Who's a better handicapper/bet maker, HUMAN or PC?

[EMD4ME]

We all obviously use computers to some extent to handicap or wager.

If you had a choice, would you be loyal to the picks of your PC or your brain?

Why?

Disclosure: Selfish motive, looking to learn the merits of people who swear by a PC giving them selections.....

I'm a guy who's always looking to learn. I'll 99% never listen to a PC BUT.....I do want to learn from people who do.

Thanks in advance.

P.S. Special thank you to Pandy and ReplayRandall for making me think of this thread. I did do a search and couldn't find old discussions like this. If there is one, please close this thread and bump the old one.

[cj]

Humans are better handicappers, at least so far. They may lose out eventually as data is advanced. But for selecting the best way to bet those handicapping opinions it is undoubtedly a computer even with today's limited information.

[EMD4ME]

Humans are better handicappers, at least so far. They may lose out eventually as data is advanced. But for selecting the best way to bet those handicapping opinions it is undoubtedly a computer even with today's limited information.

Are you including betting with minimum payoffs?

Are you referring to ticket construction in pick (4's, 5's, 6's etc.)

Just curious which aspect you're referring to.

Thanks CJ...

[pandy]

For years I refused to believe that a computer could out handicap a human because there's no question that even the most sophisticated software has its limitations and lacks intuition.

However, if you're talking about ROI, I do believe that a good computer handicapping system will beat most handicapper's, even good handicapper's.

If you're talking about picking winners, I've never seen a computer program that can pick as many winners as the best "top winner" handicappers I've know. When trying to pick winners, with no regards to ROI, a lot of races come down to choosing between two horses, often the favorite or the second choice. The individual can use video replays to analyze trips and can make more intricate judgements regarding recent workouts, track bias, betting patterns, and other factors that a computer has difficulty with.

However, high ROI's are usually generated by horses that do not appear that obvious, and computer programs will pick those type of horses better than most handicappers. The problem we have as humans, we often have a hard time convincing ourselves to go against the logical conclusion. Our minds think logically. So, we usually land on a horse that looks good on paper, disregarding the reality that these horses lose 65% of the time (or at the current Saratoga meet, 69% of the time). We also have built in prejudices.

For instance, I know many horseplayers who will subconsciously, or consciously, steer away from horses ridden by certain jockeys, or trained by certain trainers. A computer program, if set up wisely, knows that just because a jockey is winning at 5%, that doesn't mean that he is not going to bring in this 15-1 shot.

[cj]

Are you including betting with minimum payoffs?

Are you referring to ticket construction in pick (4's, 5's, 6's etc.)

Just curious which aspect you're referring to.

Thanks CJ...

I'm referring to making the optimal bets, both which pools and amounts as well as ticket construction on exotics.

[pandy]

I'm referring to making the optimal bets, both which pools and amounts as well as ticket construction on exotics.

Yeah, that's hard to disagree with. These betting syndicates that have their computer make bets for them have a clear advantage because they can quickly spot inefficiencies in the pools.

[thaskalos]

I am a figure handicapper...and I can see that the computer would be much better than I am in compiling and calculating the figures that I use. But my figures also need to be thoroughly ANALYZED if they are to bring about the desired result...and I believe that I am the better "analyst".

There is an "artistic' side to handicapping, and, as far as I am concerned, all "works of art" have been created by man.

[EMD4ME]

Yeah, that's hard to disagree with. These betting syndicates that have their computer make bets for them have a clear advantage because they can quickly spot inefficiencies in the pools.

I wish I had access to which P5 combos, P4 combos, TRIS etc. were underplayed as well. I would agree with that.

However, as a horizontal player, mostly, most bets I see and hit pay well above the parlay amount which makes me happy as I reduce the vig that way.

In terms of construction, I can see the benefit. I like doing it on paper as I'm not a simple ABC guy. I rate the races in a sequence. If I hate the sequence, no play. If I like a portion of the sequence, I weigh it more with more human intervention. For example: Sunday, there was a major playback I loved in race 5. I needed the eventual winner, the 4 for $12,000 when he last ran but Rosario was unlucky at the half and made the wrong choice (to save his life, so I don't blame him). I had little opinion in race 1, liked the chalk in race 2 but knew he could lose as the rail was dead the day before & he smelled like a horse who could run 2nd. Race 3 had the returning Contessa horse, no clue if he's ready and race 4 has a Pletcher horse that I adored going long off of a sprint prep. If I did ABC's I lose as it came in CCBAA.

In analyzing the sequence, race 5 was my MEGA A/single. My second strongest opinion was in race 4. I kind of chickened out and made the 8 (C BROWN FTS) a CO A. I went 4x7x5x2X1 with a buddy of mine as partners on the 1st ticket of our bets. Cost was not expensive, $140 and did place other tickets as covers. We spent almost $400 (I did wager on my own as well-for another couple of hundred). Hit if for $2,000.

Not a life changing score, sadly in my betting world, that was a grinding win.

However, I am not sure if we would've hit if we used a PC generated bet making system.

I know if we used the Christ method, we would have lost.

I like to improvise (weigh certain races more vs. others) and I like to do many if then scenarios. If THIS horse wins, I get triple coverage, if these 2 horses win I get X additional coverage.

I also weigh out bets A LOT. The more I am right, the more I want the ticket smashed. I don't want to hit the pick 5, I want it 3X, 7X, 15X etc, the more I am right in my opinions.

Delta Lover is excellent with his PC work and has many systems we have discussed that help you put the wagers in. I respect his opinions on this topic.

Despite that, I prefer pen and paper. Maybe it's because I'm old fashioned LOL, I don't know....BUT, I would love to hear of similar thoughts on how others weigh pick 5's, lean on certain races via a PC doing the thinking etc.

[EMD4ME]

I am a figure handicapper...and I can see that the computer would be much better than I am in compiling and calculating the figures that I use. But my figures also need to be thoroughly ANALYZED if they are to bring about the desired result...and I believe that I am the better "analyst".

There is an "artistic' side to handicapping, and, as far as I am concerned, all "works of art" have been created by man.

There are many times I completely DISAGREE with a variant. I love the fact that CJ uses projections instead of pars. It is projections that should be used instead of pars as I want to know ABOUT TODAY's horses not an average of the last 100 MDPSWT 3YO's who ran in April in a MDSPWT. I also believe that projections are up to the interpreter.

If horse has run 80 80 in his 1st two starts but BOTH races were with a gold rail on an average and loose pace, I DEFINITELY do not project this horse as an 80.

That is where I agree with you Thaskalos. It is the human side of things that most definitely creates an edge as we as humans know things that a PC can not ever possibly know or QUANTIFY.

This is why I love people who use Beyer figures as I know they are so faulty. I want the whole world to use them instead of CJ's performance figs or any other source. I want them to stay stupid.

[pandy]

By the way, anyone who owns one or several computer handicapping methods, or wants to try one, I recommend comparing its selections against yours. Do yours first the old fashioned way, then run the program and test it for a few months. Too many people try computer programs but don't take the time to figure out the best way to use them. For instance, say you have a program that ranks contenders. Make sure you check the ROI on the top three ranked contenders, not just the top pick. Sometimes showing a profit can be something as simple as figuring out how to spot the value plays that the system produces.

[DeltaLover]

We all obviously use computers to some extent to handicap or wager.

If you had a choice, would you be loyal to the picks of your PC or your brain?

Why?

Disclosure: Selfish motive, looking to learn the merits of people who swear by a PC giving them selections.....

I'm a guy who's always looking to learn. I'll 99% never listen to a PC BUT.....I do want to learn from people who do.

Thanks in advance.

P.S. Special thank you to Pandy and ReplayRandall for making me think of this thread. I did do a search and couldn't find old discussions like this. If there is one, please close this thread and bump the old one.


Your question is not a good one, unless you specify how you measure a good handicapper. I have to assume that you define the “goodness” of a handicapper as a function of his profits.. I am not convinced that this is the best definition though but this is another story and can become the topic of another thread.

To answer your question directly, I think that the “best” handicapper, consists of a human – machine team. Each part of this team, has to offer its advantages complementing the other based on its strengths.

If you want to convince yourself about the superiority of the human – machine team, I suggest you learn about free style chess, starting from these links:

http://freestyle-chess.webs.com/

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

In the case that you need a more detailed approach to the concept I am suggesting the following book:

http://www.amazon.com/Average-Over-Powering-America-Stagnation-ebook/dp/B00C1N5WOI/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1440115391&sr=1-1&keywords=average+is+over

[thaskalos]

Chess is an unfair comparison...because it's an "open-information" game. Horse racing isn't.

[DeltaLover]

I wish I had access to which P5 combos, P4 combos, TRIS etc. were underplayed as well. I would agree with that.

However, as a horizontal player, mostly, most bets I see and hit pay well above the parlay amount which makes me happy as I reduce the vig that way.

In terms of construction, I can see the benefit. I like doing it on paper as I'm not a simple ABC guy. I rate the races in a sequence. If I hate the sequence, no play. If I like a portion of the sequence, I weigh it more with more human intervention. For example: Sunday, there was a major playback I loved in race 5. I needed the eventual winner, the 4 for $12,000 when he last ran but Rosario was unlucky at the half and made the wrong choice (to save his life, so I don't blame him). I had little opinion in race 1, liked the chalk in race 2 but knew he could lose as the rail was dead the day before & he smelled like a horse who could run 2nd. Race 3 had the returning Contessa horse, no clue if he's ready and race 4 has a Pletcher horse that I adored going long off of a sprint prep. If I did ABC's I lose as it came in CCBAA.

In analyzing the sequence, race 5 was my MEGA A/single. My second strongest opinion was in race 4. I kind of chickened out and made the 8 (C BROWN FTS) a CO A. I went 4x7x5x2X1 with a buddy of mine as partners on the 1st ticket of our bets. Cost was not expensive, $140 and did place other tickets as covers. We spent almost $400 (I did wager on my own as well-for another couple of hundred). Hit if for $2,000.

Not a life changing score, sadly in my betting world, that was a grinding win.

However, I am not sure if we would've hit if we used a PC generated bet making system.

I know if we used the Christ method, we would have lost.

I like to improvise (weigh certain races more vs. others) and I like to do many if then scenarios. If THIS horse wins, I get triple coverage, if these 2 horses win I get X additional coverage.

I also weigh out bets A LOT. The more I am right, the more I want the ticket smashed. I don't want to hit the pick 5, I want it 3X, 7X, 15X etc, the more I am right in my opinions.

Delta Lover is excellent with his PC work and has many systems we have discussed that help you put the wagers in. I respect his opinions on this topic.

Despite that, I prefer pen and paper. Maybe it's because I'm old fashioned LOL, I don't know....BUT, I would love to hear of similar thoughts on how others weigh pick 5's, lean on certain races via a PC doing the thinking etc.


Yes, the computers definitely excels in this type of ABC ticket construction. I am following this approach since the early 80's and I have written a lot of related software as I have told you before.

The following is the one i am currently using, which is very fast and allows unlimited limitations, groups of limitations and "nailed" ranges (meaning for example that from a group of four picks we can require exactly 1 or 3 skipping 0 2 and 4)

Take a look:

http://themindofagambler.com/exotic_studio/estudio.html

See here an quick introduction

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

[DeltaLover]

Chess is an unfair comparison...because it's an "open-information" game. Horse racing isn't.


It is clearly indicative of where we are heading when it comes games of chances and any other kind of human activity that can be assisted by quick and accurate data processing (medicine, or law practising are two of them for example)

[thaskalos]

It is clearly indicative of where we are heading when it comes games of chances and any other kind of human activity that can be assisted by quick and accurate data processing (medicine, or law practising are two of them for example)
When you see a computer that claims to out-play a top human horseplayer...then put it up against me. I'll even give the computer a 10% rebate. :cool:

[EMD4ME]

Yes, the computers definitely excels in this type of ABC ticket construction. I am following this approach since the early 80's and I have written a lot of related software as I have told you before.

The following is the one i am currently using, which is very fast and allows unlimited limitations, groups of limitations and "nailed" ranges (meaning for example that from a group of four picks we can require exactly 1 or 3 skipping 0 2 and 4)

Take a look:

http://themindofagambler.com/exotic_studio/estudio.html

See here an quick introduction

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

Delta,

Appreciate your feedback. We've discussed your ticket making strategies before but only to a certain extent (as I was too busy taking notes on races LOL).

You have a high ceiling with these intracies as you're a genius in these areas.

Question, I played around with your link. I understand the matches. Can you create some subjections with this software?

For example: You can tell your software to require 2 matches to win out of 3 highlighted races (in a pick 5). Can you program it to create all tickets where if this 1 specific horse wins, I want 1 of 2 other specific horses to win ( in 2 other select races) AND then have other certain requirements?

In other words, can it create super other "if then" scenarios? I'm assuming yes and would like to maybe meet up 2 hours before 1st post to discuss.

Thanks for your feedback Delta.

[DeltaLover]

When you see a computer that claims to out-play a top human horseplayer...then put it up against me. I'll even give the computer a 10% rebate. :cool:

I am not you sure that you understood my statement.

Do you want to insist that the imaginary top human horse player do not consist some kind of a human - machine team? Think twice, as using any kind of speed figure, track variant or even the past performances consist of some type of implicit teaming..

Note that when it comes to macro-handicapping factors there is absolutely no chance the "pen and pencil" handicapper can outperform the machine and the same applies not many other aspects of the game that require quick access to data, like figure making, trainer pattern discovery etc.

It is true that the human can also contribute to the team by applying things like visual and trip handicapping or some other deeper aspects of the game that require the application of the creative imagination as Beyer is putting it somewhere in his books..

[DeltaLover]

Delta,

Appreciate your feedback. We've discussed your ticket making strategies before but only to a certain extent (as I was too busy taking notes on races LOL).

You have a high ceiling with these intracies as you're a genius in these areas.

Question, I played around with your link. I understand the matches. Can you create some subjections with this software?

For example: You can tell your software to require 2 matches to win out of 3 highlighted races (in a pick 5). Can you program it to create all tickets where if this 1 specific horse wins, I want 1 of 2 other specific horses to win ( in 2 other select races) AND then have other certain requirements?

In other words, can it create super other "if then" scenarios? I'm assuming yes and would like to maybe meet up 2 hours before 1st post to discuss.

Thanks for your feedback Delta.

Absolutely you can do all these (and i am doing so regularly) ..

Note that I have another version of this program that can do way more that the one I am sharing publicly. For example you can assign weights to each horse and require the winning combo to fall within a specific range, to assure that no favorite double occurs, to assure the achievement of a five when betting six (something that is cutting your expenses tremendously), to specify the winning probability of the produced combination and some other more advanced filters...

[EMD4ME]

Your question is not a good one, unless you specify how you measure a good handicapper. I have to assume that you define the “goodness” of a handicapper as a function of his profits.. I am not convinced that this is the best definition though but this is another story and can become the topic of another thread.

To answer your question directly, I think that the “best” handicapper, consists of a human – machine team. Each part of this team, has to offer its advantages complementing the other based on its strengths.

If you want to convince yourself about the superiority of the human – machine team, I suggest you learn about free style chess, starting from these links:

http://freestyle-chess.webs.com/

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

In the case that you need a more detailed approach to the concept I am suggesting the following book:

http://www.amazon.com/Average-Over-Powering-America-Stagnation-ebook/dp/B00C1N5WOI/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1440115391&sr=1-1&keywords=average+is+over

Buddy, it's MY Question, so I DO think it's a good one :) :lol:

It was meant to be general, so that I can see what everyone out here thinks. I'm curious to learn from everyone, not someone.

No matter what everyone's motivation is: To be profitable, to just break even, to play to win and grind it out, to make a superscore once a year, to lose less at a hobby etc., I want to see what people prefer and why in terms of their selection process.

Of course, if players lose terribly at this game via their personal selections, my question of :"Would you be loyal to your pics or ones of a PC", would be moot as they SHOULD use anyone else's selections LOL. So yes, in a way it is meant to the ones who are successful. Successful defined as either being profitable OR being really good at picking winners.

[EMD4ME]

Absolutely you can do all these (and i am doing so regularly) ..

Note that I have another version of this program that can do way more that the one I am sharing publicly. For example you can assign weights to each horse and require the winning combo to fall within a specific range, to assure that no favorite double occurs, to assure the achievement of a five when betting six (something that is cutting your expenses tremendously), to specify the winning probability of the produced combination and some other more advanced filters...

That sounds awesome. Like that.

That is what I try and foresee when "mapping out" a pick 4/5/6. On paper, I look to see which race I want to lean on the most. How right do I need to be in the ticket construction? Cost, of course. What combos do I want to avoid (chalky results-if I don't like the chalks)? How do I reward myself with extra coverage? Which combos do I want to double up on/triple/quadruple/etc etc on?

Good stuff Delta.

[EMD4ME]

When you see a computer that claims to out-play a top human horseplayer...then put it up against me. I'll even give the computer a 10% rebate. :cool:

Maybe we can put this on PPV and charge to watch this duel? :ThmbUp:

[DeltaLover]

That sounds awesome. Like that.

That is what I try and foresee when "mapping out" a pick 4/5/6. On paper, I look to see which race I want to lean on the most. How right do I need to be in the ticket construction? Cost, of course. What combos do I want to avoid (chalky results-if I don't like the chalks)? How do I reward myself with extra coverage? Which combos do I want to double up on/triple/quadruple/etc etc on?

Good stuff Delta.

I am convinced by my experience that almost the majority of the handicappers are viewing the game from the wrong angle, trying to find a "system" that is able to show some kind of anaemic positive, trying to "spot" individual winners, something that is of course impossible. Meanwhile, I see very few (you are one of them of course) who realize that the real profits can come either from parlays or long horizontals, that also require the most skill both in handicapping and betting execution as well..

[DeltaLover]

That sounds awesome. Like that.

That is what I try and foresee when "mapping out" a pick 4/5/6. On paper, I look to see which race I want to lean on the most. How right do I need to be in the ticket construction? Cost, of course. What combos do I want to avoid (chalky results-if I don't like the chalks)? How do I reward myself with extra coverage? Which combos do I want to double up on/triple/quadruple/etc etc on?

Good stuff Delta.

An example of ticket construction:

Let's assume we are betting the pick 5 and our full system is the following:

http://www.themindofagambler.com/full_system.png

Note that the full system consist of 900 combinations since it is 5X5X4X3X3.

The following limitations are decreasing it to 278 combos:

http://www.themindofagambler.com/group1.png

http://www.themindofagambler.com/group2.png

You have to realize here, that we have two groups of limitations and we need at least one of them to be correct.

First group

Our best picks are the 1 in the 4th and the 1 in the 5th and we need at least one of them to win

From the remaining three races we need at least on of our best picks to win

From our last choices we need either 0 or 1 at max winners

Second group

We need exactly 2 winners from our top picks

And from the less probable picks that you can see in red we need at least two winners

IF AT LEAST ONE GROUP IS CORRECT WE HIT 5 WITH THE FOLLOWING 278 COMBOS

http://www.themindofagambler.com/tickets1.png

http://www.themindofagambler.com/tickets2.png

Please let me know if you need any clarification...

[thaskalos]

I am convinced by my experience that almost the majority of the handicappers are viewing the game from the wrong angle, trying to find a "system" that is able to show some kind of anaemic positive, trying to "spot" individual winners, something that is of course impossible. Meanwhile, I see very few (you are one of them of course) who realize that the real profits can come either from parlays or long horizontals, that also require the most skill both in handicapping and betting execution as well..
I don't like long horizontals...I like long VERTICALS. The long horizontals force me to structure costly tickets around some races that I really have no confidence in...and I'd rather focus my attention -- and my money -- on those individual races where I know that I possess some genuine insight.

I must admit that I do harbor a strange fascination for the Pick-5...but, so far at least, this particular wager does not seem to be too fond of me.

[thaskalos]

I am not you sure that you understood my statement.

Do you want to insist that the imaginary top human horse player do not consist some kind of a human - machine team? Think twice, as using any kind of speed figure, track variant or even the past performances consist of some type of implicit teaming..

Note that when it comes to macro-handicapping factors there is absolutely no chance the "pen and pencil" handicapper can outperform the machine and the same applies not many other aspects of the game that require quick access to data, like figure making, trainer pattern discovery etc.

It is true that the human can also contribute to the team by applying things like visual and trip handicapping or some other deeper aspects of the game that require the application of the creative imagination as Beyer is putting it somewhere in his books..

Delta...the question originally asked in this thread was whether the human, or the computer, was the better "handicapper/bet maker". This "team concept" between man and machine that you are proposing here wasn't given as one of the options. Even to a computer illiterate like myself it would appear obvious that the collaboration between man and machine would be the more preferential choice.

When you say that "there is absolutely no chance the pencil-and-paper handicapper can outperform the machine"...are you suggesting that you are in possession of a machine which you believe is capable of outperforming a pencil-and-paper handicapper like me? Because, if that's the case...then I am willing to wager some serious money that you are WRONG.

[DeltaLover]

Delta...the question originally asked in this thread was whether the human, or the computer, was the better "handicapper/bet maker". This "team concept" between man and machine that you are proposing here wasn't given as one of the options. Even to a computer illiterate like myself it would appear obvious that the collaboration between man and machine would be the more preferential choice.

When you say that "there is absolutely no chance the pencil-and-paper handicapper can outperform the machine"...are you suggesting that you are in possession of a machine which you believe is capable of outperforming a pencil-and-paper handicapper like me? Because, if that's the case...then I am willing to wager some serious money that you are WRONG.

Please do yourself a favor and do not be stubborn when it comes to this kind of a discussion!

Computers have changed the world of horse betting in the same way they have changed everything that we know. How many human activities you can enumerate that have not been affected and benefited by computers? Can you name at least one?

There is no way to outperform the computer, when it comes to things like record keeping, figure making, data retrieval, handicapping factor evaluation, ticket construction and many more. As I have stated before, there is also no way to completely avoid the use of computers when it comes to handicapping, since their impact can be found in any kind of related data source, primitive or derivative..

By the time I wrote this few lines, my crons have already downloaded all the races that were conducted yesterday in Northern America, they were inserted in my databases, recalculating several sets of seed and pace figures using an over 200K races universe, re-estimated the performance of many handicapping factors and also re-trained a couple of AI prediction models. Also the crons prepared the data that I can use for any race that will be run today while my automated assistants are ready to send me their opinions in the form of a REST signal for any question I might have about a race that I need to handicap..

When it comes to ticket construction, as I showed in my previous posting, the computer can greatly simplify my task, evaluating thousands of combinations in a fraction of second, converting my handicapping opinions to hundreds of optimal bets that it would had been impossible to construct by hand allowing me to maximize my expected value providing the ultimate relation of risk / profit, minimizing the chance of an error.

Do you seriously think that a "pen and pencil' handicapper can compete with I have described here?

[EMD4ME]

An example of ticket construction:

Let's assume we are betting the pick 5 and our full system is the following:

http://www.themindofagambler.com/full_system.png

Note that the full system consist of 900 combinations since it is 5X5X4X3X3.

The following limitations are decreasing it to 278 combos:

http://www.themindofagambler.com/group1.png

http://www.themindofagambler.com/group2.png

You have to realize here, that we have two groups of limitations and we need at least one of them to be correct.

First group

Our best picks are the 1 in the 4th and the 1 in the 5th and we need at least one of them to win

From the remaining three races we need at least on of our best picks to win

From our last choices we need either 0 or 1 at max winners

Second group

We need exactly 2 winners from our top picks

And from the less probable picks that you can see in red we need at least two winners

IF AT LEAST ONE GROUP IS CORRECT WE HIT 5 WITH THE FOLLOWING 278 COMBOS

http://www.themindofagambler.com/tickets1.png

http://www.themindofagambler.com/tickets2.png

Please let me know if you need any clarification...



Nice of you to share (again-as we've discussed in person). Maybe saturday, I'll come to AQU early and create a ticket with you in person.

[DeltaLover]

Nice of you to share (again-as we've discussed in person). Maybe saturday, I'll come to AQU early and create a ticket with you in person.

Sure.. Let's hit the P5..

[EMD4ME]

I don't like long horizontals...I like long VERTICALS. The long horizontals force me to structure costly tickets around some races that I really have no confidence in...and I'd rather focus my attention -- and my money -- on those individual races where I know that I possess some genuine insight.

I must admit that I do harbor a strange fascination for the Pick-5...but, so far at least, this particular wager does not seem to be too fond of me.

We should all stick to our strengths. I'm more comfortable picking winners vs. 3rd place finishers, although I do leverage sups when I have 2/3 opinions in one race (hate a fav, see a collapse, see no flow etc.).

I also love spreading the 15% vig over 5 races. Pick 5 almost always pay way more than a parlay.

To each his own. I wish I played supers as good as you.

[EMD4ME]

Delta...the question originally asked in this thread was whether the human, or the computer, was the better "handicapper/bet maker". This "team concept" between man and machine that you are proposing here wasn't given as one of the options. Even to a computer illiterate like myself it would appear obvious that the collaboration between man and machine would be the more preferential choice.

When you say that "there is absolutely no chance the pencil-and-paper handicapper can outperform the machine"...are you suggesting that you are in possession of a machine which you believe is capable of outperforming a pencil-and-paper handicapper like me? Because, if that's the case...then I am willing to wager some serious money that you are WRONG.

My question is more this:

If YOU (meaning, you Thaskalos, me-EMD4ME, everyone reading this) handicapped a race and liked a cold 5-4 exacta AND your software says it will come in 135. What do you do? Why? Who is more accurate? Why?

Yes, I also asked about people's ticket construction techniques (paper and pen VS. PC) but I also want some direct answers from people about the former.

Please don't confuse people who use Formulator, TFUS, Sheets etc as PC players.

My definition of a PC player OR someone who is classified as using PC picks is someone who strictly gets selections from their PC/software.

My definition of a human selector is someone who uses TFUS, sheets, Formulator, trip notes, replays, clocker info, gut instinct, paddock inspection etc but totally ignores software's selections.

Using my definition, if we may :blush: , who prefers what?

[EMD4ME]

Please do yourself a favor and do not be stubborn when it comes to this kind of a discussion!

Computers have changed the world of horse betting in the same way they have changed everything that we know. How many human activities you can enumerate that have not been affected and benefited by computers? Can you name at least one?

There is no way to outperform the computer, when it comes to things like record keeping, figure making, data retrieval, handicapping factor evaluation, ticket construction and many more. As I have stated before, there is also no way to completely avoid the use of computers when it comes to handicapping, since their impact can be found in any kind of related data source, primitive or derivative..

By the time I wrote this few lines, my crons have already downloaded all the races that were conducted yesterday in Northern America, they were inserted in my databases, recalculating several sets of seed and pace figures using an over 200K races universe, re-estimated the performance of many handicapping factors and also re-trained a couple of AI prediction models. Also the crons prepared the data that I can use for any race that will be run today while my automated assistants are ready to send me their opinions in the form of a REST signal for any question I might have about a race that I need to handicap..

When it comes to ticket construction, as I showed in my previous posting, the computer can greatly simplify my task, evaluating thousands of combinations in a fraction of second, converting my handicapping opinions to hundreds of optimal bets that it would had been impossible to construct by hand allowing me to maximize my expected value providing the ultimate relation of risk / profit, minimizing the chance of an error.

Do you seriously think that a "pen and pencil' handicapper can compete with I have described here?


Please see my last post. To eliminate confusion amongst you and Thaskalos.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, my fault....

[DeltaLover]

We should all stick to our strengths. I'm more comfortable picking winners vs. 3rd place finishers, although I do leverage sups when I have 2/3 opinions in one race (hate a fav, see a collapse, see no flow etc.).

I also love spreading the 15% vig over 5 races. Pick 5 almost always pay way more than a parlay.

To each his own. I wish I played supers as good as you.

As you already know, I have always considered bets like the super or the pentafecta pure gimmicks where luck is way more important that it is in picking the top spot. Although I always feel very enthusiastic when it comes to win, parlay of long horizontals, i am also very sceptic when I try to handicap for the fourth spot... I really do not find much value in bottom heavy tickets, where spreading is mandatory, hoping of a waking up longshot that will shock the crowd..

As you also say, P5 is probably the best bet, since it combines low takeout, relatively low cost and very high profit expectations.. The added complexity of handicapping races ahead of the time, is also very beneficial for the astute handicapper and this is one of the reasons why P5 almost always pay more than the parlay, exactly because most of the gamblers are betting it in the dark, without the assistance of the board...

[pandy]

I handicap NYRA every day and have for a long time and I use my computer picks and ratings along with my own interpretation of the past performances and information contained in the pps (figs) plus visual aids such as replays.

However, when playing other tracks I often make wagers based solely on the computer ratings. But, if my system picks 1-3-5 that doesn't mean I will bet the 1 horse. If the 1 is 8-5, the 3 is 5-2 and the 5 is 12-1, I may key the 5 in exactas, but it depends on how the ratings look. In a sprint, for instance, if my system ranks it 1-3-5 but the early speed rating gives the 5 a huge advantage, and the 5 is much better odds, I may lean to the 5. In a route, if the computer picks 1-3-5 but the 3 has by far the best energy profile for that distance, I may key on the 3. So the "accompanying" ratings have to be compared to the main rankings, plus the value aspect has to be weighed against the strength of the ratings.

In races where the ratings among the top contenders are closely matched, over the long run betting the contender that is going off at longer odds produces the highest ROI.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I try to interpret the computer program's picks rather than always bet the top ranked horse.

[DeltaLover]

My definition of a PC player OR someone who is classified as using PC picks is someone who strictly gets selections from their PC/software.


If this is the way you are putting, then I believe that there does not exist a black box that can spawn selections showing a consistent profit. The purpose of the machine is to support you in areas where it is superior to you as a handicapper and not to completely eliminate the human factor.

[classhandicapper]

I think humans have an advantage intuiting correct answers in very specific situations for which there may be little or no data to draw on.

I think computers have the advantage of no emotions and consistency in their calculations. To give you an example, there are times I make plays and then 6 months later I look back at the PPs and wonder what I was thinking. I see the race differently 6 months later. This may or may not be true of other handicappers, but my thinking tends to drift around, circle back, drift around again etc... Maybe I'm putting too much weight on last race for awhile, not enough weight on trainer, trying really hard to project race development then later putting less emphasis on it etc... Sometimes that means I drift into less productive places. Computers don't have that problem.

[pandy]

I think humans have an advantage intuiting correct answers in very specific situations for which there may be little or no data to draw on.

I think computers have the advantage of no emotions and consistency in their calculations. To give you an example, there are times I make plays and then 6 months later I look back at the PPs and wonder what I was thinking. I see the race differently 6 months later. This may or may not be true of other handicappers, but my thinking tends to drift around, circle back, drift around again etc... Maybe I'm putting too much weight on last race for awhile, not enough weight on trainer etc... Sometimes that means I drift into less productive places. Computers don't have that problem.

Good points. You're right. You know when it snows sometimes they cancel the races and then the same race is carded a week later. I have actually caught myself picking a different horse the second time around. One week later I saw the exact same race differently. A year later I may see it another way.

Emotion also comes into play. With my Diamond System, it does not take jockey or trainer into consideration at all. Many handicappers, when choosing between two horses, will lean towards one because they have a built in, sometimes even subconscious, bias against either the trainer or the jockey of the other horse. But over time, the lower percentage jockeys and trainers tend to produce a higher ROI if you know which of their horses are true contenders.

[thaskalos]

My question is more this:

If YOU (meaning, you Thaskalos, me-EMD4ME, everyone reading this) handicapped a race and liked a cold 5-4 exacta AND your software says it will come in 135. What do you do? Why? Who is more accurate? Why?

Yes, I also asked about people's ticket construction techniques (paper and pen VS. PC) but I also want some direct answers from people about the former.

Please don't confuse people who use Formulator, TFUS, Sheets etc as PC players.

My definition of a PC player OR someone who is classified as using PC picks is someone who strictly gets selections from their PC/software.

My definition of a human selector is someone who uses TFUS, sheets, Formulator, trip notes, replays, clocker info, gut instinct, paddock inspection etc but totally ignores software's selections.

Using my definition, if we may :blush: , who prefers what?
I don't use a computer in the manner that you describe above...so, I don't have the computer spitting out picks at me, which may contradict my own selections. But I do calculate performance figures...and I don't always bet on the best figure in the race. The key to my handicapping isn't the figures...it's the ANALYSIS of the figures that I do after the figures are established. The figures are the RAW MATERIALS...but, IMO, it takes human creativity to properly apply these figures, so the desired result can be realised. This isn't just "number-crunching" that we are doing here.

I am not the sort of handicapper who loads up the computer with vast amounts of raw data, and then expects the computer to scour through them, in order to tell him what "works today". I don't have confidence in that sort of handicapping. This is a dynamic game...and these winning "trends" that we have noticed in the recent past could very well come to an abrupt end tomorrow. I am not about to bet serious money on a winning "trend" that the computer has discovered, based on results of the recent past that the computer has analyzed. All that is "back-fitting", IMO...and I want no part of it.

I have a well-crafted approach which I use to handicap the races as the unique events that they really are. What happened in the last 50 sprint races at Parx may indeed have something to do with the 51st sprint race that I am handicapping today...but it may also have NOTHING to do with it.

If I only did "number-crunching" and "model-creating", then the computer would indeed be an invaluable tool in my handicapping. By the creation of my numbers isn't what takes up most of my time. Most of my time is spent trying to put the pieces of the racing puzzle TOGETHER! I use my knowledge, my experience, and my creativity...to shift through the many clues before me...in order to come up with the soundest handicapping opinion possible...which I then endeavor to convert into the best wager(s) possible. This sort of handicapping and betting demands creativity and fantasy...and what computer comes equipped with human qualities like these?

DeltaLover is my friend...and I enjoy talking with him very much. His handicapping opinions differ from mine...and that's how it should be. In a complicated game like horse racing...it is unreasonable to expect the handicappers to agree all the time. He thinks that I am being "stubborn" when I disagree with him...and that's alright too. IMO...a certain degree of stubbornness is an asset in this game. The horseplayer with no opinions of his own hasn't even a snowball's chance in hell of surviving in this game. :)

[DeltaLover]

DeltaLover is my friend...and I enjoy talking with him very much. His handicapping opinions differ from mine...and that's how it should be.

I really do not think that our approaches are fundamentally very different, our disagreements are more on the surface and the details rather than the core and the general concepts...

I certainly hold diametrical opposing views from people who try to beat the game using constant sized bets while believing that they have some (fictitious) positive ROI but I do not think you belong in this category.

[Dave Schwartz]

When you see a computer that claims to out-play a top human horseplayer...then put it up against me. I'll even give the computer a 10% rebate.

Thaskalos,

I'm your huckleberry.

What say you that we handicap about 40 consecutive races tomorrow and play every one?

I am not playing turf, and I skip races with FTS. Also, DMR is not ready to play for me.

Beyond that, why don't we start with the 1st post and just do the next 40 races that come up across all tracks?

We could post our picks at (say) 3 minutes to post.

Does that work for you?

[Cratos]

We all obviously use computers to some extent to handicap or wager.

If you had a choice, would you be loyal to the picks of your PC or your brain?

Why?

Disclosure: Selfish motive, looking to learn the merits of people who swear by a PC giving them selections.....

I'm a guy who's always looking to learn. I'll 99% never listen to a PC BUT.....I do want to learn from people who do.

Thanks in advance.

P.S. Special thank you to Pandy and ReplayRandall for making me think of this thread. I did do a search and couldn't find old discussions like this. If there is one, please close this thread and bump the old one.
I am not sure what you are asking when you say "computer," but if you are comparing a sophisticated computer model to human handicapping, in the long run the computer model would win.

However the limitation of any computer model is that it only processes and never thinks.

Therefore the people who programed the computer will have to be very good handicappers and forward thinkers.

[Pick 'em Charlie]

We all obviously use computers to some extent to handicap or wager.

If you had a choice, would you be loyal to the picks of your PC or your brain?

Why?

Disclosure: Selfish motive, looking to learn the merits of people who swear by a PC giving them selections.....

I'm a guy who's always looking to learn. I'll 99% never listen to a PC BUT.....I do want to learn from people who do.

Thanks in advance.see

P.S. Special thank you to Pandy and ReplayRandall for making me think of this thread. I did do a search and couldn't find old discussions like this. If there is one, please close this thread and bump the old one.

I believe it's 6 of 1 and half a dozen of another system. Most systems will have their strengths and weaknesses. It the human who makes the wager who is the biggest difference.

[thaskalos]

Thaskalos,

I'm your huckleberry.

What say you that we handicap about 40 consecutive races tomorrow and play every one?

I am not playing turf, and I skip races with FTS. Also, DMR is not ready to play for me.

Beyond that, why don't we start with the 1st post and just do the next 40 races that come up across all tracks?

We could post our picks at (say) 3 minutes to post.

Does that work for you?

You are asking me to follow your own, preferred style of play, Dave...and I can't see why I would want to do that. If I never wager on 40 consecutive races in real life...then why would I agree to do that in a handicapping contest against you?

My comment wasn't intended as a "dig" against hi-tech handicappers in general. In this game, everyone is entitled to his opinion...and everyone is free to do whatever he wants with his own money. EMD4ME asked me a question...and I answered it as honestly and directly as I could. The comment of mine which you quoted was meant exclusively for DeltaLover...because I have developed a certain relationship with him through the years...and we share a certain understanding about one another.

If my comment offended you in any way...then I sincerely apologize. Offending players whom I respect is never my intention here.

[FocusWiz]

I think humans have an advantage intuiting correct answers in very specific situations for which there may be little or no data to draw on.

I think computers have the advantage of no emotions and consistency in their calculations. To give you an example, there are times I make plays and then 6 months later I look back at the PPs and wonder what I was thinking. I see the race differently 6 months later. This may or may not be true of other handicappers, but my thinking tends to drift around, circle back, drift around again etc... Maybe I'm putting too much weight on last race for awhile, not enough weight on trainer, trying really hard to project race development then later putting less emphasis on it etc... Sometimes that means I drift into less productive places. Computers don't have that problem.I tend to agree with most of what you say, but I tend to think that the human mind is currently better at adapting to trends and recent changes than we have taught our computers to be.

I think humans have an edge in handicapping, but I think computers have a significant edge in the wagering process itself. I can have a computer monitor Win Odds and Exacta and Double probables far easier than I could do this by hand. I also believe that my computer can enter a half dozen Exacta Wagers quicker and more accurately at 1 minute to post (and with far less stress) than I can do it myself.

Just my opinion.

[Dave Schwartz]

If my comment offended you in any way...then I sincerely apologize. Offending players whom I respect is never my intention here.

I was not offended at all.

My reasoning for this challenge was that I hear all the time that a computer cannot handicap as well as a human being. Yet, I CAN handicap 40 races in 5 or 6 hours and produce competitive results. Find me a human being that can do that. Let him show me how superior he is to the software.

Can I wager every race and win? No, not if I bet them equally.

However, if I handicap 40 races, I will find around 14 races that are highly playable because I have isolated "foolish money" in the pool to bet against. I will also find about 14 races that are clearly not playable because there is just not likely to be much foolish money.

So, when someone says that a computer cannot stand up to them, quantity of plays should be part of that challenge. So should ease of handicapping.

I have created my own "black box" approach. That is, there is absolutely no user objectivity in the handicapping or the wagering process. In other words, no user input whatsoever.

Typically, this is the goal of the HSH user.

All of my handicapping is done through a series of button clicks and logical steps. In fact, I always have what I call The Document. That is a written description of my system. Step-by-step, click-by-click.


Truth be told, I am in awe of what I call, "The True Handicapper." I have a couple of them as clients. The True Handicapper takes information from multiple sources and lays it out on their mental table, and somehow what comes out is profitable wagers.

Software boils everything down to numbers. Hit rate and payoff. These days both of those are estimates. I do admit to being tired of the guys that say stuff like, "How can a computer program take into consideration how a horse looks in the paddock?" They are right, of course, but they say it as if they, with their magic brain can do better. Sure, they will see a horse and say, "Oh, he's washy. Not going to bet him."

But how does one take that information and adjust his line on the animal?

You don't hear the guy saying, "Well, I had him at 7/2 and now, because he is washy, I make him 5.8/1." Well, maybe he SAYS that, but there is no evidence that his adjustment is accurate.


A couple of decades back, I created a trainer stats black-box program and sold it to Dick Schmidt. He used it for several months - until the hand-entered data just got to be too much for him. But I recall a quote from him: "You have turned me into a clerk!"

That is what I am when I play. I am a clerk. The good news is that I get to watch ALL the races I bet because it takes so little time to handicap.


I tend to agree with most of what you say, but I tend to think that the human mind is currently better at adapting to trends and recent changes than we have taught our computers to be.

This is a great quote.

It is absolutely true. However, the truth is that not all or even most handicappers possess such a mind. They all THINK they do, but very few actually do.

Of course, this quote pre-supposes that the trends and changes they see are, in fact, real. Howard Sartin said that most changes in track biases were perceived rather than real. I agree with that statement.


Have a nice day.

[thaskalos]

So, when someone says that a computer cannot stand up to them, quantity of plays should be part of that challenge. So should ease of handicapping.


Quantity of plays is a prime consideration, of course, as is ease of handicapping. But the QUALITY of the work is even MORE important. The act of handicapping and wagering on 40 consecutive races as they unfold only becomes a noteworthy achievement if it leads to a profitable overall result.

And I agree that many of those "instinctive" handicappers aren't really as smart as they imagine themselves to be. But I can't help but think that this problem of "overestimating one's talent" probably plagues plenty of the "hi-tech" players too. Lying to ourselves is a pretty widespread phenomenon...especially in this game.

As I've said before...there is bound to be a wide area of disagreement whenever intelligent players flock to a complicated game like horse racing. We make our decisions...and we live with the results. Survival of the fittest.

[Dave Schwartz]

Quantity of plays is a prime consideration, of course, as is ease of handicapping. But the QUALITY of the work is even MORE important. The act of handicapping and wagering on 40 consecutive races as they unfold only becomes a noteworthy achievement if it leads to a profitable overall result.

IMHO, once you get to solid profit territory, THEN quantity matters as much as quality.

I have found that I can, in fact, wager on every race I handicap and be very close to profitable. However, almost 2/3s of the wagers are losing propositions of a significant nature. (Not even close to rebate territory.)

It is just much more logical to concentrate on the high profit wagers.

Quantity of plays is a prime consideration, of course, as is ease of handicapping. But the QUALITY of the work is even MORE important. The act of handicapping and wagering on 40 consecutive races as they unfold only becomes a noteworthy achievement if it leads to a profitable overall result.


And I agree that many of those "instinctive" handicappers aren't really as smart as they imagine themselves to be. But I can't help but think that this problem of "overestimating one's talent" probably plagues plenty of the "hi-tech" players too. Lying to ourselves is a pretty widespread phenomenon...especially in this game.


I completely agree. That's why most people don't keep records.


As I've said before...there is bound to be a wide area of disagreement whenever intelligent players flock to a complicated game like horse racing. We make our decisions...and we live with the results. Survival of the fittest.


Again, I agree, but the truth is, who cares?

I am interested only in listening to ideas that I can use. Or at least I think I can use. When guys come in and tell me I am doing it all wrong, and they are so smart, I say, "Okay, I am listening. Tell me how to do it."

But they never do tell you how, do they? They just say they've got a better way.

Take for example that recent idiot du jour we have had posting here. I have to laugh when I see a guy like that saying something like, "Well, this is my opinion and your not going to change my mind." Why should anyone care if he changes his mind?

Someone who believes completely in his approach has no need to convert others to his way of thinking. Hmm... makes me think of the "Religious" thread. LOL

[raybo]

I'll probably regret getting involved in this thread, because I happen to have a long term (as in meet to meet and year to year) profitable black box. Whether anyone believes that, matters not, I know what I have and that is all that counts to me.

The following is restricted to win play only, and does not apply to my superfecta play, which is a combination of human and computer, due to the difference in selecting win horses versus place, show, and 4th horses.

My program tells me which of 3 ranked contenders to bet, to win. It also tells me at what minimum odds I should play that (or those) ranked contender(s). It also, automatically, with the click of a button, keeps records of every one of my program's qualified plays in each of 11 different rankings methods, with options for 8 more methods).

That being said, there is human analysis and intervention, and human maintenance that must be done before the next day's races and continuously as a meet progresses, because racing isn't static, it changes over time, sometimes quite quickly and sometimes slowly. It can even switch back to a previous state. I may start betting a meet using a particular rankings method, and 1 ranked contender, at any odds, and 2 weeks later I may be playing a different method, and 2 or 3 ranked contenders, at 5/2 minimum odds. I may be playing all program qualified races in the beginning, and later end up not playing turf races, or 11f dirt races, or any other race type that is showing to be a net loss.

But, on a daily basis, I bet whatever the program tells me to bet, and when, according to the minimum odds report up to that point in time.

Sure a human might win some individual races that I lose, but at the end of the meet and at the end of the year, my ROI is going to be positive, and it's going to be usually a minimum of 20% positive at the end of each meet, because I will stop betting before I give back my profit. If things are in flux, like the weather, or the surface, or the horse/trainer/jockey colonies, etc., those things can cause the rankings to be off from time to time. The important thing is to be able to see things declining soon enough to adjust or quit betting until things start normalizing, if it does before the end of the meet. In other words, my program tracks my plays and allows me to see how things are going, and in turn I force a profit by adjusting, or not betting, or beginning to bet again, according to what the record keeping and my analysis of it is telling me.

So, yeah, a human could probably outperform my program over a short period of time, but I'm going to make profit in the long term, and almost no human, using pencil and paper, or a non-black box software tool, or watching replays, or estimating form visually, or perceiving a bias, or any of the other "human handicapper" stuff that is often wrong, and/or inconsistent, and/or biased is going to do that long term, meet by meet, year after year. How do I know that? Although there are certainly some exceptions here (Thaskalos is one who I'm pretty sure will make more money than I will over time, but probably not as consistently make positive ROI as I do), almost everyone I've read here or heard from would be excited to have a 1.02 ROI, or even break even, or lose a little while having fun, while I won't even play a track that shows that kind of ROI in track testing. I don't play enough races, nor do I bet enough per race, for that kind of ROI to be worth messing with. My requirements for playing are higher than almost any player I've ever heard of. And, when those requirements can't be met I will stop playing.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Damn.

You all just talk, or every now and again do you wager?

[raybo]

Damn.

You all just talk, or every now and again do you wager?

I'm only playing Saratoga right now because it's been making over 1.30 ROI until the last few days, as of yesterday my ROI there is 1.28 and declining. 1.20 is my stop and adjust, or stop and wait signal. I don't bet multiple tracks much, and even then, never more than 3 at a time. I get my win plays in less than a second so I have lots of time to do whatever I want between bets.

[whodoyoulike]

IMHO, once you get to solid profit territory, THEN quantity matters as much as quality.

I have found that I can, in fact, wager on every race I handicap and be very close to profitable. However, almost 2/3s of the wagers are losing propositions of a significant nature. (Not even close to rebate territory.)

It is just much more logical to concentrate on the high profit wagers.

Quantity of plays is a prime consideration, of course, as is ease of handicapping. But the QUALITY of the work is even MORE important. The act of handicapping and wagering on 40 consecutive races as they unfold only becomes a noteworthy achievement if it leads to a profitable overall result. ...

Because you can handicap every race .... should you be doing this?

You mention QUALITY and then you write you would be okay wagering on 40 consecutive races.

Isn't this a contradiction in statements?

Unless you basically treat each race equally in difficulty and amount wagered. So, it really doesn't matter when you jump into a series of races.

Just wondering and not attempting to change your style and/or methodology.

[Dave Schwartz]

Because you can handicap every race .... should you be doing this?

You mention QUALITY and then you write you would be okay wagering on 40 consecutive races.

Isn't this a contradiction in statements?

I was willing to wager the 40 races only as a demonstration. In reality, I would not do this.


I HANDICAP every race, but I only BET when there is a sufficient edge. That is around 35% of those races.

I handicap the race to determine if it is playable. What I am looking for is one or more standout value plays AND a high percentage of the pool eliminated as non-contenders.

If I have the value but do not have the elimination then the wager is smaller.

If I have elimination but no value then the wager is smaller.

The size of the wager determines whether or not I play.

Thus, when I handicap a race it comes up as some where between a 1% and a 70% play. (Not pct of bankroll but pct of max bet.)

Races with wagers below a threshold amount (25%) are losing propositions, while wagers above 38% are worthy of being doubled.

[Dave Schwartz]

I do not wish to take this thread off topic, but if anyone wants to know the basis of this approach I will be happy to explain.

[whodoyoulike]

Thanks, this appears a more reasonable approach which I would expect would be more successful.

[ReplayRandall]

I do not wish to take this thread off topic, but if anyone wants to know the basis of this approach I will be happy to explain.

Dave, you have an HTTP 500 Internal Server Error problem to your website.......

[Dave Schwartz]

Thanks. I will get it reported.

... Reported. Have been told it will be 5 hrs before it is even worked on. (Tech is in India probably.)

[green80]

[QUOTE=raybo]I'll probably regret getting involved in this thread, because I happen to have a long term (as in meet to meet and year to year) profitable black box. Whether anyone believes that, matters not, I know what I have and that is all that counts to me.

I don't see any reason why a well designed black box couldn't be profitable long term. If the player could determine the best selections and only play them when there was good value he may make a profit long term. The problem is most black box users bet the 80% losers along with the 20% winners the black box picks.

[Valuist]

Chess is an unfair comparison...because it's an "open-information" game. Horse racing isn't.

Agreed. And I don't know of any software that can quantify how a horse looks on the track 3 minutes before post time.

[pandy]

[QUOTE=raybo]I'll probably regret getting involved in this thread, because I happen to have a long term (as in meet to meet and year to year) profitable black box. Whether anyone believes that, matters not, I know what I have and that is all that counts to me.

I don't see any reason why a well designed black box couldn't be profitable long term. If the player could determine the best selections and only play them when there was good value he may make a profit long term. The problem is most black box users bet the 80% losers along with the 20% winners the black box picks.


That's true, a lot of people just play the top pick in every race without taking the time to figure out the best way to use the numbers.

Even with programs that wouldn't be called "black box" handicapping programs you can show a profit if you learn how to interpret the ratings and are patient enough to play the overlays. I knew a guy who used median energy and FR3 at Gulfstream one winter and absolutely crushed the exactas all meet. And he wasn't lying, he gave me his picks every day.

[thaskalos]

Even after all these years of talking about them...I still am not sure what is meant by "black box", nor do I know what is so desirable about them.

Is a "black box" a selection system whose top pick is asked to be profitable without any human interaction or "interference"? Why would I even WANT such a thing? Even if I could develop a profitable "black box", I would endeavor to make it even MORE profitable...by somehow screening its final selections using my own knowledge and experience. It isn't that I am especially "greedy" and demand as big a profit as possible; it's because I enjoy the handicapping process...and I want to engage in it as much as I can.

Do the owners of these "black boxes" really totally abstain from the day-to-day handicapping process...and leave the work-load entirely in the hands of their creation?

[Dave Schwartz]

Is a "black box" a selection system whose top pick is asked to be profitable without any human interaction or "interference"?

Correct.

Do the owners of these "black boxes" really totally abstain from the day-to-day handicapping process...and leave the work-load entirely in the hands of their creation?

Correct again.


I am pitting my brain's work AHEAD OF TIME against the game.

[thaskalos]

I am pitting my brain's work AHEAD OF TIME against the game.

And we are doing this because we would rather "employ" someone to carry out the work for us...instead of having a hand in it ourselves?

[Dave Schwartz]

And we are doing this because we would rather "employ" someone to carry out the work for us...instead of having a hand in it ourselves?

Thaskalos,

I see the game differently than you. Just as you said that no computer could compete with your picks, I would say the same thing about my picks and a human being.

I actually have a couple of profitable clients that play 3 days per week (F-S-S) and make over 300 wagers per week.

So, when people say, "Show me a computer that can do what I do," I would ask them to accomplish the same thing.


Frankly, even playing for fun is more enjoyable to me. If I choose to analyze a race, I can do it quickly and easily, simply by looking at the "objects" I have created. Whether it is analyzing speed, pace, trainer angles, or whether or not a FTS figures to be competitive today, I can do all of those things in a matter of seconds.

Of course, it is entirely possible that I am not actually USING those objects in my handicapping. They are still there to LOOK at if I choose to.

I am sure that someone will say something like, "Do you have an object for how they look in the paddock?" Of course, I don't. It is not part of my handicapping and I do not need it to be.


For the typical HSH user, a day of racing is a tiny bit of handicapping and a whole lot of enjoying the races run. Not only does it manage the day by post time of all the races I am "watching," but it tracks my wagers (including rebates). There is a whole lot more time for pastrami sandwiches.

It picks up the scratches and post time changes. After the race is over, grabs the payoffs to compute my results. At any given point in the day, I know where I stand to the penny!

My point is, it is fun to play.

[RXB]

Automation for bulk calculations and correlational analysis. Computers are a zillion times quicker at those tasks, it's not even open for discussion.

Human input only in specific areas where you have proven long-term success by using your own analytical capacity.

Turf races 7f or farther, and maiden firsters (especially MCL), I can improve on a purely automated process. Short dirt sprints for winners? Except for some body language insights or occasional short-term bias identifications, I'd be more likely to make the results worse rather than better compared to a very good and thorough automated process.

Human mental energy is limited, thus has to be saved and concentrated for where it can really be of use. Most things are best done by automation.

[raybo]

[QUOTE=raybo]I'll probably regret getting involved in this thread, because I happen to have a long term (as in meet to meet and year to year) profitable black box. Whether anyone believes that, matters not, I know what I have and that is all that counts to me.

I don't see any reason why a well designed black box couldn't be profitable long term. If the player could determine the best selections and only play them when there was good value he may make a profit long term. The problem is most black box users bet the 80% losers along with the 20% winners the black box picks.

Any good automated method has its strengths and weaknesses. Things it does well and things it doesn't do as well, and even things it can't do at all. Most people think that a "black box" should kick out selections and you just bet them. Well, that's certainly part of what a black box is, but far from everything it is. It's no free ride, there is still lots of work to do, you just don't have to do that work while you are actually playing. Most non-black box players are still analyzing races until they actually place their bets, a black box player does his analysis after the races have been run.

I've always told everyone that have asked, and even some that haven't asked, the most important thing in racing is record keeping. Sure you can look at your ADW account and see whether you are winning or losing, but that only tells you that you have won more money than you have bet. It tells you nothing about your strengths and weaknesses, unless you get "under the hood" and look at every bet you have made, and every type of bet you have made, at what tracks, and in what types of races. In order to do that efficiently, one needs a good record keeping system, one that presents all the information in an organized format so that you can easily see good plays and bad plays.

Many of my users were so excited to get my program, thinking that they would just start it up, load a card from any track, click a race button, bet the picks and get rich. Then a week later they contact me and say it's not working. The first things I ask them are have you tested that track, and have you analyzed its record keeping sheets? Invariably, they haven't done both. They haven't done the prep work required for any method to work well. They haven't put in the time and effort required to get the best out of the program, even when the creator of the program has put lots of time and effort into making that process automated and as easy to do as possible. Some people just don't have the patience, discipline, and consistency to do what they know they have to do, all the time.

The creator of a method knows everything there is to know about that method, he knows what it was designed to do, and what it wasn't designed to do. He knows what has to be done in order for the method to do its best work. He tries to relate all that to his clients by phone, email, Skype, recorded videos, etc.. But, it's up to the client to actually do the work, and then follow the rules built into the method. Some take that to heart and do well, others just flat refuse to get out of their old mentality and forget about preconceived notions of what the method does, and most of them fail or give up too soon. They give themselves no chance of succeeding.

That's the hardest part for the creator of the method, knowing that some won't do the work to be successful, or won't follow the rules of the method. They are the ones who will continue to, as you stated, "bet the 80% losers along with the 20% winners".

[thaskalos]

Thaskalos,

I see the game differently than you. Just as you said that no computer could compete with your picks, I would say the same thing about my picks and a human being.

I actually have a couple of profitable clients that play 3 days per week (F-S-S) and make over 300 wagers per week.

So, when people say, "Show me a computer that can do what I do," I would ask them to accomplish the same thing.


Frankly, even playing for fun is more enjoyable to me. If I choose to analyze a race, I can do it quickly and easily, simply by looking at the "objects" I have created. Whether it is analyzing speed, pace, trainer angles, or whether or not a FTS figures to be competitive today, I can do all of those things in a matter of seconds.

Of course, it is entirely possible that I am not actually USING those objects in my handicapping. They are still there to LOOK at if I choose to.

I am sure that someone will say something like, "Do you have an object for how they look in the paddock?" Of course, I don't. It is not part of my handicapping and I do not need it to be.


For the typical HSH user, a day of racing is a tiny bit of handicapping and a whole lot of enjoying the races run. Not only does it manage the day by post time of all the races I am "watching," but it tracks my wagers (including rebates). There is a whole lot more time for pastrami sandwiches.

It picks up the scratches and post time changes. After the race is over, grabs the payoffs to compute my results. At any given point in the day, I know where I stand to the penny!

My point is, it is fun to play.

Dave...I think you are misunderstanding me here, so, I will spend a little time explaining myself a little better. When I am talking about "black-box operators"...I am not referring to you...and I don't want you to take my comments personally. To me...you don't qualify to be called a "black-box operator"...nor can your HSH software rightly be called a "black-box". I don't pretend to know what you do when you handicap...nor do I know anything at all about your HSH software package. But, you yourself admitted here that a black-box is a "stand-alone" profit generator...which requires no human interaction at all. If your HSH package really fell under that description...then wouldn't ALL your clients be profitable players, instead of just some of them? If HSH is indeed a "black-box"...then what is it that prevents the REST of your clients from joining the ranks of the horse-playing elite?

So...can we agree that HSH isn't a "black-box," and that you aren't a "black-box operator"? Can we agree that you and your other profitable clients are bringing something EXTRA to the table...which your losing clients lack...and which eliminates your HSH package from the conversation whenever "black-boxes" are being discussed?

And, finally, if we can agree that your software isn't a "black box", and that you and your group aren't "black-box operators"...then, why do you think that I am talking about you and your group when I talk about "black boxes", and those who operate them? Why do you take what I say here so personally? I am NOT talking about you. You win because you are a great PLAYER...not because you are using a great "black-box". Because other clients of yours use the same software...but they can't duplicate your results.

Have I explained myself better now?

[thaskalos]

Thaskalos,

I see the game differently than you. Just as you said that no computer could compete with your picks, I would say the same thing about my picks and a human being.



Okay...then I ACCEPT your previous handicapping challenge. I think that it would be entertaining as well as educational, for all of us here. But the rules that you suggested before are unfair...because they do not resemble what real play is like for the vast majority of the players in this game. If we are gonna do this...then we are gonna do it right. :)

You and I will agree on a betting amount to wager per race...and then we will be left free to bet as many races as we want...and whatever wager we want to make. If you want to bet on 150 races in a day, then good for you. I may bet on 25. If you want to bet three horses to win in the same race, GREAT...I may wager the entire amount on the superfecta. And the guy with the most money at the end of the pre-determined timespan of the contest WINS. No ROI bullshit and all that. The guy with the biggest profit at the end of, say, a WEEK...declares himself victorious.

Is this okay with you?

[raybo]

Even after all these years of talking about them...I still am not sure what is meant by "black box", nor do I know what is so desirable about them.

Is a "black box" a selection system whose top pick is asked to be profitable without any human interaction or "interference"? Why would I even WANT such a thing? Even if I could develop a profitable "black box", I would endeavor to make it even MORE profitable...by somehow screening its final selections using my own knowledge and experience. It isn't that I am especially "greedy" and demand as big a profit as possible; it's because I enjoy the handicapping process...and I want to engage in it as much as I can.

Do the owners of these "black boxes" really totally abstain from the day-to-day handicapping process...and leave the work-load entirely in the hands of their creation?

I still handicap "old school" the big races (as well as looking at what my program is telling me ,in all the various rankings methods), because much of the time the difference between winning and losing an individual race can come down to a single, very minor factor, or a combination of a lot of factors, and the fact that, for me anyway, that big race offers profit potentials that lesser races don't offer, due to the sheer volume of the pools.

But, for everyday play, I want something that is totally unbiased and totally consistent in its approach, not subject to the whims, fancies, and inconsistencies of human "interaction or interference". I do all my "handicapping" for these lesser races by "handicapping" the program between betting sessions. I find that much more interesting than grinding my brain into dust handicapping each and every race, every day. No thanks!

After being an athlete all my life, I've always thought and believed that the very best performers, in any endeavor (not just in sports), are those that are most consistent in their methods and approaches, having already paid their dues over all the years, regarding educating themselves and preparing themselves physically, mentally, and emotionally to participate in that endeavor.

Just as some baseball player goes through the same actions getting ready to hit, and swings the same way every pitch, even when he might be better off swinging differently depending on what the pitcher was giving him to hit, and what the situation was at the time, he knows that all the years of preparation, and his swing, will produce frequently enough to be successful, long term. Yeah, he might strike out or hit a lot of long outs a lot, but he knows he'll get enough hits and home runs to be successful, long term. He's not analyzing every at bat, he's doing the same things he always does, in exactly the same ways, because he knows that with his talent and consistency his hits and home runs will come.

[raybo]

And we are doing this because we would rather "employ" someone to carry out the work for us...instead of having a hand in it ourselves?

Those of us who have created good "black boxes", have already carried out the work, and we continue to carry out that work, inside the program, not in every race, every day. We have prepared the program to do its best work, long term, not in each individual race, because we know we don't know, for sure, which horse will win an individual race, but we know we will win in the long term, through the valid and consistent approaches and methods, and all the thousands of hours of work, we have put into the program, and continuously put into it. A "black box" is just like anything else in this game, it's never done, the work goes on, forever.

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave...I think you are misunderstanding me here, so, I will spend a little time explaining myself a little better. When I am talking about "black-box operators"...I am not referring to you...and I don't want you to take my comments personally. To me...you don't qualify to be called a "black-box operator"...nor can your HSH software rightly be called a "black-box". I don't pretend to know what you do when you handicap...nor do I know anything at all about your HSH software package. But, you yourself admitted here that a black-box is a "stand-alone" profit generator...which requires no human interaction at all. If your HSH package really fell under that description...then wouldn't ALL your clients be profitable players, instead of just some of them? If HSH is indeed a "black-box"...then what is it that prevents the REST of your clients from joining the ranks of the horse-playing elite?

Perhaps you should think of HSH as a "Black Box Builder." I have designed and implemented a black box that works for me. So have many others. It does not come with a pre-configured system that "works." Truthfully, I have just been fiddling around with taking my current system and popping it into an original install and selling it as a true turn-key black box for... well, for a lot of money.


So...can we agree that HSH isn't a "black-box," and that you aren't a "black-box operator"? Can we agree that you and your other profitable clients are bringing something EXTRA to the table...which your losing clients lack...and which eliminates your HSH package from the conversation whenever "black-boxes" are being discussed?

You certainly are expert at diverting the attention away from what got me into this conversation to begin with. Namely, that no computer program is capable of out-performing Thaskalos. Sir, I doubt very much that you can keep up with me - at the level of MY PLAYING FIELD.

Perhaps if we lower the bar to the level that you are capable of then you may be able to excel. However, my challenge to you was on MY level, not yours.

Just like the guy on PA who used to talk about making 50 bets per year with over a 100% advantage.

HSH is capable of being a black box. Very few others are capable of that.


And, finally, if we can agree that your software isn't a "black box", and that you and your group aren't "black-box operators"...then, why do you think that I am talking about you and your group when I talk about "black boxes", and those who operate them? Why do you take what I say here so personally? I am NOT talking about you. You win because you are a great PLAYER...not because you are using a great "black-box". Because other clients of yours use the same software...but they can't duplicate your results.

Have I explained myself better now?

I understand you perfectly well.


You and I will agree on a betting amount to wager per race...and then we will be left free to bet as many races as we want...and whatever wager we want to make. If you want to bet on 150 races in a day, then good for you. I may bet on 25. If you want to bet three horses to win in the same race, GREAT...I may wager the entire amount on the superfecta. And the guy with the most money at the end of the pre-determined timespan of the contest WINS. No ROI bullshit and all that. The guy with the biggest profit at the end of, say, a WEEK...declares himself victorious.

Is this okay with you?

You did not accept my challenge and it is not okay with me.

You said that no computer could outperform Thaskalos. I have issued a counter challenge. I raised and said that you could not do what I do and be profitable.

I also do not have a week for this. I offered one day - 40 races. Call or fold.

[thaskalos]

Perhaps you should think of HSH as a "Black Box Builder." I have designed and implemented a black box that works for me. So have many others. It does not come with a pre-configured system that "works." Truthfully, I have just been fiddling around with taking my current system and popping it into an original install and selling it as a true turn-key black box for... well, for a lot of money.




You certainly are expert at diverting the attention away from what got me into this conversation to begin with. Namely, that no computer program is capable of out-performing Thaskalos. Sir, I doubt very much that you can keep up with me - at the level of MY PLAYING FIELD.

Perhaps if we lower the bar to the level that you are capable of then you may be able to excel. However, my challenge to you was on MY level, not yours.

Just like the guy on PA who used to talk about making 50 bets per year with over a 100% advantage.

HSH is capable of being a black box. Very few others are capable of that.




I understand you perfectly well.




You did not accept my challenge and it is not okay with me.

You said that no computer could outperform Thaskalos. I have issued a counter challenge. I raised and said that you could not do what I do and be profitable.

I also do not have a week for this. I offered one day - 40 races. Call or fold.

I am not diverting anyone's attention...nor am I tap-dancing around any issues. I said that I didn't think there was a computer out there that could "outplay" me...and I meant it. But when I said "outplay" me...I meant MAKE MORE MONEY THAN ME. I didn't say anything about agreeing to duplicate the play of another bettor. IMO...the fair thing is for you to play the way you want...and for me to play the way I want. We both play the way we are each comfortable with...and let the chips fall where they may.

If you are as good as you say you are...then you should easily be able to make more money than me in a week's play...considering that your playing style will probably have you making FOUR TIMES the bets that I will be making. If I were telling you that our overall performance would ultimately be judged by our ROI...then I could see how you would think that this is unfair...since my more "selective" playing style would be more conducive to a higher ROI. But I said no such thing. I said that the final total profit will be the decider...and that can hardly be called unfair. We each bet according to our own style...we bet the same amount-per-race...and we compare winnings at the finish line. Justice for all.

And I remind you once again that the comment which brought about all this was directed at DeltaLover. It wasn't meant to be taken as a personal affront by you. You weren't even part of the conversation at that point.

[Dave Schwartz]

.the fair thing is for you to play the way you want...and for me to play the way I want.

I do not desire to play your way.

[thaskalos]

I do not desire to play your way.

And I should desire to play YOUR way? Your way is having you tell me how to play...while MY way says that we could both do whatever we want to do...just as we do in "real life". YOUR way is fairer than mine?

You don't have to agree to "my way", Dave...that's fine. Just don't go around saying that you can "outplay" me. I don't like that...and I have never said such a thing about you. Saying it and "PROVING it", are two different things.

[Dave Schwartz]

I am not going to play THIS game.


Have a nice day.

[raybo]

LOL, you guys know better than to think that 40 races, or a week's play is going to prove anything at all about your ability or your program's ability. That is a very small sample, although it might very well be interesting, but it would give neither one of you bragging rights, except over that small sample.

Pick a meet that is acceptable to each of you, bet any or all races in that meet, with the same beginning bankroll, play anyway you want at any amount that is less than or equal to your current bankroll. If you tap out you lose. The one with the most money at the end of the meet wins that meet.

[Robert Fischer]

A truly elite horseplayer is better than a truly elite computer program. Horseplaying is a complex game (or some like to say 'artistic') and the depth is such as to out-perform a computer program.

A truly elite computer program will have a positive ROI, never have irrational behavior, will never sleep or play or shop etc... It could certainly be useful if it was possible.

I've thought about getting some programmers from the Philippines or some college students and putting together a program, but I haven't thought it through every detail, nor have I accumulated the resources.

[thaskalos]

LOL, you guys know better than to think that 40 races, or a week's play is going to prove anything at all about your ability or your program's ability. That is a very small sample, although it might very well be interesting, but it would give neither one of you bragging rights, except over that small sample.

Pick a meet that is acceptable to each of you, bet any or all races in that meet, with the same beginning bankroll, play anyway you want at any amount that is less than or equal to your current bankroll. If you tap out you lose. The one with the most money at the end of the meet wins that meet.
Dave is too busy to play against me for one week...you think he could face me for an entire MEET?

[Dave Schwartz]

Thaskalos,

Oh, chest-pounding. I am impressed.

Come on. You're better than that.

[Tom]

And I should desire to play YOUR way?

So what you really meant was you could beat a computer if they play it your way and not the way it was designed to be played.

What's next, you race a car, but it has to have the emergency brake on?

[thaskalos]

So what you really meant was you could beat a computer if they play it your way and not the way it was designed to be played.

What's next, you race a car, but it has to have the emergency brake on?
The computer plays any way it wants...and I play any way I want. I am not asking the computer to do anything different than it is was "meant" to do. It wants to bet 300 races a day...fine. I will play my way...the computer plays its own way...and the guy with the most money in the end WINS! Can anything ve fairer than that? Am I asking the Ferrari to keep its break on?

I should have Dave telling me how to play? Am I telling HIM how to play?

[thaskalos]

Thaskalos,

Oh, chest-pounding. I am impressed.

Come on. You're better than that.
Well...that makes two of us, Dave.

It seems that I had misjudged you too...

[DeltaLover]

.

I've thought about getting some programmers from the Philippines or some college students and putting together a program, but I haven't thought it through every detail, nor have I accumulated the resources.


A programmer or a student is not enough.. The best you can expect from them is to end up mimicking one of the commercial systems that you can buy for a few hundred..

[green80]

A programmer or a student is not enough.. The best you can expect from them is to end up mimicking one of the commercial systems that you can buy for a few hundred..

First you must be a profitable handicapper (not saying you are not) to be able to instruct a programmer, who knows nothing about horseracing, to write a program that may be useful.

[steveb]

LOL, you guys know better than to think that 40 races, or a week's play is going to prove anything at all about your ability or your program's ability. That is a very small sample, although it might very well be interesting, but it would give neither one of you bragging rights, except over that small sample.

Pick a meet that is acceptable to each of you, bet any or all races in that meet, with the same beginning bankroll, play anyway you want at any amount that is less than or equal to your current bankroll. If you tap out you lose. The one with the most money at the end of the meet wins that meet.

it's entertaining reading though, and i got my giggle fix for the day.
giggling is good for your health

[DeltaLover]

First you must be a profitable handicapper (not saying you are not) to be able to instruct a programmer, who knows nothing about horseracing, to write a program that may be useful.

Hmm.. I do not know about the handicapper end of it but I can assure you that I am definitely a profitable programmer :D :D :D

[Robert Fischer]

A programmer or a student is not enough.. The best you can expect from them is to end up mimicking one of the commercial systems that you can buy for a few hundred..

I just want someone savvy with programming to program what I say, be relatively affordable, and not be too interested in using the final product for themselves.

[Speed Figure]

How I feel reading this thread! :D

[taxicab]

Why don't you guys have some type of ROI contest ?
It would be cool to watch you guys compete.
Very entertaining....

[Speed Figure]

I say Saratoga and Del Mar! that's 21 races tomorrow!

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Humans are better at some tasks, computers are better at other tasks. Obviously the best solution is to combine the two approaches

But if you can only use human or computer with no help from the other, then the human will easily be the better handicapper

[pandy]

Humans are better at some tasks, computers are better at other tasks. Obviously the best solution is to combine the two approaches

But if you can only use human or computer with no help from the other, then the human will easily be the better handicapper

I agree that combining both is a smart approach, and a great handicapper should beat a computer. But, most people are not great handicappers, and therefore, I think a good computer handicapping program will beat most handicappers.

So far at Del Mar and Saratoga this meet, picking every race except 2yo year old maiden races where there are a lot of firsters, my Diamond System has produced positive ROI's at both meets on its top pick. I doubt that there is a single public handicapper who has a positive ROI at either meet.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

if an average human handicapper takes on the average computer handicapping program then yes maybe the computer will win. But both will be losers with big negative ROIs so both will go bankrupt in the long run so it does not matter as both end up in the same place

But if a top level human handicapper takes on a top level computer handicapping program then the human armed with mere pencil and paper will crush the computer program

[pandy]

if an average human handicapper takes on the average computer handicapping program then yes maybe the computer will win. But both will be losers with big negative ROIs so both will go bankrupt in the long run so it does not matter as both end up in the same place

But if a top level human handicapper takes on a top level computer handicapping program then the human armed with mere pencil and paper will crush the computer program


The Hong Kong syndicate and these other big computer bettors out there are pretty good evidence that a computer handicapper does quite well. I don't think there's a single professional gambler or whale that generates the type of handle these computer syndicates do. They can bet several hundred thousand on one card alone. They can do that because they win.

[DeltaLover]

The Hong Kong syndicate and these other big computer bettors out there are pretty good evidence that a computer handicapper does quite well. I don't think there's a single professional gambler or whale that generates the type of handle these computer syndicates do. They can bet several hundred thousand on one card alone. They can do that because they win.

What makes you to believe that they win? How you happen to know? Is this an opinion or you have some concrete evidence?

[pandy]

There are errors and inconsistencies, numerically, subjectively, objectively, in all areas of handicapping. That's why betting overlays is so important, leverage. For instance, there's no such thing as a correct track variant or speed figure. These are educated guesses and therefore some are blatantly incorrect, others are marginally incorrect.

The presumed edge that a man has over a computer is that he can watch replays, analyze horses in the post parade, maybe make good use of his intuition and experience in certain instances. However, these potential advantages are not always an advantage because visualization is even more prone to error than the numbers.

Again, that margin of error. So the question becomes, who averages the margin of error better, man or computer?

[pandy]

What makes you to believe that they win? How you happen to know? Is this an opinion or you have some concrete evidence?


I believe it was horseplayer that had an interview with one of these guys, I can't remember his name. He bets enormous amounts of money, so much that he has hired hands who sit there all day and make sure everything's being handled properly... and it's indisputable that he does this because the tracks know who these computer whales are. If someone is betting 5 to 10 million a day they are winning, otherwise they'd run out of money.

Some tracks give these computer whales a rebate, so that makes it easier for them to win. The Meadowlands harness track announced last year that they were giving a syndicate a rebate. The syndicate was responsible for 10% of the total handle.

I've read a few other interviews about these syndicates and the men behind them.

[thaskalos]

There are errors and inconsistencies, numerically, subjectively, objectively, in all areas of handicapping. That's why betting overlays is so important, leverage. For instance, there's no such thing as a correct track variant or speed figure. These are educated guesses and therefore some are blatantly incorrect, others are marginally incorrect.

The presumed edge that a man has over a computer is that he can watch replays, analyze horses in the post parade, maybe make good use of his intuition and experience in certain instances. However, these potential advantages are not always an advantage because visualization is even more prone to error than the numbers.

Again, that margin of error. So the question becomes, who averages the margin of error better, man or computer?
IMO...the only huge edge that the computer holds over the human horseplayer is that the computer remains totally unemotional during the inevitable highs and lows inherent in the game. The handicapping aspect of it isn't a disadvantage for the expert player...simply because the craft of "handicapping" also demands a certain level of creativity and imagination which the computer has not yet been able to exhibit. If horseplaying was just about "number-crunching"...then the human wouldn't have a chance against the computer. But it ISN'T just about number-cruncing. Those numbers need to be competently ANALYZED as well. And, IMO, the expert human horseplayer is a much better "analyst".

