how come pro handicappers don't give out private handicapping lessons?

[fishorsechess]

You know about the pros in poker giving lessons. Blackjack too.
Handicapping is one of the few endeavors where pros won't give
lessons and the reason is obvious. Fellow players will steal the
bread right out of their mouths.Others reason is their are
very few that can beat the game.

[Overlay]

As you imply, even though the advice or lessons might be based on sound handicapping principles, any procedure starting (as many "systems" do) with the goal of narrowing a field down by a process of elimination to the one horse that is the most likely winner (according to the system), and then betting that horse regardless of its odds, will eventually become obsolete as a result of increased public knowledge and the lowering of mutuel prices through overplay. That's a major deterrent to the sharing of any meaningful information. Players who develop fair-odds lines and look for value have less to worry about when it comes to passing on their insights, since, if a particular horse they like gets bet down to underlay status, they can then switch with confidence to another overlaid horse in the race, check the exotic pools for value, or have a solid rationale for not betting on the race at all.

[andicap]

If pros don't give lessons because they are afraid of spilling their secrets, why don't more give them when they retire as a way of getting some easy income?
Do they all work until they drop dead in the racebook or over their computers?

And I echo Overlay's thoughts -- if you're method is based on overlays and one horse gets bet more that creates an overlay situation on another horse.

For example if your top two horses are 3-2 and 4-1 on the board and you perceive the 4-1 shot to have a 50% chance and te 3-2 horse to have a 40% chance with 10% for the rest. That makes the 4-1 horse the play as a huge overlay. But what if the crowd agrees the 4-1 horse is actually the better nag and it ends up 9-5 with the former favorite -- 3-2 in our alternative universe -- rising to 9-2.
Suddenly the value player switches sides and goes for the former 3-2 shot because he's the overlay. He still has a 40% chance to win but at 9-2 the public gives him only a 17-18% chance.

[JustMissed]

Players who develop fair-odds lines and look for value have less to worry about when it comes to passing on their insights, since, if a particular horse they like gets bet down to underlay status, they can then switch with confidence to another overlaid horse in the race,

I never understood your line of thinking.

If the horse you like gets bet down by the public because they also like him too, why in the world would you then bet on horse that you like LESS?

Wouldn't the proper way of thinking and approach be to Pass that win bet entirely if you records show you that your win percentage at that odds level results in a negative ROI?

If you can explain how your opinion of a horse changes because it gets bet down, I would love to your explaination.

JM

[Tom]

Who says pros don't give lessons? If you are really that interested, PM me - I'll quote you my rates. :rolleyes:

[46zilzal]

A good part of it is simply a "feeling" that can't really be taught

[saratoga guy]

If the horse you like gets bet down by the public because they also like him too, why in the world would you then bet on horse that you like LESS?

Let's say you have a five-sided die. One side is yellow. Four sides are red.

Straight up the odds would be 4-1 on yellow, 1-4 on red (yellow is a 20% possibility, red is an 80% possibility). A winning $1 wager on yellow would pay $5. A winning $1 wager on red would pay $1.25. If you played the game one hundred times and the percentages played out -- both yellow and red would return $100 for $100 wagered (20 x $5 or 80 x $1.25). Neither color is at an odds advantage.

Now let's say that the person running the game says that he is upping the odds on yellow to 7-1 (pays $8 per $1 bet). This makes yellow an overlay. If you played yellow one hundred times and the percentages held true you would be returned $160 for $100 wagered (20 x $8).

Therefore, even though red is more likely to come up, yellow -- at the odds -- is the better bet.

Horseplayers who feel they can come up with a legit line on their own hope that they can turn the odds in their favor in this manner.

[JustMissed]

Horseplayers who feel they can come up with a legit line on their own hope that they can turn the odds in their favor in this manner.

Saratoga Guy, Hypotheticals may be good teaching aids but you can't cash them at the teller window.

If you care to take another run at answering my question-I'm all ears.

JM

[KingChas]

Are there any pro handicappers?

