The gift of greatness as a horse player.

[Stillriledup]

Do you feel you have a special gift to handicap horses or do you think that any expertise that you learned is something that anyone could have learned if they put in the man power hours ?

Ive had people tell me in my life that i have a "gift" as a handicapper (usually after i released a winner to them and they made money!) and i didnt want to tell them that they're not correct, so i just said thank you and moved on. But i've always wondered if any of us who have spent decades grinding on these races have any "gifts" that not just anyone who spends this much time following the races carefully can get.

I've always just thought that the very best players didn't really have any kinds of gifts, but they were the ones who have a good clue and just outwork most people.

Do you feel you have a gift, or, do you feel that whatever crumbs fall your way is strictly because of decades of hard core experience combined with general intelligence and some hard work sprinkled in for good measure?

[acorn54]

probably not black and white in my life
i developed my brain to do well in the logical sphere, earned a b.s. in accounting, and that aptitude i use in my approach to evaluating the horses in a horse race.
i use my strengths in data analysis, and statistics for wagering on horseraces.
of course others may use the visual or more creative approach. i don't know if that works, but apparantly from some of the posters on this website, they say that they have success.
so it seems one can succeed at this occupation whether they are left or right brain oriented.

[Overlay]

I've known (and envied) skilled handicappers who operated in an intuitive fashion, being able to reliably judge just from a glance at the past performances or by inspection of horses in the walking ring or the post parade, not only which horses were likely to perform well, but also what the acceptable odds on them would be. I suppose that comes to a certain degree from experience, but I always thought that there was also a personality component that could not be taught or completely passed on from one person to another.

Thankfully (for me, at least!), handicapping is a big tent, accommodating and offering the possibility of consistent success to players who come at the game from many different perspectives, including skills that can be replicated and mastered through instruction.

[lamboguy]

i lose on a consistent basis. i am so good at not picking winner's that i am thinking about opening up a service that charges , for giving out losers.

there are people on this board that claim to have a 10-15% positive roi. the problem with those guys are they never post in advance.

i will guarantee 90% losers and post them ahead of time. if for some reason i fail to accomplish this i will give back double the amount of money you pay to get losers.

[Ocala Mike]

What lamboguy said.

Whatever special talents I may have for logical analysis of a given race are dwarfed by my irrational propensity to bet into races where I have no clue and to bet all kinds of "savers" in races where I do have it right.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves" - The Bard of Avon

[acorn54]

i lose on a consistent basis. i am so good at not picking winner's that i am thinking about opening up a service that charges , for giving out losers.

there are people on this board that claim to have a 10-15% positive roi. the problem with those guys are they never post in advance.

i will guarantee 90% losers and post them ahead of time. if for some reason i fail to accomplish this i will give back double the amount of money you pay to get losers.


i for one don't claim to have a consistent positive roi from year to year (i don't)
after 35 years of wagering on the ponies i still only wager with my "thrill money", so that speak volumes on my performance.
lambo, i thought you were highly successful wagering on the ponies.
anyway as far as anyone who is successful with their wagering, considering the fact, that in horseracing we are wagering into a zero-sum parimutuel system, it would be counter-productive to publicize one's selections for wagering, other that for self-aggrandizement, which i doubt would be the greater preference over making money.

[PaceAdvantage]

Instead of a gift, this game often times leaves me feeling the exact opposite...cursed... :lol:

[olddaddy]

.

i will guarantee 90% losers and post them ahead of time. if for some reason i fail to accomplish this i will give back double the amount of money you pay to get losers.


I only dream of a 10% strike rate.

The only time I feel gifted are the days when I control myself not to play.

[lamboguy]

i for one don't claim to have a consistent positive roi from year to year (i don't)
after 35 years of wagering on the ponies i still only wager with my "thrill money", so that speak volumes on my performance.
lambo, i thought you were highly successful wagering on the ponies.
anyway as far as anyone who is successful with their wagering, considering the fact, that in horseracing we are wagering into a zero-sum parimutuel system, it would be counter-productive to publicize one's selections for wagering, other that for self-aggrandizement, which i doubt would be the greater preference over making money.
i have lost money each of the last 3 years after the rebate. the smaller pools have killed me, i am betting way to many races to keep my volume up to get a big rebate. i am betting on lesser chances and worse prices.

[acorn54]

I only dream of a 10% strike rate.

The only time I feel gifted are the days when I control myself not to play.


well the present state of the racing industry on the gambling side anyway, dissuades me from forking over my money to the races.
with such small fields and very few large fields to bet into my wagering has been dramatically reduced.
i know that they now try to entice with the pik 3-4-5-6 and other tremendously low percentage bets, but i don't like the "long time between drinks", on collecting with such tickets and the outflow of cash before i hit.

[DeltaLover]

Do you feel you have a special gift to handicap horses or do you think that any expertise that you learned is something that anyone could have learned if they put in the man power hours ?


Only in the distant past and not any more.

The more you are involved with this HUMBLING GAME, the more you realize that there is only so much amount of skill you can develop and you should (at least try) to never brag about your abilities when you hit a big score.

In cases where you seem like a “great player” you should keep a low profile, remembering of how many loses it took you to get there and thank God that you eventually got lucky and the photo finish was on your side...

To generalize, the older I grow the more convinced I become, that I am not great in any of the activities I am involved with.

[Robert Fischer]

I'm a bit of a different animal. I find things such as handicapping and the markets, come naturally. I do struggle just as much as the next man with irrational 'gambling' behaviors such as compulsion or chasing losses. However, when it comes to the 'real world' I am a misfit in a lot of everyday stuff.

While I am pretty good at handicapping and reading the markets and wagering in a vacuum, I certainly wouldn't honestly call my 'horseplaying' record 'greatness'. I'm a lifetime loser, and i've had periods of profitable play ruined by fits of frustration. This game has sparked another interest in me which is the study of 'behavioral finance'.

[DeltaLover]

I'm a bit of a different animal. I find things such as handicapping and the markets, come naturally. I do struggle just as much as the next man with irrational 'gambling' behaviors such as compulsion or chasing losses. However, when it comes to the 'real world' I am a misfit in a lot of everyday stuff.

While I am pretty good at handicapping and reading the markets and wagering in a vacuum, I certainly wouldn't honestly call my 'horseplaying' record 'greatness'. I'm a lifetime loser, and i've had periods of profitable play ruined by fits of frustration. This game has sparked another interest in me which is the study of 'behavioral finance'.

Robert, I think the most tangible question would be:

Can a horse bettor achieve greatness

rather than

Do you consider yourself to be a great horse bettor

In other words, does the domain cultivates the creation of greatness or simply can allow a certain level of expertise that can be achieved relatively easy without leaving any room for further development... I tend to believe the latter over the former.

[Robert Fischer]

Robert, I think the most tangible question would be:

Can a horse bettor achieve greatness

rather than

Do you consider yourself to be a great horse bettor

In other words, does the domain cultivates the creation of greatness or simply can allow a certain level of expertise that can be achieved relatively easy without leaving any room for further development... I tend to believe the latter over the former.

Those plateaus are very interesting.
Some are literally systemic. Meaning that they are built into the system and provide 'physical' barriers, impossible to penetrate. Others are simply increased levels of difficulty, be it in terms of obtaining 'information/insight' or in terms of your 'behavior'.


As long as you are somewhat responsible, and are not ruining your finances in the process, it's an entertaining game. You can get your highs and lows, you can get your mental stimulation, you can get your challenges...

[Fingal]

Do you feel you have a special gift to handicap horses or do you think that any expertise that you learned is something that anyone could have learned if they put in the man power hours ?




On a sports program I heard Coach K say he asks this to potential recruits during every visit he makes -
" Are you willing to pay the price of preparation ?"

And there is a price to pay but most people aren't willing to do that. All you have to do is look at the number of losing tickets on the ground at the end of the day. Besides becoming a grinder, doing the post mortems, maybe a willingness to look at things a bit differently instead of straight on, aka maybe tweak it a bit off center. For example a trainer may be 18% with a particular move, but I'll turn it around in that also means he/she has 82% losers with it too. Two plus two may equal four, but horses & the people that ride or take care of them aren't just a mathematical equation.

I don't know if Albert Einstein bet on the ponies, but he said it best-

Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.

Horses are not motorcycles
They're made of muscles, bones, tendons
And heart

[thaskalos]

In gambling, I have a hard enough time defining the word successful ...so, I wouldn't even try dealing with the word greatness . There are violent swings in this game, regardless of one's skill level, and we are neither as "great" as we sometimes appear, nor are we as awful as some other occasions make us out to be.

I have long believed that there is an aspect to winning which cannot be taught, however...and I base this assumption of mine simply on the apparent fact that the expert mentors seem to outnumber the "successful students" in this game. If "winning" could be fully taught...then, it appears to me, that the handicapping "teachers" would have a better success record with their students.

[acorn54]

In gambling, I have a hard enough time defining the word successful ...so, I wouldn't even try dealing with the word greatness . There are violent swings in this game, regardless of one's skill level, and we are neither as "great" as we sometimes appear, nor are we as awful as some other occasions make us out to be.

I have long believed that there is an aspect to winning which cannot be taught, however...and I base this assumption of mine simply on the apparent fact that the expert mentors seem to outnumber the "successful students" in this game. If "winning" could be fully taught...then, it appears to me, that the handicapping "teachers" would have a better success record with their students.


well since i became acquainted with a mentor (who shall remain nameless), but is a somewhat frequent poster on this forum), i have improved considerably in reducing my losses year-to-year and in some years have had a modest profit, but nowhere on the scale of my mentor. but it is no mystery to me as to why my success doesn't reach his heights. he simply puts in alot more work on the endevor of gambling on horses than i care to do.

[thaskalos]

well since i became acquainted with a mentor (who shall remain nameless), but is a somewhat frequent poster on this forum), i have improved considerably in reducing my losses year-to-year and in some years have had a modest profit, but nowhere on the scale of my mentor. but it is no mystery to me as to why my success doesn't reach his heights. he simply puts in alot more work on the endevor of gambling on horses than i care to do.
Yes...but what makes you think that you can duplicate your mentor's performance...even WITH the additional investment of time and effort?

[acorn54]

Yes...but what makes you think that you can duplicate your mentor's performance...even WITH the additional investment of time and effort?
we use the identical software tools, and he just spends a heck of alot more time at the computer desk, updating his info than i do. i know what he does and how he gets his greater results, with the software we both use, he does not keep it a secret. as far as IDENTICAL results, of course not, however to stay in the black year in and year out like he does, would be possible.

[thaskalos]

we use the identical software tools, and he just spends a heck of alot more time at the computer desk, updating his info than i do. i know what he does and how he gets his greater results, with the software we both use, he does not keep it a secret. as far as IDENTICAL results, of course not, however to stay in the black year in and year out like he does, would be possible.
It's "possible"...almost anything is possible. But, in my opinion, it isn't likely. The mentor can give you "knowledge", but that's not enough. Do you think that we have an obesity problem in this country simply because we lack the knowledge to lose the extra weight that we carry on our bodies? No...knowledge ain't enough; we need wisdom too...and I define "wisdom" as the way of putting this knowledge to efficient practical use. It's fairly easy to get close to profitability in gambling...but it's extremely difficult to actually cross over and start turning a consistent profit. My advice to you is to run away from anyone who tells you any different.

The mentor can impart certain knowledge to the student...but only the student can take that knowledge and turn it into "wisdom". It's a lot harder than it seems...

[classhandicapper]

I think learning how to use good information is probably as important as the information itself.

[Grits]

Regardless of the field, I would be surprised if anyone who is considered by others to be "great" would ever, remotely, think of responding to this question. It would be completely foreign to him or her to announce, "Yes. I have a gift. I'm great; I have been told I'm great. I will share with you why and how I came to be so."

Greatness finds its roots in the presence of humility and the understanding that strengths and weaknesses abide in each of us. The Great are more aware of their weaknesses, their flaws. JMHO

We cannot decide, here at PA, on what denotes a great horse. And we're going to declare ourselves great? No. I have more faith in the horse's greatness. As humans, we go awry too often.

[RoyalHeroine]

What lamboguy said.

Whatever special talents I may have for logical analysis of a given race are dwarfed by my irrational propensity to bet into races where I have no clue and to bet all kinds of "savers" in races where I do have it right.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves" - The Bard of Avon

Yup, I concur. I've since christened it the gut check.

My gut check moment was the Delta Jackpot of 2010.

I had Gourmet Dinner all day, given he'd run on that deep and tiring Calder track and lost his last race, though previous to that he'd won three in a row including 2 little Florida restricted stakes, and was the betting favorite in most of them if I'm not mistaken.

So I get to my OTB and notice he's 20-1 by post time, up from around 6-1 if I remember correctly. Talk about a gift overlay!

Instead of salivating I start 2nd guessing myself and looking at the favorite "Bug Juice", whose name is forever seared into my memory.

You know what happened next. GD wins easily and I don't have a dime on him. Not even a "saver". The juice runs off the board after getting cooked near the lead.

Okay, who's story is next??

[Poindexter]

Winning or losing in racing is no different than winning or losing in any other form of gambling/investing. Either the net expectctation of your wagers is above breakeven or not. How much is simply what % above or below break even the aggregate of your bets are. I think most gamblers lose sight of this simple fact. So when you are are charting your performance, categorize each bet by type of bet. Over 100 visits are you up or down in win betting or place betting or exacta betting.....How much did you bet and how much did you win or lose on a % basis. Why is this happening? Where this game gets really complex is in the super exotics. You can be down $1500 and losing 95% on pick 4's only to hit one for $4000. Also in formulating these plays you have to get lucky. On days you are wrong it doesn't matter, but on days your opinion is strong you still have to put together the right ticket. Thaskalos, I believe your focus is on Superfectas,which puts you in the same boat. There are times you go 1x2x6x6 only to know that if you had gone 2x1x6x6 or 1x6x6x2 you would have had a nice score. The mental part of this game is the toughest. I could have had that super high 5 for $6000 or that pick 4 for $3000 or that pick 6 for $25,000........doesn't put the money in your pocket. I think there are a certain set of horseplayers that if they hit a $200,000 pick 6, would instantly transform into winning horseplayers(they need the financial freedom to attack this game properly). There is another subset of horseplayers that could hit a $200,00 pick six and be broke within a year. Then of course the majority will be $200,000 richer but never beat this game after that. Why, because ultimately we are in a minefield of undervalued horses and being able to extract positive expectation wagers from that minefield, takes a lot of hard work, preperation, focus and a mental fortitude to ride out the abuses(because they are going to keep coming like it or not).. I think most players would be better served playing less races better(handicapping more thoroughly and watching replays, tracking biases and looking at horseflesh if that is in your skill set....) than taking the lead of the tvg guys and playing a different race at a different track every 5 minutes not nearly prepared for each race as you should be. Volume is only to your advantage if you are winning, not if you are losing, and even then you have to investigate if too much volume is hurting your bottom line. In the world of racing, one mistake(poor handicapping or decision making) can cost you a $5000 pick 4 a $5000 high 5 or even a $100,000 pick six.

[whodoyoulike]

... anyway as far as anyone who is successful with their wagering, considering the fact, that in horseracing we are wagering into a zero-sum parimutuel system, it would be counter-productive to publicize one's selections for wagering, other that for self-aggrandizement, which i doubt would be the greater preference over making money.


Besides the motivation to sell their books, why do you think Beyer, Brohamer and others have provided detailed info regarding their handicapping methods?

Also, another example is Edward Thorp publishing his Black Jack card counting theories.

I think their methods do work in the proper situation(s).

I think they were partly motivated to provide encouragement to others in order to increase the participation in a declining game(s) not self-aggrandizement.

Now, Beyer may be an exception, he does appear to have a large ego. But, again a lot of handicappers I've met also have large egos.

[Robert Goren]

I do not feel I am a great horse player even though I have had only two losing years out of 49 years of playing. I am and always have been a very small bettor. I guess you can say I was blessed with certain kind of intelligence which lends itself to handicapping. I am very good at arithmetic (note I did not say math). As young player, I got to know a few old horsemen who taught me a few things. The big thing I have had going for me is curiosity on why certain horse win or lose. It also helps that I hate tearing up tickets with a passion that I don't see in most horse players. I think hating to lose is the key to winning at almost everything, especially gambling. There forms of gambling I lose at, so I do not gamble on them. That is also a key. Don't do things you are bad at.

[acorn54]

i can't answer for beyer publishing his speed figure methodology, however he probably saw it as a good business opportunity, gaining far more capital from publicizing rather than keeping it to himself
secondly, as far as mimicking my mentor's success, you would have to familiarize with the software, as ALL of the tools my mentor uses for success are contained in the software which is identical in everyway for each of us. there are no "secrets" that he keeps to himself. he simply keeps close attendance to the current odds and knows the strike price he needs to get for positive expectancy. i do not care to get involved in the laborious procedure of developing the strike price, contained in the software for my positive expectancy betting models.
this is also why i did not show very large profits when i was involved in the currency markets, as my mentor in that field who does very well, has to stay in close attendance to the computer to pay attention to the market movements.
it is a JOB to make profits of significance and i prefer to keep wagering as close to a low stress endevor as i can.
i hope this makes sense.

[traynor]

I do not feel I am a great horse player even though I have had only two losing years out of 49 years of playing. I am and always have been a very small bettor. I guess you can say I was blessed with certain kind of intelligence which lends itself to handicapping. I am very good at arithmetic (note I did not say math). As young player, I got to know a few old horsemen who taught me a few things. The big thing I have had going for me is curiosity on why certain horse win or lose. It also helps that I hate tearing up tickets with a passion that I don't see in most horse players. I think hating to lose is the key to winning at almost everything, especially gambling. There forms of gambling I lose at, so I do not gamble on them. That is also a key. Don't do things you are bad at.

Yeah, what he said. Beware of those who see some sort of satisfaction--however obliquely or obscurely, and however disguised as "learning experiences" or "recreation"--in losing. The only thing losing does is teach learned helplessness (and how to lose without whining).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness

[thaskalos]

I lose often. I don't know how I could function if I "hated tearing up losing tickets". To me...approaching this game with a "hate to tear up a losing ticket" mentality robs us of the aggressiveness that we need as players, if overall profit is our main objective. If a player really "hates to tear up a losing ticket", then he is playing this game with a severe handicap, IMO. After all...tearing up losing tickets is what all of us do most of the time.

[Poindexter]

I lose often. I don't know how I could function if I "hated tearing up losing tickets". To me...approaching this game with a "hate to tear up a losing ticket" mentality robs us of the aggressiveness that we need as players, if overall profit is our main objective. If a player really "hates to tear up a losing ticket", then he is playing this game with a severe handicap, IMO. After all...tearing up losing tickets is what all of us do most of the time.

I agree with you 100%. Just Sunday at Santa Anita, played a $48 super high 5 4/1-8-12/1-8-12/1-8-12/all. So what happens, 4 wins 8 comes second a lonshot comes 3rd, the 1 4th and 12 5th. Pays over $6000. Do I sit there and say damn I hate losing tickets, or do I sit there and say, well, I was fairly close. If the longshot came 5th instead of 3rd I probably hit for about $3000 or so, maybe more. I did a pretty good job on the play and maybe next time I will be a little luckier. I already know I could have played for 3 times the amount and used the all in the 3/4/5 slot and cashed, but given the risk on the play, $144, was more than I would want to put into a super high 5. If there was a carryover, I am fairly sure I would have put couple hundred into it and possibly could have brought it down. Next race. It was a good play that lost. I have no problem tearing up that ticket. I will mentally beat myself up for making "bad" or "stupid" plays(may realize this is post race analysis), but tearing up tickets on good plays should never be a concern of a horseplayer. As you said too much concern about tearing up tickets is going to leave you way too passive to beat this game or at least have any big scores. You might be able to grind aways with a high percentage of wins on $6.40 horses, but this game offers so much more than that.

[Robert Goren]

I lose often. I don't know how I could function if I "hated tearing up losing tickets". To me...approaching this game with a "hate to tear up a losing ticket" mentality robs us of the aggressiveness that we need as players, if overall profit is our main objective. If a player really "hates to tear up a losing ticket", then he is playing this game with a severe handicap, IMO. After all...tearing up losing tickets is what all of us do most of the time. You, I assume, are talking about exotics. I consider a wheel of a horse in the DD or Exacta as one bet or ticket. I know that it is a percentage game with a lot of exotics. That still not an excuse to play unprofitable combinations. When I construct an exotic ticket, I look it as one wager and try to figure out the rate of ROI on that ticket. If all the combinations on that ticket lose, I figure that bet was a failure. I then try to figure out why I did not have the winning numbers. There are such things as semi-automatic percentages bets. Playing against some bridge jumpers is one. Sometimes the bridge jumper horse shows. But that does not mean that you should not take a look at why this horse and other like him showed and why other do not. You can make some money betting small amounts of money betting against every horse that has 90% of the pool on them. But you can get rid of a lot of the "winning" bridge jumpers with a little research. It is the hating of tearing up a losing tickets that makes me do that research. There are a lot of horse players who would satisfied with the small profit and not do the research. I have found out that things change and if I do not keep on top of the losing tickets, I missed the changes.

[proximity]

In gambling, I have a hard enough time defining the word successful ...

first off, to answer sru's question i believe there is such a thing as natural gambling instincts. and yes, i believe i do have some of this.

example: i'm not a sports bettor but i once walked in relatively late to a broncos-49ers super bowl party. there was a constest to pick the winner and the score. the first 55 guests picked the 49ers. i went broncos. not a happy ending, but natural gambling instincts.

as far as defining success, MOST people aren't entering tracks and casinos with already great self esteem and you're coming into an mma like atmosphere where there's too many ways to lose. you're fighting against other players, against yourself, against outside forces...... and usually you're losing at least one of these battles.

the whole thing can easily implode on you and then you're walking around a comp-less hollywood casino on a saturday night and wondering how the rest of the world can be so happy.......

[raybo]

I don't know that I have any "gift" for playing the horses. But, I do have some traits that, from 35+ years of experience and after reading posts from most here, most don't have (notice I said "most" because there are certainly some others who have them.

I don't need to gamble, as a matter of fact, I hate gambling, in the traditional sense of the word.

I have extreme patience.

I have a high level of self control and discipline, when it comes to investing my money.

I strive for consistency, above all else, in every aspect of playing, handicapping/analysis and betting. Thus my heavy focus on automation.

I have one goal in racing, to make profit long term, accepting losses, even losing streaks, as a price of admission, and nothing more.

I don't jump into anything half cocked, especially if it involves money. My racing career started with over 20 years of study before I bet any significant amount of money (2 trips to a track with a $50 bankroll both times). Not many can say that, truthfully.

But, as for true racing "gifts", nope, just years of study, discipline, patience, consistency, and hard work. I did have an excellent mentor, however, who introduced me to the game, and the proper way to approach it as a player, so I guess I started out ahead of most others, and I'm not too proud to take advantage of it. It's like war, there is no such thing as playing fair.

[whodoyoulike]

Do you feel you have a special gift to handicap horses or do you think that any expertise that you learned is something that anyone could have learned if they put in the man power hours ?

... I've always just thought that the very best players didn't really have any kinds of gifts, but they were the ones who have a good clue and just outwork most people.

Do you feel you have a gift, or, do you feel that whatever crumbs fall your way is strictly because of decades of hard core experience combined with general intelligence and some hard work sprinkled in for good measure?


This is JMO.

I think the good ones have just figured it out. It's not innate ability. It just makes sense to them. It doesn't necessarily need to have been acquired over a number of years.

Also, it means they can lose this ability for some reason.

For examples, just observe the really good horse players, poker players and black jack players, they know when to hold'em and when to fold'em.

Kenny Rogers was right. I think he figured this out a long time ago and sang about it.

Along the lines of this thread topic, I wish that Ernie Dahlman would chime in because I think he's one of them.

[whodoyoulike]

... I don't jump into anything half cocked ...

I always like the word cocked.

... My racing career started with over 20 years of study before I bet any significant amount of money (2 trips to a track with a $50 bankroll both times). Not many can say that, truthfully...

Sounds as if they gave you a day pass from prison twice over the 20 years which could be one reason why you didn't bet more often.

[raybo]

Sounds as if they gave you a day pass from prison twice over the 20 years which could be one reason why you didn't bet more often.

LOL - no I just knew I wasn't ready to risk my money. It took 20 years before I knew I could win long term. If it hadn't been for my mentor, I doubt very seriously if I would have ever bet a dime on horses, or anything else.

[Stillriledup]

This is JMO.

I think the good ones have just figured it out. It's not innate ability. It just makes sense to them. It doesn't necessarily need to have been acquired over a number of years.

Also, it means they can lose this ability for some reason.

For examples, just observe the really good horse players, poker players and black jack players, they know when to hold'em and when to fold'em.

Kenny Rogers was right. I think he figured this out a long time ago and sang about it.

Along the lines of this thread topic, I wish that Ernie Dahlman would chime in because I think he's one of them.

What i'm fascinated about is the amount of time it takes to get really good, i've just assumed that if you don't have at least a decade of hard core study and observation, you have really no shot to be in the top 1 percent, but maybe that's just not true. I have to imagine that there aren't too many of the top 20 to 50 horse players who are under 40 years of age.

I'm sure there are some, but i would imagine that the best of the best have at least 20 years experience.

[traynor]

I lose often. I don't know how I could function if I "hated tearing up losing tickets". To me...approaching this game with a "hate to tear up a losing ticket" mentality robs us of the aggressiveness that we need as players, if overall profit is our main objective. If a player really "hates to tear up a losing ticket", then he is playing this game with a severe handicap, IMO. After all...tearing up losing tickets is what all of us do most of the time.

On the contrary, I think those who want to win tear up far fewer tickets than those who find losing "acceptable." There is a world of difference between betting for profit and "playing the game."

That old time nonsense about, "It doesn't matter who wins or loses--it only matters how you play the game" has generated revenue for professional bettors for many years. The losers can't accept that their losses are the result of inadequacy and incompetence, and so declare winning "almost impossible." That removes the responsibility of actually working at winning, so they can continue "playing." Strange behavior. I am glad I have been thoroughly innoculated against such foolishness.

[whodoyoulike]

Which is the reason I mentioned Mr. Dahlman, I'm only familiar with him from a couple of articles I've come across. One mentioned he was successful in harness racing almost right away from when he started serious betting.

Since he's a member here, I was just thinking he could provide actual insight to the topic at hand.

Another member who has mentioned he's been successful from the get go was Traynor.

Maybe we can hear from him?

[thaskalos]

On the contrary, I think those who want to win tear up far fewer tickets than those who find losing "acceptable." There is a world of difference between betting for profit and "playing the game."

That old time nonsense about, "It doesn't matter who wins or loses--it only matters how you play the game" has generated revenue for professional bettors for many years. The losers can't accept that their losses are the result of inadequacy and incompetence, and so declare winning "almost impossible." That removes the responsibility of actually working at winning, so they can continue "playing." Strange behavior. I am glad I have been thoroughly innoculated against such foolishness.
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. I thought Robert Goren was talking about the mundane and unavoidable act of tearing up a losing ticket which may well have been placed on a positive expectation wager. You, on the other hand, seem to be talking about accepting losing as a long-term result.

You do actually tear up more tickets than you cash...right?

[raybo]

You do actually tear up more tickets than you cash...right?

I don't know how Traynor will answer that question, but my answer is a definite "yes", and regarding my superfecta tickets, over the last 10 years I have lost approximately 90-92% of those bets. My win bet losses, the last 3 years, since I began playing win bets also, have been at a much lower percentage, but still more than twice the percentage of my winning tickets.

I doubt seriously that anyone could play a significant number of races and not lose many more than they win.

As you know, the key is to not let those losses affect your performance in future races. A very good baseball player knows he is doing well if he gets a hit a third of the time, and that is a much less chaotic event, so how can one expect to do better than that in something as chaotic as horse racing? Hard to imagine anything else.

[Robert Fischer]

If you want to make a profit from horseplaying, you only need 2 things :D

1. Insight = being able to see how things work, and being able to know when you know something and when you don't know something.

2. Virtue (or Discipline) = being able to remain rational, while the 'lollapalooza effects' of the market and gambling environment trigger your human brain towards irrational behavior.





"Chapter 1: Fundamental Systemic Insights

You have to start with insight. Your first step as a horseplayer is to see and understand the system.

In fact, the basic idea of profiting from any market environment, involves starting with an insight that clearly sees and understands the system, and then looking and waiting for systemic events to occur that we understand to be profitable. And this is certainly a 'market' game. The Pools are our market.

The Parimutuel System is our system. You absolutely must have a clear understanding of the Parimutuel System if you wish to progress from this fundamental point. It's very simple, and very important.

All of the bets of a particular type are placed together in a 'Pool', the Takeout is removed off the top, and then the Odds are paid out by sharing the remaining pool moneys among all the winning bets. After takeout, - the winners split-up the losers' contribution to the pool.

The most elementary, important insight, related to our Parimutuel System, is the fact that our system is 'Favorite Centric'. By definition, the favorite has largest market share of each pool. In order to overcome the takeout (often 15-25% taken out of pools before payouts are calculated), you absolutely must..."

[thaskalos]

I don't know how Traynor will answer that question, but my answer is a definite "yes", and regarding my superfecta tickets, over the last 10 years I have lost approximately 90-92% of those bets. My win bet losses, the last 3 years, since I began playing win bets also, have been at a much lower percentage, but still more than twice the percentage of my winning tickets.

I doubt seriously that anyone could play a significant number of races and not lose many more than they win.

As you know, the key is to not let those losses affect your performance in future races. A very good baseball player knows he is doing well if he gets a hit a third of the time, and that is a much less chaotic event, so how can one expect to do better than that in something as chaotic as horse racing? Hard to imagine anything else.
Right. So...if we indeed tear up as many tickets as we do, regardless of our skill level...then why make a big deal out of it? Does it really help to adopt a mentality where we hate to lose individual bets? In this game...how can you ultimately win if you actually hate tearing up losing tickets?

We don't accept the short-term losses because we have some sort of "death wish". We accept them because they are unavoidable.

[Tall One]

"Bug Juice"


I bet on Bug Juice his race before last at Aqueduct. :D Still up to his old tricks if you're wondering.

Having said that, I by no means have a gift. I know where I stand with the Gods..I'm a small player who enjoys handicapping, and accepts the wins with the losses.

[Stillriledup]

If you want to make a profit from horseplaying, you only need 2 things :D

1. Insight = being able to see how things work, and being able to know when you know something and when you don't know something.

2. Virtue (or Discipline) = being able to remain rational, while the 'lollapalooza effects' of the market and gambling environment trigger your human brain towards irrational behavior.





"Chapter 1: Fundamental Systemic Insights

You have to start with insight. Your first step as a horseplayer is to see and understand the system.

In fact, the basic idea of profiting from any market environment, involves starting with an insight that clearly sees and understands the system, and then looking and waiting for systemic events to occur that we understand to be profitable. And this is certainly a 'market' game. The Pools are our market.

The Parimutuel System is our system. You absolutely must have a clear understanding of the Parimutuel System if you wish to progress from this fundamental point. It's very simple, and very important.

All of the bets of a particular type are placed together in a 'Pool', the Takeout is removed off the top, and then the Odds are paid out by sharing the remaining pool moneys among all the winning bets. After takeout, - the winners split-up the losers' contribution to the pool.

The most elementary, important insight, related to our Parimutuel System, is the fact that our system is 'Favorite Centric'. By definition, the favorite has largest market share of each pool. In order to overcome the takeout (often 15-25% taken out of pools before payouts are calculated), you absolutely must..."


Why do you think (agreeing with what you said) the human brain is "wired" for irrational behavior in the gambling environment?

[Stillriledup]

Right. So...if we indeed tear up as many tickets as we do, regardless of our skill level...then why make a big deal out of it? Does it really help to adopt a mentality where we hate to lose individual bets? In this game...how can you ultimately win if you actually hate tearing up losing tickets?

We don't accept the short-term losses because we have some sort of "death wish". We accept them because they are unavoidable.

When we lose a bet if FEELS like we've lost the money in the same way that we would feel we lost money if we dropped it on the ground during rush hour in grand central station. If we plan on making another bet and the bet we lose isn't our last bet ever, we're not really "losing" the money as much as they are temporarily borrowing it until we decide we want to go get it back.

Losing a horse bet for a very good bettor is like lending a lawn mower to the next door neighbor, its not like you lost the lawn mower forever.

[raybo]

Right. So...if we indeed tear up as many tickets as we do, regardless of our skill level...then why make a big deal out of it? Does it really help to adopt a mentality where we hate to lose individual bets? In this game...how can you ultimately win if you actually hate tearing up losing tickets?

We don't accept the short-term losses because we have some sort of "death wish". We accept them because they are unavoidable.

No, we don't need to think about losses, unless they continue for extended periods of time (far longer than should happen in our own game with our own methodology), then we need to step back and see if we're still doing what we should be doing, consistently. We need to periodically self-analyze our actions to make sure they are what they should be, especially during a very long losing streak. If we fail to do that, we stand a good chance of letting those losing streaks affect future play.

[Robert Fischer]

Why do you think (agreeing with what you said) the human brain is "wired" for irrational behavior in the gambling environment?

human brains seem to be wired more for nature

it could be said that in some ways gambling environments are wired for irrational behavior in the human brain.


There's a quote from a more (politically) radical economist Nicole Foss that I think is pretty interesting: ""Markets are at heart a predatory wealth concentration mechanism for separating the herd from its money."
-Nicole Foss

she says it in what i think is meant as a bad thing, but it's also what makes them interesting(good).

[Thebigguy]

I'm the best of my generation, my partners call me a special find

[raybo]

I'm the best of my generation, my partners call me a special find

LOL - what generation would that be? (just curious :lol: )

[Dahoss2002]

Ive had people tell me in my life that i have a "gift" as a handicapper (usually after i released a winner to them and they made money!) and i didnt want to tell them that they're not correct, so i just said thank you and moved on.

I've always just thought that the very best players didn't really have any kinds of gifts, but they were the ones who have a good clue and just outwork most people.

People will tell you anything.....I had "gifts" at one time but they have evaporated. I am truly convinced to be great at this game you have to employ strategies that are not apparent to everyone. I like Pondman's approach, not necessarily his angle, but something that is not readily available to everyone. "good clue and outwork most people" essential indeed!!

[Stillriledup]

People will tell you anything.....I had "gifts" at one time but they have evaporated. I am truly convinced to be great at this game you have to employ strategies that are not apparent to everyone. I like Pondman's approach, not necessarily his angle, but something that is not readily available to everyone. "good clue and outwork most people" essential indeed!!

My point about the "gift" was that i never viewed that any success i've had as something i was born with and it was all just effort, general intelligence and keen observation. I agree that you have to come up with something that others are not doing, but i've found that decades of hard work and experience was more important than believing there was some gift that could be used in place of effort.

Like Ray Lewis says "effort. Its between you and you".

[Thebigguy]

LOL - what generation would that be? (just curious :lol: )

The people in my group have not had to work since 2001. But you keep up the good work with the spreadsheets.

[Stillriledup]

The people in my group have not had to work since 2001. But you keep up the good work with the spreadsheets.

So the group is winning without working? Tell us more!

[raybo]

So the group is winning without working? Tell us more!

What I gather from his posts is that his "partners" provide the money and he does all the work. It's for sure "someone" is doing some work, unless they've been using a black box since 2001. Of course, his partners might have been rich already and didn't have to work even if they didn't play the ponies.

Still didn't answer my question. :confused:

[Dark Horse]

As to 'the gift of greatness', I don't believe in it. I do believe in greatness, but it is not a gift, but rather the result of hard work. As Lem Banker put it: "the harder I work, the luckier I get." Put differently, the question is not if people can attain greatness, but if they're willing to pay the price. In all but a few cases, in my observation, the answer is: absolutely not.

[Ocala Mike]

Which is the reason I mentioned Mr. Dahlman, I'm only familiar with him from a couple of articles I've come across. One mentioned he was successful in harness racing almost right away from when he started serious betting.





I watched Ernie in action back in the early 80's when I was assigned to Yonkers Raceway for a season as a NY State Auditor. His M.O. was to basically bet weighted amounts on all the likely exacta possibilities in races, keying one or two horses on top. Of course, this methodology required him to "tear up" many losing tickets while still "beating the game."

My recollection is that he was so successful, and made up such a large % of a night's handle (this was before ATM's and vouchers) that the Mutuel Manager let him lock up his betting bankroll in the Mutuel Office every night for safekeeping.

[Thebigguy]

LOL - what generation would that be? (just curious :lol: )

Im 37. I cant give away group secrets, but we put in 25k apiece. 6 of us x25k. Simple math. Since we have cleared 21.7 and growing every single Saturday.

[acorn54]

Im 37. I cant give away group secrets, but we put in 25k apiece. 6 of us x25k. Simple math. Since we have cleared 21.7 and growing every single Saturday.
are you keeping it hidden or reporting to the irs, that reduces the profit considerably, since you can't write off business expenses until you show a profit 3 of 5 years.

[whodoyoulike]

I watched Ernie in action back in the early 80's when I was assigned to Yonkers Raceway for a season as a NY State Auditor. His M.O. was to basically bet weighted amounts on all the likely exacta possibilities in races, keying one or two horses on top. Of course, this methodology required him to "tear up" many losing tickets while still "beating the game."

My recollection is that he was so successful, and made up such a large % of a night's handle (this was before ATM's and vouchers) that the Mutuel Manager let him lock up his betting bankroll in the Mutuel Office every night for safekeeping.

Which is the reason I said they have just figured it out and it made sense to them. The M.O. you describe is not easy to do.

I recall a 60 minutes segment early 2000's featuring him, I didn't know who he was but, I still remember it pretty vividly after all these years. He was much older than myself, maybe he no longer wagers on T-breds or he no longer reads this website.

[LottaKash]

human brains seem to be wired more for nature

it could be said that in some ways gambling environments are wired for irrational behavior in the human brain.



I have seen that "gambling irrationality" at work, live and in person....

A guy that I once knew, that accompanied us with the crew that were regulars at the NY & NJ tracks and to AC....This crew was a motley one for sure, some very good at wagering and winning, and some just in for the adrenal rush that comes with betting uncomfortable sums on the races...

But, this guy was a Wall Street business suit guy....He was very good at what he did, and lived a lifestyle that was quite commensurate with a "very successful" business world life....But come Race or Casino time, it was as if he was transformed into another persona altogether....Caution to the wind, if you get what I mean....Our crew was always perplexed, at times, by his behavior at the gambling venues...I mean this was a man that dotted all his "I's" and crossed all of his "T's" in the business world, and made some serious scores at that venue... But-He was a blatant risk taker at the tracks and casino's in AC, and he was never too good at it either, losing scads of kash on hunches and wishes, and spend a lot of his time on tilt....Go figure... :confused:

[Dave Schwartz]

Kash,

Used to see that in gaming all the time. I even have a couple in mind.

These multi-gazillionaires would walk into the casino with lollipops over their heads. They'd come to a crap table and just play like total idiots.

Some would play so aggressively that they had no real chance of winning, (unless they became part owner in the casino), while others would build elaborate strategies that were doomed to be huge failures.

Often, as they walked in, the pit boss and his top floormen would all but tremble at the possibility of risk but rarely did it end that way.

[LottaKash]

Kash,

Used to see that in gaming all the time. I even have a couple in mind.

These multi-gazillionaires would walk into the casino with lollipops over their heads. They'd come to a crap table and just play like total idiots.



Dave, I'll bet you could sit down, while tasting the koo-aid, and talk all nite long about all the many people, and the behaviors and peculiarities, that you have witnessed thru the years at the tables at the casinos where you worked... :cool:

[Ocala Mike]

I recall a 60 minutes segment early 2000's featuring him, I didn't know who he was but, I still remember it pretty vividly after all these years. He was much older than myself, maybe he no longer wagers on T-breds or he no longer reads this website.



Re: Ernie Dahlman - I believe he is "retired" in Las Vegas. I remember he posted in here last year about a turf sprinter he co-owns that was running at Saratoga called SUBTLE.

[Thebigguy]

We plan on sending 300k through next Saturday, we plan on showing a profit of 1.9
We already have the Derby winner.

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave, I'll bet you could sit down, while tasting the koo-aid, and talk all nite long about all the many people, and the behaviors and peculiarities, that you have witnessed thru the years at the tables at the casinos where you worked...

Yes, I have. And my wife says that she's sick of hearing those same old stories every time we go to dinner with someone new.

:lol:

[Some_One]

Im 37. I cant give away group secrets, but we put in 25k apiece. 6 of us x25k. Simple math. Since we have cleared 21.7 and growing every single Saturday.

How much without the rebate?

[Thebigguy]

How much without the rebate?


65%

[Stillriledup]

We plan on sending 300k through next Saturday, we plan on showing a profit of 1.9
We already have the Derby winner.

1.9.....thousand? :confused:

[Thebigguy]

[QUOTE=Stillriledup]1.9.....thousand? :confused:[/QUOTE

No

[sammy the sage]

We plan on sending 300k through next Saturday, we plan on showing a profit of 1.9
We already have the Derby winner.

so glad ya'll are in the pools... :jump:

[Thebigguy]

People ask questions then respond with silly comments. Must be jealousy.

[whodoyoulike]

We plan on sending 300k through next Saturday, we plan on showing a profit of 1.9
We already have the Derby winner.

You use 300k which implies thousands then state a profit of 1.9 which leaves the 1.9 amount ambiguous. I still don't understand the 1.9 amount value and I'm not jealous.

And, what does clearing 21.7 mean in your prior post?

[thaskalos]

You use 300k which implies thousands then state a profit of 1.9 which leaves the 1.9 amount ambiguous. I still don't understand the 1.9 amount value and I'm not jealous.
Come on guys...he means 1.9 million. Isn't it obvious?

[whodoyoulike]

Come on guys...he means 1.9 million. Isn't it obvious?

To me his posts weren't so obvious. So, you've understood from his posts that since 2001 the six partners have each netted over $3 million each and growing each Saturday.

And, his partners attribute their financial success to him?

[thaskalos]

To me his posts weren't so obvious. So, you've understood from his posts that since 2001 the six partners have each netted over $3 million each and growing each Saturday.

And, his partners attribute their financial success to him?
I understood what he said, yes...but, does that mean I believe him?

He said that they are planning on betting $300k next Saturday...and they expect a profit of 1.9. Do you suppose it's 1.9 THOUSAND?

[barn32]

I've known two handicappers in my life who had the gift of greatness.

The first was a guy named Vern. No one here would have heard of him. He had one job his whole life, and that was at Boeing. He was a chemical engineer with seven patents. He retired early to play poker and the horses.

His nickname was "BlueBoy." I asked him one time how he got that nickname and he told me that when he was younger he had 55 straight winning sessions in a poker game and he wore the same blue jacket every day...for luck. Everyone started calling him BlueBoy.

I was in a poker game with him one day and he started talking to me about a horse. Pretty soon the game was three-handed. Everyone had darted to the phones to call their bookie.

He had a mind like a steel trap. He had this way of grinding out money at the track week after week that was uncanny. He also had some great angles. He taught handicapping classes. He was good.

People would give him money to make bets at the track. He would book most of it, and use the proceeds to make his own wagers.

One day someone had sent $100 with me to bet a horse. I told Vern about it and he said, "if the horse goes off at five to one or less, let's book it."

The horse went off at five to one and we booked it. He was a speedster and was ahead by what seemed like 20 lengths. There was only one horse who could beat him and he was flying. At the finish we just looked at each other and shrugged. Impossible to tell who won. It was a long, long photo. We won by some fuzz hair. He just smiled at me.

He won so many trifectas at Portland Meadows that he didn't come out of his house for three days because the IRS was staking him out. (He had good reason to believe it was the IRS. Whether it actually was or not...who knows.)

The second was Jim the Hat Bradshaw.

Enough said.

[Thebigguy]

Come on guys...he means 1.9 million. Isn't it obvious?

correct

[lamboguy]

I've known two handicappers in my life who had the gift of greatness.

The first was a guy named Vern. No one here would have heard of him. He had one job his whole life, and that was at Boeing. He was a chemical engineer with seven patents. He retired early to play poker and the horses.

His nickname was "BlueBoy." I asked him one time how he got that nickname and he told me that when he was younger he had 55 straight winning sessions in a poker game and he wore the same blue jacket every day...for luck. Everyone started calling him BlueBoy.

I was in a poker game with him one day and he started talking to me about a horse. Pretty soon the game was three-handed. Everyone had darted to the phones to call their bookie.

He had a mind like a steel trap. He had this way of grinding out money at the track week after week that was uncanny. He also had some great angles. He taught handicapping classes. He was good.

People would give him money to make bets at the track. He would book most of it, and use the proceeds to make his own wagers.

One day someone had sent $100 with me to bet a horse. I told Vern about it and he said, "if the horse goes off at five to one or less, let's book it."

The horse went off at five to one and we booked it. He was a speedster and was ahead by what seemed like 20 lengths. There was only one horse who could beat him and he was flying. At the finish we just looked at each other and shrugged. Impossible to tell who won. It was a long, long photo. We won by some fuzz hair. He just smiled at me.

He won so many trifectas at Portland Meadows that he didn't come out of his house for three days because the IRS was staking him out. (He had good reason to believe it was the IRS. Whether it actually was or not...who knows.)

The second was Jim the Hat Bradshaw.

Enough said.i have watched the HATMAN, i have no idea how he does it, but he does get the job done in Southern California. he gets along great with most of the trainers out there and he spends about $1500 to play pick fives. he always has partner's, and i have no idea how much of the ticket he actually owns but i do see him cash an awful lot. the other thing about him is he has a great eye looking at horse flesh. what amazes me about him is that he does everything out of memory and that man hardly ever sits still for more than 5 minutes, he is constantly walking around all over the track,

[whodoyoulike]

I understood what he said, yes...but, does that mean I believe him?

He said that they are planning on betting $300k next Saturday...and they expect a profit of 1.9. Do you suppose it's 1.9 THOUSAND?

I have no reason not to believe his claims but I don't like to assume what someone means. Rather, I prefer to ask questions to clarify ambiguous statements.

And yes, when someone states something in thousands and then provides another number I see no reason it couldn't be of the same denomination.

[Cratos]

To me his posts weren't so obvious. So, you've understood from his posts that since 2001 the six partners have each netted over $3 million each and growing each Saturday.

And, his partners attribute their financial success to him?

The $300k is really not that big of a wager on the Kentucky Derby; getting the little over 7-1 odds on the winning horse needed for the $1.9m profit might be the problem.

However he might be wagering on exotics and that would make it a lot more feasible.

[traynor]

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. I thought Robert Goren was talking about the mundane and unavoidable act of tearing up a losing ticket which may well have been placed on a positive expectation wager. You, on the other hand, seem to be talking about accepting losing as a long-term result.

You do actually tear up more tickets than you cash...right?

I do. However, I very firmly believe that I tear up fewer tickets by focusing on profit than I would if I occasionally dabbled in "action bets," trying to "make a score," and similar activities. Specifically, I think one has a better chance of hitting a target if one knows clearly what and where that target is than shooting first and calling whatever is hit "the target." The latter works well for the occasional shooter. Not so well for those who so enjoy winning that they want to repeat the experience frequently.

[DeltaLover]

Specifically, I think one has a better chance of hitting a target if one knows clearly what and where that target is than shooting first and calling whatever is hit "the target."

What you say here might not correct in theory, I have to agree that for practical reasons it might make sense!

To share a personal story (although I usually do not do something like this), I have recently created a model, focusing on high striking frequency trying to see if I can grind a small profit. This is not my regular betting style which is based on sparse large prices but I wanted to perform a small experiment, just to verify if something like this can be done...

Parts of this (BLACK BOX) model was to target at least 35% striking range and to be able to pick at least one third of all the available cards while following the four tracks I am currently betting I will only pick the only the top 10 daily bets while ignoring all the others.. Do not ask me where I have gotten the 10 bets from, because it was just an arbitrary number...

I am really surprised to see that this model is behaving extremely good albeit on a limited number of races ( I think that out of 138 bets I have hit so far 57 and with real but small bets ranging from $30 to $120, I am ahead more than a grand... Of course, I am sure that by the time I will ramp up, the whole of my modest profit will evaporate and I will also put a large dent in my bankroll, but this is another story)... Still I have the feeling that setting a target might finally be a good thing!

[thaskalos]

What you say here might not correct in theory, I have to agree that for practical reasons it might make sense!

To share a personal story (although I usually do not do something like this), I have recently created a model, focusing on high striking frequency trying to see if I can grind a small profit. This is not my regular betting style which is based on sparse large prices but I wanted to perform a small experiment, just to verify if something like this can be done...

Parts of this (BLACK BOX) model was to target at least 35% striking range and to be able to pick at least one third of all the available cards while following the four tracks I am currently betting I will only pick the only the top 10 daily bets while ignoring all the others.. Do not ask me where I have gotten the 10 bets from, because it was just an arbitrary number...

I am really surprised to see that this model is behaving extremely good albeit on a limited number of races ( I think that out of 138 bets I have hit so far 57 and with real but small bets ranging from $30 to $120, I am ahead more than a grand... Of course, I am sure that by the time I will ramp up, the whole of my modest profit will evaporate and I will also put a large dent in my bankroll, but this is another story)... Still I have the feeling that setting a target might finally be a good thing!

Remember...SETTING a target is one thing...but HITTING it is another.

[DeltaLover]

Remember...SETTING a target is one thing...but HITTING it is another.

Words of wisdom from my friend Thask :)

[traynor]

What you say here might not correct in theory, I have to agree that for practical reasons it might make sense!

To share a personal story (although I usually do not do something like this), I have recently created a model, focusing on high striking frequency trying to see if I can grind a small profit. This is not my regular betting style which is based on sparse large prices but I wanted to perform a small experiment, just to verify if something like this can be done...

Parts of this (BLACK BOX) model was to target at least 35% striking range and to be able to pick at least one third of all the available cards while following the four tracks I am currently betting I will only pick the only the top 10 daily bets while ignoring all the others.. Do not ask me where I have gotten the 10 bets from, because it was just an arbitrary number...

I am really surprised to see that this model is behaving extremely good albeit on a limited number of races ( I think that out of 138 bets I have hit so far 57 and with real but small bets ranging from $30 to $120, I am ahead more than a grand... Of course, I am sure that by the time I will ramp up, the whole of my modest profit will evaporate and I will also put a large dent in my bankroll, but this is another story)... Still I have the feeling that setting a target might finally be a good thing!

Exactly. The answers (and strategies derived from those answers) are highly dependent on the questions asked. Each model I build (and use) has a different (but similar) "target."

[traynor]

Remember...SETTING a target is one thing...but HITTING it is another.

I think you may be confusing "goal" with "target." The latter is a specific set of values that define what one is seeking. In DeltaLovers example, finding matches in a third of the races and winning 35% of the matches found is "the target."

[thaskalos]

I think you may be confusing "goal" with "target." The latter is a specific set of values that define what one is seeking. In DeltaLovers example, finding matches in a third of the races and winning 35% of the matches found is "the target."
Now, wait a minute. I got the word "target" from you. You remember all those stories you've told us, about the guy with the bad aim...who finally came to his senses and decided to shoot first and then draw up the "target" later? :)

I must say that I was surprised to see your favorable reaction to DeltaLover's "target" post. I thought for sure you'd inform him of the folly in approaching an experiment with the expectation of failure. DeltaLover did say that he expects to put a sizable dent in his bankroll with this venture...and that did not appear to me to be something that you would endorse.

But hey...who knows? I may have gotten confused again...

[DeltaLover]

DeltaLover did say that he expects to put a sizable dent in his bankroll with this venture...

Instead of expect I would use the worlds I am afraid that

[thaskalos]

Instead of expect I would use the worlds I am afraid that

You forgot to tell us why you are starting to think that "setting a target may be a good thing". Will it still be a "good thing" if your experiment ultimately fails?

[raybo]

You forgot to tell us why you are starting to think that "setting a target may be a good thing". Will it still be a "good thing" if your experiment ultimately fails?

LOL - well he'll know that that particular experiment doesn't work, so I suppose that can be said to be a "good thing"? Move on to the next one.

I have 11 standard models/rankings methods in my black box, and another 6 that can be substituted for one of those standard models. So, 17 total testable models. The only "target" I set is that at least one of those models will produce a significant number of plays at the track in question, and that the top rated contender hits more often than the 2nd, and the 2nd hits more often than the 3rd, and that the top rated contender shows over 1.90 ROI at 1/9 minimum odds. I'll analyze my record keeping sheets showing all played races, and take it from there. The track is either playable (for profit), or not (in which case I will not play that track).

[DeltaLover]

You forgot to tell us why you are starting to think that "setting a target may be a good thing". Will it still be a "good thing" if your experiment ultimately fails?

Honestly, I do not think that I will have enough data to form a definite conclusion...

[whodoyoulike]

... The track is either playable (for profit), or not (in which case I will not play that track).

I find this interesting. You avoid tracks which you consider unplayable versus certain types of races which I avoid because I consider them as unplayable.

Do you ever re-visit whether a track becomes playable?

Or, do you end up limiting yourself to only a few tracks?

[raybo]

I find this interesting. You avoid tracks which you consider unplayable versus certain types of races which I avoid because I consider them as unplayable.

Do you ever re-visit whether a track becomes playable?

Or, do you end up limiting yourself to only a few tracks?

I too, by analyzing the record keeping sheets, avoid certain types of races that the method does not do well on, and yes, I continue to test "unplayable" tracks, most of which turn out to be too chalky to allow any method to be long term profitable. This is all for win play only, my superfecta play is a different story, there are few tracks too chalky for superfecta play, only tracks that don't offer superfectas in every race (over 6 or 7 runners anyway), and/or very small super pool sizes can make it unplayable long term.

[traynor]

Now, wait a minute. I got the word "target" from you. You remember all those stories you've told us, about the guy with the bad aim...who finally came to his senses and decided to shoot first and then draw up the "target" later? :)

I must say that I was surprised to see your favorable reaction to DeltaLover's "target" post. I thought for sure you'd inform him of the folly in approaching an experiment with the expectation of failure. DeltaLover did say that he expects to put a sizable dent in his bankroll with this venture...and that did not appear to me to be something that you would endorse.

But hey...who knows? I may have gotten confused again...

From what I can gather from your various posts, you look at a race and then decide what "opportunities" may exist in that race, and then decide what wagers to make (and how to make them) to take advantage of the opportunities you believe exist in that specific race. Similarly, you may adjust your overall strategy--including the relative imprtance you attach to each aspect of that strategy--on a race by race basis.

Conversely, because "the target" is already defined, I look for matches--races in which a specific strategy can (according to the models I have created) provide leverage. Rather than adjusting strategy to the race, I match the race to the strategy. In DL's example, that would be the third of the races with plays. I would ignore the other two thirds of the races (or apply a different strategy if appropriate).

Probably not so easy with a pen-and-paper. Very easy with a computer.

[DeltaLover]

Probably not so easy with a pen-and-paper. Very easy with a computer.

Hmm... Probably very easy for the computer but not so easy for the programmer :)

[raybo]

Hmm... Probably very easy for the computer but not so easy for the programmer :)

I agree, and that is probably why most people don't create their own programs/apps. Those that want to leverage the power, reliability, and speed of a computer, and don't have the ability to create their own programs/apps, often buy commercial software that fits the definition of "one size fits all". The problem with most of those pieces of software is that the learning curve for achieving profitability with the software is almost as difficult as learning to program or otherwise create their own. I addressed both of those issues, first by doing all the work in creating the app, and secondly, making the app simple to operate and as automated as fully as possible, so that the user needs only to do the work of testing and retesting tracks and updating the database with new races, even when they didn't play a card. That's where most fall short, they don't do the continual maintenance and retesting required to update the various methods as the meet progresses. Most tracks and their racing change as the meet progresses, due to a myriad of reasons, so what works early in a meet probably won't work as well later on, and some methods that don't work well early in a meet might work better later on.

[DeltaLover]

I agree, and that is probably why most people don't create their own programs/apps. Those that want to leverage the power, reliability, and speed of a computer, and don't have the ability to create their own programs/apps, often buy commercial software that fits the definition of "one size fits all". The problem with most of those pieces of software is that the learning curve for achieving profitability with the software is almost as difficult as learning to program or otherwise create their own. I addressed both of those issues, first by doing all the work in creating the app, and secondly, making the app simple to operate and as automated as fully as possible, so that the user needs only to do the work of testing and retesting tracks and updating the database with new races, even when they didn't play a card. That's where most fall short, they don't do the continual maintenance and retesting required to update the various methods as the meet progresses. Most tracks and their racing change as the meet progresses, due to a myriad of reasons, so what works early in a meet probably won't work as well later on, and some methods that don't work well early in a meet might work better later on.


Writing the code is usually the easy part of the equation what is difficult is the analysis and the design...

[raybo]

Writing the code is usually the easy part of the equation what is difficult is the analysis and the design...

For you it probably is, but many don't have any programming skills at all. The design should suit the purpose of the app, and the analysis also depends on the design of the app. The creator must have all those abilities, but the user, if it is to be used by others, should just require some time and effort by the user.

[ultracapper]

No gift. Just a lot of observation and a hope that I'm understanding what I'm seeing. Have built some confidence on that front over the years.

[traynor]

Hmm... Probably very easy for the computer but not so easy for the programmer :)

I think you may have discovered the Ultimate Truth of computer handicapping.

[traynor]

Writing the code is usually the easy part of the equation what is difficult is the analysis and the design...
Exactly. The upside is that once you get your head wrapped around the concepts, it gets easier.

[thaskalos]

From what I can gather from your various posts, you look at a race and then decide what "opportunities" may exist in that race, and then decide what wagers to make (and how to make them) to take advantage of the opportunities you believe exist in that specific race. Similarly, you may adjust your overall strategy--including the relative imprtance you attach to each aspect of that strategy--on a race by race basis.



Sincere question:

Do you think that a computer can be programmed to do what I do?

[Robert Goren]

I am sure some people are already doing this. I often thought there may be value in compare pools. There are 3 pools where you get odds on a horse chances of winning, The win pool, the double pool, and the exacta pool. It takes a little work to figure out a horse's win odds in the double and exacta pools, but it can be done. You would need a computer and more program skills than I have. The good news is that you would not have to handicap the race. I would be interested if anyone here has tried it and if they have been successful at it.

[PIC6SIX]

Ocala, your post seems an exact replica of my betting woes since I lean too much toward savers. I hardly ever get the betting aspect of this game correct. That is why I like betting the pic-6. Especially, when 100K plus carryover. All I have to do is focus on winners

[traynor]

Sincere question:

Do you think that a computer can be programmed to do what I do?
Yes. Possibly easier than you may think.

[traynor]

I am sure some people are already doing this. I often thought there may be value in compare pools. There are 3 pools where you get odds on a horse chances of winning, The win pool, the double pool, and the exacta pool. It takes a little work to figure out a horse's win odds in the double and exacta pools, but it can be done. You would need a computer and more program skills than I have. The good news is that you would not have to handicap the race. I would be interested if anyone here has tried it and if they have been successful at it.

The three pools are all opinions, and some of those opinions are factors of the other pools. An example is an odds-on entry, which flags some to wager only in the exacta pool (rather than win AND exacta). At some tracks, the "tilt" of betting on an entry from win to exacta is a very strong indicator of a (more than expected) chance of winning.

Similarly, an odds-on entry can take a lot of spread money in the exacta pools by bettors hoping a long odds entry will place (because they believe they have a greater than normal chance of having the win position correct). The thing to look for is the tilt in the exacta pools toward one or two combinations of the favorite (or whatever) to win, with B and C to place.

[Stillriledup]

I too, by analyzing the record keeping sheets, avoid certain types of races that the method does not do well on, and yes, I continue to test "unplayable" tracks, most of which turn out to be too chalky to allow any method to be long term profitable. This is all for win play only, my superfecta play is a different story, there are few tracks too chalky for superfecta play, only tracks that don't offer superfectas in every race (over 6 or 7 runners anyway), and/or very small super pool sizes can make it unplayable long term.

You mention "chalky" as to why you would avoid certain races/tracks but isnt chalky and non-chalky independent of actual value? As far as supers go, isn't a super with short prices on top or in the first 2 spots more value than the higher end of the board due to the extra stray dimes on the bingo/birthday combinations?

My favorite bet is supers in short fields with favorites on top.....if you punch those tight, you can clobber a super.....having a 10 dollar super that pays 90 for a buck is exactly the same as having super that pays 9k (for a buck) for a dime.

[traynor]

Sincere question:

Do you think that a computer can be programmed to do what I do?
Any decision making process can be reverse engineered to determine the criteria used to make the decision. "Shadowing" is a generic term used by modelers tasked with structuring and quantifying processes that seem (including to those using the processes) "comprehensive" or "too complex to put into words."

An example:
"Cyber-shadowing refers to a type of job shadowing that relies on use of IT remote administration software to remotely view another workers computer screen to track their progress and learn from their work at a distance, often without the knowing that they are being spied upon. Many prominent Indian outsourcing companies from the late 1990s and 2000s were notorious for relying on cyber-shadowing to train new programmers by allowing new hires to use VNC viewer to spy on more senior programmers to learn craft secrets for difficult programming assignments.

In the late 2000s, cyber-shadowing evolved into a technique of abuse used to cherry-pick the trade secrets and knowledge from experienced engineers that due to economic conditions had become partially employed and forced to work as contingency workers during this period of time.

This led to an era of contingency workers scams in the engineering field for a period of 5–10 years where companies were purposely hiring and firing experienced engineers repeatedly only for the purpose of using cyber-shadowing to steal trade secrets and without intent to really use the services of these contingency workers, until these permanent workers in the companies had amassed a huge collection of the personal software tools and programing techniques from the abused contingency workers for handing jobs that were otherwise thought to be difficult and unpleasant. This problem was particularly acute in the semiconductor field which has shown very strong demographics changes of employee towards people from India and Asia as a result of the prevalence of cyber-shadowing inside of companies in recent years."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_shadow

[whodoyoulike]

Sincere question:

Do you think that a computer can be programmed to do what I do?


A sincere answer:

What exactly do you do?

If you can accurately describe what you do, then I would say, yes it can be programmed with a computer.

[Stillriledup]

A sincere answer:

What exactly do you do?

If you can accurately describe what you do, then I would say, yes it can be programmed with a computer.

There's 0 percent chance that a computer can "mimic" what i do in any one individual race. However, a computer can probably mimic me in a really long series of bets as my "edge" on visual analysis (replays, warmups and scoredowns) will be negated by betting mistakes and human error...but in any one individual situation, i'm far superior than a computer, the computer isn't adjusting for a horse who breaks thru the gate and gets jammed back in there and the computer isn't adjusting for a horse who warms up poorly and its not adjusting for subtle nuances that i see in replay watching.

[sammy the sage]

I am sure some people are already doing this. I often thought there may be value in compare pools. There are 3 pools where you get odds on a horse chances of winning, The win pool, the double pool, and the exacta pool. It takes a little work to figure out a horse's win odds in the double and exacta pools, but it can be done. You would need a computer and more program skills than I have. The good news is that you would not have to handicap the race. I would be interested if anyone here has tried it and if they have been successful at it.

Actually SOME people have been doing this for a VERY long time...in THEIR HEADS....no computer needed...

I'll do it rarely...to hedge a big pay-off/wager at the end...not really my style...but there are a FEW who do nothing but...and do well...

It comes in quite handy if the last race is a maiden...and horse you didn't consider 20/1 ml is suddenly 3/1 in payoffs...only INSIDER'S have THAT kinda pull...best to go w/them a little bit at that point...and lock in some profit...

[DeltaLover]

Actually SOME people have been doing this for a VERY long time...in THEIR HEADS....no computer needed...

I'll do it rarely...to hedge a big pay-off/wager at the end...not really my style...but there are a FEW who do nothing but...and do well...

It comes in quite handy if the last race is a maiden...and horse you didn't consider 20/1 ml is suddenly 3/1 in payoffs...only INSIDER'S have THAT kinda pull...best to go w/them a little bit at that point...and lock in some profit...

How many times have you challenged the diagnosis of your doctor or you have changed the prescription he wrote for your?

Reading this thread, I can verify that people are quick to doubt things like AI, pattern recognition and data mining, without having a clue about what they are about and how they are changing the world in an extremely fast rate. Unlike, us challenging an expert like our doctor when he is making a diagnosis or a civil engineer when he designs a structure, clueless people believe that they can easily reject a scientific – engineering sector, called Computer Science, just because they have no idea about it!

Sammy the sage, I want to assure you that what people are doing in their heads for so long time, is not the same to what 'computers' can do for you.. Of course, there are things that the human mind can do better but Artificial Intelligence is here to stay as it exceeds the capacity of the brain in many different ways and has many different uses and applications in almost all of things we are doing today (and yes, including several forms of gambling, like horse and sports betting and poker for example)...

As times goes on, it becomes obvious, that in the near future the most common “team” of experts it will consist of a combination of both humans and machines that will work together to solve problems that in the near past, were considered domains that required talent, intuition and human sense alone..

A typical example of this approach, can be seen in what is know as free style chess, where an average player can challenge and frequently win a world class expert, when he forms a team with the compute and they share responsibilities. You can read more about it here: http://freestyle-chess.webs.com/

[sammy the sage]

How many times have you challenged the diagnosis of your doctor or you have changed the prescription he wrote for your?

Reading this thread, I can verify that people are quick to doubt things like AI, pattern recognition and data mining, without having a clue about what they are about and how they are changing the world in an extremely fast rate. Unlike, us challenging an expert like our doctor when he is making a diagnosis or a civil engineer when he designs a structure, clueless people believe that they can easily reject a scientific – engineering sector, called Computer Science, just because they have no idea about it!

Sammy the sage, I want to assure you that what people are doing in their heads for so long time, is not the same to what 'computers' can do for you.. Of course, there are things that the human mind can do better but Artificial Intelligence is here to stay as it exceeds the capacity of the brain in many different ways and has many different uses and applications in almost all of things we are doing today (and yes, including several forms of gambling, like horse and sports betting and poker for example)...

As times goes on, it becomes obvious, that in the near future the most common “team” of experts it will consist of a combination of both humans and machines that will work together to solve problems that in the near past, were considered domains that required talent, intuition and human sense alone..

A typical example of this approach, can be seen in what is know as free style chess, where an average player can challenge and frequently win a world class expert, when he forms a team with the compute and they share responsibilities. You can read more about it here: http://freestyle-chess.webs.com/

I have challenged THE Doc's & got him/her to change...for myself as well as others...would elaborate...but P.A. does NOT like analogies on OTHER topics used w/horse racing....

Never said computers were NOT fantastic...make sure and READ THAT properly...

[DeltaLover]

I have challenged THE Doc's & got him/her to change...for myself as well as others...would elaborate...but P.A. does NOT like analogies on OTHER topics used w/horse racing....

Never said computers were NOT fantastic...make sure and READ THAT properly...

The point i am trying to make (and of course it is not personal by no means!), is that people are quick to express an opinion about something that they know very little about.

[traynor]

There's 0 percent chance that a computer can "mimic" what i do in any one individual race. However, a computer can probably mimic me in a really long series of bets as my "edge" on visual analysis (replays, warmups and scoredowns) will be negated by betting mistakes and human error...but in any one individual situation, i'm far superior than a computer, the computer isn't adjusting for a horse who breaks thru the gate and gets jammed back in there and the computer isn't adjusting for a horse who warms up poorly and its not adjusting for subtle nuances that i see in replay watching.

You make a well-constructed argument for computer decision models. A long series of bets is comprised of a number of individual bets. Outperforming non-computer-aided decision making over time must--by definition--outperform the (aggregate of) individual decisions made on a race by race basis. Considering any one race, it is a tossup, with the advantage still loaded in favor of computer-aided decision making.

[whodoyoulike]

There's 0 percent chance that a computer can "mimic" what i do in any one individual race. However, a computer can probably mimic me in a really long series of bets as my "edge" on visual analysis (replays, warmups and scoredowns) will be negated by betting mistakes and human error...but in any one individual situation, i'm far superior than a computer, the computer isn't adjusting for a horse who breaks thru the gate and gets jammed back in there and the computer isn't adjusting for a horse who warms up poorly and its not adjusting for subtle nuances that i see in replay watching.

The question I have for you is:

Would you be able to "mimic" your own choice(s) if you were to analyze the exact same race but at a later time?

I know a computer program would provide the same result each time given the exact same inputs.

Would you be able to make the same claim?

[raybo]

There's 0 percent chance that a computer can "mimic" what i do in any one individual race. However, a computer can probably mimic me in a really long series of bets as my "edge" on visual analysis (replays, warmups and scoredowns) will be negated by betting mistakes and human error...but in any one individual situation, i'm far superior than a computer, the computer isn't adjusting for a horse who breaks thru the gate and gets jammed back in there and the computer isn't adjusting for a horse who warms up poorly and its not adjusting for subtle nuances that i see in replay watching.

If you make notes of your observations, and then use those notes later in the handicapping process, then those notes could certainly be entered into a computer program and the computer decisions would be exactly the same as your non-computer method. The keys are: specific scenarios that you observe, and specific options that you follow after that scenario is observed. Yes, it takes a while to get all the scenarios, and their various options, expressed in a computer usable form, but after it's done, it's done forever. The cool part is that, if you have done a thorough job with all that, errors will never be made. You can't say the same thing about your "human" process, humans will always make mistakes over the long term.

[Stillriledup]

The question I have for you is:

Would you be able to "mimic" your own choice(s) if you were to analyze the exact same race but at a later time?

I know a computer program would provide the same result each time given the exact same inputs.

Would you be able to make the same claim?

Good point. Probably not, but the question is would i WANT to mimic my choice from a few months or a few years ago? I feel as time goes on, i get better and better, im smarter now than i was 5 years ago, i know more, so i would want my 2015 brain making an "updated" decision and not trying to mimic something i perceived years ago.

[traynor]

A sincere answer:

What exactly do you do?

If you can accurately describe what you do, then I would say, yes it can be programmed with a computer.

Your reasoning is solid, with a caveat: It is not necessary that the SME (subject matter expert) be able to verbalize or explain what he or she does and why she or he does it. That is why corporations strongly prefer shadowing and reverse-engineering to "mentoring relationships."

Basically, if someone has taken 20 years to master his or her profession (or decision-making processes), she or he may be reluctant to enable a modeler to create a process that outperforms the original. And that also enables a "much less experienced individual" to outperform the original by using the modeled process.

The skill of a modeler (and shadower) is in ignoring large portions of the SME "explanations." The SMEs who are the best at some particular thing are also (usually) the people least able to explain or articulate their internal processes. They may be able to verbalize what they think they are doing, but not so well what they actually ARE doing. That is where the shadowers and modelers come in.

[whodoyoulike]

Good point. Probably not, but the question is would i WANT to mimic my choice from a few months or a few years ago? I feel as time goes on, i get better and better, im smarter now than i was 5 years ago, i know more, so i would want my 2015 brain making an "updated" decision and not trying to mimic something i perceived years ago.

The original question was, can your handicapping methods be programmed to be useful with a computer. I responded "yes" it can if you're capable of accurately describing your methods. Now, it may not be cost effective if your methodology was fairly simple or didn't require much time (a cost/benefit decision).

And, I didn't mean to imply that your results will provide instant or frequent winners. If your complex manual methods requires 2 -3 hours to handicap a race (10 - 20 minutes per horse in say an 8 - 10 horse field), you'd be able to get an answer in minutes and be able to spend the difference in analyzing the race. Also, you'd be able to expand the number of variables to examine and their resulting impact.

But, if your current method(s) provides crap it just means you'll still get crap --- just a lot quicker.

[whodoyoulike]

I'm not attempting to persuade everyone that you can only do well handicapping with a computer program but, rather you're only hurting yourself when you don't (time wise and in analyzing races).

[Cratos]

I'm not attempting to persuade everyone that you can only do well handicapping with a computer program but, rather you're only hurting yourself when you don't (time wise and iI n analyzing races).
I would like to append to your post that a significant attribute that the computer model brings to handicapping is a better understanding of the "why".

We typically understand "what" happened, but is often vague about "why what" happened and a well constructed computer model can help solve that dilemma.

[ReplayRandall]

I would like to append to your post that a significant attribute that the computer model brings to handicapping is a better understanding of the "why".

We typically understand "what" happened, but is often vague about "why what" happened and a well constructed computer model can help solve that dilemma.
"Why what happened" is usually a pace breakdown problem.....just watch the replay, no computer model needed.

[raybo]

Good point. Probably not, but the question is would i WANT to mimic my choice from a few months or a few years ago? I feel as time goes on, i get better and better, im smarter now than i was 5 years ago, i know more, so i would want my 2015 brain making an "updated" decision and not trying to mimic something i perceived years ago.

Then you would need to update the decision tree, or create a new branch/node in that tree.

[Cratos]

"Why what happened" is usually a pace breakdown problem.....just watch the replay, no computer model needed.
I don't want to become argumentative, but you are very wrong.

For example, if a horse run a race at a certain time and comparatively the time is either faster or slower than its previous times, the bettor might wonder why?

Assuming that illness or injury is not involved we can search for environmental biases with computer simulations and by looking at "pace" you probably wouldn't detect or understand.

What I am saying is that DF might be the culprit or it might be some other cause, but the iterative process through computer simulations will give you a good opportunity to make that evaluation.

However each person is different.

[raybo]

Your reasoning is solid, with a caveat: It is not necessary that the SME (subject matter expert) be able to verbalize or explain what he or she does and why she or he does it. That is why corporations strongly prefer shadowing and reverse-engineering to "mentoring relationships."

Basically, if someone has taken 20 years to master his or her profession (or decision-making processes), she or he may be reluctant to enable a modeler to create a process that outperforms the original. And that also enables a "much less experienced individual" to outperform the original by using the modeled process.

The skill of a modeler (and shadower) is in ignoring large portions of the SME "explanations." The SMEs who are the best at some particular thing are also (usually) the people least able to explain or articulate their internal processes. They may be able to verbalize what they think they are doing, but not so well what they actually ARE doing. That is where the shadowers and modelers come in.

Traynor, I don't think we're concerned with "copying" someone else's methods here. We're talking about creating our own decision trees. If you don't want those trees copied then you must assure that they are not, in whatever manner is necessary. That means NOT posting gobs of picks on forums like this one. People think that you would have to publish your actual methods in order for them to be copied, however, all it takes is to publish enough picks.

[raybo]

I would like to append to your post that a significant attribute that the computer model brings to handicapping is a better understanding of the "why".

We typically understand "what" happened, but is often vague about "why what" happened and a well constructed computer model can help solve that dilemma.

Another positive side affect is that, by taking the time and effort to fully explore the decision processes we use, we learn much about where we are as a handicapper/player. We can often see weaknesses in our thought processes when we fully explore them in such a manner. So, it's a win-win-win for us, we get better decisions made, much quicker, with much fewer errors.

[raybo]

"Why what happened" is usually a pace breakdown problem.....just watch the replay, no computer model needed.

That is a gross simplification, IMO. There are an abundance of reasons that things happen that we didn't see coming.

[taxicab]

Thread Topic:
"The gift of greatness as a horseplayer".
Nothing I have to worry about.
Get back to me SRU when you start a thread entitled......"The curse of the substandard horseplayer".
I'm a freaking expert. :eek:

[Robert Goren]

Traynor, I don't think we're concerned with "copying" someone else's methods here. We're talking about creating our own decision trees. If you don't want those trees copied then you must assure that they are not, in whatever manner is necessary. That means NOT posting gobs of picks on forums like this one. People think that you would have to publish your actual methods in order for them to be copied, however, all it takes is to publish enough picks. I have yet to see very many posters copy anyone else's methods here. They are too busy telling you that you are full of it. Although a few people might adopt a method along the same lines as another poster's (like pondman's), It is unlikely it would be anything close to a carbon copy. Now betting someone else's posted picks is a different story. DaHoss had quite a following.

[DeltaLover]

"Why what happened" is usually a pace breakdown problem.....just watch the replay, no computer model needed.

:ThmbUp::ThmbUp: Good posting

... I have to add that the WHY is open to many different interpretations and does not add nothing to the bottom line of a betting strategy.. As a developer of automated handicapping methodologies, I never think about the whys but concentrate all my efforts on the whats, which I have found, is the only valid and measurable concepts of the whole puzzle.

[traynor]

Sincere question:

Do you think that a computer can be programmed to do what I do?

My subsequent posts in this thread on shadowing and modeling were directly related to the question above.

I don't have much interest in "copying" or "reverse engineering" anything that anyone on this forum is using, trying to use, or claiming to use (or claiming to have intimate, first knowledge of). I am a curious person by nature, but I don't think the end result would be worth the effort.

[DeltaLover]

Sincere question:

Do you think that a computer can be programmed to do what I do?

Probably this is not impossible but still this is not the goal of AI. There are other way to accomplish the same goal following a different approach and this is the main idea not only behind AI but any other achievement of the human race.

As an example, you can think of the flying machine as we know it today. We were able to invent and perfect the airplane, not be trying to mimic the way an eagle is flying but by discovering a completely different approach, which still has the same effect. Similarly, computers are able to 'think' and in many cases either outperform or just assist humans in their decision making process albeit with a completely different mechanism that still creates similar results...

[ultracapper]

I have yet to see very many posters copy anyone else's methods here. They are too busy telling you that you are full of it. Although a few people might adopt a method along the same lines as another poster's (like pondman's), It is unlikely it would be anything close to a carbon copy. Now betting someone else's posted picks is a different story. DaHoss had quite a following.

LOL. Love it.

[ultracapper]

My subsequent posts in this thread on shadowing and modeling were directly related to the question above.

I don't have much interest in "copying" or "reverse engineering" anything that anyone on this forum is using, trying to use, or claiming to use (or claiming to have intimate, first knowledge of). I am a curious person by nature, but I don't think the end result would be worth the effort.

The smack downs just keep coming

[raybo]

I have yet to see very many posters copy anyone else's methods here. They are too busy telling you that you are full of it. Although a few people might adopt a method along the same lines as another poster's (like pondman's), It is unlikely it would be anything close to a carbon copy. Now betting someone else's posted picks is a different story. DaHoss had quite a following.

That doesn't mean that it isn't possible, or hasn't been done. I doubt anyone would reverse engineer someone's picks, and then tell someone else that they did it, especially on a forum like this one.

But, regarding selection posters here, there are very few who have much to hide anyway. :lol:

[Cratos]

....As an example, you can think of the flying machine as we know it today. We were able to invent and perfect the airplane, not be trying to mimic the way an eagle is flying but by discovering a completely different approach, which still has the same effect....
Not a good analogy and I don’t want to divert away from the OP’s thesis point of this thread, but if an example of “mimic” is to be used, it should be correct.

Therefore according to a basic theory of physics called Bernoulli's law and to Isaac Newton's third law of motion, the flight of birds (eagles are birds) and airplanes were/are mimic very closely; and even today when birds (eagles are birds) are soaring and airplanes are cruising they are almost mimicking each other exactly.

[DeltaLover]

Not a good analogy and I don’t want to divert away from the OP’s thesis point of this thread, but if an example of “mimic” is to be used, it should be correct.

Therefore according to a basic theory of physics called Bernoulli's law and to Isaac Newton's third law of motion, the flight of birds (eagles are birds) and airplanes were/are mimic very closely; and even today when birds (eagles are birds) are soaring and airplanes are cruising they are almost mimicking each other exactly.

Apparently you do not understand AI very well.. You can find more references about the examples I bringing , and extend your knowledge on the topic, by reading the following layman texts:


http://www.amazon.com/Average-Over-Powering-America-Stagnation/dp/0142181110/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1430075315&sr=8-1&keywords=average+is+over

http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Jeff-Hawkins-ebook/dp/B003J4VE5Y/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1430075353&sr=1-1&keywords=on+intelligence

Again, it is not a good approach, to have an opinion about topics that you do not have enough knowledge about, you are going ito be much better, if you trust the opinions of those who have some expertise on them as opposed to reading some articles on the Web

[Cratos]

Apparently you do not understand AI very well.. You can find more references about the examples I bringing , and extend your knowledge on the topic, by reading the following layman texts:


http://www.amazon.com/Average-Over-Powering-America-Stagnation/dp/0142181110/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1430075315&sr=8-1&keywords=average+is+over

http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Jeff-Hawkins-ebook/dp/B003J4VE5Y/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1430075353&sr=1-1&keywords=on+intelligence

Again, it is not a good approach, to have an opinion about topics that you do not have enough knowledge about, you are going ito be much better, if you trust the opinions of those who have some expertise on them as opposed to reading some articles on the Web
Really I don't need to do that and I don't want to start an off-topic discussion about something which through experience and education I know quite a bit about and if you are challenging the veracity of my retort, that is okay, but it will not change anything.

Remember that impressions that are made in the sand blow away with the wind.

[DeltaLover]

Really I don't need to do that and I don't want to start an off-topic discussion about something which through experience and education I know quite a bit about and if you are challenging the veracity of my retort, that is okay, but it will not change anything.

Remember that impressions that are made in the sand blow away with the wind.

If you find the (classical t example I provided about air-planes vs birds as unsuitable for the purpose of the conversation, I have to conclude that you do not know much about modern AI... If you like, I can point you to the related bibliography that is using exactly this metaphor to explain the difference between AI and human intelligence..

[Cratos]

If you find the (classical t example I provided about air-planes vs birds as unsuitable for the purpose of the conversation, I have to conclude that you do not know much about modern AI... If you like, I can point you to the related bibliography that is using exactly this metaphor to explain the difference between AI and human intelligence..
Why not stop this nonsense, your knowledge of artificial intelligence (AI) wasn’t being challenged and my reply to you was not about AI; and I believe you understand that.

It was about your analogy about the mimicking between birds and aircrafts and if you don’t see the difference that is okay because explaining it at this point would not do any good and it would only further divert away from the thread’s topic.

[DeltaLover]

Why not stop this nonsense, your knowledge of artificial intelligence (AI) wasn’t being challenged and my reply to you was not about AI; and I believe you understand that.

It was about your analogy about the mimicking between birds and aircrafts and if you don’t see the difference that is okay because explaining it at this point would not do any good and it would only further divert away from the thread’s topic.

OK then :confused:

Let's focus on the greatness of the horse player again!

[ultracapper]

OK then :confused:

Let's focus on the greatness of the horse player again!

Here I am. Begin the greatness "blahblah".

[barn32]

Again, it is not a good approach, to have an opinion about topics that you do not have enough knowledge about, you are going ito be much better, if you trust the opinions of those who have some expertise on them as opposed to reading some articles on the WebAll well and good as long as those with supposed "expertise" don't talk in riddles and can prove their expertise with concrete real life examples instead of broad postulations espousing their so-called "expertise."

[thaskalos]

All well and good as long as those with supposed "expertise" don't talk in riddles and can prove their expertise with concrete real life examples instead of broad postulations espousing their so-called "expertise."
You've been here for quite a while now. What makes you think that the "concrete real life examples" will begin any time soon?

[thaskalos]

My subsequent posts in this thread on shadowing and modeling were directly related to the question above.

I don't have much interest in "copying" or "reverse engineering" anything that anyone on this forum is using, trying to use, or claiming to use (or claiming to have intimate, first knowledge of). I am a curious person by nature, but I don't think the end result would be worth the effort.
Traynor...thank you for the sincere and detailed answers that you provided for the question that I asked you. One other question if I may, only because I think you might be the only one here who remembers this:

Do you recall a hi-tech handicapping book that James Quinn authored about 25 years ago...in which he raved about a computer system called "The Judge", which supposedly learned from its mistakes, and eventually became capable of achieving better betting results than what any human bettor could be able to attain? As it turned out, The Judge's successful betting career was short-lived, and Quinn blamed the system's developers for misleading him concerning the method's proficiency. I have recently been made aware of a certain developer of a similar AI-type handicapping system, and have talked to him by phone. He assures me that his system is the "genuine article"...and that ultimate victory at the track is assured if someone is smart enough to engage this system's help in the endeavor. In your vast experience with computer-assisted handicapping...have you ever heard of a profitable system such as this being put up for sale?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

[traynor]

Traynor...thank you for the sincere and detailed answers that you provided for the question that I asked you. One other question if I may, only because I think you might be the only one here who remembers this:

Do you recall a hi-tech handicapping book that James Quinn authored about 25 years ago...in which he raved about a computer system called "The Judge", which supposedly learned from its mistakes, and eventually became capable of achieving better betting results than what any human bettor could be able to attain? As it turned out, The Judge's successful betting career was short-lived, and Quinn blamed the system's developers for misleading him concerning the method's proficiency. I have recently been made aware of a certain developer of a similar AI-type handicapping system, and have talked to him by phone. He assures me that his system is the "genuine article"...and that ultimate victory at the track is assured if someone is smart enough to engage this system's help in the endeavor. In your vast experience with computer-assisted handicapping...have you ever heard of a profitable system such as this being put up for sale?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

Quinn (and others) tried to form an "old boy network," in essence trumpeting each others wares. His recommendations often seemed directly related to that quest (especially in his writing about Sartin, et al).

I don't recall a reference by Quinn to "The Judge."

The basic premises of self-learning software are well known, and often used. It is not that complex. I have referred to it occasionally (because of a joke among developers about endless loops) as "rinse and repeat." Translated, it is like a software version of TQM, TQI, and even Weick's sensemaking. In essence, do something. Keep what works best, toss the rest. Do it again. Rinse and repeat.

As for anyone selling a profitable software app (that can generate a positive return over time), I don't think so. If it is worth using, they use it themselves. It may be because I know a particularly aggressive set of bettors, but give any one of them an edge and they will not only milk the cash cow dry, they will sell the meat and hide and anything else worth anything, before anyone realizes what they are doing.

That is not to say such a thing cannot exist. Only that it would be unusual to find someone smart enough to develop it and foolish enough to sell it. The exception would be someone smart enough to develop it, but not smart enough to keep it working. That "rinse and repeat" is a relentless process that probably takes more skill than the developing part.

[Thebigguy]

We cleared 1.7 on Saturday. Most of it coming from the last four races at Aqueduct.

[thaskalos]

We cleared 1.7 on Saturday. Most of it coming from the last four races at Aqueduct.
How did you carry it home?

[baconswitchfarm]

How did you carry it home?


Pixiedust briefcase.

[Capper Al]

The lure might be being an alpha dog a.k.a. the man. Some players will prove worthy, but it doesn't come easy. Like the old saying goes, it's 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. But perspiration alone won't get one there. There's a price to pay to get there. Like an artist who recalls his first drawings being put up on the refrigeration by his parent, he must come to realize his gift is fragile and he's lucky he's found his way at all. The ideas of greatness slips and fades away in the background, like Homer's sirens on the shores, as the true winners sail humbly by keeping their eye on their work and not on themselves.

[ReplayRandall]

Quote:Originally Posted by Thebigguy
We cleared 1.7 on Saturday. Most of it coming from the last four races at Aqueduct.Quote:Originally Posted by thaskalos
How did you carry it home?Pixiedust briefcase.
The $1.7 million Pixiedust carry-all bag (no security provided to your car)
http://rlv.zcache.com/pixie_dust_drawstring_bag-r6335466784a04554a48c5984c591e5b0_zffcx_512.jpg?rl vnet=1

[thaskalos]

The lure might be being an alpha dog a.k.a. the man. Some players will prove worthy, but it doesn't come easy. Like the old saying goes, it's 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. But perspiration alone won't get one there. There's a price to pay to get there. Like an artist who recalls his first drawings being put up on the refrigeration by his parent, he must come to realize his gift is fragile and he's lucky he's found his way at all. The ideas of greatness slips and fades away in the background, like Homer's sirens on the shores, as the true winners sail humbly by keeping their eye on their work and not on themselves.
Okay, Al...where did you read this?

[ultracapper]

Haha. I love this board.

[Thebigguy]

Why do I bother

[Capper Al]

Okay, Al...where did you read this?

That's from experience and the heart. I'm fumbling my way through my rewrite, a project much larger than I ever imagined. Looking at possibly my second losing year in a row while I play for entertainment as I work it out. This is humbling my friend.

[thaskalos]

That's from experience and the heart. I'm fumbling my way through my rewrite, a project much larger than I ever imagined. Looking at possibly my second losing year in a row while I play for entertainment as I work it out. This is humbling my friend.
The year is still young...don't give up the ship. :)

[ultracapper]

Why do I bother

With what? Don't give up, we all have dreams.

[whodoyoulike]

Do you feel you have a special gift to handicap horses or do you think that any expertise that you learned is something that anyone could have learned if they put in the man power hours ?

Ive had people tell me in my life that i have a "gift" as a handicapper…

I've always just thought that the very best players didn't really have any kinds of gifts, but they were the ones who have a good clue and just outwork most people.

Do you feel you have a gift, …

I was hoping Mr. Dahlman would’ve chimed in by now but, I guess he no longer reads this site on a regular basis.

I still remember very vividly when I figured it out. It was many years ago. I went up into the local mountains to relax and think more clearly. Under the light of my campfire, it suddenly came to me about envisioning a race’s scenario and it finally made sense how races are eventually played out.

There were ten basic fundamentals (plus some additional rules that I added later) which needed to be considered in each race. And, they still are applicable today.

Since I didn’t have any papers or a pencil, I etched them in rocks which I found in the area.

I came down from the mountain and everyone I showed them to were skeptical. I went home and transcribed the info to paper and noticed there were a lot of “thou shalt” wordings which isn’t a term I normally use.

It may have been a gift but, I’d rather think I just figured it out.

[Stillriledup]

I'm the best of my generation, my partners call me a special find

TBE?

Money May, is that you? :D