Modern day angle players

[Capper Al]

Back in the day, angle players would wait for something like first time lasix or third race off a layout. Angles are easily understood but difficult to scan for if you don't have a software program to search them out. The payouts have also gone south. Many trainers try not to show their hand when they are going to strike to get higher odds for themselves when they win, so they make sure to avoid these angle patterns.

I have never been too much of an angle player. Maybe I'm just too lazy to scan the form or add it to my software code to-do list. For me, the opposite of an angle player is the formula player. These guys use their software programs or databases to add up some sort of system score that might get them the winner. This too is very difficult. One seems to have to choose which path to start off on because time is limited and in short supply. (My wife is always telling me that I spend too much time on the computer and on racing.)

In recent years, the line between the formula player and angle player has blurred. The once scan the form to find the angle has now been commingled by the record keepers. These guys might look for something like top recent class in a claiming route with better than average speed going off at odds of such and such for a value play. This isn't the E = MC^2 bunch of the formula crowd trying to calculate the winner, although these modern angle do use formulas. To me, these are modern day angle players looking for different combinations at odds. Good bye, first time lasix.

I'm still one of the formula players, maybe a relic or a computerized Paper and Pencil handicapper. What are your thoughts on these or other approaches to handicapping?

[Ocala Mike]

Still an angle player, and probably always will be. Favorite angles are second-timers in maiden races, turf to dirt, dropdowns, and long workouts. Of course, it pays to know trainer patterns watching these and pretty much every other angle. I am pretty good at visually scanning the DRF for possible angle plays.

[Capper Al]

Still an angle player, and probably always will be. Favorite angles are second-timers in maiden races, turf to dirt, dropdowns, and long workouts. Of course, it pays to know trainer patterns watching these and pretty much every other angle. I am pretty good at visually scanning the DRF for possible angle plays.

When you typically play, how many cards would you scan and about how long does it take you to scan them?

[thaskalos]

I shake my head when I see all the different categories of horseplayers that we see in the game today. "Comprehensive handicappers", "specialists", "speed handicappers", "class handicappers", "pace handicappers", "figure handicappers", "trip handicappers", "angle handicappers", "physicality handicappers", "trainer-stat handicappers", "tote-board handicappers", "hi-tech handicappers", "pencil-and-paper handicappers", etc.

It's all pretty foolish, if you ask me. To me...all the handicappers can be safely and accurately grouped in just two categories: Winners and losers.

[Capper Al]

I shake my head when I see all the different categories of horseplayers that we see in the game today. "Comprehensive handicappers", "specialists", "speed handicappers", "class handicappers", "pace handicappers", "figure handicappers, "trip handicappers", "physicality handicappers", "trainer-stat handicappers", "tote-board handicappers", "hi-tech handicappers", "pencil-and-paper handicappers", etc.

It's all pretty foolish, if you ask me. To me...all the handicappers can be safely and accurately grouped in just two categories: Winners and losers.

I'm going to guess from your previous postings that you are modern day angle player. You read the race conditions, look over the form (could be an electronic form like BRIS Ultimate), and figure your play based on your experience without creating or using an overall figure like BRIS Prime or Morning Line or point system. How far off am I?

[thaskalos]

I'm going to guess from your previous postings that you are modern day angle player. You read the race conditions, look over the form (could be an electronic form like BRIS Ultimate), and figure your play based on your experience without creating or using an overall figure like BRIS Prime or Morning Line or point system. How far off am I?

You are pretty far off. If you look at my Racing Form, you will see that the pages are filled with numbers in three different-colored inks. But I also know a winning player whose Racing Form is completely clean. The only numbers that he ever writes down are the bet combinations that he intends to wager on.

As I said...the main thing is to win.

[DeltaLover]

I shake my head when I see all the different categories of horseplayers that we see in the game today. "Comprehensive handicappers", "specialists", "speed handicappers", "class handicappers", "pace handicappers", "figure handicappers", "trip handicappers", "angle handicappers", "physicality handicappers", "trainer-stat handicappers", "tote-board handicappers", "hi-tech handicappers", "pencil-and-paper handicappers", etc.

It's all pretty foolish, if you ask me. To me...all the handicappers can be safely and accurately grouped in just two categories: Winners and losers.

I am afraid that your closing statement is probably correct Thask..


STILL, I think Al's topic is not a bad one, as it touches a central point of handicapping and there is a lot of room for related discussions and debates..

I am convinced that handicapping angles (or factors or scenarios or whatever else you might want to call them) remain and always will be important for horse betting

What makes them very interesting, is the fact that whether they indeed affect the behaviour of a horse or not, handicapping factors certainly have a great impact to the value offered, mainly because they are believed by the vast majority of the bettors.

As an example, I always remember a race, where I had placed a very heavy bet, on a fillie who had just won her maiden, trying now graded company for her first time. I was lucky to win the bet at odds around 4-1 .

What remains vivid in my memory from this red-board, is the frustration of an old bettor (close to 70), who kept on complaining to his company, that horses who have just broke their maidens are not supposed to win back to back, especially against accomplished graded winners and how the game is rigged, fixed and full of scum...

The old man, is a perfect example of how, a fallacious handicapping angle, can become profitable even if it is completely wrong, assuming of course that enough people are making the bets based on it...

[thaskalos]

I am afraid that your closing statement is probably correct Thask..


STILL, I think Al's topic is not a bad one, as it touches a central point of handicapping and there is a lot of room for related discussions and debates..

I am convinced that handicapping angles (or factors or scenarios or whatever else you might want to call them) remain and always will be important for horse betting

What makes them very interesting, is the fact that whether they indeed affect the behaviour of a horse or not, handicapping factors certainly have a great impact to the value offered, mainly because they are believed by the vast majority of the bettors.

As an example, I always remember a race, where I had placed a very heavy bet, on a fillie who had just won her maiden, trying graded company for first time. I was lucky to win the bet at odds around 4-1 .

What remains vivid in my memory from this red-board, is the frustration of an old bettor (close to 70), who kept on complaining to his company, that horses who have just broke their maidens are not supposed to win back to back, especially against accomplished graded winners and how the game is rigged, fixed and full of scum...

The old man, is a perfect example of how fallacious handicapping angle can become profitable, even if it is completely wrong, assuming of course that enough people are making the bets based on it...

I like angle play...and use a couple of these angles myself. I call them "wake up factors"...because they identify certain hints that horses sometimes give when they are about to run a much improved race, which could not otherwise be determined by just reviewing the horse's recent starts. To me, horse racing is a little like golf. You carry a bunch of different clubs...and you let the different circumstances dictate which club you will use at any one time.

[DeltaLover]

To me, horse racing is a little like golf. You carry a bunch of different clubs...and you let the different circumstances dictate which club you will use at any one time.

NOMINATED POST OF THE QUARTER

[Capper Al]

Delta,

The angles once public changes the behavior of the crowd, and trainers more than the horses.

[Capper Al]

I like angle play...and use a couple of these angles myself. I call them "wake up factors"...because they identify certain hints that horses sometimes give when they are about to run a much improved race, which could not otherwise be determined by just reviewing the horse's recent starts. To me, horse racing is a little like golf. You carry a bunch of different clubs...and you let the different circumstances dictate which club you will use at any one time.

This, my friend, is a modern angle player's approach. You may color your form, but in the end you are not summing up or averaging any points for your final selections.

[thaskalos]

This, my friend, is a modern angle player's approach. You may color your form, but in the end you are not summing up or averaging any points for your final selections.

"Averaging" is a terribly inaccurate way of doing our work...IMO. A horse runs a sharp race, and posts a speed rating of 90. He then runs a mediocre race...which registers a speed rating of 70. Now, depending on my opinion of the horse's condition, and the circumstances of the upcoming race...I may presume that the horse might follow up with a figure of either a 90 or a 70. But under no condition will I stoop to averaging the two figures...to come up with the artificial figure of 80.

[RaceTrackDaddy]

I use this angle in harness racing as much as I did in flat racing.

Every trainer has their go to jockey/driver. Whenever I see a change in class to the horse coupled with the change to their 'go to' jockey/driver, I head to the window.

You don't get many of these per week; but when you do, I tend to make money.

I have found that with my personal history of this over my lifetime, that trying to score on a horse/all/all trifecta ticket nets me less money than if I just spent the same amount on the Horse/all exacta. I have bet in small pool tracks so going to the Win pool is not a good idea as any heavy bets will show up fast on the tote.

[raybo]

I'm definitely a "formulas" player, with only one "angle", that I have used for years and years, when it arises (not too often). I have 11 primary rankings methods (one of which is a "variable" method with 6 optional ratings that can be tested and played according to how they do at specific tracks). Each rankings method is a different way of looking at the same race (via formulas and composites). The race type, distance, surface, class, age, etc., has a lot to do with which of those methods I use in individual races. My track testing of all those rankings methods also has a lot to do with how I play races at that track.

But, the rankings/ratings are only part of the picture, current form analysis can have a dramatic effect on my final selection(s). But, my form analysis has no set "angles" (except the lone angle I mentioned above), rather I try to "think like a trainer" to see if prior deficiencies/needs have been addressed via workouts and/or races and layoffs/rests, and assign horses one of 2 statuses regarding today's race: a "conditioning race" assignment or an "earnings race" assignment. If my assignment for a horse is a "conditioning race", then that horse will never be among my win contenders (unless he can win the race running backwards, and then I expect its odds to be much too low for win betting). If the horse is an "earnings race" and he is among my chosen method's win contenders, he will stay there and likely be bet, in some fashion, depending on his "potential" against this field.

My lone "angle" overrides almost all the above.

