Seperating contenders

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

I don't think there is any doubt that the name of the game for success is VALUE. After the handicapping process is completed the options for play when separating contenders are (1) Play the selection that offers the most value or (2) pass the race if more then one contender or (3) play two selections to win or exacta box if value is present.

Many attempt to choose the final selections with tiebreakers based on trainer win percentages, highest class last race, recency etc. I have no documentation or research that would indicate these factors would not be helpful in a long term process.

Does anyone have an opinion on the separation process for handicapping these prime win wagers other then value on the tote board, especially since some players have no access to the final odds when wagering?

[Overlay]

With regard to not having access to the final odds, I believe that Dave Schwartz has mentioned in another thread the possibility of using morning-line odds as a basis for comparison in value isolation and wager sizing.

If you use a handicapping approach that provides any type of numerical comparison of the entrants on a common scale, then perhaps "prime" wagers could be distinguished on the basis of having a ranking or value that is greater than the other entrants by a specified margin, or that is in a specified range of final values indicating that it has an exceptionally high probability of winning or coming in (although it might not offer value at the odds or payoff established by the public's wagering on it).

Also, perhaps a player's own record-keeping may indicate that playing all horses with a specified performance pattern (regardless of the odds they go off at) results in a positive return. (However, it seems that there would also be the possibility in that case of the public as a whole eventually becoming aware of the same pattern and betting it into unprofitability. Perhaps an "arsenal" of such patterns might provide added assurance that at least one of them will go undetected in any given race.)

[Robert Goren]

What do you think value is? Value according to every definition I have ever seen is when the return on investment should positive. How can you not have some idea what the final tote odds are going be and still claim to be betting value. It seems to me that your time must be spent developing a feeling for the final tote boards will be if you are going to be a value bettor. Contrary to the opinions of some posters here, not every successful bettor is a value bettor. In fact, many are system players along the lines of what Overlay described in the last part of his post.

[DeltaLover]

I don't think there is any doubt that the name of the game for success is VALUE. After the handicapping process is completed the options for play when separating contenders are (1) Play the selection that offers the most value or (2) pass the race if more then one contender or (3) play two selections to win or exacta box if value is present.

Many attempt to choose the final selections with tiebreakers based on trainer win percentages, highest class last race, recency etc. I have no documentation or research that would indicate these factors would not be helpful in a long term process.

Does anyone have an opinion on the separation process for handicapping these prime win wagers other then value on the tote board, especially since some players have no access to the final odds when wagering?


The obvious answer is to bet the horse that offers the most value.

This is easier said than done though...

How do you decide about the value offered for each starter? Again, the easy answer is that the way to outsmart the crowd and discover its betting mistakes, is to posses some kind of exclusive information, that can be used to correct the prices offered by the mutual pools.

The answer to your #2 question is also very easy... If you do not feel that you have enough data to put you ahead of the public, of course there is no reason to bet.

As far as your #3, I think that although in theory it might be correct to bet two horses from the same race to win, in the real world these kind of situations are very rare to the point of just forget this idea.. Betting a cold exacta, is certainly an applicable approach and one way to view it, is like parlaying the winner of the race to the winner of the remaining of the rest horses.

To summarize, the most challenging part of the whole process, lies in the development of the necessary metrics and procedures that will provide you the ability, to recognize a "value" bet when you see it!

[DeltaLover]

How can you not have some idea what the final tote odds are going be and still claim to be betting value.

IHMO the answer to this question, is the solution to the puzzle..

Certainly doable, not trivial though..

[thaskalos]

Contrary to the opinions of some posters here, not every successful bettor is a value bettor. In fact, many are system players along the lines of what Overlay described in the last part of his post.
How can you possibly know that this in "in fact" the truth?

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Just what I expected some very thoughtful responses from a subjective issue. This is a game of percentages we play and we attempt to have the percentages in our favor when we wager that the wager was a value transaction . We WANT to know that the wager was not careless or weak ( not based on some recordkeeping), that the wager is profitable and worth the investment of risk capital. Sounds easy but, as we know, there are plenty of roadblocks preventing us from playing this game without mistakes in judgment and at times taking the worst of the percentages. having a tiebreaking procedure might be the right answer to making a better percentage of profitable decisions.

