David Milch Lost $100 Million at the Track

[SuperPickle]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/david-milch-made-100m-gambled-866184

[LottaKash]

excerpt:
"He was one of the most devoted gamblers," says John Perrotta, an author and adviser on that show. "He was very serious about it, and he was a very good handicapper."

excerpt:
Perrotta saw that brilliance, too. "David was really good at handicapping — he was very, very good at picking winners," he says. "With such a complex mind, he could do these exotic bets. But it's what holds every gambler back: In the end, you do it too much."

[thaskalos]

excerpt:
"He was one of the most devoted gamblers," says John Perrotta, an author and adviser on that show. "He was very serious about it, and he was a very good handicapper."

excerpt:
Perrotta saw that brilliance, too. "David was really good at handicapping — he was very, very good at picking winners," he says. "With such a complex mind, he could do these exotic bets. But it's what holds every gambler back: In the end, you do it too much."
If you are "very good" at picking winners...then doing it "too much" shouldn't be a problem. :)

The problems start when we aren't GOOD ENOUGH.

[Stillriledup]

If you are "very good" at picking winners...then doing it "too much" shouldn't be a problem. :)

The problems start when we aren't GOOD ENOUGH.

This game isn't about picking winners, it's about investing money in expert fashion. Plenty of 'good handicappers' get crushed by bad betting, not knowing how to handle money.

[EMD4ME]

When you are betting for action, you will LOSE ALL your hard earned smart money (smart because you properly handicapped a race or series of races).

I'm not ashamed to admit it, I lost a ton of hard earned smart money in my 20's. Glad I did, taught me to pass pass pass pass as the years went by.

Only bet when you KNOW more than 90% of your competition does.

This guy seemed to just love to pound it in ALL the time instead of sending it in when he has a truly informative opinion.

[Shemp Howard]

I hear he's ahead for the meet.

[LottaKash]

If you are "very good" at picking winners...then doing it "too much" shouldn't be a problem. :)

The problems start when we aren't GOOD ENOUGH.

I put the emphasis on "doing it too much", because it is about "greed" and the sickness of gambling that did or does him in, imo...

The guy had $100 million, so what was the "real need" in the first place...?

[Tom]

Does he sell his picks anywhere?

[JJMartin]

The problem with this clown is that he thinks he has some sort of gifted intuition in picking horses. It's obvious he either sucks at handicapping or he's just a lost cause gambler.

[Sinner369]

You can be a great picker of horses and still lose because you do not have good money management skills.

Money management and self control are the other traits you must have to make money at the track.........just picking winners does not guarantee making a profit from your endeavours.

[Track Phantom]

You can be a great picker of horses and still lose because you do not have good money management skills.

Money management and self control are the other traits you must have to make money at the track.........just picking winners does not guarantee making a profit from your endeavours.
http://i968.photobucket.com/albums/ae169/valento07/Captain%20Obvious_654x441_zpsi1jc5thb.jpg

[thaskalos]

Guys...let's get real here. This is the exact quote given by Tom Quigley, the VIP player concierge at Santa Anita, when describing David Milch as a horseplayer:

"His personality is that of a mad genius, and his approach to gambling is the same. What makes Kobe Bryant a great basketball player is the same thing that makes Milch a creative wizard at the racetrack."

When you lose $100 million at the track, you are no "creative wizard"...nor do you deserve to be compared to Kobe Bryant. These are just the words of encouragement from a gambling host...whose job is to make sure that the VIP players bet as much money as possible.

Another falsity in the article is the assertion that only 1% to 2% of the gamblers have a "gambling disorder". If only 1-2% of the gamblers are afflicted with this disease...then I've met every single one of them.

[Track Phantom]

These are just the words of encouragement from a gambling host...whose job is to make sure that the VIP players bet as much money as possible.

Another falsity in the article is the assertion that only 1% to 2% of the gamblers have a "gambling disorder". If only 1-2% of the gamblers are afflicted with this disease...then I've met every single one of them.
Funny, thought the exact same thing about these two observations when I read the article.

[Track Phantom]

Here's another thing that reads very oddly.

Perrotta saw that brilliance, too. "David was really good at handicapping — he was very, very good at picking winners," he says. "With such a complex mind, he could do these exotic bets. But it's what holds every gambler back: In the end, you do it too much."

If you're so good at doing something, isn't the whole idea to do it as often as possible?

[thaskalos]

Here's another thing that reads very oddly.

Perrotta saw that brilliance, too. "David was really good at handicapping — he was very, very good at picking winners," he says. "With such a complex mind, he could do these exotic bets. But it's what holds every gambler back: In the end, you do it too much."

If you're so good at doing something, isn't the whole idea to do it as often as possible?

That's what I said in my initial post here...and the consensus reply that I got was that you can destroy yourself at the track, even if you are the "Kobe Bryant" of horse betting. :)

[Jeff P]

Guys...let's get real here. This is the exact quote given by Tom Quigley, the VIP player concierge at Santa Anita, when describing David Milch as a horseplayer...

I have a slightly different take on this...

Back in 2010 I was attending a face to face meeting with upper management from Santa Anita and representatives from the TOC (Thoroughbred Owners of California.)

The topic of discussion was takeout.

I was the only one at the table arguing for lower takeout - that raising it would result in lower handle and revenue.

Everyone else thought takeout needed to be higher - because raising it would have zero effect on handle.

One of the owners from the TOC said: "David Milch doesn't care what the takeout is," and everyone there except me had a good laugh.

I didn't get his joke that afternoon because I wasn't privy to the real meaning behind what he was driving at.

But it finally clicked for me some six years later after reading the article.

And I don't find his comment the least bit funny now.


-jp

.

[Exotic1]

I have a slightly different take on this...

Back in 2010 I was attending a face to face meeting with upper management from Santa Anita and representatives from the TOC (Thoroughbred Owners of California.)

The topic of discussion was takeout.

I was the only one at the table arguing for lower takeout - that raising it would result in lower handle and revenue.

Everyone else thought takeout needed to be higher - because raising it would have zero effect on handle.

One of the owners from the TOC said: "David Milch doesn't care what the takeout is," and everyone there except me had a good laugh.

I didn't get his joke that afternoon because I wasn't privy to the real meaning behind what he was driving at.

But it finally clicked for me some six years later after reading the article.

And I don't find his comment the least bit funny now.


-jp

.

Sad.

The track should have had some vision, if nothing but a selfish vision. They should have hired Thask (I am being extremely earnest) to provide M Milch a good chance to at least break even. With that type of handle, tracks would have been in a position to generate millions each year in takeout, through churn. They would pay Thask $500k a year and M Milch would pay him $500k a year and everyone is happy. Track would report this additional revenue year after year and M Milch has his money, plus some rebate.

What do they have now?

[Grits]

This story is pitiful, though, sorry, I can't feel sorry for this man.

Points directly to.. fine line between genius and crazy.

[castaway01]

This story is pitiful, though, sorry, I can't feel sorry for this man.

Points directly to.. fine line between genius and crazy.

And how sometimes those two don't cross over---he's a genius as a writer and creative mind (in my opinion "Deadwood" is in the top 10 shows of all time, not to mention "NYPD Blue") but it doesn't mean he's a genius at gambling.

[1st time lasix]

[QUOTE=Jeff P]I have a slightly different take on this...

Back in 2010 I was attending a face to face meeting with upper management from Santa Anita and representatives from the TOC (Thoroughbred Owners of California.)

The topic of discussion was takeout.

I was the only one at the table arguing for lower takeout - that raising it would result in lower handle and revenue.

Everyone else thought takeout needed to be higher - because raising it would have zero effect on handle.

One of the owners from the TOC said: "David Milch doesn't care what the takeout is," and everyone there except me had a good laugh.

I didn't get his joke that afternoon because I wasn't privy to the real meaning behind what he was driving at.

But it finally clicked for me some six years later after reading the article.

And I don't find his comment the least bit funny now.


-jp
Great post and thanks for sharing JP. I agree it is sad for the enablers to take it so lightly. PS: I can feel sorry for any man or woman who has a compulsive behavior disorder that crushes their life. Generally it will eventually impact far more than just that individual. Be nice if all could get some help or support..... but denial is part of a destructive addictive activity. Name it--- Alcohol, drugs, sex, gambling, violence, theft, lying, eating, power, narcisisism, sports, video games.... Lots of opportunity for someone who might be vulnerable to go around. A balanced individual will know the difference between right and wrong and be able to moderate their behavior. Those that can't.... need some support rather than disdain.

[classhandicapper]

When you are betting for action, you will LOSE ALL your hard earned smart money (smart because you properly handicapped a race or series of races).

Glad I did, taught me to pass pass pass pass as the years went by.

Only bet when you KNOW more than 90% of your competition does.

This guy seemed to just love to pound it in ALL the time instead of sending it in when he has a truly informative opinion.

I agree with this.

The difference between winning and losing for some people is the ability to discern when you have an opinion vs. when you have an opinion with value and then only betting when you have the latter. I have an opinion in every race, but I rarely feel like I have an insight that isn't shared with the masses or that the masses are misunderstanding.

Maybe it's possible for players that crave action to win playing a LOT of races, but I don't think I would have much of chance. At best I'd get close.

[Grits]

1st, I don't feel disdain. However, I don't feel sorrow or pity for someone who has bled 100 million dollars. I simply cannot. What is also a shame? That it took the woman married to him, for decades, THIS LONG to do anything. A bit late. $40 allowance a week won't even buy him breakfast in Brentwood, Hollywood, or Beverly Hills.

Castaway is correct, we're not all geniuses in all areas of endeavor.

[ebcorde]

Does he sell his picks anywhere?

:lol: You are what a buddy of mine refers to as a sniper.

Losing 100 million is impossible in Horse racing. The dude has a HUGE problem.

[ultracapper]

The horse racing industry's attitude is to burn through one David Milch, and then hope to find another. Instead they could do things to find multiple David Milches and provide an opportunity for all of them to stick around for the duration.

[rrpic6]

Guys...let's get real here. This is the exact quote given by Tom Quigley, the VIP player concierge at Santa Anita, when describing David Milch as a horseplayer:

"His personality is that of a mad genius, and his approach to gambling is the same. What makes Kobe Bryant a great basketball player is the same thing that makes Milch a creative wizard at the racetrack."

When you lose $100 million at the track, you are no "creative wizard"...nor do you deserve to be compared to Kobe Bryant. These are just the words of encouragement from a gambling host...whose job is to make sure that the VIP players bet as much money as possible.

Another falsity in the article is the assertion that only 1% to 2% of the gamblers have a "gambling disorder". If only 1-2% of the gamblers are afflicted with this disease...then I've met every single one of them.

The same Tom Quigley that stiffed many of us on their Horse Player Magazine subscriptions in one way or another. Santa Anita hired him because he knew where the whales were and could reel them in?
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/people/horseplayer-magazine-publisher-quigley-named-to-new-post-at-santa-anita/

RR

[Jeff P]

Guys...let's get real here. This is the exact quote given by Tom Quigley, the VIP player concierge at Santa Anita, when describing David Milch as a horseplayer...

My second comment about the article is this:

Santa Anita track management has no business whatsoever talking about the personal lives of individual players in their VIP room.

Would a casino have answered questions from a reporter about one of their whales?

Methinks not. (At least not without getting permission from the player first.)


-jp

.

[Track Collector]

As a disclaimer I don't believe this was the major reason for this fellow's demise, but at what is believed to be his total annual wagering amount, I wonder how much he was negatively impacted by POOL DILUTION?

Let's say that he wagered $25 million a year and that was only at one single track per day. That would be roughly $7K per race. Even at a very large-handle track that is enough money to destroy an edge level that could be achieved by the upper echelon of racing's best handicappers.

The point I am trying to bring up is that it is "possible" (though not likely) for a person to be an excellent handicapper (i.e. make excellent selections), but fail to consider the effects of pool dilution and therefore wager an amount that turns a positive expectancy play into a negative one over time.

[Stillriledup]

My second comment about the article is this:

Santa Anita track management has no business whatsoever talking about the personal lives of individual players in their VIP room.

Would a casino have answered questions from a reporter about one of their whales?

Methinks not. (At least not without getting permission from the player first.)


-jp

.

they laughed like a restaurant owner might laugh if all his customers were 800 lb folks with eating (can't stop eating) problems.

That restaurant wouldn't have to worry about food quality.

[v j stauffer]

Here's a guy that has every advantage.

As an owner and celebrity ask yourself if he had access to "they" which draws such reverence from several on this site.

Did "they" ever whisper in Milch's ear?

How did that go for him?

Bottom line:

He wasn't good enough.

He didn't work hard enough.

He didn't show enough self control and discipline.

He lost.

You can win.

But only if willing to do the work. Period.

[davew]

How big was his horse ownership / stable? It said he had a couple Breeders Cup winners.

I remember when it was said MC Hammer went through a few million getting winners circle pictures.

[Poindexter]

Article is quite misleading. According the the article he cashed about 25 million in checks over a long period at Santa Anita and he owes the IRS 17 million(who's fault is that and what does racing have to do with that). Earned 100 million over his career- Even if we assume he lost much of the 25 million over that long time period (doubtful as he could have blown the cash in countless other ways) this is more an issue of poor money management(no unlike someone who hits for a 10 million dollar lottery and is broke 3 years later) than someone blowing his fortune betting horses. I am sure his losses at the ponies didn't help the situation, but I think there is a lot more to this story.

To me the bigger story is the management company charging him 5% of his pre-tax income, than letting the situation get this far out of control(feared he might fire them? what are they getting paid for to cut checks? )

[AndyC]

Article is quite misleading. According the the article he cashed about 25 million in checks over a long period at Santa Anita and he owes the IRS 17 million(who's fault is that and what does racing have to do with that). Earned 100 million over his career- Even if we assume he lost much of the 25 million over that long time period (doubtful as he could have blown the cash in countless other ways) this is more an issue of poor money management(no unlike someone who hits for a 10 million dollar lottery and is broke 3 years later) than someone blowing his fortune betting horses. I am sure his losses at the ponies didn't help the situation, but I think there is a lot more to this story.

To me the bigger story is the management company charging him 5% of his pre-tax income, than letting the situation get this far out of control(feared he might fire them? what are they getting paid for to cut checks? )

I don't think it is a management company's job to babysit someone's personal expenses. I would have to believe that the 5% was more for negotiating contracts and overseeing the contracts in place. Much like an agent for a professional athlete.

[cj]

I'll never get the good handicapper / bad bettor thing. The two are linked. People kid themselves with this thinking that they are separate entities.

[thaskalos]

I'll never get the good handicapper / bad bettor thing. The two are linked. People kid themselves with this thinking that they are separate entities.
Supposedly, there are a lot of "great handicappers" out there...who don't know how to properly structure their bets. That's why, instead of "handicapper", I like using the word HORSEPLAYER. It covers EVERYTHING. :)

[Track Phantom]

I'll never get the good handicapper / bad bettor thing. The two are linked. People kid themselves with this thinking that they are separate entities.
I assume you mean they are linked when trying to assess an overall ability to beat the game. They are quite separate skill sets but would agree that both need to be sharp to be profitable.

[whodoyoulike]

The same Tom Quigley that stiffed many of us on their Horse Player Magazine subscriptions in one way or another. Santa Anita hired him because he knew where the whales were and could reel them in?
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/people/horseplayer-magazine-publisher-quigley-named-to-new-post-at-santa-anita/

RR

Thanks, I was wondering if he was the same individual. I also believe he's a very good handicapper where I've read he has won several handicapping tournaments. But, in this article he sounds like a shill for the race track. His comment regarding his personal opinion on how many have a serious problem with betting horses, you would just have to consider the source. And, realize he must have an ulterior motive for making that statement or he's never been to a track or OTB.

Milch sounds like a degenerate gambler someone who we've all come across at a track or elsewhere. And the real victims are always the families. I hope he realizes his mistakes and gets help instead of thinking he can eventually get even.

[AndyC]

I'll never get the good handicapper / bad bettor thing. The two are linked. People kid themselves with this thinking that they are separate entities.

For every good handicapper/good bettor I know, I probably know 99 others who fall into the good handicapper/bad bettor category. Be it bet structuring, bet sizing, chasing, or craving action, they all can lead to the demise of even the best handicappers.

[cj]

For every good handicapper/good bettor I know, I probably know 99 others who fall into the good handicapper/bad bettor category. Be it bet structuring, bet sizing, chasing, or craving action, they all can lead to the demise of even the best handicappers.

I can buy the chasing/craving action thing. To me that is a totally different discussion. Those are addicts, just like the guy that is the subject of this thread. The thing is we don't really know if he is a "good handicapper"...that is always trotted out when in reality most of those people are bad handicappers too.

I can pick 37% winners betting every race at every track. Am I a good handicapper?

[whodoyoulike]

I'll never get the good handicapper / bad bettor thing. The two are linked. People kid themselves with this thinking that they are separate entities.

I think they are or can be separate entities e.g., a good handicapper can pick a winner but always bets pick 6's, exacta, tri's or something similar without a good or realistic strategy. I'm interpreting your comment where he always bets to win then I do see your point.

[AndyC]

I can buy the chasing/craving action thing. To me that is a totally different discussion. Those are addicts, just like the guy that is the subject of this thread. The thing is we don't really know if he is a "good handicapper"...that is always trotted out when in reality most of those people are bad handicappers too.

I can pick 37% winners betting every race at every track. Am I a good handicapper?

A simple thing like money management (or money mismanagement) can be a killer. Betting too much of your bankroll on each will topple the best.

My definition of a good handicapper isn't somebody picking winners, it's the ability to establish reasonably accurate probabilities for each horse.

[Fox]

Article is quite misleading.

That pretty much sums it up. That was my take. I am sure there is much more to the story than was written. Also, I don't believe it says anywhere in the article that "David Milch Lost $100 Million at the Track" as this thread creator misleadingly put as the title.

I am sure he lost a lot at the track, I doubt it was anywhere close to $100 million. The guy sounds like an action junkie and compulsive gambler prone to all sorts of degenerate behavior including betting horse races recklessly. No doubt he had other gambling vices like blackjack or roulette or poker.

[cj]

A simple thing like money management (or money mismanagement) can be a killer. Betting too much of your bankroll on each will topple the best.

My definition of a good handicapper isn't somebody picking winners, it's the ability to establish reasonably accurate probabilities for each horse.

I agree with that. What I don't agree with is that the "good handicappers, bad bettors" I hear about are all actually able to reasonably assign probabilities. Nobody really knows. People base it on impressions, not facts. I'm sure there are some exceptions.

[classhandicapper]

This is what people are referring to with good handicapper/bad bettor.

Call it 30-35 years ago, there was a period I used to routinely bet way more to win on short priced horses I thought were good value than long priced horses I thought were good value. I'd also often play some savers with short priced horses on top of my longshots in exactas to get something out of the horse if I was right. That seemed like sensible money management to me.

At the end of the year my key horses would often show flat bet profits to win but I'd end up in the hole for the year.

Was I a good handicapper?

I'd say yes. If you can show flat bet profits you are doing something very right.

Here's the rub. The short priced horses I was betting were outperforming the take, but I was losing money on them. I just didn't realize that yet. I was losing money on my "biggest" bets. The longer priced horses were very profitable, but I was diluting the value of them using underlaid chalk on top.

Was I a good bettor?

If you are somehow turning a flat bet profit situation into losses you are an atrocious bettor.

Here's the flip side.

Some guy is clueless about pace, bias, trips, speed figures, pedigree and just about everything else. If you asked to handicap 1000 races he'd have little idea who the favorite was going to be in many of the races and only pick 20% winners if he was trying to pick the most likely winner. But he knows one thing really well. He knows trainers inside out and upside down. He's also smart enough to know he's clueless in most races, so he only bets when he has a good trainer angle. He also often does a great job leveraging it up into huge scores when he has 2 angles in the same race (or back to back races) by not spreading at all.

I wouldn't consider someone like that a very good handicapper, but he's a great bettor and horseplayer.

[Track Phantom]

I agree with that. What I don't agree with is that the "good handicappers, bad bettors" I hear about are all actually able to reasonably assign probabilities. Nobody really knows. People base it on impressions, not facts. I'm sure there are some exceptions.
I respect your opinion but I think we may disagree here.

I'll give an example. This happened to me just yesterday and I'm still having a hard time shaking it.

I attached a screen shot of my bet, the result charts and the PP's of the 1st and 2nd place finishers.

When I 'capped the race, I liked the #4, as I'm partial to routers with speed cutting back to 6.5F. When I was looking for horses to play with him, I noticed the #8. The #8 Silverton stumbled in last and had traffic trouble in the race prior. He had backclass that made him a player.

When I constructed the bet, my initial play was the #4 over 7,8,10,12 over all over all. However, because I thought that #8 Silverton could WIN the race if he reverted to form and was unlikely just to chunk up for 2nd, I moved the 7,8,10,12 to third and did some small cover plays with them running second. I thought if #8 Silverton ran a good race, he'd win. That is the SOLE reason I moved the all button to 2nd. Idiotic logic but that was what was in my head. Of course, I did NOTHING with the 8 beating the 4, even though I consciously thought that was highly possible.

Overall, I think that is good handicapping and a bad bet construction. I had way too much emphasis on the #4 to win and actually had thought through a scenario where the #8 would revert to prior form and win at higher odds.

Of course, as is per usual with this game, when you make an error, as I did here, you pay the ultimate price. The #7, who I used, won the headbob for 3rd at 116-1 and the super paid nearly 5k for a dime.



http://i968.photobucket.com/albums/ae169/valento07/Bets_810x161_zpsnzlzddt4.jpg


http://i968.photobucket.com/albums/ae169/valento07/TUP%20Result%20Chart%202-17-16_618x438_zps30bsfbs6.jpg

http://i968.photobucket.com/albums/ae169/valento07/Jack%20No_1049x310_zpspzfzssnr.jpg

http://i968.photobucket.com/albums/ae169/valento07/Silverton_860x259_zpsu86fg554.jpg

[Stillriledup]

I respect your opinion but I think we may disagree here.

I'll give an example. This happened to me just yesterday and I'm still having a hard time shaking it.

I attached a screen shot of my bet, the result charts and the PP's of the 1st and 2nd place finishers.

When I 'capped the race, I liked the #4, as I'm partial to routers with speed cutting back to 6.5F. When I was looking for horses to play with him, I noticed the #8. The #8 Silverton stumbled in last and had traffic trouble in the race prior. He had backclass that made him a player.

When I constructed the bet, my initial play was the #4 over 7,8,10,12 over all over all. However, because I thought that #8 Silverton could WIN the race if he reverted to form and was unlikely just to chunk up for 2nd, I moved the 7,8,10,12 to third and did some small cover plays with them running second. I thought if #8 Silverton ran a good race, he'd win. That is the SOLE reason I moved the all button to 2nd. Idiotic logic but that was what was in my head. Of course, I did NOTHING with the 8 beating the 4, even though I consciously thought that was highly possible.

Overall, I think that is good handicapping and a bad bet construction. I had way too much emphasis on the #4 to win and actually had thought through a scenario where the #8 would revert to prior form and win at higher odds.

Of course, as is per usual with this game, when you make an error, as I did here, you pay the ultimate price. The #7, who I used, won the headbob for 3rd at 116-1 and the super paid nearly 5k for a dime.



http://i968.photobucket.com/albums/ae169/valento07/Bets_810x161_zpsnzlzddt4.jpg


http://i968.photobucket.com/albums/ae169/valento07/TUP%20Result%20Chart%202-17-16_618x438_zps30bsfbs6.jpg

http://i968.photobucket.com/albums/ae169/valento07/Jack%20No_1049x310_zpspzfzssnr.jpg

http://i968.photobucket.com/albums/ae169/valento07/Silverton_860x259_zpsu86fg554.jpg
You made good bets, but your problem wasnt intelligence, it was a bankroll problem. If you spent another 36 and flipped the 4 into 2nd, you hit. You make that decision if you have a bigger kitty.

[Track Phantom]

You made good bets, but your problem wasnt intelligence, it was a bankroll problem. If you spent another 36 and flipped the 4 into 2nd, you hit. You make that decision if you have a bigger kitty.

I had a bigger kitty. That wasn't the issue. I couldn't justify spending more than I did on that race.

Also, you can always play that game. If I had only spent another "x" I would have had that.

[thaskalos]

I had a bigger kitty. That wasn't the issue. I couldn't justify spending more than I did on that race.

Also, you can always play that game. If I had only spent another "x" I would have had that.
IMO...you didn't have enough time to think properly about your wager. That's why I do all my handicapping ahead of time; this leaves me with ample time to thoroughly think about and properly structure my bet.

You liked the 4 most of all...and your second-best horse was the 8...whom you also considered capable of winning the race. And you were going to use "all-all" in the last two legs. Given a little more time...you would have realized that the 4-8/ 4-8/ALL/ALL was the obvious addition to make to your wagers...and it would have been only a small additional investment.

We spend hours handicapping...and mere seconds creating our bets. When will we learn that they pay us for the BETTING? :)

[Track Phantom]

IMO...you didn't have enough time to think properly about your wager. That's why I do all my handicapping ahead of time; this leaves me with ample time to thoroughly think about and properly structure my bet.

You liked the 4 most of all...and your second-best horse was the 8...whom you also considered capable of winning the race. And you were going to use "all-all" in the last two legs. Given a little more time...you would have realized that the 4-8/ 4-8/ALL/ALL was the obvious addition to make to your wagers...and it would have been only a small additional investment.

We spend hours handicapping...and mere seconds creating our bets. When will we learn that they pay us for the BETTING? :)
This is exactly right. I agree that I spent all of 90 seconds constructing these wagers and, in full disclosure, I was doing something for work at the same time and wasn't focused. It was just one of those throwaway bets that, in retrospect, I feel my carelessness and lack of thoughtfulness cost me a 5k score.

If you want to call it bad betting, or careless betting, or whatever, I think when you narrow your runners down to the ones that I did (I basically played the 4,7,8,10,12) and they run 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th at odds of 18-1, 7-2, 116-1, 6-5 and 7-2, you have to cash on that race.

[ultracapper]

I can buy the chasing/craving action thing. To me that is a totally different discussion. Those are addicts, just like the guy that is the subject of this thread. The thing is we don't really know if he is a "good handicapper"...that is always trotted out when in reality most of those people are bad handicappers too.

I can pick 37% winners betting every race at every track. Am I a good handicapper?

YES

[ultracapper]

You made good bets, but your problem wasnt intelligence, it was a bankroll problem. If you spent another 36 and flipped the 4 into 2nd, you hit. You make that decision if you have a bigger kitty.

With his thinking, all he would have had to do was add the 8 into the win spot and 4 into the 3rd spot. $79.20 for the new structure.

[Hajck Hillstrom]

It sounds to me like Milch had to write off $100,000,000 of losses against his winnings.

[cj]

[/B]

YES

You can do that just betting the favorite.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Check out the movie Owning Mahowny. Once a gambling operation gets its hooks into you, they can be without conscience.

[thaskalos]

Check out the movie Owning Mahowny. Once a gambling operation gets its hooks into you, they can be without conscience.

That's why it just breaks my heart to see some of those Vegas casinos on the verge of bankruptcy.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The best horseplayer I know is at best a little above average handicapper, but in a singular class in assessing value. He rarely makes a betting mistake. Totally uncanny. And he makes a ton of money. On the other hand, the best handicapper I know is at best average as a bettor. He finishes ahead, but not nearly by an amount you would think is commensurate with his skill. It's incredibly easy to handicap well and not max a race. Having an 18-1 horse and not betting it to win, just playing it in verticals, for example. Coming up with the top selection but not being adept at assessing its winning chances, and thereby betting incorrectly is usually what "good handicapper/bad bettor" means. And the betting part only gets more complicated as you increase the combinations.

[thaskalos]

The best horseplayer I know is at best a little above average handicapper, but in a singular class in assessing value. He rarely makes a betting mistake. Totally uncanny. And he makes a ton of money. On the other hand, the best handicapper I know is at best average as a bettor. He finishes ahead, but not nearly by an amount you would think is commensurate with his skill. It's incredibly easy to handicap well and not max a race. Having an 18-1 horse and not betting it to win, just playing it in verticals, for example. Coming up with the top selection but not being adept at assessing its winning chances, and thereby betting incorrectly is usually what "good handicapper/bad bettor" means. And the betting part only gets more complicated as you increase the combinations.

I think you do him a gross injustice by calling him a "little better than average handicapper". You don't become an expert in assessing value without top-notch handicapping skills, IMO.

[ultracapper]

You can do that just betting the favorite.

And most seem to agree that the "general public" is the handicapper that must be beat to be a winner. Matching their rate is a good starting point.

[rrpic6]

VALENTO: Hope this makes you feel like you are not alone.


2016-02-10 (http://2016-02-10) 05:46:29 Bet Mahoning Valley (http://Mahoning Valley) 8 Superfecta (http://Superfecta) $0.10 8 / 1 + 2 + 3 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 10 + 11 / 1 + 2 + 3 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 10 + 11 / 1 + 2 + 3 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 10 + 11 $33.60 2016-02-10 (http://2016-02-10) 05:46:06 Bet Mahoning Valley (http://Mahoning Valley) 8 Trifecta (http://Trifecta) $0.50 8 / 1 + 2 + 3 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 10 + 11 / 1 + 2 + 3 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 10 + 11 $28.00

MAHONING VALLEY RACE COURSE - February 10, 2016 - Race 8
MAIDEN SPECIAL WEIGHT - Thoroughbred
FOR MAIDENS, FILLIES THREE YEARS OLD. Weight, 122 lbs.
Five And One Half Furlongs On The Dirt
Track Record:
(Luckysdream - 1:02.65 - January 5, 2016)
Purse:
$17,000
Plus:
$15,000 OTF - Ohio Thoroughbred Fund
Available Money:
$32,000
Value of Race:
$17,000 1st $9,860, 2nd $3,400, 3rd $1,700, 4th $680, 5th $170, 6th $170, 7th $170, 8th $170, 9th $170, 10th
$170, 11th $170, 12th $170
Weather:
Cloudy
Track:
Fast
Off at:
4:06
Start:
Good for all
Video
Race
Replay
Last Raced Pgm Horse Name (Jockey) Wgt M/E PP Start 1/4 3/8 Str Fin Odds Comments
15Jan16
4
PEN
5
8 Mistevious (De Leon, Azael) 122 L 8 9 10
1/2
8
1/2
7
Head
1
1 1/4
3.10* late burst6p,in time
--- 9 Bragg Time (Hollingsworth, Brian) 122 - - 10 5 1
1 1/2
1
5
1
1/2
2
2
71.90 clear lead,gained 2nd
12Jan16
4
MVR
7
1 Shades of Light (Houghton, T.) 122 L 4 8 5
1 1/2
4
1
2
1/2
3
1 3/4
7.10 3w,bid,outfinished
26Jan16
1
MVR
3
6 Unbridled Fancy (Rivera, Luis) 122 L b 6 6 4
1
5
1 1/2
5
1/2
4
Neck
14.10 evenly
28Jan16
7
TP
5
5 Alittlebourbon (Leon, Sonny) 122 L b 5 7 8
Head
7
1
6
Head
5
Nose
14.30 belatedly wide
12Jan16
4
MVR
3
7 Reyoro (Pilares, Christian) 122 L f 7 1 7
2
10
2
8
1 1/2
6
1
13.40 failed to menace
23Jan16
5
MVR
2
2 Preachintothechoir (Gonzalez, Luis) 122 L bf 1 4 2
Head
2
1/2
3
3
7
1 1/4
4.70 chased rail,faded lane
26Jan16
1
MVR
2
11 Something Naughty (Hernandez, Luciano) 122 L b 12 2 3
1/2
3
1
4
1/2
8
2 1/2
3.90 stalked6w,weakened
9Dec15
3
MVR
3
10 Blueberry Bay (Kauffman, Ashley) 117
»
L 11 3 6
Head
6
Head
9
1 1/2
9
2 3/4
29.50 brief speed
--- 1A Springtime City (Mejias, Ricardo) 122 L b 9 12 9
Head
9
1/2
11
4
10
Neck
7.10 no factor
26Jan16
1
MVR
5
4 Ferragamo's Shiloh (Yaranga, Yuri) 122 L 3 10 12 11
2
10
3 1/2
11
5 1/2
93.50 showed little,
14Dec15
5
MVR
3
3 Notsofree (Paucar, Edgar) 122 L 2 11 11
6
12 12 12 3.40 outrun,
Fractional Times:
23.65 49.96
Final Time:
1:12.05
Split Times:
(26:31) (22:09)
Run-Up:
35 feet
Winner:
Mistevious, Bay Filly, by Stephen Got Even out of Grandiosa, by El Prado (IRE). Foaled Apr 17, 2013 in ON.
Breeder:
Adena Springs.
Winning Owner:
Polivka Equine Holdings LLC, Brushy Hill Enterprises LLC and Knudsen, J.
Total WPS Pool:
$39,970
Pgm Horse Win Place Show
8 Mistevious 8.20 5.00 3.60
9 Bragg Time 46.00 20.60
1 Shades of Light 4.60
Wager Type Winning Numbers Payoff Pool
$2.00 Daily Double 7-8 16.60 5,310
$2.00 Exacta 8-9 430.00 39,694
$0.50 Trifecta 8-9-1 1,434.35 22,991
$0.10 Superfecta 8-9-1-6 3,354.34 17,362
$0.50 Pick 3 11-7-8 (3 correct) 41.35 4,767
$0.50 Pick 4 1/2/8-11-7-8 (4 correct) 57.90 10,40

RR

[Track Phantom]

VALENTO: Hope this makes you feel like you are not alone.
It's why I use the all-button as often as I can. I've been beat like that so many times you'd think I'd have given up years ago.

[Track Collector]

I can pick 37% winners betting every race at every track. Am I a good handicapper?


It depends on what your definition of good handicapper is.

Under the assumption that in the above scenario you are playing the Post Time Favorite where the average ROI is approximately 0.85 (and 1.00 is break-even) , "I" would label you not as a "good handicapper", but rather a "very good selector" of horses who will win a given race.

That said, others, including John Perrotta in the article, hold that a person can be a "good handicapper" to the exclusion of profitability. It would obviously be much better to describe a handicapper in terms of his/her ROI rather than by a subjective descriptive term, but we know THAT is not going to happen! ;)

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I think you do him a gross injustice by calling him a "little better than average handicapper". You don't become an expert in assessing value without top-notch handicapping skills, IMO.
It was hard to come up with the right word. In our group there were a handful of guys who were more insightful and recognized as better handicappers, so perhaps a little better than average was relative to the group rather than an absolute. He was solid, but rarely came up with the guru pick, and perhaps that is my bias - I'm seeing the best of the best as coming up with more outside the box winners. Still, I agree that you can focus on solid horses and be a winner if you are a good investor. After a race he just often seemed to be the biggest winner.

[ebcorde]

It sounds to me like Milch had to write off $100,000,000 of losses against his winnings.


we got a winner!

[ebcorde]

by your profit/loss margin. I bet on Brisnet, they keep betting records by types of bets roi, WPS, . My profitable bets are the P5 followed by win bet, everything else is usually a waste of time or negative.

So that's what I play, P5 and win. My P5 rarely go above $30 and the ROI is huge. $2 P6 seems like one bridge too far for me, and costs more.
I'm just a former average Joe working stiff with wife and college age kids. I don't have the luxury of $100 exacta boxes, $2000 derby win bets, so for me a P5 is a good ticket. I lose, I come home "Hey kids your Jr year in college went up in smoke, get a loan for 25k" .

One exception is Breeder's cup , derby day I bet almost everything.

[pandy]

In my personal betting, I've found that regardless of my handicapping and betting skills, factors that affect my bottom line the most are cash flow and my overall current financial situation, which would include financial responsibilities such as children and loan payments. I also tend to win more when the economy is good, simply because business is better then...better cash flow.

Since this guy had so much money, that should have been a big advantage for him.

[thaskalos]

It was hard to come up with the right word. In our group there were a handful of guys who were more insightful and recognized as better handicappers, so perhaps a little better than average was relative to the group rather than an absolute. He was solid, but rarely came up with the guru pick, and perhaps that is my bias - I'm seeing the best of the best as coming up with more outside the box winners. Still, I agree that you can focus on solid horses and be a winner if you are a good investor. After a race he just often seemed to be the biggest winner.
"Great handicapping" isn't about making "guru picks"; it's about properly assessing VALUE. It matters not what sort of handicapper the player is...or how "outside the box" his winners appear to be. If he is "uncanny" at the task of assessing VALUE...then he is as good a handicapper as it gets.

There is a popular belief among players that there are horseplayers out there who are "great handicappers", and pick "loads of longshots"...but they lose money overall because they can't properly structure their bets. This is a popular cry among the losing horseplayers; they are supposedly great at handicapping...but they just need a little help with their wagering.

Here is the truth, as I see it:

Your bets either show an overall profit, or they don't. It doesn't matter if you pick short-priced horses, or if you pick longshots...the objective has always been to show an overall profit with the picks that you make. If your picks DON'T show an overall profit, then you are not a "great handicapper"...no matter HOW many "outside the box" winners you manage to come up with. And if you DO manage to show an overall profit with your selections, then it's hard to avoid becoming a winning player...because a win-bet is the simplest bet to make. You can't possibly screw it up.

Can a "great handicapper" destroy himself by betting every race in every way possible? Of course he can. I managed to do this myself, for a period of 20 years. But the lack of discipline isn't really a "money management" problem. It's a pathological disease. You don't cure a David Milch, or a pre-2003 Thaskalos, by handing them Barry Meadow's book Money Secrets at the Racetrack. You get them a PSYCHIATRIST...and you book them for some extensive meetings.

And even THAT may not be enough...

[pandy]

Doc Sartin said that some of the compulsive gamblers he counseled in his group actually stopped gambling once they stopped losing. Compulsive gambling is a complicated addiction. Psychologists have studied and written about it and if you've read about the addiction, you know what I mean. Compulsive gambling is like other forms of mental illness, it's hard to understand if you don't have it.

Although I tend to agree with those of you who say that Milch was probably not a great handicapper, the truth is, it's possible to be a great handicapper and still be a loser, not because you're not a good bettor, but because of the addiction. Many compulsive gamblers have had huge scores that wiped out all of their losses, but since they're addicts, they immediately start betting again and making hapless and hazardous bets. It's almost as if they want to lose, but the key is, they're unable to control their mind and emotions.

[thaskalos]

Doc Sartin said that some of the compulsive gamblers he counseled in his group actually stopped gambling once they stopped losing.
Yeah. After Doc Sartin turned these addicted gamblers into "winners"...they mysteriously gave up the game, and went back to driving their trucks. :rolleyes:

[ultracapper]

This may sound wacky, but some players are AFRAID to be winners. There is a responsibility with being successful, and there are those that don't want that responsibility. In many ways, it's a responsibility to one's self, it's a viewpoint of yourself that society looks at from a colored perspective.

There was a book written about 7 or 8 years ago, with multiple professional gamblers contributing to it, Serling among them. I remember one anonymous gambler saying that whenever he went to a dinner party, he was always seated with the drug smugglers and other roust abouts.

From society's standards, gambling is a deranged endeavor.

[ReplayRandall]

IMO, when it comes to gambling addicts who possess the ability to win, they purposely cause themselves to self destruct because they deem themselves unworthy of success. Thask is correct, a well qualified PSYCHIATRIST, who deals extensively with gambling addictions is a must, among other introspective remedies and solutions....

[ultracapper]

IMO, when it comes to gambling addicts who possess the ability to win, they purposely cause themselves to self destruct because they deem themselves unworthy of success. Thask is correct, a well qualified PSYCHIATRIST, who deals extensively with gambling addictions is a must, among other introspective remedies and solutions....

Sub-conciously may be more entailing.

[barahona44]

:lol: You are what a buddy of mine refers to as a sniper.

Losing 100 million is impossible in Horse racing. The dude has a HUGE problem.
I seriously doubt that he ever had 100 million to begin with. He would have to earn at least 150 million to begin with (taxes, legal/agent fees, etc) He also owned thoroughbred horses, so that's an expense plus his normal household expenses.Yes he created NYPD Blue and Deadwood but before that he taught English at Yale and wrote for TV. The big money was NYPD Blue and that was only 20 years ago.I have a feeling this is a "Any publicity is good publicity" move.

[ReplayRandall]

Sub-conciously may be more entailing.

They are aware of their own unworthiness, thus they are sane. This is their inner struggle to keep themselves from insanity itself, and this is their solution to destroy the conflict they feel on a constant basis......"I'm not worthy of success", is their TRUTH.

[pandy]

I seriously doubt that he ever had 100 million to begin with. He would have to earn at least 150 million to begin with (taxes, legal/agent fees, etc) He also owned thoroughbred horses, so that's an expense plus his normal household expenses.Yes he created NYPD Blue and Deadwood but before that he taught English at Yale and wrote for TV. The big money was NYPD Blue and that was only 20 years ago.I have a feeling this is a "Any publicity is good publicity" move.


Good point. $100 million is a ton of money, there is probably some exaggeration there.

[ultracapper]

They are aware of their own unworthiness, thus they are sane. This is their inner struggle to keep themselves from insanity itself, and this is their solution to destroy the conflict they feel on a constant basis......"I'm not worthy of success", is their TRUTH.

In many ways I feel like this is the battle I've fought as a horse player, and one must view the unworthyness, not as a truth, but a perception. There is no reason for "I'm not worthy of success" to be the TRUTH. I have done nothing that I feel warrants that feeling of unworthyness. It is a perception that can be changed.

A psychiatrist is not the most wacky idea put forward.

[ReplayRandall]

In many ways I feel like this is the battle I've fought as a horse player, and one must view the unworthyness, not as a truth, but a perception. There is no reason for "I'm not worthy of success" to be the TRUTH. I have done nothing that I feel warrants that feeling of unworthyness. It is a perception that can be changed.

A psychiatrist is not the most wacky idea put forward.

A lot of psychological knots that need untying, early childhood hard-wiring by abusive parents, relatives, etc that need to be re-wired or eradicated. So many people incarcerated and not treated for mental illnesses, that devastate themselves and our society.....So much good work that needs to be initiated, funded and accomplished, a formidable task to say the least. The problems with horse racing(gambling) do have their direct parallels to the ills of society itself.

[classhandicapper]

Your bets either show an overall profit, or they don't. It doesn't matter if you pick short-priced horses, or if you pick longshots...the objective has always been to show an overall profit with the picks that you make. If your picks DON'T show an overall profit, then you are not a "great handicapper"...no matter HOW many "outside the box" winners you manage to come up with. And if you DO manage to show an overall profit with your selections, then it's hard to avoid becoming a winning player...because a win-bet is the simplest bet to make. You can't possibly screw it up.

I shot a hole in this theory from personal experience (see my previous post).

IMO, virtually no one is good enough at line making to know that some horse has almost exactly an X% chance of winning and that gives them a "y%" edge at the price. What happens is that they think they have an edge, but they know they could easily be off on some races and bet quite a few underlays along the way. As long as the group nets out positive they are fine.

For many players, I think most of the value they find is in the mid range and longer priced selections they come up with and the biggest area for potential mistakes is among the shorter priced horses. That's the way it was for me many years ago. Other people I have talked to told me the same thing.

That means if you don't make flat bet win wagers, you can turn a flat bet profit into losses because of bet size fluctuations.

From experience, it's very easy to fall into a pattern of making smaller wagers on lower probability somewhat speculative horses and vice versa. That means you could be betting too little at the very time you should be making your largest wagers and simultaneously making your largest wagers on short priced horses where you are most open to misjudging the values.

I did that for years. I'd have flat bet profits and lose money. It's STILL something I have to give conscious thought to in order to avoid. Currently, I structure almost all my wagering around the idea of putting exactly the same amount of money into every race I wager on. That's the only way I've found for me to avoid that pitfall. I pick a number at the start of the year and that's it. Nothing changes until I evaluate the results at the end of the year. Then I set a new amount.

[Fox]

There was a book written about 7 or 8 years ago, with multiple professional gamblers contributing to it, Serling among them.

Sounds interesting. Any chance you can recall the title?

[ReplayRandall]

That means if you don't make flat bet win wagers, you can easily turn a flat bet profit into losses because of poor bet size fluctuations. I disagree, Kelly criterion is optimal.


I did that for years . It's STILL something I have to give conscious thought to in order to avoid. Currently, I structure almost all my wagering around the idea of putting exactly the same amount of money into every race I wager on. I pick a number at the start of the year and that's it. Nothing changes until I evaluate the results at the end of the year. Then I set a new amount.
You leave money on the table by, once again, not employing Kelly criterion wagering.


I'm perplexed by your post, you're more astute than this.....

[ultracapper]

Sounds interesting. Any chance you can recall the title?

I've got it around here somewhere. It was a great read. I'll find it.

[ultracapper]

Sounds interesting. Any chance you can recall the title?

Six Secrets of Successful Bettors - Winning Insights Into Playing The Horses
Frank R. Scatoni and Peter Thomas Fornatale

2005 Daily Racing Form (Publisher)

[ReplayRandall]

Six Secrets of Successful Bettors - Winning Insights Into Playing The Horses
Frank R. Scatoni and Peter Thomas Fornatale

2005 Daily Racing Form (Publisher)

I found the only meaningful dialog was when the pros disagreed with each other. Won't help you pick winners, but the back and forth banter will show you why some think the way they do, and where the weight of their opinions lie in their selections.....

[ultracapper]

Other things I found while going through the old copy paper boxes used as my storage system:

Quinn's The Best of TB H-capping (Revised-Updated-Expanded) 2003 DRF
Bloodlines- 20 original Pieces Edited by Maggie Estep and Jason Starr 2006 Vintage
Horse Racing, Pferderennen, Courses Hippiques - Hulton Getty Picture Collection 2000
Ainslie on Jockeys HARDBACK Simon Schuster 1975 (Originally published 1967 Ainslie's Jockey Book)
Winning Horseracing Handicapping 2nd Edition Chuck Badone-Fan Ed. Mgr Lone Star Park (Publisher-Lone Star Park at Grand Prairie 1999)
Smart Handicapping Made Easy - William Bauman 1960 (7th printing 1972) Melvin Powers Wilshire Book Company

American Turf Monthly January 1989 and February 1990 through August 1990 (April Edition has "Hot NY Rider P. J. Lydon" Very interested to know exactly how they were using the word "Hot" in this sentence. WHAT A BABE.

There's other stuff in there also. I'll have to take some time this evening and see what else. Has to be more ATMs I'd think. I know I have the mandatory Beyer and Ledbetter stuff somewhere also.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

"Great handicapping" isn't about making "guru picks"; it's about properly assessing VALUE. It matters not what sort of handicapper the player is...or how "outside the box" his winners appear to be. If he is "uncanny" at the task of assessing VALUE...then he is as good a handicapper as it gets.

There is a popular belief among players that there are horseplayers out there who are "great handicappers", and pick "loads of longshots"...but they lose money overall because they can't properly structure their bets. This is a popular cry among the losing horseplayers; they are supposedly great at handicapping...but they just need a little help with their wagering.

Here is the truth, as I see it:

Your bets either show an overall profit, or they don't. It doesn't matter if you pick short-priced horses, or if you pick longshots...the objective has always been to show an overall profit with the picks that you make. If your picks DON'T show an overall profit, then you are not a "great handicapper"...no matter HOW many "outside the box" winners you manage to come up with. And if you DO manage to show an overall profit with your selections, then it's hard to avoid becoming a winning player...because a win-bet is the simplest bet to make. You can't possibly screw it up.

Can a "great handicapper" destroy himself by betting every race in every way possible? Of course he can. I managed to do this myself, for a period of 20 years. But the lack of discipline isn't really a "money management" problem. It's a pathological disease. You don't cure a David Milch, or a pre-2003 Thaskalos, by handing them Barry Meadow's book Money Secrets at the Racetrack. You get them a PSYCHIATRIST...and you book them for some extensive meetings.

And even THAT may not be enough...
We're arguing tomatoes and to-mah-toes. We don't disagree that there are three elements to the process. Selecting (often synonymous to handicapping), assessing value, and investing (betting). And I agree being good at all three makes you a successful horseplayer. I'm just telling you a person can be solid but not outstanding at selecting, and outstanding at assessing value and investing and make a bundle. And a person can be a great selector, but mediocre at assessing value and investing and struggle to stay even. I witnessed both.

Naturally this is long term. We've all made the perfect bet on the perfect horse in a respective race, and we've all said, I had the right horse and bet the race poorly. The people who do more of the former and less of the latter are the elite.

Of course profit is the bottom line, and why good handicappers don't make money can be the subject of a lot of discussion, including trying to betting a lot of races, in a lot of pools at a lot of tracks. But in my observation, the best selectors "see" things that the public doesn't, or can assemble the data in unique ways to reach conclusions the public doesn't reach. The best bettors may not be as expansive as selectors, but they are solid and that is often enough to be a winner.

If you've never met a guy who is a good selector and not a winner, you're different than most of us.

[EMD4ME]

Most often I see poor handicappers who also bet poorly.

Example:

$10 EX BOX 1268 (7 horse field, where the 1268 are not longshots). They obviously have no opinion, no edge and no reason to be in the pools.

I have seen solid handicappers who have no idea why an exacta exists, why the triple exists and why any bet exists.

If you like the 1 and the 1 is 7/1. Why bet $100 in exotics with the 1 on top (only) if you don't have a second opinion? (One normally bets exotics to improve the expected win price). When you ask Joe Shmo why he just bet that way, he'll answer habit.

The 1 might win, pay $16 to win, the exacta pays $40 and Joe Schmo gets back $400 ($20 exacta). Joe Shmo is SO stupid he doesn't even know he just lost $400. He thinks he won $400. Meanwhile, he only won $300 techinically.

When I see this, all I do is tell them how great they are, so they bet more.

[thespaah]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/david-milch-made-100m-gambled-866184
One would think that a guy with that much capital at his disposal would seek out and pay for the advice of professionals and invest with them..
Puzzling indeed how someone who has accumulated that much wealth can piss it all away.
I like ot gamble. I have a budget.
Even if I had a bazillion dollars, I would still have a budget.

[thespaah]

This game isn't about picking winners, it's about investing money in expert fashion. Plenty of 'good handicappers' get crushed by bad betting, not knowing how to handle money.
Oh yeah....These secret to successful wagering starts....and ends with sound money management.

[thespaah]

When you are betting for action, you will LOSE ALL your hard earned smart money (smart because you properly handicapped a race or series of races).

I'm not ashamed to admit it, I lost a ton of hard earned smart money in my 20's. Glad I did, taught me to pass pass pass pass as the years went by.

Only bet when you KNOW more than 90% of your competition does.

This guy seemed to just love to pound it in ALL the time instead of sending it in when he has a truly informative opinion.
I knew a guy in NJ that was an "action junkie"...
If it was on tv, he was calling his bookie to make bets on it.
He bet baseball, football, college hoops( real big on college hoops) and NBA..
He would tell me he would be up $10 or $15k by Wednesday( ESPN's Big Monday was his jump off point) and dump it all back by Saturday.
The money was not the issue. He just wanted to have bets on everything.
We got seats behind home plate at Yankees Stadium for an afternoon tilt vs Anaheim.....
As the game progresses, the Yanks pitcher is spinning a gem. Yanks are up oh, 3-0 or 4-0..Now my buddy is a Yankees fan.....Except when......Yep he bet the game. $2k on the Angels and $2k over the total....he lost both..Fortunately the ride from the Bronx back to home in Bergen County was only about 20 mins.
Another quick anecdote....
When the Nets played at the Meadowlands we'd go to games just to have something to do...We knew an usher down at the arena that got us in for free....Anyway, we're on our way to the game and my buddy who had just picked up one of those gigantic bag phones. Anyway he tells me to drive. Long story short, he's calling his bookie and could not get through because back the cell signals were at best unreliable....He slams down the phone and throws it into the back seat and screams at me to turn the car around.
He was pissed because he could not get a bet in on the game, so he didn't want to go....
Wow..

[thespaah]

Here's another thing that reads very oddly.

Perrotta saw that brilliance, too. "David was really good at handicapping — he was very, very good at picking winners," he says. "With such a complex mind, he could do these exotic bets. But it's what holds every gambler back: In the end, you do it too much."

If you're so good at doing something, isn't the whole idea to do it as often as possible?
Looks to me like those singing praises on Milch's alleged handicapping prowess are just kissing his ass ( such as the concierge from an above post) because they have something to gain from it.
Obviously, if the guy can pick winner yet is hapless loser of money, he doesn't have a clue of HOW to bet or he's one of these reckless nut cases to whom gambling is a narcotic.

[Fox]

Six Secrets of Successful Bettors - Winning Insights Into Playing The Horses
Frank R. Scatoni and Peter Thomas Fornatale

2005 Daily Racing Form (Publisher)

Just ordered it. Thanks for the title.

[thaskalos]

We're arguing tomatoes and to-mah-toes. We don't disagree that there are three elements to the process. Selecting (often synonymous to handicapping), assessing value, and investing (betting). And I agree being good at all three makes you a successful horseplayer. I'm just telling you a person can be solid but not outstanding at selecting, and outstanding at assessing value and investing and make a bundle. And a person can be a great selector, but mediocre at assessing value and investing and struggle to stay even. I witnessed both.

Naturally this is long term. We've all made the perfect bet on the perfect horse in a respective race, and we've all said, I had the right horse and bet the race poorly. The people who do more of the former and less of the latter are the elite.

Of course profit is the bottom line, and why good handicappers don't make money can be the subject of a lot of discussion, including trying to betting a lot of races, in a lot of pools at a lot of tracks. But in my observation, the best selectors "see" things that the public doesn't, or can assemble the data in unique ways to reach conclusions the public doesn't reach. The best bettors may not be as expansive as selectors, but they are solid and that is often enough to be a winner.

If you've never met a guy who is a good selector and not a winner, you're different than most of us.

You are right...this argument isn't worth pursuing. But I'd like to add one more thing:

I hear horseplayers describe themselves as "good", or "solid" handicappers all the time...and I never know what that really means. Who decides what makes a horseplayer "good" or "solid" in this game?

IMO...there is no money left on the table for the "solid" handicapper. The way the game is being played today...you have to have the total package in order to win money at this game. In my opinion...you can't be an excellent bettor unless you are an excellent handicapper. The act of properly assessing value requires great handicapping skills. You can't take "average" selections and turn them into profitable wagers, by employing some fancy money-management maneuver. To make great bets...you need to spot overlaid horses. And that takes great handicapping skills.

[Stillriledup]

You are right...this argument isn't worth pursuing. But I'd like to add one more thing:

I hear horseplayers describe themselves as "good", or "solid" handicappers all the time...and I never know what that really means. Who decides what makes a horseplayer "good" or "solid" in this game?

IMO...there is no money left on the table for the "solid" handicapper. The way the game is being played today...you have to have the total package in order to win money at this game. In my opinion...you can't be an excellent bettor unless you are an excellent handicapper. The act of properly assessing value requires great handicapping skills. You can't take "average" selections and turn them into profitable wagers, by employing some fancy money-management maneuver. To make great bets...you need to spot overlaid horses. And that takes great handicapping skills.

People saying they are "solid handicappers" are really saying "I picked a winner once"

[Stillriledup]

We're arguing tomatoes and to-mah-toes. We don't disagree that there are three elements to the process. Selecting (often synonymous to handicapping), assessing value, and investing (betting). And I agree being good at all three makes you a successful horseplayer. I'm just telling you a person can be solid but not outstanding at selecting, and outstanding at assessing value and investing and make a bundle. And a person can be a great selector, but mediocre at assessing value and investing and struggle to stay even. I witnessed both.

Naturally this is long term. We've all made the perfect bet on the perfect horse in a respective race, and we've all said, I had the right horse and bet the race poorly. The people who do more of the former and less of the latter are the elite.

Of course profit is the bottom line, and why good handicappers don't make money can be the subject of a lot of discussion, including trying to betting a lot of races, in a lot of pools at a lot of tracks. But in my observation, the best selectors "see" things that the public doesn't, or can assemble the data in unique ways to reach conclusions the public doesn't reach. The best bettors may not be as expansive as selectors, but they are solid and that is often enough to be a winner.

If you've never met a guy who is a good selector and not a winner, you're different than most of us.

How do you determine your example bettor is just solid but not outstanding? Maybe he's actually outstanding?

[Valuist]

I'm in the camp that over any decent period of time, there's no such thing as being a good handicapper but a bad bettor. Part of the handicapping process is assessing probabilities for horses to run 2nd and 3rd. It is certainly not just limited to figuring win odds.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You are right...this argument isn't worth pursuing. But I'd like to add one more thing:

I hear horseplayers describe themselves as "good", or "solid" handicappers all the time...and I never know what that really means. Who decides what makes a horseplayer "good" or "solid" in this game?

IMO...there is no money left on the table for the "solid" handicapper. The way the game is being played today...you have to have the total package in order to win money at this game. In my opinion...you can't be an excellent bettor unless you are an excellent handicapper. The act of properly assessing value requires great handicapping skills. You can't take "average" selections and turn them into profitable wagers, by employing some fancy money-management maneuver. To make great bets...you need to spot overlaid horses. And that takes great handicapping skills.
We totally agree and I've done articles for both American Turf Monthly and Horseplayer that discuss value betting in detail. No question you have to be a good selector, value assessor and investor to make profit in the long run.

It's also a fair question to ask what the difference is between solid and good, and I can see the answer being objective - the person who is consistently ahead is a good horseplayer.

Where we are in lockstep is that you have to have a strong ability to identify overlays. Easy to say, very hard to do.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

How do you determine your example bettor is just solid but not outstanding? Maybe he's actually outstanding?

I think in the case I'm thinking of it is all relative. We all agreed that there was a ranking in our group when it came to the selection part and an obvious ranking when it came to the winning part, and there were two different people who were at the top of each list. But it may be the case that in a ranking of all handicappers, he may have been outstanding.

A .280 hitter in the majors is a solid player, and would be a regular on most teams. Not at the top of the list of all major league players, maybe not on the express train to the Hall of Fame, but a better player than 99.9% of the people in the world.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I'm in the camp that over any decent period of time, there's no such thing as being a good handicapper but a bad bettor. Part of the handicapping process is assessing probabilities for horses to run 2nd and 3rd. It is certainly not just limited to figuring win odds.

I wrote an article about betting exactas and quinellas for Horseplayer called Risk Intelligence. It is an interesting concept and the best horseplayers are uncanny at assessing risk (odds).

[ReplayRandall]

I wrote an article about betting exactas and quinellas for Horseplayer called Risk Intelligence. It is an interesting concept and the best horseplayers are uncanny at assessing risk (odds).

Speaking of risk Rich, have you ever qualified for the NHC, or do you just play live, sticking to win and exacta play on the NYRA circuit?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Speaking of risk Rich, have you ever qualified for the NHC, or do you just play live, sticking to win and exacta play on the NYRA circuit?
Many years ago I tried qualifying for the NHC once and clearly did not understand the he strategy. I also went to an NHC once as a "consultant" (no win). Since then I've not tried to qualify. My old editor Frank Scatoni has become a contest player and I talk with him about it, and I also talk regularly with Pete Fornatale, the DRF contest guru. The one thing they tell me is that being a good contest player is very different than simply winning at the track. 52 races in four days, multiple tracks, and picking one horse is not my game, but I certainly think about it.

I actually just did an offbeat piece on why the word "handicapping" is non-descriptive of what we actually do (look at the discussion here about what makes a good handicapper as opposed to good selector vs. assessor vs. investor) and Pete agreed we should call it the National Horseplayer Championship. Wouldn't even have to change the logo.

I come up with three contenders in a race, assign probabilities, and bet the value horse win and exacta. I post my selections for NYRA daily (except for the winter AQU inner dirt where I only post weekends) and leave them up so anyone can backcheck me. I showed a positive ROI for Saratoga last year http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=2243 and have a pretty solid following for my selections.

[thespaah]

You are right...this argument isn't worth pursuing. But I'd like to add one more thing:

I hear horseplayers describe themselves as "good", or "solid" handicappers all the time...and I never know what that really means. Who decides what makes a horseplayer "good" or "solid" in this game?

IMO...there is no money left on the table for the "solid" handicapper. The way the game is being played today...you have to have the total package in order to win money at this game. In my opinion...you can't be an excellent bettor unless you are an excellent handicapper. The act of properly assessing value requires great handicapping skills. You can't take "average" selections and turn them into profitable wagers, by employing some fancy money-management maneuver. To make great bets...you need to spot overlaid horses. And that takes great handicapping skills.
Spot on...But the modern day horseplayers are not doing this.
They use sophisticated programs to select horses for them. The bettor(s) then assess the value of the selection based on odds and other factors. They make strategic wagers and yes sometimes use the cancel button on an earlier bet then just before the bell make their "real" wager...IMO, this type of horse player is responsible for the bulk of the handle. These people are "money managers".
What is a solid handicapper?
IMO, there are two types.
-Ones that handicap and dispense their information to the public.
-Those that use their skills to make money by wagering.
The former, are paid by publications and racing associations.
The latter are paid by the other, less successful bettors.
One thing. There is a difference. Handicapping is a person doing their homework and making selections. The money aspect comes in if and when that person is able to apply a wager to that selection in such a way so as to realize a profit.

[classhandicapper]

I'm perplexed by your post, you're more astute than this.....

Kelly Criterion is a great idea in theory. What I am talking about is my reality and the reality I have seen among others.

For Kelly to be effective you have to assume you are measuring your edge fairly accurately all the time. I am not good enough at line making to know exactly what my edge is all the time. IMO, neither are most other people even if the say they are (or don't know they aren't). It's also my contention that the biggest errors tend to cluster on shorter priced horses where Kelly and intuition would tend to tell people to bet a lot more on their overlays (which may not actually be overlays).

If you are so good at line making that you can estimate overlays at all odds ranges and all race types and situations equally well, then that's what you should do. If not, you'll have an experience like I had many years ago.

If you estimate a bunch of horses as having a 40% chance to win at 5/2, Kelly will tell you to bet a lot. But if you misjudged the probability and it was actually a 27% to win at 5/2, you just put a lot of money into a bunch of losing propositions.

The same is true if you give a bunch of horses an 8% chance to win at 12-1. It won't tell you to bet a lot, but suppose it was actually a 15% chance of winning at 11-1 and you have a tendency to underestimate certain situations. You'd leave a ton of money on the table on your best overlays.

You are showing flat bet profits. Therefore you are clearly a very good handicapper. But you are losing money!!! What is that if not poor betting? That was my real life experience long ago. When I used to say I was a good handicapper but poor bettor I think I was being accurate.

[classhandicapper]

IMO knowing how much to bet, when, and how to structure bets to increase your flat bet to win ROI is good betting.

IMO, if at the end of the year your ROI is below what a flat bet on each horse to win would have produced, that is poor betting.

[ultracapper]

Kelly Criterion is a great idea in theory. What I am talking about is my reality and the reality I have seen among others.

For Kelly to be effective you have to assume you are measuring your edge fairly accurately all the time. I am not good enough at line making to know exactly what my edge is all the time. IMO, neither are most other people even if the say they are (or don't know they aren't). It's also my contention that the biggest errors tend to cluster on shorter priced horses where Kelly and intuition would tend to tell people to bet a lot more on their overlays (which may not actually be overlays).

If you are so good at line making that you can estimate overlays at all odds ranges and all race types and situations equally well, then that's what you should do. If not, you'll have an experience like I had many years ago.

If you estimate a bunch of horses as having a 40% chance to win at 5/2, Kelly will tell you to bet a lot. But if you misjudged the probability and it was actually a 27% to win at 5/2, you just put a lot of money into a bunch of losing propositions.

The same is true if you give a bunch of horses an 8% chance to win at 12-1. It won't tell you to bet a lot, but suppose it was actually a 15% chance of winning at 11-1 and you have a tendency to underestimate certain situations. You'd leave a ton of money on the table on your best overlays.

You are showing flat bet profits. Therefore you are clearly a very good handicapper. But you are losing money!!! What is that if not poor betting? That was my real life experience long ago. When I used to say I was a good handicapper but poor bettor I think I was being accurate.

Kelly is nothing more than a systematic approach to what every bettor does. You start winning, you start pushing. You lose, you ease off. We all do it, just not in such a systematic manner.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Kelly Criterion is a great idea in theory. What I am talking about is my reality and the reality I have seen among others.

For Kelly to be effective you have to assume you are measuring your edge fairly accurately all the time. I am not good enough at line making to know exactly what my edge is all the time. IMO, neither are most other people even if the say they are (or don't know they aren't). It's also my contention that the biggest errors tend to cluster on shorter priced horses where Kelly and intuition would tend to tell people to bet a lot more on their overlays (which may not actually be overlays).

If you are so good at line making that you can estimate overlays at all odds ranges and all race types and situations equally well, then that's what you should do. If not, you'll have an experience like I had many years ago.

If you estimate a bunch of horses as having a 40% chance to win at 5/2, Kelly will tell you to bet a lot. But if you misjudged the probability and it was actually a 27% to win at 5/2, you just put a lot of money into a bunch of losing propositions.

The same is true if you give a bunch of horses an 8% chance to win at 12-1. It won't tell you to bet a lot, but suppose it was actually a 15% chance of winning at 11-1 and you have a tendency to underestimate certain situations. You'd leave a ton of money on the table on your best overlays.

You are showing flat bet profits. Therefore you are clearly a very good handicapper. But you are losing money!!! What is that if not poor betting? That was my real life experience long ago. When I used to say I was a good handicapper but poor bettor I think I was being accurate.

I'm not an advocate of rigid Kelly because it does require close to perfection in setting odds. Varying your bet based on your edge is good in theory, but I believe horseracing (unlike Blackjack or Poker) is far more complicated because it does not have fixed probabilities. In Poker, if you have an 11% chance and you are getting 20% return for your bet, you make the bet because in the long run the mathematical probabilities are with you. They are fixed. Horseracing is not the same, and Kelly is not the betting model I'd recommend, but that is not a good reason not to make lines.

You have to approach it with a different mindset. I'd suggest three things. If someone is trying to give every horse in the race a percentage, there is a higher probability the line will be inaccurate. For as long as I've been doing it, I identify the non-contenders and give them a small percentage, 2-5%, and then ignore them as win prospects. In a 10 horse race it's usually pretty easy to X-out four horses. That leaves you with six horses, and you should be able to divide them into top three and next three. If you have six horses with equal chances, the race is a pass anyway. The top three get the biggest share of the winning percentage.

Second, as you start looking at less and less likely horses your line is more and more likely to be off. With sufficient skill, you are more likely to be accurate identifying a 2-1 horse than an 9-1 horse, and you should rarely be betting a horse that you had on your line at 9-1 just because it is going off at 25-1 unless you have a strong pattern of success, which I believe very few people do. I find a fair amount of longshots that are 20% horses on my line that are going off at 12-1 or better.

Third, you build in a margin of error in your betting. Try to get 1 1/2 to 2 times the odds from your line. So if you have a horse at 20%, don't take less than, say, 6-1.

If you're assessing a horse at 7/5 and it is going off at 5/2 and you aren't hitting those races, yes you're a bad line maker. That doesn't mean you can't become a good line maker. As Thask pointed out, the only measure of success is profit, and you don't get there if you aren't betting value, and you are only identifying value if you can tell the difference between winning probability and tote board odds. Call it whatever you want, but that is the essence of line making.

As far as varying your bet based on your perceived edge, I think the spacing should be narrow. So if your base bet to win is $20, perhaps your bets on your overlays might vary between $15 and $30. I'd have a hard time accepting hitting a 5-1 shot that I thought should be 5/2 and throwing it all back on a 16-1 shot that I thought should have been 6-1. But that's just me.

[whodoyoulike]

I wrote an article about betting exactas and quinellas for Horseplayer called Risk Intelligence. It is an interesting concept and the best horseplayers are uncanny at assessing risk (odds).

Do you remember which month and year?

I still have a number of issues and probably read it the first time around but I'd like to see if I have it.

[whodoyoulike]

I realize that the article probably exaggerated Milch's losses from horse race betting but, I was wondering about a couple of things if it was indeed correctly reported. Uncertain over what time period these losses occurred but, either way I would think his normal wagers were significant.

:1: Is he considered a whale in the horse racing world?

:2: Do you think he received rebates which means he lost quite a bit more than $100 million?

:3: Do you think he was always betting on track and/or an ADW?

:4: If on track did he bet with cash and how did he bring it with him, in a paper bag?

:5: If partly through an ADW, what was the amount he kept on hand in order to make those types of bets?

:6: Since, he is pretty much out of the game and he was backing so many losers, does this mean the payouts will be quite a bit lower at the tracks which he played?

[Fox]

:2: Do you think he received rebates which means he lost quite a bit more than $100 million?

:6: Since, he is pretty much out of the game and he was backing so many losers, does this mean the payouts will be quite a bit lower at the tracks which he played?

2: Whether he got a rebate or not crossed my mind as well.

6: Not necessarily. When he was on the winning horse/combo, it hurt the payoff. When he wasn't on the winner, it improved the payoff. If he was beating the takeout rate, such as recovering 85 cents on the dollar in a 20% takeout pool, his removal from the ecosystem would help more payouts than hurt. If he was losing more than the takeout, the opposite would be true. It's a little complex than that but that's how I see it on a basic level. Whether it helps or hurts also depends on what pools he was playing, whether they were blind, and when he put in his bets. Just because he lost millions doesn't mean he was that bad. Maybe he was only losing 8 cents on the dollar, but if you bet huge amounts, it adds up.

[whodoyoulike]

2: Whether he got a rebate or not crossed my mind as well.

6: Not necessarily. When he was on the winning horse/combo, it hurt the payoff. When he wasn't on the winner, it improved the payoff. If he was beating the takeout rate, such as recovering 85 cents on the dollar in a 20% takeout pool, his removal from the ecosystem would help more payouts than hurt. :1: If he was losing more than the takeout, the opposite would be true. It's a little complex than that but that's how I see it on a basic level. Whether it helps or hurts also depends on what pools he was playing, whether they were blind, and when he put in his bets. :2: Just because he lost millions doesn't mean he was that bad. Maybe he was only losing 8 cents on the dollar, but if you bet huge amounts, it adds up.

:1: I understood he lost it all which is why I think it would be the opposite effect as you noted.

:2: Since he lost it all and owes additional, you can't get any worse than that.

[Robert Fischer]

I treat her like a queen.

just kidding

long story short:
i see pattern types of plays and then I figure out a kelly estimate for that pattern.

long story:
To share some of my own actual style, I may only bet 3% of my bankroll on a play such as the example(suggested 8.3%).

I'm not married to to the exact Kelly figure under exact circumstances.

Instead I ask Kelly to tell me what the bet size would be after I make a low-estimate for Hit% and Final Odds.

I work hard with my bread and butter plays, and I know how they work. I also know how the odds change.

I have no problem with making good enough estimates for my bread and butter plays.

And as I develop a new play, I generally have no trouble going within an odds range for that play-type and working out Kelly and then finding where my comfort zone is for that wager type.

Ultimately, Kelly is a point of reference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Fischer
I think with horse racing, you basically want a bet-size that is:
1. A percent of your bankroll, so that you grow exponentially.
2. Low enough to minimize risk of ruin.
3. High enough that you aren't needlessly leaving a lot of money on the table.

Kelly, and your basic understanding of the game, should be combined to find a percent of bankroll that is a safe, relatively efficient 'ballpark' estimate for a given wager or subset of wagers.

[Robert Fischer]

Anyone interested in the Kelly Criterion discussion sidebar should check out this thread (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=117752).
I asked a question that I had a brain-cramp about concerning a 'bad apple' scenario, and we had excellent contribution and discussion across the board from some of our best wagering players from this site, as well as a guest contributor.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Do you remember which month and year?

I still have a number of issues and probably read it the first time around but I'd like to see if I have it.

I had forgotten the mag folded and didn't publish their last issue where the article would have appeared. However, the first part, the Magic Number was in one of the last issues. Anyway, you can get Risk Intelligence here. http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=397

By the way, if you have Horseplayers from about 2009, I appeared pretty regularly. My first piece when the magazine was taken over by Tom Quiqley was a rant about how poorly horseplayers are treated. I loved Horseplayer because they let me print a wide range of stuff (from Horseracing at the Movies to Inside Information to Betting on the Turf). Plus for the last three years it was published I was the analyst for the Breeders Cup Juvenile Fillies Turf and I was one of the handicappers for the Kentucky Derby picks. When I wrote for American Turf Monthly it was more formulaic.

[ReplayRandall]

Anyone interested in the Kelly Criterion discussion sidebar should check out this thread (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=117752).
I asked a question that I had a brain-cramp about concerning a 'bad apple' scenario, and we had excellent contribution and discussion across the board from some of our best wagering players from this site, as well as a guest contributor.
Thanks RF.....

There are 2 posts in the thread of the highest level of creative intellect, the posters being "Game Theory" and "Aaron Brown", that I highly recommend for inexact/exact parameter methods of applying the Kelly criterion:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1728675&postcount=34

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1728792&postcount=35

[Robert Fischer]

Thanks RF.....

There are 2 posts in the thread of the highest level of creative intellect, the posters being "Game Theory" and "Aaron Brown", that I highly recommend for inexact/exact parameter methods of applying the Kelly criterion:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1728675&postcount=34

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1728792&postcount=35

You have a sharp eye. Two of my favorite posts on the subject.

[Stillriledup]

Milch would have been much better off paying a few hundred grand salary to a proven winning horseplayer team and let Them do all the handicapping and betting with MILCH bankrolling the operation and have the hired 'team' just tell him who to root for. Same excitement and action and he wouldn't have lost all that money.

[whodoyoulike]

I had forgotten the mag folded and didn't publish their last issue where the article would have appeared. However, the first part, the Magic Number was in one of the last issues. Anyway, you can get Risk Intelligence here. http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=397

By the way, if you have Horseplayers from about 2009, I appeared pretty regularly. My first piece when the magazine was taken over by Tom Quiqley was a rant about how poorly horseplayers are treated. I loved Horseplayer because they let me print a wide range of stuff (from Horseracing at the Movies to Inside Information to Betting on the Turf). Plus for the last three years it was published I was the analyst for the Breeders Cup Juvenile Fillies Turf and I was one of the handicappers for the Kentucky Derby picks. When I wrote for American Turf Monthly it was more formulaic.

Okay, I'll take a look. I think I started subscribing with their first issue around 1993 or 1994. I thought it had so much potential. I always thought Quiqley was the one who started the mag. I stopped my subscription because of foul ups and poor customer service to resolve them in a timely manner which was a couple of years before their final issue. So, I may not have 2009.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Okay, I'll take a look. I think I started subscribing with their first issue around 1993 or 1994. I thought it had so much potential. I always thought Quiqley was the one who started the mag. I stopped my subscription because of foul ups and poor customer service to resolve them in a timely manner which was a couple of years before their final issue. So, I may not have 2009.
They had stopped publishing for a while and in the early 2000's for exactly the reasons you said. When they started up again anyone who had subscription left got picked up again. Quiqley took over the publishing duties and Frank Scatoni came on as editor, but as the years went on it became harder and harder to make a buck. I believe they published the last issue in 2013.

[rrpic6]

They had stopped publishing for a while and in the early 2000's for exactly the reasons you said. When they started up again anyone who had subscription left got picked up again. Quiqley took over the publishing duties and Frank Scatoni came on as editor, but as the years went on it became harder and harder to make a buck. I believe they published the last issue in 2013.

Not me. Kept my check, ignored my calls when my subscription stopped with 2 years left, insulted my intelligence when I finally was able to speak to someone there. Never bothered to refund my money or solve the problem. THIEVES!

RR

[Valuist]

Milch would have been much better off paying a few hundred grand salary to a proven winning horseplayer team and let Them do all the handicapping and betting with MILCH bankrolling the operation and have the hired 'team' just tell him who to root for. Same excitement and action and he wouldn't have lost all that money.

But no horseplayer wants to be told who to root for. Yeah, he'd probably be much better off that way but a celebrity like that? A big ego guy? I doubt he'd just want to bet others selections.

[Dark Horse]

He was a heroin addict in the 1980's. Tells you a little something about his personality. Easy to replace one heroin with another. Add directing Luck, the HBO series, and the stage is set. Combining tv work with gambling. Can't lose. Until Peta steps in. What a downer... Man, I need a fix.

As far as brilliance... Every horse player is a genius when he wins, at least until the next race. Huge payouts for exotics are heroin too. It takes a sharp mind to put those tickets together, but you still have to let the moments of brilliance come to you; can't go chasing them.

[Dark Horse]

Gambling is a perfect mirror. In time it will show every weakness in the personality, every crack in the armor. That's why the general public thinks of it as 'bad'. But the mirror is entirely neutral. It takes a certain type of person to see himself as he is, and not as he wants to see himself or wants to be seen.

[Stillriledup]

He was a heroin addict in the 1980's. Tells you a little something about his personality. Easy to replace one heroin with another. Add directing Luck, the HBO series, and the stage is set. Combining tv work with gambling. Can't lose. Until Peta steps in. What a downer... Man, I need a fix.

As far as brilliance... Every horse player is a genius when he wins, at least until the next race. Huge payouts for exotics are heroin too. It takes a sharp mind to put those tickets together, but you still have to let the moments of brilliance come to you; can't go chasing them.

Exotics are Heroin, but when you get 12 dollars for a super beating the 1-2 shot and getting a 55-1 in 3rd, that Heroin turns into a whiff of second hand smoke from marijuana.

[Dark Horse]

Exotics are Heroin, but when you get 12 dollars for a super beating the 1-2 shot and getting a 55-1 in 3rd, that Heroin turns into a whiff of second hand smoke from marijuana.

Bigger problem is the stewards cutting up the heroin and mixing it with their dizzying chalk powder.

[thaskalos]

Why do ultra-successful people take their fortunes to the gambling arenas...and destroy themselves? Can't they gamble for modest sums, and have their "fun"...while still keeping their financial lives intact? I understand the motivation of a person who lacks financial stability, and looks to gambling for a little side-income that he might need. But does a multi-millionaire businessman really need to make another fortune at the TRACK?

I have a friend who started with nothing...working as a grill-man in smoldering kitchens for a few hundred dollars a week. He would play the horses for modest sums on his day off...looking for a few hundred extra a month that he needed, in order to live a better life. And he had a dream of owning his own restaurant. Fast-forward 15 years...and he is more successful as a restaurant-owner than he EVER thought he would be. He worked hard to build his business...and now enjoys the sort of income that could easily support the "luxurious lifestyle". But he can still be found at the track...where he now bets with both hands, while screaming his lungs out at the TV monitors. And he loses 80% of his income...while telling himself that he is "having fun".

Do these "successful" people think that their "success" will carry over into all the other aspects of their life?

[moneyandland]

Exotics are Heroin, but when you get 12 dollars for a super beating the 1-2 shot and getting a 55-1 in 3rd, that Heroin turns into a whiff of second hand smoke from marijuana.


You didn't get $12 you got 129.5 to 1, you're betting a pool with 24% takeout before breakage. Without the take out you got 170-1 that the favorite would be out of top 4.

Win odd's have no reflection of the super pool. Ex: There was a hypothetical race with Seattle Slew, Secretariat, Affirmed, and 2 horses from a 3500Mdnclm at Rillito. The 2 horses from Rillito are going to be 10,000-1 to win, but 1 of them has to finish 4th. Should the superfecta be taxable because you have a 10,000-1 shot on the ticket?

You never say how much you think the payout should be, always that you think it's low or unfair

It was a 5 horse race, you didn't beat a 1/2 in a 14 horse race and put 2 bombs in it, you put the only 2 horses left that could fill the ticket in a 5 horse race if the 1/2 is out

[Dark Horse]

Why do ultra-successful people take their fortunes to the gambling arenas...and destroy themselves? Can't they gamble for modest sums, and have their "fun"...while still keeping their financial lives intact? I understand the motivation of a person who lacks financial stability, and looks to gambling for a little side-income that he might need. But does a multi-millionaire businessman really need to make another fortune at the TRACK?

I have a friend who started with nothing...working as a grill-man in smoldering kitchens for a few hundred dollars a week. He would play the horses for modest sums on his day off...looking for a few hundred extra a month that he needed, in order to live a better life. And he had a dream of owning his own restaurant. Fast-forward 15 years...and he is more successful as a restaurant-owner than he EVER thought he would be. He worked hard to build his business...and now enjoys the sort of income that could easily support the "luxurious lifestyle". But he can still be found at the track...where he now bets with both hands, while screaming his lungs out at the TV monitors. And he loses 80% of his income...while telling himself that he is "having fun".

Do these "successful" people think that their "success" will carry over into all the other aspects of their life?

Once a victory is attained it gradually loses its shine, and the next challenge holds a promise of recapturing the joy in attaining that victory.

[thaskalos]

Once a victory is attained it gradually loses its shine, and the next challenge holds a promise of recapturing the joy in attaining that victory.
But does the possibility of ultimate DEFEAT not enter the picture? Should life ever become a game of "all or nothing"?

[TJDave]

Do these "successful" people think that their "success" will carry over into all the other aspects of their life?

Gambling demands skill set independent of all else.

I play in a private game every Monday. We are all friends. Only those who can afford to lose or win graciously are included.

[thaskalos]

Gambling demands skill set independent of all else.

I play in a private game every Monday. We are all friends. Only those who can afford to lose or win graciously are included.

I've never seen a friendship that could withstand the strain of a "real" poker game. But this doesn't preclude that such a thing exists. :)

[HalvOnHorseracing]

But does the possibility of ultimate DEFEAT not enter the picture? Should life ever become a game of "all or nothing"?
I believe the addiction is chemical and is not related to winning or losing but, as your friend demonstrates, the action, the dopamine bump that comes from screaming at the TV. You can no more chide a gambling addict into playing sensibly than you can convince a clinically depressed person to just snap out of it.

From Scientific American at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-brain-gets-addicted-to-gambling/

"The APA based its decision on numerous recent studies in psychology, neuroscience and genetics demonstrating that gambling and drug addiction are far more similar than previously realized. Research in the past two decades has dramatically improved neuroscientists' working model of how the brain changes as an addiction develops. In the middle of our cranium, a series of circuits known as the reward system links various scattered brain regions involved in memory, movement, pleasure and motivation. When we engage in an activity that keeps us alive or helps us pass on our genes, neurons in the reward system squirt out a chemical messenger called dopamine, giving us a little wave of satisfaction and encouraging us to make a habit of enjoying hearty meals and romps in the sack. When stimulated by amphetamine, cocaine or other addictive drugs, the reward system disperses up to 10 times more dopamine than usual.

Continuous use of such drugs robs them of their power to induce euphoria. Addictive substances keep the brain so awash in dopamine that it eventually adapts by producing less of the molecule and becoming less responsive to its effects. As a consequence, addicts build up a tolerance to a drug, needing larger and larger amounts to get high. In severe addiction, people also go through withdrawal—they feel physically ill, cannot sleep and shake uncontrollably—if their brain is deprived of a dopamine-stimulating substance for too long. At the same time, neural pathways connecting the reward circuit to the prefrontal cortex weaken. Resting just above and behind the eyes, the prefrontal cortex helps people tame impulses. In other words, the more an addict uses a drug, the harder it becomes to stop."

[Dark Horse]

But does the possibility of ultimate DEFEAT not enter the picture? Should life ever become a game of "all or nothing"?

Risk of ruin?

Are you saying the Wall Street 'too big to fail' mantra doesn't apply to us? :confused:

[TJDave]

I've never seen a friendship that could withstand the strain of a "real" poker game.

Not real in the sense that fortunes are at risk.

No one is betting their rent check. ;)

[pandy]

Do these "successful" people think that their "success" will carry over into all the other aspects of their life?


I think they do...ego. One of the traits of successful people is confidence, but that same confidence can quickly morph into arrogance, which often comes back to bite you in the ass.

[Grits]

I think they do...ego. One of the traits of successful people is confidence, but that same confidence can quickly morph into arrogance, which often comes back to bite you in the ass.

Good observation...and never does one look more unsuccessful. :confused:

[castaway01]

I think they do...ego. One of the traits of successful people is confidence, but that same confidence can quickly morph into arrogance, which often comes back to bite you in the ass.

Right. This is a guy who has created very popular and acclaimed TV shows, who has read and been told that he is literally a creative genius. He thinks somewhere in his mind that he can do the same thing in racing, which he also loves. And because of his success as a writer, the money losses didn't sting for a while either. He had a bigger safety net than the vast majority of us, but ending up losing everything (everything material anyway).

[AndyC]

Right. This is a guy who has created very popular and acclaimed TV shows, who has read and been told that he is literally a creative genius. He thinks somewhere in his mind that he can do the same thing in racing, which he also loves. And because of his success as a writer, the money losses didn't sting for a while either. He had a bigger safety net than the vast majority of us, but ending up losing everything (everything material anyway).

We have no idea what he thinks. Everybody is confident and successful is some aspect of their life. Does that mean that they will automatically carry over that attitude to everything they do? People are way more complicated than to assume if A then B.

[ultracapper]

I believe the addiction is chemical and is not related to winning or losing but, as your friend demonstrates, the action, the dopamine bump that comes from screaming at the TV. You can no more chide a gambling addict into playing sensibly than you can convince a clinically depressed person to just snap out of it.

From Scientific American at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-brain-gets-addicted-to-gambling/

"The APA based its decision on numerous recent studies in psychology, neuroscience and genetics demonstrating that gambling and drug addiction are far more similar than previously realized. Research in the past two decades has dramatically improved neuroscientists' working model of how the brain changes as an addiction develops. In the middle of our cranium, a series of circuits known as the reward system links various scattered brain regions involved in memory, movement, pleasure and motivation. When we engage in an activity that keeps us alive or helps us pass on our genes, neurons in the reward system squirt out a chemical messenger called dopamine, giving us a little wave of satisfaction and encouraging us to make a habit of enjoying hearty meals and romps in the sack. When stimulated by amphetamine, cocaine or other addictive drugs, the reward system disperses up to 10 times more dopamine than usual.

Continuous use of such drugs robs them of their power to induce euphoria. Addictive substances keep the brain so awash in dopamine that it eventually adapts by producing less of the molecule and becoming less responsive to its effects. As a consequence, addicts build up a tolerance to a drug, needing larger and larger amounts to get high. In severe addiction, people also go through withdrawal—they feel physically ill, cannot sleep and shake uncontrollably—if their brain is deprived of a dopamine-stimulating substance for too long. At the same time, neural pathways connecting the reward circuit to the prefrontal cortex weaken. Resting just above and behind the eyes, the prefrontal cortex helps people tame impulses. In other words, the more an addict uses a drug, the harder it becomes to stop."

Great post.

Put a teenage boy at the track with a buddy that will buy him a couple beers, maybe take a toke or snort of your preferred attitude adjuster, look at the pretty girls walking around......and then hit a $500 trifecta.

Every pleasure center that young man has in his body is in overload right now. If it doesn't make some kind of an impression on him, he's a zombie.

[whodoyoulike]

... He had a bigger safety net than the vast majority of us, but ending up losing everything (everything material anyway).

In an earlier post I mentioned that he lost more than $100 million because the writer probably didn't consider rebates. But, he probably lost over $500 million because of churn.

[Fox]

In an earlier post I mentioned that he lost more than $100 million because the writer probably didn't consider rebates. But, he probably lost over $500 million because of churn.


The article doesn't actually say he lost $100 million at the track. It says a Hollywood guy who earned $100 million over 30 years (probably before income taxes) is now bankrupt. No doubt a significant portion of it was lost at the track, but the only hard number from the article we have to extrapolate his actual losses is the 23.5 million in checks cashed at the track from 2000 to 2011.

His actually churn is largely immaterial, although it would be interesting to know his ROI. If he really did lose $100 million, saying the guy lost $500 million is about as meaningful as saying he won $400 million which he did.

[Grits]

He should've listened to the wisdom of his own counsel.

He stated for the Daily Racing Form, himself, the best quote in the entire piece:

"[The track] is a venue of both fascination and dread [whose] fundamental appeals are prehistorical," he told the Daily Racing Form. "It has to do with man's ostensible mastery of his environment and subordination to the outcome. Man likes to think he is the master, but in fact, when they are 40 yards from the finish, you realize it hasn't got much to do with you now."

[thaskalos]

He should've listened to the wisdom of his own counsel.

He stated for the Daily Racing Form, himself, the best quote in the entire piece:
You've brought up something that I've been saying here for years.

The most eloquent-speaking gamblers are often the exact same ones who are on the verge of destroying themselves. The addicted gambler KNOWS what's killing him, and he KNOWS what he needs to do to save himself. But he keeps doing the wrong thing...and destroys himself anyway. And when he finds himself on the street, broke, alone and despised...the outcome doesn't surprise him in the least.

Is addictive gambling really a DISEASE? Well...I've seen some really sick people, both physically and mentally...and I would be terribly unfair to those people if I categorized the addicted gambler among them...because the gambler is committing a type of psychological SUICIDE. But when wives and kids are involved...then I point the accusatory finger at the addicted gambler...and call his "disease" what I really think it is. A gigantic and horribly destructive CHARACTER FLAW.

And I say this as an ex-addicted gambler...with a death-wish of my own.

[MJC922]

The number one thing that made me a consistent winner year after year was keeping my wagers scaled properly by using a rigid money management plan. This helped me survive losing streaks and come out ahead but definitely over years it started wearing on my health and state of mind. There's a lot factors in play here with the individual, it's how prone you are to go off the rails and become unbalanced as losses mount just due to the percentages of the game, how strong you are to reign that in during losing streaks, and this all magnifies in its intensity with larger bet sizes. There may be great people who have no issues with this, I was not one of them, it was always a hard battle for me but I did ok, when I left it was a good time to leave. We can talk handicapping all day long, you have to be great at that too as a prerequisite but for some people it will not matter as they're hard wired to sabotage themselves.

[thaskalos]

The number one thing that made me a consistent winner year after year was keeping my wagers scaled properly by using a rigid money management plan. This helped me survive losing streaks and come out ahead but definitely over years it started wearing on my health and state of mind. There's a lot factors in play here with the individual, it's how prone you are to go off the rails and become unbalanced as losses mount just due to the percentages of the game, how strong you are to reign that in during losing streaks, and this all magnifies in its intensity with larger bet sizes. There may be great people who have no issues with this, I was not one of them, it was always a hard battle for me but I did ok, when I left it was a good time to leave. We can talk handicapping all day long, you have to be great at that too as a prerequisite but for some people it will not matter as they're hard wired to sabotage themselves.

Because horse racing is a "parimutuel" game, the prevailing thinking is that we are not playing "against the house"...but we are playing against "each other". IMO, this isn't true...and I'm not just talking about the onerous takeout, which makes the game itself our biggest adversary.

Is the golfer playing against the "other golfers"...or is he playing against the COURSE? I say he is doing the best he can to negotiate the obstacles presented to him by the COURSE...and, if he does a good enough job at that...then the "winning" takes care of itself. I don't think the golfers are trying to "outplay" one another; I think they are strictly concentrating on the COURSE...and the winning and the losing isn't always a matter of "inherent ability", or "skill". The winners handle the pressure better...while the losers often self-destruct.

It is the same with horse racing...IMO. Just as the golf course presents obstacles like water hazards and sand traps...this game presents psychological traps of different types...which contribute to the self-destruction of the vast majority of the players who play it. The "other players" aren't really the ones who are "beating" us...and neither is the game itself. The game offers us the opportunity to beat OURSELVES...and we oblige. We KNOW what our A-game is...and we know that we must play our A-game all the time in order to have a chance of profiting in this game. But the game puts us under intense pressure, and we buckle under it...thus falling into the game's "psychological traps". Conventional wisdom states that we lose because our game needs "improvement"...because it isn't "good enough". My own opinion is that, for many of us, our A-game IS good enough...but we lack the psychological wherewithal which is needed in order to play our A-game ALL THE TIME.

And those enigmatic "Whales"...who seem to be CRUSHING this game? I say that their biggest edge over us ISN'T in the "handicapping" department. I say that their biggest edge is in the automation of their WAGERING...which leaves personal feelings out of it -- thus eliminating the psychological conflict that emotional wagering often causes.

Keep your eye on the COURSE, ladies and gentlemen...and don't worry about what the other players are doing. We can't know with certainty what it is that they are doing ANYWAY...nor can we do anything to change their behavior.

Before we determine that our A-game needs "improvement"...we must demonstrate to ourselves that we are capable of playing our A-game ALL THE TIME.

[MJC922]

Yeah well you can't get many players to admit their 'a-game' isn't good enough because the last poll they took out here had about 80% of them ahead for the year. The problem is most people are seriously delusional.

[thaskalos]

Yeah well you can't get many players to admit their 'a-game' isn't good enough because the last poll they took out here had about 80% of them ahead for the year. The problem is most people are seriously delusional.

Yes, a lot of people lie...even to themselves. But lying to ourselves is one thing; BELIEVING our own lies is another.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Because horse racing is a "parimutuel" game, the prevailing thinking is that we are not playing "against the house"...but we are playing against "each other". IMO, this isn't true...and I'm not just talking about the onerous takeout, which makes the game itself our biggest adversary.

Is the golfer playing against the "other golfers"...or is he playing against the COURSE? I say he is doing the best he can to negotiate the obstacles presented to him by the COURSE...and, if he does a good enough job at that...then the "winning" takes care of itself. I don't think the golfers are trying to "outplay" one another; I think they are strictly concentrating on the COURSE...and the winning and the losing isn't always a matter of "inherent ability", or "skill". The winners handle the pressure better...while the losers often self-destruct.

It is the same with horse racing...IMO. Just as the golf course presents obstacles like water hazards and sand traps...this game presents psychological traps of different types...which contribute to the self-destruction of the vast majority of the players who play it. The "other players" aren't really the ones who are "beating" us...and neither is the game itself. The game offers us the opportunity to beat OURSELVES...and we oblige. We KNOW what our A-game is...and we know that we must play our A-game all the time in order to have a chance of profiting in this game. But the game puts us under intense pressure, and we buckle under it...thus falling into the game's "psychological traps". Conventional wisdom states that we lose because our game needs "improvement"...because it isn't "good enough". My own opinion is that, for many of us, our A-game IS good enough...but we lack the psychological wherewithal which is needed in order to play our A-game ALL THE TIME.

And those enigmatic "Whales"...who seem to be CRUSHING this game? I say that their biggest edge over us ISN'T in the "handicapping" department. I say that their biggest edge is in the automation of their WAGERING...which leaves personal feelings out of it -- thus eliminating the psychological conflict that emotional wagering often causes.

Keep your eye on the COURSE, ladies and gentlemen...and don't worry about what the other players are doing. We can't know with certainty what it is that they are doing ANYWAY...nor can we do anything to change their behavior.

Before we determine that our A-game needs "improvement"...we must demonstrate to ourselves that we are capable of playing our A-game ALL THE TIME.

It was a sharp post.

Although Jean Van De Velde in the 1999 British Open might have better off remembering the other player's scores and hitting four wedges to the green on 18.

[Track Collector]

Because horse racing is a "parimutuel" game, the prevailing thinking is that we are not playing "against the house"...but we are playing against "each other". IMO, this isn't true...and I'm not just talking about the onerous takeout, which makes the game itself our biggest adversary.

Is the golfer playing against the "other golfers"...or is he playing against the COURSE? I say he is doing the best he can to negotiate the obstacles presented to him by the COURSE...and, if he does a good enough job at that...then the "winning" takes care of itself. I don't think the golfers are trying to "outplay" one another; I think they are strictly concentrating on the COURSE...and the winning and the losing isn't always a matter of "inherent ability", or "skill". The winners handle the pressure better...while the losers often self-destruct.

It is the same with horse racing...IMO. Just as the golf course presents obstacles like water hazards and sand traps...this game presents psychological traps of different types...which contribute to the self-destruction of the vast majority of the players who play it. The "other players" aren't really the ones who are "beating" us...and neither is the game itself. The game offers us the opportunity to beat OURSELVES...and we oblige. We KNOW what our A-game is...and we know that we must play our A-game all the time in order to have a chance of profiting in this game. But the game puts us under intense pressure, and we buckle under it...thus falling into the game's "psychological traps". Conventional wisdom states that we lose because our game needs "improvement"...because it isn't "good enough". My own opinion is that, for many of us, our A-game IS good enough...but we lack the psychological wherewithal which is needed in order to play our A-game ALL THE TIME.

And those enigmatic "Whales"...who seem to be CRUSHING this game? I say that their biggest edge over us ISN'T in the "handicapping" department. I say that their biggest edge is in the automation of their WAGERING...which leaves personal feelings out of it -- thus eliminating the psychological conflict that emotional wagering often causes.

Keep your eye on the COURSE, ladies and gentlemen...and don't worry about what the other players are doing. We can't know with certainty what it is that they are doing ANYWAY...nor can we do anything to change their behavior.

Before we determine that our A-game needs "improvement"...we must demonstrate to ourselves that we are capable of playing our A-game ALL THE TIME.

So, you DID go ahead and buy Ed Miller's "The Course" book on poker. (Or you were able to read the preface somewhere.). :)

[pandy]

You've brought up something that I've been saying here for years.

The most eloquent-speaking gamblers are often the exact same ones who are on the verge of destroying themselves. The addicted gambler KNOWS what's killing him, and he KNOWS what he needs to do to save himself. But he keeps doing the wrong thing...and destroys himself anyway. And when he finds himself on the street, broke, alone and despised...the outcome doesn't surprise him in the least.

Is addictive gambling really a DISEASE? Well...I've seen some really sick people, both physically and mentally...and I would be terribly unfair to those people if I categorized the addicted gambler among them...because the gambler is committing a type of psychological SUICIDE. But when wives and kids are involved...then I point the accusatory finger at the addicted gambler...and call his "disease" what I really think it is. A gigantic and horribly destructive CHARACTER FLAW.

And I say this as an ex-addicted gambler...with a death-wish of my own.


I don't believe that addictive gambling is a disease, but then again, I don't believe that drug addiction is a disease. I never understood why they call alcohol addiction a disease but not cigarette smoking. I remember when Tommy Lasorda got blasted by the media because he refused to call Daryl Strawberry's drug addiction a disease. I was with Tommy on that.

But, regardless of what you call it, addiction is hard to overcome and, as you say, horribly destructive. I quit smoking when I was 25. Once I realized how the nicotine had literally taken control of me, I became furious that I had allowed this crap to overpower my mind, so I developed a plan to quit and did. Being unable to control yourself is a horrible feeling.

When I was 17, I became addictive to gambling (horses) for about a month. One night I was at Roosevelt Raceway I lost two $50 win bets on horses that I thought were locks. I started chasing my losses and lost a few hundred bucks. I left with nothing, and realized that I had started to pick up the traits of a compulsive gambler. I made up my mind that if I would never allow that to happen again, and if I did, I would stop gambling. Fortunately it worked, but I think that was because I loved betting and I refused to allow an addiction take away something that I enjoyed. I used to go to the track with friends and make one bet and they'd be shocked. "I thought you were a gambler," they said. I would reply, "I only like one horse tonight. I'm going to watch the other races and take notes for next week." And it's so much more fun being in control like that.

[ultracapper]

I had come to the conclusion that you couldn't bet every race very, very early in my career. Maybe the 3rd or 4th time I ever went to the track. I still remember my friends that first time they realized I was not betting a race. I had to show them my money to prove I wasn't broke.

None of them play anymore. The last time I went with the guy that was my best friend at the time, he bet $10 to win on a horse that ran up the track, and got mad, told me he was running down the road to the card room, and sat and played poker until I was done at the track. He and I never went to the track together again, and now I haven't seen him in over 15 years. I know his little brother pretty well, and I've been told he'll lose $2,000 at the blackjack table and not bat an eye, but he still blows up whenever he loses $10 on a horse race.

[thaskalos]

So, you DID go ahead and buy Ed Miller's "The Course" book on poker. (Or your were able to read the preface somewhere.). :)

I bought that book when it first came out...and I think his golf analogy works better with horse racing. :)

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I don't believe that addictive gambling is a disease, but then again, I don't believe that drug addiction is a disease. I never understood why they call alcohol addiction a disease but not cigarette smoking. I remember when Tommy Lasorda got blasted by the media because he refused to call Daryl Strawberry's drug addiction a disease. I was with Tommy on that.

But, regardless of what you call it, addiction is hard to overcome and, as you say, horribly destructive. I quit smoking when I was 25. Once I realized how the nicotine had literally taken control of me, I became furious that I had allowed this crap to overpower my mind, so I developed a plan to quit and did. Being unable to control yourself is a horrible feeling.

When I was 17, I became addictive to gambling (horses) for about a month. One night I was at Roosevelt Raceway I lost two $50 win bets on horses that I thought were locks. I started chasing my losses and lost a few hundred bucks. I left with nothing, and realized that I had started to pick up the traits of a compulsive gambler. I made up my mind that if I would never allow that to happen again, and if I did, I would stop gambling. Fortunately it worked, but I think that was because I loved betting and I refused to allow an addiction take away something that I enjoyed. I used to go to the track with friends and make one bet and they'd be shocked. "I thought you were a gambler," they said. I would reply, "I only like one horse tonight. I'm going to watch the other races and take notes for next week." And it's so much more fun being in control like that.

The semantics are not as important as the fact that addiction is complex as well as being very serious and very real.

Of course we've all been on tilt and reacted. Made me think of my favorite line from House of Games. "She's stuck and she's steaming."

[Grits]

The evening ends well when one quote from the piece brings forward three of the most gifted, honest writers on the board. Thank you, gentlemen. You've added your own experience/thoughts to what Mr.Milch never, in his own weakness, was willing to understand, or maybe even, admit.

You've brought up something that I've been saying here for years.

The most eloquent-speaking gamblers are often the exact same ones who are on the verge of destroying themselves. The addicted gambler KNOWS what's killing him, and he KNOWS what he needs to do to save himself. But he keeps doing the wrong thing...and destroys himself anyway. And when he finds himself on the street, broke, alone and despised...the outcome doesn't surprise him in the least.

Is addictive gambling really a DISEASE? Well...I've seen some really sick people, both physically and mentally...and I would be terribly unfair to those people if I categorized the addicted gambler among them...because the gambler is committing a type of psychological SUICIDE. But when wives and kids are involved...then I point the accusatory finger at the addicted gambler...and call his "disease" what I really think it is. A gigantic and horribly destructive CHARACTER FLAW.

And I say this as an ex-addicted gambler...with a death-wish of my own.

The number one thing that made me a consistent winner year after year was keeping my wagers scaled properly by using a rigid money management plan. This helped me survive losing streaks and come out ahead but definitely over years it started wearing on my health and state of mind. There's a lot factors in play here with the individual, it's how prone you are to go off the rails and become unbalanced as losses mount just due to the percentages of the game, how strong you are to reign that in during losing streaks, and this all magnifies in its intensity with larger bet sizes. There may be great people who have no issues with this, I was not one of them, it was always a hard battle for me but I did ok, when I left it was a good time to leave. We can talk handicapping all day long, you have to be great at that too as a prerequisite but for some people it will not matter as they're hard wired to sabotage themselves.

I don't believe that addictive gambling is a disease, but then again, I don't believe that drug addiction is a disease. I never understood why they call alcohol addiction a disease but not cigarette smoking. I remember when Tommy Lasorda got blasted by the media because he refused to call Daryl Strawberry's drug addiction a disease. I was with Tommy on that.

But, regardless of what you call it, addiction is hard to overcome and, as you say, horribly destructive. I quit smoking when I was 25. Once I realized how the nicotine had literally taken control of me, I became furious that I had allowed this crap to overpower my mind, so I developed a plan to quit and did. Being unable to control yourself is a horrible feeling.

When I was 17, I became addictive to gambling (horses) for about a month. One night I was at Roosevelt Raceway I lost two $50 win bets on horses that I thought were locks. I started chasing my losses and lost a few hundred bucks. I left with nothing, and realized that I had started to pick up the traits of a compulsive gambler. I made up my mind that if I would never allow that to happen again, and if I did, I would stop gambling. Fortunately it worked, but I think that was because I loved betting and I refused to allow an addiction take away something that I enjoyed. I used to go to the track with friends and make one bet and they'd be shocked. "I thought you were a gambler," they said. I would reply, "I only like one horse tonight. I'm going to watch the other races and take notes for next week." And it's so much more fun being in control like that.

[Dark Horse]

I don't think Milch was addicted to gambling. What he became addicted to was losing. There is no addiction when there is great mental clarity, and he had repeatedly showcased his brilliant side. The question is if he, and every gambler, could maintain his mental clarity during a prolonged losing streak. If not, and his mounting losses suggest he could not, then a person's dark side can take over. As I said earlier, gambling is a perfect mirror. And what is seen in that mirror may be too dark for an individual to want to face and come to terms with. Milch didn't lose because of his brilliant side, but because he got sucked into a maelstrom of his own darkness. Had he not been addicted to the losing, he would have stepped away to regain his clarity. And with clarity regained, he would have been back at the controls, free to be brilliant.

[acorn54]

thaskalos you are, pace advantage's, "voice of reality". i have said that of you in a previous thread, glorifying the life of a gambler and i am saying it again.
keep up the good work!
a psychologist once said "man can justify anything".

[classhandicapper]

Yes, a lot of people lie...even to themselves. But lying to ourselves is one thing; BELIEVING our own lies is another.

My guess is that some people will lie on a forum like this because they don't want to admit defeat in an arena where others are claiming success. They know very well that they are losing and would probably even admit it in an environment where everyone else was claiming to be losing.

[Grits]

My guess is that some people will lie on a forum like this because they don't want to admit defeat in an arena where others are claiming success. They know very well that they are losing and would probably even admit it in an environment where everyone else was claiming to be losing.

Indeed. Because. Misery loves company.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I don't think Milch was addicted to gambling. What he became addicted to was losing. There is no addiction when there is great mental clarity, and he had repeatedly showcased his brilliant side. The question is if he, and every gambler, could maintain his mental clarity during a prolonged losing streak. If not, and his mounting losses suggest he could not, then a person's dark side can take over. As I said earlier, gambling is a perfect mirror. And what is seen in that mirror may be too dark for an individual to want to face and come to terms with. Milch didn't lose because of his brilliant side, but because he got sucked into a maelstrom of his own darkness. Had he not been addicted to the losing, he would have stepped away to regain his clarity. And with clarity regained, he would have been back at the controls, free to be brilliant.

The addiction is not to winning or losing, but to the action. He doesn't make a bet hoping to lose - he expects to win, even if the bet seems like he is undermining himself. As I posted earlier, it is the release of dopamine that the addict craves. The high comes from having significant stakes and rooting your bet. Ever see a guy root his horse when you can see it's going to get triple passed? Still looking for the rush. The addict rarely concedes victory is impossible. Ultimately, the addict needs bigger and bigger stakes and more and more action. The bigger the stakes, the greater the stimulation. Losing isn't the stimulus. Even when the addict loses a race, the thought that goes through his head is, I was close and it was bad luck or I got a bad ride. I'm due and I'll just bet more next time to recover my losses. Being broke is a temporary condition to the gambling addict and it doesn't panic them like it does a normal person. They figure sooner or later they'll be on top.

As an aside, I saw an interview with a world class poker player. He quipped, we measure our success by the number of times we've gone bust.

Suggesting that he was addicted to the losing otherwise he would have stepped away to regain his clarity makes no more sense than saying a clinically depressed person enjoys the depression otherwise they would snap out of it. Gambling addiction is behavioral and chemical and can be treated with cognitive therapy and anti-depressants (that alter brain chemistry). Handling addiction requires a firm commitment to want to change for sure, but many need additional help.

[castaway01]

In an earlier post I mentioned that he lost more than $100 million because the writer probably didn't consider rebates. But, he probably lost over $500 million because of churn.


The article actually says he earned $100 million in three decades but lost $25 million at the track in 12 years, plus he owes the IRS $17 million: "Now a lawsuit, which was filed last year and is proceeding in Los Angeles Superior Court in Santa Monica, indicates that he lost $25 million from gambling between 2000 and 2011 alone. Colleagues estimate he has earned more than $100 million across his three-decade Hollywood career, but the lawsuit reveals he is left with $17 million in debts." But whatever, it's all a guess at this point. Once you owe the IRS $17 million, it's game over.

[Grits]

Rich, the majority of all addictions are behavioral, as Thask stated, a character flaw. And yes, they can be treated if one wants help. However, the rush, the dopamine release you speak of? Everything you've written for that matter....the action, etc? No one could've stated the danger of addiction better than this guy. Just to listen, is chilling. To realize how messed up he was inwardly, yet how easily, how normally, he moved between, slipping in and out of such horrific acts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vlk_sRU49TI

Same goes for a gambling addiction, one can be losing. Everything in their world collapsing, yet they remain stuck--day after day.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I'm sure that I'm in the minority as someone that a shrink somewhere could probably deduce has an "addictive personality", but for me the all-consuming drive wasn't in the rush from winning, but rather in the challenge it presented to the brain. The constant effort to improve. The eternal quest to get it right. Gotta do better. Can do better. Must be something that I missed.

I tend to get that way with a lot of things to my detriment. Work, women, sports, you name it. Handicapping and betting, more than any of those things I think, really gave me the challenge that my mind wanted. Something that could literally take up almost every functioning moment and the reality that there was no end on the path to improvement and success was always goint to be unattainable for me. No matter how well I did or how much fun I was having or whatever, there is always a next level to shoot for.

Counter-intuitively I suppose and contrary to almost everything posted on this topic, dealing with this character flaw is best accomplished for me by doing almost the opposite of what most suggest. Scrutinizing plays and strenuous record keeping and really making it some kind of structured endeavor like a job simply fed into that mindset that I can refine this effort into one precious metal after another.

Honestly what allowed me to shake the pounding pressure to achieve was to simply let it be fun again. To refuse all of the things, the self-imposed rules for 'success', a concept that I could not define and would never attain. Forget letting my brain run wild seeking out reasons for failure. What is the point if failure is the only thing it recognizes and acknowledges.

These days I bet very little comparatively. I enjoy handicapping and try my best but I go out of my way to take wins and losses with a grain of salt. I don't stew on what I did wrong. Is it a terrible idea for 99% of those that love to handicap and bet? Probably. But with all of this talk about what makes a handicapper an addict and what it is that paves the path down the rabbit hole, I figured I'd throw in my seven pesos as a different take. It isn't always the gambling that you get hooked on, the wins or the losses or the money, sometimes it's just the process that the brain craves to keep it fat and happy.

[pandy]

Absolutely. Most of us bet horses for fun and entertainment.

When I felt that I was perhaps becoming a compulsive gambler, it wasn't because I felt addicted to "action." It was because I would try to foolishly recoup my losses, usually called "chasing bets," which I believe is a common behavioral pattern of many compulsive gamblers. I didn't want to make another bet because I craved making bets, I wanted to win back the money I lost right away. That's not only compulsive, it's stupid, and it took the fun out of betting horses. Once I got back to only betting the horses that I went down to the track to bet in the first place, it was fun.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Rich, the majority of all addictions are behavioral, as Thask stated, a character flaw. And yes, they can be treated if one wants help. However, the rush, the dopamine release you speak of? Everything you've written for that matter....the action, etc? No one could've stated the danger of addiction better than this guy. Just to listen, is chilling. To realize how messed up he was inwardly, yet how easily, how normally, he moved between, slipping in and out of such horrific acts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vlk_sRU49TI

Same goes for a gambling addiction, one can be losing. Everything in their world collapsing, yet they remain stuck--day after day.

Ted Bundy was sociopathic and psychopathic, which I suppose is highly understated as messed up inwardly. He didn't have a character flaw as much as he was miswired. He had no guilt about what he did when he did it. He felt no remorse. And when he killed he did achieve a high, and that is why he continued to repeat the behavior, in the end accelerating and taking greater chances. As the behavioral model predicts, the addict ultimately needs bigger and bigger doses of his "drug" to get off.

I said that addiction is behavioral and chemical. The behavior creates a good feeling that the addict wants to repeat and that is related to the dopamine release. So is the desire to want sex often (for most people in a certain age range). Think about it. If the behavior was negative for the addict, they'd stop. It has been successfully treated with cognitive therapy and anti-psychotics, which I've agree points to the fact it is behavioral and chemical. I'm not guessing about that, it's a fact.

In reading about AA, statistics show that as many people quit drinking on their own with no therapy as quit through the 12-step program. I'm sure the same is true with problem gamblers. But for quite a few people, just realizing the destructive behavior and stopping is not possible without help. It's great that there are people here who changed on their own, and I applaud them, but it isn't as viable for others.

At some point the addict may realize that they are engaging in negative behavior, but often the symptoms of withdrawal make it impossible to give up the addiction. By that point it is well beyond a character flaw and into a physical condition. You don't have to take my word for it. Ask a recovered addict how they felt when they were gambling and see if they don't talk about the high from the action. Ask them how they felt when they tried to stop.

You know who James Dobson is, right? I won't get into a long discussion, but that interview with Bundy was bullshit concocted by both Dobson and Bundy. Seriously, you're smart enough to know Ted Bundy wasn't a serial killer because he was addicted to pornography. Or that the elimination of pornography would result in a substantial reduction in crime, although that was precisely Dobson's position. Or that Bundy didn't get a high from killing and ever felt bad for his victims. It was heinous that Bundy was actually trying to blame his behavior on porn hours from execution.

This is a topic I've written about, I've done a lot of reading on, and I've interviewed a number of experts. I'm not claiming omniscience, but I have reason to try to understand addiction. One of the problems with the word addict is that is has become trivialized. I suppose there are ice cream addicts, but I'm not sure it's in the DSM.

Honestly, I don't care if someone thinks gambling addiction is the product of a weak mind. I have an informed opinion, and I'm happy to learn from anyone who has more real knowledge.

[Dark Horse]

The addiction is not to winning or losing, but to the action. He doesn't make a bet hoping to lose - he expects to win, even if the bet seems like he is undermining himself. As I posted earlier, it is the release of dopamine that the addict craves.

It may seem that way, on the surface, but you merely describe an action junkie. Someone who is capable of brilliance, as attributed to Milch in the article, is clearly more than an action junkie. What could have motivated him to fall down from his 'exalted' state? Only one thing. The loss of mental clarity. How is it lost? Through darkness. What is the easiest way to a dark mental state in gambling? A prolonged losing streak. He had plenty of money. He wasn't trying to recapture his losses. What he sought to regain was his state of brilliance. But he did so by chasing the action, instead of stepping back. The old painter-with-his-nose-against-the-canvas paradigm.

In horse racing winning big exotic tickets, the style Milch played the track, can make a person feel like an absolute genius. When that genius is not confirmed for a long time, race after race, day after day, week after week, etc, then an identity crisis may be knocking on the door.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yeah well you can't get many players to admit their 'a-game' isn't good enough because the last poll they took out here had about 80% of them ahead for the year. The problem is most people are seriously delusional.Link?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Absolutely. Most of us bet horses for fun and entertainment.

When I felt that I was perhaps becoming a compulsive gambler, it wasn't because I felt addicted to "action." It was because I would try to foolishly recoup my losses, usually called "chasing bets," which I believe is a common behavioral pattern of many compulsive gamblers. I didn't want to make another bet because I craved making bets, I wanted to win back the money I lost right away. That's not only compulsive, it's stupid, and it took the fun out of betting horses. Once I got back to only betting the horses that I went down to the track to bet in the first place, it was fun.
You were never a compulsive gambler or even close. It takes far longer than a month. Compulsive gamblers don't see losing as negatively as you did and that is why you caught yourself so quickly. Compulsive gamblers chase bets because they believe the big score is just around the corner. It's great that you found the sweet spot for yourself, but it doesn't seem to me you were never in any real danger of being Milch.

[ReplayRandall]

You know who James Dobson is, right? I won't get into a long discussion, but that interview with Bundy was bullshit concocted by both Dobson and Bundy. Seriously, you're smart enough to know Ted Bundy wasn't a serial killer because he was addicted to pornography. Or that the elimination of pornography would result in a substantial reduction in crime, although that was precisely Dobson's position. Or that Bundy didn't get a high from killing and ever felt bad for his victims. It was heinous that Bundy was actually trying to blame his behavior on porn hours from execution.

IMO, there's a starting point catalyst to ALL behaviors, good or bad. The foundational wiring which takes place in the human mind, with the release of dopamine and other trigger chemicals, is something that you've previously discussed in your past posts, Rich. Don't you think when trying to fix/heal a person from a bad repetitive behavior, that you have to go back to the foundation catalyst, identify it, eliminate it and substitute a positive catalyst/behavior in it's place?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

It may seem that way, on the surface, but you merely describe an action junkie. Someone who is capable of brilliance, as attributed to Milch in the article, is clearly more than an action junkie. What could have motivated him to fall down from his 'exalted' state? Only one thing. The loss of mental clarity. How is it lost? Through darkness. What is the easiest way to a dark mental state in gambling? A prolonged losing streak. He had plenty of money. He wasn't trying to recapture his losses. What he sought to regain was his state of brilliance. But he did so by chasing the action, instead of stepping back. The old painter-with-his-nose-against-the-canvas paradigm.

In horse racing winning big exotic tickets, the style Milch played the track, can make a person feel like an absolute genius. When that genius is not confirmed for a long time, race after race, day after day, week after week, etc, then an identity crisis may be knocking on the door.
It's an interesting perspective. I don't know Milch, but I've known some problem gamblers. Not a one of them ever felt bad about blowing their bankroll. If anything they sounded positive. They were just a score away from being back on top, and all they needed was a new bankroll. They never expressed a feeling that they lost their mental clarity, and you don't go broke without a serious losing streak. They lost every photo, had some bad breaks, but they were due as long as they could get enough money to bet. But they were too smart to lose forever. Testing shows that compulsive gamblers get a huge high from a win, but losing doesn't bother them. They're chasing the big one. On the other hand, smart gamblers don't get nearly the high from winning, but they absolutely detest losing.

As I said, believe what you want. In the end all that matters is that you recognize in yourself if your behavior is positive or negative.

[PaceAdvantage]

You'll find in the following link, that PA posters had only 27% stating they had a winning year in 2014. No such poll has been posted yet for 2015:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=119329&highlight=yearI knew the 80% that he claimed was absolute garbage. In the poll you reference, nearly 60% admit to losing and another 10% admit to breaking even. 6% don't know or don't wanna know...lol

That leaves 24% who claim to be winners. I guess that's close to 80%... :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

You'll find in the following link, that PA posters had only 27% stating they had a winning year in 2014. No such poll has been posted yet for 2015:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=119329&highlight=yearI knew the 80% that he claimed was absolute garbage. In the poll you reference, nearly 60% admit to losing and another 10% admit to breaking even. 6% don't know or don't wanna know...lol

That leaves 24% who claim to be winners. I guess that's close to 80% when using crazy gorilla math.

[pandy]

You were never a compulsive gambler or even close. It takes far longer than a month. Compulsive gamblers don't see losing as negatively as you did and that is why you caught yourself so quickly. Compulsive gamblers chase bets because they believe the big score is just around the corner. It's great that you found the sweet spot for yourself, but it doesn't seem to me you were never in any real danger of being Milch.

You're right, I was not a compulsive gambler, but I was starting to display some of the tendencies that a compulsive gambler has. I could literally feel the compulsion building up in me, it was palpable.

This is something about addiction I have trouble understanding, denial. If you get drunk every day, how do you not realize that you're an alcoholic? I guess that's a big difference between an actual addict who needs medical help and the people who fix the problem on their own.

When I was addicted to cigarettes, I knew that the only reason I smoked was because of the addiction. I've met many smokers who insist that they love smoking cigarettes, which makes no sense. Cigarettes taste like crap, make you cough, hurt your breathing, and don't get you high. The enjoyment isn't real, it's your addiction playing tricks on you. You think you're enjoying the cigarette, but the first time you smoked one, you thought it taste like crap and couldn't understand why people smoked. Once you get addicted, all of a sudden you enjoy it, because you're satisfying the craving.

I don't believe in false pleasures. If you have to get addicted to something to enjoy it, it sucks.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

IMO, there's a starting point catalyst to ALL behaviors, good or bad. The foundational wiring which takes place in the human mind, with the release of dopamine and other trigger chemicals, is something that you've previously discussed in your past posts, Rich. Don't you think when trying to fix/heal a person from a bad repetitive behavior, that you have to go back to the foundation catalyst, identify it, eliminate it and substitute a positive catalyst/behavior in it's place?
Oh sure. Sooner or later if you are wired a particular way, you'll find the behavior that gives you the high. And if you are the therapist, the cognitive therapy can go well back in time.

For example, most serial killers show an accelerating pattern where as children they may torture animals and move to bigger crimes. A lot of TV shows may suggest it has something to do with childhood traumas, but from what I've read, sociopathy may not be "curable" and may just be how the person was born wired. I've read about adrenaline junkies who look for bigger and bigger thrills, often because the mechanism that tells most of us that the risk is too big doesn't work in their brains.

I think you're right that is some cases you can find the catalyst, eliminate and substitute positive behaviors. I'm not sure you can do it in all cases.

[thaskalos]

The gambling addict isn't looking to lose...and he isn't trying to "punish himself". That's the biggest crock that's ever been said or written. He wants to WIN...DESPERATELY! But he CAN'T win...because the recklessness that he has allowed to form within him is the ANTITHESIS of what successful gambling demands. He isn't really sick...he is DELUSIONAL. He thinks that he can succeed where 99% of the others have failed...even though he can't really point to any "edge" that he holds over his competition. He is optimistic about his profitability-chances in this game...but his optimism is IRRATIONAL. There is no REASON for it.

99% of the gambling addicts are not like David Milch. They didn't bring millions to this game...after being attracted to the "glamour" side of it. Most addicted gamblers are ordinary people, with unsatisfactory jobs, and bills that they worry endlessly about. They gravitate to this game...and see things in it that aren't even there. A little "beginners luck" at the outset makes them think that they may have what it takes to make a living from this game...and earn their money "with their wits", instead of with their backs. The handicapping books that they read suggest that such a thing is possible...and this encourages them further. They hate the lives that they have now...so they create a new life, in their heads...without realizing that this is just idle dreaming.

The average gambling degenerate isn't so addicted to this game that he can't stop playing it whenever he gets some money in his pocket. That's a misconception. The reality is that he is numb...and scared shitless. The addiction isn't that you can't stop playing this game as long as you have money in your pocket. The addiction is that you can't stop playing this game...while your financial life is still somewhat intact.

I know an addicted gambler who is a VP at a bank. His wife and he are saving money to buy a house...and this money is deposited at the bank where the guy works. The wife trusts her husband, of course, and thinks that they are on solid financial ground...when the truth is that they are almost broke...because the husband has blown 80% of their savings at the track. An invoice with their savings balance will periodically come to the house, to appease the wife...but the invoice is fraudulent.

This guy visits the OTB every other day...and we talk about his problem, because he trusts me. I know that he has money in his pocket, and I also know that he has access to the other 20% of their savings...but he doesn't bet a dime. He just sits there in a state of shock. The only reason he comes to the OTB, he tells me, is because he is overcome by guilt whenever he is home alone with his wife. Personally...I think the reason is that he wants to avoid any conversation about their finances that his wife might initiate.

"Why couldn't you stop betting before you lost so much?"...I ask him, as if I didn't already know.

"What difference would it make if I lost 50%, 80% or ALL of it...my wife would hate me just the same. I need to get the money back."...he tells me. "When it was time to stop...I couldn't stop. Now I can stop...but that doesn't solve my problem. The money is gone...and my family will soon be gone as well".

He learned his lesson...but he didn't learn it in time.

There is a poignant scene -- to me, anyway -- in the movie House of Games...where actress Lindsay Crouse is playing a psychiatrist, who is trying to help a young gambling addict. The young gambler can't open up to the psychiatrist about his problems, and tells her that she can't be of any help to him anyway. The psychiatrist disagrees...and tells him that there is a "solution to every problem".

The young gambler looks at her sternly, and says:'

"Okay. I owe someone $30,000...and I don't have it to give it to him. And he says that he is gonna kill me. What can you do about that?"

That's the sort of trouble that the addicted gamblers get into. There IS a solution to every problem...but you have to catch the problem in time. If you don't, then things get totally out of control...and your life is never the same, whether you stop gambling or not. The addicted gambler isn't "sick"...he is WEAK. The problem isn't his "illness"...it's his CHARACTER.

They say that "a fool and his money are soon parted"...but I got a better one: A fool and his money, were lucky to get together in the FIRST place!

It's just unfortunate that they sometimes take their families down with them.

[ultracapper]

IMO, there's a starting point catalyst to ALL behaviors, good or bad. The foundational wiring which takes place in the human mind, with the release of dopamine and other trigger chemicals, is something that you've previously discussed in your past posts, Rich. Don't you think when trying to fix/heal a person from a bad repetitive behavior, that you have to go back to the foundation catalyst, identify it, eliminate it and substitute a positive catalyst/behavior in it's place?

Bundy's initial trigger into the world he found himself ultimately in had nothing to do with porn, sex, or murder. His initial step into the darkness was an overwhelming belief in his own brilliance, and his ability to beat the system through his own defenses. He ultimately wanted to see just how far he could go and not get defeated by the system. He acted on his own defense once incarcerated, and while committing his crimes, he made it easier and easier to link himself to the crime. He was always playing a game against the "Man", always feeling ultimate confidence in his ability to wiggle off the hook. It's hard to argue that he didn't have some depraved view of women and sex, but it came down to a battle against the machine. He ultimately found himself in Colorado to play the ultimate life-or-death game once he concluded that Colorado's death penalty laws were the most daunting in the nation.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The gambling addict isn't looking to lose...and he isn't trying to "punish himself". That's the biggest crock that's ever been said or written. He wants to WIN...DESPERATELY! But he CAN'T win...because the recklessness that he has allowed to form within him is the ANTITHESIS of what successful gambling demands. He isn't really sick...he is DELUSIONAL. He thinks that he can succeed where 99% of the others have failed...even though he can't really point to any "edge" that he holds over his competition. He is optimistic about his profitability-chances in this game...but his optimism is IRRATIONAL. There is no REASON for it.

I couldn't agree with you more. Gambling addicts believe the next win is just around the corner. Bad luck, bad rides, close photos - all he needs is one break, one good score and he's set.

What addict isn't irrational?

[Dark Horse]

Testing shows that compulsive gamblers get a huge high from a win, but losing doesn't bother them. They're chasing the big one. On the other hand, smart gamblers don't get nearly the high from winning, but they absolutely detest losing.


That last part makes no sense at all. If sharp players would absolutely detest losing, they wouldn't bet (or not bet enough to make it count). They recognize it as part of the game. They know they have an edge, and can quantify it. So they can step back and be objective, about both winning and losing.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Bundy's initial trigger into the world he found himself ultimately in had nothing to do with porn, sex, or murder. His initial step into the darkness was an overwhelming belief in his own brilliance, and his ability to beat the system through his own defenses. He ultimately wanted to see just how far he could go and not get defeated by the system. He acted on his own defense once incarcerated, and while committing his crimes, he made it easier and easier to link himself to the crime. He was always playing a game against the "Man", always feeling ultimate confidence in his ability to wiggle off the hook. It's hard to argue that he didn't have some depraved view of women and sex, but it came down to a battle against the machine. He ultimately found himself in Colorado to play the ultimate life-or-death game once he concluded that Colorado's death penalty laws were the most daunting in the nation.

I think you meant Florida. Colorado doesn't execute anybody.

[ultracapper]

I think you meant Florida. Colorado doesn't execute anybody.

My bad. he left Colorado for Florida.

[pandy]

You were never a compulsive gambler or even close. It takes far longer than a month. Compulsive gamblers don't see losing as negatively as you did and that is why you caught yourself so quickly. Compulsive gamblers chase bets because they believe the big score is just around the corner. It's great that you found the sweet spot for yourself, but it doesn't seem to me you were never in any real danger of being Milch.


You're right, I was not a compulsive gambler, but I was starting to display some of the tendencies that a compulsive gambler has. I could literally feel the compulsion building up in me, it was palpable.

This is something about addiction I have trouble understanding, denial. If you get drunk every day, how do you not realize that you're an alcoholic? I guess that's a big difference between an actual addict who needs medical help and the people who fix the problem on their own.

When I was addicted to cigarettes, I knew that the only reason I smoked was because of the addiction. I've met many smokers who insist that they love smoking cigarettes, which makes no sense. Cigarettes taste like crap, make you cough, hurt your breathing, and don't get you high. The first time you smoked one, you thought it taste like crap and couldn't understand why people smoked. Once you get addicted, all of a sudden you enjoy it, because you're satisfying the craving.

I don't believe in false pleasures. If you have to get addicted to something to enjoy it, it sucks.

[ultracapper]

I couldn't agree with you more. Gambling addicts believe the next win is just around the corner. Bad luck, bad rides, close photos - all he needs is one break, one good score and he's set.

What addict isn't irrational?

Can you add to bad luck, bad rides, close photos........bad decisions? or is that a different problem? Does the compulsive gambler ever blame themselves in the midst of their downfall? Or is there a victim mentality?

[ultracapper]

This discussion is beginning to show that there are probably 2 different types of problem gamblers.

1) Thaskalos's delusional gambler. The guy that isn't getting a buzz from his scores as much as he believes he can repeat the scores often enough to help avoid the pain of his hum-drum existence, and

2) HOH's compulsive gambler. The guy that isn't trying to repeat his scores often enough to avoid his hum-drum life, but to create a life of never ending, ever increasing, excitement.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

That last part makes no sense at all. If sharp players would absolutely detest losing, they wouldn't bet (or not bet enough to make it count). They recognize it as part of the game. They know they have an edge, and can quantify it. So they can step back and be objective, about both winning and losing.

Of course sharp players detest losing because they know something went wrong. To finish the thought, sharp players look at the loss as a learning experience. Did I select poorly? Did I bet poorly? What did I miss? Of course they recognize that losing is part of the game, but the sharp player looks to turn loses around, not just say c'est la vie and forget about it. The sharp player expects to win and is disappointed in himself when he doesn't. The solution to that is to figure out if you need to do something better.

You ever play sports? You ever have a coach that just said, oh well, we lost? The good ones use the loss to improve. You're talking something different than I am. You can detest the loss, but ultimately accept the loss and learn from it.

You always learn more from your failures than your successes. If you aren't looking at the races you lose and trying to figure out what went wrong, you're missing an opportunity.

"Great success is built on failure, frustration, even catastrophy."
~ Sumner Redstone

[thaskalos]

This discussion is beginning to show that there are probably 2 different types of problem gamblers.

1) Thaskalos's delusional gambler. The guy that isn't getting a buzz from his scores as much as he believes he can repeat the scores often enough to help avoid the pain of his hum-drum existence, and

2) HOH's compulsive gambler. The guy that isn't trying to repeat his scores often enough to avoid his hum-drum life, but to create a life of never ending, ever increasing, excitement.

My guess is that the A-guys beat the B-guys by a 10-1 ratio.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Can you add to bad luck, bad rides, close photos........bad decisions? or is that a different problem? Does the compulsive gambler ever blame themselves in the midst of their downfall? Or is there a victim mentality?
Sure. The stewards can be against them as well. Most of the time they don't see themselves as incompetent as they are. They lose 90% of the photos, their jockeys are bums, etc. If the compulsive gambler didn't believe the win was close, he wouldn't chase it. And often, when they hit the big one, they delude themselves into believing their luck has changed and they bet even bigger. I'm not sure it's a victim mentality, but most of the losers might agree that the racing gods are against them.

[Dark Horse]

Of course sharp players detest losing because they know something went wrong. To finish the thought, sharp players look at the loss as a learning experience. Did I select poorly? Did I bet poorly? What did I miss? Of course they recognize that losing is part of the game, but the sharp player looks to turn loses around, not just say c'est la vie and forget about it. The sharp player expects to win and is disappointed in himself when he doesn't. The solution to that is to figure out if you need to do something better.

You ever play sports? You ever have a coach that just said, oh well, we lost? The good ones use the loss to improve. You're talking something different than I am. You can detest the loss, but ultimately accept the loss and learn from it.

You always learn more from your failures than your successes. If you aren't looking at the races you lose and trying to figure out what went wrong, you're missing an opportunity.

"Great success is built on failure, frustration, even catastrophy."
~ Sumner Redstone

The problem in life, amplified by gambling, is not the ability to make mistakes. It is the stupidity to keep repeating them.

Post race analysis is crucial and common sense. But if you take it all the way to the extreme of 'detesting a loss', then you're undermining yourself in another area. If any type of investor would truly detest a loss he would be too afraid to invest.

[thaskalos]

Of course sharp players detest losing because they know something went wrong. To finish the thought, sharp players look at the loss as a learning experience. Did I select poorly? Did I bet poorly? What did I miss? Of course they recognize that losing is part of the game, but the sharp player looks to turn loses around, not just say c'est la vie and forget about it. The sharp player expects to win and is disappointed in himself when he doesn't. The solution to that is to figure out if you need to do something better.

You ever play sports? You ever have a coach that just said, oh well, we lost? The good ones use the loss to improve. You're talking something different than I am. You can detest the loss, but ultimately accept the loss and learn from it.

You always learn more from your failures than your successes. If you aren't looking at the races you lose and trying to figure out what went wrong, you're missing an opportunity.

"Great success is built on failure, frustration, even catastrophy."
~ Sumner Redstone
You are dead-wrong...IMO.

When a quarterback throws an interception...then it is definite that someone on his team made a mistake. But gamblers lose bets all the time...even when they play the game PERFECTLY. In gambling, your short-term destiny isn't in your own hands...because you rely on the performance of OTHERS when you place your bet. The most that you can do is to position yourself favorably against the odds. Whether you collect or not isn't up to you.

How can you "expect to win your bet, and be disappointed when you lose"...when the facts say that you will lose your horse bets about 70% of the time?

Say that you are a sports bettor...and you are confident that you will win 56% of your bets, long-term. That's like putting 56 black jellybeans and 44 red jellybeans into an opaque container...and trying to find a black one with your eyes closed. You try it...and you pick a red one instead. Did you make a "mistake"...and if so...what can you LEARN from it?

[Stillriledup]

You are dead-wrong...IMO.

When a quarterback throws an interception...then it is definite that someone on his team made a mistake. But gamblers lose bets all the time...even when they play the game PERFECTLY. In gambling, your short-term destiny isn't in your own hands...because you rely on the performance of OTHERS when you place your bet. The most that you can do is to position yourself favorably against the odds. Whether you collect or not isn't up to you.

How can you "expect to win your bet, and be disappointed when you lose"...when the facts say that you will lose your horse bets about 70% of the time?

Say that you are a sports bettor...and you are confident that you will win 56% of your bets, long-term. That's like putting 56 black jellybeans and 44 red jellybeans into an opaque container...and trying to find a black one with your eyes closed. You try it...and you pick a red one instead. Did you make a "mistake"...and if so...what can you LEARN from it?

I agree w Halv, I think when you make a bet you THINK you are going to win, maybe the word expect is too strong, but you're not going to make bets you feel are going to lose.

[thaskalos]

I agree w Halv, I think when you make a bet you THINK you are going to win, maybe the word expect is too strong, but you're not going to make bets you feel are going to lose.
Ridiculous. Any reasonable horseplayer knows that he will lose at least TWICE as often as he will win, regardless of his skill...and he knows this from the very start.

[ultracapper]

Sure. The stewards can be against them as well. Most of the time they don't see themselves as incompetent as they are. They lose 90% of the photos, their jockeys are bums, etc. If the compulsive gambler didn't believe the win was close, he wouldn't chase it. And often, when they hit the big one, they delude themselves into believing their luck has changed and they bet even bigger. I'm not sure it's a victim mentality, but most of the losers might agree that the racing gods are against them.

The bold is where I was going with that question. The decision made by the player. I was wondering if you could lump together bad rides, bad luck, short end of photos....and player error. Does the compulsive gambler you describe blame it on himself at all as he is spiralling down? Or does that realization indicate the beginning of pulling out of the spiral?

[thaskalos]

I agree w Halv, I think when you make a bet you THINK you are going to win, maybe the word expect is too strong, but you're not going to make bets you feel are going to lose.

Let me ask you something, SRU:

You make a horse 3-1 on your betting line...and you bet it because it goes off at 6-1. How "confident" are you that this horse will win...and how "disappointed" should you be if it loses?

[pandy]

As has been mentioned here, there probably are different types of compulsive gamblers. I've known several alcoholics and found that they can be quite different. You have the ones who drink every day and sneak vodka...then there's the binge drinkers who actually don't drink at all for months then disappear for a week or so, Spencer Tracy did that and I knew someone like that. Then you have the party animal who doesn't know when to stop. Then you have the drinkers who get nasty or turn into a monster when drunk, like Walter Case, Jr. There are all different types but they all have a serious addiction. I used to work with a guy who drank at work but never on nights, weekends, or parties, so his wife never saw him drunk.

[ReplayRandall]

Of course sharp players detest losing over a period of two years, because THEN, they know something went wrong.

FTFY......Totally correct statement now.

[Stillriledup]

Let me ask you something, SRU:

You make a horse 3-1 on your betting line...and you bet it because it goes off at 6-1. How "confident" are you that this horse will win...and how "disappointed" should you be if it loses?

Odds aren't a factor for me personally, I've had 10-1 shots I've bet that I thought there needed to be divine intervention to get beat. I try and make bets I think are going to win, but if there's a horse i think has a shot and is a big overlay, ill bet it but won't have my hopes up too much only because it's a bet I'm making due to a mistake the public is making rather than something I've uncovered before the betting pools even opened.

[thaskalos]

Odds aren't a factor for me personally, I've had 10-1 shots I've bet that I thought there needed to be divine intervention to get beat. I try and make bets I think are going to win, but if there's a horse i think has a shot and is a big overlay, ill bet it but won't have my hopes up too much only because it's a bet I'm making due to a mistake the public is making rather than something I've uncovered before the betting pools even opened.

And, according to your records...how often would you say that these bets of yours win? And when they LOSE...have you made a "mistake"?

[Grits]

I'm appreciative of all who write and share their opinions here. However, HOH, somehow, you're convinced that you're able to cover the topic completely, and are 100% correct, on all paragraphs you type, especially given, your copious amount of research and the great number of people you talk to beforehand. You've got a direct line to--God knows--everybody.

Yes, I did know Bundy was, in short, "a head case". And too, I know who Dr.James Dobson was...believe he's dead now. Maybe? Tell me 'cause I'm not positive.

The difference between you and I? I don't have to write a thesis to enter into the conversation a simple point that I thought was worth viewing.

But you wanna know what I know about Thaskalos? And I've never spoken one word to him, other than what you see here. One pm, one time, maybe, since 2007. This man has the skill to communicate his knowledge, and converse on this case, (and often, others) with real life evidence that doesn't involve research or phone calls. That doesn't involve--I know so and so. This man has made a living playing horses and he ADMITTED to a gambling addiction. I'm sorry, but I'll go with him if there's any "schooling" for others here on the subject of gambling addiction and the pipe dreams that accompany it.

Carry on, gentlemen. I hope Mr.Milch doesn't have to stay in his dump in Santa Monica for too terribly long..my heart bleeds for him. :rolleyes:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You are dead-wrong...IMO.

When a quarterback throws an interception...then it is definite that someone on his team made a mistake. But gamblers lose bets all the time...even when they play the game PERFECTLY. In gambling, your short-term destiny isn't in your own hands...because you rely on the performance of OTHERS when you place your bet. The most that you can do is to position yourself favorably against the odds. Whether you collect or not isn't up to you.

How can you "expect to win your bet, and be disappointed when you lose"...when the facts say that you will lose your horse bets about 70% of the time?

Say that you are a sports bettor...and you are confident that you will win 56% of your bets, long-term. That's like putting 56 black jellybeans and 44 red jellybeans into an opaque container...and trying to find a black one with your eyes closed. You try it...and you pick a red one instead. Did you make a "mistake"...and if so...what can you LEARN from it?

You are usually pretty sharp in your posts, but that one was a clunker, and nothing you said refuted what I was talking about.

So you make a bet and expect to lose 70% of the time so when you lose you aren't disappointed? And you don't look at the losing bet to improve and cut your losing percentage to say, 60%? What exactly is your point, because mine was that sharp players use losing bets to improve. Which I'm pretty sure I'm dead right about.

The fact that a quarterback knows he is unlikely to get through a season without interceptions doesn't often provide him with apathy about the ones he does throw. He finds the mistake and tries to correct it. At least the good ones do. I'll reiterate what I said. You can detest the loss (or interception), and if you are smart learn from it, accept it and move on. OBVIOUSLY you know you aren't going to win every bet, and OBVIOUSLY if you are good at selecting, identifying value, and investing you have a good chance of coming out ahead, but betting without thinking you made a winning bet is against human nature. If you aren't the delusional bettor you understand the win/lose breakout, process the losing bet and move on, but having a robotic ability to never get upset at a loss because losses happen is probably fairly unique.

Your example of the jelly beans is absurd. I expect to win 56% because my selections and bets aren't random or based on fixed odds.

I usually find people who say dead wrong and they aren't talking about whether the earth is round or flat to have the sort of dogmatic personality that causes them to see the world in absolutes rather than shades of gray. You can do so much better. I've seen you do it.

[VigorsTheGrey]

[QUOTE=thaskalos]The gambling addict isn't looking to lose...and he isn't trying to "punish himself". That's the biggest crock that's ever been said or written. He wants to WIN...DESPERATELY! But he CAN'T win...because the recklessness that he has allowed to form within him is the ANTITHESIS of what successful gambling demands. He isn't really sick...he is DELUSIONAL. But he CAN'T win...because the recklessness that he has allowed to form within him is the ANTITHESIS of what successful gambling demands. He isn't really sick...he is DELUSIONAL. He is optimistic about his profitability-chances in this game...but his optimism is IRRATIONAL. There is no REASON for it./QUOTE]

Indeed!

Thaskalos, before I begin, I would like to thank you for your ideas here on PA. There is a saying that "When the pupil is ready the teacher appears." I feel that I am that "pupil" and that YOU are that "teacher."

I have never said that to anyone before in my life before and I am NOT saying it here out of any obsequious or sycophantic motives...I only joined this board a few days ago, and, in an earlier post, regarding Thomas McCormick's book, I said that, "I don't know you from Adam, but..."
and you immediately gave to me title of book that you cherish...It is how you respond to me and others and your intelligent post that I find so very attractive and at the same time consoling...You seem to speak to my, for lack of a more precise term, soul....
...Since I read your Mantra, ..."the readiness is all" spoken by Shakespear's Hamlet, I began to research the importance of this phrase...and to ponder why you might have chosen it as your Mantra...
...Without going into detail, I understand it as indicative of Hamlet's personal conversion from an indubitably tragic figure to someone more positive and effective...
I would suggest here that the reformed addict is one who has somehow and in whatever way he can, internalized and effectively acts on that...readyness that has now become all, for himself...and that he does this not only for himself only, but also, for those around him...As a former abuser of alcohol myself, I find great solace in this mantra and it is now a source of inspiration for me...so thank you!

Your words, [B]"But he CAN'T win...because the recklessness that he has allowed to form within him is the ANTITHESIS of what successful gambling demands. He isn't really sick...he is DELUSIONAL" ....rings so true for me and my own gambling behavior....Coming to terms with this delusion of mine that, "He is optimistic about his profitability-chances in this game...but his optimism is IRRATIONAL. There is no REASON for it."

I have always claimed to be a man of reason, a child of the Enlightenment, but I now know that I am just rationalizing my delusions, and just cherry picking sections of my "factual reality"....those sections that serve to reinforce my delusional thinking....Vigors

[VigorsTheGrey]

[QUOTE=thaskalos]The gambling addict isn't looking to lose...and he isn't trying to "punish himself". That's the biggest crock that's ever been said or written. He wants to WIN...DESPERATELY! But he CAN'T win...because the recklessness that he has allowed to form within him is the ANTITHESIS of what successful gambling demands. He isn't really sick...he is DELUSIONAL. But he CAN'T win...because the recklessness that he has allowed to form within him is the ANTITHESIS of what successful gambling demands. He isn't really sick...he is DELUSIONAL. He is optimistic about his profitability-chances in this game...but his optimism is IRRATIONAL. There is no REASON for it./QUOTE]

Indeed!

