HANDICAPPING IS RANDOM

[PIC6SIX]

I have come to the conclusion that picking winners is random. There are too many NW-2/3 LT, ST BREDS, MCs, MSW, Cheap Claimers and racing variables that work against the handicapper. You can read all the books on handicapping and know trainer angles, body language, pace and speed figures but all is just theory. If picking winners is an art and science that can be mastered then why did BEL have a pick-6 carryover of $321,000 C/O today, why don't the same cappers always win the daily online contests and why do they falter even when they play multiple entries, and why don't hcp software developers win consistently and YADDAYADDAYADDA???? Any takers for this thread and I don/t need to hear "You have to pick your spots".

[Some_One]

Well first the market is generally efficient, the 3-1 shots win more than the 30-1 shots, and the show ROI's on 3-1's horses are much higher then 30-1 horses so the 3-1's will finish in front of the 30-1's more often.

So it's not random.

Now as to profitability, well most handicappers use similar logic on similar information and handicap the long shots the same as favorites. So many think they have an edge, but are no better then randomness in the long run, it's all in their head.

[Track Collector]

I don't think picking winners (or rather achieving a positive ROI) is random, but the game has become increasingly more difficult with each passing year. The collective wisdom of the handicapping pool has become sharper, takeouts are very high to overcome before one can get to the black side of the ledger, and the uncertainty of drugs/cheating make for a very difficult challenge.

[thaskalos]

The appearance that winning is random is due to the fact that the game does not abide by the laws of "logic" to the extent that we would like it to. As horseplayers, our short-term results are determined largely by luck, and we need the internal fortitude to persevere until our skill level can override the substantial variance inherent in the game...which can only happen in the LONG-RUN.

The unfortunate thing is that most of us greatly overestimate our skill level as players...and we think that we are "well above average"...even though the evidence does not support this assertion.

[Dahoss2002]

The unfortunate thing is that most of us greatly overestimate our skill level as players...and we think that we are "well above average"...even though the evidence does not support this assertion.

:ThmbUp:

[ReplayRandall]

Why don't the same cappers always win the daily online contests and why do they falter even when they play multiple entries?

Methodology is the key to success, after the model is validated by positive results over a length of time with sufficient sample size. If you build a tournament model, and for every $2500 worth of entries as a starting point(small buy-ins of $10-$50) and you are collecting $3000 worth of returns, you have a +ROI of 20%. Does this mean you have to win 1 out of 5 tourneys to achieve this? Of course not, as finishing in the top 3 will get you to your goal.

What is a sufficient amount of time and sample size to know your results are not random? My records indicate an average of 80 tourneys a month and over the course of 3 years, for a total of about 2900 tourneys played. Droughts of 10 days each month are common for not cashing at all, but by the preponderance of the numbers, the end result is a +ROI.

Handicapping is only a process that leads to various methodologies, verified by records/data that shows continual progress to the goal of net profitability. Once your model is built and implemented, stay the course and don't deviate. BTW, most tourney sites such as Horsetourneys, Derby Wars and Racetrack Warriors only take a 10% vig........Beats the live takeout at whatever track you play by almost 50%! This post is only of my experiences, your results may vary.

[ultracapper]

You have to pick your spots, whether you want to hear it or not.

[EMD4ME]

You have to pick your spots, whether you want to hear it or not.

100% Agree.

[EMD4ME]

And....by sticking to 1 track, watching all races with a fine tooth comb, taking notes on ALL horses, know every day's biases, know the trainers, jockeys and owners.....You can reduce the variables to a minimum AND when you pick your spots, you will do much better.

I hate to say it but people who rely on a computer and look for a model to give them the most likely winner are way more likely to have randomness occur.

Regardless of your style of play, if your seasoned and can smell a rat, you know when randomness is about to occur.

[whodoyoulike]

I have come to the conclusion that picking winners is random...

You can read all the books on handicapping and know trainer angles, body language, pace and speed figures but all is just theory...

It only stays just a theory unless you know how to apply them.

[ReplayRandall]

And....by sticking to 1 track, watching all races with a fine tooth comb, taking notes on ALL horses, know every day's biases, know the trainers, jockeys and owners.....You can reduce the variables to a minimum AND when you pick your spots, you will do much better.

I hate to say it but people who rely on a computer and look for a model to give them the most likely winner are way more likely to have randomness occur.

Regardless of your style of play, if your seasoned and can smell a rat, you know when randomness is about to occur.

There's a rat in almost every race, some big, some small. The key is to not let the big rats take a large bite out of your ass... :cool:

[Fingal]

The appearance that winning is random is due to the fact that the game does not abide by the laws of "logic" to the extent that we would like it to. As horseplayers, our short-term results are determined largely by luck, and we need the internal fortitude to persevere until our skill level can override the substantial variance inherent in the game...which can only happen in the LONG-RUN.

The unfortunate thing is that most of us greatly overestimate our skill level as players...and we think that we are "well above average"...even though the evidence does not support this assertion.

And does one really want everything to follow the rules of "logic" ? Then everything would pay $4 or less, that would be a waste of time. To use the opening from the old Wide World Of Sports, it's the thrill of victory & the agony of defeat. It would be like every race being 6 furlongs; that would result in very predictable outcomes but it would also be very boring.

To quote Dick Mitchell-

"You don't want to play fair games, you always want to play in unfair games & you always want the advantage in an unfair games. And you always want the advantage in an unfair game. No advantage, no bet."

[ultracapper]

Logic does rear it's head in a horse race now and then however.

[Helles]

The appearance that winning is random is due to the fact that the game does not abide by the laws of "logic" to the extent that we would like it to. As horseplayers, our short-term results are determined largely by luck, and we need the internal fortitude to persevere until our skill level can override the substantial variance inherent in the game...which can only happen in the LONG-RUN.

Well-stated.

[Cratos]

I have come to the conclusion that picking winners is random. There are too many NW-2/3 LT, ST BREDS, MCs, MSW, Cheap Claimers and racing variables that work against the handicapper. You can read all the books on handicapping and know trainer angles, body language, pace and speed figures but all is just theory. If picking winners is an art and science that can be mastered then why did BEL have a pick-6 carryover of $321,000 C/O today, why don't the same cappers always win the daily online contests and why do they falter even when they play multiple entries, and why don't hcp software developers win consistently and YADDAYADDAYADDA???? Any takers for this thread and I don/t need to hear "You have to pick your spots".
Yes you must pick your "spots", (contrary to what you want to believe) because this game is about being risk-preferred and all "spots" are not equal.

Therefore the game becomes one of resources which are and not limited too having sufficient funding, hard work, discipline, patience, and serendipity.

[pandy]

I have come to the conclusion that picking winners is random. There are too many NW-2/3 LT, ST BREDS, MCs, MSW, Cheap Claimers and racing variables that work against the handicapper. You can read all the books on handicapping and know trainer angles, body language, pace and speed figures but all is just theory. If picking winners is an art and science that can be mastered then why did BEL have a pick-6 carryover of $321,000 C/O today, why don't the same cappers always win the daily online contests and why do they falter even when they play multiple entries, and why don't hcp software developers win consistently and YADDAYADDAYADDA???? Any takers for this thread and I don/t need to hear "You have to pick your spots".

Years ago there was a tip sheet in New York called Only Turf's Best, the blue sheet. The guy who owned the sheet was a perfectionist and a very good handicapper. His goal, however, was not to pick value but to pick the winner in every race.

He was one of the first guys to make his own speed figures, Ragozin style on a graph. He kept track of bias and wind. He kept lifetime past performances on every horse, on paper, not a computer, he paid a clocker for information, he paid a handicapper for trip notes (because he rarely went to the track himself). At the end of the day, NO ONE could consistently pick more winners than he did. To this day, I've yet to find any other handicapper that can pick winners like he did.

When the form was holding he would have 7 or 8 winners on top in 9 races where the newspaper guys and the other sheet handicappers would have 5 or 6. On days with a few prices, he'd have 4 or 5 winners, the others would have 2 or 3. But on the chaos days when the bombs came in he would be just like everyone else, tearing his hair out.

He proved it wasn't random because he weighed various handicapping factors and was able to pick the winner much more often than anyone else. But, when the bombs came in, he was nowhere.

The bottom line, however, is that in the long run, you really couldn't win using his picks. Sure his customers had a lot of fun and a lot of winning days, hitting exactas, doubles and win bets. But they didn't get the bombs and if you haven't figured out how to pick longshots winners it's very tough to come out ahead in the long run. So the moral of the story is, you have to be good at picking on those random chaos days, not when the horses that figure to win are winning.

You have to master Fuzzy Logic handicapping, not logical handicapping. He was a master of Logical Handicapping only.

Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic that deals with approximate, rather than fixed and exact reasoning. Compared to traditional binary logic (where variables may take on true or false values), fuzzy logic variables may have a truth value that ranges in degree between 0 and 1.

[DeltaLover]

I have come to the conclusion that picking winners is random. There are too many NW-2/3 LT, ST BREDS, MCs, MSW, Cheap Claimers and racing variables that work against the handicapper. You can read all the books on handicapping and know trainer angles, body language, pace and speed figures but all is just theory. If picking winners is an art and science that can be mastered then why did BEL have a pick-6 carryover of $321,000 C/O today, why don't the same cappers always win the daily online contests and why do they falter even when they play multiple entries, and why don't hcp software developers win consistently and YADDAYADDAYADDA???? Any takers for this thread and I don/t need to hear "You have to pick your spots".

I am sure that you do not mean that the winner of a race is a completely random event since it is less than trivial to prove the opposite.

I believe that what you want to say, is that ending up a winner after a sequence of bets is random and yes, I believe to a large extend this is very close to the reality,

Although each horse has a different probability to win the race, the betting public is very good in its estimates, converting the game in the most cases to a random event... Still, there might exist some (very few cases) where you might be able to find an edge, if you become a specialist on a specific subdomain of the game

[1st time lasix]

funny thing...after handicapping and playing the pick six sequence in NY the past three days.....i too came to the conclusion that I was just not good enough to play NY. Favorites I thought were vulnerable ran well....Long shots I thought had no chance ran well. I was humbled. The dreaded walk to the ATM shaking my head.....

[therussmeister]

If it was random, everyone would get the same ROI.
If it was random, the favorites would win about 11.5% rather than 35%.
If it was random, all jockeys would have the same win percentage.
If it was random, all trainers would have the same win percentage.
If it was random, I would have quit about 29 1/2 years ago, as I have no interest in handicapping random events.

[Capper Al]

How about part logic and part unknown? This mix makes for patterns over the long run, and randomness in the short run.

[raybo]

Since every horse in a race has some chance of winning, and the fact that none of us knows with 100% accuracy which horse will win a race, individual race results can swing from feast to famine, that's a fact that many players just can't swallow.

As Thaskalos stated, the focus must be on the long term. If you have good skills, are patient enough, disciplined enough, and consistent enough, you can still make long term profit.

[Laminarman]

If it was random, everyone would get the same ROI.
If it was random, the favorites would win about 11.5% rather than 35%.
If it was random, all jockeys would have the same win percentage.
If it was random, all trainers would have the same win percentage.
If it was random, I would have quit about 29 1/2 years ago, as I have no interest in handicapping random events.

I'd add that given a field of horses, and enough races run, the horses would win roughly equal percentages, right? Laws of randomness would see to it. Because random means truly random. I don't buy that it's random or else we'd all have the same win percentage if we placed enough bets.

[raybo]

I'd add that given a field of horses, and enough races run, the horses would win roughly equal percentages, right? Laws of randomness would see to it. Because random means truly random. I don't buy that it's random or else we'd all have the same win percentage if we placed enough bets.

Random "things" happen in individual races. Racing, as a whole, is NOT random, the better horses will win more often than the lesser horses, in enough individual races, to be fairly predictable, long term.

Unfortunately, for most, the designation of "better" and "lesser" varies widely. And thus, the reason only a small percentage of players are long term profitable, and all the others are not.

[Laminarman]

Random "things" happen in individual races. Racing, as a whole, is NOT random, the better horses will win more often than the lesser horses, in enough individual races, to be fairly predictable, long term.

Unfortunately, for most, the designation of "better" and "lesser" varies widely. And thus, the reason only a small percentage of players are long term profitable, and all the others are not.

True, I wouldn't argue with you about the random things occurring. I read the post to mean races have random outcomes and handicapping is basically useless. In other words, just throw a dart with a blindfold on and who knows how it will turn out.

[raybo]

True, I wouldn't argue with you about the random things occurring. I read the post to mean races have random outcomes and handicapping is basically useless. In other words, just throw a dart with a blindfold on and who knows how it will turn out.

LOL - well it might be ok to throw darts, if you are an expert dart thrower and knew which horses to target. Long term you would hit enough of those targets to maybe make yourself profitable. :lol:

[AndyC]

You have to pick your spots, whether you want to hear it or not.

Don't most players "pick their spots"? How does picking your spot differ from regular play?

[thaskalos]

Don't most players "pick their spots"? How does picking your spot differ from regular play?
Ok...you have to pick BETTER spots. :)

[green80]

I have come to the conclusion that picking winners is random. There are too many NW-2/3 LT, ST BREDS, MCs, MSW, Cheap Claimers and racing variables that work against the handicapper. You can read all the books on handicapping and know trainer angles, body language, pace and speed figures but all is just theory. If picking winners is an art and science that can be mastered then why did BEL have a pick-6 carryover of $321,000 C/O today, why don't the same cappers always win the daily online contests and why do they falter even when they play multiple entries, and why don't hcp software developers win consistently and YADDAYADDAYADDA???? Any takers for this thread and I don/t need to hear "You have to pick your spots".

While not entirely random, I will say somewhat random as horses do not run their same race every time. If I bet, a good horse will throw a bad race or a bad horse will run a good race. That is what makes some horses your bottom level claimers, they just run their best race every now and then. Combine that with poor rides by the jockeys, traffic and just bad racing luck, and the results will appear somewhat random.

I just ran one of my horses earlier this month, didn't bet it, figured it had little chance of winning. Won by 12 lengths. You never know.

[EMD4ME]

Agree, stuff happens.

Just a random question...Was your horse a "6" horse who won at Louisiana who paid $36 bucks or so against a former David Jacobsen NYRA shipper in a Maiden Claimer in the last race of the day?

[Overlay]

Random "things" happen in individual races. Racing, as a whole, is NOT random, the better horses will win more often than the lesser horses, in enough individual races, to be fairly predictable, long term.

Unfortunately, for most, the designation of "better" and "lesser" varies widely. And thus, the reason only a small percentage of players are long term profitable, and all the others are not.
It's not just defining better or lesser horses that complicates the task, but successfully exploiting varying degrees of error in the public's perception of those designations, while also overcoming the unpredictable random events that don't go your way (although that randomness should theoretically "even out" over time).

