My years as a professional player

[Lucky Maria]

Mr. Universe and a couple of others seemed interested in hearing more about my time that I earned my living as a full time horseplayer, particularly my typical day and why if I was successful, I would burn out.

I'm going to start by describing my basic method. I played multiple tracks a day, when i was on site I usually was limited to the 3 or 4 tracks that California was allowed to simulcast. I rarely played my home track because the fields in Northern California tended to be small and I never did figure out Russell Baze. When playing on the internet I find 5 or 6 tracks the most I can handle.

The reason I can tackle this many tracks is I learned early on that I'm not actually a very good handicapper. In my early pursuit of the holy grail I tried speed and pace ratings, jockey and trainer stats and would land on a particular horse. I'd wait for my overlay and more often than not, the public was right and I was wrong. So instead I focused my attention on the morning line and the public's opinion. I studied and kept records at each track of how the morning line performed and how the public wagered on them.

I basically found that with a few secret tweaks I find the morning line at most tracks very usable. This doesn't mean I simply play the top 3 ml picks, rather it means I know when NOT to play them.

So, my typical day began around 8:00 a.m. cracking the Form. I start with the morning line favorite in every race. According to a few rules I developed I determined if he was a valid favorite or not. If I felt he was valid, I would circle him and move on to the next race. I could run through a single card in 10 or 15 minutes. Then I would go back and examine the races where the favorite got an X. I would dig deeper in these races and determine why he was morning line favorite. Often it was because he simply didn't look as bad as everyone else. I love races like that. I turn handicapping on its head. Many people look for reasons to throw a horse out but I look for reasons to throw a horse in. Weird reasons. Reasons that the public undervalues. Like a horse that looks terrible coming off a layoff. Or a horse that is lightly raced taking a big jump in class. If I can find 3 or 4 crazy longshots AND I don't like the favorite I would attempt to construct a Pick - 3 ticket.

By 9:30 I would have a rough idea of where my plays would be coming and I could get the scratches for the Eastern tracks. Most days I would head to the track, about a 20 minute walk. [Talk about heaven, I do miss being able to walk to the track.]

I would settle in my seat and stay there until about 4:00. I spent the day, watching the board, listening for late scratches and constructing my tickets. My play was simple. I looked for a single "chaos" race in a sequence and examined the races in front and in back. Those are the races where I had circled the morning line favorite. I would then look at the horses in morning line order. Unless I hated a horse i usually didn't veer too much from using the top 2 and top 4 morning line. In my chaos race I used every horse that I hadn't thrown out and was >= (6-1) on morning line. I played two tickets. 2 x 4 x Chaos and 4 x 2 x Chaos. My average ticket had between 4 and 6 contenders in the race so my tickets usually cost around $100 for every $1 wagered. I usually found between 3 and 6 plays a day. It would depend where the chaos races would fall in the day's sequence. Oh, and I should mention I never mastered maiden sprints. They would create a firewall. So if the chaos race was the second race of the day and the third race was a maiden sprint, I wouldn't play. But if it fell in the middle of solid races I would play all three pick 3's possible.

The only adjustments I would make during the day was to watch for biases or sudden changes in the weather. If it was clear there was a speed bias I would not play that track that day.

At 4:00 I headed home and spent about an hour doing recordkeeping and reading the news articles in the next day's form. My day was typically 8:00 a.m until about 6:00 not including those evenings I would take to do research or review my records. I played 5 days a week and took off Monday and Tuesdays. That's a hard thing too -working weekends when all of your friends have that time off and want to do fun things.

So, the way my biggest year went I played 1012 pick 3's. It was a lucky year and I hit 183 pick threes. [My probability said I should hit closer to 150]. I put over $150,000 through the window in a course of a year and had an ROI close to 40%. My smallest ticket was $423. My biggest topped $8,000. The ups and downs were stupendous. Also, hitting such large tickets meant signing and paying up on the taxes. And that really cuts into your ROI.

I don't recommend following this method to anyone. I'm just saying that it's what I found that worked for me. I was able to hit my Chaos races just about 50% of the time, but remember I was using 5 or 6 horses and sometimes more.

Sorry for the long post. Hope those who were interested find it interesting.

Lucky Maria

[Lucky Maria]

Whoops, sorry a typo. My smallest ticket was $243 not $423. I averaged over $800 but that was thanks to a few stupendous days.

LM

[lefthandlow]

Ok,I like what you did and I commend anyone that can beat the game.

WHAT DO YOU DO NOW ????Your a winner and you quit??? LL

[Zaf]

Great Post Lucky Maria, thanks for sharing your experiences.

I really enjoyed reading it.

ZAFONIC

[Master Shake]

Very interesting post. You even got me to make my first post as a response.

I have a few questions for you. First, what sort of losing streaks did you experience? What percentage of bankroll would you typically put into a Pick 3? In those "chaos" races, what were some of your favorite reasons for keeping a bad-looking horse on your ticket?

Thanks for sharing.

[Light]

Lucky

Let me get this straight.Your main approach to the game pivoted on whether or not you agreed that the ML favorite was legitamate or not? And if not,you tried to capitalize on that, playing PK3's as your main bet,and made $50k one year with this method,but burnt out after that. Is that correct?

[BillW]

LM,

Enjoyed your post. Welcome to the site.

Bill

[Lucky Maria]

Light, you summed it up nicely. I didn't just dislike the favorite. I also had to dislike the second favorite. Basically they were the races where I felt confident that the two morning line favorites would win less than 35% of the time. And yes I burned out.

Lefthandlow - I own a small frame shop in Baltimore. I now tend to work there in the mornings and take the afternoons to follow racing. I now have a hard and fast rule that I close the racing form at 6:00 pm.

I think I'll address the burnout question a little more since that seems the most shocking to people. I got interested in racing because it was the most interesting and fascinating thing in my life. After 6 years that stopped being the case. Horses had become numbers. My friends would ask me who I liked in the Kentucky Derby and I wouldn't even know who was running. I didn't follow horses, I wasn't interested anymore as a fan. It was a business. And frankly, once I succeeded it became kind of boring. And it was the worst kind of boring, it was boring with very stressful extremes of bankroll ups and downs.

And frankly, I think being a woman played some role in my decision to leave. The vast majority of people around me were men. I hate to generalize but they seemed to fall into three categories. 1- The guy who thinks I'm invisible and I can't have a take on the races. 2- The guy who wants to be sure to let me know he's better than me and makes a point of coming around to show me his 8 horse trifecta box worth $21,000. And 3 - the guy who liked chatting with me but was never really going to be my friend because I was a girl. My friends and my other interests lay outside the track and I got tired of saying "no" to social events because they were Saturday Barbeques or there was Friday night racing.

I NEVER discussed my bottom line while I was playing. I would discuss racing and sports and news of the day, but I didn't want the people around me to know I actually made my living this way. Sometimes I'd get loud because my (50-1) shot would be barrelling down the stretch and nose out the (4-5) shot I hated. The worms and people who wanted something for nothing came streaming out of the woodwork. People I didn't know would ask me for money. One guy I actually chatted with said, "C'mon give me $20". I said, "Sure, if you can tell me my name." His guess wasn't even close. There's no way I would tell these people I was a winning player, though I suspect they wouldn't have believed me anyway.

So I thought a lot about it and realized that I liked racing a lot more when it was a full time hobby rather than a job. So I walked away so I could build a life that would give me a modest income and allow me plenty of time to do racing. Now that the rent doesn't come out of my bankroll I feel more relaxed, my handicapping seems fresh, and I'm enjoying it again.

I'm not trying to dissaude those who want to turn pro but I'd be sure you consider the downside too.

LM

[Lucky Maria]

Mastershake - I was pretty conservative and risked only about 1-2% of my bankroll. My longest losing streak was 21 plays followed by a single win. I then proceeded to go 0 /14. When I did win it was often in sets of three because I'd manage to roll a pick three. Those were the fun days.

My favorite chaos toss in? I guess I have two.

Horse's greater than 10-1 on the ml coming off a layoff of 35 days or more. They tend to out perform their odds, especially at cheap tracks.

Horse's coming off their maiden win, taking a big jump in class. Particularly if they didn't take too many tries to break their maiden. They don't win often, but when they do they often light up the tote board. [One of these won just yesterday at Hawthorne at 30-1]

Good luck to all.

LM

[formula_2002]

LM, is it fair to say, most likely your results were just lucky and not tested to be statistically significant.


Joe M

[WaHoo]

At 4:00 I headed home and spent about an hour doing record keeping and reading the news articles in the next day's form. My day was typically 8:00 a.m until about 6:00 not including those evenings I would take to do research or review my records.


my biggest year went I played 1012 pick 3's. It was a lucky year and I hit 183 pick threes. [My probability said I should hit closer to 150]. I put over $150,000 through the window in a course of a year and had an ROI close to 40%. My smallest ticket was $423. My biggest topped $8,000.

formula2002

Not tested or lucky doesn't matter, she knows what and how she wanted to play.

[keilan]

Welcome Lucky,

Enjoyed your posts – I would agree identifying false favourites is paramount to playing this game. :)

[the little guy]

As someone who has also played professionally I'm not sure what surprises me more here, that people are this quick to accept completely unsubstantiated claims made in an internet chat room or that someone making selections while using the morning line has the audacity to claim to have made 40% on their wagers.

Come on.

[WaHoo]

Bettors that play Win bets only want 5%, but us exoctic players want it all. haha

[keilan]

I stated only that I enjoyed her posts – that’s a long ways from accepting anything that’s written. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt; future posts will impact greatly how much I believe. :)

[the little guy]

Keilan


I'm not tryng to single people out, or be condescending, I just marvel at the polar opposites I find in different racing chat rooms. People sometimes get slammed for minor things and then I come here and see someone post a long dissertation on handicapping which is strongly correlated to the morning line, by someone who claims to be a professional player, and the replies are by and large complimentary. There's probably nothing wrong with civility, and certainly people have a wide variety of handicapping techniques, but this one is pretty hard to take seriously.

I know a substantial number of serious players, and I would be shocked if even one of them wasn't wildly skeptical of this poster's claims. Also, I don't believe she mentioned rebates, which at this point are pretty much a given in any serious player's betting.

I don't doubt or want to disparage this person's interest in handicapping, nor her seriousness, but I highly doubt the validity of her success. I suppose in a very short period of time she may have made a few sheckles, but not in the long run, based on what she relayed, and certainly not at the level that was claimed.

[Light]

Lucky

An observation(as opposed to criticism). I get the impression that your "boredom"(and subsequent burn out)did not stem from waiting around with nothing to do. I get the impression that your boredom came from not making $50k every year. You see,if someone is making $50k a year to stand around and do nothing as part of their job,they gladly do it. Not only that,every job,whatever it is has a certain amount of boredom to it,so most people consider this boredom as part of the job and consequently accept it. If you made $50k a year regularly,I doubt you would have felt so bored. There is a great deal of self satisfaction to making $50k a year at the races. Ask Andy Beyer.

The other observation is that the foundation of your approach to this game was flawed. That's why you didn't make $50k regularly.Rather than building some sort of solid angle based on your own research,you basically relied on the handicapping of the ML maker,who as you know is not allways in his right mind. And to derive your income based on a shaky,unreliable,outside source is certain to fail. I must admit it works to a certain degree,but not enough for a heathy profit,and certainly not enough to earn a living IMO.

But you certainly are brave to have tried this and whether or not you are telling the truth as has come up here is irrelevant. It is the exchange of ideas that counts here.

[the little guy]

Originally posted by Light
Lucky



But you certainly are brave to have tried this and whether or not you are telling the truth as has come up here is irrelevant. It is the exchange of ideas that counts here. I thought you made a lot of terrific and well thought out comments....however....I think someone's honesty is very relevant. As you probably know, gamblers that claim to win are losers, and the winners either claim to lose or are silent about it. If someone wants to share ideas, that's great, but to preface it with false bravado about winning taints those opinions, at least to me.

[kenwoodallpromos]

What gets me is people who automatically trash ideas without testing them.
Maria- I play several longshots in the same race at $2 win tickets if the favorite has odds of less than 4/5 and I think the favorite is vulnerable. Just folr fun. It works sometimes.

[Lucky Maria]

Thanks for all the replies. I like all the skepticism. I would just like to point out that the year I highlighted was my best year in 8 years of doing racing full time.

Also, I understand when people immediately jump on "You can't use the ml to make money." You're wrong. You just haven't found out how. I did not use it as a traditional win-overlay tool and wait for the (3-1) second choice to drift up to (4-1) and bet to win. I spent two years doing research purely on morning lines. There are tracks I wouldn't touch because of the morning lines and inexplicable [to me] results. My research by now is years old which is one of the reasons I'm starting fresh.

I really think NOT believing me is good for the individual player. If anyone asked me the most important thing about turning pro I would NOT say handicapping or the method you use. I would say be honest with YOURSELF. Keep records. It took me years of betting real money before I realized my strengths and found a way that worked for me.

I've lurked on this board for a while and all I can say is, "Phew, I'm glad some people are calling me a liar." If no one did my respect for the board may have gone down. I urge healthy skepticism for any and all posts. The way to turn pro is to find out what you can do and be honest about your results.


LM

[Nicole]

Originally posted by the little guy
As someone who has also played professionally I'm not sure what surprises me more here, that people are this quick to accept completely unsubstantiated claims made in an internet chat room or that someone making selections while using the morning line has the audacity to claim to have made 40% on their wagers.

Come on.

Why are you no longer playing professionally?

I'm interested in hearing the pro's and con's of betting the horses for a living.

I've only been betting the horses for 3 yrs via internet. The first year I had a loss but I've made a decent profit for the past two. I often think about quitting my job to wager full time but I worry that it could add stress to my wagering causing my profits to go south.

[Valuist]

I played full time for 6 months. Actually I was laid off from work and decided to give it a go for the last 6 months in 1997. I turned a profit (about $8500) but that and the unemployment I was getting just wasn't enough. I agree with Maria's posts about burnout; I know that after 6 months I was burned out. Realistically, my bankroll wasn't big enough, nor was I ready to push the level of money thru the windows necessary. But I still believe I will do it full time again sometime in the future. One dollar made at the track is better than $2 earned in the working world.

[andicap]

What I want to know is where were all the women who wanted to talk seriously about racing when I was going to the track twice a week when I was single??

I can't even get my wife to go the track with me.

:D

[Dan Montilion]

Originally posted by formula_2002
LM, is it fair to say, most likely your results were just lucky and not tested to be statistically significant.


Joe M

If LM's results were not statistically significant should she return the cash?

Dan Montilion

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by Dan Montilion
If LM's results were not statistically significant should she return the cash?

Dan Montilion

No.. just don't make future best as if they were.

[andicap]

Originally posted by Valuist
One dollar made at the track is better than $2 earned in the working world.

Is that because you don't report it to the IRS??

:cool:

[shanta]

Originally posted by andicap
What I want to know is where were all the women who wanted to talk seriously about racing when I was going to the track twice a week when I was single??

I can't even get my wife to go the track with me.

:D

right on! :)

Richie

[hurrikane]

Come on Joe,

There is no statistical way of proving what she says to have done.
It is too vague and relies to much on her personal judgement of the ability of the favorite.

As Henry Clay says 'Statistics are no substitute for judgement'.

Many player play that way and win.

[Nicole]

Originally posted by andicap
What I want to know is where were all the women who wanted to talk seriously about racing when I was going to the track twice a week when I was single??

I can't even get my wife to go the track with me.

:D


Could be that more women are becoming financially independent and are able to wager.

[Dave Schwartz]

Maria,

I have a professional player named "Maria" as a par client. Would that be you?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[karlskorner]

OR............has the Vetscratch Lady come back to stir the pot ?

[Dave Schwartz]

KK,

That was my thinking.


Dave

[karlskorner]

Sure sounds like her, takes a paragraph for what could be said in a sentance. Maybe they went to the same school.

