Interesting Article

[traynor]

"We played as a team so that we could pool our funds to place higher bets, and so the natural losses that players suffer along with wins - what gamblers call fluctuation - was evened out into a steady, marginal gain.

If people really knew about fluctuation before they decided to become players they would give up on the idea. It's possible to play correctly and lose for a grotesque amount of time. It might sound strange, but part of what makes a professional gambler is an ability to lose and lose and lose without going bonkers."

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38103674

While this might play into the beliefs of some, it is well to realize she is referring to blackjack players--NOT horse race bettors. There is not much "fluctuation"--a random distribution of events within a tightly constrained set--in horse race betting that can (even with wishin' and hopin' on steroids) "reward" the stoic loser with an (approximately even) distributions of wins.

Horse racing is not blackjack. There is no "statistical pressure" that guarantees that long strings of losses may be somehow balanced out by wins if one can only keep slogging on long enough. There may be long strings of losses in blackjack because of normal distribution of events within a fixed set of possible outcomes. There is no equivalent in horse race betting. Those long strings of losses in horse race betting have one primary cause--the bettor bet on the wrong horse(s). Accepting such as "normal" does not seem a particularly wise long-term strategy.

[ReplayRandall]

Horse racing is not blackjack. There is no "statistical pressure" that guarantees that long strings of losses may be somehow balanced out by wins if one can only keep slogging on long enough. There may be long strings of losses in blackjack because of normal distribution of events within a fixed set of possible outcomes. There is no equivalent in horse race betting. Those long strings of losses in horse race betting have one primary cause--the bettor bet on the wrong horse(s). Accepting such as "normal" does not seem a particularly wise long-term strategy.

The link was a good read. However, I disagree with your above paragraph, and here's why. A long-term winning horse-player goes through similar variances/fluxes on a regular basis. Using exactly the same methodologies continuously will have, for example, good runs of up to 3 weeks, followed by horrible runs for 3 weeks. This is NORMAL when betting the T-breds, as it's almost like someone turning on a light switch, and coming back later, at an undetermined time, to switch it OFF. There is absolutely no rhyme or reason why this happens on such a regular basis, but it's all part of the game in the long run. BTW, pro's in poker go through exactly the same runs, some much more severe than pro horse-players.....

[CincyHorseplayer]

Good read T.

I can go a pretty lengthy bit of time before I hit the wall. Then stop for a week and I'm fresh again. The break while no incoming dollars is worth it by lack of losses. Then it's as if I never stepped away. I bet more races these days precisely because I know the variance evens out after about 100 bets or more. The more cycles the better. Passing on low value, knowing when to stop briefly, only as a means to play at the highest level one is capable of for as long as possible is all I've worked on in addition to other non handicapping research the last few years. It's been the most interesting and fun I've had with this game in years. I embrace battling the variance!

[traynor]

The link was a good read. However, I disagree with your above paragraph, and here's why. A long-term winning horse-player goes through similar variances/fluxes on a regular basis. Using exactly the same methodologies continuously will have, for example, good runs of up to 3 weeks, followed by horrible runs for 3 weeks. This is NORMAL when betting the T-breds, as it's almost like someone turning on a light switch, and coming back later, at an undetermined time, to switch it OFF. There is absolutely no rhyme or reason why this happens on such a regular basis, but it's all part of the game in the long run. BTW, pro's in poker go through exactly the same runs, some much more severe than pro horse-players.....

Most of the bettors I know use computer models. An intrinsic component of those models is (predicted) distribution. In essence, some (types of) wagers consistently produce scattered results--long strings of losses, long strings of choppy results, and (not nearly often enough) relatively tight clusters of wins. I think bettors should understand when such are "normal" and when they are the result of inconsistent or inadequate selection tactics. Other types of wagers result in fairly consistent results (with very few long stretches up or down). I much prefer the latter.

[traynor]

Good read T.

I can go a pretty lengthy bit of time before I hit the wall. Then stop for a week and I'm fresh again. The break while no incoming dollars is worth it by lack of losses. Then it's as if I never stepped away. I bet more races these days precisely because I know the variance evens out after about 100 bets or more. The more cycles the better. Passing on low value, knowing when to stop briefly, only as a means to play at the highest level one is capable of for as long as possible is all I've worked on in addition to other non handicapping research the last few years. It's been the most interesting and fun I've had with this game in years. I embrace battling the variance!

Again, I think it is important for a bettor to understand when the results are "normal" (whatever that might be for the type(s) of wager(s) made) and when they are not. Every model I use has a built-in analysis of frequency distribution--exactly how many (and how severe) ups and downs existed in the base population (and in subsequent sample populations used for verification) used to create the model. I have no problem whatsoever taking breaks from betting if the results are not what I expect them to be. If the model(s) are any good, they perform the same whether I bet on them or not. I would rather miss a few juicy payoffs than chase rainbows. There will always be more of those juicy payoffs. Chasing rainbows does not seem to be a good strategy (at least for me--YMMV).

