You are winning at the track today/ quit while you are ahead??

[shanta]

This is something I have struggled with. Let's say we are making
relatively large win bets ( $50.00). Ok we walk in the track and on
our 3rd bet we catch a $40 dollar bomb and have 50 clams on it.
That's a GRAND man!We are in for $150.00 so far so we are up
$850.00. Do you get up and leave? Or do we Continue to "play our
game"? Is there a right or wrong answer here or are we in that "grey
area" again?

Let me throw a little more shi* in the game here ok? Assume this is
your ONLY SOURCE of income. Now does this change your response? If
yes why?

I think we have all been to the track on days when NOTHING BUT CHALK
wins seemingly every race right? Conversely we have all seen days
when bomb after bomb comes in. Doc Sartin would call these
happenings "cycles" in the followups and always advised us to be
aware of this cycling . How does thinking about this dynamic affect
your decision to stay/leave? Or does it?

Richie :)

[Niko]

Great question:
I've heard two people give oposite responses that I can remember (and I HOPE the responses are correct)

Karlskorner: Leave when you've made your bank.
B. Meadows: It's a game of percentages, you never know when you're next winner is going to hit so you continue to play.

I've had many days when if I would have quit after the first bomb I'd be further ahead. But I've had a few fantastic days that wouldn't have happened if I followed the above. I'm not willing to give up those fantastic days but I wish I had records for the last 4-5 years to give me some valid data on this. I guess I'm in the Meadows camp.

Opposite question: You're 0-3 at one track or 0-10 playing multiple tracks for the day, do you keep playing or quit because it's not your day?
Again I've had varied success on both sides of this.

[jfdinneen]

Richie,


From a strictly rational economic (mathematical) theory viewpoint, winning any individual bet, no matter how large, does not impact the decisions regarding the remainder of the card so you should continue to play (Barry Meadows has also endorsed this viewpoint in a submission to a separate thread). By contrast, from a prospect (psychological) theory (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979) viewpoint, the utility of money and fear of regret become important confounding variables and will differ from individual to individual!


Best wishes,


John

[Niko]

Now that's an intelligent response, very well put.

[hurrikane]

do you quit on the days you are behind?

both make sense...depends on the individual.

where most losers go wrong is when they win they up their bet size. a $5 bettor is now placing $50 and $100 bets as though winning one race gave them validation.

[Pace Cap'n]

I'm not totally sure this is a apt analogy, but I'll throw it out anyway.

I've been reading some on poker lately and a similar question usually comes up. When do you quit?

Daniel Negraneau, THE top young gun in the poker world who is also very thoughtful and articulate, had a good take on that problem. He decided if he was going to play poker professionally, he would treat it as a profession (job) with a regularly scheduled work week. Eight hours a day and five days a week.

Through meticulous record keeping he was able to determine after awhile that his win rate was $40/hr.

So, if he had been at the table for two hours, and had $1500 more in chips than he started with, and someone came over and said "How much you up?", his reply would be "$80". No matter the chip stack, his win rate was still $40.00/hr.

To cross-reference horseracing, if your overall ROI is 100% ($50 won every $50 bet) and you just hit a fifty-dollar ticket for a grand, rather than being up $950 you are up $50.00.

The time-allotted cross-reference may be less clear, but perhaps one card for each track played per session.

The psychological factor (scared money) is the bane of most would-be professional gamblers, I suspect.

[aaron]

In the book "Ten Steps To Winning" by Danny Holmes,he discusses this in detail and recommends to stop betting once your goal is attained.He states in the long run this is the proper way to play.

[shanta]

As far as when I stop when losing I start each day with a bank allowing for 10 losses ( I am strictly a win bettor, 2 horse to win in each race). If I lose 10 races in a row or at any point the initial bank is gone I am done.

My conflicts are solely related to days when I am winning. Tough game ha?

Richie :)

[betchatoo]

I think the most importat question is what bets do you have left and how confident are you in them? If you have handicapped a card and still have 2 or more price plays that you feel give you a strong chance to make more money, then I feel you need to continue to play. If you are only somewhat interested in the rest of the card, it's time to leave

[hurrikane]

so, why not have the same rules for winning.
you win a certain amount you leave.

I believe that is how Karl plays.

if you are not going to be a percent of bank regardless of wins or losses then you should probably play loose bank/win bank.

or not.