[thaskalos]

It is my opinion that we can NEVER be sure that we are, in fact, betting on "value". All of us readily acknowledge that this is a DYNAMIC and ever-changing game, and not a "static" one...so, how sure can we be that our "value-based" opinions of yesterday are still "valuable" today?

All we do is make a bunch of bets based on what we believe to be true...and we find out if our methods have "value" or not when we observe our betting results, at some future point in time which coincides with our opinion of what the "long run" really is . When we are putting our money down...all thoughts of any "value" that our selections may contain are mere guesses.

The winning player of yesterday could easily be a loser today. And if he has been relegated to the ranks of the losers today...then it behooves him to find that out about himself as soon as possible...before a lot of damage is done to his bankroll. That's why I believe it's a good idea to separate our ego from our betting.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

It is my opinion that we can NEVER be sure that we are, in fact, betting on "value". All of us readily acknowledge that this is a DYNAMIC and ever-changing game, and not a "static" one...so, how sure can we be that our "value-based" opinions of yesterday are still "valuable" today?

All we do is make a bunch of bets based on what we believe to be true...and we find out if our methods have "value" or not when we observe our betting results, at some future point in time which coincides with our opinion of what the "long run" really is . When we are putting our money down...all thoughts of any "value" that our selections may contain are mere guesses.

The winning player of yesterday could easily be a loser today. And if he has been relegated to the ranks of the losers today...then it behooves him to find that out about himself as soon as possible...before a lot of damage is done to his bankroll. That's why I believe it's a good idea to separate our ego from our betting.


I do agree!!! The mere guess comment is 'eye opening' and if we are open minded enough we have to believe in the validity of this statement.

[DeltaLover]

It is my opinion that we can NEVER be sure that we are, in fact, betting on "value".

:ThmbUp:

Absolutely

[Tom]

I think you are making too much out of this.
If you make a horse 2-1 and get 5-1 and bet it, and your records show you are making money, why worry about it?

[DeltaLover]

I think you are making too much out of this.
If you make a horse 2-1 and get 5-1 and bet it, and your records show you are making money, why worry about it?

Your example represents an extreme case.. A 5-1 shot that should had been 2-1, most of the times is a huge under than an overlay..

[Flysofree]

Simple..Bet the favorite each race until you show a profit... Just have a HUGE bankroll.
The problem sometimes is..exactly which horse is the favorite??
Saves all the speed pace and class, trainer, jockey, etc figuring.

[DeltaLover]

Simple..Bet the favorite each race until you show a profit... Just have a HUGE bankroll.
The problem sometimes is..exactly which horse is the favorite??
Saves all the speed pace and class, trainer, jockey, etc figuring.

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

This is soooo SMART...

[thaskalos]

I think you are making too much out of this.
If you make a horse 2-1 and get 5-1 and bet it, and your records show you are making money, why worry about it?
My records reflect the PAST, and the past doesn't reliably predict the future...especially in gambling.

All of us "worry about it"...even though we usually don't like to admit it. We pretend to be supremely confident in our betting methods and our high ROI...but we still bet only with money that we can afford to lose. A horseplayer declares that he is a "confident winner", who treats the game as a "business" and has been beating it for years...and yet, he remains a small bettor for the duration of his gambling life. Why?

Our rhetoric may SHOW supreme confidence...but our actions reveal worry. And rightly so.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

It appears that the betting public routinely bets down the high percentage trainers/jockeys. I have no facts to prove this, however, watching and observing races every day, especially on the NYRA circuit these selections are almost always the favorites.

This is a built in edge for the bettor who can zig and zag and take advantage of the inflated prices on the other contenders in these races. Betting against these super trainers might be a good start to gaining the perceived value necessary for profit.

[ReplayRandall]

QUOTE=thaskalos] A horseplayer declares that he is a "confident winner", who treats the game as a "business" and has been beating it for years...and yet, he remains a small bettor for the duration of his gambling life. Why?

Whom are you talking about? Is this a theoretical statement? For someone to call themselves a "confident winner", is this based on the assumption they are betting too small in relationship to their bankroll? Isn't there always doubt when playing a less than 100% information game? Must everyone therefore play chess to be confidently in control?