[thaskalos]

Didn't I see a recent run of harness plays of yours on this site...where you ran up losses in excess of $400 by wagering a mere $4 per bet? Were you using a "model" for those plays...and, did this run qualify to be called a "long string of losses"?

I apologize in advance if I misunderstood your harness wagers.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Most of the bettors I know use computer models. An intrinsic component of those models is (predicted) distribution. In essence, some (types of) wagers consistently produce scattered results--long strings of losses, long strings of choppy results, and (not nearly often enough) relatively tight clusters of wins. I think bettors should understand when such are "normal" and when they are the result of inconsistent or inadequate selection tactics. Other types of wagers result in fairly consistent results (with very few long stretches up or down). I much prefer the latter.

I'm going to have to pick this up later today. This conversation hits on a lot of the philosophical experiences I have had as a player. The relationship between predictability/profitability. Not just tracks or surfaces but the worth of any model. I am new to this but have discovered very quickly it's value in my research. And as you said also the near lack of variance in certain as opposed to other bets. Starting out with Beyer's Winning Horseplayer I learned the game exotics first. But over time realized I was squandering a great deal of my abilities by neglecting to bet to win. And eventually realized using a 3 unit method of win and win-place that it could be self contained and profitable to a degree that would surprise some. Then later adding the model concept mainly to biased tracks but especially turf courses and their stark contrast to dirt and each other that dutch betting was highly profitable and could even rival exotics betting in profit potential. The entirety of the last 18 months I have spent basically trying to invent better techniques in contender identification and race recognizability for exotics potential while cutting down on pure methodical exotics play. Being more efficient in race selection for those bets. This is these days an inherently backwards concept. But I see baseball parallels. With baseball now in it's post steroid era(for the most part) there exist hitters who hover around the Mendoza line but can bang HR's without having many other skills that translate into runs scored(profit potential) like OBP and RBI ability of which the best skill is to be able to hit the ball for average(hit % in horses). Many players share similar stories of swinging for the fences while the ROI never attains great heights. It seems that a more well rounded "Betting" game would deal with the profitability issue on multiple fronts just like a player's overall batting line makes him a more intrinsically valuable player within the concept of a team. AVG(win of 5% bank or better)/OBP(cash rate)/SLG(ROI)/OPS(Horseplayer Sabermetric of cash rate+ ROI). Each betting approach would have it's inherent strengths and weaknesses that it addresses in the equation. All the concepts are fascinating. Much of this bet psychology also. Anyway good stuff all. Got my wheels turning and have to be up in 2 hours! Thanks!

[barn32]

If people really knew about fluctuation before they decided to become players they would give up on the idea. It's possible to play correctly and lose for a grotesque amount of time. It might sound strange, but part of what makes a professional gambler is an ability to lose and lose and lose without going bonkers.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38103674

Thanks for posting that link. It brings back memories.

I can't remember every playing with Cat, but I probably did. I played with David Heyden quite a lot and had many conversations with him. Very impressive.

David was a lifelong stud player until no-limit took over and he switched games.

In fact, he was one of the regular players in Larry Flynt's 1000-2000 stud game (staked I'm sure) that went on for quite some time.

The best female players I've ever played with were Betty Carey, Barbara Samuelson (nee Gold), and Cissy Bottoms.

Betty Carey's story is fascinating and mysterious at the same time. She was an excellent player, especially at no-limit. No one really knows what happened to her or why, but rumors abound. She was good friends with Mike Sexton, and he probably knows, but one story was that her life was threatened by none other than Bob Stupak so she disappeared.

Barbara Gold played in all the high stakes stud, razz and hold'em games and did quite well.

Cissy Bottoms, well she was just a medium limit machine.

I'm reminiscing now. I was playing in a $1000 satellite for the main event. Betty Carey, Stu Ungar and Ken (what a player) Smith were in the game.

Stuey kept going on and on about how he was a two to one favorite to win a hand that (he tried to steal), and Betty kept telling him that he would get it back. Just hang in there, you'll get it back.

This was 1984, and Stuey went on to win the main event that year in Lake Tahoe.

I didn't see Stuey for a half a dozen years after that, and I barely recognized him when I did. His face was a mess. His nose was practically caved in from the cocaine. What a waste.

He defeated Ralph Morton in that 1984 heads up showdown, who was subsequently beaten within an inch of his life over a drug deal (robbery) in a cheap motel about a mile from the Commerce Club, and was lucky to survive.

I ran into Ralph a half a dozen years after that and we got to talking. He said they beat him so badly (they broke off a sink and were crushing his head with it), that he lost 75% of his mental facilities. It took him quite a long time to get back on his feet. His memory was shot.