[midnight]

For what it's worth, I also use the morning line favorites to help me find longshots. However, I use the first AND second ML favorites. If neither falls into the top two of a rating in a program I use (HTR), I look for longshots. That happens about one race a day per track (rough average).

Maria has a valid idea, imo. The point is that the morning line favorites are going to get some betting action regardless of how good or bad they are, and a LOT of people will automatically throw those into Pick-3's, which creates good value elsewhere if they're big underlays. Of course that sounds good in theory and isn't that easy to put into practice, but I like the idea.

[JimG]

As a reader of this board for years, the neat thing about threads like this from newcomers is it always seems to bring out other newcomers to reply:D

Jim

[rokitman]

Originally posted by karlskorner
Sure sounds like her, takes a paragraph for what could be said in a sentance. Maybe they went to the same school.

And what school is it that you went to?

[Lucky Maria]

Nope not me.

Dave - No, not me either.

LM

[short enough for ya ; ) ]

[Valuist]

I think there is some definite validity to what she is saying. I only did it full time for 6 months but she's right on about both burnout and boredom. When you're going because you HAVE to, not want to, it does get a bit too much like work. Then there is a boredom factor; you just can't make action bets. You have to pass plenty of races, but OTOH, you can't pass TOO many races because you know you have to push a certain amount of money through.

If it was Vet Scratch, I'm sure PA could trace the IP address.

[ElKabong]

Originally posted by the little guy
Keilan


Also, I don't believe she mentioned rebates, which at this point are pretty much a given in any serious player's betting.

.


A "given"? Interesting you'd speak for all "serious players" on this...

I know of two players at Lone Star that bet full time, professionally, and have for years. Neither chases a rebate. I know *why* only one of them doesn't chase a rebate, don't know about the 2nd guy. Betting at the bell (at the simo) is the main reason for one of these guys.

Whether maria is legit or not, I could care less. But your statement is outright false....That much, I do know.

[cj]

Rebates may not be a given, but its pretty foolish to leave that much money on the table in my opinion.

[PaceAdvantage]

Two things are foolish:

1) To think that people who are removed from the active member list on this site don't come back under another name

and

2) People who come back under another name aren't almost immediately pegged as a former poster.....LOL

We all know pretty much who is who around here. Nobody is fooling anyone.

[the little guy]

Originally posted by ElKabong
A "given"? Interesting you'd speak for all "serious players" on this...

I know of two players at Lone Star that bet full time, professionally, and have for years. Neither chases a rebate. I know *why* only one of them doesn't chase a rebate, don't know about the 2nd guy. Betting at the bell (at the simo) is the main reason for one of these guys.

Whether maria is legit or not, I could care less. But your statement is outright false....That much, I do know. I stand by my statement. The real question is semantics of what you consider a " serious " player. Some would say I am one, while I don't consider myself one, and the same could probably be said for your friends at Lone Star.

Fact - people playing this game for a living, nowadays, are getting a rebate. Is it 100%? Probably not, but it's VERY close.

[Valuist]

Rebates are a fairly recent phenomenon. I was under the impression she was playing full time a few years back.

[ElKabong]

Originally posted by the little guy
I stand by my statement. The real question is semantics of what you consider a " serious " player. Some would say I am one, while I don't consider myself one, and the same could probably be said for your friends at Lone Star.

Fact - people playing this game for a living, nowadays, are getting a rebate. Is it 100%? Probably not, but it's VERY close.

If a full time professional player is "serious" in your book, then the score is No Rebaters 2, Rebaters 0 @ LS.... Not very close to 100%.

There could be more full time professionals in the DFW area, I'm just stating the 2 I personally know of.

cj,

I'm not going to judge your particular circumstance, but if you want to get in 3-4 exotic type bets in right at the bell, then phoning a bet in isn't the preferred way to go. UBET, BRISBET, etc can't even guarantee you'll not get shut out. At the track (simo) you'll get it in no problem.. If you wait till the last minute, you can't rely on an operator being free & getting it down....also you don't have to worry about the security of your funds @ the track...Other reasons too, but the first is enuff (for some).

Said my bit...not much else to offer.

[the little guy]

Originally posted by Valuist
Rebates are a fairly recent phenomenon. I was under the impression she was playing full time a few years back. Rebates started around 1996 in earnest. They have become much more widespread in the last four to five years, I would say.

[MichaelNunamaker]

Hi the little guy,

You wrote "The real question is semantics of what you consider a " serious " player."

Good question. Could you tell us what your answer to it is? Is someone who wagers 150K a year serious? How about a million? How about ten million? What's the dividing line?

Mike Nunamaker

[thelyingthief]

If I may say so, generally, the "I dont believe this" folks are members in fine-standing of the "I dont believe squat" fraternity, as well.

Now, what i find most reassuring about this woman's post is her equanimity. If at some future date, Ms. Maria Whomever offers to sell me her method, or offers selections at WWW.WHOSYOURMOMMA.COM, I'll describe her demeanor as a charlatain's dodge.

I certainly know that there are well defined subsets of the horseracing universe that affords greater returns than others. This pretty much coincides with her experience. Course, it's easy to denounce the morning line. Anybody know the statistics on the morning line accuracy at your local track? For the major tracks? Ever try to find out? Ever try to figure out what the statistics might let you do? Why, hell no, I'm busy keeping variants. The fact that variants are a) suspect, statistically, and b) even if not, unlikely to give you the slightest edge on your major competition, well that gets ignored.

I've always loved the observation Pittsburg Phil made, that most people can't believe it takes talent to do this stuff. I can't begin to tell you how many folks I've met who think they know horses, or understand football. They don't know squat, usually; they may work hard, even, and have balls of brass--like a lot of the pros subsisting on 8 percent return on their investment dollar, imho--but they haven't the slightest shred of the indefinable in their hearts. Most often, it's this type who belongs in the "I don't believe squat" group. But, hey, to each his own. Most people do not SEE. They look at data, and miss entirely what it offers them. They read a book, and it becomes another nail in their intellectual coffin; they dabble, and leap about from latest to newest to most believed. Or they stick like burrs to the stale, the outmoded, the useless. I think such people never will do more than make a living; they'll certainly never make a killing, I think that, too.

[Light]

I just don't get it. Maria says she derived most of her income playing PK3's.This seems like a contrary type of bet to her system/approach of being able to capitalize on a false ML favorite. You have no control after the first leg about how the ML favorites in the next 2 legs are going to be percieved by the betting public.And you can't do anything about it anyway since with PK3's,you're locked in. Seems like a waste of time,just worrying about the first leg.

If I was a professional player focusing mostly on PK3's,I would bet it and forget it. Do other things with my time instead of emptiness and boredom.That would keep me fresh and avoid burnout.Approach it like a business.In the evening I could watch the results,like some guy who plays the stock market watches his stocks on the evening news. Why kill yourself with mental strife throughout the day.Affects your handicapping.Now,with internet wagering,it's never been easier to bet it and forget it.

[Blackgold]

Sounds like she had a sound approach to finding value and then a good betting approach to extracting value from the P3 pools.

I personally find the serial bets much tougher than the exotics in a particular race because to excel at serial bets you have to dive into one or two legs you really don't understand from a handicapping point of view.

It's like Barry Meadow says about the P6. . . playing it is more about betting than handicapping.

Thank you for posting LM.

If you have the time, I'd appreciate hearing about some of your favorite ways to construct p3 tickets.

[bettheoverlay]

Horse racing wagering produces two major subsets of people: the delusional; and those who claim to "see" the truth in the data, while absolutely disdaining those who cannot "see."

At least I'm growing older and healthier playing the ponies.

[the little guy]

Originally posted by MichaelNunamaker
Hi the little guy,

You wrote "The real question is semantics of what you consider a " serious " player."

Good question. Could you tell us what your answer to it is? Is someone who wagers 150K a year serious? How about a million? How about ten million? What's the dividing line?

Mike Nunamaker I'll think about it on the way to the movies. But, if you play five days a week, or 260 days a year roughly, and bet under $600 a day, you're not a serious professional player. You may handicap seriously, but you certainly don't play seriously. Nor do you stand a real chance to make a living. I guess if you bet $2000 a day, or a half million a year, with a roughly 8% rebate you could make an OK living, if you're good.

[cj]

I'd say, betting 1,000 per day, for 250 days per year, you could make a decent living.

250,000 through, making between 10 to 15% betting, and an 8% rebate, will get you 18 to 23%.

That's 43,000 to 57,500, and it is probably tax free.

On a side note, lets say you are betting $100 per race, so you need to find 10 races per day to invest in. That is certainly possible given today's simulcasting menu in most places, and certainly anywhere you are getting a rebate. If you are betting only 1% of your bankroll, you'd need 10,000 to feel reasonably confident.

The downside I see is this - if you are a consistent 10-15% winner, which I know can be done, how long will you keep getting a rebate before your action is turned away?

[sjk]

Why would they turn you away? They could just as easily bet your plays into the pools twice, once for you and once for them. Or maybe several times for them. One reason not to use the offshore services.

[cj]

Originally posted by ElKabong
cj,

I'm not going to judge your particular circumstance, but if you want to get in 3-4 exotic type bets in right at the bell, then phoning a bet in isn't the preferred way to go. UBET, BRISBET, etc can't even guarantee you'll not get shut out. At the track (simo) you'll get it in no problem.. If you wait till the last minute, you can't rely on an operator being free & getting it down....also you don't have to worry about the security of your funds @ the track...Other reasons too, but the first is enuff (for some).

Said my bit...not much else to offer.

Who says you have to use the phone? I use the internet, and the only time I get shut out is when I'm not paying attention. I had way more problems getting shut out at the track than I ever do betting at home.

The horses I bet are not the types that get bet late, so I don't really have to wait until the last minute. I would say 95% of the bets I cash go up or stay the same as they are at 1 MTP when I generally bet.

As far as worrying about the security of my funds, I've had ZERO problems, so far at least. I play through BRIS and Pinnacle, and have used eHorse, all without a hitch.

If you think you don't have to worry about the security of your funds at the track, you've never cashed a $5000 trifecta at 2am at RoseCroft while betting the Hollywood Friday night card, or hit a nice Meadowlands exacta 25 times and then had to head out into the Pimlico parking lot at midnight. I know in which situation I feel most secure!

[Jake]

If there ever was a thread that captures the culture of PA's board, this is the one. I haven't smiled this much in a long time. Thanks.

However, it's easy to miss the kernel here. Most of the posters here are in their 2nd or 3rd reincarnations, which is just fine. I really don't care if she is Typhoid Mary come back from the dead. The real question is whether or not her P3 method has any validity. Since I have been playing a very similar P3 approach for some years, I would say it has a high degree of validity. I don't know about the rest of the story, but it's largely moot for me. In any case, a good thread here.

[the little guy]

Originally posted by cj
I'd say, betting 1,000 per day, for 250 days per year, you could make a decent living.

250,000 through, making between 10 to 15% betting, and an 8% rebate, will get you 18 to 23%.

That's 43,000 to 57,500, and it is probably tax free.

On a side note, lets say you are betting $100 per race, so you need to find 10 races per day to invest in. That is certainly possible given today's simulcasting menu in most places, and certainly anywhere you are getting a rebate. If you are betting only 1% of your bankroll, you'd need 10,000 to feel reasonably confident.

The downside I see is this - if you are a consistent 10-15% winner, which I know can be done, how long will you keep getting a rebate before your action is turned away? One of my favorite things about Internet Chat Rooms is the level of success that is bandied about. The percentage of people in these rooms that win is astronomical. EVERYBODY wins. Unlike the racetrack where some fraction of 1% of the people win, on the Net barely 1% loses. It's incredible. Only the winners must go to chat rooms.

How do you come up with a 10%- 15% ROI? I'm not in any way trying to pick on you CJ, as you certainly don't seem to be bragging at all about personal success, I just feel that you are haphazardly throwing out a number that I think MAYBE 1 out of 2500 people could do, and I even doubt that.

I'm not going to talk specifically about my betting when I played full time, but one thing I was sure of was how much handle was required to have a shot to make a living, and it was well over $1000 a day. Now, this was before rebates, so you can add 20K to your bottom line now in that situation, and I'll still tell you that you had better be damn good to have a prayer in that situation.

[Zaf]

Originally posted by cj
If you think you don't have to worry about the security of your funds at the track, you've never cashed a $5000 trifecta at 2am at RoseCroft while betting the Hollywood Friday night card, or hit a nice Meadowlands exacta 25 times and then had to head out into the Pimlico parking lot at midnight. I know in which situation I feel most secure!

I don't like to head out to the Pimlico parking lot at 3 P.M.:eek:

ZAFONIC

[Bubbles]

Originally posted by zafonic
I don't like to head out to the Pimlico parking lot at 3 P.M.:eek:

ZAFONIC

Better question: Why were you at Pimlico...AT ALL? :p :) ;) :D

[Zaf]

Originally posted by Bubbles
Better question: Why were you at Pimlico...AT ALL? :p :) ;) :D

I have spent good parts of my summers for the past 20 years in Ocean City , Maryland. They only have a crappy harness track (Ocean Downs) there. So like the true degenerate I am , we used to make the 120 - 150 mile hike to Pimlico or Laurel from time to time. Though I haven't done it in recent years. For a few years now Ocean Downs has a very decent Simulcast Room. The 5 mile drive from the beach is much more appetizing then treking to the depressed areas around Laurel & Pimlico.

ZAFONIC

[Tom]

Baltimore....love what they've done with the place!:D

[ElKabong]

Originally posted by cj
Who says you have to use the phone? I use the internet, and the only time I get shut out is when I'm not paying attention. I had way more problems getting shut out at the track than I ever do betting at home.

The horses I bet are not the types that get bet late, so I don't really have to wait until the last minute. I would say 95% of the bets I cash go up or stay the same as they are at 1 MTP when I generally bet.

As far as worrying about the security of my funds, I've had ZERO problems, so far at least. I play through BRIS and Pinnacle, and have used eHorse, all without a hitch.

If you think you don't have to worry about the security of your funds at the track, you've never cashed a $5000 trifecta at 2am at RoseCroft while betting the Hollywood Friday night card, or hit a nice Meadowlands exacta 25 times and then had to head out into the Pimlico parking lot at midnight. I know in which situation I feel most secure!


Nobody 'says' you have to use the phone. I posted I wouldn't judge your circumstance, so I wont. Mine is that I want to get the best look at horses possible. That means going to the track, at least until I can get track feeds of the tracks I bet on @ home. Right now that doesn't exist.

What you're talking of obviously won't work for live racing either.

Too bad that at Rosecroft or Pimlico there are security problems like that. I've never had that problem at the Texas tracks or LAD.

I've heard good things about Pinnacle, just like I heard good things about aces gold and esb. Both of which went tits up and took sizeable portions of bankrolls of a few posters here (not me). If you or anyone else want to swim there, have at it. We all make our own choices and have to feel comfortable with them to do our best. I am, with mine.

[cj]

Originally posted by the little guy
One of my favorite things about Internet Chat Rooms is the level of success that is bandied about. The percentage of people in these rooms that win is astronomical. EVERYBODY wins. Unlike the racetrack where some fraction of 1% of the people win, on the Net barely 1% loses. It's incredible. Only the winners must go to chat rooms.

How do you come up with a 10%- 15% ROI? I'm not in any way trying to pick on you CJ, as you certainly don't seem to be bragging at all about personal success, I just feel that you are haphazardly throwing out a number that I think MAYBE 1 out of 2500 people could do, and I even doubt that.

I'm not going to talk specifically about my betting when I played full time, but one thing I was sure of was how much handle was required to have a shot to make a living, and it was well over $1000 a day. Now, this was before rebates, so you can add 20K to your bottom line now in that situation, and I'll still tell you that you had better be damn good to have a prayer in that situation.

I've made between 10-15% the last four years, that's how I come up with that figure. Now, I don't bet as much as the serious player that you've described, probably 1/4 of that. I'm a guy with a nice job and a family, and have no reason to try to turn this into my way of making a living.

Also, like I've said before, it probably took those last four years to get me near break even since I started playing at 16 and am now 37.