[raybo]

It's not just defining better or lesser horses that complicates the task, but successfully exploiting varying degrees of error in the public's perception of those designations, while also overcoming the unpredictable random events that don't go your way (although that randomness should theoretically "even out" over time).

Well, of course! But, one must first designate the win contenders first. Value assessment comes after that, at least it does for me. The probability of winning versus the price one will/should receive, is the whole equation, not just price, and not just probability, but one must start somewhere and the logical starting point would be with the probabilities. Randomness is an integral part of the price portion.

[whodoyoulike]

I have come to the conclusion that picking winners is random. There are too many NW-2/3 LT, ST BREDS, MCs, MSW, Cheap Claimers and racing variables that work against the handicapper. You can read all the books on handicapping and know trainer angles, body language, pace and speed figures but all is just theory. If picking winners is an art and science that can be mastered then why did BEL have a pick-6 carryover of $321,000 C/O today, why don't the same cappers always win the daily online contests and why do they falter even when they play multiple entries, and why don't hcp software developers win consistently and YADDAYADDAYADDA???? Any takers for this thread and I don/t need to hear "You have to pick your spots".

So, you've read all these books etc. and you understood the principles behind each of them and because the races are not playing out as you've handicapped, you've concluded that picking winners must be random.

Or, just maybe you didn't really understand what you read.

Btw, you think picking winners is random but, you play the Pick6.

How many races do you single in your Pick6 selections?

[pondman]

If picking winners is an art and science that can be mastered then why did BEL have a pick-6 carryover of $321,000 C/O today, .

The track was off and varied from muddy to good. There are many people on this site who probably could prove that a fast track significantly become less random as it dries and is maintained as fast. I'm not going to be specific about Belmont but most tracks once they are maintained at fast take on a non-random characteristics. They are easier to rule out non-contenders. For example a Fast track might be highly significant to those strong closer, or becomes a speed heaven, if it's maintained at Fast. I would argue that you got a $300,000 carryover because of the weather.

[dilanesp]

And does one really want everything to follow the rules of "logic" ? Then everything would pay $4 or less, that would be a waste of time.

This isn't really true. Poker completely follows the rules of logic and strict probability, and yet it is entirely beatable due to bad opponents.

Because most human beings are illogical creatures, especially gamblers, the issue of logic doesn't really enter into whether a game is beatable.

[dilanesp]

Don't most players "pick their spots"? How does picking your spot differ from regular play?

Most bettors I know bet every race, or almost every race, once they decide to bet a race card, and also bet every "big" race (such as the TC, Breeders' Cup, etc.). (Indeed, most sports bettors I know bet every NFL game, and most poker players I play against play way too many hands and don't fold enough. It's basically the most common leak in gambling. Our brains are wired to like action.)

[AndyC]

Most bettors I know bet every race, or almost every race, once they decide to bet a race card, and also bet every "big" race (such as the TC, Breeders' Cup, etc.). (Indeed, most sports bettors I know bet every NFL game, and most poker players I play against play way too many hands and don't fold enough. It's basically the most common leak in gambling. Our brains are wired to like action.)

True for most players. The problem is that most players don't know a good spot from a bad spot. If they did they would all be winners.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Most bettors I know bet every race, or almost every race, once they decide to bet a race card, and also bet every "big" race (such as the TC, Breeders' Cup, etc.). (Indeed, most sports bettors I know bet every NFL game, and most poker players I play against play way too many hands and don't fold enough. It's basically the most common leak in gambling. Our brains are wired to like action.)

Most horseplayers I know do bet almost every race that they handicap, but the better bettors vary their wagers by whether or not a race is a "spot", or just an "action" play.

Most sports bettors I know do NOT bet every game, as when eight or nine games are going on simultaneously, it's tough to keep up with all of it. Many of the degenerate sports bettors I do know will bet all the "timeslots", which in the NFL are the early games, the late games, and the Sunday and Monday (and Thursday) night games.

I can't speak as much to poker, but it does follow the poor players to play too many hands. I know I don't have the patience for it.

Yes, we like action. :)

As for "Handicapping is Random", I would argue my handicapping is fairly consistent - it's the results which can seem random, but which of course are not. The distribution of "random" or difficult-to-explain winners falls within some sort of statistical description - I would call it "normal" with a relatively high standard deviation.....and can be described as:

"Some days you are the bug, and some days you are the windshield...."

[green80]

Agree, stuff happens.

Just a random question...Was your horse a "6" horse who won at Louisiana who paid $36 bucks or so against a former David Jacobsen NYRA shipper in a Maiden Claimer in the last race of the day?


You know your horses.

[Luckycreed]

I really wish horse racing was random,then all I would need to do is back every horse at longer odds than the size of the field and start counting money.Given how many horse races there are run around the globe every day I would be filthy rich in a couple of weeks.

Sadly horse racing is not random the betting market is extremely efficient and money wagered is the best guide there is to the probability of a horse winning,it trumps every other variable long term.The other interesting fact is the further from the races the less efficient the market becomes, the prices two minutes before jump are not as good as starting price.because they don't have as much information at their disposal for eg how the horses load.

That is the key information,having access to something important no one else has.When I was working for a bookmaker down here in Australia the people we feared were certain trainers, they were the people who could and did beat us long term because they knew important stuff that we didn't and couldn't and they would bet with military precision hitting multiple bookies at once getting friends and staff to put the bets on.

They would get 7-1 and the horse would start 2-1 and if you bet their horses at 2-1 following the money you would lose like betting any other 2-1 shot because they didn't always win.I can honestly say a couple of trainers back in the late eighties and early nineties are the only people I know who have won long term win betting.

Betting markets are not quite as efficient at more complex calculations such as picking the probability of each of the 2184 possible trifecta combinations in a field of fourteen or the first three across the line in three consecutive races, these are the type of bets where you have a chance of winning long term.

[Light]

Horse racing is random. So is everything else. Those who boast here that you "pick your spots" are only partially right. I also pick my spots. But there is randomness in your "spots" as well. "Randomness" is why Casino's are "Empires".

People have said its not random because there is "order" between the favorite's win percentage being the greatest down to the longest shot on the board being the lowest. That is true but nobody is getting rich from that data. They are still all broke and still work for a living.

I'll give you better odds than the favorites. I'll give you 50% winners and you still won't be in the black because of randomness. Flip a coin. You have a 50% chance of winning each toss of the coin but due to randomness, you will lose. You will "guess" wrong. Because you cannot predict the "random patterns" of heads and tails even though you have a 50% chance of winning each flip. And that is what is "random": The "patterns".

In horse racing it is even worse.You have way more than 2 possible outcomes and each of those possibilities of winning is way less than 50%. You cannot overcome the negative effect of "randomness" on the outcome. You can minimize it. And if you want to overcome it, that is a different story.

[AndyC]

Horse racing is random. So is everything else. Those who boast here that you "pick your spots" are only partially right. I also pick my spots. But there is randomness in your "spots" as well. "Randomness" is why Casino's are "Empires".

People have said its not random because there is "order" between the favorite's win percentage being the greatest down to the longest shot on the board being the lowest. That is true but nobody is getting rich from that data. They are still all broke and still work for a living.

I'll give you better odds than the favorites. I'll give you 50% winners and you still won't be in the black because of randomness. Flip a coin. You have a 50% chance of winning each toss of the coin but due to randomness, you will lose. You will "guess" wrong. Because you cannot predict the "random patterns" of heads and tails even though you have a 50% chance of winning each flip. And that is what is "random": The "patterns".

In horse racing it is even worse.You have way more than 2 possible outcomes and each of those possibilities of winning is way less than 50%. You cannot overcome the negative effect of "randomness" on the outcome. You can minimize it. And if you want to overcome it, that is a different story.

Wouldn't someone get a positive effect of randomness as well? Someone predicting the outcome of a coin flip will not change the probability of the outcome. The results in the short run may not mirror the probability of the outcome resulting in either more wins or less wins than expected. To say that randomness is always negative is incorrect.

[thaskalos]

Horse racing is random. So is everything else. Those who boast here that you "pick your spots" are only partially right. I also pick my spots. But there is randomness in your "spots" as well. "Randomness" is why Casino's are "Empires".

People have said its not random because there is "order" between the favorite's win percentage being the greatest down to the longest shot on the board being the lowest. That is true but nobody is getting rich from that data. They are still all broke and still work for a living.

I'll give you better odds than the favorites. I'll give you 50% winners and you still won't be in the black because of randomness. Flip a coin. You have a 50% chance of winning each toss of the coin but due to randomness, you will lose. You will "guess" wrong. Because you cannot predict the "random patterns" of heads and tails even though you have a 50% chance of winning each flip. And that is what is "random": The "patterns".

In horse racing it is even worse.You have way more than 2 possible outcomes and each of those possibilities of winning is way less than 50%. You cannot overcome the negative effect of "randomness" on the outcome. You can minimize it. And if you want to overcome it, that is a different story.
When you say that "horse racing is random", or that "you cannot overcome the negative effect of 'randomness' on the outcome"...aren't you implying that the game is unbeatable through methodical, systematic means?

[raybo]

Horse racing is random. So is everything else. Those who boast here that you "pick your spots" are only partially right. I also pick my spots. But there is randomness in your "spots" as well. "Randomness" is why Casino's are "Empires".

People have said its not random because there is "order" between the favorite's win percentage being the greatest down to the longest shot on the board being the lowest. That is true but nobody is getting rich from that data. They are still all broke and still work for a living.

I'll give you better odds than the favorites. I'll give you 50% winners and you still won't be in the black because of randomness. Flip a coin. You have a 50% chance of winning each toss of the coin but due to randomness, you will lose. You will "guess" wrong. Because you cannot predict the "random patterns" of heads and tails even though you have a 50% chance of winning each flip. And that is what is "random": The "patterns".

In horse racing it is even worse.You have way more than 2 possible outcomes and each of those possibilities of winning is way less than 50%. You cannot overcome the negative effect of "randomness" on the outcome. You can minimize it. And if you want to overcome it, that is a different story.

If "horse racing is random", then why do better players hit more winners than lesser players? How is it that a good handicapper can have the winner in his top 4 ranked horses over 80% of the time? Once again, Light, you're not making much sense in your first sentence at all. Horse racing is NOT random, it includes randomness that can be overcome over time, if the player is good enough..

Yes, there is a degree of randomness in horse racing, how could there not be, they are horses, living, breathing organisms with flesh and bones, internal organs, muscles and tendons, and brains and emotions that sometimes are in good shape and other times are not. Jockeys are human beings, with strengths and weaknesses also. So, yes, there will be a degree of randomness regarding individual race results. But, over time, the good player can still predict enough winners, at high enough prices, to make a profit. Exotics make it even easier to make long term profit because of the higher inefficiency of the public in those wager types, and the very real chance of hitting extremely large payouts.

[DeltaLover]

If "horse racing is random", then why do better players hit more winners than lesser players?

Exactly because the winning frequency is not correlated with the quality of a player. Increasing the number of winners this is clearly NOT the objective of the game and the same can be said for ROI figures as well

[thaskalos]

If "horse racing is random", then why do better players hit more winners than lesser players? How is it that a good handicapper can have the winner in his top 4 ranked horses over 80% of the time? Once again, Light, you're not making much sense in your first sentence at all. Horse racing is NOT random, it includes randomness that can be overcome over time, if the player is good enough..

Yes, there is a degree of randomness in horse racing, how could there not be, they are horses, living, breathing organisms with flesh and bones, internal organs, muscles and tendons, and brains and emotions that sometimes are in good shape and other times are not. Jockeys are human beings, with strengths and weaknesses also. So, yes, there will be a degree of randomness regarding individual race results. But, over time, the good player can still predict enough winners, at high enough prices, to make a profit. Exotics make it even easier to make long term profit because of the higher inefficiency of the public in those wager types, and the very real chance of hitting extremely large payouts.
It seems that we have BOTH extreme views voiced on this board. Some believe that horse racing is nothing but a physics problem waiting to be solved...while others think that the game is random, and its "randomness" cannot be overcome. And then there are the rest of us...who believe that BOTH these opinions are wrong.

I'm glad that I'm not some confused newcomer...who is coming to this site seeking some sort of direction in this game. Whom does the newcomer believe? :)

[DeltaLover]

It seems that we have BOTH extreme views voiced on this board. Some believe that horse racing is nothing but a physics problem waiting to be solved...while others think that the game is random, and it's "randomness" cannot be overcome. And then there are the rest of us...who believe that BOTH these opinions are wrong.

I'm glad that I'm not some confused newcomer...who is coming to this site seeking some sort of direction in this game. Whom does the newcomer believe? :)

I think that both of this views are easy to justify:

(1) Of course, racing (as any other physical activity) can be viewed as a physics problem. Still, this view is not very helpful for betting purposes. simply because although dominated by the laws of nature, a race remains a chaotic event that is impossible to predict deterministically

(2) A very casual look on the rankings of each horse in a race, as it is determined by the crowd, is enough to convince us that the the game is not a random event, in the sense that each horse does not have the same chance as the all the other starters in the same race.

The newcomer needs to understand and believe, that he is betting againt a very
competitive public, that is leaving very few possibilities for profitability, given
its accuracy in its assessments. He also needs to realize, that the game is not
about picking winners but about finding possible systematic errors in the way the
betting crowd is forming its opinion. Still, the margins for profit are extremely
tiny in this game, not only because the pools are very competitive but also because
the extremely high take out, converts even a better than average horse gambler to a
long run looser.

[thaskalos]

The newcomer needs to understand and believe, that he is betting againt a very
competitive public, that is leaving very few possibilities for profitability, given
its accuracy in its assessments. He also needs to realize, that the game is not
about picking winners but about finding possible systematic errors in the way the
betting crowd is forming its opinion. Still, the margins for profit are extremely
tiny in this game, not only because the pools are very competitive but also because
the extremely high take out, converts even a better than average horse gambler to a
long run looser.
And then we wonder why the newcomers don't stick around long in our game. :)

[Robert Fischer]

we ought to look into fields such as probability, and borrow a bet-sizing methodology

[thaskalos]

we ought to look into fields such as probability, and borrow a bet-sizing methodology
Borrow it from whom?

[Flysofree]

What has remained constant throughout is that Favorites win about 33% of all races... (Ok 31 to 35%) if that make you feel better. If you have a big enough bankroll and can bet at the very last flash of the toteboard And you are on one of those sites that give you high rebates... you can make money.

Hugh Bankroll + Favorite + Rebates = Profit.

[DeltaLover]

And then we wonder why the newcomers don't stick around long in our game. :)


Unfortunately this is the truth, even if we want to accept it or not.

Still, horse racing has a huge potential as a betting game, but it needs to find its
way to the 21st century first, and then it will have valid hopes to attract the lion's
share among the younger gamblers.

Following the example of more advanced countries (always from the betting prespective of course), the industry needs to adopt changes like betting exchanges and fixed odds provided by electronic bookies. These are important directional changes to make the game more attractive and popular among bettors.

