A major transition...

[Glenny]

A major transition,

At the end of each year, I spend quite a bit of time reviewing all of my betting records and compiling final summaries and reflections. I believe it was back in January of 2001 that I shared my reflections here on this board. I received some excellent feedback and continue to lurk here on a regular basis. For most of us, this game changes dynamically from year to year, and there is always much to learn here.

Even though I haven’t posted in quite some time, I wanted to share some of my current thoughts on my own style of play. My horseracing activities have gone through a “radical” change over the past three years and I thought it would be interesting to pass along these experiences and observations…

As a quick review, I am a computer handicapper and have written all of my own software. I struggled with my handicapping for approximately 16 years before I was able to show a miniscule profit for the year 1997. My studies and experiences led me to the following conclusion: …ability occurs geometrically, while the public “tends” to react to information in a more exponential fashion. In other words, the more recent a piece of information, the more “excess” weight the public assigns to it. I incorporated this general idea into my line making and was able to experience a few successful years of wagering…

In 1999, I wagered on 872 races and experienced a 14.8% win percentage and an ROI of 11.03% on relatively small wagers.

In 2000, I wagered on 1,343 races and experienced a 13.2% win percentage and an ROI of 13.7% using an escalated bankroll.

In 2001, I wagered on 1,424 races and experienced a 12.6% win percentage and an ROI of 4.3% using what I considered a significant bankroll while making my largest win wagers yet.

Now if you are still reading this (and haven’t dismissed me as a complete liar), I must say that even though these years were profitable the time spent watching tote boards slowly became more and more unbearable. Given my bankroll requirements (I made flat unit bets equal to four tenths of one percent (.004) of bankroll) and the pari-mutuel limits with respect to win pools (especially at the medium and smaller sized racetracks), my profits worked out to less than minimum wage. Again, the enjoyment was in beating the game for a considerable period of time. The fact that I had a passion for the game of thoroughbred racing, coupled with a well research approach to the game allowed me to survive sitting in front of tote boards for an average of approximately 20 hours per week for almost 5 years. In other words, I spent almost all of my free time pursuing this endeavor.

Although I enjoyed the adventure over the years, I must admit that my passion for the game has eroded significantly. As a result, I have made the following “Major Transition” in the way I approach the game…

As a result of my yearly wagering reflections, I noticed a similar pattern in my play. In each year (1999, 2000, 2001) most of my profit could be attributed to a very small number of high priced winners with the balance of my wagering break-even at best. More importantly, in reviewing these high-priced winners I realized that in almost every case it was obvious they would meet my “fair odds” requirement prior to seeing the actual tote board. In other words, based upon the past performance information alone, I could tell that they would be obvious bets (primarily because their recent races looked so terrible). So, I spent the majority of my 20 hours of “free time per week” researching and writing more software… In fact, I spent all of 2002 and 2003 developing an entirely new approach to value wagering. By July 2003, I had completely analyzed just about every thoroughbred race run in North America from January 1998 through June 2003. Finally, after some statistical confidence testing, I put my bankroll to the test on July 1, 2003.

My New Approach…

Each evening I download past performance data files for all of the next day’s “playable” racetracks. I only consider the larger racetracks due to the nature of my betting. My software then automatically imports each data file, analyzes each and every race, identifies my plays, and prints a summary sheet. Along with the recording of the current day’s results, I typically spend fewer than 20 minutes per evening “handicapping”. The next day, usually around lunch time, I make my wagers (via internet and/or telephone). I very rarely watch any of the races that I wager on.

My handicapping approach basically identifies horses that look “horrible”, but due to some contrarian handicapping attributes, have a little bit of a shot of winning. So, by definition, this is obviously a “spot-play” approach. Additionally, the software requires a morning line of at least 10-1.

Here are my results (July 1, 2003 through June 24, 2004):

Wagers: 360 (Almost exactly one per day)
Wins: 27 (Win percent of 7.50%)
ROI: 44.24%

Average Win Mutuel: $38.46
Longest Win Streak: 1
Longest Loss Streak: 43

Maximum Bankroll Drawdown: 71.70 units (a unit is equal to .004 of bankroll)
Minimum Wagers for 90% Confidence of at least “break-even” performance: 355

Increase in Starting Bankroll: 79.6%

-------------------------------------------------

Although it hasn’t been quite a full year of wagering, here are my yearly (fiscal year) reflections:

1) I haven’t really “proven” anything at all. The variance of my results is huge! This may have been just pure luck (although the testing I did from January 1998 through June 2003 shows even better results).

2) If I remove my two highest priced winners ($140.60 at LAD and $114.20 at BM), my ROI is still nearly 9%).

3) This approach “depends” on hitting a couple of real “bombs” each year. However, the approach looks for such horses exclusively. In my research, the prices have been there each and every year – without them, the bankroll will experience a loss as I’d be primarily “trading money” and losing the take.

4) Even relatively small win wagers can have a considerable impact on 50-1 shots. Therefore, I’ve identified approximately 30 of the larger tracks as “playable” due to pari-mutuel pool limitations.

5) Definitely worth another year of wagering activity. In fact, starting on July 1, 2004, I’ll be increasing my base unit wager by 50%.

6) May want to look further into “off-shore/non co-mingled” wagering and/or rebate opportunities.

7) Again, this may very well be the result of nothing but luck. I am fully aware of the risks of “data-mining”.

8) As they say in all the books, “You just can’t make money betting long shots”. On second thought, maybe that’s a good thing.

Well, if you are still with me, this has been the “long’ version of my “Transition” as a horseplayer. I share it because I truly am interested in some feedback, especially from those who may have gone through a similar transition from value play to a more “spot play” orientation.

Lastly, prior to posting this message, I asked my wife to read it and offer her opinion. She told me that it “…sounds like a lot of bragging to me”. Hopefully, some of you won’t feel that way as I look very forward to your comments, opinions, and admonitions.

[andicap]

Read with complete and utter interest. Thanks for sharing.

[sjk]

I also wrote my own program many years ago and still do the toteboard watching. I am not suprised that you are having good success with horses whose last race or two look dreadful on paper. I make it a practice to never (OK very rarely) look at the PPs before making my bet. I have found through experience that if I do look and the horse's apparent recent form looks terrible, I might reduce my bet size and that this is sometimes costly.

[JimG]

Hi Glenny,

I really wish you would post more often. I've missed you in the war room.

The most interesting thing I find about your post is the shift from "actual" value wagering to "morning line" value wagering. This is something I am tinkering with as well in my spare time as I am tired of worrying about my 5-1 shot going off at 5-2 in the last blink of the odds board. Until they get in the 21st century with tote software, more people will start looking for methods that keep them from being a slave to the tote board.

Your roi and avg mutual are tremendous...your hit rate is naturally low, but for most of the betting population too low to hold onto any bankroll when the 0 for 40 comes along. While your sample isn't huge, I was wondering if you have studied the losers and winners from the last year to maybe add an elimination factor that could bring the hit rate up to about 10% or so?

I congratulate your success and do believe it genuine given our online discussions in the past. I could certainly use your bankroll management and the ability to stick to your methods even through a bad streak.

Continued success.

Jim

[BillW]

Glenny,

Nice post. Always interested in reading posts that delve into cappers transitions to a more successful mode of handicapping. Congratulations on the past few years and best of luck with the new approach, it looks like it has good possibilities. I also miss you in the warroom, stop in once in awhile.

Bill

[JustMissed]

Very interesting post. Would you mind answering a couple of questions.

Appears you are a long-shot player as your software only picks 10-1 or better. Are you a win bettor only and what is your normal win bet amont?

If I get a live 10-1 ML horse I generally start looking at exotic plays, i.e. exactas and trifectas and play that high odds horse in all slots. Do you do the same?

Thanks in advance for your response.

JM:)

[JustMissed]

Sorry, but I forgot to ask you this one.

When I calculate your edge(ROI), I come up with .36725 not .4424.

$36.46 average mutual would be the same as average odds of 17.23-1. Therefore, .075*17.23=1.29225-.9250=.36725. Where am I going wrong?

If you're betting $100K a year, which ain't that much, your P.O.T. would be $36K by my calculation not $44K, by yours. I don't want to short you that extra $8,000.

Thanks,

JM
;)

[sjk]

JM,

The avg win was $2 greater than in your calculation.

[melman]

Mr G your post is a work of art and the type of post that keeps bringing me back to this board. PA seems to attract a lot of people who are very talented at this business of betting on horses. Wish I could provide some feedback as you requested however I am not the type player that you have become. You sure have met the requirements of a winning player however as you keep records and have found the "comfort" zone in both amount of your bets by dollar and by volume. Keep up the great work and drop into the War Room more often. I believe your post will inspire some others like JoeG who as done great work with longshots at harness racing. Thanks again for sharing the post Glenny.

[JustRalph]

Great post.........

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by sjk
JM,

The avg win was $2 greater than in your calculation.

Never saw a chart or toteboard that showed the payoff less the $2 bet amount.

When someone reports/records the mutuel price they normally mean how much the teller gives you for a $2 ticket, right?

If someone says a horse paid $12, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know the final odds were 5-1. Where am I going wrong?

JM;)

[sjk]

Average Win Mutuel: $38.46 -Copied from Glenny post

$36.46 average mutual - Copied from JustMissed post

[Jeff P]

I haven’t really “proven” anything at all. The variance of my results is huge! This may have been just pure luck (although the testing I did from January 1998 through June 2003 shows even better results).

Your post hit very close to home. Your own experiences seem to mirror mine rather closely. I doubt that your experience is just pure luck. Low hit rate, high avg win mutuel, contrarian approach, horses that look ugly on paper- this is EXACTLY the same general approach that I've been having success with. Just like you, whenever I review results over any extended time period, it's always that small handful of high priced winners that cause the whole thing to result in a profit.

[BillW]

Originally posted by JustMissed
Never saw a chart or toteboard that showed the payoff less the $2 bet amount.

Where am I going wrong?

JM;)

Hong Kong

[JustMissed]

hehehe!

JM

[Glenny]

JustMissed,

Sorry if I created any confusion. My average mutuel is $38.46 which can also be stated as average odds of 18.23-1. I think in your calculation, you started by assuming that my average mutuel is $36.46 (Thanks, but this game is hard enough already...LOL).

I'm very confident of the statistics that I posted as all of them come directly from the analysis facility in my software application. This facility also manages my bankroll. As of this morning the combined balances of my CT OTB and YouBet accounts equalled the total balance contained within my software... so, I'm not giving any money back...LOL.

I'll be glad to reply to your other excellent questions a little later when I have a bit more time.

[JustMissed]

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

What I am most interested in is do you bet the same amount to win for each and every race or does the amount vary according to you confidence level, absent adjustments due to changing bankroll.

I know some prime bettors who might, for example, always bet $300 to win or not bet at all. Others might bet $500 on a 6-5 shot and only bet $200 on a 5-2 shot because their experience tells them the that over time they'll catch more 6-5 winners than 5-2 winners.

I know you are pushing in excess well over 100 grand a year through the windows and with that edge, my hat is off to you.

Thanks again and I am looking forward to you future reply.

JM

[Glenny]

JustMissed,

Here are my replies to your questions (thanks for asking)…

Q. You asked if I only wager to win.

A. Currently I only wager in the win pool. I wager the same amount (4 tenths of 1 percent of bankroll) on each and every play. During the past few years when I was tote board watching and value wagering, I would periodically try and evaluate the strengths on my individual plays based upon my own handicapping “knowledge”. I had absolutely NO skill in differentiating among my plays -- like many players, the plays I tended to like most always paid the least. Anyways, I never could substantiate any opportunity to vary my bet size. With my play now, I bet completely blindly on my computer generated selections. I can’t even tell you the last time I actually looked at actual past performances. So, more than ever, I employ a flat unit betting procedure.

Q. You asked if I have looked into exotic wagering, suggesting that if I have a live 10-1 shot to start looking at exotic plays in all slots.

A. Very interesting question. Unfortunately, I couldn’t tell you which of my plays were “live” if my life depended on it. On the rare occasion that I watch a race in which I have made an investment, I always assume that my horse will probably lose. Believe me; I’ve embarrassed myself in the War Room on more than a few occasions…LOL. No one picks as many last place finishers as I do, or so it seems.

As far as the exotics go, I guess my current philosophy is to view them as nothing more than additional pools, with a higher track take of course. I think if I get to the point where my unit bet is having a significant impact on the win pool, an exacta wheel (i.e. win bet) may offer an additional outlet (although less attractive). I hope my wagering grows to the point where I need to research the possibility…LOL.

Again, thanks for the excellent questions.

[JustMissed]

Thank you for your great reply. That is exactly what I wanted to know and I see now exactly what you are doing.

Great stuff and I wish continued success for you.

JM

[Fastracehorse]

Fascinating stuff especially since I am a longshot player as well.

Do you ever play exotoics??

And if no, why not??

Thanx,

fffastt

[melman]

MR G does your software tracking enable you to know how many times one of your plays runs 2nd or 3rd?? I am sure you know where this is going but I know of some players who are full time and last week had zero first pick winners but still had a plus week because of the exotic's. If most of your plays run 1st or nowhere this of course is not the way to go. Think I remember you working on an exacta study and how did that work out?? Also you may what to check out Pinnacle for the extra 7% rebate on all bets that they offer.

[Glenny]

Fatracehorse@DRF

Currently I am only wagering in the win pools. Based on my style of play over the past year, I rarely watch a race these days much less analyze a tote board. I make my plays around lunch time on the days I actually have plays. The exotic pools are definitely something that may offer opportunities down the road... I kind of view them as potential "alternative win pools" which can offer additional wagering it I ever get to the point where my win bets are hurting my prices... again, with 50-1 shots, it doesn't take as sizable a bet as one might think.

Also, due to my extremely low win percentage (7.50%), I feel I can expose only .004 of my bankroll per win wager. In otherwords, I require 250 units of bankroll (and that might be too low!). So, right now I have a ways to go before I need to look into alternative pools.

Besides, before investing in the exotic pools I'll need to do quite a bit of research due to the variance of my approach. However, after all the research and software development that I've done over the past few years... I just want to take a break and wager on my plays - and relax a little.

[Glenny]

Melman,

Yes, my software does record 2nd and 3rd place finishes. Of course the variances are huge but the results so far are a little surprising. Some of the books I have read over the years have always led me to believe that long shots "should" finish 2nd considerably more often than 1st, and 3rd more often than 2nd. Although my research does show this to be slightly true, the 2nd and 3rd place disparities aren't as large as one would suspect. So "the exacta as a place bet" concept just doesn't "seem" to be an option - though I must say I have not researched it at all.

As you have witnessed many times in the War Room, most of my plays just trail the field like a tin can...LOL. When they do run, they finish 1st nearly as often as 2nd or 3rd. So thinking logically (often a mistake for me), using the exotics with my selections on the front end might be the best approach. Although my exotic research with this particular method of play is very limited so far, I hope to look into it in the future.

As far as offshore books are concerned, I am interested in looking into them more seriously. Pinnacle and eHorse seem to be the leading options. I've looked at the web site for eHorse and was impressed - they supposedly offer "non co-mingled" wagering and liberal maximum win bets at the larger tracks, which are the ones I play. However, it seems that Pinnacle offers better rebates, so I'll need to explore that option as well.

Also, thanks for the kind words in your earlier post. It's always great chatting with you in the War Room and watching you and JoeG nail all those Harness races (always a humbling experience for me ...lol)

[JohnGalt1]

As someone, like most of us here, who analyze and review ourselves I find your topic and this thread very informative.

In between the inferquent big exotic hits, I find on many days my win bet profits don't pay for the exotic bet losses. Thus I make fewer exotic bets, usually only when my prime bet is long.

[Glenny]

JimG,

Sorry I didn't respond to your question earlier. Great to hear from you again.

You asked if I had looked into any possible elimination factors that could bring my hit rate up to 10% or so:

That's an excellent question. Although I've looked for ways to improve my win percentage, the limited number of ideas that I have tried have not yielded anything worth pursuing. Most of my attempts to improve win percentage provided more winners with a significant negative return, thus lowering my overall ROI. Now, I understand the philosophy of "velocity of money" and all that... a higher win percentage along with a lower overall ROI can ultimately provide for more profit. Unfortunately, the compensation just hasn't been there. Again, there are many other factors to consider, but for now I'm just not interested in doing the necessary additional research.

You also stated the following: "...for most of the betting population, too low to hold onto any bankroll when the 0 for 40 comes along."

I agree completely here. The low win percentage and long probable losing streaks are enough to keep many players away from approaching the game in a similar manner... hopefully that works in my favor. Most of the investments that I make are on horses displaying truly horrible looking recent performances. Combine that with their considerably high average odds, this type of approach just doesn't offer much appeal to a high volume player (at least I don't think it does). First of all, I average about one play per day, and can easily experience an entire month (or more) without cashing a ticket. Relatively speaking, the bankroll requirements for this type of play are considerable. Hopefully, I'm betting out on the fringes, away from the big-time professionals (kind of like a little fish in a small pond - hoping to be left alone). I've read about some of the big time whales (big fish), who bet tens of thousands of dollars on individual races, looking to turnover massive bankrolls in an effort to profit via rebates. I have to imagine that plays such as mine don't offer much opportunity to these players.

Of course this is all merely supposition. After all, it is quite likely that I've had nothing more than a lucky year. We'll have to see.

Thanks for the kind words of encouragement and I'll try to join in on the fun in the War Room a little more often.

[Hosshead]

Glenny, You know, with your longshots, you wouldn't have to increase your win% much, to improve your Roi alot.

You say that your picks look terrible on paper, (last few races probably), well beaten etc. Maybe there's some little thing that could help the win%.

Have you examined workout patterns for your picks AFTER your sw has selected the horse. Some horses have a particular workout pattern before they "Go for the Gold".
Also, HTR has a workout rating for every horse, along with longshot picks. It may be against your religion to use an outside source for a little data, (since you developed your own sw), but you might want to look at the results of the workout tests done (found on the HTR site) with the new HTR workout ratings. Who knows, it could help enough to justify the download fee.

[ranchwest]

I suspicion it would be tough to be more selective and still hit 18/1 horses. My suggestion would be to ride this one until it don't buck.

[freeneasy]

coming up with an average of one play on the day after handicapping the nation. let me ask you this glenny, oh and by the way its great to see you back on the board. how many factors do you use when running each horse through your program? and dont stay away so long next time.

[Glenny]

Some additional replies…



Hosshead,

I agree with you that it wouldn’t take “much” of an increase in my win percentage to improve my ROI... so long as I can maintain my average mutuel. However, all of my research suggests that by adding additional requirements to my selections, my average mutuel suffers greatly.

The most “reasonable” conclusion that I have come to (after having been beaten over the head) is that I am only able to show a profit by demanding that horses NOT show much with respect to contemporary standards of recent “form” and/or “ability”. Combined with this, I need to demand some pretty high odds (from a morning line perspective). Here’s the catch though, if a horse shows too much in the way of recent “form” and/or “ability” AND is being given a substantially high morning line (especially at the bigger tracks), then it is usually an extremely poor betting opportunity. I’ve come to this realization after having lost with them for years…LOL. That’s why I need to demand that my horses look absolutely dreadful; in fact, the more dreadful the better.

Unfortunately these days, workout patterns are being scrutinized and included within the traditional handicapping procedures of many serious handicappers, especially with respect to layoffs (at least that it my current opinion). Therefore, I have not spent much time trying to include them in my latest thinking.

To answer your question (finally), I haven’t considered using Ken Massa’s workout ratings or his HTR software application. I have read most of his newsletters over the past few years and respect his work greatly. I’ll have to reread his research on workouts again, though.



Ranchwest,

I agree with your statements. I intend to “ride this one to the end” LOL



freeneasy,

Thanks for the kind words. Your question is a difficult one to answer. My software looks at all of the running lines for each horse. Two separate analyses are done on the data; first, an exponential weighting procedure is done based on the horse’s final time speed figures, recent finishes, and some additional factors. As long as a given horse is rated significantly lower than the prime contenders in the race, a second geometric data analysis pass is performed. The point of the second pass is to look for possible “hidden” ability given a horse's horrible recent performance. The factors vary here, but I can tell you that good past (the older the better) final time ability, early speed, performance inconsistency, and layoffs play a major role in most cases. Again, the ultimate goal here is to find bad horses that have a “slight” possibility to actually run well at high odds. Most of the time they don’t however.

Hopefully I’ve answered your question without being too vague.

[GameTheory]

I too love betting on horses with horrible recent form. In fact, I love betting on young horses that have never run a decent race. There are two areas that you can explore that SOMETIMES will allow you to increase your win% while maintaining high prices -- trainer analysis and pedigree analysis.

For instance, I like to bet on horses that ought to be classy based on their pedigree, but haven't shown anything yet in limited lifetime starts. I bet simply knowing that enough of these (mostly dogs) will wake up to surprise at a big price in their 4th to 6th lifetime race (somewhere in that range). Other clues are horses that were favorites or low odds in their first couple of starts but didn't show anything (indicating that someone believed in them at the time) but are now at very high odds after running 3 or 4 bad races. I don't care about positive trainer signals in this case, often the connections will have given up on them at this point too. You're simply betting on a statistic, nothing in particular about today's horse (nothing that makes it different from other such horses).

The other area is trainer analysis, but not superficial stats like are printed in the pps these days. You must keep records to track claiming patterns and the like and make informed judgements on a case-by-case basis. It is not uncommon to know a horse has a 40% chance or better to win and he's going off at 15-1 or higher based on knowledge of what the trainer is up to. (Usually involving a claim, but not always. For instance, some trainer plays involve what the trainer is doing that day or that week in general -- if you've got a guy who typically enters one horse a week at the most and today he's got four entries on the card, ask yourself why that might be?)

[Niko]

Glenny,
Your post came at an appropriate time for me. After the last 2 weeks of missing a couple of lonshots by a hd or nk I was asking if this game is even worth it anymore. I skipped playing today and who knows.. Betting longshots is a tough way to go and following the races can eat up a lot of time for a little gain. You hit a couple nice ones, your bankroll takes a big spike and then you lose 30 in a row. I was at the track and my friends were laughing at me again for picking the dogs finishing at the back of the back while they cleaned up on the favorites.

Keep it going. You're obviously on the right track for long-shot play. Keep your bets low as a percentage of bankroll so you don't get stressed out like I do going through the flucuations.

I've researched the exotics with long-shots and this is the conclusion I came to and may help you out. In most cases you're better off not betting the long-shot to come in second over time (depending on your win percentages). Why-you've given up your advantage. A lof players who have bet the lower priced winners have the longshots in 2nd and 3rd in the exacta and tri's. They can turn a 2-1 into a 5-1 if played properly. I've talked to a lot of players who hit all in the 2nd spot in exacta's and tri's.
If you play your horse second you can turn your 20-1 into a 10-1 and your edge is gone. I thought the exacta as a place bet over time would work but I found out I lost money this way even though it had a nice hit here and their. The only time I bet the longshot to come in second is if I have another horse in the race I like a lot and then I box them. Look very closely at using your longshots in the pick 3's. I've found this to be my 2nd most profitable way of play given the size of bankroll but the run-outs can be even longer.

[Glenny]

Some more replies…



GameTheory,

Interesting ideas on increasing win percentage without necessarily decreasing average mutuel. Several years ago I did some pedigree research myself (very limited), primarily with respect to first time starts on the turf (before Tomlinson figures and the like were everywhere). I had absolutely NO success in my endeavors. However, your experience in using pedigree with inexperienced horses that have not shown very much is certainly way more thoughtful than what I tried to do.

Additionally, your thoughts on trainer analysis where you suggest "keeping records to track claiming patterns and the like and make informed judgments on a case-by-case basis" is also very intriguing. By demanding horrible recent form, you seem to be taking a similar approach to wagering as I am but attacking it from an entirely different direction – a direction that I never even considered, frankly.

It’s handicapper like you that worry me about my ability to maintain my current edge on this game. Great post.



Niko,

I can completely commiserate with you regarding losing streaks. My only real salvation from such frustration is that I don’t need to watch the races anymore. Even so, after years of tolerating losing streaks (and I mean 40-50 in a row), I still have a tough time with it. Not watching anything for a week or two seems to help me. Even though the streaks continue, I don’t feel the pain "one race at a time".

Based upon my limited research on exactas using my selections, I’ve pretty much come to the same conclusion as you have – the “exacta as a place bet” doesn’t seem to show much promise. Of course, I’ll need to do way more work with the concept to be comfortably sure. However, I must say that I haven’t looked into Pick-3’s at all. I’ll probably take your advice and look into them in the future. Thanks for the post.

[freeneasy]

very very interesting, thanks for the reply

[raybo]

I rarely read all of a thread, frankly, because I get bored with typical "public" thinking. This thread, however, has brought out some particularly "non-public" responses.

First of all, thank you for your posts. They are very well done, informative, and interesting. I salute you for digging in and paying your dues, so to speak. The years you have spent developing your software and system, although at times must have been exciting and challenging, must also have been tedious, time consuming and boring. As one of the very small percentage of players who actually make a profit from wagering on thoroughbreds, you can be proud of your accomplishments. It is most difficult to eek out a profit "win" betting. Your contrarian approach is a very good one. I was told a long, long time ago by a very accomplished horse player that: "Whatever the public is doing, you better do the opposite". Requiring odds of 10/1 or higher certainly qualifies you in that regard. Finding a horse with past ability "and" with high odds "and" a chance of winning today is truely difficult.

As an exotics player, superfectas exclusively, I am not as affected by the public as "win" bettors are but still have to demand a reasonable potential payout in order to pay for all the losers while waiting for the hits. Toteboard watching is a very inportant part of my system, unfortunately. I have shown considerable profit "betting blind" with my system but do much better "hands on". Like your system, I can weather many losses in a row and make up for them plus a hefty profit via the high payouts resulting from my wagering methods.

Regarding using your "longshots" in exotics, I think you are wise in not doing that. First of all, you would have to do some "real" handicapping in order to fill out the other betting lines. Secondly, it's my experience that when a longshot does win a race, often the rest of the finishing order is "screwed", due frequently to unexpected pace figures or something else unusual occurring during the running of the race. Plus, the exotics, if played regularly, can get quite expensive unless you bet small tickets, which substantially lowers your hit percentage. Still, when you do hit, the payouts could be huge and make it worthwhile longterm.

Stick to your guns sir, I commend you.

[acorn54]

seems like 43 losses in a row with one bet per day means over a month without a win. plus you only spend 20 minutes per day on the horses ,so i'd say horseracing doesn't play much of part of your time.
i think alot of people use horseracing as a pasttime to kill time.
guy (acorn)

[Glenny]

More replies…



raybo,

First of all, thank you for the kind words. Just as you suggest, the past few years have been exciting and challenging with respect to the development of my current approach. Also as you suggest, the research that I have conducted has indeed had its fair share of tedious, time-consuming, and boring stretches.

Probably the most frustrating thing however, is that based on the sample sizes of everything I’ve done, I cannot conclude that my investment approach is profitable. According to some of my recent confidence testing, I’ll need an additional two to three years worth of results before I can be 95% confident of at least a 10% return on investment. And, that assumes that my current ROI can be maintained. Given all the risk/reward possibilities, I chose to employ a relatively significant bankroll starting in July of 2003. So far things have gone very well, but only time will tell. I am well aware of my loss potential.

With respect to superfectas, I am completely in the dark. That is one exotic opportunity to which I have given absolutely no thought. However, I can certainly appreciate your experience with losing streaks and you’re suggestions regarding the requirement for “real handicapping in order to fill out the other betting lines”. Other than some possible future exacta play, I can’t see myself getting too involved in the other exotic pools for just such reasons.

Again raybo, thanks for the kind words and congratulations on your success in the superfecta pools!



acorn54,

Very true observation. I spent over 15 years of my life as a horseracing hobbyist and must say that I enjoyed every minute of it. In fact, I pursued my horseracing activities to the point where I was spending almost all of my free time watching and investing in horse races. With this post though, I wanted to share some of my more recent thoughts and experiences. I have gone through a transition of sorts, due primarily to the fact that I grew tired of the game.

I wish, in no way, to suggest that others should go through a similar transition. I agree with you that many horseracing fans approach the game as an enjoyable pastime. In fact, I have a few friends that have a lot more fun playing the races while losing the track take (or thereabouts) than I had even when I was winning. I think it was such a realization that led me into other directions. I once read (or heard) somewhere the following… “There are two kinds of people at the track, some that see a horserace as an opportunity to win money, and others who see it as an opportunity to lose money”. That quote struck me, as I probably fall more into the latter category… probably because I’ve lost so many races over the years… LOL.

Anyhow, I completely appreciate other approaches and respect anyone who enjoys the game, whether for pure enjoyment, for profit, or both.

[Tadek]

Hi,

I’ve read the whole thread and it is simply fantastic. I am a profile player – which is a form of the system Glenny described. I do handicapping with a software and apply my judgment only to decide if the race is playable or not – track bias is a very potent indicator. I have much better control and results are the best ever.

I admire long shot players or very low percentage players, in calculations exotics always show incredible results but the loosing streak of 50 simply knocks my lights out.

A suggestion for a win player concentrated on a high odds horses – it is worth checking out the site www.betfair.com. It is an exchange, which means that you can either take or give the odds on the horse. They carry some North American tracks and on average the payout is 10% better then track odds, long shots can be bought at twice the price of the track – volume however is very low, it is rare that one can get twice the track odds for more than $200.

Thanks for a great thread

Regards

Tadek

[Glenny]

Quarterly Report…

I really appreciate some of the kind responses and e-mails that many of you offered with respect to my new approach (or transition) to our great game. I won’t repeat those specifics here as they are outlined in the beginning of this post.

However, I do want to take the opportunity to provide my quarterly results for the period July 1, 2004 through September 30, 2004. The results are excellent, in fact better than expectation although well within variance.

Wagers: 114 (A bit more than one per day, but that is to be expected this time of year)
Wins: 8 (Win percent of 7.02)
ROI: 61.80%

Average Win Mutuel: $46.11 (Highest mutuel was $89.80)
Longest Win Streak: 2 (Hey, a new high for me…LOL)
Longest Loss Streak: 28

Maximum Bankroll Drawdown: 28.00 units (a unit is equal to .004 of bankroll)

Increase is Starting Bankroll: 28.2%

--------------------------------------------------

Well, another "quarter" of serious wagering has past and the results continue to be extremely promising. In fact, over the past 15 months my results suggest that the approach meets a 95% confidence of at least a “break-even” performance.

Here now are some additional reflections:

1) Still really haven’t “proven” anything as of yet. The confidence level is continuing to increase with a larger sample but until I can achieve a 95% confidence level of at least a return of 10% I’m not going to get too excited. (Well maybe a little)

2) Actually, an additional 114 races prove nothing so there is not much to reflect upon…LOL

3) I shall be taking a quarterly “Dividend” equal to exactly ½ of my quarterly profit. The other ½ will be added to my bankroll. I do not intend to increase my base wager again at this time because I still believe that a base bet equal to “four tenths of 1 percent of bankroll” is still too aggressive. It’s funny how we become more conservative as our investments become more significant.

4) I look forward to reporting my next quarter results regardless of my level of success… promise.

5) Lastly, perhaps I’ve experienced a nice little ride on the positive side of the distribution curve of expected results… but it’s been fun nonetheless…LOL

Thanks again for enduring by blathering and as I’ve said earlier in this post, I continue to look very forward to some feedback, especially from those who may be going through a similar transition from value play to a “spot play” orientation.

[JimG]

Glenny,

Now tell me again, why are you working? You are the man!!! Keep it up!

Jim

[PaceAdvantage]

Wow, talk about discipline! Therein lies the key to your success, but you don't need me or anyone else to tell you this....it's obvious.

[Glenny]

JimG,

Great to hear from you again. I think I’ll keep my day job, however…LOL


PaceAdvantage,

Thanks for the kind words. The discipline to weather through the long losing streaks is made somewhat less difficult thanks to the following:

1) I have nearly seven years of results pertaining to my current approach to the game. Five years worth of data was used to fully develop the concepts, so those years need to be placed aside. However, the latest 15 months entail full wagering involving the experience of long losing streaks. As I fall into a losing streak (some lasting more than two months) or just as important, when I experience a major “drawdown” of 20% or more of my bankroll, I will look over my past results and realize that I’ve been through it before and have been able to persevere.

2) Probably even more importantly, I have to admit that my NOT watching (and living through) each and every race that I wager on helps a great deal with the discipline. I rarely watch the actual races theses days.

Transitioning from a value orientation (watching the tote board for overlay opportunities) to a more highly selective “spot-play” approach has made a great deal of difference to me personally in “handling” the game. Although I don’t necessarily recommend such a transition to others, it has helped me significantly

[JimG]

Originally posted by Glenny

Transitioning from a value orientation (watching the tote board for overlay opportunities) to a more highly selective “spot-play” approach has made a great deal of difference to me personally in “handling” the game. Although I don’t necessarily recommend such a transition to others, it has helped me significantly [/B]

Glenny,

I could be wrong, but I imagine there are many of us on this board that would like to emulate you in this approach. It takes the "fan" part out of the game and turns it into merely investment strategy.

Speaking for my past, the "fan" part could get very expensive.

Jim

[Glenny]

JimG,

Throughout this post I've tried to be extra careful in expressing my opinions. I’ve evolved into my current approach due primarily to my personality. I've always thought that the challenge in beating our extremely difficult game appealed to me more than the game itself. I agree that my approach to the game does indeed remove the “fan” aspect that so many players enjoy, and rightly so.

I spent more than three long full years watching tote boards and applying a value oriented approach to the game. In fact, I spent almost all of my spare time “playing the races”. I did try to join friends at the local Tele-theaters and OTB’s on regular occasion but needed to also spend many weekends and evenings in front of my computer screen. Even though I was able to grind out a small profit over the course of a few years, I found the entire experience of "the grind” difficult and unfortunately grew very tired of the game.

Now with my current approach, as discussed in this thread, I rarely watch the races and therefore can handle regular losing streaks of 30 or 40 wagers with relatively little difficulty. Because I don’t have to live or die with each and every race, the whole investment experience has become very palatable to me.

With an overall win percentage less than 8%, approximately one investment per day, and exceptionally long losing streaks (and drawdown periods); I absolutely understand that such an approach would probably not appeal to most players. In fact, as I write this I’m currently experiencing a 16 wager losing streak, and that’s nothing yet...LOL. Finally, I realize that my past 15 months of success might be a complete aberration. Who knows, after I post my next quarter’s results we may all have a good laugh at my expense (in more ways than one)…

Again, thanks for the kind words.

[melman]

Glenny I just wanted to bring this thread up again to express my delight in reading over it. As you know from private talks I have put a small bankroll into what I call "Glenny Style" play. After two months of this I am very much interested in increasing that bankroll. Yes I have run outs that can be scary but I am finding enough plays and winners to make this a focus of play. Since I do harness racing have had to make a few adjustments and find my own "rules" but the basic layout is very similar to what you have written. The major adjustment is because of the much smaller win pools in harness racing. I have been using the exacta to help with this. I use the top pick long shot with "all" and then go and get extra ex tickets with the next four picks. All done in advance. While this is not to my liking (I would rather just bet all to win) it is something I have to do so as not to be betting and lowering my own price on the small win pools. Also due to the nature of harness line making I am looking at 8-1 on the morning line instead of the 10-1 that you use. As of now 12 for 135 with a return of $398.80. Have a great Thanksgiving and look forward to talking with you in the War Room in the future.

[rrbauer]

Mel,
Don't have your email handle on my laptop mail client......

Are you up to the trip tomorrow....I'll try to call you if I don't
hear from you.


(Sorry PA!)

[melman]

Hi Richard, I sure hope to make the trip. What time would you be there? My e-mail is melman@surflinx.com. Last night had some back problems but this morning been good.

Sorry for the personal notes also PA but Rich is visiting my area and does not have his usual computer hook-up.

[rrbauer]

glenny,

Good logical presention and it's nice to see thoughtful questions receive thoughtful answers.

A comment: You have what my poker-playing buddies refer to as "steel britches".
The ability to ride out long losing streaks and stick to your guns.

I can see how not watching many races works to your advantage. After all, the plays that you make are "not supposed" to win.

Some questions:
1. Do your winners (and losers) share any common attributes in terms of their perfomances...such as running style, surface, surface condition, distance, winning margin, age, etc.
2. How do the favs do in your winning races (they don't win!).
3. If you set aside the 10-1 ML requirement and left everything else the same, what would the results be?

[toetoe]

jm, 19.23 is yer #. always give yourself the original stake when you win. it's yours, you risked it & won. here's a thought. a horse @ 2/1 and a horse @ 1/2. is horse A offering 4 times the price? no, sir. he's only twice @ high. $6 horse @ opposed to $3.surprising how few admit this when touting "overlays." @ high odds it is a trifling difference, but 1 has to be added to the numerator. sorry, unable to say in 100 fewer words.

[Glenny]

Melman,

As always, I am delighted to hear of your success with your “spot-play” approach to the Harness races. It’s valuable feedback such as yours that compelled me to post this thread in the first place.

I find your observations and experiences with your Exacta wagers especially interesting. As you know, I’ve spent a considerable amount of time researching exacta pool possibilities with my approach and plan on expanding those studies in 2005. Fortunately, the win pools at the Thoroughbred tracks that I play (my “portfolio” tracks) are large enough to handle my current unit wagers. However, from a longer term perspective, I have considerable interest in expanding my play in the future. My early conclusions are to approach the Exacta as simply “an additional win pool” (with a higher overall take, of course). I’m especially delighted that you have reached very similar conclusions with actual experience. Keeping in mind my intentions to wager exclusively in advance, my initial studies have shown promise in two specific areas:

1. Play each of my selections “on top” in an Exacta wheel. However, the back-wheel has NOT shown similar promise.
2. Play each of my selections “on top” of the “Morning-Line” favorites. More specifically, I’ve done a fairly large study using my selections on top of any and all horses listed BELOW 3-1 on the “Morning-Line”. Once again, using my selections “underneath” these same horses does not appear worthwhile.

Due to the rather extreme contrarian nature within my selection process, the “value” in these selections appears to carry over into the Exacta pools provided they are “played on top”. All of this makes sense to me, but I need to do a considerable amount of additional study. Given your similar experience, I’m excited about the prospects.

Thanks for sharing you thoughts and I look forward to our continuing discussions in the “War Room”.

[Glenny]

rrbauer,

Thanks for the kind words. I have to agree with your observation regarding my “not watching” many races. Living through the losing streaks is much less difficult when you don’t have to “live and die” with each and every race. In fact, over the past month while spending some time in the “War Room”, I’ve “watched” a few of my selections make a complete fool out of me…LOL.

Here now are my best attempts to answer your excellent questions:

1. You asked “Do your winners (and losers) share any common attributes in terms of their performances…such as running style, surface, surface condition, distance, winning margin, age, etc.”

My approach to handicapping looks to actually credit horses that have performed poorly in their recent races. Due to the fact that horses who have run well recently tend to win the majority of the races, most of my selections (over 92%) just don’t win; in fact, most run poorly once again. However, there can be value in such horses provided they have something going for them – and many times, it doesn’t need to be that much.

2. You asked “How do the favorites do in your winning races.”

Very interesting question. I would assume that the actual “post-time” favorites would perform about as well as would be expected in any thoroughbred population. Of course, within my data (over the past 17 months that I have been actually wagering on my selections) I have exactly 41 winners. Other than giving you my assumptions, I can’t really conclude anything with any confidence.

3. You asked “If you set aside the 10-1 ML requirement and left everything else the same, what would the results be?”

This one is an easier question for me to answer. The following represents my actual results over the past 17 months of wagering (using the 10-1 ML constraint):

Win %: 7.41
ROI %: 40.32

These would have been the results if I hadn’t been using the 10-1 ML constraint:

Win %: 12.33
ROI %: 11.53


Again, thanks for the great questions.