But, I don't think 10-15% is some outlandish figure. There is A LOT of dumb money out there. Its been a while since I've been to a track or OTB, but have you ever actually talked to most of the people in these places?

[cj]

Originally posted by ElKabong
I've heard good things about Pinnacle, just like I heard good things about aces gold and esb. Both of which went tits up and took sizeable portions of bankrolls of a few posters here (not me). If you or anyone else want to swim there, have at it. We all make our own choices and have to feel comfortable with them to do our best. I am, with mine.

I have no doubt that my money could simply disappear some day, which is the reason I only leave the bare minimum I need to play in my account at any one time. Its because of those stories you mention that I am very careful to minimize any possible loss.

[hurrikane]

Hey Zaf,

Ocean Downs, what a place. I have inlaws here and play at OD 3 or 4 times a year.

Last time I was there the manager comes over and asks me and my wife if we wanted to sit in the VIP room. (I"m guessing they don't see a lot of people put 2-300 on a race). So I tell him 'sure'.
He takes us to the end of the simulcast room, opens a door, and inside this room maybe the size of a living room are 2 round tables with abotu 6 chairs each, 4 ashtrays on each table, 5 tvs and holes in the walls. No windows, no pictures, and no air. A couple of old geezers with abour 5 beer cans stacked up and a couple of fat ugly cigars blowing. After the smoke cleared I thanked him for the offer and went back to our table.

Nothing like being comped at OD. :D

[hurrikane]

I'm curious about one thing Maria?

During these years as a professional player was the track money your only source of income? No spouse picking up the tab? living at home with the mom? Just curious how you could live off of the type of income you are talking about?

[ranchwest]

hurrikane,

You never told us before you were so connected. lol

Thanks, that VIP story had me rolling on the floor.

Sorta reminded me of the night I was going to take my wife to DeD as they were remodeling. We took a wrong turn and ended up in the jocks' room. What a lovely place that was! Complete with their own concession stand!

[Zaf]

Originally posted by hurrikane
Hey Zaf,

Ocean Downs, what a place. I have inlaws here and play at OD 3 or 4 times a year.

Last time I was there the manager comes over and asks me and my wife if we wanted to sit in the VIP room. (I"m guessing they don't see a lot of people put 2-300 on a race). So I tell him 'sure'.
He takes us to the end of the simulcast room, opens a door, and inside this room maybe the size of a living room are 2 round tables with abotu 6 chairs each, 4 ashtrays on each table, 5 tvs and holes in the walls. No windows, no pictures, and no air. A couple of old geezers with abour 5 beer cans stacked up and a couple of fat ugly cigars blowing. After the smoke cleared I thanked him for the offer and went back to our table.

Nothing like being comped at OD. :D

Hey Kane,

I have seen that room a few times, but only from the outside looking in , I guess my action doesn't attract much attention. ;)

ZAFONIC

[cj]

I've been to Ocean Downs, Rosecroft at Ocean City, and Delmarva Downs. Yes, I'm a sick pup! :D

[Zaf]

Yes , I remember when they changed the name to Delmarva Downs for a couple of years. I do not know how the horsemen are surviving at OD, with Harrington & Dover up the road with slots. I can't believe the simulcast handle is doing it for them. Like Hurrikane said , doesn't look like there is much big action there.


I went to Rosecroft once. I went to the clubhouse. I never seen a smokier place in my life :eek: . Now this was many years ago. I have to rank it with Yonkers as two of the worst race tracks that I have been to.

CJ, Is my judgement wrong about RCR ?, I was only there once and it was a long time ago.

Yonkers , I've been many, many times and will never go again.

ZAFONIC

[cj]

I spent many days and nights at Rosecroft, its a dive, and in a lousy neighborhood also.

It used to be the second half of the double header when I was a teenager, consisting of Bowie/Laurel/Pimlico followed by Rosecroft/FreeState/CharlesTown, depending on how much driving we wanted to do and who was open at the time.

I did mean "Rosecroft at Ocean City" as another name for Ocean Downs, it was also called that for a little while. I love Ocean City, byt the way!

[Zaf]

Yes, I remember the Rosecroft at Ocean City days, I was there for all the changes, I recently found an old Ocean Downs Program dating back from the summer of 81 :eek:

ZAFONIC

[Zaf]

Originally posted by cj
I love Ocean City, byt the way!

It is a great place. I took my 6 year old son there for the first time this past summer. I've never seen him have such a good time :) .

ZAFONIC

[Lucky Maria]

I will attempt to be brief.

I really have never posted before on this board under any name.

I did not use rebates for most of the reasons mentioned, the biggest reason being, I didn't even know they existed until a few years ago. The period i was a pro was 1994 - 2000.

thelyingthief - LOL! can I use WHOSYOURMOMMA.COM when I start my tout service?

Light - I didn't "bet it and forget it" because I only played tracks with rolling pick 3's. If my "chaos" race was in the fifth I watched the board prior to the 3rd race and constructed one ticket, watched the board on the 4th and constructed my next ticket. I don't care how the public bets the 2 ml favorites to win, they almost always take money in the Pick 3.

Blackgold - If you want to discuss constructing Pick 3 tickets feel free to contact me via e-mail.

Hurrikane - I kept my living expenses very minimal. I had roommates and no car.

LM

[befuddlem]

Interesting thread Maria.

However, I do question your sincerity. Your methods as you have described here would lead to absolute ruin in the long run at any track.
You were right when you said that you weren't a very good handicapper.
You certainly are a good b.s.er though. If the game were as easy as the method you described, noone would be punching a clock anywhere.

I think you have some sort of fantasy going where you are a big time horse player, and now you have an audience here. I think it's really lighting your fire!

[Boris]

No one should respond to a thread over TWO YEARS OLD as if it were current. :D

Men of the square table

[BillW]

No one should respond to a thread over TWO YEARS OLD as if it were current. :D

Men of the square table

We're going to need one for polls to! I don't care who uses a TRS-80 to handicap. :lol:

[befuddlem]

This thread appeared on the new posts, that's why I responded.
IS THAT OK CONSTABLE BORIS? I see now that it is an old thread, but I would certainly not change my comments.

[Boris]

This thread appeared on the new posts, that's why I responded.
IS THAT OK CONSTABLE BORIS? I see now that it is an old thread, but I would certainly not change my comments.

You can post till your fingers turn to bloody nubs for all I care. Just don't call someone out two years after the thread received Last Rites. It makes you look new. :lol:

Seriously, there's a lot of gold in those old threads. Have fun.

[befuddlem]

Sure thing Marshall, I'll heed that advice:p

[Steve 'StatMan']

Ah, I see. With 10 posts as I type this, you're likely a new member on this forum, so nearly every thread will be listed as 'new' for you, at least until you are logged out the first time.

[PriceAnProbability]

Interesting thread Maria.

However, I do question your sincerity. Your methods as you have described here would lead to absolute ruin in the long run at any track.
You were right when you said that you weren't a very good handicapper.
You certainly are a good b.s.er though. If the game were as easy as the method you described, noone would be punching a clock anywhere.

I think you have some sort of fantasy going where you are a big time horse player, and now you have an audience here. I think it's really lighting your fire!

Anyone who can sustain a $1.40 ROI would tilt the pools over within a year.

Hitting signers doesn't mean a thing either.

[xfile]

Pavlov....and his dog...would be very proud of boys in this thread :cool:

[classhandicapper]

How do you come up with a 10%- 15% ROI? I'm not in any way trying to pick on you CJ, as you certainly don't seem to be bragging at all about personal success, I just feel that you are haphazardly throwing out a number that I think MAYBE 1 out of 2500 people could do, and I even doubt that.

I'm not going to talk specifically about my betting when I played full time, but one thing I was sure of was how much handle was required to have a shot to make a living, and it was well over $1000 a day. Now, this was before rebates, so you can add 20K to your bottom line now in that situation, and I'll still tell you that you had better be damn good to have a prayer in that situation.

TLG,

You don't know me, but I can assure you I'm about as honest a guy as you will ever meet. I would have to review my records carefully to give you exact details, but I had close to a 10 year period where my ROI was around +40%. I wasn't a serious horseplayer though and I didn't make a pile of money. I was mostly a weekend warrior and extremely selective. It was mostly about having fun. I had a good job etc...

The real problem is that there are only two ways to increases your daily volume.

1. Bet much larger amounts on individual races
2. Bet many more races and work a lot harder (that will lower your ROI a real lot and take time away from other things)

Some people are not comfortable with either even if they have both the resources and skill to do so.

So I agree with much of what you are saying. That's why I've never really played the game very seriously. My real point is that in these discussions about ROI and betting volume people need to be clear that a good handicapper can produce just about any ROI he wants, but there are tradeoffs in work, volume, fun, pressure etc....

[befuddlem]

Pavlov....and his dog...would be very proud of boys in this thread :cool:

The bell was rung and you certainly came running as well:D

[keenang]

I can certainly understand the burnout part of her message.When I retired I moved to Vegas and was going to supplement my in come playing the horses. I did this for about 6 months and finally said" I have never worked this hard in my life" ( with all TVs,videos of past races,keeping records and all) So I said the hell with it and went back to playing for entertainment with some good days and some bad days

p.s. This was a long time ago.
Geno :)

[njcurveball]

This thread is a good clue as to why Professionals do not want to go to an Expo or Seminar and give talks on how they win. :lol:

[DanG]

This thread is a good clue as to why Professionals do not want to go to an Expo or Seminar and give talks on how they win. :lol:

Here...here.

[44PACE]

I heard on the radio that Tiger Woods takes over a thousand practice swings either Driving or Chipping every day. It drives home the point that to maximize your success you need to work hard at what you do.


From my own experience, I can break dead even playing the races with no work what so ever, but to make 10 % profit ( I only bet one horse win bets ) I have to work my ass off. I have to keep records with extreme detail not only on my own handicapping but with everything else that is happening at the tracks i play.

I hate the word " WIN" when it comes to making money at the track it gives the false impression that all you need is luck to be successfull, this is the very opposite. To earn a living at horse race handicapping you need to invest a lot of time running your handicapping business like you would run anyother business.

[keilan]

From my own experience, I can break dead even playing the races with no work what so ever,


Then I suggest you wager with a rebate and retire.

[PlanB]

Two things are foolish:

1) To think that people who are removed from the active member list on this site don't come back under another name

and

2) People who come back under another name aren't almost immediately pegged as a former poster.....LOL

We all know pretty much who is who around here. Nobody is fooling anyone.

Two wonderful past posters were Derek2U & his wicked pal, Kreed. Lucky I printed out all their posts. (ps, I'll be auctioning them on Ebay soon)

[sjk]

Two wonderful past posters were Derek2U & his wicked pal, Kreed. Lucky I printed out all their posts. (ps, I'll be auctioning them on Ebay soon)

I guess two years is a long time. I don't really remember my own post. It seems I'm not the only one.

[Tom]

Two wonderful past posters were Derek2U & his wicked pal, Kreed. Lucky I printed out all their posts. (ps, I'll be auctioning them on Ebay soon)
:lol: I liked Lousycapper, Lousycapper II, and Lousycapper III. Those guys knew thier stuff.

[ezrabrooks]

Since "morning lines" have been mentioned in this thread (OK so it was two (2) years ago...), I have a question. I seem to remember reading some where that prior to the ML being used (1930's)...favorites won at around a 15% clip. After the invention of the ML, favorites jumped to 30% figure that seems pretty consistent today. Can anyone confirm this?

There was a post not long ago where someone was talking about betting races that had a lot of scratches (such as a race being taken off the grass)...and the betting public "losing its flashlight". I thought this was a pretty clever statement with regard to ML's.

Ez

[toetoe]

Maria,

You're almost as dismissive as the "no spouse picking up the tab?" fellow, when you divide trackgoing men into only three groups, all of them simultaneously risible and depressing. For all the Alibi Ikes and voucher-stained wretches, many good folks and good companions are still to be found, even at the old-men-screaming-at-monitors simulcast sites.

[linrom1]

This thread is a good clue as to why Professionals do not want to go to an Expo or Seminar and give talks on how they win. :lol:

:lol: :lol:

[ranchwest]

This thread is a good clue as to why Professionals do not want to go to an Expo or Seminar and give talks on how they win. :lol:

Yeah, I know a guy who went the pro route for several years and most people would probably not give his thoughts, ideas and experience due consideration.

[BIG RED]

Steve, what's my excuse. I've just read this whole thread, while 'sipping on a Captains and Coke, and thought 'this seems familiar' ! :lol:

[Zaf]

:lol: I liked Lousycapper, Lousycapper II, and Lousycapper III. Those guys knew thier stuff.

Don't ask me why I am looking at this thread now, but Tom , ROTFL :lol:

Z

[BIG RED]

My goodness.....now it's back for 2007 :D

[PriceAnProbability]

There was a post not long ago where someone was talking about betting races that had a lot of scratches (such as a race being taken off the grass)...and the betting public "losing its flashlight". I thought this was a pretty clever statement with regard to ML's.
Ez

That was me, and it's a legitimate factor. Take away the ML (either through scratches or a surface switch) and the public gets very clueless.

[boomman]

Geno wrote:I can certainly understand the burnout part of her message.When I retired I moved to Vegas and was going to supplement my in come playing the horses. I did this for about 6 months and finally said" I have never worked this hard in my life" ( with all TVs,videos of past races,keeping records and all) So I said the hell with it and went back to playing for entertainment with some good days and some bad days


I think Geno "hit the nail on the head" (no matter how old this thread is LOL). I have said many times what sets me aside as a professional player is the ability to outwork my "foes", and for some strange reason not succumb to burnout in the 33 years I've been playing the game. But this is certainly the reason in my mind that only 1-2% of all players win! IMHO the preparatory work needed to win on a consistent basis is something very few people are willing to do on a longterm basis.....Boom

[PriceAnProbability]

Geno wrote:I can certainly understand the burnout part of her message.When I retired I moved to Vegas and was going to supplement my in come playing the horses. I did this for about 6 months and finally said" I have never worked this hard in my life" ( with all TVs,videos of past races,keeping records and all) So I said the hell with it and went back to playing for entertainment with some good days and some bad days


I think Geno "hit the nail on the head" (no matter how old this thread is LOL). I have said many times what sets me aside as a professional player is the ability to outwork my "foes", and for some strange reason not succumb to burnout in the 33 years I've been playing the game. But this is certainly the reason in my mind that only 1-2% of all players win! IMHO the preparatory work needed to win on a consistent basis is something very few people are willing to do on a longterm basis.....Boom

Most people don't have the stomach for professional horseplaying, let alone the ability.

[46zilzal]

Bank roll as well. All the best move between big scores with losses. One has to have the buffer to survive those strings of randomness that affect everyone the same way: photos, DQ's, traffice trouble. breakdowns, etc.

[DanG]

The irony for me in reading some of this thread is I knew a woman who played professionally in Vegas. I sat next to her for nearly a year 5 days a week and she did not want ANYONE to know she played seriously. She felt “resentment” from male players when they found out she played for her income.

I read the opening of this thread and then read several people, (not all) rip her a new one. Seems my one time friend may have been on to something.

On the HTR board (that I’m a member of and enthusiastically support Ken’s software) a reference was made to the woman who was 3rd in this years NHC. It was “rumored” that she must have been a beard presumably because she was a woman. It turns out an HTR member knows this woman and she is a serious player on the Kentucky circuit.

Not passing judgment here…I have no idea if the woman who started this thread was authentic or not. It just seems to me there is a cynical rush to judgment that could very well keep serious players from ever posting anything constructive.

As someone who derives all of their income from betting, I concur with many of the posts before me. It’s extremely hard, stressful work and not even close to the “glamorous” life I envisioned years ago.

Example:


My syndicate has gone nearly 4 months without hitting a pic-6. This includes several serious expensive attempts at the recent carryovers. While I’m certainly not seeking sympathy (I chose this life and have no regrets.) it’s a real grind to gamble to make your nut.

