To all those who say you can't win using speed & pace figures only...

[PaceAdvantage]

I say NONSENSE.

I've been doing just that for 39 days on this website, in the Selections section, in my "Value Races & Horses" threads.

It doesn't matter the distance, doesn't matter the surface and doesn't matter the track. I've been posting picks from Belmont to Will Rogers Downs.

I haven't looked at a single replay. Haven't used a single trip note. Haven't considered a single jockey, trainer or owner. And I haven't looked at a single breeding line (although I don't bet on races where there is a first time starter or a race where there is a horse who hasn't run over dirt if it's a dirt race or hasn't run over turf if it's a turf race).

In short, I have used nothing but TimeForumUS speed and pace figures in my handicapping. And here is my record on my posted plays to date:

ALL PLAYS (OVERLAYS ONLY) (39 Days):

124 for 844 | $1688 Wagered | $1574.70 returned | $0.93 ROI ($1.00 = Break Even)

TOP PICK (OVERLAY ONLY) Running total (39 Days):

73 for 352 | $704 Wagered | $776.50 Returned | $1.10 ROI ($1.00 = Break Even)Now granted I am showing a loss on all plays (all plays are any contender that goes off at or above my odds line), but betting only my top pick when it goes off at, or higher than my value odds line, I am ahead by 10% after 352 races and 39 days, and that's with a paltry 20% strike rate. And no, this positive ROI does NOT include Green Gratto, the 50-1 shot I posted as a top pick in another thread. The Carter did not qualify as a Value Races & Horses race. So my 10% ROI is not relying on some freaky 50-1 winner.

Could I be doing better if I was taking trip notes or considering some of the stuff I am ignoring during this experiment? Probably. But that's not the point.

The point is, don't ever let anyone ever tell you what you CAN'T DO in this game if you want to win, unless you try it out for yourself.

YES YOU CAN win by ONLY USING NUMBERS. And if I can do it, you can rest assured there are a bunch of other people ignoring all of the stuff I've been ignoring as well, and still showing a profit.

YES YOU CAN, even in 2017.

[thaskalos]

It isn't realistic to expect a profit on ALL your overlays, because by wagering in such a manner, you might be betting on half of the horses in the race. Showing a 10% profit on your top pick after 352 races is unquestionably a GREAT handicapping exhibition. :ThmbUp:

Those who say that watching replays is "a must in order to win" probably need a new set of speed and pace figures...along with some improvement to their figure-interpreting skills.

[NorCalGreg]

Both above posts are excellent...posted by WINNERS. 👏

[Dahoss9698]

I keep hearing this "you HAVE to watch replays, etc" stuff and I'm tying to figure out who said it? Who said you can't win using speed figures only?

That's the great thing about this game. There are lots of ways to play it. I'm sure there are people who can show a profit just betting angles (jock/trainer, 1st time blinkers, 1st time lasix, etc).

I think a rational person would agree the best place to view pace for a race would be figures. Just like the best way to judge a bias or tough trip would be on a replay.

What am I missing?

[no breathalyzer]

I keep hearing this "you HAVE to watch replays, etc" stuff and I'm tying to figure out who said it? Who said you can't win using speed figures only?

That's the great thing about this game. There are lots of ways to play it. I'm sure there are people who can show a profit just betting angles (jock/trainer, 1st time blinkers, 1st time lasix, etc).

I think a rational person would agree the best place to view pace for a race would be figures. Just like the best way to judge a bias or tough trip would be on a replay.

What am I missing?

i will admit 5 star post...i just want to add tilt and bankroll management is what destroys a lot sharp players

[formula_2002]

wonderful results.I assume same size flat bet.
can you tell what the results would be for a proportional odds bet?
bet size =1/(odds+1) based on your odds line and then again the public's final odds.
keep up the good work

[green80]

Now if you were betting with one of the high rebate ADW's, you could turn that .93 maybe into a little profit.

[KingChas]

Gotta mix it up a little?....;)

[johnhannibalsmith]

I keep hearing this "you HAVE to watch replays, etc" stuff and I'm tying to figure out who said it? Who said you can't win using speed figures only?

...

Maybe not in precisely those words, but it sounded like a rebuttal intended largely for one of your recently departed good pals. There seemed to be a lot of arguments that software/numbers betting was leading to the riches accumulated by the replay watcher sniffing out things you can't see on paper. I could be wrong, but thought maybe he was goading a return appearance. ;)

[rsetup]

This reminds me of when Kate Jackson, that ugly, thin actress from Charlie's Angels, felt the need to make the public statement that she would NOT be doing nude scenes.

The overwhelming, and by a HUGE amount, majority of players here, and more generally, rely on speed and pace figures. It's how anyone coming to the game is approaching it these days. Even your thinly veiled target relies on speed and pace figures.

So, other than finding yet another way to remind us of your 54:1 win, what's the point, Mike? Not enough visitors to your daily threads?

[PaceAdvantage]

This reminds me of when Kate Jackson, that ugly, thin actress from Charlie's Angels, felt the need to make the public statement that she would NOT be doing nude scenes.

The overwhelming, and by a HUGE amount, majority of players here, and more generally, rely on speed and pace figures. It's how anyone coming to the game is approaching it these days. Even your thinly veiled target relies on speed and pace figures.

So, other than finding yet another way to remind us of your 54:1 win, what's the point, Mike? Not enough visitors to your daily threads?Oh, there's definitely some serious braggadocio happening on my end. A need for approval. Almost as much as your need to be a total a-hole to those you disagree with or whom you think aren't masters of the game like you think you are with your FAT CHARTS. Although I will admit, you have been much better lately, so I have to give you credit there.

And I couldn't care less about Green Gratto (another reminder). It's not like I haven't posted $100+ horses before in graded stakes races (Take Charge Brandi anyone? :lol:). But the question seems to always come up about my current ROI so I cut it off at the pass now.

But even a casual viewer of this website over the years must admit there have been LOTS of people who would often make the snide comment that you can't win with software or speed figures alone (and ALONE is the key word here). Speed figs can't tell you this or they can't tell you that. A computer can't tell you about this subtly bad trip or that a jockey looked like he purposefully wasn't out there to win, etc. etc.

And no, I wasn't targeting anyone...it's happened often enough over 18 years (another boast - my website's longevity) from many different sources.

[PaceAdvantage]

I keep hearing this "you HAVE to watch replays, etc" stuff and I'm tying to figure out who said it? Who said you can't win using speed figures only?Lots of people on here over the years. I should know. I bristled every time I would read it.

[PaceAdvantage]

Maybe not in precisely those words, but it sounded like a rebuttal intended largely for one of your recently departed good pals.If you're speaking of EMD, he wasn't the only one it was intended for...there have been a lot of people over the years who would butt heads with people who were claiming the virtues of software programs and figures.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Pace this is my basic approach and what you lose in in depth knowledge you make up for in quantity and location. Instead of squeezing blood from the turnip, you just get a dozen turnips. This was the key to my big revelation in 2015 that turned my frustration to gold. There are overlays from sea to shining sea! Looking at more races from all over the place, you don't force close calls. I do a revised and basic ABC 1-2-3 oddsline, bet whichever of my top 2 choices are overlaid or both if such and move on if they are both 3-1 or less. That's it. Plus accessing smaller tracks IMO are where you find a more steady diet of longshots. This year I am exactly 20 for 90 on 9-1 and up odds. Largely at places like Sam Houston, Will Rogers Downs, Mahoning Valley etc. And applying pedigree and specialized turf ratings to smaller turf courses can be magical! Anyway the horseplaying world seems and is opened up as a whole when approaching the game in this manner. Good stuff!:ThmbUp:

[rsetup]

Oh, there's definitely some serious braggadocio happening on my end. A need for approval. Almost as much as your need to be a total a-hole to those you disagree with or whom you think aren't masters of the game like you think you are with your FAT CHARTS. Although I will admit, you have been much better lately, so I have to give you credit there.

And I couldn't care less about Green Gratto (another reminder). It's not like I haven't posted $100+ horses before in graded stakes races (Take Charge Brandi anyone? :lol:). But the question seems to always come up about my current ROI so I cut it off at the pass now.

But even a casual viewer of this website over the years must admit there have been LOTS of people who would often make the snide comment that you can't win with software or speed figures alone (and ALONE is the key word here). Speed figs can't tell you this or they can't tell you that. A computer can't tell you about this subtly bad trip or that a jockey looked like he purposefully wasn't out there to win, etc. etc.

And no, I wasn't targeting anyone...it's happened often enough over 18 years (another boast - my website's longevity) from many different sources.

Just for verification purposes do a search and see how many times you've mentioned Green Grotto in threads other than the original one. Thinks it's more than zero? :lol:

I don't buy the rest of your argument. Figures dominate the game and any exchange about it.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Just for verification purposes do a search and see how many times you've mentioned Green Grotto in threads other than the original one. Thinks it's more than zero? :lol:

I don't buy the rest of your argument. Figures dominate the game and any exchange about it.

Handicapping factors are cyclical in my opinion. You keep tossing out the esoteric capper view of the game from 90's handicapping books as though it were still today's truth. Get a new argument punk!:)

[PaceAdvantage]

Just for verification purposes do a search and see how many times you've mentioned Green Grotto in threads other than the original one. Thinks it's more than zero? :lol:

I don't buy the rest of your argument. Figures dominate the game and any exchange about it.Green Gratto is worth bragging about.

My only argument is that if you have a set of good numbers and find out how best to use them, you don't need anything else. Contrary to what a lot of people think out there - that you need to know almost everything -- ie. you need to consider possibly less than ethical trainers...less than ethical jockeys...medication...trips...trainer/owner intent...you name it, there are tons of information points out there that many people think are necessary to consider besides the numbers, in order to win.

I didn't say figures DON'T dominate the game. They do. I don't know why you keep trying to push this on me. That's not the point.

The point is to not believe the people who say if you ONLY use figures, you'll never be successful at making a profit.

[thaskalos]

Green Gratto is worth bragging about.

My only argument is that if you have a set of good numbers and find out how best to use them, you don't need anything else. Contrary to what a lot of people think out there - that you need to know almost everything -- ie. you need to consider possibly less than ethical trainers...less than ethical jockeys...medication...trips...trainer/owner intent...you name it, there are tons of information points out there that many people think are necessary to consider besides the numbers, in order to win.

I didn't say figures DON'T dominate the game. They do. I don't know why you keep trying to push this on me. That's not the point.

The point is to not believe the people who say if you ONLY use figures, you'll never be successful at making a profit.

You've managed to show a profit after about 400 selections, by relying only on speed and pace figures. My guess is that you'll NEVER see a similar handicapping exhibition staged by a "visual handicapper"...who relies on replays for his selections. Therefore...you've won your argument...IMO.

[thaskalos]

Green Gratto is worth bragging about.


Even when considered an "overlay" at odds of 2-1?

As I said in a prior thread...I am impressed with your "selection method"...but your odds-line needs some adjustment, IMO. When your betting line lists Green Gratto at 7-5, and the pre-Derby Always Dreaming at 22-1...then something is amiss.

[ReplayRandall]

PA, give us a simple version of how you came up with Always Dreaming at 22-1 on your value line.....

[rsetup]

You've managed to show a profit after about 400 selections, by relying only on speed and pace figures. My guess is that you'll NEVER see a similar handicapping exhibition staged by a "visual handicapper"...who relies on replays for his selections. Therefore...you've won your argument...IMO.

Isn't DaHoss a 'visual handicapper' more than anything else? Hasn't he had runs with significantly higher ROI?

[PaceAdvantage]

Isn't DaHoss a 'visual handicapper' more than anything else? Hasn't he had runs with significantly higher ROI?Again, not the point. I've written many times on here that there are plenty of better handicappers than me on here. I'm sure you're one of them yourself. Dahoss I'm sure is also better than I am.

Why do you keep throwing out red herrings?

And you can ask Dahoss how many races he's posted on here while tracking them and what his ROI was...I don't recall.

[PaceAdvantage]

PA, give us a simple version of how you came up with Always Dreaming at 22-1 on your value line.....I plugged the numbers in and out spit the odds line.

[PaceAdvantage]

When your betting line lists Green Gratto at 7-5, and the pre-Derby Always Dreaming at 22-1...then something is amiss.Pretty sure I had GG at 6/5...don't sell me short

[ReplayRandall]

I plugged the numbers in and out spit the odds line.
Plugged in through whom?

[thaskalos]

Isn't DaHoss a 'visual handicapper' more than anything else? Hasn't he had runs with significantly higher ROI?

I don't recall DaHoss ever declaring what his handicapping consisted of. He has mentioned replays...but I don't know if he is strictly a "replay guy"...like EMD4ME is(was?).

[PaceAdvantage]

Plugged in through whom?I don't understand your question.

I take certain numbers for each horse and run them all through the oddsmaker spreadsheet that cj has released on this board a few times. I've since modified the oddsmaker spreadsheet from its original form to suit my needs, tweaked it a little here and there, and we are where we are today.

It certainly doesn't get every race right. Hell, my top choice only wins at a 20% rate. It's wrong PLENTY. But another lesson learned is you don't have to be right all that often to still make money.

Although I will point out that I nailed the following two races cold yesterday:

Cold Trifecta $1335 w/ 27-1 second and 40-1 third: http://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=EVD&raceDate=05/12/2017&cy=USA&rn=4
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2167549&postcount=54

Cold Superfecta $1142.30:
http://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=NP&raceDate=05/12/2017&cy=CAN&rn=8
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2167556&postcount=55

For the record I don't bet anything but WIN, so I can't claim to have had those, especially that Trifecta where the winner was an underlay.

[jimmyb]

You've managed to show a profit after about 400 selections, by relying only on speed and pace figures. My guess is that you'll NEVER see a similar handicapping exhibition staged by a "visual handicapper"...who relies on replays for his selections. Therefore...you've won your argument...IMO.

What he said!!! The same situation holds true if I were writing a research paper. My audience is going to expect me to present credible and reliable results so that they can trust in my expertise. NO RED BOARDING ALLOWED. Lack of evidence will not convince me that a claim is plausible or correct.

[timtam]

Why don't you just put all your picks up and the whole board will be millionaries?

[PaceAdvantage]

Why don't you just put all your picks up and the whole board will be millionaries?I do. Every pick. Every day. For the last 39 days. Although I did skip a day or two where I had family obligations on the weekend.

Where have you been?

[Tom]

You've managed to show a profit after about 400 selections, by relying only on speed and pace figures. My guess is that you'll NEVER see a similar handicapping exhibition staged by a "visual handicapper"...who relies on replays for his selections. Therefore...you've won your argument...IMO.

And he has now set a standard for anyone who makes that ridiculous claim in the future to have to surpass before any credibility is given to his empty claims.

[ReplayRandall]

I take certain numbers for each horse and run them all through the oddsmaker spreadsheet that cj has released on this board a few times. I've since modified the oddsmaker spreadsheet from its original form to suit my needs, tweaked it a little here and there, and we are where we are today.

Thanks for the reply....The "certain" numbers you use, are those TimeformUS?

[PaceAdvantage]

Thanks for the reply....The "certain" numbers you use, are those TimeformUS?Yes. I've stated such multiple times, including the first post in this thread.

[timtam]

I must have been looking the days you missed

[PaceAdvantage]

I must have been looking the days you missedAll those threads titled "Value Races & Horses" in Selections are mine. I don't know how I could be any more transparent about what I am doing. As you say, you're just not paying attention. You just want to seem clever.

[ReplayRandall]

Yes. I've stated such multiple times, including the first post in this thread.
My oversight....continued success, Mike..:ThmbUp:

[Poindexter]

I must admit, that over the last couple years I personally have become very figure dependent. In fact I work much better with one figure per race. For instance a pace rating of 90 and speed rating of 94 and a class rating of 87 and performance rating of 89, is too much information. I just tweek the Bris figures based off of what I have found works, into one figure per race and handicap after that(including pace ratings, projected development, late pace on 2 turn turf races....). Unfortunately it is all time consuming process.

Even in harness races, I have a system i developed many years ago(I stopped playing harness races for a good 20 year or so), found a few flaws in it, tweeked it, and am very happy with what I have come up with. I am playing more and more tracks, not even watching replays and having a ball. But once again coming up with these figures is very time consuming and tiring because I have to do all these calclation in my head.

Once I have the figures, of course I handicap after that, if i have time to watch a replay I will do so, but that is the exception not the rule. I wouldn't know if a horse last raced on a golden rail or quicksand or if 9 horses went wire to wire that day or it 7 deep closers won that day. But in the end, my figures are paramount and I am very happy with how I have been doing.

Just saying there are a lot of pieces to the puzzle, but Pace is using Timeform, I am using Bris and we are both happy with our results, ignoring a lot of these pieces.

[timtam]

But I see 4 or 5 horses listed

[PaceAdvantage]

But I see 4 or 5 horses listedYes, I list all of my contenders, in order of preference. With an oddsline.

If you were to only bet my top pick when it was an overlay, you've won 10% over the last 39 days. If you bet every contender when it was an overlay, you'd have lost 7% over the last 39 days. Stick with the top choice overlay only.

