Got what it takes to be a PRO?

[NorCalGreg]

To estimate the expected losing streaks, find the closest figure to your win percentage in the "%W" column - the second column of the*average losing streak chart below. If you are near the closest value of14.3%....of which I am.....good luck.

Looking along this line and we see that our winners would have to average 6-to 1 odds just to break even and that the expected largest losing streak in a series of 1000 bets would be 34 losers in a row.

If I win 25% of my win bets (I don't--not even close-primarily I'm a longshot player)--but if I was..I would have to average an $8.00 mutual just to break even..and could expect a 20+ race losing streak, among many smaller-- at some time during the next 1,000 wagers. That's probably a year's total bets for a committed hobbyist.

Psychologically, it is difficult for the average horse player to endure a losing streak of 10 or more losers in a row.

Confining our attention to these large losing streaks...again, looking at the chart we see that in every 1000 bets there would be an average of 27 losing streaks of 10 or more losers in a row. Can that be correct? Yes it can.

So even if our average winner was paying over 8-to-1 odds and we were making a good profit, we would still be playing through a losing streak of 10 or more losers in a row much of the time. This is the Achilles' heel of most long shot horse racing betting systems.

This, ladies and gentlemen...is why so few of us horseplayers can win year in and year out. Humans aren't naturally hard-wired for this task. If you're one of the handful who can succeed in this game...you will have accomplished an extremely rare feat. You will get no kudos, no slaps on the back...your own family couldn't care less. Your enormous horse racing accomplishments will impress exactly no one.

It's the mental aspect that we can't overcome--not the actual handicapping.

Personally...I know for a fact---and I'm not boasting at all, I COULD get seriously dedicated to becoming a winning horseplayer--and do it. I just could never make a living this way.

The thing is--I don't want to. Every one of us is exactly who and where we have chosen to be. I could become extremely careful, diligent...grind out a profit. But I'm positive I would hate it---hate it like I hate doing income taxes.

*ps--when I say "we" ..I mean the average horseplayer on this board--fair to very good, but certainly not a "pro".

-NCG

chart from http://turfanalyst.com

[CincyHorseplayer]

Losing streaks sound about right. Mine usually aren't 0-fers but plenty of 2 for 25 and 3 for 30 types. To me this is solved by bankroll size and bet proportion. That right now is thee obstacle I can't overcome. You have to have a large enough bankroll to make a real income. But your bet size has to be 1% or less IMO. You go on an 0-34 run making 2-3% bets and you are done. Plus if you are making .5% bets and 10 a day or just simply put you are putting in 5% of your bank in play a day. You cycle your whole bankroll per month(5 days-4weeks). It has to be well planned.

This is why I have so much respect for the guys that have done it and done it for years. I know I need brief breaks but not a ton. I think my max goal would be 150 days betting. I still like to have other things I like to do that generate income that require no one else's help but a few occasional sub outs. Probably take me 10 more years to get to there. But I'd be happy with this vision. Work 100 days a year and bet 150! Answer to nobody. Getting there! :cool:

[MonmouthParkJoe]

Considering how I have been doing since BC weekend, I am much better off being a barista at starbucks. :D

[traynor]

I tracked missouts for years, mainly because it only takes a line or two of code to automate the process. I found it much more useful to track ROI. Meaning, "if I do this over 1000 races, what will my returns look like (in graphic format)". Big ups and downs usually indicate chasing rainbows--the return in a small sample used for "creating the strategy" is often misleading, with the (apparent, but only apparent) ROI the result of a few anomalies. Those anomalies are the source of the problem because they rarely repeat in subsequent samples.

That seems to be the major reason the rainbow chasers (and others seeking "life-changing scores") seem to do so poorly in the real world. Their strategies are based primarily on anomalies.

Rather than missouts and possible losing streaks, it might be more illuminating to track fluctuations in ROI over the course of many, many races. As CincyHorseplayer pointed out, a modest win every 5 or 10 races can create the illusion of a "sure thing". Winning races break the missout pattern, even if the win(s) continue(s) the (actual) losing streak. Monitoring fluctuations in (actual) returns can paint a way different picture than monitoring the number of sequential races lost.

[AltonKelsey]

Figured out the losing streak thing long ago.

Also figured out that a lower roi but better churn rate (higher win %) will probable make you more money with less angst in the long run.

This is part of what the computer boys do. Make a tiny amount regularly, and not worry about making scores.

[thaskalos]

The more often we play this game, the faster we get to really "know ourselves" as players...and the easier it becomes to realize if we are really "made" for this game.

The truth is that, although this game provides thrills and entertainment for many...it can provide consistent profits for only the tiny few who can effectively deal with its many "traps". Play the game infrequently...and you may never really get to know what these "traps" are.

[classhandicapper]

I deal with losing streaks by also betting to place when there is value in that pool and by betting two horses to win when there is value on more than one horse. IMO, greater mental stability is worth the cost of feeling like a hero a little more often.

[VigorsTheGrey]

The more often we play this game, the faster we get to really "know ourselves" as players...and the easier it becomes to realize if we are really "made" for this game.

The truth is that, although this game provides thrills and entertainment for many...it can provide consistent profits for only the tiny few who can effectively deal with its many "traps". Play the game infrequently...and you may never really get to know what these "traps" are.

Like in the days of the California gold rush, many sought the Big Score in vain...turns out the real fortunes lay in selling pick and shovels and various sundries to the armies of those laboring for the gold....I wonder what the equivalent of those "suppliers of various sundries" are in this horse racing game...all borne on the backs of the regular bettor....? Any clues as to whom is making the real dough? I assume the 3% of the top trainers, jockeys, owners...then whom?

[ReplayRandall]

I deal with losing streaks by also betting to place when there is value in that pool and by betting two horses to win when there is value on more than one horse. IMO, greater mental stability is worth the cost of feeling like a hero a little more often.

It all boils down to reducing variance, while at the same time, showing long-term profits without placing bets too high for pool size, thus suppressing one's own payouts....can't get too greedy when having an edge, no matter the endeavor.

[MONEY]

Thankfully for me, I do not now nor did I ever want to be a professional gambler.

As a matter of fact, I haven't made a bet in a few months and I still enjoy handicapping and watching races every day.

[classhandicapper]

It all boils down to reducing variance, while at the same time, showing long-term profits without placing bets too high for pool size, thus suppressing one's own payouts....can't get too greedy when having an edge, no matter the endeavor.

Variance is important to me because I don't make a lot of wagers.

[pondman]

The more often we play this game, the faster we get to really "know ourselves" as players...and the easier it becomes to realize if we are really "made" for this game.

The truth is that, although this game provides thrills and entertainment for many...it can provide consistent profits for only the tiny few who can effectively deal with its many "traps". Play the game infrequently...and you may never really get to know what these "traps" are.

How many player have actually done any comprehensive work on their own play? And know whether they have an edge in a pool? Or know they should take up another hobby? Most play as they are told to play.The question should be: how long does it take to discover if your way is profitable? And what is it going to cost you in time and money to make that conclusion?

[pondman]

Like in the days of the California gold rush, many sought the Big Score in vain...turns out the real fortunes lay in selling pick and shovels and various sundries to the armies of those laboring for the gold....I wonder what the equivalent of those "suppliers of various sundries" are in this horse racing game...all borne on the backs of the regular bettor....? Any clues as to whom is making the real dough? I assume the 3% of the top trainers, jockeys, owners...then whom?

A: People who have taken on the more complex problems with larger payouts. They have precise methods that distribute well, and make expectations reasonable.

[classhandicapper]

How many player have actually done any comprehensive work on their own play? And know whether they have an edge in a pool? Or know they should take up another hobby? Most play as they are told to play.The question should be: how long does it take to discover if your way is profitable? And what is it going to cost you in time and money to make that conclusion?

I'm going to guess that 95% of everyone that plays the game seriously (let alone because they like gambling) has no idea. They have "opinions" based on years of experience and what they've read or heard from other serious players in books etc.. but have never tested any of it as factual or in terms of value. They tend to just stick with what seems to be working and keep going all while accumulating some false insights and making some bad bets even if they get good enough to win on a net basis.

[ReplayRandall]

The question should be: how long does it take to discover if your way is profitable?
IMO, it takes 1500 plays for a sample size, over the course of 3 years per circuit/track....

[classhandicapper]

IMO, it takes 1500 plays for a sample size, over the course of 3 years per circuit/track....

It also depends on the type of bets you are making. If you are a pick 6 player, it may take a lifetime. If you are playing mostly 2-1 through 5-1 shots you'll know quicker.

To me, the hardest part of the becoming a pro is not finding a legitimate edge in some situations. It's finding a legitimate edge often enough to get enough money through the windows. That's the main reason I never went past serious part time player. I don't have enough legitimate insights to play a lot more races and I don't pretend I do just to have more action. I'd have to bet a lot of money per race to get enough money through the windows. Given that I also know that the game changes over time and edges can disappear, it's hard to get to the point where you are comfortable betting a ton of money per race even if you have the bankroll and results to theoretically support it. I think going pro probably requires some higher than average degree of recklessness and testosterone. That's goes quadruple if you want to lead a somewhat normal life with a girlfriend, wife, children, mortgage, etc...

[AltonKelsey]

I wonder how many so called pro's actually have access to inside information, but don't talk about it for obvious reasons.

[thaskalos]

How many player have actually done any comprehensive work on their own play? And know whether they have an edge in a pool? Or know they should take up another hobby? Most play as they are told to play.The question should be: how long does it take to discover if your way is profitable? And what is it going to cost you in time and money to make that conclusion?

If I do some "comprehensive work" on my own play this past year, and I fully determine my "edge" in the given pools...can I expect that this "edge" will materialize THIS year as well?

[traynor]

Figured out the losing streak thing long ago.

Also figured out that a lower roi but better churn rate (higher win %) will probable make you more money with less angst in the long run.

This is part of what the computer boys do. Make a tiny amount regularly, and not worry about making scores.

I don't know about less angst, or huge investments for modest profits. If one continues looking, it is fairly easy to find profitable strategies. Not much on the excitement scale for those who crave such (for whatever odd reason), but way more profitable than most other ways of making money that do not involve something illegal, or require immense amounts of one's life spent doing nonsensical things just because someone else is willing to pay one for so doing.

[Redboard]

I deal with losing streaks by also betting to place when there is value in that pool and by betting two horses to win when there is value on more than one horse. IMO, greater mental stability is worth the cost of feeling like a hero a little more often.

I'll bet place too, as long as the odds are 6-1 or more. I'll even bet show if the odds are high enough. But it all depends on the odds.

[EMD4ME]

I wonder how many so called pro's actually have access to inside information, but don't talk about it for obvious reasons.

I would agree. I would add...


I'm sure there are pros out there that have solid strategies that they don't speak of, so that other's don't also capitalize on them.

Finally, as things always change in this game, I am sure there are pros who always look to stay ahead of the next change in the game.

[pondman]

I don't know about less angst, or huge investments for modest profits. .

I also don't like that strategy. With every super I play, there is always going to be 2 different 3% lines that will pay off at +5000-1, when 1 of them hits. It cost as a $2 unit in the short run. I'm already playing 4- 6 lines, it's very inexpensive to add the extra line.

I'm speaking as someone who has run the screen, I know how it performs-- the precise pattern that it throws. What is common. What is not. How often.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

To play as a 'pro' you need a brutal honesty about your strengths and weaknesses (and you better fix those weaknesses fast), and a ton of confidence in your ability to work very hard and see things that the masses don't for the most part.

[ReplayRandall]

To play as a 'pro' you need a brutal honesty about your strengths and weaknesses (and you better fix those weaknesses fast), and a ton of confidence in your ability to work very hard and see things that the masses don't for the most part.

To add: Do you got it in you to bang it out EVERYDAY? If you don't, you'll find yourself missing opportunities that may not come around for a while. Bottom-line, you have to dig it out on a daily basis, with lots of passing involved...

[EMD4ME]

To play as a 'pro' you need a brutal honesty about your strengths and weaknesses (and you better fix those weaknesses fast), and a ton of confidence in your ability to work very hard and see things that the masses don't for the most part.

1) Yes-I used to detest turf sprints. Now, I love them.

2) Or you could learn to avoid them completely or as much as you can (open claimers at NYRA for me).

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

ABSOLUTE LOSS ACCEPTANCE is essential. Sounds simplistic, but this is crucial as any individual losing wager is virtually meaningless. I observed two legitimate 'pros' operate in the 80's and you would never know if they won or lost by their expressions on their faces after a race. I learned a lesson in loss acceptance.

[sjk]

This made me curious to look at my record at it seems I lost 103 races in a row last Feb-Mar. Yikes.

The last 6 months things have run great. Just goes to show how you have to keep going through the losing streaks.

The next worst streaks I ever had were 62 in 2009 and 59 in 2004.

[EMD4ME]

This made me curious to look at my record at it seems I lost 103 races in a row last Feb-Mar. Yikes.

The last 6 months things have run great. Just goes to show how you have to keep going through the losing streaks.

The next worst streaks I ever had were 62 in 2009 and 59 in 2004.

Just curious, ask this sincerely, is this win betting on longshots?

[sjk]

I bet mainly exactas and these days I do bet a lot of longshots. Average payoff is running around 14-1

[EMD4ME]

I bet mainly exactas and these days I do bet a lot of longshots. Average payoff is running around 14-1

Thank you. I assumed it was some sort of high paying method. Just curious as to what type of play it was.

[sjk]

As the years go by I have found more value in the higher odds range. I take it as a sign the pools have become more efficient in the low and medium odds ranges.

[pondman]

If I do some "comprehensive work" on my own play this past year, and I fully determine my "edge" in the given pools...can I expect that this "edge" will materialize THIS year as well?

How well do your picks distribute? There should be a similarity between 100 picks, 500 picks, and 1000 picks. I also believe your 1st pick should outperform your 2nd. Your 2nd pick should outperform you 3rd. And down the table. If not-- chuck it, and start over.

[classhandicapper]

This made me curious to look at my record at it seems I lost 103 races in a row last Feb-Mar. Yikes.


I mean this as a criticism of myself - not your handicapping or style of wagering.

If I lost 103 bets in a row I'd find a new sport to bet on. I couldn't handle that long a drought unless God Himself assured me my edge was still there.

I had a period where I was booking action on an exchange (since closed). Some of the terrible longshots were going off way shorter than they deserved even though the odds were a little higher than at the track. So I was booking them. I was actively searching for the worst horses I could possibly find and I didn't win 103 times in a row.

[AltonKelsey]

Curious, if those were win bets, how many ran 2nd.

[classhandicapper]

Curious, if those were win bets, how many ran 2nd.

I can't tell if you were asking me.

If you were, they were all win bets. I do not recall how many finished second. I still have some records from the period, but they are in +/- for the day on booked bets. I don't have odds, finish position etc...

Generally I would win large numbers of bets in a row with almost all the horses running terribly. Very occasionally a horse would jump up massively despite a long record of being terrible and I would get nailed hard, but my net was very positive.

One time I was angry because I was having a bad day on my regular bets. I booked a horse for the entire remaining value of my account. A massive duel developed, the horse I booked sat on the rail off the pace, the rail opened, he cut the corner, and he opened up 2-3 lengths at the 1/8th pole. I was dying, :lol: Out of the corner of the screen another horrible longshot appeared out of nowhere and started rallying. I won the bob. Sickest day of my life gambling. Lesson learned without being expensive.

[rsetup]

I bet mainly exactas and these days I do bet a lot of longshots. Average payoff is running around 14-1

These are one number exactas?

[Exotic1]

This made me curious to look at my record at it seems I lost 103 races in a row last Feb-Mar. Yikes.

The last 6 months things have run great. Just goes to show how you have to keep going through the losing streaks.

The next worst streaks I ever had were 62 in 2009 and 59 in 2004.

Better take it easy in 2026; looks like that may be the next year in the cycle. :)

[Robert Fischer]

The more often we play this game, the faster we get to really "know ourselves" as players...and the easier it becomes to realize if we are really "made" for this game.

The truth is that, although this game provides thrills and entertainment for many...it can provide consistent profits for only the tiny few who can effectively deal with its many "traps". Play the game infrequently...and you may never really get to know what these "traps" are.

As usual, Thaskalos is on the money.



The Public and the Individual Player, are able to receive 'input(s)' from reality, and interpret it into a 'perception'.
Some of that perception is 'pre-conscious', and some of that interpretation is conscious and calculated.
Once we (the individual) have a perception, we attempt to act in a rational manner by making an optimal decision ('pass' or specific 'wager' strategy).



1 receive inputs
2 interpret pre-consciously
3 interpret consciously or calculate
4 act rationally (perform optimally)


Reciprocity (Loses or Wins), Commitment (we took a stand about a horse or wager type), Social Proof (we like Arrogate in the Travers, but he's 11-1 and all the experts are talking about American Freedom being Baffert's top gun and the biggest threat to Exaggerator. Crowd is safer and probably correct), Authority (although I don't like Silver Ride, The Track Handicapper just eloquently explained why Unbridled Juan is a 'money burner'), Liking (California Chrome is my favorite horse in the world. Lava Man is gonna win one more), Scarcity (There's one more race on the card, or this is the Derby i gotta make a bet, or I'm down to my last $20 in the account...)


just some examples of "traps" that can trigger cognitive bias

Once you start falling into "traps" that pre-conscious interpreting and that post conscious calculation lead to illusion, and that post perception rational behavior goes haywire.

[ReplayRandall]

As usual, Thaskalos is on the money.



The Public and the Individual Player, are able to receive 'input(s)' from reality, and interpret it into a 'perception'.
Some of that perception is 'pre-conscious', and some of that interpretation is conscious and calculated.
Once we (the individual) have a perception, we attempt to act in a rational manner by making an optimal decision ('pass' or specific 'wager' strategy).



1 receive inputs
2 interpret pre-consciously
3 interpret consciously or calculate
4 act rationally (perform optimally)


Reciprocity (Loses or Wins), Commitment (we took a stand about a horse or wager type), Social Proof (we like Arrogate in the Travers, but he's 11-1 and all the experts are talking about American Freedom being Baffert's top gun and the biggest threat to Exaggerator. Crowd is safer and probably correct), Authority (although I don't like Silver Ride, The Track Handicapper just eloquently explained why Unbridled Juan is a 'money burner'), Liking (California Chrome is my favorite horse in the world. Lava Man is gonna win one more), Scarcity (There's one more race on the card, or this is the Derby i gotta make a bet, or I'm down to my last $20 in the account...)


just some examples of "traps" that can trigger cognitive bias

Once you start falling into "traps" that pre-conscious interpreting and that post conscious calculation lead to illusion, and that post perception rational behavior goes haywire.

Eloquent post JK, but let's just call it what it is.......a lazy addiction sickness commentary. There are NO traps if you do your OWN work, and for anyone's own sanity, don't listen to any public handicappers and use the mute button non-stop until you need a new remote......How does anyone spend their whole life working in whatever profession, to earn money, then just throw that hard earned money up in the wind of fate/luck/touts when betting the races?........Boggles the mind, doesn't it? Just go play the lotto if you can't do the work, you don't deserve to win.

[sjk]

Better take it easy in 2026; looks like that may be the next year in the cycle. :)

As it turns out for the full year 2004 was the best year I ever had and last years results were better than average.

During the losing streak I averaged 3.7 combinations per race for what its worth.

[EMD4ME]

Eloquent post JK, but let's just call it what it is.......a lazy addiction sickness commentary. There are NO traps if you do your OWN work, and for anyone's own sanity, don't listen to any public handicappers and use the mute button non-stop until you need a new remote......How does anyone spend their whole life working in whatever profession, to earn money, then just throw that hard earned money up in the wind of fate/luck/touts when betting the races?........Boggles the mind, doesn't it? Just go play the lotto if you can't do the work, you don't deserve to win.

On track, you see it quite often. I LOVE it :lol:

Fill up those pools everybody! We need the liquidity :ThmbUp:

My favorite is when someone complains after the race, after losing and doing literally no work. How can you complain when you have zero understanding of what should've happened in the race?

Sharp post.

[thaskalos]

Eloquent post JK, but let's just call it what it is.......a lazy addiction sickness commentary. There are NO traps if you do your OWN work, and for anyone's own sanity, don't listen to any public handicappers and use the mute button non-stop until you need a new remote......How does anyone spend their whole life working in whatever profession, to earn money, then just throw that hard earned money up in the wind of fate/luck/touts when betting the races?........Boggles the mind, doesn't it? Just go play the lotto if you can't do the work, you don't deserve to win.

Make no mistake...almost all of those horseplayers who "do their own work" end up on the losing side too. Appearances are deceiving in this game...and this goes TRIPLE for the internet.

If a year-long handicapping contest were to take place on this board, where each entrant was asked to make, say, a thousand wagers...the results would be truly enlightening. But, as it stands right now...there is nothing to stop anyone here from declaring that "he is a winner", because he "does his own work".

We all know that the long-term winners in this game are rare...but I think it would SHOCK us to find out just how "rare" they really are.

[ReplayRandall]

Make no mistake...almost all of those horseplayers who "do their own work" end up on the losing side too. Appearances are deceiving in this game...and this goes TRIPLE for the internet.

If a year-long handicapping contest were to take place on this board, where each entrant was asked to make, say, a thousand wagers...the results would be truly enlightening. But, as it stands right now...there is nothing to stop anyone here from declaring that "he is a winner", because he "does his own work".

We all know that the long-term winners in this game are rare...but I think it would SHOCK us to find out just how "rare" they really are.

Yeah, you might be right when you say "almost all", but at least the player can look for ways to improve their games, while the rest are at the mercy of "others" opinions. BTW, you think you got it in you to go 1,000 wagers on this board, for the rest of the year?......Don't bother asking me, I can do it in my sleep.:sleeping:.....but only if we BOTH commit to a contest...:cool:

[thaskalos]

Yeah, you might be right when you say "almost all", but at least the player can look for ways to improve their games, while the rest are at the mercy of "others" opinions. BTW, you think you got it in you to go 1,000 wagers on this board, for the rest of the year?......Don't bother asking me, I can do it in my sleep.:sleeping:.....but only if we BOTH commit to a contest...:cool:

Where is the challenge in beating YOU? :)

[ReplayRandall]

Where is the challenge in beating YOU? :)

I'll put my "B" plays only, that way you'll have a chance..;)

[thaskalos]

I'll put my "B" plays only, that way you'll have a chance..;)

No...that way you'll have an EXCUSE. :cool:

[ReplayRandall]

No...that way you'll have an EXCUSE. :cool:

No....That way I won't be giving my best plays away for free...:faint:

[pondman]

Make no mistake...almost all of those horseplayers who "do their own work" end up on the losing side too. Appearances are deceiving in this game...and this goes TRIPLE for the internet.

If a year-long handicapping contest were to take place on this board, where each entrant was asked to make, say, a thousand wagers...the results would be truly enlightening. But, as it stands right now...there is nothing to stop anyone here from declaring that "he is a winner", because he "does his own work".

We all know that the long-term winners in this game are rare...but I think it would SHOCK us to find out just how "rare" they really are.

I could double that amount in supers--at least 2,000 races. And...I could do it while only using horses in the 3rd and 4th legs, which would start out at as a 0.10- $1.20 straight unit (in 6 horse fields), cost more as the field size increased. The first two legs could be All, All. But I'd need more than 1 line. I'd need up to 4 lines or a $4.80 unit with 6 horse fields, increases with field size. Cost would start at $9,600. I'd expect to have 120 tickets pay more than $98, and 240 tickets would pay less than $98.

[Exotic1]

As it turns out for the full year 2004 was the best year I ever had and last years results were better than average.

During the losing streak I averaged 3.7 combinations per race for what its worth.

You know I wasn't serious. Continued good luck!!

[DeltaLover]

I could double that amount in supers--at least 2,000 races. And...I could do it while only using horses in the 3rd and 4th legs, which would start out at as a 0.10- $1.20 straight unit (in 6 horse fields), cost more as the field size increased. The first two legs could be All, All. But I'd need more than 1 line. I'd need up to 4 lines or a $4.80 unit with 6 horse fields, increases with field size. Cost would start at $9,600. I'd expect to have 120 tickets pay more than $98, and 240 tickets would pay less than $98.

You mean that you consider betting ALL X ALL for the top two spots in 6 horse field supers?

[NorCalGreg]

That math doesn't sound right--how many 6-horse field supers pay $98 for a $1 ticket....much less .10cent tickets?

[Lafecs]

To estimate the expected losing streaks, find the closest figure to your win percentage in the "%W" column - the second column of the*average losing streak chart below. If you are near the closest value of14.3%....of which I am.....good luck.

Looking along this line and we see that our winners would have to average 6-to 1 odds just to break even and that the expected largest losing streak in a series of 1000 bets would be 34 losers in a row.

If I win 25% of my win bets (I don't--not even close-primarily I'm a longshot player)--but if I was..I would have to average an $8.00 mutual just to break even..and could expect a 20+ race losing streak, among many smaller-- at some time during the next 1,000 wagers. That's probably a year's total bets for a committed hobbyist.

Psychologically, it is difficult for the average horse player to endure a losing streak of 10 or more losers in a row.

Confining our attention to these large losing streaks...again, looking at the chart we see that in every 1000 bets there would be an average of 27 losing streaks of 10 or more losers in a row. Can that be correct? Yes it can.

So even if our average winner was paying over 8-to-1 odds and we were making a good profit, we would still be playing through a losing streak of 10 or more losers in a row much of the time. This is the Achilles' heel of most long shot horse racing betting systems.

This, ladies and gentlemen...is why so few of us horseplayers can win year in and year out. Humans aren't naturally hard-wired for this task. If you're one of the handful who can succeed in this game...you will have accomplished an extremely rare feat. You will get no kudos, no slaps on the back...your own family couldn't care less. Your enormous horse racing accomplishments will impress exactly no one.

It's the mental aspect that we can't overcome--not the actual handicapping.

Personally...I know for a fact---and I'm not boasting at all, I COULD get seriously dedicated to becoming a winning horseplayer--and do it. I just could never make a living this way.

The thing is--I don't want to. Every one of us is exactly who and where we have chosen to be. I could become extremely careful, diligent...grind out a profit. But I'm positive I would hate it---hate it like I hate doing income taxes.

*ps--when I say "we" ..I mean the average horseplayer on this board--fair to very good, but certainly not a "pro".

-NCG

chart from http://turfanalyst.com
Coming from someone who has actually attempted to go pro (and fell flat on his face), in my opinion the only way to beat the game is to A) be sure you have an advantage (obviously) and B) have a bankroll large enough to allow you to bet big enough when you spot an opportunity. The latter is usually what screws most people up. You need to have both of these things- and even then the swings and the pressure might make it not worth it. I can say with certainty that it isn't possible to make a living grinding out small time bets. It might be possible for a computer to do that algorithmically, but in my experience trying to "grind it out" goes completely against human nature over the long run (even with a legitimate edge). Thus for anyone who is serious about it, I would reccommend not even stepping in for a bet unless it is to win a meaningful amount of money to you.

[pandy]

I wonder how many so called pro's actually have access to inside information, but don't talk about it for obvious reasons.

Few if any. I know someone who paid jockeys and trainers for information and lost $400,000.

[EMD4ME]

Few if any. I know someone who paid jockeys and trainers for information and lost $400,000.

They mustve really been poor handicappers.

If many of us were told which horse would send, needs 1, will be rated , this one is on medicine circles or this horse is lame I would say our bottom line would have a positive impact. In many cases it just means pass the race.

Let me guess, he followed them blindly instead of just incorporating the info into a well thought out wager.

[pandy]

They mustve really been poor handicappers.

If many of us were told which horse would send, needs 1, will be rated , this one is on medicine circles or this horse is lame I would say our bottom line would have a positive impact. In many cases it just means pass the race.

Let me.guess, he followed them blindly instead of just incorporating the info into a well thought out wager.

Yes, he followed them blindly, thinking that they controlled the game in New York and actually knew which horses were live. Not even close.

[EMD4ME]

Yes, he followed them blindly, thinking that they controlled the game in New York and actually knew which horses were live. Not even close.

and that my friend, is why I detest tips! Lol.

When someone touts me on steam, I dont want to listen unless its someone I respect and has been credible in the past. Even then, I trust my opinion more. Don't get me wrong. With FTS, layoff horses the info has some merit. Otherwise, let me be...

[HuggingTheRail]

Walk through the barn area at Hastings, and you'll have 6 winners in every race if you believe what you hear....probably not much different elsewhere

I find the info that a horse ISN'T sound etc, is more valuable than "my horse is ready, he's going to win, I've changed his meds, equipment, etc".

[green80]

the biggest bookmaker I know loved to book the trainers and jocks

[Nitro]

Few if any. I know someone who paid jockeys and trainers for information and lost $400,000.
Yes, he followed them blindly, thinking that they controlled the game in New York and actually knew which horses were live. Not even close.If this guy is for real and is interested in recovering his losses, send me a PM with his contact information. I’ll be glad to help him out; for a commission of course.

[pandy]

If this guy is for real and is interested in recovering his losses, send me a PM with his contact information. I’ll be glad to help him out; for a commission of course.


This was a long time ago. After that beating he decided to learn how to handicap. He is pretty well off now, and a very good handicapper.

[ReplayRandall]

This was a long time ago. After that beating he decided to learn how to handicap. He is pretty well off now, and a very good handicapper.

Good.....for a moment, I thought you were talking about yourself..:cool:

[Nitro]

This was a long time ago. After that beating he decided to learn how to handicap. He is pretty well off now, and a very good handicapper.Good for him! I hope he’s now really enjoying the game for all its worth! :ThmbUp:

[DeltaLover]

This was a long time ago. After that beating he decided to learn how to handicap. He is pretty well off now, and a very good handicapper.

I do not think that "Learning how to handicap" is something that guarantee winnings!

[EMD4ME]

Good.....for a moment, I thought you were talking about yourself..:cool:

OMG :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I have skin burn from rolling on the floor laughing! :lol:

[AltonKelsey]

Few if any. I know someone who paid jockeys and trainers for information and lost $400,000.

With all due respect, if you knew who he was, he wasn't the kind of sharpie I'm referring to.

You know, kind of like "I know the best Secret Agent in the world"

[NorCalGreg]

I do not think that "Learning how to handicap" is something that guarantee winnings!


No it doesn't guarantee anything. I'm a good handicapper--but a mess emotionally...still I "broke even" last year :lol:

(*see previous threads for what "broke even" is internet code for)

[ReplayRandall]

No it doesn't guarantee anything. I'm a good handicapper--but a mess emotionally...still I "broke even" last year :lol:

Once again, congrats on your best year ever, Greg...:cool:

[NorCalGreg]

Once again, congrats on your best year ever, Greg...:cool:

:lol: :lol:

[pandy]

With all due respect, if you knew who he was, he wasn't the kind of sharpie I'm referring to.

You know, kind of like "I know the best Secret Agent in the world"

I understand, but I doubt very much that anyone is winning money betting horses because of inside information. Sure, if you work in the backstretch you're going to get tipped off on some live firsters now and then, but it's fool's gold to think that you can win with inside information. If you buy a reputable workout report, such as the one Andy Harrington does for So. Cal, you'll know as much as anyone about how the firsters and layoff horses are training up to today's race. And anyone who's purchased those reports knows that just because a horse is training like a monster doesn't mean it's going to win.

[Robert Fischer]

↺ --> Receive an 'Input'
examples = Racing Form, Video of the races, etc.. -->

--> pass through a [Preconscious perceptual filter]
examples= Contrast Effect, and Confirmation Bias -->

--> pass through a [Conscious (calculation) interpretation of Past Performance filter]
examples= Our understanding of the important Past Performance models that carry the heavy freight in what makes up a winning horse. -->

--> pass through a [Conscious (calculation) interpretation of Today's Projected performance filter]
examples= our understanding of the important Projection models that carry the heavy freight in what makes up a winning horse. -->

--> Compare to public odds -->

--> pass through a [Cognitive filter]
examples= 'Reciprocity' (our recent Loses or Wins and how they affect our cognition),
'Commitment' (we took a STAND! about a horse or wager type), 'Social Proof' (we like Arrogate in the Travers, but he's 11-1 on the tote, and people are talking about American Freedom(5-1 on the tote) being Baffert's 'top gun', and the biggest threat to public favorite Exaggerator. Crowd is 'safer', and often correct),
'Authority' (although I don't like underlay Silver Ride, and I think this is a weak-for-class field, The Track Handicapper just eloquently made an example of Unbridled Juan as a 'money burner' type, taking only sucker-money),
'Liking' (California Chrome is my favorite horse in the world.),
'Scarcity' (There's only one more race on the card, or this is the Derby i gotta make a bet, or I'm down to my last $20 in the account!...) -->

--> Make an Optimal Decision ('pass' or 'play' + specific wager strategy, wager sizing etc...) -->

--> REPEAT CYCLE :eek: https://www.facebook.com/images/emoji.php/v6/f4c/1/16/1f642.png:) back to the top! ↺

[Robert Fischer]

--> pass through a [Preconscious perceptual filter]
examples= Contrast Effect, and Confirmation Bias -->

Never given 'pre-conscious' perception much thought.
http://www.cns.nyu.edu/malab/illusionstoinference/thedress/img/simcontrast.gif

In the classic 'contrast effect' illusion above, the grey rectangles in the center of each color are actually exactly the same. The contrast makes them appear differently.

These things may not have a HUGE effect on capping (maybe they do have application when seeing horses vs certain setups or class contrasts), but they are part of our interpreting and perception.



--> pass through a [Conscious (calculation) interpretation of Past Performance filter]
examples= Our understanding of the important Past Performance models that carry the heavy freight in what makes up a winning horse. -->

--> pass through a [Conscious (calculation) interpretation of Today's Projected performance filter]
examples= our understanding of the important Projection models that carry the heavy freight in what makes up a winning horse. -->


basic stuff - looking the performances of the horse, and trying to project their performance for today's conditions.
Going to be a skill-based part of the cycle. This is what we often refer to when 'handicapping'. We all have different methods, and the races which the past and projected performance are obvious at 'face value' are seldom gold mines...



--> pass through a [Cognitive filter]
examples= 'Reciprocity' (our recent Loses or Wins and how they affect our cognition),
'Commitment' (we took a STAND! about a horse or wager type), 'Social Proof' (we like Arrogate in the Travers, but he's 11-1 on the tote, and people are talking about American Freedom(5-1 on the tote) being Baffert's 'top gun', and the biggest threat to public favorite Exaggerator. Crowd is 'safer', and often correct),
'Authority' (although I don't like underlay Silver Ride, and I think this is a weak-for-class field, The Track Handicapper just eloquently made an example of Unbridled Juan as a 'money burner' type, taking only sucker-money),
'Liking' (California Chrome is my favorite horse in the world.),
'Scarcity' (There's only one more race on the card, or this is the Derby i gotta make a bet, or I'm down to my last $20 in the account!...) -->

Some of the traps ,pitfalls, or challenges we face. Most of these sound comical or dumb, but they are a real danger to our rational handicapping.

[BCOURTNEY]

To estimate the expected losing streaks, find the closest figure to your win percentage in the "%W" column - the second column of the*average losing streak chart below. If you are near the closest value of14.3%....of which I am.....good luck.

Looking along this line and we see that our winners would have to average 6-to 1 odds just to break even and that the expected largest losing streak in a series of 1000 bets would be 34 losers in a row.

If I win 25% of my win bets (I don't--not even close-primarily I'm a longshot player)--but if I was..I would have to average an $8.00 mutual just to break even..and could expect a 20+ race losing streak, among many smaller-- at some time during the next 1,000 wagers. That's probably a year's total bets for a committed hobbyist.

Psychologically, it is difficult for the average horse player to endure a losing streak of 10 or more losers in a row.

Confining our attention to these large losing streaks...again, looking at the chart we see that in every 1000 bets there would be an average of 27 losing streaks of 10 or more losers in a row. Can that be correct? Yes it can.

So even if our average winner was paying over 8-to-1 odds and we were making a good profit, we would still be playing through a losing streak of 10 or more losers in a row much of the time. This is the Achilles' heel of most long shot horse racing betting systems.

This, ladies and gentlemen...is why so few of us horseplayers can win year in and year out. Humans aren't naturally hard-wired for this task. If you're one of the handful who can succeed in this game...you will have accomplished an extremely rare feat. You will get no kudos, no slaps on the back...your own family couldn't care less. Your enormous horse racing accomplishments will impress exactly no one.

It's the mental aspect that we can't overcome--not the actual handicapping.

Personally...I know for a fact---and I'm not boasting at all, I COULD get seriously dedicated to becoming a winning horseplayer--and do it. I just could never make a living this way.

The thing is--I don't want to. Every one of us is exactly who and where we have chosen to be. I could become extremely careful, diligent...grind out a profit. But I'm positive I would hate it---hate it like I hate doing income taxes.

*ps--when I say "we" ..I mean the average horseplayer on this board--fair to very good, but certainly not a "pro".

-NCG

chart from http://turfanalyst.com

Greg, I would also submit that it's how the winning a losing streaks are handled is what is critical for long term success. A losing or winning streak is best endured or enjoyed when reacted to with a mathematically sound decrease or increase in wager size. Bet sizing is one of the most poorly understood and critical aspects of being successful long term. In fact I would go as far to say that I would pit the best wager sizing methodology against the best selection methods and show that better ROI can be achieved refining the former and not the latter.

[rsetup]

Greg, I would also submit that it's how the winning a losing streaks are handled is what is critical for long term success. A losing or winning streak is best endured or enjoyed when reacted to with a mathematically sound decrease or increase in wager size. Bet sizing is one of the most poorly understood and critical aspects of being successful long term. In fact I would go as far to say that I would pit the best wager sizing methodology against the best selection methods and show that better ROI can be achieved refining the former and not the latter.

I don't increase when I'm winning. And, I CERTAINLY don't decrease when I'm losing. If one's game is good enough, then a chance to win always presents itself - even on days when everything seems to be going wrong. If you don't have the nuts to hammer, and hammer with confidence, when you have a strong opinion in the midst of a losing streak, then you really shouldn't be playing the game. Of course, in conjunction with the requisite confidence, one must have the composure to think clearly when it's all falling apart.

[BCOURTNEY]

I don't increase when I'm winning. And, I CERTAINLY don't decrease when I'm losing. If one's game is good enough, then a chance to win always presents itself - even on days when everything seems to be going wrong. If you don't have the nuts to hammer, and hammer with confidence, when you have a strong opinion in the midst of a losing streak, then you really shouldn't be playing the game. Of course, in conjunction with the requisite confidence, one must have the composure to think clearly when it's all falling apart.

The adjustments are made based on the total of the bankroll itself not the fact that winning or losing is happening. In that universe, a flat percentage could be selected if desired to reduce the risk of ruin. It's simply equivalent to saying I'm going to wager 3% of my bankroll versus $150 dollars for example. Flat percentages over time are a better strategy than a flat wager amount. The percentage of course is then further capped by how much the wager would perturb the pool and reduce ROI when it hits.

[Cratos]

The adjustments are made based on the total of the bankroll itself not the fact that winning or losing is happening. In that universe, a flat percentage could be selected if desired to reduce the risk of ruin. It's simply equivalent to saying I'm going to wager 3% of my bankroll versus $150 dollars for example. Flat percentages over time are a better strategy than a flat wager amount. The percentage of course is then further capped by how much the wager would perturb the pool and reduce ROI when it hits.
You got it correct; it is called "money management" a principle taught in all classes involving risk investment.

[BCOURTNEY]

You got it correct; it is called "money management" a principle taught in all classes involving risk investment.

It would be interesting to hear from profitable players the percentage of bankroll they allocate per bet and on the types of bets. Even a general strategy might be useful to newer players.
e.g. 1.5%-3.5% win bets 1.5% exotics

[AltonKelsey]

Let's put it this way, if insiders aren't milking the pools, they should be.

I contend they are. Since no one is about to admit it, I am not going to hold my breath.

http://www.marcnorton.us/media/DIR_182644/cash%7Ecow.jpg
Hey, I think that might be a Turf foot.