Of course, the reality is not exactly promising when it comes to the future of the "game" part of horse racing, which seems lost in the anachronistic betting instruments of the beginings of the last century.

[Magister Ludi]

I have come to the conclusion that picking winners is random. Losers pick winners. Winners pick overlays.

You can read all the books on handicapping and know trainer angles, body language, pace and speed figures but all is just junk theory.

If picking winners is an art and science that can be mastered then why did BEL have a pick-6 carryover of $321,000 C/O today Insufficient data to choose overlays.

why don't hcp software developers win consistently I do.

lorem ipsum

[AndyC]

If picking winners is an art and science that can be mastered then why did BEL have a pick-6 carryover of $321,000 C/O today?

Insufficient data to choose overlays.

Choosing overlays has no bearing on whether or not there is a carryover.

[Robert Fischer]

Choosing overlays has no bearing on whether or not there is a carryover.

No, but a 'wacky' pick-6 outcome is not meaningful in an argument that claims that 'handicapping is random' and that trying to pick overlays is futile.

[raybo]

Exactly because the winning frequency is not correlated with the quality of a player. Increasing the number of winners this is clearly NOT the objective of the game and the same can be said for ROI figures as well

It is correlated with the quality of the handicapper, which I'm sure you knew is what I meant. Or, are you also saying that horse racing is random? He didn't mince his words, he flat stated that "horse racing is random", period.

We all know that hit rate does not determine profitability, by itself, so we don't need to go there, again. But, if horse racing was indeed random, the better handicappers could not pick more winners than everyone else. But, of course, most of us know that if that is what the better 'capper wanted to do, he/she certainly could.

[raybo]

It seems that we have BOTH extreme views voiced on this board. Some believe that horse racing is nothing but a physics problem waiting to be solved...while others think that the game is random, and its "randomness" cannot be overcome. And then there are the rest of us...who believe that BOTH these opinions are wrong.

I'm glad that I'm not some confused newcomer...who is coming to this site seeking some sort of direction in this game. Whom does the newcomer believe? :)

The newcomer should strive to find out what is true and what isn't, for him/herself. It isn't rocket science, and the most green new player, who has an average amount of intelligence and common sense, should certainly be able to figure out who's full of it and who isn't, just by using his/her noggin a bit.

[AndyC]

No, but a 'wacky' pick-6 outcome is not meaningful in an argument that claims that 'handicapping is random' and that trying to pick overlays is futile.

For many handicappers handicapping is random and finding overlays is a function of making the right mistakes.

[DeltaLover]

It is correlated with the quality of the handicapper, which I'm sure you knew is what I meant. Or, are you also saying that horse racing is random? He didn't mince his words, he flat stated that "horse racing is random", period.

We all know that hit rate does not determine profitability, by itself, so we don't need to go there, again. But, if horse racing was indeed random, the better handicappers could not pick more winners than everyone else. But, of course, most of us know that if that is what the better 'capper wanted to do, he/she certainly could.

I clarified already, that horse racing is not random, in the sense that all the horses have the same chance to win and it would be funny for someone to claim so.

I think that the OP could have expressed his statement in a better way, but as I have said before, when he says random, he is referring to the PNL rather than the hit rate.

[EMD4ME]

You know your horses.

Ha ha. Thank you green80. I wish I knew more. In life you can never learn enough.

That horse was the only example that stuck out in my mind. It was a random stab.

I hope we have a Deja Vu moment over and over again LOL. I love and I'm sure you love $36 horses as well.

[Some_One]

I clarified already, that horse racing is not random, in the sense that all the horses have the same chance to win and it would be funny for someone to claim so.

I think that the OP could have expressed his statement in a better way, but as I have said before, when he says random, he is referring to the PNL rather than the hit rate.

Well P&L doesn't reflect randomness, but efficiency of markets which is a whole other discussion.

[DeltaLover]

Well P&L doesn't reflect randomness, but efficiency of markets which is a whole other discussion.

Yes it does. To make things simple, think of a game with constant take out, like roulette for example, which levels all any available betting "system" to the 1/37 loss. Same thing can be claimed for horses, although as we know very well, this is not the case.

[Some_One]

Yes it does. To make things simple, think of a game with constant take out, like roulette for example, which levels all any available betting "system" to the 1/37 loss. Same thing can be claimed for horses, although as we know very well, this is not the case.

Roulette I would argue is perfectly efficient, any number on the field has the same ROI. Horses is only somewhat efficient, otherwise the ROI on favs would be the same as longshots and that is not true (especially in the show pools)

[green80]

What has remained constant throughout is that Favorites win about 33% of all races... (Ok 31 to 35%) if that make you feel better. If you have a big enough bankroll and can bet at the very last flash of the toteboard And you are on one of those sites that give you high rebates... you can make money.

Hugh Bankroll + Favorite + Rebates = Profit.

Excluding rebates, a $2 dollar bettor can have the same roi as a big bettor. There are some places now that give decent rebates to the small bettor.

But I agree with favorites winning 33% of the races. If the average field is more that 3 it is anything but random.

[Light]

Wouldn't someone get a positive effect of randomness as well? Someone predicting the outcome of a coin flip will not change the probability of the outcome. The results in the short run may not mirror the probability of the outcome resulting in either more wins or less wins than expected. To say that randomness is always negative is incorrect.

Then go play roulette and tell me how that works out for you.

[Light]

When you say that "horse racing is random", or that "you cannot overcome the negative effect of 'randomness' on the outcome"...aren't you implying that the game is unbeatable through methodical, systematic means?

Yes.

[Light]

If "horse racing is random", then why do better players hit more winners than lesser players? How is it that a good handicapper can have the winner in his top 4 ranked horses over 80% of the time?


I already said the negative effect of randomness can be minimized. And what you posted is what "good" players" can do and that is to minimize the affect of randomness. But they are most likely not overcoming it.

[Light]

What may be lost in the translation here is that although they are related, "percentages" and "randomness" are two different entities. I can pick 75% winners just using the top four chalk every race. That is a hard cold stat. Which one will win depends on "randomness". And when one of the other 25% (5th choice and up) will win is also subject to randomness.

[AndyC]

Then go play roulette and tell me how that works out for you.


In the long run I would lose the house advantage. In the short run I might win more or lose more than the house advantage.

Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.

Based on the above definition roulette would qualify as a random game but horse racing certainly wouldn't.

[Light]

Based on the above definition roulette would qualify as a random game but horse racing certainly wouldn't.

Then you should be able to pick the winner in every race.

[Overlay]

Wouldn't someone get a positive effect of randomness as well? Someone predicting the outcome of a coin flip will not change the probability of the outcome. The results in the short run may not mirror the probability of the outcome resulting in either more wins or less wins than expected. To say that randomness is always negative is incorrect.
Randomness can produce short-term positive results, but those positive results are the result of pure chance rather than of skill, or of any other factor that the player can control, predict, or reliably replicate.

[traynor]

Randomness can produce short-term positive results, but those positive results are the result of pure chance rather than of skill, or of any other factor that the player can control, predict, or reliably replicate.

How did you figure that out? It seems (to say the least) a "less than popular" point-of-view/opinion/whatever. I am surprised that it is stated so, considering the "discourse community."

[Overlay]

Randomness can produce short-term positive results, but those positive results are the result of pure chance rather than of skill, or of any other factor that the player can control, predict, or reliably replicate.
Just to clarify, I was commenting within the specific context of AndyC's coin-flip example/statement.

[Cratos]

It only stays just a theory unless you know how to apply them.
What a great understanding of the difference between theoetical science and applied science which is one of the major conundrums that I frequently see on this Forum which many posters don't make and that is the difference between the science theory and the application of the science.

To me, no post was ever more conspicuous during my 11 year tenure on this Forum than the one which stated "we are talking about reality, not math"; math is the science that documents man's reality; Archimedes must have threw a hissy fit from his grave.

[ReplayRandall]

What a great understanding of the difference between theoetical science and applied science which is one of the major conundrums that I frequently see on this Forum which many posters don't make and that is the difference between the science theory and the application of the science.

To me, no post was ever more conspicuous during my 11 year tenure on this Forum than the one which stated "we are talking about reality, not math"; math is the science that documents man's reality; Archimedes must have threw a hissy fit from his grave.

The problem that I see in the world today Cratos, in using math, scientists and engineers sometimes care more about their own "understanding", than searching for real-world applications.....

[Dark Horse]

I have come to the conclusion that picking winners is random. There are too many NW-2/3 LT, ST BREDS, MCs, MSW, Cheap Claimers and racing variables that work against the handicapper. You can read all the books on handicapping and know trainer angles, body language, pace and speed figures but all is just theory. If picking winners is an art and science that can be mastered then why did BEL have a pick-6 carryover of $321,000 C/O today, why don't the same cappers always win the daily online contests and why do they falter even when they play multiple entries, and why don't hcp software developers win consistently and YADDAYADDAYADDA???? Any takers for this thread and I don/t need to hear "You have to pick your spots".

You're missing the obvious: you're not good enough.

Pretty simple choice. Improve your game or walk away.

[Stillriledup]

I have come to the conclusion that picking winners is random. There are too many NW-2/3 LT, ST BREDS, MCs, MSW, Cheap Claimers and racing variables that work against the handicapper. You can read all the books on handicapping and know trainer angles, body language, pace and speed figures but all is just theory. If picking winners is an art and science that can be mastered then why did BEL have a pick-6 carryover of $321,000 C/O today, why don't the same cappers always win the daily online contests and why do they falter even when they play multiple entries, and why don't hcp software developers win consistently and YADDAYADDAYADDA???? Any takers for this thread and I don/t need to hear "You have to pick your spots".

Maybe the thread should be titled 'handicapping is random for me'

I feel ya 6er, its the roughest game out there, but in order for you to have ANY shot at winning, you need it to be very rough since youre betting against other people. If you want the game to get easier, it also gets easier for everyone else. So you need it to be rough just incase you figure it out someday.

[Dark Horse]

He's right, of course, that you can't learn it from books. I had the blessing of a mentor, a former T-bred trainer with 30 years of experience, who was kind enough to answer every question I had, from the silliest one. I would say that I had about three years worth of questions, before they started to slow down. And I doubt there's another sport in existence with that steep of a learning curve. Along the way I realized I had to learn to program, because without a program I would never be able to remember it all and use it efficiently. So there was a price to pay, as there is for anything worth learning. And it's only worth paying if you pay it all the way. If you stop halfway, the effort will have been a waste (and racing will seem random).

[EMD4ME]

And it's only worth paying if you pay it all the way. If you stop halfway, the effort will have been a waste (and racing will seem random).[/QUOTE]

100% agree. Can't tell you many times in life , I failed to watch one key replay and missed a nugget of info that would've turned a just missed play into another 50,000. You can't cut corners in this game..

[Seabiscuit@AR]

If racing is random you only have to back the outsiders in every race and you will make a killing

[Light]

Randomness is a byproduct of an event. Randomness is NOT a mysterious external source applying external influence on an event. Each event gives birth internally to randomness as a result of the unique energies in each event, be it horse racing or in your life. Because there are no identical (only similar) energies in events, the events will create their own random sets of results. This is why predicting the outcome of events is difficult. You cannot know all the unique energies that will play a role in a particular event before that event occurs. You can only take an educated guess. After many events, it appears like "randomness" is it's own "entity" injecting "chaos in various events. But in reality the randomness was created by the events themselves.

This was my only point of getting into this conversation. To clarify that randomness is born from the energies of the event itself and not an external force. It has no energy itself.

[raybo]

Maybe the thread should be titled 'handicapping is random for me'

I feel ya 6er, its the roughest game out there, but in order for you to have ANY shot at winning, you need it to be very rough since youre betting against other people. If you want the game to get easier, it also gets easier for everyone else. So you need it to be rough just incase you figure it out someday.

True! You know the old saying "If it was easy, everybody would be doing it". In a paramutuel game, there must be losers for there to be winners. Essentially, the winners are paid by the losers, sad, but true. And then you add in the takeout and things get even harder, but not impossible. That's why I've always said, there are lots of players in the game that will never be winners, they just don't have what it takes, another sad truth. But then, many of those players couldn't care less, it's just something to do, entertainment or whatever their motivation for gambling.

[raybo]

Randomness is a byproduct of an event. Randomness is NOT a mysterious external source applying external influence on an event. Each event gives birth internally to randomness as a result of the unique energies in each event, be it horse racing or in your life. Because there are no identical (only similar) energies in events, the events will create their own random sets of results. This is why predicting the outcome of events is difficult. You cannot know all the unique energies that will play a role in a particular event before that event occurs. You can only take an educated guess. After many events, it appears like "randomness" is it's own "entity" injecting "chaos in various events. But in reality the randomness was created by the events themselves.

This was my only point of getting into this conversation. To clarify that randomness is born from the energies of the event itself and not an external force. It has no energy itself.

Well, at least you corrected your previous remark about "racing is random", that was what started all this controversy. One should really do their best to explain/describe what they are thinking as thoroughly as possible, before they put them out there as fact.

Of course, in a later post of yours you answered Thaskalos' question about a methodical approach being impossible for making a profit, with "Yes". So, you've still got a way to go to correct all of your misstatements/untruths in this thread.

[whodoyoulike]

Randomness is a byproduct of an event. Randomness is NOT a mysterious external source applying external influence on an event. Each event gives birth internally to randomness as a result of the unique energies in each event, be it horse racing or in your life. Because there are no identical (only similar) energies in events, the events will create their own random sets of results. This is why predicting the outcome of events is difficult. You cannot know all the unique energies that will play a role in a particular event before that event occurs. You can only take an educated guess. After many events, it appears like "randomness" is it's own "entity" injecting "chaos in various events. But in reality the randomness was created by the events themselves.

This was my only point of getting into this conversation. To clarify that randomness is born from the energies of the event itself and not an external force. It has no energy itself.


Are you guys equating randomness with "bad luck"?

I view "bad luck" as not something being a random event. I know it does occur especially in horse racing. The % varies for each race but it is there. You may even attempt to account for it e.g., an outside horse has a history of breaking bad and other times it won't affect your horse's chances at all but possibly it will affect other horses in the race.

[Cratos]

Are you guys equating randomness with "bad luck"?

I view "bad luck" as not something being a random event. I know it does occur especially in horse racing. The % varies for each race but it is there. You may even attempt to account for it e.g., an outside horse has a history of breaking bad and other times it won't affect your horse's chances at all but possibly it will affect other horses in the race.
I agree with you about serendipity(luck) and I believe that it occurs, good or bad because of an imperfect world.

[thaskalos]

A guy will miss the final leg of a pick-5, and will decry with disgust that the outcomes of these races are "random"...conveniently forgetting, of course, that he still somehow managed to make sense of the previous four races of the wager.

A degree of chaos inherent in an event does not necessarily render this event "random".