And for those wondering, I do count as a LOSER a horse who is a slight underlay if I'm not around to actually post what horses were overlays before the race goes off. So if a horse I have listed at 8/1 loses and is 7.50 on the Equibase chart, it counts in the record as a loss, not as a pass. I do NOT count as a WINNER a horse on my line who is 8/1 but wins at 7.50-1 on the chart (unless I've posted it as a play in real time). That counts as a pass. This applies to all odds ranges.

However, any horse that I post in real time right before the race goes off that is a play, counts, whether or not it is an overlay or an underlay on the final tote flash.

Hope this explains everything and answers a few questions you might have.

[thaskalos]

Yes, I list all of my contenders, in order of preference. With an oddsline.

If you were to only bet my top pick when it was an overlay, you've won 10% over the last 39 days. If you bet every contender when it was an overlay, you'd have lost 7% over the last 39 days. Stick with the top choice overlay only.

And for those wondering, I do count as a LOSER a horse who is a slight underlay if I'm not around to actually post what horses were overlays before the race goes off. So if a horse I have listed at 8/1 loses and is 7.50 on the Equibase chart, it counts in the record as a loss, not as a pass. I do NOT count as a WINNER a horse on my line who is 8/1 but wins at 7.50-1 on the chart (unless I've posted it as a play in real time). That counts as a pass. This applies to all odds ranges.

However, any horse that I post in real time right before the race goes off that is a play, counts, whether or not it is an overlay or an underlay on the final tote flash.

Hope this explains everything and answers a few questions you might have.

I don't understand what this means. If you list a contender as a play at 8-1...and the horse loses at 7-1...this still counts as a LOSS on your records? Why?

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't understand what this means. If you list a contender as a play at 8-1...and the horse loses at 7-1...this still counts as a LOSS on your records? Why?Going by the Equibase charts, if they list it within a half point below, it counts as a loss. Because of such odds fluctuations late, I want to err on the side of costing me more, rather than benefiting me from such a close call.

This only applies when I don't actually post what I'm playing in real-time...for instance, I always post "On :5:" or "On :1:" when I am actually here and playing live...those always count no matter what the final odds end up being.

What I'm talking about above is if I don't actually post my bet, and I rely on the Equibase charts to figure out my wins and losses for races I am not here to actually post what my final play will be among my posted list of contenders.

You see, I always post my contenders with my line whether I am here for the race or not. If I'm here for the race and post "here's who I ended up on" then it always counts. If I'm not here, I have to go by the charts, and I want to be fair.

[soonboomer]

How many races and how much time are you capping per day? Haven't looked into TimeformUS yet, but if they save a lot of time, I probably should. The older I get the more time it takes me to do it right.

[NorCalGreg]

Why don't you just put all your picks up and the whole board will be millionaries?

You're doing great Mike...and the way you are doing it is fantastic--everything is reduced to numbers---I learned that I was not a good handicapper just reading the "form".

Without stealing your thunder....100 races with a profit is no longer the "gold standard".

So....I am playing 100 races this weekend,with just software---don't have a clue (like you) who the trainer, jockey, surface, distance, bias is-----just numbers.

And.....I say I'll show a profit. Everything is posted on my thread--I suspect mr timtam will slink away quietly when I'm done tomorrow.

Sorry to barge in--excellent job, Mike. I've taken quite a bit of ridicule from "experts" for my pace and speed "methods". Hope we can quiet the naysayers--- for a while.

*btw...all my picks are a day in advance

Carry on 👑

[kingfin66]

How many races and how much time are you capping per day? Haven't looked into TimeformUS yet, but if they save a lot of time, I probably should. The older I get the more time it takes me to do it right.

He is not handicapping (that is per PA not me BTW). He is using TimeformUS numbers and typing them into an oddsline calc spreadsheet. He has to type two numbers for each horse; the speed figure and the pace figures. Actually, it is three numbers since there are two pace figures, one for early and one for late. I have done this before; usually on Breeder's Cup day. It takes a surprising amount of time. PA would be the king of the world if there were a way to automate the process, although it would take the fun out of it.

[PaceAdvantage]

He is not handicapping (that is per PA not me BTW). He is using TimeformUS numbers and typing them into an oddsline calc spreadsheet. He has to type two numbers for each horse; the speed figure and the pace figures. Actually, it is three numbers since there are two pace figures, one for early and one for late. I have done this before; usually on Breeder's Cup day. It takes a surprising amount of time. PA would be the king of the world if there were a way to automate the process, although it would take the fun out of it.I have automated it somewhat...how else can I do all these races? And it's more than three numbers...

I have a program that scrapes the numbers I need off the web page and puts it into an excel file...

[whodoyoulike]

Oh, there's definitely some serious braggadocio happening on my end. A need for approval. Almost as much as your need to be a total a-hole to those you disagree with or whom you think aren't masters of the game like you think you are with your FAT CHARTS. Although I will admit, you have been much better lately, so I have to give you credit there.

And I couldn't care less about Green Gratto (another reminder). It's not like I haven't posted $100+ horses before in graded stakes races (Take Charge Brandi anyone? :lol:). But the question seems to always come up about my current ROI so I cut it off at the pass now.

But even a casual viewer of this website over the years must admit there have been LOTS of people who would often make the snide comment that you can't win with software or speed figures alone (and ALONE is the key word here). Speed figs can't tell you this or they can't tell you that. A computer can't tell you about this subtly bad trip or that a jockey looked like he purposefully wasn't out there to win, etc. etc.

And no, I wasn't targeting anyone...it's happened often enough over 18 years (another boast - my website's longevity) from many different sources.

Very good results over 800/400 +/- race selections.

But, I'm just wondering how much better your ROI or whatever would've been, had you learned how to watch replays and maybe avoided some of those losing selections.

You may have noticed the horseplayers I'm used to are a tough group to please.

Btw, I'm one of those advocates of watching replays but I've also tried to add that there are a number of ways to Win playing the horses. Watching replays can only help your handicapping, IMO.

Again, very good handicapping.

I remember a horse racing Guru, R. Stein used to say something like, "very good, but what have you done for me lately"?

I'm paraphrasing so, maybe SRU can jump in and provide the exact wording?

[o_crunk]

In short, I have used nothing but TimeForumUS speed and pace figures in my handicapping. And here is my record on my posted plays to date:

Now granted I am showing a loss on all plays (all plays are any contender that goes off at or above my odds line), but betting only my top pick when it goes off at, or higher than my value odds line, I am ahead by 10% after 352 races and 39 days, and that's with a paltry 20% strike rate. And no, this positive ROI does NOT include Green Gratto, the 50-1 shot I posted as a top pick in another thread. The Carter did not qualify as a Value Races & Horses race. So my 10% ROI is not relying on some freaky 50-1 winner.

Could I be doing better if I was taking trip notes or considering some of the stuff I am ignoring during this experiment? Probably. But that's not the point.


You can actually do a lot better with just the numbers.

First, just betting the top, five checkmark TFUS horse in ALL races in the last year, you'd win almost 30% with an ROI slightly higher than betting the post time favorite from the same sample (which wins at 37%) from over 40K+ races covered. The checkmark/power pick is basically 90% of the time just CJ's figs as the input. You can find value and situations that make ROI+ plays over the course of thousands of races with just the numbers very easily, particularly in slow pace projected situations.

Second, you can turn the trainer and breeding ratings into useful numbers, comparable to CJ's figs and then scale them up or down depending on how you'd like to blend them into your line. For instance, I like 0-100 scale of the trainer ratings particularly because the TFUS scale is 0-140 (more like 50-140). You could easily scale the trainer ratings up to 50-140 if you wanted to keep them on equal footing for whatever you're doing. I don't because the figs themselves are more powerful than the trainer ratings. If what you're doing is good now, trust me, it will be dynamite with the trainer, jock and breeding stuff thrown in particularly in the situations you are currently passing on because those situations tend to be where the most value is.

[Dahoss9698]

This thread brought out a world class redboard from EMD. Well, he didn't redboard, his scumbag buddy Only11/Casino/Kash/Geared Down/Hammerlock/ Catagory5/etc/etc/etc did it for him. To be honest it gets hard keeping up with all of the different names that loser has had.

EMD has gotten really good at photoshop.

On top of that Serling had a monster day, so lots of angry internet tough guys tonight.

[NorCalGreg]

Very good results over 800/400 +/- race selections.

But, I'm just wondering how much better your ROI or whatever would've been, had you learned how to watch replays and maybe avoided some of those losing selections.




Whodo....your handicapping is atrocious. Why on earth would you assume someone "hasn't learned" to watch replays? You said something to me yesterday along those lines--I didn't care to argue the point so just let it go.

It's plain as day you aren't a winning horseplayer....instead of constantly giving advice--learn to take some.

Before you begin your rebuttal....total up your ROI for your Belmont posts.

[PaceAdvantage]

But, I'm just wondering how much better your ROI or whatever would've been, had you learned how to watch replays and maybe avoided some of those losing selections.If you've read this thread, you'd see I already acknowledged that my results would probably improve by working in other handicapping factors.

Not my point in creating this thread though. Besides boasting about my positive ROI on my top pick over close to 400 races, the major point of the thread is to show proof that you CAN obtain a positive ROI by ONLY using numbers to the exclusion of everything else. Something a lot of people think is nearly impossible to do in this day and age, when most EVERYONE is using numbers.

[PaceAdvantage]

He is not handicapping (that is per PA not me BTW).And you're right. I'm not really handicapping. I'm using what is essentially a semi-automated black box. Which is fine by me. It's always been a dream of mine. I have no problems using a black box if it keeps on working.

Today was a pretty horrible day for me. My ROI on the top pick went from 1.10 to 1.07.

[PaceAdvantage]

You can actually do a lot better with just the numbers.

First, just betting the top, five checkmark TFUS horse in ALL races in the last year, you'd win almost 30% with an ROI slightly higher than betting the post time favorite from the same sample (which wins at 37%) from over 40K+ races covered. The checkmark/power pick is basically 90% of the time just CJ's figs as the input. You can find value and situations that make ROI+ plays over the course of thousands of races with just the numbers very easily, particularly in slow pace projected situations.

Second, you can turn the trainer and breeding ratings into useful numbers, comparable to CJ's figs and then scale them up or down depending on how you'd like to blend them into your line. For instance, I like 0-100 scale of the trainer ratings particularly because the TFUS scale is 0-140 (more like 50-140). You could easily scale the trainer ratings up to 50-140 if you wanted to keep them on equal footing for whatever you're doing. I don't because the figs themselves are more powerful than the trainer ratings. If what you're doing is good now, trust me, it will be dynamite with the trainer, jock and breeding stuff thrown in particularly in the situations you are currently passing on because those situations tend to be where the most value is.Thanks. I've toyed with those a bit, and will probably find a way to work them in, in the future.

[cj]

And you're right. I'm not really handicapping. I'm using what is essentially a semi-automated black box. Which is fine by me. It's always been a dream of mine. I have no problems using a black box if it keeps on working.

Today was a pretty horrible day for me. My ROI on the top pick went from 1.10 to 1.07.

But you handicapped the black box. That is still handicapping. I do it all the time.

For a more conventional look at using TimeformUS, check out my segment for DRF's "Out of the Box" for today.

http://video.drf.com/detail/videos/out-of-the-gate/video/5431064052001/out-of-the-gate-episode-10---may-12-2017?autoStart=true

I'm more of a PA type guy when it comes to betting, but I can still dissect a race "old school".

[dkithore]

Thanks. I've toyed with those a bit, and will probably find a way to work them in, in the future.

I hope people get that you are talking about eating and enjoying a mango not counting how many mangoes are on the tree!

[NorCalGreg]

My main thing is searching for the "auto-bet" --or "black box" if you will. My attempt @ 100 selections over a weekend started fine.
After scratches- 58 selections, 16 wins...an amazing 20 2nd places.

Bet $116...Ret $137.50...28% Win... Avg $8.59...ROI +$1.19

Still have 42+ bets tomorrow...but I'm very close to my goal of the AUTO-BET...if I'm not there already.

Good luck

-NCG

[Tom]

But, I'm just wondering how much better your ROI or whatever would've been, had you learned how to watch replays and maybe avoided some of those losing selections.


Or how much worse had the replays cause him to avoid some of the winning ones too.

[jimmyb]

The best advice I ever got was to go back and figure out why a horse won a race. My handicapping does not include viewing replays, I did however find commonalities in the information available to me which included, pace, speed, fitness, recent finish, value as determined by me and a touch of class. This works for me, even if my hit rate is less than where others think it could or should be.

All the power to anyone receiving joy from their own methods. :)

[CincyHorseplayer]

What cracks me up is how this is perceived as an end point. I can't speak for Mike but this is a beginning point IMO. And it puts you into any race in the country. From there it meshes with all the other handicapping factors. I pay some good coin for pedigree, trainer, and other statistical material. I think I have a good grasp on the evolution of a thoroughbred via the age factor from Quinn and how it relates to class and form. Form cycle is itself an art and over time we are all our own individual artists that do good work. Starting out reading Beyer and Davidowitz I never stray too far from track bias, profile, and trips. The most relevant statistical material I think is your own. And not just bet records but taking your own oddslines and using them as a hub of analysis. Separating contenders from non contenders and know their field % vs win %, and how odds brackets perform. Not in themselves but within your scope of them. Tracking these things keeps me grounded and from slipping into the nether world of random betting. The horseplayer is the center of his own universe and there are no universal values. Winning is I guess!

I think it's all about reaching end points. I reached an end point with the DRF because I could win for a period of time then it would stop and I couldn't explain it. I still use the DRF but I needed more. I used pace figures but it wasn't enough. I had my own Sartin type thoughts and wanted to create my own ratings in excel. It essentially evolved into basically applying sabermetrics to pace figures like wOBA or WRC+ just as an example. I reached an end point with dirt racing realizing it's shortcomings and needed a better understanding of turf. Now it is a hub of my play. But I reached an end point when my turf obsession became out of control and I was glued to big tracks which can be chalky and/or difficult at the same time. I needed to not have a home track or tracks. All levels of racetrack and surface offer opportunities. Being stuck to a surface or track or circuit was an end point. Longstory short what I see Mike doing is starting from what I think is a universal point and going from there. What is universal from coast to coast? The horse. And fast horses win. Good place to start! Understanding bloodlines, maturation, form cycle, track and surfaces, trainers. Have that. But I would say grab this basic truth and run with it. From sea to shining sea! America is my one big racetrack and universal value!

[pandy]

I personally think the "numbers", pace, speed, and the actual fractions and time of the race, are by far the most important handicapping factors. If you understand how to use these, and are pretty good at figuring out which horses in the race may be outclassed, that's basically all you need.

Anything that does not have to do with the ability of the horse's in the race (such as jockey, trainer, pedigree), is weak by comparison.

I also agree that you can handicap extremely well just using these numbers.

[kingfin66]

And you're right. I'm not really handicapping. I'm using what is essentially a semi-automated black box. Which is fine by me. It's always been a dream of mine. I have no problems using a black box if it keeps on working.

Today was a pretty horrible day for me. My ROI on the top pick went from 1.10 to 1.07.

Well, mama said that there would be days like that...but seriously, I think what you are doing is great. Throw in some rebates and large wagers, and you are talking serious money. In this age of technology, you have got to utilize the tools which have been bestowed upon you.

[classhandicapper]

There are no right or wrong ways. Even among methodologies that are measuring the same things in different ways, there are very few rights and wrongs. There are mostly strengths and weaknesses and different types of errors.

The main thing is to search for value. And a general rule, you are more likely to find value in places where other people are not looking. Nothing pleases me more than to study something and already know the answer, but to have people disagree with me.

[ReplayRandall]

In short, I have used nothing but TimeForumUS speed and pace figures in my handicapping. And here is my record on my posted plays to date:

Quote:
ALL PLAYS (OVERLAYS ONLY) (39 Days):

124 for 844 | $1688 Wagered | $1574.70 returned | $0.93 ROI ($1.00 = Break Even)

TOP PICK (OVERLAY ONLY) Running total (39 Days):

73 for 352 | $704 Wagered | $776.50 Returned | $1.10 ROI ($1.00 = Break Even)
What's truly impressive about what you've accomplished, is you've now passed the "outlier" threshold, meaning that your top play ROI will still be positive, even if you take your highest payout out of your totals...;)

[whodoyoulike]

Whodo....your handicapping is atrocious. Why on earth would you assume someone "hasn't learned" to watch replays? You said something to me yesterday along those lines--I didn't care to argue the point so just let it go.

It's plain as day you aren't a winning horseplayer....instead of constantly giving advice--learn to take some.

Before you begin your rebuttal....total up your ROI for your Belmont posts.

Before you reply you should know exactly what you're criticizing and maybe just pay attention a little better.

My Belmont posts are BRIS Prime Power #1 selections. The reasons are for my own benefit because I'm definitely not posting it for yours. I replied to your initial criticism about them that if you don't like them then ..... Don't read them!

[whodoyoulike]

If you've read this thread, you'd see I already acknowledged that my results would probably improve by working in other handicapping factors.

Not my point in creating this thread though. Besides boasting about my positive ROI on my top pick over close to 400 races, the major point of the thread is to show proof that you CAN obtain a positive ROI by ONLY using numbers to the exclusion of everything else. Something a lot of people think is nearly impossible to do in this day and age, when most EVERYONE is using numbers.

I read that comment but also you specifically pointed out that watching replays aren't necessary which is the reason for my response. It seemed you were forgetting or don't realize that watching replays can help identify potential winners but also those which shows that the numbers are misleading.

Btw, I also use pace and speed numbers plus other variables.

[lamboguy]

at the end this game boils down to only one thing, is the risk reward priced right?

it doesn't matter if you only use numbers or have some other system. if you bet bad prices you go clean. its very simple.

[whodoyoulike]

Or how much worse had the replays cause him to avoid some of the winning ones too.

This is true. I was looking at it from the POV that you would be able to see where the numbers may be misleading.

[NorCalGreg]

Before you reply you should know exactly what you're criticizing and maybe just pay attention a little better.

My Belmont posts are BRIS Prime Power #1 selections. The reasons are for my own benefit because I'm definitely not posting it for yours. I replied to your initial criticism about them that if you don't like them then ..... Don't read them!

Your picks show a level of unsophisticated handicapping. CONQUEST PRANKSTER yesterday?

The horse just broke his maiden, topped out by 11 points--took 64 days off with one work the past month...is a classic sucker bet...is less than 2-1---and this is one of your two picks of the day?

Did you really expect that horse to step on the track with winners- as sharp as when he left 2 months ago?

Seriously--that's mind bogglingly bad. I don't give a sh*t what you post...stop with the dispensing handicapping "advice".

I already know how to find Bris Prime Power.

You were the only person I had on ignore for any length of time--and I didn't even ignore EMD.

Later

[whodoyoulike]

Your picks show a level of unsophisticated handicapping. CONQUEST PRANKSTER yesterday?

The horse just broke his maiden, topped out by 11 points--took 64 days off with one work the past month...is a classic sucker bet...is less than 2-1---and this is one of your two picks of the day?

Did you really expect that horse to step on the track with winners- as sharp as when he left 2 months ago?

Seriously--that's mind bogglingly bad. I don't give a sh*t what you post...stop with the dispensing handicapping "advice".

I already know how to find Bris Prime Power.

You were the only person I had on ignore for any length of time--and I didn't even ignore EMD.

Later

This is a hilarious reply.

You just don't get it that was a BPP#1 selection. Do me a favor and maybe provide a list of things which piss you off so, I can probably avoid them. It will save me time coming up with a list on my own.

Why'd you take me off ignore?

You really shouldn't have. I never noticed and it wouldn't bother me one bit.

[PaceAdvantage]

It isn't realistic to expect a profit on ALL your overlays, because by wagering in such a manner, you might be betting on half of the horses in the race. Showing a 10% profit on your top pick after 352 races is unquestionably a GREAT handicapping exhibition. :ThmbUp:Can you go into some more detail, please. I need this pounded into my head.

First off, I hardly ever bet on half the horses. If you look over my threads, it's usually 2 to 3 at most....sometimes 1...but a lot of times just 2. And I tend to avoid short fields and try and concentrate on field sizes of 9 or above, so I'm never really betting on half the field.

I'm losing about 9% on ALL of my overlays. Which is beating the take by a pretty good margin. But it's still losing.

I am winning about 8% at the moment on my top pick only.

Shouldn't an odds line that makes almost 10% on its top pick overlay also do pretty well on it's other contenders? If not, it's not a very good oddsline at all, wouldn't you agree? And it could and should be studied to make it better.

Is it that unrealistic to think that if you can make money on your top pick overlay, you should be able to also make money on your other contenders when they are overlays as well?

Obviously, my line isn't all that good (you see the whacky lines I post sometimes), but it also obviously has some merit, since it's winning.

[pandy]

Can you go into some more detail, please. I need this pounded into my head.

First off, I hardly ever bet on half the horses. If you look over my threads, it's usually 2 to 3 at most....sometimes 1...but a lot of times just 2. And I tend to avoid short fields and try and concentrate on field sizes of 9 or above, so I'm never really betting on half the field.

I'm losing about 9% on ALL of my overlays. Which is beating the take by a pretty good margin. But it's still losing.

I am winning about 8% at the moment on my top pick only.

Shouldn't an odds line that makes almost 10% on its top pick overlay also do pretty well on it's other contenders? If not, it's not a very good oddsline at all, wouldn't you agree? And it could and should be studied to make it better.

Is it that unrealistic to think that if you can make money on your top pick overlay, you should be able to also make money on your other contenders when they are overlays as well?

Obviously, my line isn't all that good (you see the whacky lines I post sometimes), but it also obviously has some merit, since it's winning.

Interesting topic. Years ago at Sports Eye, myself, Jack Rubin, and several others in the office were discussing betting overlays. At that time, I was about 25 years old, I did not believe in betting overlays on horses that you normally wouldn't bet. In other words, if I made a horse 12-1 odds, and the horse went off at 20-1, unless that was a horse I was interested in betting in the first place, because I thought it had a good chance of winning the race, then I didn't think it should be bet. I understood the math, but I also understood that you can lose a lot of bets on horses you actually think have a strong chance of winning...if you start betting horses that your really don't think are strong contenders, because of the odds, you are probably going to have very bad losing streaks.

Another thing, pertaining to your odds line, I think you're much more likely to have a good line on your top or second pick in the race. These are horses that you feel have a good chance of winning, and you understand why they have a good chance of winning. Once you drop down to horses that you ranked 4th, 5th, 6th, these are horses that you do not necessarily believe are strong contenders. In some cases, you may feel that they are marginal contenders, or have a small chance if chaos occurs. So because these horses are not as keen on your radar, I believe that it's harder to estimate true value on these marginal contenders. Should they be 12-1? or 20-1?

Of course, if you do bet any and all overlays, you are going to need a few bombs to make up for what is surely going to be a lot of losers you won't have if you only bet overlays that were your top pick, or maybe your second ranked pick.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Interesting topic. Years ago at Sports Eye, myself, Jack Rubin, and several others in the office were discussing betting overlays. At that time, I was about 25 years old, I did not believe in betting overlays on horses that you normally wouldn't bet. In other words, if I made a horse 12-1 odds, and the horse went off at 20-1, unless that was a horse I was interested in betting in the first place, because I thought it had a good chance of winning the race, then I didn't think it should be bet. I understood the math, but I also understood that you can lose a lot of bets on horses you actually think have a strong chance of winning...if you start betting horses that your really don't think are strong contenders, because of the odds, you are probably going to have very bad losing streaks.

Another thing, pertaining to your odds line, I think you're much more likely to have a good line on your top or second pick in the race. These are horses that you feel have a good chance of winning, and you understand why they have a good chance of winning. Once you drop down to horses that you ranked 4th, 5th, 6th, these are horses that you do not necessarily believe are strong contenders. In some cases, you may feel that they are marginal contenders, or have a small chance if chaos occurs. So because these horses are not as keen on your radar, I believe that it's harder to estimate true value on these marginal contenders. Should they be 12-1? or 20-1?

Of course, if you do bet any and all overlays, you are going to need a few bombs to make up for what is surely going to be a lot of losers you won't have if you only bet overlays that were your top pick, or maybe your second ranked pick.

Some very good points in here as usual Pandy. I don't distinguish anymore between my top 2 choices because they win at roughly the same frequency. This year they represent 20% of the field % and win 56% of the races. I bet whichever one is the higher odds unless they both have attractive odds. If both are 3-1 or less I pass. That's it. My whole betting strategy! And as you said marginal contenders really are marginal and the odds would have to be astronomical to even consider betting. My secondary contenders represent 29% of the fields and only win 33% of the time. You have to chop off seeking value anywhere here because there is none.

[NorCalGreg]

Before you reply you should know exactly what you're criticizing and maybe just pay attention a little better.

My Belmont posts are BRIS Prime Power #1 selections. The reasons are for my own benefit

LOL..no further comment necessary --thank you for explaining🤡

[PaceAdvantage]

Let me ask another question...

How the hell can anyone make a living win betting? I don't think you can. Not how I am currently doing things.

Let's say what I'm doing with my top pick is legit. I have almost 400 races in the books. I have about a 10% ROI (it's at 9% at the moment, but let's use round numbers).

I am only averaging 9 plays a day with my top pick as an overlay. And I look at EVERY race in the USA and Canada.

And we all know you can't bet even $100 at many of the tracks I've had plays at before you start affecting your own odds.

And even if you were able to bet $100 per win bet without hurting your prices at all tracks...that's $900 a day and $27,000 per month. At 10% ROI, that's only $2,700 a month profit. You can't live off of that. You move up to $200 or $500 bets, and you definitely will be killing your prices at the small tracks, which makes up a hefty portion of my action.

No wonder you never hear of a full time win-bet-only player. Do they exist? I suppose they do if you've found a way to get a decent amount of plays at the larger pool tracks.

And yet I hear people all the time say..."if I had a bona fide 10% ROI, I'd be a rich man in no time"

Really? What am I missing? :lol:

[cnollfan]

I thought Kate Jackson was very attractive.

[PaceAdvantage]

Really? What am I missing? :lol:I think what I'm missing is that not all 10% ROIs are created equally...:lol:

[ReplayRandall]

I think what I'm missing is that not all 10% ROIs are created equally...:lol:
Are you willing to do the work to monitor whether your top pick is an overlay in the exacta pools, the rolling double pools? If your bets are weighted properly, with perhaps a safe throw-out here and there, you might be surprised at the results.....It's up to you, and whether you want to do the extra work, which equals more profitable plays for extra $$$.

[thaskalos]

Can you go into some more detail, please. I need this pounded into my head.

First off, I hardly ever bet on half the horses. If you look over my threads, it's usually 2 to 3 at most....sometimes 1...but a lot of times just 2. And I tend to avoid short fields and try and concentrate on field sizes of 9 or above, so I'm never really betting on half the field.

I'm losing about 9% on ALL of my overlays. Which is beating the take by a pretty good margin. But it's still losing.

I am winning about 8% at the moment on my top pick only.

Shouldn't an odds line that makes almost 10% on its top pick overlay also do pretty well on it's other contenders? If not, it's not a very good oddsline at all, wouldn't you agree? And it could and should be studied to make it better.

Is it that unrealistic to think that if you can make money on your top pick overlay, you should be able to also make money on your other contenders when they are overlays as well?

Obviously, my line isn't all that good (you see the whacky lines I post sometimes), but it also obviously has some merit, since it's winning.

You were absolutely right when you said a few days ago that we can't make a profit in this game without betting on overlays...but we don't need to create an accurate betting line for the entire field in order to accomplish that. In fact...we needn't create an odds-line AT ALL. We can do just fine by being "selection-oriented"...if our "top selections" collectively go off at higher prices than they should. And when I see you selecting 54-1 shots on top...I got a hunch that you won't have much trouble getting higher prices on your top selections.

Yes...your betting line isn't sophisticated enough to select several profitable "overlays" in the same race...but, SO WHAT? I doubt that there are 5 horseplayers in the entire COUNTRY who can find "value" in a race in the wide-spread manner that you are attempting to utilize here. IMO...your method is more "selection-oriented"...and your profit relies more on the quality of your top selections, rather than the accuracy of your overall line. I said it to you a long time ago; your top selections are very solid...but the math that you use to create your line is a little off...causing you to make obvious mistakes in the probability assessments of even your TOP choices. But if you fiddle with your line in order to make it more accurate overall...you might discover that this "alteration" will adversely affect the current potency of your top selections.

You were WRONG when you made Green Gratto a 7-5 selection in the Carter...but you deserve all the credit in the world for selecting that horse on top. And...you were WRONG when you said that Always Dreaming was a 22-1 choice in the Derby...but one Green Gratto will make up for 50 Always Dreamings. We all make big mistakes every day, PA...and none of us can be sure that we are assigning the "proper odds" on a horse-by-horse basis. We bet on a large number of races, and we tally the results...and THAT'S how we find out if our method(s) have merit or not. I doubt that there is a single horseplayer in this entire country who has a line-making method which wins with 50% of its even-money choices...33% of its 2-1 choices...25% of its 3-1 choices...etc. Don't believe the hype. 99% of the horseplayers out there would be THRILLED to get the results that you are currently getting with this method of yours.

[pandy]

Let me ask another question...

How the hell can anyone make a living win betting? I don't think you can. Not how I am currently doing things.

Let's say what I'm doing with my top pick is legit. I have almost 400 races in the books. I have about a 10% ROI (it's at 9% at the moment, but let's use round numbers).

I am only averaging 9 plays a day with my top pick as an overlay. And I look at EVERY race in the USA and Canada.

And we all know you can't bet even $100 at many of the tracks I've had plays at before you start affecting your own odds.

And even if you were able to bet $100 per win bet without hurting your prices at all tracks...that's $900 a day and $27,000 per month. At 10% ROI, that's only $2,700 a month profit. You can't live off of that. You move up to $200 or $500 bets, and you definitely will be killing your prices at the small tracks, which makes up a hefty portion of my action.

No wonder you never hear of a full time win-bet-only player. Do they exist? I suppose they do if you've found a way to get a decent amount of plays at the larger pool tracks.

And yet I hear people all the time say..."if I had a bona fide 10% ROI, I'd be a rich man in no time"

Really? What am I missing? :lol:


The few that used to or may still exist don't bet to win. That's the difference. I've personally known five professional gamblers, two harness players, three thoroughbred bettors, not one of them bet to win.

There's a gentleman in Canada that I know, who I have a lot of respect for, both as a person and a handicapper...he has a friend that he often tells me about. He has spent time with him at the track and at his home with his family... and he has seen how this guy bets. He is a Pick 4/5 player and he bets them at several different tracks every day of the week. He handicaps the races early in the morning then puts his bets in around 11 a.m., then he's done for the day. He doesn't have a job. This, of course, takes a huge bankroll, but he has the money because he's a professional gambler who has a six figure income.

Every professional bettor I've either known, or got a chance to see in action, was not the type who was looking to grind out a profit on $500 win bets. They were looking for crushing hits on exactas, trifectas, superfectas, etc.

[PaceAdvantage]

Latest numbers...back to 10% after a few clicks down...

Top pick went 4 for 9 and returned $31.20

TOP PICK (OVERLAYS ONLY) Running total (43 Days):

85 for 398 | $796 Wagered | $879.30 Returned | $1.10 ROI ($1.00 = Break Even)

All plays went 4 for 22 and returned $31.20

ALL PICKS (OVERLAYS ONLY) (43 Days):

138 for 954 | $1908 Wagered | $1720.90 returned | $0.90 ROI ($1.00 = Break Even)

At this point, we're quickly coming to the end of my public experiment. I doubt I'll post much more beyond the 400 top pick mark. I think I've accomplished what I set out to do, both for myself and anyone who has ever wondered whether in this day and age, one can show a decent profit over hundreds of races at tracks all over the country, using nothing but speed and pace figures and a value line based on those figures.

[AltonKelsey]

The few that used to or may still exist don't bet to win. That's the difference. I've personally known five professional gamblers, two harness players, three thoroughbred bettors, not one of them bet to win.

There's a gentleman in Canada that I know, who I have a lot of respect for, both as a person and a handicapper...he has a friend that he often tells me about. He has spent time with him at the track and at his home with his family... and he has seen how this guy bets. He is a Pick 4/5 player and he bets them at several different tracks every day of the week. He handicaps the races early in the morning then puts his bets in around 11 a.m., then he's done for the day. He doesn't have a job. This, of course, takes a huge bankroll, but he has the money because he's a professional gambler who has a six figure income.

Every professional bettor I've either known, or got a chance to see in action, was not the type who was looking to grind out a profit on $500 win bets. They were looking for crushing hits on exactas, trifectas, superfectas, etc.

Not going to dispute what you're saying but then who is it exactly that IS betting to win and keeping the odds in line, since all the 'smart money' is elsewhere.

I'm not even sure who the idiots are that are betting these bad 3/5 shots that show up everywhere, but that's another question.

[ultracapper]

I didn't handicap, nor even watch the race, and I know the horse paid $100+, but I'd like to know why making the horse a 7/5 pick on a personal odds line is incorrect, particularly after choosing the winner.

I've had numerous horses over the years I would have made odds-on and been paid $15, $20, even $30+.

[ultracapper]

I do want to clarify one thing however. When I make an odds line, which really is something relatively new to me because I have just recently come to understand the benefits it brings to my decision making process, I make a probability line, in contrast to a betting line. The total of my percentages comes to 100, whereas a betting line must account for the house cut. In SoCal, this makes for a line where the percentages should amount to 119 - 123. There is only 100% chance of winning the race, whereas there must be an additional 19% to 23% of the money distributed to the winners to pay the house for its services.

[ultracapper]

Let me ask another question...

How the hell can anyone make a living win betting? I don't think you can. Not how I am currently doing things.

Let's say what I'm doing with my top pick is legit. I have almost 400 races in the books. I have about a 10% ROI (it's at 9% at the moment, but let's use round numbers).

I am only averaging 9 plays a day with my top pick as an overlay. And I look at EVERY race in the USA and Canada.

And we all know you can't bet even $100 at many of the tracks I've had plays at before you start affecting your own odds.

And even if you were able to bet $100 per win bet without hurting your prices at all tracks...that's $900 a day and $27,000 per month. At 10% ROI, that's only $2,700 a month profit. You can't live off of that. You move up to $200 or $500 bets, and you definitely will be killing your prices at the small tracks, which makes up a hefty portion of my action.

No wonder you never hear of a full time win-bet-only player. Do they exist? I suppose they do if you've found a way to get a decent amount of plays at the larger pool tracks.

And yet I hear people all the time say..."if I had a bona fide 10% ROI, I'd be a rich man in no time"

Really? What am I missing? :lol:

Correct.

You would need to add two additional steps. 1) Eliminate some of the more obvious losers. How you would do this isn't the point. You'd just have to do it. 2) Find a way to determine some of your stronger choices, and hit them harder than your regular bet. Again, how you would do this isn't the point here. The point is you would have to have a method to determine which horses are better bets, and increase your bets on those horses.

[ultracapper]

BTW, what you have done here is very interesting, and should be a topic of considerable discussion by anybody on this board that is serious about being a serious horse player. Not only has your results been impressive, but also a smorgasbord of food for thought. If nothing else, it is a springboard for additional analysis for all players that begin their handicapping with consideration for speed and pace figures. You've actually added an additional step, or dimension, by considering an odds line and discovering overlays.

Good job Boss.

[ultracapper]

The more I sit and think about this, the more issues pop into my head. You're playing any and all tracks in NA at a 10% profit on investment (POI). But I would guess there are tracks you're showing a 15% POI and others you're showing a 5% POI. Hopefully, your performance at the tracks with larger pools are on the positive side of the 10% POI, because you could increase your bets there without any additional filters. With 3MTP at Santa Anita, you can put $1500 on a horse at 8/1 and it may only go down to 6/1, maybe even only to 7/1, with an outstanding chance of floating back up. At 3MTP on a 3/1 selection, $1500 very often will float under the radar.

My point being. Determine which tracks you're having above "total return" performance, and if those tracks have the bigger win pools, you can be very comfortable being more aggressive with your win bets there.

[ultracapper]

Not going to dispute what you're saying but then who is it exactly that IS betting to win and keeping the odds in line, since all the 'smart money' is elsewhere.

I'm not even sure who the idiots are that are betting these bad 3/5 shots that show up everywhere, but that's another question.

They've done exactly what Boss has done here. The "black box" has spit out that 3/5 shot, and they haven't determined any further whether it's a "good" or "bad" 3/5. They just know that if they bet all of these, they will get their POI, plus their rebate.

When I see a very obvious poor odds-on horse in SoCal, I'm usually pretty sure that some program of some big bettor(s) has spit it out, and no additional handicapping has gone into the assessment. They are playing their program's percentages, and in order for that to work, they must mechanically bet each and every choice that program directs them to bet. If not, they will skewer their results, and will no longer be able to determine with any accuracy whether the program they have developed is successful.

[timtam]

I guess the days of WINNING BIG AT THE TRACK WITH MONEY MANAGEMENT

by Don Passer are gone by the wayside. He used to advocate making a

betting line but used the track odds cutoff at 8/1. Didn't like betting exotics

either. Times sure have changed. :rolleyes:

[PaceAdvantage]

I didn't handicap, nor even watch the race, and I know the horse paid $100+, but I'd like to know why making the horse a 7/5 pick on a personal odds line is incorrect, particularly after choosing the winner.

I've had numerous horses over the years I would have made odds-on and been paid $15, $20, even $30+.Again, for the record, I made the horse 6/5, not 7/5 :lol:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=137591

First reply...I was on board the GG train EARLY!

[jasperson]

Let me ask another question...

How the hell can anyone make a living win betting? I don't think you can. Not how I am currently doing things.

Let's say what I'm doing with my top pick is legit. I have almost 400 races in the books. I have about a 10% ROI (it's at 9% at the moment, but let's use round numbers).

I am only averaging 9 plays a day with my top pick as an overlay. And I look at EVERY race in the USA and Canada.

And we all know you can't bet even $100 at many of the tracks I've had plays at before you start affecting your own odds.

And even if you were able to bet $100 per win bet without hurting your prices at all tracks...that's $900 a day and $27,000 per month. At 10% ROI, that's only $2,700 a month profit. You can't live off of that. You move up to $200 or $500 bets, and you definitely will be killing your prices at the small tracks, which makes up a hefty portion of my action.

No wonder you never hear of a full time win-bet-only player. Do they exist? I suppose they do if you've found a way to get a decent amount of plays at the larger pool tracks.

And yet I hear people all the time say..."if I had a bona fide 10% ROI, I'd be a rich man in no time"

Really? What am I missing? :lol:
I can't agree more. I have decided a long time ago that I was never going make a living betting the races. I choke at a $20 bet. Since I am retired and on a relatively fixed income I just make my $2 bets and enjoy handicapping the races. I don't win much or lose much,but enjoy the races.

[pandy]

Not going to dispute what you're saying but then who is it exactly that IS betting to win and keeping the odds in line, since all the 'smart money' is elsewhere.

I'm not even sure who the idiots are that are betting these bad 3/5 shots that show up everywhere, but that's another question.


I think we have to assume that the majority of horseplayers aren't that good at handicapping or betting, or both. Some odds on favorites are so obviously flawed yet people bet them, hard to fathom.

Darin Zoccali has an article about betting on drf today. The main profit he made on this today came from exotic wagers. As Pace alluded to, if you want to make any sort of meaningful money from betting horses, it's going to be very tough to do betting to win.


http://www.drf.com/news/zoccali-trust-must-or-your-handicapping-game-bust

[DeltaLover]

I can't agree more. I have decided a long time ago that I was never going make a living betting the races. I choke at a $20 bet. Since I am retired and on a relatively fixed income I just make my $2 bets and enjoy handicapping the races. I don't win much or lose much,but enjoy the races.

I cannot see where the handicapping enjoyment (!) is coming from!

Of course I understand the fact that you do not have the necessary skills to ramp up your betting; this is the fact with the vast majority of bettors who eventually realized that the game is "unbeatable" and there is nothing surprising with it.

Still, I am really puzzled when people keep on talking about the "enjoyment" they are getting by following the races! Personally, if it was not for betting, I would never pay any attention to horse racing and spend even a minute of time thinking about it.

[jimmyb]

To each their own. My handicapping is based on betting to win. It the one thing I do relativly fair. I have no interest in earning a living thru gambling and my bankroll wouldn't survive the downs of exotic wagering if I did.

[AltonKelsey]

I didn't handicap, nor even watch the race, and I know the horse paid $100+, but I'd like to know why making the horse a 7/5 pick on a personal odds line is incorrect, particularly after choosing the winner.

I've had numerous horses over the years I would have made odds-on and been paid $15, $20, even $30+.


simple.

you'd have to prove that the horse belonged to a 'set' of plays where they won at the 7/5 rate. It's not likely that that particular horse did, but it's certainly possible, and you'd be a very rich man if you could come up with more than a few plays a year.

[AltonKelsey]

I think we have to assume that the majority of horseplayers aren't that good at handicapping or betting, or both. Some odds on favorites are so obviously flawed yet people bet them, hard to fathom.

Darin Zoccali has an article about betting on drf today. The main profit he made on this today came from exotic wagers. As Pace alluded to, if you want to make any sort of meaningful money from betting horses, it's going to be very tough to do betting to win.


http://www.drf.com/news/zoccali-trust-must-or-your-handicapping-game-bust

Actually, I was referring not so much to chalkeaters, but, those that are betting to win generally on all kinds of horses. I'm skeptical of the notion that pro's dont bet to win, as the win board is generally right in line with the exotics, which would not be true if the so called smart money avoided plain old win betting .

[traynor]

I cannot see where the handicapping enjoyment (!) is coming from!

Of course I understand the fact that you do not have the necessary skills to ramp up your betting; this is the fact with the vast majority of bettors who eventually realized that the game is "unbeatable" and there is nothing surprising with it.

Still, I am really puzzled when people keep on talking about the "enjoyment" they are getting by following the races! Personally, if it was not for betting, I would never pay any attention to horse racing and spend even a minute of time thinking about it.

Complete agreement! That is why the "horse race industry" in the US and Canada is in such decline. There is little or no real motivation for any newcomers to do anything more than scratch their heads and wonder what all the talk is about (other than a process of socialization for those who no one else will listen to, or put up with, discussing things that no one else cares about).

Show the newbies how to make a profit, and business will boom.

[DeltaLover]

Questing whether the GG's odds set by PA were wrong or correct is meaningless as the hypothesis can not be tested using empirical data.

If PA is able to provide a quantitative description of the metrics he used to arrive in his odds line we might become capable of verifying to what extend his algorithm is "correct" or "wrong" (for example using R-Squared or something similar); still I doubt that even if he is willing to do so he can really express his decision making procedure in a repeatable fashion as intuition has to play a significant role in the way he is making his decisions.

[traynor]

I think we have to assume that the majority of horseplayers aren't that good at handicapping or betting, or both. Some odds on favorites are so obviously flawed yet people bet them, hard to fathom.

Darin Zoccali has an article about betting on drf today. The main profit he made on this today came from exotic wagers. As Pace alluded to, if you want to make any sort of meaningful money from betting horses, it's going to be very tough to do betting to win.


http://www.drf.com/news/zoccali-trust-must-or-your-handicapping-game-bust

That is more than anything an example of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy--shoot first, and whatever you are able to hit, call it the target. I know people who make a substantial profit wagering--both primary and secondary--who wager almost exclusively win. The whole thing boils down to an advantage. If you can pick enough winners that show a profit over time, HOW you do it doesn't matter as much as that you are ABLE to do it.

The win bettors I know tend to NOT be "value seeking bettors" playing one race at a time as if their ego survival depended on the outcome. They tend to be high volume bettors wagering many, many races--with an overall statistical edge. Many of those wagers are in the mutuel range(s) usually avoided by "value seeking bettors"--even money to 2/1.

That may sound preposterous to those unfamiliar with the processes involved, or who are not accustomed to wagering a large volume of races based on computer models and "statistical advantage." That is GREAT! Somebody has to lose the money the others are winning--many times every day at many tracks.

[traynor]

Actually, I was referring not so much to chalkeaters, but, those that are betting to win generally on all kinds of horses. I'm skeptical of the notion that pro's dont bet to win, as the win board is generally right in line with the exotics, which would not be true if the so called smart money avoided plain old win betting .

That skepticism is warranted. Chasing rainbows is an endeavor favored by those who lack the skill/knowledge/whatever (including software apps and/or programming skills) to pick enough winners that pay enough to make a profit over time. It is not so much that it is "impossible" as that it may take more work than most "horse players" are willing to exert.

[whodoyoulike]

I cannot see where the handicapping enjoyment (!) is coming from!

Of course I understand the fact that you do not have the necessary skills to ramp up your betting; this is the fact with the vast majority of bettors who eventually realized that the game is "unbeatable" and there is nothing surprising with it.

Still, I am really puzzled when people keep on talking about the "enjoyment" they are getting by following the races! Personally, if it was not for betting, I would never pay any attention to horse racing and spend even a minute of time thinking about it.

That's just it. I don't think you handicap but instead you enjoy designing programs to data mine for "things". You enjoy the programming part to spit out an answer for you.

But do you really understand why in any given race your selection is the best selection?

I understand jasperson's comment because the handicapping and selection(s) process is also the allure for me. And, his betting comfort level is just different than yours. Nothing wrong with that. At least he realizes what that level it is.

[EasyGoer89]

I think the difference between computer number guys vs replay guys is this. If your life depends on making one pick and winning one race, you really need to see the replay of the horse that has your life hanging in the balance.

BUT, if you don't need one race to live and you are counting on consistent results that takes the visual emotion out of the equation, not watching The replays is a good idea since a replay can mean one thing one day and the same exact replay might have different meaning to the watcher depending on mindset, mood and a bevy of different human factors and emotions.

No wrong way to do things If it's working.

[whodoyoulike]

Very good results over 800/400 +/- race selections.

But, I'm just wondering how much better your ROI or whatever would've been, had you learned how to watch replays and maybe avoided some of those losing selections.

You may have noticed the horseplayers I'm used to are a tough group to please.

Btw, I'm one of those advocates of watching replays but I've also tried to add that there are a number of ways to Win playing the horses. Watching replays can only help your handicapping, IMO.

Again, very good handicapping.

I remember a horse racing Guru, R. Stein used to say something like, "very good, but what have you done for me lately"?

I'm paraphrasing so, maybe SRU can jump in and provide the exact wording?

PA, I hope you realize I was trying to help you and wasn't just trying to "bust your balls" maybe just a little bit with my response.

The reason I'm re-posting is because I just remembered an old saying which is appropriate.

It's not how fast they run BUT, how they run fast.

[PaceAdvantage]

PA, I hope you realize I was trying to help you and wasn't just trying to "bust your balls" maybe just a little bit with my response.

The reason I'm re-posting is because I just remembered an old saying which is appropriate.

It's not how fast they run BUT, how they run fast.I didn't think you were busting balls.

I'm too lazy to watch replays, that's the bottom line. It would probably mess me up more than help me at this point.

[EasyGoer89]

I didn't think you were busting balls.

I'm too lazy to watch replays, that's the bottom line. It would probably mess me up more than help me at this point.

Sometimes I'll handicap on paper and if I decide I love a horse I'll go and watch the tape. There are too many races around the country to watch replays of every horse in that race just not enough time, I've done the hunt n peck method on occasion w just watching the horse I'm leaning towards.

[traynor]

I think the difference between computer number guys vs replay guys is this. If your life depends on making one pick and winning one race, you really need to see the replay of the horse that has your life hanging in the balance.

BUT, if you don't need one race to live and you are counting on consistent results that takes the visual emotion out of the equation, not watching The replays is a good idea since a replay can mean one thing one day and the same exact replay might have different meaning to the watcher depending on mindset, mood and a bevy of different human factors and emotions.

No wrong way to do things If it's working.

Exactly. If a computer modeler switches his or her choices or go/no go decision based on whatever is current, they may as well toss the models and concentrate on enjoying the (emotional ups and downs) of the moment.

Whatever works best for a bettor is what she or he should do, regardless of what is working or not working for someone else.

[whodoyoulike]

Sometimes I'll handicap on paper and if I decide I love a horse I'll go and watch the tape. There are too many races around the country to watch replays of every horse in that race just not enough time, I've done the hunt n peck method on occasion w just watching the horse I'm leaning towards.

Well, I've previously mentioned to you (well maybe not this version of you) that you play too many races. Too bad because I think you have a good idea of how to watch replays.

[DeltaLover]

I think the difference between computer number guys vs replay guys is this. If your life depends on making one pick and winning one race, you really need to see the replay of the horse that has your life hanging in the balance.

BUT, if you don't need one race to live and you are counting on consistent results that takes the visual emotion out of the equation, not watching The replays is a good idea since a replay can mean one thing one day and the same exact replay might have different meaning to the watcher depending on mindset, mood and a bevy of different human factors and emotions.

No wrong way to do things If it's working.

The real question lies into what extend the replay observations will be reflected in the market.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Because I have altered who I bet to win in the last 2 years my average mutual has risen by 30%, while my hit rate has remained practically unchanged from 16 year norms. It is profitable. But it can be grinding at times. And that is where I think the rub is for most players. Boredom. It sure feels good to get there faster via the exotics. For me I just don't see that many races with exotics potential. I have become fond of playing P3-4 wagers but rarely vertical exotics. Blasting off on $25-40 exactas is still a big play but trifectas/superfectas I just see too many races where the odds on my contenders are in line with the tote and those combinations get crushed. I bet less exotics races but I bet more on the ones I do play and go for the kill. So that leads me back to win play. When I play these days it's semi high volume. Passing many races because of odds I am only going to get x amount of plays. So,pleased to have a 12.20 avg mutual. That is enough reward without the frustration of bust outs. I like getting there faster but this is the starting point.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I think we have to assume that the majority of horseplayers aren't that good at handicapping or betting, or both. Some odds on favorites are so obviously flawed yet people bet them, hard to fathom.

Darin Zoccali has an article about betting on drf today. The main profit he made on this today came from exotic wagers. As Pace alluded to, if you want to make any sort of meaningful money from betting horses, it's going to be very tough to do betting to win.


http://www.drf.com/news/zoccali-trust-must-or-your-handicapping-game-bust

I started with Beyer's Winning Horseplayer back in 1996 when I started playing. I learned exotics first and after a few years learning realized in 2001 after winning all year that I could do some damage. Over the next 10 years I realized I squandered much money by NOT betting to win. It was stupid. One day in particular at Beulah I had winners at 4-1, 8-1,15-1, 16-1 and I didn't make much money as I got blown out of exotics left and right. So I started splitting bet loyalties. That one day opened my eyes. And while my exotics cash flow can have big swings from year to year my win % and average mutual remained steady(28% and 9.40). The last 2 years the mutual went up to 11.00 then 12.00.

But my point is Pandy this should not be an either/or situation. I think that is ridiculous. Why the philosophical war between players? Plus I don't think all means of wagering can be lumped in together as win or exotics. I have about 6 different approaches that make money. This year so far I have been mediocre with the exotics whereas last year I was solid. The win bets and high volume win bets on ratings bias plays have been steady. I think is foundational without being the resurrection. I've heard more than once on here the swinging for the fencers having 10% ROI's. That is absurd. Anyway I backed myself into a corner before I bet to win. Glad I did. My patience in exotics because of this reality makes my exotics play more efficient and focused.

[pandy]

Pace was talking about the reality of making serious money betting to win. I wouldn't say that you can't show a profit betting to win, or that win bets aren't good hedge bets, but, if someone wants to win $50,000 or more a year betting horses, that is going to be almost impossible betting only to win. I've never met anyone who has done it.

[sour grapes]

I cannot see where the handicapping enjoyment (!) is coming from!

Of course I understand the fact that you do not have the necessary skills to ramp up your betting; this is the fact with the vast majority of bettors who eventually realized that the game is "unbeatable" and there is nothing surprising with it.

Still, I am really puzzled when people keep on talking about the "enjoyment" they are getting by following the races! Personally, if it was not for betting, I would never pay any attention to horse racing and spend even a minute of time thinking about it.

yea ok ,i get it your a pro:confused:but some people like the action and winning and losing is just a matter of keeping score.Your condescending attitude towards recereational players is snobbish,in fact your probably a loner at the track where no one really wants to deal with your elitism.

[traynor]

Pace was talking about the reality of making serious money betting to win. I wouldn't say that you can't show a profit betting to win, or that win bets aren't good hedge bets, but, if someone wants to win $50,000 or more a year betting horses, that is going to be almost impossible betting only to win. I've never met anyone who has done it.

I encountered half a dozen doing exactly that in a single graduate class in predictive analytics at the university I attended 10 years ago. Depends where you hang out, and who you hang out with.

[traynor]

I started with Beyer's Winning Horseplayer back in 1996 when I started playing. I learned exotics first and after a few years learning realized in 2001 after winning all year that I could do some damage. Over the next 10 years I realized I squandered much money by NOT betting to win. It was stupid. One day in particular at Beulah I had winners at 4-1, 8-1,15-1, 16-1 and I didn't make much money as I got blown out of exotics left and right. So I started splitting bet loyalties. That one day opened my eyes. And while my exotics cash flow can have big swings from year to year my win % and average mutual remained steady(28% and 9.40). The last 2 years the mutual went up to 11.00 then 12.00.

But my point is Pandy this should not be an either/or situation. I think that is ridiculous. Why the philosophical war between players? Plus I don't think all means of wagering can be lumped in together as win or exotics. I have about 6 different approaches that make money. This year so far I have been mediocre with the exotics whereas last year I was solid. The win bets and high volume win bets on ratings bias plays have been steady. I think is foundational without being the resurrection. I've heard more than once on here the swinging for the fencers having 10% ROI's. That is absurd. Anyway I backed myself into a corner before I bet to win. Glad I did. My patience in exotics because of this reality makes my exotics play more efficient and focused.

That is some seriously good advice, from someone who is obviously doing it well.

[pandy]

I started with Beyer's Winning Horseplayer back in 1996 when I started playing. I learned exotics first and after a few years learning realized in 2001 after winning all year that I could do some damage. Over the next 10 years I realized I squandered much money by NOT betting to win. It was stupid. One day in particular at Beulah I had winners at 4-1, 8-1,15-1, 16-1 and I didn't make much money as I got blown out of exotics left and right. So I started splitting bet loyalties. That one day opened my eyes. And while my exotics cash flow can have big swings from year to year my win % and average mutual remained steady(28% and 9.40). The last 2 years the mutual went up to 11.00 then 12.00.

But my point is Pandy this should not be an either/or situation. I think that is ridiculous. Why the philosophical war between players? Plus I don't think all means of wagering can be lumped in together as win or exotics. I have about 6 different approaches that make money. This year so far I have been mediocre with the exotics whereas last year I was solid. The win bets and high volume win bets on ratings bias plays have been steady. I think is foundational without being the resurrection. I've heard more than once on here the swinging for the fencers having 10% ROI's. That is absurd. Anyway I backed myself into a corner before I bet to win. Glad I did. My patience in exotics because of this reality makes my exotics play more efficient and focused.

I think win betting is more for the casual players, which is okay, obviously, very few horseplayers aspire to be professional gamblers. I'm just saying, I've never met a professional horseplayer that's a win bettor. If you had a 10% return, you would have to bet $500,000 a year to make $50,000, and almost all of those bets would have to be at major racetracks.

[cj]

I think win betting is more for the casual players, which is okay, obviously, very few horseplayers aspire to be professional gamblers. I'm just saying, I've never met a professional horseplayer that's a win bettor. If you had a 10% return, you would have to bet $500,000 a year to make $50,000, and almost all of those bets would have to be at major racetracks.

With conditional betting and rebates it is possible to bet enough races to do it in the win pools in my opinion. You can bet a ton of races a day by uploading a file and forget about it. You can maximize by betting more pools. When I was overseas and getting really good rebates, I'd bet the same horse to win (using alls) in every pool I could. That really helped at smaller tracks.

[dav4463]

This reminds me of when Kate Jackson, that ugly, thin actress from Charlie's Angels, felt the need to make the public statement that she would NOT be doing nude scenes.

The overwhelming, and by a HUGE amount, majority of players here, and more generally, rely on speed and pace figures. It's how anyone coming to the game is approaching it these days. Even your thinly veiled target relies on speed and pace figures.

So, other than finding yet another way to remind us of your 54:1 win, what's the point, Mike? Not enough visitors to your daily threads?

I actually thought Kate Jackson was kind of hot in a geeky way!:D

[traynor]

I think win betting is more for the casual players, which is okay, obviously, very few horseplayers aspire to be professional gamblers. I'm just saying, I've never met a professional horseplayer that's a win bettor. If you had a 10% return, you would have to bet $500,000 a year to make $50,000, and almost all of those bets would have to be at major racetracks.


Your numbers hide more than they reveal. To a $2 bettor, they may seem to make sense. To anyone who routinely bets 50-75 races a day, using multiple models, 300-400 races a week, not so much. To push $10k a week through the mill only requires an average bet in the $30 range. Not overly difficult, if one does not agonize over individual races, and intentionally seeks high-volume wagers with (relatively) modest returns, rather than chasing rainbows. And DEFINITELY does not require that "almost all of those bets would have to be at major racetracks."

I understand your view, and I appreciate that it may represent reality as your experience seems to indicate it exists. Others have different views based on their own personal experiences that may differ dramatically from your (or anyone else's) view. Lots of computer handicappers out there pushing lots of money through the mill--and more than a few are taking out more (sometimes WAY more) than 10% profit.

Why don't they come on PA and tell us all in gruesome detail exactly how they do it? I think anyone who asks that question is probably too naive to benefit from any kind of answer anyway, so I will pretend that everyone already knows the answer.

[PaceAdvantage]

Lots of computer handicappers out there pushing lots of money through the mill--and more than a few are taking out more (sometimes WAY more) than 10% profit.Yes, I'm sure...like you?

All these PHD handicappers out there...and yet in 18 years, not a one has come on this board and dazzled us for a MERE WEEK with selections that would blow our minds.

In fact, .5% of those who come here to post picks even bother to keep track of their selections in any long term fashion.

I'd love to see just one person, making a living betting WPS, to come on here and post a profit over a mere 400 races. And "WAY MORE" than 10% ROI...

I'm sure such people exist, but you make it seem like they are all over the place, yet none of them have ever shown their faces here.

[AltonKelsey]

Which is why I posed the question, Traynor. I know they are in the win pools , all you have to do is ......... look.

[traynor]

Yes, I'm sure...like you?

All these PHD handicappers out there...and yet in 18 years, not a one has come on this board and dazzled us for a MERE WEEK with selections that would blow our minds.

In fact, .5% of those who come here to post picks even bother to keep track of their selections in any long term fashion.

I'd love to see just one person, making a living betting WPS, to come on here and post a profit over a mere 400 races. And "WAY MORE" than 10% ROI...

I'm sure such people exist, but you make it seem like they are all over the place, yet none of them have ever shown their faces here.


What possible motivation would they have to do such a thing?

[AltonKelsey]

Yes, I'm sure...like you?

All these PHD handicappers out there...and yet in 18 years, not a one has come on this board and dazzled us for a MERE WEEK with selections that would blow our minds.

In fact, .5% of those who come here to post picks even bother to keep track of their selections in any long term fashion.

I'd love to see just one person, making a living betting WPS, to come on here and post a profit over a mere 400 races. And "WAY MORE" than 10% ROI...

I'm sure such people exist, but you make it seem like they are all over the place, yet none of them have ever shown their faces here.


lol. Well, really, if they do exist they are pros who have no interest or reason to share their wealth. So like bigfoot, they stay hidden.

I also suspect that what they do, is not achievable by a normal player. Probably boring too. Doubt any of them make 'picks' at all.

[AltonKelsey]

What possible motivation would they have to do such a thing?

Charity , love of fellow man, ego, revenge against partners that cheated them?

[PaceAdvantage]

What possible motivation would they have to do such a thing?Because 18 years is a long dry spell.

And they are human.

There's your motivation. As old as time itself.

[PaceAdvantage]

lol. Well, really, if they do exist they are pros who have no interest or reason to share their wealth. So like bigfoot, they stay hidden.

I also suspect that what they do, is not achievable by a normal player. Probably boring too. Doubt any of them make 'picks' at all.Not according to Traynor.

And posting picks for a few hundred races isn't going to reveal their method, no matter what silly person tries to tell you about reverse engineering.

They have a MUCH BETTER chance of their play being shadowed by their ADW (or a rogue employee) then they ever do of having their method reverse engineered by posting plays here.

[AltonKelsey]

I have to disagree about the reverse engineer. I believe I know what many of them do , and if they posted their plays you would easily figure it out.

This isn't rocket science.

[traynor]

I have to disagree about the reverse engineer. I believe I know what many of them do , and if they posted their plays you would easily figure it out.

This isn't rocket science.

Of course, it may just be that getting a cyberspace pat on the head (or whatever) doesn't give them the warm fuzzies that it seems to give others. Have you ever done any study of the Hawthorne Effect?

[ReplayRandall]

Of course, it may just be that getting a cyberspace pat on the head (or whatever) doesn't give them the warm fuzzies that it seems to give others. Have you ever done any study of the Hawthorne Effect?

"It is the process where human subjects of an experiment change their behavior, simply because they are being studied".

And the point you'd like to make Traynor, is ________?

[thaskalos]

lol. Well, really, if they do exist they are pros who have no interest or reason to share their wealth. So like bigfoot, they stay hidden.


Yes, the professional horseplayers shun attention...and they go to great lengths to disguise how profitable they are. They could easily afford brand new luxury vehicles...but they insist on driving old rusty cars...with the bumpers supported by coat-hanger wire. And, although they could easily feast on filet mignon and lobster on a daily basis...they are mostly seen eating ravioli out of a can...with plastic forks. It's their way of keeping smart competition away...so they could keep the horse-betting profits to themselves as much as they can.

And, who can blame them...when there are all these PhD-types around, with the means to wager $200,000 on a single race?

[PaceAdvantage]

Of course, it may just be that getting a cyberspace pat on the head (or whatever) doesn't give them the warm fuzzies that it seems to give others. Have you ever done any study of the Hawthorne Effect?Figure out my play then....you have 900+ examples starting in early April in the Selections section.

Then post my EXACT method of what I am doing on the board for all to see. I challenge both you and/or Alton to do this...of course you'll tell me you don't really care and don't want to waste your time...in other words...can't do it so easily.

[o_crunk]

Almost all of the public information points to the teams and whales being ROI+ over long stretches *after* rebates through tote/parimutuel. I tend to believe that than someone making *way* more than 10% on win bets over the course of thousands of races.

I'm no statistical wiz and I don't have doctorate in anything. But I know horses and I know how to build a fair value line. I also have a good idea for how to build an expected off line. I compare the two and focus on the exchange in NJ. On a good day there might be a 100 races offered, based on a comparison of the fair value versus expected starting price, there might be just a handful of plays on any given day. If you want to open your betting to horses that aren't in your top 4 fair value, there's a lot more plays but these are horses who aren't going to be winning a whole lot of races and you need to be precise a not insignificant amount of time with your line, as the strike percentages matter more.

One other thing...

Just using TFUS/CJ speed and pace as an input and creating a line, it's rare that I get horses where the fair line is going be say 7/5. Even rarer where it's less. I don't know how people come up with rational lines on horse races where a horse is going to win 50% of the time. That just can't be good long term for your play or your lines.

Maybe that's one of my downfalls for not having a lot of plays from a daily menu on the exchange. But I'd rather be assured that my automation is producing fair prices over the course of time than cut it too close on fair value and shave potential ROI down by inflating strike.

[sour grapes]

Yes, the professional horseplayers shun attention...and they go to great lengths to disguise how profitable they are. They could easily afford brand new luxury vehicles...but they insist on driving old rusty cars...with the bumpers supported by coat-hanger wire. And, although they could easily feast on filet mignon and lobster on a daily basis...they are mostly seen eating ravioli out of a can...with plastic forks. It's their way of keeping smart competition away...so they could keep the horse-betting profits to themselves as much as they can.

And, who can blame them...when there are all these PhD-types around, with the means to wager $200,000 on a single race?

now thats funny,but on this board we have the 10 guys claiming they make a living on the horses with no proof shown except their claims.Thats a much higher percentage than the .05 % that supposedly beat the horses and than they dont understand why the recreational player continues to come back if they are not making money like the pros,maybe cause they are having fun and losing less than these so called pros.

[AltonKelsey]

Of course, it may just be that getting a cyberspace pat on the head (or whatever) doesn't give them the warm fuzzies that it seems to give others. Have you ever done any study of the Hawthorne Effect?


More likely , those that have winning scalable methods , aren't going to respond to begging, so the 'dare ya to prove it' crowd comes out. Can't really blame them , but that won't work either.

Also, I don't think too many here claim to make a living betting horses.

[PaceAdvantage]

I know, there are no winning horseplayers out there who also like to get their ego stroked by bringing proof of success. :rolleyes:

I mean, just look at Traynor...:pound:

And he has never proved a thing. :popcorn:

Same with Cratos...all big talk, and zero action, but they continue to claim that a winning player wouldn't have that type of personality...:lol::lol::lol:

You guys are a laugh riot sometimes.

[AltonKelsey]

That's true, you rarely see proof of anything.

My contention is, that unless you are trolling for a bankroll, or trying to sell something, there is limited reason to reveal anything.

The more successful you are betting horses , the less likely it is you'll be talking about it. :coffee:

[Tom]

It is easy to be a winning pro at this game.
Just do it online using a fake name.
You can toss any BS you want and hope someone buys it.

[traynor]

"It is the process where human subjects of an experiment change their behavior, simply because they are being studied".

And the point you'd like to make Traynor, is ________?

Some thrive on the attention of others. One could almost say they seem to feed on it. Withhold it, they are more highly motivated to do that which they believe will result in the attention, or to engage in negative behavior as an alternative method to gain the attention. On the other hand, some don't really care--they get no such rewards from the attention.

[thaskalos]

Ideally...all horseplayers should be able to take a long leave-of-absence from their jobs...so they could bet on the horses every day for an extended period of time. Then they would know a little something about what it feels like to depend on the horses for your daily bread.

[traynor]

That's true, you rarely see proof of anything.

My contention is, that unless you are trolling for a bankroll, or trying to sell something, there is limited reason to reveal anything.

The more successful you are betting horses , the less likely it is you'll be talking about it. :coffee:

Darn. Does that mean all those whales out there making their seven figure incomes churning for rebates won't be posting their algorithms? That is a disappointment.

[Tom]

Ideally...all horseplayers should be able to take a long leave-of-absence from their jobs...so they could bet on the horses every day for an extended period of time. Then they would know a little something about what it feels like to depend on the horses for your daily bread.

What makes you think 90% of us would ever want to?

[thaskalos]

What makes you think 90% of us would ever want to?

Don't all the kids on the playground fantasize about being the next "Michael Jordan", or "Derek Jeter"? And...don't all the "serious" poker players dream of being the next "Chip Reese"? I just figured that all the serious horseplayers dream of being the next Pittsburgh Phil".

I know I did...

[dilanesp]

Good job PA. Keep up the good work and let us know if the success continues.

[NorCalGreg]

Pace and Speed Figs...probably just lucky

https://image.ibb.co/ekobyF/Bel_HOT_LIST.png

[AltonKelsey]

Pace and Speed Figs...probably just lucky

https://image.ibb.co/ekobyF/Bel_HOT_LIST.png
Reminds me of those Lawton sheets they used to mark up and paste on the booth. Thems were the good old days.

[rsetup]

Don't all the kids on the playground fantasize about being the next "Michael Jordan", or "Derek Jeter"? And...don't all the "serious" poker players dream of being the next "Chip Reese"? I just figured that all the serious horseplayers dream of being the next Pittsburgh Phil".

I know I did...

That's right up there with Bo Hopkins going on about everyone wanting to be a Pharaoh. But at least he was sincere about it and wasn't looking for personal gain.

[PaceAdvantage]

Darn. Does that mean all those whales out there making their seven figure incomes churning for rebates won't be posting their algorithms? That is a disappointment.Who said anything about posting algorithms?

[PaceAdvantage]

That's right up there with Bo Hopkins going on about everyone wanting to be a Pharaoh. But at least he was sincere about it and wasn't looking for personal gain.

Who's looking for personal gain by posting picks? After this weekend, you won't see another peep from me regarding posted picks or ROI or anything.

Oh, and btw, I notice you don't track your picks either...but you do post them.

Interesting...

[PaceAdvantage]

Darn. Does that mean all those whales out there making their seven figure incomes churning for rebates won't be posting their algorithms? That is a disappointment.You two make a swell couple.

So, have either of you reverse engineered my 10% ROI yet?

Should be a piece of cake.

[thaskalos]

That's right up there with Bo Hopkins going on about everyone wanting to be a Pharaoh. But at least he was sincere about it and wasn't looking for personal gain.

As usual...I have no idea what you are getting at.

[thaskalos]

You two make a swell couple.

So, have either of you reverse engineered my 10% ROI yet?

Should be a piece of cake.

Why should they bother with your 10%...when they do "so much better" themselves? :)

[PaceAdvantage]

Why should they bother with your 10%...when they do "so much better" themselves? :)Oh, I realize that.

I just want to see them reverse engineer something based on nothing but picks and an odds line...

There's no way in 100 years they could duplicate what I am doing simply by looking at my picks...but I'll be the first to stand in awe if they can pull it off...

It should be easy, according to them. I've even left a few clues along the way.

[traynor]

Who said anything about posting algorithms?

Assuming whales exist, one could easily argue that they should prove both their existence and the effectiveness of their methods by posting algorithms that explain how they do whatever it is they are supposed to be doing. Or one could conclude that either they don't exist, or that they are unwilling to share their methods. Or that they simply don't care about proving their existence and/or the effectiveness of their methods.

[PaceAdvantage]

Assuming whales exist, one could easily argue that they should prove both their existence and the effectiveness of their methods by posting algorithms that explain how they do whatever it is they are supposed to be doing. Or one could conclude that either they don't exist, or that they are unwilling to share their methods. Or that they simply don't care about proving their existence and/or the effectiveness of their methods.Like thaskalos, I have no idea what you are saying.

Didn't you say before that "winners" have no desire to post on message boards?

And why in the world would a winning player disclose their methods? That would be like firing yourself from the best job in the world.

[classhandicapper]

Don't all the kids on the playground fantasize about being the next "Michael Jordan", or "Derek Jeter"? And...don't all the "serious" poker players dream of being the next "Chip Reese"? I just figured that all the serious horseplayers dream of being the next Pittsburgh Phil".

I know I did...

Assuming they have the knowledge and bankroll to do so, as soon as they realize how much work is involved they go back to work and play horses on the side.

That's one thing that makes the stock market investing so monstrously superior. If you are doing it properly, all the work is done up front. You identify great businesses you would like to own and wait until one or more of them reaches a price that makes sense. When one does, you buy and you check the price 10 years later.

[PaceAdvantage]

Or you get in in the morning and get out by 4:15.

[traynor]

Like thaskalos, I have no idea what you are saying.

Didn't you say before that "winners" have no desire to post on message boards?

And why in the world would a winning player disclose their methods? That would be like firing yourself from the best job in the world.

Exactly. I said "one could easily argue that they should prove both their existence and the effectiveness of their methods" by posting--not that it was a good argument, a persuasive argument, or even a rational argument.

I think a 400 race posting that shows a decent profit on win bets is really impressive. I in no way intended my comments to diminish your accomplishment. The intent was to express my belief that win betting is the fastest, easiest, and likely the best way (especially for a novice or recreational bettor) to learn to make a profit wagering on horse races. Nothing more.

[dilanesp]

I think a 400 race posting that shows a decent profit on win bets is really impressiv

To me, this is the /thread. I'm not going to make any statistical claims about it (other than I hope to see it keep up). But as an accomplishment, it's a gigantic one for any handicapper.

[classhandicapper]

The problem with posting picks is that you can be a winning player over many years, start posting picks, and have a random run of bad luck that easily lasts 1000-2000 races (depending on the price range of your selections).

The same is true in the other direction.

I have found metrics that were profitable over 1000 races on moderate prices that then went on to be losing metrics (although continuing to outperform the take) for the next 1000.

Unless someone wants to make a very long commitment of time and energy just to prove a point (there will be no compensation and it could even impact you negatively if people start playing the horses you are selecting), it's silly.

That doesn't even count the fact that if you ARE actually a winner you are probably making a lot of late decisions based on prices, how the track is playing, late scratches, how horses look on the track or other similar information that could be in your toolbox. So trying do your job as a player by concentrating on these late developments while posting would probably have a negative impact on your results.

There is literally no upside to it and all downside unless you are a public handicapper getting a salary to make selections or you enjoy making public picks and showing the results.

[whodoyoulike]

Who's looking for personal gain by posting picks? After this weekend, you won't see another peep from me regarding posted picks or ROI or anything.

Oh, and btw, I notice you don't track your picks either...but you do post them.

Interesting...

You need to read his post in context with Thaskalos' post. It wasn't directed towards you. The Bo Hopkins comment was regarding that Dreyfuss movie. The name just escapes me at the moment.

[DeltaLover]

The whales and pro-bettors is a topic that we have discussed numerous times in this board but we have never managed to reach a conclusion. In my humble opinion, these kind of topics consist a waste of time similarly to the notorious "Religion" thread.

PA has shown convincing indicators about good handicapping and betting execution (by betting his top choice to win) but people instead of focusing their responses on this they continue their endless stories, full of "I know", "it is my opinion", "based on my experience", "there exist X number of whales occupying Y number of employees" and many other similar metaphysical nonsense!

[steveb]

Assuming whales exist, one could easily argue that they should prove both their existence and the effectiveness of their methods by posting algorithms that explain how they do whatever it is they are supposed to be doing. Or one could conclude that either they don't exist, or that they are unwilling to share their methods. Or that they simply don't care about proving their existence and/or the effectiveness of their methods.


or one could easily argue that you are taking the piss!

[whodoyoulike]

or one could easily argue that you are taking the piss!

I think he's just fishing for their algorithms. He's a programmer in search of racing algorithms which is surprising to me since I thought his was working.

[traynor]

I think he's just fishing for their algorithms. He's a programmer in search of racing algorithms which is surprising to me since I thought his was working.

I think I have made it clear enough--on enough occasions--that I have absolutely zero interest in what anyone else is doing (especially those using computers)--other than in very general conceptual matters. As in "all theory, no specifics."

[traynor]

The problem with posting picks is that you can be a winning player over many years, start posting picks, and have a random run of bad luck that easily lasts 1000-2000 races (depending on the price range of your selections).

The same is true in the other direction.

I have found metrics that were profitable over 1000 races on moderate prices that then went on to be losing metrics (although continuing to outperform the take) for the next 1000.

Unless someone wants to make a very long commitment of time and energy just to prove a point (there will be no compensation and it could even impact you negatively if people start playing the horses you are selecting), it's silly.

That doesn't even count the fact that if you ARE actually a winner you are probably making a lot of late decisions based on prices, how the track is playing, late scratches, how horses look on the track or other similar information that could be in your toolbox. So trying do your job as a player by concentrating on these late developments while posting would probably have a negative impact on your results.

There is literally no upside to it and all downside unless you are a public handicapper getting a salary to make selections or you enjoy making public picks and showing the results.

I agree.

[whodoyoulike]

I think I have made it clear enough--on enough occasions--that I have absolutely zero interest in what anyone else is doing (especially those using computers)--other than in very general conceptual matters. As in "all theory, no specifics."

Okay. I was just basically responding to your post referenced by steveb within his which you wanted them to show their algorithms with an explanation of them which is the reason for the fishing remark.

Why would any of them agree to that type of request?

I've mentioned before when someone on here doubted whales even existed in horse race betting but they are or were basically well known now. I'm fairly certain these individuals were not made up. But, maybe their exploits were slightly exaggerated.

[traynor]

Okay. I was just basically responding to your post referenced by steveb within his which you wanted them to show their algorithms with an explanation of them which is the reason for the fishing remark.

Why would any of them agree to that type of request?

I've mentioned before when someone on here doubted whales even existed in horse race betting but they are or were basically well known now. I'm fairly certain these individuals were not made up. But, maybe their exploits were slightly exaggerated.

Actually, it was a (flopped) attempt at humor. I do that sometimes. Not intentionally, though. My error was in not realizing it might be (mis)construed as an actual request for information. I apologize for not being more clear.

[AltonKelsey]

Actually, it was a (flopped) attempt at humor. I do that sometimes. Not intentionally, though. My error was in not realizing it might be (mis)construed as an actual request for information. I apologize for not being more clear.

Yes, you own us all an apology , I took your request very seriously, and had zipped up all the algos I use and was ready to email them to you.

Guess I won't be needing to to do that now.

[ReplayRandall]

Yes, you own us all an apology , I took your request very seriously, and had zipped up all the algos I use and was ready to email them to you.

Guess I won't be needing to to do that now.
What did that take you, two seconds??...It's must be easy to zip up an empty bag, as I wouldn't personally know...:popcorn:

[AltonKelsey]

What did that take you, two seconds??...It's must be easy to zip up an empty bag, as I wouldn't personally know...:popcorn:

Less than that, fast CPU and kickass compression algo.

[Tom]

So far, in this thread, we had heard from one proven winner

[ReplayRandall]

Less than that, fast CPU and kickass compression algo.
Naw, just a kickass empty bag.....Maybe you can ask for those items you mentioned as gifts at X-mas?

[thaskalos]

Yes, you own us all an apology , I took your request very seriously, and had zipped up all the algos I use and was ready to email them to you.

Guess I won't be needing to to do that now.

What...there are TWO Whales posting on this board? I thought Magister Ludi was the only one.

[PaceAdvantage]

You need to read his post in context with Thaskalos' post. It wasn't directed towards you. The Bo Hopkins comment was regarding that Dreyfuss movie. The name just escapes me at the moment.I know it wasn't directed at me. I was asking a general question and then added my opinion based on my experience and intentions

[whodoyoulike]

I know it wasn't directed at me. I was asking a general question and then added my opinion based on my experience and intentions

Okay. It seemed you were getting unnecessarily upset over his comment. Btw, the movie was American Graffiti.

[castaway01]

What...there are TWO Whales posting on this board? I thought Magister Ludi was the only one.

I'm going to use my whale profits to buy you some newer references than Chip Reese and Michael Jordan.

[barn32]

This thread is fascinating. Our fearless learder has found a way to make $2700 a month free money. What's wrong with $2700 a month? It's more than you would ever get from a Social Security check. It should cover a mortgage or rent.

This whole process can't be taking you more than an hour a day so it's certainly worth your time.

$2700 a month might not be a living in New York City, but it will certainly get you by in Fort Wayne Indiana.

[Population: 255,784
Median rent: $661
Median home value: $99,800
Rent to income ratio: 0.2 to 1
Home value to income ratio: 2.3 to 1]

So take your $2700 to the bank every month and be happy that you found the holy grail and have solace in the fact that you are the only poster on Pace Advantage in 18 years to prove to the masses that you have consistently beaten the game for a provable (side) income.

I know that I would love to have such a sure thing in my quiver.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I have been influenced by at least half the posters on this thread even if we handicap differently, bet differently, have different beliefs about bets and outcomes, and disagree philosophically about the game and it's worth. S'all good!:cool:

[Tom]

I know that I would love to have such a sure thing in my quiver.

Very well put! :ThmbUp:
PA is the Green Arrow of handicapping! :headbanger:

[thaskalos]

Assuming they have the knowledge and bankroll to do so, as soon as they realize how much work is involved they go back to work and play horses on the side.

That's one thing that makes the stock market investing so monstrously superior. If you are doing it properly, all the work is done up front. You identify great businesses you would like to own and wait until one or more of them reaches a price that makes sense. When one does, you buy and you check the price 10 years later.

And if you show a LOSS after the 10 years...what do you do then? Select another one or more "overlaid businesses that you'd like to own"...and then wait another 10 years to try and get even? No Thanks!

I don't understand most horseplayers. They call horseracing "boring" because they have to wait for a few minutes in-between races...but then they sing praises to ANOTHER gambling game...where they have to sit around and "do nothing" for TEN YEARS, before they realize a profit.

[thaskalos]

You need to read his post in context with Thaskalos' post. It wasn't directed towards you. The Bo Hopkins comment was regarding that Dreyfuss movie. The name just escapes me at the moment.

Yes...he directed his post at me. Was I looking for "personal gain"?

[whodoyoulike]

Yes...he directed his post at me. Was I looking for "personal gain"?

Well, I re-read PA's post again and he was responding to rsetup, whose response also was not directed at either you or PA.

But, I may have missed the hidden messages around here.

[stuball]

"LET IT RIDE"

[classhandicapper]

And if you show a LOSS after the 10 years...what do you do then? Select another one or more "overlaid businesses that you'd like to own"...and then wait another 10 years to try and get even? No Thanks!

I don't understand most horseplayers. They call horseracing "boring" because they have to wait for a few minutes in-between races...but then they sing praises to ANOTHER gambling game...where they have to sit around and "do nothing" for TEN YEARS, before they realize a profit.

Well, in stock market investing and horse racing if you pick bad horses it doesn't matter how long you wait. :lol: But to answer your question, ideally over time you should accumulate a portfolio that will contain some winners and losers that net out well. That's the way I have done it. I've held stocks for as long as 30 years, but sometimes I don't.

You'll never hear me whining about the time between races. I have no real need or desire for gambling action. I want the ego gratification that comes from winning.

I know from 40 years of experience what it takes for me to have a good chance of being in the black at the end of the year. It involves waiting until I have a positive or negative insight that is unlikely to be shared by a lot of people. That doesn't happen in a lot of races for me. There are too many smart people out there.

If I played the races like most other people, which is pretty much looking at the same information as everyone else and trying to interpret it better, I'd play way more races, but I'd spend a lot more time and energy and I'd probably either lose or be running in place on all that extra action.

The way I handicap is time consuming. The only way I can up my action is to automate to some extent. That's what I have been in the process of doing for the last 2 years. I create reports with possible plays across multiple tracks. I don't waste time on the rest. It's a matter of refining and testing the algorithms to match my thinking and produce potentially profitable situation.

[PaceAdvantage]

I've broken the 10% mark for the first time after yesterday's results:

Top pick went 7 for 24 and returned $82.50

TOP PICK (OVERLAYS ONLY) Running total (46 Days):

96 for 449 | $898 Wagered | $997 Returned | $1.11 ROI ($1.00 = Break Even)

All plays went 9 for 50 and returned $121.70

ALL PICKS (OVERLAYS ONLY) (46 Days):

154 for 1071 | $2142 Wagered | $1943.40 returned | $0.91 ROI ($1.00 = Break Even)

[classhandicapper]

Those are awesome results. :ThmbUp:

[traynor]

I've broken the 10% mark for the first time after yesterday's results:

Top pick went 7 for 24 and returned $82.50

TOP PICK (OVERLAYS ONLY) Running total (46 Days):

96 for 449 | $898 Wagered | $997 Returned | $1.11 ROI ($1.00 = Break Even)

All plays went 9 for 50 and returned $121.70

ALL PICKS (OVERLAYS ONLY) (46 Days):

154 for 1071 | $2142 Wagered | $1943.40 returned | $0.91 ROI ($1.00 = Break Even)

Congratulations! It will be interesting to see the results of the next block of races, compared to the first (400) block. Many would believe it wise to "quit while ahead" and stop posting before (what some believe will be) the "inevitable decline." That is pure nonsense.

I think most realize that a 400 race sample does not necessarily illustrate a pattern of normally distributed events that will be perfectly replicated in the next 400 (or 4000, or 40,000) races. The point they miss is that--because it does not represent a "normal distribution over a very large sample"--it is equally likely that the next block of races will have even BETTER results than the original sample.

Personally, I hope you keep posting your selections (or the results at least--I don't pay much attention to the selections) and that you experience a long and illustrious pattern of continuous improvement in results. The horse race industry needs more (highly visible) winners and fewer whiners. Again, congratulations on your accomplishment.

[PaceAdvantage]

Congratulations! It will be interesting to see the results of the next block of races, compared to the first (400) block. Many would believe it wise to "quit while ahead" and stop posting before (what some believe will be) the "inevitable decline." That is pure nonsense.

I think most realize that a 400 race sample does not necessarily illustrate a pattern of normally distributed events that will be perfectly replicated in the next 400 (or 4000, or 40,000) races. The point they miss is that--because it does not represent a "normal distribution over a very large sample"--it is equally likely that the next block of races will have even BETTER results than the original sample.

Personally, I hope you keep posting your selections (or the results at least--I don't pay much attention to the selections) and that you experience a long and illustrious pattern of continuous improvement in results. The horse race industry needs more (highly visible) winners and fewer whiners. Again, congratulations on your accomplishment.Does the fact that I post plays for every track in the country and don't discriminate by track, distance, or surface, play any part in making these current results more "normally distributed" then you may have originally thought?

[rsetup]

Does the fact that I post plays for every track in the country and don't discriminate by track, distance, or surface, play any part in making these current results more "normally distributed" then you may have originally thought?


Let me ask you a question: given what you already know (and you indicated in the quote) why would you think that your results wouldn't be consistent going forward?

[thaskalos]

I've broken the 10% mark for the first time after yesterday's results:

Top pick went 7 for 24 and returned $82.50

TOP PICK (OVERLAYS ONLY) Running total (46 Days):

96 for 449 | $898 Wagered | $997 Returned | $1.11 ROI ($1.00 = Break Even)

All plays went 9 for 50 and returned $121.70

ALL PICKS (OVERLAYS ONLY) (46 Days):

154 for 1071 | $2142 Wagered | $1943.40 returned | $0.91 ROI ($1.00 = Break Even)
When you bet real money...do you bet only on your top choice...or do you bet on all the "overlays" in the race? The few times that I've seen you bet "live" here, you've been betting on multiple horses in the same race.

[PaceAdvantage]

Let me ask you a question: given what you already know (and you indicated in the quote) why would you think that your results wouldn't be consistent going forward?I do think they'll be consistent going forward. I've seen myself lose almost 20 in a row more than once during my almost 50 days of posting picks here, and didn't panic, didn't change anything, and it all leveled out during the next swing of plays.

I do very much think, barring any fundamental changes in the way TFUS creates its numbers, that this will continue going forward. Unless enough people figure out how to create a duplicate line and start playing my way.

[PaceAdvantage]

When you bet real money...do you bet only on your top choice...or do you bet on all the "overlays" in the race? The few times that I've seen you bet "live" here, you've been betting on multiple horses in the same race.I stopped betting on the "others," but continue to post "On" for any overlays, just to make the record keeping easier. I will also bet on an "other" if it's close on my line to the top choice and is at a price that is just too juicy to pass up.

[cj]

I stopped betting on the "others," but continue to post "On" for any overlays, just to make the record keeping easier. I will also bet on an "other" if it's close on my line to the top choice and is at a price that is just too juicy to pass up.

I've always found that I really improve my results if I eliminate the lower odds horses, actual off odds I mean. Have you checked your bets by odds? Are the profits pretty even over various odds or is there a spike somewhere?

[CincyHorseplayer]

A lot of my play is similar Pace. I admire the exhausting duty to document plays! I track contenders and keep bet records but to add the public to the to do list is something. I stopped doing conventional oddslines because the stripping down did not address the reality of of contentious races. I keep it simple as kindergarten. A-B-C+. Those are the only contenders. Only bet AB because the rest are weak and not at big mutuels. I don't bet all these mainly fretting over the $6-9 range! But basic picks this is what I have to work from. Here is the latest batch. They are all fairly similar.

[PaceAdvantage]

I've always found that I really improve my results if I eliminate the lower odds horses, actual off odds I mean. Have you checked your bets by odds? Are the profits pretty even over various odds or is there a spike somewhere?My record keeping barely goes beyond what I've posted publicly, so I don't have an answer to your question...

[jimmyb]

I realize this is a small sample size but here are the results of 127 races I posted in the selections forum.

The early end of the 30 day challenge. I understand 127 races is a small sample size but here are the results after 10 days.

127 races
27 wins
21% win percetage

$297.20 returned from
$254.00 wagered
+ $43.20
1.17 ROI

I didn't use video trip handicapping, but i did use a formula that weighs heavily on pace and speed.

I don't mean to denegrate anyones form of handicapping, only did this to prove that I could eke out a profit.

[cj]

I realize this is a small sample size but here are the results of 127 races I posted in the selections forum.

The early end of the 30 day challenge. I understand 127 races is a small sample size but here are the results after 10 days.

127 races
27 wins
21% win percetage

$297.20 returned from
$254.00 wagered
+ $43.20
1.17 ROI

I didn't use video trip handicapping, but i did use a formula that weighs heavily on pace and speed.

I don't mean to denegrate anyones form of handicapping, only did this to prove that I could eke out a profit.

That is a very nice "eke".

[jimmyb]

That is a very nice "eke".
Thanks, CJ. I also found it (the formula) works the same for turf, dirt, sprints, routes, quarters, small tracks as well as large, east coast as well as west.

Thanks also to P A for laying down the gauntlet and issuing the challenge.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Thanks, CJ. I also found it (the formula) works the same for turf, dirt, sprints, routes, quarters, small tracks as well as large, east coast as well as west.

Thanks also to P A for laying down the gauntlet and issuing the challenge.

Just wanted to say I appreciate your post and your insight here. Every race, every track, every surface, coast to coast. The player's best friend is more races and no bias. The world is our oyster. Country wide overlays! Love the concept and try to stay out of my own biases!

[traynor]

Does the fact that I post plays for every track in the country and don't discriminate by track, distance, or surface, play any part in making these current results more "normally distributed" then you may have originally thought?

Actually, the opposite. I do a lot of monitoring by circuits, similar tracks, and so on. Different track sizes grouped in harness. In general, the most accurate models are track specific. By accurate, I mean one clump of races can be studied and used to locate useful trends. Basic problem is that a given set of results from a given set of races is most tightly matched with that specific set of races. That is the reasoning behind all the "statistics nonsense" of splitting samples into training sets (clumps of races) that are used to locate patterns that can be used on test sets/control sets (other clumps of races) to see how they fare.

[traynor]

I understand (and fully appreciate) that other approaches may use totally different concepts and be quite successful. I think it is great that people are posting winning selections--and actually tracking the performance of the selections they post.

[PaceAdvantage]

Actually, the opposite. I do a lot of monitoring by circuits, similar tracks, and so on. Different track sizes grouped in harness. In general, the most accurate models are track specific. By accurate, I mean one clump of races can be studied and used to locate useful trends. Basic problem is that a given set of results from a given set of races is most tightly matched with that specific set of races. That is the reasoning behind all the "statistics nonsense" of splitting samples into training sets (clumps of races) that are used to locate patterns that can be used on test sets/control sets (other clumps of races) to see how they fare.A method of play though, should be considered more robust if it can be shown to perform well given any track, distance or surface...wouldn't you agree?

[traynor]

A method of play though, should be considered more robust if it can be shown to perform well given any track, distance or surface...wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely. That would indicate some kind of generic method.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Generic is awesome at 5-1!

[PaceAdvantage]

Another new high after today...12%

Top pick went 3 for 8 and returned $27.90

TOP PICK (OVERLAYS ONLY) Running total (47 Days):

99 for 457 | $914 Wagered | $1024.90 Returned | $1.12 ROI ($1.00 = Break Even)

All plays went 5 for 28 and returned $50.10

ALL PICKS (OVERLAYS ONLY) (47 Days):

159 for 1099 | $2198 Wagered | $1993.50 returned | $0.91 ROI ($1.00 = Break Even)

[thaskalos]

I realize this is a small sample size but here are the results of 127 races I posted in the selections forum.

The early end of the 30 day challenge. I understand 127 races is a small sample size but here are the results after 10 days.

127 races
27 wins
21% win percetage

$297.20 returned from
$254.00 wagered
+ $43.20
1.17 ROI

I didn't use video trip handicapping, but i did use a formula that weighs heavily on pace and speed.

I don't mean to denegrate anyones form of handicapping, only did this to prove that I could eke out a profit.

Have you used your method for longer periods of time...or is this 127-race sample the only "test" that you have at your disposal?

[formula_2002]

excellent results.
with such a big spread in the two posted roi's, I would be interested in what the LAY bets roi would look like

[jimmyb]

Have you used your method for longer periods of time...or is this 127-race sample the only "test" that you have at your disposal?

It's the first time I posted using this method. For fear of redboarding, I don't want to comment on past or present other than to say I'll continue with this form of handicapping.

[thaskalos]

It's the first time I posted using this method. For fear of redboarding, I don't want to comment on past or present other than to say I'll continue with this form of handicapping.

The way you presented your initial post here suggested (to me, at least) that you might not have extensive experience with this method...that's why I replied to you as I did. "I realize this is a small sample size..."...you said. If you've used this method for long periods of time, then you know what you've got...and the 127-race sample doesn't mean very much.

[jimmyb]

The way you presented your initial post here suggested (to me, at least) that you might not have extensive experience with this method...that's why I replied to you as I did. "I realize this is a small sample size..."...you said. If you've used this method for long periods of time, then you know what you've got...and the 127-race sample doesn't mean very much.


PA threw a challenge out there, I accepted. Nothing wrong with that. I also figure if I'm going to throw my two cents in I should have some credibility. If nothing else, it provides me some. I'd prefer to not just talk the talk. Ever put your skills out there for all to see for any period of time? Not many are willing.

[PaceAdvantage]

PA threw a challenge out there, I accepted.I'm not sure it was a challenge as much as it was questioning why more people don't keep track of their posted picks. I mean, I know the reason why...I guess it was more of a rhetorical question.

Congrats on your positive run! :ThmbUp: I hope it keeps up for you.

[thaskalos]

PA threw a challenge out there, I accepted. Nothing wrong with that. I also figure if I'm going to throw my two cents in I should have some credibility. If nothing else, it provides me some. I'd prefer to not just talk the talk. Ever put your skills out there for all to see for any period of time? Not many are willing.

Where did I imply that you did something "wrong"? You showed a method that has shown impressive results over 127 races...and I just asked if you had tried the method out over a longer period of time. Did I do something "wrong" by asking you that?

No...I've never "put my skills out there for all to see for any period of time". When I decide that I need some "credibility" here...then, maybe I'll try it. :ThmbUp:

[Light]

In both PA and jimmyb's case, have your experiments revealed a key handicapping factor or factors (besides odds) that must be present for a bet? Or is this just "conventional" handicapping?

[jimmyb]

In both PA and jimmyb's case, have your experiments revealed a key handicapping factor or factors (besides odds) that must be present for a bet? Or is this just "conventional" handicapping?

I don't know what you mean by conventional but here is what I did. I assign a score to each horse based on a 30% pace value (most geared to early), 30 % to speed (most geared to it's highest speed figure), and 40% to fitness. The animal with the highest score gets a couple of more tests.

1: It has to have the highest or second highest it's last or next to last race, specific to that race

2: It must be 6-1 or higher morning line.

Pretty simple. A good information source is invaluable, don't scimp on this.

[Light]

I don't know what you mean by conventional...

I meant is what you did in your experiment different than the way you normally handicap.

[PaceAdvantage]

In both PA and jimmyb's case, have your experiments revealed a key handicapping factor or factors (besides odds) that must be present for a bet? Or is this just "conventional" handicapping?Yes, TFUS numbers...and a much fiddled with oddsline generator...I've been trying to get this to work for a couple of years now...

[jimmyb]

I meant is what you did in your experiment different than the way you normally handicap.


Slightly different, yes. Just rearranging the percentages and adding the last two steps.

[jay68802]

Another new high after today...12%

Top pick went 3 for 8 and returned $27.90

TOP PICK (OVERLAYS ONLY) Running total (47 Days):

99 for 457 | $914 Wagered | $1024.90 Returned | $1.12 ROI ($1.00 = Break Even)

All plays went 5 for 28 and returned $50.10

ALL PICKS (OVERLAYS ONLY) (47 Days):

159 for 1099 | $2198 Wagered | $1993.50 returned | $0.91 ROI ($1.00 = Break Even)

Congrats ! Care to comment on what a %.04 decrease in take out would mean to your ROI?

[PaceAdvantage]

Wow, how the mighty have fallen...:lol:

My posting of picks has ended as I have reached the 500+ mark, but I ended up LOSING THE LAST 33 RACES IN A ROW...and my ROI plummeted to only 4%

Here are the final numbers:

TOP PICK (OVERLAYS ONLY) Running total (54 Days):

108 for 528 | $1056 Wagered | $1093.80 Returned | $1.04 ROI ($1.00 = Break Even)

All plays went 0 for 39 and returned $0

ALL PICKS (OVERLAYS ONLY) (54 Days):

173 for 1261 | $2522 Wagered | $2120.80 returned | $0.84 ROI ($1.00 = Break Even)

Not a good way to finish up...:mad::pout:

[pandy]

Mike, on your top pick overlays, do you know what the average odds was?

[PaceAdvantage]

Mike, on your top pick overlays, do you know what the average odds was?I don't actually have that info...my record keeping wasn't much beyond recording wins and losses....

[ReplayRandall]

I don't actually have that info...my record keeping wasn't much beyond recording wins and losses....

First off, I congratulate you on a fine showing, using a simplified method for betting your top pick overlays. In this day and age, I doubt that few have accomplished a +ROI over 500 plays using such a basic approach.

Now, as far as the "other" plays, this should convince anyone how difficult it is to make a profit betting only for overlay value on anything other than your own best play in a race. The solution of course is to pass, pass, pass when the value's not there in the win or exacta pools, on your specific play in the race. Does it get boring? Sure it does, but that's part of the "normalcy" of the game when playing for profit and not just for fun.

As far as your 33 race losing streak, you know that this is normal as you've stated, and you're far away from setting any kind of losing streak record of futility, in comparison to my own negative streaks. It looks to me like you're close to having something of real value long-term, with better record keeping and analyzation of odds layering just for starters, you will improve on what foundation you've already laid.....The rest is up to you, good luck.

[PaceAdvantage]

Who you calling "simplified?" :lol::lol::lol:

Just kidding...thanks for your thoughts...

[thaskalos]

Now, as far as the "other" plays, this should convince anyone how difficult it is to make a profit betting only for overlay value on anything other than your own best play in a race.

It also shows that it's pretty difficult to maintain a lofty ROI in this game...in spite of the grandiose ROI claims that we sometimes see on this board.

[lamboguy]

some of the best results that i have ever seen in this game are from the smaller players.

the job our leader did was no doubt remarkable. but in the real world no one is going to put in the time and hard work to bet $10 and $20 per race. had he have been betting a semi normal amount of money into the parimutuel pools like say $100-$200 he would not have had a positive roi. as good as his system is, its still a tough way to make a living.

[menifee]

some of the best results that i have ever seen in this game are from the smaller players.

the job our leader did was no doubt remarkable. but in the real world no one is going to put in the time and hard work to bet $10 and $20 per race. had he have been betting a semi normal amount of money into the parimutuel pools like say $100-$200 he would not have had a positive roi. as good as his system is, its still a tough way to make a living.

With rebates he would have...

[lamboguy]

With rebates he would have...true but you don't get the breakage back which is the hidden croaker.

no 2 ways about it, his results were amazing and might be able to be fine tuned a bit to produce slightly better results.

i watched them because i knew there is plenty of merit to pace handicapping, i just didn't know if it was enough to show a profit, which it did and a good one at that 4%. not only that he was sitting at 9% with 2 days to go which is basically unheard of.

[Track Collector]

First off, I congratulate you on a fine showing, using a simplified method for betting your top pick overlays. In this day and age, I doubt that few have accomplished a +ROI over 500 plays using such a basic approach.

Now, as far as the "other" plays, this should convince anyone how difficult it is to make a profit betting only for overlay value on anything other than your own best play in a race. The solution of course is to pass, pass, pass when the value's not there in the win or exacta pools, on your specific play in the race. Does it get boring? Sure it does, but that's part of the "normalcy" of the game when playing for profit and not just for fun.

As far as your 33 race losing streak, you know that this is normal as you've stated, and you're far away from setting any kind of losing streak record of futility, in comparison to my own negative streaks. It looks to me like you're close to having something of real value long-term, with better record keeping and analyzation of odds layering just for starters, you will improve on what foundation you've already laid.....The rest is up to you, good luck.

First, let me commend Mike for his noteworthy achievement.

My concern for future sustainability (at the 1.04 ROI level, or even any positive ROI) is that at the current rate, the projected number of Win bet plays would come in around 3000 per year, and with all the sophisticated sharpies playing this game, I have doubt that significant-enough value can be reliably identified in this many plays per year. Based on the total number of races last year, this would result in a play of about 1 out of every 14 races. A significant number of races have field sizes of 7 or less, making the process of finding sufficient-enough value in those races after overcoming the takeout rate extremely hard.

My suggestion would be the bolded red words for the TOP picks. IMO you need to tighten/refine your methodology in such a way that it reduces the current level of yearly plays by at least 50%, and 60-70% will probably be even better. These refinements will involve increasing the value return of each play, and may also have the benefit of lessening the length of the associated losing streaks. As ReplayRandall noted, it can become quite boring, but it is about winning, which means doing the things others are not willing to do. By increasing your Selectivity, you will give your methodology the opportunity to yield even better results, which are hopefully both profitable and sustainable.

Should you decide to make any revisions/modifications, it would be interesting to continue to track today's current method as well just to see how is does going foward.

Wishing you well with these challenges! :ThmbUp:

[DeltaLover]

Passing too many races is certainly a bad advice as it might improve your ROI but a high ROI is by no means the objective of a bettor.

Setting aside some races where the available information is not enough to create the potential for market anomalies (for example maiden races with a lot of first time starters), we need to have as many bets as possible if we want to maintain a valid expectation to show some significant profit.

The professional bettor who is willing to pass entire cards until he finds the spot, is one of the most misleading myths in the game. A serious bettor must try to discover as many bets as possible as he needs to increase the total amounts of his bets per time to maximize his profits during a specific period of time (profit is measured in $$ and not in ROI of course something that consists another major myth that is believed by many).

[pandy]

Passing too many races is certainly a bad advice as it might improve your ROI but a high ROI is by no means the objective of a bettor.

Setting aside some races where the available information is not enough to create the potential for market anomalies (for example maiden races with a lot of first time starters), we need to have as many bets as possible if we want to maintain a valid expectation to show some significant profit.

The professional bettor who is willing to pass entire cards until he finds the spot, is one of the most misleading myths in the game. A serious bettor must try to discover as many bets as possible as he needs to increase the total amounts of his bets per time to maximize his profits during a specific period of time (profit is measured in $$ and not in ROI of course something that consists another major myth that is believed by many).

I tend to agree with this. The problem with the theory of extreme selectivity, the only way you can make any serious money is if you bet thousands of dollars on each play, and even if you have the bankroll for that, your plays would have to be limited to races and tracks that have a robust handle.

It's different with sports betting. A professional sports bettor can make a handful of bets a year and still earn a living because the size of the bet doesn't reduce the payout.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Passing too many races is certainly a bad advice as it might improve your ROI but a high ROI is by no means the objective of a bettor.

Setting aside some races where the available information is not enough to create the potential for market anomalies (for example maiden races with a lot of first time starters), we need to have as many bets as possible if we want to maintain a valid expectation to show some significant profit.

The professional bettor who is willing to pass entire cards until he finds the spot, is one of the most misleading myths in the game. A serious bettor must try to discover as many bets as possible as he needs to increase the total amounts of his bets per time to maximize his profits during a specific period of time (profit is measured in $$ and not in ROI of course something that consists another major myth that is believed by many).

You are taking out one myth and inventing another myth. Passing races for me doesn't at all involve any of the extreme behavior above. I'm not taking extreme odds like 1-5 nor am I splitting hairs on 2 horses sub 2-1. I bet nearly every other race than this and bet a lot of races. These subsets are futile and more=boring. Their only worth is if the desire is to bet and not think, which I know is a big goal if automaton betting!

[DeltaLover]

You are taking out one myth and inventing another myth. Passing races for me doesn't at all involve any of the extreme behavior above. I'm not taking extreme odds like 1-5 nor am I splitting hairs on 2 horses sub 2-1. I bet nearly every other race than this and bet a lot of races. These subsets are futile and more=boring. Their only worth is if the desire is to bet and not think, which I know is a big goal if automaton betting!

I can not see the myth I am inventing! What I am saying is that in order to maintain some realistic expectations to make a significant profit you cannot follow a passive approach with a lot of passes but try to bet as much as possible. Even if you have a positive EV this will be so tiny that you need many bets to materialize it to significant profits plus on top of this you need to consider the fact that since you are betting in mutual market the magnitude of your EV is very limited by default.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I can not see the myth I am inventing! What I am saying is that in order to maintain some realistic expectations to make a significant profit you cannot follow a passive approach with a lot of passes but try to bet as much as possible. Even if you have a positive EV this will be so tiny that you need many bets to materialize it to significant profits plus on top of this you need to consider the fact that since you are betting in mutual market the magnitude of your EV is very limited by default.

I hear you! I have definitely come to appreciate that more really is more. I find that a 100 race betting cycle covers all the ups and downs and want as many of those as possible during the year. The worst experience I have had in this game covering 20 years is when I went specialist. Not only did I rob myself of my total skillset but the misery of few bets and diminished profitability was too much to bear. But while I broke out of that I do see the futility of certain odds ranges and cut those off. My number of bets a day is tote dependent. And my loss days are chalk triumph days. I'm fine with that. Not really at either extreme Delta. I will bet as many races as possible.

[LemonSoupKid]

Even if you have a positive EV this will be so tiny that you need many bets to materialize it to significant profits plus on top of this you need to consider the fact that since you are betting in mutual market the magnitude of your EV is very limited by default.

You're point is inherently contradictory, though I know what you are trying to say. The problem is that the question will never be resolved. Either you can beat the races, be selective, and raise your ROI or you can't. I think what you're really saying is that there's only a sweet spot range you can get to in EV, so therefore you should increase the betting part of it to overcome that stumbling block/fixture. Of course, you should state that.

---
As an aside, how many tracks do typical pro bettors bet at, and how many times per day or week? Give me any breakdown, # of races, # of days, cards, etc.

Thanks.

[PaceAdvantage]

Passing too many races is certainly a bad advice as it might improve your ROI but a high ROI is by no means the objective of a bettor.

Setting aside some races where the available information is not enough to create the potential for market anomalies (for example maiden races with a lot of first time starters), we need to have as many bets as possible if we want to maintain a valid expectation to show some significant profit.

The professional bettor who is willing to pass entire cards until he finds the spot, is one of the most misleading myths in the game. A serious bettor must try to discover as many bets as possible as he needs to increase the total amounts of his bets per time to maximize his profits during a specific period of time (profit is measured in $$ and not in ROI of course something that consists another major myth that is believed by many).Intuitively, I AGREE with the above 100%

[DeltaLover]

You're point is inherently contradictory, though I know what you are trying to say. The problem is that the question will never be resolved. Either you can beat the races, be selective, and raise your ROI or you can't. I think what you're really saying is that there's only a sweet spot range you can get to in EV, so therefore you should increase the betting part of it to overcome that stumbling block/fixture. Of course, you should state that.

---
As an aside, how many tracks do typical pro bettors bet at, and how many times per day or week? Give me any breakdown, # of races, # of days, cards, etc.

Thanks.

"Selectivity" must be on the loose side rather than the tight. You should pass way less races than those who you will bet.

[classhandicapper]

The problem with the "more bets" equal "more profit" theory is that reality sometimes doesn't match the theory.

For arguments sake, let's say I had a positive 10% ROI over many years being very selective. Some might argue that I could make a lot more money if I just loosened up a little and was willing to accept a positive 5% ROI making a lot more plays and dramatically increasing my handle.

That's perfectly logical.

But if the reality is that I'm breaking even (or even worse losing) on all those extra plays, I'm not really adding anything to the bottom line even though my handle would be way higher.

Most people already bet whenever they think they have a clear edge. Despite that, it's a struggle to win because sometimes we are working with imperfect information and understanding. When we start cutting it even closer, a lot of the time we think we are playing small overlays we are actually playing small underlays. The net could be disappointing to the point where we are just running in place on all those extra bets or even worse losing on them - even if we are still netting positive on everything because of the original standard plays.

Before you start adding bets, I think you have to insist that the standards for the new ones are similar to the standards for ones that are already doing well. That's easier said than done.

[DeltaLover]

That's perfectly logical.

But if the reality is that I'm breaking even (or even worse losing) on all those extra plays, I'm not really adding anything to the bottom line even though my handle would be way higher.


If what you are saying here is the reality then you need to improve your selection process. Other than this your statement does not oppose what I am stating above; it is simply referring to the obvious.

[classhandicapper]

If what you are saying here is the reality then you need to improve your selection process. Other than this your statement does not oppose what I am stating above; it is simply referring to the obvious.

I am saying I think it's not a good idea for most people to play more races to increase their handle because most are in a struggle to stay in the black to begin with.

Added plays will generally be of lower quality than the original more selective group or you would have made them to begin with. So they probably add very little to the bottom line and potentially even turn a small winner into a loser.

Now,for example, if you are highly selective and have a ROI of +20%, you can probably find more plays that are profitable, up your handle, and net more money. But if you are at +5%, I wouldn't mess around trying to find horses with a positive expectation between +1% and +5%. You'll probably wind up with a group at -1% or -2% and cost yourself money.

Other than that, everyone knows the more bets you can find the better.

[traynor]

Like much else in life, "it depends." I cannot imagine anyone other than the proverbial one-trick pony applying the same betting strategy to every race. Different factor sets call for different strategies/tactics. In plain English, some strategies require high-volume wagers, some require reasonable selectivity, and some require a high degree of selectivity.

I see no problem whatsoever in mixing those strategies, and I think more than a few other bettors are doing the same--combining high-volume/modest return (as in win bets/dutching/whatever) with low-volume/high return wagers (tris,supers.pickhowevermany). Decreasing the number of high-volume wagers is costly--so is increasing the number of low-volume wagers to chase rainbows or get more "action."

I agree completely that the goal should be $$$ (in the pocket, in the bank, invested, or spent-and-thoroughly-enjoyed) rather than "ROI" that seems to exist mainly on paper and in the imagination. I do NOT agree that a dichotomy exists between high-volume/low-volume wagering (or needs to exist). There is a place for both in a comprehensive wagering approach.

[jimmyb]

All this talk got me wondering how the old timers did it without benefit of simulcasting, ADW's, exactas, tri's pic 3's 4's 5's 6's, super duper high fives, and rainbow ripoffs etc.

[traynor]

I think it is unfortunate that DeltaLover sometimes tends to underemphasize points that are more important/significant than the casual reader might believe. An example is emphasizing actual return over "ROI" (two VERY different concepts that many seem to equate).

The ROI on a specific set of races is overfit to that specific set of races. There is ZERO guarantee (or even indication) that the specific set of races used represents a normal distribution over a larger set of races. Using ROI as a criteria leads one to chase rainbows and lose money. That is not a trivial matter, nor is it a spurious statement made for the sake of provoking argumentation. It matters not at all what the "ROI" of a given set of races was or was not. It only matters how much money you gained or lost by wagering on that particular set of races.

[traynor]

Consider--if the additional 100 race sample had included an outlier (a larger than normal mutuel) it might have tipped the ROI of the entire set to increase, rather than decrease. Would that have "proven" anything beyond the results of that specific strategy in that specific set of races? Not really. Would an additional 100 race set indicate continued decline in ROI, or reverse the "trend" and show an overall increase? And would either event "prove" anything beyond the results of that specific strategy in that specific set of races? I don't think so.

Again, that is not a casual observation or spurious opinion. The app I use generates dozens of "positive ROI wagering strategies" routinely. Most are worthless--which can readily be determined by applying those strategies to different sets of races. Believing that strategies developed by study of a specific group of races can be universally applied to other races with identical result can be VERY costly.

[PaceAdvantage]

I think it is unfortunate that DeltaLover sometimes tends to underemphasize points that are more important/significant than the casual reader might believe. An example is emphasizing actual return over "ROI" (two VERY different concepts that many seem to equate).

The ROI on a specific set of races is overfit to that specific set of races. There is ZERO guarantee (or even indication) that the specific set of races used represents a normal distribution over a larger set of races. Using ROI as a criteria leads one to chase rainbows and lose money. That is not a trivial matter, nor is it a spurious statement made for the sake of provoking argumentation. It matters not at all what the "ROI" of a given set of races was or was not. It only matters how much money you gained or lost by wagering on that particular set of races.Not to be rude or anything, but once again, the "smartest guy in the room" steps in and basically says nothing.

What exactly is the point of the above? Any measurement in the world is OVERFIT to what is being measured....because it's the measure of what is being measured! :lol:

That doesn't make it useless, of course, or we wouldn't be wasting our time measuring in the first place.

ZERO INDICATION? Of course ROI over a large enough number of races IS an INDICATION of something. If your ROI over 1000 races is 0.79 per 1.00, it's a huge indication that your method used over those races sucks.

[PaceAdvantage]

Consider--if the additional 100 race sample had included an outlier (a larger than normal mutuel) it might have tipped the ROI of the entire set to increase, rather than decrease. Would that have "proven" anything beyond the results of that specific strategy in that specific set of races? Not really. Would an additional 100 race set indicate continued decline in ROI, or reverse the "trend" and show an overall increase? And would either event "prove" anything beyond the results of that specific strategy in that specific set of races? I don't think so.

Again, that is not a casual observation or spurious opinion. The app I use generates dozens of "positive ROI wagering strategies" routinely. Most are worthless--which can readily be determined by applying those strategies to different sets of races. Believing that strategies developed by study of a specific group of races can be universally applied to other races with identical result can be VERY costly.BTW, there were zero outliers in my 500 race test. In fact, I can't recall any horse that paid much over $20 during my entire run...certainly none that paid over $40.

[DeltaLover]

I think it is unfortunate that DeltaLover sometimes tends to underemphasize points that are more important/significant than the casual reader might believe. An example is emphasizing actual return over "ROI" (two VERY different concepts that many seem to equate).

The ROI on a specific set of races is overfit to that specific set of races. There is ZERO guarantee (or even indication) that the specific set of races used represents a normal distribution over a larger set of races. Using ROI as a criteria leads one to chase rainbows and lose money. That is not a trivial matter, nor is it a spurious statement made for the sake of provoking argumentation. It matters not at all what the "ROI" of a given set of races was or was not. It only matters how much money you gained or lost by wagering on that particular set of races.

You are obviously right and whoever tries to disagree with what you are stating here, needs to improve his understanding of the game! (I do not think that I have said anything different in this or in any other thread!)

[traynor]

I think Lawrence Revere's comment, "It doesn't matter who wins or who loses. All that matters is who ends up with the money." applies even more to horse race wagering than it does to blackjack.

[ReplayRandall]

It matters not at all what the "ROI" of a given set of races was or was not. It only matters how much money you gained or lost by wagering on that particular set of races.

You must be implementing a gradual betting scale for your "sets of races", in order to state that ROI doesn't matter....

[traynor]

Not to be rude or anything, but once again, the "smartest guy in the room" steps in and basically says nothing.

What exactly is the point of the above? Any measurement in the world is OVERFIT to what is being measured....because it's the measure of what is being measured! :lol:

That doesn't make it useless, of course, or we wouldn't be wasting our time measuring in the first place.

ZERO INDICATION? Of course ROI over a large enough number of races IS an INDICATION of something. If your ROI over 1000 races is 0.79 per 1.00, it's a huge indication that your method used over those races sucks.

If the ROI was actual, and not just on paper, it certainly does. Studying a group of 1000 races and finding a paper ROI of 1.05 does not in any way guarantee a 5% profit from identical wagers made on the next 1000 races. Actual return is meaningful--paper ROI is much less so.

[traynor]

You must be implementing a gradual betting scale for your "sets of races", in order to state that ROI doesn't matter....

Actual ROI matters. Paper ROI not so much. The study of the races on this thread is impressive, because it was made "going forward" (rather than retroactively determined by parsing past races). The additional 100 races added to the initial 400 indicated a diminished ROI. It could just as easily have gone the other way.

[thaskalos]

If the ROI was actual, and not just on paper, it certainly does. Studying a group of 1000 races and finding a paper ROI of 1.05 does not in any way guarantee a 5% profit from identical wagers made on the next 1000 races. Actual return is meaningful--paper ROI is much less so.

Yes...the next 1000 races will surely garner a different ROI. But they will generate a different "actual return", as well. Whether the bettor uses the ROI or the "actual return" as a measuring stick...the next cycle of bets will always be different than the preceding cycle of bets.

[DeltaLover]

BTW, there were zero outliers in my 500 race test. In fact, I can't recall any horse that paid much over $20 during my entire run...certainly none that paid over $40.

It is not that much of individual outliers but more about random anomalies that materialize across the sample that might hurt the convexity of your curve with noise.

As an analogy, you can think of coin toss game without any takeout at all. Assume that you have 100 players each of them believing in some kind of a fallacy. For example one player might believe that a running streak of 10 will follow a 1-2-1 pattern or anything like this. Playing this game for a long sequence of repetitions will end up with approximately the half of the players winners and the other half losers. Good luck trying to convince some of the winners that their “system” is simply a fallacy and a random anomaly rather than a systematic advantage their “strategy” has.

[PaceAdvantage]

If the ROI was actual, and not just on paper, it certainly does. Studying a group of 1000 races and finding a paper ROI of 1.05 does not in any way guarantee a 5% profit from identical wagers made on the next 1000 races. Actual return is meaningful--paper ROI is much less so.I bet on almost every race I posted...these were all live plays...nothing backfitted...this was a live test from the start.

In fact, the method of play I used to post all of these plays was never conceived in any way by backfitting anything in a database on past races.