I reminded him about that last hand he played against Stuey in the 1984 main event (QQvs99), and he said, "I don't remember much about my past but I do remember that hand! You've got a pretty good memory."

[traynor]

Didn't I see a recent run of harness plays of yours on this site...where you ran up losses in excess of $400 by wagering a mere $4 per bet? Were you using a "model" for those plays...and, did this run qualify to be called a "long string of losses"?

I apologize in advance if I misunderstood your harness wagers.

A good example, and the (paper) losses were up to $700 or so before I stopped posting (and betting) that particular model. After more than a year and a half of fairly consistent positive returns, the Yonkers reverse exacta model (using specific criteria for selections) went belly up big time. I continue(d) monitoring the results (a routine process) and there has been no "reversal of fortune positive swing to compensate for the (thankfully shortened) string of losses" in that case. The year and a half of profitable selections was not representative of a "normal distribution" that could be depended on to continue.

My only regret (other than pining for what I (unfortunately) boasted of as the "easy profit" available using reverse exactas at Yonkers) is that I didn't catch the downturn/cessation of profitability earlier.

[traynor]

I'm going to have to pick this up later today. This conversation hits on a lot of the philosophical experiences I have had as a player. The relationship between predictability/profitability. Not just tracks or surfaces but the worth of any model. I am new to this but have discovered very quickly it's value in my research. And as you said also the near lack of variance in certain as opposed to other bets. Starting out with Beyer's Winning Horseplayer I learned the game exotics first. But over time realized I was squandering a great deal of my abilities by neglecting to bet to win. And eventually realized using a 3 unit method of win and win-place that it could be self contained and profitable to a degree that would surprise some. Then later adding the model concept mainly to biased tracks but especially turf courses and their stark contrast to dirt and each other that dutch betting was highly profitable and could even rival exotics betting in profit potential. The entirety of the last 18 months I have spent basically trying to invent better techniques in contender identification and race recognizability for exotics potential while cutting down on pure methodical exotics play. Being more efficient in race selection for those bets. This is these days an inherently backwards concept. But I see baseball parallels. With baseball now in it's post steroid era(for the most part) there exist hitters who hover around the Mendoza line but can bang HR's without having many other skills that translate into runs scored(profit potential) like OBP and RBI ability of which the best skill is to be able to hit the ball for average(hit % in horses). Many players share similar stories of swinging for the fences while the ROI never attains great heights. It seems that a more well rounded "Betting" game would deal with the profitability issue on multiple fronts just like a player's overall batting line makes him a more intrinsically valuable player within the concept of a team. AVG(win of 5% bank or better)/OBP(cash rate)/SLG(ROI)/OPS(Horseplayer Sabermetric of cash rate+ ROI). Each betting approach would have it's inherent strengths and weaknesses that it addresses in the equation. All the concepts are fascinating. Much of this bet psychology also. Anyway good stuff all. Got my wheels turning and have to be up in 2 hours! Thanks!

A sound approach. Find stuff that works. Use it. If it stops working, dump it. Rinse and repeat. There is no Holy Grail. There is only stuff that works for awhile. Whatever you discover in the process, it is relatively safe to assume that a whole pack of very aggressive, very serious bettors have discovered (or will shortly discover) the same thing. Take advantage of it while the opportunity exists.

The same situation exists in most other areas of human endeavor, especially business.

[traynor]

Thanks for posting that link. It brings back memories.

I can't remember every playing with Cat, but I probably did. I played with David Heyden quite a lot and had many conversations with him. Very impressive.

David was a lifelong stud player until no-limit took over and he switched games.

In fact, he was one of the regular players in Larry Flynt's 1000-2000 stud game (staked I'm sure) that went on for quite some time.

The best female players I've ever played with were Betty Carey, Barbara Samuelson (nee Gold), and Cissy Bottoms.

Betty Carey's story is fascinating and mysterious at the same time. She was an excellent player, especially at no-limit. No one really knows what happened to her or why, but rumors abound. She was good friends with Mike Sexton, and he probably knows, but one story was that her life was threatened by none other than Bob Stupak so she disappeared.

Barbara Gold played in all the high stakes stud, razz and hold'em games and did quite well.

Cissy Bottoms, well she was just a medium limit machine.

I'm reminiscing now. I was playing in a $1000 satellite for the main event. Betty Carey, Stu Ungar and Ken (what a player) Smith were in the game.

Stuey kept going on and on about how he was a two to one favorite to win a hand that (he tried to steal), and Betty kept telling him that he would get it back. Just hang in there, you'll get it back.

This was 1984, and Stuey went on to win the main event that year in Lake Tahoe.

I didn't see Stuey for a half a dozen years after that, and I barely recognized him when I did. His face was a mess. His nose was practically caved in from the cocaine. What a waste.