[DeltaLover]

It appears that the betting public routinely bets down the high percentage trainers/jockeys. I have no facts to prove this, however, watching and observing races every day, especially on the NYRA circuit these selections are almost always the favorites.

This is a built in edge for the bettor who can zig and zag and take advantage of the inflated prices on the other contenders in these races. Betting against these super trainers might be a good start to gaining the perceived value necessary for profit.

What you say here is an oversimplification. The following table, reports all the jockeys with more than 30 starts in Aqueduct since the beginning of 2014. Note that there is no clear indication that the top winning percentage jocks are overbet (if anything, the opposite seems more possible)

http://i61.tinypic.com/jidwcl.png

[DeltaLover]

Whom are you talking about? Is this a theoretical statement? For someone to call themselves a "confident winner", is this based on the assumption they are betting too small in relationship to their bankroll? Isn't there always doubt when playing a less than 100% information game? Must everyone therefore play chess to be confidently in control?

A small bettor is one who bets small. In absolute values.. If your average bet is not larger than the cost of dinner then you bet small..

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

What you say here is an oversimplification. The following table, reports all the jockeys with more than 30 starts in Aqueduct since the beginning of 2014. Note that there is no clear indication that the top winning percentage jocks are overbet (if anything, the opposite seems more possible)

http://i61.tinypic.com/jidwcl.png

Your numbers don't lie, however, I have scratched my head a number of times seeing Javier Castellano 6/5, or so, etc ,on horses race after race. Someone is over betting these figure horses he rides.

[DeltaLover]

Your numbers don't lie, however, I have scratched my head a number of times seeing Javier Castellano 6/5, or so, etc ,on horses race after race. Someone is over betting these figure horses he rides.

A you can see from the attached table, it is true that JJ has a terrible ROI thus indeed he is overbet. This does not apply to all the high % jocks of course

[thaskalos]

Whom are you talking about? Is this a theoretical statement? For someone to call themselves a "confident winner", is this based on the assumption they are betting too small in relationship to their bankroll? Isn't there always doubt when playing a less than 100% information game? Must everyone therefore play chess to be confidently in control?
When you are a "confident winner", who boasts of a high ROI...then you don't remain a small bettor for long...especially when you view this game as a "business". I got into the "business world" many years ago, and I borrowed to the limit of my credit...even though I was unsure of my outcome as a "businessman". THAT'S what happens in "business".

But in my years at the track...I've met with a breed of people whom I never knew existed. They tell me that they have absolute confidence in themselves as players, and they boast of abnormally high ROI over many years...but they always make small bets...like $10 to win and place...or $2 exactas. And this is after telling me that they've taken many thousands of dollars out of the game through the years. When I ask them why they haven't allowed their bankroll to grow to the point where they can make the types of bets which will REALLY reward their high level of skill...they just look at me with blank stares...or reply with lame excuses.

If you have a prestigious PhD...then you don't work at McDonald's. And if you are a "confident winner" at the track...then you don't remain a $10-bettor for long. It doesn't make any sense...and it isn't very "businesslike".

[DeltaLover]

But in my years at the track...I've met with a breed of people whom I never knew existed. They tell me that they have absolute confidence in themselves as players, and they boast of abnormally high ROI over many years...but they always make small bets...like $10 to win and place...or $2 exactas.


Thask, as you know very well, this kind of statements, are always coming from wannabes rather than real gamblers..

[thaskalos]

Thask, as you know very well, this kind of statements, are always coming from wannabes rather than real gamblers..
The funny thing is that most of these guys look at "gambling" as if it were a dirty word. They consider themselves to be "investors". :rolleyes:

[Tom]

My records reflect the PAST, and the past doesn't reliably predict the future...especially in gambling.

But it is pretty hard to keep records of the future, no?
What else do you have? You make your bets, you track your result, you analyze them, you make corrections. If you are worrying about the bets, you probably should not be making them.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't think any of us can begin to comprehend the immense sums of money that have been squandered by those who believed they "knew what they were doing."

This applies to all avenues of life, but mainly gambling and investing...

[Stillriledup]

It appears that the betting public routinely bets down the high percentage trainers/jockeys. I have no facts to prove this, however, watching and observing races every day, especially on the NYRA circuit these selections are almost always the favorites.

This is a built in edge for the bettor who can zig and zag and take advantage of the inflated prices on the other contenders in these races. Betting against these super trainers might be a good start to gaining the perceived value necessary for profit.
Bettors who dont know the ins and outs of the horses thru diligent video study and painstaking note taking will defer to the humans because they lack the necessary information base on the actual horses.

Know your horse and wont have to trust humans as much.

[whodoyoulike]

I don't think there is any doubt that the name of the game for success is VALUE. After the handicapping process is completed the options for play when separating contenders are (1) Play the selection that offers the most value or (2) pass the race if more then one contender or (3) play two selections to win or exacta box if value is present.

Many attempt to choose the final selections with tiebreakers based on trainer win percentages, highest class last race, recency etc. I have no documentation or research that would indicate these factors would not be helpful in a long term process.

Does anyone have an opinion on the separation process for handicapping these prime win wagers other then value on the tote board, especially since some players have no access to the final odds when wagering?

:1: I've heard of this recommendation a lot over the years. But, it ignores how many contenders you have and the highest value contender does not necessarily have the highest probability of winning or whatever.

Why not just bet your top contender if the odds and other factors are acceptable?

You'll just have to figure out what these other factors are before wagering.

:2: I've found that most of the races which I handicap have more than one contender which would mean I'd be passing most races if I followed this rule. I really wish most of my races had one contender. It would make things a lot simpler for me.

:3: A lot of people play two horses to win. If you happen to win, you're just lowering your return.

I'm uncertain if just playing an exacta box for your top two contenders is always a good idea. It would depend on how you identify your contenders.

[Stillriledup]

I don't think any of us can begin to comprehend the immense sums of money that have been squandered by those who believed they "knew what they were doing."

This applies to all avenues of life, but mainly gambling and investing...

Truth.

[whodoyoulike]

It appears that the betting public routinely bets down the high percentage trainers/jockeys. I have no facts to prove this, however, watching and observing races every day, especially on the NYRA circuit these selections are almost always the favorites.

This is a built in edge for the bettor who can zig and zag and take advantage of the inflated prices on the other contenders in these races. Betting against these super trainers might be a good start to gaining the perceived value necessary for profit.

I think you're correct. Don't fight it. If your selection which happens to be a high % trainer/jockey and the odds etc., are acceptable you'll probably be better off just going with it after all, that's how they became a high % combo.

[MPRanger]

Contrarian of Contrary. "Picking winners is over rated" - That depends on your objective.

Or .... instead of trying to value a horse against the board in the race.. which I think is a good idea if you are managing a large bankroll ..... if instead of thinking in terms of A RACE, think in terms of a set of races.

Example: a set of 10 races. Win betting - If you can win 3 out of 10 flat betting at 3 to 1 odds or better you are making a profit.

Flat bet $10 per race
lose 7 times = -70
win 3 times at 3-1 or better = 3 to 1 = 40$
40 *3 = 120
120 -70= profit.

Even if your pick is the favorite at 3-1 it's still a bet.

[whodoyoulike]

Contrarian of Contrary. "Picking winners is over rated" - That depends on your objective...

I get the point of your post but ........

has "Picking losers just been under rated" all this time?

[MPRanger]

I get the point of your post but ........

has "Picking losers just been under rated" all this time?

In the value line model picking winners as the objective is under rated.

[Poindexter]

If you are betting without access to the pools, you have your work cut out. As a bettor you have to know who is being bet and how significant it is that horse is being bet. Yesterday at Santa Anita, Phil D'amato just claimed a horse and this horse was pounded to 4/5 1st off the claim. I think I made him like 7/2 2nd favorite on my odds line. When this barns horses get bet like that they generally win(not always). For me to be stubborn and say well I think he should be 7/2 and that is that, would be pretty damn stupid. So I adjust. Contrar, in the first race at Santa Anita, I made the winner 9/5 top choice(I think he won at about 9/5 or so) and the favorite, 2.2-1 2nd choice. I believe the favorite went off at 4/5 or thereabouts. Was not concerned a bit about the betting. That to me was the public over betting a horse. Now a skeptic will say how do I make that distinction, well that is part of the process(learning how to make that distinction). Now the winner posed no particular value so I did not even bet the race, but in the world of pick 3's and pick 4's......you always have the option(when there are 2 obvious horses and one is way over bet to single the other one). If the crowd is right big deal and if they are not you have a nice anchor for your pick 3/pick 4.

Bottom line is understanding the toteboard sometimes is more important than knowing how to handicap. Playing without access to it makes a tough game much tougher.

If I was going to play without access to the toteboard, I would likely selectively play pick 3', pick 4's and pick 5's(but skip the races where you need the toteboard-promising 1st time starters etc), weeding out the horses who will likely be way overbet and not worry so much about "value". If you have a decent morning line maker that helps a lot with the process. The value is in the pick 3 or much better value in the pick 4-pick 5 pools. You also have the conditional bet option for your straight plays(depending on who you bet with).

However, I personally would rather only once a month the right way (properly prepared, rested and focused with all tools at my disposal) than play far more often the wrong way. Game is tough enough to beat when you do it right.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

When you are a "confident winner", who boasts of a high ROI...then you don't remain a small bettor for long...especially when you view this game as a "business". I got into the "business world" many years ago, and I borrowed to the limit of my credit...even though I was unsure of my outcome as a "businessman". THAT'S what happens in "business".

But in my years at the track...I've met with a breed of people whom I never knew existed. They tell me that they have absolute confidence in themselves as players, and they boast of abnormally high ROI over many years...but they always make small bets...like $10 to win and place...or $2 exactas. And this is after telling me that they've taken many thousands of dollars out of the game through the years. When I ask them why they haven't allowed their bankroll to grow to the point where they can make the types of bets which will REALLY reward their high level of skill...they just look at me with blank stares...or reply with lame excuses.

If you have a prestigious PhD...then you don't work at McDonald's. And if you are a "confident winner" at the track...then you don't remain a $10-bettor for long. It doesn't make any sense...and it isn't very "businesslike".

Assuming these boastful individuals are telling the truth, this behavior is easily explained - they have the mindset to remain a recreational player. Therefore they don't have any interest or concept of a racing "bankroll". They restrict their wagering to whatever surplus funds they have on at the moment.

Your posts on this board, more than any other person's, have declared there is a vast gulf between the professional (business) and recreational (entertainment) player. Just because someone is good at something does't necessarily mean they want to be a pro at it - check out the scratch golfers at your local country club some day.

[thaskalos]

Assuming these boastful individuals are telling the truth, this behavior is easily explained - they have the mindset to remain a recreational player. Therefore they don't have any interest or concept of a racing "bankroll". They restrict their wagering to whatever surplus funds they have on at the moment.

Your posts on this board, more than any other person's, have declared there is a vast gulf between the professional (business) and recreational (entertainment) player. Just because someone is good at something does't necessarily mean they want to be a pro at it - check out the scratch golfers at your local country club some day.

I never said anything about becoming a pro; I fully understand why people don't want the stress associated with having to pay house bills with racetrack winnings. But you can't tell me that you've been a winning player with an outrageous ROI for years now...but you choose to keep making $10 win-bets, as if you are allergic to the extra money. The good thing about this game is that you don't meet higher competition as you raise your betting stake...as you do in poker, for instance. And there is no risk associated with betting the extra money either...if the player is really as good or as confident as he claims to be. You save up a modest starting bankroll that you can afford to lose, and then you allow it to grow over time...while gradually raising your bets as the bankroll size dictates. If the going gets tough, you can pull out while the starting investment is still intact...thus eliminating all the real risk. We are not talking about taking your bets to the stratosphere...but $10 bets for an expert player are unreasonable, IMO. Tom Ainslie, in his Complete Guide To Thoroughbred Racing, advocated betting no less than $20 to win...and that was in the 60s!

You can't pretend to be a "confident, winning player who treats the horses as a BUSINESS"...when you are betting $5 to win and place. C'mon.

[MJC922]

Plenty of fake 'pros' out there, I don't believe anyone and I don't blame anyone if they don't believe me, if nothing else it shows me they're sensible. As years went on I found professional horse-playing to be highly unpleasant. Forced to be in 'bankroll-control' mode for so long, it's a 'sentence' quite frankly, monastic is a good description. So if you have a trust fund or nice pension, you retired early let's say or you landed a job in the business then by all means have at it every day as supplemental income, worst case scenario you get to be delusional a few months out of the year like I know so many are. :)

On the other hand if you're just a broke kid and coming from nothing like I did back then, probably better to stay in school and go in another direction. The only upside I will say is it gives a tremendous sense of accomplishment when you're really doing it year in and year out. Once that was achieved I felt like I could pretty much do anything that I put my mind to and you will need every bit of that self confidence after you throw away 15 years at the track.

[ReplayRandall]

Plenty of fake 'pros' out there, I don't believe anyone and I don't blame anyone if they don't believe me, if nothing else it shows me they're sensible. As years went on I found professional horse-playing to be highly unpleasant. Forced to be in 'bankroll-control' mode for so long, it's a 'sentence' quite frankly, monastic is a good description. So if you have a trust fund or nice pension, you retired early let's say or you landed a job in the business then by all means have at it every day as supplemental income, worst case scenario you get to be delusional a few months out of the year like I know so many are. :)

On the other hand if you're just a broke kid and coming from nothing like I did back then, probably better to stay in school and go in another direction. The only upside I will say is it gives a tremendous sense of accomplishment when you're really doing it year in and year out. Once that was achieved I felt like I could pretty much do anything that I put my mind to and you will need every bit of that self confidence after you throw away 15 years at the track.

Every word of your post is believable, you've obviously experienced it all. However, I disagree with your comment of "throwing away 15 years at the track". What anyone learns during that timeframe is priceless, be it good or bad, as the memories and friendships alone are worth it....

[thaskalos]

It's prudent to doubt exaggerated claims...and professing to be a winner at the track qualifies to ba called an exaggerated claim. None of us has provided conclusive proof to back up the claim that he is a winning player...so, none of us should be getting upset when his claim of being a winner is disbelieved by the others here.

It's a tougher game than some people make it out to be.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I never said anything about becoming a pro; I fully understand why people don't want the stress associated with having to pay house bills with racetrack winnings. But you can't tell me that you've been a winning player with an outrageous ROI for years now...but you choose to keep making $10 win-bets, as if you are allergic to the extra money. The good thing about this game is that you don't meet higher competition as you raise your betting stake...as you do in poker, for instance. And there is no risk associated with betting the extra money either...if the player is really as good or as confident as he claims to be. You save up a modest starting bankroll that you can afford to lose, and then you allow it to grow over time...while gradually raising your bets as the bankroll size dictates. If the going gets tough, you can pull out while the starting investment is still intact...thus eliminating all the real risk. We are not talking about taking your bets to the stratosphere...but $10 bets for an expert player are unreasonable, IMO. Tom Ainslie, in his Complete Guide To Thoroughbred Racing, advocated betting no less than $20 to win...and that was in the 60s!

You can't pretend to be a "confident, winning player who treats the horses as a BUSINESS"...when you are betting $5 to win and place. C'mon.

I'll agree that it's a contradiction to claim to make a profit over an extended period of time (apparently keeping some sort of records), and not raise the level of wagering. But people are funny about money. Maybe some of these high ROI winners are like J. Edgar Hoover, and $10 is the choke point. Except not betting on a fixed race. ;)

When you say "bankroll management" though, that implies a more professional approach. The recreational $10 bettor bets the same every race. If he comes to the track with $100, he can play the whole card. If he comes to the track with $20 and whiffs on the first two races, he's done for the day. Makes record keeping simple too, which of course makes it easier to count up all those profits.....

[Robert Goren]

How can you possibly know that this in "in fact" the truth?Because I know several system players who are profitable and have been for many years. For the most part, they are not large bettors and play mid size tracks the fair grounds. One bets $50 a play. the others around $20-$30. One guy says he has only one system. Another says he has 4 systems. The other 4 won't talk to me about it. They bet at the Lincoln simulcast center/race track. They are out there most days. They are retired, but at least one was using his system(s) on weekends before he retired. I do not believe their systems are very alike in the way they come up horses.

[Robert Goren]

I never said anything about becoming a pro; I fully understand why people don't want the stress associated with having to pay house bills with racetrack winnings. But you can't tell me that you've been a winning player with an outrageous ROI for years now...but you choose to keep making $10 win-bets, as if you are allergic to the extra money. The good thing about this game is that you don't meet higher competition as you raise your betting stake...as you do in poker, for instance. And there is no risk associated with betting the extra money either...if the player is really as good or as confident as he claims to be. You save up a modest starting bankroll that you can afford to lose, and then you allow it to grow over time...while gradually raising your bets as the bankroll size dictates. If the going gets tough, you can pull out while the starting investment is still intact...thus eliminating all the real risk. We are not talking about taking your bets to the stratosphere...but $10 bets for an expert player are unreasonable, IMO. Tom Ainslie, in his Complete Guide To Thoroughbred Racing, advocated betting no less than $20 to win...and that was in the 60s!

You can't pretend to be a "confident, winning player who treats the horses as a BUSINESS"...when you are betting $5 to win and place. C'mon.I don't get this "business" thing you talk about. A guy can treat it as a hobby and still be profitable. I know a guy who is a stamp collector and makes a pretty penny buying and trading stamps, yet he still has his "day job" . I suspect most years he makes more money from stamps than he does working. I suspect there are a lot of collectors of various things that are just like Jimmy(the stamp collector). Some people flip houses in their spare time. Why does everybody who makes money at something have to turn it to a business? Gambling lends itself well in to profitable hobby model. Many of the systems that hobbyist uses would not be profitable if they had to bet the kind of money they would need to if they treated it a business. Also there are things that you have to do when you run a business that you don't have to do when you keep it as a hobby. Things that take most of the enjoyment out the hobby. I have never thought the horse race betting even if you are very good it was a good way to make a living. While money is important, it is not the only thing. There are just too many things about it that out weigh the money. Not that the money would be all that great in today's small pools (and still shrinking) to bet into. It is too easy to bet yourself into a negative ROI. One thing the $5 win $5place bettor does not have to worry about.
One more thing, Ainslie has probably cost readers of his books more money(adjusted for inflation) than any other author. He had a gift for making it sound so reasonable, but nothing he wrote about ever made money.

[upthecreek]

I use the Handifast program along with another software program and a perusal of the PP's and so far over maybe 1000 races Ive been gettting the winner in the top 4 -75%-80% of the time along with the exacta 40%-50% of the time .Thats all well and good Take a 10-12 horse field narrow it down to 4 and have the winner atleast 75% of the time. But how to bet? Do I use odds? Speed rating? Pace advantage? Connections? And the exacta? Boxing all 4 has proven to be a losing bet Key my top pick with the other 3? Wheel up and down with the other 3?
Any input MUCH APPRECIATED!!!!!!!!!!!

[thaskalos]

I use the Handifast program along with another software program and a perusal of the PP's and so far over maybe 1000 races Ive been gettting the winner in the top 4 -75%-80% of the time along with the exacta 40%-50% of the time .Thats all well and good Take a 10-12 horse field narrow it down to 4 and have the winner atleast 75% of the time. But how to bet? Do I use odds? Speed rating? Pace advantage? Connections? And the exacta? Boxing all 4 has proven to be a losing bet Key my top pick with the other 3? Wheel up and down with the other 3?
Any input MUCH APPRECIATED!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you able to determine if these 4 remaining contenders could be further ranked into 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice and 4th choice...and what results could be recorded AMONG them?

[upthecreek]

Are you able to determine if these 4 remaining contenders could be further ranked into 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice and 4th choice...and what results could be recorded AMONG them?
I haven't but I'm sure I can

[thaskalos]

I haven't but I'm sure I can

Then I think you should do it.

You might discover that your top pick is a profitable win-bet choice...or a profitable exacta structure may emerge.

[upthecreek]

Then I think you should do it.

You might discover that your top pick is a profitable win-bet choice...or a profitable exacta structure may emerge.
I'll look into Thanks :ThmbUp: