15 years. I picked the book up again in 2006...at a time when I was at the lowest psychological point of my life. My wife had died two years prior after a lengthy battle with a horrible illness, and I was raising a 6-year old on my own. A psychologist friend of mine was scaring me to death with stories about the perils of child abandonment...and what would probably happen to my young son if I opted to go back to work too soon, leaving him without a mom and in the hands of strangers. For over two years, I hadn't worked at all...and I had worked sparingly during the prior 3.5 years...because of my wife's grave condition (she was given 6 months to live when she was first diagnosed). My money was running out, and so was my sanity...and well-wishing friends and relatives were bombarding me with all sorts of contradictory advice.

Anyway...THIS was the psychological state that I was in when I absentmindedly reached and picked up that long-forgotten handicapping book from 15 years prior. And, having nothing else to do at that time...I read and I read. And I became mesmerized. "Velocity Fitness Ratings"..."Velocity Form Ratings"..."Velocity Class Ratings"..."Physical Form Angles"...the book was packed with things that I'd never HEARD before. And I had been reading everything handicapping-related since the time of AINSLE! This was a book unlike any that I had ever seen...and it reshaped my thinking in ways that I can't begin to describe. It taught me that there were TWO comparisons that needed to be made when handicapping a race: How a horse measured up against the competition...and how it measured up against its better SELF. The book actually offered concrete ways with which to measure a horse's own DEVELOPMENT as it progressed, or regressed, from one race to another.

Alas...the book also had a couple of negatives, dealing entirely with the author's manner of delivering the information. The constant flash-back scenes from the author's life, and the many colorful stories that he shares with the reader, take one's attention away from the message offered in the book...and that's probably at least partially responsible for the completely forgotten status that this book currently enjoys. In fact, I consulted Google before typing this post...and nary a mention of this work was there to be found. But I can guarantee you that there is at least one guy in the Chicago suburbs who will be forever grateful to this long-forgotten author. He really made a big difference in my life...at a time when I really needed a boost.

Now...I want you to know that I sit here slightly embarrassed as I am about to submit this posting -- because it makes me sound a little like Dave Powers. As I said before, I have no affiliation whatsoever with this author...nor do I know anything about him. The name of the book, and the author, have been mentioned here before...and something tells me that I should keep this information to myself this time. After all...we are all competing against EACH OTHER out there. :)

[Cratos]

Buffet told everyone how to win (in investing) 30 years ago, and people didn't listen. ( see atricle link at bottom)

Is there someone in horse racing that has told us how to beat the races a few decades ago and yet, we haven't listened?

Is it possible someone has given us the "winning formula" and we've just glossed over it and lumped it with all the other "formulas" that we have heard over the years?

Who's the "buffet of horse racing" that has dispensed such valuable advice on how to successfully invest?
Y
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/30-years-ago-warren-buffett-130500288.html
I don't know who is the "Buffet" in horseracing, but me and my associates followed Buffet's advice somewhat by not buying a " horse", but buying a trainer. For example we "bought" a trainer at Belmont's Summer Meet and received our required 3-1 average winning odds on $160k wagered during the meet.

[thaskalos]

I don't know who is the "Buffet" in horseracing, but me and my associates followed Buffet's advice somewhat by not buying a " horse", but buying a trainer. For example we "bought" a trainer at Belmont's Summer Meet and received our required 3-1 average winning odds on $160k wagered during the meet.

"3-1 average winning odds" becomes significant only in light of the trainer's winning percentage. It's quite possible to lose money...even if your "average winning odds" are 3-1.

[Tom]

I think handicapping with a Margarita could be a good idea. :kiss:

[Overlay]

Is there someone in horse racing that has told us how to beat the races a few decades ago and yet, we haven't listened?

Is it possible someone has given us the "winning formula" and we've just glossed over it and lumped it with all the other "formulas" that we have heard over the years?
Less than 2% of the total PA membership has purchased my handicapping titles. ;)

[Sapio]

It taught me that there were TWO comparisons that needed to be made when handicapping a race: How a horse measured up against the competition...and how it measured up against its better SELF. The book actually offered concrete ways with which to measure a horse's own DEVELOPMENT as it progressed, or regressed, from one race to another.

Hi thaskalos,

You and TM have much in common.

A systematic way to accomplish the above is with the application of Heirarchical Bayesian Models.

Thomas Sapio

[Cratos]

"3-1 average winning odds" becomes significant only in light of the trainer's winning percentage. It's quite possible to lose money...even if your "average winning odds" are 3-1.
You missed the point; the 3-1 odds winning average had nothing to do with the trainer's winnings percentage.
For instance, if we won 2 of 10 of the wagers we placed on a given trainer and each winner paid 20-1 odds we should achieve our 3-1 winning average odds.
But your post implies both cynicism and disbelief which I can not help you with. Also I am good in math.
Also this is why I don't post personal winning/ losing statistics on the Forum.

[thaskalos]

You missed the point; the 3-1 odds winning average had nothing to do with the trainer's winnings percentage.
For instance, if we won 2 of 10 of the wagers we placed on a given trainer and each winner paid 20-1 odds we should achieve our 3-1 winning average odds.
But your post implies both cynicism and disbelief which I can not help you with. Also I am good in math.
Also this is why I don't post personal winning/ losing statistics on the Forum.

You ARE good in math...but you are not as good as you think you are in structuring sentences. When you say "average winning odds", people are likely to think that you mean the average price that each horse has paid.

Any cynicism or disbelief that you see in my reply to you is only imagined...it doesn't really exist. You have me beat in the math department, but, believe me...I could teach you a thing or two about "writing". And maybe even about horse playing...

[Cratos]

You ARE good in math...but you are not as good as you think you are in structuring sentences. When you say "average winning odds", people are likely to think that you mean the average price that each horse has paid.

Any cynicism or disbelief that you see in my reply to you is only imagined...it doesn't really exist. You have me beat in the math department, but, believe me...I could teach you a thing or two about "writing".

Please don't go off on a tangent, I wrote my Masters thesis and it was approved.

You might very well be a better writer than me and there are some others on the Forum who are better writers than .me, but so what?

Einstein was terrible in English and Hemingway couldn't spell, but they both were very successful.

Again, let's not go off on a tangent about English composition

[thaskalos]

Please don't go off on a tangent, I wrote my Masters thesis and it was approved.

You might very well be a better writer than me and there are some others on the Forum who are better writers than .me, but so what?

Einstein was terrible in English and Hemingway couldn't spell, but they both were very successful.

Again, let's not go off on a tangent about English composition

It was YOU who went off on a "tangent about English composition"...when you corrected my prior reply to you. I didn't "miss the point"...YOU missed the point!

You meant "return on investment", and you said "average winning odds". And now you are flaunting your "Masters thesis", and your "success"...as if THAT'S what we are really talking about here.

You said that I was being "cynical" and "disbelieving"...when all I was trying to do was understand you better. It makes no difference at all to me whether you are telling the truth about your betting exploits, or not.

[classhandicapper]

I don't think Warren Buffett's edge has diminished much. What has changed for him is that he's no longer making investments with millions of dollars. He's making investments with many billions of dollars. I read an article a couple of years ago that suggested he still gets outrageously high annual returns on his personal money outside of Berkshire Hathaway because it's a much smaller amount.

Think of him as similar to the $2 horse player that had a significant edge at Fairmount Park. As his bankroll grew he couldn't play at Fairmount anymore. He had to move to the bigger more efficient tracks. Then as his bankroll grew, his own bets started impacting his ROI.

[Nitro]

Buffet told everyone how to win (in investing) 30 years ago, and people didn't listen. ( see atricle link at bottom)

Is there someone in horse racing that has told us how to beat the races a few decades ago and yet, we haven't listened?

Is it possible someone has given us the "winning formula" and we've just glossed over it and lumped it with all the other "formulas" that we have heard over the years?

Who's the "buffet of horse racing" that has dispensed such valuable advice on how to successfully invest?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/30-years-ago-warren-buffett-130500288.html

Buffet wasn't only investor using the same approaches at that time and there were people who listened. You just don't hear about the many other millionaires who would rather stay out of the limelight for obvious reasons. These successful investors all had one thing in common. They didn't rely on the company financial statements (past performance) or any subjective forecasts. They invested when they could confirm that the principals of these companies were investing in their own company. Sounds like common sense to me. "Just Follow the Money", sound familiar? So, I would say that the "winning formula" is right in front of every horse-player's face. Understanding how that information can be translated into becoming an asset is the key.
.

[Cratos]

It was YOU who went off on a "tangent about English composition"...when you corrected my prior reply to you. I didn't "miss the point"...YOU missed the point!

You meant "return on investment", and you said "average winning odds". And now you are flaunting your "Masters thesis", and your "success"...as if THAT'S what we are really talking about here.

You said that I was being "cynical" and "disbelieving"...when all I was trying to do was understand you better. It makes no difference at all to me whether you are telling the truth about your betting exploits, or not.
No, "average winning odds" were good enough and I am not flaunting anything; I am just stating a fact why your statement is nonsense.

However you just want to argue your self-perceived intellect; go to your local college and argue in an open forum debate.

[Cratos]

It was YOU who went off on a "tangent about English composition"...when you corrected my prior reply to you. I didn't "miss the point"...YOU missed the point!

You meant "return on investment", and you said "average winning odds". And now you are flaunting your "Masters thesis", and your "success"...as if THAT'S what we are really talking about here.

You said that I was being "cynical" and "disbelieving"...when all I was trying to do was understand you better. It makes no difference at all to me whether you are telling the truth about your betting exploits, or not.
Also in my 10 years on this forum you will not find a post. by me where I was either bragging or complaining about my "betting exploits" win or lose I try to maintain the same demeanor.

[thaskalos]

No, "average winning odds" were good enough and I am not flaunting anything; I am just stating a fact why your statement is nonsense.

However you just want to argue your self-perceived intellect; go to your local college and argue in an open forum debate.

Yeah...I want to "argue my self-perceived intellect". That's why I bore the members here with my academic credentials...and my indecipherable posts. :rolleyes:

[raybo]

No, "average winning odds" were good enough and I am not flaunting anything; I am just stating a fact why your statement is nonsense.

However you just want to argue your self-perceived intellect; go to your local college and argue in an open forum debate.

"Average winning odds" means average winning odds, period. You can't make it mean anything else. If that was not what you meant to say then you should have amended that. But, instead, you just refuse to admit that you made an error, nothing new here.

[raybo]

Yeah...I want to "argue my self-perceived intellect". That's why I bore the members here with my academic credentials...and my indecipherable posts. :rolleyes:

Good one!! :lol:

[thaskalos]

Also in my 10 years on this forum you will not find a post. by me where I was either bragging or complaining about my "betting exploits" win or lose I try to maintain the same demeanor.

You just told us that you and your associates made a $480,000 profit betting on the horses of a single trainer during the summer meet at Belmont. And this declaration was totally UNPROVOKED! If that isn't bragging...then what is it?

Sorry if I misunderstood your post again. With you...one never knows what point is being made.

[davew]

You just told us that you and your associates made a $480,000 profit betting on the horses of a single trainer during the summer meet at Belmont. And this declaration was totally UNPROVOKED! If that isn't bragging...then what is it?

Sorry if I misunderstood your post again. With you...one never knows what point is being made.


I interpret his statement differently. I think he says his group bet $160K throughout the meet on horses from 1 trainer. When the horses won, they averaged more than 3/1. No mention of how often they won (percentage)was given or actual win average. I can not determine if they made or lost money betting on this trainer. It probably would be comparable to if the group actually owned a few horses being trained by this trainer.

[thaskalos]

I interpret his statement differently. I think he says his group bet $160K throughout the meet on horses from 1 trainer. When the horses won, they averaged more than 3/1. No mention of how often they won (percentage)was given or actual win average. I can not determine if they made or lost money betting on this trainer. It probably would be comparable to if the group actually owned a few horses being trained by this trainer.
That's how I interpreted it initially too, and I told him so in post #9 of this thread. But he jumped all over me and told me that "I missed the point".

So, what else could he possibly mean?

[davew]

That's how I interpreted it initially too, and I told him so in post #9 of this thread. But he jumped all over me and told me that "I missed the point".

So, what else could he possibly mean?


He could have been comparing 'horse ownership' and relying on a trainer

to betting comparable and relying on a trainer.

[thaskalos]

He could have been comparing 'horse ownership' and relying on a trainer

to betting comparable and relying on a trainer.

I don't know what he meant...and I refuse to bother with this nonsense any longer. My apologies to SRU for my role in the derailment of what might have been an interesting thread.

[Cratos]

Yeah...I want to "argue my self-perceived intellect". That's why I bore the members here with my academic credentials...and my indecipherable posts. :rolleyes:
Indecipherable to whom? I kbow, you are the sage on this forum.

[Cratos]

He could have been comparing 'horse ownership' and relying on a trainer

to betting comparable and relying on a trainer.
Thanks for bringing perspective

[whodoyoulike]

... I think it comes down to "intimate knowledge" . Also, another key would be you can't bet on horses who cant run a lick. This is why i'm very leery of first time starters because i know that a certain percentage of them aren't ready or have no talent, that would weigh down my ROI. I need to be on runners, horses who i'm pretty sure have talent and aren't 'over the top' in some fashion.

The key to great horsebetting isn't sniffing out horses with talent because i think great horse bettors can sniff out plenty of strong performers, rather, its the ability to not be on these talented horses when their "bad race" is about to happen.

Losing money on talented horses when its "not their day" is probably what separates very good from great in the handicapping arena.

I've mentioned before, I like your insight(s) on handicapping but, this is really good stuff!!

I wish we could discuss on this forum "... rather, its the ability to not be on these talented horses when their "bad race" is about to happen.

Losing money on talented horses when its "not their day" is probably what separates very good from great in the handicapping arena."

Did you come up with this on your own?

[HUSKER55]

amen to that! :ThmbUp:

[Robert Goren]

If you can figure out a way to get the "sweet" deals he get, the answer is maybe. If you can get large enough rebates, you might make it work. For the average bettor, there are just too many things that can go wrong to make small "value bet" on horses with thin value. You need both large rebates and access to information the public does not have. Buffet gets both when buys. He goes over the books with a fine tooth comb and gets a deal that the average Joe can't get. Plus he is really smart and has really smart people around him. His investments are what I call "the fox in the henhouse" types. He preys on the desperate and he then he rapes them to boot. Don't let his "folksy" manner fool you. He is as cut throat and dirty dealing as anybody who works at Goldman Sachs.

[JohnGalt1]

Buffet told everyone how to win (in investing) 30 years ago, and people didn't listen. ( see atricle link at bottom)

Is there someone in horse racing that has told us how to beat the races a few decades ago and yet, we haven't listened?

Is it possible someone has given us the "winning formula" and we've just glossed over it and lumped it with all the other "formulas" that we have heard over the years?

Who's the "buffet of horse racing" that has dispensed such valuable advice on how to successfully invest?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/30-years-ago-warren-buffett-130500288.html

One thing winning stock investors, like Buffet, don't do, is buy every stock,(bet every race,) and expect to make a profit.

[Exotic1]

Yeah...I want to "argue my self-perceived intellect". That's why I bore the members here with my academic credentials...and my indecipherable posts. :rolleyes:

I own the rights to that claim.

[raybo]

If you can figure out a way to get the "sweet" deals he get, the answer is maybe. If you can get large enough rebates, you might make it work. For the average bettor, there are just too many things that can go wrong to make small "value bet" on horses with thin value. You need both large rebates and access to information the public does not have. Buffet gets both when buys. He goes over the books with a fine tooth comb and gets a deal that the average Joe can't get. Plus he is really smart and has really smart people around him. His investments are what I call "the fox in the henhouse" types. He preys on the desperate and he then he rapes them to boot. Don't let his "folksy" manner fool you. He is as cut throat and dirty dealing as anybody who works at Goldman Sachs.

And just where are you getting your information on Buffet? You paint him as the scourge of Wallstreet. Nobody is forcing anyone to sell to him. He got to where he is by knowing market segments, companies and their personnel, the market as a whole and its outside influences, and buys when those outside influences are negatively impacting prices that he is interested in. He buys when others are selling because he knows the market will eventually rebound and he can afford to hold issues until it does.

I have never seen written anywhere that he is some evil predator, preying on the weak and defenseless.

[Clocker]

I have never seen written anywhere that he is some evil predator, preying on the weak and defenseless.

You must not spend any time in the Off Topic forum. That is the definition of a capitalist for many liberals there. :rolleyes:

[raybo]

You must not spend any time in the Off Topic forum. That is the definition of a capitalist for many liberals there. :rolleyes:

You are correct, I spend NO time in "off topic", which I jokingly (well maybe not so much jokingly) call "off rocker".

You think people speak without quantifiable data in the handicapping arenas, "off topic" makes those arenas look a million percent more viable and knowledgeable. :bang:

By the way, I have a liberal leaning, for sure, and I refuse to have half the forum dumping (because of their own ignorance) on me for my opinions on matters non-racing. Some of those people should get a life, really!

[thaskalos]

You are correct, I spend NO time in "off topic", which I jokingly (well maybe not so much jokingly) call "off rocker".

You think people speak without quantifiable data in the handicapping arenas, "off topic" makes those arenas look a million percent more viable and knowledgeable. :bang:

By the way, I have a liberal leaning, for sure, and I refuse to have half the forum dumping (because of their own ignorance) on me for my opinions on matters non-racing. Some of those people should get a life, really!

You have a liberal leaning? That's a shame...because Clocker was starting to like you... :)

[Clocker]

You have a liberal leaning? That's a shame...because Clocker was starting to like you... :)

I am non-partisan. I don't like anybody. :p

[Stillriledup]

I've mentioned before, I like your insight(s) on handicapping but, this is really good stuff!!

I wish we could discuss on this forum "... rather, its the ability to not be on these talented horses when their "bad race" is about to happen.

Losing money on talented horses when its "not their day" is probably what separates very good from great in the handicapping arena."

Did you come up with this on your own?

Thanks for the compliments.

As far as me coming up with that on my own, i certainly hope so!

Here's another way to look at this "bad race" theory.

Here's what i believe.

Every horse has an optimum target for his or her next race, there's an exact day, race, distance, post, jock, surface. etc that would be PERFECT for that horse. Most of the time though, not all the perfect storm works out as entering and racing isn't as easy as just deciding the exact day the connections want to race next. I think trainers are pretty good at getting close to the exact day that their horse would optimally race again, whether its 8 days or 80, but sometimes the connections will "Whiff" and enter too soon, or too late or at the wrong distance/wrong surface just because that's the "next race in the book". Or, maybe the owner is making the call and doesn't know any better...or the race secretary asks nicely if they have a horse who can fill this one race, etc.

This is really pretty important to know, to "follow along" with the connections, if you "know your horse" and his strengths and weaknesses, you can sort of make a call on your own if you think the connections are making a "bad entry". A lot of talented horses get beat because they're in the wrong race on the wrong day (with possibly the wrong jock in the wrong post with maybe the wrong equipment).

So, this stuff kind of goes hand in hand with trying to avoid betting on talented horses who are in the wrong spot, a lot of times that's a major contributor to a good horse who's ready to just throw in a bad race.

[raybo]

You have a liberal leaning? That's a shame...because Clocker was starting to like you... :)

Yeah, I probably should have left that out. But then, everybody needs somebody to hate I suppose. :lol:

[whodoyoulike]

Thanks for the compliments.

As far as me coming up with that on my own, i certainly hope so!

Here's another way to look at this "bad race" theory.

Here's what i believe.

Every horse has an optimum target for his or her next race, there's an exact day, race, distance, post, jock, surface. etc that would be PERFECT for that horse. Most of the time though, not all the perfect storm works out as entering and racing isn't as easy as just deciding the exact day the connections want to race next. I think trainers are pretty good at getting close to the exact day that their horse would optimally race again, whether its 8 days or 80, but sometimes the connections will "Whiff" and enter too soon, or too late or at the wrong distance/wrong surface just because that's the "next race in the book". Or, maybe the owner is making the call and doesn't know any better...or the race secretary asks nicely if they have a horse who can fill this one race, etc.

This is really pretty important to know, to "follow along" with the connections, if you "know your horse" and his strengths and weaknesses, you can sort of make a call on your own if you think the connections are making a "bad entry". A lot of talented horses get beat because they're in the wrong race on the wrong day (with possibly the wrong jock in the wrong post with maybe the wrong equipment).

So, this stuff kind of goes hand in hand with trying to avoid betting on talented horses who are in the wrong spot, a lot of times that's a major contributor to a good horse who's ready to just throw in a bad race.

Well, I like to acknowledge good ideas. The reason I asked if the idea was yours, is because if it was from a book, I'd like to know. Besides, I've seen a number of your other posts and was just wondering out loud. The above is also good. I think you're on a roll right now!!

But, you've hit on the crux of my handicapping problem. I don't mind as much when my selection gets beat but runs his race as I expected. It's when I see no reason for a poor performance before and/or after the race. I'm currently focusing on the horse's demeanor during paddock and pre-race and avoiding obvious bad behavior. It's helped a little bit but not enough.

Also, I think every race has some element of "bad luck" involved (somewhere around 10 - 80%). I just have to try and figure out when anything over 20% is going to occur.

[Stillriledup]

Well, I like to acknowledge good ideas. The reason I asked if the idea was yours, is because if it was from a book, I'd like to know. Besides, I've seen a number of your other posts and was just wondering out loud. The above is also good. I think you're on a roll right now!!

But, you've hit on the crux of my handicapping problem. I don't mind as much when my selection gets beat but runs his race as I expected. It's when I see no reason for a poor performance before and/or after the race. I'm currently focusing on the horse's demeanor during paddock and pre-race and avoiding obvious bad behavior. It's helped a little bit but not enough.

Also, I think every race has some element of "bad luck" involved (somewhere around 10 - 80%). I just have to try and figure out when anything over 20% is going to occur.

If i got something from a book, i would credit the book, but its good to ask, i appreciate the compliment that some of my theories can be "book worthy".

To me, that's the toughest part of the game, staying away from horses who look nice, or good or interesting on tape and then they don't run to that same effort. Its a real catch 22 that you want the horse to look good, but maybe not look TOO good because a very strong performance may knock the horse back a bit because he extended himself too much? I don't know the answer on that one, i do try and factor the "bounce" into what i'm watching on tape, but not all the time are you going to be able to avoid the horse who looks great on video, but is destined to not pick up his feet and duplicate the same effort.

One of the ways i like to "guess" at a good horse running a bad race is going 2 back and 3 back in his PPs to see if there's any "regression" visually. Sometimes a horse can seem to be losing his form a bit and then run a good race, but that good performance came on the heels of a horse who might have been going the wrong way, and he just ran a big race for whatever reason, maybe he got some vet work or what have you and ran big that day, but if the horse isn't "forging forward" in his last few starts, that's important to me.

[Robert Goren]

And just where are you getting your information on Buffet? You paint him as the scourge of Wallstreet. Nobody is forcing anyone to sell to him. He got to where he is by knowing market segments, companies and their personnel, the market as a whole and its outside influences, and buys when those outside influences are negatively impacting prices that he is interested in. He buys when others are selling because he knows the market will eventually rebound and he can afford to hold issues until it does.

I have never seen written anywhere that he is some evil predator, preying on the weak and defenseless.I live Nebraska! The Oracle of Omaha can not go to the restroom without it being in the World Herald. They actually have a nearly daily feature called the "Warren Watch". Check it out at Omaha.com

[reckless]

I live Nebraska! The Oracle of Omaha can not go to the restroom without it being in the World Herald. They actually have a nearly daily feature called the "Warren Watch". Check it out at Omaha.com

Robert, doesn't Buffett own World Herald?

[Robert Goren]

Robert, doesn't Buffett own World Herald?Yes, he does. They claim he does not have any input as to what they print. I think that is probably true since they are a very republican paper. They have certainly taken editorial positions opposed to what he stated.

[banacek]

Anyway...THIS was the psychological state that I was in when I absentmindedly reached and picked up that long-forgotten handicapping book from 15 years prior. And, having nothing else to do at that time...I read and I read. And I became mesmerized. "Velocity Fitness Ratings"..."Velocity Form Ratings"..."Velocity Class Ratings"..."Physical Form Angles"...the book was packed with things that I'd never HEARD before. And I had been reading everything handicapping-related since the time of AINSLE! This was a book unlike any that I had ever seen...and it reshaped my thinking in ways that I can't begin to describe. It taught me that there were TWO comparisons that needed to be made when handicapping a race: How a horse measured up against the competition...and how it measured up against its better SELF. The book actually offered concrete ways with which to measure a horse's own DEVELOPMENT as it progressed, or regressed, from one race to another.

Alas...the book also had a couple of negatives, dealing entirely with the author's manner of delivering the information. The constant flash-back scenes from the author's life, and the many colorful stories that he shares with the reader, take one's attention away from the message offered in the book...and that's probably at least partially responsible for the completely forgotten status that this book currently enjoys. In fact, I consulted Google before typing this post...and nary a mention of this work was there to be found. But I can guarantee you that there is at least one guy in the Chicago suburbs who will be forever grateful to this long-forgotten author. He really made a big difference in my life...at a time when I really needed a boost.

Now...I want you to know that I sit here slightly embarrassed as I am about to submit this posting -- because it makes me sound a little like Dave Powers. As I said before, I have no affiliation whatsoever with this author...nor do I know anything about him. The name of the book, and the author, have been mentioned here before...and something tells me that I should keep this information to myself this time. After all...we are all competing against EACH OTHER out there. :)


And I thought I had read almost every handicapping book..no hint on which one this is? :) And speaking of books, how is the editing on yours coming along. I would love something to read during my off-season :)

[AndyC]

Buffett likes to portray himself as this folksy, no-frills, buy-and-hold/type investor...who never seems to sell a stock. "Don't sell your stocks"...the Oracle of Omaha likes to tell the frenzied reporters who hang on his every word.

The truth is that Buffett isn't your typical "buy-and-hold" investor. Yes, he will hold a stock for many years...but that's only when he buys entire companies. When he buys common shares like everyone else...then Buffett knows better than to buy-and-hold. Do you suppose he is still holding on to his shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Buffett isn't sharing any secrets of investing...he is just providing a few timely soundbites, just so he doesn't appear to be as closed-mouthed about investing as he really is. Proper "Value Investing" isn't as simple as he makes it sound...nor is Benjamin Graham as ignored an author as Buffett portrays him to be. There have been MANY "Value Investment" disciples...and MILLIONS of investors have read the books of Benjamin Graham.

And yet...there is only one Warren Buffett.

Most of Buffet's holdings where he doesn't own the entire company he has held for years. American Express, Coca Cola, Wells Fargo, IBM, etc.,etc. Buy and hold doesn't mean until death do you part. His sales have occurred due to major changes either politically or industry related.

[thaskalos]

Most of Buffet's holdings where he doesn't own the entire company he has held for years. American Express, Coca Cola, Wells Fargo, IBM, etc.,etc. Buy and hold doesn't mean until death do you part. His sales have occurred due to major changes either politically or industry related.

Don't leave it like that...tell me what buy-and-hold really means then. For how long does the typical "buy-and-hold" investor hold on to his stocks? Ten years...twenty years...FORTY years...HOW LONG? Yes...Buffet is holding on to the stocks that you mention, for years...but here are some of the stocks that he has been dumping, in the last year or so alone:

GCI, GSK, KRFT, MDLZ, MCO, JNJ, ADM, GD, DG...etc, etc. Not bad for a guy who goes around telling people not to sell their stock.

Buffet's version of "buy-and-hold" differs greatly from that of the typical buy-and-hold investor. He buys when there is blood in the streets...and that separates him from all the "pretenders" out there.

