Newcomer to Handicapping

[SteveinDE]

I've been a casual (losing) fan of horse racing and "handicapping" over the last 5 years or so. I'm not a big gambler, but I enjoy reviewing the statistics and figures involved in handicapping.

Even though I put in the time and effort it never seems to pay off. I'm either losing, or barely making any money. I don't want to quit because it's become a hobby of sorts, but I don't want to keep losing either.

It seems like the more I research, the more I realize: I know nothing when it comes to handicapping. I've read a couple books, spent hours researching online and my efforts seem to be fruitless...I'm not sure if it has to do with my betting strategy, my handicapping --- or both. Delaware Park is my home track, and I usually go up there Wednesdays. I also bet through TVG: Gulfstream, Golden Gate, Santa Anita, etc.

I guess what I'm asking for is help, or reassurance that this happens to everyone new to the game? I don't expect someone to divulge their secretive methods, just point me in the right direction. If you're not comfortable with leaving a post private message me.

...wow this message sounds really depressing, ha, I assure you I'm not depressed---just lost.

Anyone want to take a 31 year-old loser, crybaby, man-child under their wing? :D

Thanks,
SteveinDE

[DJofSD]

Welcome to the site.

I doubt any one has ever started betting horses and been an instant winner. IOW, we've all BTDT, so don't give up. Besides, it's a life-long learning experience and any one that believes they've got the game wired, turn around and run away.

There will be plenty of board members telling you what is the best way. And while it works for them, it may or may not work for you. Find what you like and make it a starting point.

For what it's worth, I'd divide things into two areas: handicapping and betting. Knowing how to do one does not automatically mean you can do the other. Learning how to do both reasonably well will make you a winner -- or at least keep you right around breaking even which is a lot better than pouring money down a rat hole.

Best of luck.

[Poindexter]

This is the greatest game in the world. The negativity is because we are frustrated because we know the game can be so much better, but nobody with power to make changes makes any changes for the bettor(they focus their attentions strictly on themselves and the horseman). There are all kinds of books you can read, and they will give you the basics, but they are not going to make you a winner. But you want to read a lot. Some old books I liked were the ones by Quirin and Brohamer and Beyer and Davidowitz. Quinn is very poplular, I find his stuff uninteresting, who knows maybe you will love it. I am sure there are plenty of other good authors discussed in the archive of the library section. Also if you want to bet intelligently, I would suggest at least reading Barry Meadows money secrets book. From what I have seen fellow poster Raybo is pretty sharp and has a handicapping web site you might look into. It is a little to high tech for me, I do everything with a pen and paper. Ultimately your biggest edge in this game is going to come from understanding pace, learning how to make or apply pace figures, watching lots of races and understanding the development of horses. If you can make sense of forum cycles and speed figure patterns, that will help you too. You also have to figure out what past performances you are going to use, they are similar but they are different, and it is no easy choice. I always used the Daily Racing Form, for the last year I have been using Bris and am happy with it. A lot of people on this site are very happy with Timeform USA and given your stage in this game, that may be the best place to start. You mentioned playing Santa Anita. Right in their handicapping page they have analyis by Brad Free and Jeff Siegel for free. A guy name Frank Scatoni gives his pick 4 analysis each day and is very solid. Read there stuff before and/or more importantly after the races and see what you might have missed. Don't let them think for you, but certainly you are going to miss stuff and understanding why they like a horse you do not, will help advance your development as a handicapper. Moreover, study winners. Especially, pricey winners. Why did they win, what did you miss. There is not always a great reason, but there sometimes is.

By the way you can do everything I have mentioned and still end up losing. This is a very tough game. But whatever you do, keep records. Track how much you bet and how much you win or lose in each type of bet. You may be killing the win pools and losing it all in back and more in superfectas or vice versa.

Also read the archives of this site. There have been so many great discussions about so many different topics here for a long, long time. Focus on the posters who talk about beating the game and see what they say. The guys who say nobody can beat this game, obviously do not beat the game themselves and are not going to add much to your game.

I haven't even talked about computers, but Traynor offers all kinds of ideas about using computers to improve your game and a lot of programs are discussed in that area of the site. This might actually be a route you want to take.

Don't expect to get rich, enjoy the game and if you bring it to the next level, you will be giving us ideas on how to beat this game. Dont get down because you are losing or treading water. The vast majority lose. I don't know if you have read the many discussions about rebates, but if you haven't you should. The industry is set up to give an advantage to the biggest players who often are your smartest players. This puts the small player at a bigger disadvantage and they ultimately will have to become extremely good, get some kind of rebates themselves, get lucky(nailing some big pick sixes or super high 5's or pick 4's....) or will end up losing throughout the course of there career. It is not about you, it is the fact that the decisions about attaining handle are being made by short sighted idiots who do not realize that their future depends on whether guys like you (young and fairly new to the game) are going to be lifetime customers or go onto a different hobby. They basically think that you expect to lose and are perfectly content losing the rest of your life. Of course you and I know that is not the case.

[MOG4023]

Hi Steve,

One simple way is to look at the race again after it has run. Look at the winner. If that was your choice. Hold your course. If it wasn't your choice, what attributes did it have. Look at the criteria you use to make your selection and see where the winner fit in to your criteria.

Keep your stakes low. Make your wager. Learn and grow.

[thaskalos]

I will give you the advice that I wish someone had given me when I was a relative newcomer to this game:

Stick to one bet type, preferably the exacta...and don't confuse yourself with all the other bets out there. Sticking to one type of bet in the early going of your horseplaying career will instill some discipline in your play...and it will also limit your risk in any one individual race. The exacta is a relatively inexpensive wager, and you can bend and twist it to fit the circumstances of a particular race. Box it, key it, part-wheel it, I don't care what you do to it...just stick to it while you are still learning the game. Yes, some races are more lucrative than others, and they may demand additional wagers of a different type...but that's for further down the road of your development as a player. Your primary concern now should be to keep your tuition in this game to a minimum.

Master the exacta first...and you'll thank me.

[SteveinDE]

Thanks for all the info guys

[ultracapper]

Echo what Thaskalos said. My choice of bet is Win/Place, but same philosophy. Don't let the betting menu and all the other "opportunities" to cover yourself muddle the process.

[traynor]

http://htr2.com/km/htr.htm

Free trial of app that includes data files to run it. Zero $ investment. Read the stuff on the site, play around with the app to see what it does, what it can do. It will give you a great deal of insight (at no cost) into what handicapping apps (in general) do. And don't do.

Better to look closely at one area than to skim many.

[barn32]

Start with $100. Bet $2 to win. Bet win only. Bet one horse per race. When you turn your $100 into $200 increase your bet to $3 per race. When you turn that into $500 bet $5 per race.

When you reach $2000-$2500 you can start thinking about doing some other things.

If you lose your initial $100, quit the game or start over again with another $100.

Master win betting and everything else will slowly, eventually fall into place.

[Kash$]

Accept to you will lose more then you win.
But when your right you need to capitolize.
When it becomes a job step away

[RXB]

But whatever you do, keep records. Track how much you bet and how much you win or lose in each type of bet. You may be killing the win pools and losing it all in back and more in superfectas or vice versa.


Great advice. Include the track, distance, surface, condition of the surface, and basic class condition. In time you'll find out the type of races where you do well and those where you don't do so well. One of the most important things you can do to improve your game.

[Stillriledup]

Start with $100. Bet $2 to win. Bet win only. Bet one horse per race. When you turn your $100 into $200 increase your bet to $3 per race. When you turn that into $500 bet $5 per race.

When you reach $2000-$2500 you can start thinking about doing some other things.

If you lose your initial $100, quit the game or start over again with another $100.

Master win betting and everything else will slowly, eventually fall into place.

I like this strategy for Steve.

It also depends on how bad Steve wants to win.

If De is your home track, do you have the ability to go to the track live and in person?

[DeltaLover]

Start with $100. Bet $2 to win. Bet win only. Bet one horse per race. When you turn your $100 into $200 increase your bet to $3 per race. When you turn that into $500 bet $5 per race.

When you reach $2000-$2500 you can start thinking about doing some other things.

If you lose your initial $100, quit the game or start over again with another $100.

Master win betting and everything else will slowly, eventually fall into place.

Even with an unrealistic expected ROI of 1.10, you need to bet 500 races to have an EV of $100 as you suggest! In the best case scenario that you can have 10 picks per week (assuming the newbie is a weekend only bettor) you need almost a full year to gather the 500 bets! I bet you anything you want, that such a boring approach is a guarantee way to discourage any potential bettor and direct him to other forms of gambling!

No, I certainly do not like your advice at all!

There has to be a better approach!

[Stillriledup]

Even with an unrealistic expected ROI of 1.10, you need to bet 500 races to have an EV of $100 as you suggest! In the best case scenario that you can have 10 picks per week (assuming the newbie is a weekend only bettor) you need almost a full year to gather the 500 bets! I bet you anything you want, that such a boring approach is a guarantee way to discourage any potential bettor and direct him to other forms of gambling!

No, I certainly do not like your advice at all!

There has to be a better approach!

I think Barn's idea is that you need to 'learn to win' and going conservative is the right way to go, if you are learning to play this game, betting exotics and whatnut is probably going to get you to the poorhouse fast, right now its about staying afloat while he acquires his '10k chunks'.

[JJMartin]

Even with an unrealistic expected ROI of 1.10, you need to bet 500 races to have an EV of $100 as you suggest! In the best case scenario that you can have 10 picks per week (assuming the newbie is a weekend only bettor) you need almost a full year to gather the 500 bets! I bet you anything you want, that such a boring approach is a guarantee way to discourage any potential bettor and direct him to other forms of gambling!

No, I certainly do not like your advice at all!

There has to be a better approach!

How about make a horse racing software and sell it, and refrain from making any bets yourself :)

[Tall One]

According to his op, he usually goes to Delaware on Wednesdays, SRU.

[SteveinDE]

I like this strategy for Steve.

It also depends on how bad Steve wants to win.

If De is your home track, do you have the ability to go to the track live and in person?

Yes, go on Wednesdays

[SteveinDE]

Thanks for all the responses guys, I really do appreciate it.

Let me give you an example to illustrate my point.

Looking at a hypothetical race:

I know that Delaware Park favors the outside post and horses either setting the pace or presser types.

However; if I see too many presser types I may assume the pace may be too fast, tiring the lead horses, enabling a midpack/closer horse to win (especially in racing over 1 mile). But then I consider the jockey and trainer pairing. Finally; I look at if the horse is moving up or down and class.

Sometimes exactly what I think will happen, happens. But more often than not a mid-priced horse whom I seemed to overlook spoils my fun...

I'm I over simplifying it? OR I'm I using too much information? :eek:

When you salty vets look at a race what information do you value, and what information is a toss???

[Tall One]

You've accomplished one major step and that's a circuit/meet you're comfortable with. Some good advice already, but just be patient and work/ease your way into it. I took a break for years, and guess what, it's still here. :)

Lots of knowledgable posters here..Do some research on the forum..you'll find all sorts of topics that fit into your situation...I never had a mentor either but wether they know it or not, a few of them have become my mentors. One posted on the last page.. :ThmbUp:

Just relax and don't be in a hurry. This is a fun game that should be kept in the right frame of mind. You have to accept the losses with the wins in the same light because the former sometimes trump the latter more times than naught. That and you don't want to anger the wagering Gods..

[SteveinDE]

You've accomplished one major step and that's a circuit/meet you're comfortable with. Some good advice already, but just be patient and work/ease your way into it. I took a break for years, and guess what, it's still here. :)

Lots of knowledgable posters here..Do some research on the forum..you'll find all sorts of topics that fit into your situation...I never had a mentor either but wether they know it or not, a few of them have become my mentors. One posted on the last page.. :ThmbUp:

Just relax and don't be in a hurry. This is a fun game that should be kept in the right frame of mind. You have to accept the losses with the wins in the same light because the former sometimes trump the latter more times than naught. That and you don't want to anger the wagering Gods..

Thanks, you're right, always good to take a step back and look...

[whodoyoulike]

Thanks for all the responses guys, I really do appreciate it.

Let me give you an example to illustrate my point.

Looking at a hypothetical race:

I know that Delaware Park favors the outside post and horses either setting the pace or presser types.

However; if I see too many presser types I may assume the pace may be too fast, tiring the lead horses, enabling a midpack/closer horse to win (especially in racing over 1 mile). But then I consider the jockey and trainer pairing. Finally; I look at if the horse is moving up or down and class.

Sometimes exactly what I think will happen, happens. But more often than not a mid-priced horse whom I seemed to overlook spoils my fun...

I'm I over simplifying it? OR I'm I using too much information? :eek:

When you salty vets look at a race what information do you value, and what information is a toss???


Why look at a hypothetical race?

Here are a couple of free past performance web sites which uses the BRIS format. They are similar but one is by track and the other is presented by trainer.

http://www.trks2day.com/wedday.html

http://www.horse-races.net/library/links-pastperformances.htm#free

Why not pick a race with a reference in your post and discuss how you would handicap and bet the race (FYI while learning, you don't really have to make a wager but, you should be building a BR)?

But, as you know when you actually make a wager, one thinks differently.

Hopefully, others will join in whether you start the thread in the Selection or Racing Discussion threads.

Btw, I wouldn't start out betting exactas but I'm guessing it won't be long before you try it.

Hoping you just have fun while you figure it out.

[thaskalos]

Why look at a hypothetical race?

Here are a couple of free past performance web sites which uses the BRIS format. They are similar but one is by track and the other is presented by trainer.

http://www.trks2day.com/wedday.html

http://www.horse-races.net/library/links-pastperformances.htm#free

Why not pick a race with a reference in your post and discuss how you would handicap and bet the race (FYI while learning, you don't really have to make a wager but, you should be building a BR)?

But, as you know when you actually make a wager, one thinks differently.

Hopefully, others will join in whether you start the thread in the Selection or Racing Discussion threads.

Btw, I wouldn't start out betting exactas but I'm guessing it won't be long before you try it.

Hoping you just have fun while you figure it out.

The original poster stated that he has been playing this game for the last 5 years or so...so, we can't say that he is just starting out. Exactas can hardly be called an advanced wager for someone who has spent 5 years playing this game.

[DJofSD]

Exactas/perfectas could be dangerous depending upon whether the bettor is selection or value oriented.

[thaskalos]

At the track...everything is dangerous.

[DJofSD]

Just like living in Australia -- watch out mate, just about everything down under can kill you one way or another. ;)

[Robert Fischer]

I've been a casual (losing) fan of horse racing and "handicapping" over the last 5 years or so. I'm not a big gambler, but I enjoy reviewing the statistics and figures involved in handicapping.

Even though I put in the time and effort it never seems to pay off. I'm either losing, or barely making any money. I don't want to quit because it's become a hobby of sorts, but I don't want to keep losing either.

It seems like the more I research, the more I realize: I know nothing when it comes to handicapping. I've read a couple books, spent hours researching online and my efforts seem to be fruitless...I'm not sure if it has to do with my betting strategy, my handicapping --- or both. Delaware Park is my home track, and I usually go up there Wednesdays. I also bet through TVG: Gulfstream, Golden Gate, Santa Anita, etc.

I guess what I'm asking for is help, or reassurance that this happens to everyone new to the game? I don't expect someone to divulge their secretive methods, just point me in the right direction. If you're not comfortable with leaving a post private message me.

...wow this message sounds really depressing, ha, I assure you I'm not depressed---just lost.

Anyone want to take a 31 year-old loser, crybaby, man-child under their wing? :D

Thanks,
SteveinDE

The fact that you realize that you know nothing puts you far ahead of most players here.

[ultracapper]

In Steve's last post he stated that he takes class moves into consideration. I believe that to be the foundation of handicapping a race. Know which horses are class droppers, and you will have found, quite often, your main contenders, particularly in maiden claiming and lower claiming levels. That is a great place to start when handicapping any race, IMO.

[ReplayRandall]

Thanks, you're right, always good to take a step back and look...Steve, when you take a step back and look, you should be watching replays. Watch them over and over until you're sick of analyzing them. At this point, you're finally at the starting point of what it takes to build a strategy to winning at this game. Stick with win bets, doubles and exactas as your foundation to grinding out a profit. You said that Delaware is your home track, so find a trusted clocker that your bankroll will allow........Workouts will point you to live contenders much more than class drops will. Good Luck, enjoy the journey, and if you really want to be successful.....Get serious, set goals and put in the hard work that it always takes, in any endeavor, to be a winner.

[arw629]

The fact that you realize that you know nothing puts you far ahead of most players here.

I could not agree more with this comment....humble handicapping is where it's at

[Stillriledup]

Yes, go on Wednesdays

Just curious if you bring binoculars and watch the races live, watch the gallop outs and are extremely observant making notes on the athletes. Like Randall says, you need to dig deep into replays.

[raybo]

One of the things my mentor impressed on me early on, and something I have done since, was - keep records of your play! This single activity, once you learn a bit about handicapping and betting, is one of the best ways to improve your play. Find out which tracks you do best at, what types of races you do best at, what types of bets you do best at, and conversely, which tracks, race types, and bet types you do worse at, etc.. Once you have a significant number of records for your play, either avoid the tracks and race types, etc., in which you do poorly, or figure out how to improve your play on those. If you continue to play tracks, race types, and bet types that are losing the most money for you, you will keep losing money, at least until you improve those plays, somehow.

Like some said here, start with the simplest bet types; win, win/place, exacta, doubles, etc.. Start with a flat bet, like a $2 win bet or a $2 exacta, etc.. Once you can produce a profit, or near profit, with small flat bets you can advance from there, but go slowly as most players tend to change their methods and decision processes and/or become uncomfortable, with higher bet amounts.

Above all, honor the cornerstones of successful play; patience, discipline, consistency, and mental/emotional control. Failing at any one of those can ensure that you keep losing.

[Capper Al]

Get the basics down. Read something like Brad Free's Handicapping 101. Then use a commercial software. You won't need anything fancy. A software that tracks class, speed, and connections at first. There is a lot of free software out there. www.BRIS.com has some.Then make a spreadsheet and find a way to track your elements (class, speed, and connections.) See how well these base elements are working for you. Once you have a feel for the basics start working on some elimination rules. Track these and repeat the process meanwhile improving as you go along. It more work than brains.

[acorn54]

i will keep this short steve.
thaskalos and raybo give good advice

1-stick to one type of wager

2- keep records

these are the two most important things I DO, that have the biggest signifcance on the POSITVE aspects of my betting.

[DeltaLover]

I know that Delaware Park favors the outside post and horses either setting the pace or presser types.


You should learn to never limit your thinking in this kind of statements

A statement like: I know that Delaware Park favors the outside post, is not useful for betting purposes

What can be useful is the following:

My Input


Delaware Park favors the outside post

The crowd is well aware about it and tends to overbet outer posts converting them to underlays


My Strategy

I will try to find bets from the inside, taking advantage of the overbetting on the outer posts



Your betting should be based on this way of thinking, instead of merely trying to detect the most frequent winner, which in most cases will also be visible to the majority of the bettors.

[Capper Al]

Acorn this reminds me, there's a boys club here like anywhere. They'll listen to each other and not necessarily the idea. Don't fall into this trap. Evaluate the idea and test and test and test more. It's work that seems to never end.

[SteveinDE]

Thank you again for the input, alot to consider. I will definitely start keeping a log and be more diligent in watching replays.

[Robert Fischer]

I could not agree more with this comment....humble handicapping is where it's at

The human brain is a lot like the human egg. It has a shut-off device. Once a sperm gets into the human egg it shuts off the gate, and the human brain is much the same when it comes to 'conclusions'.

There's a bias towards commitment. Particularly if they were hard-won conclusions.
Also, writing down a commitment and declaring a commitment.

We've all, myself included, declared our philosophies and opined many times, and we are almost impervious to learning new things. We are all experts here.

Market interaction at this level (thoroughbred horse race gambling) has so many psychological factors, even far beyond commitment and consistency bias...

[Robert Fischer]

Thank you again for the input, alot to consider. I will definitely start keeping a log and be more diligent in watching replays.

I would advise you to work towards seeing and understanding the system first. Until you have a clear view of how things work you can't win.

Then figure out how your are going to behave rationally once you are able to see the system.

Then it's just a matter of effort and ability.

[Capper Al]

I would advise you to work towards seeing and understanding the system first. Until you have a clear view of how things work you can't win.

Then figure out how your are going to behave rationally once you are able to see the system.

Then it's just a matter of effort and ability.

Reading sum of the classic handicapping books, and playing with free software would help to this end also.

[JustRalph]

understand who you are playing against

understand what tools they are using

make sure you aren't outgunned in the info or tools department.

Then you can lose less, but making money today is probably not a reality

[JJMartin]

understand who you are playing against

understand what tools they are using

make sure you aren't outgunned in the info or tools department.

Then you can lose less, but making money today is probably not a reality

Its never been a more level playing field with access to tons of data. Not to mention the greedy takeouts. The only thing that could possibly help a return to profitability is global pool money.

[AndyC]

Lost in the puzzle that each race presents a horseplayer is the fact that racing is no more than a platform for gambling. Before diving in to all of the books dedicated to teaching you how to pick winners, become thoroughly educated on how to be a winning gambler. This would include becoming well-versed in statistics and probability along with the essentials of money management.

Of course, after you educate yourself on gambling you may quickly realize that racing is not a very good gamble. It is, however, a great pastime for people who enjoy puzzles.

[letswastemoney]

There are very few handicappers that are advanced enough to give the right advice, and some of them are good but can't explain their method.

Don't waste time with cheap claiming races with horses that have random form, and that take an hour to go over, and where you come to no conclusions.

If a race is easy enough (relatively speaking), you will know at first glance, and then you go research a bit further and attack it.

[TonyMLake]

Start with $100. Bet $2 to win. Bet win only. Bet one horse per race. When you turn your $100 into $200 increase your bet to $3 per race. When you turn that into $500 bet $5 per race.

When you reach $2000-$2500 you can start thinking about doing some other things.

If you lose your initial $100, quit the game or start over again with another $100.

Master win betting and everything else will slowly, eventually fall into place.


I LOVE the approach because it's the easiest way to actually walk out a winner. I've tried just about every approach I've read on here, and this one is the one that *actually* turned my game around and made me start walking out UP.

There's NOTHING more encouraging than walking out up.