[Valuist]

Gambling is made of up streaks; you should definitely be more aggressive when things are going your way, just as you should back off a bit when you are struggling. There may be a fundamental reason, like catching on to a bias or hot trainer before the public does (or vica versa in the cold streak), or it could just be a random distribution of positive/negative events.

[shanta]

John,

Yes thank you for that reply. It is obvious you put a lot of thought into it. May i ask if you are a professor or teacher of some kind? You speak at a very high intellectual level. That is meant as a compliment btw. Is that 1979 paper you speak of available to read? .

Pace Cap'n,

I think it is a very good anaolgy. I am familiar with that young man and what he does for a living. Some definite food for thought.

Richie :)

[Exactaman]

In the book "Ten Steps To Winning" by Danny Holmes,he discusses this in detail and recommends to stop betting once your goal is attained.He states in the long run this is the proper way to play.

oh, i'll stop betting when my goal is attained allright. on dec. 31 of this year when i post a +roi :) and the next day will be a new year!!!

i really think that if one day is that important to you, you are approaching this game with a fundamentally wrong outlook. only the long term matters--it's much better to realize this as soon as possible.

[paulc]

I would think the answer... to continue or not after an early bomb... lies with (1) the psychological makeup of the bettor... and (2) the physical makeup of the track.

Clearly, from a purely mathematical standpoint, there's no reason not to continue... as someone noted, each individual bet is unrelated to what happened previously. But I have to attach a "maybe" to that in my second point below.

My first point is the psychological one. If I can ignore what went before, then no problem with continuing... but if I'm the type to feel, "Hey, I'm way up, let's loosen up and try to really score with more bets or questionable races", then leave immediately. We should never move outside our comfort zone and system in handicapping or betting.

Now, the second point. I think all of us have a basic handicapping style... and maybe I'm alone, but I've found that some days it really works well on certain tracks and other days it doesn't. Sometimes, I can hit 3 of the 4 races I like at Belmont... and go 0 for the day at Churchill. Knowing that, my inclination is that if I'm starting to have a nice day at Belmont (for instance), I'll focus more there... maybe review some races I tossed out, maybe look at more exotic plays in addition to my staple bets... and maybe focus less on a track I started at 0-for-2. In the end, I may bet more races or fewer... depends on what I find.

[jfdinneen]

... Is that 1979 paper you speak of available to read? ...

Richie / Niko,

Thank you both for the kind words.

Yes, I readily acknowledge that I have more than a passing familiarity with the hallowed halls of academia. As to the article I referenced in the earlier posting, I can provide two links - the original paper in Econometrica (http://prospect-theory.behaviouralfinance.net/KaTv79.pdf (http://prospect-theory.behaviouralfinance.net/KaTv79.pdf)) and a layman's summary (http://www.econport.org:8080/econport/request?page=man_ru_advanced_prospect (http://www.econport.org:8080/econport/request?page=man_ru_advanced_prospect)).

In fact, you alluded to one of Kahneman and Tversky's most important findings in your original submission - framing problem. Basically, they found that when faced with a choice of a certain gain and an equally valued gamble most subjects chose the certain gain. However, when faced with the equivalent problem framed as a choice between a certain loss and an equally valued gamble subjects now chose to gamble. Other important findings relate to a number of fallacies with respect to decision making under uncertain conditions including anchoring and adjustment, availability, base rate, conjunction, and representational errors. Interestingly, we are all subject to these same fallacies every day at the races.

Let me know if you would like some examples.


Best wishes,

John

[OTM Al]

This question is why I think it is important to have a plan before you start. These are the horses I like, this is how much money I am willing to bet sort of thing. I believe once you set such a plan, stick to it no matter what has happened. I had too many times when I started setting such a plan that i backed down after a couple losses and didn't make the bets I originally inteded to that came in which would have put me well ahead for the day whereas because I chickened out, I ended down. Same thing with a big winner. Stay the course. Same bets you would have made had you not won. In other words, don't get crazy with the money either. Had you not hit, you would have kept playing, so why quit because you did the very thing you went to the track for?

[ThoroughbredPhotos]

I have had this happen many times...More often than not for many people I know more than I...This happens to us in casino's as well...When someone hits the hard #'s on the craps table and continues to ride luck...or getting blackjack a few times in a sequence of cards...It is the same at the track...

"I am riding the wave of winnings" It is a feeling of excitement...It is really not based on logic or numbers at all...It is a feeling only....

My thought has always been this...

If I win more than two times my investment, I retain the investment plus the matching amount...any more over that I stay and try to continue to pick wisely...If I have already made money and I think I can make more, then I still have money to spend...Otherwise this keeps me from going home anything but a loser....

Example:

Start the day with $200...By the fourth race I have banked $575....I keep the original $200 + $200 = $400 and the difference $575 - $400 = $175 I can use to bet the rest of the races (If I have that winning feeling) or keep it and go home...

This way I always end up on the positive side of things on a "winning" day....

Mike
www.thoroughbredphotos.net

[formula_2002]

If you have an edge..bet until you drop.

However for me..I have learned to "walk" if I hit my goal.

What allows me to do this? I know the odds against me.
Once you can admit to that, life is good.

So I make a large bet ( a bit more then the Peable Beach green's fee), in the game that offers the smallest vig with the highest win %.

And that game is craps (pass line) .

Dont tell me blackjack. It could take a million hands to prove a 1 1/2% edge..(based on the last book I've read)

[cj]

But you have no edge in craps, ever.

[formula_2002]

But you have no edge in craps, ever.

The key here is, I know it.. and thats ok.

I like the restraunts, the rooms, and the treatment I get.
The dealers are kind and if I win, they win.

[shanta]

John,
and a layman's summary (http://www.econport.org:8080/econport/request?page=man_ru_advanced_prospect).

I printed up this "layman's" summary and am reading and re-reading it now. Thanks so much for taking the time to put this up for me to read.

I would love to see some examples from you.
Richie

[formula_2002]

John,
and a layman's summary (http://www.econport.org:8080/econport/request?page=man_ru_advanced_prospect).

I printed up this "layman's" summary and am reading and re-reading it now. Thanks so much for taking the time to put this up for me to read.

I would love to see some examples from you.
Richie

WRT horse racing, have been there and done that;

"Decision-Making Under Uncertainty - Advanced Topics"

Horse racing is a simple game.
Horse racing is not an "uncertain " game. It's as accurate as any natural odds or casino game.

[Pace Cap'n]

WRT horse racing, have been there and done that;

"Decision-Making Under Uncertainty - Advanced Topics"

Horse racing is a simple game.
Horse racing is not an "uncertain " game. It's as accurate as any natural odds or casino game.

Say what??

[Kreed]

Some great ideas but I really think that in the final analysis IT ALL DEPENDS.
I work on wall st where gambling (with others money) still sees some of us
conservative & some speculative. My limit for Win Betting is $100 ... and
I mostly Win Bet $30. I just get uncomfortable above that limit. All gambling
is risky but in racing, unlike craps & blackjack, you don't have to lay money
down. You can pass a race when its unfavorable. Like all games, some players
are great, most are average, some are horrible. It's a tough game & I think its
a guys holy grail to beat it, but the Rebate Shops + Math routines have made
it easy to eke out a ~3% profit (at least). You don't "have to beat the take"
which I think is mostly a cliche anyway. But, rebates & math on How to bet
comes AFTER you find a reasonably good prediction method first.

[Jeff P]

Very interesting thread!!!

Each of us has a different psychological makeup and if there is a "right" answer, I think it might be different for each one of us.

The more I play, the more I would have to disagree with the following statement:

...each individual bet is unrelated to what happened previously.

I tend to think that factors not present in the past performances do influence the outcomes of races. A dead rail, track weight, and perhaps wind being some of the possible causes.

I've kept some very detailed records and seem to do best with a percentage of bankroll in sessions approach. I'm not saying this is the right approach for everybody. It just seems to be the right approach for me.

I seldom find myself quitting for reasons of being ahead early in the day. At one time I used to play that way. The records I keep tell me I've missed out on some fantastic plays that way and that I'm better off steadily grinding out profits with a longer term outlook. So when I do find myself unexpectedly ahead early in the day, I continue to play.

[Kreed]

Your idea reminds me that a deck of cards even shuffled 100 times might NOT
be a fair deck. Is that next card random or biased. I think your right in many
instances but i couldn't prove it.

[toetoe]

Great thread! Kudos to Kreed for knowing his choke point and tailoring his game accordingly. Just a quick reminder to stay the course, win or lose, not in terms of # of races played, but just your normal m.o. Don't become a drunken cowboy just because you're ahead $1,000. Don't become a suicidal Gloomy Gus after a few tough beats. Oh, that's unrealistic? Well, if we can't handle the ups and downs responsibly, there's always bingo.

[Zman179]

What I would usually do is: if presented with $1000 after winning the first bet, I'll take $500 of the winnings PLUS my original bankroll for the day and take it completely out of commission. In other words I am absolutely guaranteed to walk out of the track as a winner of at least $500. With the other $500, I'll keep playing because you never know when it's your day and you never want to miss "the boat". But I won't push plays either.

And PLEASE don't talk to me about craps. One day, I was getting ready to leave Bally's in AC after a very bad day. I had two $5 chips in my pocket and decided to play my last two chips on the pass line in front of a crowded table. I rolled a point of five. Would you believe that I rolled TWELVE HARDS IN A ROW! There was so much money riding on the hards that you couldn't see any of the felt on the table. Bottom line is: I sevened out and got a big round of applause. Big freakin' deal, I was out $10 while everyone was up big time. Not one tip came my way.

I hate craps.

[toetoe]

If you are betting a %age of bankroll, you don't have to worry, do you?

[Jeff P]

Your idea reminds me that a deck of cards even shuffled 100 times might NOT be a fair deck...

IS there such a thing as a truly random number?

One of the many pet projects I have worked on is a VB based horse racing bankroll simulator. It's data source is a seed file containing a record of wins and losses from my own actual play. With it, I can feed it a starting bankroll, a percentage of bankroll for each bet, and the number of plays to make for each trial. It uses VB's random number generator to "randomly" select a play from the seed file. It then records the impact upon bankroll before randomly selecting the next play and continues until the starting bankroll is either tapped out or the predetermined number of plays are made. At the end, it reports back the number of wins, the longest winning and losing streaks, and the ending bankroll. Kind of cool.

The problem is that VB's random number generator, even randomized using a timer, is not truly random. After commanding the simulator to run several thousand trials and record it's own results, I noticed that the random number sequences generated sometimes repeated themselves number for number all the way throughout a trial, creating several sets of identical trials.

Still, the whole thing provided me some very interesting insight into setting bankroll parameters and coping with element of ruin theory.

[superfecta]

Is anything really random?In gaming i think not.Even random events seem to happen in cycles.Thats why I have difficulty accepting computer studies and using random # generators to prove a statistic.It can be proven over a large sample,but how much can it help in your play, which is short term?I find playing against probability and concentrating on the cycles more condusive to winning.Or call it trend watching,which makes sense in handicapping(track bias,hot trainer,cold jock,etc.)but has application in other games such as poker,keno,craps or slots.The trick then becomes knowing when to quit,and I believe most people will be greedy and in effect prove the overall statistic true.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

When I was a young kid going to the track, a wise old man told me over and over something which at the time I laughed at because I didn't believe it had any truth to it. Now, years later, after observing others actions and reading this thread, I am sure that his statement was 100% correct.

"You are not going to believe this, but most people are frightened by BIG money"

What if Sam Walton "quit" after one store?

What if Bill Gates "quit" after developing his first operating system idea?

What if Mark Cuban "quit" after making his first million $'s?

Amazingly, some brilliant business people will risk their winning first store to open up a second store............risk their winning 2 stores to open up 2 more stores...........risk their winning 4 stores to open up 4 more.......etc.

If you quit because you are afraid of losing, you are in the wrong game. Nobody with the confidence needed to give this game a beating would ever think about quitting given the situation presented.

[BMeadow]

Mathematically, this is a simple question. If you have an edge, bet. If you have no edge, don't bet. This has exactly zero to do with whether you hit the first race. I can't imagine any professional gambler believing you should "quit when you're ahead."

Psychologically, though, some players will feel more of a sense of accomplishment if they do quit when they're ahead, and will feel bad if they give back early winnings. Few players are professionals; most players bet for recreation, are long-term losers, and simply want to have fun--and part of that fun for many players is leaving the track as a winner.

[shanta]

Mathematically, this is a simple question. If you have an edge, bet. If you have no edge, don't bet. This has exactly zero to do with whether you hit the first race. I can't imagine any professional gambler believing you should "quit when you're ahead."

Psychologically, though, some players will feel more of a sense of accomplishment if they do quit when they're ahead, and will feel bad if they give back early winnings. Few players are professionals; most players bet for recreation, are long-term losers, and simply want to have fun--and part of that fun for many players is leaving the track as a winner.

Barry,

Many years back Tom Brohamer hit a tremedous pick 6. According to Doc Tom told him he was worried about now trying to hit these all the time and the 100-200 bucks a day he was making was not enough. So he took the next MONTH off and played golf.

Now this IS an extreme case of winning big and leaving BUT he basically did and I would certainly call Tom Brohamer a professional.

What i am getting from the thread IS that there is no definitive answer. Some great ideas have been put forth that I have never really considered.

Dave Schwartz has also emailed me with some great stuff and I want to thank him.


Richie Pizzicara :)

[karlskorner]

I guess I never bought enough books, methods, systems or programs over the past 30 years to change my mind. Set a goal for the day, if you hit, stop playing. It doesn't work for everbody. Many is the time I have come home, printed the charts and see that I could have hit 1 or 2 more, but that is small compared to the times I would have given some, most or all of my winnings back. Why bother ?

[jfdinneen]

...I would love to see some examples...

Richie,


I outline below some of the cognitive biases to which the Great Unwashed (Betting Public) are subject in trying to come to terms with the Racing game! Though I illustrate a few of the more common fallacies with a single example, I encourage you to think of other examples from your own experience.

Anchoring and Adjustment,
Confirmation Bias,
Recency Effect,
Regression to Mean,
Anchoring and Adjustment:
Published statistics of any kind can lead to anchoring and adjustment (we base our starting point on a specific piece of information and then adjust that value to account for other factors). For example, M/L odds, speed pars, and trainer statistics are all possible anchors. The danger here is the overly weighted starting point could mean that different starting points (anchors) lead to different decisions. The best way to address this problem is to use a variety of starting points and see if you come to the same decision. Alternatively, you could select the median (average) ability of the runners in the race as your starting point and evaluate each runner relative to this anchor.

Confirmation Bias:
One of the strongest biases is the tendency to look for reasons why our initial decision (selection) is right and to heavily discount of ignore any evidence to the contrary. This tendency is most often displayed by the horseplayer focusing on the past performances of a specific runner for reasons why it will win today (almost to the exclusion of the impact of the other runners in the race). A more subtle variation of this particular tendency is selecting winners instead of eliminating losers!

In the following classic experiment (Wason, 1960), subjects were shown the hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis) that "If a card has a vowel on one side, it must have an even number on the other side" and were presented with four cards arranged as follows:

E4
7K


Subjects were instructed to turn over the two cards required to fully test the rule. Most guessed incorrectly!

Recency Effect:
This effect is evidenced by an over-reliance on the last paceline in past performances. Sometimes, this is compounded by the Peak-End effect where the best paceline is selected either on its own or in combination with the last paceline. A runner's past performances should be seen as a sampling of its overall ability and all past performances should be included in any evaluation. For instance, selecting the median (average) performance or combining the second-best and second-worst performances would probably better reflect a horse's true ability. Consider the analogy with baseball where a batting average is used to represent a ballplayer's ability not his most recent or his best performance.

Regression to Mean:
The bounce effect is the best illustration of regression to the mean. Given that an average is a true reflection of a runner's ability, then a particularly good or bad performance is more likely to be followed by a performance closer to the mean. Obviously, this does not hold true for 2/3yo horses that are still improving. The error we commit is in assigning too much weight to bouncing.

Finally, as a general point, horse racing should be viewed as an exercise in ordinal measurement (rankings). After all, we get paid at the windows for selecting the correct rank order (first, second,...) and not on what particular rating (speed figure) we assigned to each runner.

Let me know if you would like additional examples.

Best wishes,






John

[alysheba88]

Good posts ITP and Barry.

[Shacopate]

PaulC,

You should post more often.

[JustMissed]

I would think the answer... to continue or not after an early bomb... lies with (1) the psychological makeup of the bettor... and (2) the physical makeup of the track.

What are you talking about?

Do you mean how much dirt is on the track?The track condition?What?

I don't understand.

JM

[gurulj]

I never knew a pro that didn't have a quota for the day, win or lose.
They would have set amount in mind to make for each day, also a
certain amount they would lose and go home. If they hit their quota
for the day and had a lot left over they would rat hole their bank
amount (their play money for the day) pluse their due amont. They
may play with whatever was left over or just go for the day. But they
always had a quota they would set to win or lose on a given day.

Jerry
http://www.a1handicapping.com/

[InsideThePylons-MW]

I never knew a pro that didn't have a quota for the day, win or lose.[/url]

You've obviously don't know a real pro in today's game. All real pros know that given the rules of the game today, quantity is the key to maximizing your profit. Setting win/loss limits is 100% anti-quantity.

[hurrikane]

before the bashing starts i'll just throw in.

i see nothing wrong with karls method of play. Set a goal, achieve it, start over again tomorrow. it works for him.

I dont' play that way. I make all the bets at one time based on certain factors. It talks me 15 min to do all tracks in the US. I make the bets and add them up at the end of the month/yr. I know my hit rate and ROI. I couldn't tell you if I was going to hit the 4th race at TP or the 8th at SA. I just know that if I don't bet one of them that is likely the one that will hit.

Now, I can sit and handicap with the best of them. That is how i was reared in racing...handicaping the races. When I
go live that is what I do mostly playing exotics and mostly for recreation. The bread and butter comes from the day to day grind.

both work, and really I can't say one works better than the other. I know I can play every race in the US looking for certain types of horses gaining an advantage in certain types of races. That is how I can make it a winning season.
No way I could do that handicapping. But I know I could play one circuit/track, play everyday, and make a profit. did it for serveral years. I just don't play that way today

my point was, before everyone starts telling everyone how it has to be done and this is how the pros do it. At least consider the possibility that there is more than one successful way to 'skin the cat'.

good luck

[joeprunes]

If your looking for opinions heres mine. You cant compare horse racing to any other type of gambling. You set goals such as money management and patience(craps and cards).
In horse betting If your winning early and won af good amount of money your on a winnig trend thats good. Now if you have a good bet in the 9th even though you won your quota why leave. If you start off losing and lost your quota your on a losing trend BUT if your any kind of handicapper and have I good bet in the 9th why not bet and you can pull out your losses.
What other betting sport can you bet a few dollars and win hundreds(triples etc), other than lotto none..jp

[karlskorner]

Over the years on this board we have all read " Every Professional handicapper I ever met, etc. etc. etc "

For my own reasons, I doubt if a professional handicapper would be discussing his income with someone he met at the local OTB, racetrack or over the internet, no more than fellow employees discusses their paycheck.

IMHO most professional handicappers are "islands unto themselves", they may have many acquiantances, but very few " friends " they discuss their yearly iincome with (if any). I keep reading "stats" about 5%/20% etc. "winners" that book writers/authorities etc. quote, unless they have gone country wide to gather these "stats" and interviewed each and every professional, they are meaningless.

[BIG RED]

I find 4 bets per track per day when playing. Up to 5 tracks. When I hit at a track I stop. Done there for the day. I wager a certain way that when one hits, its a profit for day for that track. I am happy with whatever profit happens for that day, small or large. I have my good with my bad, but last year it was my bread and butter, and so far this year. I posted this before here. Since I love this game, I use most of the profits (when I have them ) to play exotics and enjoy the challenge. Don't keep records of exotics but am being very 'lucky' this year so far. Don't play every day, but play often. Haven't had that dreaded losing day yet ( lose at all 5 trks ), but I know it will happen someday. Been playing this way for about 8 mths. Time will tell, but so far so good.

So, yes, when I'm ahead I stop. But I also stop after my 4th wager, tommorrow is another day.

[jorgie]

Another humble opinion from a first time poster.....

My first thought when I began reading this thread was, "Why in the world would you leave the track if you still had a positive EV bet to make?" Now, I certainly understand the psychological side of this scenario too - if one simply walks to the car, he is assured (barring a car accident) of making it home a winner with a smile on his face and that can go a long way too....coming home happy tends to make home life/relationships work better - unless your spouse/significant other understands the dynamics of "long-term winning", all they want to know is "did you win?").
So, I must say "If it works (meaning it makes money long-term and it satisfies your taste or distaste for risk), then why should anyone knock it? This game is tough enough to beat - winners are so rare - that if you are one of those people beating it, who cares how you're going about it? If you're winning year in and year out, then you're doing something right!!!
With that said, my personal view (for my tastes) is this: I'm in this for the long haul. I'm grinding it out day in and day out and I really don't care if I win the next race or not (well I do, but......). One race is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things for me (that's not to say that it doesn't have some emotional effect...you lose a tough one, it can be tough to take), but the reality for a long-term player is that he wants to make as many +EV bets as possible. If he leaves after winning, he is now concerning himself with the short term.

In conclusion, I like to look at it this way: If I'm a long-term winner at this game, then the entire group of bets I missed out on in a given year, most likely would have been +ROI as well. What reason do I have to believe that I would have lost on those bets as a whole (again, assuming that I win year in and year out)? Let's say at my local track I attend every card for one year (plus simulcasts) and, in that time, I miss 8 bets from showing up late and I miss 22 "should be" bets from leaving when I've hit it big. Wouldn't those 30 bets have made me MORE PROFIT in my one year of betting? Sure, and if they don't it's only due to 30 races being "short-term".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not telling ANYONE on this board whether they lose or win, but I'm saying FOR ME......if I walk to my car early, then I must not have confidence in the cumulative/end year results of my +EV bets.

[jorgie]

BOTTOM LINE................If you're winning long-term, keep at it.......you're in an exclusive group!

[PaceAdvantage]

Great post Jorgie. Welcome to the board!

[cj]

Great post Jorgie. Welcome to the board!

Which one? Both are decent, but the longer one makes a ton of sense!

[PaceAdvantage]

Why of course, the longer one....

[Lefty]

For me, a play is a play is a play, regardless of what came before. This is horses of course, because you really can't compare horses and casino play.

[karlskorner]

Let's look at it from a different viewpoint. My rough guess is that 90% of the board members receive a paycheck at the end of the week/month or have another source of income ( you know who you are ). For this reason their method of play is completely different than the remaining 10%.

But if the remaing 10% have 2 car payments due at the end of the month ( or whatever bills are due ) and you have the money in your left pants pocket from winnings that day, do you stay or is tomorrow another day ?

[Exactaman]

i think the answer to that is you stay at home to begin with....

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm one of the 90% who receive a paycheck at the end of every two weeks. I don't know what this has to do with my complete agreement with jorgie.

If you have a PROVEN winning method, meaning you have ULTIMATE CONFIDENCE that your way of picking/betting makes you MONEY, there is absolutely no sane reason why you would NOT BET EVERY SINGLE "PLAYABLE" RACE THAT YOUR METHOD ALLOWS YOU TO BET.

If you pass up playable races, you are just screwing with your proven method. And if you screw with a proven method, you are likely to get screwed in return.

The only way to argue against the "play every playable race" is if you have a method that was specifically designed to stop after you have reached your goal.

If you have such a method (and I assume Karl does have this method), AND you've tested this method and it has proven UNPROFITABLE BETTING ALL playable races, then I would agree with Karl.

However, I don't think that this type of method could exist. A method which is PROVEN profitable if you STOP betting when you reach a goal, SHOULD also be profitable in the LONG RUN if you had CONTINUED betting ALL playable races for the day.

But then again, when you think about it, WE ALL STOP BETTING at some point, because I don't think there are very many of us here who absolutely BET ALL PLAYABLE races at EVERY TRACK IN THE COUNTRY.....LOL

[karlskorner]

You, I and everyone on the board knows there is no such thing as a " proven winning method " If you believe what Joe Takach has written ( and I do ) half of the race is out of your control. If you have set a goal for the day and you reach that goal in the 7th or 8th race of the day, what will playing 1 or 2 more races prove, you have a 50% chance of winning. Why bother ? 90% of the board members know that the bills at the end of the month will be paid from their paycheck, the other 10% have no alternative.

[Exactaman]

boy, I wish half the race were under my control.

[keilan]

Mathematically, this is a simple question. If you have an edge, bet. If you have no edge, don't bet. This has exactly zero to do with whether you hit the first race. I can't imagine any professional gambler believing you should "quit when you're ahead."


I think BMeadow answered the question about as straight forward as is possible.

I also believe that the bigger question is once a player has developed a set of skills that produce a positive ROI how does he/she manage their bankroll. I have heard over and over here that when a player goes cold or runs into a slump that they should cut back on the amount they’re wagering. I’m of the opinion that a player that is confident in their selection and wager skills should continue with same size bets or take a vacation.

Here’s why –if you’re any good the hits/scores will come and when they do, does anyone want to have put themselves into a position where they wouldn’t get paid for being right because they went into a defensive mode and are protecting their bankroll. How does it feel to lose a large score because you half backed off a wager? You know they come along only so often, how does that play in your mind?

My mindset is this –you are either good enough or your not. Backing off bets because you haven’t been cashing tickets is ludicrous to me.

Now I’ll wait for the sharpies to set me straight :p :p

[nomadpat]

I keep on playing. Maybe a little more conservatively, but the reason is because I don't know what else to do with my time ;)

[keilan]

You’re a degenerate nomadpat :D :p