Long Run?

[letsplayfaster]

What do you consider "the long run" in horse races? 500 races? 1000 races? 5000 races? After how many races would you feel comfortable playing a long term winning trend?

[green80]

What do you consider "the long run" in horse races? 500 races? 1000 races? 5000 races? After how many races would you feel comfortable playing a long term winning trend?

It depends on what your hit rate is. If your hit rate is 30% you would have about 60 winners in a 200 race sample. If your hit rate is 5% you would have about 10 winners. I think you would need a sample that had at least 30 winners (more is better). Long story short, the lower your strike rate, the bigger sample you need.

The biggest mistake made is that people tend to "backfit" their trends to their sample of races. You have to make sure that you have a trend that would apply to the next 200 races as well as it did the last 200 races.

[ReplayRandall]

The biggest mistake made is that people tend to "backfit" their trends to their sample of races. You have to make sure that you have a trend that would apply to the next 200 races as well as it did the last 200 races.

Back-fitting can have it's uses if you apply it properly. An example would be, if you came up with a unique methodology for Belmont, as an example, you would go back 3 years and run that data. Now, after looking at your #of plays, hit rate and ROI, you could then tweak your method for optimal results and run data from 2 years back at Belmont. If after this run, you find your results to still be in the positive, then run last year's data. Holding your breath, you now analyze the final stats to see if your method, after being run through the gamut, throws off a +ROI.....Do this track by track, surface by surface, sprints/routes, layering of odds, etc...

Bottom-line, if you put in the hard work, anything is possible and you'll find your own PATHWAY to profits....It's all up to you and your own creative intellect. BTW, watching replays and obtaining solid clocker reports will help sharpen your mind on a daily basis, you'll come up with all sorts of unique pathways to experiment with.

[thaskalos]

What do you consider "the long run" in horse races? 500 races? 1000 races? 5000 races? After how many races would you feel comfortable playing a long term winning trend?

IMO...it depends on whether your "winning trend" involves handicapping the horses...or handicapping the handicappers.

If my original research came up with a unique way of rating the horses...then I might be beaming with confidence after a profitable run of 2000 plays. But if my method involved some obscure trainer maneuver, jockey/trainer combination, or tote-board revelation...then, the "dynamic" nature of the game would cause me to doubt that my current winning results would continue into the future, even if my "sample size" appeared adequate at first glance.

Going forward...I have a lot more confidence in horses than I do in people.

[letsplayfaster]

*4000 races (all random surfaces, distances and conditions)
*8-1 minimum odds for a bet.
*625 bets
*50 winners (8% win rate)
*125% ROI
*$314 profit (based on $2 bets)

This involves no handicapping on my part, so I don't have to make decisions. Its simply following a strict set of rules race after race to come up with the horse to bet. These horses have no value below 5-1 but 8-1 offers the best profit. The higher the odds go the higher the ROI gets, but the less money you win, number of bets you place and number of wins you get. I'm not sure if this sample size is enough...I will keep adding to it and see how it goes.
PS. I only use future races, one day at a time. No backtracking to find trends and such

[ReplayRandall]

*4000 races (all random surfaces, distances and conditions)
*8-1 minimum odds for a bet.
*625 bets
*50 winners (8% win rate)
*125% ROI
*$314 profit (based on $2 bets)

This involves no handicapping on my part, so I don't have to make decisions. Its simply following a strict set of rules race after race to come up with the horse to bet. These horses have no value below 5-1 but 8-1 offers the best profit. The higher the odds go the higher the ROI gets, but the less money you win, number of bets you place and number of wins you get. I'm not sure if this sample size is enough...I will keep adding to it and see how it goes.
PS. I only use future races, one day at a time. No backtracking to find trends and such
"Sample size" is NOT the number of races you look at, but the number of actual BETS you make......You have a good start, but I would triple that number of bets before thinking you had anything reliable.