Best of luck to all with a great Gulfstream card on Saturday!

[ranchwest]

Most of us think of bankroll as what has to cover our losses. For the professional, bankroll also has to cover life's expenses. That's why most pro's recommend having no debt before embarking on wagering for a living. It takes a lot of income to surpass the take plus pay the household bills.

[PriceAnProbability]

Bank roll as well. All the best move between big scores with losses. One has to have the buffer to survive those strings of randomness that affect everyone the same way: photos, DQ's, traffice trouble. breakdowns, etc.

My motto is not to use gambling as an excuse not to make money doing other things.

[PriceAnProbability]

Most of us think of bankroll as what has to cover our losses. For the professional, bankroll also has to cover life's expenses. That's why most pro's recommend having no debt before embarking on wagering for a living. It takes a lot of income to surpass the take plus pay the household bills.

I'm currently in that zone where my living expenses tend to eat up my winnings, but to me that's part of my development into a full-fleged professional player. The p6 syndicate guy isn't what I think of as a "pro" because he should be able to win enough smaller pool bets to tide him over, and if he's not able to do that, he could be just a "guy on a winning streak" or a "temp" (some of them are profitable for several years before a paradigm shifts).

This week was a good example: I make maybe $250.00 a week at my "real job" (a part-time gig one day a week to stabilize my income while I work the net and the track), and won about $350.00 on Tuesday. Do I reinvest the money or pull it out and live on it? I pull it out, because if I'm so good I can win at will, I can replenish the money, and anytime I win more than a weekly paycheck, that money goes to pay bills. I don't think this hurts my long-term ROI, and may in fact be responsible for it being profitable.

Take the guy who starts the year with $1,000.00, wins $25,000.00, pays his bills with it, and has $1,000.000 after all is said and done. His ROI is going to be through the roof, yet he still won't be getting ahead. That is how someone can be a winning horseplayer and not be rich.

Living expenses definitely count as losses when one bets professionally. As for waiting to get out of debt before one bets, I would say that money follows knowledge, not the other way around, and playing when dead broke can often bring out sharpness a horseplayer never knew he had, because so much is at stake on every bet. I liken that to being a boxer who comes out of Brownsville (Tyson) instead of something like a ritzy neighborhood in Manhattan (Me). I'm six inches taller, the same age, more muscular, quicker, and better coordinated than Mike Tyson, but I doubt any of that would have mattered even if I had been training, because he was taking beatings from a young age in a ghetto where men like me fear to tread, even if on paper we have the tools to win. Risking one's money in the real world is a totally different breed of cat, because all those little "follies" one forgets about doing on paper add up to the tune of a few bucks here and there.

[DanG]

Too much work to do concerning GP and SA tomorrow, so I can’t go through your post point by point…

One thing real quick…

The p6 syndicate guy isn't what I think of as a "pro" because he should be able to win enough smaller pool bets to tide him over, and if he's not able to do that, he could be just a "guy on a winning streak" or a "temp" (some of them are profitable for several years before a paradigm shifts).

I can tell you first hand that is flat out not true. I happen to play on my own in addition to the group, but to say that’s always the case is false. Further…To suggest that because you’re in a multi-race “syndicate” you work any less than the straight pool better, or “luck” is the driving force is also false. These pools by and large are not bought; they are earned through hard work and creative betting.

I didn’t mean for that to come off a little short.

It always ruffles me when the word “syndicate” is almost used as a “dirty word”. Syndicates are (in my case) 4 hard working horse players who each do something well and need increased financial backing to attack inherently expensive bets.

Ken Massa has a great line that is often so true. In the pick-6 every bet between $16 and $1,600 is like setting fire to your money.

Best of luck tomorrow! :ThmbUp:

[PriceAnProbability]

Too much work to do concerning GP and SA tomorrow, so I can’t go through your post point by point…

One thing real quick…


I can tell you first hand that is flat out not true. I happen to play on my own in addition to the group, but to say that’s always the case is false. Further…To suggest that because you’re in a multi-race “syndicate” you work any less than the straight pool better, or “luck” is the driving force is also false. These pools by and large are not bought; they are earned through hard work and creative betting.

I didn’t mean for that to come off a little short.

It always ruffles me when the word “syndicate” is almost used as a “dirty word”. Syndicates are (in my case) 4 hard working horse players who each do something well and need increased financial backing to attack inherently expensive bets.

Ken Massa has a great line that is often so true. In the pick-6 every bet between $16 and $1,600 is like setting fire to your money.

Best of luck tomorrow! :ThmbUp:

You talk about not "buying" a pool, yet also talk about needing more money to "attack inherently expensive bets." Sounds like the same thing to me. Syndicates have leverage that stem from their big bankroll, and there's also the potential for a "survivor's bias" since the syndicates that flame out don't keep hanging out at the track. You could make $2 million in a year but if you had to risk $1 million to do it, your income can be "professional" while your risk in getting there could be "compulsive" or "degenerate."

Once my book is out, I'll be fully disclsoing my horseplaying so the public can see exactly how I practice what I preach. Without that type of disclosure, I couldn't tell any horseplayer if I think their "professional" play is sustainable. I do know that many "professionals" over the years lose their profitability because the one advantage they were milking disappeared (think Beyer in the form in 1992 to kill the speed handicappers). I suspect that about 90 percent of "professional" players at any given point in time will one day again lose money. To me they are just "guys on a winning streak."

As for putting $16 into a p6, I've hit five of six twice on a single $2.00 ticket (no consolation on either, sadly), and have cashed on many tickets as low as $24.00. I generally don't like sinking a lot of money into the p6 because I can cover the extra combinations in more affordable p3 and p4 formats.

Oh, in 1994 I bought into a $96.00 ticket that had five of seven (six paid about $200,000) and was live for six going into the last race, and then there was Ernest Havemann, who turned his $96.00 five-ten bet at Caliente into $61,908.00.

That Mr. Massa believes that makes me wonder if his handicapping advantage is terribly substantial.

[DanG]

You talk about not "buying" a pool, yet also talk about needing more money to "attack inherently expensive bets." Sounds like the same thing to me. Syndicates have leverage that stem from their big bankroll, and there's also the potential for a "survivor's bias" since the syndicates that flame out don't keep hanging out at the track. You could make $2 million in a year but if you had to risk $1 million to do it, your income can be "professional" while your risk in getting there could be "compulsive" or "degenerate."

Once my book is out, I'll be fully disclsoing my horseplaying so the public can see exactly how I practice what I preach. Without that type of disclosure, I couldn't tell any horseplayer if I think their "professional" play is sustainable. I do know that many "professionals" over the years lose their profitability because the one advantage they were milking disappeared (think Beyer in the form in 1992 to kill the speed handicappers). I suspect that about 90 percent of "professional" players at any given point in time will one day again lose money. To me they are just "guys on a winning streak."

As for putting $16 into a p6, I've hit five of six twice on a single $2.00 ticket (no consolation on either, sadly), and have cashed on many tickets as low as $24.00. I generally don't like sinking a lot of money into the p6 because I can cover the extra combinations in more affordable p3 and p4 formats.

Oh, in 1994 I bought into a $96.00 ticket that had five of seven (six paid about $200,000) and was live for six going into the last race, and then there was Ernest Havemann, who turned his $96.00 five-ten bet at Caliente into $61,908.00.

That Mr. Massa believes that makes me wonder if his handicapping advantage is terribly substantial.
I appreciate your position, but we could not possibly disagree more.

Have a great night and weekend!!!

[ranchwest]

Living expenses definitely count as losses when one bets professionally. As for waiting to get out of debt before one bets, I would say that money follows knowledge, not the other way around, and playing when dead broke can often bring out sharpness a horseplayer never knew he had, because so much is at stake on every bet.

I didn't say wait to get out of debt before betting. I said that several professional horseplayers have told me that they recommend getting out of debt before going pro because your winnings have to cover not only your losses but also your bills. As a pro, you have to win quite a bit before having any mad money.

[traynor]

I didn't say wait to get out of debt before betting. I said that several professional horseplayers have told me that they recommend getting out of debt before going pro because your winnings have to cover not only your losses but also your bills. As a pro, you have to win quite a bit before having any mad money.

I don't know about "mad money," but I know a lot of people who claim to be winners when their ROI can't even cover the DRF, let alone programs, parking, or online data downloads.

The easiest view is TCO--"total cost of ownership." If you are a "winner," that implies you are making a profit after every penny that goes in has come back out. Not just wagers, but every peripheral expense. If you are betting full-time, and that is your only source of income, then everything from bus fare to house payments has to be considered a "business expense" that enables you to continue betting full-time.

Way too many hobby players spend way too much on peripheral expenses, then claim to be "winners" when they win a $2 bet on a $3.60 horse. If the total coming in is less than the total going out, you are losing. If you can accept the losses as the cost of entertainment, go for it, and be happy.

Personally, I could never understand the concept of losing money being entertaining. Must be a character defect.

[traynor]

Once my book is out, I'll be fully disclsoing my horseplaying so the public can see exactly how I practice what I preach. Without that type of disclosure, I couldn't tell any horseplayer if I think their "professional" play is sustainable. I do know that many "professionals" over the years lose their profitability because the one advantage they were milking disappeared (think Beyer in the form in 1992 to kill the speed handicappers). I suspect that about 90 percent of "professional" players at any given point in time will one day again lose money. To me they are just "guys on a winning streak."

That Mr. Massa believes that makes me wonder if his handicapping advantage is terribly substantial.

If you think that professionals "lose their profitability because the one advantage they were milking disappeared," you either don't know any professionals, or you have spent way too much time reading and posting on forums, and not enough in the real world.

Professionals lose money every day. Every week, and every month, too. The thing that makes them professionals is that they tend to win more than they lose. Any day, any week, any month can be a loss. Losses can go for strings of 20, 30, or more races without a single win, unless you are feeding the chalk players as a hobby. The wins make up for the losses.

Amateurs, on the other hand, tend to be "bean counters," winning nickels and dimes with some imaginary "advantage," that evaporates after a week or two.

Perhaps the biggest difference is that amateurs pump themselves up to believe they are more skilled than they are, while the professional expects to lose. And the professional knows from experience that in the long run, he or she is going to come out way ahead of the bean counters and rookies.

It is how you handle losses, as well as how you handle wins, that determines whether or not you can make it as a professional. If a string of wins make you think you are unbeatable, or a string of losses puts you in a state of depression, stay away from the tracks, and keep flipping those burgers.

I lose races. Just ask PA, he'll be happy to tell you what a lousy handicapper I am. But in the real world, my "winning streak" has been going on for about 15 years now, and just keeps getting better.

[PriceAnProbability]

If you think that professionals "lose their profitability because the one advantage they were milking disappeared," you either don't know any professionals, or you have spent way too much time reading and posting on forums, and not enough in the real world.

Professionals lose money every day. Every week, and every month, too. The thing that makes them professionals is that they tend to win more than they lose. Any day, any week, any month can be a loss. Losses can go for strings of 20, 30, or more races without a single win, unless you are feeding the chalk players as a hobby. The wins make up for the losses.

Amateurs, on the other hand, tend to be "bean counters," winning nickels and dimes with some imaginary "advantage," that evaporates after a week or two.

Perhaps the biggest difference is that amateurs pump themselves up to believe they are more skilled than they are, while the professional expects to lose. And the professional knows from experience that in the long run, he or she is going to come out way ahead of the bean counters and rookies.

It is how you handle losses, as well as how you handle wins, that determines whether or not you can make it as a professional. If a string of wins make you think you are unbeatable, or a string of losses puts you in a state of depression, stay away from the tracks, and keep flipping those burgers.

I lose races. Just ask PA, he'll be happy to tell you what a lousy handicapper I am. But in the real world, my "winning streak" has been going on for about 15 years now, and just keeps getting better.

I write about when "things are going well" or when "things are not going well" to describe the luck factor, because for most horseplayers that is the best way to sum it up.

I've met many professional horseplayers over the course of my life, and most of them were not adaptable over a ten-year period. There are exceptions, but even some of the big names wound up crashing and burning, sometimes because they published their methods and killed their own goose.

When you say these guys are pros because they win over the long run, the fact remains that if they don't keep winning, they could wind up broke unless they have "endowed" their play by socking away say a half-million and refusing to touch the principal. This half-million should of course be won, and would allow for a bankroll of $20k a year or so after expenses, in perpetuity. To me, that's the defintion of a "professional."

Today's professional horseplayer can be tomorrow's compulsive gambler if he does not keep winning, and many who think they have proven their sustainability are in for rude shocks when the paradigm shifts. A lot of "professional football handicappers" were put out of business the last few years when the favorites suddenly started covering 60 percent of the time.

Without seeing how someone bets, what they hit, or how much risk they endure along the way to making their living, there's no way I could tell if they are a true professional or just having a good run that could last up to several years.

[boomman]

Traynor is right on the button with this:Professionals lose money every day. Every week, and every month, too. The thing that makes them professionals is that they tend to win more than they lose. Any day, any week, any month can be a loss. Losses can go for strings of 20, 30, or more races without a single win, unless you are feeding the chalk players as a hobby. The wins make up for the losses.

Amateurs, on the other hand, tend to be "bean counters," winning nickels and dimes with some imaginary "advantage," that evaporates after a week or two.

Perhaps the biggest difference is that amateurs pump themselves up to believe they are more skilled than they are, while the professional expects to lose. And the professional knows from experience that in the long run, he or she is going to come out way ahead of the bean counters and rookies.

It is how you handle losses, as well as how you handle wins, that determines whether or not you can make it as a professional. If a string of wins make you think you are unbeatable, or a string of losses puts you in a state of depression, stay away from the tracks, and keep flipping those burgers.


Traynor: I actually wrote some of this very thing! You are spot on!:ThmbUp: Boom

[PriceAnProbability]

Traynor is right on the button with this:Professionals lose money every day. Every week, and every month, too. The thing that makes them professionals is that they tend to win more than they lose. Any day, any week, any month can be a loss. Losses can go for strings of 20, 30, or more races without a single win, unless you are feeding the chalk players as a hobby. The wins make up for the losses.

Amateurs, on the other hand, tend to be "bean counters," winning nickels and dimes with some imaginary "advantage," that evaporates after a week or two.

Perhaps the biggest difference is that amateurs pump themselves up to believe they are more skilled than they are, while the professional expects to lose. And the professional knows from experience that in the long run, he or she is going to come out way ahead of the bean counters and rookies.

It is how you handle losses, as well as how you handle wins, that determines whether or not you can make it as a professional. If a string of wins make you think you are unbeatable, or a string of losses puts you in a state of depression, stay away from the tracks, and keep flipping those burgers.


Traynor: I actually wrote some of this very thing! You are spot on!:ThmbUp: Boom

At what point does the "professional" begin to wonder if he's no longer profitable?

Say he's got $50,000, and it drops to $40,000. He calls it a bad run, then gets to $35,000, $30,000, $25,000. Now he's got bills eating into his bankroll as well, and he hasn't won in a while. If he bottoms out what does he do to keep betting? When does he quit?

To say this can't happen is to say that any self-declared professional is going to keep winning forever, and I don't find that to be the case. The public is constantly getting smarter, and new professionals are always entering the pools with sharper and sharper methods. Those who can't adapt, and they are many, often experience losing even after several years of winning.

[Pace Cap'n]

At what point does the "professional" begin to wonder if he's no longer profitable?

Say he's got $50,000, and it drops to $40,000. He calls it a bad run, then gets to $35,000, $30,000, $25,000. Now he's got bills eating into his bankroll as well, and he hasn't won in a while. If he bottoms out what does he do to keep betting? When does he quit?

To say this can't happen is to say that any self-declared professional is going to keep winning forever, and I don't find that to be the case. The public is constantly getting smarter, and new professionals are always entering the pools with sharper and sharper methods. Those who can't adapt, and they are many, often experience losing even after several years of winning.

Does this not imply that all professionals are neophytes?

[boomman]

Probability wrote:To say this can't happen is to say that any self-declared professional is going to keep winning forever, and I don't find that to be the case. The public is constantly getting smarter, and new professionals are always entering the pools with sharper and sharper methods. Those who can't adapt, and they are many, often experience losing even after several years of winning.

Although you could be right that some pros won't keep winning (and I think that's probably because they become careless), I find it very strange that in this day of the information superhighway and all of the information available that the number of pros in our business (approx 2% of all players make a living at it) never seems to change. That was the number when I started playing 33 years ago and remains so today. Have new players replaced "dropping out" players? I don't know, but the number just hangs right in there consistently from year to year. My theory: People are just to lazy to work the game as hard as you have to in order to beat it on a consistent basis, or lack the motivation to want to do so....Boom

[acorn54]

i have heard the figure of 2%-5% of horseplayers are professional and make a living at it. i am curious , where do these figures originate from. are they the internal revenue service figures as to how many people declare as an occupation designated "professional horseplayer" on their taxforms.
acorn

[ranchwest]

If handicappers were really better, the number of winning favorites would increase. That's the acid test.

[44PACE]

It may not be that handicappers are better, but that their now is a shortage of bad players.

[PriceAnProbability]

If handicappers were really better, the number of winning favorites would increase. That's the acid test.

The payoffs on the average winning favorite has significantly decreased.

[PriceAnProbability]

Probability wrote:To say this can't happen is to say that any self-declared professional is going to keep winning forever, and I don't find that to be the case. The public is constantly getting smarter, and new professionals are always entering the pools with sharper and sharper methods. Those who can't adapt, and they are many, often experience losing even after several years of winning.

Although you could be right that some pros won't keep winning (and I think that's probably because they become careless), I find it very strange that in this day of the information superhighway and all of the information available that the number of pros in our business (approx 2% of all players make a living at it) never seems to change. That was the number when I started playing 33 years ago and remains so today. Have new players replaced "dropping out" players? I don't know, but the number just hangs right in there consistently from year to year. My theory: People are just to lazy to work the game as hard as you have to in order to beat it on a consistent basis, or lack the motivation to want to do so....Boom

Are people too lazy to win at musical chairs?

It's true that those who lose may not put forth the effort or have the skill (or the bravery to bet big), but the game makes it difficult for anyone to win, and impossible for most to break even. These people are technically too stupid to quit or they accept the cost of their horseplaying as a hobby.

The typical pro today is much sharper than 20 years ago. The reason today's pros are tomorrow's losers is that it is extremely difficult to remain ahead of the public for any extended period of time, since people are always working on solving the puzzle.

[cj]

The payoffs on the average winning favorite has significantly decreased.

This is a function of field size more than it is any public skill.

[ranchwest]

This is a function of field size more than it is any public skill.

That's true, but I think it was also a matter of laying smart rebate money. The prices may go back up some now.

Still, there's plenty of opportunities.

[raybo]

For those of you who seem so quick to disbelieve someone who says they were or are successful in a particular way of wagering or handicapping here is a copy of my Brisbet account from January 1, 2005 to May 31, 2005, at which time the pressure of having to produce in order to eat and pay the bills got to me and I took over a year off from handicapping. I had been a full time handicapper for only 5 months at that time. Just because someone says they quit while being successful doesn't mean that they were crazy for quitting. The stress level involved, when what you are doing determines whether or not you can eat and have a roof over your head, is tremendous. Yes, I quit while turning a $400 bankroll into over $7000 in less than 6 months time. That's not a long time and many here would say that burning out in such a short time while being this successful would be unlikely and probably untrue. In my case, it was a fact and if I hadn't stopped when I did I would most assuredly have put all that profit back into the pools. When you wager for a living you HAVE TO produce. There are no other options.

Personally, I believe every word the lady said. AND, I too definately look at M/L favorites and 2nd favorites that are false. This was and is the key to my wagering. I don't bet pk3 or 4 or 6 simply because I don't think there is as large an edge there as in superfectas. That's my personal opinion, not fact. I found something that works for me, but might not work for you because we aren't the same.

So, for all the naysayers out there, try it for a few months, quit your present job and wager full time for a living, see if you can handle it without going completely nuts.


Account History for #759801

Show
Exclude Detail (Summary Only)
Exclude wagers ≤ $
Exclude wagers ≥ $
Track Wager Type

Search Criteria
Wager Types: Superfecta

# of Bets Win % $1 ROI Wagered Payoff Profit/Loss
79 13.92% +2.58 $2880.00 $10314.60 $+7434.60

PS. I tried to copy the graphics showing time period and the Brisbet graphics but it only pasted what you see. Don't know if there's a way to get all the graphics to paste or not. You'll just have to "trust" me that this is exactly what the summary says. I'm sure some will say I doctored it, ----->whatever.

[Pace Cap'n]

I have never played professionally, but back in the early 00's we ran a seasonal business which allowed for four months off in the wintertime. Having had a bit of success at the races, I started going 5 or 6 times a week.

I was turning a profit, $500-1000 a month making fairly small wagers and capping LOTS of races. In no way was I trying to make a living, nor did I need the money. But pressure arose nevertheless.

On the days I didn't go, it would eat at me all day that THIS might have been the one day I should have been there. If I left early (sorry, Karl) and later checked the results and saw a signer I possibly might have thought about perhaps maybe betting, I'd be bummed.

Now I am just a weekend warrior having fun. I have the utmost respect for those with the fortitude to bet horses for a living.

[raybo]

I have never played professionally, but back in the early 00's we ran a seasonal business which allowed for four months off in the wintertime. Having had a bit of success at the races, I started going 5 or 6 times a week.

I was turning a profit, $500-1000 a month making fairly small wagers and capping LOTS of races. In no way was I trying to make a living, nor did I need the money. But pressure arose nevertheless.

On the days I didn't go, it would eat at me all day that THIS might have been the one day I should have been there. If I left early (sorry, Karl) and later checked the results and saw a signer I possibly might have thought about perhaps maybe betting, I'd be bummed.

Now I am just a weekend warrior having fun. I have the utmost respect for those with the fortitude to bet horses for a living.

Talking about getting bummed, I had 2 wagers last week that I just couldn't get configured in time to beat post time and both hit, one paid $3000 for $1 ticket and the other paid $1200 for a $1 ticket, total investment on my part would have been $32. Whew!!! That stuff really burns me up, but my fault for not being more prepared before the betting starts. (The tote plays a large role in how I structure my tickets and whether or not I wager at all).

[PaceAdvantage]

i have heard the figure of 2%-5% of horseplayers are professional and make a living at it. i am curious , where do these figures originate from. are they the internal revenue service figures as to how many people declare as an occupation designated "professional horseplayer" on their taxforms.
acorn

Good question. I would suspect this number is more akin to being taken out of "thin air" then based on any hard evidence such as IRS data.

If you knew someone at an account wagering business, I'm sure they could give you a very accurate number. There's got to be some folks out there in PA land that work or know someone who works in management at an OTB or YouBet or BrisBET or any of the other large account wagering outfits. All they would have to do is run their numbers to give you the percentage of long term winning players.

[DanG]

Good question. I would suspect this number is more akin to being taken out of "thin air" then based on any hard evidence such as IRS data.

If you knew someone at an account wagering business, I'm sure they could give you a very accurate number. There's got to be some folks out there in PA land that work or know someone who works in management at an OTB or YouBet or BrisBET or any of the other large account wagering outfits. All they would have to do is run their numbers to give you the percentage of long term winning players.
To PA’s point:

I too would be curious as to the number, but the number would have to include many rebate houses that are VERY tough to get full disclosure from.

Preface: I stated reading this post as I knew a woman who played professionally and I found it fascinating the reactions she received. I give her credit for even dignifying some of them as I know I wouldn’t bother.

As far as the anxiety aspect of racing paying your nut, my experience is it goes in waves.

(I can only speak for myself, but it’s not exclusive to me as I know a few people who have had similar cycles.)

My first year it was almost over whelming at times. I was single and still the financial pressures and working much too long vs. working smart was draining me. The cost of doing business in New Jersey was rising and I decided to move to Vegas after it was recommended to me by a good NY player.

Vegas was the turning point for me as I met three other full time players and we hit it off. They had a partnership and allowed me to join for a stake. I think the clincher was Turf routes were their weak point and they happen to be my strength.

The pressure of playing for my nut decreased tremendously. I roomed with one of the guys (cutting expenses.) and they were older than I and had tremendous confidence and it was infectious. As fate would have it our partnership and trust was solidified early as I had a key turf bomb and we hit a sizeable pick-6.

This went on for several years before I met my soon to be wife and her family lived in Tampa and we moved back.

Everything changed…She had children and they needed all the insurances, coverage’s, health benefits etc that come with traditional employment. I quit the partnership and supervised a telecommunications company for a few years. I continued to play at nights on the side, but with all the time requirements my play suffered. In addition there was a stigma attached with her family that viewed horse players as one step below earth worms.

I was miserable and we both knew it. We had a very amicable divorce and the next stage began. (BTW: For what it’s worth… I have a better relationship with her and the kids when I became true to myself.)

I was very fortunate in that my group was still going strong and I joined for a second time. Still living in Tampa I wanted to lighten the work load of creating all my own information and joined HTR. This was a very important move as it allowed me to A) get more sleep and B) focus more on evaluating rather than gathering data.

Next crisis…My brother is living right outside of New Orleans when Katrina hits. No sign of him or his girlfriend and kids for 4-days. (Same frightening situation with Rick from HTR)…Long story short, he had no coverage and virtually zero savings. He has ALWAYS been there for me, so I pulled out of the partnership (again) and used the funds to help him start over.

Several months pass as I need to gather a stake. I go back to a “traditional” job and betting at night…the very second I get the proper funds I enter the partnership (for a 3rd time)…That takes us up to today.

Couple points…I know this is running way too long, but we fortunately hit the pick-6 at SA yesterday (after a significant drought) and I have a little more energy than usual. I don’t type as fast as some of you, so this was written over a significant time period.

The anxiety eventual goes away over time with the players I know. It’s a bell curve of initially tremendous nervousness; to refining your work load and methods to eventually it becomes “almost” like another job.

Dick Schmidt I think it was said it right. The process almost becomes “boring” when you hit stride. I still get pumped with carry-overs and top class horses, but the average weekday card has become quite routine.

I think many players underestimate the power that a good partnership can provide. If you’re lucky enough to get with mature, honest and serious players it can help you in many ways you would not have considered.

I enjoy reading the horse racing forums very much. There is so much knowledge people are willing to share. I’m the only one of my group who ever writes and I’ve been told I write too much, but I find it very therapeutic. One of my partners in particular could write a thesis on constructing multi-race wagers, but the truth is he will never pass along that great knowledge.

Many…many people much sharper than I could have so much to teach, but besides the obvious reasons of maintaining their edge, they have no time for the occasional petty back and forth that goes with posting thoughts.

I’m sure I’m not alone in spotting the posters who while typing from their mother’s basement are so quick and sure of why “all the pros they have met” are flawed in their approach. As the great dialogue in Silence of the Lambs went (I am paraphrasing)…” You see a lot, poster. But are you strong enough to turn that high-powered perception at yourself?”

They may not like what they see.

One last thing and I’ll mercifully end this…Of all the misconceptions about gambling for a living…#1 is you are not “quitting your job to play”. You are quitting one job to attempt a much tougher one.

If you read this start to finish…thanks for your endurance…If not, I wouldn’t blame you! ;)

[Dave Schwartz]

Dan G,

Great post and right on the money, especially the partner stuff.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[trying2win]

Great candid posts by Raybo and Dan G lately. Nice to read posts by knowledgeable horse players with interesting stories and good information to share.

As for Traynor...he's out in left field as usual with his comments full of gibberish. Traynor's another 'legend in his own mind'.


T2W

[raybo]

Dan G,

Great post and right on the money, especially the partner stuff.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

I agree, I have had a partner since 1978, he's the one who got me into the industry. He's very cerebral while I am very technical. He's very contrarian while I am more traditional, wanting to know what everyone else is seeing and wagering on etc., he works with small samples for results oriented analysis while I like working with larger samples trying to improve what we already know and use. In summary, we "fit" and compliment each other very well. I run the computer stuff and he uses his pen and pencil at the same time, very old school. It all works.

[trying2win]

I agree, I have had a partner since 1978, he's the one who got me into the industry. He's very cerebral while I am very technical. He's very contrarian while I am more traditional, wanting to know what everyone else is seeing and wagering on etc., he works with small samples for results oriented analysis while I like working with larger samples trying to improve what we already know and use. In summary, we "fit" and compliment each other very well. I run the computer stuff and he uses his pen and pencil at the same time, very old school. It all works.

RAYBO:

I think this idea of comibining talents was what Napoleon Hill used to advocate in his great book THINK AND GROW RICH. If I remember correctly, it was called the MASTER MIND PRINCIPLE.

T2W

[raybo]

RAYBO:

I think this idea of comibining talents was what Napoleon Hill used to advocate in his great book THINK AND GROW RICH. If I remember correctly, it was called the MASTER MIND PRINCIPLE.

T2W

There's a lot to be said for 2 or more approaches to the same problem. Yes, conflicts arise, therefore, combinations are our way of handling it. We both find longer priced horses to put on the tickets but his, more often than mine, go on the win line, mine usually round out the ticket below. Hitting a super with a winner that goes off at 6/1 or higher makes for happy campers.

[befuddlem]

For those of you who seem so quick to disbelieve someone who says they were or are successful in a particular way of wagering or handicapping here is a copy of my Brisbet account from January 1, 2005 to May 31, 2005, at which time the pressure of having to produce in order to eat and pay the bills got to me and I took over a year off from handicapping. I had been a full time handicapper for only 5 months at that time. Just because someone says they quit while being successful doesn't mean that they were crazy for quitting. The stress level involved, when what you are doing determines whether or not you can eat and have a roof over your head, is tremendous. Yes, I quit while turning a $400 bankroll into over $7000 in less than 6 months time. That's not a long time and many here would say that burning out in such a short time while being this successful would be unlikely and probably untrue. In my case, it was a fact and if I hadn't stopped when I did I would most assuredly have put all that profit back into the pools. When you wager for a living you HAVE TO produce. There are no other options.

Personally, I believe every word the lady said. AND, I too definately look at M/L favorites and 2nd favorites that are false. This was and is the key to my wagering. I don't bet pk3 or 4 or 6 simply because I don't think there is as large an edge there as in superfectas. That's my personal opinion, not fact. I found something that works for me, but might not work for you because we aren't the same.

So, for all the naysayers out there, try it for a few months, quit your present job and wager full time for a living, see if you can handle it without going completely nuts.


Account History for #759801

Show
Exclude Detail (Summary Only)
Exclude wagers ≤ $
Exclude wagers ≥ $
Track Wager Type

Search Criteria
Wager Types: Superfecta

# of Bets Win % $1 ROI Wagered Payoff Profit/Loss
79 13.92% +2.58 $2880.00 $10314.60 $+7434.60

PS. I tried to copy the graphics showing time period and the Brisbet graphics but it only pasted what you see. Don't know if there's a way to get all the graphics to paste or not. You'll just have to "trust" me that this is exactly what the summary says. I'm sure some will say I doctored it, ----->whatever.

Interesting indeed, I'm not sure how many pros go about making their living betting Superfectas, but if your figures are true, good for you!:ThmbUp:

[44PACE]

Ray.


Good Post.

There is a reason why all the well known Pros have a side line income like selling variants, racing data, etc, and its the very reason you have so elegantly stated in your post. The preasure of having to win to pay bills is extremely stressfull. If you don't win you don't eat.


In private discussions concerning being a Professional Handicapper I tell people to go ahead and give the racing a shot, but also I tell them that they may be capable of more. If you are going to do racing as a Profession in essence you are starting your own business, so look into also starting your own business doing something else on the side. Anyone who can make it as a racing Pro can make it doing another side business. This gets you away from having to work for someone else and taking their crap and at the same time you remain independent and you are working for yourself in 2 business ventures. Just make sure that the 2nd business is a low risk one with a small startup costs.example A window washer business, its low risk, low costs. There are hundreds of these examples if you think about it.


Mike.

[raybo]

Interesting indeed, I'm not sure how many pros go about making their living betting Superfectas, but if your figures are true, good for you!:ThmbUp:

More than most think, I suspect. However, most pros won't let you know they're pros or reveal any of their method, for obvious reasons.

Lots of value in supers if you structure your tickets properly. The pros that do supers know that coverage is everything, but it can be overdone, too. The trick is knowing what is enough and what is too much.

Pool sizes are critical, also. That's why the successful p6 players jump on the big carryovers with lots of bucks to invest. If the super pool is only $8000, that's all you can get, if you have the only winning ticket. $30,000 or higher looks much better since your chance of having the only winning ticket is not likely.

Being able to estimate what your minmum payout will be if you hit is also crucial, you don't want to invest in something if you don't know what the minimum return on your investment should be. And no, there's no formula for figuring this, to my knowledge, I've just looked at so many supers and what they pay, when the lowest 4 on the tote come in, that I know when a bet is warranted and I'm working on being able to add more higher priced horses to my tickets according to the estimated minimum payout, in order to catch more huge payouts. The smaller payouts just keep you in the game, the big ones pay the bills and put cash in the bank for other investments that are more secure.

Patience, above all else, is paramount. Your hit rate only needs to be around 6% or 8% if you wait for the right races to bet.

Supers are a different animal, for sure, but that's one of my edges. Not many people know how to attack them. I've given away quite a bit of my personal wagering strategy in previous posts, probably shouldn't have, but it's in the archives if you care to take a look.

In short, I don't think it's possible for "MOST" players, even intelligent handicappers, to turn a profit over time without betting the exotics exclusively. I haven't placed a wager on anything less than a trifecta in over 9 years. And Tri's aren't in my game plan anymore, I hit too many of my 4th finishers to waste time with tri's, it doesn't cost much more to add the 4th row to the ticket. Exacta/quinallas are long gone for the same reason. And wps is not even a consideration. There are many more successful players betting wps but they are working their butts off trying to find enough wagering and turning over thousands through the windows (or the wagering pad), in order to do it. Many say they are successful if they show anything above break-even. I won't go through what I have to go through for that kind of return. Just doesn't sit right with me.

[Cratos]

Hi Lucky Maria,

Your post was interesting and very reflective of how tough this game is. However, we all keep playing it because we either love to do so or we are too stupid to know better (LOL).

Also after reading all of the posts in this thread I found it ironic for some posters to insinuate that you were fabricating your past exploits at the track. The irony was that I never heard anyone say Andrew Beyer didn’t make $50K at the track, an achievement which he wrote a book about.

I personally don’t brag about my winning nor do I complain about my losing because I believe there is not a gun to my head forcing me to bet horses and I can quit if I want to, but I don’t.

Again, thanks for sharing your experience at the racetrack.

[BIG RED]

Zaf (Felix), If I'm not around next year, POP it up!! :faint:

[wes]

Do you call one who is a loser for a long time a pro loser?

That would not be an accurate figure PA. Many players who make the bets are not the ones cashing the tickets. A 2 buck better who shows a profit over a long period of time would be a pro as well. Where is the dividing line? I think the pro player was invented by the early writers of all the handicapping material that was once on the market. That was before the computer arrived on the scene. It made the average player think there was a better life to shoot for in horse racing.

The pro player is the "GLOBAL WARMING" in horse racing.

wes

[MichaelNunamaker]

Hi PA,

You wrote "Good question. I would suspect this number is more akin to being taken out of "thin air" then based on any hard evidence such as IRS data."

Indeed, I believe the number of people truly making their living from T-bred wagering numbers in just a few hundred (100-300). IIRC, there was a NY Times article a few years back about rebate wagering. The one thing that blew me away in the article is that one of the biggest rebate shops only had 120 customers! Obviously, not all of them would be profitable and not all of the profitable ones would be making their living from wagering. Since there are only three large rebate shops (that I'm aware of at least), and it would seem to me that virtually all pros would be wagering at them, that puts an upper bound of pros at 360. I would guess the number would be closer to 100 and perhaps as few as 50.

I have no idea how many people wager on horse racing each year, but as a wild wild guess (including everyone, even those who make a $2 wager once a year on the Kentucky Derby), let's say there are 10 million. If there really are only 100 full time pros, that would make it 0.001% of all horse players are full-time professionals who make their living from wagering.

And, BTW PA, I'd bet a few bucks that at least 50% of the pros at least read this board.

Mike Nunamaker

[raybo]

Hi PA,

You wrote "Good question. I would suspect this number is more akin to being taken out of "thin air" then based on any hard evidence such as IRS data."

Indeed, I believe the number of people truly making their living from T-bred wagering numbers in just a few hundred (100-300). IIRC, there was a NY Times article a few years back about rebate wagering. The one thing that blew me away in the article is that one of the biggest rebate shops only had 120 customers! Obviously, not all of them would be profitable and not all of the profitable ones would be making their living from wagering. Since there are only three large rebate shops (that I'm aware of at least), and it would seem to me that virtually all pros would be wagering at them, that puts an upper bound of pros at 360. I would guess the number would be closer to 100 and perhaps as few as 50.

I have no idea how many people wager on horse racing each year, but as a wild wild guess (including everyone, even those who make a $2 wager once a year on the Kentucky Derby), let's say there are 10 million. If there really are only 100 full time pros, that would make it 0.001% of all horse players are full-time professionals who make their living from wagering.

And, BTW PA, I'd bet a few bucks that at least 50% of the pros at least read this board.

Mike Nunamaker

:D
Could be. But, I think there are many more out there than anyone here thinks. You just never hear from them.

[traynor]

Hi PA,
<snip>
Since there are only three large rebate shops (that I'm aware of at least), and it would seem to me that virtually all pros would be wagering at them, that puts an upper bound of pros at 360. I would guess the number would be closer to 100 and perhaps as few as 50.
<snip>
Mike Nunamaker

That is an interesting assumption, and probably quite acceptable to marginal bettors (up some, down some, mostly even) who believe rebates "give them an edge."

I think if you dig a bit, you might find that a number of professionals would not touch rebates with someone else's stick, wager exclusively on-track, rather than sitting in front of a computer monitor logged in to YouBet, and do quite well.

I think you might also find that those same professionals tend to make multiple wagers on returns that might exceed a 300-1 payoff. Pool cleaning is nice, and can be done more discretely with wheeled trifectas and Pick 3 wagers than a single monster ticket.

It is clearly not in the best interest of a professional bettor to either advise others of his or her strategy, or to advertise his or her existence, much less his or her track record.

An example would be the various "how ya doing?" questions posted on PA. If one assumes the answers are reasonably truthful, there are either VERY few consistent winners on this forum, and those few tend to win relatively trivial amounts. ("Canadians" claiming winnings of $30,000-40,000 a month, are not included.)

[raybo]

That is an interesting assumption, and probably quite acceptable to marginal bettors (up some, down some, mostly even) who believe rebates "give them an edge."

I think if you dig a bit, you might find that a number of professionals would not touch rebates with someone else's stick, wager exclusively on-track, rather than sitting in front of a computer monitor logged in to YouBet, and do quite well.

I think you might also find that those same professionals tend to make multiple wagers on returns that might exceed a 300-1 payoff. Pool cleaning is nice, and can be done more discretely with wheeled trifectas and Pick 3 wagers than a single monster ticket.

It is clearly not in the best interest of a professional bettor to either advise others of his or her strategy, or to advertise his or her existence, much less his or her track record.

An example would be the various "how ya doing?" questions posted on PA. If one assumes the answers are reasonably truthful, there are either VERY few consistent winners on this forum, and those few tend to win relatively trivial amounts. ("Canadians" claiming winnings of $30,000-40,000 a month, are not included.)

This statement is probably very true. Full time, pros wouldn't want to leave anymore of a paper trail than is absolutely necessary. I personally have never used a rebate site, but then I was only full time for a few months, and I prefer the site I use for wagering and don't plan on switching any time soon.

[Suff]

Do you call one who is a loser for a long time a pro loser?

That would not be an accurate figure PA. Many players who make the bets are not the ones cashing the tickets. A 2 buck better who shows a profit over a long period of time would be a pro as well. Where is the dividing line? I think the pro player was invented by the early writers of all the handicapping material that was once on the market. That was before the computer arrived on the scene. It made the average player think there was a better life to shoot for in horse racing.

The pro player is the "GLOBAL WARMING" in horse racing.

wes

Amen my Brother.

[44PACE]

Mike N.


I do not trust the rebate shops so I do not use them, maybe others feel the same way.

[ryesteve]

The pro player is the "GLOBAL WARMING" in horse racing.

You mean only the lunatic fringe denies there's such a thing?

[ryesteve]

I think if you dig a bit, you might find that a number of professionals would not touch rebates with someone else's stick, wager exclusively on-track
Why would a professional not take advantage of rebates?

[44PACE]

Why would a professional not take advantage of rebates?

Fear that after you deposit money in their accounts it will be stolen from you.

[DanG]

Hi PA,

You wrote "Good question. I would suspect this number is more akin to being taken out of "thin air" then based on any hard evidence such as IRS data."

Indeed, I believe the number of people truly making their living from T-bred wagering numbers in just a few hundred (100-300). IIRC, there was a NY Times article a few years back about rebate wagering. The one thing that blew me away in the article is that one of the biggest rebate shops only had 120 customers! Obviously, not all of them would be profitable and not all of the profitable ones would be making their living from wagering. Since there are only three large rebate shops (that I'm aware of at least), and it would seem to me that virtually all pros would be wagering at them, that puts an upper bound of pros at 360. I would guess the number would be closer to 100 and perhaps as few as 50.

I have no idea how many people wager on horse racing each year, but as a wild wild guess (including everyone, even those who make a $2 wager once a year on the Kentucky Derby), let's say there are 10 million. If there really are only 100 full time pros, that would make it 0.001% of all horse players are full-time professionals who make their living from wagering.

And, BTW PA, I'd bet a few bucks that at least 50% of the pros at least read this board.

Mike Nunamaker
Mike;

I can’t speak to your other data, but I can name 7 rebate shops who I consider significant. While this doesn’t greatly impact your statistics, in terms of shops it’s more than double your original estimate.

If your total number of players is correct (360), then I personally have been blessed to know an amazingly disproportionate number of them.

BTW: Next time you look around your house and see something that you paid $100.00 for…you have me to thank. I purchased your “Impact Values” many years ago and have always enjoyed your work. :ThmbUp:

[ryesteve]

Fear that after you deposit money in their accounts it will be stolen from you.
I'm talking about a legal rebate shop in the states, not a web site in costa rica

[MichaelNunamaker]

Hi Dan,

You wrote "I can’t speak to your other data, but I can name 7 rebate shops who I consider significant. While this doesn’t greatly impact your statistics, in terms of shops it’s more than double your original estimate."

Yes. However, again IIRC, the New York Times article from three years back said that all rebate shops together did 1.2 billion in handle the previous year and the shop with 120 customers did 500 million of that handle. Obviously, by the metric of dollars wagered, the times three I did was overstating it.

But the real point is to illustrate my belief that the number of full time pros isn't 1-2%, but a very very small fraction of a percent. You could multiply my original estimate by a factor of 10, and we still would only have one hundredth of one percent of horse players being full-time pros.

And thanks for the kind words about MIV.

Mike Nunamaker

[44PACE]

Hi Dan,

But the real point is to illustrate my belief that the number of full time pros isn't 1-2%, but a very very small fraction of a percent. You could multiply my original estimate by a factor of 10, and we still would only have one hundredth of one percent of horse players being full-time pros.


Mike Nunamaker

This all depends upon how you define a Pro. If you define a Pro as someone who makes his entire living betting the horses you will get a different % than if you use the definition that a Pro is someone who consistantly makes money every year at the races. Some people may only consider someone a PRO if they make $ 40,000 a year while others will have no earning income requirements.

[ryesteve]

This all depends upon how you define a Pro. If you define a Pro as someone who makes his entire living betting the horses you will get a different % than if you use the definition that a Pro is someone who consistantly makes money every year at the races.
That person would be a "winning horseplayer", not necessarily a "professional". I don't understand why the definition should be all that ambiguous. A "professional" player is one for whom horseplaying is their PROFESSION. In other words, as you said, someone for whom it is the only "job" for which they have a source of income.

[raybo]

That person would be a "winning horseplayer", not necessarily a "professional". I don't understand why the definition should be all that ambiguous. A "professional" player is one for whom horseplaying is their PROFESSION. In other words, as you said, someone for whom it is the only "job" for which they have a source of income.

A professional, the definition, is anyone who performs a particular work for money. So, in that respect, everyone who wagers is a professional. Now, in our understanding of horse racing professionals, that would be one who does it full time or one who does this as his/her job. Not all professionals are successful professionals. There are those who, as in the poker world, are considered professionals and yet are broke most of the time, having to borrow from others to keep playing.

I would suspect that the list of "professionals" is constantly changing, the losing ones dropping out and being replaced by new ones.

[DanG]

Hi Dan,

You wrote "I can’t speak to your other data, but I can name 7 rebate shops who I consider significant. While this doesn’t greatly impact your statistics, in terms of shops it’s more than double your original estimate."

Yes. However, again IIRC, the New York Times article from three years back said that all rebate shops together did 1.2 billion in handle the previous year and the shop with 120 customers did 500 million of that handle. Obviously, by the metric of dollars wagered, the times three I did was overstating it.

But the real point is to illustrate my belief that the number of full time pros isn't 1-2%, but a very very small fraction of a percent. You could multiply my original estimate by a factor of 10, and we still would only have one hundredth of one percent of horse players being full-time pros.

And thanks for the kind words about MIV.

Mike Nunamaker
Mike,

You could very well be correct.

I’m a poor judge of the betting population as a whole because I currently associate largely with people who truly are full time.

It seems to me when considering what % is actually winning a sustainable amount the gambling groups must be segregated.

The wealthy owners, entrepreneurs etc who can “afford” to lose significant sums continue to make up a very important segament. Bless the Ken Ramsey’s of the world who continues to bet telecommunication dollars with both fists.

The weekend player who works fulltime at a separate job makes up their own group.

The retired player makes up a segment.

As you stated, the actual % of winners must be measured vs. the group that they represent. I believe it is a VERY small group of players who are literally full time and approach the game as a business. Exclusively among this group I would be very interested in seeing real data of actually winning percentages.

Tough to grind out an income in the straight pools without significant rebates. Agreed…However, there is currently MAJOR funding coming in via Hong Kong syndicates that are fueling multi-race wagers that are increasing payoff power significantly.

Conclusion: I have no hard data, but I’m sure we both agree that the player who does not approach the game seriously is virtually DOA at the hands of the takeout.

PS: After reading your post again I think we are saying the same thing. I shouldn’t type before my first coffee! :D

All the best Mike.

[Dave Schwartz]

I’m a poor judge of the betting population as a whole because I currently associate largely with people who truly are full time.

Dan,

This sentence is a mouthful.

It would be interesting to hear your take on what these professionals have in common.

Many people on this board desire to become such a professional and such information could prove to be invaluable to them in their quest.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[DanG]

Dan,

This sentence is a mouthful.

It would be interesting to hear your take on what these professionals have in common.

Many people on this board desire to become such a professional and such information could prove to be invaluable to them in their quest.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz
Dave;

There are many traits that I see in everyone successful regardless if its gambling or a more “traditional” business.

If I was pinned down to one thing it would be confidence. Not arrogance which is often confused with inner belief, but a realistic understanding of the actual percentages involved.

As with many (not all) successful people this confidence is shaped early in life. I was blessed to be in a positive environment early on which did not discourage gambling as my brother taught me the ropes.

Sidebar: I’ve told this story many times, but I took to racing very seriously early on. My mother actually has a picture of me reading the racing form at 5 yo. Leaving Monmouth Park at 13yo I turned to my brother and told him “I will bet the races someday for a living”.