[PIC6SIX]

Stillriledup, you seem to be the most knowledgeable capper on this board so I need to know what are your reasons for wagering on the #1 horse in the 9th race at Belmont today, Wednesday 6/24/15. It only paid $57 for win. Please give me about 5 good reasons for wagering on this horse. Else, maybe this was a Random winner where only the process of elimination is paramont.

[ReplayRandall]

Stillriledup, you seem to be the most knowledgeable capper on this board so I need to know what are your reasons for wagering on the #1 horse in the 9th race at Belmont today, Wednesday 6/24/15. It only paid $57 for win. Please give me about 5 good reasons for wagering on this horse. Else, maybe this was a Random winner where only the process of elimination is paramont.

Before SRU responds to your post, how about a response from you as to your thoughts from the numerous posts you received to your initial question, which started this thread....

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Belmont 24th June 2015

Odds ranking of the winners
1
1
1
2
3
4
4
7
8

Top betting choice won the most races (3 winners) and 7 out of the 9 races were won by one of the top 4 betting choices. 2 longer priced winners on the day but most of the longer priced horses failed to win. Backing the extreme outsider in each race would have been profitable for the day thanks to the R1 winner at 17-1. But there is nothing to suggest from these results that the racing is random unless you think the disclosed form of the faves is no better than the roughies. But even then the market is somehow able to work the betting order out so not random to my eye

[Stillriledup]

Stillriledup, you seem to be the most knowledgeable capper on this board so I need to know what are your reasons for wagering on the #1 horse in the 9th race at Belmont today, Wednesday 6/24/15. It only paid $57 for win. Please give me about 5 good reasons for wagering on this horse. Else, maybe this was a Random winner where only the process of elimination is paramont.

I didnt handicap that race or wager on it, but it was a dreadful field and the winner was a firster who had enough talent to win. Hard horse to have for sure, but i thought the top 2 finishers in the last race at mountain were much more 'random'. I cant make a case for the winner, maybe someone else can, seemed too slow beyerwise to win, she was like something-time lasix off, maybe that was the 'angle'.

[raybo]

Stillriledup, you seem to be the most knowledgeable capper on this board so I need to know what are your reasons for wagering on the #1 horse in the 9th race at Belmont today, Wednesday 6/24/15. It only paid $57 for win. Please give me about 5 good reasons for wagering on this horse. Else, maybe this was a Random winner where only the process of elimination is paramont.

Not to step on SRU's toes, but the 9th was a 3 yo and up maiden on the inner turf course. Two of those 3 yos and a 4 yo had not even run a race before. The 2 had 2 turf races, 1 was a route and the other was on the main turf course and her best finish in those was a loss by 12.75. The 3 and 7 had never run turf before, let alone the inner turf at Belmont. So, 6 of the 10 horses in the field had absolutely no experience in a race like that one, or had no experience in any races at all. Based on all that stuff, "randomness" should not be any surprise in a race and a field like that.

Where SRU got that the 1 "had enough talent to win", I have no idea, the horse was a first time starter ad other than 1 so so workout at 48 breezing had no works that indicated anything at all, a weak trainer and a weak jockey. I'm not too knowledgeable, or interested in breeding but breeding does not indicate "talent" only potential talent or lack thereof (a guess at best).

To have picked the winner on knowledge or merit one would have had to know something about the horse that was not in the public data.

As was mentioned by Seabiscuit@AR, other than the last race on the card, the public was not far off (in the 8th the public had that winner ranked 3rd not 7th as he stated, and I had that winner ranked #1 in "PFV" (power form and velocity), my best ranking method at Belmont).

So, in summary, if you thought that card was all "random", maybe you need to do some more work on your analysis process. Just because your analysis methods indicated that those races were full of randomness, doesn't necessarily mean that they really were. No offense, but maybe the problem is you, not the result of randomness.

[raybo]

As an aside to my previous post, my program gave me 5 plays on that Belmont card, the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th, of which I had the winners ranked 1st in races 5, 7, and 8 paying $5.40, $10.00, and $9.70 respectively (based on a $2 flat bet, $10 wagered, paid $25.10, for a profit of $15.10, a hit rate of 60%, and an ROI of 2.51).

You don't have to bet every race on every card. If you do, then expect bad things to happen. But, don't blame "randomness" for your poor results, please. There's enough negativity about horse racing in the US as it is.

[Stillriledup]

As an aside to my previous post, my program gave me 5 plays on that Belmont card, the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th, of which I had the winners ranked 1st in races 5, 7, and 8 paying $5.40, $10.00, and $9.70 respectively (based on a $2 flat bet, $10 wagered, paid $25.10, for a profit of $15.10, a hit rate of 60%, and an ROI of 2.51).

You don't have to bet every race on every card. If you do, then expect bad things to happen. But, don't blame "randomness" for your poor results, please. There's enough negativity about horse racing in the US as it is.

To clarify the talent comment, what i meant was that because the horse won, by definition, it had enough talent to win, i wasnt suggesting that there was some way you could have known this on paper before the race.

[barn32]

How is it that a good handicapper can have the winner in his top 4 ranked horses over 80% of the time? I can do this without every opening a racing form.

[Capper Al]

Streaks are random, for sure. But overall the game has patterns in the long run. Just think about flipping heads seven times in a row. You know this occurs, but I doubt anyone would deny the chances are not 50/50.

[raybo]

I can do this without every opening a racing form.

Good for you, you must be a "good handicapper"! I'm sure everyone here would love to hear how you do that, without using "the form". I don't think you can do it using the public odds rankings (I don't even think the public odds rankings have the winner in it's top 4 "over 80% of the time"), because you don't know exactly what the odds rankings for every race are until the final odds are posted, and that isn't until after the race starts.

[pandy]

Different types of races are more likely to produce seemingly "random" result than others. Someone mentioned last Sunday's off track at Belmont, a lot of horses simply don't handle certain off tracks so that makes it more random. And if there are a lot of 12 horse turf races, again, these are usually wide open races that can be very difficult to handicap, so you have to expect the unexpected.

[JJMartin]

What horse racing needs is more people who bet randomly.

[Light]

Are you guys equating randomness with "bad luck"?

No.Randomness can be good luck too. The reason some people hit a nice Pk6 and never again is because they were in the right place at the right time. They had "good luck". The "randomness" that eluded everyone else in the Pk6 was something that Pk6 winner was able to overcome. How? He could tell you his thoughts in each race but he can't duplicate it in the future because randomness is dynamic not static. That's why he won't hit another one any time soon.

I view "bad luck" as not something being a random event.

Really, random events are not really random. They appear that way to us but they are normal byproducts of events and necessary for "evolution". Imagine how boring and bland life would be without randomness.

I don't think there is "bad luck". We label what we like and don't like as "good and bad luck". There just is results from events that please and displease us.

[DeltaLover]

Really, random events are not really random.

Most of them can very well be categorized as chaotic

[Stillriledup]

What horse racing needs is more people who bet randomly.

Too bad people cant walk into a 7-11 and place a horse wager, pools would be much bigger.

[letswastemoney]

Just pick names out of a hat and pray to the racing gods. That's the only way to get better.

[Stillriledup]

Just pick names out of a hat and pray to the racing gods. That's the only way to get better.

What about horseplayers who are atheists? :D

[dilanesp]

Horse racing is poker with the additional variance introduced from having live animals involved.

In poker, over the long term, certain strategies will create a positive expectation (although the rake (poker's version of the takeout) can eliminate those positive expectations and make it harder to win). However, that will play out over a long, statistically significant period of time. And the long run can be very long indeed-- we are talking about months of full time play, 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week in live poker. (Online it can happen faster because you play more hands and multitable.)

Meanwhile, in the short term, the result of any particular hand or session is influenced by so much luck and random chance that the skill element is almost irrelevant. Sure, some situations are far more probable than others-- if you have pocket aces and flop a third ace, your chances of winning are huge. But most hands involve 55-45 type situations where you can get your money in good and lose over and over again in the short term.

There's nothing different about horse racing. You pursue correct strategies with discipline, and over the long term, you should win unless the takeout is too large to beat. But in the short term, anything can happen and your results are basically meaningless, which I take to be one sense of the word "random". Only difference is the variance is probably higher because instead of a finite set of cards, you have live animals involved, so you need a larger sample before declaring yourself a winning player.

[Stillriledup]

Horse racing is poker with the additional variance introduced from having live animals involved.

In poker, over the long term, certain strategies will create a positive expectation (although the rake (poker's version of the takeout) can eliminate those positive expectations and make it harder to win). However, that will play out over a long, statistically significant period of time. And the long run can be very long indeed-- we are talking about months of full time play, 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week in live poker. (Online it can happen faster because you play more hands and multitable.)

Meanwhile, in the short term, the result of any particular hand or session is influenced by so much luck and random chance that the skill element is almost irrelevant. Sure, some situations are far more probable than others-- if you have pocket aces and flop a third ace, your chances of winning are huge. But most hands involve 55-45 type situations where you can get your money in good and lose over and over again in the short term.

There's nothing different about horse racing. You pursue correct strategies with discipline, and over the long term, you should win unless the takeout is too large to beat. But in the short term, anything can happen and your results are basically meaningless, which I take to be one sense of the word "random". Only difference is the variance is probably higher because instead of a finite set of cards, you have live animals involved, so you need a larger sample before declaring yourself a winning player.

What about the idea that in horse racing not only are the insiders allowed to bet, but they're allowed, sometimes legally, to manipulate the animal in such a way that only they know about. That doesn't happen w card games, the cards are not manipulated and casino Insiders are not sitting at the table betting against you while knowing which card is coming next.

[whodoyoulike]

No.Randomness can be good luck too...

I was replying to your comments that you're losing because of randomness.



Really, random events are not really random. They appear that way to us but they are normal byproducts of events and necessary for "evolution". Imagine how boring and bland life would be without randomness.

I don't think there is "bad luck". We label what we like and don't like as "good and bad luck". There just is results from events that please and displease us.

I really don't understand the bold part.

Bad luck is usually the result of some causation event which goes against you.

[PIC6SIX]

First of all let me say that I pick winners just about as good as most journeyman cappers. However, my thread was alluding to the FACT that this game is very difficult since in many races the PPs and associated data is inconclusive in helping to pick winners. Case in point was the winner of the first at BEL on Wednesday.

[castaway01]

What horse racing needs is more people who bet randomly.

Yeah, they rode off into the sunset with casinos and multiple state and national lotteries.

[DeltaLover]

First of all let me say that I pick winners just about as good as most journeyman cappers. However, my thread was alluding to the FACT that this game is very difficult since in many races the PPs and associated data is inconclusive in helping to pick winners. Case in point was the winner of the first at BEL on Wednesday.

The difficult thing is not to "pick winners" but to contradict the crowd with such successful outcome as to beat the take out and show some profitability.

[whodoyoulike]

First of all let me say that I pick winners just about as good as most journeyman cappers. However, my thread was alluding to the FACT that this game is very difficult since in many races the PPs and associated data is inconclusive in helping to pick winners. Case in point was the winner of the first at BEL on Wednesday.

I don't think anyone has stated this game is easy. I did ask a couple of questions somewhere earlier in this thread without a response.

But, how about providing us with some insight into your handicapping knowledge?

Or, are you just venting your own frustration?

Regarding this Bel race which you've mentioned --- which horse did you select, how did you bet it and what was your handicapping reasoning?

We can look at the charts and replays and I think several on here would be willing to help you evaluate your selection.

I see no harm since the race is over.

[Tor Ekman]

The difficult thing is not to "pick winners" but to contradict the crowd with such successful outcome as to beat the take out and show some profitability.
:ThmbUp:

[thaskalos]

If the original poster thinks that the game is random...should he be betting the pick-6?

[EMD4ME]

First of all let me say that I pick winners just about as good as most journeyman cappers. However, my thread was alluding to the FACT that this game is very difficult since in many races the PPs and associated data is inconclusive in helping to pick winners. Case in point was the winner of the first at BEL on Wednesday.


Not to sound like a jerk but that 8 was a super "A" to me.

I will not divulge why but he was a MEGA A to me.

I never like to post like this, as it is annoying (I will not divulge why as I refuse to give up one of the few real edges that I have left in this game) but the reason why I am posting this is to refute the fact that the game is random.

The game has almost an infinite amount of variables which many times it can make it look chaotic but it is not completely random.

[EMD4ME]

I will say that a few times in my life, I said THAT's impossible. That is an impossible result.

And guess what, it was during the race fixing times at PENN.

When a race is fixed, yes it looks random or at the very least chaotic.

Other than that, I can justify why every horse has won. When the day comes where I can't justify why something happened, I will immediately quit the game or that track.

Last week a 7 won at Belmont at balloon odds in a Turf Route. I first said to my self HOW? But I quickly calmed down, looked at my notes and thought the following:

The 6, the leader was a non finishing speed who yes was loose but who can't finish.

The 7 was second time Turf, 1st time route and his dam ONLY won in Turf Routes and who's kids ALL ONLY won Turf Routing.

It was my fault to miss this 70/1 or whatever to one shot that he was. I neglected to find the 1 nugget of info that was integral to that specific puzzle.

Hope my point is clear...Do ALL the work. Not some of the work. Analyze the many different ways a race can play out. Yes, sometimes a drug trainer will juice and win. But at least that's already known to us, the players. If you know all nuggets, all tidbits of info, nothing will surprise you and many times you will wager on the supposed surprise.

[pondman]

The difficult thing is not to "pick winners" but to contradict the crowd with such successful outcome as to beat the take out and show some profitability.

Not always true. As long as the return is high enough, gambling is gambling. If you've got the right data and method, you can make money on shorter prices over the long run. Sometimes you've got to be the crowd. I wouldn't recommend this as a blind play-- betting a favorite because it's a favorite, but there are several spots for this in thoroughbred racing. It's always going to be about squeezing as much money out of a type of play as you can.

[EMD4ME]

Yet one more example. Belmont today, I HATED with a passion the 2 in the second race. All my pick 4's and pick 5's were 128. Yes, I used the 2 but it was defensively.

To a simpleton that seemed like a random result. To me, IT WAS THE EXPECTED result. No matter what the pace scenario was, I knew in my heart that loser would find a way to lose.

Yes, he broke slow, yet, he had a perfect pocket. Yes, he was moved up on a somewhat BS DQ but he was never winning because that horse IS A LOSER. I wagered on the only 2 horses with Turf Sprint upside. The 1 and 8.

Many times to me, hate to be ironic, but when a chalk I hate wins, I look at that race being a bit weird as it took random luck to get that chalk home.

Want an example that will make this thread explode with answers/replies/hatred:

Look no further than the Belmont Stakes. That to me was 3 teams saying: Let's throw one for the gipper/good of the game.

THAT'S RANDOMNESS. When you don't know when 3 parties will throw a race for the good of the game.

Luckily, that will only happen once every 37 years.

[Stillriledup]

Let me add this to try and help out the OP and what he's talking about. Lets look at the 3rd race tonight at Penn Nat, an off the turfer with a 5 horse field.

The horse who finished 2nd was the longest shot in the race, his lifetime dirt beyers were:.39, 36, 15 and 40.

One of the main contenders won the race, but the horses the longshot beat to the wire for 2nd all had high Beyers in the 80s in one of the most recent 4 starts, so you know they all had the talent to run an 80 something under the right circumstances.

Now, in real life, the longshot was inherently talented enough to defeat all the other runners in the race despite never having dirt beyered higher than 40.

So, if I may be the OP for a minute, how can you figure the Bomb was fast enough to get 2nd despite that horse never showing he was fast enough to do what he did?

In other words he was inherently talented enough to run that kind of race, but other than a guess or a hope and a prayer, how is this result anything but the random stuff the OP is talking about?

Of, course he was talented enough to get 2nd because he did and I'm sure there were angles pointing to him as a live longshot, but if you had him for 2nd or hit this exacta, you just made a guess and got lucky. Maybe this is what the OP is trying to say.

[traynor]

Not always true. As long as the return is high enough, gambling is gambling. If you've got the right data and method, you can make money on shorter prices over the long run. Sometimes you've got to be the crowd. I wouldn't recommend this as a blind play-- betting a favorite because it's a favorite, but there are several spots for this in thoroughbred racing. It's always going to be about squeezing as much money out of a type of play as you can.

More every day. I don't know if that is because more are developing, or because I am getting better at locating them. Maybe a bit of both. Some of the very best returns (in my highly subjective and limited experience) are in the odds range from 1/1 to 3/1. Perhaps it is a serendipity consequence of the emphasis on "value wagering."

[Valuist]

If the original poster thinks that the game is random...should he be betting the pick-6?

I assume this was a rhetorical question.

[pondman]

More every day. I don't know if that is because more are developing, or because I am getting better at locating them. Maybe a bit of both. Some of the very best returns (in my highly subjective and limited experience) are in the odds range from 1/1 to 3/1. Perhaps it is a serendipity consequence of the emphasis on "value wagering."

I believe it requires a duel view. You've got to have a long term approach-- and in today's world that's going to be thinking more on the line of a whale. We all have access to 5 different data sets, all free from our ADW. And you can find a frequent, longterm play that is profitable, if you look through the data long enough. I've been playing those blindly in the early hours of the morning, not checking them until evening, and my bank is slowly growing. You might get a 1.3 or so ROI out of that. I'll play anywhere from 6 to 30 races with straight consistent bets, and go 4 or 5 days making a little profit each day. And you soon learn how to minimize the downside, by doing thing such as staying out of slop races. I 'll have days were I might be down a few units, but it's not many. And I suspect the whales are playing these, because they move to the shorter side. I might get a $15 horse occasionally, but most are under $9. So I'm not getting what I once wanted at +5-1.

But then there is the other view of actually having spots that don't show up in the data and ratings. These are the spots that most other players have never seen before. If you play this game long enough you'll find these. You learn other aspects of the game. And these are the ones you keep to yourself as secrets, and never reveal the entire truth. These are the ones that fill your bank up. I actually think these are part of a decent players play also, you may not have a lot of them, but every few days you can get a few hundred on something that has real value.

[thaskalos]

I assume this was a rhetorical question.

Well...the OP's name is PIC6SIX...right? I gotta think that there is a reason for that...no?

[ReplayRandall]

Let me add this to try and help out the OP and what he's talking about. Lets look at the 3rd race tonight at Penn Nat, an off the turfer with a 5 horse field.

SRU, you're trying to help the OP by showing an example from PENN NAT??.......This is as far away from being an honest track as you could have chosen.....You need a lay-off since breaking 20K posts... :cool:

[thaskalos]

SRU, you're trying to help the OP by showing an example from PENN NAT??.......This is as far away from being an honest track as you could have chosen.....You need a lay-off since breaking 20K posts... :cool:

A "bounce" effect...no doubt. :)

[Stillriledup]

SRU, you're trying to help the OP by showing an example from PENN NAT??.......This is as far away from being an honest track as you could have chosen.....You need a lay-off since breaking 20K posts... :cool:

I was hoping he would be able to pretend Penn Nat was honest. But , maybe i ought to save the Penn is honest posts for April 1 of next year.

[traynor]

I believe it requires a duel view. You've got to have a long term approach-- and in today's world that's going to be thinking more on the line of a whale. We all have access to 5 different data sets, all free from our ADW. And you can find a frequent, longterm play that is profitable, if you look through the data long enough. I've been playing those blindly in the early hours of the morning, not checking them until evening, and my bank is slowly growing. You might get a 1.3 or so ROI out of that. I'll play anywhere from 6 to 30 races with straight consistent bets, and go 4 or 5 days making a little profit each day. And you soon learn how to minimize the downside, by doing thing such as staying out of slop races. I 'll have days were I might be down a few units, but it's not many. And I suspect the whales are playing these, because they move to the shorter side. I might get a $15 horse occasionally, but most are under $9. So I'm not getting what I once wanted at +5-1.

But then there is the other view of actually having spots that don't show up in the data and ratings. These are the spots that most other players have never seen before. If you play this game long enough you'll find these. You learn other aspects of the game. And these are the ones you keep to yourself as secrets, and never reveal the entire truth. These are the ones that fill your bank up. I actually think these are part of a decent players play also, you may not have a lot of them, but every few days you can get a few hundred on something that has real value.

And the upside is that most everyone else not only doesn't know where to look, they don't really know what to look for. As long as the pace vs speed vs class vs early vs closers vs track surfaces whatever else debate goes on endlessly, all is well.

[PIC6SIX]

My moniker speaks for itself, "T". By the way who is Ainslie? Do you mean
Mr. Carter???? I go way back too. Ainslie was just a pen name. I love the P-6 cause how else can you beat this game with one great session and have a handicapping thrill of a lifetime???

Also, I am now sorry I started the "Random" thread since it caused so much confusion and controversy. I am not a "Horse Grinder" like it seems some on this board. Time to pack for Alaska tomorrow and cease with this discussion.

PS: I correct myself with a prior reply were I referred to the winner of the 1st at BEL on 6/24 when I was referring to the 9th race on that day.

[MitchS]

I have come to the conclusion that picking winners is random. There are too many NW-2/3 LT, ST BREDS, MCs, MSW, Cheap Claimers and racing variables that work against the handicapper. You can read all the books on handicapping and know trainer angles, body language, pace and speed figures but all is just theory. If picking winners is an art and science that can be mastered then why did BEL have a pick-6 carryover of $321,000 C/O today, why don't the same cappers always win the daily online contests and why do they falter even when they play multiple entries, and why don't hcp software developers win consistently and YADDAYADDAYADDA???? Any takers for this thread and I don/t need to hear "You have to pick your spots".

Was up early this morning and happened by this thread, which I guess is about dead. lol.. My 2 cents quickly as an ex-trainer and being around horses and racing for many years.

People seem to lose sight of the fact that horses are flesh and blood. An equine athlete and unable to express their feelings on a day to day basis like our human counterpart. A good trainer can assess a horse's well-being at any given time but they aren't mind readers. How many times have you seen a good horse just plain give up? Have you ever woken up in the morning, just don't feel right and the days just outta sink? Or other days where you feel like a million dollars and nothing's gonna hold you back? These handicapping factors can't be quantified, or can they?

Have a good trip to Alaska! I did an Alaskan cruise one-time years ago. Was breathtaking!

[DeltaLover]

Was up early this morning and happened by this thread, which I guess is about dead. lol.. My 2 cents quickly as an ex-trainer and being around horses and racing for many years.

People seem to lose sight of the fact that horses are flesh and blood. An equine athlete and unable to express their feelings on a day to day basis like our human counterpart. A good trainer can assess a horse's well-being at any given time but they aren't mind readers. How many times have you seen a good horse just plain give up? Have you ever woken up in the morning, just don't feel right and the days just outta sink? Or other days where you feel like a million dollars and nothing's gonna hold you back? These handicapping factors can't be quantified, or can they?

Have a good trip to Alaska! I did an Alaskan cruise one-time years ago. Was breathtaking!

The fact that horses are flesh and blood, does not mean that they cannot be handicapped using their past performances. Of course, having access to disclosed information, like how the horse have woken up this morning can be extremely important, but it seems to me an impossible task; even as a horseman you will only have this kind of information about your own horse still missing what others know about theirs.

[MitchS]

The fact that horses are flesh and blood, does not mean that they cannot be handicapped using their past performances. Of course, having access to disclosed information, like how the horse have woken up this morning can be extremely important, but it seems to me an impossible task; even as a horseman you will only have this kind of information about your own horse still missing what others know about theirs.

Yes, I agree. Didn't mean to imply that handicappers shouldn't use traditional handicapping factors as in past performances and the like. I use these traditional handicapping factors on a daily basis and have been for over 50 years. Yeah, been capin' horses since about 8 :D. There are other non-traditional factors involved that I've been researching for some time. About a year now, and recently started a testing phase on some of these principles.

Enjoy your weekend,
Mitch

[traynor]

The fact that horses are flesh and blood, does not mean that they cannot be handicapped using their past performances. Of course, having access to disclosed information, like how the horse have woken up this morning can be extremely important, but it seems to me an impossible task; even as a horseman you will only have this kind of information about your own horse still missing what others know about theirs.

Because limiting one's research to a convenient set of data is possible, that it no way implies that such an approach is optimal, or even close to optimal. Convenient, yes, because it allows a flurry of activity that occasionally has positive results. Whether a bettor should restrict himself or herself to such an option by choice is another matter entirely.

The relative inconvenience of integrating other approaches--perhaps most effectively by triangulation--may be more than compensated for by the additional (positive) returns. One should not confuse "analyzing horse races" with "analyzing horse race data from a convenient data supplier." They can be quite different activities, with quite different results. As in many activities, a synergistic synthesis may produce better results.

[DeltaLover]

Because limiting one's research to a convenient set of data is possible, that it no way implies that such an approach is optimal, or even close to optimal. Convenient, yes, because it allows a flurry of activity that occasionally has positive results. Whether a bettor should restrict himself or herself to such an option by choice is another matter entirely.

The relative inconvenience of integrating other approaches--perhaps most effectively by triangulation--may be more than compensated for by the additional (positive) returns. One should not confuse "analyzing horse races" with "analyzing horse race data from a convenient data supplier." They can be quite different activities, with quite different results. As in many activities, a synergistic synthesis may produce better results.

I do not say that relying on the public data is optimal. Obviously, the more data you have access to, especially when they are not in the public domain, the better results you should expect as a bettor.

The problem I can see with this approach, lies in the fact that the process to collect these data is extremely laborious and expensive, to the point of not justifying the related cost and effort, that can probably be invested in more secure and profitable business models.

[traynor]

I do not say that relying on the public data is optimal. Obviously, the more data you have access to, especially when they are not in the public domain, the better results you should expect as a bettor.

The problem I can see with this approach, lies in the fact that the process to collect these data is extremely laborious and expensive, to the point of not justifying the related cost and effort, that can probably be invested in more secure and profitable business models.

The same argument could be made against horse race wagering in general. Applying the same level of expertise, acquired knowledge, resources, and analytical skill to other areas may be far more productive, with less overall risk.

[DeltaLover]

The same argument could be made against horse race wagering in general. Applying the same level of expertise, acquired knowledge, resources, and analytical skill to other areas may be far more productive, with less overall risk.

Correct.. Still, the whole idea about gambling, the horse bettors life style as Thask calls it, is against having a nine to five work routine.

If you convert your life to a struggle of collection and analysis of horse racing data, with the intention of making a modest return, you should be better off finding yourself a regular job..

[traynor]

Correct.. Still, the whole idea about gambling, the horse bettors life style as Thask calls it, is against having a nine to five work routine.

If you convert your life to a struggle of collection and analysis of horse racing data, with the intention of making a modest return, you should be better off finding yourself a regular job..

I agree completely. And that is exactly why I don't apply the same reasonable, realistic, conservative approach to the acquisition of additional information and data that I have found (as others have found) to increase my ability to wager productively. It may not be "readily available to all" for a few dollars a month--but therein lies a major part of its value. It is still a basic cost/benefit analysis, but with a slightly different perspective.

[DeltaLover]

I agree completely. And that is exactly why I don't apply the same reasonable, realistic, conservative approach to the acquisition of additional information and data that I have found (as others have found) to increase my ability to wager productively. It may not be "readily available to all" for a few dollars a month--but therein lies a major part of its value. It is still a basic cost/benefit analysis, but with a slightly different perspective.

What kind of data is this?

I doubt the existence of this data, unless of course you are a real insider, either a trainer or an owner having the right connections and spending most of your time in the backstretch, looking for a bargain bet that will allow you to upset the betting crowd, ( essentially stealing its money!)

Setting aside things that have to do with trip handicapping, bias analysis and non listed equipment changes, the only other set of data that I can think as "edgy" has to do with attending workouts and having inside information directly from the connections.

Of course, been "wired" in such as way, to get inside information is the best approach, but how many of us can really claim that they can do so in a consistent (and not occasional) basis? I have to assume that very few if anyone can maintain a steady stream of inside information, allowing him to make frequent enough betting.

[AndyC]

The same argument could be made against horse race wagering in general. Applying the same level of expertise, acquired knowledge, resources, and analytical skill to other areas may be far more productive, with less overall risk.

Unfortunately you don't get a do-over. If my passion had been directed toward some other endeavor I might be somebody.

[traynor]

What kind of data is this?

I doubt the existence of this data, unless of course you are a real insider, either a trainer or an owner having the right connections and spending most of your time in the backstretch, looking for a bargain bet that will allow you to upset the betting crowd, ( essentially stealing its money!)

Setting aside things that have to do with trip handicapping, bias analysis and non listed equipment changes, the only other set of data that I can think as "edgy" has to do with attending workouts and having inside information directly from the connections.

Of course, been "wired" in such as way, to get inside information is the best approach, but how many of us can really claim that they can do so in a consistent (and not occasional) basis? I have to assume that very few if anyone can maintain a steady stream of inside information, allowing him to make frequent enough betting.

It is not useful to define things as either "impossible" or "requiring too much time and effort"--unless you have tried them yourself, and then only for an extended period of time (rather than a quick dip to "prove" preconceptions).

It is even less useful to declare that this--and only this--is what the case must be. A conceptually impoverished point of view is rarely productive.

There is more to the matter than a simple tack-on of a different set of data points to the "existing body of knowledge" (as defined by data vendors). As we have previously discussed, a basic paradigm shift is required rather than endlessly repeating the same old same old with an occasional added tidbit.

I have little or no interest in (nor have I found particular value in) "inside information." At least since the old days in Boston, when Vinnie Teresa was tipping the heavy-hitter chumps to bet on a particular horse "because the fix was in." It was in, but not on the horse he was touting to the chumps.

[traynor]

Unfortunately you don't get a do-over. If my passion had been directed toward some other endeavor I might be somebody.

Marlon Brando. On the Waterfront. Great movie.

[DeltaLover]

It is not useful to define things as either "impossible" or "requiring too much time and effort"--unless you have tried them yourself, and then only for an extended period of time (rather than a quick dip to "prove" preconceptions).

It is even less useful to declare that this--and only this--is what the case must be. A conceptually impoverished point of view is rarely productive.

There is more to the matter than a simple tack-on of a different set of data points to the "existing body of knowledge" (as defined by data vendors). As we have previously discussed, a basic paradigm shift is required rather than endlessly repeating the same old same old with an occasional added tidbit.

I have little or no interest in (nor have I found particular value in) "inside information." At least since the old days in Boston, when Vinnie Teresa was tipping the heavy-hitter chumps to bet on a particular horse "because the fix was in." It was in, but not on the horse he was touting to the chumps.

Nice generalities although they fail to touch reality..

To some extend, you sound even more abstract that Cratos!

I am asking you for a concrete example of the data you are referring to but you keep on repeating the same rhetoric that is completely useless for any kind of serious conversation...

[traynor]

Unfortunately you don't get a do-over. If my passion had been directed toward some other endeavor I might be somebody.

I don't think a do-over is needed, or even desirable. I know a number of what would be considered "serious bettors" ("serious" because they are successful, not because they have large amounts of discretionary income or assets available and not much life outside of wagering) and most are not lifelong horse race bettors. Two of the most successful had never been to a racetrack until they were in their forties.

The commonality is that they apply the same rigorous, no-nonsense strategies to wagering that they do (and did) to other business endeavors.

[traynor]

Nice generalities although they fail to touch reality..

To some extend, you sound even more abstract that Cratos!

I am asking you for a concrete example of the data you are referring to but you keep on repeating the same rhetoric that is completely useless for any kind of serious conversation...

We are not having a conversation. We are each expressing our opinions. No more No less.

[DeltaLover]

We are not having a conversation. We are each expressing our opinions. No more No less.

Of course you can say pretty much anything your heart desire and express any kind of opinion. Still, if you fail to support it with some evidence, there is no value on it and there is no reason for you to spend your time presenting opinions that have not based on logic and data.

[thaskalos]

I don't think a do-over is needed, or even desirable. I know a number of what would be considered "serious bettors" ("serious" because they are successful, not because they have large amounts of discretionary income or assets available and not much life outside of wagering) and most are not lifelong horse race bettors. Two of the most successful had never been to a racetrack until they were in their forties.

The commonality is that they apply the same rigorous, no-nonsense strategies to wagering that they do (and did) to other business endeavors.

Why the repeated negativity against the "lifelong horse race bettors, who don't have much of a life outside of wagering"? To some of us...a life of wagering is about as exciting as a life could get. Do we all have to travel the world, in order to say that our life is being well-spent?

[EMD4ME]

Why the repeated negativity against the "lifelong horse race bettors, who don't have much of a life outside of wagering"? To some of us...a life of wagering is about as exciting as a life could get. Do we all have to travel the world, in order to say that our life is being well-spent?


We have traveled the world...

Saratoga Springs
Elmont
Ozone Park
East Rutherford
Monmouth County
Atlantic City
Cherry Hill
Delaware
Cananduiga (Forgive spelling)
Ontario
Grantville
Oldsmar FL
Philadelphia
Pocono
Harpers Ferry Virginia

They don't count ? ;)

Never mind all the other places we've traveled via simulcasting? ;)

[EMD4ME]

Why the repeated negativity against the "lifelong horse race bettors, who don't have much of a life outside of wagering"? To some of us...a life of wagering is about as exciting as a life could get. Do we all have to travel the world, in order to say that our life is being well-spent?

I'm with you. I have millions of exciting heart pounding pulsating memories created with many family members, girlfriends, friends at the track by being a horse player.

I'd rather have those memories vs. going to Prague or some stupid place like that.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Why the repeated negativity against the "lifelong horse race bettors, who don't have much of a life outside of wagering"? To some of us...a life of wagering is about as exciting as a life could get. Do we all have to travel the world, in order to say that our life is being well-spent?

Ego - wanting to be perceived as a true Renaissance man, I suspect. As an aside, I hate kayaking!

[Tom]

Why the repeated negativity against the "lifelong horse race bettors, who don't have much of a life outside of wagering"? To some of us...a life of wagering is about as exciting as a life could get. Do we all have to travel the world, in order to say that our life is being well-spent?

For sure....although my tracking days are at a minimum now, I used to travel to tracks all the time. The circuit of Keystone days, Penn National at night, then Keystone/Liberty Bell, was an adventure just making first post!
I spent a week's vacation in Detroit! just to go to the tack there, and have breakfast at the Tout in Livonia. Who needs London, Paris, I had Greenwood and Pocono. :ThmbUp:

[traynor]

Of course you can say pretty much anything your heart desire and express any kind of opinion. Still, if you fail to support it with some evidence, there is no value on it and there is no reason for you to spend your time presenting opinions that have not based on logic and data.

Conversely, there is no reason for you to spend your time asking to be handed things that you are quite capable of locating (or discovering) on your own. Horse racing is not open source--it is hardcore proprietary.

[traynor]

Why the repeated negativity against the "lifelong horse race bettors, who don't have much of a life outside of wagering"? To some of us...a life of wagering is about as exciting as a life could get. Do we all have to travel the world, in order to say that our life is being well-spent?

Don't take it personally. It is not so intended.

[DeltaLover]

Conversely, there is no reason for you to spend your time asking to be handed things that you are quite capable of locating (or discovering) on your own. Horse racing is not open source--it is hardcore proprietary.

I am not asking to he handed anything, I am just expressing my scepticism whenever I detect statements that I consider to be erroneous and unsupported by evidence (like those you like to make so often)..

If this is something that you do not like, then you should refrain from from you claims and simply keep them for yourself!

[traynor]

I am not asking to he handed anything, I am just expressing my scepticism whenever I detect statements that I consider to be erroneous and unsupported by evidence (like those you like to make so often)..

If this is something that you do not like, then you should refrain from from you claims and simply keep them for yourself!

Skepticism is good. It is a not a matter of liking or not liking. You should feel free to express your opinions. I should feel as free to ignore them, as you should feel free to ignore mine. Such is the nature of online forums.

[DeltaLover]

. Such is the nature of online forums.

This is what you believe but obviously you are completely wrong.

The purpose of a forum is to serve its community, addressing problems and concerns and trying to help participants to find answers to their questions and improve their understand of the domain..

[raybo]

This is what you believe but obviously you are completely wrong.

The purpose of a forum is to serve its community, addressing problems and concerns and trying to help participants to find answers to their questions and improve their understand of the domain..

Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way. There are always those who participate in forum discussions for self gratification purposes only, whether it is to pretend to be something or someone they are not, or to satisfy their dark side by inciting controversy, or any number of reasons other than to be helpful to others.

noun
1. a meeting or assembly for the open discussion of subjects of public interest
2. a medium for open discussion, such as a magazine
3. a public meeting place for open discussion
4. a court; tribunal

[Cratos]

Nice generalities although they fail to touch reality..

To some extend, you sound even more abstract that Cratos!

I am asking you for a concrete example of the data you are referring to but you keep on repeating the same rhetoric that is completely useless for any kind of serious conversation...

Please leave me out of your nonsensical responses

[DeltaLover]

Please leave me out of your nonsensical responses

You should be more careful about your wording at least; this style of expressing your feelings is not perfectly aligned with your claims about graduate degrees etc..

[raybo]

You should be more careful about your wording at least; this style of expressing your feelings is not perfectly aligned with your claims about graduate degrees etc..

Maybe he really thinks your responses (or at least that particular response) don't make any sense? If that is the case then his use of "nonsensical" would be correct. Or, are you saying that your response can be proven based on universal graduate degree work, and his having graduate degrees would universally force him to agree with your views? :confused:

[ultracapper]

Yet one more example. Belmont today, I HATED with a passion the 2 in the second race. All my pick 4's and pick 5's were 128. Yes, I used the 2 but it was defensively.

To a simpleton that seemed like a random result. To me, IT WAS THE EXPECTED result. No matter what the pace scenario was, I knew in my heart that loser would find a way to lose.

Yes, he broke slow, yet, he had a perfect pocket. Yes, he was moved up on a somewhat BS DQ but he was never winning because that horse IS A LOSER. I wagered on the only 2 horses with Turf Sprint upside. The 1 and 8.

Many times to me, hate to be ironic, but when a chalk I hate wins, I look at that race being a bit weird as it took random luck to get that chalk home.

Want an example that will make this thread explode with answers/replies/hatred:

Look no further than the Belmont Stakes. That to me was 3 teams saying: Let's throw one for the gipper/good of the game.

THAT'S RANDOMNESS. When you don't know when 3 parties will throw a race for the good of the game.

Luckily, that will only happen once every 37 years.

Yeah, I spend millions of dollars a year on horses, and maybe once out of every 10 years I get a horse that's fit for the Belmont Stakes, and I'm going to throw it because BOB BAFFERT, of all people, needs my help to win a horse race. You are officially off the grid concerning the Belmont Stakes now. We know, you are as convinced as the sun coming up that this Belmont Stakes winner isn't worthy. Of course you've never been wrong about any other horse race in your life, so we can all be comfortable that you're not wrong about this one.

[DeltaLover]

Maybe he really thinks your responses (or at least that particular response) don't make any sense? If that is the case then his use of "nonsensical" would be correct. Or, are you saying that your response can be proven based on universal graduate degree work, and his having graduate degrees would universally force him to agree with your views? :confused:

Cmon Raybo.. Who needs to force anyone else to agree with him? It is not about this... My comment was about the language used, which I find it offensive and without a reason..

I will repeat, that talking about generalities, as they are seen from a pure theoretical perspective, does not add much value and more than this when this tactic is repeated over and over, it simply becomes annoying..

Although, I respect Traynor for his technical knowledge and consider him a sharp individual, I still would like from him to be more specific about his views... I believe that he has a good understanding of horse racing and also has done some interesting research... What I do not like is when he throws an opinion without providing any related evidence...

As far as Cratos is going, I think that his approach is not the correct one and most of what he is saying are purely theoretical concepts that, in my opinion are not applicable to the game and as you probably know, he has never show to us any concrete example of his handicapping methodology or some data, enough to convince us for the validity of his procedures... Besides this, I have never referred to him or any one else using a bad language and expressions like nonsense or anything similar. I have no problem, with somebody telling me that I am wrong, or that I had been mistaken in one of my assessments, still I expect a polite tone and language to always be used..

[EMD4ME]

Yeah, I spend millions of dollars a year on horses, and maybe once out of every 10 years I get a horse that's fit for the Belmont Stakes, and I'm going to throw it because BOB BAFFERT, of all people, needs my help to win a horse race. You are officially off the grid concerning the Belmont Stakes now. We know, you are as convinced as the sun coming up that this Belmont Stakes winner isn't worthy. Of course you've never been wrong about any other horse race in your life, so we can all be comfortable that you're not wrong about this one.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Pal, I wasn't even wrong IN the Belmont Stakes. I said IF he is allowed to jog like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uQOchrK7NA

GO TO THE 1 MINUTE MARK...

HE will win the Belmont Stakes. Check the threads.......


Number 2) Yes, it is more than likely that Mr. Zayat asked Pletcher to please give this one a break and I will throw you 100 bones in return. After all Zayat has many horses with Todd.

Number 3) As far as public record goes, my record speaks for itself on this forum.

When did you ever say a specific 1/5 (see "TRACKATTACKER" thread) will run off the board and to crush a specific horse against him in the $150K show pool?

Was I NOT the guy who said California Chrome was NOT winning the Belmont AND Tonalist COULD NOT LOSE IN the Belmont? (see all of last years Belmont Stakes threads)

Pal, my record speaks for itself.

2/3 and I called the loss, so that really is 3/3 on here.

As a winning player, I really don't want to give out my selections. I only do so when the pools are big.

I have enough big shots following me around at NYRA to follow my action.

[AndyC]

I don't think a do-over is needed, or even desirable. I know a number of what would be considered "serious bettors" ("serious" because they are successful, not because they have large amounts of discretionary income or assets available and not much life outside of wagering) and most are not lifelong horse race bettors. Two of the most successful had never been to a racetrack until they were in their forties.

The commonality is that they apply the same rigorous, no-nonsense strategies to wagering that they do (and did) to other business endeavors.

I am not one that spends much time regretting what I should or shouldn't have done in my life. I started my gambling life at a very young age and have spent countless hours educating myself at being the best gambler that I could be.

My do-over comment was merely suggesting that had I put the same time and effort into any other endeavor I probably would have had a good deal of success.

[ultracapper]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Pal, I wasn't even wrong IN the Belmont Stakes. I said IF he is allowed to jog like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uQOchrK7NA

GO TO THE 1 MINUTE MARK...

HE will win the Belmont Stakes. Check the threads.......


Number 2) Yes, it is more than likely that Mr. Zayat asked Pletcher to please give this one a break and I will throw you 100 bones in return. After all Zayat has many horses with Todd.

Number 3) As far as public record goes, my record speaks for itself on this forum.

When did you ever say a specific 1/5 (see "TRACKATTACKER" thread) will run off the board and to crush a specific horse against him in the $150K show pool?

Was I NOT the guy who said California Chrome was NOT winning the Belmont AND Tonalist COULD NOT LOSE IN the Belmont? (see all of last years Belmont Stakes threads)

Pal, my record speaks for itself.

2/3 and I called the loss, so that really is 3/3 on here.

As a winning player, I really don't want to give out my selections. I only do so when the pools are big.

I have enough big shots following me around at NYRA to follow my action.

Thank you for that history of your successes. I guess no one can argue with you about the fixing of the 2015 Belmont Stakes. Foresee any other $2M races being fixed in the near future? I want to jump on the wagon and get your opinion, if I can fight through the crowd of hot shot Nyra hitters that have you surrounded.

Pal

[EMD4ME]

Thank you for that history of your successes. I guess no one can argue with you about the fixing of the 2015 Belmont Stakes. Foresee any other $2M races being fixed in the near future? I want to jump on the wagon and get your opinion, if I can fight through the crowd of hot shot Nyra hitters that have you surrounded.

Pal

:D :D :D :D :D

I'm all for good humor pal. I can appreciate that.

Yes, everyone can argue (about the Belmont Stakes and other wise). I don't want ANYONE to agree with me AT ANY time. I'm in a parimutual war. I want everyone to think I'm psycho, crazy, off the wall and have no clue.

And to be serious, I wasn't kidding about the followers. It is EXTREMELY annoying. I have no problem telling my friends who I like, I hate it when someone stalks and won't leave me alone while I wager.

Be well pal.