[DeltaLover]

I believe it was horseplayer that had an interview with one of these guys, I can't remember his name. He bets enormous amounts of money, so much that he has hired hands who sit there all day and make sure everything's being handled properly... and it's indisputable that he does this because the tracks know who these computer whales are. If someone is betting 5 to 10 million a day they are winning, otherwise they'd run out of money.

Some tracks give these computer whales a rebate, so that makes it easier for them to win. The Meadowlands harness track announced last year that they were giving a syndicate a rebate. The syndicate was responsible for 10% of the total handle.

I've read a few other interviews about these syndicates and the men behind them.


Yes, I have watched the interview you are talking about.. Still, I am not ready to accepts somebody's claim at face value.. Although it makes perfect sense to believe that in horse betting, as in any other form of gambling, there exist some very large bettors, this does not prove the mythology about the "whales" who consistently milk the pools, making 8 digit profits per year ( :lol: :lol: :lol: ) as one of the posters claimed in this forum a while ago..

[pandy]

IMO...the only huge edge that the computer holds over the human horseplayer is that the computer remains totally unemotional during the inevitable highs and lows inherent in the game. The handicapping aspect of it isn't a disadvantage for the expert player...simply because the craft of "handicapping" also demands a certain level of creativity and imagination which the computer has not yet been able to exhibit. If horseplaying was just about "number-crunching"...then the human wouldn't have a chance against the computer. But it ISN'T just about number-cruncing. Those numbers need to be competently ANALYZED as well. And, IMO, the expert human horseplayer is a much better "analyst".

I wouldn't argue with what you've said, but your point about emotion is critical. One of the biggest problems we have as humans is that we don't think the same every day. I once was talking to Michael Kipness, The Wizard, who is someone that I have a lot of respect for. We were talking about how much we bet. He said that if he bets within his comfort zone he is fine but when he decides that he's going to bet heavy, he feels that subconsciously it makes him analyze the races differently. Computers aren't swayed by emotions like that. I believe it can be a significant advantage.

[DeltaLover]

IMO...the only huge edge that the computer holds over the human horseplayer is that the computer remains totally unemotional during the inevitable highs and lows inherent in the game. The handicapping aspect of it isn't a disadvantage for the expert player...simply because the craft of "handicapping" also demands a certain level of creativity and imagination which the computer has not yet been able to exhibit. If horseplaying was just about "number-crunching"...then the human wouldn't have a chance against the computer. But it ISN'T just about number-cruncing. Those numbers need to be competently ANALYZED as well. And, IMO, the expert human horseplayer is a much better "analyst".

What you are saying here is only part of the edge a computer holds over the human. Aside from been unemotional the computer also has the ability to perform millions times more calculations than the human making it way more effective in macro handicapping related aspects of the game.

Also, what you seem to be missing, is that modern computing, has gone way beyond the use of a computer as merely a "calculator" and has entered for good the domain of "imagination" and "creativity" of human a human mind. Have no doubt that in the future we will reach a point that the software will be able to crash what you are calling an "expert human horseplayer" in the same way that it will also outperform a medical doctor when it comes to his diagnosis or a formula one driver or [ put here whatever you can think ]

[pandy]

Yes, I have watched the interview you are talking about.. Still, I am not ready to accepts somebody's claim at face value.. Although it makes perfect sense to believe that in horse betting, as in any other form of gambling, there exist some very large bettors, this does not prove the mythology about the "whales" who consistently milk the pools, making 8 digit profits per year ( :lol: :lol: :lol: ) as one of the posters claimed in this forum a while ago..


I guess no one knows for sure. I do know a couple of professional bettors who are very good at analyzing the pools. They can tell when these syndicates are in there because of the way pools change so dramatically at the last minute. No one could possibly bet large amounts of money like that on so many combinations in a split second. And if the syndicate money is flowing, they're winning. Losing taps you out.

[thaskalos]

I wouldn't argue with what you've said, but your point about emotion is critical. One of the biggest problems we have as humans is that we don't think the same every day. I once was talking to Michael Kipness, The Wizard, who is someone that I have a lot of respect for. We were talking about how much we bet. He said that if he bets within his comfort zone he is fine but when he decides that he's going to bet heavy, he feels that subconsciously it makes him analyze the races differently. Computers aren't swayed by emotions like that. I believe it can be a significant advantage.
Yes, Pandy...but the computer isn't losing its own MONEY when it hits a long losing streak. Just because the computer remains unemotional while it bets doesn't mean that the computer OPERATOR, who puts up the betting money, will remain unemotional as well.

[pandy]

Yes, Pandy...but the computer isn't losing its own MONEY when it hits a long losing streak. Just because the computer remains unemotional while it bets doesn't mean that the computer OPERATOR, who puts up the betting money, will remain unemotional as well.

Yes, I agree. It's just like I said about the tournament guys who win because they are good at picking longshot winners. If they had to bet those same horses in real life, they may not have the guts to keep going after 15 straight losers.

[green80]

I guess no one knows for sure. I do know a couple of professional bettors who are very good at analyzing the pools. They can tell when these syndicates are in there because of the way pools change so dramatically at the last minute. No one could possibly bet large amounts of money like that on so many combinations in a split second. And if the syndicate money is flowing, they're winning. Losing taps you out.

You would be suprised how little it takes to change to change the pools at the mid sized and smaller tracks,especially on the longer priced horses.
Not all whales are going to bet on the same horse or horses are they?

[thaskalos]

Also, what you seem to be missing, is that modern computing, has gone way beyond the use of a computer as merely a "calculator" and has entered for good the domain of "imagination" and "creativity" of human a human mind. Have no doubt that in the future we will reach a point that the software will be able to crash what you are calling an "expert human horseplayer" in the same way that it will also outperform a medical doctor when it comes to his diagnosis or a formula one driver or [ put here whatever you can think ]

Where are these super-sophisticated computers being sold, Delta...I think I might get myself one.

[pandy]

You would be suprised how little it takes to change to change the pools at the mid sized and smaller tracks,especially on the longer priced horses.
Not all whales are going to bet on the same horse or horses are they?


I agree with you, but I do believe there is ample evidence that syndicate money, or computer-whale betting, whatever you want to call it, is in the pools at many tracks.

[pandy]

The politicians are such fools. If the takeout was say, 8%, and all bettors in all states had access to all pools, and all the money was in the same pools, over time with proper management and marketing, tracks like Saratoga or any track with full fields could generate 40 to 50 million a day in handle and there would be many more of these sophisticated computer bettors, just as there is in the stock market. The handle could be huge if things were run right.

[DeltaLover]

Where are these super-sophisticated computers being sold, Delta...I think I might get myself one.

Note that you are making use of them quite often if if you do not realize it. Whenever you are performing a google search or shopping in Amazon or searching E-Bay or using some automated phone service you are implicitly using some AI solution. Also every time you are entering your favourite casino, chances are your face is scanned by a face recognition software..

[thaskalos]

I guess no one knows for sure. I do know a couple of professional bettors who are very good at analyzing the pools. They can tell when these syndicates are in there because of the way pools change so dramatically at the last minute. No one could possibly bet large amounts of money like that on so many combinations in a split second. And if the syndicate money is flowing, they're winning. Losing taps you out.

The late Kerry Packer was an Australian casino-betting Whale...who would win and lose millions of dollars in a single sitting. Being a casino player, he was a guaranteed "loser"...and yet he continued playing for many years...and only stopped because he died. Some people do have that kind of money.

[thaskalos]

Note that you are making use of them quite often if if you do not realize it. Whenever you are performing a google search or shopping in Amazon or searching E-Bay or using some automated phone service you are implicitly using some AI solution. Also every time you are entering your favourite casino, chances are your face is scanned by a face recognition software..

Can they help me handicap, though...

[DeltaLover]

Can they help me handicap, though...

They are already doing so. All the data you are using, including primitive and derivatives are collected, stored, evaluated and distributed based on some kind of a computing solution..

[thaskalos]

They are already doing so. All the data you are using, including primitive and derivatives are collected, stored, evaluated and distributed based on some kind of a computing solution..
Delta...is there a computer program that I could buy which will allow me to beat this game? Because, if there is...then I want to buy it. I don't want to buy something that comes attached with bullshit excuses like "I have to spend unlimited amounts of time working with the software in order to discover the path to profitability". I want a super-sophisticated computer or piece of software which will be able to view the past performances, analyze them better than I can...and then come up with betting opinions which will be more profitable than my own. And I want this computer to be able to do this right out of the box...without me having to spend unlimited amounts of time "teaching" it what to do.

Can I go out and buy something like that...at ANY price?

[DeltaLover]

Delta...is there a computer program that I could buy which will allow me to beat this game? Because, if there is...then I want to buy it. I don't want to buy something that comes attached with bullshit excuses like "I have to spend unlimited amounts of time working with the software in order to discover the path to profitability". I want a super-sophisticated computer or piece of software which will be able to view the past performances, analyze them better than I can...and then come up with betting opinions which will be more profitable than my own. And I want this computer to be able to do this right out of the box...without me having to spend unlimited amounts of time "teaching" it what to do.

Can I go out and buy something like that...at ANY price?


There is no program that can allow to beat the game by blindly betting its selections (yet).

This does not mean that there does not exist software that can significantly improve your understanding of the game as a whole, providing you with accurate track variants, speed ratings, rankings, pattern recognition and many more.

Chances are that, you need to be involved with this kind of a solution a little more than a mere user, contributing your ideas and handicapping philosophy and allowing to become more efficient to the way it will make decisions and reach a conclusion.

Building good simulations, is one of the corner stones in engineering, finance, medicine, trading and science and horse betting is not exception to it. Obviously having access to a well designed race simulator, certainly puts you ahead of the crowd.. Even if it cannot beat the game as a stand alone betting agent, it can boost your effectiveness as a bettor without a doubt..

[pandy]

Well, that whale who bets millions each week uses a program and he claims that he wins several hundred thousand a year and never does any handicapping. So unless he's lying, there is a program that wins.

[DeltaLover]

Well, that whale who bets millions each week uses a program and he claims that he wins several hundred thousand a year and never does any handicapping. So unless he's lying, there is a program that wins.

He can claim anything he likes, until I see it I will never believe it..

[thaskalos]

There is no program that can allow to beat the game by blindly betting its selections (yet).

This does not mean that there does not exist software that can significantly improve your understanding of the game as a whole, providing you with accurate track variants, speed ratings, rankings, pattern recognition and many more.

Chances are that, you need to be involved with this kind of a solution a little more than a mere user, contributing your ideas and handicapping philosophy and allowing to become more efficient to the way it will make decisions and reach a conclusion.

Building good simulations, is one of the corner stones in engineering, finance, medicine, trading and science and horse betting is not exception to it. Obviously having access to a well designed race simulator, certainly puts you ahead of the crowd.. Even if it cannot beat the game as a stand alone betting agent, it can boost your effectiveness as a bettor without a doubt..
Thank you.

[pandy]

He can claim anything he likes, until I see it I will never believe it..


He gets big rebates. I believe it, but anyone could lie, I guess.

[raybo]

He gets big rebates. I believe it, but anyone could lie, I guess.

And, anyone can deny anything, based on his/her own personal experience. Just because your personal experience biases you toward thinking that no such thing exists doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Just because you don't win, doesn't mean that others don't, even though there are many players here who will go to their graves believing that nobody consistently beats this game.

Nobody, that I know of, has ever said that there is a computer program that consistently beats the game that does not require some work by the user, before or after the the wagering session. Such a program must evolve with the game, just as human handicappers must evolve with it. That being said, IMO, the day will come, if it hasn't already (and I suspect that it already has, somewhere), when such programs will continuously evolve with the game, on their own, with absolutely no human maintenance involved other than human monitoring of the fail/safe status of the computer monitoring processes within the system for proper operation, which would have absolutely nothing to do with handicapping or betting horse races, only the proper operation of the software and hardware.

[DeltaLover]

Just because your personal experience biases you toward thinking that no such thing exists doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Just because you don't win, doesn't mean that others don't, even though there are many players here who will go to their graves believing that nobody consistently beats this game.


Really? So, if somebody insists that the following creature exists and lives somewhere where nobody can see it, are you going to believe it? Whoever makes this kind of a claim needs to prove it otherwise people will only laugh at him...

http://i61.tinypic.com/j7vjog.jpg

[Dave Schwartz]

Because, if there is...then I want to buy it. I don't want to buy something that comes attached with bullshit excuses like "I have to spend unlimited amounts of time working with the software in order to discover the path to profitability". I want a super-sophisticated computer or piece of software which will be able to view the past performances, analyze them better than I can...and then come up with betting opinions which will be more profitable than my own. And I want this computer to be able to do this right out of the box...without me having to spend unlimited amounts of time "teaching" it what to do.

Can I go out and buy something like that...at ANY price?

Tell me...

If there was such a turnkey program, and it played 30% of all races you handicap and produced an ROI of (say) +9% with a per race hit rate of (say) 45%, what would you be able to make from it annually?

[thaskalos]

Tell me...

If there was such a turnkey program, and it played 30% of all races you handicap and produced an ROI of (say) +9% with a per race hit rate of (say) 45%, what would you be able to make from it annually?
Sir...you and I have nothing further to say to one another.

[raybo]

Really? So, if somebody insists that the following creature exists and lives somewhere where nobody can see it, are you going to believe it? Whoever makes this kind of a claim needs to prove it otherwise people will only laugh at him...

http://i61.tinypic.com/j7vjog.jpg

:rolleyes: Get real man. We're talking about computer analytics here, not cartoon fantasy. We're talking technology that is expanding exponentially, continuously, with millions of very smart, very forward thinking individuals thoroughly involved, up to the elbows. We have cars that drive themselves, and stop themselves, without any input by the operator. And that's just the stuff we see on TV and in the media, what do you suppose is going on behind the scenes? And here I thought you were above the mythological crap. I have severely over estimated your technical knowledge. Thanks for setting me straight on that error in judgement. :ThmbUp:

[raybo]

Tell me...

If there was such a turnkey program, and it played 30% of all races you handicap and produced an ROI of (say) +9% with a per race hit rate of (say) 45%, what would you be able to make from it annually?

Whatever the pools would allow - LOL! :ThmbUp:

[raybo]

Sir...you and I have nothing further to say to one another.

Come on Gus, think outside the box of your experience a little. He didn't say it was betting one horse to win for Christ's sake. 9% ROI and 45% hit rate, "on 30% of the races you handicap" is not only possible, but probable, if approached in the right manner. He didn't say a single horse bet, and he didn't say 30% of all races. Personally, I wouldn't accept only 9% ROI, under that criteria. Yeah, yeah, Raybo is nuts, go ahead, who cares.

[DeltaLover]

:rolleyes: Get real man. We're talking about computer analytics here, not cartoon fantasy. We're talking technology that is expanding exponentially, continuously, with millions of very smart, very forward thinking individuals thoroughly involved, up to the elbows. We have cars that drive themselves, and stop themselves, without any input by the operator. And that's just the stuff we see on TV and in the media, what do you suppose is going on behind the scenes? And here I thought you were above the mythological crap. I have severely over estimated your technical knowledge. Thanks for setting me straight on that error in judgement. :ThmbUp:

You are missing a point. Building a winning algorithm is not the same as building a self driving car.

The problem is that the fictitious automated betting system will match itself against other equally sophisticated systems something that given the limited amount of "dummy" money that consist the betting pools, will create a solved game where the only long term winner will be the game conductor.

Exactly the same concept applies, even in the case where fixed odds are offered, since they are created by very sophisticated models that make it impossible for anyone to try to exploit them, especially when considering the disadvantage of the take out.

Assuming that at some point in the future, the game of horse betting will be "solved", it will quickly evaporate any valid possibility to extract some long term profit out of it...

As an example of this situation, you can refer to the game of backgammon which has lost most of its gambling interest from the time it was solved as a game.

[raybo]

You are missing a point. Building a winning algorithm is not the same as building a self driving car.

The problem is that the fictitious automated betting system will match itself against other equally sophisticated systems something that given the limited amount of "dummy" money that consist the betting pools, will create a solved game where the only long term winner will be the game conductor.

Exactly the same concept applies, even in the case where fixed odds are offered, since they are created by very sophisticated models that make it impossible for anyone to try to exploit them, especially when considering the disadvantage of the take out.

Assuming that at some point in the future, the game of horse betting will be "solved", it will quickly evaporate any valid possibility to extract some long term profit out of it...

As an example of this situation, you can refer to the game of backgammon which has lost most of its gambling interest from the time it was solved as a game.

Then why (or how) do you continue to play? That endeavor/obsession would be sheer idiocy.

[DeltaLover]

Then why (or how) do you continue to play? That endeavor/obsession would be sheer idiocy.

Please do not change the topic..

The point I am trying to make, is that all this mythology about whales who have discovered some kind of a magic way to consistently beat the game is simply a fallacy and nothing more. I do not disagree that they probably have an unfair advantage of the smaller bettors, mainly due to rebates and inside information but eventually the will end up losing huge sums of money since it is impossible to overcome the huge take out.

[green80]

Please do not change the topic..

The point I am trying to make, is that all this mythology about whales who have discovered some kind of a magic way to consistently beat the game is simply a fallacy and nothing more. I do not disagree that they probably have an unfair advantage of the smaller bettors, mainly due to rebates and inside information but eventually the will end up losing huge sums of money since it is impossible to overcome the huge take out.

I agree, the only advantage the whales have over the little bettor is the size of the rebates that they get. However I have seen a trend to increase rebates to all players lately. I am no whale by any means, but I get 6% on WPS bets and 9% on exactas at the tracks I play. If I play somewhere like Sunland or Will Rogers I can get 11 on WPS and 13% on exotics. However my hit rate is higher at the average rebate tracks. For some reason, maybe luck, my ROI was best at Oaklawn, where I didn't get but 2%.

[Dave Schwartz]

Sir...you and I have nothing further to say to one another.

:lol:

[green80]

Delta...is there a computer program that I could buy which will allow me to beat this game? Because, if there is...then I want to buy it. I don't want to buy something that comes attached with bullshit excuses like "I have to spend unlimited amounts of time working with the software in order to discover the path to profitability". I want a super-sophisticated computer or piece of software which will be able to view the past performances, analyze them better than I can...and then come up with betting opinions which will be more profitable than my own. And I want this computer to be able to do this right out of the box...without me having to spend unlimited amounts of time "teaching" it what to do.

Can I go out and buy something like that...at ANY price?

If there was a computer program that you could buy that, out of the box, would allow you to beat the game, when you buy one, and I buy one, and a few others buy one, and we all bet the horses it selects, any edge we have would be gone.

[Trips]

Somebody needs a hug. :)

[Dave Schwartz]

If there was a computer program that you could buy that, out of the box, would allow you to beat the game, when you buy one, and I buy one, and a few others buy one, and we all bet the horses it selects, any edge we have would be gone.

How much would you be willing to pay for such a program?

[raybo]

Please do not change the topic..

The point I am trying to make, is that all this mythology about whales who have discovered some kind of a magic way to consistently beat the game is simply a fallacy and nothing more. I do not disagree that they probably have an unfair advantage of the smaller bettors, mainly due to rebates and inside information but eventually the will end up losing huge sums of money since it is impossible to overcome the huge take out.

I'm not changing the subject. You are trying to make a point by stating things that are strictly from your own experience based on your on knowledge and beliefs. Just as I can't prove what I have stated, neither can you. We can only state what we believe, based on our knowledge and experience, and common sense. Some of us have more pertinent knowledge, experience, and common sense than others, and some of us can mentally visualize things that others cannot, because those others have limited themselves to only what they have experienced and have been educated to believe. There are many who cannot think beyond their own lives. There are those who refuse to accept that they no little about things they have not done or have not witnessed. There's a huge world outside your home and office doors, and the doors of those you know or read about or hear about. There are things going on that many cannot, and will never know about. There have always been those who have demanded that some things were impossible, and yet things continue to come about that had been thought impossible previously. Self-imposed limitations are just that, self-imposed, and not universal to everyone or everything in this world.

You can continue to think that you have things figured out, for now and always, but until you finally accept that you are not all knowing, and not immune to errors in postulation and personal knowledge based analysis and prediction and/or "this is fact" when it is only your fact and not universal to everyone, you will continue to be mired in mediocrity and negativity, which will continue to make it impossible for you to see things outside your little box of knowledge and beliefs. That my friend, is your loss and someone else's gain, that is a very sad waste of time and energy. The future is not finite, it is ever expanding and full of possibilities and probabilities. Never say never, and never say impossible, because then those two endings apply directly to you, and those who think and believe like you do.

People who say that a computerized system, without human input, cannot be consistently, and significantly, profitable in horse racing, simply have limited knowledge and experience, and are bound by their own knowledge and belief biases. Just because you perceive that something is not possible, and certainly does not exist now, even without the presentation of absolute proof, does not make it so. If absolute proof exists, in a game dependent on direct competition between its participants, you are highly unlikely to ever see it presented. That, is common sense.

[DeltaLover]

How much would you be willing to pay for such a program?

For several reasons the amount I would be willing to pay for such a program is exactly ZERO.


First of all, it would have been very difficult to be convinced about such an extreme claim

More than this and as I explained above, if such a program is possible to construct, it will quickly lose all his trading value since other implementers will follow nullifying its value and actually converting the game to a negative betting expectation, similar to roulette or craps.

Even more than this and in the unreal situation that indeed this software exists and also nobody can replicate it, I think it is quite logical to assume that it is going impossible for me to squeeze some value out of it, buying it from his creator who supposedly is going to be smart enough to not sell it in a lesser price than what he can extract from it.

Finally, if I was finding somebody insisting that he has this kind of software and also like to do business with me, I would simply ask him for a deal similar to mutual or hedge fund, meaning providing him with capital and him paying me back dividends while keeping me informed about how he invests my money

[raybo]

How much would you be willing to pay for such a program?

He probably couldn't afford it, and that would go for most others, which would, in effect, severely limit the number of users, automatically. And, even if he had the money he would be very unlikely to spend it on such a program, I doubt seriously anyone here would spend that much money on it, simply because they don't believe it's possible. There have been way too many con-men throughout history offering wild claims of winning systems, when in fact they just prey on weak minded individuals who are too lazy to put in the thousands of hours of work required to create something viable themselves, or are too mentally/technically lacking to create something that actually works.

My system is not "out of the box" profitable (at least not "optimally profitable"), the user has to do the work of testing tracks and analyzing the results of that testing. Although it is not difficult, nor particularly time consuming, it still does not qualify as an "out of the box (optimally) profitable" method. Profitability is not free, one must pay, in one way or another, whether monetarily or through time and maintenance. That doesn't mean that such a system does not exist, because I am sure such a system is possible and probably already exists, I just don't have one yet.

[DeltaLover]

I'm not changing the subject. You are trying to make a point by stating things that are strictly from your own experience based on your on knowledge and beliefs. Just as I can't prove what I have stated, neither can you. We can only state what we believe, based on our knowledge and experience, and common sense. Some of us have more pertinent knowledge, experience, and common sense than others, and some of us can mentally visualize things that others cannot, because those others have limited themselves to only what they have experienced and have been educated to believe. There are many who cannot think beyond their own lives. There are those who refuse to accept that they no little about things they have not done or have not witnessed. There's a huge world outside your home and office doors, and the doors of those you know or read about or hear about. There are things going on that many cannot, and will never know about. There have always been those who have demanded that some things were impossible, and yet things continue to come about that had been thought impossible previously. Self-imposed limitations are just that, self-imposed, and not universal to everyone or everything in this world.

You can continue to think that you have things figured out, for now and always, but until you finally accept that you are not all knowing, and not immune to errors in postulation and personal knowledge based analysis and prediction and/or "this is fact" when it is only your fact and not universal to everyone, you will continue to be mired in mediocrity and negativity, which will continue to make it impossible for you to see things outside your little box of knowledge and beliefs. That my friend, is your loss and someone else's gain, that is a very sad waste of time and energy. The future is not finite, it is ever expanding and full of possibilities and probabilities. Never say never, and never say impossible, because then those two endings apply directly to you, and those who think and believe like you do.

People who say that a computerized system, without human input, cannot be consistently, and significantly, profitable in horse racing, simply have limited knowledge and experience, and are bound by their own knowledge and belief biases. Just because you perceive that something is not possible, and certainly does not exist now, even without the presentation of absolute proof, does not make it so. If absolute proof exists, in a game dependent on direct competition between its participants, you are highly unlikely to ever see it presented. That, is common sense.

See my response to DS.. Also try to keep it abstract using only logical arguments and not personal references. In other words answer with concrete arguments and facts as opposed to to generalities and aphorisms like::

There are many who cannot think beyond their own lives.

There are those who refuse to accept that they no little about things they have not done or have not witnessed.

...
...
etc

[whodoyoulike]

Delta...is there a computer program that I could buy which will allow me to beat this game? Because, if there is...then I want to buy it. I don't want to buy something that comes attached with bullshit excuses like "I have to spend unlimited amounts of time working with the software in order to discover the path to profitability". I want a super-sophisticated computer or piece of software which will be able to view the past performances, analyze them better than I can...and then come up with betting opinions which will be more profitable than my own. And I want this computer to be able to do this right out of the box...without me having to spend unlimited amounts of time "teaching" it what to do.

Can I go out and buy something like that...at ANY price?


I thought that was what Dave was attempting to demonstrate. Btw, you won't have to "teach" it but, you'll have to most likely learn what exactly it is "telling" you.


I thought this thread had the potential of becoming really entertaining with Post #39 on page 3 and post #50 was pure wisdom from my POV (I even went out and bought popcorn).

What happened??

[ultracapper]

I'm not changing the subject. You are trying to make a point by stating things that are strictly from your own experience based on your on knowledge and beliefs. Just as I can't prove what I have stated, neither can you. We can only state what we believe, based on our knowledge and experience, and common sense. Some of us have more pertinent knowledge, experience, and common sense than others, and some of us can mentally visualize things that others cannot, because those others have limited themselves to only what they have experienced and have been educated to believe. There are many who cannot think beyond their own lives. There are those who refuse to accept that they no little about things they have not done or have not witnessed. There's a huge world outside your home and office doors, and the doors of those you know or read about or hear about. There are things going on that many cannot, and will never know about. There have always been those who have demanded that some things were impossible, and yet things continue to come about that had been thought impossible previously. Self-imposed limitations are just that, self-imposed, and not universal to everyone or everything in this world.

You can continue to think that you have things figured out, for now and always, but until you finally accept that you are not all knowing, and not immune to errors in postulation and personal knowledge based analysis and prediction and/or "this is fact" when it is only your fact and not universal to everyone, you will continue to be mired in mediocrity and negativity, which will continue to make it impossible for you to see things outside your little box of knowledge and beliefs. That my friend, is your loss and someone else's gain, that is a very sad waste of time and energy. The future is not finite, it is ever expanding and full of possibilities and probabilities. Never say never, and never say impossible, because then those two endings apply directly to you, and those who think and believe like you do.

People who say that a computerized system, without human input, cannot be consistently, and significantly, profitable in horse racing, simply have limited knowledge and experience, and are bound by their own knowledge and belief biases. Just because you perceive that something is not possible, and certainly does not exist now, even without the presentation of absolute proof, does not make it so. If absolute proof exists, in a game dependent on direct competition between its participants, you are highly unlikely to ever see it presented. That, is common sense.

Do you regret getting involved in this thread yet?

[green80]

I thought that was what Dave was attempting to demonstrate. Btw, you won't have to "teach" it but, you'll have to most likely learn what exactly it is "telling" you.




:ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp:Th at is the key to working with a black box. It took me a year of keeping records to learn how to be successful with this black box.

[thaskalos]

I thought that was what Dave was attempting to demonstrate. Btw, you won't have to "teach" it but, you'll have to most likely learn what exactly it is "telling" you.


I thought this thread had the potential of becoming really entertaining with Post #39 on page 3 and post #50 was pure wisdom from my POV (I even went out and bought popcorn).

What happened??
"What happened"?

When I say that I can outplay any computer out there, and you have a computer and want to prove me wrong...then you can't dictate to me how I am going to play. You can't force me to bet 40 consecutive races as they unfold...just because that's what YOUR style is. You want to prove that your computer can outplay me? Then you use your computer the way you want...and you let me play the way I want. We compete against each other for a certain period of time...and whoever makes the most money wins. You don't pick my races...and I don't pick your races. You think your computer is a "Ferrari", fine. Drive your Ferrari, and I'll ride my bicycle...and we'll see who gets to the finish line first.

THAT'S what you call "outplaying" someone. You play your game...and you let him play HIS game. And the one with the highest profit wins.

[raybo]

If one can visualize (a big problem for most here) a system that has already been developed to include many models that are profitable in specific race types and at specific tracks, one is already mentally able to imagine that that system could be broken down into specific sets of models, all being profitable regarding the race types and tracks that apply to them, and sold individually as an "out of the box" profitable system, several of them as a matter of fact. One would not have to sell all of the models to an individual purchaser. One could then demand a high price, for each one, which would limit the number of users for each one, and also dilute the number of users who would be betting the same selections in the same races at the same tracks. If the price is high enough, there will be very few who will purchase just one of those systems, and some of those would be purchasing other models, so they wouldn't be betting the same selections, nor the same races at the same tracks, thus protecting the individual models from over exploitation.

I have no doubt that Dave's personal HSH usage includes multiple individually profitable models. It would be rather obtuse to think that he could not break down that software into separate profitable models, selling some and keeping others to himself. Why he hasn't already done this is the only question I have. I know personally, with my program, there are very few users who will use the software to its full potential, like I do because I created it, and I know everything there is to know about what it was designed to do, and how it does it. It's almost impossible to impart all that knowledge to others, they have to develop that ability themselves and few will take the time to do that, because they can already us it to improve their results without going that extra mile. Dave could offer a version of the HSH software, with a profitable model (or two) already included, requiring no additional model creation by the user, so in effect, that version would be "out of the box" profitable, if the user uses the software exactly as it is, and plays its selections exactly the way it says to play them (another big problem for many). You can't add, or take away, anything, you have to play it just as it is, otherwise it's no longer "out of the box" profitable. Not many out there can do that, they always have to "mess" with things, like they know better, it's human nature after all.

[raybo]

See my response to DS.. Also try to keep it abstract using only logical arguments and not personal references. In other words answer with concrete arguments and facts as opposed to to generalities and aphorisms like::

There are many who cannot think beyond their own lives.

There are those who refuse to accept that they no little about things they have not done or have not witnessed.

...
...
etc

Do you refute those bolded statements? if so, then that is a problem you must deal with, not me.

ab·stract
adjective
abˈstrakt,ˈabˌstrakt/
1.
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
"abstract concepts such as love or beauty"
synonyms: theoretical, conceptual, notional, intellectual, metaphysical, ideal, philosophical, academic; rareideational
"abstract concepts"

I try NOT to be too abstract. Unlike a few others around here. :lol:

[raybo]

Do you regret getting involved in this thread yet?

Yes!! But, I tried to prepare myself to not overreact to the shortfalls of the detractors. So far, I'm still standing, although weariness is starting to creep in. :lol:

[raybo]

:ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp:Th at is the key to working with a black box. It took me a year of keeping records to learn how to be successful with this black box.

Which one is that, if I may be so bold?

[DeltaLover]

Do you refute those bolded statements? if so, then that is a problem you must deal with, not me.



I try NOT to be too abstract. Unlike a few others around here. :lol:

Your rhetoric does not address any of the points I specified in my previous threads.. From what I can see you have nothing to say except personal statements and constant reference to your "software" and your claims that you can make 1.32 ROI but you are planning stop bet after it has decreased to 1.2 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: !

[raybo]

"What happened"?

When I say that I can outplay any computer out there, and you have a computer and want to prove me wrong...then you can't dictate to me how I am going to play. You can't force me to bet 40 consecutive races as they unfold...just because that's what YOUR style is. You want to prove that your computer can outplay me? Then you use your computer the way you want...and you let me play the way I want. We compete against each other for a certain period of time...and whoever makes the most money wins. You don't pick my races...and I don't pick your races. You think your computer is a "Ferrari", fine. Drive your Ferrari, and I'll ride my bicycle...and we'll see who gets to the finish line first.

THAT'S what you call "outplaying" someone. You play your game...and you let him play HIS game. And the one with the highest profit wins.

There you go! You two are playing two completely different games. There is very little chance of the two of you agreeing on a contest that will prove anything at all, regarding who (or what) is better. For one thing, I doubt seriously that either of you is willing to put in the time (or effort) to post enough plays to be meaningful. 40 races, a week of races, a month of races, is not nearly enough to prove dominance. But, as a demonstration, I, and most here would love to see you two going at it! :cool:

[whodoyoulike]

What happend?

When I say that I can outplay any computer out there, and you have a computer and want to prove me wrong...then you can't dictate to me how I am going to play. You can't force me to bet 40 consecutive races as they unfold...just because that's what YOUR style is. You want to prove that your computer can outplay me? Then you use your computer the way you want...and you let me play the way I want. We compete against each other for a certain period of time...and whoever makes the most money wins. You don't pick my races...and I don't pick your races. You think your computer is a "Ferrari", fine. Drive your Ferrari, and I'll ride my bicycle...and we'll see who gets to the finish line first.

THAT'S what you call "outplaying" someone. You play your game...and you let him play HIS game. And the one with the highest profit wins.


I agree with you regarding the conditions placed on this demo.

Except for us following along (I'm always customer oriented [a habit of mine] so we can see what's up), .... Maybe you both use Whobet's site where you each choose 3 tracks apiece and any 5 races (10 in total) over say two days (Thu/Fri, Fri/Sat or Sat/Sun). You should be able to bet any way you choose just like at the track and in the same denominations. A $500 starting balance and a minimum of $50 per* or up to your remaining balance. Last one with a remaining balance or highest balance wins. Each keeps track of their own.

* a DD bet needs $100 and no pick xx type bets.


PRIZES ....

To para-phrase a line from one of my favorite movies ....

PRIZES .... we don't need no stinking PRIZES!!!!


The only prize you really need is the winnings from your bets or those by selecting bets from your opponent.

[raybo]

Your rhetoric does not address any of the points I specified in my previous threads.. From what I can see you have nothing to say except personal statements and constant reference to your "software" and your claims that you can make 1.32 ROI but you are planning stop bet after it has decreased to 1.2 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: !

I have yet to see anything other than rhetoric and personal belief from you either. And, regarding my personal program, and the way I use it, I prefer to not do what the vast majority of players do, keep betting when the environment has changed and is in flux. I didn't say I would not re-enter the betting arena if things normalized, I said I would not let my ROI drop below 1.20, because that is the minimum ROI that I will accept, at any track I decide to play and at any meet I am playing. That my friend, is monetarily sound. If you were in the stock market and the bottom dropped out, would you keep investing in a market that is in general decline? Why should I give back profit I've already made because something in the meet's environment, completely out of my control, has changed. It takes time for my program to adjust to fundamental changes at a track, and this is especially important towards the end of meets, when there is very little time left to overcome a temporary decline, even if things do normalize there is not enough time to recoup those additional losses. By reducing my losses, I increase my long term profit.

[Speed Figure]

Why not play Saratoga and Del Mar next week? That would be about 22 to 24 races! that's more then enough to see who comes out on top!

[raybo]

I agree with you regarding the conditions placed on this demo.

Except for us following along (I'm always customer oriented [a habit of mine] so we can see what's up), .... Maybe you both use Whobet's site where you each choose 3 tracks apiece and any 5 races (10 in total) over say two days (Thu/Fri, Fri/Sat or Sat/Sun). You should be able to bet any way you choose just like at the track and in the same denominations. A $500 starting balance and a minimum of $50 per* or up to your remaining balance. Last one with a remaining balance or highest balance wins. Each keeps track of their own.

* a DD bet needs $100 and no pick xx type bets.


PRIZES ....

To para-phrase a line from one of my favorite movies ....

PRIZES .... we don't need no stinking PRIZES!!!!


The only prize you really need is the winnings from your bets or those by selecting bets from your opponent.

We had a black box challenge here few years ago, if I remember right it was over 6 different tracks over 6 days, betting every race on the cards, one win bet per race, betting the same amount on each play, best ROI wins. Handi's program came in first at 1.26 I think, and mine came in 2nd at 1.24 (after going 0 for 9 at Aqueduct). While the contest was entertaining, it hardly proved anything about any of the programs, or the other category of non-black boxes that were entered. Methods of playing, strengths and weaknesses, vary with the software/individual, so the chance of any single contest, over specific tracks, in a relatively short period of time, being equally compatible with all entrants are slim indeed.

[green80]

Which one is that, if I may be so bold?

Private design- not commercially available. I actually bought it from someone who said he couldn't win with it. I got more selective with it and it has produced a +10% roi over about 600 races bet.

[raybo]

Why not play Saratoga and Del Mar next week? That would be about 22 to 24 races! that's more then enough to see who comes out on top!

That would be very little better than playing a single race. 22 to 24 races doesn't even account for a drop in the bucket regarding the long term. Variance alone, one large payout, one big loss, etc., could determine the winner of that small sample.

[raybo]

Private design- not commercially available. I actually bought it from someone who said he couldn't win with it. I got more selective with it and it has produced a +10% roi over about 600 races bet.

Ok, I didn't know who you were, by your screen name, I thought you might be one of my black box owners who finally decided to do the record keeping analysis I suggest.

[Speed Figure]

That would be very little better than playing a single race. 22 to 24 races doesn't even account for a drop in the bucket regarding the long term. Variance alone, one large payout, one big loss, etc., could determine the winner of that small sample.
Well this whole thing is nothing more than "I'll huff and puff and blow your house down".:ThmbDown:

[raybo]

Well this whole thing is nothing more than "I'll huff and puff and blow your house down".:ThmbDown:

Exactly! :ThmbUp: But, keep in mind, their methods of attaining profit are fundamentally different. It would take months (and maybe not even then) to find out which one makes more profit. But, it would still be entertaining!

[whodoyoulike]

We had a black box challenge here few years ago, if I remember right it was over 6 different tracks over 6 days, betting every race on the cards, one win bet per race, betting the same amount on each play, best ROI wins. Handi's program came in first at 1.26 I think, and mine came in 2nd at 1.24 (after going 0 for 9 at Aqueduct). While the contest was entertaining, it hardly proved anything about any of the programs, or the other category of non-black boxes that were entered. Methods of playing, strengths and weaknesses, vary with the software/individual, so the chance of any single contest, over specific tracks, in a relatively short period of time, being equally compatible with all entrants are slim indeed.

This must have been before my time because I don't recall. We're not discussing a "black box" challenge but rather a .....

Mano a Machino or it could be a Womano a Mano a Machino or

some variation of a challenge. I still find the concept interesting and feel it would be both informative and entertaining. After all, I've now got all this popcorn ready to be microwaved. I don't think it should be handicapping every race because ..... Who does that?

[Dave Schwartz]

I don't think it should be handicapping every race because ..... Who does that?

A computer handicapper with a successful approach.

[raybo]

This must have been before my time because I don't recall. We're not discussing a "black box" challenge but rather a .....

Mano a Machino or it could be a Womano a Mano a Machino or

some variation of a challenge. I still find the concept interesting and feel it would be both informative and entertaining. After all, I've now got all this popcorn ready to be microwaved. I don't think it should be handicapping every race because ..... Who does that?

My point was that, that contest, which also included non-black box participants as well, did not prove a thing except who had the best ROI over that period of time, at those particular tracks, and those particular races. There was one non-black box entrant, forget who it was right now, who beat both Handi and me, so it wasn't just machine against machine, there was human interaction by some of the participants also. Regardless, it proved nothing at all except that there indeed existed black boxes that produced well during that time period.

[Speed Figure]

A computer handicapper with a successful approach.
(((((BOOM)))))

[Leap]

A computer longterm

[Pick 'em Charlie]

Selections are secondary. Most crunch the numbers similar. It's more about wagering.

[pandy]

Why not play Saratoga and Del Mar next week? That would be about 22 to 24 races! that's more then enough to see who comes out on top!

I've been posting computer picks from my Diamond system on my website all meet for both tracks, picking every race except for 2yo races with firsters, which the system can't analyze. At both meets the top ranked horse is showing a profit. Now certainly humans have been able to show profits on every pick during a meet, but a good computer system is much more likely to produce a positive ROI than a human when a lot of races are involved, especially at difficult meets like Saratoga. A good human handicapper who shows a profit does it with spot plays. I've never known anyone who can bet every race and show a profit with any consistency.

[garyscpa]

Where do we get this Diamond System?

[pandy]

Where do we get this Diamond System?


On my website. Google diamond system handicapping.

[classhandicapper]

Theoretically you can program a computer to do almost any kind of analysis, but I could never program a computer to do the kind of subjective analysis I do in my day to day handicapping. It's not even conceivable. I could maybe get 90% there, but that last 10% is too human. Maybe some advanced AI gurus working with expert handicappers could do it, but it would probably cost a fortune to develop.

On the flip side, some of the studies and reports I have produced with my computer that can give me updates with a few keystrokes would take me years to do manually or to learn by trial and error.

I don't think it's an either or.

The data I can get from my computer makes me a better handicapper but my human qualities makes me better than my computer.

What the computer can do better than me is process large quantities of data.

If the contest was handicap 5 races a day, I'd beat my computer.

If the contest was handicap 200 races a day, I'd pass out and the computer would be done in a couple of minutes .

[pandy]

One of the reasons why some black box systems fail are the same reasons why many handicappers fail. Too much weight is put on factors that don't really matter. I've found, for instance, that if I include jockey and trainer statistics into my handicapping I will pick more winners. However, if I eliminate jockey and trainer completely, I will show a higher ROI. This is true of many factors. Average earnings per start may help you pick a few more winners, but could bring down your bottom line on ROI.

Most dirt races are won by horses that have enough ability to win the race. They figure to be relatively close to the pace (or on the lead), and have proven that on one of their best races, and within the margin of error, they can run fast enough to compete against the other horses in the race. Any horse that fits that profile is a contender. At that point, the handicapper has to decide which contender on ability is offering the best value.

In my opinion, based on research and testing and 40 years of studying handicapping, all of the other factors, pedigree, purse earnings, in the money finishes, jockey, trainer, workouts, trips, etc., can help to pick more winners but are of questionable value in terms of generating a positive ROI. I know many will disagree with me, but that's my opinion.

[Pick 'em Charlie]

The problem with all this is that the horses showing speed will show class, good pace, and connections a lot of time. A lot of our systems will diverge at some point. Today my divergent horse will win. Tomorrow your divergent horse will win. The next day someone else's divergent horse will win. We might have our niches were our divergent horses will show a positive ROI. We can wait and play our shots, and might be surprised to find that these aren't so profitable when we try to play against the favorites over the long run. What one must do is learn how to wager understanding how the dice roll in our game. The ideal wager isn't as much as that angle we might of found, but the horse that should be a favorite in our opinion and the trackman and everyone else misses.

[classhandicapper]

One of the reasons why some black box systems fail are the same reasons why many handicappers fail. Too much weight is put on factors that don't really matter. I've found, for instance, that if I include jockey and trainer statistics into my handicapping I will pick more winners. However, if I eliminate jockey and trainer completely, I will show a higher ROI. This is true of many factors. Average earnings per start may help you pick a few more winners, but could bring down your bottom line on ROI.

Most dirt races are won by horses that have enough ability to win the race. They figure to be relatively close to the pace (or on the lead), and have proven that on one of their best races, and within the margin of error, they can run fast enough to compete against the other horses in the race. Any horse that fits that profile is a contender. At that point, the handicapper has to decide which contender on ability is offering the best value.

In my opinion, based on research and testing and 40 years of studying handicapping, all of the other factors, pedigree, purse earnings, in the money finishes, jockey, trainer, workouts, trips, etc., can help to pick more winners but are of questionable value in terms of generating a positive ROI. I know many will disagree with me, but that's my opinion.

I think you can throw speed figures into that mix.

I agree with you in a general sense, but within some of those well understood and heavily bet factors you can sometimes find subsets that retain value. The problem is that it's like searching for a needle in a haystack. If you find them, you still wind up with very few plays.

[pandy]

I think you can throw speed figures into that mix.

I agree with you in a general sense, but within some of those well understood and heavily bet factors you can sometimes find subsets that retain value. The problem is that it's like searching for a needle in a haystack. If you find them, you still wind up with very few plays.

Do you not use final time at all? I think you can eliminate speed figures completely if you have a rating that incorporates time into a number, but I haven't found that time can be eliminated. Any horse that isn't fast enough to contend with the other horses in the race has no shot.

I do believe that there is a "degree of error" in speed figures that has to be factored. Many people accept them at face value but when you factor in degree of error, there are more overlays than there appears to be at face value.

[classhandicapper]

Do you not use final time at all? I think you can eliminate speed figures completely if you have a rating that incorporates time into a number, but I haven't found that time can be eliminated. Any horse that isn't fast enough to contend with the other horses in the race has no shot.

I do believe that there is a "degree of error" in speed figures that has to be factored. Many people accept them at face value but when you factor in degree of error, there are more overlays than there appears to be at face value.

At various times I've handicapped with just figures, without using figures at all, and with figures in combination with class. The results always seemed the same.

If you know the pecking order at your track and assign a number to each class, you can create a figure for each horse based on its finishing position and beaten lengths. A number like that will often approximate a speed figure but be based on the class designation instead of time. You can take that further by looking who was actually in the race to get at strong and weak fields for the class instead of using the official class designation. You can also follow them out of races. Then you can incorporate comparative trips, bias, race flow, watching races etc...

My handicapping approximates my description above, but I use the figures to help with the analysis of race results.

For example, if I look at a field, watch the race, and look at the chart and I'm still not sure what happened, a quick glance at the pace figures and final time figures will often answer the question. Most of the time they verify each other. Like you, I don't quibble too much about a few points here or there. But I do notice the really fast and slow figures.

In my latest studies though, every time I throw "top figure" into the mix, it lowers the ROI. So I agree you have to look for overlays if you are using figures.

[thaskalos]

There is a great deal of difference between being a great "handicapper"...and being a great "HORSEPLAYER". The great handicapper is common...but the great horseplayer is rare. Competent and thorough handicapping of the field is only the beginning of the horseplayer's task; the hard part, and the one that they PAY him for...is when he proceeds to convert his handicapping opinion into a bet. There is a "feel" that some horseplayers develop...an extra sense which tells them when a wager combination should be expanded to include a certain obscure horse...or, when the trifecta should be emphasized over the exacta. There is no telling if this "instinct" is inherent in us as some sort of inborn "talent"...or if it's created within us only after great effort of the most intense kind. We don't know how it gets there....but it sometimes gets there nonetheless.

I have spent a lifetime around gambling and gamblers...and I have rubbed shoulders with some gamblers whom I consider to be "out of this world". I played in a major poker tournament where I watched Carlos Mortensen fold his hand to a modest bet thus relinquishing a monster pot...when only one single hand could have beaten the hand that he was holding. And the other guy held that exact hand! When I asked him later how he could have folded that hand under those conditions...he told me that his instincts guided him. Even Mortensen himself couldn't fully explain it. Mortensen won the tournament...and pocketed over a million dollars.

Horseplayers have these "instincts" too. Common sense says that horse racing is a "battle against the odds"...and that the game's best players have a consistent edge over the game, which they grind over and over...the same way the casino gets super-rich by grinding ITS consistent edge over and over. This is what I thought too...and I revolted when I read Beyer's The Winning Horseplayer...where he writes that he doesn't know of a single winning "grinder". "Today's winning player counts on only a few big hits for his year's profit", Beyer wrote...and it took me years to realize how right he was. And if you asked Beyer how he was able to hit those six-digit scores that he describes in his books...I am confident that he would respond just as Mortensen responded to me. His instincts guided him.

I know next to nothing about computers...and I was wrong to immerse myself in this thread. But I know a lot about gambling and great gamblers. There might indeed come a day when the computer might be able to defeat the Carlos Mortensens of this world...but I would bet my bottom dollar that this day is not yet here. I know this...because I have my instincts too. :)

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -- Shakespeare

[classhandicapper]

There is a great deal of difference between being a great "handicapper"...and being a great "HORSEPLAYER". The great handicapper is common...but the great horseplayer is rare. Competent and thorough handicapping of the field is only the beginning of the horseplayer's task; the hard part, and the one that they PAY him for...is when he proceeds to convert his handicapping opinion into a bet. There is a "feel" that some horseplayers develop...an extra sense which tells them when a wager combination should be expanded to include a certain obscure horse...or, when the trifecta should be emphasized over the exacta. There is no telling if this "instinct" is inherent as some sort of inborn "talent"...or if it it's created within us only after great effort of the most intense kind. We don't know how it gets there....but it sometimes gets there nonetheless.

I have spent a lifetime around gambling and gamblers...and I have rubbed shoulders with some gamblers whom I consider to be "out of this world". I played in a major poker tournament where I watched Carlos Mortensen fold his hand to a modest bet thus relinquishing a monster pot...when only one single hand could have beaten the hand that he was holding. And the other guy held that exact same hand! When I asked him later how he could have folded that hand under those conditions...he told me that his instincts guided him. Even Mortensen himself couldn't fully explain it. Mortensen won the tournament...and pocketed over a million dollars.

Horseplayers have these "instincts" too. Common sense says that horse racing is a "battle against the odds"...and that the game's best players have a consistent edge over the game, which they grind over and over...the same way the casino gets super-rich by grinding ITS edge over and over. This is what I thought too...and I revolted when I read Beyer's The Winning Horseplayer...where he writes that he doesn't know of a single winning "grinder". "Today's winning player counts on only a few big hits for his year's profit", Beyer wrote...and it took me years to realize how right he was. And if you asked Beyer how he was able to hit those six-digit scores that he describes in his books...I am confident that he would respond just as Mortensen responded to me. His instincts guided him.

I know next to nothing about computers...and I was wrong to immerse myself in this thread. But I know a lot about gambling and great gamblers. There might indeed come a day when the computer might be able to defeat the Carlos Mortensens of this world...but I would bet my bottom dollar that this day is not yet here. I know this...because I have my instincts too. :)

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -- Shakespeare


I agreed with every word in this post until you got to the "big score" part.

None of this is directed at you or your style. It's just a general observation.

I will grant that many people that have winning years and that have generally done well over their lives did so with big scores. Heck, back in the late 70s and early 80s I had ONE solid trainer pattern I loved. My instincts kept telling me I should bet my entire paycheck on every one. So I did. A few scores carried my results for years. But I wasn't a winning player. I was good enough to outperform the take overall and be competitive, found one good pattern, but I was losing other than on that one trainer pattern and those scores.

What happens sometimes is that "net" losing players occasionally make a few major scores by going for the gusto and that convinces them they are winning players and the only way to win is to make major scores in super exotics.

That approach may work for some people, but many of them are guys like me decades ago that just happen to have the biggest bets of their life on some bombs that came in (or something like that). I was honest with myself back then because I kept records, but most people are not and do not. They lose 15k a year for 5 years and then nail two 50K pick 6s in one year and suddenly they think they are winning players and making scores is the way to go...until they lose 100k over the next 6 years.

I don't think there's right way, wrong way, or only one way. But I think if you got to your profits via a couple of major scores, it's quite possible you have variance on your side and not long term profits.

[pandy]

Instincts can certainly be a key part of a gambler's success at the windows, for players who have good instincts. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Of course, gamblers tend to remember the times when instincts helped us hit a big one but we conveniently forget all the times our instincts were wrong.

There are players who are more anal, don't rely on instincts, and believe that they're better off without them.

The way I use computer handicapping, I still have to decide if the horses the computer picks are good bets and how I want to use the horses in exotics. My program doesn't compute an odds line. So I guess you could say that human interaction is still important in my case.

[ReplayRandall]

I know next to nothing about computers...and I was wrong to immerse myself in this thread. But I know a lot about gambling and great gamblers. There might indeed come a day when the computer might be able to defeat the Carlos Mortensens of this world...but I would bet my bottom dollar that this day is not yet here. I know this...because I have my instincts too. :)

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -- Shakespeare

You've given your opinion of why humans are better handicappers, others have given opinions and examples of why computers are superior bettors....and they are. That being said, what was the catalyst of why you wanted to share your opinion, in the first place, AND why you felt it necessary to challenge different posters in the thread to contest competitions? Do you really have something valuable you're trying to prove and share with us?.... ;)

[thaskalos]

You've given your opinion of why humans are better handicappers, others have given opinions and examples of why computers are superior bettors....and they are. That being said, what was the catalyst of why you wanted to share your opinion, in the first place, AND why you felt it necessary to challenge different posters in the thread to contest competitions? Do you really have something valuable you're trying to prove and share with us?.... ;)
It wasn't I who challenged "different posters in the thread to contest competitions." I made a comment in jest to DeltaLover...who is a friend of mine. Dave Schwartz responded to that post of mine...and challenged me to a handicapping contest. I never intended to offend Dave Schwartz...or anybody else. The thread was about man against machine...and I was sticking up for "man". Getting into a contest competition with Dave was the LAST thing on my mind. As I said repeatedly...I was directing my anti-computer comment at DELTALOVER.

So...where did you see me "challenge different posters in this thread to contest competitions"?

[ReplayRandall]

It wasn't I who challenged "different posters in the thread to contest competitions." I made a comment in jest to DeltaLover...who is a friend of mine. Dave Schwartz responded to that post of mine...and challenged me to a handicapping contest. I never intended to offend Dave Schwartz...or anybody else. The thread was about man against machine...and I was sticking up for "man". Getting into a contest competition with Dave was the LAST thing on my mind. As I said repeatedly...I was directing my anti-computer comment at DELTALOVER.

So...where did you see me "challenge different posters in this thread to contest competitions"?

My bad, your challenge to Pandy was in a different thread. But, let's suppose you had an actual contest between either Pandy or Dave, again I will ask the question, "Do you really have something valuable you're trying to prove and share with us?.... ;)

[DeltaLover]

It wasn't I who challenged "different posters in the thread to contest competitions." I made a comment in jest to DeltaLover...who is a friend of mine. Dave Schwartz responded to that post of mine...and challenged me to a handicapping contest. I never intended to offend Dave Schwartz...or anybody else. The thread was about man against machine...and I was sticking up for "man". Getting into a contest competition with Dave was the LAST thing on my mind. As I said repeatedly...I was directing my anti-computer comment at DELTALOVER.

So...where did you see me "challenge different posters in this thread to contest competitions"?

This is exactly correct! What we happened to discuss publicly, here in PA, is one of the most common topic of conversation I usually have with Thask... I am pretty sure, that his "challenging" statement was not directed personally to anyone but it was used as a figure of speech, to express his doubt about an auto betting black box with the ability to beat the game..

[thaskalos]

My bad, your challenge to Pandy was in a different thread. But, let's suppose you had an actual contest between either Pandy or Dave, again I will ask the question, "Do you really have something valuable you're trying to prove and share with us?.... ;)
No...I have nothing to prove...nor do I feel like sharing anything.

Yes...I challenged Pandy to a handicapping contest. But only after he challenged me to post some of my picks on the selections forum here...so I could prove "how good I am". THAT'S when I challenged him to a handicapping contest. Some time ago...another poster here (I forget his name) accused me of being "all talk and no action". Now...I happen to be someone who has been earning his living by betting on horses for the last ten years; do I not have the right to stick up for myself? Of course I do! So...I challenged HIM to a handicapping contest too. How else could I prove that I am not "all talk and no action"?

I am usually a peace-loving guy...but I get easily provoked. :)

[Stillriledup]

I'm going to mostly agree w Gus on the grinders part, you need a big score here and there in order to be a winner. CH makes good point about variance and he's right to suggest it, but I just think the best way is to put yourself in a position to get lucky once in a while. It's a fine line though, it takes a pretty big bankroll to bet pentas and pick 6s because you could go a LONG time without hitting something substantial, it could be years.

[thaskalos]

I don't think there's right way, wrong way, or only one way. But I think if you got to your profits via a couple of major scores, it's quite possible you have variance on your side and not long term profits.
It was Andy Beyer who said this first; would you have the guts to say this to Beyer?

After all...Beyer and I are two-fisted bettors...and you admitted in a different thread that you wager less money now than you did when you were a broke teenager. Remember? So, given your betting volume...how confident are YOU about your long-term profitability?

[thaskalos]

Hey...you know what? It's more FUN being the "bad guy". Now I know how Dahoss felt. :)

[raybo]

You've given your opinion of why humans are better handicappers, others have given opinions and examples of why computers are superior bettors....and they are. That being said, what was the catalyst of why you wanted to share your opinion, in the first place, AND why you felt it necessary to challenge different posters in the thread to contest competitions? Do you really have something valuable you're trying to prove and share with us?.... ;)

I think Gus posted in this thread because he truly believes that no computer program can play the game as well as he does, and in his case, he might be right. All I know of him is what I've read from his posts, and a PM or two. I can tell from those readings that he is extremely knowledgeable about racing, and gambling in general, but I have no idea if what he says about himself and his gambling life is true or not. I can say the same thing about anybody else that I don't know personally. I look at the "body" of what posters have said and that tells me if they are what they say they are or not. From Gus' "body" of postings I would say he's for real, the same thing most others here have determined about him.

That being said, because of what he knows from his long, and often frustrating racing career, he is convinced that no computer program can outperform him. And, because of who and what he appears to me to be, he may well be correct, if you're talking about playing his game. But, the fact is that nobody else plays his game, they all play their own game, and their own game may be better than his. Thus the confrontation that happened between him and Dave. They are playing totally different games, games that cannot be compared against one another. Sure, Gus might have a better profit than Dave at the end of a year, but Dave might have more profit over 5 years or 10 years, simply,because his game takes out all the errors inherent to human beings, all human beings. The big difference between many black boxes and the vast majority of human/non-black box players is that black boxes are designed to remove human errors, perform consistent analysis, and produce profit, over time, not to beat individual races. Most players live and die with individual races, or individual cards, or individual weeks or months. And that's fine, until they have to re-buy in order to keep playing. They lose one year or win one year, but in the long term they are net losers. Gus will admit that he doesn't win every year, but he also had the insight to prepare, monetarily and emotionally, for when that happens. Most others don't(or can't) do that, they lose and then they have to find the money needed to get back in the game. Gus had no choice, he had to do what he did in order to live and provide. Very few, that I have heard of, could have done that. I certainly couldn't. Knowing that I can't do that, automatically puts me in a different game, one that I can do "well enough" to meet or exceed my goals, my goals are much different than Gus' or Dave's. So, in my game, I feel I'm the best at it, even though that might be incorrect, but I still believe it, because I have to in order to play to my potential, every day I play. If I didn't have that belief, that confidence, I couldn't play to my potential.

[AndyC]

I agreed with every word in this post until you got to the "big score" part.

None of this is directed at you or your style. It's just a general observation.

I will grant that many people that have winning years and that have generally done well over their lives did so with big scores. Heck, back in the late 70s and early 80s I had ONE solid trainer pattern I loved. My instincts kept telling me I should bet my entire paycheck on every one. So I did. A few scores carried my results for years. But I wasn't a winning player. I was good enough to outperform the take overall and be competitive, found one good pattern, but I was losing other than on that one trainer pattern and those scores.

What happens sometimes is that "net" losing players occasionally make a few major scores by going for the gusto and that convinces them they are winning players and the only way to win is to make major scores in super exotics.

That approach may work for some people, but many of them are guys like me decades ago that just happen to have the biggest bets of their life on some bombs that came in (or something like that). I was honest with myself back then because I kept records, but most people are not and do not. They lose 15k a year for 5 years and then nail two 50K pick 6s in one year and suddenly they think they are winning players and making scores is the way to go...until they lose 100k over the next 6 years.

I don't think there's right way, wrong way, or only one way. But I think if you got to your profits via a couple of major scores, it's quite possible you have variance on your side and not long term profits.

Put me down as a player who advocates playing for the big score. It certainly isn't a way to play for every personality type but it suits me perfectly. In today's world of whales it seems to me that it would be a struggle trying to keep your head above water grinding out win bets on 6-1 and under horses. How many big overlays still exist in that category?

If I do find a perceived big overlay or big bet against favorite, I want to leverage my advantage to the max. Good gambling instincts are certainly necessary to survive and prosper with a "score" mentality. Patience doesn't hurt either.

[pandy]

l agree with the big score philosophy to a degree but I think you have to keep it in perspective. I don't think you have to bet Pick 4, 5, or 6 wagers to show a profit. You don't necessarily need huge scores. In fact, I think exactas or even parlays offer all the leverage you need. Win, or win and place betting, that sort of thing, makes it very difficult to win any sort of significant money over the long run. I know that there have been some on here who say that they only bet to win and they are successful but I've never personally met any successful bettor who was a win bettor.

[thaskalos]

I think Gus posted in this thread because he truly believes that no computer program can play the game as well as he does, and in his case, he might be right. All I know of him is what I've read from his posts, and a PM or two. I can tell from those readings that he is extremely knowledgeable about racing, and gambling in general, but I have no idea if what he says about himself and his gambling life is true or not. I can say the same thing about anybody else that I don't know personally. I look at the "body" of what posters have said and that tells me if they are what they say they are or not. From Gus' "body" of postings I would say he's for real, the same thing most others here have determined about him.

That being said, because of what he knows from his long, and often frustrating racing career, he is convinced that no computer program can outperform him. And, because of who and what he appears to me to be, he may well be correct, if you're talking about playing his game. But, the fact is that nobody else plays his game, they all play their own game, and their own game may be better than his. Thus the confrontation that happened between him and Dave. They are playing totally different games, games that cannot be compared against one another. Sure, Gus might have a better profit than Dave at the end of a year, but Dave might have more profit over 5 years or 10 years, simply,because his game takes out all the errors inherent to human beings, all human beings. The big difference between many black boxes and the vast majority of human/non-black box players is that black boxes are designed to remove human errors, perform consistent analysis, and produce profit, over time, not to beat individual races. Most players live and die with individual races, or individual cards, or individual weeks or months. And that's fine, until they have to re-buy in order to keep playing. They lose one year or win one year, but in the long term they are net losers. Gus will admit that he doesn't win every year, but he also had the insight to prepare, monetarily and emotionally, for when that happens. Most others don't(or can't) do that, they lose and then they have to find the money needed to get back in the game. Gus had no choice, he had to do what he did in order to live and provide. Very few, that I have heard of, could have done that. I certainly couldn't. Knowing that I can't do that, automatically puts me in a different game, one that I can do "well enough" to meet or exceed my goals, my goals are much different than Gus' or Dave's. So, in my game, I feel I'm the best at it, even though that might be incorrect, but I still believe it, because I have to in order to play to my potential, every day I play. If I didn't have that belief, that confidence, I couldn't play to my potential.

Raybo...you and I have tangled a little bit on this board...and I've always regretted it. You are a serious guy, and you've written a serious post here...and I will answer you with the honesty that your post deserves. And after I answer you, I will take a long break from this site...because this verbal jousting really isn't for me. It's fun up to a point...but I am really a "good guy" at heart...and it hurts me to play a role here that I am not comfortable with. You develop a big ego when you gamble as I do, and your oversized ego serves a purpose...because without it, how could you possibly undertake a venture that so many others fail in? You try to keep this ego under check in your conversations, and in your relationships...but you can't always contain it...and you sometimes say things that embarrass you when you look at them in retrospect. That's what has taken place for me here.

I discovered this site during the worst part of my life. My wife had just died...and there was this gaping hole left in my life, which I just couldn't deal with. During one of my many sleepless nights, I stumbled upon this site...and it was as if I gained entrance into an exclusive club...where people who shared the same interests as me gathered and talked about their experiences in a game that they loved. I started only reading at first...and then I started writing...and writing. It sounds strange when I look back at it now...but this rather trivial activity was for me a MONUMENTAL help in my life. It gave me something to look forward to...at a time when my life didn't contain many such things. And I kept writing and sharing my opinions in the hope that these opinions of mine would somehow make a difference in some struggling horseplayer's life...just as this forum here made a difference in MY life...when I was enduring troubles of a different sort.

The life that I lead isn't for everybody...nor should it be. I try very hard to keep what I do a secret from my own SON. This life isn't NORMAL...it is physically and emotionally draining...and all those who know you look at you as if you are just a "disaster waiting to happen"...instead of the "astute investor" that you think you are. You should have seen the look on my banker's face...when I talked to him recently about a loan for a property in Florida that I was looking to buy. :)

I didn't come here to glamorize the "professional gambler's" lifestyle. It was a lifestyle that I felt I was pushed into involuntarily...and it would have been different if my wife didn't die as she did. My son was very young when my wife died, and he needed me to be around him all the time. I needed to make a living while working from the home...and betting on the horses was something that I felt would accomplish what I needed to get done at the time. And it worked. I raised my son (he is almost 17 now)...and I have been able to provide a stable life for the two of us, during some very difficult times. But it wasn't easy...and mine isn't a path that I would recommend to anyone else.

This game is a great "avocation"...but a gut-bursting and emotionally-draining "vocation".

Peace! :ThmbUp:

[DeltaLover]

l agree with the big score philosophy to a degree but I think you have to keep it in perspective. I don't think you have to bet Pick 4, 5, or 6 wagers to show a profit. You don't necessarily need huge scores. In fact, I think exactas or even parlays offer all the leverage you need. Win, or win and place betting, that sort of thing, makes it very difficult to win any sort of significant money over the long run. I know that there have been some on here who say that they only bet to win and they are successful but I've never personally met any successful bettor who was a win bettor.

Win has been one of my most favourite bets but the reality is that, bets like p5 and to a lesser degree p4 are offering way better betting propositions and a very good chance for a large score. The catch is, that the handicapping and betting execution skills required for long horizontals are very different than what is needed for race by race betting like win or exacta..

[AndyC]

l agree with the big score philosophy to a degree but I think you have to keep it in perspective. I don't think you have to bet Pick 4, 5, or 6 wagers to show a profit. You don't necessarily need huge scores. In fact, I think exactas or even parlays offer all the leverage you need.

I think instincts lead you to the proper bet to use to leverage a selection. The key is not to force a bet just for the chance of making a score. If I have a standout that is part of a DD, P-3,P-4, P-5, or P-6 but have no solid opinions in any of the other races it would be felony stupid to play the horizontal bet. The same applies to the vertical bets. Sometimes, reluctantly, I am forced to play a win bet due to the lack of sensible options.

[raybo]

Raybo...you and I have tangled a little bit on this board...and I've always regretted it. You are a serious guy, and you've written a serious post here...and I will answer you with the honesty that your post deserves. And after I answer you, I will take a long break from this site...because this verbal jousting really isn't for me. It's fun up to a point...but I am really a "good guy" at heart...and it hurts me to play a role here that I am not comfortable with. You develop a big ego when you gamble as I do, and your oversized ego serves a purpose...because without it, how could you possibly undertake a venture that so many others fail in? You try to keep this ego under check in your conversations, and in your relationships...but you can't always contain it...and you sometimes say things that embarrass you when you look at them in retrospect. That's what has taken place for me here.

I discovered this site during the worst part of my life. My wife had just died...and there was this gaping hole left in my life, which I just couldn't deal with. During one of my many sleepless nights, I stumbled upon this site...and it was as if I gained entrance into an exclusive club...where people who shared the same interests as me gathered and talked about their experiences in a game that they loved. I started only reading at first...and then I started writing...and writing. It sounds strange when I look back at it now...but this rather trivial activity was for me a MONUMENTAL help in my life. It gave me something to look forward to...at a time when my life didn't contain many such things. And I kept writing and sharing my opinions in the hope that these opinions of mine would somehow make a difference in some struggling horseplayer's life...just as this forum here made a difference in MY life...when I was enduring troubles of a different sort.

The life that I lead isn't for everybody...nor should it be. I try very hard to keep what I do a secret from my own SON. This life isn't NORMAL...it is physically and emotionally draining...and all those who know you look at you as if you are just a "disaster waiting to happen"...instead of the "astute investor" that you think you are. You should have seen the look on my banker's face...when I talked to him recently about a loan for a property in Florida that I was looking to buy. :)

I didn't come here to glamorize the "professional gambler's" lifestyle. It was a lifestyle that I felt I was pushed into involuntarily...and it would have been different if my wife didn't die as she did. My son was very young when my wife died, and he needed me to be around him all the time. I needed to make a living while working from the home...and betting on the horses was something that I felt would accomplish what I needed to get done at the time. And it worked. I raised my son (he is almost 17 now)...and I have been able to provide a stable life for the two of us, during some very difficult times. But it wasn't easy...and mine isn't a path that I would recommend to anyone else.

This game is a great "avocation"...but a gut-bursting and emotionally-draining "vocation".

Peace! :ThmbUp:

That post is almost exactly what I perceived from your postings and our PM(s), I knew you had gone through a (some) very difficult time(s) and that you felt the only way you could properly support your family (I thought you had more than one child but now that you mention it I remember that you had said you had a son), was to play the horses.

I agree, playing this game as one's only income requires some special traits and a hell of a lot of intestinal fortitude, and the ability to handle the stress. Playing that way can grind you up into little bits and spit you out. My short time as a full time player was enough to convince me that I didn't have what it takes to do that. I am in awe of anyone who, without being wealthy beforehand, plays this game for a living. It is one of the toughest occupations out there.

I also agree that a profitable player almost has to have an ego, that state of mind and spirit that allows him/her to face all the adversities and shortsightedness of others, and prevail. And one must constantly defend oneself against an onslaught of negativity from every direction. The game is such that very few can win, and the belief that it is beatable must constantly be debated. After all, if we didn't argue, sometimes to the point of vehemence, we would not be who we are and what we are. With winning, in this game, comes pride, and pride is important and must be defended some times. Otherwise that pride might diminish and with it a good portion of who and what we are.

All that stuff being said, I understand your reluctance to continue posting as often as you have been, but make sure it is for your benefit, not those here who are full of negativity and hate. If it's not for your own well being then I suggest you just keep posting what you believe, and if that means occasional arguments that might get a bit out of control, so be it. You certainly are not alone in that here.

Just stay who you are man, the rest of us will either deal with it or not. Either way it's all good!

[pandy]

I think instincts lead you to the proper bet to use to leverage a selection. The key is not to force a bet just for the chance of making a score. If I have a standout that is part of a DD, P-3,P-4, P-5, or P-6 but have no solid opinions in any of the other races it would be felony stupid to play the horizontal bet. The same applies to the vertical bets. Sometimes, reluctantly, I am forced to play a win bet due to the lack of sensible options.


When I was betting my heaviest when I first started getting rebates, which are no longer available in Pa.,, I did use instincts to put together exotics like exacta, trifecta, doubles and some pick 3 bets, but I often screwed it up and failed to maximize my return. I still considered that type of betting grinding because of built in saver bets, like exacta boxes. I don't think a win bettor is the only type of grinder. Playing the way I play most of the time a $5,000 score is a big score and even though I play mostly exotics, I still consider myself a grinder. The advantage of being an grinder who bets exotics but avoids the Pick 5 and Pick 6, you cash more tickets and have less of a chance of getting wiped out. I always try for preservation of bankroll, even though I know that it cost me some scores.

[pandy]

I'd like to hear a little more from Dave S. on how he figures out which of his black box horses to bet.

As we've touched on in this thread, instincts are part of human handicapping. Sometimes after I've finished handicapping a NYRA card, I just love the card. Maybe I found three horses that I love and none are favorites. So, I have a good feeling that this is going to be a good day. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, but my instincts tell me I've landed on three solid horses. Of course, many cards I don't have that feeling at all, I don't particularly like the card.

But when using computer picks, I have not done any work on the races so I have no expectations at all. Is the computer handicapper going to have a good day today? I don't know. The only way to take advantage of its skill is to either bet every horse it picks, or bet every horse it picks over a certain odds range. This means making a lot of bets and the size of the wagers have to be constructed in some sort of consistent manner.

With my regular "human" handicapping, I can bet more on horses that I have a good feeling about. With the computer picks, many of the best winners it picks are horses that I would not come up with on my own, so I am not in a position to make a larger wager.

This, to me, is a big difference between human and computer handicapping.

[classhandicapper]

It was Andy Beyer who said this first; would you have the guts to say this to Beyer?

After all...Beyer and I are two-fisted bettors...and you admitted in a different thread that you wager less money now than you did when you were a broke teenager. Remember? So, given your betting volume...how confident are YOU about your long-term profitability?

I'd say it to anyone.

There are people that have an edge over this game and people that don't.

I'm just saying that if you go for big scores in multi race exotics or supers, it requires a MUCH MUCH larger sample size to tell if you actually have an edge. People that think they have an edge because they made a few scores often do not. Positive variance can cover years of betting.

Setting aside when I was young and thought betting my entire paycheck was prudent bankroll management because I had another one coming in the following week :lol: , my bet sizes do vary with my confidence level. My confidence varies because my game is constantly changing as I learn. When I make a major change, I tend to back way down and slowly build back up if the results are favorable. I'm betting $150-$200 per race these days. That's my comfort level now.

[raybo]

Having a good feeling about a horse is one of those potential "human errors" we talk about, and what some of us black box creators try to get rid of, for consistency's sake. Now, if your program creates a good fair odds line, then the actual odds can be used to perceive good bets, fair bets, poor bets, and bad bets. From that, one could size their wagers accordingly. What little I know about Dave's program is that it probably creates a fair odds line, and it definitely scrapes live odds, so a comparison can be made regarding value. I also think that he dutches horses some of the time (if not most of the time), in which his program calculates the amount to bet on each horse, in order to result in a particular payout/profit threshold. Again, from my limited knowledge of his program, the program decides which horses to bet and how much to bet them. There is no human input required in either the handicapping or the bet sizing processes.

[Robert Fischer]

wow , you guys really took off with this topic...

[classhandicapper]

Put me down as a player who advocates playing for the big score. It certainly isn't a way to play for every personality type but it suits me perfectly. In today's world of whales it seems to me that it would be a struggle trying to keep your head above water grinding out win bets on 6-1 and under horses. How many big overlays still exist in that category?

If I do find a perceived big overlay or big bet against favorite, I want to leverage my advantage to the max. Good gambling instincts are certainly necessary to survive and prosper with a "score" mentality. Patience doesn't hurt either.

I don't think you are in this category, but I think conventional wisdom on exotic wagering is generally wrong.

Most people go into those pools trying to make a score, but all they are really doing is bucking a higher take because of poor ticket construction.

People talk about this or that payoff being larger than the parlay etc..., but they are misunderstanding the math. I've demonstrated that multiple times.

Pretty much the only time you should be involved in exotics is when you have two or more valued oriented opinions inside the same race or in a sequence of races. That's how you get leverage, by combining two or more value opinions. But that's not what I see these "score" payers doing. I see otherwise sharp people using horses they would admit are underlays on some of their tickets. They talk about value and leverage but what they are really doing is trying to HIT a big ticket because it makes them feel better.

I'd gladly go for a major score on every one of my wagers if I had two value oriented opinions frequently. But I think finding one legitimate value oriented opinion is hard enough. Finding two or three in a sequence on the same card or hating the favorite so much you think it's likely to be off the board is rarer. When it happens, I go that route. Otherwise, I take what they give me.

[classhandicapper]

I think instincts lead you to the proper bet to use to leverage a selection. The key is not to force a bet just for the chance of making a score. If I have a standout that is part of a DD, P-3,P-4, P-5, or P-6 but have no solid opinions in any of the other races it would be felony stupid to play the horizontal bet. The same applies to the vertical bets. Sometimes, reluctantly, I am forced to play a win bet due to the lack of sensible options.

I wish I read this before I wrote my last comment. This is exactly what I was suggesting, but you said it in a more concise way. ;)

[thaskalos]

I don't think you are in this category, but I think conventional wisdom on exotic wagering is generally wrong.

Most people go into these pools trying to make a score, but all they are really doing is bucking a higher take because of poor ticket construction.

People talk about this or that payoff being larger than the parlay etc..., but they are misunderstanding the math. I've demonstrated that multiple times.

Pretty much the only time you should be involved in exotics is when you have two or more valued oriented opinions inside the same race or in a sequence of races. That's how you get leverage, by combining two or more value opinions. But that's not what I see these "score" payers doing. I see otherwise sharp people using horses they would admit are underlays on some of their tickets. They talk about value and leverage but what they are really doing is trying to HIT a big ticket because it makes them feel better.

I'd gladly go for a major score on every one of my wagers if I had two value oriented opinions frequently. But I think finding one legitimate value oriented opinion is hard enough. Finding two or three in a sequence or hating the favorite so much you think it's likely to be off the board is rarer.

Not necessarily. You don't need "one or two value oriented opinions" in order to get involved in the exotics...one or two very NEGATIVE opinions about a heavily-played horse or two will do very nicely as well. What do you do when you've eliminated a heavy favorite...and are looking to capitalize on this negative opinion that you have?

Whether you have "value-oriented" opinions, or NEGATIVE opinions...you try to capitalize on then in the best way that you can. And the best way for some players is in the exotics.

When we say that we depend on relatively few "big scores" for our overall profit...this doesn't mean that we are always looking for the "big score" exclusively. We make plenty of other bets too. It's just that we mainly trade money with the track on those other bets...and we rely on the bigger scores to put us over the top long-term. I bet 40 races yesterday. Do you think that I was trying for the "big score" 40 times?

[ReplayRandall]

There are people that have an edge over this game and people that don't.

True, True, True.......There is no question as to a player having an edge or not in this game. Those that have one KNOW it, those that THINK they do, DON'T have one.....Yet.

[thaskalos]

True, True, True.......There is no question as to a player having an edge or not in this game. Those that have one KNOW it, those that THINK they do, DON'T have one.....Yet.

And if I challenge you to a handicapping contest...you are gonna chicken-out, and criticize me. :)

[ReplayRandall]

And if I challenge you to a handicapping contest...you are gonna chicken-out, and criticize me. :)

Why would I do that to a friend who I respect?

[thaskalos]

Why would I do that to a friend who I respect?

Just kidding...that's why the smiley face. The truth is that we never know if we have an "edge" over the game or not. It's very possible that we are ALL kidding ourselves. Even if you've been winning for years, the game changes...and your methods could easily lose their bite over time. Even as you sit there with a "I'M KING OF THE WORLD" grin on your face...the ground could be crumbling underneath your feet.

I lose many, many races in this game...and sometimes the game makes me feel like a fool. Tomorrow's profits aren't promised to any of us...

[raybo]

Not necessarily. You don't need "one or two value oriented opinions" in order to get involved in the exotics...one or two very NEGATIVE opinions about a heavily-played horse or two will do very nicely as well. What do you do when you've eliminated a heavy favorite...and are looking to capitalize on this negative opinion that you have?

Whether you have "value-oriented" opinions, or NEGATIVE opinions...you try to capitalize on then in the best way that you can. And the best way for some players is in the exotics.

When we say that we depend on relatively few "scores" for our overall profit...this doesn't mean that we are always looking for the "big score" exclusively. We make plenty of other bets too. It's just that we mainly trade money with the track on those other bets...and we rely on the bigger scores to put us over the top long-term. I bet 40 races yesterday. Do you think that I was trying for the "big score" 40 times?

Agree, as a win and superfecta player, the win play and most of the superfecta plays are just cash flow, the larger payouts are the real profit. I pretty much know what the minimum payout on a superfecta ticket will pay, as long as I think it will pay $300 for a $1 base, or more, I'll play it. If I don't have the favorite on the ticket I know automatically it will pay good if the field size is decent, it's a no brainer. If I have both the favorite and 2nd favorite off my ticket I know it will pay even higher, relative to the expected pool size and field size. So, you don't need to find individual overlays, per se, in order to feel comfortable betting the super. Those high odds ranked horses that you have dismissed automatically creates good value. I imagine the same applies to the horizontals, it's not so much the odds that each selection has or should have, it's the odds rankings that determine, by and large, these exotics payouts. If a favorite is 3/1, and another favorite is 7/5, they are still the favorite, and the favorite, regardless of its odds, gets bet in the exotics by a large majority of players in those pools.

Regarding those really big payouts, I don't wait for them before playing, I give myself the chance to hit them when the higher odds ranked horses on my tickets don't hit and the lower odds ranked horses do. I'm not shooting for them, I just put myself in a position to get them when they hit.

[classhandicapper]

Not necessarily. You don't need "one or two value oriented opinions" in order to get involved in the exotics...one or two very NEGATIVE opinions about a heavily-played horse or two will do very nicely as well. What do you do when you've eliminated a heavy favorite...and are looking to capitalize on this negative opinion that you have?



I was grouping the negative opinions into the value oriented category because a negative creatives a positive elsewhere.

There are times when I think the public is making the wrong favorite, but I don't think the favorite is bad. It might be the 2nd most likely winner. In those races I might make a win bet if the price on my horse is attractive enough.

There are times when I hate the favorite. In those races, it depends on how confident I am that I have identified the best value. If I can key on one horse, I'll typically break up the bet between win, exacta, and perhaps triples. I usually don't make it down to the super level. I'd have to have more opinions or really really hate the favorite to get into supers. If I can't key on one horse, I'll usually bet 2 horses to win and try to crush the exacta.

[thaskalos]

I was grouping the negative opinions into the value oriented category because a negative creatives a positive elsewhere.



See...that's NOT how all players play the game. The mere fact that I hate the odds-on favorite in a particular race does NOT mean that I could feel comfortable making a win bet on some other horse. I might...but I very easily might NOT. It could be that the best course of action for me is to throw out the big favorite...and create a trifecta or superfecta ticket around some of the OTHER horses that I like in the race... or try to put over a pick-4. THAT'S when the big payoffs come about, and THAT'S why I need the exotics. Not to get involved in the exotics unless I have "value-oriented opinions" ties my hands during these situations...and forces me to make win-bets on horses that I don't really like.

[DeltaLover]

I think that when betting long horizontals, we should try to narrow down to our large opinions while staying clear from close calls.

While I believe that the whole concept of over and underlays is definitely overestimated in any kind of a bet (since we not only can never know the exact winning probabilities but we do not even know the offered price), in bets where you have very limited clue of how the crowd is going to bet, searching for "price" becomes impossible.

The best way I have discovered to play long horizontals, lies in classifying the starters in groups (like ABC), always trying to push my uglier looking spots to the A category while in parallel trying to assign some of the morning line favorites down to the B or C categories. My objective in this kind of a bet, is to maximize my striking rate while minimizing the presence of the obvious crowd choices, unless of course I happen to be believe that indeed they are going to win (regardless of whether they will be underlays) which might lead me to upgrade them to either singles or very strong As.

[thaskalos]

Pretty much the only time you should be involved in exotics is when you have two or more valued oriented opinions inside the same race or in a sequence of races. That's how you get leverage, by combining two or more value opinions. But that's not what I see these "score" payers doing. I see otherwise sharp people using horses they would admit are underlays on some of their tickets. They talk about value and leverage but what they are really doing is trying to HIT a big ticket because it makes them feel better.



Here is another mistake that you are making in your thinking. Whether or not you include "underlays" on your tickets depends not on "dogma"...but on what kind of exotics bet you are making. Are you willing to miss out on hitting a Pick-6...because you are determined to keep the "underlayed" standout of a particular race off your tickets?

On some bets...it is entirely possible to create an overlayed betting situation...even though you are including an underlayed horse or two. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

[DeltaLover]

Here is another mistake that you are making in your thinking. Whether or not you include "underlays" on your tickets depends not on "dogma"...but on what kind of exotics bet you are making. Are you willing to miss out on hitting a Pick-6...because you are determined to keep the "underlayed" standout of a particular race off your tickets?

On some bets...it is entirely possible to create an overlayed betting situation...even though you are including an underlayed horse or two. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Good posting.. I completely agree, and my previous posting is aligned to what you are saying here..

If I am live in the the last leg of a P5 while I have already passed with a 25-1 and a 15-1 I could care less about having an underlay in my closing position... What matters in this situation is simply to complete the ticket..

[thaskalos]

Good posting.. I completely agree, and my previous posting is aligned to what you are saying here..

If I am live in the the last leg of a P5 while I have already passed with a 25-1 and a 15-1 I could care less about having an underlay in my closing position... What matters in this situation is simply to complete the ticket..

That's right. :ThmbUp:

With the super-exotics...the main thing is to CASH THE TICKET! The long-term "value" is already built-in...because of the complexity of the wager.

[classhandicapper]

See...that's NOT how all players play the game. The mere fact that I hate the odds-on favorite in a particular race does NOT mean that I could feel comfortable making a win bet on some other horse. I might...but I very easily might NOT. It could be that the best course of action for me is to throw out the big favorite...and create a trifecta or superfecta ticket around some of the OTHER horses that I like in the race... or try to put over a pick-4. THAT'S when the big payoffs come about, and THAT'S why I need the exotics. Not to get involved in the exotics unless I have "value-oriented opinions" ties my hands during these situations...and forces me to make win-bets on horses that I don't really like.

I could also see myself making trifectas and supers in that situation if I thought the favorite was likely to be totally out, but to get me into a Pick 4 I'd have to have similar value oriented opinions in other races.

If I have a value oriented opinion in the 1st and 2nd race, I'd make a Double and not get into the Pick 3 or Pick 4.

If I have a value oriented opinion in the 1st and 3rd race, I'd make a Pick 3 but not Pick 4.

If I have a value oriented opinion in the 1st and 4th race. I'd make a Pick 4.

etc...

I like betting win and place with a portion of the bet to keep volatility low. For example, I bet $200 on the Pacific Classic. My value horse was Catch a Flight. I made a win/place bet and played some exactas and triples with him 1st and 2nd and Beholder out. The idea being if he won, I'd make decent money. If I caught the exacta and/or triple also I had a chance make a nice hit. Place was OK in this spot because I felt Beholder was overbet and could easily be out of the top 2 and inflate the place price even if I lost. I fell just short of breaking even.

[classhandicapper]

Here is another mistake that you are making in your thinking. Whether or not you include "underlays" on your tickets depends not on "dogma"...but on what kind of exotics bet you are making. Are you willing to miss out on hitting a Pick-6...because you are determined to keep the "underlayed" standout of a particular race off your tickets?

On some bets...it is entirely possible to create an overlayed betting situation...even though you are including an underlayed horse or two. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

I'm not making a mistake. I never play the pick 6. ;)

I could see including some undervalued favorites on a pick 6 ticket if there was value on the rest of the horses included on that ticket (especially if there was carryover). But even on Pick 6 tickets I'd bet my life against a dollar that virtually everyone has some terrible tickets among their combinations because they are trying to hit the bet.

Ask a bunch of horseplayers if they would make a $2 win bet on a horse with an expectation of -25% and they will all say "No".

Ask those same players if they will make a $2 pick 6 bet with an expectation of -25% and most will say "No" ( some will say "Yes" if it was still a big score or they were worried about bankroll volatility). Among the ones that say "No", virtually all of them will have loads of tickets like that in their combinations because they are trying to win the bet and make a score. Those tickets should not be included. If you are including them because you worried about bankroll volatility, then you should not be in the pick 6. Playing a bet with a higher track take and throwing in negative value tickets on top of it does not sound like a very good way to become a winning player to me, but I guarantee you'll have some nice scores.

[thaskalos]

I could also see myself making trifectas and supers in that situation if I thought the favorite was likely to be totally out, but to get me into a Pick 4 I'd have to have similar value oriented opinions in other races.

If I have a value oriented opinion in the 1st and 2nd race, I'd make a Double and not get into the Pick 3 or Pick 4.

If I have a value oriented opinion in the 1st and 3rd race, I'd make a Pick 3 but not Pick 4.

If I have a value oriented opinion in the 1st and 4th race. I'd make a Pick 4.

etc...



I understand what you are saying...and this is the classic mistake make by those players who are not experienced in the "long exotics". They fail to understand that you don't need "value oriented opinions" on each leg of a long horizontal exotic. These are expensive bets...and the vast majority of the bettors cannot afford to spread sufficiently in every leg. Get the right payoff in a couple of the legs, and you will get a great return...even if the rest of the legs are won by "underlays".

The long exotics are different, CH. It's a mistake to think of the Pick-5 as if it were a Pick 4, +1. The Pick-5 has a much bigger profit potential...and requires an altogether different betting strategy. An underlayed standout may be a bad thing in a Pick-4...but it may be a virtual NECESSITY in a Pick-5.

[classhandicapper]

I understand what you are saying...and this is the classic mistake make by those players who are not experienced in the "long exotics". They fail to understand that you don't need "value oriented opinions" on each leg of a long horizontal exotic. These are expensive bets...and the vast majority of the bettors cannot afford to spread sufficiently in every leg. Get the right payoff in a couple of the legs, and you will get a great return...even if the rest of the legs are won by "underlays".

The long exotics are different, CH. It's a mistake to think of the Pick-5 as if it were a Pick 4, +1. The Pick-5 has much bigger profit potential...and requires an altogether different betting strategy. An underlayed standout may be a bad thing in a Pick-4...but it may be a virtual NECESSITY in a Pick-5.

I never said you need an opinion in every leg. I said to create additional value you need 2 opinions.

If I have a good value opinion in race 1 and 3, I can play the pick 3 and do pretty much whatever I want in leg 2.

If I have a good value opinion in race 1 and not in race 2 or 3, it's typically a mistake to go into the higher take pick 3 and spread around in leg 2 and 3.

If you happen to know that certain combinations won't be covered well, then you DO have a second value oriented opinion.

But that's not what a lot of people are doing. They have some 8-1 shot in the first race that they love and instead of just betting it to win they try to make a score in a higher take pool even though they are bringing nothing else to the table in those extra races.

[EMD4ME]

I understand what you are saying...and this is the classic mistake make by those players who are not experienced in the "long exotics". They fail to understand that you don't need "value oriented opinions" on each leg of a long horizontal exotic. These are expensive bets...and the vast majority of the bettors cannot afford to spread sufficiently in every leg. Get the right payoff in a couple of the legs, and you will get a great return...even if the rest of the legs are won by "underlays".

The long exotics are different, CH. It's a mistake to think of the Pick-5 as if it were a Pick 4, +1. The Pick-5 has a much bigger profit potential...and requires an altogether different betting strategy. An underlayed standout may be a bad thing in a Pick-4...but it may be a virtual NECESSITY in a Pick-5.

I personally believe the pick 5 is the best wager in racing. Your last sentence is 1000% correct. I use many horses I absolutely detest DEFENSIVELY in races that I just want to get by, as long as I have strong opinions in races with value.

I used to make the mistake of leaving a chalk I hated out completely in the picks and lost $100,000, $50,000 etc. I learned quickly.

I also learned that there are SOME sequences where bankroll is what gets you the nice paying win.

There might even be a standout in one of those legs but Joe Shmo can't afford to get by the 3 races where 7 horses have a good shot to win. Nothing wrong with going 1 X 7 X 7 X 7 X 2 and buying you're way to a $5,000 ticket when all you did is select a 1/2 who can't lose and 2 chalks in the last leg.

[thaskalos]

Ask those same players if they will make a $2 pick 6 bet with an expectation of -25% and most will say "No" ( some will say "Yes" if it was still a big score or they were worried about bankroll volatility). Among the ones that say "No", virtually all of them will have loads of tickets like that in their combinations because they are trying to win the bet and make a score. Those tickets should not be included. If you are including them because you worried about bankroll volatility, then you should not be in the pick 6. Playing a bet with a higher track take and throwing in negative value tickets on top of it does not sound like a very good way to become a winning player to me, but I guarantee you'll have some nice scores.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about here. What are these "negative value tickets" that you say I "shouldn't include in my Pick-6 wager"? Don't you understand that the main thing with the Pick-6 is to CASH THE TICKET? How would you feel if you had the first 5 winners of a Pick-6, including several longshots...and looking at the probable payoffs, you see that the bet is paying $30,000 with the outstanding favorite winning...but you haven't included this favorite because you were sure he would be an "underlay" in the race?

We are trying to win MONEY here...not to "maximize our ROI". With the Pick-6 and the Pick-5...the most important consideration is to CASH THE TICKET. As I said before...the long-term value is already built-in...because of the difficulty of the wager.

[Maximillion]

I understand what you are saying...and this is the classic mistake make by those players who are not experienced in the "long exotics". They fail to understand that you don't need "value oriented opinions" on each leg of a long horizontal exotic. These are expensive bets...and the vast majority of the bettors cannot afford to spread sufficiently in every leg. Get the right payoff in a couple of the legs, and you will get a great return...even if the rest of the legs are won by "underlays".

The long exotics are different, CH. It's a mistake to think of the Pick-5 as if it were a Pick 4, +1. The Pick-5 has a much bigger profit potential...and requires an altogether different betting strategy. An underlayed standout may be a bad thing in a Pick-4...but it may be a virtual NECESSITY in a Pick-5.

well said...i often have to look at 5 different tracks to find just one "value orientated opinion".....demanding more than 1 in a 5 race sequence may be asking a bit much.

[thaskalos]

I never said you need an opinion in every leg. I said to create additional value you need 2 opinions.

If I have a good value opinion in race 1 and 3, I can play the pick 3 and do pretty much whatever I want in leg 2.

If I have a good value opinion in race 1 and not in race 2 or 3, it's typically a mistake to go into the higher take pick 3 and spread around in leg 2 and 3.

If you happen to know that certain combinations won't be covered well, then you DO have a second value oriented opinion.

But that's not what a lot of people are doing. They have some 8-1 shot in the first race that they love and instead of just betting it to win they try to make a score in a higher take pool even though they are bringing nothing else to the table in those extra races.

These aren't "serious players"...and I thought we were talking about serious play here. There is no player worth his salt who wouldn't bet a horse that he loves to win, at 8-1 odds. If you wanted to talk about moron players, then you should have told me from the beginning...and I would have stayed out of the conversation.

[Robert Fischer]

Hunan vs Peking?

Have to tell me the takeout

[thaskalos]

I personally believe the pick 5 is the best wager in racing. Your last sentence is 1000% correct. I use many horses I absolutely detest DEFENSIVELY in races that I just want to get by, as long as I have strong opinions in races with value.

I used to make the mistake of leaving a chalk I hated out completely in the picks and lost $100,000, $50,000 etc. I learned quickly.

I also learned that there are SOME sequences where bankroll is what gets you the nice paying win.

There might even be a standout in one of those legs but Joe Shmo can't afford to get by the 3 races where 7 horses have a good shot to win. Nothing wrong with going 1 X 7 X 7 X 7 X 2 and buying you're way to a $5,000 ticket when all you did is select a 1/2 who can't lose and 2 chalks in the last leg.

You are absolutely RIGHT! :ThmbUp:

Unfortunately...this is the sort of knowledge that can only be acquired by having vast experience in long exotic play. How can I explain this to ClassHandicapper...when this type of play is foreign to him?

That's why I say that we can't go by "dogma" in this game. Every bet has its own peculiarities...and demands its own style of play. Conventional thinking is often WRONG in this game. The second leg of the exacta DOESN'T go to the second-best horse in the race...and the Pick-5 ISN'T like a Pick 4 + 1. Logic may say that it SHOULD be...but it ISN'T!

[DeltaLover]

You are absolutely RIGHT! :ThmbUp:

Unfortunately...this is the sort of knowledge that can only be acquired by having vast experience in long exotic play. How can I explain this to ClassHandicapper...when this type of play is foreign to him?

That's why I say that we can't go by "dogma" in this game. Every bet has its own peculiarities...and demands its own style of play. Conventional thinking is often WRONG in this game. The second leg of the exacta DOESN'T go to the second-best horse in the race...and the Pick-5 ISN'T like a Pick 4 + 1. Logic may say that it SHOULD be...but it ISN'T!

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

what is great though, is that from what I can see, most of the gamblers cannot understand this fundamental truth, even when you are try to spoon feed them!

[ReplayRandall]

Just kidding...that's why the smiley face. The truth is that we never know if we have an "edge" over the game or not. It's very possible that we are ALL kidding ourselves. Even if you've been winning for years, the game changes...and your methods could easily lose their bite over time. Even as you sit there with a "I'M KING OF THE WORLD" grin on your face...the ground could be crumbling underneath your feet.

I lose many, many races in this game...and sometimes the game makes me feel like a fool. Tomorrow's profits aren't promised to any of us...

I will always have a GRIN on my face, especially after reading your post.... :cool:

[Dave Schwartz]

I'd like to hear a little more from Dave S. on how he figures out which of his black box horses to bet.

Pandy,

I'd be happy to.

It begins with the premise that none of us will ever make a correct odds line. Sure, even a blind pig can find an apple once in a while, but most of it is just theoretical.

1. Project Odds
First thing I do is project what the odds on each horse is likely to be using what we call a "Handicapping Object." These are the top 5 factors that correlate closest to the final tote odds.

That means ML is at the top of the list. (Exception: At small tracks ML is factor #6.)


2. Pick Contenders
Next, I pick contenders. (BTW, there are no speed or pace figures involved in this process.) Most races will ultimately have 2-4 contenders, averaging around 2.8 or so.

If a race has only 1 contender, then that horse is a lopsided example of an obvious horse. Money will not be made on that horse. In those races, (basically) I toss the projected low-odds horses and make the others contenders, and bet them from highest to lowest odds.


3. Who to Bet
Steps 3 & 4 are where the rubber meets the road.

There are several "handicapping objects) that are used to assign probabilities.

So, imagine you have a field of horses, all with "reasonable" probabilities assigned to them. These probs total 100%.

Next, I penalize all the non-contenders 90% of their probabilities!

Thus, a horse that has a 30% chance of winning who is not in my contender list, winds up with 3%.

Next, I normalize these new probs to 100%. IOW, that 3% horse will go up a little because there were no longer 100 "points."

So, now we have this totally exaggerated set of probabilities, with some number of contenders pushed to the top.

We have projected odds for each horse.
We have a hit rate for each horse that is skewed high.
We have (say) 3 contenders.

We compute the $net for each horse using Prob x Payoff.

There is a set of 8 betting rules, designed to fire from the top down. (These rules are from a programmable rules set within the software, and they fire with one click.)

Example:
Rule 1: Bet horses with at least a 20% advantage that are in the top 2 for hit rate. If there are 2 horses bet, quit.

Rule 2: Add any horse projected to be 3.60/1 or higher in the top 2 if $net is $2.00 or more. If there are 2 horses bet, quit.

Rule 3: Bet ALL horses in the top 2 probs that are projected above natural odds. (Loosely, 8/1 or higher in a field of 9.) If there are 2 or more horses bet, quit.

Rule 4: Bet ALL horses in the top 3 probs that are projected above natural odds. (Loosely, 8/1 or higher in a field of 9.) If there are 2 or more horses bet, quit.

Etc.


4. How much to bet
This is where the rubber meets the road.

IMHO, it is the step where most players blow it.

The bets are sized based upon the pool pct not being bet times the pool pct not in my contenders. WHAT?

Not as complicated as it sounds.

You look at the horses you're betting.

If you're betting 6/5 and 8/5 it is logical that you should bet less money than if your betting 6/5 and 7/1. So, we look at the pct of PROJECTED pool that we are NOT betting. (Simply subtract the pct being bet from the total of the pool.)

Next, we look at the horses that are NOT contenders. It is logical that if you have a race where you have tossed 60% of the pool you should wager more than if you have only tossed 20% of the pool.

So, you have 2 numbers: NotBet% and NotCont%.

Multiply them together. Example (real race:)

Betting
2.46:1
1.96:1

Not Betting:
82.00:1
9.38:1
4.19:1
6.55:1
8.22:1
26.67:1

Bet%=51 NotBet%=49

Contenders:
2.46:1
1.96:1
4.19:1

Non-Contenders:
6.55
8.22
9.38
26.67
82.00

Cont%=66% Non-Cont%=34%

NotBet%=49 Non-Cont%=34%

.49 x .34 = .1667 or 16% of the maximum bet.

That's it.

[classhandicapper]

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about here. What are these "negative value tickets" that you say I "shouldn't include in my Pick-6 wager"? Don't you understand that the main thing with the Pick-6 is to CASH THE TICKET? How would you feel if you had the first 5 winners of a Pick-6, including several longshots...and looking at the probable payoffs, you see that the bet is paying $30,000 with the outstanding favorite winning...but you haven't included this favorite because you were sure he would be an "underlay" in the race?

We are trying to win MONEY here...not to "maximize our ROI". With the Pick-6 and the Pick-5...the most important consideration is to CASH THE TICKET. As I said before...the long-term value is already built-in...because of the difficulty of the wager.

We are not communicating.

You keep saying that I am saying "so and so" and then telling me why I'm wrong, but I never said what you are saying.

Every pick 3, 4, 5, and 6 combination has a probability of winning and a payoff associated with it. That means some combinations will be overlays and some will be underlays.

IMO, the idea in multi race bets is to include as many overlaid combinations on your full ticket as possible and to avoid the underlay tickets just as you would with a bunch of win bets. But many people are not thinking in those terms. I see it every day at work and every time I go to the track among outstanding handicappers. They include loads of bad tickets. Many solid handicappers go into these pools solely to try to make a bigger score or hit the bet without enough consideration for the value of the individual combinations they are including.

I agree you CAN have several underlay favorites on a combination and it can still be an overlaid combination, but typically those underlay favorites have to be combined with a couple of overlaid horses to create positive value.

This isn't an opinion. It's the math. I don't care how you find the value, but you generally need more than one value opinion per combination to overcome the higher take.

[thaskalos]

We are not communicating.

You keep saying that I am saying "so and so" and then telling me why I'm wrong, but I never said what you are saying.

Every pick 3, 4, 5, and 6 combination has a probability of winning and a payoff associated with it. That means some combinations will be overlays and some will be underlays.

IMO, the idea in multi race bets is to include as many overlaid combinations on your full ticket as possible and to avoid the underlay tickets just as you would with a bunch of win bets. But many people are not thinking in those terms. I see it every day at work and every time I go to the track among outstanding handicappers. They include loads of bad tickets. People go into these pools solely to try to make a bigger score without enough consideration for the value of the individual combinations they are including.

I agree you CAN have several underlay favorites on a combination and it can still be an overlaid combination, but typically those underlay favorites have to be combined with a couple of overlaid horses to create positive value.

This isn't an opinion. It's the math. I don't care how you find the value, but you generally need more than one value opinion per combination to overcome the higher take.

You are right. We are not communicating.

[raybo]

You are absolutely RIGHT! :ThmbUp:

Unfortunately...this is the sort of knowledge that can only be acquired by having vast experience in long exotic play. How can I explain this to ClassHandicapper...when this type of play is foreign to him?

That's why I say that we can't go by "dogma" in this game. Every bet has its own peculiarities...and demands its own style of play. Conventional thinking is often WRONG in this game. The second leg of the exacta DOESN'T go to the second-best horse in the race...and the Pick-5 ISN'T like a Pick 4 + 1. Logic may say that it SHOULD be...but it ISN'T!

Yeah, many think that the super is a tri +1, it's not, almost any horse in the race can finish 4th. So, even if you have the tri doesn't mean that you would get the super too, you have to really be good at "x"ing off a horse to finish 4th, or be ready to spread large on the 4th row.

[classhandicapper]

You are right. We are not communicating.

:lol:

I may not be communicating my point well. I'll try one last time.

When I bet exotics I am thinking in terms of the ROI on every single individual combination I am considering including on my ticket. That's the math that is no different than deciding if I should make a win bet or not.

Since I don't get to see the payoffs on triples, pick 3s, and pick 4s so I can compare the ROI on a win bet vs. an exotic, I have to "project" whether there will be greater value on the exotic combination or a simple win bet. That's how I decide which pool to go into.

When I played with the math years ago, I worked out what I generally need on these types of tickets to have better value than a simple win bet. I concluded that most people include too many combinations.

[thaskalos]

The horizontal super-exotics aren't like the win-bets. You don't lay the individual combinations down...separate the "overlayed" ones from the "underlayed" ones...and then discard the latter while you bet only the former. If you bet on the "overlayed" combinations only...then you won't cash any horizontal tickets at all. You can't force value...the race either has it, or it doesn't. But in a horizontal super-exotic...you have to survive these races where the underlayed horses win...or you don't get paid. What good is having the 25-1 longshot in the first race...if you left the 7-5 standout winner of the second race off your ticket...because it offered no "betting value"?

[ReplayRandall]

:lol:

I may not be communicating my point well. I'll try one last time.

When I bet exotics I am thinking in terms of the ROI on every single individual combination I am considering including on my ticket. That's the math that is no different than deciding if I should make a win bet or not.

Since I don't get to see the payoffs on triples, pick 3s, and pick 4s so I can compare the ROI on a win bet vs. an exotic, I have to "project" whether there will be greater value on the exotic combination or a simple win bet.

When I played with the math years ago, I worked out what I generally need on these types of tickets to have better value than a simple win bet. I concluded that most people include too many combinations.

If you played a weighted grid, you would not concern yourself with strict ROI individual combos, it's too insignificant for the totality of the wager value......

[classhandicapper]

The horizontal super-exotics aren't like the win-bets. You don't lay the individual combinations down...separate the "overlayed" ones from the "underlayed" ones...and then discard the latter while you bet the former. If you bet on the "overlayed" combinations only...then you won't cash any horizontal tickets at all. You can't force value...the race either has it, or it doesn't. But in a horizontal super-exotic...you have to survive these races where the underlayed horses win...or you don't get paid. What good is having the 25-1 longshot in the first race...if you left the 7-5 standout winner of the second race off your ticket...because it offered no "betting value"?

You are still suggesting that I am saying things I am not saying.

Let's make this a double to make it simpler.

I would compare my expected ROI for a win bet on that 25-1 shot vs. my expected ROI on a double combining that 25-1 shot and the 7/5. Whichever was higher would be where the money would go. Yeah, maybe that double still has value, but if it's lower than the win bet, why go for the bigger score?

Take that same logic further.

Yeah, maybe combinations x, y, and z have value in the pick 3, but why include them if that value is lower than a simple win bet (which it often will be because you are playing into a higher take pool). Play the combinations that have greater value than the win bet and bet the rest to win if you are worried about cashing tickets.

In the Pacific Classic there were some exacta combinations that I thought were good value that I did not include among my bets because I was better off just betting that money to win. There were others that I thought offered better value than a win bet that I included. The reason I didn't just throw it all on those great exact combinations was for "cashing tickets" purposes.

[thaskalos]

You are still suggesting that I am saying things I am not saying.

Let's make this a double to make it simpler.

I would compare my expected ROI for a win bet on that 25-1 shot vs. my expected ROI on a double combining that 25-1 shot and the 7/5. Whichever was higher would be where the money would go. Yeah, maybe that double still has value, but if it's lower than the win bet, why go for the bigger score?

Take that same logic further.

Yeah, maybe combinations x, y, and z have value in the pick 3, but why include them if that value is lower than a simple win bet (which it sometimes is because you are playing in a higher take pool). Play the combinations that have greater value than the win bet and bet the rest to win if you are worried about cashing tickets.
See...that's what I thought you've been saying all along...but you keep on saying that I am misunderstanding you. You think that the Double is a win bet +1...that the pick 3 is a Double +1...that the pick 4 is a Pick 3 +1...that the Pick 5 is a Pick 4 + 1...and that the Pick 6 is a Pick 5 +1.

And I've been saying...oh, SCREW IT...I'm going out to dinner. If I argue with you any longer...I might lose my appetite. Whatever you are doing is fine with me. :)

[classhandicapper]

If you played a weighted grid, you would not concern yourself with strict ROI individual combos, it's too insignificant for the totality of the wager value......

The "net" ROI of the entire ticket and weighing the best values heavier is a good way of thinking about it. I'm just not comfortable with the idea of going into a pool that I already know has a higher take and throwing in marginal tickets like that.

[classhandicapper]

See...that's what I thought you've been saying all along...but you keep on saying that I am misunderstanding you. You think that the Double is a win bet +1...that the pick 3 is a Double +1...that the pick 4 is a Pick 3 +1...that the Pick 5 is a Pick 4 + 1...and that the Pick 6 is a Pick 5 +1.

And I've been saying...oh, SCREW IT...I'm going out to dinner. If I argue with you any longer...I might lose my appetite. Whatever you are doing is fine with me. :)

:lol:

I don't what you mean by +1, +2 etc... To me it's all math. You have opinions. You calculate the values and go into the pool with the best deal. Enjoy dinner.

[pandy]

Pandy,

I'd be happy to.

It begins with the premise that none of us will ever make a correct odds line. Sure, even a blind pig can find an apple once in a while, but most of it is just theoretical.

1. Project Odds
First thing I do is project what the odds on each horse is likely to be using what we call a "Handicapping Object." These are the top 5 factors that correlate closest to the final tote odds.

That means ML is at the top of the list. (Exception: At small tracks ML is factor #6.)


2. Pick Contenders
Next, I pick contenders. (BTW, there are no speed or pace figures involved in this process.) Most races will ultimately have 2-4 contenders, averaging around 2.8 or so.

If a race has only 1 contender, then that horse is a lopsided example of an obvious horse. Money will not be made on that horse. In those races, (basically) I toss the projected low-odds horses and make the others contenders, and bet them from highest to lowest odds.


3. Who to Bet
Steps 3 & 4 are where the rubber meets the road.

There are several "handicapping objects) that are used to assign probabilities.

So, imagine you have a field of horses, all with "reasonable" probabilities assigned to them. These probs total 100%.

Next, I penalize all the non-contenders 90% of their probabilities!

Thus, a horse that has a 30% chance of winning who is not in my contender list, winds up with 3%.

Next, I normalize these new probs to 100%. IOW, that 3% horse will go up a little because there were no longer 100 "points."

So, now we have this totally exaggerated set of probabilities, with some number of contenders pushed to the top.

We have projected odds for each horse.
We have a hit rate for each horse that is skewed high.
We have (say) 3 contenders.

We compute the $net for each horse using Prob x Payoff.

There is a set of 8 betting rules, designed to fire from the top down. (These rules are from a programmable rules set within the software, and they fire with one click.)

Example:
Rule 1: Bet horses with at least a 20% advantage that are in the top 2 for hit rate. If there are 2 horses bet, quit.

Rule 2: Add any horse projected to be 3.60/1 or higher in the top 2 if $net is $2.00 or more. If there are 2 horses bet, quit.

Rule 3: Bet ALL horses in the top 2 probs that are projected above natural odds. (Loosely, 8/1 or higher in a field of 9.) If there are 2 or more horses bet, quit.

Rule 4: Bet ALL horses in the top 3 probs that are projected above natural odds. (Loosely, 8/1 or higher in a field of 9.) If there are 2 or more horses bet, quit.

Etc.


4. How much to bet
This is where the rubber meets the road.

IMHO, it is the step where most players blow it.

The bets are sized based upon the pool pct not being bet times the pool pct not in my contenders. WHAT?

Not as complicated as it sounds.

You look at the horses you're betting.

If you're betting 6/5 and 8/5 it is logical that you should bet less money than if your betting 6/5 and 7/1. So, we look at the pct of PROJECTED pool that we are NOT betting. (Simply subtract the pct being bet from the total of the pool.)

Next, we look at the horses that are NOT contenders. It is logical that if you have a race where you have tossed 60% of the pool you should wager more than if you have only tossed 20% of the pool.

So, you have 2 numbers: NotBet% and NotCont%.

Multiply them together. Example (real race:)

Betting
2.46:1
1.96:1

Not Betting:
82.00:1
9.38:1
4.19:1
6.55:1
8.22:1
26.67:1

Bet%=51 NotBet%=49

Contenders:
2.46:1
1.96:1
4.19:1

Non-Contenders:
6.55
8.22
9.38
26.67
82.00

Cont%=66% Non-Cont%=34%

NotBet%=49 Non-Cont%=34%

.49 x .34 = .1667 or 16% of the maximum bet.

That's it.

Thanks Dave, very interesting. Now all I have to do is get as smart as you....which isn't likely.

[ReplayRandall]

The "net" ROI of the entire ticket and weighing the best values heavier is a good way of thinking about it. I'm just not comfortable with the idea of going into a pool that I already know has a higher take and throwing in marginal tickets like that.

And that is a fair statement for the comfort you feel, however IMO, your leaving money on the table......Still, it was a good conversation of differing perspectives.

[classhandicapper]

And that is a fair statement for the comfort you feel, however IMO, your leaving money on the table......Still, it was a good conversation of differing perspectives.

I see it the other way around.

There are more and better opportunities in the exotics, but I see more people leaving money on the table going for scores every day than the other way around. They get those scores from time to time and feel like superheros when they do, but some of the money they put into those exotic pools would be better off in the win pool. If they would allocate it better, IMO their ROI would be higher. Good conversation though.

[ReplayRandall]

I see it the other way around.

There are more and better opportunities in the exotics, but I see people leaving money on the table going for scores every day. They get those scores from time to time and feel like superheros when they do, but some of the money they put into those exotic pools would be better off in the win pool. If they would split it better, IMO their ROI would be higher.

Yes, Bankroll integrity is the major priority of those betting the horses for a living, with no other source of income......Is that your situation, Classy?

[AndyC]

Here is another mistake that you are making in your thinking. Whether or not you include "underlays" on your tickets depends not on "dogma"...but on what kind of exotics bet you are making. Are you willing to miss out on hitting a Pick-6...because you are determined to keep the "underlayed" standout of a particular race off your tickets?

On some bets...it is entirely possible to create an overlayed betting situation...even though you are including an underlayed horse or two. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Totally agree. The first rule of putting together a P-6 ticket is to pick six winners. I check for value after my ticket is constructed. If I am sitting with 3 odds on horses and not many price horses, I won't bet.

[classhandicapper]

Totally agree. The first rule of putting together a P-6 ticket is to pick six winners. I check for value after my ticket is constructed. If I am sitting with 3 odds on horses and not many price horses, I won't bet.

Contrary to what others keep saying in response to me, you seem to be doing what I am suggesting is the mathematically correct thing to do.

The point I have been making is that most horse players start with a single opinion and immediately look to turn it into a score in the triple, super, pick 3/4 etc.. without due consideration for which pool has the lowest take and offers the best value.

I see and hear it every single day.

I hear about how some payoff was bigger than the parlay or that the effective track take on some exotic is really 6% because you have to divide 18% by 3 races. It's all mathematical nonsense! As a group, people are losing money at a much faster rate in the exotics than on win bets.

What exotics do is give you the ability to combine 2 value oriented opinions into one combination. That will tend to create more than enough incremental value to overcome the disadvantage of playing into the higher take pool.

If you don't have a second value oriented opinion on every single combination, those combinations that fail my test are typically just bucking a higher take in the exotics.

[classhandicapper]

Yes, Bankroll integrity is the major priority of those betting the horses for a living, with no other source of income......Is that your situation, Classy?

I have generally always worked. I play because I love the sport and it's such a great intellectual challenge to try to beat the game.

[pandy]

These horizontal wagers, although offering a lower takeout, are extremely difficult to hit so I agree with you. Just because a wager has a lower takeout doesn't mean that it's a sure path to profit.

But I do think that exotics can be smarter bets than win bets, even tough the takeout is higher. I think there's a reason why exacta pools are often the highest at most tracks. Exactas aren't difficult to hit, the pools are large, so your bet doesn't knock the odds down much, and exactas can turn a loser into a winner.

If I like a horse that's 15-1 and I box it with the favorite, my key horse runs 2nd, I hit the exacta for $75, I just got an 18-1 payout on a 15-1 shot....that lost.

For the average player who wants to enjoy the game without constantly having to put more money into his account, exactas are a good option, especially at the tracks where the takeout isn't that bad, or if you are getting good rebates.

One longtime professional bettor who occasionally posts on this forum was an exacta bettor for decades.

[pandy]

Yes, Bankroll integrity is the major priority of those betting the horses for a living, with no other source of income......Is that your situation, Classy?


I've written several columns over the years about what I termed, "bankroll preservation." I don't think it's important just for pros, I think it's important for every bettor. Of course, if I advised people that they should all play the pick 6 and go for broke that would be irresponsible. The vast majority of horse players play the game for the entertainment value. From a pure mathematical standpoint, playing with a degree of caution may not actually be the best long term strategy because you can miss big scores, but for most people, they will have more fun if they aren't sweating out long losing streaks while they try to hit the pick 5 or pick 6.

[aaron]

I've written several columns over the years about what I termed, "bankroll preservation." I don't think it's important just for pros, I think it's important for every bettor. Of course, if I advised people that they should all play the pick 6 and go for broke that would be irresponsible. The vast majority of horse players play the game for the entertainment value. From a pure mathematical standpoint, playing with a degree of caution may not actually be the best long term strategy because you can miss big scores, but for most people, they will have more fun if they aren't sweating out long losing streaks while they try to hit the pick 5 or pick 6.
Pandy,
I think you are correct. I would advise players to write down their picks for the pick 5 or pick 6,using amounts they would bet. After a month or two,see how you are doing and if it is worth the stress involved. Also,this would only apply to players who play on a somewhat regular basis. Someone who plays once a week would be wasting his time. After,say two months you have shown a paper profit and have hit the bet a few times,then you can try it with real money.

[DeltaLover]

The most important thing when betting, is to be able to quickly ramp up the size of your bets, always targeting in the big score. The best I have found to do so, is to either apply some kind of a progression (full or partial parlay) or to bet a long exotic, usually P5 or P4.

I do not believe it is possible to show some significant profit, just by flat betting constant amounts in a race by race fashion. Such an approach, might be suitable for people who view the game as some kind of an entertainment but it is completely useless when betting for real profits..

[DeltaLover]

Pandy,
I think you are correct. I would advise players to write down their picks for the pick 5 or pick 6,using amounts they would bet. After a month or two,see how you are doing and if it is worth the stress involved. Also,this would only apply to players who play on a somewhat regular basis. Someone who plays once a week would be wasting his time. After,say two months you have shown a paper profit and have hit the bet a few times,then you can try it with real money.

I do not agree. Two months is a very short period to conclude about the profitability of your long exotics. Just a single winning ticket can be enough to convert a heavy loser to a bug winner, given the huge payouts.

A better metric to judge the effectiveness of your long exotics, assuming a short period of a month or two, is not to count your net profits but how many times you were close to a large payoff. For example, if you are find yourself missing monstrous payouts in the P6 or P5, while live in the last leg with 4 horses but you were beaten by a completely unexpectable horse you are probably doing something right. Chances are that if you keep on following the same approach, sooner or later you will get there, scooping a huge payoff...

[pandy]

The most important thing when betting, is to be able to quickly ramp up the size of your bets, always targeting in the big score. The best I have found to do so, is to either apply some kind of a progression (full or partial parlay) or to bet a long exotic, usually P5 or P4.

I do not believe it is possible to show some significant profit, just by flat betting constant amounts in a race by race fashion. Such an approach, might be suitable for people who view the game as some kind of an entertainment but it is completely useless when betting for real profits..

I have two progressions, one was developed for me by a math major at Yale and the other is a more gradual progression (PZF) profit zone formula that I created.

As you probably know, many experts including Barry Meadow say that progression betting is senseless.

As for parlay betting, years ago when harness racing started to get more speed favoring, and the favorites starting winning over 40%, I did a lot of testing of two horse win parlays on favorites, as opposed to single win bets. The parlays were a much better option.

For those of you who bet to win, and bet a lot of horses under 4-1 odds, you're better off trying to hit two in a row. You'll lose more bets but make more money.

[DeltaLover]

I have two progressions, one was developed for me by a math major at Yale and the other is a more gradual progression (PZF) profit zone formula that I created.

As you probably know, many experts including Barry Meadow say that progression betting is senseless.

As for parlay betting, years ago when harness racing started to get more speed favoring, and the favorites starting winning over 40%, I did a lot of testing of two horse win parlays on favorites, as opposed to single win bets. The parlays were a much better option.

For those of you who bet to win, and bet a lot of horses under 4-1 odds, you're better off trying to hit two in a row. You'll lose more bets but make more money.

I am very reluctant to accept what the experts are trying to serve me. Especially when it comes to Barry Meadow's writings, I have to say that I have found a lot of mistakes and inconsistencies in his books.

Progressive betting, is far from "senseless", instead it is the only way to show some serious profit.. Note that, I consider all gimmicks to be forms a progressive betting, similar to manual parlaying win or exacts bets..

[aaron]

I do not agree. Two months is a very short period to conclude about the profitability of your long exotics. Just a single winning ticket can be enough to convert a heavy loser to a bug winner, given the huge payouts.

A better metric to judge the effectiveness of your long exotics, assuming a short period of a month or two, is not to count your net profits but how many times you were close to a large payoff. For example, if you are find yourself missing monstrous payouts in the P6 or P5, while live in the last leg with 4 horses but you were beaten by a completely unexpectable horse you are probably doing something right. Chances are that if you keep on following the same approach, sooner or later you will get there, scooping a huge payoff...
I think what you say makes a lot of sense. Certainly,a single winning ticket would not be conclusive. Two months probably is a short time,but the idea is to get the play in real time. What would be a reasonable hit rate ? The key to the test is to use amounts you would feel comfortable with.For instance,if you played the Saratoga meet,there probably is a chance that one hit could show a profit for the meet. Is that a good enough test ? Has anyone actually tested this at a meet ?

[ReplayRandall]

I do not agree. Two months is a very short period to conclude about the profitability of your long exotics. Just a single winning ticket can be enough to convert a heavy loser to a bug winner, given the huge payouts.

A better metric to judge the effectiveness of your long exotics, assuming a short period of a month or two, is not to count your net profits but how many times you were close to a large payoff. For example, if you are find yourself missing monstrous payouts in the P6 or P5, while live in the last leg with 4 horses but you were beaten by a completely unexpectable horse you are probably doing something right. Chances are that if you keep on following the same approach, sooner or later you will get there, scooping a huge payoff...

Delta, your posts #13 & #23 were excellent in giving any bettor a leg up when it comes to proper ticket construction and "weighted" opinion variations and value-paring instructions.

I'm going to build upon that methodology with an example of Jonathon Kinchen's, the current top tournament handicapper, weighted grid combo-value pick-5 ticket he constructed to win a live cash tournament at Hawthorne, which paid $20K......P.S.- He did get lucky to hit the ticket via a DQ in the anchor leg:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMnm6DPWUAASVk9.jpg

[DeltaLover]

I think what you say makes a lot of sense. Certainly,a single winning ticket would not be conclusive. Two months probably is a short time,but the idea is to get the play in real time. What would be a reasonable hit rate ? The key to the test is to use amounts you would feel comfortable with.For instance,if you played the Saratoga meet,there probably is a chance that one hit could show a profit for the meet. Is that a good enough test ? Has anyone actually tested this at a meet ?

Yes, I have keep detailed records for this SPA meeting focusing on the Pick 5 and the two Pick 4..

After hitting only one P5 (for ~ $10K) and 4 P4 (for ~ $5K) I am ahead by approximately by a few grand,,

BUT WHAT IS WAY MORE IMPORTANT TO ME IS THAT:

I have missed a $500K P5 payout, just by one horse that I was contemplating betting and after some lengthy thinking period, I have managed to completely eliminate from my picks, mainly because he was shipping from Gulfstream, showing a figure that I stubbornly considered overestimated and fluke (later I have realized that this happened mainly due to the influence of the fluke 110 BSF that Materiality was assigned in hid FLD DERBY)...

Meanwhile, I was also live in a large P3 payout (for over 10K) with 4 horses, when I was beaten by nose in the last leg by the public's fav..

As long I keep on losing this monstrous scores by nose, I am sure that I am doing it right, the large pay-off will eventually come as it has happened many times in the past...

[DeltaLover]

Delta, your posts #13 & #23 were excellent in giving any bettor a leg up when it comes to proper ticket construction and "weighted" opinion variations and value-paring instructions.

I'm going to build upon that methodology with an example of Jonathon Kinchen's, the current top tournament handicapper, weighted grid combo-value pick-5 ticket he constructed to win a live cash tournament at Hawthorne, which paid $20K......P.S.- He did get lucky to hit the ticket via a DQ in the anchor leg:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMnm6DPWUAASVk9.jpg

Obviously, this is the best way to construct long horizontals.. Using weights is even more effective and also challenging from the handicapping scope of view..

[aaron]

Yes, I have keep detailed records for this SPA meeting focusing on the Pick 5 and the two Pick 4..

After hitting only one P5 (for ~ $10K) and 4 P4 (for ~ $5K) I am ahead by approximately by a few grand,,

BUT WHAT IS WAY MORE IMPORTANT TO ME IS THAT:

I have missed a $500K P5 payout, just by one horse that I was contemplating betting and after some lengthy thinking period, I have managed to completely eliminate from my picks, mainly because he was shipping from Gulfstream, showing a figure that I stubbornly considered overestimated and fluke (later I have realized that this happened mainly due to the influence of the fluke 110 BSF that Materiality was assigned in hid FLD DERBY)...

Meanwhile, I was also live in a large P3 payout (for over 10K) with 4 horses, when I was beaten by nose in the last leg by the public's fav..

As long I keep on losing this monstrous scores by nose, I am sure that I am doing it right, the large pay-off will eventually come as it has happened many times in the past...
Excellent post. Especially the part about waiting for the large payoff. What would be a reasonable about to invest ? I am sure most players are not investing hundreds of dollars. You obviously,have a good opinion and have shown a profit. How long did you test your methods ?

[ultracapper]

Yes, Bankroll integrity is the major priority of those betting the horses for a living, with no other source of income......Is that your situation, Classy?

Doctors live by the Hippocratic Oath. "Cause No Harm". I have lived by that oath in relation to my bankroll for years now.

[ReplayRandall]

Doctors live by the Hippocratic Oath. "Cause No Harm". I have lived by that oath in relation to my bankroll for years now.

And that's why you're a respected peer, among other reasons.. ;)