[Prof.Factor]

*4000 races (all random surfaces, distances and conditions)
*8-1 minimum odds for a bet.
*625 bets
*50 winners (8% win rate)
*125% ROI
*$314 profit (based on $2 bets)

This involves no handicapping on my part, so I don't have to make decisions. Its simply following a strict set of rules race after race to come up with the horse to bet. These horses have no value below 5-1 but 8-1 offers the best profit. The higher the odds go the higher the ROI gets, but the less money you win, number of bets you place and number of wins you get. I'm not sure if this sample size is enough...I will keep adding to it and see how it goes.
PS. I only use future races, one day at a time. No backtracking to find trends and such

I think it's almost there.
If I can subtract the highest single cash and still show a good ROI, then I'm happy.
Also, I'd calc longest expected losing streak. If ROI can absorb that without the high hit, you're gold.
That's my personal take.

[letsplayfaster]

the big winner was $134 leaves the ROI at about 114.5% ($182 profit) I can expect to lose around 48 bets in a row at 8-1...More with the higher odds ones...All together I think I could lose as many as 94 in a row (based on the average winning odds with a minimum of 8-1)

[098poi]

The only thing you have to remember is you are a person not a computer program. Can you sit and watch 30 wagers in a row lose? 40 wagers? And that won't be in one day, that's 30 that you have waited your minimum odds for. Some people may be able to but I can't. That's why I don't wager with real money. If I lose 4 or 5 bets in a row I get anxious and play catch up (a bad idea). If I win a decent amount my bet size increase. (also not a great idea) It takes focus, control and discipline to wager successfully. I don't have it but maybe you do. Good luck

[letsplayfaster]

I have other bets going also. This one is a smaller yet sample (only 59 wins) but the average mutual is $50. Only 5% of the bets win, but the return is good. 124% ROI and a $568 profit. The good thing here is that with no odds restrictions, betting every single one of these horses, there is still a 115% ROI and a profit of $488 (second set below)

Cursed Maidens

Type: Win

Min Odds: 8-1

Max Odds: NA

Selections: 1612
Bets: 1190
Wins: 59
Losses: 1131
Investment: $2,380.00
Payout: $2,948.00
Profit(Loss): $568.00
ROI: 124%

Cursed Maidens

Type: Win

Min Odds:NA

Max Odds:NA


Selections: 1612
Bets: 1612
Wins: 139
Losses: 1473
Investment: $3,224.00
Payout: $3,712.60
Profit(Loss): $488.60
ROI: 115%

So this is 1612 bets and 139 wins. average mutual is $26.71. So I could risk 80 losses in a row here. Is this enough? What if I double these results for a similar outcome? would that be enough? I'm not sure.

[ReplayRandall]

Are these "paper" wagers or real bets? If real, when do you actually place them?

[Prof.Factor]

The only thing you have to remember is you are a person not a computer program. Can you sit and watch 30 wagers in a row lose? 40 wagers? And that won't be in one day, that's 30 that you have waited your minimum odds for. Some people may be able to but I can't. That's why I don't wager with real money. If I lose 4 or 5 bets in a row I get anxious and play catch up (a bad idea). If I win a decent amount my bet size increase. (also not a great idea) It takes focus, control and discipline to wager successfully. I don't have it but maybe you do. Good luck

Yes, and even a perfectly disciplined bettor has to deal with last second toteboard fluctuations that determine plays/no-plays.
I remember going to the track with my wife years ago and her being baffled at how upset I was winning with a 12-1 shot that got hammered from 22-1. I tried to explain to her that if I keep making those bets I'm going to lose money.
On the flip side, I once took a drive to an OTB to watch the toteboard odds on 1 race and 1 horse. I needed 11-1 odds.
He opened at 7-1 and crept up to 9-1 with a minute to post. I jumped in long teller line and watched the tote. Up to 10-1 and then back down to 9-1. I jumped out of line. They were loading in the gate. They went off and the odds jumped up to 13-1 and he won. I was steaming and that was a damn long drive home!!

[letsplayfaster]

Are these "paper" wagers or real bets? If real, when do you actually place them?

While I play a lot of the maidens races with great results thus far, everything I have posted is based on paper plays only. I'm not sure when I should have the confidence to bet them all.

[ReplayRandall]

Then let me ask you, what is it you actually want from this thread....a shove??

[098poi]

Yes, and even a perfectly disciplined bettor has to deal with last second toteboard fluctuations that determine plays/no-plays.
I remember going to the track with my wife years ago and her being baffled at how upset I was winning with a 12-1 shot that got hammered from 22-1. I tried to explain to her that if I keep making those bets I'm going to lose money.
On the flip side, I once took a drive to an OTB to watch the toteboard odds on 1 race and 1 horse. I needed 11-1 odds.
He opened at 7-1 and crept up to 9-1 with a minute to post. I jumped in long teller line and watched the tote. Up to 10-1 and then back down to 9-1. I jumped out of line. They were loading in the gate. They went off and the odds jumped up to 13-1 and he won. I was steaming and that was a damn long drive home!!

That's another point. It's tough to not take situations like that personally. Like the planets aligned to screw you. When they do align in your favor it's another story.

[Nitro]

IMO...it depends on whether your "winning trend" involves handicapping the horses...or handicapping the handicappers.

If my original research came up with a unique way of rating the horses...then I might be beaming with confidence after a profitable run of 2000 plays. But if my method involved some obscure trainer maneuver, jockey/trainer combination, or tote-board revelation...then, the "dynamic" nature of the game would cause me to doubt that my current winning results would continue into the future, even if my "sample size" appeared adequate at first glance.

Going forward...I have a lot more confidence in horses than I do in people.That’s quite a surprising statement and disclosure, considering the fact that this game has never been about just the horses.

It’s always been about those who care for and control every facet of their racing lives!

Until you accept that reality you’re only taking into account a small portion of what makes this game go and so intriguing.

[thaskalos]

That’s quite a surprising statement and disclosure, considering the fact that this game has never been about just the horses.

It’s always been about those who care for and control every facet of their racing lives!

Until you accept that reality you’re only taking into account a small portion of what makes this game go and so intriguing.

You are grossly exaggerating...IMO. If this game was "always about those who care and control every facet" of the horses' lives...then I would have given it up many years ago. My favorite part of this game is when the starting gate opens...and most of the "control" swings over to the animals.

I'm not talking about the Hong Kong version of the game, by the way...

[Nitro]

You are grossly exaggerating...IMO. If this game was "always about those who care and control every facet" of the horses' lives...then I would have given it up many years ago. My favorite part of this game is when the starting gate opens...and most of the "control" swings over to the animals.

I'm not talking about the Hong Kong version of the game, by the way...Not exaggerating at all from a player’s perspective. I’d say your response sounds like something a sports fan might express. I gave up on rooting for them a long time ago after I discovered what makes them run and how to take advantage of it. And it certainly isn’t the horses doing the betting.

My favorite part of the game is selecting those races that offer the best opportunity for reaching my personal goals. Other than the racing in HK, I rarely even watch the local races.

[ReplayRandall]

Other than the racing in HK, I rarely even watch the local races.
So you just post the pool movement of SA, GP and Oaklawn yesterday, yet never watched a race.....Whatever you say, Nitro.

[Nitro]

So you just post the pool movement of SA, GP and Oaklawn yesterday, yet never watched a race.....Whatever you say, Nitro.Exactly!
I’d rather watch the captivating “movement of the market” as they say. The Live tote board activities viewed through a refined analysis are much more interesting in my opinion. There’s nothing like seeing solid betting patterns on a group of relatively long priced entries that will make up a juicy exotic wager that later comes to fruition. That’s what excites me about this game.

[thaskalos]

Not exaggerating at all from a player’s perspective. I’d say your response sounds like something a sports fan might express. I gave up on rooting for them a long time ago after I discovered what makes them run and how to take advantage of it. And it certainly isn’t the horses doing the betting.

My favorite part of the game is selecting those races that offer the best opportunity for reaching my personal goals. Other than the racing in HK, I rarely even watch the local races.

If your way allows you to reach your "personal goals", then I salute you...and leave you to your own counsel. But I wonder why you are trying to correct me here...while implying that I exhibit a "sports fan's" mentality. Are you under the impression that you wager MORE than I do? Don't I reserve the right to "reach my own personal goals"...in my OWN way?

There are no established "rights" and "wrongs" in this game, Nitro...and all the different "theories" that we present here don't amount to much. The end RESULT is the only thing that counts. If you WIN, then you are an EXPERT...and you needn't explain or apologize for the way that you do it.

[VigorsTheGrey]

That’s quite a surprising statement and disclosure, considering the fact that this game has never been about just the horses.

It’s always been about those who care for and control every facet of their racing lives!

Until you accept that reality you’re only taking into account a small portion of what makes this game go and so intriguing.

Do you think that Art Sherman was an insider who was preparing Dortmund to finish the way Dortmund did on his first try on turf? Do you think Art was controlling Dortmund to finish last?

Could it be that the insiders playing to win are also competing with OTHER INSIDERS who are also competing to win AND cash....It's called a horse race....

[Nitro]

If your way allows you to reach your "personal goals", then I salute you...and leave you to your own counsel. But I wonder why you are trying to correct me here...while implying that I exhibit a "sports fan's" mentality. Are you under the impression that you wager MORE than I do? Don't I reserve the right to "reach my own personal goals"...in my OWN way?

There are no established "rights" and "wrongs" in this game, Nitro...and all the different "theories" that we present here don't amount to much. The end RESULT is the only thing that counts. If you WIN, then you are an EXPERT...and you needn't explain or apologize for the way that you do it.I wasn’t implying anything other than what your response expressed. If you happen to have a sport’s fan “mentality”, you said it I didn’t. I could care less how much you might be wagering. That’s not the point. You might be expressing fleeting theories based on all the subjective material that’s available. I’m talking in terms of the objective realities of hard cash that has dynamic momentum and purpose.

There certainly ARE “rights and wrongs” The rights are generally applied by a minority who are successful, but the majority who play this game are on the other end of that scale. The problem is they don’t want admit it, or own up to their own personal misguided interpretations of what makes this game so elusive, yet for many it remains an important part of their activities.

[thaskalos]

I wasn’t implying anything other than what your response expressed. If you happen to have a sport’s fan “mentality”, you said it I didn’t. I could care less how much you might be wagering. That’s not the point. You might be expressing fleeting theories based on all the subjective material that’s available. I’m talking in terms of the objective realities of hard cash that has dynamic momentum and purpose.

There certainly ARE “rights and wrongs” The rights are generally applied by a minority who are successful, but the majority who play this game are on the other end of that scale. The problem is they don’t want admit it, or own up to their own personal misguided interpretations of what makes this game so elusive, yet for many it remains an important part of their activities.

Is it your contention that this silent, ultra-successful minority of players are all quietly plying their trade by carefully watching the tote-board in Hong Kong? Or do you suppose that there might be ANOTHER way to make a buck in this game?

[VigorsTheGrey]

I wasn’t implying anything other than what your response expressed. If you happen to have a sport’s fan “mentality”, you said it I didn’t. I could care less how much you might be wagering. That’s not the point. You might be expressing fleeting theories based on all the subjective material that’s available. I’m talking in terms of the objective realities of hard cash that has dynamic momentum and purpose.

There certainly ARE “rights and wrongs” The rights are generally applied by a minority who are successful, but the majority who play this game are on the other end of that scale. The problem is they don’t want admit it, or own up to their own personal misguided interpretations of what makes this game so elusive, yet for many it remains an important part of their activities.

So many races are decided by close margins, head bobs, cavalry charges, etc, EVEN DEAD HEATS...are these races controlled by insiders as well...? Which races are "controlled" and which are not...? One can always maintain that the insiders wanted it this way or that....if your horses win, then your theory is correct in your mind, what happens to your theory when "Nothing in that one occurs..." Or "No clues on the Long shot Placer...? Did the insiders just have bad racing luck....? Did your pattern analysis miss the inside scoop...? What explains when you are wrong? And how IS THAT any different then just random competition and variable form cycles in horses...?

[Nitro]

Do you think that Art Sherman was an insider who was preparing Dortmund to finish the way Dortmund did on his first try on turf? Do you think Art was controlling Dortmund to finish last?

Could it be that the insiders playing to win are also competing with OTHER INSIDERS who are also competing to win AND cash....It's called a horse race....Vigor’s you really don’t get it!
I have no idea how the connections of Dortmund bet that race. Do you really believe they’d be stupid enough to risk a lot of betting money in a stakes race, when there’s more then adequate compensation if their experiment had worked? Besides who’s to say they didn’t use the race as a prep for a future event? You have absolutely no idea of their motivations and probably no clue as to how Dortmund even came out of the race.

I’ll tell you something that you can certainly choose to ignore: But until you can fully comprehend how a trainer like John Sheriffs manipulated his eventual Derby winner, Giacomo through each and every prep race, you’ll always be in the dark when it comes to the intentions of those who happen to know a heck of a lot more then the Outsiders like you (and me) about horseflesh.

[Nitro]

So many races are decided by close margins, head bobs, cavalry charges, etc, EVEN DEAD HEATS...are these races controlled by insiders as well...? Which races are "controlled" and which are not...? One can always maintain that the insiders wanted it this way or that....if your horses win, then your theory is correct in your mind, what happens to your theory when "Nothing in that one occurs..." Or "No clues on the Long shot Placer...? Did the insiders just have bad racing luck....? Did your pattern analysis miss the inside scoop...? What explains when you are wrong? And how IS THAT any different then just random competition and variable form cycles in horses...?
Vigors do you understand the difference between Picking Winners and Making Winning Plays?

I could care less who wins. I'm looking for those entries in a race (short-priced or otherwise) that will be TRYING to perhaps win the race. There are usually more than one. Once discovered..... I'll leave the rest to your betting imagination!

[thaskalos]

Vigors do you understand the difference between Picking Winners and Making Winning Plays?

I could care less who wins. I'm looking for those entries in a race (short-priced or otherwise) that will be TRYING to perhaps win the race. There are usually more than one. Once discovered..... I'll leave the rest to your betting imagination!

Why do you restrict your play to the races at Hong Kong? Is there no way to track these TRYING entries in THIS country?

[Nitro]

Is it your contention that this silent, ultra-successful minority of players are all quietly plying their trade by carefully watching the tote-board in Hong Kong? Or do you suppose that there might be ANOTHER way to make a buck in this game?You’re inadvertently making the same mistake that so many seem to, by ignoring who the actual betting population is composed of. I doubt very highly that there are many tote analysts among them.
Oh, I know there’s another way to make money in this game, but what I’m thinking about is not done by many an Outsider!

[VigorsTheGrey]

Vigor’s you really don’t get it!
I have no idea how the connections of Dortmund bet that race. Do you really believe they’d be stupid enough to risk a lot of betting money in a stakes race, when there’s more then adequate compensation if their experiment had worked? Besides who’s to say they didn’t use the race as a prep for a future event? You have absolutely no idea of their motivations and probably no clue as to how Dortmund even came out of the race.

I’ll tell you something that you can certainly choose to ignore: But until you can fully comprehend how a trainer like John Sheriffs manipulated his eventual Derby winner, Giacomo through each and every prep race, you’ll always be in the dark when it comes to the intentions of those who happen to know a heck of a lot more then the Outsiders like you (and me) about horseflesh.

What I am saying is that the inside is not monolithic...one group of insiders believe their horse has a shot, the other group believes their horse has a shot, these connections tell their cousins, and those connections tell their cousins, and so on, and patterns shift about sometimes willy-nilly, and granted, sometimes, with intent, I guess your mission is to handicap the intentions of these hidden actors which is kind of like trying to read the mind of the racing gods...like I have asked on many occasions, how do you explain away seeing the patterns before your very eyes, and then watch very different results occur on a regular basis, in fact, MORE OFTEN, than your "readings"....mon clairvoyant...

[Nitro]

Why do you restrict your play to the races at Hong Kong? Is there no way to track these TRYING entries in THIS country?
Please don’t get me started about the differences between the racing in HK versus the U.S.

Sure you can track the TRYING entries in the U.S. I’ve been doing it for years, but I prefer locations like HK for 2 primary reasons from the tote’s perspective:
1) Because there are ALWAYS large fields the tote analysis tends to be more discriminatory with more entries which does provide a big edge by pointing to the stronger betting patterns at specific time intervals prior to post.
2) The value on the returns is extraordinary.
Quinellas in HK that cost ½ as much to play as boxing Exactas. Yet they pay the same or more then the typical Exacta payouts here.
Triples in HK that also cost less to play, but pay like Supers here.

[thaskalos]

You’re inadvertently making the same mistake that so many seem to, by ignoring who the actual betting population is composed of. I doubt very highly that there are many tote analysts among them.
Oh, I know there’s another way to make money in this game, but what I’m thinking about is not done by many an Outsider!

I ignore the actual betting population...because I have no way of knowing for certain who they are, or what they do. I don't worry much about what the other bettors are doing...because my main battle is INTERNAL. As long as I play my best game...I am fine.

[thaskalos]

Please don’t get me started about the differences between the racing in HK versus the U.S.

Sure you can track the TRYING entries in the U.S. I’ve been doing it for years, but I prefer locations like HK for 2 primary reasons from the tote’s perspective:
1) Because there are ALWAYS large fields the tote analysis tends to be more discriminatory with more entries which does provide a big edge by pointing to the stronger betting patterns at specific time intervals prior to post.
2) The value on the returns is extraordinary.
Quinellas in HK that cost ½ as much to play as boxing Exactas. Yet they pay the same or more then the typical Exacta payouts here.
Triples in HK that also cost less to play, but pay like Supers here.

Do the wagering patterns that your software isolates remain consistent from year to year?

[Nitro]

Do the wagering patterns that your software isolates remain consistent from year to year?
For the last 4 years in HK they certainly have, but I can’t say the same for all tracks in the U.S. especially those with diminishing field sizes.

[VigorsTheGrey]

"Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in statistics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics) to emphasize that a correlation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_dependence) between two variables does not necessarily imply that one variable causes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality) the other.

For any two correlated events, A and B, the different possible relationships include:


A causes B (direct causation);
B causes A (reverse causation);
A and B are consequences of a common cause, but do not cause each other;
A causes B and B causes A (bidirectional or cyclic causation);
A causes C which causes B (indirect causation);
There is no connection between A and B; the correlation is a coincidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence).

Thus there can be no conclusion made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause-and-effect relationship only from the fact that A and B are correlated. Determining whether there is an actual cause-and-effect relationship requires further investigation, even when the relationship between A and B is statistically significant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance), a large effect size (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_size) is observed, or a large part of the variance is explained (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_determination)."

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nitro, please identify your A, B, and C here...and which of the bullets above applies to your approach...

[Nitro]

What I am saying is that the inside is not monolithic...one group of insiders believe their horse has a shot, the other group believes their horse has a shot, these connections tell their cousins, and those connections tell their cousins, and so on, and patterns shift about sometimes willy-nilly, and granted, sometimes, with intent, I guess your mission is to handicap the intentions of these hidden actors which is kind of like trying to read the mind of the racing gods...like I have asked on many occasions, how do you explain away seeing the patterns before your very eyes, and then watch very different results occur on a regular basis, in fact, MORE OFTEN, than your "readings"....mon clairvoyant...
Look I’m going to use the same basic example I give to others who make similar inquiries.
You’re at the track (or an OTB). You’ve completed your normal routine for handicapping a specific race and have come up with 2 or 3 primary contenders (A, B & C). You decide that the odds on one of them (“B”) look good enough for a nice return and you’re about to make a Win wager. While you’re on line you overhear the conversation between the guy in front of you and the clerk. He’s making a $2000.00 straight Exacta bet with A on top of B & C.

This guy is making a serious wager and you’re contemplating a $20 Win bet on B.
How confident do you now feel about your selection and how it was made?
Maybe this guy has better information then you do.
After all, why would anyone be stupid enough to make that size wager if they didn’t feel confident about the outcome. I doubt that he might be bluffing.

Now when thinking in terms of an effective tote analysis that evaluates all 3 of the mutual and /Exacta (or Quinella) pools simultaneously for any given race, it naturally magnifies this example exponentially.

Otherwise, Vigors you’ve clearly missed the boat. Probably because without seeing the analysis in action how could you possibly reach any plausible conclusion.
The following explanation will also address your “Correlation does not imply causation” post.

As explained to me by my mentor and analysis developer:
The entire tote analysis is Results driven. In other words, the numerous formulas that are used have evaluated ¾ of a Million races at different tracks with different pools sizes in REAL time. These races are further broken down by Class, Distance, Surface, Age Group, and Sex to determine which formula is to be used in future events based upon Actual Results and previous outcomes. Only the most successful formula is used with a given set of race conditions at a specific track.

I’ve used it successfully for a number of years and can certainly vouch for it demonstrating that the old horse racing adage, “It’s Money that Makes the Mare Run” is an absolute truth when it comes to the correlation of “Cause and Effect.”

[VigorsTheGrey]

Look I’m going to use the same basic example I give to others who make similar inquiries.
You’re at the track (or an OTB). You’ve completed your normal routine for handicapping a specific race and have come up with 2 or 3 primary contenders (A, B & C). You decide that the odds on one of them (“B”) look good enough for a nice return and you’re about to make a Win wager. While you’re on line you overhear the conversation between the guy in front of you and the clerk. He’s making a $2000.00 straight Exacta bet with A on top of B & C.

This guy is making a serious wager and you’re contemplating a $20 Win bet on B.
How confident do you now feel about your selection and how it was made?
Maybe this guy has better information then you do.
After all, why would anyone be stupid enough to make that size wager if they didn’t feel confident about the outcome. I doubt that he might be bluffing.

Now when thinking in terms of an effective tote analysis that evaluates all 3 of the mutual and /Exacta (or Quinella) pools simultaneously for any given race, it naturally magnifies this example exponentially.

Otherwise, Vigors you’ve clearly missed the boat. Probably because without seeing the analysis in action how could you possibly reach any plausible conclusion.
The following explanation will also address your “Correlation does not imply causation” post.

As explained to me by my mentor and analysis developer:
The entire tote analysis is Results driven. In other words, the numerous formulas that are used have evaluated ¾ of a Million races at different tracks with different pools sizes in REAL time. These races are further broken down by Class, Distance, Surface, Age Group, and Sex to determine which formula is to be used in future events based upon Actual Results and previous outcomes. Only the most successful formula is used with a given set of race conditions at a specific track.

I’ve used it successfully for a number of years and can certainly vouch for it demonstrating that the old horse racing adage, “It’s Money that Makes the Mare Run” is an absolute truth when it comes to the correlation of “Cause and Effect.”

If....“It’s Money that Makes the Mare Run” then....A (the betting) causes B (the good performance) (direct causation)...

This is an obvious fallacy...betting does not cause performance...any correlation is and must remain a coincidence, albeit possibly, a fairly regularly occurring coincidence, using your methods...

[ReplayRandall]

(A) Insider info of an upcoming good performance causes (B) LARGE BETTING....The direct correlation of Nitro's mind at work.

[thaskalos]

Look I’m going to use the same basic example I give to others who make similar inquiries.
You’re at the track (or an OTB). You’ve completed your normal routine for handicapping a specific race and have come up with 2 or 3 primary contenders (A, B & C). You decide that the odds on one of them (“B”) look good enough for a nice return and you’re about to make a Win wager. While you’re on line you overhear the conversation between the guy in front of you and the clerk. He’s making a $2000.00 straight Exacta bet with A on top of B & C.

This guy is making a serious wager and you’re contemplating a $20 Win bet on B.
How confident do you now feel about your selection and how it was made?
Maybe this guy has better information then you do.
After all, why would anyone be stupid enough to make that size wager if they didn’t feel confident about the outcome. I doubt that he might be bluffing.


This is exactly the sort of thinking that has kept mutuel tellers broke for decades.

[Nitro]

If....“It’s Money that Makes the Mare Run” then....A (the betting) causes B (the good performance) (direct causation)...

This is an obvious fallacy...betting does not cause performance...any correlation is and must remain a coincidence, albeit possibly, a fairly regularly occurring coincidence, using your methods...
Betting doesn't cause the performance, but race prep, conditioning and the realization that a horse is sitting on a big run often does. And unfortunately the Outsiders are not privy to that type of direct information. So, it comes down to the intentions of the connections and their betting activities that are exposed through a careful and meticulous analysis of money flow.
Satisfactory results of a planned and positive objective are certainly not any form of coincidence.
As they say, "Luck is Good Planning Properly Executed."

For instance, anyone who thinks for a minute that the results of my consecutive posts (based solely on the tote analysis) for races 10 & 11 @ GP the other day are based based on a coincidence is as far as I'm concerned a complete fool.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=136972

And if that's not sufficient then you haven't been spending much time in the selection forum.

[Nitro]

This is exactly the sort of thinking that has kept mutuel tellers broke for decades.
Not those at the $100 window, who can recognize and distinguish one bettor from another! ;)

[thaskalos]

Not those at the $100 window, who can recognize and distinguish one bettor from another! ;)

There haven't been "$100 windows" here for decades, Nitro. As I said...this ain't Hong Kong. :)

[VigorsTheGrey]

Not those at the $100 window, who can recognize and distinguish one bettor from another! ;)

I really don't like to use the tellers (except for cashing) and I'm sure the big bettors use the machines as well...why tip off the clerks if you got a good thing going....?

The sharp clerks watch at how you bet and may gain insight into your doings, we know this...I use the machines almost always...

[VigorsTheGrey]

"...race prep, conditioning and the realization that a horse is sitting on a big run often does. And unfortunately the Outsiders are not privy to that type of direct information." Nitro.

I agree with you here and that is what many of us are always attempting to do with the non-inside resources available to us...Yet even with all this, the race can be chaotic...

...so I have learned to make winning plays, as you say, that incorporates price horses that are usually unforeseen (and largely, unforeseeable), having settled on the idea that I need to go after the bigger payouts, and in order to cash those, I need to at least BET THOSE combinations...

[Nitro]

There haven't been "$100 windows" here for decades, Nitro. As I said...this ain't Hong Kong. :)
I was being as facetious as you were when you mentioned the term “mutual clerks”.

Your irrelevant methods of stirring the pot may go unnoticed by some, but those kinds of remarks only lead to more ambiguity and resentment. So don't mind me if I pass on responding to any similar content.

[thaskalos]

I was being as facetious as you were when you mentioned the term “mutual clerks”.

Your irrelevant methods of stirring the pot may go unnoticed by some, but those kinds of remarks only lead to more ambiguity and resentment. So don't mind me if I pass on responding to any similar content.

Yes...you are right. My remarks here lead to ambiguity and resentment...whereas your remarks lead to civil discourse and good-will. :ThmbUp:

I made a simple statement here, that I trust horses more than I trust people...and this gave you licence to lecture me on the "finer points" of the game. :rolleyes:

[Nitro]

If....“It’s Money that Makes the Mare Run” then....A (the betting) causes B (the good performance) (direct causation)...

This is an obvious fallacy...betting does not cause performance...any correlation is and must remain a coincidence, albeit possibly, a fairly regularly occurring coincidence, using your methods...
Most will follow the horses, I prefer to follow the money.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2136832#post2136832

This thread link (above) is dedicated to those who might actually believe that the results of my posted selections (based on a tote analysis) are some form of Happenstance.
In my estimation its the pursuit monetary gain that drives this entire game!
(Both on the track and in the breeding shed)

[VigorsTheGrey]

Most will follow the horses, I prefer to follow the money.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2136832#post2136832

This thread link (above) is dedicated to those who might actually believe that the results of my posted selections (based on a tote analysis) are some form of Happenstance.
In my estimation its the pursuit monetary gain that drives this entire game!
(Both on the track and in the breeding shed)

It should come as no surprise that at least one of the top two betting choices can and do hit the board, especially in 5 and 6 horse races....and since you are boxing these with usually 3 other logical contenders, your chances of hitting Exactas and trifectas is relatively good....by default alone without any inside info at all....