Being my older brother and having no father early on his opinion was very important to me. He could have said “NO CHANCE” or some version of…Instead he looked me in the eye and said…”I believe you”.

While it doesn’t take this level of early reinforcement to succeed, it sure doesn’t hurt. All good players I’ve met have spent years losing at this game. It’s inevitable that you will pay harsh financial dues before you can cross over to the few who succeed.

There is TREMENDOUS negative energy in the gambling population as a whole. Players who want to improve should bend over backwards to associate with other successful players. A senior member of my group told me early on…”Never associate with people who don’t want to see you succeed”

On the surface that sounds trivial, but there is great resentment among gamblers toward players who win significantly.

I realize I’m addressing mostly philological issues and most people want formulas that are the secret to the money room. If I only could improve my track variants or if I had a database that went back 300 years I could build a model that would be bullet-proof.

There are foundation principles in data that you must have to succeed. You should not try to bet seriously with erroneous information. But, most good players spend FAR more time on the actual betting than they do handicapping and certainly more than gathering data.

Again…I’m jumping around in subjects but I’ll try and summarize.

Steps to winning and / or common traits in the serious player… (Not in any particular order) I left bankroll out of the equation, but it is obviously more important depending on which pool you are attacking.






Self confidence.
Associate with quality individuals who actually want to succeed.
Create your own betting line and have the word value branded on your forehead.
Pay for and allow professionals to gather your base information.
Determine what your personal strengths and weaknesses are… BE HONEST
Keeps records which will reveal #5 in real terms.
Determine what the majority of your competition is basing their wagers on and don’t use their information base.
Seek out others who want to succeed and form a partnership if you desire to play multi-race wagers.
Read what successful people write in racing, the stock market and life in general.
While any race in the world can produce value and profit learn your “best” circuit as well as anyone alive.
Over time many more things will occur to me, but in this half hour it’s what comes to mind.

BTW: One note on #7…

One of my partners is a sheet player and his opinion has produced great value over the years. New York in particular the sheet players are driving the pools significantly. When he tells me “most sheet players will love so and so” he his often correct and the betting will produce distortions on live contenders. Solid side bets occur when you understand what information base is driving the pools and it’s up to us to exploit it.

I’m out of time Dave…It’s off to a VERY wet and nasty Gulfstream Park. (Off the turf...)

[ryesteve]

Now, in our understanding of horse racing professionals, that would be one who does it full time or one who does this as his/her job. Not all professionals are successful professionals.
I don't think we're in disagreement. My point was that a "professional horseplayer" is not someone who plays weekends, and/or drops a few bets on weekdays during lunch hours or when his boss isn't looking, regardless of how stupendous his ROI might be. And if someone is doing this as their sole source if income, it doesn't matter how low that income is either. As you said, an earnings requirement isn't part of the definition.

[raybo]

I don't think we're in disagreement. My point was that a "professional horseplayer" is not someone who plays weekends, and/or drops a few bets on weekdays during lunch hours or when his boss isn't looking, regardless of how stupendous his ROI might be. And if someone is doing this as their sole source if income, it doesn't matter how low that income is either. As you said, an earnings requirement isn't part of the definition.

Agreed, many of the members of this forum are not "professionals" only because they have a traditional job which pays the bills. That aside, they are professionals and take their handicapping/analysis work very seriously, more than a mere hobby, which in my mind indicates an amateur.

[TurfRuler]

Agreed, many of the members of this forum are not "professionals" only because they have a traditional job which pays the bills. That aside, they are professionals and take their handicapping/analysis work very seriously, more than a mere hobby, which in my mind indicates an amateur.

I object...I resemble that remark!!!

[raybo]

I object...I resemble that remark!!!

:D

What, that you don't want to be considered a professional or an amateur?

[TurfRuler]

Winning or losing, very seriously!!! :bang:

[raybo]

Winning or losing, very seriously!!! :bang:


:lol:

[Cratos]

The real question is not how many professional gamblers bet horses as a livelihood, but what is a professional gambler? There are bettors who wager large sums of money and are not professional gamblers because they earn their income from other sources.

However from every thing I have read the estimates are about 4% of the wagering public and if you do the calculation that is about 1 in every 150 employed workers in America’s workforce.

[44PACE]

An Amateur or in other words a recreactional player is someone who may win on occasion but mostly loses becouse they put in little time to do the needed work.


A winning player is a person who does all the work needed to win year after year but still has other non betting income comming in.Winning 1 year and lossing 3 does not meet the requirements of a winning player.You need to show the ability to win year after year.



A Proffesional player in order to be labled this needs to be established as a winning player with no other income and earn enough at the races to live a confortable life style.Earning below poverty wages should not be considered a Professional player.

[Robert Fischer]

Great list here Dan.




Self confidence.
Associate with quality individuals who actually want to succeed.
Create your own betting line and have the word value branded on your forehead.
Pay for and allow professionals to gather your base information.
Determine what your personal strengths and weaknesses are… BE HONEST
Keeps records which will reveal #5 in real terms.
Determine what the majority of your competition is basing their wagers on and don’t use their information base.
Seek out others who want to succeed and form a partnership if you desire to play multi-race wagers.
Read what successful people write in racing, the stock market and life in general.
While any race in the world can produce value and profit learn your “best” circuit as well as anyone alive.




With all of the different methods discussed, I think it is important to mention Talent. Nobody likes to talk about talent. Talent is big. It might even be at the top of the "handicapping qualities" pyramid. Like the geometric pyramid design, Talent is not worth a penny without the building block layers that make up the supporting base of the pyramid. Like discipline, desire, self-control, etc..

[Cesario!]

I never understood the importance of this whole debate over the definition of "professional."

If you can make enough to support yourself (and, if applicable, your family) from betting the races and that makes you happy, that's terrific! If not, or if you prefer to supplement your income from further skills, and that makes you happy, that's great, too. Ultimately, I don't think it makes someone any better of a horseplayer (or person) if they choose to derive all their income from it -- instead, it's just a choice about what works for a particular person.

I think the term "professional" is incorrectly used by many people as status -- perhaps as the ultimate level that a horseplayer can reach. But, to the contrary, I think it has less to do with your particular skills at the game (although you'd be a fool to try to derive your sole income from betting if you weren't a superb handicapper/bettor), but more with the life choices a person makes regarding risk, balance, and opportunity costs.

Seth

[Dave Schwartz]

Dan,

I agree with everything you said.

My experience is that every "professional" I know embodies precisely the characteristics you have mentioned.

Thanks for taking the time.

Oh, and we need to get to know each other!


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[ezrabrooks]

An Amateur or in other words a recreactional player is someone who may win on occasion but mostly loses becouse they put in little time to do the needed work.


A winning player is a person who does all the work needed to win year after year but still has other non betting income comming in.Winning 1 year and lossing 3 does not meet the requirements of a winning player.You need to show the ability to win year after year.



A Proffesional player in order to be labled this needs to be established as a winning player with no other income and earn enough at the races to live a confortable life style.Earning below poverty wages should not be considered a Professional player.

I guess that finalizes that debate. Did you just pull all that crap out of thin air, or have a source to back you up?

[bigmack]

If I was pinned down to one thing it would be confidence. Not arrogance which is often confused with inner belief, but a realistic understanding of the actual percentages involved.
A pellucid depiction of the mind set of a full time professional player. Some dynamite points in your post and I appreciate it.

It helps to have a formidable bank behind oneself particularly when you rely on multi-race scenarios covering price plays and you sheepishly bump into chalk rendering tickets to a value less than your involvement. In time, the royal flush shows it's magical face and all is well in the world.

One shouldn't obfuscate bread & butter play on a day to day basis as it can be fruitful and I don't think people that play professionally should ever turn their back on it. I've seen it happen where guys do well with a certain style of play and they go exclusively to the P4's and P6's and find utter frustration.

[44PACE]

I guess that finalizes that debate. Did you just pull all that crap out of thin air, or have a source to back you up?



I guess when a person writes something here you have to expect that there will be a Jerk that will respond with a stupid comment.

[Tom]

A Proffesional player in order to be labled this needs to be established as a winning player with no other income and earn enough at the races to live a confortable life style.Earning below poverty wages should not be considered a Professional player.

I don't agree.
Doctors also writhe books, articles, papers, so do ball players, l;awyers......you name it. No income from other sources would eliminate a lot of legit proffessionals in many fields.

[ezrabrooks]

I guess when a person writes something here you have to expect that there will be a Jerk that will respond with a stupid comment.

You got that right Jerk... I am still trying to figure out where your stupid poverty level example came from.

[DanG]

I never understood the importance of this whole debate over the definition of "professional."

If you can make enough to support yourself (and, if applicable, your family) from betting the races and that makes you happy, that's terrific! If not, or if you prefer to supplement your income from further skills, and that makes you happy, that's great, too. Ultimately, I don't think it makes someone any better of a horseplayer (or person) if they choose to derive all their income from it -- instead, it's just a choice about what works for a particular person.

I think the term "professional" is incorrectly used by many people as status -- perhaps as the ultimate level that a horseplayer can reach. But, to the contrary, I think it has less to do with your particular skills at the game (although you'd be a fool to try to derive your sole income from betting if you weren't a superb handicapper/bettor), but more with the life choices a person makes regarding risk, balance, and opportunity costs.

Seth
Well said Seth! :ThmbUp:

The actual terminology is very over-rated and attaches all kinds of unrealistic expectations and connotations.

Short story: I’ll never forget when my X-wife’s uncle asked me what type of work I did before I met her…”I gambled on horse races” he literally never looked at me the same again….

The same exact response when I live in Vegas was often looked at with great admiration. As you said Seth…Both responses are wrong. It’s neither a "contemptible" profession / or the “glamorous” one weekend warriors imagine.

Its long hours with early on constant internal battles and finally the external battles that the pari-mutuel / taxation system have built in. Pure personal choice if you draw income from nine sources or just one.

[44PACE]

You got that right Jerk... I am still trying to figure out where your stupid poverty level example came from.

It was an OPINION not everthing needs to be backed up with references.This is a place where people exchange opinions. Is this too difficult for you to understand.

[DanG]

It helps to have a formidable bank behind oneself particularly when you rely on multi-race scenarios covering price plays and you sheepishly bump into chalk rendering tickets to a value less than your involvement. In time, the royal flush shows it's magical face and all is well in the world.

One shouldn't obfuscate bread & butter play on a day to day basis as it can be fruitful and I don't think people that play professionally should ever turn their back on it. I've seen it happen where guys do well with a certain style of play and they go exclusively to the P4's and P6's and find utter frustration.
These are excellent point BigMack.

A member of my group does “only” play multi-race bets, but he was very successful in business and has a significant nest egg to fall back on.

The pick-3 & 4 were more profitable for me this year than the pick-6. Far too many consolations this year, but that varies from year to year. I also play the straight pools, but use much more discipline in my betting line.

Exactas, Tri’s & Supers are not my specialty, as I’m much better at finding a couple ‘explosive horses that fire 20% of the time than I am rewarding consistency in the garbage holes

Proper betting techniques alleviate much of the anxiety that go with not knowing to the penny what your earnings will be.

[ezrabrooks]

It was an OPINION not everthing needs to be backed up with references.This is a place where people exchange opinions. Is this too difficult for you to understand.

I didn't see the word OPINION is your post... If it was an opinion...it was stupid at best.

[traynor]

Fear that after you deposit money in their accounts it will be stolen from you.

Not really. It has more to do with filing taxes.

[traynor]

Why would a professional not take advantage of rebates?

That is a reasonable question, to which the answer is a bit complex. At some tracks, a handful of bettors control the mutuels. Not so much because they bet all the money, but because they are considered "experts." Other bettors tend to follow their bets. Some mutuel clerks have made sizable incomes selling the information to other bettors.

Consider that in a "normal" situation, the professional has no control; they can only bet, and hope for the best. In other circumstances, by either dropping hints, touting specific entries, or bribing mutuel clerks to dispense false information to eager "bet-followers," a degree of control can be exerted over the perceptions of other bettors, and their responses. By creating a perception that one entry is "preferred," the pari-mutuel equivalent of the stock trader's "pump and dump" can be executed.

The more money on the false choice, the better the payoff on the real choice. For an interesting description of the ploys used (long ago, of course)by bettors at some of the Boston area tracks, see My Life in the Mafia (http://www.amazon.com/Life-Mafia-Vincent-Charles-Teresa/dp/1568493770/sr=8-1/qid=1170721983/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9788293-2487235?ie=UTF8&s=books) by Vincent Charles Teresa. Old, and out of date, but an interesting read nonetheless.

[how cliche]

\

Its long hours with early on constant internal battles and finally the external battles that the pari-mutuel / taxation system have built in.

As this is my 1st foray into semi-pro wagering in 2007, I'm experiencing a lot of the long hours and internal battles that you refer to. My bankroll has increased more than 50% in just over one month, but with the increase in capital comes an increase in pressure(self imposed). I'm finding a need to be flexible and at times take advantage of leverage opportunities in the gimmicks, but that goes against my conservative nature. I'm putting far more $ through the system than in years past, but it appears that is what's needed to enlarge a bankroll. Under this increased activity, my intuition has suffered & my ability to appraise probability for success has improved. Those are the main battles which go on internally. Probability vs. intuition. Straight vs. exotic.

I'm currently undergoing my first losing binge of 2007. I've lost 11 wagers in a row, and 11% of my bankroll in the process. The wagers are larger, because I just had a series of fairly sizeable scores which increased the base % wager. In these 11 losses, 8 runners missed the board, two lost photos, & I had one horse make his winning move only to be wiped out by a breakdown right in front of him.

This losing is psychologically uncomfortable, and I wonder if anyone has suggestions for how to cope with it. I am confident that the probabilities will land in my favor soon enough. Until then, what should I do?

[Suff]

2 months ago they barred a fairly well known owner at Suffolk on the False Pool scam. 10 or 15 $100 win tickets at various windows with 20 minutes to post... canceled at one window when they were loading.


Excelsior Group, the group that won the NYRA bid is about to buy Suffolk. Announcement due any day..

[banacek]

Self confidence.
Associate with quality individuals who actually want to succeed.
Create your own betting line and have the word value branded on your forehead.
Pay for and allow professionals to gather your base information.
Determine what your personal strengths and weaknesses are… BE HONEST
Keeps records which will reveal #5 in real terms.
Determine what the majority of your competition is basing their wagers on and don’t use their information base.
Seek out others who want to succeed and form a partnership if you desire to play multi-race wagers.
Read what successful people write in racing, the stock market and life in general.
While any race in the world can produce value and profit learn your “best” circuit as well as anyone alive.
Thanks DanG. That was great:ThmbUp::ThmbUp: And for those of you who for whatever reason want to argue over a precise definiton of professional horseplayer, I think there is none - it is a matter of personal opinion, but I think we can use DanG as an excellent example of one.

[DanG]

As this is my 1st foray into semi-pro wagering in 2007, I'm experiencing a lot of the long hours and internal battles that you refer to. My bankroll has increased more than 50% in just over one month, but with the increase in capital comes an increase in pressure(self imposed). I'm finding a need to be flexible and at times take advantage of leverage opportunities in the gimmicks, but that goes against my conservative nature. I'm putting far more $ through the system than in years past, but it appears that is what's needed to enlarge a bankroll. Under this increased activity, my intuition has suffered & my ability to appraise probability for success has improved. Those are the main battles which go on internally. Probability vs. intuition. Straight vs. exotic.

I'm currently undergoing my first losing binge of 2007. I've lost 11 wagers in a row, and 11% of my bankroll in the process. The wagers are larger, because I just had a series of fairly sizeable scores which increased the base % wager. In these 11 losses, 8 runners missed the board, two lost photos, & I had one horse make his winning move only to be wiped out by a breakdown right in front of him.

This losing is psychologically uncomfortable, and I wonder if anyone has suggestions for how to cope with it. I am confident that the probabilities will land in my favor soon enough. Until then, what should I do?
Hi, How Cliché;

If I say it’s all part of the process, I know that doesn’t help.

You say “semi-pro”, so with a side income it sounds like you only need to change your percentage of bankroll formula. You experienced a strong run to start and it escalated your bets past your comfort zone.

Without knowing the odds range you’re wagering on, it’s hard to get specific. 11 race run outs should have absolutely zero impact on any approach. (Except, suicidal bridge jumping :bang:)

I see you’re in Northern Cal. Lots of good players there and I highly recommend a few trips to the hot spots to explore limited partnerships. You say you’re venturing into exotics and this will increase anxiety, especially in the beginning . An old hand at wagering can really help with the roller coaster chasing scores.

Your method and decision making obviously has teeth as a 39% increase in bankroll even after the 11% drop is terrific.

Bottom Line:

If the size of your wagers ever impacts the selection process then your betting unit must be adjusted. You can always increase it again over time. Sounds like your well on way…stay at it and be sure to keep records. The 11 race losing streak in 2008 will not seem so dramatic when you recall what subsequently happened in 2007. ;)

[ranchwest]

This losing is psychologically uncomfortable, and I wonder if anyone has suggestions for how to cope with it. I am confident that the probabilities will land in my favor soon enough. Until then, what should I do?

My college speech teacher taught us "fight or flight". You either hang tough or perish.

You are as good as you are. Being uncomfortable won't change your ability, only your performance.

[PriceAnProbability]

As this is my 1st foray into semi-pro wagering in 2007, I'm experiencing a lot of the long hours and internal battles that you refer to. My bankroll has increased more than 50% in just over one month, but with the increase in capital comes an increase in pressure(self imposed). I'm finding a need to be flexible and at times take advantage of leverage opportunities in the gimmicks, but that goes against my conservative nature. I'm putting far more $ through the system than in years past, but it appears that is what's needed to enlarge a bankroll. Under this increased activity, my intuition has suffered & my ability to appraise probability for success has improved. Those are the main battles which go on internally. Probability vs. intuition. Straight vs. exotic.

I'm currently undergoing my first losing binge of 2007. I've lost 11 wagers in a row, and 11% of my bankroll in the process. The wagers are larger, because I just had a series of fairly sizeable scores which increased the base % wager. In these 11 losses, 8 runners missed the board, two lost photos, & I had one horse make his winning move only to be wiped out by a breakdown right in front of him.

This losing is psychologically uncomfortable, and I wonder if anyone has suggestions for how to cope with it. I am confident that the probabilities will land in my favor soon enough. Until then, what should I do?

You're making a leap into relying on betting for an income, and that's never easy, because the risk is there, like opening a store that no one buys from.

Either you're good enough to make it or you aren't, and if you are, you won't make money on the sidelines, while if you aren't, that'll eventually become apparent as well. Singular results mean very little.

Right now your only main question should be to bet 1 percent of your original bankroll or your current bankroll on your picks, or when to reset the unit.

[PriceAnProbability]

Exactas, Tri’s & Supers are not my specialty, as I’m much better at finding a couple ‘explosive horses that fire 20% of the time than I am rewarding consistency in the garbage holes


I bet if you checked the ROI on boxing or keying your races with more than one selection, it'd be positive if your other ROIs are positive.

The horses don't lose value in the vertical pools if they offer enough value to go into your p6.

[PriceAnProbability]

An Amateur or in other words a recreactional player is someone who may win on occasion but mostly loses becouse they put in little time to do the needed work.


A winning player is a person who does all the work needed to win year after year but still has other non betting income comming in.Winning 1 year and lossing 3 does not meet the requirements of a winning player.You need to show the ability to win year after year.



A Proffesional player in order to be labled this needs to be established as a winning player with no other income and earn enough at the races to live a confortable life style.Earning below poverty wages should not be considered a Professional player.

If I get paid to sell picks, and make money for my clients, I'm as professional as anyone else because I'm hired to handicap. That I have repeat customers says I must be doing something right.

To the IRS, a professional horseplayer is one who shows a profit three out of every five years, or something like that (ask an accountant, I'm not one), otherwise it's a profitable hobby. Wages don't matter but consistent profitability does.

Personally I'd say a true pro is someone who has won enough money to bank it, not touch it, and who can sustain a bankroll off the investment proceeds of previous winnings. That player is literally bulletproof and forever playing with house money.

Someone who is slightly profitable has already proven that they can beat the takeout by 20 percent or more, so it's not unreasonable to assume that they'll keep improving and they'll break the bank one day after they get mocked for earning "poverty wages," as one big super or p4 on something like BC day can wipe anyone out of poverty.

The real problem is the "theory" guys who write as if winning players were born with the knowledge of how to win forever, and sit on a beach sipping those funny drinks next to naked women while raking in the bucks.

[K9Pup]

To Dan and others that play daily.

How often do you guys come out ahead? It makes sense to me that playing the WPS pools you will have more "successful" days but those successes would be smaller than the exotic winning days. And playing P4,P5,P6 will have very few winning days but those will be the really good ones?????

Each player has a different tolerance to losing. I used to go ONLY for the "big ones". But now that I've added WP and QU/EX wagers I've had many more profitable days even though the amounts aren't great.

[ranchwest]

To the IRS, a professional horseplayer is one who shows a profit three out of every five years, or something like that (ask an accountant, I'm not one), otherwise it's a profitable hobby. Wages don't matter but consistent profitability does.


From what I've heard, that's not very good advice, except the part about consulting an accountant. The things that the IRS looks at first are whether you're conducting your business as a business, especially record keeping. Beyond that, talk to a tax accountant.

[how cliche]

Hi, How Cliché;

If I say it’s all part of the process, I know that doesn’t help.

You say “semi-pro”, so with a side income it sounds like you only need to change your percentage of bankroll formula. You experienced a strong run to start and it escalated your bets past your comfort zone.

Without knowing the odds range you’re wagering on, it’s hard to get specific. 11 race run outs should have absolutely zero impact on any approach. (Except, suicidal bridge jumping :bang:)

I see you’re in Northern Cal. Lots of good players there and I highly recommend a few trips to the hot spots to explore limited partnerships. You say you’re venturing into exotics and this will increase anxiety, especially in the beginning . An old hand at wagering can really help with the roller coaster chasing scores.

Your method and decision making obviously has teeth as a 39% increase in bankroll even after the 11% drop is terrific.

Bottom Line:

If the size of your wagers ever impacts the selection process then your betting unit must be adjusted. You can always increase it again over time. Sounds like your well on way…stay at it and be sure to keep records. The 11 race losing streak in 2008 will not seem so dramatic when you recall what subsequently happened in 2007. ;)

It actually does help Dan. I am thinking in the same manner. FYI, the lion's share of the wagers I put in are between 3-1 and 10-1. Less than 5% are higher or lower than that. You asked, I answered.

Yes I'm acquainted with some very good players here. I have befriended one full timer & one eclipse award winning "handicapper of the year." Neither of those would be suitable partners for me though. One wagers seldomnly and agressively in a single race manner, while the other wagers constantly & in a single race manner. I hopefully will meet other people who will compliment my exotic style better(multirace).

I do not think the $ amount of the wagers affects my decision making process. My own greed does however. There are numerous and repeated mistakes I've made that are of the same nature. They're based on greed. Take as an example, I spot a 10-1 M/L 4yo who's been off for 10 months and who was running races as a 3yo competitive with the field prior to the layoff. I like to gamble that with normal improvement from 3 to 4 he should be able to win. Makes sense except that his connection's profile indicates a low rate of success under these circumstances. Entered in the same race is another runner who fits the same profile, but has better 3yo form and better connections for layoff wins. His problem is he's 9-2 M/L. I've been painting the longer price as rosier in my mind solely because of greed. Time and again the shorter price has won. I can correct this. I just need to recognize it as it happens.

[ryesteve]

To the IRS, a professional horseplayer is one who shows a profit three out of every five years, or something like that (ask an accountant, I'm not one), otherwise it's a profitable hobby. Wages don't matter but consistent profitability does.
Does that mean GM is a actually a hobby and not a business? :D

[TurfRuler]

Great list here Dan.
With all of the different methods discussed, I think it is important to mention Talent. Nobody likes to talk about talent. Talent is big. It might even be at the top of the "handicapping qualities" pyramid. Like the geometric pyramid design, Talent is not worth a penny without the building block layers that make up the supporting base of the pyramid. Like discipline, desire, self-control, etc..

Talent does what it can. Genius does what it must.

[traynor]

From what I've heard, that's not very good advice, except the part about consulting an accountant. The things that the IRS looks at first are whether you're conducting your business as a business, especially record keeping. Beyond that, talk to a tax accountant.

Specifically, the IRS wants a piece of every win. The catch is that in order to "prove" that it was not really a win, but that your losses were equal to or exceeded your wins, you have to have records of wagers. More specifically, if substantial amounts are involved, you have to establish WHY you made the bets you did.

Everyone who has ever won a big tri or super has spent the next week at the track, scooping up losing tickets to "offset" the win. The IRS is quite accustomed to being handed shoeboxes filled with losing tickets, many of which bear the indelible imprint of some irate fan's heel mark. Mostly they are not considered "evidence of losses."

If, however, you keep meticulous records, and there is consistent information that establishes wagering patterns, they look at wagering just like any other kind of income producing enterprise. The key issue is not what the IRS considers "professional," it is whether they will allow losses to offset wins.

Hobbyists who win are every bit as obligated to pay taxes on their wins as "professionals." To the IRS, income is income, period. The ONLY advantage of being defined as a professional is that certain expenses, primarily losing bets, can be used to offset the wins, and reduce the tax obligation.

Personally, I think anyone who tries to chisel a few dollars by not reporting wins--hobbyist or professional--is asking for serious trouble. If you are winning, give them a cut, and everyone is happy. If you are losing, keep meticulous records, and use them to keep the lion's share of your occasional windfalls.

[traynor]

2 months ago they barred a fairly well known owner at Suffolk on the False Pool scam. 10 or 15 $100 win tickets at various windows with 20 minutes to post... canceled at one window when they were loading.


Excelsior Group, the group that won the NYRA bid is about to buy Suffolk. Announcement due any day..

Exactly. If certain "information seekers" see a trainer loading up, the unstated assumption is that a coup is in progress.

[44PACE]

If I get paid to sell picks, and make money for my clients, I'm as professional as anyone else because I'm hired to handicap. That I have repeat customers says I must be doing something right.

To the IRS, a professional horseplayer is one who shows a profit three out of every five years, or something like that (ask an accountant, I'm not one), otherwise it's a profitable hobby. Wages don't matter but consistent profitability does.

Personally I'd say a true pro is someone who has won enough money to bank it, not touch it, and who can sustain a bankroll off the investment proceeds of previous winnings. That player is literally bulletproof and forever playing with house money.

Someone who is slightly profitable has already proven that they can beat the takeout by 20 percent or more, so it's not unreasonable to assume that they'll keep improving and they'll break the bank one day after they get mocked for earning "poverty wages," as one big super or p4 on something like BC day can wipe anyone out of poverty.

The real problem is the "theory" guys who write as if winning players were born with the knowledge of how to win forever, and sit on a beach sipping those funny drinks next to naked women while raking in the bucks.


I will give you and Tom credit for your responce at least you put in some thought and have the ability to think.


If you are making your entire living on betting and horse racing related matters like writing or selling your picks etc. you can consider yourself a Professional.All we are talking about are labels.

[44PACE]

I learned from a Friend of mine who made his entire income from betting on the horses ( he played only Pick 3's) for 3 years to remain silient at the track. There is nothing to gain by letting anyone at the track know you are a winning player.Win or Lose a race its best to remain silent.

If people find out you are a winner you will either get people constantly asking to borrow money or asking over and over again who do you like.Egos are for movie stars atleast they get paid millions to lose their privacy.

[Pace Cap'n]

The "three out of five" or "two out of seven" or whatever it currently is has nothing to do with profits--the purpose is to deternine eligibilty for a sole proprietor (individual) to claim a loss.

[ranchwest]

The "three out of five" or "two out of seven" or whatever it currently is has nothing to do with profits--the purpose is to deternine eligibilty for a sole proprietor (individual) to claim a loss.

I don't think so, there is no such guideline with the IRS.

I still suggest consulting with a CPA and/or tax attorney, but from everything I know the IRS looks at whether you're conducting business as a business and whether there is evidence that you are conducting business for the purpose of a profit, not that you necessarily achieve profitability.

I've read some postings by a CPA on this topic on a musicians' forum. He says that it is possible to have a number of years of losses and still clear the IRS.

Now, I'd also throw in the caveat that I would anticipate that the IRS is probably going to be tougher on gamblers than almost any other profession.

[raybo]

Specifically, the IRS wants a piece of every win. The catch is that in order to "prove" that it was not really a win, but that your losses were equal to or exceeded your wins, you have to have records of wagers. More specifically, if substantial amounts are involved, you have to establish WHY you made the bets you did.

Everyone who has ever won a big tri or super has spent the next week at the track, scooping up losing tickets to "offset" the win. The IRS is quite accustomed to being handed shoeboxes filled with losing tickets, many of which bear the indelible imprint of some irate fan's heel mark. Mostly they are not considered "evidence of losses."

If, however, you keep meticulous records, and there is consistent information that establishes wagering patterns, they look at wagering just like any other kind of income producing enterprise. The key issue is not what the IRS considers "professional," it is whether they will allow losses to offset wins.

Hobbyists who win are every bit as obligated to pay taxes on their wins as "professionals." To the IRS, income is income, period. The ONLY advantage of being defined as a professional is that certain expenses, primarily losing bets, can be used to offset the wins, and reduce the tax obligation.

Personally, I think anyone who tries to chisel a few dollars by not reporting wins--hobbyist or professional--is asking for serious trouble. If you are winning, give them a cut, and everyone is happy. If you are losing, keep meticulous records, and use them to keep the lion's share of your occasional windfalls.

The last time I checked, anyone who claims income from "gambling", is eligible to claim losses against the profit, meaning losing wagers, only. In order to claim anything else, data/software, transportation,etc., you must formally claim it as a business, with all that that status entails, quarterlies, etc.

[raybo]

Personally, I think anyone who tries to chisel a few dollars by not reporting wins--hobbyist or professional--is asking for serious trouble. If you are winning, give them a cut, and everyone is happy. If you are losing, keep meticulous records, and use them to keep the lion's share of your occasional windfalls.

Absolutely!!

[Pace Cap'n]

I don't think so, there is no such guideline with the IRS.

I still suggest consulting with a CPA and/or tax attorney, but from everything I know the IRS looks at whether you're conducting business as a business and whether there is evidence that you are conducting business for the purpose of a profit, not that you necessarily achieve profitability.

I've read some postings by a CPA on this topic on a musicians' forum. He says that it is possible to have a number of years of losses and still clear the IRS.

Now, I'd also throw in the caveat that I would anticipate that the IRS is probably going to be tougher on gamblers than almost any other profession.

My statement was a poorly worded rebuttal to a statement by P & P to wit:

To the IRS, a professional horseplayer is one who shows a profit three out of every five years, or something like that (ask an accountant, I'm not one), otherwise it's a profitable hobby. Wages don't matter but consistent profitability does.

There is no single determinant factor for determining profit motive.

The AICPA has a case related to Sec. 183 (generally known as the "hobby loss" section) here... (5th item down)

Determination of a Profit Motive (http://www.aicpa.org/pubs/jofa/sep2000/taxmat.htm)

[ranchwest]

Pace Cap'n, thanks for that excellent post. My degree is in accounting, but I've never worked taxes and haven't been active in accounting in quite some time, so I only new the basics of what was spelled out in that link, not the specifics. That link was quite helpful.

[NoDayJob]

:lol: Here's a definition of a professional horseplayer that no one will disagree with. At least $1,500,000 cash that can be raised overnight without mortgaging anything, and still have money enough to pay the next years bills without going into your betting pool or changing your life style. :lol: