Handicappers Cognitive Bias

[zerosky]

According to recent study a "gambler would have to place over 10,000 bets in individual races
with net returns exceeding 9 % to be reasonably considered an expert"

Abstract here (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10899-013-9420-7)

[classhandicapper]

The required sample size changes depending on whether are performing well betting 3-1 to 5-1 shots to win or playing multi race/deep vertical wagers.

[zerosky]

addendum to previous post

to achieve the level required the following strike rates for various odds would have to be hit

Odds Strike Rate
evns 55%
3/2 44%
2/1 36%
5/2 31%
3/1 27%
7/2 24%
4/1 22%

[ultracapper]

9% return on each individual price

[Robert Fischer]

According to recent study a "gambler would have to place over 10,000 bets in individual races
with net returns exceeding 9 % to be reasonably considered an expert"

Abstract here (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10899-013-9420-7)

9% net returns isn't much to write home about.

If I start with a grand, and wager 10,000 races (2-3 years of playing?) and finish with $1,090 in my bankroll, for a net return of 9%.... Sure I fit the requirement of that paper, but I wouldn't be 'considered an expert' by many serious players.

If we are talking about 9% ROI (in horseplaying terms $1.09ROI or a $2 ROI of $2.18), then that is a whole different story. In that case it is overreaching.
An ROI OF 3% would be very strong and pretty soon when you are reaching pool size ceilings and dealing with rebated play, anything positive is very strong.

[raybo]

9% net returns isn't much to write home about.

If I start with a grand, and wager 10,000 races (2-3 years of playing?) and finish with $1,090 in my bankroll, for a net return of 9%.... Sure I fit the requirement of that paper, but I wouldn't be 'considered an expert' by many serious players.

If we are talking about 9% ROI (in horseplaying terms $1.09ROI or a $2 ROI of $2.18), then that is a whole different story. In that case it is overreaching.
An ROI OF 3% would be very strong and pretty soon when you are reaching pool size ceilings and dealing with rebated play, anything positive is very strong.

LOL - I hope he's talking about total money bet versus total money returned for +9% ROI over 10k plays. I agree, ANY net profit, over the long term, is strong, and would probably classify that player an expert player, regardless of the degree of profit (at least at the end of those 10k races anyway :lol: Unfortunately many here would say that nobody can be recognized as an expert until they have produced net profit over their entire lifetime. :bang: So, under that latter definition, nobody currently alive qualifies as an expert. :faint: ).

[Robert Goren]

LOL - I hope he's talking about total money bet versus total money returned for +9% ROI over 10k plays. I agree, ANY net profit, over the long term, is strong, and would probably classify that player an expert player, regardless of the degree of profit (at least at the end of those 10k races anyway :lol: Unfortunately many here would say that nobody can be recognized as an expert until they have produced net profit over their entire lifetime. :bang: So, under that latter definition, nobody currently alive qualifies as an expert. :faint: ).The only horseplayers who want to be recognized as an expert is a horseplayer who is trying to sell something. It is has been my experience with a very few notable exceptions, those horseplayers who are trying sell something as an expert do not appear to show much of a profit over any reasonable length of time.

[MJC922]

Wouldn't surprise me if the biggest winners in today's game turned out to barely know how to read a form let alone are handicapping experts. Let's see, we have the vets, the goodfellas and last but not least monkeys sitting in some underground Oregon hub with a finger on a button cancelling all but one ticket 20 seconds into the race while the real experts spend hours per day handicapping and end up playing for scraps.