Sure, I have a lot of bad runs like anyone else... thing is, since I've started betting this way (a few years ago) I haven't added any money to my bankroll... it increases, ever so slowly, but it increases. I'd need a lot more money to "Scale it up", but I don't care. I love going to the track since I started betting this way because I know a) it's not completely just "getting lucky" b) I have a good chance of hitting it and walking out a winner.

Yes, I've murdered myself with every type of exotic out there for years at a time. Yes, I've picked more than one horse. But THIS EXACT STRATEGY MENTIONED ABOVE is what actually works for me.

No, it's not perfect, but it IS the most exciting, because nothing is less exciting than being a loser to me. It's *usually* close enough to come out even or up. I'm okay with that.

[whodoyoulike]

The original poster stated that he has been playing this game for the last 5 years or so...so, we can't say that he is just starting out. Exactas can hardly be called an advanced wager for someone who has spent 5 years playing this game.

Well, the decision will actually have to be his. My advice to not bet exactas was based on his writings further down in his post rather than stopping at his 5 years comment.

I've been a casual (losing) fan of horse racing and "handicapping" over the last 5 years or so. I'm not a big gambler, but I enjoy reviewing the statistics and figures involved in handicapping.

Even though I put in the time and effort it never seems to pay off. I'm either losing, or barely making any money. I don't want to quit because it's become a hobby of sorts, but I don't want to keep losing either.

It seems like the more I research, the more I realize: I know nothing when it comes to handicapping. I've read a couple books, spent hours researching online and my efforts seem to be fruitless...I'm not sure if it has to do with my betting strategy, my handicapping --- or both. Delaware Park is my home track, and I usually go up there Wednesdays. I also bet through TVG: Gulfstream, Golden Gate, Santa Anita, etc.

I guess what I'm asking for is help, or reassurance that this happens to everyone new to the game? ...


Now, I do realize that some of you always like to apply your theoretical handicapping knowledge to hypothetical situations whereas I prefer to apply my theories to actual races before they're run.

I've found at least for me that this is the best way to learn.

[thaskalos]

Well, the decision will actually have to be his. My advice to not bet exactas was based on his writings further down in his post rather than stopping at his 5 years comment.




Now, I do realize that some of you always like to apply your theoretical handicapping knowledge to hypothetical situations whereas I prefer to apply my theories to actual races before they're run.

I've found at least for me that this is the best way to learn.
I read the guy's post all the way through...and I still recommend that he try the exactas. Five years in the game are enough to acclimate someone to exacta betting, whether he is a losing player or not, in my opinion. And the sarcastic remark at the end of your post is misdirected when it is aimed at me. I may talk a lot...but I wager even more.

[JohnGalt1]

I like that most here advise the KISS principle. Keep It Simple.

If you decide to bet to win and a race comes up where you like 2 horses, and the odds are high enough---bet both to win.

If you believe a 7-5 and a 2-1 horses are equal, don't try to find an onion skin difference and pick one, pass the race. You won't be arrested.

If your two horses' total odds add up to about 8-1, what I try to do if I like two horses, say 5-2 and 7-1, bet both to win. Some would advise if they are about equal bet the 7-1, in the long run you'll do better.

I'll split my bet and collect either $7.00+ or $16.00+ or nothing, and move on the next bet.

I said next bet because it might not happen for a few races or even the next card.

Some would advise betting two horses is betting against yourself since only one horse can win. That's the same argument against exacta boxes. If you collect with a 3 horse exacta box, 5 combos lost.

What matters is if you made a profit, or if the money you wagered in ANY BET has chance to make a profit. Betting a pick 3 with all favorites for $16 that wins and returns $18.80 is a bet that should not have been made since your optimum outcome is a push. If one played that bet with 3 favorites, but replace longshots that one believes have a good chance of winning and not using the second and third favorites, and still collect $18.80, at least this pick 3 had a chance to win a decent profit.


Finally, don't bet if you have no advantage. If you can make a good case for more than half a field to win or you can't make a case that no one is a likely winner, pass the race.

About 80% of my bets are win bets, 33%-50% I bet two horses to win, and exactas.

I Keep It Simple because it works for me.

[Poindexter]

I am going to have to disagree with the typical theme of a lot of posts here. Racing provide a complete menu to attack this game to the fullest. There is a huge variety of way to beat this game. From keying very solid singles at 4/5 in the pick 3's and pick 4's to keying live longshots in the minor positions of trifectas and superfectas, to taking a stand against an overbet chalk in the multip pick exotics. A 12 horse field may not appear to offer a lot of value when your top choice is 5/2 and your second choice is 7/2 and your 3rd choice is 9/2, but maybe the 3 lay over the field from both an ability and trip perspective and might offer nice value as a trifecta box in a race that otherwise has no value. Think the heavy chalk that was just claimed for 16 and dropped to 10 may run off the board? Think there is lot of value in a trifecta key with your 2nd choice over your next 3 or 4 choices. If you are right you knocked a heavy chalk off your trifecta or superfecta ticket. Think a pace if soft in the early pace scenario and 2 horses look to take adantage. Sure you can box them in the exacta, but how often does an obvious contender sneak by one of them, you run 1st and 3rd and your exacta gets back zero, but a 2x3(other conteders)x2 trifecta can get you the money. Think a 50-1 is interesting. How often do these guys fall a little short an end up 3rd or 4th. Key them in the 3/4 hole and you got a nice paying exacta/superfecta potentially.

The more I play this game, the more I realize this game is all about execution and using all tools at your disposal to make money. I leave chips on the table almost every day I play, not because I cannot handicap or recognize value or because I do not know how to bet. I leave them on the table, because I faill to properly prepare, focus, and execute. You want to focus your betting on strictly win or exactas, be my guest. I believe that by doing so you are failing to take advantage of a lot of the opportunity this game has to offer. In a game loaded with sharp money I do not consider that wise.

One final note to the OP, I would advise if you are not familiar with totebard handicapping, to really study the toteboard. I do not know if there are any good books on the subject, but if you do not know what to look for on the toteboard, you are at a big disadvantage. Spend some off days at your ADW, do not even handicap races, just study the toteboard at various tracks then monitor the results and see what you can learn.

[Maximillion]

I am going to have to disagree with the typical theme of a lot of posts here. Racing provide a complete menu to attack this game to the fullest. There is a huge variety of way to beat this game. From keying very solid singles at 4/5 in the pick 3's and pick 4's to keying live longshots in the minor positions of trifectas and superfectas, to taking a stand against an overbet chalk in the multip pick exotics. A 12 horse field may not appear to offer a lot of value when your top choice is 5/2 and your second choice is 7/2 and your 3rd choice is 9/2, but maybe the 3 lay over the field from both an ability and trip perspective and might offer nice value as a trifecta box in a race that otherwise has no value. Think the heavy chalk that was just claimed for 16 and dropped to 10 may run off the board? Think there is lot of value in a trifecta key with your 2nd choice over your next 3 or 4 choices. If you are right you knocked a heavy chalk off your trifecta or superfecta ticket. Think a pace if soft in the early pace scenario and 2 horses look to take adantage. Sure you can box them in the exacta, but how often does an obvious contender sneak by one of them, you run 1st and 3rd and your exacta gets back zero, but a 2x3(other conteders)x2 trifecta can get you the money. Think a 50-1 is interesting. How often do these guys fall a little short an end up 3rd or 4th. Key them in the 3/4 hole and you got a nice paying exacta/superfecta potentially.

The more I play this game, the more I realize this game is all about execution and using all tools at your disposal to make money. I leave chips on the table almost every day I play, not because I cannot handicap or recognize value or because I do not know how to bet. I leave them on the table, because I faill to properly prepare, focus, and execute. You want to focus your betting on strictly win or exactas, be my guest. I believe that by doing so you are failing to take advantage of a lot of the opportunity this game has to offer. In a game loaded with sharp money I do not consider that wise.

One final note to the OP, I would advise if you are not familiar with totebard handicapping, to really study the toteboard. I do not know if there are any good books on the subject, but if you do not know what to look for on the toteboard, you are at a big disadvantage. Spend some off days at your ADW, do not even handicap races, just study the toteboard at various tracks then monitor the results and see what you can learn.


All of what you say makes sense but you need a very large (or separate) bankroll(s) to be able to play like that without tapping out.This just isnt possible for everyone.

[whodoyoulike]

I am going to have to disagree with the typical theme of a lot of posts here. Racing provide a complete menu to attack this game to the fullest. There is a huge variety of way to beat this game...

I read the OP asking for help in understanding this game better. Your post is based on your past experiences which has worked for you in the past.

Do you really think he would have the ability to do what you are recommending at his stage of knowledge and experience?

I'm surprised several have recommended he focus on exacta betting. He'll be broke and out of the game in less than a year maybe 6 months. I've never found exacta betting easy (and I'm not saying that others haven't been able to bet exactas successfully). You have to have some type of a strategy and a good size BR to be successful or even to be able to stay in the game.

[Poindexter]

All of what you say makes sense but you need a very large (or separate) bankroll(s) to be able to play like that without tapping out.This just isnt possible for everyone.

Yes and no. It depends on the play. Increase bankroll comes from redundant bets or lower probability bets not from more bets. If I like a 10-1 shot and key him in 3 legs of the pick 3 and in doubles and win/place and exactas and trifecta and supers....yes I am really magnifying my bankroll a lot. If I only play pick 4's or pick 5's because I feel they offer better value, then yes I need a nice bankroll to hold up through the dry spells. On the other hand if I am betting a big exacta box 1-7 and then covering with a 1-7/5-6-8/1-7 trifecta then I am not increasing my bankroll, I am increasing my chances of cashing a ticket. Likewise if I am playing a 3-6-7 Trifecta box and cover with a 3-6-7/3-6-7/2-8-9-10/3-6-7 superfecta. Also if I am keying a 4-1 on the front end of the trifecta and superfecta an additonal bet on some 50-1 shot on the back end is not increasing my bankroll very much(it does a little because he is low probability even to run 3rd and 4th).

But yes bankroll is very important in this game an if you do not have a sufficient bankroll, you must be very careful or else you will not be playing this game very long. Until you save up a new one.

[Capper Al]

What's wrong with reading a book first and making fantasy bets, and then trying a fantasy contest before any real money is involved?

[whodoyoulike]

What's wrong with reading a book first and making fantasy bets, and then trying a fantasy contest before any real money is involved?

Nothing. Except as I've mentioned before unless you have some "skin" in the race your fantasy bet will never be the same as when you have some anxiety awaiting the outcome of a race. And, if you don't have that feeling of anxiety, you're probably not betting enough.

[Poindexter]

I read the OP asking for help in understanding this game better. Your post is based on your past experiences which has worked for you in the past.

Do you really think he would have the ability to do what you are recommending at his stage of knowledge and experience?

I'm surprised several have recommended he focus on exacta betting. He'll be broke and out of the game in less than a year maybe 6 months. I've never found exacta betting easy (and I'm not saying that others haven't been able to bet exactas successfully). You have to have some type of a strategy and a good size BR to be successful or even to be able to stay in the game.


We are all learning this game every day. If we are not, we should be. What I discern from the original post is that there is a fairly young horse player who like 98%(99.5% if he is not getting rebates) of other horse players finds the game very hard to beat. We have discussed quite often how efficient the pools are due to rebates and how unfortunately this is not likely to change in our lifetime, because nobody in this industry has an ounce of vision. So while my post applies to him it ultimately applies to everyone who is not content with how they do in this game. OP and everyone else have to be very careful and learn there way through this game and must understand the concept of bankroll and probability. I believe there was a post about taking classes in statistics and that is definitely wise.

This game is analagous to the retail market. The heavy hitters own the market(Walmart, Costco, Target, Amazon....) and the small companies that make it are the ones able to find a niche they can exploit. This game is not a whole lot different.

Who is to say that if he focuses his energy on just key horses to win or win/place he ever gets profitable. He may come back in 10 years asking the same question. There are ways to beat this game, but it takes a lot of creativity, knowledge and effort to have a fighting chance and often requires using all the tools available to you.

[Capper Al]

Nothing. Except as I've mentioned before unless you have some "skin" in the race your fantasy bet will never be the same as when you have some anxiety awaiting the outcome of a race. And, if you don't have that feeling of anxiety, you're probably not betting enough.

Why can't one slowly increase their attack as they grow? The free contests are a good start.

[thaskalos]

Yes and no. It depends on the play. Increase bankroll comes from redundant bets or lower probability bets not from more bets. If I like a 10-1 shot and key him in 3 legs of the pick 3 and in doubles and win/place and exactas and trifecta and supers....yes I am really magnifying my bankroll a lot. If I only play pick 4's or pick 5's because I feel they offer better value, then yes I need a nice bankroll to hold up through the dry spells. On the other hand if I am betting a big exacta box 1-7 and then covering with a 1-7/5-6-8/1-7 trifecta then I am not increasing my bankroll, I am increasing my chances of cashing a ticket. Likewise if I am playing a 3-6-7 Trifecta box and cover with a 3-6-7/3-6-7/2-8-9-10/3-6-7 superfecta. Also if I am keying a 4-1 on the front end of the trifecta and superfecta an additonal bet on some 50-1 shot on the back end is not increasing my bankroll very much(it does a little because he is low probability even to run 3rd and 4th).

But yes bankroll is very important in this game an if you do not have a sufficient bankroll, you must be very careful or else you will not be playing this game very long. Until you save up a new one.
The betting style that you are describing here is beyond the capability of a relative beginner in the game. Yes...some races are more lucrative than others, and they should be attacked in a variety of different ways...but that's a skill that the relative beginner has not yet acquired, and the added investment that this style of betting requires is too much for the newcomer to negotiate. The relative beginner has to start somewhere...and I believe that sticking to one type of wager in the beginning is the right way to go.

Why do I recommend exactas instead of the "safer" win-bets that some people advocate? My personal experience has taught me a few things which I didn't believe initially. When I read Andy Beyer's THE WINNING HORSEPLAYER, and I saw him advocating exotics betting while stating that he didn't personally know any horseplayers who were making serious profits while grinding in the win pools, I REVOLTED! I wanted to be a GRINDER! I thought that I had a consistent edge over my competition in this game, and I thought "grinding" was what players with a consistent edge over their competition were supposed to DO. The poker professionals did it, and so did the blackjack professionals...and the biggest grinder of them all -- the casino -- was able to accumulate untold riches simply by grinding the rather modest edge that it enjoyed over its competition. If other gamblers could make serious profits by grinding...then why couldn't the horseplayer do the same thing?

But I looked at my own betting records, and saw that I wasn't achieving much by grinding in the win pools either. Nor did I know of any other horseplayers, who were making decent profits by mining the win pools. We had grown up with win betting, and we were comfortable with it...but none of us were as profitable with it as we thought we were. As Beyer had suggested...it was always some "score" in the exotics that propelled us to the profitability that we might have shown at month's end. It really was an eye-opening experience when I discovered this...and I've been an exotics player ever since. It wasn't easy to make this transition...but I feel it was worth it.

One thing I discovered as an exotics bettor was that Dick Mitchell's advice of not venturing into the exotics until you have proven yourself to be a profitable win-bettor, certainly didn't apply to me. I certainly wasn't a profitable win-bettor...but I became a profitable exotics bettor anyway. I found that exotics betting requires an entirely different set of skills than win betting does...and that profitable win-betting doesn't necessarily prepare you for the exotics. That's why I feel that the original poster of this thread should start with the exacta from the beginning. Only the exotics prepare you for the exotics.

Now...I am not implying here that there are no serious profits to be made in the win pools, just because Andy Beyer, Thaskalos...and all the horseplayers that we personally know, are unable to do it. There are many people here who claim to make serious profits with win bets...and I find no reason to disbelieve them. But I only offer opinions here that are based on my own direct experience...so, I must voice my opinion that exotics betting is the way to go in today's game. I could go into greater detail about it...but Beyer has already done it better than I ever could.

[raybo]

I'm surprised several have recommended he focus on exacta betting. He'll be broke and out of the game in less than a year maybe 6 months. I've never found exacta betting easy (and I'm not saying that others haven't been able to bet exactas successfully). You have to have some type of a strategy and a good size BR to be successful or even to be able to stay in the game.

Exactas are not much different than win betting. For one thing most races one handicaps ends up with more than one win contender. Which one do you bet, or do you bet more than one? Well, if you bet one then you're stuck with that horse, and maybe not at odds that are worth the risk. If you bet more than one, you have a better chance of cashing, but you spend more money on the bet, again, maybe the total cost is not worth the risk because you will only get one win payout.

Exactas often come in with one's contenders hitting, just maybe in the wrong order. But, with the introduction of the $1 exactas one can cover those horses better, for not much more than a $2 win bet on a single horse, or a $4 or $6 bet on 2 or 3 horses.

Exactas are the easiest of the vertical exotics to hit, because there isn't that much difference between pickling the winner and the place horse, you can handicap both betting lines the same way, pretty much. Now, with trifectas, and superfectas, that is not necessarily true, and often isn't at all true. The show and 4th horses can be almost any horse in the field in many races, so one is forced to look at, and handicap, those 2 betting lines differently than the place line.

The beauty of the exacta is that even if your win horse is relatively low odds, for the same, or almost the same money, one can in effect, increase those lower odds and get a better payout than a straight win bet.

My point is, that one must learn how to handicap for the winner, anyway, and if you can do that then you are already handicapping the place horse too, in most races. And by betting the exacta, you are leveraging the payouts in your favor, versus a straight win bet. Better value for the same, or almost the same money, and probably almost the same hit rate if you choose your races carefully.

In my opinion, one will empty their bankroll almost as quickly betting to win as they will betting the exacta. But, with exactas, you have the chance of hitting some relatively large payouts that are not available with win betting unless you are playing longer shots, and that is a totally different bag of worms that the newer player probably should not tackle yet.

[JustRalph]

Great thread. If the guy is still interested in playing, he's nuts.

15 yrs ago I would be telling him to go all in with some of the stuff I've read in this thread. But with all the crappy cheating that goes on today, the low prices and the severe lack of decent jocks, I'd think twice

[ReplayRandall]

If, we here at PA, can't be truthful ambassadors of horse racing, who else can be the real advocate?........There is no one else, period.

[whodoyoulike]

Why can't one slowly increase their attack as they grow? The free contests are a good start.

As I've previously posted there is nothing wrong with your thinking. But, be honest with yourself in your reply.... Would you bet the same way and the same amount(s) if your bet was fantasy versus an actual bet with $$?

I remember a member who used to post 4 contenders but never indicate how he would've bet them. I did ask him one time how he would have bet and his response was that it was his "secret". After the results, he boasted he would've bet WPS, exactas, tri's etc., depending on how or if the contenders finished. Apparently, he never had losing bets.

His handle had "Gold" something in it. I no longer see him posting. Some on here actually followed his picks and praised his selections. But, I no longer see them posting either.

[barn32]

Exactas are the easiest of the vertical exotics to hit, because there isn't that much difference between picking the winner and the place horse...
Are you saying the second best win horse is the best place horse? I personally feel that picking a horse to finish exactly second is much more difficult than picking a horse to win.

[whodoyoulike]

Exactas are not much different than win betting. For one thing most races one handicaps ends up with more than one win contender. Which one do you bet, or do you bet more than one? Well, if you bet one then you're stuck with that horse, and maybe not at odds that are worth the risk. If you bet more than one, you have a better chance of cashing, but you spend more money on the bet, again, maybe the total cost is not worth the risk because you will only get one win payout.

Exactas often come in with one's contenders hitting, just maybe in the wrong order. But, with the introduction of the $1 exactas one can cover those horses better, for not much more than a $2 win bet on a single horse, or a $4 or $6 bet on 2 or 3 horses.

Exactas are the easiest of the vertical exotics to hit, because there isn't that much difference between pickling the winner and the place horse, you can handicap both betting lines the same way, pretty much. Now, with trifectas, and superfectas, that is not necessarily true, and often isn't at all true. The show and 4th horses can be almost any horse in the field in many races, so one is forced to look at, and handicap, those 2 betting lines differently than the place line.

The beauty of the exacta is that even if your win horse is relatively low odds, for the same, or almost the same money, one can in effect, increase those lower odds and get a better payout than a straight win bet.

My point is, that one must learn how to handicap for the winner, anyway, and if you can do that then you are already handicapping the place horse too, in most races. And by betting the exacta, you are leveraging the payouts in your favor, versus a straight win bet. Better value for the same, or almost the same money, and probably almost the same hit rate if you choose your races carefully.

In my opinion, one will empty their bankroll almost as quickly betting to win as they will betting the exacta. But, with exactas, you have the chance of hitting some relatively large payouts that are not available with win betting unless you are playing longer shots, and that is a totally different bag of worms that the newer player probably should not tackle yet.

As I've stated, IMO you need to have a strategy when playing exactas.

What I've found, my contenders don't usually or frequently come in where you can just box them. Depends on the pace scenario because one horse can press or burn the others out in a duel etc.

Do you think the OP has the experience to come up with a successful strategy at this stage?

I don't think he's capable of visualizing the pace scenario of a race at this point in time which is what he needs to develop. As Replay Randall advised, he needs to watch a lot of video replays. And, I've also have been an advocate of watching replays.

[Capper Al]

Are you saying the second best win horse is the best place horse? I personally feel that picking a horse to finish exactly second is much more difficult than picking a horse to win.

It seems that way.

[Poindexter]

Are you saying the second best win horse is the best place horse? I personally feel that picking a horse to finish exactly second is much more difficult than picking a horse to win.

I think typically that is the case. The exceptions are the obvious win types. First time starters, horses off of a layoff, horses trying something new (1st time route or 1st time turf or 1st time marathon), horses with negative barn switches, suspicious droppers, horses that might bounce, horses with suspect workout activity, horses subject to a speed duel, shippers.....................but even some of these guys can fire and just end up 2nd, so it is not like they cannot run 2nd, it is just that they typically they make more sense on the top end than in the 2 hole. It makes the game more complex.

I think if you look at exacta this way, your top 3 choices are going to win 60-70 % of the races, your top 4 70%-80% of the races(I am assuming big competitive fields), so they likely will complete the exacta with your key roughly a similar amount of the time(either top or bottom depending on where your key finishes). So if you have a 12 horse field and key one horse with 3 partners and can cash 65% of the time your horse finishes 1st or 2nd, that isn't too bad. It costs you $12 to box with 3 horses vs $44 to box with all 11. I am assuming your key will be good value, so that will offset the fact that a couple of horses that you are using may not be.

If you are looking to hit an exacta with just value horse with value horse, good luck. Your cashes will be few and far between. You might be able to get two value horses in a tri on occasion or more often in a super, but 1-2, very rare.

Regarding pace, most races aren't that obvious, but in races where there is a pace advantage(either overloaded with speed or soft on speed), you do want to use the exotics as a tool to capitalize on that pace advantage. However, typically in these scenarios your top choices should be horses that figure to be benefitted by the likely pace scenario. But yes these races should be treated differently.

[Magister Ludi]

I don't expect someone to divulge their secretive methods, just point me in the right direction.

Read, study, understand, assimilate, and make yours every one of Trifecta Mike's posts on this forum. That's all you need to be a winner in this business.

[Poindexter]

Read, study, understand, assimilate, and make yours every one of Trifecta Mike's posts on this forum. That's all you need to be a winner in this business.

I am not being a smart a** here. I respect really smart people and from what I can tell Magister Ludi and Trifecta Mike fit the bill. This is not the first time Magister Ludi has made this statement. I am just wondering if anybody on this forum has tried to do this and brought there game to a different level (either from losing to winning or from winning to winning a lot) by doing so. I would have to go back to school a couple of years just to understand his posts, so I want to make sure it is worth my time :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Magister Ludi]

I am just wondering if anybody on this forum has tried to do this and brought there game to a different level (either from losing to winning or from winning to winning a lot) by doing so.

"Hi Magister Ludi,

Great advice. It worked for me. My TM file is over 600 pages and growing (his posts and my notes). I have actually printed all his posts (posts I could find) and put them into categories.

Once you are able to put his posts into some order, you can appreciate that the man is brilliant.

Thomas Sapio"

[AlanBaze]

Regarding to the spreadsheet to monitor how well your doing with class or connections. Do you or anyone else have a copy of that type of spreadsheet that one can view or have?

Thanks Alan

[barn32]

It costs you $12 to box with 3 horses vs $44 to box with all 11.It costs $6 to key one horse on top to three underneath, and only $4 to key to two horses underneath. I think most horse players use way too many combinations in the exotics.

One of the best horse players I ever knew refused to box. When I asked him why he said, "I've either got it or I don't."

[whodoyoulike]

Read, study, understand, assimilate, and make yours every one of Trifecta Mike's posts on this forum. That's all you need to be a winner in this business.


I did read your paste of Sapio's response to you but, have you done this?

Maybe you can enlighten us with a couple of important horse handicapping ideas which you've deemed valuable because I also have noted that you've posted this exact same post in several other threads.

[thaskalos]

"Hi Magister Ludi,

Great advice. It worked for me. My TM file is over 600 pages and growing (his posts and my notes). I have actually printed all his posts (posts I could find) and put them into categories.

Once you are able to put his posts into some order, you can appreciate that the man is brilliant.

Thomas Sapio"

I noticed that Thomas Sapio hasn't posted for a while. I wonder if he struck it rich...

[proximity]

Just curious if you bring binoculars and watch the races live, watch the gallop outs and are extremely observant making notes on the athletes. Like Randall says, you need to dig deep into replays.

it's been a few years since i've been there but in this vein i've seen the overly hard/aggressive warm up work enough at delaware to get my attention.....

[Saratoga_Mike]

I noticed that Thomas Sapio hasn't posted for a while. I wonder if he struck it rich...

Call me conspiratorial, but I always thought Sapio, TrifectaMike and M Ludi were the same poster.

[thaskalos]

Call me conspiratorial, but I always thought Sapio, TrifectaMike and M Ludi were the same poster.

I doubt that. I happen to know for a fact that TrifectaMike possesses a very keen sense of humor...which is something that Magister Ludi sorely lacks.

[raybo]

Are you saying the second best win horse is the best place horse? I personally feel that picking a horse to finish exactly second is much more difficult than picking a horse to win.

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that normally when one handicaps for the win, one ends up with a set of contenders (2 or more horses). The place horse is often in that set of contenders.

If you separate those contenders and decide on a single win horse, sometimes that horse's offered odds do not warrant the risk of the wager. But, with that horse on the win line, and 2 or 3 (or more) of your other contenders below it, those odds suddenly increase, and if your win horse comes in, and you have 2 or 3 other logical contenders under it, you have an excellent chance of cashing the exacta, at a higher price than if you had bet that one horse to win only. It's leveraging the same handicapping methodology into better payouts.

Of course, sometimes the place horse is not one of the logical win contenders, but you wouldn't have bet it to win anyway, so you lose the bet regardless. The value is that when you do hit an exacta you get a higher price, for almost the same cost as your win bet, and if you are careful with the races you play, your hit rate can be as good, or almost as good as win betting alone.

[whodoyoulike]

I doubt that. I happen to know for a fact that TrifectaMike possesses a very keen sense of humor...which is something that Magister Ludi sorely lacks.

Could be an alter ego situation?

I'm wondering if ML will ever reply. I should have asked him for his top ten handicapping ideas he has learned which has turned around his game.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I doubt that. I happen to know for a fact that TrifectaMike possesses a very keen sense of humor...which is something that Magister Ludi sorely lacks.

I, too, miss Trifecta Mike's jocularity. That said, 2/5 says TM and ML are the same poster--it's too obvious. I'm less certain on Sapio.

[raybo]

It costs $6 to key one horse on top to three underneath, and only $4 to key to two horses underneath. I think most horse players use way too many combinations in the exotics.

One of the best horse players I ever knew refused to box. When I asked him why he said, "I've either got it or I don't."

I agree, if you're talking about a straight box ticket. Every test I've ever done on straight box tickets (exacta, tri, super) has always resulted in long term negative ROIs.

However, taking a stand on the win line, and adding more coverage on the other betting lines, produces much better ROIs. The hit rate may be less than a box, but the ticket cost savings, and the additional coverage on the bottom lines, more than make up for it.

There are few horses, in most races, that can win, a few more that can finish 2nd, more that can finish 3rd, and even more that can finish 4th. It's only logical to spread more on the bottom of those tickets than on the top.

And, then you can add "key horses" to that, and you have another way of saving costs and getting excellent coverage.

[thaskalos]

I, too, miss Trifecta Mike's jocularity. That said, 2/5 says TM and ML are the same poster--it's too obvious. I'm less certain on Sapio.

I would take that bet...but the last time I bet with you, it took a miracle for me to escape with my shirt on. :)

[Saratoga_Mike]

I would take that bet...but the last time I bet with you, it took a miracle for me to escape with my shirt on. :)

Trust me, one in the same, as sure as Zenyatta was the greatest mare of all time.

[raybo]

As I've stated, IMO you need to have a strategy when playing exactas.

What I've found, my contenders don't usually or frequently come in where you can just box them. Depends on the pace scenario because one horse can press or burn the others out in a duel etc.

Do you think the OP has the experience to come up with a successful strategy at this stage?

I don't think he's capable of visualizing the pace scenario of a race at this point in time which is what he needs to develop. As Replay Randall advised, he needs to watch a lot of video replays. And, I've also have been an advocate of watching replays.

If you are doing a good job of win handicapping, you are considering pace, pace battles, likely pace matchups, etc., anyway. If you see a possible pace matchup/battle then you should also see horses that will profit from that battle should it arise. You're already doing the analysis when you analyze the win play, aren't you?

The OP has been around for 5 years, that's plenty of time to have learned to analyze pace. If he hasn't accomplished that yet, then he needs to get with it, IMO.

[thaskalos]

Trust me, one in the same, as sure as Zenyatta was the greatest mare of all time.

I made an innocent comment here once, saying that I thought some of these enigmatic "whales" may be placing or canceling bets after the opening of the starting gate. And Magister Ludi -- whom I never even knew at the time -- jumped up and scolded me, saying that I had some gall accusing him of "cheating". When I replied to him that I didn't really believe that he himself was a "whale"...he chastised me again, for calling him a LIAR, as well as a "cheater". :)

I have chatted with TrifectaMike, both on the board and by personal message...and there is no way TrifectaMike would ever resort to such childish behavior.

[ReplayRandall]

I, too, miss Trifecta Mike's jocularity. That said, 2/5 says TM and ML are the same poster--it's too obvious. I'm less certain on Sapio.
IMO, I believe they're two separate people who are a couple(possibly married).....

[whodoyoulike]

If you are doing a good job of win handicapping, you are considering pace, pace battles, likely pace matchups, etc., anyway. If you see a possible pace matchup/battle then you should also see horses that will profit from that battle should it arise. You're already doing the analysis when you analyze the win play, aren't you?

The OP has been around for 5 years, twhat's plenty of time to have learned to analyze pace. If he hasn't accomplished that yet, then he needs to get with it, IMO.


The OP has already acknowledged he's missing something in his handicapping. You guys may be giving him too much credit of what he should be able to do after 5 years of handicapping. I keep re-reading post #1 and he's asking for help which will improve his game and not advice which will bust him sooner.

[raybo]

The OP has already acknowledged he's missing something in his handicapping. You guys may be giving him too much credit of what he should be able to do after 5 years of handicapping. I keep re-reading post #1 and he's asking for help which will improve his game and not advice which will bust him sooner.

Busting our sooner on exactas than win bets has yet to be proved. I submit that one has a much better chance of lasting longer with exactas than win bets, simply because eventually you will hit some rather big exactas, but if you win bet, and aren't good enough to pick longer shots to win you may never hit any.

[thaskalos]

The OP has already acknowledged he's missing something in his handicapping. You guys may be giving him too much credit of what he should be able to do after 5 years of handicapping. I keep re-reading post #1 and he's asking for help which will improve his game and not advice which will bust him sooner.

The OP is under the mistaken impression that half-hearted efforts bring profitable results in this game. He says that he has been playing the horses for five years, has read a couple of books, and has spent additional hours researching online. And yet...he admits to "knowing nothing when it comes to handicapping".

In this game...the vast majority of players lose, even when they take the game SERIOUSLY. When they are just goofing around, they have no chance...

[Some_One]

I've been a casual (losing) fan of horse racing and "handicapping" over the last 5 years or so. I'm not a big gambler, but I enjoy reviewing the statistics and figures involved in handicapping.

Even though I put in the time and effort it never seems to pay off. I'm either losing, or barely making any money. I don't want to quit because it's become a hobby of sorts, but I don't want to keep losing either.

It seems like the more I research, the more I realize: I know nothing when it comes to handicapping. I've read a couple books, spent hours researching online and my efforts seem to be fruitless...I'm not sure if it has to do with my betting strategy, my handicapping --- or both. Delaware Park is my home track, and I usually go up there Wednesdays. I also bet through TVG: Gulfstream, Golden Gate, Santa Anita, etc.

I guess what I'm asking for is help, or reassurance that this happens to everyone new to the game? I don't expect someone to divulge their secretive methods, just point me in the right direction. If you're not comfortable with leaving a post private message me.

...wow this message sounds really depressing, ha, I assure you I'm not depressed---just lost.

Anyone want to take a 31 year-old loser, crybaby, man-child under their wing? :D

Thanks,
SteveinDE

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
-Thomas Edison on his many failed attempts at the first lightbulb.

Over the last couple of years I've been turned on to Micheal Covel's Trend Following Podcast, he has written a couple of books about Richard Dennis and The Turtles. The Turtles were an experiment, could he take the average person and make them successful using the rules he created. And the answer was yes. Dennis' rules are what is know today as trend following. In the great game that is the stock market, a simple trend following strategy is best, far surpassing any 'fundamental' analysis.

How does this apply to horse racing? Well you have to keep it simple and systematic. Don't spend an hour a race reading the form trying to find something +EV. Find that something that the public is wrong or overestimates and see if it repeats in testing. Find that fav that wins at only 22% instead of the standard 35% based on your criteria.

Finally, f*** speed figures, seriously, don't use them. You want to know who has the best speed figure, probably the fav, and if he doesn't, there is a reason why. People asking where TimeformUS or Brisnet have the best figures is like when some average golf switches to Nike golf clubs to get better since that is what Tiger uses. Also, learning to play without SF's opens up the possibility of playing international tracks that have more profit potential then US racing does.

[Greyfox]

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
-Thomas Edison on his many failed attempts at the first lightbulb.



Edison's statement is true.
(I've just come of an almost embarrassing round at the golf course.)

But on the golf course, at the track, or wherever you are in life, I find wisdom in the adage:

"If what you are doing isn't working, do something different."

[castaway01]

I, too, miss Trifecta Mike's jocularity. That said, 2/5 says TM and ML are the same poster--it's too obvious. I'm less certain on Sapio.

You're on target with this one---same guy. Twisted, but entertaining. On a fishing site I used to frequent, the site administrator had long conversations with...himself using a different name. I've seen this type of thing before.

Sapio is more like "clueless admirer trying to sound smart". Not sure what the deal is there.

[Capper Al]

StevenDE are you still reading this thread? Welcome to the forum. This is a typical thread. The concerns are more about poster's egos than helping. It's even worse in the political threads.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Just having some fun Al - no harm meant. I readily admit that TM/ML have a far superior understanding of advanced mathematics than me.

I'll give some advice to the thread-starter. To be profitable, betting on horses becomes a job (i.e., not fun). There are many, many professions in life that are far more lucrative, so improve your game but keep it as a hobby and have fun (for some reason this statement will bother many on this board).

[Robert Goren]

Call me conspiratorial, but I always thought Sapio, TrifectaMike and M Ludi were the same poster. I don't see that. There are very real differences in what their posts advocate. I will say this though Sapio is certainly a student of TM's and his methods.

[barn32]

What I'm saying is that normally when one handicaps for the win, one ends up with a set of contenders (2 or more horses). The place horse is often in that set of contenders.

How often, if you don't mind my asking?

[raybo]

How often, if you don't mind my asking?

Upwards of 60% for me, depending on how many contenders I end up with. I miss the winner much more often than the place horse.

[SteveinDE]

StevenDE are you still reading this thread? Welcome to the forum. This is a typical thread. The concerns are more about poster's egos than helping. It's even worse in the political threads.

Yes, I'm still reading, I've been busy at work and I went to Parx yesterday. Did OK.

I do want clarify a couple things, my "I know nothing..." comment was a bit of an exaggeration. Obviously I do know some things about handicapping. Just not winning, which in my opinion is the only thing that matters.

I thought I'd give you guys a glimpse at my TVG account numbers, so you have a better understanding of my level of play and wagering.

Cancelled wager $752.00
Deposit $1,477.00
Deposit fee $63.00
Positive Adjustment $17.00
Promotion: $150.00
Refunded Wagers: $101.00
Wagers -$4,335.00
Winnings $2,757.00
Withdrawal: $950.00

These numbers are from Jan 1, 2015 to May 27, 2015. All figures rounded to the nearest dollar.

Most of these bets were exotic. Pick 4's, 3's, & 6's. Trifectas and Supers. I too read Beyer claiming you cannot win now-a-days by grinding, that's why I stayed away.

I'm down $527.00 since Jan 1. Which, I guess, is better than some; but it's still not winning. My goal is to be a successful handicapper, not a casual fan. I know I'm going to lose some money, I don't mind it, as long as I'm progressing.

I'm going to Delaware Park today if the rain holds out, could be thunderstorms later on.

I'll handicap one race to show you my logic. *I'M NOT GIVING ADVICE* just trying to show you how I handicap, so you can let me know if my logic is sound or not.

DELAWARE PARK RACE #2 5/27/2015

#1 MONEY OR LOVE :15-1
First race, don't like the fact he's inside, not impressed with workout ---toss
#2 Luvin Bullies : 4-1
Odds are OK, looks to be on pace, Like Jockey, Like Trainer, dropping in class, looks like a solid win contender
#3 Fashionable Frolic : 9/2
Mid-Pack type, dropping in class, like jockey, decent works, solid
#4 she'satreehuger :15/1
Like new trainer, that's about it---toss
#5 Petticoat Day :10/1
Works look okay, first race, coming from outside, like jockey---bomber?
#6 Royal Stage :7/2
Traveling, off layoff, don't like odds. 2 or 3
#7 Ready it :15/1
First race, like trainer, coming outside, jockey okay ---4 or 5
#8 miss modela :6/1
Like speed, steady horse, mid pack, jockey okay, like odds --3 or 4
#9 Angel Buzz :15/1
There's not much to like---toss
#10 Forever Lily ::15/1
not much too like here either aside from the position---toss
#11 Wycombe Abby :5/1
Like the position, Second race, not a bad horse, just ok---toss

I like :2: / :3: :6: / :3: :6: :8: or :2: / :3: :6: :8: or :5: WIN

Thanks you again guys for all of your help.

[cnollfan]

Steve,

You are far from a novice.

A couple added opinions:

I don't like Miss Modela's 0-for-20 record at single-digit odds.

Forever Lily might like turf sprint after showing consistent speed in turf routes. On paper she's cheap but Gulfstream races are classier than Delaware races so it's less of a step up than it appears.

[thaskalos]

Yes, I'm still reading, I've been busy at work and I went to Parx yesterday. Did OK.

I do want clarify a couple things, my "I know nothing..." comment was a bit of an exaggeration. Obviously I do know some things about handicapping. Just not winning, which in my opinion is the only thing that matters.

I thought I'd give you guys a glimpse at my TVG account numbers, so you have a better understanding of my level of play and wagering.

Cancelled wager $752.00
Deposit $1,477.00
Deposit fee $63.00
Positive Adjustment $17.00
Promotion: $150.00
Refunded Wagers: $101.00
Wagers -$4,335.00
Winnings $2,757.00
Withdrawal: $950.00

These numbers are from Jan 1, 2015 to May 27, 2015. All figures rounded to the nearest dollar.

Most of these bets were exotic. Pick 4's, 3's, & 6's. Trifectas and Supers. I too read Beyer claiming you cannot win now-a-days by grinding, that's why I stayed away.

I'm down $527.00 since Jan 1. Which, I guess, is better than some; but it's still not winning. My goal is to be a successful handicapper, not a casual fan. I know I'm going to lose some money, I don't mind it, as long as I'm progressing.

I'm going to Delaware Park today if the rain holds out, could be thunderstorms later on.

I'll handicap one race to show you my logic. *I'M NOT GIVING ADVICE* just trying to show you how I handicap, so you can let me know if my logic is sound or not.

DELAWARE PARK RACE #2 5/27/2015

#1 MONEY OR LOVE :15-1
First race, don't like the fact he's inside, not impressed with workout ---toss
#2 Luvin Bullies : 4-1
Odds are OK, looks to be on pace, Like Jockey, Like Trainer, dropping in class, looks like a solid win contender
#3 Fashionable Frolic : 9/2
Mid-Pack type, dropping in class, like jockey, decent works, solid
#4 she'satreehuger :15/1
Like new trainer, that's about it---toss
#5 Petticoat Day :10/1
Works look okay, first race, coming from outside, like jockey---bomber?
#6 Royal Stage :7/2
Traveling, off layoff, don't like odds. 2 or 3
#7 Ready it :15/1
First race, like trainer, coming outside, jockey okay ---4 or 5
#8 miss modela :6/1
Like speed, steady horse, mid pack, jockey okay, like odds --3 or 4
#9 Angel Buzz :15/1
There's not much to like---toss
#10 Forever Lily ::15/1
not much too like here either aside from the position---toss
#11 Wycombe Abby :5/1
Like the position, Second race, not a bad horse, just ok---toss

I like :2: / :3: :6: / :3: :6: :8: or :2: / :3: :6: :8: or :5: WIN

Thanks you again guys for all of your help.

What books have you read, Steve...and how do you define yourself as a handicapper? I see in your analysis that you mention the horse's "position" a lot. What is your criteria for determining good and bad position for a horse? There is no mention of any numbers in your analysis; don't you use any "figures" when you handicap? How do you structure your bets? You seem to think that the #11 horse here is an "ok horse", with good "position", and making its second start...and yet, you don't even include this horse at the bottom of your trifecta?

[DeltaLover]

Yes, I'm still reading, I've been busy at work and I went to Parx yesterday. Did OK.

I do want clarify a couple things, my "I know nothing..." comment was a bit of an exaggeration. Obviously I do know some things about handicapping. Just not winning, which in my opinion is the only thing that matters.

I thought I'd give you guys a glimpse at my TVG account numbers, so you have a better understanding of my level of play and wagering.

Cancelled wager $752.00
Deposit $1,477.00
Deposit fee $63.00
Positive Adjustment $17.00
Promotion: $150.00
Refunded Wagers: $101.00
Wagers -$4,335.00
Winnings $2,757.00
Withdrawal: $950.00

These numbers are from Jan 1, 2015 to May 27, 2015. All figures rounded to the nearest dollar.

Most of these bets were exotic. Pick 4's, 3's, & 6's. Trifectas and Supers. I too read Beyer claiming you cannot win now-a-days by grinding, that's why I stayed away.

I'm down $527.00 since Jan 1. Which, I guess, is better than some; but it's still not winning. My goal is to be a successful handicapper, not a casual fan. I know I'm going to lose some money, I don't mind it, as long as I'm progressing.

I'm going to Delaware Park today if the rain holds out, could be thunderstorms later on.

I'll handicap one race to show you my logic. *I'M NOT GIVING ADVICE* just trying to show you how I handicap, so you can let me know if my logic is sound or not.

DELAWARE PARK RACE #2 5/27/2015

#1 MONEY OR LOVE :15-1
First race, don't like the fact he's inside, not impressed with workout ---toss
#2 Luvin Bullies : 4-1
Odds are OK, looks to be on pace, Like Jockey, Like Trainer, dropping in class, looks like a solid win contender
#3 Fashionable Frolic : 9/2
Mid-Pack type, dropping in class, like jockey, decent works, solid
#4 she'satreehuger :15/1
Like new trainer, that's about it---toss
#5 Petticoat Day :10/1
Works look okay, first race, coming from outside, like jockey---bomber?
#6 Royal Stage :7/2
Traveling, off layoff, don't like odds. 2 or 3
#7 Ready it :15/1
First race, like trainer, coming outside, jockey okay ---4 or 5
#8 miss modela :6/1
Like speed, steady horse, mid pack, jockey okay, like odds --3 or 4
#9 Angel Buzz :15/1
There's not much to like---toss
#10 Forever Lily ::15/1
not much too like here either aside from the position---toss
#11 Wycombe Abby :5/1
Like the position, Second race, not a bad horse, just ok---toss

I like :2: / :3: :6: / :3: :6: :8: or :2: / :3: :6: :8: or :5: WIN

Thanks you again guys for all of your help.

