If LUCK were all

[karlskorner]

http://www.trackmaster.com/retail/valuline.htm

[PaceAdvantage]

Pardon me if I am mistaken, but weren't you the guy who always argued against the "overlay" guys whenever they would post?

Have you crossed to the other side?

[karlskorner]

Did I cross over ? Hardly. Appreciate the advantage I have if enough people believe this article.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by karlskorner
http://www.trackmaster.com/retail/valuline.htm

This is 3rd grade math.


The body of the work does not accend to the title,

"The Mathematical Basis for Successful Overlay Wagering "

Joe M

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by karlskorner
Did I cross over ? Hardly. Appreciate the advantage I have if enough people believe this article.

Karl, the author said this: "Finding such a horse with an overlay to its true odds is the great challenge in horse race handicapping, but it is the only way to profit at the races. "

Can't believe a guy would write "the only way to profit".

Profit is a three legged stool with the legs being win percentage, payoff & volume(amounts wagered).

How could an author imply that you can increase only one leg with out affecting the others. What a bunch of crap.

JM

[thelyingthief]

This is a confusion: profit may be described in these categories--but then, so may loss, or lack of profit, or even taking a dump. The distinction may seem artificial, but it is not. I spend absurd sums of money on photography, and the monetary returns for my outlay are infinitesimal. My "profit" is derived from the relaxation and diversion of the activity. So, profit is not integrally bound to "making money". The moment, however, we bind these together, it follows that "Value", whether it be reflected in an intuitive choice to play or abstain, or more rigorously defined by a statistical evaluation of factor impact, is the pursuit to which we are all, or should be, committed (But then, again, perhaps we should all be committed, for playing this game).

If this is so, and making money is the definition we wish to use, then it may be helpful to evaluate the resistance displayed by so many players to the obvious assertion that, "without an edge we lose money, and with an edge we make it." This would seem to imply that this resistance may simply be another of the many kinds of emotionalism symptomatic of a losing mindset.

I became reconciled to racing's high cost to play (takeout) when I heard "cost to play" defined on a continuum of "number of suckers participating" (need I spell it out? That racing has an extraordinarily high "sucker" over savant ratio? Let's call it the sos factor, with, say, the Stock Market having a comparatively low SOS rating). Now, given your ordinary horseplayer, half drunk and crazed as he mostly is, resistance to the obvious is his most habitual mindset. In fact, this is the very basis of politics, I assert. By raising his hand (handicapping), a voter (bettor), hopes to coerce nature (horses) to do his bidding (win), and this, of course, with a minimum of sweat or difficulty (Let's bet the favorite!).

So, coming to grips with this resistance should also be the first thing, or, at least, one of the important things a player has to do.

Please, I beg you, DO NOT DO THIS. :rolleyes:

[breakage]

What??

[Skanoochies]

Breakage, exactly. ROFLMAO.:D :D

[RXB]

The innumerable incontinuities regress into exponential magnitudes of an indiscrete nature, manifesting themselves in the subatomic level in which the quantum is both the observer and the observed while the physical becomes unimportant.

Therefore, never play any horse at less than 4/1, unless it's a grey on a wet track.

[breakage]

I think I'm getting an exponential headache.:p