[Capper Al]

"Averaging" is a terribly inaccurate way of doing our work...IMO. A horse runs a sharp race, and posts a speed rating of 90. He then runs a mediocre race...which registers a speed rating of 70. Now, depending on my opinion of the horse's condition, and the circumstances of the upcoming race...I may presume that the horse might follow up with a figure of either a 90 or a 70. But under no condition will I stoop to averaging the two figures...to come up with the artificial figure of 80.

Both Tom Ainslie and I agree with you about the dangers of averaging.

[Capper Al]

I use this angle in harness racing as much as I did in flat racing.

Every trainer has their go to jockey/driver. Whenever I see a change in class to the horse coupled with the change to their 'go to' jockey/driver, I head to the window.

You don't get many of these per week; but when you do, I tend to make money.

I have found that with my personal history of this over my lifetime, that trying to score on a horse/all/all trifecta ticket nets me less money than if I just spent the same amount on the Horse/all exacta. I have bet in small pool tracks so going to the Win pool is not a good idea as any heavy bets will show up fast on the tote.

Angles in harness racing are almost mandatory.

[Capper Al]

I'm definitely a "formulas" player, with only one "angle", that I have used for years and years, when it arises (not too often). I have 11 primary rankings methods (one of which is a "variable" method with 6 optional ratings that can be tested and played according to how they do at specific tracks). Each rankings method is a different way of looking at the same race (via formulas and composites). The race type, distance, surface, class, age, etc., has a lot to do with which of those methods I use in individual races. My track testing of all those rankings methods also has a lot to do with how I play races at that track.

But, the rankings/ratings are only part of the picture, current form analysis can have a dramatic effect on my final selection(s). But, my form analysis has no set "angles" (except the lone angle I mentioned above), rather I try to "think like a trainer" to see if prior deficiencies/needs have been addressed via workouts and/or races and layoffs/rests, and assign horses one of 2 statuses regarding today's race: a "conditioning race" assignment or an "earnings race" assignment. If my assignment for a horse is a "conditioning race", then that horse will never be among my win contenders (unless he can win the race running backwards, and then I expect its odds to be much too low for win betting). If the horse is an "earnings race" and he is among my chosen method's win contenders, he will stay there and likely be bet, in some fashion, depending on his "potential" against this field.

My lone "angle" overrides almost all the above.

Funny Raybo, I guessed you wrong. I thought that you would be a modern day angle player because of your record keeping and value play methods. As in the OP, I saw you waiting in a claiming route for the right set of circumstances (class, speed, pace, whatever) and then value. The old style angle player waited for the general observation that could be read in the form like first time lasix. This differs from the modern day angle player who looks at his elements per race condition like class, speed, etc.

[acorn54]

a long while ago boxcar had angles that purportedly showed a positive r.o.i.
jeff platt incorporated them into his jcapper software program. it turned out they were not profitable.
jeff said he has coded alot of angles and has yet to find one that is profitable when tested over the long haul.

[Capper Al]

a long while ago boxcar had angles that purportedly showed a positive r.o.i.
jeff platt incorporated them into his jcapper software program. it turned out they were not profitable.
jeff said he has coded alot of angles and has yet to find one that is profitable when tested over the long haul.

98% of either method, formula or angles, are expected NOT to be profitable. This discussion is more on modern-day handicapping approaches. I like a word that DeltaLover used in a previous post- scenario player. This is what I called the modern day angle player contrasted to the formula player who tries to come up with their own universal point system similar to BRIS Prime.

[thaskalos]

98% of either method, formula or angles, are expected NOT to be profitable. This discussion is more on modern-day handicapping approaches. I like a word that DeltaLover used in a previous post- scenario player. This is what I called the modern day angle player contrasted to the formula player who tries to come up with their own universal point system similar to BRIS Prime.
I think most of us try to come up with our own point system similar to BRIS Prime. Most of us bet the exotics, and the exotics demand a precise ranking system which a power rating is good at providing. But the game is complicated, and different circumstances often present themselves...which disturb the mathematical "certainties" upon which these power ratings are based. Visual evidence sometimes contradicts the validity of set numbers...and adjustments need to be made. The top-numbered choice is sometimes put aside...and a lesser horse is elevated to the top. The horseplayer may operate with rules...but he must also know when those rules need to be twisted...or even broken.

We may be "figure handicappers"...but we cannot remain enslaved by our numbers. Contrary to what some may think...this isn't just a math or physics problem waiting to be solved. Not in MY opinion, anyway...

[BlueChip@DRF]

I've been doing better when I handicap the connections/riders of the horse than just the horse itself.

[raybo]

Funny Raybo, I guessed you wrong. I thought that you would be a modern day angle player because of your record keeping and value play methods. As in the OP, I saw you waiting in a claiming route for the right set of circumstances (class, speed, pace, whatever) and then value. The old style angle player waited for the general observation that could be read in the form like first time lasix. This differs from the modern day angle player who looks at his elements per race condition like class, speed, etc.

My philosophy is that each horse in each race has performance "attributes" which must be weighed against the attributes of its competitors, and the mixture of those various attributes determining the "dynamics" of the race, with current condition/form playing a major role. "Value" for me, in win betting at least, is determined by the track and the people who play it, and my testing of that track and what minimum odds has produced the kind of hit rate and ROI mixture I require. In my Black Box program, that can vary according to each user's personal requirements and comfort level.

In my superfecta play, "value" is based on field size, expected pool size (by race type and its order on the card), and the assessment of what my expected minimum payout will be should I hit the ticket. My minimum expected payout requirement is $300 for a $1 base ticket.

[Capper Al]

I think most of us try to come up with our own point system similar to BRIS Prime. Most of us bet the exotics, and the exotics demand a precise ranking system which a power rating is good at providing. But the game is complicated, and different circumstances often present themselves...which disturb the mathematical "certainties" upon which these power ratings are based. Visual evidence sometimes contradicts the validity of set numbers...and adjustments need to be made. The top-numbered choice is sometimes put aside...and a lesser horse is elevated to the top. The horseplayer may operate with rules...but he must also know when those rules need to be twisted...or even broken.

We may be "figure handicappers"...but we cannot remain enslaved by our numbers. Contrary to what some may think...this isn't just a math or physics problem waiting to be solved. Not in MY opinion, anyway...

Absolutely!

[traynor]

I've been doing better when I handicap the connections/riders of the horse than just the horse itself.

I did a reasearch project for a client (data mining) of every race run in Australia for five years. A LOT of races. Bottom line (after six months of some very serious number crunching) is that in almost every race, there are two, three, four, or more horses that can win. Numbers of various flavors are used by weak handicappers to "select the best" of that lot. They would do far better focusing on the jockeys, trainers, and (occasionally) owners for indicators of which horse will win a given race.

Obsessing over microscopic "evaluations" of speed, pace, class, or whatever else is nowhere near as productive as focusing on the human element. Horses are simply animals that do as they are directed (to the best of their current ability or willingness) in any given scenario.

Past performances of horses describe what happened--not what will happen. Past performances of the human elements are far more accurate indicators of what will happen.

Most speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods" as used by most bettors are not far removed from the old time Ray Taulbot and crew or PRN "tie breakers." They work just often enough to make the users believe (on a good day) that they are predictive. That is, a race is broken down into "contenders" (or "true contenders" for Sartin advocates), and various methods applied to past performances of those contenders to determine which (according to the favored evaluation method) is "most likely" to win today.

Speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods" have a valid place in race analysis. That place is evaluating a group of entries to determine which are likely to be in or near the lead in the final yards. Extracting the winner from that group is far easier using "human analysis" than using speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods."

[whodoyoulike]

I've used the angle of the horse's last race and s(he) failed as the favorite. It depended on by how many beaten lengths, how soon the horse returned, next distance entered, class move, etc. Be aware there may be several which failed as the favorite last out and you will need to use your judgement whether to pass etc.

It was a pretty good angle which I still use sparingly.

[thaskalos]

I did a reasearch project for a client (data mining) of every race run in Australia for five years. A LOT of races. Bottom line (after six months of some very serious number crunching) is that in almost every race, there are two, three, four, or more horses that can win. Numbers of various flavors are used by weak handicappers to "select the best" of that lot. They would do far better focusing on the jockeys, trainers, and (occasionally) owners for indicators of which horse will win a given race.

Obsessing over microscopic "evaluations" of speed, pace, class, or whatever else is nowhere near as productive as focusing on the human element. Horses are simply animals that do as they are directed (to the best of their current ability or willingness) in any given scenario.

Past performances of horses describe what happened--not what will happen. Past performances of the human elements are far more accurate indicators of what will happen.

Most speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods" as used by most bettors are not far removed from the old time Ray Taulbot and crew or PRN "tie breakers." They work just often enough to make the users believe (on a good day) that they are predictive. That is, a race is broken down into "contenders" (or "true contenders" for Sartin advocates), and various methods applied to past performances of those contenders to determine which (according to the favored evaluation method) is "most likely" to win today.

Speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods" have a valid place in race analysis. That place is evaluating a group of entries to determine which are likely to be in or near the lead in the final yards. Extracting the winner from that group is far easier using "human analysis" than using speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods."
IMO...it is wrong to criticise these "evaluation methods" as a group...as if they all closely resemble each other. Evaluation methods differ from each other as much as horseplayers do...and some are much more successful than others. I, myself, would need to see more proof before I am convinced that handicapping the connections is a better contender separator than "figure handicapping" and general handicapping knowledge are. The humans may prepare the horse, but the horse still does the running. Yes...in today's game we can't afford to ignore the trainer factor...but what you are advocating here seems to be ignoring the HORSE. And we can't afford to do that either.

[Maximillion]

I did a reasearch project for a client (data mining) of every race run in Australia for five years. A LOT of races. Bottom line (after six months of some very serious number crunching) is that in almost every race, there are two, three, four, or more horses that can win. Numbers of various flavors are used by weak handicappers to "select the best" of that lot. They would do far better focusing on the jockeys, trainers, and (occasionally) owners for indicators of which horse will win a given race.

Obsessing over microscopic "evaluations" of speed, pace, class, or whatever else is nowhere near as productive as focusing on the human element. Horses are simply animals that do as they are directed (to the best of their current ability or willingness) in any given scenario.

Past performances of horses describe what happened--not what will happen. Past performances of the human elements are far more accurate indicators of what will happen.

Most speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods" as used by most bettors are not far removed from the old time Ray Taulbot and crew or PRN "tie breakers." They work just often enough to make the users believe (on a good day) that they are predictive. That is, a race is broken down into "contenders" (or "true contenders" for Sartin advocates), and various methods applied to past performances of those contenders to determine which (according to the favored evaluation method) is "most likely" to win today.

Speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods" have a valid place in race analysis. That place is evaluating a group of entries to determine which are likely to be in or near the lead in the final yards. Extracting the winner from that group is far easier using "human analysis" than using speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods."

My most heavily bet track the last 3 years is Penn National and i honestly couldnt name 3 jockeys or trainers there if you were to ask me right now...yet i have done ok there.This isnt to diminish the importance of the human element -I know its a huge factor in some races,and im sure there are plenty of members here who do well focusing on that part of the game.
There is no one way to do this imo.

[Capper Al]

I did a reasearch project for a client (data mining) of every race run in Australia for five years. A LOT of races. Bottom line (after six months of some very serious number crunching) is that in almost every race, there are two, three, four, or more horses that can win. Numbers of various flavors are used by weak handicappers to "select the best" of that lot. They would do far better focusing on the jockeys, trainers, and (occasionally) owners for indicators of which horse will win a given race.

Obsessing over microscopic "evaluations" of speed, pace, class, or whatever else is nowhere near as productive as focusing on the human element. Horses are simply animals that do as they are directed (to the best of their current ability or willingness) in any given scenario.

Past performances of horses describe what happened--not what will happen. Past performances of the human elements are far more accurate indicators of what will happen.

Most speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods" as used by most bettors are not far removed from the old time Ray Taulbot and crew or PRN "tie breakers." They work just often enough to make the users believe (on a good day) that they are predictive. That is, a race is broken down into "contenders" (or "true contenders" for Sartin advocates), and various methods applied to past performances of those contenders to determine which (according to the favored evaluation method) is "most likely" to win today.

Speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods" have a valid place in race analysis. That place is evaluating a group of entries to determine which are likely to be in or near the lead in the final yards. Extracting the winner from that group is far easier using "human analysis" than using speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods."

This is my current method. The thing is if one is hunting for a surprise factor for value then the connections are where it's at.

[thaskalos]

This is my current method. The thing is if one is hunting for a surprise factor for value then the connections are where it's at.
Since when are the horse's connections a "surprise"?

[BlueChip@DRF]

Since when are the horse's connections a "surprise"?

When no one else is paying attention.

[Ocala Mike]

When you typically play, how many cards would you scan and about how long does it take you to scan them?



I typically limit myself to two tracks, and I can scan (say 20 races) for about 1/2 dozen of my angles in less than an hour.

[Capper Al]

Since when are the horse's connections a "surprise"?

If a horse is going to turn around it most likely to come with the work of good connections. The horse up until it surprises should show very little.

[Capper Al]

I so like DeltaLover's term Scenario player, let's use it for what I called the modern angle player. Scenario player gets to the point that the handicapper is finding his angles via handicapping factors like class and speed.

[DeltaLover]

I so like DeltaLover's term Scenario player, let's use it for what I called the modern angle player. Scenario player gets to the point that the handicapper is finding his angles via handicapping factors like class and speed.

The important thing is that a 'scenario' that does not significantly affect the chances of horse can still be very significant for betting purposes if the crowd is convinced for its fictitious importance... As an example, I can refer to the recent thread about the low vs high winning percent jockeys.

[DeltaLover]

What I find more interesting (and challenging from an implementation scope of view), is not to identify the individual 'angles' and compute the speed and pace figures (this is the easy and straight forward thing) but how to cluster the historical data based one them. In other words, how to build an algorithm to detect the degree of similarity between two races. given their profiles, as they are defined by the existing handicapping factors, the pace shape and the distribution of the various figures, I prefer to use.

Once this algorithm is perfected, it becomes easy to decide what kind of a horse profile has the potential to be an over or underlay. Following this approach, we know if we need to add or remove handicapping factors or to improve our figures, until we reach the desired levels of performance...

[traynor]

IMO...it is wrong to criticise these "evaluation methods" as a group...as if they all closely resemble each other. Evaluation methods differ from each other as much as horseplayers do...and some are much more successful than others. I, myself, would need to see more proof before I am convinced that handicapping the connections is a better contender separator than "figure handicapping" and general handicapping knowledge are. The humans may prepare the horse, but the horse still does the running. Yes...in today's game we can't afford to ignore the trainer factor...but what you are advocating here seems to be ignoring the HORSE. And we can't afford to do that either.

There is a considerable difference between considering the horse as a factor, and considering the horse as the primary factor. I don't recall suggesting anyone ignore the horse--especially in the initial analysis stages of defining probable contenders in a given race.

[traynor]

This is my current method. The thing is if one is hunting for a surprise factor for value then the connections are where it's at.

Indeed. The more bettors concentrate on the horses while ignoring the people, the better. It makes things easier.

[Capper Al]

I typically limit myself to two tracks, and I can scan (say 20 races) for about 1/2 dozen of my angles in less than an hour.

That's pretty good. It's difficult to not get hypnotized while scanning.

[Capper Al]

What I find more interesting (and challenging from an implementation scope of view), is not to identify the individual 'angles' and compute the speed and pace figures (this is the easy and straight forward thing) but how to cluster the historical data based one them. In other words, how to build an algorithm to detect the degree of similarity between two races. given their profiles, as they are defined by the existing handicapping factors, the pace shape and the distribution of the various figures, I prefer to use.

Once this algorithm is perfected, it becomes easy to decide what kind of a horse profile has the potential to be an over or underlay. Following this approach, we know if we need to add or remove handicapping factors or to improve our figures, until we reach the desired levels of performance...

The late Danny Holmes book, Ten Steps to Winning, convinced me to handicap by race type treating a claimer different than an allowance different than a graded race.

[traynor]

When no one else is paying attention.

When (almost) everyone else thinks "trainer studies" are simplistic number crunching and layering that have improved little since Greg Lawlor's and John Meyer's works way back.

I think it has a lot to do with fear of losing control. All those neat little rows and columns of numbers imply a degree of certainty that rarely exists in the analysis of human behavior. Those who fear losing control tend to shy away from those ambiguous, multi-layered, fuzzy areas in which the numbers are little more than convenient labels and indicators.

I also think that a more complex study of the human element is easier for those who wager primarily at one (or two or three or whatever) tracks, or those who make their more substantial wagers at a similarly limited group of tracks.

[Robert Goren]

When (almost) everyone else thinks "trainer studies" are simplistic number crunching and layering that have improved little since Greg Lawlor's and John Meyer's works way back.

I think it has a lot to do with fear of losing control. All those neat little rows and columns of numbers imply a degree of certainty that rarely exists in the analysis of human behavior. Those who fear losing control tend to shy away from those ambiguous, multi-layered, fuzzy areas in which the numbers are little more than convenient labels and indicators.

I also think that a more complex study of the human element is easier for those who wager primarily at one (or two or three or whatever) tracks, or those who make their more substantial wagers at a similarly limited group of tracks.Those who make substantial wagers only bet a few tracks because the tracks that have pools that can handle substantial is very limited. When you start to look at pool sizes and do the math on what it takes to move the odds, you get depressed very fast if you want to be a big spot play bettor.

[thaskalos]

There is a considerable difference between considering the horse as a factor, and considering the horse as the primary factor. I don't recall suggesting anyone ignore the horse--especially in the initial analysis stages of defining probable contenders in a given race.
But you did suggest ignoring the horse during the critical contender-separation process...right? Or am I still misunderstanding you?

[traynor]

But you did suggest ignoring the horse during the critical contender-separation process...right? Or am I still misunderstanding you?
Yes.

[traynor]

Those who make substantial wagers only bet a few tracks because the tracks that have pools that can handle substantial is very limited. When you start to look at pool sizes and do the math on what it takes to move the odds, you get depressed very fast if you want to be a big spot play bettor.

It depends on frequencies as much as pool sizes. High frequency (matches and wins) can do well with smaller wagers. Looking for that once a season "life changing win" is probably as self-desructive as betting every race.

The trick (if there is one) is finding a workable relationship between matches, wins, and ROI. You probably realize that most "ROI" figures are close to worthless--everyone saw the wins, figured what it took to catch them, and bet with both hands. I am WAY more interested in something with a decent match and win rate, and a (roughly) break even ROI.

Using "reverse models" that locate the most probable losers in the contention group (and eliminating them from wagers) can make it a lot easier to stay in the black. Including with patterns that "historically" show a low enough ROI to keep the rainbow chasers busy looking elsewhere.

[traynor]

Speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods" have a valid place in race analysis. That place is evaluating a group of entries to determine which are likely to be in or near the lead in the final yards.

Contender selection, eliminations, whatever else one wants to call it. I like to bet cavalry charge photo finishes.

[Capper Al]

Keep it simple. Picking contenders for most handicapping veterans isn't difficult. Connection stats aren't too helpful here. Ranking between the remaining contenders is difficult. Here the connection stats help and should be weigh like the other primary factors such as class and speed. When going for value think twice if the horse doesn't have good connections. I skip horses with high odds and poor connections as a value play.

[Shemp Howard]

My most heavily bet track the last 3 years is Penn National and i honestly couldnt name 3 jockeys or trainers there if you were to ask me right now...yet i have done ok there.This isnt to diminish the importance of the human element -I know its a huge factor in some races,and im sure there are plenty of members here who do well focusing on that part of the game.
There is no one way to do this imo.

I have a broker in our London office with a Timeform betting account and have been laying odds against a certain boastful outfit there that runs a lot of cheap horses.

Very profitable, so far.

[Dave Schwartz]

Picking contenders for most handicapping veterans isn't difficult.

If you mean, "I can pick any number of horses and call them contenders," I agree.

However, if you mean, "My contenders will significantly outperform my non-contenders," well, I must respectfully differ from your opinion. That is far more difficult.

[traynor]

Keep it simple. Picking contenders for most handicapping veterans isn't difficult. Connection stats aren't too helpful here. Ranking between the remaining contenders is difficult. Here the connection stats help and should be weigh like the other primary factors such as class and speed. When going for value think twice if the horse doesn't have good connections. I skip horses with high odds and poor connections as a value play.

It is way more complex than that (but not hopelessly so). An example is to track the trainers/jockeys on your preferred circuit to learn their "behavioral patterns."

An example. Some jockeys excel as "second riders." They seem rarely to win, but more frequently to place--often on horses that "don't figure." Uncovering a few such can make life very worthwhile for an exacta bettor. Especially when one can correctly predict before the race when Horse A is likely to win and Horse B (that almost everyone views as an automatic tossout) is being ridden by a jockey who seems to be able to ride like Shoemaker on Ferdinand when the prices are right.

Not really too much work to find. Look for third-string jockeys with good place to win ratios (preferring the former) or second-string jockeys with win/place about even. It helps to take careful note of the human connections in races in which the winner is fairly predictable, but the place horse "didn't figure."

People are creatures of habit. The brighter ones tend to repeat their successes.

[Capper Al]

If you mean, "I can pick any number of horses and call them contenders," I agree.

However, if you mean, "My contenders will significantly outperform my non-contenders," well, I must respectfully differ from your opinion. That is far more difficult.

You doubt that veteran handicapper's contenders, in general, won't outperform their non-contenders if put to the test? I doubt it. Look at the tote-board. They are doing well.

[raybo]

You doubt that veteran handicapper's contenders, in general, won't outperform their non-contenders if put to the test? I doubt it. Look at the tote-board. They are doing well.

I think that when Dave said "My contenders will significantly outperform my non-contenders", he truly meant "significantly outperform", not just outperform. If your non-contenders do not underperform a very high percentage of the time, then that probably does not pass Dave's meaning of "significantly".(I'm thinking about 80-90% of the time)

[Poindexter]

a long while ago boxcar had angles that purportedly showed a positive r.o.i.
jeff platt incorporated them into his jcapper software program. it turned out they were not profitable.
jeff said he has coded alot of angles and has yet to find one that is profitable when tested over the long haul.

It is very hard for an angle to show a flat bet profit, since most horses racing are below fair value. The take is too high.That does not mean that the angle is not a strong indicator of a horse that might put forth a big or improved effort. Any angle that is losing 0 to say about 6 % over a large sample is certainly worth looking into. They are far exceeding the track take and with further filters can easily be made profitable. Also, just because a horse doesn't win, doesn't mean it is not useful for the bettor. Just Monday at Santa Anita, last race, I saw a horse that came off a layoff and had a running line of 3 nk and 3 nk 3rd by 4 4th by 9. I know that type of running line is an interesting angle(horse showing speed and faltering off of a layoff). Horse looked too slow so I keyed him in the super for 4th. He goes off at 70-1 and comes 3rd(nosing me out of the super) :bang: :bang: . But the point is that here was a 70-1 shot with an interesting angle, completing an $800+ trifecta, & part of a $450 super for a dime. But if you are calculating roi, he is just one more loser. You have to look a lot deeper than simple roi when analyzing whether an angle is useful or not I am not an angle player per se, but handicapping is all about angles. You cannot form an opinion about each horse without analyzing the importance of many angles on every card you handicap.

[Capper Al]

I think that when Dave said "My contenders will significantly outperform my non-contenders", he truly meant "significantly outperform", not just outperform. If your non-contenders do not underperform a very high percentage of the time, then that probably does not pass Dave's meaning of "significantly".(I'm thinking about 80-90% of the time)

Who knows what Dave meant. The public hits about 70% with their top three. It isn't difficult to imagine that the veteran handicappers should do a little better.

[MJC922]

Figured I'd comment in this thread just because the direction of my own game is now exclusively spot plays, essentially 'angles' that are tied into a highly predictive class-based framework. I see this strategy as one of the best ways to mitigate against the odds volatility in US racing. Additionally the number tracks you can process makes angles a very attractive area of study vs the old days when you had one track in front of you. I don't know about you but I'm not interested in angles that have odds requirements... and if you don't have any odds requirements then it becomes mandatory to uncover the 'profit synergies' that existing between various factors as they relate to your own framework. Someone who is a pace handicapper or a trip handicapper may find very different 'profit synergies' that exist within their framework vs someone who is focused on speed figures for instance.

[Capper Al]

MJC,

You sound like a possible Scenario player. Good luck to you. The more understanding of the intricacies of the game, the better the results should be.

[PaceAdvantage]

I have a broker in our London office with a Timeform betting account and have been laying odds against a certain boastful outfit there that runs a lot of cheap horses.

Very profitable, so far.At least you're mixing it up a bit these days...but the obsession remains... :lol:

[AndyC]

Who knows what Dave meant. The public hits about 70% with their top three. It isn't difficult to imagine that the veteran handicappers should do a little better.

I don't believe that a veteran or excellent handicapper would be any better at picking contenders overall than the public. I will blindly take the top 3 betting choices in every race versus the top 3 selections of any handicapper and bet that my winning percentage would be better.

What separates the good players from the public is the ability to assess value amongst the contenders.

[Dave Schwartz]

You doubt that veteran handicapper's contenders, in general, won't outperform their non-contenders if put to the test? I doubt it. Look at the tote-board. They are doing well.

I precisely doubt that.

The issue is not JUST hit rate. It is also value.

Listen, you want lots of winners? Just pick the top 4 on the tote board. That will give you around 80% of all the winners.

People completely misunderstand what contender selection is. They think it is about picking winners when, in reality, it is about picking losers. (I think Traynor said something like that earlier in this thread.)



Here is the blueprint for as close to guaranteed success that I can get:

Handicap around 200-300 races and answer these questions:

1. "Do my non-contenders lose big money?"
The target should be losing at least 40% of every wager.

2. "Do my non-contenders below 7/2 lose big money?"
The target should be losing at least 35% of every wager.

3. "Considering just my contenders, do the ones I bet return far more money than the ones I don't bet?"


Strategy for Improvement
1. Start at the top with #1. If you cannot pass #1, then stop and figure out what is wrong with your contender process. BTW, in a 200-race sample, you can ignore that $160 horse that made the N/Cs profitable. May not see another one of those for 500 races.

2. If you get past #1, then your contender process is basically working. Next, you need to make sure that your contender process is not top-heavy with low-odds horses. If you can get past #2, then your contenders are a force to be reckoned with.

In fact, with a contender process this good, you could just about throw darts at the contenders and come pretty close to being even.

3. Next, it to check your "separation" process. That is, the process you use for making the final selection(s) from your contenders.

When you compare the contenders you bet to the contenders you pass, what good does if they all have about equal $Nets? Or worse, the horses you pass are actually better bets than the ones you bet?

There would logically be a 4th step: Deciding how much to bet in a race, but that is outside this conversation. Understand that "how much?" could be zero.

Finally, the majority of people will never get past step #1 because they are too busy playing and having a good time (and losing) to write down their C's and N/Cs for 200 races (along with the odds). Another reason they won't do it is because they really don't want to know the truth.

Shortcut for #1
In every race, write down the horses you tossed that went off at 3/1 and below. (You'll need to go back and look at the charts for this.) Even with just 50 races you'll be able to see a trend.

Be prepared. You probably won't like what you see.

[Capper Al]

Picking contenders has nothing to do with value. Either the winner is in the set of contenders or not in it. Value is a separate consideration from being able to win. Mixing the two is only folly. One can not wish his high odds horse to win. One can only strike when one of their contenders is going off at a price.

[Capper Al]

I don't believe that a veteran or excellent handicapper would be any better at picking contenders overall than the public. I will blindly take the top 3 betting choices in every race versus the top 3 selections of any handicapper and bet that my winning percentage would be better.

What separates the good players from the public is the ability to assess value amongst the contenders.

The top three public choices and veteran handicappers should mostly be one in the same. And yes, one assess value amongst the contenders.

[AndyC]

Picking contenders has nothing to do with value. Either the winner is in the set of contenders or not in it. Value is a separate consideration from being able to win. Mixing the two is only folly. One can not wish his high odds horse to win. One can only strike when one of their contenders is going off at a price.

Picking contenders has little to do with being a successful bettor. Technically every horse is a contender, it's just that some offer a better value based on their odds versus probability.

[Capper Al]

Picking contenders has little to do with being a successful bettor. Technically every horse is a contender, it's just that some offer a better value based on their odds versus probability.

One's contender list is one's short list of canidates to win. If the winner does not appear frequently enough in one's contenders list then I doubt any occasional value strike could make up for losses occurred from not having the winner over the long run. For example, if one waits for avergage odds of 4/1and only has the winner 1 out of 8 times then the odds are against them.