He defeated Ralph Morton in that 1984 heads up showdown, who was subsequently beaten within an inch of his life over a drug deal (robbery) in a cheap motel about a mile from the Commerce Club, and was lucky to survive.

I ran into Ralph a half a dozen years after that and we got to talking. He said they beat him so badly (they broke off a sink and were crushing his head with it), that he lost 75% of his mental facilities. It took him quite a long time to get back on his feet. His memory was shot.

I reminded him about that last hand he played against Stuey in the 1984 main event (QQvs99), and he said, "I don't remember much about my past but I do remember that hand! You've got a pretty good memory."

Way back, I saw two books in a bookstore window, and bought both. I chose the direction of the first--Playing Blackjack as a Business--rather than the second (with a more engaging title)--Play Poker, Quit Work, and Sleep 'til Noon.

Your post almost makes me wish I had chosen the direction of the second book.

[traynor]

Didn't I see a recent run of harness plays of yours on this site...where you ran up losses in excess of $400 by wagering a mere $4 per bet? Were you using a "model" for those plays...and, did this run qualify to be called a "long string of losses"?

I apologize in advance if I misunderstood your harness wagers.

As I have mentioned before, I often increase wagers after losses. Using such a process requires explicit knowledge of the frequency distribution of specific models--in short, what is "normal" and what is "not normal." Not an easy task, when using literally dozens of different models for a variety of wagers. Fortunately, most of the process is automated.

[thaskalos]

Most of the bettors I know use computer models. An intrinsic component of those models is (predicted) distribution. In essence, some (types of) wagers consistently produce scattered results--long strings of losses, long strings of choppy results, and (not nearly often enough) relatively tight clusters of wins. I think bettors should understand when such are "normal" and when they are the result of inconsistent or inadequate selection tactics. Other types of wagers result in fairly consistent results (with very few long stretches up or down). I much prefer the latter.


In parimutuel games like horse racing and poker...the "safer" a playing style is, the less profitable it becomes long-term. The players who embrace these safer playing styles are typically the ones whose temperament and personality can't cope with the high degree of variance associated with the more aggressive styles of play.

In no-limit holdem...the competent "loose-aggressive" players are the most dangerous and the most profitable...but they also suffer the most turbulent financial swings. The "nits", who always wait for a big hand before committing to a pot, aren't nearly as dangerous or long-term profitable...but they can scrape up a profit in the smaller games without the stress of the prolonged drawdowns that the bolder, more profitable players experience. For most players...a compromise between these two extreme betting styles would probably be the best thing.

In horse racing...the competent bettor who restricts his wagers to presumed overlays, and keys these overlays in win-bets and exotics, will have a chance at the highest profit levels that the game offers...but he will also have to pay the significant price of experiencing the biggest fluctuations to his bankroll. That's why your 2-horse exacta-box wagers resulted in the significant drawdown that I referenced earlier...even thought the method itself could very well have been highly profitable overall.

The horseplayer who opts to "spread out" more in his wagering, does so in an attempt to "smooth-out" the high degree of variance experienced by the more aggressive bettor...but by doing so, he sacrifices some long-term profitability. There is no "free lunch"...in life OR in gambling.

To summarize...the degree of bankroll fluctuations that horseplayers experience have less to do with the competency of their methods...and more to do with the aggressiveness of their betting styles. It all comes down to how much "gamble" the bettor has in him...and how much "risk" his temperament could effectively tolerate. As a good friend of mine likes to say..."you have to wear the clothes that suit you".

By the way...I think this thread is a much better fit in the horse racing section of the site.

[ReplayRandall]

As I have mentioned before, I often increase wagers after losses.

After a win, what do you do with wager size?

[traynor]

... that dutch betting was highly profitable and could even rival exotics betting in profit potential.

An interesting area. It might be that the opportunities exist because the races that favor dutching may be more competitive, with outcomes not as clear cut as (many) other races. I have been doing a lot of study in the last few months that indicates more (selections) may be better. Specifically, races in which the selection process I use for dutching indicates three potential winners are more profitable (betting all three) than races it indicates (only) two potential winners (and betting both). In some instances, dutching four entries is productive.

That is not "every race, every track, every day." That is only the very specific races that fit the pre-determined profile of that particular model. However, the obvious benefit of being able to spread wagers over several entries (with less effect on the odds of the individual entries) should not be underestimated.

Still in the "research" phase. One thing I need to study is the effect of using conditional wagers when dutching multiple entries (for example, restricting minimum odds to 2/1 for a three entry dutch, 3/1 for a four entry, or whatever). Easy to say, hard to study, given the last minute odds fluctuations.

[traynor]

After a win, what do you do with wager size?

Stays the same. Meaning I don't favor percentage of bankroll or Kelly. I use a different process.

[thaskalos]

Way back, I saw two books in a bookstore window, and bought both. I chose the direction of the first--Playing Blackjack as a Business--rather than the second (with a more engaging title)--Play Poker, Quit Work, and Sleep 'til Noon.

Your post almost makes me wish I had chosen the direction of the second book.
The book that you passed on was a GREAT book...and it would have brought back a pretty penny in resale.

[traynor]

In parimutuel games like horse racing and poker...the "safer" a playing style is, the less profitable it becomes long-term. The players who embrace these safer playing styles are typically the ones whose temperament and personality can't cope with the high degree of variance associated with the more aggressive styles of play.

In no-limit holdem...the competent "loose-aggressive" players are the most dangerous and the most profitable...but they also suffer the most turbulent financial swings. The "nits", who always wait for a big hand before committing to a pot, aren't nearly as dangerous or long-term profitable...but they can scrape up a profit in the smaller games without the stress of the prolonged drawdowns that the bolder, more profitable players experience. For most players...a compromise between these two extreme betting styles would probably be the best thing.

In horse racing...the competent bettor who restricts his wagers to presumed overlays, and keys these overlays in win-bets and exotics, will have a chance at the highest profit levels that the game offers...but he will also have to pay the significant price of experiencing the biggest fluctuations to his bankroll. That's why your 2-horse exacta-box wagers resulted in the significant drawdown that I referenced earlier...even thought the method itself could very well have been highly profitable overall.

The horseplayer who opts to "spread out" more in his wagering, does so in an attempt to "smooth-out" the high degree of variance experienced by the more aggressive bettor...but by doing so, he sacrifices some long-term profitability. There is no "free lunch"...in life OR in gambling.

To summarize...the degree of bankroll fluctuations that horseplayers experience have less to do with the competency of their methods...and more to do with the aggressiveness of their betting styles. It all comes down to how much "gamble" the bettor has in him...and how much "risk" his temperament could effectively tolerate. As a good friend of mine likes to say..."you have to wear the clothes that suit you".

By the way...I think this thread is a much better fit in the horse racing section of the site.

I have encountered more than a few aggressive bettors who buried themselves because they lacked the accompanying strategic skills to make that aggression productive.

Many who believe themselves "gamblers" are simply engaged in "gambling activities" in which they believe (correctly or incorrectly) that they have an edge over the other bettors. Most of the "real gamblers" I know prefer baccarat or craps when "gambling." Blackjack and horse race betting (seems to me) "work," more than "gambling."

I never found much of interest in poker, so my views are probably much different than they might have been otherwise.

[thaskalos]

I have encountered more than a few aggressive bettors who buried themselves because they lacked the accompanying strategic skills to make that aggression productive.

Many who believe themselves "gamblers" are simply engaged in "gambling activities" in which they believe (correctly or incorrectly) that they have an edge over the other bettors. Most of the "real gamblers" I know prefer baccarat or craps when "gambling." Blackjack and horse race betting (seems to me) "work," more than "gambling."

I never found much of interest in poker, so my views are probably much different than they might have been otherwise.

Yes...I think we've established that the two of us hold distinctly different definitions of the word "gambling".

[traynor]

The book that you passed on was a GREAT book...and it would have brought back a pretty penny in resale.
Way back, I bought (and studied) pretty much every book that GBC had on horse racing, blackjack, AND poker. A LOT of books. Then the bleeping computers came along, and occupied (most of) the time I used to devote to reading. At least in those areas.

I liked Amarillo Slim's book, but that impression was from the time I first read it. Way back.

[traynor]

Yes...I think we've established that the two of us hold distinctly different definitions of the word "gambling".

Differences of opinion are good. As they say, that is what makes a horse race.

[thaskalos]

Way back, I bought (and studied) pretty much every book that GBC had on horse racing, blackjack, AND poker. A LOT of books. Then the bleeping computers came along, and occupied (most of) the time I used to devote to reading. At least in those areas.

I liked Amarillo Slim's book, but that impression was from the time I first read it. Way back.

I too would read every "serious" gambling found in the GBC. In fact...Howard would call me directly whenever an interesting new title arrived at the store. And...since I never really "discovered" the computer...this obsessive reading habit has remained with me all along.

[classhandicapper]

Poker always reminded me of gambling at pool.

The key to winning money in both pool and poker is not how good you are, it's making good games.

Pool players are often rated as Professional and then A through D (with D level players being a little better than beginners). Years ago I knew C level players that could grind out a few thousand every year and A level players that lost their shirt regularly. It's the same with poker. You can be the 20th best player in the world at a particular game but if you are sitting at a table with a bunch of players better than you, you are dead. You can be a donkey like me and be profitable in a $1 - $2 limit game.

We don't have that luxury in horse racing.

[ReplayRandall]

We don't have that luxury in horse racing.

Yes you do------>Tournaments, especially small field tourneys, where you can see who's already entered before you decide to play.

[classhandicapper]

Yes you do------>Tournaments, especially small field tourneys, where you can see who's already entered before you decide to play.

Good point.

I have very limited experience in tournaments, but I don't like them. That's not to say they aren't great fun and profitable for some people, they just don't suit me.

My brain is fully wired to find horses that are better than they look on paper and bet them if the price is right. In tournaments there's an extra layer of strategy in that you have to see your position on the leader board, guess what other players are selecting, and then formulate a strategy to win the tournament. A lot of times that's going to take you away from the horse you would play for cash and even put you on underlays because it make strategic sense. That goes against my wiring.

The other thing that turned me off was that my very first tournament was an AQU and OP tournament. I was crushing at AQU and worked my way into the top few. In the very last race I played what I thought was a decent overlay. A bunch of people at the bottom of the standings who were terrible the entire tournament picked the longest shot on the board. They didn't "like him" per se. They probably hated the horse just like me. But it was the only way for them to get into the money so it made strategic sense to go for the hail Mary. That garbage can got a perfect trip, won, and knocked me just out of the money after a day of fairly excellent handicapping. If a bunch of people actually liked that horse, so be it. They found something I missed. But the way it happened left a sour taste.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Way back, I bought (and studied) pretty much every book that GBC had on horse racing, blackjack, AND poker. A LOT of books. Then the bleeping computers came along, and occupied (most of) the time I used to devote to reading. At least in those areas.

I liked Amarillo Slim's book, but that impression was from the time I first read it. Way back.
You might have been one of the large handful of people who read my first book, The Condition Sign! Sold about half he copies through GBC.

[traynor]

You might have been one of the large handful of people who read my first book, The Condition Sign! Sold about half he copies through GBC.
If it was at GBC late 70s to late 80s, I read it.

[traynor]

I too would read every "serious" gambling found in the GBC. In fact...Howard would call me directly whenever an interesting new title arrived at the store. And...since I never really "discovered" the computer...this obsessive reading habit has remained with me all along.

When I became interested in textual deconstruction and critical analysis, many of the later works (on gambling-related topics) seemed more like idle gossip than information. That is, a lot of he say-she say wrapping a (very) few bits of "information." My obsessive reading habit is unabated, but focused in other areas.

[traynor]

I too would read every "serious" gambling found in the GBC. In fact...Howard would call me directly whenever an interesting new title arrived at the store. And...since I never really "discovered" the computer...this obsessive reading habit has remained with me all along.

Wasn't John Luckman the first to "expose" blackjack teams?

[thaskalos]

Wasn't John Luckman the first to "expose" blackjack teams?

Luckman was before my time...Howard Schwartz was the guy that I became acquainted with at the GBC.

True story:

I was at the GBC some 20+ years ago...and I bought all the books that I could find by the popular poker co-authors David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth. By wild coincidence...Mason Malmouth happened to walk into the store just as Howard was about to check me out at the register.

"Hey, Mason...my friend here is buying all your books. Would you like to sign one of them?"...Howard called out to the famed author/mathematician. Malmuth walked over to me and shook my hand, and apologetically told me..."I'm sorry, I don't do book signings".

I thanked him nonetheless for his contributions to the poker community...as Howard was quietly apologizing to me for what had just transpired.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Where I have arrived at has absolutely nothing to do with escaping variance or not having a certain temperament for A or B. As your thinking changes and you evolve what you discover is that it is not all black and white and basic as it seems. For one in my first post one of the greatest realizations I have made is exactly embracing the reality of variance and battling it in the form of more bets as opposed to less bets. That it is through 100 or more bet cycles that it evens out and that approach would get you to where you are going. But most of the discovery had to do with what to do with new ratings and new analysis and analyzing it in a statistical manner. While at first I tried to create weighted models across the degrees of success with several rankings I realized that it distorted what a good bet was and that the strongest rating that was showing up in a track profile was what to play. The other thing I had to personally overcome is the desire to handicap the horses to be bet when they fit. It was a case where the strength was the statistic and it demanded to be bet period or you would handicap away profitability. It was hard to go against my own nature. It was hard to comprehend that betting ALL of the profile horses to win would yield a bigger return even if the overall ROI might go down with a more selective approach. It's all about more return right? Plus this would mean a paradigm shift to more research and modeling as opposed to constant handicapping. Find what is winning and bet it, period. It took a while to get through my head last winter at Gulfstream. From 12/9 to 2/15, 71% of the turf routes were won by the top 2 in my turf rating. Still playing a Pick Em approach and not tracking % of entries the avg mutual was over $11 with weekly ROI's ranging between 56% to 77%. It was steady for that period and blew up completely in late February. I hadn't adequately capitalized but it was an eye opening lesson.

Fast forward to October 2016. Starting to profile Santa Anita for the BC. It didn't take long to see that my secondary turf rating(T2) that usually made it's presence felt on short turf courses was winning races at a big clip and it was practically the antithesis of the Del Mar turf course which I played lightly late summer. I started betting by 10/6. The model held all of the short meet. The T2 rating won 89% of the races but there were a lot of contenders. They represented 30% of the entries but won 2.97% of their fair share at a dead even mutual of 10.00. ROI was 55%. Lesson learned for good. This was a new method of play that had previously not existed. With high hit rates and ROI it represented virtues that were the antithesis of the perceived modern game. This wasn't aggressive and swinging for the fences. It was taking what was there.

The same thing happened about 5 years ago when I realized how many wins I was squandering playing purely exotics. I made a distinct split between bet approaches. And using a 3 unit method(3 units win on sub 4-1)(2 units win, 1 unit place on 4-1 up). I realized that this also was a thing in itself. A self contained method that could stand on it's own. But to me it was just another method.

A similar thing happened when I stopped tracking contenders by what I call the fun with numbers method(1st choice 2nd choice 3rd choice etc). If you had a 1st choice as the ONLY contender in a race a 3rd choice winning at long odds was meaningless. So I tracked contenders simply by AB(strong contenders) and C+(marginal contenders) and let over 1,000 races pile up to start making conclusions. Which shattered my illusions of excess value handicapping.(I covered this is an entirely other thread). What this ultimately laid the basis for was not only proper ticket structure for sequential bets but gauging the potential value in any race for exotics. Tracking the odds ranges kept me out of low expectation returns that also included many longshots.

Add in developing specific uses for certain bets and I had 5-6 approaches to making money at this game all with different hit rates and profit potentials. They all have added up to a more well rounded game but being as they are largely independent of each other even in the same races it wasn't geared toward lowering risk at all. In fact that it requires a higher level of investment it is quite the opposite.

In the last 18 months I've learned a lot and still have much more to utilize. Most of my conclusions and examples are relatively new and the future still has to play out. But I feel at least mentally I am playing a different game. The only thing I have made easier is formatting for pace figures while adding twice as much work! LOL!

[CincyHorseplayer]

Utilizing the approach of more investment and higher volume is definitely a task to swallow and execute. Which for personal reasons is difficult, at least for another 4 years because of certain financial obligations. I am forced to be content with my modest earnings and being on a new wave of learning. And I am content to a great extent. Laying some good track for the future when navigating an often bleak landscape. The shift to turf as my primary surface has definitely altered the equation. But to the extent where I was pretty dismal on dirt in 2016. Something I had reversed in the 2nd half of 2015 and vowed to continue. By no means have I found the keys to the kingdom.

Plus there is the reality of what I call dead zones. A fair track on both surfaces can be this when there is no leaning bias and I am not talking track bias but a rating bias. Tampa is a place like this with it's IMO loose and sandy surface and quirky turf course it's hard to get a handle on. Good bets require different skills and are hard earned. A place like northern and eastern tracks in winter that really are dictated by shifting biases where guys like EMD4me thrive because of what he does. Middle of meets with shifting biases either rating or actual. Bad weather. A "dead arm" period for horses who have been running. Beginning and ends of meets. Sinking your teeth into anything is short lived and we are always on the chase. There is always work to do and adversity to face. One thing I need to do is up my computer skills because I need to do even more research and need to do it more efficiently. Turf courses IMO have to be all hand done as they are quirky to interpret with so many layoffs. All else I need more time efficiency. I haven't learned how to do that yet. Delta and Traynor you guys have given me some good starts for that. All this is an on going process and I love talking about it. Great game.

[Robert Fischer]

randomness exists in everything probabilistic (excuse me tonight, my brain's battery is on 'safe mode') , I'm assuming as long as that probability is <1 or <100%.


this includes horse racing

also includes simplified examples of horse racing using known, controlled probabilities

A coin flip, simulated in my head
I'll bet on 'HEADS'. 50% win chance.
1,000 coin flips and I can see as many as 10 consecutive tails loss outcomes.

A true 2/1 favorite. 33% , 1,000 races = as many as 17 consecutive losses...

those are just the simple examples i'm capable of describing.
I'm sure a better mathematician could demonstrate a simulation with a worst-probable outcome scenario.


So yes, randomness exists.

We can fight randomness with high percentage wagers, and lower percent of bankroll wagers

will not completely eliminate, but we can produce a 'manageable' environment with an very low probability of ruin due to randomness.

^all that stuff is talking about known probabilities and by extension, players capable of knowing their probability range estimates

[traynor]

Where I have arrived at has absolutely nothing to do with escaping variance or not having a certain temperament for A or B. As your thinking changes and you evolve what you discover is that it is not all black and white and basic as it seems. For one in my first post one of the greatest realizations I have made is exactly embracing the reality of variance and battling it in the form of more bets as opposed to less bets. That it is through 100 or more bet cycles that it evens out and that approach would get you to where you are going. But most of the discovery had to do with what to do with new ratings and new analysis and analyzing it in a statistical manner. While at first I tried to create weighted models across the degrees of success with several rankings I realized that it distorted what a good bet was and that the strongest rating that was showing up in a track profile was what to play. The other thing I had to personally overcome is the desire to handicap the horses to be bet when they fit. It was a case where the strength was the statistic and it demanded to be bet period or you would handicap away profitability. It was hard to go against my own nature. It was hard to comprehend that betting ALL of the profile horses to win would yield a bigger return even if the overall ROI might go down with a more selective approach. It's all about more return right? Plus this would mean a paradigm shift to more research and modeling as opposed to constant handicapping. Find what is winning and bet it, period. It took a while to get through my head last winter at Gulfstream. From 12/9 to 2/15, 71% of the turf routes were won by the top 2 in my turf rating. Still playing a Pick Em approach and not tracking % of entries the avg mutual was over $11 with weekly ROI's ranging between 56% to 77%. It was steady for that period and blew up completely in late February. I hadn't adequately capitalized but it was an eye opening lesson.

Fast forward to October 2016. Starting to profile Santa Anita for the BC. It didn't take long to see that my secondary turf rating(T2) that usually made it's presence felt on short turf courses was winning races at a big clip and it was practically the antithesis of the Del Mar turf course which I played lightly late summer. I started betting by 10/6. The model held all of the short meet. The T2 rating won 89% of the races but there were a lot of contenders. They represented 30% of the entries but won 2.97% of their fair share at a dead even mutual of 10.00. ROI was 55%. Lesson learned for good. This was a new method of play that had previously not existed. With high hit rates and ROI it represented virtues that were the antithesis of the perceived modern game. This wasn't aggressive and swinging for the fences. It was taking what was there.

The same thing happened about 5 years ago when I realized how many wins I was squandering playing purely exotics. I made a distinct split between bet approaches. And using a 3 unit method(3 units win on sub 4-1)(2 units win, 1 unit place on 4-1 up). I realized that this also was a thing in itself. A self contained method that could stand on it's own. But to me it was just another method.

A similar thing happened when I stopped tracking contenders by what I call the fun with numbers method(1st choice 2nd choice 3rd choice etc). If you had a 1st choice as the ONLY contender in a race a 3rd choice winning at long odds was meaningless. So I tracked contenders simply by AB(strong contenders) and C+(marginal contenders) and let over 1,000 races pile up to start making conclusions. Which shattered my illusions of excess value handicapping.(I covered this is an entirely other thread). What this ultimately laid the basis for was not only proper ticket structure for sequential bets but gauging the potential value in any race for exotics. Tracking the odds ranges kept me out of low expectation returns that also included many longshots.

Add in developing specific uses for certain bets and I had 5-6 approaches to making money at this game all with different hit rates and profit potentials. They all have added up to a more well rounded game but being as they are largely independent of each other even in the same races it wasn't geared toward lowering risk at all. In fact that it requires a higher level of investment it is quite the opposite.

In the last 18 months I've learned a lot and still have much more to utilize. Most of my conclusions and examples are relatively new and the future still has to play out. But I feel at least mentally I am playing a different game. The only thing I have made easier is formatting for pace figures while adding twice as much work! LOL!

VERY much agree.

[Robert Fischer]

I'm sure a better mathematician could demonstrate a simulation with a worst-probable outcome scenario.


I would be highly entertained by a program which you could enter inputs for things like hit%(or even a range) and odds, and bankroll size, and then receive a report for a number of things such as:

Kelly Criterion
risk of ruin (a probability, perhaps given with times, eg 100trials, 1000trials, 10000trials)
worst-case probable scenario (fastest way to ruin within probability limits)
best-case probable scenario
a 'dice roll' button to simulate either 1 race or an entered number of races at once
pretty colors



I don't know if you guys ever played 'Oregon Trail' in school?

[traynor]

I would be highly entertained by a program which you could enter inputs for things like hit%(or even a range) and odds, and bankroll size, and then receive a report for a number of things such as:

Kelly Criterion
risk of ruin (a probability, perhaps given with times, eg 100trials, 1000trials, 10000trials)
worst-case probable scenario (fastest way to ruin within probability limits)
best-case probable scenario
a 'dice roll' button to simulate either 1 race or an entered number of races at once
pretty colors



I don't know if you guys ever played 'Oregon Trail' in school?


Assumptions (especially unstated assumptions) can be misleading. There are few areas in which this is more evident than in "race outcome prediction."

[Robert Fischer]

that's 'deep' :ThmbUp: