HPLAY is Back - New Schedule - SAT - 18APR15 - Members Only....

[HWIG]

==========
See Attached...
==========

[mrroyboy]

Good Love those HP plays.

[traynor]

Great selections. Solid wagers. However, I am still (very) skeptical of the percentage of bankroll strategy if one's intent is profit. As I mentioned previously (and in my own experience, as well as the experience of numerous other bettors) the percentage of bankroll approach is easily simulated on a computer, and creates the impression of a strategy that will "achieve longevity" in wagering--lots of betting, with reduced risk of going broke. Nice if the "action" is all one is seeking.

The flaw is that at the high end, losses are much more than the wins at the low end recoup. That flaw is leveraged by every casino in the world when their dealers "chip up" after wins--low-value chips are swapped for chips of higher value to encourage increases in the size of the wager.

In simulations, percentage of bankroll seems to be advantageous when there is a flat bet profit. In that event, profits go up with pleasant rapidity. No flat bet profit, and percentage of bankroll results in a lot of upping and downing, with an alarming attrition rate eating away at the profits accumulated with a relatively small number of wins on the high end.

None of which should be construed as criticism of HWIG or his selections. Only that there may be more advantageous ways to leverage those selections than percentage of bankroll. If those selections represent an overall positive ROI, flat bets will generate a positive return. Perhaps not as spectacular (in some cases) as percentage of bankroll, but positive nonetheless.

These are really good selections, and should be evaluated thoughtfully. Part of that thought might usefully be applied to (possible) alternative wagering strategies.

[mrroyboy]

I agree somewhat with Tray. I think you have to use your head with ANY betting method. Sometimes use it and sometimes don't.

[HWIG]

Great selections. Solid wagers. However, I am still (very) skeptical of the percentage of bankroll strategy if one's intent is profit. As I mentioned previously (and in my own experience, as well as the experience of numerous other bettors) the percentage of bankroll approach is easily simulated on a computer, and creates the impression of a strategy that will "achieve longevity" in wagering--lots of betting, with reduced risk of going broke. Nice if the "action" is all one is seeking.

The flaw is that at the high end, losses are much more than the wins at the low end recoup. That flaw is leveraged by every casino in the world when their dealers "chip up" after wins--low-value chips are swapped for chips of higher value to encourage increases in the size of the wager.

In simulations, percentage of bankroll seems to be advantageous when there is a flat bet profit. In that event, profits go up with pleasant rapidity. No flat bet profit, and percentage of bankroll results in a lot of upping and downing, with an alarming attrition rate eating away at the profits accumulated with a relatively small number of wins on the high end.

None of which should be construed as criticism of HWIG or his selections. Only that there may be more advantageous ways to leverage those selections than percentage of bankroll. If those selections represent an overall positive ROI, flat bets will generate a positive return. Perhaps not as spectacular (in some cases) as percentage of bankroll, but positive nonetheless.

These are really good selections, and should be evaluated thoughtfully. Part of that thought might usefully be applied to (possible) alternative wagering strategies.

I am a handicapper, never been a statistician, in all the years I was a professional handicapper my goal was to pick the winner. I let my customers bet the way they feel comfortable.

I offer my selections here and if anyone thinks they can generate a better profit, you are free to do so.

One of my first responses on the forum was to a question from Mrroy.
The question was “What should I do with the printout?”
The answer was “Your can do what you want with it, I am posting this information for my own amusement and for anyone who want to take advantage of my fifty years of handicapping experience.”

Thanks for the responses. I do appreciate it.

[HWIG]

==============================

Two Winners in Three Wagers + $49.40 Exacta

Net Win: $153.50

==============================

[traynor]

Nice hits. Seems it would have been a good time to wager a bit more, rather than cutting back.

[HWIG]

Nice hits. Seems it would have been a good time to wager a bit more, rather than cutting back.
With this schedule there will be more plays. Yesterday total wagers = $81.
That is more than would have been wagered on one play on the old schedule.

Again I am more interested in picking winners than showing large profits.

There is a big difference between handicapping and gambling. I am more interested in handicapping. I am probably very alone from my counterparts, in that aspect.

[traynor]

With this schedule there will be more plays. Yesterday total wagers = $81.
That is more than would have been wagered on one play on the old schedule.

Again I am more interested in picking winners than showing large profits.

There is a big difference between handicapping and gambling. I am more interested in handicapping. I am probably very alone from my counterparts, in that aspect.

Picking winners is always nice. Picking winners and making a profit is even nicer. I think it is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of bettors have reached a point at which they realize that picking winners without profit is not especially useful.

It doesn't take a great deal of study to uncover strategies that will routinely produce a high percentage of winners over time. Unfortunately, most of those strategies are so well known, so obvious, and used by so many, that wagering on those selections is flatly foolish--exponential decay on steroids. The profit (in those situations) is almost always in the exceptions--the races in which the "can't lose" favorite gets a ton of money dumped on it and fails to perform as expected.

You make some good, solid selections. I have no "suggestions for improvement" in that area. My suggestions are based solely on your apparent preference for (and implicit recommendation of) percentage of bankroll as a wagering strategy. You stated previously something to the effect that you had discovered a way to beat the races. That may be true, but it would be more apparent if you used a wagering strategy less dependent on luck (perhaps flat betting?) than percentage of bankroll.

As you are undoubtedly aware, the advantage of percentage of bankroll over time is dependent on a symmetrical distribution of mutuel prices. That almost never happens in the real world. A couple of decent mutuels on the high end make it look great. A couple of decent mutuels on the low end fail to recoup for losses on the high end. In any finite grouping of results, the (apparent) success or failure of percentage of bankroll is determined by luck--whether the decent mutuels are skewed toward the high end or skewed toward the low end in a random distribution--than anything else.

It would be nice to see an ROI calculated on the basis of flat bets that eliminate the luck factor inherent in short runs of percentage of bankroll.