Your opinion is very conservative as top 3 picks are going to be same like the crowd's.

The race you have picked, has the potential for an upset. Note that:

:2: and :3: are both trying turf for first time while the :6: who recently tried MSW showing some hope is
dropping again to the claiming ranks...

:2: :3: :6: are obvious choices as they all drop in class and most of the bettors
are going to use them for the top spots (exactly as you are doing in yours).

The :11: is exiting a relatively strong race and if he improves (due to his second
time out) he can easily win.

What I find interesting in this sprint, is that it contains very little early speed,
something that makes the following scenarios possible:

* A horse who was never before on the lead, might take it today, possibly improving
to its carreer best that might be enough to win the race

* A horse who has never been able to follow the leaders in a short distance, might
find itself "near by" (due to the slowness of the field)

Both of these alternatives, are pointing to a horse that might improve drastically or
can win as a first time out.

FTO
==============
The race contains three FTO :1: :5: and :7:


Other candidates to change style
===================================
:4:

From what I have said so far I can see the followng group of horses:

Most frequent winners :11: :6:

First Time Claim / Turf :2: :3: :8:

Longshots: :1: :5: :7: :4:


My First Time Out model, is not very encouraging about the dirt to Turf angle so I
wll eliminate :2: and :3:

I also elimiate the :1: (due to connections)

I believe that either the :11: or the :6: will beat the :8:

So I have

Most frequent winners :11: :6:

Longshots: :5: :7: :4:

Depending or the prices, I might try the following exactas:


:6: with :5: :7: :4:

:11: with :5: :7: :4:


which are 6 combos, trying to get at least five times my total investment

[whodoyoulike]

Call me conspiratorial, but I always thought Sapio, TrifectaMike and M Ludi were the same poster.

You make a good point but, I still think you're also a degenerate gambler.

If what you suspect is correct, it would make sense to me of some of their posts towards each other.

If they are actually separate individuals then their posts towards each other is just sad IMO. You have two guys who are constantly begging others to read another's post(s) for some unknown reason.

I have a question, the three combined have a couple thousand posts between them... Have they ever discussed handicapping horses?

I've only seen a few of their posts over the last two years or so. I did see Trifecta Mike's post on Predicting A Horse's Speed Figure based on the horse's prior four SF's which is one of the threads in which I've partly based my opinion regarding his horse handicapping knowledge. Btw, I still want back the 20 minutes of my life which I spent reading it.

[whodoyoulike]

Yes, I'm still reading, I've been busy at work and I went to Parx yesterday. Did OK.

I do want clarify a couple things, my "I know nothing..." comment was a bit of an exaggeration. Obviously I do know some things about handicapping...

FYI, we don't exaggerate on here. It's not nice!! But, since you're probably one of the first to do so and you're new just keep this in mind in your following posts.

You should bet the :2: :5: :8: :10: in this order.

Why are you betting MC40? Are you any good at these types of races?

Next time, how about including the pp link?

[Delta Cone]

Cancelled wager $752.00
Deposit $1,477.00
Deposit fee $63.00
Positive Adjustment $17.00
Promotion: $150.00
Refunded Wagers: $101.00
Wagers -$4,335.00
Winnings $2,757.00
Withdrawal: $950.00

Why are you paying a $63 deposit fee? Both TVG and TwinSpires offer free deposits if you use your checking account.

One of the things you can do to immediately improve your results is to plug the leaks. All of these small amounts add up to substantial money in the long run.

[Some_One]

Most of these bets were exotic. Pick 4's, 3's, & 6's. Trifectas and Supers. I too read Beyer claiming you cannot win now-a-days by grinding, that's why I stayed away.


I would to meet the person who can claim they're -ev in the win pool but +ev in the exotics and show it's just not due to variance and luck. To me that is like the poker player who claims he can't win at 1/2 nl but is a great tournament player.

In this case, you took about 7-1 on your exactor bet and passed up the 2.7-1 in the win pool on the 2. Lets say you could prove that you had a 10% ROI in the win pool and exactor pool with your plays and your average odds were 2.7-1 and 7-1 respectively. According to Kelly, the recommended risk in the win pool is 19% versus only 4% for the exactor. And even if you were 20% ROI in the exactor pool at 7-1, your acceptable risk only goes up to 5% . Variance is a killer.

I find it quite strange that you have a couple of exotic tickets with the 2 on top, but no 5, then add on 'or win 5'. That just makes no sense to me. Do you like the 5 or not?

Personally I don't look at horses long in the market, they're -ev all around, however if you do look at them, don't look at them through the same glasses as a 2-1 fav. Of course the 20-1 shot has slower speed ratings, less wins, etc, that's why the public has it at 20-1, the question is if there is something that would cause a change in the pattern for the longshot.

[SteveinDE]

Why are you paying a $63 deposit fee? Both TVG and TwinSpires offer free deposits if you use your checking account.

One of the things you can do to immediately improve your results is to plug the leaks. All of these small amounts add up to substantial money in the long run.

TVG won't accept my card online. :confused: I have to phone in my deposits

[Saratoga_Mike]

You make a good point but, I still think you're also a degenerate gambler.



If you define degenerate gambler as someone who has made bets (of any type - it happened to be horse racing) on two days (in total) this year, you got me. Otherwise, I think you're mistaken. I enjoy the racing talk here - I've learned a lot over time from others. Perhaps someday I'll get to play more than twice in five months.

[SteveinDE]

I would to meet the person who can claim they're -ev in the win pool but +ev in the exotics and show it's just not due to variance and luck. To me that is like the poker player who claims he can't win at 1/2 nl but is a great tournament player.

In this case, you took about 7-1 on your exactor bet and passed up the 2.7-1 in the win pool on the 2. Lets say you could prove that you had a 10% ROI in the win pool and exactor pool with your plays and your average odds were 2.7-1 and 7-1 respectively. According to Kelly, the recommended risk in the win pool is 19% versus only 4% for the exactor. And even if you were 20% ROI in the exactor pool at 7-1, your acceptable risk only goes up to 5% . Variance is a killer.

I find it quite strange that you have a couple of exotic tickets with the 2 on top, but no 5, then add on 'or win 5'. That just makes no sense to me. Do you like the 5 or not?

Personally I don't look at horses long in the market, they're -ev all around, however if you do look at them, don't look at them through the same glasses as a 2-1 fav. Of course the 20-1 shot has slower speed ratings, less wins, etc, that's why the public has it at 20-1, the question is if there is something that would cause a change in the pattern for the longshot.

Good, Point about the :5:. He was a long-shot, I figured he be first or last.

[Delta Cone]

TVG won't accept my card online. :confused: I have to phone in my deposits

The "BetCash" option is free for all deposits and withdrawals...it ties directly in to your checking account.

TwinSpires has a similar option called EZmoney.

[SteveinDE]

Your opinion is very conservative as top 3 picks are going to be same like the crowd's.

The race you have picked, has the potential for an upset. Note that:

:2: and :3: are both trying turf for first time while the :6: who recently tried MSW showing some hope is
dropping again to the claiming ranks...

:2: :3: :6: are obvious choices as they all drop in class and most of the bettors
are going to use them for the top spots (exactly as you are doing in yours).

The :11: is exiting a relatively strong race and if he improves (due to his second
time out) he can easily win.

What I find interesting in this sprint, is that it contains very little early speed,
something that makes the following scenarios possible:

* A horse who was never before on the lead, might take it today, possibly improving
to its carreer best that might be enough to win the race

* A horse who has never been able to follow the leaders in a short distance, might
find itself "near by" (due to the slowness of the field)

Both of these alternatives, are pointing to a horse that might improve drastically or
can win as a first time out.

FTO
==============
The race contains three FTO :1: :5: and :7:


Other candidates to change style
===================================
:4:

From what I have said so far I can see the followng group of horses:

Most frequent winners :11: :6:

First Time Claim / Turf :2: :3: :8:

Longshots: :1: :5: :7: :4:


My First Time Out model, is not very encouraging about the dirt to Turf angle so I
wll eliminate :2: and :3:

I also elimiate the :1: (due to connections)

I believe that either the :11: or the :6: will beat the :8:

So I have

Most frequent winners :11: :6:

Longshots: :5: :7: :4:

Depending or the prices, I might try the following exactas:


:6: with :5: :7: :4:

:11: with :5: :7: :4:


which are 6 combos, trying to get at least five times my total investment

This is exactly what I was looking for, Thanks.

[SteveinDE]

The "BetCash" option is free for all deposits and withdrawals...it ties directly in to your checking account.

TwinSpires has a similar option called EZmoney.

I'll look into it, Thanks

[AlanBaze]

Looks like you had all the horses. Just needed to put that 5 in the exacta. $1.00 exacta $29.60. 50 cent trifecta 2-5-8 $118.50. Good handicaping. My opinion is to always put those longshot horses like the 5 in your exacta. Its the best way to show a profit.

[speculus]

Here is a recap of what I wrote on this forum some years ago. Hope this helps you.
------------------

The 20 commandments

1. Invent a simple (as opposed to complex) handicapping method that has the potential to show flat bet profit over the long term. [And take my advice, if you haven't found such a method after intense research--quit this game RIGHT NOW!]

2. The method MUST be such that allows you to focus on ONLY 3% of the horses (max), and disregard the other 97% horses COMPLETELY and FOREVER without any loss of profitability.

3. Develop the temperament--patience and discipline--NOT to deviate from this method--EVER!

4. Based on such a method, do your OWN assessment for ONLY such number of tracks that you can handle WITHOUT devoting more than HALF HOUR a day on the average to this pursuit.

5. Stick to your assessment in the face of contrary opinion even if the entire world gangs up against you if you are sure you will be right more often than the world.

6. Bet ONLY on the FORM of your choice (from the 3%), not on class, pedigree or hype (of the other 97%).

7. Once you make up your mind that your method horse is going over the right trip, right class/level and with the right jockey astride, don't even look at the rivals or competition--just go ahead with your bet.

8. If your horse (from the 3% list) is running over suitable trip, reasonable class level and going out with one of the top 5 jocks (on current form) on the circuit, ignore ALL the other runners at ALL times, and make a WIN or SHOW bet as you deem fit, or depending on the odds and your value considerations.

9. Stay away from numbers of any kind at ALL TIMES--however crude or sophisticated they may be. Because numbers are always a double-edged sword, and even the best mathematical brains cannot be sure they have assigned optimum weightage to all factors that have gone into making those numbers.

10. Get out of the nonsense of overlay/underlay. Remember, every DECISIVE winner is an overlay, and every other winner is a value bet. Period.

11. Make VERY FEW bets, and ONLY those which fulfill ALL of your desired criteria. Remember the maxim: When in doubt, stay out!

12. Remember, between MISSING A WINNER and BETTING A LOSER, the first is wiser, because races are forever, and more importantly, NOT BETTING, by definition, makes you stronger in the "patience and discipline" department.

13. Take an unexpectedly bigger (better) price on your method horse as an opportunity to make a bigger killing, NOT to re-examine your bet.

14. Once you have checked and re-checked you have made the right decision, IGNORE the betting market (or tote board) and its assessment (odds) on your choice.

15. If your method horse comes from a dependable barn and is being ridden by a top jockey, NEVER skip it unless you have a strong reason to believe it cannot handle the trip distance.

16. NEVER load money on a horse that is NOT your method horse.

17. Take form cycles (NOT horse's, but your own) very seriously. Be proportionately aggressive in your betting when on a winning spree, but calculatedly conservative when facing a losing run.

18. Enter the racecourse (if you MUST visit, it is NOT necessary in this age of internet betting) WITHOUT the form in your hand. You can always remember which track, which race and which horse# you wish to bet because, (if you follow all this advice), you are very rarely going to make more than 2 or 3 bets in a day.

19. Stick only to WIN (or SHOW) bets, and shun exotics. Because WIN and SHOW depend more on skill than chance, while exotics depend more on chance than skill.

20. Never invest in pick 3s, pick 4s and 6s UNLESS there is a carryover up for grabs AND/OR you can bank on a method horse in at least two of the races that are taking on undeserving, cramped-odds, false favorites.

[barn32]

19. Stick only to WIN (or SHOW) bets, and shun exotics. Because WIN and SHOW depend more on skill than chance, while exotics depend more on chance than skill.

Show betting isn't viable in my opinion, because most of the breakage comes out of the show pool.

[traynor]

19. Stick only to WIN (or SHOW) bets, and shun exotics. Because WIN and SHOW depend more on skill than chance, while exotics depend more on chance than skill.

20. Never invest in pick 3s, pick 4s and 6s UNLESS there is a carryover up for grabs AND/OR you can bank on a method horse in at least two of the races that are taking on undeserving, cramped-odds, false favorites.

That is good advice for those wagering on a limited bankroll. For those well-funded, the "chance" element is a primary source of leverage. "Handicapping" is not especially needed, because the best results are from wagers in which the eventual finishers are less than obvious.

It doesn't take a whole lot of skill to figure out that tossing the favorite from the win position in exotics generally ups the returns on the hits. Fred Brenner and the greyhound crowd had such betting patterns down to a science many years ago. Fortunately, most of the horsey crowd avoids (and has avoided) any involvement with the greyhound crowd.

An example: I used a simple trifecta pattern in a specific grade of race for years (not days or weeks) that was as close to free money as it gets. In that grade of race at a half dozen of the larger tracks, I tossed the favorite and boxed the next four in a trifecta. If losses went on for some period without a decent score, I upped the ante a bit. (Yes--progressive wagering--the dirty little secret that anyone who is reasonably successful and reasonably well-funded uses to leverage an advantage that is near-impossible to overcome for the average bettor.)

Losing weeks were rare. I never had to more than triple my initial bet, and that only happened a couple of times. Do I recommend progressive wagering? Absolutely not--unless you are very, very sure of what you are doing and how you are doing it. If you missed Mikey's NOLA presentation at the Sartin seminar way back on the due column approach used by NY betting syndicates, you might find it illuminating to poke around a bit.

And remember Br'er Rabbit's heartfelt plea to Br'er Fox--"Oh, please, please, do whatever you want, but please don't throw me in that briar patch!" Pay attention to what people tell you to avoid. Their motives may be less than altruistic. Or their knowledge of the issues on which they offer advice may be less complete than they believe.

[ReplayRandall]

17. Take form cycles (NOT horse's, but your own) very seriously. Be proportionately aggressive in your betting when on a winning spree, but calculatedly conservative when facing a losing run.
Define your version of a winning spree and a losing run....

[traynor]

When I started betting WAY back, "accepted wisdom" was that real bettors only bet win because "gimmick bets" like the exacta were only attractive to the chumps and get-rich-quick crowd. Fortunately, I started betting coincident with the trashing of the mutuel pools at the old Bay Meadows track by a group from New York that had worked out a dutch exacta table. No computers, no laptops, no databases--and they took more out of the exacta pools than the track. Every pool. Every day. (Not every race--there were only three exacta races a day.)

In horse racing, there is "the stuff everyone talks about" (most of which they read somewhere or heard somewhere, from someone who read it somewhere else or heard it somewhere else) and "stuff that really goes on." Anyone who wants to do well is encouraged to spend more time learning the latter and minimizing the effect of the former.

[ReplayRandall]

Pay attention to what people tell you to avoid. Their motives may be less than altruistic.
Give an impactful personal example of your above statement.....

[thaskalos]

Give an impactful personal example of your above statement.....
I'd like to see that too...but I won't hold my breath.

[traynor]

Give an impactful personal example of your above statement.....

Sorry. I don't respond to "give me's." I think you could probably find examples in your own experience with a bit of thought, save time for both of us, and provide an example more meaningful to you personally.

[DeltaLover]

Sorry. I don't respond to "give me's." I think you could probably find examples in your own experience with a bit of thought, save time for both of us, and provide an example more meaningful to you personally.

The problem is that we need some examples to understand what exactly you are talking about here..

Your statements (at least to me) appear to be abstract and open-ended.. It would be helpful for the discussion, if you become more concrete and refer to specific data, so we can get a better grasp of what you are trying to say...

[thaskalos]

The problem is that we need some examples to understand what exactly you are talking about here..

Your statements (at least to me) appear to be abstract and open-ended.. It would be helpful for the discussion, if you become more concrete and refer to specific data, so we can get a better grasp of what you are trying to say...
The problem with the online forums is that a person can get away with saying practically anything, when he is not obligated to provide any proof to back up his assertions. He can provide a ton of theory, without even a trace of its practical applicability...or attack the motives of others, while holding himself up as a bastion of virtue.

[raybo]

The problem is that we need some examples to understand what exactly you are talking about here..

Your statements (at least to me) appear to be abstract and open-ended.. It would be helpful for the discussion, if you become more concrete and refer to specific data, so we can get a better grasp of what you are trying to say...

"Contractual" restrictions no doubt. Revealing anything "concrete" might affect his clients' abilities to vacation in the south of France whenever they feel like it. :lol:

[DeltaLover]

"Contractual" restrictions no doubt. Revealing anything "concrete" might affect his clients' abilities to vacation in the south of France whenever they feel like it. :lol:

If this is the case, then why bother with this kind of generalities and minced words?

[DeltaLover]

The problem with the online forums is that a person can get away with saying practically anything, when he is not obligated to provide any proof to back up his assertions. He can provide a ton of theory, without even a trace of its practical applicability...or attack the motives of others, while holding himself up as a bastion of virtue.

I am OK with theory, assuming of course that it is properly defined and supported.. What I do not like, is indecipherable arbitrary doctrines that are not backed by evidence..

[whodoyoulike]

When I started betting WAY back, "accepted wisdom" was that real bettors only bet win because "gimmick bets" like the exacta were only attractive to the chumps and get-rich-quick crowd. Fortunately, I started betting coincident with the trashing of the mutuel pools at the old Bay Meadows track by a group from New York that had worked out a dutch exacta table. No computers, no laptops, no databases--and they took more out of the exacta pools than the track. Every pool. Every day. (Not every race--there were only three exacta races a day.)

In horse racing, there is "the stuff everyone talks about" (most of which they read somewhere or heard somewhere, from someone who read it somewhere else or heard it somewhere else) and "stuff that really goes on."Anyone who wants to do well is encouraged to spend more time learning the latter and minimizing the effect of the former.


What does this mean???

[thaskalos]

I am OK with theory, assuming of course that it is properly defined and supported.. What I do not like, is indecipherable arbitrary doctrines that are not backed by evidence..
Welll, he doesn't respond to "give me's"...so, I don't see any further explanations forthcoming...

[raybo]

If this is the case, then why bother with this kind of generalities and minced words?

"Esoteric" responses seems to fit Traynor's MO. :bang:

es·o·ter·ic
ˌesəˈterik
adjective
intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.
"esoteric philosophical debates"
synonyms: abstruse, obscure, arcane, recherché, rarefied, recondite, abstract;

[whodoyoulike]

When I started betting WAY back, "accepted wisdom" was that real bettors only bet win because "gimmick bets" like the exacta were only attractive to the chumps and get-rich-quick crowd. Fortunately, I started betting coincident with the trashing of the mutuel pools at the old Bay Meadows track by a group from New York that had worked out a dutch exacta table. No computers, no laptops, no databases--and they took more out of the exacta pools than the track. Every pool. Every day. (Not every race--there were only three exacta races a day.)

In horse racing, there is "the stuff everyone talks about" (most of which they read somewhere or heard somewhere, from someone who read it somewhere else or heard it somewhere else) and "stuff that really goes on." Anyone who wants to do well is encouraged to spend more time learning the latter and minimizing the effect of the former.

You "city folks" really write in a strange way. I learned a long time ago for clarity you should write the way you talk.

Do you talk the way you write?

[raybo]

You "city folks" really write in a strange way. I learned a long time ago for clarity you should write the way you talk.

Do you talk the way you write?

I don't have a problem with the way he writes, or talks, it's the content that is lacking, IMO. (I write much better than I talk by the way, just ask anyone who has ever talked with me on the phone or on Skype regarding my Black Box! It's all about "content" and "clarity" though, not "impressions") :lol:

I'm not a stupid person, by any stretch of the imagination, but I have a brother-in-law that was an engineer by education and trade, working in the space program back in the day, and talking to him was/is a complete loss for me, he simply cannot communicate basic ideas or thoughts to the non-engineer. A prime example of education biasing and corruption of basic communication abilities.

[whodoyoulike]

Which is what I was referring, if you're unable to convey your thoughts whether in speaking or the written word then you're not communicating with anyone except to yourself.

Now, if the recipient can't comprehend what you are conveying then that's another type of problem.

[Robert Fischer]

Here is a recap of what I wrote on this forum some years ago. Hope this helps you.
------------------

The 20 commandments

1. Invent a simple (as opposed to complex) handicapping method that has the potential to show flat bet profit over the long term. [And take my advice, if you haven't found such a method after intense research--quit this game RIGHT NOW!]

2. The method MUST be such that allows you to focus on ONLY 3% of the horses (max), and disregard the other 97% horses COMPLETELY and FOREVER without any loss of profitability.

3. Develop the temperament--patience and discipline--NOT to deviate from this method--EVER!

4. Based on such a method, do your OWN assessment for ONLY such number of tracks that you can handle WITHOUT devoting more than HALF HOUR a day on the average to this pursuit.

5. Stick to your assessment in the face of contrary opinion even if the entire world gangs up against you if you are sure you will be right more often than the world.

6. Bet ONLY on the FORM of your choice (from the 3%), not on class, pedigree or hype (of the other 97%).

7. Once you make up your mind that your method horse is going over the right trip, right class/level and with the right jockey astride, don't even look at the rivals or competition--just go ahead with your bet.

8. If your horse (from the 3% list) is running over suitable trip, reasonable class level and going out with one of the top 5 jocks (on current form) on the circuit, ignore ALL the other runners at ALL times, and make a WIN or SHOW bet as you deem fit, or depending on the odds and your value considerations.

9. Stay away from numbers of any kind at ALL TIMES--however crude or sophisticated they may be. Because numbers are always a double-edged sword, and even the best mathematical brains cannot be sure they have assigned optimum weightage to all factors that have gone into making those numbers.

10. Get out of the nonsense of overlay/underlay. Remember, every DECISIVE winner is an overlay, and every other winner is a value bet. Period.

11. Make VERY FEW bets, and ONLY those which fulfill ALL of your desired criteria. Remember the maxim: When in doubt, stay out!

12. Remember, between MISSING A WINNER and BETTING A LOSER, the first is wiser, because races are forever, and more importantly, NOT BETTING, by definition, makes you stronger in the "patience and discipline" department.

13. Take an unexpectedly bigger (better) price on your method horse as an opportunity to make a bigger killing, NOT to re-examine your bet.

14. Once you have checked and re-checked you have made the right decision, IGNORE the betting market (or tote board) and its assessment (odds) on your choice.

15. If your method horse comes from a dependable barn and is being ridden by a top jockey, NEVER skip it unless you have a strong reason to believe it cannot handle the trip distance.

16. NEVER load money on a horse that is NOT your method horse.

17. Take form cycles (NOT horse's, but your own) very seriously. Be proportionately aggressive in your betting when on a winning spree, but calculatedly conservative when facing a losing run.

18. Enter the racecourse (if you MUST visit, it is NOT necessary in this age of internet betting) WITHOUT the form in your hand. You can always remember which track, which race and which horse# you wish to bet because, (if you follow all this advice), you are very rarely going to make more than 2 or 3 bets in a day.

19. Stick only to WIN (or SHOW) bets, and shun exotics. Because WIN and SHOW depend more on skill than chance, while exotics depend more on chance than skill.

20. Never invest in pick 3s, pick 4s and 6s UNLESS there is a carryover up for grabs AND/OR you can bank on a method horse in at least two of the races that are taking on undeserving, cramped-odds, false favorites.

Very nice list.
While I don't agree with all 20 points in terms of my personal play, it is clear that they are well thought out and could certainly be part of a successful methodology.

[raybo]

Very nice list.
While I don't agree with all 20 points in terms of my personal play, it is clear that they are well thought out and could certainly be part of a successful methodology.

I agree, about half, or so, of that list are prime considerations that most would do well to focus on. The rest, not so much, IMO, unless he adds some extended explanations to them anyway.

[MJC922]

Typically I would have a lot to say to the original poster regarding advice and just starting out, but things have changed a lot since I started out in the early 80s. In the pre-simulcast days you pretty much read the literature, focused only on your home track or circuit, you likely made your own speed figures, gained local knowledge about the trainers and jocks, took some trip notes and if you had the self-control to manage your bankroll (a big IF actually) you would have a good chance to do ok at this. There's certainly nothing wrong with going down that same path today.. however IMO there will be more potential upside if you get into computing, databases and related handicapping research.

What you may discover is a lot of what you're reading and will pick up from others is frankly not much better than folklore when tested... if you have the ability to do your own research then it can make a world of difference in cutting through the nonsense, plus it gives you realistic expectations.

For research purposes I would recommend minimally several thousand races for back-testing and several thousand more to forward test. This will give you the ability to see how well your theories and methods hold without jumping into the fray throwing good money after bad. It would be a mistake I think to suggest that anyone can jump into this chaos and in a short time beat the game. IMO it takes a good understanding of the factors we all deal with every day before you're going to find yourself thinking the creative thoughts that lead to meaningful research..

[bobphilo]

I've been a casual (losing) fan of horse racing and "handicapping" over the last 5 years or so. I'm not a big gambler, but I enjoy reviewing the statistics and figures involved in handicapping.

Even though I put in the time and effort it never seems to pay off. I'm either losing, or barely making any money. I don't want to quit because it's become a hobby of sorts, but I don't want to keep losing either.

It seems like the more I research, the more I realize: I know nothing when it comes to handicapping. I've read a couple books, spent hours researching online and my efforts seem to be fruitless...I'm not sure if it has to do with my betting strategy, my handicapping --- or both. Delaware Park is my home track, and I usually go up there Wednesdays. I also bet through TVG: Gulfstream, Golden Gate, Santa Anita, etc.

I guess what I'm asking for is help, or reassurance that this happens to everyone new to the game? I don't expect someone to divulge their secretive methods, just point me in the right direction. If you're not comfortable with leaving a post private message me.

...wow this message sounds really depressing, ha, I assure you I'm not depressed---just lost.

Anyone want to take a 31 year-old loser, crybaby, man-child under their wing? :D

Thanks,
SteveinDE
Take heart. If you are breaking even you are doing better than 95% of most other bettors. That is because the 15 to 25% takeout from the track and state put most at a serious disadvantage. I consider my betting on races as primarily a source of entertainment rather than a source of income which has made me a winner on both fronts. Handicapping is a great intellectual exercise, enjoy it. The best strategy is to be aware of the myths of handicapping based on poor interpretations of probability by those that have no academic training in the subject. Feel free to post questions on any aspect of handicapping. I'd be glad to share.

[raybo]

If the OP is really, "just lost" after 5 years in the game, then the obvious course of action would be to go back to the point at which you know you were not lost (even if it is back to the very beginning) and begin the journey again, looking for other routes in which to explore. Keep doing that until you find the right one(s), for you. Every time you discover, and admit you have made a wrong turn or two, be assured that journey was not for naught, you have found out some paths that don't work, for you. Keep notes of those wrong turns and try not to repeat them in the future.

This game is not rocket science, but it does have similarities. If a rocket is launched in the wrong direction, some complex, and occasionally drastic corrections must be made during the flight, in order to arrive at the intended target. But, if the rocket is launched in the correct direction to start with, the rest of the flight becomes much more predictable, and much less complex, with a much higher expectation of ultimate success.

[Cratos]

I don't have a problem with the way he writes, or talks, it's the content that is lacking, IMO. (I write much better than I talk by the way, just ask anyone who has ever talked with me on the phone or on Skype regarding my Black Box! It's all about "content" and "clarity" though, not "impressions") :lol:

I'm not a stupid person, by any stretch of the imagination, but I have a brother-in-law that was an engineer by education and trade, working in the space program back in the day, and talking to him was/is a complete loss for me, he simply cannot communicate basic ideas or thoughts to the non-engineer. A prime example of education biasing and corruption of basic communication abilities.
I understand what you are referring too when you speak of engineers communicating, but before you indict engineers on their inability to be good communicators keep in mind that all engineer schools don't teach alike.

Some engineering schools are empirical driven (hands on) while others are theory driven ( doctoral candidates and researchers); yet they teach the same courses, at least by course name.

Therefore it is undeniable that the science which underlines horseracing handicapping/assessment is physics which is considered to be the "mother/father"science and can be difficult to understand or apply without a good math ( especially calculus) background.

[bobphilo]

Thank you again for the input, alot to consider. I will definitely start keeping a log and be more diligent in watching replays.
Steve, please be careful in putting to much stock in replays. Visually impressive performances are often misleading as optical illusions if taken as the only factors. I often view replays to explain deviations from a horse's speed figures along with pace, ground loss and bad trips. Just viewing replays tells you nothing until you can interpret them with regard to how these factors affect a horses performance and speed figure. I urge you to study trip analysis first to learn how to interpret replays.

[ReplayRandall]

Steve, please be careful in putting to much stock in replays. Visually impressive performances are often misleading as optical illusions if taken as the only factors. I often view replays to explain deviations from a horse's speed figures along with pace, ground loss and bad trips. Just viewing replays tells you nothing until you can interpret them with regard to how these factors affect a horses performance and speed figure. I urge you to study trip analysis first to learn how to interpret replays.
Your last sentence is the only part of your post that's worthwhile, Bob. While you're giving out advice, why don't you tell Steve where to find the correct way to study trip analysis, instead of just urging him to do so......

[sammy the sage]

Your last sentence is the only part of your post that's worthwhile, Bob. While you're giving out advice, why don't you tell Steve where to find the correct way to study trip analysis, instead of just urging him to do so......

the school of hard knocks...ie...experience...

[raybo]

I understand what you are referring too when you speak of engineers communicating, but before you indict engineers on their inability to be good communicators keep in mind that all engineer schools don't teach alike.

Some engineering schools are empirical driven (hands on) while others are theory driven ( doctoral candidates and researchers); yet they teach the same courses, at least by course name.

Therefore it is undeniable that the science which underlines horseracing handicapping/assessment is physics which is considered to be the "mother/father"science and can be difficult to understand or apply without a good math ( especially calculus) background.

I have very little problem understanding you when you present your scientific/physics/math examples. One doesn't need to have a higher education, nor completely understand the equations and theory, one can still understand the principals through example and logic. Some here simply cannot teach, nor explain, nor do they attempt to provide relevant examples. Their "dissertations" are, effectively, aimed at, and presented in ways that are only of value to, their educational/vocational peers, and yet the vast majority of members here are not in ether of those two groups, and they make up the vast majority of players who MIGHT profit from a more logical, common sense, example driven presentation.

[ReplayRandall]

the school of hard knocks...ie...experience...
Experience in what exactly? A little more detail, if you will, Sammy.....

[Robert Fischer]

1 Fundamental Systemic Insights (The BIG BUCKET of MONEY)

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 the 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 be right about the favorite. If that isn't already obvious, let that sink in. Every horse has a bucket of money in front of it. The BIG BUCKET is in front of the Favorite.


Beyond the parimutuel system, are the fundamental properties of a Wager. Every positive expectation wager requires the accurate estimate of two(2!) variables; The Probability of an Outcome, and The Final Odds offered on that outcome. Do not overlook the importance of estimating the Final Odds.

You must know, about how likely, it is that a bet will win, and you must know, about what it will pay, if it does win, in order to know if a bet is a good value.

In order for a wager's value to be 'right', the public has to be 'wrong' about something. The house takes out takeout right off the top! The value is going to have to come from somewhere. Value comes from mistakes that the public makes. You must know more than the public about a specific bet. If you are a sheep, you are going to get slaughtered with the herd. You can't be afraid to say "I know more than the public about this specific wager!".

Maybe some of you play cards? I don't, but I am always interested in the systemic similarities.

David Sklansky is professional poker player and author. He has written what he calls The Fundamental Theorem of Poker, and published it in the poker strategy book The Theory of Poker:

"Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose. Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose."

The Fundamental Theorem of Horseplaying is as follows:

"Every time you play a race differently from the way you would have played it if you knew the optimum probability estimate and the optimum final odds estimate, your opponents gain; and every time you play a race the same way you would have played it if you knew the optimum probability estimate and the optimum final odds estimate, they lose. Conversely, every time your opponents play a race differently from the way they would have if they knew the optimum probability estimate and the optimum fina0l odds estimate, you gain; and every time they play a race the same way they would have played if they knew the optimum probability estimate and the optimum final odds estimate, you lose."

As a (non-whale variety) horseplayer - the parts that we are going to be mainly dealing with are: "Conversely, every time your opponents play a race differently from the way they would have if they knew the optimum probability estimate and the optimum final odds estimate, you gain; and every time they play a race the same way they would have played if they knew the optimum probability estimate and the optimum final odds estimate, you lose."

That simply means, that when the public bets a race 'wrong', - we gain a betting opportunity. And that when the public is 'right', we should Pass the race, because it is a losing situation.

[Robert Fischer]

2 Fundamental Insights Into The Sport Itself

Your next step as a horseplayer is to see and understand the Sport.

In this book I will refer to those who bet thoroughbreds as 'Horseplayers'. I consider Horseplaying as the complete act of 'Handicapping' + 'Betting'.

Some will use the word 'Handicapper' synonymously with 'Horseplayer', which is fine. Handicapping originally referred to the fact that horse racing used the Handicap System, and assigned an impost of weight to the best horses.

Today, American Racing uses the 'Claiming System' rather than the 'Handicap System', but we refer to the process of estimating a horse's chances at a specific wager-outcome, as 'Handicapping', just the same.

Most of our weight differences are slight, and the heavier horses are often the much better horses, -horses capable of dominating critical stages in the race, in spite of the slight impost. For some perspective - a 10lb impost, in contrast to a rival(unusual in today's game), will make the handicapped horse do about 3 or 4 lengths more 'work' going a mile. There is one scenario, where weight is neither insignificant, nor fixed to discrepancies in ability, - apprentice jockeys. The bugboys can be allowed as much as 10lbs to start, and typically race about a year, with a 5lb weight allowance. You may on rare occasion, get an extra length or two out of a bugboy, if you choose your spots wisely.

In the Claiming System, it is necessary to understand the Class of an animal. There are many theories about class, some of which get quite fancy. The class is determined by the Level at which a horse can contend. The level at which a horse can contend is determined by ability. Key factors such as tactical speed can be 'Limiting Factors' as a horse attempts to climb the class ladder. Such horses contend against cheaper competition, but are also-rans in competitive fields. Trainer Intent is important as well. High percentage trainers tend to run horses at, or below, their class level. 'Class', in the Claiming System, is as important as 'Weight', in the Handicap System.

The horses are trained by trainers, and ridden by jockeys, each with varying levels of general competence, and specific strengths and weaknesses.

Then we have the races themselves. The most obvious and superficial assessment of a race, is to take the running and results of a race literally. The literal interpretation of a race is to examine the Order of finish, and margins of finish, and to interpret these results as if they reflect the true measure of performance. Unfortunately (or rather fortunately for us), such a superficial assessment is easily recognized by the Public, and holds no wagering value.

Many races should not be taken literally. Bias, Pace, and Trouble can at times significantly alter the order, and margins of finish.

There is a natural bias towards tactical speed and early speed. It is good to be close enough to the lead to be able to move into contention when needed. It is good to be able to get the better of the break, and the turns, without being shuffled back or otherwise disadvantaged.

There is a natural bias towards inner paths on the turn. The horses run around an oval. Other stressful factors such as a fast pace will amplify the natural path bias, increasing the advantage (or disadvantage). This Lollapalooza effect is usually found on the first turn in dirt routes, but can technically be found any time a turn is taken during the hottest part of the pace.

When comparing horses of 'like running-styles', ground loss may have significant value. While it is of little significance to compare the pace-setter's ground-loss to that of the closer, it is significant to group horses according to their position in that race, and to compare their ground-loss within those groups.

Pace is a very important factor. Pace is often correlated to the class of the race, although non-correlated instances of 'extreme pace' may happen in any class of race. In general, an extremely fast pace punishes front-runners and favors closers, while an extremely slow pace punishes closers.

Observations about pace can be made from observing the race flow dynamics of a race. A race that 'collapses' where the majority front-runners tire badly, and several closers sweep into contention is often a result of a fast pace. Alternately, a race that features few moves, and little positional change often indicates a slow pace. However, the ability of the horses must be factored into your interpretation of the race flow dynamics. If three 15-1 shots go out on the lead and quit upon entering the stretch, while the even-money favorite and the 2-1 shot, come from off the pace to sweep by - that doesn't necessarily indicate a fast pace. - Remember, that the fundamental purpose of this work is finding results that were not so literal, and easily interpreted by the public.

Raw times, and Pace Figures can be useful tools as well. Extremely fast or slow times or figures can often be used to support an opinion you have about the pace of a race. Occasionally these can be significant enough to tell the whole pace story at a glance.

The tracks themselves also have their own biases. Each track, and each distance may have an inherent bias. These often correlate to the physical layout of the gate in relation to the turns, and thus may create post-position bias. Some tracks also tend to favor early speed or closers a bit more than average due to surface composition, climate, maintenance practices, and other factors. This goes back to the same idea, of factoring the ability of the horses, into your interpretation of the race flow dynamics.

Rather than on an individual basis, a track bias would show up over many races.

Occasionally weather, or maintenance, can create a short-term bias. You have to trust your eyes. If you see something extreme taking place, and you have a rational understanding of it, you don't need to see a bunch of races to test statistical significance. At that point the public will have caught up and/or track will have been corrected. Maybe the track is sloppy, and horses that are down inside entering the stretch want no part of the kickback? Maybe you see jocks oddly racing well off the rail? Once in a while you may find a legitimate short-term bias.

A troubled trip can occasionally offer value. Obvious trouble is usually overbet by the public. A horse who had to wait entering the turn, and was loaded for bear, and then ran big in the stretch, is hardly a case of serious trouble. A jockey who tried to save a ton of ground and make a dramatic closing move up the rail, only to get blocked, may (or may not) deserve some credit, but you can't upgrade a horse much for such a stunt. Subtle trouble to legitimate contenders is often the most valuable. Maybe the horse was in a stressful position? Maybe he was bothered by another horse, or denied a key position by a rival jockey? Gate trouble can be significant if it effectively ended a horse's race, or even if it cost several lengths in a race which favored front-runners.

Within the race, the jockeys have a job to do. You want a jockey primarily to let your horse run it's race, all while trying to avoid trouble, capitalize on any available advantages, and adapt to the pace. A horse's ability and running style will often determine the ideal course of action. If the horse is much the best, you want a good trip, but you also want him to establish a position from which trouble can be avoided, and let the horse do his thing. If the horse is facing rivals with more ability, you are more willing to see the jockey leverage a bit to save more ground and attempt to capitalize on a perceived advantage. Most rides are about average. Most of the great or terrible rides involve pace and race-flow. Calvin Borel's last-to-first, rail-skimming ride on 50-1 Mine That Bird is an extreme example of a 'great ride'. Several rare factors had to combine in a Lollapalooza Effect, in order to create such an example. He had already pulled off the same unorthodox trip with Street Sense two years earlier. He also had a long-shot who's trainer and owner were willing to give it a try. Finally the race was the Kentucky Derby, one of the hottest paced races at the furthest distance that most graded 3yos will ever run, and the field was relatively mediocre that year with no dominant horse. In spite of Pioneerof The Nile having more ability and performing more work in the race, Borel's ride, and Mine That Bird's honest effort were enough to win the race by 6.75lengths. A conservative estimate would find the ride to be worth an outrageous 13 lengths(back with Summer Bird and Chocolate Candy)! A great ride is rare in everyday racing and is usually worth a few lengths at most. Bad rides are far more common than great rides. One type of bad ride to look for is related to a premature drive. A horse that is rating in striking distance and then urged prematurely into a drive. If the jockey 'sits' and continues to rate, he will naturally come up to a faltering leader, and he will have the most possible horse left, to hold off the closers. In a premature drive however, the jockey urges early to 'tackle' the frontrunner, and 'get the jump' on the closers. These are not to be confused with a horse that tires late on the back stretch, forcing the jockey to desperately scrub and urge the horse for more. Typically with a premature move you will visually see a rated horse, urged into a brief, bold advance, and/or the pace for that portion of the race will be hot.





Horses have fundamental qualities as well. You want the horse to behave in the gate, and break cleanly. It helps if the horse has some tactical speed to establish position. It helps to have a bit of early speed in general, to naturally be in striking range. You want the horse to relax. You can often see a fluid stride when the horse is relaxed. You prefer to see the ears pricked when cruising on the backstretch, or better yet one pricked and one of them 'flipping' back and forth looking for a cue from the rider. If the ears are pinned back, the horse is a bit stressed. While the pace is often too fast to be run under a rating hold, you want to see the horse maintaining or improving position under his own power. It helps if his natural cruising speed is fast enough to prevent stalkers and closers from swarming him, approaching the far turn. You want a horse that that handles the turns well, without losing position. A horse should run with his right lead on the straight-aways, and his left lead on the turns. Thus, he must change leads from left to right when entering the stretch. You want the horse to change leads in stride when entering the stretch. The horse should do so with authority, and never look dull upon changing leads, - unless the pace was extremely hot. Ideally, each time the horse changes leads he will be fresh, signaling health and stamina. A good horse is able to surge forward a bit after changing leads and being put to a drive. As the horse is driven down the stretch you want to see a straight path. You don't want to see the horse lug out, or shy away from the whip, or swish his tail. You want to see a level of fatigue that is appropriate for the pace. If the horse gallops out through a turn following the finish, you want him to again change to his left lead around that turn.

A horse who cannot perform these fundamentals has identifiable flaws. These are more forgivable in long-shots than in favorites. Some horses are legitimately strong performers in spite of flaws. However, most flawed horses are eventually exposed, occasionally leading to 'false favorite' scenario.

[traynor]

The problem is that we need some examples to understand what exactly you are talking about here..

Your statements (at least to me) appear to be abstract and open-ended.. It would be helpful for the discussion, if you become more concrete and refer to specific data, so we can get a better grasp of what you are trying to say...
That should be easy. I gave an example in the post immediately following the reference, to avoid any possible misinterpretation.

What bettors do, and what they tell others they are doing, or what they tell others they (the other bettors) should be doing, are often at odds with what they (the ones giving the advice) are actually doing. Progressive wagering is an example--widely used, mostly successfully, and has been for many years. No one wants to state that explicitly, for fear some (expletive deleted) will piddle off the rent money chasing rainbows and sue the advisor and his or her publisher. Same motive as that little CYA footnote "Absolutely, positively do not use this stuff for GAMBLING! It is for 'information purposes' only."

[traynor]

What does this mean???

It's your money. Make your own decisions. View everything with a healthy skepticism. Don't expect anyone to hand you the Golden Key to Riches on a silver platter--especially for free, or for some trivial amount of money.

[traynor]

You "city folks" really write in a strange way. I learned a long time ago for clarity you should write the way you talk.

Do you talk the way you write?

No. I choose my words much more carefully. Comes from a lot of time spent in various parts of Asia with very violent people who were quick to take offense, and had only two mental states--peace or war. I think most preferred the latter.

[speculus]

What bettors do, and what they tell others they are doing, or what they tell others they (the other bettors) should be doing, are often at odds with what they (the ones giving the advice) are actually doing.

I do what I preach, and preach what I do.

Also, I have always placed the proof of my handicapping methods in public domain by publishing my analysis BEFORE the race, so that those who wish to scrutinize my performance can do so easily and form their own conclusions about my so-called insights/methods for their own benefit.

[traynor]

Typically I would have a lot to say to the original poster regarding advice and just starting out, but things have changed a lot since I started out in the early 80s. In the pre-simulcast days you pretty much read the literature, focused only on your home track or circuit, you likely made your own speed figures, gained local knowledge about the trainers and jocks, took some trip notes and if you had the self-control to manage your bankroll (a big IF actually) you would have a good chance to do ok at this. There's certainly nothing wrong with going down that same path today.. however IMO there will be more potential upside if you get into computing, databases and related handicapping research.

What you may discover is a lot of what you're reading and will pick up from others is frankly not much better than folklore when tested... if you have the ability to do your own research then it can make a world of difference in cutting through the nonsense, plus it gives you realistic expectations.

For research purposes I would recommend minimally several thousand races for back-testing and several thousand more to forward test. This will give you the ability to see how well your theories and methods hold without jumping into the fray throwing good money after bad. It would be a mistake I think to suggest that anyone can jump into this chaos and in a short time beat the game. IMO it takes a good understanding of the factors we all deal with every day before you're going to find yourself thinking the creative thoughts that lead to meaningful research..

Yeah, what he said.

[speculus]

Very nice list.
While I don't agree with all 20 points in terms of my personal play, it is clear that they are well thought out and could certainly be part of a successful methodology.

Thanks. They ARE part of a successful methodology.

And I can understand you wouldn't agree with ALL of them. That's the beauty of this game, everyone can take a DIFFERENT route and achieve the same profitable result.

Come to think of it, if we ALL agreed about EVERYTHING, only one horse would get backed in the WIN pool!:)

[speculus]

Define your version of a winning spree and a losing run....

Going by your posts in this therad, you seem to be in the "Socratic" mode of philosophical inquiry which the ancient wise man always started by asking to "define terms". :)

I am in a mood to entertain you,:cool: so here is my response:

Every winning bet AFTER a losing bet starts a potential "winning spree" which only gets more likely with every successive, consecutive win.

Similarly, every losing bet AFTER a winning bet starts a potential "losing run" which only gets more likely with every successive, consecutive loss.

Since it is impossible to predict a win or loss for a particular bet, it makes sense to "presume" the "first loss after a WIN" as a potential losing run, and the "first win after a LOSS" as a potential winning spree, and size up your bet accordingly.

I use my money management formula which takes this logic into account, and, automatically, becomes "proportionately aggressive" during a winning spree and "calculatedly conservative" during a losing run as can be seen here (http://www.indiarace.com/mystablecontent.aspx?pagetype=mystable&date=6/4/2012).

[ReplayRandall]

Going by your posts in this therad, you seem to be in the "Socratic" mode of philosophical inquiry which the ancient wise man always started by asking to "define terms". :)

I am in a mood to entertain you,:cool: so here is my response:

Every winning bet AFTER a losing bet starts a potential "winning spree" which only gets more likely with every successive, consecutive win.

Similarly, every losing bet AFTER a winning bet starts a potential "losing run" which only gets more likely with every successive, consecutive loss.

Since it is impossible to predict a win or loss for a particular bet, it makes sense to "presume" the "first loss after a WIN" as a potential losing run, and the "first win after a LOSS" as a potential winning spree, and size up your bet accordingly.

I use my money management formula which takes this logic into account, and, automatically, becomes "proportionately aggressive" during a winning spree and "calculatedly conservative" during a losing run as can be seen here (http://www.indiarace.com/mystablecontent.aspx?pagetype=mystable&date=6/4/2012).
Thank you for your attached link, and for "entertaining" my question to you.....Namaste

[Capper Al]

This thread has fell over the edge.

[ultracapper]

Steve, when you take a step back and look, you should be watching replays. Watch them over and over until you're sick of analyzing them. At this point, you're finally at the starting point of what it takes to build a strategy to winning at this game. Stick with win bets, doubles and exactas as your foundation to grinding out a profit. You said that Delaware is your home track, so find a trusted clocker that your bankroll will allow........Workouts will point you to live contenders much more than class drops will. Good Luck, enjoy the journey, and if you really want to be successful.....Get serious, set goals and put in the hard work that it always takes, in any endeavor, to be a winner.

Really RR? Coming from a guy that watches replays religiously? Trusting someone else's eyes and opinion? I feel the best you can do with that approach is, as Lamboguy has posted a couple times in other threads, is to have the obvious negatives pointed out to avoid making poor bets. Following someone else's eyes and opinions will be successful, and lead to failure, about as often as any other approach when relying on somebody other than yourself. You'll get a nugget now and again, but usually it'll just be another disappointment. There's a reason clockers sell their reports, just like any other tout.

[ultracapper]

Just having some fun Al - no harm meant. I readily admit that TM/ML have a far superior understanding of advanced mathematics than me.

I'll give some advice to the thread-starter. To be profitable, betting on horses becomes a job (i.e., not fun). There are many, many professions in life that are far more lucrative, so improve your game but keep it as a hobby and have fun (for some reason this statement will bother many on this board).

Why can't you put 20-25 hours a week into handicapping and still have it be fun. I could handicap for 50 hours and it would be fun. I love handicapping.

[Capper Al]

Why can't you put 20-25 hours a week into handicapping and still have it be fun. I could handicap for 50 hours and it would be fun. I love handicapping.

I'm the same way. I think we should both go to handicapper's anomalous.

[ReplayRandall]

Really RR? Coming from a guy that watches replays religiously? Trusting someone else's eyes and opinion? I feel the best you can do with that approach is, as Lamboguy has posted a couple times in other threads, is to have the obvious negatives pointed out to avoid making poor bets. Following someone else's eyes and opinions will be successful, and lead to failure, about as often as any other approach when relying on somebody other than yourself. You'll get a nugget now and again, but usually it'll just be another disappointment. There's a reason clockers sell their reports, just like any other tout.
The only "blind spot" there is in my handicapping is workouts. Since I can't visually see them, I have to either trust the printed timed workout, pay a clocker I trust to give their analysis, or disregard workouts altogether. BTW, I was giving my opinion to Steve of my decision in this area......IMO, no one should just ignore workouts.

[AndyC]

The only "blind spot" there is in my handicapping is workouts. Since I can't visually see them, I have to either trust the printed timed workout, pay a clocker I trust to give their analysis, or disregard workouts altogether. BTW, I was giving my opinion to Steve of my decision in this area......IMO, no one should just ignore workouts.

I think one should ignore things that they don't understand. I don't understand the nuances of body language handicapping and accordingly dismiss it from my handicapping. Doesn't mean that an understanding of various factors wouldn't be beneficial. I just believe that it is better to be great at understanding some factors than trying to include all factors.

[thaskalos]

I think one should ignore things that they don't understand. I don't understand the nuances of body language handicapping and accordingly dismiss it from my handicapping. Doesn't mean that an understanding of various factors wouldn't be beneficial. I just believe that it is better to be great at understanding some factors than trying to include all factors.
Along the same vein, it may even behoove the player to become a "specialist"...rather than a "general practitioner". With the number of races at our disposal today, there is nothing wrong with confining ourselves only to those types of races to which we feel that our particular set of skills are ideally suited. Some people play particular racetracks...but I play particular RACES, spread across a variety of racetracks.

Whatever works...

[DJofSD]

I think one should ignore things that they don't understand. I don't understand the nuances of body language handicapping and accordingly dismiss it from my handicapping. Doesn't mean that an understanding of various factors wouldn't be beneficial. I just believe that it is better to be great at understanding some factors than trying to include all factors.
I believe body language can only be done on track. IMO, there's just too many subtle and fleeting items which can not be seen on a TV monitor or will never be shown on TV.

[thaskalos]

That should be easy. I gave an example in the post immediately following the reference, to avoid any possible misinterpretation.

What bettors do, and what they tell others they are doing, or what they tell others they (the other bettors) should be doing, are often at odds with what they (the ones giving the advice) are actually doing. Progressive wagering is an example--widely used, mostly successfully, and has been for many years. No one wants to state that explicitly, for fear some (expletive deleted) will piddle off the rent money chasing rainbows and sue the advisor and his or her publisher. Same motive as that little CYA footnote "Absolutely, positively do not use this stuff for GAMBLING! It is for 'information purposes' only."
Hasn't all the misleading gambling information that has already been published convinced you that these "authors/publishers" aren't afraid of any lawsuits?

Yes, progressive wagering is indeed being used widely...but I doubt that it has been found to be "mostly successful". In the right hands, progressive wagering could work. But the truth is that useful tools most often find themselves in the WRONG hands.

[whodoyoulike]

It's your money. Make your own decisions. View everything with a healthy skepticism. Don't expect anyone to hand you the Golden Key to Riches on a silver platter--especially for free, or for some trivial amount of money.

Well, I misunderstood your post because I thought you were saying to ignore what others have said or written and only rely on info you have personally witnessed. In horse racing or pretty much any subject you'd be limiting your knowledge to a very narrow view point which would only be your own and most likely you'd be incorrect.


From post #114...

...
In horse racing, there is "the stuff everyone talks about" (most of which they read somewhere or heard somewhere, from someone who read it somewhere else or heard it somewhere else) and "stuff that really goes on." Anyone who wants to do well is encouraged to spend more time learning the latter and minimizing the effect of the former.

From post #144...

No. I choose my words much more carefully. Comes from a lot of time spent in various parts of Asia with very violent people who were quick to take offense, and had only two mental states--peace or war. I think most preferred the latter.

I'm guessing you're now in the U.S. of A., we're more laid back and not violent or quick to take offense. So, I'm suggesting you just write the way you would normally talk and stop pissing people off!

[whodoyoulike]

This thread has fell over the edge.

I always go wherever the road takes me.

[traynor]

Hasn't all the misleading gambling information that has already been published convinced you that these "authors/publishers" aren't afraid of any lawsuits?

Yes, progressive wagering is indeed being used widely...but I doubt that it has been found to be "mostly successful". In the right hands, progressive wagering could work. But the truth is that useful tools most often find themselves in the WRONG hands.

Misleading has no penalty if proper disclaimers are used. Few are foolish enough to write about gambling (or publish software, or other related items) without such.

That is one of the reasons progressive wagering is so widely condemned. The less-than-astute believe they can tip the odds with "sophisticated money management." It doesn't work like that. However, for those with a bit more skill, it is a great source of leverage.

I don't know many casual bettors. Most (if not all) of the bettors I know use progressive wagering to varying degrees (depending on the preferred wagers). Mostly suiccessfully. I have never met anyone with enough sense to confidently implement such a strategy who was foolish enough to fail with it.

[traynor]

Well, I misunderstood your post because I thought you were saying to ignore what others have said or written and only rely on info you have personally witnessed. In horse racing or pretty much any subject you'd be limiting your knowledge to a very narrow view point which would only be your own and most likely you'd be incorrect.


From post #114...



From post #144...



I'm guessing you're now in the U.S. of A., we're more laid back and not violent or quick to take offense. So, I'm suggesting you just write the way you would normally talk and stop pissing people off!

I think if people are so immersed in lala land that they take personal offense at what I write, they should probably get a hobby. I rarely do "personal attacks." Mostly I do what others on this forum do--express my opinions.

[DeltaLover]

Along the same vein, it may even behoove the player to become a "specialist"...rather than a "general practitioner".

Exactly..


"One thing," Charlie said. "We 're all specialists. I know one guy who does nothing but bet horses who have been running is sprints on the main track and now are going a distance on the grass for the first time. He doesn't get many plays, but he wins enough on them to make money...

My $50,000 Year at the Races, Andrew Beyer

[alf1380]

A Bit of advice.

A) Keep Records. Decide on a method to determine success, and go with it.
B) Watch a ton of races. Watch as many as you can. Handicap them with no money on them even. Learn from your mistakes. You need reps.
C) Stay away from exotics such as pick 3's and pick 4's till you understand the game a little. Stick with simple Win/Place, and Exactas.
D) Stick with a method of gathering information. I am a TimeformUS guy, Brisnet, DRF, etc..work for others, it's about what is easiest for you to read and understand.
E) Learn to understand the conditions, and which drops in class matter most.
F) Be a slave to the track Jockey, Trainer statistics. Couple them with your "opinion" to form a "stronger" opinion on a horse.
G) Be selective. You spot a 12.5 MDCL at Gulfstream..that has you confused..well..you pass. KNOW when you have a strong opinion, pass when you feel "confused" by a race.
H) If you have a bad ROI at one track, but a great one at another track after a decent sample size..it is not by coincidence. You have a leak at that bad ROI track.
I) Once you create a stake, you graduate to the Pick 4 bets at the many tracks that offer it. You will soon learn to spot which ones are likely to be chalk fest $20 Pick 4's and which ones you can corner with your opinion to get 10-1 on your P4 investment.
J) Lone Speed. Learn the concept. Learn how to recognize the "gimme's" on a race day. There are many clear leaders that will make the money at good enough odds to give you a return on a Win/Show bet, properly "weighted".
K) The Favorite. Begin all handicapping with the ML fav., and try to to see if he is a false one. Start your understanding of any race you begin to handicap, with WHY the Favorite WILL or WILL NOT win. After a time, you will recognize the vulnerable at first glance. It becomes a revelation after a time. Once you can recognize these vulnerable favorites, handicapping a race becomes Much easier.


The rest...it is about banging your head against a wall till it "clicks". It can take a while. You WILL NOT get rich on this game unless you hit a massive Pick 6, or win a handicapping contest, and both take immense luck.

Your GOAL, is to learn your craft as a capper enough to stay even or as close to even for as long as possible and allow all your chances at the exotics (Pick 4's especially) to catch up with variance/chance to give you consistent positive ROI.

The Win/Place and Exacta Key/Box should be the main staple of your wagering menu.

I have had years where after 50k in Win/Place and Exacta wagers, I was -$350 in total stake with a negative ROI, but managed a winning year due to my exotic wagers. Your goal should begin and end with being able to bobb and weave enough to allow your exotics to pay off.

[River11]

A Bit of advice.



Some great advice!
Mike

[thaskalos]

A Bit of advice.

A) Keep Records. Decide on a method to determine success, and go with it.
B) Watch a ton of races. Watch as many as you can. Handicap them with no money on them even. Learn from your mistakes. You need reps.
C) Stay away from exotics such as pick 3's and pick 4's till you understand the game a little. Stick with simple Win/Place, and Exactas.
D) Stick with a method of gathering information. I am a TimeformUS guy, Brisnet, DRF, etc..work for others, it's about what is easiest for you to read and understand.
E) Learn to understand the conditions, and which drops in class matter most.
F) Be a slave to the track Jockey, Trainer statistics. Couple them with your "opinion" to form a "stronger" opinion on a horse.
G) Be selective. You spot a 12.5 MDCL at Gulfstream..that has you confused..well..you pass. KNOW when you have a strong opinion, pass when you feel "confused" by a race.
H) If you have a bad ROI at one track, but a great one at another track after a decent sample size..it is not by coincidence. You have a leak at that bad ROI track.
I) Once you create a stake, you graduate to the Pick 4 bets at the many tracks that offer it. You will soon learn to spot which ones are likely to be chalk fest $20 Pick 4's and which ones you can corner with your opinion to get 10-1 on your P4 investment.
J) Lone Speed. Learn the concept. Learn how to recognize the "gimme's" on a race day. There are many clear leaders that will make the money at good enough odds to give you a return on a Win/Show bet, properly "weighted".
K) The Favorite. Begin all handicapping with the ML fav., and try to to see if he is a false one. Start your understanding of any race you begin to handicap, with WHY the Favorite WILL or WILL NOT win. After a time, you will recognize the vulnerable at first glance. It becomes a revelation after a time. Once you can recognize these vulnerable favorites, handicapping a race becomes Much easier.


The rest...it is about banging your head against a wall till it "clicks". It can take a while. You WILL NOT get rich on this game unless you hit a massive Pick 6, or win a handicapping contest, and both take immense luck.

Your GOAL, is to learn your craft as a capper enough to stay even or as close to even for as long as possible and allow all your chances at the exotics (Pick 4's especially) to catch up with variance/chance to give you consistent positive ROI.

The Win/Place and Exacta Key/Box should be the main staple of your wagering menu.

I have had years where after 50k in Win/Place and Exacta wagers, I was -$350 in total stake with a negative ROI, but managed a winning year due to my exotic wagers. Your goal should begin and end with being able to bobb and weave enough to allow your exotics to pay off.
Very impressive first ever post! :ThmbUp:

[Capper Al]

This thread has been running a long time. I think he's not a newbie anymore.

[DJofSD]

Very impressive first ever post! :ThmbUp:
I agree and I think the points made are hard to argue against.

The only thing I would add is to learn to use the exacta as a place bet.

[PaceAdvantage]

This thread has been running a long time. I think he's not a newbie anymore.The thread was created barely a week ago... :confused: :confused: :confused: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Capper Al]

The thread was created barely a week ago... :confused: :confused: :confused: :lol: :lol: :lol:

But all this advice. He should be rich by now.

[headhawg]

But all this advice. He should be rich by now.Maybe with a 100 or more posts in this thread, the OP will be able to figure out who knows something and who is just full of **it.

[alf1380]

Very impressive first ever post! :ThmbUp:

Thanks.

[DJofSD]

The on-air personality liked the horse in the Belmont Stakes under card but bet it to win and then used it in an exacta box.

The long shot placed and the winner was not a part of the exacta.

When the horse you like goes off at 31 to 1, don't just use it in gimmick wagers. Put some money across the board.

[thelyingthief]

Pardon me,

But I inevitably come to the question: are you the source of your losses, or your ignorance? I remember an interview with one of the great investors -- fellow was instrumental in the development of the Black-Sholes approach to option writing -- who had been a black jack player prior to his entry of the CBOT. Asked if he could still return to black-jack and make money, responded in the vigorous affirmative. "There are 10 players in a thousand who can learn AND apply a strategy against the house," he replied. "And of that 10, only one will have the discipline to make the correct play in the midst of a losing run."

The edge is razor thin in all these games, and a month's profits is shot in the mini-crises that afflict us, in our sudden fear of losing, or our uncontrollable greed. Frankly, winners are born, and suckers, too.

Friend, know thyself,
tlt

[Capper Al]

I do believe in know thyself first before any other handicapping advice.

[AndyC]

.....The long shot placed and the winner was not a part of the exacta. When the horse you like goes off at 31 to 1, don't just use it in gimmick wagers. Put some money across the board.

Shouldn't a place or show bet be evaluated on their own merits and not just bet because the horse has high win odds?

[DJofSD]

Shouldn't a place or show bet be evaluated on their own merits and not just bet because the horse has high win odds?
If you're a value oriented player. If you're selection oriented not so much. There's hardly anything worse than having the long shot but not being able to cash with it -- would've, should've, could've is the anthem of losers. Using a $2 win/$4 place/$8 show scheme the talking head would have cashed tickets totaling $106.40.

[traynor]

If you're a value oriented player. If you're selection oriented not so much. There's hardly anything worse than having the long shot but not being able to cash with it -- would've, should've, could've is the anthem of losers. Using a $2 win/$4 place/$8 show scheme the talking head would have cashed tickets totaling $106.40.

The theory is sound. The practice is a bit shaky. In fact, so shaky that most stick with the theory and avoid the practice. The return on a six unit bet WPS is rarely (if ever) equivalent (or even close) to the return on a six unit bet to win only. If you have data to prove otherwise, please feel free to post it.

Like just about everyone else who bets, I gave up that 123WPS routine a LONG time ago as a pointless waste of money. Worse than having the long shot but not being able to cash with it is losing overall because of poor money management processes. The 123WPS--in almost every case--is one such.

[traynor]

Way back I was a big fan of Scott McMannis (one of the best race analysts of the time). He advocated a one-three wp spread, with the same logic as the 123wps strategy. I used both for an extended period (before I learned enough to study first, then bet, rather than bet first, and try to figure out later why I wasn't making any money, despite picking lots of winners) and gave up both in favor of win only.

My reasoning is strictly pragmatic, not philosophical. If someone could establish that either of the spread processes above are more profitable over time than strict win betting, I am certain I would not be the only one who would be extremely interested in the information.

[AndyC]

If you're a value oriented player. If you're selection oriented not so much. There's hardly anything worse than having the long shot but not being able to cash with it -- would've, should've, could've is the anthem of losers. Using a $2 win/$4 place/$8 show scheme the talking head would have cashed tickets totaling $106.40.

So you would advise putting your psychological well being ahead of a more profitable win-only methodology? As a person who has done the majority of my betting in the exotic pools, I doubt that I could have survived mentally if I obsessed over every near-miss that happened with my longshot selections.

[thaskalos]

Way back I was a big fan of Scott McMannis (one of the best race analysts of the time). He advocated a one-three wp spread, with the same logic as the 123wps strategy. I used both for an extended period (before I learned enough to study first, then bet, rather than bet first, and try to figure out later why I wasn't making any money, despite picking lots of winners) and gave up both in favor of win only.

My reasoning is strictly pragmatic, not philosophical. If someone could establish that either of the spread processes above are more profitable over time than strict win betting, I am certain I would not be the only one who would be extremely interested in the information.
When I was starting out in the game more than 30 years ago, I became acquainted with a reputed "pro"...who tried to persuade me to wager one unit to win, three units to place...and seven units to show. He assured me that "all the pros in New York" depended on this exact betting system to secure the steady profit that they sought from this game. Even as a novice, I was still able to see the fallacy in this type of thinking.

I don't remember the last time when I made a place or a show bet.

[dnlgfnk]

Way back I was a big fan of Scott McMannis (one of the best race analysts of the time). He advocated a one-three wp spread, with the same logic as the 123wps strategy. I used both for an extended period (before I learned enough to study first, then bet, rather than bet first, and try to figure out later why I wasn't making any money, despite picking lots of winners) and gave up both in favor of win only.

My reasoning is strictly pragmatic, not philosophical. If someone could establish that either of the spread processes above are more profitable over time than strict win betting, I am certain I would not be the only one who would be extremely interested in the information.

Traynor,

Against the manner in which I usually want to trust individuals, I largely suspect that you've done far more theorizing than application. The comment that you literally pursued higher education in order to beat the races pushed me to the brink. If we were in a high school debate class, I would have to inquire:

Did the apparently sudden unprofitability of place betting lead to study, and this about-face in wagering philosophy, within the past 18 months?...

"Those results are--and have been for a number of years--that place wagering (using appropriate, accurate, and predictive place models as a basis) is quite profitable".

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1553816&postcount=25

[ultracapper]

Ba-Zing!!!

Tough not to contradict yourself after 5000 posts if you're not being straight up all the time.

Just saying.

[Show Me the Wire]

traynor:

If you were picking lots of winners it would be impossible to lose as you collected both the win and place bet. However, if you are qualifying the word winner to mean collecting lots of place bets and not the win slot, you were betting too low priced horses.

[traynor]

Traynor,

Against the manner in which I usually want to trust individuals, I largely suspect that you've done far more theorizing than application. The comment that you literally pursued higher education in order to beat the races pushed me to the brink. If we were in a high school debate class, I would have to inquire:

Did the apparently sudden unprofitability of place betting lead to study, and this about-face in wagering philosophy, within the past 18 months?...

"Those results are--and have been for a number of years--that place wagering (using appropriate, accurate, and predictive place models as a basis) is quite profitable".

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1553816&postcount=25


I don't understand your point. In what way is "place wagering (using appropriate, accurate, and predictive place models as a basis) is quite profitable" related to a onethree WP spread, or (even more perplexing) how is it related to a 123WPS spread?

I think anyone who has done a bit of study (or who has wagered much money) understands quite clearly that a place model and a win model are fundamentally different processes. A one three WP or a 123WPS strategy suffers the weakness of considering the place position (or place and show positions) as a "backup" for a failed attempt to find the winner. That is not how things work.

What is unusual about attending college to pursue one's chosen activity, rather than trying to learn enough to be someone else's flunky? I had a great time. My last class was about five years ago, and I am seriously considering going back for more. They have great programs in Sweden, essentially free education (of relatively high quality) for foreign students--and a LOT of harness races. If only I could figure a way to beat those bleeping Swedish races, I would be off in a flash.

[Show Me the Wire]

When I was starting out in the game more than 30 years ago, I became acquainted with a reputed "pro"...who tried to persuade me to wager one unit to win, three units to place...and seven units to show. He assured me that "all the pros in New York" depended on this exact betting system to secure the steady profit that they sought from this game. Even as a novice, I was still able to see the fallacy in this type of thinking.

I don't remember the last time when I made a place or a show bet.

thask it really depends on your handicapping and your style of play. Place bets or sometimes back-wheel exactas work well if you can consistently identify live long-shots. Longer priced horses if they run their race generally run 2nd vastly more often than they win. Nothing wrong with collecting a $12.or mutuel for second, when your horse gets nosed out for the win spot.

[traynor]

traynor:

If you were picking lots of winners it would be impossible to lose as you collected both the win and place bet. However, if you are qualifying the word winner to mean collecting lots of place bets and not the win slot, you were betting too low priced horses.

Actually, none of the above. Place models and win models are different. Specifically, the predictive attributes of the win position and the place position are different. Sometimes they overlap. Mostly they don't.

[traynor]

thask it really depends on your handicapping and your style of play. Place bets or sometimes back-wheel exactas work well if you can consistently identify live long-shots. Longer priced horses if they run their race generally run 2nd vastly more often than they win. Nothing wrong with collecting a $12.or mutuel for second, when your horse gets nosed out for the win spot.

Exactly. And those longer-priced horses can be as easily identified (at least to me) as the winners. Sometimes easier. Just not using the same process.

[Show Me the Wire]

Actually, none of the above. Place models and win models are different. Specifically, the predictive attributes of the win position and the place position are different. Sometimes they overlap. Mostly they don't.

Are you saying you bet two different horse, one for the win and one for the show? If not it can't be none of the above. If you play the same horse in both positions and you win you get both mutuels and you cannot lose, while consistently picking winners.

Unless your problem was money management and not handicapping per say.

[JohnGalt1]

When I was starting out in the game more than 30 years ago, I became acquainted with a reputed "pro"...who tried to persuade me to wager one unit to win, three units to place...and seven units to show. He assured me that "all the pros in New York" depended on this exact betting system to secure the steady profit that they sought from this game. Even as a novice, I was still able to see the fallacy in this type of thinking.

I don't remember the last time when I made a place or a show bet.

I heard similar advice, but it was 2-4-12 wps.

I've never bet show because I want as much money to win as possible, but sometimes I will do a 20/40 wp if I can't hook up a mid to high odds horse in an exacta.

Some trivia---------

I read a biography of Abbott and Costello. Lou Costello was an avid racetrack goer. His usual bet was $3,000 to win, $2,000 to place, and $1,000 to show.

The author claimed he was a big loser.

Now don't we all feel a little smarter?

[traynor]

Are you saying you bet two different horse, one for the win and one for the show? If not it can't be none of the above. If you play the same horse in both positions and you win you get both mutuels and you cannot lose, while consistently picking winners.

Unless your problem was money management and not handicapping per say.

I don't bet show. I bet win using a win model, I bet place using a place model, and--occasionally--I will make both bets in the same race, on two different horses. However, it would be more common to use both in exacta wagering (in races with two different horses).

I have not bet the same horse to win AND place for many years. Win and place are (usually) comprised of fundamentally different attribute sets.

[traynor]

When I was starting out in the game more than 30 years ago, I became acquainted with a reputed "pro"...who tried to persuade me to wager one unit to win, three units to place...and seven units to show. He assured me that "all the pros in New York" depended on this exact betting system to secure the steady profit that they sought from this game. Even as a novice, I was still able to see the fallacy in this type of thinking.

I don't remember the last time when I made a place or a show bet.

One's perception of reality is often determeined by a limited (and highly subjective) range of experience. I think more than a few on this forum would consider 30 years as a relative newcomer. Lots of interesting things took place in horse racing before you got started.

In the seventies (and earlier), place betting was much more common, and its relative value was highly dependent on the horses selected. "Gamblers" tended to prefer tight finishes, in which photos were almost a given. Which horse was declared the winner and which the placer often depended on the interactions of a large number of activities near the finish line, rather than "handicapping skill." Unfortunately, the place pools were often seriously diluted, unless one selected other than obvious choices.

By the time you were getting started, computers were making a serious impact on horse race wagering. That changed everything. Anyone with good sense could program a computer (REALLY simple stuff--no PHD required) to do a lot of the heavy lifting. In the seventies, I was using VariServ, and three times a week received a sheet in the mail with track variants. They worked WELL. When I got a computer, I figured out early how to do even better, creating my own pars and variants, and automating the process so all the calculations were made as I handicapped each day's entries. (Bear in mind there was no spiffy data download to an even spiffier number crunching app. Every bleeping figure had to be typed in by hand. Hit the wrong key on the last horse entered in a race and it all went away, with nothing left but a Division By Zero Error, a blinking cursor, and a LOT of data that had to be re-entered. By hand.)

All of which is a long, convoluted way of saying, "It depends. At one time, wagering win and place made a lot of sense, and was often the difference between profit and loss."

[thaskalos]

One's perception of reality is often determeined by a limited (and highly subjective) range of experience. I think more than a few on this forum would consider 30 years as a relative newcomer. Lots of interesting things took place in horse racing before you got started.

In the seventies (and earlier), place betting was much more common, and its relative value was highly dependent on the horses selected. "Gamblers" tended to prefer tight finishes, in which photos were almost a given. Which horse was declared the winner and which the placer often depended on the interactions of a large number of activities near the finish line, rather than "handicapping skill." Unfortunately, the place pools were often seriously diluted, unless one selected other than obvious choices.

By the time you were getting started, computers were making a serious impact on horse race wagering. That changed everything. Anyone with good sense could program a computer (REALLY simple stuff--no PHD required) to do a lot of the heavy lifting. In the seventies, I was using VariServ, and three times a week received a sheet in the mail with track variants. They worked WELL. When I got a computer, I figured out early how to do even better, creating my own pars and variants, and automating the process so all the calculations were made as I handicapped each day's entries. (Bear in mind there was no spiffy data download to an even spiffier number crunching app. Every bleeping figure had to be typed in by hand. Hit the wrong key on the last horse entered in a race and it all went away, with nothing left but a Division By Zero Error, a blinking cursor, and a LOT of data that had to be re-entered. By hand.)

All of which is a long, convoluted way of saying, "It depends. At one time, wagering win and place made a lot of sense, and was often the difference between profit and loss."

Well...perhaps I will reach the coveted "advanced player" status, in about 20 years or so... :)

[OCF]

I think I once read on here that show players pay the highest effective takeout. I took that to mean that the WPS takeout % is subtracted three times from the show pool, once for each show payout.

Is any of that anywhere in the vicinity of reality? And if so, wouldn't it follow that the WPS takeout % is subtracted twice from the place pool, once for each place payout?

Thanks for your help.

[ReplayRandall]

One's perception of reality is often determeined by a limited (and highly subjective) range of experience. I think more than a few on this forum would consider 30 years as a relative newcomer. Lots of interesting things took place in horse racing before you got started.

In the seventies (and earlier), place betting was much more common, and its relative value was highly dependent on the horses selected. "Gamblers" tended to prefer tight finishes, in which photos were almost a given. Which horse was declared the winner and which the placer often depended on the interactions of a large number of activities near the finish line, rather than "handicapping skill." Unfortunately, the place pools were often seriously diluted, unless one selected other than obvious choices.
One of your more asinine egotistical outhouse posts........Thanks for keeping it real, Traynor.

[whodoyoulike]

I think I once read on here that show players pay the highest effective takeout. I took that to mean that the WPS takeout % is subtracted three times from the show pool, once for each show payout.

Is any of that anywhere in the vicinity of reality? And if so, wouldn't it follow that the WPS takeout % is subtracted twice from the place pool, once for each place payout?

Thanks for your help.


I may be misunderstanding your question but, I believe the show takeout (as all wagers) is done only once for each type of wager. In the case of show wagering, the remaining is then distributed to the three horses who came into show.

I think the highest takeouts are the parlays but I'm uncertain about this.

[whodoyoulike]

...

In the seventies (and earlier), place betting was much more common...

I don't know if what you've stated in this post is correct or not but in the 70's and earlier, the wagering menu was very limited. From memory there was WPS, DD on races 1 & 2, and maybe 3 exactas per day which may be the real reason place betting was more common. And, the exacta betting was a minimum of $5.00 each way.

[Poindexter]

I think I once read on here that show players pay the highest effective takeout. I took that to mean that the WPS takeout % is subtracted three times from the show pool, once for each show payout.

Is any of that anywhere in the vicinity of reality? And if so, wouldn't it follow that the WPS takeout % is subtracted twice from the place pool, once for each place payout?

Thanks for your help.

The takeout is the same in each pool. The payoffs are caculated by taking the pool, subtracting the takeout and paying out the rest. So if there is $100,000 in the show pool a 16% takeout, then they payout $84,000. The payoff is determined by subtracting the total bet on the 1st 3 finishers to show, and dividing the balance by 3 to get how much profit is paid to each horse. So if the finish comes 1-2-3 and the 1 has $20,000 to show, the 2 has $10,000 to show and the 3 has $5000 to show, then take the $84,000 remaining subract the $35,000 to show on the first 3 finishers leaving you $49,000. Divide that by 3 and 16,333.33 profit is paid out to each horse. Where the eacessive takeout comes in is in the breakage. The 1 should pay $16,333 for $20000 in profit or should pay $3.63 to show. But since their is breakage you are only get $3.60 cents to show. The 2 should pay 5.266666(2.00+3.266666 profit), but due to breakage only gets payed $5.20. .......On average your breakage is going to be close to 10 cents per bet(5 cents on nickel breakage-the reason being that a payoff of 3.60.1 rounds down to 3.60 and a payoff of 379.99 rounds down to $3.60-the average should be right in the middle).10 cents on a $2.40 payoff is a whopping 4.17%. 10 cents on a $3.60 payoff is about 2.8% while 10 cents on a $8.40 payoff is 1.2%. 10 cents on a $18.40 payoff .54 %. So if you are betting a lot of low priced horses to show(or even place or win) you are giving away extra money in breakage.

Another factor in Show betting is that your payoff is determined by who comes in the money. So obviously show makes more sense in large wide open fields where nobody has too much of the money to dilute your payout or in situations where you think the favorite(in the show pool). is eligible to run off the board (bounce candidate, suspicious drop, sketchy work tab, 1st time route or turf, negative barn switch......).

I haven't studied show betting enough to say it is good or bad. I just am not interested in it. I would rather just put my key horse in the trifecta 3 hole behind the key contenders. Personal preference.

[OCF]

The takeout is the same in each pool. The payoffs are caculated by taking the pool, subtracting the takeout and paying out the rest. So if there is $100,000 in the show pool a 16% takeout, then they payout $84,000. The payoff is determined by subtracting the total bet on the 1st 3 finishers to show, and dividing the balance by 3 to get how much profit is paid to each horse. So if the finish comes 1-2-3 and the 1 has $20,000 to show, the 2 has $10,000 to show and the 3 has $5000 to show, then take the $84,000 remaining subract the $35,000 to show on the first 3 finishers leaving you $49,000. Divide that by 3 and 16,333.33 profit is paid out to each horse. Where the eacessive takeout comes in is in the breakage. The 1 should pay $16,333 for $20000 in profit or should pay $3.63 to show. But since their is breakage you are only get $3.60 cents to show. The 2 should pay 5.266666(2.00+3.266666 profit), but due to breakage only gets payed $5.20. .......On average your breakage is going to be close to 10 cents per bet(5 cents on nickel breakage-the reason being that a payoff of 3.60.1 rounds down to 3.60 and a payoff of 379.99 rounds down to $3.60-the average should be right in the middle).10 cents on a $2.40 payoff is a whopping 4.17%. 10 cents on a $3.60 payoff is about 2.8% while 10 cents on a $8.40 payoff is 1.2%. 10 cents on a $18.40 payoff .54 %. So if you are betting a lot of low priced horses to show(or even place or win) you are giving away extra money in breakage.

Another factor in Show betting is that your payoff is determined by who comes in the money. So obviously show makes more sense in large wide open fields where nobody has too much of the money to dilute your payout or in situations where you think the favorite(in the show pool). is eligible to run off the board (bounce candidate, suspicious drop, sketchy work tab, 1st time route or turf, negative barn switch......).

I haven't studied show betting enough to say it is good or bad. I just am not interested in it. I would rather just put my key horse in the trifecta 3 hole behind the key contenders. Personal preference.

Thanks for the detailed reply. After reading your reply and having my memory jogged I'm pretty sure that what I read here was that show bettors pay the highest effective breakage. That makes a lot more sense.

[Poindexter]

NP. By the way my percentage on breakage are a little off. I used the divisor of $2.40 on a $2.40 payout when in actuality, it is ten cents on an average payout of $2.4999999999999...........................

So the corrected extra takeout due to breakage is:

payoff , extra takeout for dime breakage

$2.40 4%
$3.60 2.7%
$8.40 1.18%
$18.40 .54%

[traynor]

Well...perhaps I will reach the coveted "advanced player" status, in about 20 years or so... :)

I was your age when I STARTED college full-time. It was an interesting experience. Especially because--not being a dewy-eyed innocent in total awe of academia and academics--I could cajole, wheedle, persuade, or bully most of my professors into letting me concentrate on "gambling-related research projects" for most of what I did.

It was amazing how useful the (very pricey) business research software available in the computer labs could be for someone interested in horse racing.

You might consider it. It is way less intimidating than you might think, and can actually be quite enjoyable. Especially if you get connected with a bunch of hardcore bettors slumming as "business majors." I was not the only one, by far. There is a whole network of "business students" whose major interest is betting. Not for fun. Only for money.

[traynor]

I don't know if what you've stated in this post is correct or not but in the 70's and earlier, the wagering menu was very limited. From memory there was WPS, DD on races 1 & 2, and maybe 3 exactas per day which may be the real reason place betting was more common. And, the exacta betting was a minimum of $5.00 each way.

Yes. And no such thing as simulcasting. No OTB other than in NY and (possibly) other strange places. Certainly not on the left coast. Only betting on-track, and only on the upcoming races. I thought it was a big step up when they started "advance performance wagering."

[traynor]

One of your more asinine egotistical outhouse posts........Thanks for keeping it real, Traynor.

De nada.

[pondman]

The more you do it, the more selective you'll become. You'll eventually stumble onto your style, and how frequent you want to bet. I'd have to leave that up to you as to whether you want to single a few horses, or try to play a pick3.

[jahura2]

I've been a casual (losing) fan of horse racing and "handicapping" over the last 5 years or so. I'm not a big gambler, but I enjoy reviewing the statistics and figures involved in handicapping.

Even though I put in the time and effort it never seems to pay off. I'm either losing, or barely making any money. I don't want to quit because it's become a hobby of sorts, but I don't want to keep losing either.

It seems like the more I research, the more I realize: I know nothing when it comes to handicapping. I've read a couple books, spent hours researching online and my efforts seem to be fruitless...I'm not sure if it has to do with my betting strategy, my handicapping --- or both. Delaware Park is my home track, and I usually go up there Wednesdays. I also bet through TVG: Gulfstream, Golden Gate, Santa Anita, etc.

I guess what I'm asking for is help, or reassurance that this happens to everyone new to the game? I don't expect someone to divulge their secretive methods, just point me in the right direction. If you're not comfortable with leaving a post private message me.

...wow this message sounds really depressing, ha, I assure you I'm not depressed---just lost.

Anyone want to take a 31 year-old loser, crybaby, man-child under their wing? :D

Thanks,
SteveinDE

Start over and learn to love the sport of horse racing first if you don't already. Try to separate the sport from the gambling side of it. The more you enjoy a day at the races the harder you will work to become better at understanding them(handicapping), then work on money management, then patience , then your own mental approach to the game. All of this is ongoing and after 45 yrs in this game I am still learning. But after 45 years of going to the races, handicapping and betting, a day like Saturday and a horse like American Pharoah brings it all full circle and reminds me again that I started out loving the sport first.

[pondman]

Start over and learn to love the sport of horse racing first if you don't already. Try to separate the sport from the gambling side of it. The more you enjoy a day at the races the harder you will work to become better at understanding them.

I will jump late into this thread with the argument that to be a good player you've got to consider this a business. If you aren't winning then stop playing immediately. There are people who can make money in this game. Maybe the OP needs to completely rethink the game, and find another venue. Because there are tracks that I can kill and tracks that will kill me. You can't expect to play a track like Gulfstream with 5 turf races per day, in the same manner that you play Los Alamitos with 5 - 4 1/2 furlong races. I've got a few plays at Delaware but I don't have enough to make it interesting. I certainly would not play everything on that card, especially races with a bunch of broken down claimers. You have to find your game, on your terms, and kill it.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I've been a casual (losing) fan of horse racing and "handicapping" over the last 5 years or so. I'm not a big gambler, but I enjoy reviewing the statistics and figures involved in handicapping.

Even though I put in the time and effort it never seems to pay off. I'm either losing, or barely making any money. I don't want to quit because it's become a hobby of sorts, but I don't want to keep losing either.

It seems like the more I research, the more I realize: I know nothing when it comes to handicapping. I've read a couple books, spent hours researching online and my efforts seem to be fruitless...I'm not sure if it has to do with my betting strategy, my handicapping --- or both. Delaware Park is my home track, and I usually go up there Wednesdays. I also bet through TVG: Gulfstream, Golden Gate, Santa Anita, etc.

I guess what I'm asking for is help, or reassurance that this happens to everyone new to the game? I don't expect someone to divulge their secretive methods, just point me in the right direction. If you're not comfortable with leaving a post private message me.

...wow this message sounds really depressing, ha, I assure you I'm not depressed---just lost.

Anyone want to take a 31 year-old loser, crybaby, man-child under their wing? :D

Thanks,
SteveinDE

I'll offer two pieces of advice I give to all new players. First, don't be selection oriented, be value oriented. In order to be value oriented you have to know when the crowd has overvalued or undervalued a horse. This is the most difficult thing for a new player to learn. Almost all new players want to find the winner, the one horse who will finish in front at the wire. Let me use a simple hypothetical.

Your Probability Tote Odds
Horse A 33% 8-5
Horse B 25% 5-1
Horse C 20% 4-1
Horse D 15% 3-1

In this example you have four contenders. You assign each one a probability of winning based on what you believe is their likelihood to win. In this example you believe Horse A is the most likely winner, but his 8-5 odds (38.5% win probability) are less than your odds (2-1) making him a slightly bad value play. Horse C's tote board odds are the same as your odds, a little too slim a margin for a value play. Horse D is a severe underlay and can't be backed. Horse B is your only overlay. Your handicapping says he should be 3-1, but the crowd has him at 5-1. Even though you think Horse A is most likely the winner, if you are good at assessing winning probability, you only bet Horse B. This is a hard concept to grasp, but mathematically if you limit your play to overlays (and you are an accurate handicapper) you will win. This article explains how to set and use a betting line http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=147

The second thing I would say is divide your bankroll 50-25-25. 50% win, 25% exacta, and 25% whatever else you want to bet, usually more complex horizontal and vertical bets. I think you have to concede it is really hard not to occasionally bet a pick-4 or a trifecta, but those bets should not be the focus for beginners. This article explains value in exactas http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=397

The most successful horseplayer I ever knew was a little above average handicapper, but a world class bettor. He understood value as well as anyone I've ever met and made more money than guys who were far better handicappers. If you want to make money learn how to bet value.

[DeltaLover]

I'll offer two pieces of advice I give to all new players. First, don't be selection oriented, be value oriented. In order to be value oriented you have to know when the crowd has overvalued or undervalued a horse. This is the most difficult thing for a new player to learn. Almost all new players want to find the winner, the one horse who will finish in front at the wire. Let me use a simple hypothetical.

Your Probability Tote Odds
Horse A 33% 8-5
Horse B 25% 5-1
Horse C 20% 4-1
Horse D 15% 3-1

In this example you have four contenders. You assign each one a probability of winning based on what you believe is their likelihood to win. In this example you believe Horse A is the most likely winner, but his 8-5 odds (38.5% win probability) are less than your odds (2-1) making him a slightly bad value play. Horse C's tote board odds are the same as your odds, a little too slim a margin for a value play. Horse D is a severe underlay and can't be backed. Horse B is your only overlay. Your handicapping says he should be 3-1, but the crowd has him at 5-1. Even though you think Horse A is most likely the winner, if you are good at assessing winning probability, you only bet Horse B. This is a hard concept to grasp, but mathematically if you limit your play to overlays (and you are an accurate handicapper) you will win. This article explains how to set and use a betting line http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=147

The second thing I would say is divide your bankroll 50-25-25. 50% win, 25% exacta, and 25% whatever else you want to bet, usually more complex horizontal and vertical bets. I think you have to concede it is really hard not to occasionally bet a pick-4 or a trifecta, but those bets should not be the focus for beginners. This article explains value in exactas http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=397

The most successful horseplayer I ever knew was a little above average handicapper, but a world class bettor. He understood value as well as anyone I've ever met and made more money than guys who were far better handicappers. If you want to make money learn how to bet value.

:ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

So, do you mean that the horse who reads 5-1 on the board is actually going to pay $12.00 ?

Sorry, but what you are proposing here, is not only terrible advice for the newbie but for veteran gambler as well

[steveb]

:ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

So, do you mean that the horse who reads 5-1 on the board is actually going to pay $12.00 ?

Sorry, but what you are proposing here, is not only terrible advice for the newbie but for veteran gambler as well

if you are better at it than the crowd, and you assess horse 'b' with a .25 chance, and the crowd assesses it as having only .17(even less if allowing for rake) chance, then why is that bad advice?
either you have misunderstood what he has written,.....or i have.

[DeltaLover]

if you are better at it than the crowd, and you assess horse 'b' with a .25 chance, and the crowd assesses it as having only .17(even less if allowing for rake) chance, then why is that bad advice?
either you have misunderstood what he has written,.....or i have.


In US racing there are no fixed odds, thus what looks like an overlay when the horses are loading to the gate can very well be transformed to a terrible underlay after the start of the race
Most of the times when you will find a significant discrepancy between your 'fare' odds and what is been offered by the crowd, it will be your line that is wrong than the other way around
The best you can do, is to detect a specific handicapping profile that in the long run will be underestimated by the crowd, and bet on all of its matches regardless of their individual odds.

[pondman]

Your Probability Tote Odds
Horse A 33% 8-5
Horse B 25% 5-1
Horse C 20% 4-1
Horse D 15% 3-1

.

There are plays in racing that have probabilities above 40%. Why not show some patience, play those on the nose, and walk away win or lose. Why force it? There is no reason to ever bet anything but the win on a single. It only takes about 25 well placed win bets to change your financial position.

[pondman]

If I were going to suggest any study material, I'd suggest going down a few threads and look through David Schwartz' material and find something that will fit into your views. I'd avoid recommending a new player study Beyer's. That's a dead end alley. Find data that will support or disprove your method. The main thing is, if you are losing stop playing the same way.

[ReplayRandall]

There are plays in racing that have probabilities above 40%. Why not show some patience, play those on the nose, and walk away win or lose. Why force it? There is no reason to ever bet anything but the win on a single. It only takes about 25 well placed win bets to change your financial position.
IMO, this is poor advice, as you are at the mercy of a very small sample size(25), which may run negatively for years, due to natural variance, before becoming profitable, if at all. Use multiple larger sample sized approaches with smaller +ROI, grinding out yearly profit in a safer and surer manner....

[DJofSD]

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results.

[traynor]

In US racing there are no fixed odds, thus what looks like an overlay when the horses are loading to the gate can very well be transformed to a terrible underlay after the start of the race
Most of the times when you will find a significant discrepancy between your 'fare' odds and what is been offered by the crowd, it will be your line that is wrong than the other way around
The best you can do, is to detect a specific handicapping profile that in the long run will be underestimated by the crowd, and bet on all of its matches regardless of their individual odds.


Absolutely!

[pondman]

IMO, this is poor advice, as you are at the mercy of a very small sample size(25), which may run negatively for years, due to natural variance, before becoming profitable, if at all. Use multiple larger sample sized approaches with smaller +ROI, grinding out yearly profit in a safer and surer manner....

Please, I'm not retarded. That's all smoke and mirror talk.

[thaskalos]

Please, I'm not retarded. That's all smoke and mirror talk.

Isn't it also smoke and mirror talk when you keep on telling us about how you regularly carry away your winnings from the track in big paper bags?

[Tom]

When I was starting out in the game more than 30 years ago, I became acquainted with a reputed "pro"...who tried to persuade me to wager one unit to win, three units to place...and seven units to show. He assured me that "all the pros in New York" depended on this exact betting system to secure the steady profit that they sought from this game. Even as a novice, I was still able to see the fallacy in this type of thinking.

I don't remember the last time when I made a place or a show bet.

I bet 1 unit win and 3 units place on anything over 9-2 because my records show I place almost twice as much as win at those odds.

[thaskalos]

I bet 1 unit win and 3 units place on anything over 9-2 because my records show I place almost twice as much as win at those odds.
The big show bet was what I found most upsetting in that scenario. IMO...it's ridiculous to also make a large show bet, "just in case the horse finishes 3rd". If a horse misses first and second...it could easily miss 3rd as well.

[Poindexter]

In US racing there are no fixed odds, thus what looks like an overlay when the horses are loading to the gate can very well be transformed to a terrible underlay after the start of the race
Most of the times when you will find a significant discrepancy between your 'fare' odds and what is been offered by the crowd, it will be your line that is wrong than the other way around
The best you can do, is to detect a specific handicapping profile that in the long run will be underestimated by the crowd, and bet on all of its matches regardless of their individual odds.


Regarding #1, depends what track you are playing. If I am playing Santa Anita on a Saturday Afternoon, I do not have a lot to worry about. If I am playing Balmoral harness, anything can happen. But imo you are still better off making the value play even if it may not keep its value.

Regarding #2 I do not believe this to be the case. The self assessment part of this game requires you really make sure you are not making mistakes, but to come to the conclusion that when I make a horse 6-1 and the crowd says 22-1, that I am wrong........If I felt that way, why would I even bother playing the game.

Regarding #3-I 100% disagree with this. I am going to give you an example from NBA Basketball to tell you why I disagree with you. I have an 11 year database from 1999 to 2009 in NBA basketball. When I bet basketball, I am angle based. I also have created my own power ratings and used my database to figure out the mathematical relationship between the power ratings, so I know what the fair line should be based off of my opinion of what the relative abilities of the teams should be. On virtually EVERY successful angle my results are much better when I am getting fair value or better than when I am getting the worse of the line(using closing line which is supposed to be the most accurate). So if I rate Golden State 5 over Cleveland and the angle states make the play on Golden State, but the line is 7.5, that extra 2.5 points I have to give will nullify the edge of the angle. Based off your theory, I should not care that the public has the line at 7.5 even though I rate the game 5, because if they say it is 7.5 that is the correct line and I do not have a clue what the line should be. Reality does not match your theory. The same applies for horse racing. Angle may be really strong on a horse, but he should be about 8-1, but maybe the owner unloads on him, or some handicapper has him as the play of the day and he goes off at 6-1. He is a bad play, do not care how good the angle is. The only difference is that in basketball the take is 4.5% and in racing the take is over 16% so there are many reasons a horse might be over-bet(including the fact that 90% of the horses tend to be anyhow) even though he has some attributes that tend to be overlooked in general.

[Tom]

The big show bet was what I found most upsetting in that scenario. IMO...it's ridiculous to also make a large show bet, "just in case the horse finishes 3rd". If a horse misses first and second...it could easily miss 3rd as well.

I used to do 1-3-6, but show was returning so little it was not worth it.

[thaskalos]

Regarding #1, depends what track you are playing. If I am playing Santa Anita on a Saturday Afternoon, I do not have a lot to worry about. If I am playing Balmoral harness, anything can happen. But imo you are still better off making the value play even if it may not keep its value.

Regarding #2 I do not believe this to be the case. The self assessment part of this game requires you really make sure you are not making mistakes, but to come to the conclusion that when I make a horse 6-1 and the crowd says 22-1, that I am wrong........If I felt that way, why would I even bother playing the game.

Regarding #3-I 100% disagree with this. I am going to give you an example from NBA Basketball to tell you why I disagree with you. I have an 11 year database from 1999 to 2009 in NBA basketball. When I bet basketball, I am angle based. I also have created my own power ratings and used my database to figure out the mathematical relationship between the power ratings, so I know what the fair line should be based off of my opinion of what the relative abilities of the teams should be. On virtually EVERY successful angle my results are much better when I am getting fair value or better than when I am getting the worse of the line(using closing line which is supposed to be the most accurate). So if I rate Golden State 5 over Cleveland and the angle states make the play on Golden State, but the line is 7.5, that extra 2.5 points I have to give will nullify the edge of the angle. Based off your theory, I should not care that the public has the line at 7.5 even though I rate the game 5, because if they say it is 7.5 that is the correct line and I do not have a clue what the line should be. Reality does not match your theory. The same applies for horse racing. Angle may be really strong on a horse, but he should be about 8-1, but maybe the owner unloads on him, or some handicapper has him as the play of the day and he goes off at 6-1. He is a bad play, do not care how good the angle is. The only difference is that in basketball the take is 4.5% and in racing the take is over 16% so there are many reasons a horse might be over-bet(including the fact that 90% of the horses tend to be anyhow) even though he has some attributes that tend to be overlooked in general.

What about when we've made the horse an obvious 9/5 favorite...but it's sitting at 5/1 on the board as the horses are approaching the gate? Doesn't it almost always UNDER-PERFORM...telling us that there is crucial information known by some, that is inaccessible to us? And yet...we continue to play this game. :)

[Poindexter]

What about when we've made the horse an obvious 9/5 favorite...but it's sitting at 5/1 on the board as the horses are approaching the gate? Doesn't it almost always UNDER-PERFORM...telling us that there is crucial information known by some, that is inaccessible to us? And yet...we continue to play this game. :)

Maybe because I am using Bris now and not DRF (I do not even know what the Beyers are on horses), but I am not really seeing this. My problem has been more the other way around, where I keep backing off of horses that look too dead on the board to me and they win easy at nice prices. I am going full circle on this part of my betting. IF they lose they lose, at this point of time I am more interested in who is "live" and not who is dead.

[DeltaLover]

Regarding #1, depends what track you are playing. If I am playing Santa Anita on a Saturday Afternoon, I do not have a lot to worry about. If I am playing Balmoral harness, anything can happen. But imo you are still better off making the value play even if it may not keep its value.

Regarding #2 I do not believe this to be the case. The self assessment part of this game requires you really make sure you are not making mistakes, but to come to the conclusion that when I make a horse 6-1 and the crowd says 22-1, that I am wrong........If I felt that way, why would I even bother playing the game.

Regarding #3-I 100% disagree with this. I am going to give you an example from NBA Basketball to tell you why I disagree with you. I have an 11 year database from 1999 to 2009 in NBA basketball. When I bet basketball, I am angle based. I also have created my own power ratings and used my database to figure out the mathematical relationship between the power ratings, so I know what the fair line should be based off of my opinion of what the relative abilities of the teams should be. On virtually EVERY successful angle my results are much better when I am getting fair value or better than when I am getting the worse of the line(using closing line which is supposed to be the most accurate). So if I rate Golden State 5 over Cleveland and the angle states make the play on Golden State, but the line is 7.5, that extra 2.5 points I have to give will nullify the edge of the angle. Based off your theory, I should not care that the public has the line at 7.5 even though I rate the game 5, because if they say it is 7.5 that is the correct line and I do not have a clue what the line should be. Reality does not match your theory. The same applies for horse racing. Angle may be really strong on a horse, but he should be about 8-1, but maybe the owner unloads on him, or some handicapper has him as the play of the day and he goes off at 6-1. He is a bad play, do not care how good the angle is. The only difference is that in basketball the take is 4.5% and in racing the take is over 16% so there are many reasons a horse might be over-bet(including the fact that 90% of the horses tend to be anyhow) even though he has some attributes that tend to be overlooked in general.

OK then, I can very well be wrong.. You should continue doing what works best for you..

[DJofSD]

The big show bet was what I found most upsetting in that scenario. IMO...it's ridiculous to also make a large show bet, "just in case the horse finishes 3rd". If a horse misses first and second...it could easily miss 3rd as well.
Well, hells bells, by that logic, I might as well sit when I take a piss 'cause I could miss that too. :)

[thaskalos]

Well, hells bells, by that logic, I might as well sit when I take a piss 'cause I could miss that too. :)

You must still be a young man. I've already started sitting down when I pee...

[DJofSD]

You must still be a young man. I've already started sitting down when I pee...
:lol: :lol:

No, young at heart and in mind, but chronologically, I'm starting to get up there. I'm a part of the baby boomers.

[traynor]

I bet 1 unit win and 3 units place on anything over 9-2 because my records show I place almost twice as much as win at those odds.

I think that the point most miss (or are confused by) is that such a wagering strategy depends on your specific handicapping and the results thereof--not "all situations in all races."

[traynor]

What about when we've made the horse an obvious 9/5 favorite...but it's sitting at 5/1 on the board as the horses are approaching the gate? Doesn't it almost always UNDER-PERFORM...telling us that there is crucial information known by some, that is inaccessible to us? And yet...we continue to play this game. :)

That is what the number crunchers call a "confounding variable." Some would argue that it is knowable information (rather than "inside" information) and can be mined out. Meaning there is a (knowable) combination of attributes missing or lacking in that specific scenario that indicate the horse will not perform as most believe it will perform. Uncovering those "confounding variables" is a major part of data mining.

[raybo]

Isn't it also smoke and mirror talk when you keep on telling us about how you regularly carry away your winnings from the track in big paper bags?

Maybe he's betting hundred dollar bills and the cashiers are paying out in dollar bills? :lol:

[barn32]

The big show bet was what I found most upsetting in that scenario. IMO...it's ridiculous to also make a large show bet, "just in case the horse finishes 3rd". If a horse misses first and second...it could easily miss 3rd as well.In my opinion, the most important reason not to bet show is because most of the breakage comes out of the show pool.

[DeltaLover]

Uncovering those "confounding variables" is a major part of data mining.

Agree, albeit this is not a trivial task. The elementary programming skills you are talking about in another posting, although can certainly be useful for many other things, are not even close to what is required to discover these "confounding variables" as you call them.

[traynor]

Agree, albeit this is not a trivial task. The elementary programming skills you are talking about in another posting, although can certainly be useful for many other things, are not even close to what is required to discover these "confounding variables" as you call them.

I agree, but it is well worth the effort. Once one has a bit of programming skill, one tends to discover other things that can be done with it (such as uncovering hidden variables), and that provides a great deal of motivation to acquire whatever additional skills may be needed.

[DeltaLover]

I agree, but it is well worth the effort. Once one has a bit of programming skill, one tends to discover other things that can be done with it (such as uncovering hidden variables), and that provides a great deal of motivation to acquire whatever additional skills may be needed.


The required skills for what you are describing here are way ahead of programming.. What is needed is a computer science background with big data Science specialization. I do not believe that anyone without this kind of a skill set can address the challenge of solving the related problems that are delving deeply to advanced topics of pattern recognition, linear algebra, ontology, semantic networks etc..

I also have never found anyone with this kind of knowledge writing handicapping software. Keep in mind that I know at least two dozen of programmers who fit the bill and none of them has any interest in handicapping and also was never approached by one of the "whales" for a related purpose ( I have been approached a few times by this kind of mythical creatures but as it turned out they did not have enough budget to hire me as a consultant)

[thaskalos]

In my opinion, the most important reason not to bet show is because most of the breakage comes out of the show pool.

IMO...the most important reason not to bet show is because it is virtually impossible to make a profit while doing so. That's what the profitable show bettors have in common with the aliens from outer space. Both are reputed to exist...but no one has ever seen either group up close.

[traynor]

The required skills for what you are describing here are way ahead of programming.. What is needed is a computer science background with big data Science specialization. I do not believe that anyone without this kind of a skill set can address the challenge of solving the related problems that are delving deeply to advanced topics of pattern recognition, linear algebra, ontology, semantic networks etc..

I also have never found anyone with this kind of knowledge writing handicapping software. Keep in mind that I know at least two dozen of programmers who fit the bill and none of them has any interest in handicapping and also was never approached by one of the "whales" for a related purpose ( I have been approached a few times by this kind of mythical creatures but as it turned out they did not have enough budget to hire me as a consultant)

Not really. Sometimes too much knowledge (and a limited perspective) is a hindrance. That is why business analysts exist--the IT staff sees a year-long project, the execs see something they think "should only take a couple of hours." Business analysts tend to find the real-world compromise between the two disparate points of view. And perspectives.

We are not talking about solving the world's (many, many) problems. Just what one can find about how and why horses win or lose. Limited range, limited perspective, no extravagant skill sets needed. A bit of common sense (the specialty of business analysts) will go further than most other things in such an endeavor.

It's only a horse race.

[DeltaLover]

That is why business analysts exist--the IT staff sees a year-long project, the execs see something they think "should only take a couple of hours." Business analysts tend to find the real-world compromise between the two disparate points of view. And perspectives.

Business analysts are among the most useless specialities i have encountered in my career as a developer.

[alf1380]

When I was starting out in the game more than 30 years ago, I became acquainted with a reputed "pro"...who tried to persuade me to wager one unit to win, three units to place...and seven units to show. He assured me that "all the pros in New York" depended on this exact betting system to secure the steady profit that they sought from this game. Even as a novice, I was still able to see the fallacy in this type of thinking.

I don't remember the last time when I made a place or a show bet.

We might have spoken to the same guy!

Show betting is not profitable because of the rarity of "value" in the bet. We all KNOW what a horse at certain odds is "usually" worth to Show, and we all take a gander at the Show pool for an anomaly. I rarely find it (not counting the bridge jumper races).

I usually find One per racing weekend and this weekend there was one in the second most popular race of Belmont Stakes Saturday. The Met Mile.

I loved Private Zone. Bet him to win. he was the 4th choice. I hated Bayern. Tossing Bayern off the board, and putting Tonalist in, gave me a calculation of somewhere around 3/2 to Show for PZ. Wow..Why are they gifting me this money?

So I made a large Show bet...with 1 MTP. It paid $4.30, while my tote said $5.00. Breakage, and the weird 1 MTP monster got me.

I made a bad bet. I got lucky on the payoff.

If you can't have ALL the information, and have to involve guess work to decide on value, then it is a bad bet.

Now, I will hunt for that one great Show betting opportunity this week as well and that will surely be wrong as well when they leave the gate.

Watch the Bridge Jumpers...if there aren't any..lay off those Show bets.

[raybo]

IMO...the most important reason not to bet show is because it is virtually impossible to make a profit while doing so. That's what the profitable show bettors have in common with the aliens from outer space. Both are reputed to exist...but no one has ever seen either group up close.

IMO, theoretically of course, one can make profit with win betting if they have the proper mix of hit rate and average win payouts, so likewise, one could make profit with show betting with the proper mix of hit rate and average show payout. The win bettor with a 33% hit rate needs average win payouts of $6.01 or higher to be profitable. The bettor who hits 33% in the show pool would also need $6.01 or higher show payouts to be profitable. The key is the ability to spot live longer win odds horses who have excellent chances of getting in the money. But, the real trick would seem to be selecting those higher win odds horses who will not be bet down in the show pool more than would normally happen at those general win odds. Live longer priced horses would be spotted by quite a few players, and if they bet the horse to show, instead of, or in conjunction with win and/or place, then you have the same problem as betting legitimate low odds favorites to win. So, it would boil down to the skills of the player and the availability of those live, non-bet down horses. If he/she/they is/are good enough then, theoretically, it could be done.

[traynor]

Business analysts are among the most useless specialities i have encountered in my career as a developer.

Odd. That is what most of the IT people think. The exec side loves them.

[Tom]

IMO...the most important reason not to bet show is because it is virtually impossible to make a profit while doing so. That's what the profitable show bettors have in common with the aliens from outer space. Both are reputed to exist...but no one has ever seen either group up close.

Bridge jumpers exist.
Just look under a bridge. :rolleyes:

[traynor]

The required skills for what you are describing here are way ahead of programming.. What is needed is a computer science background with big data Science specialization. I do not believe that anyone without this kind of a skill set can address the challenge of solving the related problems that are delving deeply to advanced topics of pattern recognition, linear algebra, ontology, semantic networks etc..

I also have never found anyone with this kind of knowledge writing handicapping software. Keep in mind that I know at least two dozen of programmers who fit the bill and none of them has any interest in handicapping and also was never approached by one of the "whales" for a related purpose ( I have been approached a few times by this kind of mythical creatures but as it turned out they did not have enough budget to hire me as a consultant)

Have you considered that the whales may be looking elsewhere? Or that they have discovered that "advanced topics of pattern recognition, linear algebra, ontology, semantic networks" are not a best fit for a horse racing app? Complexity is great when complexity is needed, or when it provides a superior solution. There is no evidence that either of those cases exist in horse racing.

The only skill required is picking more winners at better prices than the other bettors.

[DeltaLover]

Have you considered that the whales may be looking elsewhere? .

Possible..

I do not pretend to know anything about whales because I simply do not.

I was only approached by a few, who claimed to be very large bettors, but they did not seem to be ready to pay an average NYC consulting fee for the required skill set..

[HalvOnHorseracing]

:ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

So, do you mean that the horse who reads 5-1 on the board is actually going to pay $12.00 ?

Sorry, but what you are proposing here, is not only terrible advice for the newbie but for veteran gambler as well

If you understood value you'd understand why what you said is completely incorrect. Ask any world class handicapper and he'll confitm that.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

if you are better at it than the crowd, and you assess horse 'b' with a .25 chance, and the crowd assesses it as having only .17(even less if allowing for rake) chance, then why is that bad advice?
either you have misunderstood what he has written,.....or i have.

You understood it. Good handicapping is assessing probability against what the market (crowd) has assigned. You are looking for overlays.

[DeltaLover]

If you understood value you'd understand why what you said is completely incorrect. Ask any world class handicapper and he'll confitm that.

ok, i will try to find one and ask him

[HalvOnHorseracing]

In US racing there are no fixed odds, thus what looks like an overlay when the horses are loading to the gate can very well be transformed to a terrible underlay after the start of the race
Most of the times when you will find a significant discrepancy between your 'fare' odds and what is been offered by the crowd, it will be your line that is wrong than the other way around
The best you can do, is to detect a specific handicapping profile that in the long run will be underestimated by the crowd, and bet on all of its matches regardless of their individual odds.


1. So is your solution to what, never bet because you can't trust the odds as the horses are loading? If you read the article you'd have gotten the advice that you ask for a premium for your overlay. What exactly is your solution to this vexing problem.
2. Most of the time you are wrong and the crowd is right? I guess no horse ever payed double digits because the crowd is never that far off.
3. Actually your third point makes some sense. Not complete sense. But some sense.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

There are plays in racing that have probabilities above 40%. Why not show some patience, play those on the nose, and walk away win or lose. Why force it? There is no reason to ever bet anything but the win on a single. It only takes about 25 well placed win bets to change your financial position.

A horse with a 40% probability of winning that goes off at even money is a bad bet. A horse that has a 50% probability of winning that goes off at 7-5 is a good bet. The probability of a play is only important in relation to its payoff.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

ok, i will try to find one and ask him

You ever play poker? They bet by calculating value all the time. If you have a 1 in 5 chance of hitting a card but the return on your bet is 10-1, you make the bet. Ever bet football? You bet when the line favors you. The value concept is basic to every gambling activity, and the stock market for that matter.

[DeltaLover]

You ever play poker? They bet by calculating value all the time. If you have a 1 in 5 chance of hitting a card but the return on your bet is 10-1, you make the bet. Ever bet football? You bet when the line favors you. The value concept is basic to every gambling activity, and the stock market for that matter.

That's really cool .. thx for the info