Are There Any Systems That Show Consistent Profits?

[DarkDream]

Being new the world of horse race handicapping, I've read a lot of books and investigated handicapping programs but all my research has really failed to answer the bottom line question:

Do they work? In other words, can they show significant amount of profit over the long run?

Let's suppose that someone does have a winning system. Let's say they pick around 40% winners with an ROI of 40% with a flat $2 win bet. Sounds impressive, but if this person has to spend a significant amount of time to make his picks (let's say 8 hours a day), he may acutally earn less than a full-time job at Mac Donald's in terms of the average hourly amount of money he makes.

This is what cause me to be skeptical of these so called experts. For example, the book "Handicapping Magic" by Michael Pizzolla goes into detail of how to implement his "winning system." All through the book he makes advertisements for his software and the company I.T.S.

If this guy has a winning system, and rolling in the money, why write a book?

Is there anyone on this forum has a system or uses a computer system, that doesn't take a huge amount of time, yet does produce a profit over the long-term. For me, a decent profit would at least be 15% ROI.

--DarkDream

[sjk]

Yes

[JackS]

I think your pretty much right. Anything successful would be guarded for the very nature of it's success. Methods might work if strick handicapping do's and don'ts were fanatically held to.
The best chance for success might be to incorporate your own ideas into some of the legitimate books and methods in print.
Experience will count more than rules and profits are seldom recorded in double digit pctg's over a period of time.
I'm not trying to be discouraging, real money can be made but just not as easily at the authors of these reputable pubs would have you believe.

[DarkDream]

Yes

Sjk,

Would you mind elaborating a bit. Do you own a system or know of someone who does -- computerized or otherwise.

The reason I ask this question with such intensity and passion is that why waste time and resources on a game if it is not beatable, if you can not make money from it.

Hey, if you don't care about loosing money and just betting to have a good time all the more power to you. For me, being unemployed, I wouldn't mind some extra cash.

Ultimately, I would like to become not a gambler but an invester with horse racing.

Any more input would be greatly appreciated.

--DarkDream

[kingfin66]

This is what cause me to be skeptical of these so called experts. For example, the book "Handicapping Magic" by Michael Pizzolla goes into detail of how to implement his "winning system." All through the book he makes advertisements for his software and the company I.T.S.

If this guy has a winning system, and rolling in the money, why write a book?

--DarkDream

Hi DD. Welcome to the board. It's good to see a fellow Washingtonian on Pace Advantage.

Handicapping Magic is not a system. It is a methodology. A system gives you rules to rigidly follow. A methodology gives you tools to use. Big difference.

Michael obviously wrote his book to help in selling his software and past performances. He is into marketing his business. That's what successful business people do.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Pizzolla is rolling in the money. Indeed, he likely derives a good income from Handicapper's Daily, but he is very much an avid and successful horseplayer. One of the highlights of his seminars are watching him handicap live races, then bet them. Not just bet them, but REALLY bet them.

As for systems that make money. I actually posed this thread about a year and a half ago when I decided to look into systems and research the Coffee Break Millionaire. Now that is a system. I believe the consensus was, is and will always be that systems will never be profitable. Sytems are built on rigid rules, but successful horseplayers always make judgment calls based on their knowledge and experience. Tools assist them, but in the end, it is the computer in their head making the decisions that makes or breaks them.

Regards,
Kingfin

[sjk]

It is certainly beatable although you need to expect the competition to get tougher as time goes by.

I developed a program over the years that is black box so there is not much time involved in playing the races and have had good success for a good many years. Lots of fun to play with good results.

It was certainly not a short term project but if you put in the time up front the results can be good for a long, long time.

[DarkDream]

JackS,

I think you basically hit the nail on the head.
Anything successful would be guarded for the very nature of it's success. Methods might work if strick handicapping do's and don'ts were fanatically held to.
To me, unless the person is somewhat naive, the system is extremely hard to implement or just plain dumb, no *real* successful handicapper is even going to hint they have a winning system. They are going to keep it to themselves and make non-disclosure a priority.

I think a good example of not keeping the lid on a winning system or method is the situation with Andrew Beyer. At the time he came up with his speed figures, he had such a significant advantage over the crowd that he could simply bet the highest fig horse and earn a decent amount of money.

With the publishing of his books and the eventual incorporation of the figures in the DRF, the profits that once were are now gone.

The point you said, and I'm laboring to point out, is that a winning system by definition can not be one that everyone uses or a large percentage can use -- or a small population with a big bankroll.

Given that statement, it seems to me to be extremely skeptical of anyone who says they have a winning system. If they do so, why are they trying to sell it to you?

--DarkDream

[DarkDream]

Hi DD. Welcome to the board. It's good to see a fellow Washingtonian on Pace Advantage.

Thanks, KingFin

Do you go to Emerald Downs on occasion? I attend usually every couple a weeks.

Handicapping Magic is not a system. It is a methodology. A system gives you rules to rigidly follow. A methodology gives you tools to use. Big difference.

Thanks for pointing out the distinction. A system, I guess, by definition is unambigous and can be followed in a step by step fashion without resource to judgement calls.

A methodology you describe, appears not to be as rigid and is more a list of suggestions and practices sometimes based on judgement calls and heuristics that are difficult to express as a series of unambiguous if then statements.

Kingfin, even though I agree with you in principle, the very fact that Handicapping Magic has an associated program to it says to me that the methodology itself can be systemized to a high degree; it will perform all of the methods that Pizolla lays out.

In this case, while I don't think it is a system, it has been systemized enough that it appears to be that the really only interpretative portion of it is maybe the analysis and application of the results of the methods.



As for systems that make money. I actually posed this thread about a year and a half ago when I decided to look into systems and research the Coffee Break Millionaire. Now that is a system. I believe the consensus was, is and will always be that systems will never be profitable. Sytems are built on rigid rules, but successful horseplayers always make judgment calls based on their knowledge and experience. Tools assist them, but in the end, it is the computer in their head making the decisions that makes or breaks them.


This can form an interesting discussion. In AI, there are people who build what are called "expert systems." These expert systems are programs that supposidly encompass the knowledge of the expert and thus can reason and do exactly what the expert would do for the specific domain.

Implementations of expert systems have been fairly successful.

My question is whether it is possible to take the "computer" in some one's head and make it into a computer program and thus systemize it to the extent that behind the scenes all the processing is done with unambiguous and step-by-step procedures.

If this is the case, then a system can *be* profitable.

As you stated, the main problem of a system by its very nature is its rigidity. The system can not change should the game change in horse racing. This it will eventually fail.

Now, I would respond by saying, what if you had a system, that had the capacity to change, to update itself by its own ommission that it is not working anymore. A system that could change to the data it is receiving. To me a system, theoretically could be profitable for a long period of time.

--DarkDream

[tonto1944]

I have been pretty lucky. I try to stick to one track. I go by weather their Sire or dam liked the track. And I keep a recored of their races over the track. But most of all I go back to breeding . I think if Mom and Dad did well on the track then they should also. If you look at this meet Lemon Drop 's kids have been doing well and also Stephen Got Evens off springs.

When I used to bet at different tracks I never made a lot of money.But since I have been keeping to one track I have been doing very well.

I also try to play ex's and tri's and pick 3's and 4's only . On occasions I will play a Super. But never a Pick 6.

[so.cal.fan]

I don't believe there are any winning systems, Dark Dream......I've been playing horses for over 40 years....I know most, if not all the successful players in So. California, many of them personally.
I know winners, however they pump lots of dollars though the machines every year and most years their profits are meager. Once every few years they have a big year due to a few large exotic hits.....but they have a few years where they actually lose a few thousand dollars as well.
I'm a fair spot player....my family has been in the business for many years in various capacities.....I have had more winning years than losing years and yes, I am ahead of the game over 40 years...HOWEVER....my profits are less than had I spent my time as a migrant fruit picker.
It takes a long time to be a successful player....a lot of effort is involved, both mental and physical. It's not really worth it, if you are out to make a living at it. It can be done, but at a very serious cost.
It's stressful.....because you are gambling, no matter what you want to call it. Situations change almost constantly.
All that said, you can make money, IF you have the right temperment, plenty of capital (preferably an income coming in), and are not only smart and skillful, but you also need to be intuitive as well.
Sorry to make it sound so tough.....but it is.
That said, it's a great hobby.....and it can be profitable and is for many people.
There are people on this board who are very smart handicappers.
PA and CJ have software programs, I believe....and they are both very smart men. Better handicappers than I am, for sure.
If handicapping is your passion....it's worth the effort.....but don't have any illusions. Have fun, bet smart, have an open mind, keep learning.....and it will be worth it.....if you don't mind not ever making a ton of money... :bang:

[hurrikane]

boy, that was depressing. :rolleyes:

[alysheba88]

All systems are nonsense.

[kenwoodallpromos]

There is no one system that fits every race. You have to know which systems fit which races as every race is different because of so many variables.
Evangeline Downs is replacing their base now so what work there for some races may not in the future. Purses change, condition books and field sizes change, horse's physical conditions change. You have to keep up.

[Jeff P]

posted by DarkDream-Is there anyone on this forum has a system or uses a computer system, that doesn't take a huge amount of time, yet does produce a profit over the long-term. For me, a decent profit would at least be 15% ROI.
I'll step up to the plate and admit to being a winning player. Many of the models I use return consistent profits in excess of 15 percent. And I use a very systematic approach.

But you qualified it with a phrase. That phrase is: "doesn't take a huge amount of time." And that phrase is, IMHO, the ultimate undoing of most would be winning players.

It's my belief that consistent winning play won't come about without both discipline and hard work. And even if you work hard, and play with true discipline, consistent winning play doesn't just happen overnight. I've spent years, no - make that decades - just getting to the place where I currently find myself. For starters, there's the uncounted hours over the years I've spent on developing and tweaking my own software.

But it doesn't stop there. The game itself constantly changes ever so slowly, almost imperceptively, with the passage of time. Even if you keep your mouth shut, other players inevitably pick up on profitable trends and once profitable methods gradually lose their effectiveness over time as more and more players become aware of them.

And yet this constant shift in the game is what creates new opportunities for those who are willing to put in the time, do some research, and make new discoveries. IMHO, you'll be more successful as a player if you yourself make the effort to improve your own game at a faster rate than the change in the game itself.

So what I try and do is strike a balance. About a third of my time is spent testing out new theories with database research. I'm always on the lookout for new and better ways of doing things. Especially when I think it can help me improve my game. Another third of my time is spent updating my software. I'm constantly incorporating whatever new discoveries I make into it. Sadly, that means only about a third of my time can be spent playing the horses themselves. You see I just love to play horses. Somehow it's become my life's work, my passion.

But there's more to it than just that. Deep down something in my core keeps driving me forward. I believe with all my heart that I have to keep improving as a horseplayer. Otherwise, I'm not a horseplayer at all. Without that drive I'm just another degenerate gambler. (Which by the way, all my non-horseplaying friends and relatives are just about convinced I am anyways.)

But at the end of the day - most days anyways- I find I'm usually in a slightly better place than I was when I woke up. I've usually learned something that can help my game a little at some point in the future. I've also usually designed, coded, and unit tested a little something new that will ultimately make its way into JCapper. And usually, but not always, I'll be up a few bucks for the day.

Today was a good day. I hit the mark on all three cylinders. But I don't try and kid myself. And I won't try and kid you or anybody else. It's also a long day. Most days are like that. At the end of the day I'm just about always struck with the thought that there just aren't enough hours in the day to do everything there is to do.

"uses a computer system .. yet does produce a profit over the long-term?" Yes. Definitely and without question.

"Doesn't take a huge amount of time." Good luck with that.

P.S. Welcome to the board. I see that you listed your location as Redmond, WA and that you mentioned in another thread that you are a developer. By any chance do you happen to work for Bill Gates?


-jp

[RXB]

"Are There Any Systems That Show Consistent Profits?"

Yes. The system is called: Sit On Your Tail Until You're Confident That You've Found a Good Bet.

[Jeff P]

"Are There Any Systems That Show Consistent Profits?"

Yes. The system is called: Sit On Your Tail Until You're Confident That You've Found a Good Bet.

Roger that.


.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Hey! I think I already have the patent on that system!LOL! :cool:

[DarkDream]

posted by DarkDream-
I'll step up to the plate and admit to being a winning player. Many of the models I use return consistent profits in excess of 15 percent. And I use a very systematic approach.

Thanks for your response Jeff.

I presume when you say "models" you are referring to the UDM models in your JCapper software.

I looked fairly briefly at your website. From what I gather, you construct essentially a database for people and make the query element a lot easier for people to do.

When you say a systematic approach, I would gather you use a set of procedures to make your eventual picks based on the information provided by the models.


And yet this constant shift in the game is what creates new opportunities for those who are willing to put in the time, do some research, and make new discoveries. IMHO, you'll be more successful as a player if you yourself make the effort to improve your own game at a faster rate than the change in the game itself.


While I in general agree with you on the value of research (statistically valid research over a decent sample of races), there are some important points about research that needs to be made.

Data is just data. If you have all the data in the world it does not add up to anything if you do not use or interpret the data in a meaningful way.

Even if you come up with an important piece of information that shows for example that it picks winners 28% of the time with a ROI of 5%, you may be using that piece of data not to its fullest extent. In the example, you may find that your discovery works a lot better to eliminate contenders instead of picking winners.

In order to really discover anything useful, it is essential that a *creative* mind can come up with areas of research that are not too apparent or contrary to wildly held handicapping beliefs.

The point I'm trying to make, is while research is important how you conduct the research is really the key. Proper research can take *a lot* less time and come up with profitable angles if the approach is right.


P.S. Welcome to the board. I see that you listed your location as Redmond, WA and that you mentioned in another thread that you are a developer. By any chance do you happen to work for Bill Gates?


No, I don't work for Bill Gates. I don't think I ever would, to be perfectly honest. I have quite a few friends at Microsoft, and they basically trade having a life to programming.

Not for me. Personally, I value my time more with my pretty little latin lady. All the money, fame and so on could never come close to equaling the pleasures of life with her.

--DD

[alysheba88]

posted by DarkDream-
I'll step up to the plate and admit to being a winning player. Many of the models I use return consistent profits in excess of 15 percent. And I use a very systematic approach.

But you qualified it with a phrase. That phrase is: "doesn't take a huge amount of time." And that phrase is, IMHO, the ultimate undoing of most would be winning players.

It's my belief that consistent winning play won't come about without both discipline and hard work. And even if you work hard, and play with true discipline, consistent winning play doesn't just happen overnight. I've spent years, no - make that decades - just getting to the place where I currently find myself. For starters, there's the uncounted hours over the years I've spent on developing and tweaking my own software.

But it doesn't stop there. The game itself constantly changes ever so slowly, almost imperceptively, with the passage of time. Even if you keep your mouth shut, other players inevitably pick up on profitable trends and once profitable methods gradually lose their effectiveness over time as more and more players become aware of them.

And yet this constant shift in the game is what creates new opportunities for those who are willing to put in the time, do some research, and make new discoveries. IMHO, you'll be more successful as a player if you yourself make the effort to improve your own game at a faster rate than the change in the game itself.

So what I try and do is strike a balance. About a third of my time is spent testing out new theories with database research. I'm always on the lookout for new and better ways of doing things. Especially when I think it can help me improve my game. Another third of my time is spent updating my software. I'm constantly incorporating whatever new discoveries I make into it. Sadly, that means only about a third of my time can be spent playing the horses themselves. You see I just love to play horses. Somehow it's become my life's work, my passion.

But there's more to it than just that. Deep down something in my core keeps driving me forward. I believe with all my heart that I have to keep improving as a horseplayer. Otherwise, I'm not a horseplayer at all. Without that drive I'm just another degenerate gambler. (Which by the way, all my non-horseplaying friends and relatives are just about convinced I am anyways.)

But at the end of the day - most days anyways- I find I'm usually in a slightly better place than I was when I woke up. I've usually learned something that can help my game a little at some point in the future. I've also usually designed, coded, and unit tested a little something new that will ultimately make its way into JCapper. And usually, but not always, I'll be up a few bucks for the day.

Today was a good day. I hit the mark on all three cylinders. But I don't try and kid myself. And I won't try and kid you or anybody else. It's also a long day. Most days are like that. At the end of the day I'm just about always struck with the thought that there just aren't enough hours in the day to do everything there is to do.

"uses a computer system .. yet does produce a profit over the long-term?" Yes. Definitely and without question.

"Doesn't take a huge amount of time." Good luck with that.

P.S. Welcome to the board. I see that you listed your location as Redmond, WA and that you mentioned in another thread that you are a developer. By any chance do you happen to work for Bill Gates?


-jp


Great post. When I think of "system" I dont really think about all that. The word system usually has a negative connatation for me. Like always do this, never do this. Letting a computer dictate plays (without knowing the logic behind them) And of course the John Piesen come ons. Your approach doesnt sound like a system to me per se. Rather a professional going about his business.

[LisaMcNear]

This is an interesting topic, but unlike most games of chance, it seems there are very few ways for the average person to succeed at horse betting.

For example, in blackjack, the best way to get an edge is counting the cards. For some that don't care to spend the hundreds/thousands of hours necessary to learn a sophisticated counting system, a good tip at winning is simply finding a table with the fewest number of decks, then observe the deal. You will generally see one of three things happen:

* If there are obviously more small cards coming out of the deck - bet more.
* If they're dealing more aces and face cards - bet less.
* If there appears to be a balance between the big/little cards - bet the same.

This is obviously a simplistic approach, but your odds of winning are greatly improved watching the cards and managing your money, over not paying attention and adjusting the bets on a hunch, or doubling down to try to chase losses.

I've looked at Jeff's JCapper and others, and don't have a clue at what all you guys are doing and watching for. AvgE1, PMI, PAL, Bris, DecelFactor, PctE, etc. My God, It would be easier for me to learn Russian! (although probably a lot less profitable).

Obviously, the horse game is much more scientific, but I (like many people) don't intend on making this my life's work, so short of a Black Box that spits out winners, I would just like to hear from the experts of what works at improving the odds (think "Horse Betting For Dummies").

** "Lisa's Way" (For Better or Worse) **

I'll generally look at the DRF and review the past races for each horse to determine their times, and if they are used to the distance of an upcoming race. Then read all I can in the media (and here at PaceAdvantage!). Then list out my top 4 picks and 1 longshot in the race. I emphasize 'race' not 'races.' (I've been at the track for all 9-10 races and was often broke by the time I got to my favorite 9th race).

And finally, money management.

For me, money management has kept me alive at races, where I used to fall flat early. Rather than throwing $20 on longshot trifectas, I start with larger bets on W/P/S, then larger bets on exactas with the favorites and smaller exactas mixed with longshots, then larger bets on trifectas with favorites, and tiny ones on those with the longshots.

While I've had fewer exotics pay HUGE (they were very few and far between anyway), I've found that I can generally walk away with some pretty good returns every two or three races - rather than "hit the big one" every dozen races or so. :)

Disclaimer: Don't take my newbie advice... listen to the experts here!

[osophy_junkie]

In about a year I have developed a profitable automated system. Althought it shows a profit making picks, I still havn't made enough to equal what I could have made billing that time out to clients.

I wouldn't suggest taking up handicapping as a profession if you need the money. You will do nothing but loose money for the first year or so. Writting a system is a difficult thing todo, adding the stress of "it must work or I don't eat" won't help.

On the subject of AI. It will be very difficult to throw numbers into any type of statistical learning or neural network and expect them to be profitable. Half of the battle is knowing how to massage and extract relivence from it.

[hurrikane]

Very good post Jeff.

Most people who say computer people are stupid to think the computer can beat the game..or...there is no black box just don't see.

There are thousands of hours that go into finding the right process and data to find a profitable model. And then playinging it to completion as it were.

It is irritating when someone who has no idea of the effort involved make inane statment about computer users. I guess that is why I go over the edge when it happens.

[BillW]

Very good post Jeff.

Most people who say computer people are stupid to think the computer can beat the game..or...there is no black box just don't see.

There are thousands of hours that go into finding the right process and data to find a profitable model. And then playinging it to completion as it were.

It is irritating when someone who has no idea of the effort involved make inane statment about computer users. I guess that is why I go over the edge when it happens.

I think we need to differentiate what is being discussed here and the term "black box" when used in the context of a handicapper looking to plunk down $500 for a piece of software that will automatically feed winners. I have my software about 95% automated but don't really consider it a black box (or 95% of a black box) as I know what is inside.

The question that began this thread was asked in the context of the later.

Bill

[DarkDream]

On the subject of AI. It will be very difficult to throw numbers into any type of statistical learning or neural network and expect them to be profitable. Half of the battle is knowing how to massage and extract relivence from it.

In my personal opinion, the best hope of actually beating the races is by using AI.

The main difficulty in AI is not only the collection of the data, but giving it a form that is usable by whatever form of AI you are using. This is really the key.

Here is a link to an interesting article on the use of neural nets on dog races. The results are pretty impressive.

http://ai.bpa.arizona.edu/papers/dog93/dog93.html

The fact of the matter is that computers are becoming so fast and the ability of a computer to store and manipulate data is unparelled, that to take advantage of such power can only lead to positive results.

--DD

[Jeff P]

posted by LisaMcNear - This is an interesting topic, but unlike most games of chance, it seems there are very few ways for the average person to succeed at horse betting.

For example, in blackjack, the best way to get an edge is counting the cards. For some that don't care to spend the hundreds/thousands of hours necessary to learn a sophisticated counting system, a good tip at winning is simply finding a table with the fewest number of decks, then observe the deal. You will generally see one of three things happen:

* If there are obviously more small cards coming out of the deck - bet more.
* If they're dealing more aces and face cards - bet less.
* If there appears to be a balance between the big/little cards - bet the same.

This is obviously a simplistic approach, but your odds of winning are greatly improved watching the cards and managing your money, over not paying attention and adjusting the bets on a hunch, or doubling down to try to chase losses.

First, let me say welcome to the board. You'll find some very sharp players around here, and if you read between the lines a little, you'll find some tidbits of knowledge sprinkled in amongst quite a few of the posts that can help point the way towards profitable play.

My first serious efforts at getting a mathematical edge at any game were actually as a card counter back in the early 1980's. I made a very serious go of it but abandoned card counting after about four profitable years of weekend play.

I got my start by reading everything I could on the subject: books by Edward O. Thorpe, Lawrence Revere, Ken Uston, James Patterson and others. I also studied intensely the work of Julian Braun who did computer studies that Ed Thorpe based his book "Beat the Dealer" upon. Lawrence Revere also based his book "Playing Blackjack as a Business" on Julian Braun's work. I also studied with fascination the element of ruin curves presented in the money management chapter in Uston's "Million Dollar Blackjack." (And use what I learned there in my handicapping money management even today.) I devoted an awful lot of free time to memorizing charts of how to play the hands correctly - like those presented in Revere's "Playing Blackjack as a Business" and I practiced the hands with my own flashcards like those presented in Uston's "Million Dollar Blackjack." I got to the point where the correct play for each and every hand would pop into my head instantly. I practiced counting - not with playing cards - that was too slow and tedious - but by flipping through a stack of flashcards where each flashcard had varied groups of multiple card combinations printed on it. There was a point in time when my game was - and I do mean this - sharp. I even put together a little team of my own and taught a few of my friends to count and how to act in the casino. There was a lot of hard work - but it was also fun - and we certainly won a lot more money than we lost.

But like I say, I gave it up. And not because I didn't have a true edge.

The real truth about blackjack is this: Julian Braun proved that a true mathematical edge can be gained over the house and that there is a mathematically correct way to play each and every possible hand. But the overwhelming majority of players sitting at a blackjack table have no edge. Oddly enough this includes many who may have even read a book or two on card counting, and may even be trying to count as they play. They have no edge because they have no real ability to concentrate on what they are doing. They haven't practiced long enough or hard enough to be the threat that the casinos take them for. They count inaccurately or lose the count entirely. Worse, they often play hands according to whim instead of the charts. As a result most simply end up giving their money to the house as fast as the dealer can get the cards onto the table and scoop up the chips.

Casinos, IMHO, fail to realize this. They don't treat card counters with the kind of dignity and simple respect that a dedicated professional deserves. Instead, they treat the card counter more along the lines of the common thief.

If the casino suspects you of counting, whether you are counting or not, they will ask you not to play any more blackjack. This was made clear to me many times over in my short career. One afternoon at the old Alladin, I was photographed, escorted off the premises, and warned never to set foot in their establishment again. I was told that if I returned I would be arrested for trespassing. Soon after, at the Imperial Palace, whenever I tried to play there, one pit boss would position himself right across the table from me, lean in, and recite random numbers and letters of the alphabet at me as the cards were dealt. I guess that was his way of telling me he suspected I was counting and nudging me to move on. At the Silver Slipper, I remember a dealer, who, after a private poker game in his off hours, told me he knew I was a card counter and then proved to me that he could deal seconds and bottoms so smoothly that I decided it would be better if never played a hand in that establishment ever again. At the old Royale Las Vegas, I was actually told by a smiling pit boss who suspected I was counting, and I quote "One word from me and there are guys that will drag you out back and work you over real nice. Know what I mean? I bet you were thinking of leaving about now. Right?"

After that little incident, I decided my counting days were indeed numbered. The other thing I hated was the way my clothes smelled after a night of counting. I must have been inhaling something like three packs a day from second hand smoke.

Nowadays, casinos employ more sophisticated ways of thwarting the card counter. You can play for a while but they will eventually spot you. How long you can play depends on how low a profile you can keep and perhaps simple chance. Once you are "made" you will have a very difficult time finding a good game. They have hidden cameras everywhere. Some casinos even have face recognition software that will compare the shape of your face against thousands of face shapes pulled out of a database. They catalog pictures of counters right alongside pictures of cheaters even though counting isn't illegal. Many places have shuffling machines at their tables so that you'll never know when a new shoe has begun. They promote their new "Single Deck" games but instead of true 21 this game has f#%ked up rules like offering only 6-5 on a blackjack instead of 3-2 or other stupid things like no splitting aces or blackjack ties go to the house, etc. They will also shuffle the deck or shoe early whenever noticeably more money goes onto the table. Hint: If you reduce your bet size after an early shuffle they may think you are counting and will watch your play more closely from the eye in the sky. All of these things are just their way of telling the counter one thing: "We don't want you to play blackjack here. Why don't you try roulette or slots instead?"

To me, it was a no brainer. I started looking for a different game to play.

Horseracing is like blackjack and it isn't like blackjack.

In blackjack, when the count is positive your goal is to get the money on the table. And when the count turns negative, you get the money off the table. Repeat this hundreds of thousands of times and you grind out a 1 to 2 percent edge over the house.

In horseracing, when you have a recognizable overlay, you do the same thing. When you don't have a recognizable overlay you sit on your hands - or get something to eat - or read a book - or do anything except place a bet.

Unlike blackjack horseracing is full of nuances that transcend numbers on a computer screen or printed page. Large numbers of races when looked at with a database may be statistically alike. But no two races are identical. Things like the condition of the track itself today, the position of the rail on the turf course, the tendencies of certain riders given the condition of the racing surface or when the turns become tighter because of rail placement on today's turf course, the body language of a horse you might be considering - these and a thousand other things can and do affect the outcome of the race.

A black box approach can lead to profitable play. But a true student of the game will probably do far better with that black box over time than a newbie can ever hope to.

Mine isn't the only program out there and the factors in my program aren't magical. Nothing of the sort and not by any stretch of the imagination. But my factors (and factors found in other software programs as well) can be useful and effective in pointing the way to profitable play because they are unique and are not seen by thousands of other players each day like Beyer Speed Figures are. Also, because they are based on concepts that do embody the way horses actually perform when running their races, they can and do offer a fair amount of consistent predictive utility.



Lisa wrote: so short of a Black Box that spits out winners, I would just like to hear from the experts of what works at improving the odds (think "Horse Betting For Dummies").
There's no such thing as betting for dummies.

Just like card counting, or perhaps this is true of any endeavor, discipline and hard work are what shortens the odds. In handicapping, the rewards you get out are proportional to the effort that goes in.

But you did ask.

So here is my recommendation for anyone just starting out: Specialize. Become an expert in one area only. Add a second or third area of specialization after you have some degree of mastery in your first chosen area of expertise. Do some research and identify a single profitable spot play. You might base it on the way a single trainer preps his or her starters to win races. Ask yourself: What does this trainer do with his or her horses to get them ready? Does he have them ready to win first off the layoff? Or do they need three or four races? Same thing with first start of the meet. Ditto with first start on lasix. Some win time and again first off the claim. Some are great with older horses on the turf. Some trainers do well when the blinkers come off. Others win most of their races within x number of days since the last start. Still others excel when dropping in class. How about stretching out in distance? What about shortening up? Some use a series of either fast or slow works. Most trainers do something to get their horses ready. Careful research can often point the way. Lots of 12 percent trainers are really 25 percent trainers when their horses go to post with certain characteristics.

You might also base your spot play on the tendencies of runners at a single class at a single distance type at your favorite race track. For example: Maiden Claiming dirt sprint races at Calder. Ask yourself: What type of horse predominantly wins these races? Early speed? Closers? Horses with 20 lifetime starts? Horses with 0-8 starts? What are the most successful workout patterns used? Do switches in distance help? Class drops? Class rises? Does the track have a noticeable rail position bias that is affecting the outcome of races at this distance? Do the bettors at this track seem infatuated with certain riders? I love Rodney Dangerfield's line: "I tell ya I get no respect." Does the public at this track ignore certain other riders with almost equal ability?

As you can see the possibilities can grow in a hurry. Do some research on your own and build a single profitable model based on what you discover. The process can be fun. And when one of your plays wins and pays $30.00 and you're the only one in the room shouting for it as they come to the wire - well that's what this game is all about.

-jp

.

[LisaMcNear]

Jeff P, Thank you SO much for your detailed response!

The old master, Edward O. Thorpe, and later, Ken Uston brought up a lot of old memories in the blackjack game (I still have many these author's now dusty books in the garage).

From what you are saying on the horse racing side, it sounds like there are very few shortcuts to this game.

If I'm going to make any kind of success at this, I have a lot of research and work to look forward to!

Thanks again for your expert input on the subject.

-Lisa

[Dave Schwartz]

Jeff,

Sounds to me like you and I have chewed much of the same turf.

Like you, I was a successful card counter (in the '70s rather than the '80s).

Like you, I had a short lifespan as a successful counter (about 18 months was all the casinos would tolerate).

Like you, I looked at horse racing as something else to beat.

There are a couple of differences - I was a card mechanic before I was a player, having broken in to cards dealing in illegal games in Miami.

Also, after my stint with BJ, I went back to working in the casino for several years.


Now, like you, I produce software. Until recently, the software was more profitable than the playing. Amazing how winning changes one's outlook on the game.


Best regards,
Dave Schwartz

[BarnieClockerbigal]

If this guy has a winning system, and rolling in the money, why write a book?



HM is a tremendous concept. Use it in a few turf races and you'll see.
just take a look the this past weekend turf races at Belmont.

Don't know why he choose to share his insights but I ain't complaining. :cool:

Allan