How long can you wait?

[bugboy]

I.m a "spot Player" My spot play system rules are very tight. For example I've found only 5 plays in the last 18 days. This includes, all tracks.only dirt races, only fast tracks.

I play win and place. These are the results.

2nd place=7.80
2nd place=22.20
1st place=21.40 2nd place=7.40
2nd place=4.80
LOST

NICE R.O.I. but boy, long wait between bets...
I will post if this system goes down the toilet as many of my others have.

[Inner Dirt]

I can wait 25 minutes the time between races. If I spend 3-4 hours handicapping a card I am going to bet every race. By betting every race if I think the race is garbage I will at least play a 3 horse $2 exacta box for some action while willing to make a $500 win bet if I really like something in another race. I do scan entries so I only handicap cards that at least have a minimum of 4 of my preferred races (dirt sprints). Whether I win or lose on a yearly basis is tied to Pick 3's and Pick Six's, I need a couple big hits to get over 20% profit, if I don't I end up losing 10% for the year.

[WoxFan]

I.m a "spot Player" My spot play system rules are very tight. For example I've found only 5 plays in the last 18 days. This includes, all tracks.only dirt races, only fast tracks.

I play win and place. These are the results.

2nd place=7.80
2nd place=22.20
1st place=21.40 2nd place=7.40
2nd place=4.80
LOST

NICE R.O.I. but boy, long wait between bets...
I will post if this system goes down the toilet as many of my others have.

This is also winter racing - a lot less racing is going on.
About the time of Kentucky Derby things pick up considerably and there is way more racing and you should have twice as many spot plays.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

I can wait as long as it takes!!! ( However), I must admit that I fight myself in the past few years more then in the past. It become instinctive to wait for the spot where you have most of the edges and then you pull the trigger.

[thaskalos]

I.m a "spot Player" My spot play system rules are very tight. For example I've found only 5 plays in the last 18 days. This includes, all tracks.only dirt races, only fast tracks.

I play win and place. These are the results.

2nd place=7.80
2nd place=22.20
1st place=21.40 2nd place=7.40
2nd place=4.80
LOST

NICE R.O.I. but boy, long wait between bets...
I will post if this system goes down the toilet as many of my others have.

These 5 plays are all the plays that you've made with this spot-play system?

[Inner Dirt]

With only 5 plays in 18 days I hope you have a long healthy life ahead of you, it is going to take a long time to get enough plays to prove your system can succeed over the long haul. I don't know what others think, but I would think it would take a 1,000 race sample or more to prove something was viable.

[bugboy]

yes Thaskalos. those were the only races I played....

I just finished backtesting another 11 race dates, my R.O.I. is now down to 1.87..... not looking good!!!!!

I'm sure not giving up. As the other poster stated, it will take many, many more races to come to a conclusion.

[EMD4ME]

Sometimes forever. Most days, I am a pick 5 player so I can make the pick 5 play and watch the 5 races without playing. If I hate the sequence, I can pass or bet 10% of what I normally do on ALL A's (just in case I am super right for good money).

However, if I have a single with some value in that sequence, of course I will bet to win on that race.

Dime sups and win/place/show parlays are a cheap but possibly highly profitable way to have action while awaiting prime plays/next pick 5.

Depends on the track. If it's Portland, I wish there were more races and I bet almost all of them (run 2 days a week and some cards have Q horses early). Have an edge in almost every race there.

NYRA-maybe 1 prime play day. Maybe 3 on certain days.

Spend an entire day recently and made 1 prime bet all day. Just studied for the weekend.

Have no problem studying a card for hours these days and making no plays if I hate the races.

[Dave Schwartz]

With only 5 plays in 18 days I hope you have a long healthy life ahead of you, it is going to take a long time to get enough plays to prove your system can succeed over the long haul. I don't know what others think, but I would think it would take a 1,000 race sample or more to prove something was viable.

More like 3,000.

[Nitro]

No matter what selection process you use singling out specific plays based on a known success rate is an excellent way to maximize your long term profit margin. Waiting for those plays to turn up may require some patience, but being disciplined enough to do that is what the majority of players lack.

I personally use the odds-value of my selections as the criteria for play. Sometimes it’s tough to pass a race, and even tougher to watch the potential play come in. But I would rather play when the value is there.

I would also suggest to anyone who enjoys making spot plays of any kind, to bet more when the odds are higher, and less when the odds are lower. Hitting with any sort of reasonable frequency will pump up the profit margin a lot more then making equally sized bets or doing just the opposite.

[sammy the sage]

I haven't made a bet in a month...& counting... :bang: :bang:

[Tall One]

I haven't made a bet in a month...& counting... :bang: :bang:


42 and counting...:ThmbUp:

Here locally, they're already shipping in for Keeneland, who's main track opens on the 17th for training. I'll be doing some spot 'cappin/paper plays, see where I'm at, but for now, I'm cool where I stand.

[classhandicapper]

For me, this isn't very complicated. You should only bet when you are fairly certain you have an edge because you have an insight that isn't being appreciated properly by the public. The more insights you have, the more often you can bet. That could be 1 bet a week or 20 bets a day, but you have to be honest with yourself.

[green80]

you will make more in the long run with a method that produces more bets, even at a lower ROI.

[traynor]

More like 3,000.

Even then it is necessary to use other techniques (like bootstrapping, or random selection without replacement) to assure that (what seems to be) a positive ROI is not an anomaly dependent on that specific population of races.

At the very least, the base population should be (randomly) split into quarters to determine if the results are (at least basically) distributed over the sub-samples. Splitting into 10 sub-samples is even better.

Bootstrapping (random sampling with replacement) is a quick and easy way to point out anomalies. The data spikes are obvious. Can save a LOT of money. Easy to do, (including in Excel).

[traynor]

No matter what selection process you use singling out specific plays based on a known success rate is an excellent way to maximize your long term profit margin. Waiting for those plays to turn up may require some patience, but being disciplined enough to do that is what the majority of players lack.

I personally use the odds-value of my selections as the criteria for play. Sometimes it’s tough to pass a race, and even tougher to watch the potential play come in. But I would rather play when the value is there.

I would also suggest to anyone who enjoys making spot plays of any kind, to bet more when the odds are higher, and less when the odds are lower. Hitting with any sort of reasonable frequency will pump up the profit margin a lot more then making equally sized bets or doing just the opposite.

I have done a LOT of research on/study of this particular topic. Odds-values seem seductively reasonable in theory, but rarely works out like that in the real world.

If one has enough races to build a decent model, one should also know (at least in the same race sample) the associated mutuel distribution for that tactic. It is often the case that the major part of the profit is in the low range (less than 3/1, less than 2/1, or whatever). It is also often the case that there is a "dead zone" (3/1 to 7/1, or whatever) in which ROI drops like a rock. It may pick up again (or not) at the high end (8/1 or 9/1 and greater).

An example. Assume a tactic that generates 33% winners, 1.2 ROI. On the surface, it may seem that "value wagering" is reasonable. It is not, if one has determined that applying that tactic at odds greater than 3/1 is a hardcore loser--especially when the same entries have some "favored by the smart bettors" indicators that almost guarantees winners will have (relatively) low odds and losers will be avoided.

Several of the most productive models I use (successfully) generate the most profit at odds of 5/2 or LESS. Betting the selections at odds of 3/1 and up is pure red ink.

There is a bit more involved than betting more when the odds go up. Unless, of course, one has studied the history of a specific tactic in sufficient detail, and over a sufficient sample size, to be assured that a positive outcome is likely.

[Tom]

2nd place=7.80
2nd place=22.20
1st place=21.40 2nd place=7.40
2nd place=4.80
LOST



Looks like a good play to use my 1 unit win 3 units to place strategy.
While you wait for 1-3,000 plays to verify it, I would be betting and keeping records. How long have you been playing this way? Do your records show a consistent return?

Good luck.
With those results, I could wait.

[arw629]

I was reading this last night and it inspired me to do the same. Mahoning is my home track and was looking at the form last night saw that Astro J was running in the 5th. I remember him coming off a layoff, 1st time gelding, and a ton of traffic in his comeback race a few weeks ago. He was hours the best that day almost winning but disqualifed to 4th. I felt like he was a cinch today. I showed up 5 minutes to post, bet 100 to win, and saw Astro J win by 8 at 5.40....i collected my $270 and went home. If only it was always that easy!

[Nitro]

I have done a LOT of research on/study of this particular topic. Odds-values seem seductively reasonable in theory, but rarely works out like that in the real world.

If one has enough races to build a decent model, one should also know (at least in the same race sample) the associated mutuel distribution for that tactic. It is often the case that the major part of the profit is in the low range (less than 3/1, less than 2/1, or whatever). It is also often the case that there is a "dead zone" (3/1 to 7/1, or whatever) in which ROI drops like a rock. It may pick up again (or not) at the high end (8/1 or 9/1 and greater).

An example. Assume a tactic that generates 33% winners, 1.2 ROI. On the surface, it may seem that "value wagering" is reasonable. It is not, if one has determined that applying that tactic at odds greater than 3/1 is a hardcore loser--especially when the same entries have some "favored by the smart bettors" indicators that almost guarantees winners will have (relatively) low odds and losers will be avoided.

Several of the most productive models I use (successfully) generate the most profit at odds of 5/2 or LESS. Betting the selections at odds of 3/1 and up is pure red ink.

There is a bit more involved than betting more when the odds go up. Unless, of course, one has studied the history of a specific tactic in sufficient detail, and over a sufficient sample size, to be assured that a positive outcome is likely.
And I’ve done a lot of betting in the “real world” and found some very satisfying results.
There’s no reason for modeling when you’re completely honest with your personal hit frequency. The problem is that when statisticians try to analyze and evaluate the impact of Odds Value and playability they’re always reverting to a singularity, namely betting one entry. While some people may resort to that type play, I find that playing exotics (or even Dutching) and hedging my bets with multiple combinations provides a much more productive means of maintaining profitability. This is especially true when being very selective with the races being played.

This is due to the potential for an improved hit frequency, and primarily because no matter what type of exotic is being played the odds of the selected entries would ultimately determine playability. In other words, if I CAN’T anticipate a decent profit margin over-and-above the amount bet in order to cover losses of other bets then why bet at all? That’s all well and good, but when I see the selected entries have even higher odds, its reasonable to expect that a winning return will likewise produce even more value. So why not take advantage of it by betting more in that situation?

I will also offer an example, and keep it simple. I’ll use Dutching because its one of the easiest methods to both appreciate the odd’s value through profit recognition. So let’s say we’ve been playing 2 or 3 entries in the same race to win and hitting at a 70% rate. That means our bet must involve playing combined entries that will produce a higher than 30% profit if each bet is the same amount.
For instance:
(2) Entries - Playing both 2/1 and 3/1 will provide a 71% profit margin
However playing at 5/2 and 7/2 will provide a 161% profit margin (more then double)
(3) Entries - Playing a 5/2, 3/1 and 4/1 shots will provide a 36% profit margin
However playing at 5/2, 4/1 and 6/1 will provide a 59% profit margin (nearly double)
So why not bet a bit more when the recognized profit margin is higher?

The whole point of this exercise is to point out that when we can play for a known Valued Return in relation our accepted hit frequency that we can remain profitable. And beyond that we can also take advantage of situations that will produce greater profits by increasing our bet when it’s called for.
.
.

[ReplayRandall]

I will also offer an example, and keep it simple. I’ll use Dutching because its one of the easiest methods to both appreciate the odd’s value through profit recognition. So let’s say we’ve been playing 2 or 3 entries in the same race to win and hitting at a 70% rate. That means our bet must involve playing combined entries that will produce a higher than 30% profit if each bet is the same amount.
For instance:
(2) Entries - Playing both 2/1 and 3/1 will provide a 71% profit margin
However playing at 5/2 and 7/2 will provide a 161% profit margin (more then double)
(3) Entries - Playing a 5/2, 3/1 and 4/1 shots will provide a 36% profit margin
However playing at 5/2, 4/1 and 6/1 will provide a 59% profit margin (nearly double)
So why not bet a bit more when the recognized profit margin is higher?

The whole point of this exercise is to point out that when we can play for a known Valued Return in relation our accepted hit frequency that we can remain profitable. And beyond that we can also take advantage of situations that will produce greater profits by increasing our bet when it’s called for.
.
.

This was just a fantasy example, right?

[Stillriledup]

Isn't it better to bet as many races as possible to make the Sample size larger ?

With a 'small sample' you can get outlier results that might not mirror your exact talent.

If there's a handicapping contest w two people but you were only allowed to bet one race per day, the weaker capper would win quite often. If the contest was 1 year long w thousands of plays, the better capper would almost always win.

[bugboy]

Well Tom, not doing very good so far, After 12 plays r.o.i.is down to 1.73.
However, I keep looking and found zero plays today 3-16-16.

I will keep tracking this system, which I believe is number 5,389 or is it 5,390!!!!

[traynor]

And I’ve done a lot of betting in the “real world” and found some very satisfying results.
There’s no reason for modeling when you’re completely honest with your personal hit frequency. The problem is that when statisticians try to analyze and evaluate the impact of Odds Value and playability they’re always reverting to a singularity, namely betting one entry. While some people may resort to that type play, I find that playing exotics (or even Dutching) and hedging my bets with multiple combinations provides a much more productive means of maintaining profitability. This is especially true when being very selective with the races being played.

This is due to the potential for an improved hit frequency, and primarily because no matter what type of exotic is being played the odds of the selected entries would ultimately determine playability. In other words, if I CAN’T anticipate a decent profit margin over-and-above the amount bet in order to cover losses of other bets then why bet at all? That’s all well and good, but when I see the selected entries have even higher odds, its reasonable to expect that a winning return will likewise produce even more value. So why not take advantage of it by betting more in that situation?

I will also offer an example, and keep it simple. I’ll use Dutching because its one of the easiest methods to both appreciate the odd’s value through profit recognition. So let’s say we’ve been playing 2 or 3 entries in the same race to win and hitting at a 70% rate. That means our bet must involve playing combined entries that will produce a higher than 30% profit if each bet is the same amount.
For instance:
(2) Entries - Playing both 2/1 and 3/1 will provide a 71% profit margin
However playing at 5/2 and 7/2 will provide a 161% profit margin (more then double)
(3) Entries - Playing a 5/2, 3/1 and 4/1 shots will provide a 36% profit margin
However playing at 5/2, 4/1 and 6/1 will provide a 59% profit margin (nearly double)
So why not bet a bit more when the recognized profit margin is higher?

The whole point of this exercise is to point out that when we can play for a known Valued Return in relation our accepted hit frequency that we can remain profitable. And beyond that we can also take advantage of situations that will produce greater profits by increasing our bet when it’s called for.
.
.

If what you are doing works for you, I congratulate you on your success.

[Nitro]

This was just a fantasy example, right?
Not necessarily.
I would assume that any conclusion drawn on the degree of reality of my example (of an arbitrarily chosen hit frequency of 70%) would be based primarily on the caliber of a viewer’s personal ability.

However, the profit margins shown for the arbitrary Dutching combinations are based on factual computations.
.
.

[thespaah]

I.m a "spot Player" My spot play system rules are very tight. For example I've found only 5 plays in the last 18 days. This includes, all tracks.only dirt races, only fast tracks.

I play win and place. These are the results.

2nd place=7.80
2nd place=22.20
1st place=21.40 2nd place=7.40
2nd place=4.80
LOST

NICE R.O.I. but boy, long wait between bets...
I will post if this system goes down the toilet as many of my others have.
You bet nothing else in that time?
Wow. You are the antithesis of an action junkie....I commend you on your Saintly patience.

[classhandicapper]

Several of the most productive models I use (successfully) generate the most profit at odds of 5/2 or LESS. Betting the selections at odds of 3/1 and up is pure red ink.

That surprising to me because the history of my betting is the exact opposite. The lower in odds I go the lower the ROI except maybe in the place pool, and that was years ago before net pool pricing.

[CincyHorseplayer]

That surprising to me because the history of my betting is the exact opposite. The lower in odds I go the lower the ROI except maybe in the place pool, and that was years ago before net pool pricing.

Me too. I rarely do 2 horse betting approaches except when there is a consistent turf model at a track but when I do the strategy is always 2 units on the higher odds horse and 1 unit on the lower odds horse. I'm not going to volunteer the ROI on this approach because it's not the point but if I reversed it to betting 2 units on the lower odds horse it is around breakeven for the last 1,000 races I have made an oddsline for. Betting the higher odds horse is the profitable way and not by a slim margin at all.

[classhandicapper]

Me too. I rarely do 2 horse betting approaches except when there is a consistent turf model at a track but when I do the strategy is always 2 units on the higher odds horse and 1 unit on the lower odds horse. I'm not going to volunteer the ROI on this approach because it's not the point but if I reversed it to betting 2 units on the lower odds horse it is around breakeven for the last 1,000 races I have made an oddsline for. Betting the higher odds horse is the profitable way and not by a slim margin at all.

It sounds like you may be better off just betting the longer odds horse.

Personally, I love betting 2 horses to win. My favorite bet in the world is when I hate the favorite and think 2 horses are good value. I bet both to win and box the exacta. Betting 2 horses keeps the win% higher and my mental health better. I usually bet them even, but if one is clearly better value I may bet more on that one.

I remember our conversations about turf racing. I still don't consider myself especially good at turf racing, but I am getting better. I learned I do better when I don't pay any attention to speed figures and when I put way less emphasis on race setups in routes on many courses. Fractions and figures on turf are mostly someone else's art. I'd rather rely on class and use my own art. Also, even when horses are loose and fractions are slow, the better turf closers will get up WAY more often than you would intuitively think if you are more accustomed to dirt racing.

[traynor]

That surprising to me because the history of my betting is the exact opposite. The lower in odds I go the lower the ROI except maybe in the place pool, and that was years ago before net pool pricing.

Perhaps (almost certainly) we have different methods of arriving at the races considered for betting, and the entries in those races considered worth betting. Within the very specific population of entries/races I consider for wagering, I have grown very fond of the high turnover (many bets, many winners) selections in the lower odds ranges. Very productive.

[classhandicapper]

Perhaps (almost certainly) we have different methods of arriving at the races considered for betting, and the entries in those races considered worth betting. Within the very specific population of entries/races I consider for wagering, I have grown very fond of the high turnover (many bets, many winners) selections in the lower odds ranges. Very productive.

That's great. I would love to find value in that area. For awhile I had a clear edge betting to place in NY. People laughed at me but I loved it. I was cashing 80% of my bets and felt comfortable betting 2-3 times as much as I normally bet to win. But the take moved up 2%, the change to net pool pricing knocked off about 3%, and my rebate dropped. At that point I was playing a break even game +/- a couple of percent. So I stopped.

[traynor]

That's great. I would love to find value in that area. For awhile I had a clear edge betting to place in NY. People laughed at me but I loved it. I was cashing 80% of my bets and felt comfortable betting 2-3 times as much as I normally bet to win. But the take moved up 2%, the change to net pool pricing knocked off about 3%, and my rebate dropped. At that point I was playing a break even game +/- a couple of percent. So I stopped.

If you are consistent in the selection process(es), it is relatively simple to determine the most common odds ranges resulting from that particular wagering strategy. The only stickler is that the selection method has to be (or should be) relatively rigid (and hence repeatable). Regarding every race as a "unique puzzle to be solved" is doing things the hard way.

I don't find all that many approaches that are worth betting at any odds. That is, there are basic (and very precise) indicators that distinguish a good 2/1 entry from a good 4/1 entry--and they are not often the same horse.

Might be because of what delta lover refers to as my obsession with predictive models. Those models clearly indicate when a horse is going off at "unacceptable" odds. In the past couple of years those unacceptable odds are more often in the high(er) ranges than the low(er) ranges.

[CincyHorseplayer]

If you are consistent in the selection process(es), it is relatively simple to determine the most common odds ranges resulting from that particular wagering strategy. The only stickler is that the selection method has to be (or should be) relatively rigid (and hence repeatable). Regarding every race as a "unique puzzle to be solved" is doing things the hard way.

I don't find all that many approaches that are worth betting at any odds. That is, there are basic (and very precise) indicators that distinguish a good 2/1 entry from a good 4/1 entry--and they are not often the same horse.

Might be because of what delta lover refers to as my obsession with predictive models. Those models clearly indicate when a horse is going off at "unacceptable" odds. In the past couple of years those unacceptable odds are more often in the high(er) ranges than the low(er) ranges.

After thinking about this for a few days I'm certain the reason we are at different ends of the odds equation is that when I encounter races where I don't need to make an oddsline ie there is a legitimate and heavy favorite I tend to ignore the race and move on. To me it's not even a matter of taste but of the necessity for a high level of near perfection needed to squeeze profit out of this odds range. I have come face to face with this reality plenty but have no desire to indulge it. I find this happens in about 25% of the races on all cards. I make lines on the other 75% and go from there although I have a more simplified oddsline that is alphabetical and uses odds ranges instead of actual odds so I can do as many races as I can possibly look at without getting caught up in the need for precise math.Too many contenders that will likely be a 125-160% oddsline? It is a reality and should be a pass not whittled down etc. Anyway what is leftover in the 75% of those races are a variety of odds ranges that can yield plenty of opportunities over the course of nearly every month at tracks all across the country. In short, you target the races most players pass because you have found it's silver lining. I think that is what it's all about and think it's pretty awesome. For me what I am left with is that my bettable AB contenders represent 20% of entrants of every field and win 52% of the races at an 8.48 avg mutuel over the last nearly 500 races(just shy). Sometimes I bet 2 horses to win evenly. or 2 units on the higher,1 unit on the lower, Or 2 units win,1 unit place on the higher odds horse. Occasionally if the race allows it I will dutch 3 horses, rarely 4. The only reason I am going into detail is that my betting methodology has a solid foundation and is able to be repeated. While we arrive at things from different approaches entirely there is no hair splitting over what to bet. You have found your sweet spot and I have found mine. That it is found is more important than personal methodology.

[thaskalos]

I feel that it's a considerable handicapping weakness to wait all day and be unable to find a worthwhile bet. Those who operate under the "sure thing" delusion are fooling themselves...IMO. There are no "sure things", and you can't avoid losing the majority of your bets in this game.

The notion of stoically sitting still for days while waiting for a bet reminds me of those hard-assed poker players, who toss in hand after hand as they wait for pocket aces. Are they really "disciplined"...or are they overcome by fear? Try to align yourself properly against the odds, I say...and roll the bones. No matter how hard you try...you can't take the "gamble" out of gambling.

[traynor]

After thinking about this for a few days I'm certain the reason we are at different ends of the odds equation is that when I encounter races where I don't need to make an oddsline ie there is a legitimate and heavy favorite I tend to ignore the race and move on. To me it's not even a matter of taste but of the necessity for a high level of near perfection needed to squeeze profit out of this odds range. I have come face to face with this reality plenty but have no desire to indulge it. I find this happens in about 25% of the races on all cards. I make lines on the other 75% and go from there although I have a more simplified oddsline that is alphabetical and uses odds ranges instead of actual odds so I can do as many races as I can possibly look at without getting caught up in the need for precise math.Too many contenders that will likely be a 125-160% oddsline? It is a reality and should be a pass not whittled down etc. Anyway what is leftover in the 75% of those races are a variety of odds ranges that can yield plenty of opportunities over the course of nearly every month at tracks all across the country. In short, you target the races most players pass because you have found it's silver lining. I think that is what it's all about and think it's pretty awesome. For me what I am left with is that my bettable AB contenders represent 20% of entrants of every field and win 52% of the races at an 8.48 avg mutuel over the last nearly 500 races(just shy). Sometimes I bet 2 horses to win evenly. or 2 units on the higher,1 unit on the lower, Or 2 units win,1 unit place on the higher odds horse. Occasionally if the race allows it I will dutch 3 horses, rarely 4. The only reason I am going into detail is that my betting methodology has a solid foundation and is able to be repeated. While we arrive at things from different approaches entirely there is no hair splitting over what to bet. You have found your sweet spot and I have found mine. That it is found is more important than personal methodology.

I agree. A good chunk of the (overall) bets I make are very similar to what you are doing. Both approaches (and quite a few others) offer great opportunities for profit.

[classhandicapper]

I feel that it's a considerable handicapping weakness to wait all day and be unable to find a worthwhile bet. Those who operate under the "sure thing" delusion are fooling themselves...IMO. There are no "sure things", and you can't avoid losing the majority of your bets in this game.

The notion of stoically sitting still for days while waiting for a bet reminds me of those hard-assed poker players, who toss in hand after hand as they wait for pocket aces. Are they really "disciplined"...or are they overcome by fear? Try to align yourself properly against the odds, I say...and roll the bones. No matter how hard you try...you can't take the "gamble" out of gambling.

It's the other way around for me.

I think many profitable horse players generate most of their profits from the small percentage of all their bets that actually represent very good value. The rest of the time they are satisfying their desire to gamble and make scores but are actually either running in place or winning/losing a very little. So even if they net out OK with a more active style, a lot of it is just a waste of time. The trick of course is knowing when you actually have an edge and when you are spinning wheels.

[thaskalos]

I see it the other way around.

I think most profitable horse players generate most of their profits from the small percentage of all their bets that actually represented very good value. The rest of the time they are satisfying their desire to gamble and make scores but are actually either running in place or winning/losing very little. So even if they net out OK with a more active style, a lot of it was just a waste of time. The trick of course if when you actually have an edge and when you are spinning wheels.
I couldn't disagree more. Yes...the majority of our profits come from a small percentage of our bets...but those infrequent "scores" do not advertise themselves ahead of time. We latch on to them by making more frequent wagers...and trading money with the track most of the time.

[traynor]

I feel that it's a considerable handicapping weakness to wait all day and be unable to find a worthwhile bet. Those who operate under the "sure thing" delusion are fooling themselves...IMO. There are no "sure things", and you can't avoid losing the majority of your bets in this game.

The notion of stoically sitting still for days while waiting for a bet reminds me of those hard-assed poker players, who toss in hand after hand as they wait for pocket aces. Are they really "disciplined"...or are they overcome by fear? Try to align yourself properly against the odds, I say...and roll the bones. No matter how hard you try...you can't take the "gamble" out of gambling.

I agree completely, but not (necessarily) for the reasons you state. "stoically sitting still for days while waiting for a bet" indicates rare matches, which in turn indicates insufficient sample size to develop a viable strategy (not enough hits in the population of matches to form a "predictive model").

"Sufficient sample size" is a dynamic, not a carved-in-stone constant. It is every bit as easy to have a sample size that is too large as it is to have a sample size that is too small. The trick is to understand the sample sizes (and types) that can be used to create predictive models--rather than just descriptions of anomalies that are unlikely to be replicated in the real world in a (relatively small) finite number of instances.

[thaskalos]

I agree completely, but not (necessarily) for the reasons you state. "stoically sitting still for days while waiting for a bet" indicates rare matches, which in turn indicates insufficient sample size to develop a viable strategy (not enough hits in the population of matches to form a "predictive model").

"Sufficient sample size" is a dynamic, not a carved-in-stone constant. It is every bit as easy to have a sample size that is too large as it is to have a sample size that is too small. The trick is to understand the sample sizes (and types) that can be used to create predictive models--rather than just descriptions of anomalies that are unlikely to be replicated in the real world in a (relatively small) finite number of instances.

I said nothing about "predictive models", or "sufficient or insufficient sample sizes". I couldn't care less what the horseplayer's game consists of. All I said was that, IMO, if he has to wait for days to find a bet in today's version of the game...then he has to improve his methods, or his temperament.

[traynor]

It's the other way around for me.

I think many profitable horse players generate most of their profits from the small percentage of all their bets that actually represent very good value. The rest of the time they are satisfying their desire to gamble and make scores but are actually either running in place or winning/losing a very little. So even if they net out OK with a more active style, a lot of it is just a waste of time. The trick of course is knowing when you actually have an edge and when you are spinning wheels.

I agree. I think the smaller the target, the more difficult it is to hit. Translated as, "It is fairly simple to know when the application of a particular tactic (over time) will produce positive results, but MUCH more difficult to divine the outcome of individual races."

I think if I were as obsessive about individual race outcomes as most bettors seem to be, I would probably find it as difficult to turn a profit as they seem to find it.

[classhandicapper]

I couldn't disagree more. Yes...the majority of our profits come from a small percentage of our bets...but those infrequent "scores" do not advertise themselves ahead of time. We latch on to them by making more frequent wagers...and trading money with the track most of the time.

Nothing advertises itself as a score.

What I am saying is that most people have no idea whatsoever when they actually have good value and when they don't. All they know is that the net of their big sample of bets was profitable.

What I am also saying is that out of let's say 10K bets, there was probably really only 1k bets where they had great value and hit x% of those. The other 9K was spinning wheels and may even contain some spectacular scores etc.., but not much in terms of net profits (and may even contain losses).

I don't make a lot of plays. If made a lot more plays I would probably lose on them on a net basis even if hit some spectacular scores along the way. I'm going to guess that there are people out there that lose now that could be winners if they tightened up and others that could win even more if they tightened up. But they don't know what to drop and what to keep or simply want the extra action.

[traynor]

I said nothing about "predictive models", or "sufficient or insufficient sample sizes". I couldn't care less what the horseplayer's game consists of. All I said was that, IMO, if he has to wait for days to find a bet in today's version of the game...then he has to improve his methods, or his temperament.

What you said was, "Are they really "disciplined"...or are they overcome by fear?" That implied that anyone who does not bet frequently is either undisciplined or overcome by fear. Technically a false dichotomy, to which the correct response is "none of the above."

It was to that specific statement (or rather, to that rhetorical question) that I indicated disagreement. My error for not being more specific. Apologies.

[traynor]

Nothing advertises itself as a score.

What I am saying is that most people have no idea whatsoever when they actually have good value and when they don't. All they know is that the net of their big sample of bets was profitable.

What I am saying is that out of let's say 10K bets, there was probably really only 1k where they had great value and hit x% of those. The other 9K was spinning wheels and may even contain some spectacular scores etc.., but not much in terms of net profits (and may even contain losses).

I think finding the value is already baked in to the modeling process. It doesn't need to be added later on a race-by-race basis (other than in broad brush strokes, most often considering odds). Again, the attributes that indicate good bets and decent profits at 3/1 or less will generally NOT be the same attributes that indicate good bets and decent profits at 5/1 or more.

[thaskalos]

What you said was, "Are they really "disciplined"...or are they overcome by fear?" That implied that anyone who does not bet frequently is either undisciplined or overcome by fear. Technically a false dichotomy, to which the correct response is "none of the above."

It was to that specific statement (or rather, to that rhetorical question) that I indicated disagreement. My error for not being more specific. Apologies.
No...that's NOT what I implied. What I implied was that anyone who sits for days without making a bet is more "scared" than he is "disciplined". I don't advocate "frequent betting"...because I don't even know what that is. I discourage sitting there for days without making a bet...unless, that is, we go to the track just to pass the time.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I feel that it's a considerable handicapping weakness to wait all day and be unable to find a worthwhile bet. Those who operate under the "sure thing" delusion are fooling themselves...IMO. There are no "sure things", and you can't avoid losing the majority of your bets in this game.

The notion of stoically sitting still for days while waiting for a bet reminds me of those hard-assed poker players, who toss in hand after hand as they wait for pocket aces. Are they really "disciplined"...or are they overcome by fear? Try to align yourself properly against the odds, I say...and roll the bones. No matter how hard you try...you can't take the "gamble" out of gambling.

I agree. I "specialized" my way out of the game. Playing in this manner became so absurd and nauseating that I stopped playing altogether for a few months. That's saying something for how passionate I normally I am for this game. You know this. I make a line on about 75% of the races, the rest are short field/heavy legit favorite types that don't need it. Of those 75%, well I've bet 61 of 77(79%) in my latest batch of races. Some are more quality plays but the others offer more or equal value therefore there is no distinction with the bet $. I find this manner of operation easily repeated, less hair splitting, while offering equal opportunity for profit than a more judicious and conservative approach. It's less stressful. Runs of good and bad even out quickly and that maintains what is of utmost importance to me=my player equilibrium. I sit down for races at noon ET and go til at least Santa Anita is over. Sometimes til 11-12 PM. It goes fast because I'm not under any undue strain with my approach. I used to be ready to blow by 6 PM a lot of days the old way!

[thaskalos]

Nothing advertises itself as a score.

What I am saying is that most people have no idea whatsoever when they actually have good value and when they don't. All they know is that the net of their big sample of bets was profitable.

What I am also saying is that out of let's say 10K bets, there was probably really only 1k bets where they had great value and hit x% of those. The other 9K was spinning wheels and may even contain some spectacular scores etc.., but not much in terms of net profits (and may even contain losses).

I don't make a lot of plays. If made a lot more plays I would probably lose on them on a net basis even if hit some spectacular scores along the way. I'm going to guess that there are people out there that lose now that could be winners if they tightened up and others that could win even more if they tightened up. But they don't know what to drop and what to keep or simply want the extra action.

Again...I said nothing about making "a lot of plays". I was addressing the point of the original poster...who said that he waits days without making a bet. To me...this sort of playing method is doomed to failure from the very beginning...and any profit recorded while playing in such a manner is purely accidental.

Yes...it could very well be that there are people out there who could become winners if they tightened up their play. But the argument could also be made that there are WINNING players out there who would end up losers if they tightened up their play.

When a horseplayer loses money...it is easy for him to blame his losses on this or that. But the truth is that he won't know the REAL reason that he was a losing player...until he becomes a WINNER. Until then, he is just assuming...and assuming won't cut it.

[traynor]

No...that's NOT what I implied. What I implied was that anyone who sits for days without making a bet is more "scared" than he is "disciplined". I don't advocate "frequent betting"...because I don't even know what that is. I discourage sitting there for days without making a bet...unless, that is, we go to the track just to pass the time.

An interesting opinion. Most of the successful bettors I know would consider betting for the sake of betting, or betting for lack of anything else to do, as less than optimal behavior. They bet if (and only if) they have an advantage.

[thaskalos]

An interesting opinion. Most of the successful bettors I know would consider betting for the sake of betting, or betting for lack of anything else to do, as less than optimal behavior. They bet if (and only if) they have an advantage.
All those "successful bettors" that you say you are well-acquainted with...we know that they only bet when they "have an advantage"...but how frequently would you say that they actually WAGER? Do you see them sitting on their hands for days while waiting for a suitable betting opportunity?

[classhandicapper]

Yes...it could very well be that there are people out there who could become winners if they tightened up their play. But the argument could also be made that there are WINNING players out there who would end up losers if they tightened up their play.


If there are players out there that would become losers if they tightened up, then I suspect their problem is exactly what I am describing. They have no idea where the value is among all the bets they make.

IMO you should bet whenever you know you have value.

For some people with a very limited number of insights, that might be once a or twice a week when they have some special trainer insight etc...If they bet more than that they will lose.

For some people it might be 1 play a day.

For some people it might be 10-20 plays a day covering multiple tracks.

[classhandicapper]

All those "successful bettors" that you say you are well-acquainted with...we know that they only bet when they "have an advantage"...but how frequently would you say that they actually WAGER? Do you see them sitting on their hands for days while waiting for a suitable betting opportunity?

I've known Brad Thomas for a long time (not personally years ago). Years ago I heard that he and his partner were making only a handful of huge bets per year. I know he bets more often now.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I agree. I think the smaller the target, the more difficult it is to hit. Translated as, "It is fairly simple to know when the application of a particular tactic (over time) will produce positive results, but MUCH more difficult to divine the outcome of individual races."

I think if I were as obsessive about individual race outcomes as most bettors seem to be, I would probably find it as difficult to turn a profit as they seem to find it.

While I think our natural skill sets make us more able in certain types of races, our research can put us on many more and contradict those skill sets. I've had a major shift in philosophy in that I feel a lot more comfortable about a long run of a lot of races than otherwise. And not so ironically playing in this manner maintains a more even keel. It's rationale eliminates any residual emotional highs and lows. That attribute keeps me in the zone a lot longer and makes the short runs off good play possible. I am not completely automated but I have the capacity for a high output and that has opened up a whole new world to me.

[cj]

I've known Brad Thomas for a long time (not personally years ago). Years ago I heard that he and his partner were making only a handful of huge bets per year. I know he bets more often now.

With the pool sizes these days I think that would be a very risky strategy. You are betting against yourself at some point, particularly a track like Monmouth. You can also easily go 0fer in a handful of bets no matter how great an edge you think you have.

[thaskalos]

If there are players out there that would become losers if they tightened up, then I suspect their problem is exactly what I am describing. They have no idea where the value is among all the bets they make.

IMO you should bet whenever you know you have value.

For some people with a very limited number of insights, that might be once a or twice a week when they have some special trainer insight etc...If they bet more than that they will lose.

For some people it might be 1 play a day.

For some people it might be 10-20 plays a day covering multiple tracks.

Yes...if the races were run on paper, then we would be quite sure of whether or not we have "real value" in a race. Alas...the races are run on the track...and things on the track are seldom what they appear to be.

I may be in the minority here...not only because I am truly a winning player...but also because I happen to make most of my money on races where my enthusiasm for the bet is rather low. That's why I have given up on the idea of scaling my wagers according to "perceived value"...and I wager equally whether the value in a race seems great, or rather small. If I see any value at all in the race, then I bet...no questions asked.

When I was sizing my bets according to "perceived value", I always had to work in the REAL world for a living. But now I don't.

[thaskalos]

I've known Brad Thomas for a long time (not personally years ago). Years ago I heard that he and his partner were making only a handful of huge bets per year. I know he bets more often now.

Any idea why he is betting more frequently now?

[traynor]

All those "successful bettors" that you say you are well-acquainted with...we know that they only bet when they "have an advantage"...but how frequently would you say that they actually WAGER? Do you see them sitting on their hands for days while waiting for a suitable betting opportunity?

Not really. Most do other things. Some do like I used to do (in the good old days before I became enamored of the tote board)--make the day's bets early and in one whack. One of the best I know is a software developer, and bets during his lunch break. Rarely watches races. His concept of racing is as an activity that generates data sets. He is far more interested in the data sets (and analysis thereof) than in horses, jockeys, trainers, or any of the other things that seem to ring the chimes of most bettors.

Computer handicappers (if their apps actually work, and they know what they are doing) generally take only a few seconds to handicap a race, a minute or so for an entire card. All the angst about deciding what to bet is removed in the software building process. The decision process is coded into the apps.

[traynor]

While I think our natural skill sets make us more able in certain types of races, our research can put us on many more and contradict those skill sets. I've had a major shift in philosophy in that I feel a lot more comfortable about a long run of a lot of races than otherwise. And not so ironically playing in this manner maintains a more even keel. It's rationale eliminates any residual emotional highs and lows. That attribute keeps me in the zone a lot longer and makes the short runs off good play possible. I am not completely automated but I have the capacity for a high output and that has opened up a whole new world to me.

I think you are probably on the right track.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I think I know just about everybody on this thread and feel safe in saying that we've all played for at least 20 yrs. While there is always something to learn I think that the tenure in the game really reinforces the notion that longterm this is a beatable game. To me that translates into more play. There is a point you reach where you have acquired enough skills that it's time to just play. And play and play. The bigger the sample size works in your favor. Til you see odds there is only a marginal amount of handicapping to do then it's more decision making than handicapping. Arriving at this point and seeing as many races as possible so your skill set can manifest itself is IMO more important than any idealized approach. Whatever criticism you can read between the lines of this post is first of all directed at myself because I lived through it. And I think this big picture approach not only makes the little picture reality better(win streaks) it makes them more accessible because you aren't wasting a ton of energy wringing your hands. I can't quite capture exactly what I am trying to say here.

[classhandicapper]

Any idea why he is betting more frequently now?

I'm sure he told me, but I can't recall. He's see things in the trips, strides, physicality of horses etc... that I cannot see and I'm not so bad at that kind of thing. Every conversation I have ever had with him (every one) was like talking to Yoda.

[classhandicapper]

Yes...if the races were run on paper, then we would be quite sure of whether or not we have "real value" in a race. Alas...the races are run on the track...and things on the track are seldom what they appear to be.

I may be in the minority here...not only because I am truly a winning player...but also because I happen to make most of my money on races where my enthusiasm for the bet is rather low. That's why I have given up on the idea of scaling my wagers according to "perceived value"...and I wager equally whether the value in a race seems great, or rather small. If I see any value at all in the race, then I bet...no questions asked.

When I was sizing my bets according to "perceived value", I always had to work in the REAL world for a living. But now I don't.

I know I have value when I look at the odds board and see a number next to the horse that makes me think I have to be looking at the wrong number. Then I double check, see that it's the right horse, and get an adrenaline rush :lol:

[CincyHorseplayer]

Yes...if the races were run on paper, then we would be quite sure of whether or not we have "real value" in a race. Alas...the races are run on the track...and things on the track are seldom what they appear to be.

I may be in the minority here...not only because I am truly a winning player...but also because I happen to make most of my money on races where my enthusiasm for the bet is rather low. That's why I have given up on the idea of scaling my wagers according to "perceived value"...and I wager equally whether the value in a race seems great, or rather small. If I see any value at all in the race, then I bet...no questions asked.

When I was sizing my bets according to "perceived value", I always had to work in the REAL world for a living. But now I don't.

I've realized this. Coming up with a % that suits all bets is all one has to do. You either bet or you don't. It is that simple isn't it Gus? I don't distinguish anymore between. There are short runs of it where that is possible but it doesn't last for whatever reason. Payoff wise a high probability bet(in one's opinion) and a bet that offers more value, there isn't much distinction, therefore there shouldn't be in how one bets it either. If there is any more conflict about a race it shouldn't be played IMO.

[cj]

I've realized this. Coming up with a % that suits all bets is all one has to do. You either bet or you don't. It is that simple isn't it Gus? I don't distinguish anymore between. There are short runs of it where that is possible but it doesn't last for whatever reason. Payoff wise a high probability bet(in one's opinion) and a bet that offers more value, there isn't much distinction, therefore there shouldn't be in how one bets it either. If there is any more conflict about a race it shouldn't be played IMO.

I agree with this as well. Invariably if you try to distinguish not just value but how much value, you will wind up with smaller bets on wins than you have on losses. It is an irrefutable truth. :)

[CincyHorseplayer]

I know I have value when I look at the odds board and see a number next to the horse that makes me think I have to be looking at the wrong number. Then I double check, see that it's the right horse, and get an adrenaline rush :lol:

The horseplayer's equivalent of getting a boner! :D

[CincyHorseplayer]

I agree with this as well. Invariably if you try to distinguish not just value but how much value, you will wind up with smaller bets on wins than you have on losses. It is an irrefutable truth. :)

Yep those are what I call the jackass wins! You scaled down because it wasn't a great bet and it wins and you are sitting there redfaced hee-haw hee-haw! We just have to make sure we are well compensated CJ, then we aren't talking about irrefutable truths but ones for the ages, immortal truths! :cool:

[ultracapper]

That's great. I would love to find value in that area. For awhile I had a clear edge betting to place in NY. People laughed at me but I loved it. I was cashing 80% of my bets and felt comfortable betting 2-3 times as much as I normally bet to win. But the take moved up 2%, the change to net pool pricing knocked off about 3%, and my rebate dropped. At that point I was playing a break even game +/- a couple of percent. So I stopped.

I was always under the impression NPP was good for the players.

[therussmeister]

I was always under the impression NPP was good for the players.
NPP is good for the players betting the higher priced place and show horses, but bad for those betting the shorter priced horse.

[classhandicapper]

NPP is good for the players betting the higher priced place and show horses, but bad for those betting the shorter priced horse.

Exactly. Most of plays with that angle were on favorites. So it was hurting me about 3% based on the sample I checked.