[raybo]

Picking contenders has nothing to do with value. Either the winner is in the set of contenders or not in it. Value is a separate consideration from being able to win. Mixing the two is only folly. One can not wish his high odds horse to win. One can only strike when one of their contenders is going off at a price.

If you handicap like the public, collaboratively, then yes, about the best you can do is get the same contenders that the public gets, and hope you pass the right races. But, if your contenders are not just based on likelihood of winning, but rather likelihood of winning plus price (due to placing importance on factors that the collective public doesn't value as much), then you can do much better than the public, as matter of fact, that is about the only way to do much better than the public. So, your contender selection method cannot be solely based on traditional factors that the public considers most important, collaboratively. If the public hits 35% at less than 7/5 average odds, and you hit 35% at 3/1 or better then you have crushed the public. Your contender selection method must select the favorites that are truly legitimate favorites, based on the total dynamics of the field, while also rejecting favorites that are not legitimate favorites based on those same field dynamics.

If all your contender method does is select likely winners, you're up against it from the very start, because in order to be successful you then have to bet some of your non-contenders. Why would you want to put yourself in the position of having to bet non-contenders? It makes no sense to have a contender method if you can't use it to make long term profit. You wouldn't need a contender selection method at all.

[Dave Schwartz]

Picking contenders has nothing to do with value.

It has everything to do with value IMHO.

In a perfect world, we'd all just make these great, awesome probabilities and bet into the the odds. But our world is a little more difficult than that because those odds are a moving target.

Horse racing is the most difficult game because you have to line up to dials: hit rate and price. In all the other endeavors price is a constant.

The problem is that you need your contenders to be a little like the public's picks or your hit rate will be way too low.

But if your picks are too much like the public's you are guaranteed to lose.

Your profit ultimately comes from your ability to straddle that line and the difference is being able to tell a horse that is LIKELY to perform below or above the public's opinion.

Note that this is not about the final betting decision.

Now, perhaps you are one of those people who can make a razor sharp line, Al. I am not. Even with all my tools, I cannot do it. Are there people doing it? Absolutely. Maybe you are one of those. If so, you've got something I do not have.

However, I have found that being good at picking losers allows me to be a net winner. In fact, when mixed with sizing the bets based upon who I am eliminating from the pool, it all but guarantees it.

[raybo]

Well said Dave! :ThmbUp:

Personally, if I were to answer someone's question about developing a contender selection method, and the public's contenders were part of that question's mix (I don't think one needs to even consider public contenders to be successful) I would suggest that that person study the public's record at different tracks, surfaces, conditions, distances, classes, etc., and concentrate on those tracks and race types in which the public does poorly. The public's 35%(+-) is their aggregate win percentage, for all races, some race sets will be greater than that and others will be less than that. There's a decent sized set of races where the public does poorly, and that offers the player a pretty good sized sweet spot that, if focused on and targeted, almost has to produce success. In order to leverage those races, one has to develop a contender selection method that is at odds with the public odds, so to get there, at least you know what you have to do, and you know that you are starting in the right direction, as opposed to the wrong direction. One automatically knows they must think "outside the box", the right frame of mind for horse racing, IMO.

[Capper Al]

You guys forced me to re-read the OP. The discussion here is about approaches to handicapping and the emergence of the new type of handicapper. What I first called the modern day angle player and what later DeltaLover better defined as the scenario player. IMHO most value players today are scenario players which grew out of angle play vs formula play.

My comment about veteran handicappers being able to make a descent contenders list turned the discussion into a new direction. And when asked to prove it and I pointed to the tote-board as proof, it went crazy. What's being discussed now? I don't know anymore. I think I hit a nerve by accident. And what might this nerve be? I'm guessing some here are using value play as an escape from the need to pick the winner.

In anyone's contender list the lower odds horses are always more likely to win. And yes, it is a fine line we walk when we go for value guessing if this will be the race to find it in. And sitting out races does nothing for profit if your contender's list doesn't have the winner it.

[MJC922]

In some sense you might say all roads lead to Rome, but I don't think it's that simple. Let's look at the options, you can do as I do which is choose contenders based upon the predictive framework and then play them only when they happen to have profitable synergies 'onboard' OR you can choose contenders by incorporating those profitable synergies upfront, even going so far as to choose contenders exclusively by how they 'score' on the known (to you) profitable synergies.

On the surface of it this appears to be six of one and half dozen of the other but my research would seem to indicate otherwise. The order of the process is actually critical here because the profitable synergies change when you look at the predictive rank order. Simply put, from a high level, the synergies which allow you to make money with a bucket of 2-1 shots is actually quite different from the synergies that allow you to make money with 50-1 shots, and not only is it different but what 'works' for 50-1 shots I can assure you is a disaster at 2-1.

[traynor]

In anyone's contender list the lower odds horses are always more likely to win.

I disagree. That depends on how the model is constructed. Especially on whether one controls for outliers (in the modeling stage). A decent model will catch long prices as well as short prices--IF properly constructed.

In the models I use (and have used on a daily basis for quite some time) it is simply not true that the lower odds horses are more likely to win. In fact, the output of some models is such that the opposite is true--when the entry selected by the model is the post-time favorite, it is LESS likely to win.

[Capper Al]

Our only in common contender list would be the top four on the tote-board. The tote-board definitely favors the lower odds horses.

It seems that after five years of making a profit, I fell out of grace with the wagering Gods. I had it good. I was playing most every race. Currently, I'm rewriting my system hoping to regain what I lost. My loss seems to be more on the wagering side than the selection side of the fence. The system being somewhere short of half rewritten is picking low odds winners with the exception of maidens which are coming in at higher odds. And mainly the second half of the rewrite covers eliminations and, of course, the eliminations of false favorites. But I'm willing to venture low odds will still prevail when the system is complete. I was able to walk the fence and be profitable by jumping over my lower odds horses and catching the higher natural odds horses. Now I can't even find the fence anymore.

[AndyC]

...... In fact, the output of some models is such that the opposite is true--when the entry selected by the model is the post-time favorite, it is LESS likely to win.

What would be the explanation for that result? Too many positive attributes is a negative?

[thaskalos]

IMO...too many horseplayers blame their "operating methods" for their failures...when the fault ultimately lies in themselves. I have yet to meet the player who follows his "system" to the letter...and that includes me. When we prove to ourselves that we are capable of always playing our best game out there...THEN we can make accurate assessments about the strengths and weaknesses of the tools that we use.

[raybo]

I'm guessing some here are using value play as an escape from the need to pick the winner.

In anyone's contender list the lower odds horses are always more likely to win. And yes, it is a fine line we walk when we go for value guessing if this will be the race to find it in. And sitting out races does nothing for profit if your contender's list doesn't have the winner it.

Wrong, and wrong. We all seek to pick the winner, if we are betting to win, that's obvious and common sense. But, the winner that some of us select has been determined unlike others select them.

The second wrong, is so wrong I'm surprised you actually stated it. No comment, because you need to figure that one out yourself, or quit the game, or just keep losing money.

[DeltaLover]

IMO...too many horseplayers blame their "operating methods" for their failures...when the fault ultimately lies in themselves. I.

Thask, you are sure that they should not ultimately blame the game rather than anything else?

[raybo]

Thask, you are sure that they should not ultimately blame the game rather than anything else?

Why should we "blame the game"? The game is what it is, we either accept that, and adjust/evolve, or we don't. If we don't, that is OUR fault.

[DeltaLover]

Why should we "blame the game"? The game is what it is, we either accept that, and adjust/evolve, or we don't. If we don't, that is OUR fault.

What if the game is unbeatable?

[whodoyoulike]

What if the game is unbeatable?

Then, you should find another type of game.

[raybo]

What if the game is unbeatable?

Is that what you think? If so, then you must either have money to burn, or don't care if you win or lose, or you should quit the game. As long as human beings are playing against one another, the game is always beatable. Until the public favorite starts hitting 100% of the time, at every track, in every race, the game can always be beaten.

[thaskalos]

What if the game is unbeatable?
Then we should stop trying to beat it.

[DeltaLover]

Go tell this to the millions who are betting on unbeatable games, like lotto, roulette, craps etc.

[DeltaLover]

As long as human beings are playing against one another, the game is always beatable.
:ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

I am sure you are joking here Raybo..

[raybo]

Go tell this to the millions who are betting on unbeatable games, like lotto, roulette, craps etc.

In those games we are not playing against human beings, we are playing against objects or machines with known probabilities. None of that applies to horse racing.

Come on, I know you're smarter than that, or at least that is what you have led me to believe. :confused:

[raybo]

:ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

I am sure you are joking here Raybo..

Are you serious, or just provoking me? If the former, then you have lost your mind. If the latter, then I have somehow fell for it, and will be very disappointed in myself.

[DeltaLover]

Are you serious, or just provoking me? If the former, then you have lost your mind. If the latter, then I have somehow fell for it, and will be very disappointed in myself.

The take out can easily convert any mutual pool to an unbeatable betting proposition...

The fact that we are betting against each other does not mean much if the advantage we are experiencing is not enough to overcome the take out..

[Capper Al]

Wrong, and wrong. We all seek to pick the winner, if we are betting to win, that's obvious and common sense. But, the winner that some of us select has been determined unlike others select them.

The second wrong, is so wrong I'm surprised you actually stated it. No comment, because you need to figure that one out yourself, or quit the game, or just keep losing money.

I don't know if you are only condescending to me or everyone. Why you would be, I don't know why? What I'm looking at is that picking a winner is tough, and what some might hope is that by going for odds that their fewer hits will be profitable.

[Capper Al]

What if the game is unbeatable?

An honest question. This has to be the fear of anyone spending time and energy in the game. And even if one is profitable today, the question always will be is this going to end?

[thaskalos]

Go tell this to the millions who are betting on unbeatable games, like lotto, roulette, craps etc.

What can we say about ourselves, if we persist to wager serious amounts on games that we have deemed to be "unbeatable"? Can we say that we are in complete control of our mental faculties?

[thaskalos]

Is that what you think? If so, then you must either have money to burn, or don't care if you win or lose, or you should quit the game. As long as human beings are playing against one another, the game is always beatable. Until the public favorite starts hitting 100% of the time, at every track, in every race, the game can always be beaten.

Games do become unbeatable, even if human beings wager against one another...and even if the favorite loses most of the time. But it's our job to assess the "beatability" of a given gambling game...and to align ourselves accordingly.

[raybo]

The take out can easily convert any mutual pool to an unbeatable betting proposition...

The fact that we are betting against each other does not mean much if the advantage we are experiencing is not enough to overcome the take out..

The takeout certainly makes it more difficult, but it absolutely does not make it unbeatable.

Have you finally lost enough money that you have become so desperate and frustrated that you have given up? Have you become so jaded that you no longer have control of your sensibilities? Or, have you just reached the point in your evolution as a human being that you think, because YOU can't beat the game, nobody else can? The game has plenty like that, and they are one of the reasons some of us continue to be successful. The game is full of people who were beaten before they ever started, you just joined them.

[raybo]

Games do become unbeatable, even if human beings wager against one another...and even if the favorite loses most of the time. But it's our job to assess the "beatability" of a given gambling game...and to align ourselves accordingly.

Watch out Gus, you're starting to sound more and more like Delta. At least you "seem" to believe that there are degrees of "beatability", you haven't fallen so far that you believe there is no degree of beatability in racing. At least I hope you don't believe that.

Name a gambling game, where humans play directly against other humans (and not objects or contraptions/machines), that is unbeatable.

[DeltaLover]

The takeout certainly makes it more difficult, but it absolutely does not make it unbeatable.

Have you finally lost enough money that you have become so desperate and frustrated that you have given up? Have you become so jaded that you no longer have control of your sensibilities? Or, have you just reached the point in your evolution as a human being that you think, because YOU can't beat the game, nobody else can? The game has plenty like that, and they are one of the reasons some of us continue to be successful. The game is full of people who were beaten before they ever started, you just joined them.

Why you are shifting the conversation to personal stuff?

I have asked that in the case of somebody blaming himself, why not blame the game as unbeatable and your response was completely wrong, stating that when we are betting in mutual pools the game will always be beatable and continued with an even worst argument:


Until the public favorite starts hitting 100% of the time, at every track, in every race, the game can always be beaten..

Do you really believe these two statements as correct? Please answer this and then we continue our discussion...

[raybo]

I don't know if you are only condescending to me or everyone. Why you would be, I don't know why? What I'm looking at is that picking a winner is tough, and what some might hope is that by going for odds that their fewer hits will be profitable.

I said that I wouldn't comment, because you are making no sense at all. But, here's something to think about. Success, winning or losing long term, in racing, has only 2 variables: hit rate and average payout. Someone with a 33% hit rate can certainly be successful, and someone with an 8% hit rate can certainly be successful. It's the mixture of hit rate and average payout that determines success, nothing else.

[whodoyoulike]

...
Name a gambling game, where humans play directly against other humans (and not objects or contraptions/machines), that is unbeatable.


Me against anyone on the golf course.

[raybo]

Why you are shifting the conversation to personal stuff?

I have asked that in the case of somebody blaming himself, why not blame the game as unbeatable and your response was completely wrong, stating that when we are betting in mutual pools the game will always be beatable and continued with an even worst argument:



Do you really believe these two statements as correct? Please answer this and then we continue our discussion...

You started it by saying the game is unbeatable. I know, for an absolute fact that you are wrong. You made it personal when you told everyone here that he game is unbeatable. You told ME that I cannot beat the game, that's extremely personal.

And, I have no interest in continuing this discussion with you.

[thaskalos]

Watch out Gus, you're starting to sound more and more like Delta. At least you "seem" to believe that there are degrees of "beatability", you haven't fallen so far that you believe there is no degree of beatability in racing. At least I hope you don't believe that.

Name a gambling game, where humans play directly against other humans (and not objects or contraptions/machines), that is unbeatable.

Sure...I'll name you a game. Low-stakes poker, when it's played in a casino setting. It used to be beatable...but the increased sophistication of the players, coupled with the relatively high rake...have now rendered the game "unbeatable". And, as the players continue to increase their playing ability in order to remain in the game, and rakes continue to increase to make up for lost revenue...it's conceivable to think that poker games at other limits will be rendered unbeatable as well, some time in the future.

You are forgetting something else, Ray. When I say "unbeatable"...I don't mean "unbeatable for ALL the players". There are geniuses in every human endeavor...so, there must be some geniuses in horse-betting too...who will continue to profit in this game until the very end. When I say that a game might become "unbeatable"...I mean unbeatable for a mere mortal, like myself.

[raybo]

Me against anyone on the golf course.

I hear ya, but then YOU are not everyone, like Delta stated. He said the game is "unbeatable", meaning nobody can beat it. What is obvious is that he isn't beating the game or he wouldn't have made that statement.

[whodoyoulike]

...
Have you finally lost enough money that you have become so desperate and frustrated that you have given up? Have you become so jaded that you no longer have control of your sensibilities? Or, have you just reached the point in your evolution as a human being that you think, because YOU can't beat the game, nobody else can? The game has plenty like that, and they are one of the reasons some of us continue to be successful. The game is full of people who were beaten before they ever started, you just joined them.


I've noticed a number of people posting with similar sentiments. It seems as if they just started gambling which I find difficult to believe is true. Everyone at some point goes thru winning and losing streaks. If you're in a losing streak, you need to search a previous thread on How Do You Handle Losing Streaks (or something similar). A lot of you guys even provided input. A number of them were very good but, I recall JustRalph made a couple of posts which would be very helpful to someone experiencing one of these losing streaks.

Basically, just take a break etc., and re-group because I don't want you out of this game.

[DeltaLover]

You started it by saying the game is unbeatable. I know, for an absolute fact that you are wrong. You made it personal when you told everyone here that he game is unbeatable. You told ME that I cannot beat the game, that's extremely personal.

And, I have no interest in continuing this discussion with you.

I did not say anything about you personally not beating the game. I have just asked a general question.

As far as telling YOU that you cannot beat the game, I would say that I do not have enough evidence to believe the opposite (and I do not think that this offensive, since I have no proof, except some dime supers and six dollar win bets that you have posted before and I have to say that they were very far from convince me)...

[thaskalos]

Watch out Gus, you're starting to sound more and more like Delta. At least you "seem" to believe that there are degrees of "beatability", you haven't fallen so far that you believe there is no degree of beatability in racing. At least I hope you don't believe that.

Name a gambling game, where humans play directly against other humans (and not objects or contraptions/machines), that is unbeatable.

I happen to know Delta very well. He is one of those rare players...who makes himself sound a lot less successful in the game than he really is. Others try to bring attention to themselves...while Delta is secure enough in who he is to not give a damn about what others think of him. I would consider it a major improvement if I were more like him. :ThmbUp:

[DeltaLover]

I happen to know Delta very well. He is one those rare players...who makes himself sound a lot less successful in the game than he really is. Others try to bring attention to themselves...while Delta is confident enough in who he is to not give a damn about what others think of him. I would consider it a major improvement if I were more like him. :ThmbUp:

You really don't want to be a degen chronic looser like Delta.. You are much better where you are right now :) :)

[raybo]

Sure...I'll name you a game. Low-stakes poker, when it's played in a casino setting. It used to be beatable...but the increased sophistication of the players, coupled with the relatively high rake...have now rendered the game "unbeatable". And, as the players continue to increase their playing ability in order to remain in the game, and rakes continue to increase to make up for lost revenue...it's conceivable to think that poker games at other limits will be rendered unbeatable as well, some time in the future.

You are forgetting something else, Ray. When I say "unbeatable"...I don't mean "unbeatable for ALL the players". There are geniuses in every human endeavor...so, there must be some geniuses in horse-betting too...who will continue to profit in this game until the very end. When I say that a game might become "unbeatable"...I mean unbeatable for a mere mortal, like myself.

Ok, you're skirting the original statement that Delta stated, "the game is unbeatable". That's a far cry from "I" can't beat it, or "most" can't beat it. And, it doesn't require "genius", as you must know, surely.

[raybo]

I happen to know Delta very well. He is one of those rare players...who makes himself sound a lot less successful in the game than he really is. Others try to bring attention to themselves...while Delta is secure enough in who he is to not give a damn about what others think of him. I would consider it a major improvement if I were more like him. :ThmbUp:

Yeah, I know you guys are tight, but that is not what he said Gus. He said "unbeatable" which means he can't beat it, at the very least. And, if you no longer are beating it either, then I'm sorry to hear that, but life moves on.

[DeltaLover]

Yeah, I know you guys are tight, but that is not what he said Gus. He said "unbeatable" which means he can't byat it, at the very least. And, if you no longer are beating it either, then I'm sorry to hear that, but life moves on.

Are you going to defend your argument about mutual betting been always beatable? How about your are statement about the favorites always winning the race?

As far as beating the game, each of us knows very well how he is doing and he does not need to advertize it...

[thaskalos]

Yeah, I know you guys are tight, but that is not what he said Gus. He said "unbeatable" which means he can't beat it, at the very least. And, if you no longer are beating it either, then I'm sorry to hear that, but life moves on.

Ray...I think you are wrong. He didn't say "The game is unbeatable", as you claimed in an earlier post. He asked "What if the game is unbeatable?"...which I interpreted as a hypothetical question. And I replied to him with my own hypothetical answer, which was..."If the game is unbeatable, then we should stop trying to beat it". There was nothing personal in what Delta said...nor was there anything personal in what I said. And yet...here you are speculating on whether or not Delta and I are still beating this game, just from our replies here.

NO ONE here can prove that they are really beating this game...nor should anyone here believe with certainty that there are any long-term winners at this site. What possible real proof have any of us here provided which would convince someone that we are really beating this game? We may make certain claims about ourselves in the context of our discussions here...but we provide no real proof to back us up, so...any one of us could be lying at any time. Declaring whether we are winning players or not isn't what's important here. What is important is the quality of the opinions that we share.

[MJC922]

MJC,

You sound like a possible Scenario player. Good luck to you. The more understanding of the intricacies of the game, the better the results should be.

Thanks Al. Good luck to you too. About your rewrite, I can identify, even if it takes a long time hang in there. I was away from the game completely during what was a ten year rewrite of my stuff and couldn't even tell you who won the derby during those years -- didn't even watch the sport let alone bet on it.

[traynor]

What would be the explanation for that result? Too many positive attributes is a negative?
I don't think it is that simple. Best guess (currently) is that some confounding variable exists in one group that is missing in the other group.

[Capper Al]

Why you are shifting the conversation to personal stuff?



I don't know if he knows he stiffs the conversation into personal stuff. He might believe or want us to believe that he so out there in the winner's circle that nobody can touch him.

[Capper Al]

I said that I wouldn't comment, because you are making no sense at all. But, here's something to think about. Success, winning or losing long term, in racing, has only 2 variables: hit rate and average payout. Someone with a 33% hit rate can certainly be successful, and someone with an 8% hit rate can certainly be successful. It's the mixture of hit rate and average payout that determines success, nothing else.

Raybo,

Do you really believe that I don't know this? You might want to check who is making no sense.

[raybo]

Raybo,

Do you really believe that I don't know this? You might want to check who is making no sense.

This is what you said:

What I'm looking at is that picking a winner is tough, and what some might hope is that by going for odds that their fewer hits will be profitable.

That statement tells me you think that accepting fewer hits, while betting on higher odds horses can not be done successfully. That tells me that you also don't think that the formula for profitability is entirely comprised of hit rate and average payouts. So, I thought I'd point it out to you. Clearly, if you knew that, you wouldn't have made such a statement, but you did, that's a fact. Clearly, one can accept a low hit rate and be successful, if they are getting a high enough average payout.

[raybo]

I don't know if he knows he stiffs the conversation into personal stuff. He might believe or want us to believe that he so out there in the winner's circle that nobody can touch him.

When people tell me I can't do something that I am already doing, and have been doing for years, yes, I take it personally. If you don't want me to take things you post personally (when those statements relate directly to me, as well as others here) then I suggest you think thoroughly about what you post, before you post it.

[traynor]

I don't know if he knows he stiffs the conversation into personal stuff. He might believe or want us to believe that he so out there in the winner's circle that nobody can touch him.

Question of the day: Can a malapropism be bad if it is intentional?

[thaskalos]

Question of the day: Can a malapropism be bad if it is intentional?

Not if it doesn't distort the meaning that it intends to convey.

[MJC922]

I don't think it is that simple. Best guess (currently) is that some confounding variable exists in one group that is missing in the other group.

My hypothesis would be the biggest confounding variable of all, i.e. the apparent class / current ability of the horse relative to the rest of the field. IMO this phenomena would be seen as a consequence of applying a profit synergy (identified group of overlay attributes) without a predictive framework or within a minimally predictive framework. IMO this is why some may be noticing odds ranges matter so much in their approaches as the crowd is then setting the predictive rank for them on the back-end of the process. I can see where that could be 'made to work' (at least in theory) however I think it's less than ideal. Ideal or not, if it 'works' I have no argument with it.

FWIW my current direction is to set the predictive rank upfront. This line of reasoning represents a huge paradigm shift for me personally. Take a simplistic example, it could be anything but take 'lone speed' as it's a simple concept. Granted lone speed is a 'predictive' synergy for any horse to have but perhaps it's not a profit synergy for the 'best horse on paper' to have. In fact, it may actually be a blocking factor when it comes to shaking profit out of these types of horses even though predictively it increases their chances.

[Capper Al]

This is what you said:

.

That statement tells me you think that accepting fewer hits, while betting on higher odds horses can not be done successfully. That tells me that you also don't think that the formula for profitability is entirely comprised of hit rate and average payouts. So, I thought I'd point it out to you. Clearly, if you knew that, you wouldn't have made such a statement, but you did, that's a fact. Clearly, one can accept a low hit rate and be successful, if they are getting a high enough average payout.

I didn't say that this applies to you. I believe the current wait and strike for odds isn't successfully being applied as it is touted. I still expect 98% of the players taking this approach will not be profitable. Good for you if you're in the top 2%. But the point is just waiting and striking for odds does not make one profitable. There's more to it.

[Capper Al]

Question of the day: Can a malapropism be bad if it is intentional?

Was it the stiff misused for shifts?

[Capper Al]

Here's what I'm seeing and also goes with the Best Bet of the Day thread. For me, I need to distinguish when to go low odds(but not under even money) and when to go medium odds and when to go high odds else I'm not profitable over the long run. By saying I'll just wait and bet the high odds horses doesn't keep me away from losing because I'll be betting on high odds horse when it should of been a bet on a low or medium odds horse. This has become a big change in the last couple of years, and may explain why 5 years straight of being profitable ended.

[Robert Fischer]

If I go high odds, it is usually because the heavy favorite was flawed. Once in a rare while, I'll catch a horse who is simply about as good as the favorite, but 8 or 10 times the odds.

Once I've identified a high odds horse(s) to play in a race, it is equally important that I allocate bankroll properly.

Betting high odds calls for smaller wagers and/or bigger bankroll.

[Robert Goren]

If I go high odds, it is usually because the heavy favorite was flawed. Once in a rare while, I'll catch a horse who is simply about as good as the favorite, but 8 or 10 times the odds.

Once I've identified a high odds horse(s) to play in a race, it is equally important that I allocate bankroll properly.

Betting high odds calls for smaller wagers and/or bigger bankroll.This where Kelly can help. I do not advocate betting straight Kelly, but it can tell you how much to bet compared to your lower odds, higher percentage bets.

[Robert Fischer]

This where Kelly can help. I do not advocate betting straight Kelly, but it can tell you how much to bet compared to your lower odds, higher percentage bets.

:ThmbUp: That is basically what I use as well.

Tying this in with the angles topic and the odds, - I have certain odds ranges that my most frequently used specific angles will tend to produce. For those angles, I already have a generic percentage-of-bankroll figured out(and I figured it out with Kelly using a conservative estimate of the typical play for that angle). I have no problem sticking with that unless the horse I come up with is both a good bet, and an unusual odds-range for that angle.

For example, One of the angles in my toolbox selects strong favorites. For that angle I happen to use 1% of my bankroll to bet to 'Win' on the horse.

[ReplayRandall]

For example, One of the angles in my toolbox selects strong favorites. For that angle I happen to use 1% of my bankroll to bet to 'Win' on the horse.
RF, if your angle selects strong favorites, I'm assuming you have a very high hit rate on these selections. IMO, it seems that 1% of BR is much too small for maximum profitability....

[DeltaLover]

For example, One of the angles in my toolbox selects strong favorites. For that angle I happen to use 1% of my bankroll to bet to 'Win' on the horse.

I think that this is an extremely conservative approach, that can only be applied when you have a huge bankroll.

This kind of mentality, fits only to gamblers whose first concern is to extend the duration of their bankroll as much as possible, viewing betting like some form of a consuming good!

If you want to become a horse bettor, you should be able to take your chances from time to time, overcoming fear and conservativeness.

Trying to keep it safe, simply does not work when it comes to horse betting.

[Robert Fischer]

RF, if your angle selects strong favorites, I'm assuming you have a very high hit rate on these selections. IMO, it seems that 1% of BR is much too small for maximum profitability....

I think that this is an extremely conservative approach, that can only be applied when you have a huge bankroll.

This kind of mentality, fits only to gamblers whose first concern is to extend the duration of their bankroll as much as possible, viewing betting like some form of a consuming good!

If you want to become a horse bettor, you should be able to take your chances from time to time, overcoming fear and conservativeness.

Trying to keep it safe, simply does not work when it comes to horse betting.

I think you guys are correct. :ThmbUp:

Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

If I am typically getting 8/5 on horses that really should be 7/5, then Kelly says I should be betting about 5%(5.25%) of my bankroll, - not 1%.

I will need to learn from that mistake and make some changes.

[thaskalos]

I think you guys are correct. :ThmbUp:

Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

If I am typically getting 8/5 on horses that really should be 7/5, then Kelly says I should be betting about 5%(5.25%) of my bankroll, - not 1%.

I will need to learn from that mistake and make some changes.

It depends on how big the bankroll is, Robert. The small bankroll's main concern might be "growth", but the bigger the bankroll becomes, the more we should be concerned about the "safety" of it. I can't help but think that those who wager 5%+ of bankroll on individual races, have alternative ways of raising another bankroll, should the first one get lost. That's a pretty big advantage to have... :ThmbUp:

[Capper Al]

God bless my fellow wheelers. I don't have the mentality to use Kelly. I like to get a bead on one single horse and shoot.

[traynor]

Not if it doesn't distort the meaning that it intends to convey.

That assumes one can divine the intended meaning--which may be implicit rather than explicit. In this case, the explicit question contained an implicit question implied, related to the etymology of the word itself.

"malapropism (n.)
1826, from Mrs. Malaprop, character in Sheridan's play "The Rivals" (1775), noted for her ridiculous misuse of large words (such as "contagious countries" for "contiguous countries."
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=malapropism&searchmode=none

The construct of the word is formed with the prefix "mal--a combining form meaning “bad,” “wrongful,” “ill,” occurring originally in loanwords from French (malapert)."

Such is the nature of the use of language when other than explicit meanings are intended.

[thaskalos]

It has always been my motto to avoid long words, when I find that short words will do nicely. And, since English is a second language to me, I am especially carefully when I finally DO decide to use a "large" word. But of course...I was never a mathematician, a physicist or an engineer. :)

[traynor]

My hypothesis would be the biggest confounding variable of all, i.e. the apparent class / current ability of the horse relative to the rest of the field. IMO this phenomena would be seen as a consequence of applying a profit synergy (identified group of overlay attributes) without a predictive framework or within a minimally predictive framework. IMO this is why some may be noticing odds ranges matter so much in their approaches as the crowd is then setting the predictive rank for them on the back-end of the process. I can see where that could be 'made to work' (at least in theory) however I think it's less than ideal. Ideal or not, if it 'works' I have no argument with it.

FWIW my current direction is to set the predictive rank upfront. This line of reasoning represents a huge paradigm shift for me personally. Take a simplistic example, it could be anything but take 'lone speed' as it's a simple concept. Granted lone speed is a 'predictive' synergy for any horse to have but perhaps it's not a profit synergy for the 'best horse on paper' to have. In fact, it may actually be a blocking factor when it comes to shaking profit out of these types of horses even though predictively it increases their chances.

I agree with your approach, in general, but in this case I think that easy explanations obscure more than they reveal. That is, there are "confounding variables" that affect the outcome of horse races beyond the explicit data provided (and used exclusively by the majority of bettors for decisions). Something other than that available in the commonly used data might be the determining factor. An example would be certain trainers/jockeys and/or combinations that tend to "perform at less than peak effort" when odds fall below a certain point.

I started serious handicapping of thoroughbreds in Florida, and continued in the desert southwest. In both places, survival as a bettor required knowledge of which "betting stables" tended to perform less than optimally when odds were too low, but suddenly improved in performance when the odds were more favorable. No chicanery or dishonesty is implied. Racing is a business, and such maneuvers are a business strategy.

Only a very foolish bettor would think betting $1000 to win a $500 profit is somehow more meaningful or desirable or admirable than betting $200 to make a $500 profit. If I had my druthers, I'd figure out a way to bet $20 to make that $500 profit, and joyfully join the ranks of the trivial bettors.

[traynor]

Was it the stiff misused for shifts?

Among several others you have used recently.

[traynor]

I think that this is an extremely conservative approach, that can only be applied when you have a huge bankroll.

This kind of mentality, fits only to gamblers whose first concern is to extend the duration of their bankroll as much as possible, viewing betting like some form of a consuming good!

If you want to become a horse bettor, you should be able to take your chances from time to time, overcoming fear and conservativeness.

Trying to keep it safe, simply does not work when it comes to horse betting.

Agreed. If one is too "well off" the "gambling" part is reduced to a bean counter mentality, where eventual profit is based on the leverage of a large bankroll rather than skill. Equivalent to a "martial arts competition" as opposed to war. In the first, there are few or no consequences for failure. In the latter, losing is not an option.

It is a side-effect of that "never wager more than you can afford to lose" syndrome--in which one never really "risks" anything he or she cannot "afford" to lose, secure in the knowledge that her or his life will go on much as it did before regardless of the outcome.

I don't really care either way, but I think bettors would do much better if they were more serious about winning, rather than "playing." The former requires that one occasionally step outside that "nothing bad can happen because I have many other resources available" mindset. When losses are little more than mildly annoying, wins are similarly meaningless and devoid of pleasure.

I don't mind getting hit occasionally on the way, but when it is over, I want to be the last man standing on the top of the mountain. With ALL the marbles.

[Robert Fischer]

It depends on how big the bankroll is, Robert. The small bankroll's main concern might be "growth", but the bigger the bankroll becomes, the more we should be concerned about the "safety" of it. I can't help but think that those who wager 5%+ of bankroll on individual races, have alternative ways of raising another bankroll, should the first one get lost. That's a pretty big advantage to have... :ThmbUp:
Exactly, and that process of raising new bankroll after new bankroll can be quite costly in the long run.

And there's also the fact that as bankrolls do grow, that pool-size is going to become a factor. A limiting factor that begins to cap more and more of the bets we might make during run-of-the-mill weekday races.
Have a $50,000 bankroll and all of a sudden 5% is now $2,500.
I'm looking at the 1st race @ Delaware right now with 4MTP and the 1 is 7/5, and he has only $1,400 total to win on him...

Pool size becomes part of the equation.

I also think there can be a 'macho' aspect, for some that the laws of math and physics don't apply, and that 'real bettors' shoot for the moon, and even go all-in (100% of their real bankroll!) when they have a good play.
I think that those tactics work a lot better on message boards, or even handicapping contests, than they do in real life over any significant sample of time.

All that said, I also do agree that (in absence of extenuating circumstances) 1% was too conservative for that 8/5vs7/5 odds range, and was leaving money on the table, and could be improved upon.


---
Aaron Brown on practical use of Kelly, Macho Overbetting, and Leaving money on the table by under-betting.
The real benefit to Kelly comes from adjusting bet sizes for experience. You measure your profits, and your volatility drag (how much you lose from increasing and subsequently decreasing, or decreasing and subsequently increasing, your bet size). Kelly says your bankroll is growing at its maximum rate when volatility drag equals profits.

Of course, any sample is noisy, but if volatility drag clearly exceeds profits, you're headed for ruin, even if you seem to be doing well. Most overaggressive betting schemes have this property. If you imitate the most successful people, you're probably copying lucky overbettors. These are people whose stars shine brilliantly for a while, who have heart-stopping declines but always recover. . .until they don't. When they blow up, and they always do, they lose far more than the accumulated profits of all their successes. What Kelly shows us is that this isn't an after-the-fact opinion, it's something that can be clearly measured, with high statistical confidence, even when they're at the peak of their successes.

On the other hand, if volatility drag is much less than profits, you are wasting opportunity. In most fields, edges don't last forever. If you don't take full advantage when things are going your way, you don't build up the profit reserve to survive regime changes and your inevitable mistakes.

[DeltaLover]

Exactly, and that process of raising new bankroll after new bankroll can be quite costly in the long run.

And there's also the fact that as bankrolls do grow, that pool-size is going to become a factor. A limiting factor that begins to cap more and more of the bets we might make during run-of-the-mill weekday races.
Have a $50,000 bankroll and all of a sudden 5% is now $2,500.
I'm looking at the 1st race @ Delaware right now with 4MTP and the 1 is 7/5, and he has only $1,400 total to win on him...

Pool size becomes part of the equation.

I also think there can be a 'macho' aspect, for some that the laws of math and physics don't apply, and that 'real bettors' shoot for the moon, and even go all-in (100% of their real bankroll!) when they have a good play.
I think that those tactics work a lot better on message boards, or even handicapping contests, than they do in real life over any significant sample of time.

All that said, I also do agree that (in absence of extenuating circumstances) 1% was too conservative for that 8/5vs7/5 odds range, and was leaving money on the table, and could be improved upon.


Of course.

This is one of the reasons why Kelly Criterion is not applicable in horse racing..

Also, on top of it you should consider that you are never sure about the probability of any horse to win the race, something that can very easily destroy the whole approach..

As an example suppose you have a horse that you estimate as a 3-5 shot, offered by the pool at 4-5... Based on KC you should bet 16% of your bankroll something that automatically create two major issues:

(1) If your bankroll is grown to be something like $50K (a very realistic number for serious bettors), then you need to bet 8K destroying your odds.. Obviously you should put some artificial limits based on the pool size, something that completely opposes the whole KC approach

(2) Even more importantly, if your original estimate about the horse been a "real" 3-5 shot happens to be wrong and the horse was supposed to be an even money proposition, you are immediately committing a huge mistake, that will put a deep dent on your bankroll...

[Capper Al]

Among several others you have used recently.


I have stated here before that English was difficult for me.

[Tom]

It has always been my motto to avoid long words, when I find that short words will do nicely. :)

Indubitably!

[pondman]

Angle Player. For example I'm sitting with $5,000 for the Summer meet of the N. Cal Fairs. I want to play 20 horses only ($200-$300 per horse.) They are going to have to be:

1. Maiden winners at the Fair. I'm looking for repeats. Should be about 5 bets.

OR

1. They've been shipped from S. Cal. They've had to run in a real meet. No evening LA or Pomona. Should be about 15 bets.

2. All bets will be at least 5-1

3. No bets on Russel Baze.

I expect to make 10k.

[NorCalGreg]

Interesting.....at least you won't have to worry about those Pomona runners. Good luck, and let us know how how you do Pondman.

[ReplayRandall]

Angle Player. For example I'm sitting with $5,000 for the Summer meet of the N. Cal Fairs. I want to play 20 horses only ($200-$300 per horse.) They are going to have to be:

1. Maiden winners at the Fair. I'm looking for repeats. Should be about 5 bets.

OR

1. They've been shipped from S. Cal. They've had to run in a real meet. No evening LA or Pomona. Should be about 15 bets.

2. All bets will be at least 5-1

3. No bets on Russel Baze.

I expect to make 10k.
To make 10K profit with 20 bets at an average of $250 per bet, while giving you a generous 30% hit rate, your average winner would have to pay $20.
On the other hand, I'm guessing you'll be keying exactas, tri's or horizontals instead of investing into the smaller win pools......Best of Luck.