Thaskalos, before I begin, I would like to thank you for your ideas here on PA. There is a saying that "When the pupil is ready the teacher appears." I feel that I am that "pupil" and that YOU are that "teacher."

I have never said that to anyone before in my life before and I am NOT saying it here out of any obsequious or sycophantic motives...I only joined this board a few days ago, and, in an earlier post, regarding Thomas McCormick's book, I said that, "I don't know you from Adam, but..."
and you immediately gave to me title of book that you cherish...It is how you respond to me and others and your intelligent post that I find so very attractive and at the same time consoling...You seem to speak to my, for lack of a more precise term, soul....
...Since I read your Mantra, ..."the readiness is all" spoken by Shakespear's Hamlet, I began to research the importance of this phrase...and to ponder why you might have chosen it as your Mantra...
...Without going into detail, I understand it as indicative of Hamlet's personal conversion from an indubitably tragic figure to someone more positive and effective...
I would suggest here that the reformed addict is one who has somehow and in whatever way he can, internalized and effectively acts on that...readyness that has now become all, for himself...and that he does this not only for himself only, but also, for those around him...As a former abuser of alcohol myself, I find great solace in this mantra and it is now a source of inspiration for me...so thank you!

Your words, [B]"But he CAN'T win...because the recklessness that he has allowed to form within him is the ANTITHESIS of what successful gambling demands. He isn't really sick...he is DELUSIONAL" ....rings so true for me and my own gambling behavior....Coming to terms with this delusion of mine that, "He is optimistic about his profitability-chances in this game...but his optimism is IRRATIONAL. There is no REASON for it."

I have always claimed to be a man of reason, a child of the Enlightenment, but I now know that I am just rationalizing my delusions, and just cherry picking sections of my "factual reality"....those sections that serve to reinforce my delusional thinking....Vigors

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I'm appreciative of all who write and share their opinions here. However, HOH, somehow, you're convinced that you're able to cover the topic completely, and are 100% correct, on all paragraphs you type, especially given, your copious amount of research and the great number of people you talk to beforehand. You've got a direct line to--God knows--everybody.

Yes, I did know Bundy was, in short, "a head case". And too, I know who Dr.James Dobson was...believe he's dead now. Maybe? Tell me 'cause I'm not positive.

The difference between you and I? I don't have to write a thesis to enter into the conversation a simple point that I thought was worth viewing.

But you wanna know what I know about Thaskalos? And I've never spoken one word to him, other than what you see here. One pm, one time, maybe, since 2007. This man has the skill to communicate his knowledge, and converse on this case, (and often, others) with real life evidence that doesn't involve research or phone calls. That doesn't involve--I know so and so. This man has made a living playing horses and he ADMITTED to a gambling addiction. I'm sorry, but I'll go with him if there's any "schooling" for others here on the subject of gambling addiction and the pipe dreams that accompany it.

Carry on, gentlemen. I hope Mr.Milch doesn't have to stay in his dump in Santa Monica for too terribly long..my heart bleeds for him. :rolleyes:

Dobson is 79 and living in Louisiana.

Most of the paragraphs I type are a result of my research. If I am expressing an off the cuff opinion I say so. Writing about horseracing is my avocation and I take it seriously. Most of the things I post on my blog I research thoroughly, and frankly I don't see that as a negative. Talking to experts and quoting studies IS real life evidence. And if passing what I've learned on to you is too much detail, don't read it. If you think that comes off as know it all, you're entitled to your opinion.

[ReplayRandall]

You are usually pretty sharp in your posts, but that one was a clunker, and nothing you said refuted what I was talking about.

So you make a bet and expect to lose 70% of the time so when you lose you aren't disappointed? And you don't look at the losing bet to improve and cut your losing percentage to say, 60%? What exactly is your point, because mine was that sharp players use losing bets to improve. Which I'm pretty sure I'm dead right about.

The fact that a quarterback knows he is unlikely to get through a season without interceptions doesn't often provide him with apathy about the ones he does throw. He finds the mistake and tries to correct it. At least the good ones do. I'll reiterate what I said. You can detest the loss (or interception), and if you are smart learn from it, accept it and move on. OBVIOUSLY you know you aren't going to win every bet, and OBVIOUSLY if you are good at selecting, identifying value, and investing you have a good chance of coming out ahead, but betting without thinking you made a winning bet is against human nature. If you aren't the delusional bettor you understand the win/lose breakout, process the losing bet and move on, but having a robotic ability to never get upset at a loss because losses happen is probably fairly unique.

Your example of the jelly beans is absurd. I expect to win 56% because my selections and bets aren't random or based on fixed odds.

I usually find people who say dead wrong and they aren't talking about whether the earth is round or flat to have the sort of dogmatic personality that causes them to see the world in absolutes rather than shades of gray. You can do so much better. I've seen you do it.

Honey, will you make me some popcorn?....Yes, and a Dos Equis XX. No I can't get it myself, I can't leave my computer right now. For a slow Tuesday, there's some action about to start on PA.....

[ultracapper]

Keep trying Vig.

You'll get there.

[Saratoga_Mike]

But you wanna know what I know about Thaskalos? And I've never spoken one word to him, other than what you see here. One pm, one time, maybe, since 2007. This man has the skill to communicate his knowledge, and converse on this case, (and often, others) with real life evidence that doesn't involve research or phone calls. That doesn't involve--I know so and so. This man has made a living playing horses and he ADMITTED to a gambling addiction. I'm sorry, but I'll go with him if there's any "schooling" for others here on the subject of gambling addiction and the pipe dreams that accompany it. :

...and there's often a Dostoyevsky-quality to his posts ... that I very much enjoy.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Thaskalos, before I begin, I would like to thank you for your ideas here on PA. There is a saying that "When the pupil is ready the teacher appears." I feel that I am that "pupil" and that YOU are that "teacher."

I have never said that to anyone before in my life before and I am NOT saying it here out of any obsequious or sycophantic motives...I only joined this board a few days ago, and, in an earlier post, regarding Thomas McCormick's book, I said that, "I don't know you from Adam, but..."
and you immediately gave to me title of book that you cherish...It is how you respond to me and others and your intelligent post that I find so very attractive and at the same time consoling...You seem to speak to my, for lack of a more precise term, soul....
...Since I read your Mantra, ..."the readiness is all" spoken by Shakespear's Hamlet, I began to research the importance of this phrase...and to ponder why you might have chosen it as your Mantra...
...Without going into detail, I understand it as indicative of Hamlet's personal conversion from an indubitably tragic figure to someone more positive and effective...
I would suggest here that the reformed addict is one who has somehow and in whatever way he can, internalized and effectively acts on that...readyness that has now become all, for himself...and that he does this not only for himself only, but also, for those around him...As a former abuser of alcohol myself, I find great solace in this mantra and it is now a source of inspiration for me...so thank you!

Your words, "But he CAN'T win...because the recklessness that he has allowed to form within him is the ANTITHESIS of what successful gambling demands. He isn't really sick...he is DELUSIONAL" ....rings so true for me and my own gambling behavior....Coming to terms with this delusion of mine that, "He is optimistic about his profitability-chances in this game...but his optimism is IRRATIONAL. There is no REASON for it."

I have always claimed to be a man of reason, a child of the Enlightenment, but I now know that I am just rationalizing my delusions, and just cherry picking sections of my "factual reality"....those sections that serve to reinforce my delusional thinking....Vigors

[thaskalos]

You are usually pretty sharp in your posts, but that one was a clunker, and nothing you said refuted what I was talking about.

So you make a bet and expect to lose 70% of the time so when you lose you aren't disappointed? And you don't look at the losing bet to improve and cut your losing percentage to say, 60%? What exactly is your point, because mine was that sharp players use losing bets to improve. Which I'm pretty sure I'm dead right about.

The fact that a quarterback knows he is unlikely to get through a season without interceptions doesn't often provide him with apathy about the ones he does throw. He finds the mistake and tries to correct it. At least the good ones do. I'll reiterate what I said. You can detest the loss (or interception), and if you are smart learn from it, accept it and move on. OBVIOUSLY you know you aren't going to win every bet, and OBVIOUSLY if you are good at selecting, identifying value, and investing you have a good chance of coming out ahead, but betting without thinking you made a winning bet is against human nature. If you aren't the delusional bettor you understand the win/lose breakout, process the losing bet and move on, but having a robotic ability to never get upset at a loss because losses happen is probably fairly unique.

Your example of the jelly beans is absurd. I expect to win 56% because my selections and bets aren't random or based on fixed odds.

I usually find people who say dead wrong and they aren't talking about whether the earth is round or flat to have the sort of dogmatic personality that causes them to see the world in absolutes rather than shades of gray. You can do so much better. I've seen you do it.

I said that you were "dead-wrong"...and you said that my post was a "clunker". Are we EVEN now?

NO...of course I am not "disappointed" when I lose a bet. It's an inescapable occupational hazard. Was Michael Jordan "disappointed" whenever he missed a shot? You want me to do a better job of posting? I'll do even better than that. I'll let someone much more significant than I to do my posting for me:

"I've missed more than 9,000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the last shot...and I missed. I've failed over, and over, and over again in my life. And that's why I succeed."
-- Michael Jordan

Does THIS guy sound as if he gets "disappointed" when he makes his "mistakes"? And he has the ball IN HIS HANDS...while WE have to depend on others to do the lion's share of the work when we put our money down at the windows. We read a few PP lines representing an event that took place WEEKS ago, and maybe watch a few replays...and we think that we are "in control" of our bet. :rolleyes:

[Grits]

Dobson is 79 and living in Louisiana.

Most of the paragraphs I type are a result of my research. If I am expressing an off the cuff opinion I say so. Writing about horseracing is my avocation and I take it seriously. Most of the things I post on my blog I research thoroughly, and frankly I don't see that as a negative. Talking to experts and quoting studies IS real life evidence. And if passing what I've learned on to you is too much detail, don't read it. If you think that comes off as know it all, you're entitled to your opinion.

You're correct, I am entitled to my opinion and so is everyone else here. At the same time, I can recognize quality communication skills--and Thask has them. You, on the other hand, regardless of the topic, type as one not greatly interested with others opinions, comments, etc, while instead, concerned, primarily, with only your cross examination. You, often, act as if these gentlemen just entered this arena, HOH! They've NOT.

[TJDave]

...and there's often a Dostoyevsky-quality to his posts ... that I very much enjoy.

High praise and also interesting in that Dostoevsky suffered from gambling addiction.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I said that you were "dead-wrong"...and you said that my post was a "clunker". Are we EVEN now?

NO...of course I am not "disappointed" when I lose a bet. It's an inescapable occupational hazard. Was Michael Jordan "disappointed" whenever he missed a shot? You want me to do a better job of posting? I'll do even better than that. I'll let someone much more significant than I to do my posting for me:

"I've missed more than 9,000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the last shot...and I missed. I've failed over, and over, and over again in my life. And that's why I succeed."
-- Michael Jordan

Does THIS guy sound as if he gets "disappointed" when he makes his "mistakes"? And he has the ball IN HIS HANDS...while WE have to depend on others to do the lion's share of the work when we put our money down at the windows. We read a few PP lines representing an event that took place WEEKS ago, and maybe watch a few replays...and we think that we are "in control" of our bet. :rolleyes:

As usual, we are not quite as far apart as it might appear. I understand your point. I expect you understand mine, and neither is horribly off base.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You're correct, I am entitled to my opinion and so is everyone else here. At the same time, I can recognize quality communication skills--and Thask has them. You, on the other hand, regardless of the topic, type as one not greatly interested with others opinions, comments, etc, while instead, concerned, primarily, with only your cross examination. You, often, act as if these gentlemen just entered this arena, HOH! They've NOT.
I disagree. I have quite a lot of respect for the better posters here, including Thask, and I do take away perspective on a lot of his points. In fact, we are often in much closer agreement than it may seem and it may take a few posts to make that obvious. In fact, there is even a post somewhere in this thread where I say I totally agree with him. You sell me short if you think I post simply to be a provocateur. None of us hits bullseye everytime, me included, but I find the repartee valuable.

[thaskalos]

Your example of the jelly beans is absurd. I expect to win 56% because my selections and bets aren't random or based on fixed odds.



My jellybean example isn't "absurd"...you are just misunderstanding it. I said nothing about "random"...or "based on fixed odds". What I said was that a 56% winning percentage in sports betting is the equivalent of putting 56 black jellybeans and 44 red jellybeans in a jar...and trying to pick a black one with your eyes closed. Regardless of how "skilled" you are, you will still lose 44% of the time. And there isn't much that you can do about that.

I know...I know. You wrote for Horseplayer and for American Turf Monthly...and you have your own blog -- where you get to converse with "experts". But...take it from a little guy out in the Windy City...you are WRONG on this one. The sharp player does his handicapping BEFORE the race, because that's the only time when mistakes could be corrected. And when he LOSES a bet, as he so often does...he shrugs his shoulders and moves on to the NEXT race...because he knows that the ball doesn't always bounce his way. No matter how much we try to "improve" as players...there is a degree of unpredictability to this game that we just can't overcome.

We may not LIKE "losing"...but the game requires that we handle short-term losing, without losing our composure...and we can't do that if the short-term losses "disappoint" us.

One might say that, in order to WIN...we have to be "good losers". "Bad losers" don't last long in this game...and then they have to go out looking for writing gigs in horse racing publications. :)

Ciao.

[Stillriledup]

And, according to your records...how often would you say that these bets of yours win? And when they LOSE...have you made a "mistake"?

When I feel strongly a horse can't lose, they win a lot. Problem is, these types don't come along very often. I would never feel I made a mistake on a bet I feel that strongly about.

[thaskalos]

High praise and also interesting in that Dostoevsky suffered from gambling addiction.

For Dostoevsky...or for ME? :cool:

[Grits]

I disagree. I have quite a lot of respect for the better posters here, including Thask, and I do take away perspective on a lot of his points. In fact, we are often in much closer agreement than it may seem and it may take a few posts to make that obvious. In fact, there is even a post somewhere in this thread where I say I totally agree with him. You sell me short if you think I post simply to be a provocateur. None of us hits bullseye everytime, me included, but I find the repartee valuable.

Another difference.

You may want to consider, please, having respect for EVERYONE here.

Everyone is capable, everyone matters. Everyone, here, loves this game.

[VigorsTheGrey]

[QUOTE=

One might say that, in order to WIN...we have to be "good losers". "Bad losers" don't last long in this game...and then they have to go out looking for writing gigs in horse racing publications. :)

Ciao.[/QUOTE]

Ill just say it for him "touche" Love the repartee

Vigors

[thaskalos]

When I feel strongly a horse can't lose, they win a lot. Problem is, these types don't come along very often. I would never feel I made a mistake on a bet I feel that strongly about.

"They win a lot"...you say. That sounds like some of the horseplayers that I know...who tell me that they are doing "pretty good".

If I only knew what that meant. :)

[HalvOnHorseracing]

My jellybean example isn't "absurd"...you are just misunderstanding it. I said nothing about "random"...or "based on fixed odds". What I said was that a 56% winning percentage in sports betting is the equivalent of putting 56 black jellybeans and 44 red jellybeans in a jar...and trying to pick a black one with your eyes closed. Regardless of how "skilled" you are, you will still lose 44% of the time. And there isn't much that you can do about that.

I know...I know. You wrote for Horseplayer and for American Turf Monthly...and you have your own blog -- where you get to converse with "experts". But...take it from a little guy out in the Windy City...you are WRONG on this one. The sharp player does his handicapping BEFORE the race, because that's the only time when mistakes could be corrected. And when he LOSES a bet, as he so often does...he shrugs his shoulders and moves on to the NEXT race...because he knows that the ball doesn't always bounce his way. No matter how much we try to "improve" as players...there is a degree of unpredictability to this game that we just can't overcome.

We may not LIKE "losing"...but the game requires that we handle short-term losing, without losing our composure...and we can't do that if the short-term losses "disappoint" us.

One might say that, in order to WIN...we have to be "good losers". "Bad losers" don't last long in this game...and then they have to go out looking for writing gigs in horse racing publications. :)

Ciao.

We agree again. Bad losers don't last long. And we cannot perfectly predict everything. But even if you aren't doing it formally after every race, you have an idea when you are making a mistake, either handicapping or betting, and you try to fix it.

I referee HS basketball. One of the things we do all the time is watch game film of ourselves. We see our mistakes and our bad calls, and we use the tape to get better. Post facto, there is value in the review. Doesn't change the outcome, doesn't reverse a bad call, and we don't get angry or carry the mistakes around like a burden, but hopefully the next game gets the benefit.

I don't know that I've mentioned that most of my annual income comes from betting horses, so I'm not simply regurgitating research. For what it is worth.

[Stillriledup]

"They win a lot"...you say. That sounds like some of the horseplayers that I know...who tell me that they are doing "pretty good".

If I only knew what that meant. :)

If horses I thought "couldn't lose" kept losing, I would probably have given up the sport long ago.

;)

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Ill just say it for him "touche" Love the repartee

Vigors

Some of us write and play. And some of us are successful at both. No secrets. You can read my stuff and check my daily selections for the last year and a half or so at the blog.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Another difference.

You may want to consider, please, having respect for EVERYONE here.

Everyone is capable, everyone matters. Everyone, here, loves this game.
If I am ever disrespectful whether I agree or disagree, or call someone a name, you call me on it. I suppose I should have said I find some posts and posters more helpful than others.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Some of us write and play. And some of us are successful at both. No secrets. You can read my stuff and check my daily selections for the last year and a half or so at the blog.

Yes, my pointed remark only proves that I am human too, no offense intended, just getting caught up in the flurry of the posting moment....my mission here is to make friends and learn and I count you also as one of my teachers as do I of so many on this board... I appreciated how you have responded positively to my posts as well....Believe me I CAN be annoying at times...just part of my personality...like I say, I mean no harm and am looking for friends to share ideas with so if that is what you are interested in also...I'm there...
Regards,
Vigors

[whodoyoulike]

Sure. The stewards can be against them as well. Most of the time they don't see themselves as incompetent as they are. They lose 90% of the photos, their jockeys are bums, etc. If the compulsive gambler didn't believe the win was close, he wouldn't chase it. And often, when they hit the big one, they delude themselves into believing their luck has changed and they bet even bigger. I'm not sure it's a victim mentality, but most of the losers might agree that the racing gods are against them.

Your observation is amusing, sad and spot on and sounds like several on here.

[whodoyoulike]

... I hope Mr.Milch doesn't have to stay in his dump in Santa Monica for too terribly long..my heart bleeds for him. :rolleyes:

I know the article said they now live in a "modest" 1800 sq. ft. rental but when I lived in L.A., I wished I could've lived in Santa Monica next to the ocean. But, it's not like living in Brentwood.

[Grits]

I know the article said they now live in a "modest" 1800 sq. ft. rental but when I lived in L.A., I wished I could've lived in Santa Monica next to the ocean. But, it's not like living in Brentwood.

And that was exactly my point, WDYL.

Near the ocean ain't bad. ;)

[Dark Horse]

Perhaps tellingly, 'Luck' was about a bunch of degenerates winning big... Why are gambling movies always so standard? Either the degenerate loses, the moralistic angle, or he wins for the feel-good ending. The one exception was Rounders.

This just in. Gambling is not about horses. It's about math.

Among horse players, much more than sports bettors, the knowledge of the sport far outweighs knowledge of probability and gambling theory. I've talked to and learned from many sports bettors with a precise understanding of the math involved. At first I was staggered by how much they knew. On this forum the math is missing almost entirely. It's just not a topic of discussion. In sports betting its a given, among more serious players, that you calculate your own line. That same basic topic will draw a blank stare from almost all horse players.

Horse racing is easier to beat than sports, but its complexity is such that people can't see the forest for the trees. Why is it easier to beat? Because you get to toss horses out!!! The same playing field that the house in Vegas protects with a vengeance, to the point where they will toss out BJ card counters, is turned to the players advantage with a few tossouts. If you can't turn the playing field positive, pass on the race. And the next, and the next. Don't bet into a negative playing field. Lesson one, two, three, and four. That easy advantage becomes compounded if you learn how to properly construct exotic tickets. But that does require a precise and math-based approach.

Old schoolers with a huge amount of experience can still win, -my hat's off to them- but new school is taking over. You can't win with a loosey-goosey approach against an ever-growing army of computer nerds. Computers are too fast, they memorize too much. If you can't beat 'm...

[Grits]

If I am ever disrespectful whether I agree or disagree, or call someone a name, you call me on it. I suppose I should have said I find some posts and posters more helpful than others.

HOH, you'd never call anyone names, you're far above such foolishness. Besides, PA has cut out a tremendous amount of that, here. He raised the bar a long time ago. And it's working. :)

[thaskalos]

I don't know that I've mentioned that most of my annual income comes from betting horses, so I'm not simply regurgitating research. For what it is worth.
It's worth plenty. :ThmbUp:

Truth be told, I've visited your website quite often ever since we were first introduced here...and I like the work that you do. And I find your handicapping very impressive. That last remark in my prior post was made in jest; no offense meant, I assure you.

Disagreements are the spice of life...IMO. And that goes double for online horse racing discussions.

[thaskalos]

But you wanna know what I know about Thaskalos? And I've never spoken one word to him, other than what you see here. One pm, one time, maybe, since 2007. This man has the skill to communicate his knowledge, and converse on this case, (and often, others) with real life evidence that doesn't involve research or phone calls. That doesn't involve--I know so and so. This man has made a living playing horses and he ADMITTED to a gambling addiction. I'm sorry, but I'll go with him if there's any "schooling" for others here on the subject of gambling addiction and the pipe dreams that accompany it.



Thank you for the kind words...and the continuous support here. And please know that whatever kind sentiment you feel for me...I feel DOUBLE for you in return.

[Fox]

One might say that, in order to WIN...we have to be "good losers". "Bad losers" don't last long in this game...
.

Tell that to Cam Newton.

[thaskalos]

Tell that to Cam Newton.

Gambling is different than team sports. There are no real "losers" in team sports. Everybody wins.

[AndyC]

You are dead-wrong...IMO.

When a quarterback throws an interception...then it is definite that someone on his team made a mistake. But gamblers lose bets all the time...even when they play the game PERFECTLY. In gambling, your short-term destiny isn't in your own hands...because you rely on the performance of OTHERS when you place your bet. The most that you can do is to position yourself favorably against the odds. Whether you collect or not isn't up to you.

How can you "expect to win your bet, and be disappointed when you lose"...when the facts say that you will lose your horse bets about 70% of the time?

Say that you are a sports bettor...and you are confident that you will win 56% of your bets, long-term. That's like putting 56 black jellybeans and 44 red jellybeans into an opaque container...and trying to find a black one with your eyes closed. You try it...and you pick a red one instead. Did you make a "mistake"...and if so...what can you LEARN from it?


Did Ted Williams expect to get a hit every time he went to bat? Didn't he also fail to get a hit more than 60% of the time? Expectations don't have to match reality.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Yes, my pointed remark only proves that I am human too, no offense intended, just getting caught up in the flurry of the posting moment....my mission here is to make friends and learn and I count you also as one of my teachers as do I of so many on this board... I appreciated how you have responded positively to my posts as well....Believe me I CAN be annoying at times...just part of my personality...like I say, I mean no harm and am looking for friends to share ideas with so if that is what you are interested in also...I'm there...
Regards,
Vigors
Thanks for saying that. No offense taken at all. Actually, there are a few of us who write and play. If you haven't checked out Jonathan Stettin at pastthewire.com you should. He's a great handicapper and has some interesting topics. You might also check out Scott Shapiro who writes for horseracing nation and has a blog at shapperdacapper.com. All the opinions, articles, and selections at my web site are free, although some might say you get what you pay for. I think we all look to help handicappers with a variety of topics, some on handicapping, some on current issues.

I'm always happy to share ideas. Please don't hesitate to post about anything I write.

[MJC922]

Link?

The one poll I was speaking about ended with 57% admitting to a losing year in 2014 so it's clearly my error (20% being far off from there).

With that being said it indicates perhaps 40% of the folks are unable to admit losses in an anonymous poll. For the record it shows I voted in the poll, lost money in 2014. :)

[Track Collector]

And too, I know who Dr.James Dobson was...believe he's dead now. Maybe? Tell me 'cause I'm not positive.

If talking about Dr. James Dobson who was formerly associated with Focus on the Family, he is still with us.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

It's worth plenty. :ThmbUp:

Truth be told, I've visited your website quite often ever since we were first introduced here...and I like the work that you do. And I find your handicapping very impressive. That last remark in my prior post was made in jest; no offense meant, I assure you.

Disagreements are the spice of life...IMO. And that goes double for online horse racing discussions.
It's only fun to have a discussion where the other person stimulates you, and you certainly do that. I think you are the genuine article.

And we agree again. You never grow if you only talk to people who see things exactly like you do. Thanks for saying what you did. It's good to know we can look forward to more interesting topics.

Speaking of blogs, I owe a new blog this week. I'll have to stop doing so much here and get busy. This week's topic is Decoupling. Not sexy, but it could be a big deal in the next few years.

[thaskalos]

Thaskalos, before I begin, I would like to thank you for your ideas here on PA. There is a saying that "When the pupil is ready the teacher appears." I feel that I am that "pupil" and that YOU are that "teacher."

I have never said that to anyone before in my life before and I am NOT saying it here out of any obsequious or sycophantic motives...I only joined this board a few days ago, and, in an earlier post, regarding Thomas McCormick's book, I said that, "I don't know you from Adam, but..."
and you immediately gave to me title of book that you cherish...It is how you respond to me and others and your intelligent post that I find so very attractive and at the same time consoling...You seem to speak to my, for lack of a more precise term, soul....
...Since I read your Mantra, ..."the readiness is all" spoken by Shakespear's Hamlet, I began to research the importance of this phrase...and to ponder why you might have chosen it as your Mantra...
...Without going into detail, I understand it as indicative of Hamlet's personal conversion from an indubitably tragic figure to someone more positive and effective...
I would suggest here that the reformed addict is one who has somehow and in whatever way he can, internalized and effectively acts on that...readyness that has now become all, for himself...and that he does this not only for himself only, but also, for those around him...As a former abuser of alcohol myself, I find great solace in this mantra and it is now a source of inspiration for me...so thank you!

Your words, "But he CAN'T win...because the recklessness that he has allowed to form within him is the ANTITHESIS of what successful gambling demands. He isn't really sick...he is DELUSIONAL" ....rings so true for me and my own gambling behavior....Coming to terms with this delusion of mine that, "He is optimistic about his profitability-chances in this game...but his optimism is IRRATIONAL. There is no REASON for it."

I have always claimed to be a man of reason, a child of the Enlightenment, but I now know that I am just rationalizing my delusions, and just cherry picking sections of my "factual reality"....those sections that serve to reinforce my delusional thinking....Vigors

Vigors,

I didn't see this post until now...and I apologize for my tardy response. Thank you for the kind remarks...it comforts me to know that my words may have some small positive effect somewhere out there in cyberspace. It matters not that you just came here among us a short time ago; all of us were newcomers here once. What matters is that you are a nice guy...and nice people get preferential treatment here -- from me, at least. :) If there is anything of a specific nature that you feel I could help you with...please don't hesitate to ask.

It also doesn't matter what we once WERE. Of much more importance is what we aspire to BE...and whether or not we are willing to take the necessary steps to get there. Real change is hard, but it's possible...and no one knows that better than I.

Take your time with this game...and keep things in proper perspective. This game is capable of taking over your entire life, if you let it. And when that happens...even the WINNING players end up big losers, in the end.

Take it from someone who has been dead-serious about this game for 33 years now: There is much more to life than just playing a game...even if you are good at it.

Cheers. :ThmbUp:

[ReplayRandall]

The one poll I was speaking about ended with 57% admitting to a losing year in 2014 so it's clearly my error (20% being far off from there).

With that being said it indicates perhaps 40% of the folks are unable to admit losses in an anonymous poll. For the record it shows I voted in the poll, lost money in 2014. :)

See posts #166-167.....

[MJC922]

See posts #166-167.....

Thanks RR. PA was all over that one!

Delusional opened at 1/5 and is now up to 3/2. LOL

[MJC922]

I knew the 80% that he claimed was absolute garbage. In the poll you reference, nearly 60% admit to losing and another 10% admit to breaking even. 6% don't know or don't wanna know...lol

That leaves 24% who claim to be winners. I guess that's close to 80% when using crazy gorilla math.

We know in reality less than 5% are winners which leaves 19% of the 24% that are umm... well, I won't say that word again. Let's leave it at that, but now at least I know why the number stuck with me.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Thanks for saying that. No offense taken at all. Actually, there are a few of us who write and play. If you haven't checked out Jonathan Stettin at pastthewire.com you should. He's a great handicapper and has some interesting topics. You might also check out Scott Shapiro who writes for horseracing nation and has a blog at shapperdacapper.com. All the opinions, articles, and selections at my web site are free, although some might say you get what you pay for. I think we all look to help handicappers with a variety of topics, some on handicapping, some on current issues.

I'm always happy to share ideas. Please don't hesitate to post about anything I write.
Thank you so much for sharing these website with me(us)....The is exactly the kind of information format I'm looking for...I'll read up on all the archive postings...I just know this is going to help getting on to some future winners...
Regards, Vigors.

[whodoyoulike]

I said that you were "dead-wrong"...and you said that my post was a "clunker". Are we EVEN now?

:1: NO...of course I am not "disappointed" when I lose a bet. It's an inescapable occupational hazard. Was Michael Jordan "disappointed" whenever he missed a shot? You want me to do a better job of posting? I'll do even better than that. I'll let someone much more significant than I to do my posting for me:

:2: "I've missed more than 9,000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the last shot...and I missed. I've failed over, and over, and over again in my life. And that's why I succeed."
-- Michael Jordan

Does THIS guy sound as if he gets "disappointed" when he makes his "mistakes"? And he has the ball IN HIS HANDS...while WE have to depend on others to do the lion's share of the work when we put our money down at the windows. We read a few PP lines representing an event that took place WEEKS ago, and maybe watch a few replays...and we think that we are "in control" of our bet. :rolleyes:


Regarding:

:1: You're not very competitive if you really feel this way or you don't care if your selection(s) win or not. I do realize I'm not going to win every time I bet but if I'm not disappointed when the bet loses, I shouldn't have made the bet. And, this is what I've interpreted from HalvOnHorseracing and SRU responses.

:2: I have a problem when someone quotes something like this because what was the context of his statement. I don't think he was referring to being or not being disappointed in missing his shots but I'm guessing it was more in reference to not personally giving up but rather he will always try given the chance.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Honey, will you make me some popcorn?....Yes, and a Dos Equis XX. No I can't get it myself, I can't leave my computer right now. For a slow Tuesday, there's some action about to start on PA.....

This statement really is quite humorous...Double LOL! You are to be commended in your subtle humor....Every time I recall, it brings a smile to my face.... :) ....thank you!

[thaskalos]

Regarding:

:1: You're not very competitive if you really feel this way or you don't care if your selection(s) win or not. I do realize I'm not going to win every time I bet but if I'm not disappointed when the bet loses, I shouldn't have made the bet. And, this is what I've interpreted from HalvOnHorseracing and SRU responses.

:2: I have a problem when someone quotes something like this because what was the context of his statement. I don't think he was referring to being or not being disappointed in missing his shots but I'm guessing it was more in reference to not personally giving up but rather he will always try given the chance.

:1: You are absolutely right...I DON'T care if a particular selection of mine wins or not. I make many of them every day...and they individually represent only a tiny portion of my gambling bankroll. I might be wrong about this...but "competitiveness" in gambling means to me to keep making my normal bets while being totally unaffected by what transpired earlier in the day...or in the week. I couldn't do that if a single loss "disappointed" me. If one loss was capable of "disappointing" me...then, how could I possibly keep my composure during a long losing streak? I remain stoic during my gambling...and it isn't just an "act" that I put on. I worked hard to get myself to be this way, and I can't imagine functioning properly any other way...especially when keeping my entire concentration on the game is my primary concern. If I kept score by the race, or by the day...then maybe I would feel different about this. But keeping score by the race or the day isn't something that I recommend.

:2: Admittedly...I can't be sure of the context in which MJ made that comment. I came across only that particular quote...and I saved it because it meant something to me. But I doubt that the quote came about because someone asked him if he "personally felt like giving up" on occasion. I just can't picture anyone asking MJ that.

[Fox]

We know in reality less than 5% are winners which leaves 19% of the 24% that are umm... well, I won't say that word again. Let's leave it at that, but now at least I know why the number stuck with me.

1. The PaceAdvantage population may not accurately represent the larger population of all horse players.

2. Since participating in the poll was not required of all PA members, there is no doubt a high degree of sampling bias. Who's more likely to answer the poll, winners or losers?

Anyway, inferring that certain participants are "well umm...." whatever may be uncalled for.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Thaskalos,

Never Run Out Of Money!

For some reason this odd saying has lingered in the deep recesses of my cerebral cortex for years and years....Still I can't make it work! Even if I win early, most times I still walk out empty pockets Sam....What you say about composure, Thaskalos, I can tell you, is absolutely true...If I string too many losses together at any one go...that's it....the chase begins!

But I'm SO relieved now that I know that I am delusional FOR SURE....It's like a big load came of my chest....I don't have to think that its ME anymore... it's my delusion that is making me the way I AM! I don't know how many times I actually thought I could make a living doing this....You're right, I don't have what it takes, that composure, under stress...I know myself....

So now I can just go back to having fun, I think....but no, I can never go back...I know now that I never really brought my "A" game...Heck, I never was clear about what my "A" game was, until you mentioned it, that our "A" might just.... BE GOOD ENOUGH.....if only we brought it all the time. How significant IS THAT!

Now, I'm breaking out of my delusion into the clear light of...of...of I know not what! Only that....it isn't going to be what it was....I'm just trying to picture in my mind what MY "A" game is now.

That game that you have worked so hard to have for YOU. And I know that my "A" game will probably NOT look like your "A" game or Nitro's "A" game...or Raybo "A" game....Because all of our "A" games are ONLY OURS, not anybody else's. And so I'm trying to picture in my mind how to go about constructing an "A" game now....and I'm wondering, and wondering....Am I just being delusional AGAIN?

Vigors.

[lansdale]

:1: You are absolutely right...I DON'T care if a particular selection of mine wins or not. I make many of them every day...and they individually represent only a tiny portion of my gambling bankroll. I might be wrong about this...but "competitiveness" in gambling means to me to keep making my normal bets while being totally unaffected by what transpired earlier in the day...or in the week. I couldn't do that if a single loss "disappointed" me. If one loss was capable of "disappointing" me...then, how could I possibly keep my composure during a long losing streak? I remain stoic during my gambling...and it isn't just an "act" that I put on. I worked hard to get myself to be this way, and I can't imagine functioning properly any other way...especially when keeping my entire concentration on the game is my primary concern. If I kept score by the race, or by the day...then maybe I would feel different about this. But keeping score by the race or the day isn't something that I recommend.

:2: Admittedly...I can't be sure of the context in which MJ made that comment. I came across only that particular quote...and I saved it because it meant something to me. But I doubt that the quote came about because someone asked him if he "personally felt like giving up" on occasion. I just can't picture anyone asking MJ that.

This is absolutely the attitude of every professional gambler I know. As blackjack guru Stanford Wong has said, "Icewater in the veins and steely blue eyes are de riguer." Anyone who knows he has an edge, knows he also must lose. As Wong says, "If you want to make a lot of money gambling, you have to bet a lot and you have to be willing to lose a lot."

Anyone who doesn't understand this, doesn't understand variance. A blackjack card counter (the counterpart of a professional horseplayer) doesn't feel 'disappointed' when a face card busts his two-card 16, and say, 'how could I have played that better.' He knows he played it correctly. If he is a long-term profitable player, so does the successful horseplayer. And the latter also should understand (although almost none do) that the results of one race are meaningless and completely useless in providing feedback about the value of any specific bet.

The idea that analyzing sports performance is similar to analyzing the value of a bet is a false analogy. Sports performance is far easier to understand, because the mechanics are completely standardized. Either a coach can locate a problem with your mechanics, or you can do so yourself by watching film. And one's performance, to a great extent, is based on innate talent and coordination. Only if one is using a database, and has some facility with statistics can one analyze one's mistakes in this way. The tradtional handicapper requires much more time - years - and effort to come to accurate conclusions about their play.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

This is absolutely the attitude of every professional gambler I know. As blackjack guru Stanford Wong has said, "Icewater in the veins and steely blue eyes are de riguer." Anyone who knows he has an edge, knows he also must lose. As Wong says, "If you want to make a lot of money gambling, you have to bet a lot and you have to be willing to lose a lot."

Anyone who doesn't understand this, doesn't understand variance. A blackjack card counter (the counterpart of a professional horseplayer) doesn't feel 'disappointed' when a face card busts his two-card 16, and say, 'how could I have played that better.' He knows he played it correctly. If he is a long-term profitable player, so does the successful horseplayer. And the latter also should understand (although almost none do) that the results of one race are meaningless and completely useless in providing feedback about the value of any specific bet.

The idea that analyzing sports performance is similar to analyzing the value of a bet is a false analogy. Sports performance is far easier to understand, because the mechanics are completely standardized. Either a coach can locate a problem with your mechanics, or you can do so yourself by watching film. And one's performance, to a great extent, is based on innate talent and coordination. Only if one is using a database, and has some facility with statistics can one analyze one's mistakes in this way. The tradtional handicapper requires much more time - years - and effort to come to accurate conclusions about their play.
I think this horse has been thoroughly flogged. I'm out on this one.

[ultracapper]

Thaskalos,

Never Run Out Of Money!

For some reason this odd saying has lingered in the deep recesses of my cerebral cortex for years and years....Still I can't make it work! Even if I win early, most times I still walk out empty pockets Sam....What you say about composure, Thaskalos, I can tell you, is absolutely true...If I string too many losses together at any one go...that's it....the chase begins!

But I'm SO relieved now that I know that I am delusional FOR SURE....It's like a big load came of my chest....I don't have to think that its ME anymore... it's my delusion that is making me the way I AM! I don't know how many times I actually thought I could make a living doing this....You're right, I don't have what it takes, that composure, under stress...I know myself....

So now I can just go back to having fun, I think....but no, I can never go back...I know now that I never really brought my "A" game...Heck, I never was clear about what my "A" game was, until you mentioned it, that our "A" might just.... BE GOOD ENOUGH.....if only we brought it all the time. How significant IS THAT!

Now, I'm breaking out of my delusion into the clear light of...of...of I know not what! Only that....it isn't going to be what it was....I'm just trying to picture in my mind what MY "A" game is now.

That game that you have worked so hard to have for YOU. And I know that my "A" game will probably NOT look like your "A" game or Nitro's "A" game...or Raybo "A" game....Because all of our "A" games are ONLY OURS, not anybody else's. And so I'm trying to picture in my mind how to go about constructing an "A" game now....and I'm wondering, and wondering....Am I just being delusional AGAIN?

Vigors.

Now that you know what the issue is, you can address it. Expect another 3 to 5 years of tweaking on this one. Then when you no longer need to concern yourself with going on tilt, another issue will arise.

This game is continual damage control. Ridiculous.

[whodoyoulike]

This is absolutely the attitude of every professional gambler I know. As blackjack guru Stanford Wong has said, "Icewater in the veins and steely blue eyes are de riguer." Anyone who knows he has an edge, knows he also must lose. As Wong says, "If you want to make a lot of money gambling, you have to bet a lot and you have to be willing to lose a lot."

Anyone who doesn't understand this, doesn't understand variance. A blackjack card counter (the counterpart of a professional horseplayer) doesn't feel 'disappointed' when a face card busts his two-card 16, and say, 'how could I have played that better.' He knows he played it correctly. If he is a long-term profitable player, so does the successful horseplayer. And the latter also should understand (although almost none do) that the results of one race are meaningless and completely useless in providing feedback about the value of any specific bet.

The idea that analyzing sports performance is similar to analyzing the value of a bet is a false analogy. Sports performance is far easier to understand, because the mechanics are completely standardized. Either a coach can locate a problem with your mechanics, or you can do so yourself by watching film. And one's performance, to a great extent, is based on innate talent and coordination. Only if one is using a database, and has some facility with statistics can one analyze one's mistakes in this way. The tradtional handicapper requires much more time - years - and effort to come to accurate conclusions about their play.

I think there is a misunderstanding with my previous post. Disappointment doesn't mean throwing a mini or a big tantrum with every loss but instead if you understand how to play any game I would expect one would always attempt to learn from failures. Notice I didn't write mistakes because as was stated you could've played to the best of your knowledge at the time. But, players should know that "shit happens" when gambling. Not attempting to learn from failures implies to me that the person thinks they are a know-it-all with every bet.

Every bet I make I think will win otherwise I wouldn't make it even though I know I won't win every bet. And, I don't throw tantrums when I lose.

[AndyC]

....Every bet I make I think will win otherwise I wouldn't make it even though I know I won't win every bet. And, I don't throw tantrums when I lose.

So if I gave you one shot at rolling a 7 with a pair of dice and gave you 100-1 odds do you think you would win that bet? I certainly wouldn't think I was going to win but I would know that I was making a smart bet. Make enough smart bets and I will win in the long run. Kinda like betting horses.

[whodoyoulike]

So if I gave you one shot at rolling a 7 with a pair of dice and gave you 100-1 odds do you think you would win that bet? I certainly wouldn't think I was going to win but I would know that I was making a smart bet. Make enough smart bets and I will win in the long run. Kinda like betting horses.

If you gave me the money I would take the shot and yes I would expect to win even though dice is not one of my games.

[lansdale]

I think there is a misunderstanding with my previous post. Disappointment doesn't mean throwing a mini or a big tantrum with every loss but instead if you understand how to play any game I would expect one would always attempt to learn from failures. Notice I didn't write mistakes because as was stated you could've played to the best of your knowledge at the time. But, players should know that "shit happens" when gambling. Not attempting to learn from failures implies to me that the person thinks they are a know-it-all with every bet.

Every bet I make I think will win otherwise I wouldn't make it even though I know I won't win every bet. And, I don't throw tantrums when I lose.

My post wasn't aimed at you, it's a general response to the widespread idea among handicappers that it's possible to tweak their handicapping on the basis of race-by-race results - or, as you put it, learn from one's failures, in the short run. I think handicappers have at least some understanding of variance, in the sense that 'shit happens', as you say. What they don't understand about variance is that the outcome of the race they just bet may not be even remotely related to the logic behind their bet, regardless of whether they won or lost. To do so would erase good part of the enjoyment of winning a bet, so it's not going to happen, but that is the reality. For traditional handicappers (the overwhelming majority) whether your play is profitable or not can only be determined by the long run - in blackjack, this is about three months (ca. 50k hands) for a full-time player, but with a slow-moving game like horseracing, assuming a minimum 2500 races - this could be five years of play for the average weekend warrior.

Variance is what professional or serious amateur gamblers understand that recreational players don't. They know how to determine whether or not they have an edge. If they know they do, this takes emotion (at least in the short run) out of their daily play. This is not a 'know-it-all' attitude but a 'know-enough-to-profit' frame of mind. If you have an edge, every bet is profitable.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

My post wasn't aimed at you, it's a general response to the widespread idea among handicappers that it's possible to tweak their handicapping on the basis of race-by-race results - or, as you put it, learn from one's failures, in the short run. I think handicappers have at least some understanding of variance, in the sense that 'shit happens', as you say. What they don't understand about variance is that the outcome of the race they just bet may not be even remotely related to the logic behind their bet, regardless of whether they won or lost. To do so would erase good part of the enjoyment of winning a bet, so it's not going to happen, but that is the reality. For traditional handicappers (the overwhelming majority) whether your play is profitable or not can only be determined by the long run - in blackjack, this is about three months (ca. 50k hands) for a full-time player, but with a slow-moving game like horseracing, assuming a minimum 2500 races - this could be five years of play for the average weekend warrior.

Variance is what professional or serious amateur gamblers understand that recreational players don't. They know how to determine whether or not they have an edge. If they know they do, this takes emotion (at least in the short run) out of their daily play. This is not a 'know-it-all' attitude but a 'know-enough-to-profit' frame of mind. If you have an edge, every bet is profitable.
There are both short term and long term variables to consider. For example, it is a good think to know if the track is playing to speed, or the rail is the place to be, and those things can change day to day. You don't review a race to change your basic handicapping - you review the race to adjust for new information. For example, Trainer A won his last three races when he gave his horse a four furlong workout three days before the race. Most of the good handicappers I know review video - a lot of video - from the races. It INFORMS their handicapping, not replaces it. Not everybody reviews recent trainer patterns, and some handicappers have a sense about current trainer form, but reviewing races after they are run is related to data, not methodology.

I'm surprised since you talk like an experienced handicapper that you don't understand the point of review, or adding to the data base. Mechanically applying a method and charting results certainly provides a legitimate measure of success. I would suggest that if that method is not informed with data, it misses an opportunity to increase the success rate.

[lansdale]

There are both short term and long term variables to consider. For example, it is a good think to know if the track is playing to speed, or the rail is the place to be, and those things can change day to day. You don't review a race to change your basic handicapping - you review the race to adjust for new information. For example, Trainer A won his last three races when he gave his horse a four furlong workout three days before the race. Most of the good handicappers I know review video - a lot of video - from the races. It INFORMS their handicapping, not replaces it. Not everybody reviews recent trainer patterns, and some handicappers have a sense about current trainer form, but reviewing races after they are run is related to data, not methodology.

I'm surprised since you talk like an experienced handicapper that you don't understand the point of review, or adding to the data base. Mechanically applying a method and charting results certainly provides a legitimate measure of success. I would suggest that if that method is not informed with data, it misses an opportunity to increase the success rate.

I honestly don't want to extend this discussion, since the issues of long-term vs. short-term and traditional vs. statistical handicapping have been argued ad infinitum on this site and I think many would agree that there is nothing new to be said on these subjects. But to restate, the only valid testing of a handicapping variables (factors, methods) needs to use a large sample - this can be done instantaneously with a datatbase or over a period of time with traditional (i.e., subjective) handicapping. There is no gaming professional I know who does otherwise.

Re your comments, I have no doubt that traditional handicappers using long-term variables can be profitable. I think it's also possible, but am much more skeptical about the idea that the kind of short-term variables which you cite, and with which I am very familiar, add to the player's EV. But if a handicapper would chart the long-term performance of short-term decisions independently, and they were profitable, I would accept that this is possible. However, like many poker disputes about the value of a given hand, I believe that the wide-ranging opinions over these kind of short-term assessments are ultimately just a source of statistical noise.

Re the role of experience in the realm of handicapping, I can say a know a number of handicappers who have decades of knowledge of and experience in playing the game using exactly the kind of methods you cite. In fact, they seem to know everything there is to know about the game except how to make money.

[thaskalos]

I honestly don't want to extend this discussion, since the issues of long-term vs. short-term and traditional vs. statistical handicapping have been argued ad infinitum on this site and I think many would agree that there is nothing new to be said on these subjects. But to restate, the only valid testing of a handicapping variables (factors, methods) needs to use a large sample - this can be done instantaneously with a datatbase or over a period of time with traditional (i.e., subjective) handicapping. There is no gaming professional I know who does otherwise.

Re your comments, I have no doubt that traditional handicappers using long-term variables can be profitable. I think it's also possible, but am much more skeptical about the idea that the kind of short-term variables which you cite, and with which I am very familiar, add to the player's EV. But if a handicapper would chart the long-term performance of short-term decisions independently, and they were profitable, I would accept that this is possible. However, like many poker disputes about the value of a given hand, I believe that the wide-ranging opinions over these kind of short-term assessments are ultimately just a source of statistical noise.

Re the role of experience in the realm of handicapping, I can say I know a number of handicappers who have decades of knowledge of and experience in playing the game using exactly the kind of methods you cite. In fact, they seem to know everything there is to know about the game except how to make money.

I know these players too. They keep talking about how CLOSE they are to their gambling objectives...and how they are only an "adjustment" or two away from ultimate success.

If only they can manage to LIVE that long...I tell them.