[traynor]

A very good book, and a great introduction to a useful state of mind (and point of view) for analyzing horse races. It will explain (at least some of) the concepts much more elegantly (and possibly much more understandably) than I could.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance

Nice, solid, substantial, real world, concrete example.

Free:
http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/zen-motorcycle.pdf

[raybo]

My comment was about the language used, which I find it offensive and without a reason..



Hey man, you called him out, what did you expect? You offended him first. Handle it.

[DeltaLover]

Hey man, you called him out, what did you expect? You offended him first. Handle it.

I did not offended him. I just said my opinion about his theories and the way he is defending them.. Disagreeing and refusing to accept stories with blue dragons is not offensive, if anything the opposite is true..

[raybo]

I did not offended him. I just said my opinion about his theories and the way he is defending them.. Disagreeing and refusing to accept stories with blue dragons is not offensive, if anything the opposite is true..

You may not find this offensive, but I'm sure Cratos does:

Nice generalities although they fail to touch reality..

To some extend, you sound even more abstract that Cratos!

[DeltaLover]

A very good book, and a great introduction to a useful state of mind (and point of view) for analyzing horse races. It will explain (at least some of) the concepts much more elegantly (and possibly much more understandably) than I could.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance

Nice, solid, substantial, real world, concrete example.

Free:
http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/zen-motorcycle.pdf

Since you are talking about books, try this.

Who knows?

You might even get some new ideas... Even the title of the book can possibly inspire some innovative handicapping products for your clients (not to mention the content which is also full of possible applications as well):

http://i62.tinypic.com/317fyhe.jpg

[LottaKash]

A very good book, and a great introduction to a useful state of mind (and point of view) for analyzing horse races. It will explain (at least some of) the concepts much more elegantly (and possibly much more understandably) than I could.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance

Nice, solid, substantial, real world, concrete example.

Free:
http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/zen-motorcycle.pdf

Traynor, thanks for supplying that link...

I had bought that book back in the late 70's, never got to finish it, and then lent it to a "friend", and never saw it again... :D

I will give it another read thanks to you.... :ThmbUp:

[traynor]

Traynor, thanks for supplying that link...

I had bought that book back in the late 70's, never got to finish it, and then lent it to a "friend", and never saw it again... :D

I will give it another read thanks to you.... :ThmbUp:

An interesting fact: "The book sold 5 million copies worldwide. It was originally rejected by 121 publishers, more than any other bestselling book, according to the Guinness Book of Records."
Citation from wikipedia article linked above.

[Matt Bryan]

I have come to the conclusion that picking winners is random. There are too many NW-2/3 LT, ST BREDS, MCs, MSW, Cheap Claimers and racing variables that work against the handicapper. You can read all the books on handicapping and know trainer angles, body language, pace and speed figures but all is just theory. If picking winners is an art and science that can be mastered then why did BEL have a pick-6 carryover of $321,000 C/O today, why don't the same cappers always win the daily online contests and why do they falter even when they play multiple entries, and why don't hcp software developers win consistently and YADDAYADDAYADDA???? Any takers for this thread and I don/t need to hear "You have to pick your spots".

There's always some degree of chance or randomness, but the fundamentals hold true - e.g. the Mother Goose stakes yesterday at Belmont, which to me was textbook. It was the only race I bet yesterday. By my assessment there were three need to lead E horses (one that didn't vie for the lead as I imagined), multiple pacers, and a lone closer. I'm still relatively new at this, and I'm easily distracted with speed figures, fractions, odds, etc. I spent Friday night structuring wagers around the 6 horse (15-1 odds), more concerned with payout. However, with sober mind the next morning, I reconsidered...and, went heavy on the lone closer per established models. It paid off. I think often it is about clearing the mind, and sticking with the fundamentals of race shape, class, form, etc. Of course, often races don't pan out as expected, but I think more often they do.

[thaskalos]

When one considers the fragile state of the animals involved, the fact that their injuries sometimes go unnoticed, and the precious fifths of a second that get squandered during the race's chaotic run...one has to wonder how we manage to win as often as we do.

It's hard to be right when so many things can go wrong.

[Stillriledup]

When one considers the fragile state of the animals involved, the fact that their injuries sometimes go unnoticed, and the precious fifths of a second that get squandered during the race's chaotic run...one has to wonder how we manage to win as often as we do.

It's hard to be right when so many things can go wrong.

The key is to bet on horses made of titanium who run thru pain and would run through a brick wall for you. Problem is too many horses are chicken hearts who fold up at the first sign of adversity.

[thaskalos]

The key is to bet on horses made of titanium who run thru pain and would run through a brick wall for you. Problem is too many horses are chicken hearts who fold up at the first sign of adversity.

The REAL problem is that too many of us HORSEPLAYERS are "chicken-hearted"...and we "fold up at the first sign of adversity". We expect our horses to be tough and consistent...when we are weak and inconsistent ourselves.

[EMD4ME]

The REAL problem is that too many of us HORSEPLAYERS are "chicken-hearted"...and we "fold up at the first sign of adversity". We expect our horses to be tough and consistent...when we are weak and inconsistent ourselves.

Clone them, give them good jobs (to have more to play with) and point them to the racetrack or OTB Thaskalos!!!

I don't know about others but when I have a tough beat, I get angry. When I get angry, I burn the midnight oil and study even harder. When I study even harder, I have more conviction to pass a race. When I pass a race, I send it in harder in races I do like and good things happen !!!

I've turned $2 into $12,000 (after 3 straight days of horse playing) and I've turned $20 into $5,000 probably hundreds of times.

Point is, you MUST be determined, one MUST have a plan, one MUST put the work in. One must never be deterred if they KNOW they made the right play but something kind of weird happened (1 speed stumbles, 4 horses get smacked at gate, jockey goes suicidal on horse unexpectedly etc.)

This whole thread irks me to death. The game is not random from a long term perspective. The variables could show themselves in a way we might not expect them here and there but overall, a winning play is a winning play long term.

[Stillriledup]

The REAL problem is that too many of us HORSEPLAYERS are "chicken-hearted"...and we "fold up at the first sign of adversity". We expect our horses to be tough and consistent...when we are weak and inconsistent ourselves.

At the end of that post, i added "just like humans" but than erased it. :bang:

No doubt that plenty of horseplayers fold up during adversity, there are thousands of sharp horse handicappers out there, but you know the old saying that the 'window' is what separates the good from the great.

Youre right, we want every horse we bet to go to the bottom of the well for us, we need to figure out how to do this ourselves.

[Capper Al]

When I'm winning it is because I can figure the races out. When I'm losing and scrathing my head, it appears random to me.

[pandy]

When I'm winning it is because I can figure the races out. When I'm losing and scrathing my head, it appears random to me.


Exactly my thoughts. And how about those days when almost all of the races seem to be won by some illogical horse and most players are scratching their heads.

[castaway01]

When I'm winning it is because I can figure the races out. When I'm losing and scrathing my head, it appears random to me.

That about sums it up.

[dasch]

I only have time to get caught up reading the forum on dark days and the funny thing is that EVERY WEEK the SAME people try to take over(or at least add their 2 cents) to any/all popular threads. ALWAYS with the same i'm a winner, making a living, crushing the game, place my bets and go play golf, you need to adjust for the movement of lava under the track to win BS yet these SAME PEOPLE ALL have clients/partners or have sold something! Of course they NEVER show proof of anything even when provoked. Sometimes they will post something with big words and/or throw in some calculus or a formula or 2 to try and confuse the masses.

Its pretty easy to see the agendas from afar but at least I get a few laughs each week out of it.

Since this post so far has NOTHING to do with the topic I will add my opinion:

Races are definitely NOT random and the more strongly you feel that way the more you have to learn/discover..........IMO

and let me throw this in........pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanocon iosis (this is all one word but I guess its too big for the forum so it had to split it up) :cool:

[PaceAdvantage]

Come on dasch...name names...

The only person who tries to take over any/all threads that comes to mind immediately is Stillriledup...and I KNOW he isn't selling anything... :lol:

[MJC922]

Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way. There are always those who participate in forum discussions for self gratification purposes only, whether it is to pretend to be something or someone they are not, or to satisfy their dark side by inciting controversy, or any number of reasons other than to be helpful to others.

AKA trolls.

[BettinBilly]

RE: The OP's Post;

I personally come down on the side of Handicapping.

Stating this, I do have a trackbuddy that never looks at a race program or DRF or any other source, he just visits the paddock and visually handicaps. His results are better than mine with all my diving into PP's. Not sure that's a good benchmark, but it's a fact. I typically don't visually handicap that much. Perhaps I should start.

I have sometimes wondered what would happen if I spent an entire year just picking horses at random VS handicapping. I can't bring myself to try this out, and I'd never last more than a few races picking at random without jumping back on the handicapping bandwagon. Regardless, I don't know how you'd get a controlled sample by such a comparison.

[Capper Al]

RE: The OP's Post;

I personally come down on the side of Handicapping.

Stating this, I do have a trackbuddy that never looks at a race program or DRF or any other source, he just visits the paddock and visually handicaps. His results are better than mine with all my diving into PP's. Not sure that's a good benchmark, but it's a fact. I typically don't visually handicap that much. Perhaps I should start.

I have sometimes wondered what would happen if I spent an entire year just picking horses at random VS handicapping. I can't bring myself to try this out, and I'd never last more than a few races picking at random without jumping back on the handicapping bandwagon. Regardless, I don't know how you'd get a controlled sample by such a comparison.

Go back through your old past performances and literally pick the horse #3, or whatever number you like, and see how you do. My guess is your ROI would be .70 or lower.

[BettinBilly]

Go back through your old past performances and literally pick the horse #3, or whatever number you like, and see how you do. My guess is your ROI would be .70 or lower.

Good point, Al. And you are probably on target for the ROI.

[ReplayRandall]

Go back through your old past performances and literally pick the horse #3, or whatever number you like, and see how you do. My guess is your ROI would be .70 or lower.

In actuality, your ROI would be whatever the track takeout was, if you were truly picking at random. To be .70 or lower, you would almost be trying to lose rather than win.........reminds of the contest we played here at PA last year where you picked a ML favorite to lose....

[Capper Al]

In actuality, your ROI would be whatever the track takeout was, if you were truly picking at random. To be .70 or lower, you would almost be trying to lose rather than win.........reminds of the contest we played here at PA last year where you picked a ML favorite to lose....

Not so. The public cuts the takeout in half. This will serve as a second takeout for the public forcing random picks to lose more.

[AndyC]

Not so. The public cuts the takeout in half. This will serve as a second takeout for the public forcing random picks to lose more.

I am not following you. How does the public cut the takeout in half?

[raybo]

I am not following you. How does the public cut the takeout in half?

I think what he might be saying is that the public hits about the amount of the takeout (0.85 or so) and someone betting randomly would do much worse than the takeout (0.70 or so), but I have no data suggesting the latter. His example of random betting was to bet the same horse number every race (his example was betting the #3 horse in every race), but that is not truly random betting (since you're not picking a random number, rather you are betting the #3 horse every race and that correlates closely with the post position which is already accounted for in the public odds), random betting would be betting a "randomized" horse number (any number between 1 and the field size) each race. Anytime you are betting the same thing every race (saddle cloth number, post position number, gray horses, birthday, favorite number, etc., you are not really betting randomly, IMO.

The #3 horse in every race, depending on the sample size and the tracks, etc., could produce huge profits over an extended period of time, just as easily as producing a 0.70 ROI over the same time period, it just depends on how many times the #3 horse wins and what the average price is, in that specific sample of races. One or two huge payouts could make one profitable over a year for example, at tracks that have higher than average win payouts.

[ReplayRandall]

Not so. The public cuts the takeout in half. This will serve as a second takeout for the public forcing random picks to lose more.

Sorry Al, but whatever pathway you've chosen to venture on, you've lost your analytical compass and have wandered to who-knows-where, theoretically.....

[PIC6SIX]

I started the thread and PA members offered numerous replies as to why the game does have logical results based (somewhat overall) that horses run and finish according to their odds (GENERALLY !!!!) I agree with all that, however as my moniker indicates I love to bet the P-6 on large carryover days. This means I have to bet many junk (no need to explain my use of the word junk) races in the sequence. Races with not much if any logic in handicapping terms applies. Such races where to me the winner was a RANDOM WINNER.

[Gakiss2]

Looking for the silver lining. A race that is junk to you is typically junk to the public and therefor a good opportunity to catch a high odds horse in a horizontal bet. Of course that means either hitting all for the race and taking a small loan to buy the ticket or pick a few extra randoms in that kind of race and hope luck is on your side.

I know we fret a lot about what we can figure out on race we will bet (me included) but if you get to the point that you think you have calculated luck out of it, You are delusional. IMHO.

[jasperson]

Good to see you back AL

[stuball]

I used to go to a dog track when we had dog racing in Wisconsin. I saw these people at a table rolling dice and placing bets... every so often the table would explode with high fives all around... I often wonder if the were cheering a big tri or a $6.00 winner. and I wonder where those people are today? Does anyone else have a similar story...?

Stuball

[The Artful Dodger]

Handicapping is like the story of the two guys walking in the woods. They turn a corner and suddenly come upon a bear about 50 yards ahead of them. The bear begins to walk towards them. The one guy bends over and begins to tightly lace up his shoes. The other one says, "Hey, come on. Let's get out of here. We gotta outrun that bear!". The other guy says, "Nope. I just gotta outrun you".


The schools of handicapping allow you to sometimes gain an edge over the betting public. But that isn't enough. If you're selection oriented, always betting your top pick, you'll most likely lose in the long run.


You need to be value oriented. Make your own betting line and then bet either your lowest odds overlay or your biggest overlay. You will have good days and bad days but in the long run you should finish ahead.


In horse racing, the finish position is sometimes random due to racing luck (good and bad). That's why I play the trifecta. I choose to embrace serendipity and allow it to work for me rather than bitching about it later whist tearing up my ticket.

[citygoat]

“Don't seek to have events happen as you wish, but wish them to happen as they do happen, and all will be well with you.”

[AskinHaskin]

In actuality, your ROI would be whatever the track takeout was, if you were truly picking at random.


Well that enlightens the masses as to the general cluelessness in these hallowed halls.


Talk about inaccurate thinking.



Sure, if the results were (truly) random, that would be the case, but as horse race results are anything but random, the above quoted statement is baseless.

You need look no more than beyond the percentage of winning favorites to immediately see that race results are not 'random'.

"Random" is lottery number drawings.

The fastest horses win the most races. The fastest ping-pong balls know no greater success than the others.

[biggestal99]

Well that enlightens the masses as to the general cluelessness in these hallowed halls.


Talk about inaccurate thinking.



Sure, if the results were (truly) random, that would be the case, but as horse race results are anything but random, the above quoted statement is baseless.

You need look no more than beyond the percentage of winning favorites to immediately see that race results are not 'random'.

"Random" is lottery number drawings.

The fastest horses win the most races. The fastest ping-pong balls know no greater success than the others.

If you pick random horses. You get random results.

If you picked random horses over the course of the year to win. You lose to the track take out. That’s it.

Suprisenly enough you would pick the fastest horse every so often.

Allan

[cj]

Just to set the record straight, if you pick a horse at random, you'll lose more than the takeout. This is due to breakage and also that longer odds horses tend to lose more than the takeout, much more. And if truly random, you'll be betting a lot of these horses.

[Robert Fischer]

Just to set the record straight, if you pick a horse at random, you'll lose more than the takeout. This is due to breakage and also that longer odds horses tend to lose more than the takeout, much more. And if truly random, you'll be betting a lot of these horses.

This is important.

And this is 'flat-betting' every horse hypothetically. Gamblers go broke, several times, well before they had a chance to bet random horses over a long period of time.


As to randomness in general - It's a horse race, not a procession!

randomness mixes up the individual outcomes and helps the gambling incentive a great deal...

and insiders try to profit from unaccounted extrinsic randomness

[AndyC]

Just to set the record straight, if you pick a horse at random, you'll lose more than the takeout. This is due to breakage and also that longer odds horses tend to lose more than the takeout, much more. And if truly random, you'll be betting a lot of these horses.

The breakage point I get but what percent of the random horses would be underlays to the breakage and what percent would be overlays? And wouldn't your random pick of the overlays offset the underlays?

[cj]

The breakage point I get but what percent of the random horses would be underlays to the breakage and what percent would be overlays? And wouldn't your random pick of the overlays offset the underlays?

How do you get an overlay to breakage? You either get what you should have without breakage or less.

My point is, as a group, horses at 2-1 lose less compared to takeout than horses at 10-1, and horses at 50-1 lose a lot more than horses at 10-1 compared to takeout. If truly picking randomly, you are going to get a lot of horses at big odds that are not going to lose only the takeout. I won't even out.

I've run simulations picking a random horse in each race and you always lose more than the takeout, and not just about the 1% or so breakage adds.

[biggestal99]

Just to set the record straight, if you pick a horse at random, you'll lose more than the takeout. This is due to breakage and also that longer odds horses tend to lose more than the takeout, much more. And if truly random, you'll be betting a lot of these horses.


I disagree. if you pick random you will end up close to the median of odds in a race so what about 7-1 or so. which will what about 10% of the time


Allan

[biggestal99]

I've run simulations picking a random horse in each race and you always lose more than the takeout, and not just about the 1% or so breakage adds.


since you've done the hard work.


how much of a sample did you use?


what was the winning percentage of random horse picking?


what was the average payout for hitting a random horse winner?


thanks for the data that you produce.


you are never too old to earn something.


Like the blinkers data that Tom produced the other day,


That was eye opening.



Allan

[castaway01]

I disagree. if you pick random you will end up close to the median of odds in a race so what about 7-1 or so. which will what about 10% of the time


Allan

The odds aren't random though, just your picks are. There are a lot of times you'll end up with a random 50-1 shot in a race where the horse's true odds should be 200-1. Because the odds (no pun intended) are against you randomly ending up with that horse the 1 in 200 times it wins, you'll lose much higher than the takeout over time.

[Jeff P]

I penned an article for the HANA Blog back in December, 2013 that illustrates the effect CJ is talking about.

Turning Fans into Horseplayers:
http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2013/12/turning-fans-into-horseplayers.html

Players' Expectation and Random Selections in WPS pools
One of the hurdles the industry faces in converting the first time track visitor and new would be racing fan into a long term horseplayer is the severity of the negative gambling experience imprinted during those first few track visits.

How bad is it (really?)

If WPS takeout is 16% you might think the novice horseplayer, who doesn't know a thing about betting horses, and whose selections therefore might realistically be no better or no worse than random picks, should have an expected return no worse than 84 cents per each $1.00 wagered (1.00 minus the takeout percentage) right?

You might intuitively think that - but you'd be wrong.

Believe it or not, the true long term mathematical expectation of horse race bettors who make the equivalent of random selections in WPS pools is a net loss approaching 25 cents per each $1.00 wagered.

That's approximately 1.5 times worse than the percentage net loss most of us might intuitively think results from a 16 percent takeout rate!

Below is a cut and paste of some numbers pulled from my calendar year 2013 database. The database includes every thoroughbred race run in North America during calendar year 2013 from Jan 01, 2013 current through a few days ago Dec 08, 2013.

The top part of the data readout shows what would have happened to the player unfortunate enough to have bet $2.00 to WPS on every starter in every race during the time period covered by the database (approx 350k starters in all.)

The ROI numbers towards the bottom of the WPS columns reflect the return for each $1.00 wagered: Net losses bordering on minus 25 percent for WPS bets.

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE [DATE] >= #01-01-2013#
AND [DATE] <= #12-31-2013#
ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE


Data Summary Win Place Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 529184.70 529707.00 531006.60
Bet -699134.00 -699134.00 -699134.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L -169949.30 -169427.00 -168127.40

Wins 45440 90386 131813
Plays 349567 349567 349567
PCT .1300 .2586 .3771

ROI 0.7569 0.7577 0.7595
Avg Mut 11.65 5.86 4.03

Next up, the second part of the above sample with the data broken out by odds rank with no attempt to break ties:
By: Odds Rank

Rank P/L Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 -14901.00 93348.00 0.8404 17228 46674 .3691 2.8396
2 -15208.70 88526.00 0.8282 9642 44263 .2178 1.6758
3 -18372.90 88404.00 0.7922 6540 44202 .1480 1.1382
4 -18563.50 88650.00 0.7906 4681 44325 .1056 0.8124
5 -22870.40 87296.00 0.7380 3078 43648 .0705 0.5425
6 -22460.60 81236.00 0.7235 2034 40618 .0501 0.3852
7 -20465.90 65288.00 0.6865 1155 32644 .0354 0.2722
8 -14106.40 46530.00 0.6968 616 23265 .0265 0.2037
9 -10315.90 30140.00 0.6577 294 15070 .0195 0.1501
10 -8129.40 17866.00 0.5450 110 8933 .0123 0.0947
11 -2351.20 7388.00 0.6818 46 3694 .0125 0.0958
12 -1884.80 3616.00 0.4788 13 1808 .0072 0.0553
13 -245.60 578.00 0.5751 2 289 .0069 0.0532
14 -63.00 258.00 0.7558 1 129 .0078 0.0596
15 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
16 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
17 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
18 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
19+ -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000

This part of the data sample shows the favorite-longshot bias and hints at why horse racing might be at least attractive to some players from a viable gambling standpoint.

Note that win rate and roi (or player's expectation) varies with the odds.

The player who makes a serious go at studying the past performance records of horses will discover that horses have both positive attributes and negative attributes in their records. Positive attributes incrementally increase the likelihood of strong placings. Conversely, negative attributes result in incrementally worsened placings. Of course, the betting public realizes this and a high percentage of those attributes (as collectively seen by the crowd) are reflected in the odds.

I don't think there's any question that the newbie would be horseplayer faces a steep uphill climb. But most of us assume the hill to be climbed is 1.00 minus the takeout rate. (As you can see from the above numbers that is clearly not the case.)

In my mind getting people out to the track by itself isn't going to cut it.

The real question as I see it is this:

How do you create a good enough GAMBLING EXPERIENCE for the new would be horseplayer to make them want to come back for more?... A LOT MORE? (Enough to where the "fan" turns into a horseplayer?)


It's hard to believe more than five years have passed since I wrote that article. (Seems like just yesterday to me.)

Even though the above numbers are from 2013, the same effect is evident in the data - no matter which year you are looking at.



-jp

.

[JJMartin]

I penned an article for the HANA Blog back in December, 2013 that illustrates the effect CJ is talking about.

Turning Fans into Horseplayers:
http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2013/12/turning-fans-into-horseplayers.html




It's hard to believe more than five years have passed since I wrote that article. (Seems like just yesterday to me.)

Even though the above numbers are from 2013, the same effect is evident in the data - no matter which year you are looking at.



-jp

.

So then the top 2 or 3 favorites should be at least a slightly better value when big long shots are present versus a more evenly distributed field.

[biggestal99]

I penned an article for the HANA Blog back in December, 2013 that illustrates the effect CJ is talking about.

Turning Fans into Horseplayers:
http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2013/12/turning-fans-into-horseplayers.html




It's hard to believe more than five years have passed since I wrote that article. (Seems like just yesterday to me.)

Even though the above numbers are from 2013, the same effect is evident in the data - no matter which year you are looking at.



-jp

.

I will change my mind.

Randomly picking from the first three choices will give you losing to track takeout.

You can’t beat facts.

Allan

[AndyC]

How do you get an overlay to breakage? You either get what you should have without breakage or less.

My point is, as a group, horses at 2-1 lose less compared to takeout than horses at 10-1, and horses at 50-1 lose a lot more than horses at 10-1 compared to takeout. If truly picking randomly, you are going to get a lot of horses at big odds that are not going to lose only the takeout. I won't even out.

I've run simulations picking a random horse in each race and you always lose more than the takeout, and not just about the 1% or so breakage adds.

I meant an overlay to the takeout.

After reading the responses and seeing Jeff's random bet study I have finally gotten my head around this issue. Betting equal amounts on random selections surely produces higher than takeout + breakage losses. And the reason why is because of the equal weight betting. If every horse were bet in the same percentage as actually bet in the pools the result would be a loss of the takeout + breakage.

Given that many players handicapping prowess resembles a random selection the takeaway would be to bet more on lower priced horses and less on longshots.

[JJMartin]

I meant an overlay to the takeout.

After reading the responses and seeing Jeff's random bet study I have finally gotten my head around this issue. Betting equal amounts on random selections surely produces higher than takeout + breakage losses. And the reason why is because of the equal weight betting. If every horse were bet in the same percentage as actually bet in the pools the result would be a loss of the takeout + breakage.

Given that many players handicapping prowess resembles a random selection the takeaway would be to bet more on lower priced horses and less on longshots.

Then you would lose even more money but with a lower negative ROI.

[Robert Fischer]

if you stick to favorites and big fields for your random selections, you will be closer to takeout and a better value relative to long shots, - - however, these will not be overlays in any sense of the word.

If you get offered a 25% rebate; by all means :cool:


otherwise this stuff is just masturbation


It's a parimutuel game. You need significant opinions of where the public is wrong. You need to actually to be able to see and understand the game.

[JJMartin]

if you stick to favorites and big fields for your random selections, you will be closer to takeout and a better value relative to long shots, - - however, these will not be overlays in any sense of the word.

If you get offered a 25% rebate; by all means :cool:


otherwise this stuff is just masturbation


It's a parimutuel game. You need significant opinions of where the public is wrong. You need to actually to be able to see and understand the game.

They may not all be overlays but if the premise is correct, the value should increase on the lower priced horses making such race scenarios more profitable especially if you are not a random capper.

[TheOracle]

Go back through your old past performances and literally pick the horse #3, or whatever number you like, and see how you do. My guess is your ROI would be .70 or lower.

In actuality, your ROI would be whatever the track takeout was, if you were truly picking at random. To be .70 or lower, you would almost be trying to lose rather than win.........reminds of the contest we played here at PA last year where you picked a ML favorite to lose....


http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/itsaquforthree.png

It's funny if you actually bet the number 3 at Aqueduct from January 1st this year up until yesterday you are actually ahead by 2%

That was actually due to a bomb back on January 12th that paid $162.50 to win

Maybe you do a Harden step back and launch the #3's today !!!

[Robert Fischer]

awareness = yes
bandwagon = no

They may not all be overlays but if the premise is correct, the value should increase on the lower priced horses making such race scenarios more profitable especially if you are not a random capper.

It's a nice thing to be aware of.

Sometimes you have a strong enough opinion, that you can capitalize on an exotic wager, even without an opinion in one or two of the legs/slots/positions. Awareness of favorite/long-shot bias can help there in eliminating very long positions rather than using the 'all button'. I don't know if that is very different from a typical mindset, but it's nice to know the ins and outs of a system.

If you don't have an opinion, sticking to favorites is essentially 'jumping on the bandwagon'. Horse racing is a wealth concentration mechanism, designed to separate the herd from it's money.

[TheOracle]

Go back through your old past performances and literally pick the horse #3, or whatever number you like, and see how you do. My guess is your ROI would be .70 or lower.

In actuality, your ROI would be whatever the track takeout was, if you were truly picking at random. To be .70 or lower, you would almost be trying to lose rather than win.........reminds of the contest we played here at PA last year where you picked a ML favorite to lose....

http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/itsaquforthree.png

It's funny if you actually bet the number 3 at Aqueduct from January 1st this year up until yesterday you are actually ahead by 2%

That was actually due to a bomb back on January 12th that paid $162.50 to win

Maybe you do a Harden step back and launch the #3's today !!!

To take it a step further, if you bet the #3 with Morning Lines less than 3-1 since January 1st, 2018 up until yesterday, you are actually ahead by 13% at Aqueduct

http://www.insidethenumbers.net/images/comments/threesmllsthronedrtaqu.png

Nevin has to come through today with #3 Skylers Scramjet and pay over $4 to keep the margin at 13%

[Longshot6977]

Big A race 3 #3 Mom I Forgive You was 2-1 ML. She just won and paid $5.20

[TheOracle]

Big A race 3 #3 Mom I Forgive You was 2-1 ML. She just won and paid $5.20

Hey Longshot

You’re right I missed it

Did you score bro?

[Longshot6977]

LOL No, I noticed it just after the race.

[TheOracle]

LOL No, I noticed it just after the race.

Let's see if Nevin can come through in the 8th race

[AndyC]

Then you would lose even more money but with a lower negative ROI.

Not if your overall bet volume stayed the same.

[cj]

I meant an overlay to the takeout.

After reading the responses and seeing Jeff's random bet study I have finally gotten my head around this issue. Betting equal amounts on random selections surely produces higher than takeout + breakage losses. And the reason why is because of the equal weight betting. If every horse were bet in the same percentage as actually bet in the pools the result would be a loss of the takeout + breakage.

Given that many players handicapping prowess resembles a random selection the takeaway would be to bet more on lower priced horses and less on longshots.

Exactly. I'm sure I could have explained it better.

[cj]

Let's see if Nevin can come through in the 8th race

Please no, not here.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

If you pick random horses. You get random results.


And sometimes you win handicapping contests.

Couple of weeks ago 7 players played the number 4 in all 12 races. Two of those races were max hits ($64). They all tied for the top spot in the contest. Only five spots were available, so they had to figure how to eliminate two of the "winners." I haven't heard what happened.

Obviously they picked the right "random" number. I'd seen single number players in other contests, but 7 players with the number 4 was just ridiculous.

[johnhenry81]

What handicapping contest was that?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

What handicapping contest was that?

One of the NHC qualifiers. Close to 2,000 entries