[whodoyoulike]

Don't leave it like that...tell me what buy-and-hold really means then. For how long does the typical "buy-and-hold" investor hold on to his stocks? Ten years...twenty years...FORTY years...HOW LONG?...

Just from my own observations, he holds his stocks until as AndyC stated when he notes a major change. His advantage is, he moves quickly. And, he negotiates very favorable conditions i.e., preferred and loans when he has the opportunity. It's true he buys entire companies (more control and influence) because he can.

Most of Buffet's holdings where he doesn't own the entire company he has held for years. American Express, Coca Cola, Wells Fargo, IBM, etc.,etc. Buy and hold doesn't mean until death do you part. His sales have occurred due to major changes either politically or industry related.

And, I also don't think he's folksy etc., he's sharp with a very analytical mind (his staff's recommendations also probably helps). I would love to see him in negotiations.

[thaskalos]

Just from my own observations, he holds his stocks until as AndyC stated when he notes a major change. His advantage is, he moves quickly. And, he negotiates very favorable conditions i.e., preferred and loans when he has the opportunity. It's true he buys entire companies (more control and influence) because he can.

I made my initial post here because the original poster suggested that Warren Buffett had "told people how to win in investing 30 years ago, but people didn't listen". The assumption being, of course, that this great - and widely ignored -- secret that Buffett divulged 30 years ago was the "buy-and-hold" strategy.

Buffett doesn't dish out investment advice...he speaks in measured soundbites. And Benjamin Graham wasn't ignored; he was a best-selling author. The "buy-and-hold" strategy is the oldest stock playing strategy out there...but you have to be a master to implement it correctly. There are millions of "buy and hold" investors...and only one Warren Buffett.

[AndyC]

I made my initial post here because the original poster suggested that Warren Buffett had "told people how to win in investing 30 years ago, but people didn't listen". The assumption being, of course, that this great - and widely ignored -- secret that Buffett divulged 30 years ago was the "buy-and-hold" strategy.

Buffett doesn't dish out investment advice...he speaks in measured soundbites. And Benjamin Graham wasn't ignored; he was a best-selling author. The "buy-and-hold" strategy is the oldest stock playing strategy out there...but you have to be a master to implement it correctly. There are millions of "buy and hold" investors...and only one Warren Buffett.

Suffice it to say that Buffett doesn't buy stocks to make his money on short-term stock price movements. He tries to buy good companies with good management and profits from the growth of the company. He isn't always right and sometimes he has to cut bait.

[whodoyoulike]

I made my initial post here because the original poster suggested that Warren Buffett had "told people how to win in investing 30 years ago, but people didn't listen". The assumption being, of course, that this great - and widely ignored -- secret that Buffett divulged 30 years ago was the "buy-and-hold" strategy.

Buffett doesn't dish out investment advice...he speaks in measured soundbites. And Benjamin Graham wasn't ignored; he was a best-selling author. The "buy-and-hold" strategy is the oldest stock playing strategy out there...but you have to be a master to implement it correctly. There are millions of "buy and hold" investors...and only one Warren Buffett.

I'm agreeing with you. The buy and hold strategy or Graham's advice wasn't ignored, the strategy doesn't make money for the traders (Wall Street) and most people can't or don't understand Graham's advice (how to recognize intrinsic value). I like Buffet's recent endorsement of S&P 500 index fund investing but, only if you perceive a growing and healthy U.S. economy. I don't believe one should set it and forget it as Ron Propeil advocates in his info commercials. I kind of agree with Cramer "something something and pigs get slaughtered".

[reckless]

I'm agreeing with you. The buy and hold strategy or Graham's advice wasn't ignored, the strategy doesn't make money for the traders (Wall Street) and most people can't or don't understand Graham's advice (how to recognize intrinsic value). I like Buffet's recent endorsement of S&P 500 index fund investing but, only if you perceive a growing and healthy U.S. economy. I don't believe one should set it and forget it as Ron Propeil advocates in his info commercials. I kind of agree with Cramer "something something and pigs get slaughtered".

On Wall Street, bulls make money, bears make money, but pigs get slaughtered.

[Stillriledup]

On Wall Street, bulls make money, bears make money, but pigs get slaughtered.

PzHOahqn2BA

[whodoyoulike]

On Wall Street, bulls make money, bears make money, but pigs get slaughtered.

Thanks, I couldn't remember his exact saying at the time of my post. I just have to keep reminding myself not to become too greedy.

[Robert Fischer]

If I had to guess Buffett's advice for horse betting I would have to say it would be "Don't." :D

[thaskalos]

If I had to guess Buffett's advice for horse betting I would have to say it would be "Don't." :D

I wouldn't be so sure about that:

http://maidenking.com/tag/buffett-horseplayer/

[Robert Fischer]

I wouldn't be so sure about that:

http://maidenking.com/tag/buffett-horseplayer/
pretty cool.

No doubt that Buffett and Munger in their prime could have been profitable whales.

[HUSKER55]

good article! thanks!

[EMD4ME]

I might've been 4 years old when he was in the grandstand with me! How crazy! I had no idea he was at Charles Town. Wish I had his smarts and success. A little short in that area :lol: :lol:

[Robert Fischer]

I might've been 4 years old when he was in the grandstand with me! How crazy! I had no idea he was at Charles Town. Wish I had his smarts and success. A little short in that area :lol: :lol:

He's not the only one on this board who has chased a few losses @ Charles Town blew his day's bankroll. :D

These guys recognize when they've been in a situation that causes human misjudgment (like 'chasing losses'). They go so far as to create and use those situations to their favor. They see and understand how things and people work.

[Shemp Howard]

"The Secrets of Professional Turf Betting by Robert L Bacon".

Victor Neiderhoffer, hedge fund speculator extraordinaire, makes it required reading for all of his employess.

[Robert Goren]

]"The Secrets of Professional Turf Betting by Robert L Bacon".[/b]

Victor Neiderhoffer, hedge fund speculator extraordinaire, makes it required reading for all of his employess. A good value investment was to buy up a bunch of copies of that book. The going rate today is a 139 bucks. My copy unfortunately disappeared in about 1979 after several moves. I did miss it until I just looked up the price. The book did not make an impression on me. I must have missed something.

[davew]

Don't leave it like that...tell me what buy-and-hold really means then. For how long does the typical "buy-and-hold" investor hold on to his stocks? Ten years...twenty years...FORTY years...HOW LONG? Yes...Buffet is holding on to the stocks that you mention, for years...but here are some of the stocks that he has been dumping, in the last year or so alone:

GCI, GSK, KRFT, MDLZ, MCO, JNJ, ADM, GD, DG...etc, etc. Not bad for a guy who goes around telling people not to sell their stock.

Buffet's version of "buy-and-hold" differs greatly from that of the typical buy-and-hold investor. He buys when there is blood in the streets...and that separates him from all the "pretenders" out there.

I think if he really likes the company, he buys enough stock to have controlling interest, watches and help direct future growth, and keeps as long as there is a future in the company's industry. No scalping, day trading, swing trading for him.

I am really interested to see what happens when he dies and his farmer (corn/soybeans) kid takes over.

[PaceAdvantage]

"The Secrets of Professional Turf Betting by Robert L Bacon".

Victor Neiderhoffer, hedge fund speculator extraordinaire, makes it required reading for all of his employess.How many times has ol' Vic busted out? More than once I think if I remember right...

[Robert Goren]

I think if he really likes the company, he buys enough stock to have controlling interest, watches and help direct future growth, and keeps as long as there is a future in the company's industry. No scalping, day trading, swing trading for him.

I am really interested to see what happens when he dies and his farmer (corn/soybeans) kid takes over.His kid is not going to be taking over. Most of his personal fortune goes to charity (probably the Gates Foundation) and Berkshire will get a new boss who has ready been picked, but is unknown to the world. There is a fair amount of speculation on who it will be, Warren is keeping his cards close to vest. He let it slip once that the new leader has changed several times over the years.

[Saratoga_Mike]

"The Secrets of Professional Turf Betting by Robert L Bacon".

Victor Neiderhoffer, hedge fund speculator extraordinaire, makes it required reading for all of his employess.

His fund had a down 75% year during the financial crisis - yeah, great guy to emulate.

[whodoyoulike]

His kid is not going to be taking over. Most of his personal fortune goes to charity (probably the Gates Foundation) and Berkshire will get a new boss who has ready been picked, but is unknown to the world. There is a fair amount of speculation on who it will be, Warren is keeping his cards close to vest. He let it slip once that the new leader has changed several times over the years.

I also recall reading as Davew indicated that Buffett's oldest son (currently he is a farmer) was going to have some executive position in Berkshire after his passing. I think I also saw a 60 minutes show on this. He probably wouldn't change the company's direction but, he could.

[whodoyoulike]

And I thought I had read almost every handicapping book..no hint on which one this is? :) And speaking of books, how is the editing on yours coming along. I would love something to read during my off-season :)


I've found that there are 1001 ways to lose a race but only one way to win.

I didn't originate this phrase but if someone wants to include it in their book, I wouldn't complain.

[raybo]

I've found that there are 1001 ways to lose a race but only one way to win.

I didn't originate this phrase but if someone wants to include it in their book, I wouldn't complain.

The only way to "win" is to hit enough tickets, at high enough profits, over time, to remain on top of the profit/loss column. But, there are many ways to hit enough tickets at high enough profits, it's the "over time" part that slams people.