Sorry I mean except for TOM ;)

The checks in the mail. :D

[dav4463]

I may like a horse at 3-1+ odds, but I also kind of like three other horses. If my top pick gets bet down to even money, I would be stupid to think that I am right, therefore I must pass or bet my low odds horse. If I am slightly wrong and one of the horses I like a little bit wins at say 20-1 ....then I am also rewarded even though I was slightly off on my pick. My third and fourth choices are frequently the big score plays that make my week.

I may have picked Afleet Alex to win the derby, but if I had Giacomo in my top 4 ( I didn't !),,,,, I would have been quite rich even though I was wrong on my actual selection.

[hdcper]

Saratoga Guy, I think your answer is right on the money. Curious Just Missed, what don't you like about his answer to your question?

Bill

[kenwoodallpromos]

Yeh, who sez they don't give private lessons? they give sessions at the tracks and at seminars; they may give private lessons for all I know, I would if there is enough money involved. For the right price I would even teach Mullins! :rolleyes:

[OldTimeNyraGuy]

You know about the pros in poker giving lessons. Blackjack too.
Handicapping is one of the few endeavors where pros won't give
lessons and the reason is obvious. Fellow players will steal the
bread right out of their mouths.Others reason is their are
very few that can beat the game.

Those with anything worthwhile to teach you won't need your money.

Most will sell you picks or tell you what to bet for half the profit.

[Valuist]

Lessons or advice? The pros I've met don't give out lessons. They do occasionally give out advice; as long as one isn't trying to mimic their wagers. Don't ask them who they're betting. Ask them more generalized questions like their thoughts on pace, bias and trainers.

[JustMissed]

Saratoga Guy, I think your answer is right on the money. Curious Just Missed, what don't you like about his answer to your question?

Bill

Bill, I didn't say I didn't like his answer, I made the point that his answer was hypothetical and did not address my original question to Overlay which was:

"Originally Posted by JustMissed
If the horse you like gets bet down by the public because they also like him too, why in the world would you then bet on horse that you like LESS?".

I know players, including myself, will bet on the higher odds horse if they like two or more equally to win and a dutch won't work--but I have never heard of a player betting on an inferior horse with a preceived "overlay" just because the horse they liked got bet down, that just doesn't make any sense to me.

JM

[headhawg]

JM,

I don't believe it's a matter of liking a horse "less", it's just that if you are truly looking for overlays it's a matter of believing that one's odds line is accurate. If you give a horse a 25% chance to win, and the public is only giving it 16% that's an overlay, a mathematical edge as Dick Mitchell would say. If that same horse is now being given a 33% chance to win by the public, mathematically there is no edge if you believe in your line. The way I see it is that you've got four choices if the public jumps on your "choice": bet that horse anyway (bad), pass (good), find another overlay (good), or adjust your line to include the public action (bad).

I'm no statistics expert, but if one could create an odds (probability) line that predicted every horse's chance in the race with 100% accuracy it would be (nearly) impossible to lose money in the long run. IMHO, there is no such thing as an inferior horse, just inferior bets.

HH

[Light]

What proffessionals?Who are they? Andy Beyer?Jim Quinn? Or the make believe one's on this board?

[saratoga guy]

Bill, I didn't say I didn't like his answer, I made the point that his answer was hypothetical and did not address my original question to Overlay which was:

"Originally Posted by JustMissed
If the horse you like gets bet down by the public because they also like him too, why in the world would you then bet on horse that you like LESS?".

I know players, including myself, will bet on the higher odds horse if they like two or more equally to win and a dutch won't work--but I have never heard of a player betting on an inferior horse with a preceived "overlay" just because the horse they liked got bet down, that just doesn't make any sense to me.

JM

I wouldn't really call mine a "hypothetical" it was more of an illustration meant to simply and clearly demonstrate a point.

You asked why someone would essentially bet against their top pick. The dice illustration is why. Sure, a handicapper can say unequivocally that red is the more likely winner, but yellow is the better bet.

Similarly, if a horseplayer feels they can consistently make a legit line -- then shopping for those overlays will benefit them in the same way playing yellow would benefit the dice player.

The horseplayer might feel Horse A is the most likely winner -- but Horse B would still be the better bet.

[alysheba88]

Sometimes I bet my 4th selection. Will let the odds dictate. Assinine to bet your top choice regardless of price.

Its like saying you would pay any price for that new car or new house.

[Buckeye]

I can't bet my top horse "no matter what"

I just can't.

In the same race, my second choice could be betable, so I'll bet him.

There is no paradox, the only question is who will "they" let me bet?

By the way, I ain't no professional, but I have potential. :)

[NoDayJob]

What proffessionals?Who are they? Andy Beyer?Jim Quinn? Or the make believe one's on this board?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

NDJ

[RonTiller]

...if one could create an odds (probability) line that predicted every horse's chance in the race with 100% accuracy it would be (nearly) impossible to lose money in the long run.
For the ease of the math, suppose all races are 5 horse fields. I now set an odds line of 4-1 on every horse in every race, i.e. 20 % probability, i.e. random. After 1000 races, I have 5000 horse whose odds I set at 4-1; 1000 won for a 20% win percentage. Isn't this a 100% "accurate" odds line? Horses whose probabilities I set at 20% (4-1) win 20% of the time.

Admittedly, it's dumb, but matching projected win percentages, as expressed by oddslines, to the actual win percentages, by odds levels, is what people normally do to verify the ACCURACY of oddslines. I don't bring this up as a criticism of anybody; rather, I'm curious about 1) WHAT people consider an accurate odds line, 2) Is my cowardly 4-1 omni-horse oddsline (TM) ACCURATE, 3) If it isn't, what else is involved in being an accurate oddsline, and 4) If it is, what other factor(s) or measurement(s) is required of an oddsline BEYOND accuracy (is "I make money betting overlays" in the end the only response?).

As Barry Meadow points out, underlays win far more often than overlays, which is partly why he recommends a 50% overlay And I believe he would probably pass on a horse he had at 6-5 going off at 50-1. But I know Gordon Pine has studied underlays and I believe he even has an underlay report, which shows situations where underlays actually DO yield a profit for some defined subset - which is to say that the winners are heavily skewed at lower odds, enough so to yield a profit. So my question in this regard is: Is it possible to have a 100% accurate oddsline, as defined above, and have a skewed enough distribution of winners over the various odds ranges such that one in fact loses money betting overlays, with the Meadow 50% pad or not?

Ron Tiller
HDW

[Macdiarmadillo]

Joe Takach, for one, has offered personal lessons on his methods for a long time.

Brohamer, Davidowitz, et al always seemed to be ready to give you a "why" and "how" on a race for FREE if they figured you weren't just fishing for a tout job. I'm sure those guys were asked about private lessons. I'm guessing half of the askers weren't willing to pay the cost of lessons, most of the rest found the work too hard and quit after a lesson or two. Any self-employed music teachers out there? It's probably a similar situation.

[hurrikane]

If they did I would suggest that horse selection is not what they would be teaching. They would be teaching business rules. How to run a business, take advantage of opportunity, the type of work ethic it takes to be a pro.

Now that you can get from any sucessful business person. many for free.

As for selection, you could probably get everything you need from up here.

Hell, with the right business practice you might even be able to make a profit off of Ken-woodies methods. :D

(that's a joke Ken)

[kenwoodallpromos]

With my latese multiple longshot betting, the business rules would have to say "Invest in the mom and pops when they are surrounding the big Corp!LOL! :ThmbUp:

[46zilzal]

Joe Takach, for one, has offered personal lessons on his methods for a long time.
Amidst what are his many good ideas, he has gone ballistic on a few occasions times and mentioned to watch what the trainer WEARS this time or that, to make sure you know the trainer's intentions. Why not what they had for breakfast that morning as well?

[OldTimeNyraGuy]

Amidst what are his many good ideas, he has gone ballistic on a few occasions times and mentioned to watch what the trainer WEARS this time or that, to make sure you know the trainer's intentions. Why not what they had for breakfast that morning as well?

A well-dressed trainer is usually planning to pose for a picture in the winner's circle.

[hdcper]

For the ease of the math, suppose all races are 5 horse fields. I now set an odds line of 4-1 on every horse in every race, i.e. 20 % probability, i.e. random. After 1000 races, I have 5000 horse whose odds I set at 4-1; 1000 won for a 20% win percentage. Isn't this a 100% "accurate" odds line? Horses whose probabilities I set at 20% (4-1) win 20% of the time.

Admittedly, it's dumb, but matching projected win percentages, as expressed by oddslines, to the actual win percentages, by odds levels, is what people normally do to verify the ACCURACY of oddslines. I don't bring this up as a criticism of anybody; rather, I'm curious about 1) WHAT people consider an accurate odds line, 2) Is my cowardly 4-1 omni-horse oddsline (TM) ACCURATE, 3) If it isn't, what else is involved in being an accurate oddsline, and 4) If it is, what other factor(s) or measurement(s) is required of an oddsline BEYOND accuracy (is "I make money betting overlays" in the end the only response?).

As Barry Meadow points out, underlays win far more often than overlays, which is partly why he recommends a 50% overlay And I believe he would probably pass on a horse he had at 6-5 going off at 50-1. But I know Gordon Pine has studied underlays and I believe he even has an underlay report, which shows situations where underlays actually DO yield a profit for some defined subset - which is to say that the winners are heavily skewed at lower odds, enough so to yield a profit. So my question in this regard is: Is it possible to have a 100% accurate oddsline, as defined above, and have a skewed enough distribution of winners over the various odds ranges such that one in fact loses money betting overlays, with the Meadow 50% pad or not?

Ron Tiller
HDW



Ron,

Enjoy all your posts and although I am no expert, would like to put in my two cents.

1) What people consider an accurate odds line

For me, it is a means of assigning each horse in the race an expected probability of success (winning the race) and as a group the ROI outperforms the track take and breakage. Currently I am using a program called Jcapper by Jeff Platt and built into the program is Assigned Probability Odds Line. Below I have displayed a portion of a database analysis of all horses in my 2004 database which have an expected 35 to 40% win rate. The data shown reflects the following:

Min win% based on line, Max win % based on line, Gain(loss), Amt Bet, ROI(1.00 breakeven), Wins, Plays, Actual Win %


0.35 0.40 -185.70 3560.00 0.9478 672 1780 .3775

As you can see, actual win percentage is 37.75% with a ROI of .9487 (slight loss of approx. 5%)

Next I ran the same analysis, but this time required the horses to be overlays (going to post above the assigned probability). Here are the results:

0.35 0.40 -20.70 1578.00 0.9869 183 789 .2319

As you indicated, win percentage dropped but our ROI improved slightly (just over a 1% loss).

Lastly, I used Barry Meadow’s 50% overlay criteria, and as expected the win percentage dropped again to 18.85% but ROI reached a profitable range of slightly over 7%. Hopefully, others will find this interesting, especially since I used every race regardless of surface, distance, age, etc..

0.35 0.40 62.80 870.00 1.0722 82 435 .1885


Next you asked the following: 2) Is my cowardly 4-1 omni-horse oddsline (TM) ACCURATE, 3) If it isn't, what else is involved in being an accurate oddsline,

As presented it is, but what is missing is a comparison of the effective return with regard to take and breakage. In your example, the expected win percentage is reached, but ROI most certainly remains in the range of losing track take and breakage (no improved advantage).

In closing, an effective odds line is only a starting point, next the handicapper needs to find the best method of applying it. Thus, is it asking for a 50% edge in win odds, or finding a way to use the accurate line to build doubles, pick 3 or pick 4 wagers.

Bill

[WJ47]

I would imagine that if a pro had an invincible method of picking winners, he'd probably keep it to himself. I've read alot of handicapping books over the years and while they are great reads, I don't believe that the authors gave away all the pieces of the puzzle either. :)

[dav4463]

Inferior horse vs a stronger horse.

I look at it like a football game for example. If the New England Patriots are playing at home against the Cincinnati Bengals, I know New England should win because they are better. But if somebody offers me $5 if New England wins for a $10 bet and $50 if Cincinnati wins, I would bet the inferior team on the chance that they may have a good day and the Patriots have a bad day.

Same with horses, the inferior horse steps up on occasion, they aren't machines.

[Overlay]

I never understood your line of thinking.

If the horse you like gets bet down by the public because they also like him too, why in the world would you then bet on horse that you like LESS?

Wouldn't the proper way of thinking and approach be to Pass that win bet entirely if you records show you that your win percentage at that odds level results in a negative ROI?

If you can explain how your opinion of a horse changes because it gets bet down, I would love to your explaination.


I think JustMissed answered his own question in a way by talking about passing a horse that's been bet down too low. That's as much of a choice as betting on another horse in the same race, and the reason you would adopt that course of action is because you believed that that horse (even though it may be the one you think is the single best horse in the race) did not have a 100% guarantee of winning, and that the potential payoff you were going to receive from it was not going to compensate you for the risk you would be taking in betting it. The flip side of that is, if no one horse has a 100% chance of winning, then multiple horses in every race have some chance of winning, and the odds on some of those horses will be higher than their actual chance of winning (overlays), while the odds on others will be lower (underlays). If you persist in playing underlays (like betting an equal amount on every favorite, for example) you may cash more tickets, but the return you get from the one race in every three that you win won't compensate for the losses from the two races in every three that you lose, since the average winning favorite doesn't pay off at odds above 2-1. The beauty of the pari-mutuel system is that it allows for value-shopping, rather than offering fixed, adverse odds on every bet like most wagering games. I think the main thing you have to avoid is getting hung up on the thought that, since only one horse can win a particular race, it doesn't make sense to talk about each horse in the race having a certain percentage chance of victory. The fact that each horse is assigned odds of winning is a recognition in every race of the fact that all of them have a chance of winning (however likely or unlikely that might be).

[JustMissed]

Overlay, Your post was well thought out and well written.

JM

[andicap]

I never understood your line of thinking.

If the horse you like gets bet down by the public because they also like him too, why in the world would you then bet on horse that you like LESS?

Wouldn't the proper way of thinking and approach be to Pass that win bet entirely if you records show you that your win percentage at that odds level results in a negative ROI?

If you can explain how your opinion of a horse changes because it gets bet down, I would love to your explaination.

JM

JM, you're way of thinking completely misses the point of value investing at the track. You are not always betting on the horse you think is going to win, but the horse that has the best odds relative to YOUR PERCEIVED HANDICAPPING.

Loosely defined, "handicapping" means assessing the chances of the horses in the field. Creating an odds line (which I don't do BTW, for me it's more by feel.) is one way to handicap a race.

In other words if you make a horse 2-1 you feel 33% sure he is going to win. If you were 100% sure you would bet the horse at ANY odds, even 1-5.
If you are 33% sure, then to get an overlay you should bet him at say 3-1 depending on how much of an overlay you demand.

So if under your successful handicapping system you make your top choice 2-1 and your 2nd choice 3-1, your final bet will depend on their odds. If the public leaps all over the top choice after reading your book and makes the horse even money, the odds on your 2nd choice will skyrocket to 5-1 perhaps.

Well if you think your top choice has a 1 in 3 chance of winning and you're 2nd choice a 1 in 4 chance of winning, who would you bet if the odds are 1-1 and 5-1, respecttively?

If you believe the only legitimate bet in the race is on your top choice-- as some do on this board -- than you will not understand or buy this line of thinking.

[JustMissed]

Andicap, You are wrong in saying that I do not understand value betting.

In fact, I can't understand why horseplayers continue to buy into this voodoo.

Here's a recent example of what I am talking about.

Yesterday Belmont 9th, a 1 1/16 Turf Allowance, 46K for NW1x.

My son and I both liked Dream Lady, Connie Belle & Baradore, the 3, 4 & 10. After the 11 scratched, they were the top three prime power with a gap down to 4th going from 129.5 to 126.2.

I'm sure you have the pp's for this race and you can take a look at it yourself, but I'm also sure you can see that two of these three were going to run first and second.

Anyway, the odds on these three held steady at 5-2. A dutch was out, we couldn't nail the winner but the board showed the lowest exacta payoff about $20 so we loaded up on a three horse box. They ran 3 4 10 and after Santos cracked Connie Belle on the nose with his whip, the 3 was knocked down to place. The exacta paid $24.40.

Now the flip side. Had I been a professed value player I would have made a line and I am for certain I would not have had these three horses with equal odds.A lot of guys here have programs that assign odds and I would be interested see their odds line for these horses.

If I had made an estimated odds line, I probably would have had Baradore a little bit lower than the other two. When comparing my odds line to the tote, I would falsely think Baradore was the value play and made a win bet and probably played the 10 3/10 3 4 in the exacta and lost both bets.

I realize this is just one example but a good example of how value betting can kick your ass.

I'm not saying collecting $24.40 on a $12 bet is anything special but it was easier than finding the money on the street and certainly better than wasting my time trying to adjust an odds line.

Just for the record, in an earlier post I said that if my A horse's tote odds get lower than my strike rate permits, I would pass. I also said that most players when chosing between two or more similar ability horses will go with the higher odds horse(that is just good common sense), and I have also said that when deciding to play the exacta all one has to do is look at the TV screen for the probable payoffs and decide if the bet is worth while. WHY do you need a betting line to make these decisions?

If you or anyone else has any real life examples of how value betting is superior to generally accepted handicapping and betting strategy-please post them.

All I've seen here is pure conjecture and a regurgitation of something they read in a book.

Maybe value betting,via comparing one's oddsline to the tote board, is some sort of urban myth--sounds real and believable but not yet proved to be valid.


JM

[headhawg]

...Now the flip side. Had I been a professed value player I would have made a line and I am for certain I would not have had these three horses with equal odds.A lot of guys here have programs that assign odds and I would be interested see their odds line for these horses.

If I had made an estimated odds line, I probably would have had Baradore a little bit lower than the other two. When comparing my odds line to the tote, I would falsely think Baradore was the value play and made a win bet and probably played the 10 3/10 3 4 in the exacta and lost both bets.

I realize this is just one example but a good example of how value betting can kick your ass.

I'm not saying collecting $24.40 on a $12 bet is anything special but it was easier than finding the money on the street and certainly better than wasting my time trying to adjust an odds line...

If you or anyone else has any real life examples of how value betting is superior to generally accepted handicapping and betting strategy-please post them...
JM
JM,

Well, I'm glad you hit that race but I'm not sure how much you really understand value. I'm not setting out to prove anything because making a line is more art than science, so I'm just going to use your race as an example. Although I use multiple computer programs' output to generate a basic line, I adjust from there trying to follow the principles in Steve Fierro's Four Quarters of Horse Investing book.

As primarily a win bettor, I saw the same Prime Power gap as you on the 3,4, and 10. However, I liked the 4, Connie Belle, the best of the three. Why? Best last out turf # on cj's figs, best Bris Speed #, best PP + Late Pace by nearly a 7 point margin, 2nd best jock/trainer team turf stats, and best Power Move # as defined in Equisim by a 3 point gap. I gave an edge to the 3 over the 10 as I didn't think the 10 was as fast, plus the 3 was fast enough in here and I thought that maybe it was a Lone E situation even though this was turf race.

My line making started out simply -- 3 contenders, each would have to be 2-1. As I liked the 4 over the 3 and the 3 over the 10 for what I saw as concrete handicapping reasons, my final line turned into this:

#4 Connie Belle 2-1
#3 Dream Lady 5-2
#10 Baradore 9-2
The rest of the field about 4-1 -- the "Stuff Happens" scenario.

The 3 was right at my cutoff, the 10 a definite underlay, but the 4 was an overlay. Your box cost $12 for a return of $24.40, but a straight win bet would have yielded $45.60. You could say racing luck was involved because of the DQ, but so be it -- been on the other end of that many times so I think that it all evens out. Just one example, but when scenarios like these come up again -- and they will -- you need to be right about twice as much as I do to make the same profit. No offense, but I don't think that anyone here is twice as good a handicapper as anyone else. With value betting, I surely don't have to be.

Good luck.

HH

[WINMANWIN]

A well-dressed trainer is usually planning to pose for a picture in the winner's circle.

Yep, and when they are up the track with all there charges for the day and spiffed out, Watch them the next day or so, When they have there JEANS on and POP AT BIG #'S :bang:

[JustMissed]

I fully agree with you. I wish I had a win bet instead of an exacta box.

We did $50 boxes and cashed for $610, a net profit of $310. Had we played $300 to win we would have cashed for $1,140 and a net profit of $840.

I'm telling you I thought those 3 horses were so close in ability there was no way I was going to bet $300 on any one of them.

On the same token, I was so sure I was going to hit the exacta, I put my ticket in my wallet, figuring I would use it tommorrow(which is today) and told my son "Let's go", as it was the last race.

We will never know if value betting is legitimate or not since it is tote/real time driven and practically impossible to prove or disprove.

Anyway, I suspect that when ever the guy came up with the "value betting" idea, his book writing, seminar leader and softwear developer cronies fell right in line with his thinking in hopes that whenever they came up with some horse race betting voodoo, he would not call them out.

That is just the way it works.

If you have any test or studies that prove that "value betting" has any merit, I would love to see them. Otherwise, I will continue to assume it is just voodoo to extract money from unsuspecting newbee wanabee horseplayers.

JM

[Tom]

Anrie Fink, Finger Lakes, use dto always get all dressed up when he thought one of his horses would get his picture taken. He dind't run that many, so when he showed up gussied up, I bet on him. Coveralls and I was off his horses. :D

[chrisg]

[I] The fact that each horse is assigned odds of winning is a recognition in every race of the fact that all of them have a chance of winning (however likely or unlikely that might be).

Are you referring to the morning line?
Or your personal odds line?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the morning line isn't about the chance of winning, but rather an estimation of the public's perception of each horses' chances of winning .

[dav4463]

I'm not talented enough as a handicapper to narrow any race to one horse. When I do, he is usually 3-5 . However, I am pretty decent at getting some nice price horses in my top four. That is why I play for value because I am not talented enough to decide between my top three or four. I let the odds decide for me. If I choose one horse, I usually watch my third or fourth choice win. I am pretty good at throwing out favorites who aren't ready to win and I try to jump on those races, but most of the time I don't have a super strong opinion on who will beat the favorite so I look for three or four that offer value and play them. Sometimes I bet two, three, and in rare occasions all four horses in the same race if it is a race I am reasonably sure shapes up for a possible big price horse.

[bettheoverlay]

I've always thought an interesting idea for a website would be live coverage of a pro (or pros) playng the horses at a specific track, with between races covering the next race and the type of bets to be made.

Sell subscriptions and whatever odds loss incurred could be made up with the cash generated from them. That is if they actually provide winning bets. Wagering strategies intrigue me far more than actual handicapping. I've always wondered if pros can grind it out, or if they depend on the big score.

[Overlay]

Are you referring to the morning line?
Or your personal odds line?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the morning line isn't about the chance of winning, but rather an estimation of the public's perception of each horses' chances of winning .

You're certainly right about the morning line. But what I was referring to was that the whole concept of assigning odds to horses (regardless of whose odds they are) is based on the assumption that it's impossible to say with 100% certainty before a race is run that any one horse in it is absolutely guaranteed of being the winner or, conversely, that any one horse in it has an absolute, literal zero chance of winning.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Wagering strategies intrigue me far more than actual handicapping.
Finally! We have a BINGO! :jump: :jump: :jump:

[Overlay]

I think money management/wagering strategies can optimize your return if your handicapping is sound, but I don't think that it's possible to take a handicapping approach that shows a net flat-bet loss and make it profitable through modifying the timing or amount of your bets, or through other tinkering with the wagering side of the equation.