How Good Are YOU? [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

anotherdave

05-21-2002, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by Dick Schmidt
Derek,
If you really want to know, I have won 540 of my last 1,000 bets, using two horses per race, both bet to win only. My average mutuel over that time is $9.62, which produced (based on a $4 flat bet per race, $2 bet on each horse) a return of $5,195, resulting in a profit of $1,195 on each $4 unit bet. This is a 30% ROI and it has held steady since the first of the year, when I started back betting seriously.

Dick

Dick, if it is not prying to much, I am extremely interested in your two horse betting technique. I use it, but only about 1/4 of the time. Can you tell me if there is a minimum odds you accept when 2 horse betting. For example would you bet an 8-5 and a 5-1 or must they both be at least some odds (say 3-1?). I am guessing you wouldn't play a 4-5 and a 3-1, but I may be wrong. Also, when you are faced with short fields (7 or less horses), does that affect the results much? One more, if I may, do you still single horses on occasion? I single about 3/4 of the time and bet two about 1/4 of the time. I am thinking more and more that I have it backwards, but I can't figure out what a good rule is for odds on two horse betting. Any help you could offer would be most appreciated!

AD

Dick Schmidt

05-21-2002, 05:06 AM

AD,

I've been a two horse bettor so long, betting just one horse in a race seems wrong. Almost like I'm cheating or something.

Anyway, what I do is run my final picks through a dutching program that is built into HSH. I insist on a fifty cent return for each dollar wagered. The lowest combination I would accept is two horses, both 2-1. Of course, as one price goes up, the other can go down. If the odds are too high, I add another horse. I don't actually bet the dutch, I just want to see that there are enough odds to make the bet.

What I usually do is bet in $20 units. If the horses are roughly even, I split the bet. Slightly lopsided, I bet 60% on the low odds horse (some habits die hard), if very lopsided, I bet 70% on the low odds horse. When I use three horses, I put $5 on each of them and then apportion the remaining $5 according to the odds, with the lower priced horses getting a few dollars more. I keep separate records for two and three horse bets, and both seem to be producing about the same ROI.

Dick

anotherdave

05-21-2002, 09:54 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dick Schmidt
If the odds are too high, I add another horse. I don't actually bet the dutch, I just want to see that there are enough odds to make the bet. [/QUOTE

Thanks for the info, Dick. It is much appreciated. I don't quite get the part I quoted above. Must be too early in the morining for me.

AD

hdcper

05-21-2002, 10:38 AM

Dick,

I have a question. With regard to races that meet the minimum odds of 2/1 only on both horses, are you winning more than 54% of your bets(otherwise it would be unprofitable)?

I do realize your average payoff is much higher which provides a nice profit and maybe the minimum requirement reduces long losing streaks. However, just wondering if in the long run this specific group of horses cost you overall profits?

hdcper

Dick Schmidt

05-21-2002, 08:57 PM

AD and Hdcper,

The reason I mention odds being too high is that I figure that when I have a potential return of 4 or 5 to one, I may well have missed something. So I add another horse or two, thus capturing more of the win probability in the race. I know that many people feel that they must narrow down to the winner, and that their success as a handicapper is measured by how well they do this, but I'm in it for the money, not the bragging rights, and have no problem using as many horses in a race as I can cram in and still show a profit. Yesterday at Belmont, I decided I didn't like a favorite, and was able to use all four of my other contenders. Thus I had $25 on a $27 horse who was my FIFTH choice in the race. I used the horse because I could "afford" to and thus captured more of the win probability in the race (as I had analyzed it). I'm hunting with a shotgun, not a rifle.

As for winning more races at 2-1 than higher, of course I do. However, I wouldn't actually bet two horses at 2-1 unless I was really certain one of them would win. This doesn't happen often. I'm much more likely to bet an 8-5 horse with a 10-1 shot. If the 8-5 wins, I get a little back, though not enough to break even over time. It's the times when the longshot wins that drives the buggy. I know I could just bet the longshots, but with a 15 or 20% win percentage, I can't bet enough of my bankroll to make it worthwhile and bwesides it makes me nuts. I will occasionally bet a race where I have a 6-5 horse and two at long odds. I'll bet the favorite to break even and the rest on the longshots. If the low priced horse wins, I "kiss my sister" and break even. I wasn't going to win much there anyway. If one of the other two win, I have more money where it counts.

I'm not suggesting that this is the best way for everyone to bet, but it works for me. I really don't much like either horses or handicapping, but it is a job that I can do well. I think we each need to find our own way of going that accomplishes what we want to do in racing.

Dick

anotherdave

05-21-2002, 09:31 PM

Thanks Dick,

I agree that we have to find our own individual way. I do a bit of what you do, but when I look back at my records I think I need to expand it. My second choices often do as well or better than my first choices. It appears from your answer that you don't single horses very often, if at all. Me, I try too much. And I know the math behind two horse betting and losing streaks and that appeals to me. Even if I lose a little ROI and make it up on the bet size.

Thanks again.

AD

Dick Schmidt

05-22-2002, 03:25 AM

AD,

You are so right about fitting a style to match your personality. Many people see handicapping as a challenge, a way to exercise their minds and prove to themselves or others that they are smarter than the average bear. For me, the only figure that really counts is dollars-in-pocket. Nothing else really matters to me, but that doesn't mean that others can't have legitimate goals in racing. I know two people who buy software, pay for downloads and never bet. They do it because they enjoy it. What the hell, it's cheaper than golf (but then, what isn't?).

I got that "shotgun vs. rifle" thing from Tom Brohamer (I only steal from the very best). He tried to teach Jim Quinn how to do pace handicapping and to relax and use two or three horses in a race. Make no mistake, Jim is a very smart guy and a wonderful handicapper. He could see exactly what Tom was talking about, but he just couldn't get himself to "bet against himself," as he saw it. Natural born rifleman; in his mind a race can have only one best horse and one possible outcome. Once he has it figured out, he can see no other possible outcome. He knows he's wrong four times out of five, but until that race is run, he can see only the one best horse and the one outcome. Me, I use a sawed-off and spray bets every witch way because I'm never sure who's going to win. The trick is to find a way that you can live with that puts money in your pocket.

Dick

05-22-2002, 10:50 AM

Dick,

Any chance you could give us an example from a recent race of how you bet it and why? I'm very interested in your approach.

Thanks,
CJ

hdcper

05-23-2002, 01:27 AM

Dick has made several good comments, especially when he says "the trick is to find a way that you can live with that puts money in your pocket".

Although I am more of a rifle approach player on mid to long shot type horses, I would like to discuss briefly the one vs. two bet per race method of play.

First lets consider several hypothetical examples:

If you wager on two 2 to1 shots, it is similiar to making the same one horse play on a 1 to 2 shot. In otherwords, if you wager $2 on each of the 2/1 shots and one wins it returns $6(profit $2). And if you wager the $4 on a 1 to 2 shot, the same return of $6 is made if it wins.

Now change this slightly to wagering on two 3 to 1 shots and this is identical to playing one even money shot(same expected profit if you win).

We could continue on with this by next considering two 4 to 1 shots and again this is similiar to playing one 3 to 2 shot.

My thoughts here are that some will find playing short price horses(individually) just as effective as the so called shotgun method. Only tracking one's individual bets like Dick indicated, will provide each handicapper's strengths and weaknesses.

Hdcper

Dick Schmidt

05-23-2002, 02:37 AM

Hdcper,

Got it right in one. I couldn't agree with you more. If you can handle the losing streaks and manage your money, one horse betting can't be beat. Every once in a while, I can only find one horse in a race and I'm always amazed how much money I get back from a $7 winner. Just wish I could do it more often.

What's really important is that this isn't a matter of winning more money, it is a matter of personal comfort and expectation. Even if you make less, it's worth it to be in your comfort zone. And of course another benefit of the old comfort zone is that while you're in it, you make fewer mistakes, have less stress and few strokes.

Dick

freeneasy

05-24-2002, 07:34 PM

when I was betting in multiples I started out two horse betting, and after seeing quite a few of my 3rd, 4th and 5th choices win off at $18-19, $25, $38 and so on I realized you know I could have taken a little money off the two horse bbet spread it around on my 3rd, 4th and 5th choices and still come away with enough profit to satisfy.

and the win streaks will far surpass the loseing ones
andthat gives me a question for you Dick, if its not to personal, and that is do you keep seperate win/loss records for races where you bet 2 horses only, and at the same time seperate win/ loss records for 3 horse bets only, 4 horse bets only and so on, and if you do keep this type of record and wouldnt mind disclosing what your win % in each of those catagories were Id consider it a real treat, as when I was multiple betting the only record I kept was the total of all bets made wheather it was a 2, 3,4, 5 horse bet. and I think the total win% was about 78% which I think should be considered low.

andicap

05-24-2002, 10:18 PM

There's a guy on the netcapper.com board, "Valupix" who bets several horses per race he sez and gets a 4.3% return. I can't remember his exact method of betting.
You add a rebate to that and you're nearing 10%.
You can get your betting unit up there if you're spreading it around on several horses -- limiting losing streaks -- enough to qualify for rebates.
I'm not saying I advocate that style of playing, but if you can make it work....

Dick Schmidt

05-25-2002, 02:50 AM

Free Guy,

Yes, I do keep records by number of bets, and every which way you can think of. I use Gordon Pine's "Bettor Keep Track" program to record all my bets. If you work at it, and use some codes on every race you enter, you can dig just about anything out of it. I figure it's worth about a 10% gain in ROI.

Anyway, I bet one horse very infrequently. Today, I played 44 races (then took my son to see StarWars) and played one horse in only two races. This is about my average. I hit 78.5% of these bets, but my average mutuel is only $4.91.

With two horse bets, I am currently hitting 51.4% and showing an ROI of 28%. When I add a third horse, my win percentage goes all the way up to 54%, but my ROI jumps to 35.6%. I only bet 4 horses every once in a while, but when I can my ROI is over 50%.

As you can see, the more horses I bet, the higher the odds on ALL of them must be. 9/5, 2/1 and 3/1 just can't be done and make money, at least by me. This means that my win percent isn't that much higher with 3 than with 2, but the odds are better. The chances of finding four legit contenders without a short price among them is remote, so I don't bet 4 horses much. Almost always it is when I toss what I consider to be a false favorite and bet everyone with more than three legs. Wish I could find more of them, but you have to take what the Racing Gods offer. Forcing bets is never a good idea, either one horse bets or four horse bets.

Dick

bedford35

05-25-2002, 07:05 PM

First off, this whole thread and the related ones have been terrific. Thanks to all. I have some questions for Dick Schmidt as his posts have been the most thought provoking:

Dick,

You mention playing 44 races on a recent day, is that a typical figure for you? You mentioned on a related thread that you play any race with 3 or more entrants with racing lines so I imagine in practice that means almost every race on the card. How many circuits do you play? Do you stick to the same circuits on a weekly or by meet basis or do you pick and choose depending on the day? Lastly, do you use the horsestreet program for all your information needs or do you supplement it with other programs and or services? I probably will have more questions but that is enough for now. I thank you in advance and hope my questions are not too personal. Your posts, these recent ones in particular, have given me a lot to think about. Particularly about the style I have always used which is much fewer but more concentrated large bets. The volume and percentage approach(no offense intended by my calling it that) that you use may be one I would be better off with myself. Anyway thanks again for the great posts.

bedford35

Amazin

05-26-2002, 01:05 AM

Dick:

Your post says that you make 30% R.O.I.on betting 2 horses to win. But what about exoctics.It sounds as if you don't play them but I would find icewater in your viens if that were true. My personal experience is that the exoctics can make or break an R.O.I.How many times have we had a Juicy horse but bet him in the exoctics and not even $2.00 to win.Or had 7 out of 9 winners pegged on a card but go home broke.I know for myself,I'd do pretty good if I stuck to a method of betting similar to yours.But the temptation to bet my shots in the exactas,Pk3's,supers,etc,is too overwhelming. So if you do stick to a dutching method and no exoctics,the question isn't a matter of odds,it's where do you get that icewater.

Dick Schmidt

05-26-2002, 02:14 AM

OK guys, one at a time now.

First, Bedford. I'll divide up your questions and answer them one at a time.

"You mention playing 44 races on a recent day, is that a typical figure for you? You mentioned on a related thread that you play any race with 3 or more entrants with racing lines so I imagine in practice that means almost every race on the card."

A: No, I usually play more. My average is about 75 a day, though sometimes I get in more this time of year when everyone is running. I skip maybe one or two races per card, almost always for low odds on my choices.

"How many circuits do you play? Do you stick to the same circuits on a weekly or by meet basis or do you pick and choose depending on the day?"

A: I play whatever is running, favoring the major circuits. I try not to play more that 3 tracks at a time, but sometimes get carried away. I do use the same tracks most days, but sometimes try a new one on a whim. Since I play multiple tracks, I take the races in the order run, not by track, so I never know how I'm doing at a particular track until I do my records that evening. Since I don't play every day, I take what's on offer.

Lastly, do you use the horsestreet program for all your information needs or do you supplement it with other programs and or services?

A: When I'm going full tilt, I don't have time for using two programs, so right now I'm using HSH full time. I don't use any other services, nor do I look at a Racing Form, or even the PP lines in HSH. If you can't trust your readouts, why bother to look in the first place.

I probably will have more questions but that is enough for now. I thank you in advance and hope my questions are not too personal. Your posts, these recent ones in particular, have given me a lot to think about. Particularly about the style I have always used which is much fewer but more concentrated large bets. The volume and percentage approach(no offense intended by my calling it that) that you use may be one I would be better off with myself.

A: I think it is more a matter of personal style than anything else. Some people want to be right, to solve the problem exactly is important to them. If your betting style is working, I would hesitate to change it. Mine sounds good, but two or three losses can put you in a hole very quickly, and its hard to dig back out when splitting your bet between three horses. Volume and percentage is a good name for how I bet, but before you try it with real money, make sure that you have the percentage to go along with the volume. Be careful out there.

Dick

Dick Schmidt

05-26-2002, 02:36 AM

Amazin',

And now for something completely different.

You ask how I resist the temptation of betting exotics. Two ways, actually. First off, I keep extensive records of every bet I make, and I use a program (HSH) in a way that either gets the winner or runs up the track. I don't finish second much, and I don't run 1st and 2nd much. I either win or lose big. Second, I play a lot of races and that keeps me busier than the proverbial one armed paper-hanger. It's not that the exotics have no attraction to me, I just don't have the time.

That said, I am researching some exotic methods, and am getting close to putting one into action. I use a different program for exotics, Synergism, as I find it is more forgiving and better at filling the back holes necessary for winning most exotic bets. Here I really unlimber the ol' shotgun, betting three horses over five in exactas, and even more in tri's. Time will tell if it is worth taking away from win bets to bet exotics.

As for ice water in veins, no, but I have always been a disciplined player. Why would you bet anything that you haven't tried out and proved to yourself can win? I used to review lots of systems and methods, and I can say that I never lost money with any of them. Not that they were so good, or that I was so special, its just that I never bet any money until I started to win on paper. Needless to say, after that paper workout, not many made it to the track. Going to the track with 7 of 9 winners and coming home broke is tragic, and is something only a "player" can afford to do. When you're betting for your food, your mortgage, your family, you just can't allow that to happen.

The vast majority of people at the racetrack are there for fun, because they enjoy it. They shouldn't use my style of play because I'm not there for fun, nor do I like being there. I'm going to work just like the grooms are. I shovel facts and numbers and get paid a bit better (sometimes), but it is still a job of work that is done to put food on the table.

Dick

anotherdave

05-26-2002, 11:25 AM

Thanks for all the info on 2 horse betting Dick. You really should write a little book on it, showing different situations and how you deal with them. I'd buy it.

AD

David McKenzie

05-26-2002, 12:01 PM

//Thanks for all the info on 2 horse betting Dick. You really should write a little book on it, showing different situations and how you deal with them. I'd buy it. //

Pick up a copy of Pace Makes The Race. He writes about two-horse betting in a later chapter employing his unique tongue-in-cheek style. It's by far the best treatment I've read on the subject.

Yes, I'd be in the first in line to buy a new book by Mr. S. Perhaps you've planted the seed of an idea? Or, maybe he only needs a little encouragement! Go for it, Dick; nothing like a little passive income for retirement!

Rpd

05-26-2002, 12:43 PM

Dick,

I just printed your last post and taped it to my computer. :)

Thank you,

anotherdave

05-26-2002, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by David McKenzie
Pace Makes The Race[/I]. He writes about two-horse betting in a later chapter employing his unique tongue-in-cheek style. It's by far the best treatment I've read on the subject.

I've got a copy, got it when it came out. I was never a fan of the TPR stuff the way it was done in that book, but the sections by Dick on two horse betting and money management are great, as well as a few of the other topics. I just reread the two horse betting section. What I'd like to see is the strategies in different situations. I guess they are kind of spread out through the book(but I don't think that part is by Dick), but it would be nice to see how Dick deals with different situations in practice.

The last two days I have used the approach a little more and it feels good. Yesterday, I had two horses I really liked, one was 5-2 and the other 18-1. I was going to do a two horse play (would have even before all this talk). But I looked a little deeper and started liking a first time starter a bit. So I went to betting all three. The first time starter gets out horribly, but makes a giant run down the stretch and just gets there at 15-1 (my 18-1 horse was 3rd, the 5-2 who knows?). Only one race, but it felt good. I usually don't go that deep, but I could nicely cover the horse at those odds and made a nice profit.

I just want to make sure I don't go too deep too often. That will take practice.

AD

anotherdave

05-26-2002, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Rpd
Dick,

I just printed your last post and taped it to my computer. :)

Thank you,

And yet another who will buy the new Dick Schmidt book. When is it coming out?

AD

keilan

05-26-2002, 01:30 PM

Dick

Again that is some really worthwhile information which you continually share. It is very interesting from my perspective to hear how other handicappers like yourself view horseracing and betting strategies. You write with honesty and integrity.

Thank you for sharing.

Amazin

05-26-2002, 01:53 PM

Dick
Thanks for the explanation.I didn't realize that you do this for a living(betting horses).Don't know many that do.But if I did,I would quickly develop a taste for icewater.

freeneasy

05-27-2002, 01:04 PM

Hey Dick, I hear your writing a book about multiple betting, hey bud cant wait, sounds great, I hear your almost through and their already lined up half way down the blockand its got everything in it, kinda like the "Mulligans Stew" of handicapping. Oh why am I always the last to find out about these things. now I have to stand at the end of the line. Man I hate being the guy at the end of the line. "Hey up front, wanna sell your place in line" Yeah dont tell me I know " sorry pal, cryin towels down the hall" ...Figures, hehe

Dick Schmidt

05-27-2002, 05:47 PM

Free,

Don't worry, you aren't the last to find out about the new book, I was. I'm NOT writing a book and have no plans for one in the immediate future, especially one on betting. Money management just doesn't sell. When I used to do seminars, we'd have 200 guys registered and only 20 would show up for my money management talks. There'd be 300 when Tom Brohamer talked about how he made numbers, with guys sneaking in from the racebook. I thought it was me, but when I started talking about picking horses, I got the big crowds. Money management just ain't sexy.

Dick, retired author.

superfecta

05-27-2002, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Dick Schmidt
. Money management just ain't sexy.

Dick, retired author. Yeah,ain't it great.:) Was it you Dick that wrote "If the winners were written by a skywriter just before each race,people would still find a way to lose money"?I am amazed at how many people(even those who bet horses seriously) look at me like a circus freak when I mention money management.But I'm not complaining....

Tom

05-27-2002, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Dick Schmidt
Free,

When I used to do seminars, we'd have 200 guys registered and only 20 would show up for my money management talks.
Dick, retired author.

Dick,
We would've been there, but your talk was always Sunday morning. We were always sleeping it off. ~G~

Aussieplayer

05-27-2002, 09:39 PM

G'day Dick,

Was actually going to email you, then saw all the posts about the not-to-be book. Anyway, in all seriousness, what about writing a paper on the topic, examples etc.? Or a total ebook? Or a "working manual" that just needs printing out on the 'puter & bound? No publisher required, so the non-sexy topic doesn't matter (tho it turns me on, lol)!!!
Sell it from Dave's site if you like, ('cos I said so, lol), & we'll all buy it!!

Instant underground classic:)

Cheers
AP

alyingthief

05-29-2002, 04:18 AM

im a little confused dick: you say you play 3 tracks a day, and bet seventy five races...do they schedule 28 races per track?

Dick Schmidt

05-29-2002, 05:14 AM

Lying Thief,

I said I play 3 tracks AT A TIME. I average 8 or 9 this time of year. I had 75 plays on Sunday, 66 on Monday, cut short by a family picnic. They schedule the usual 9 or 10 races a day, per track. Try reading carefully. It can be important to a handicapper.

Dick

alyingthief

05-30-2002, 02:14 PM

gee, dick, you think? you'll forgive my scepticism, but how a man can bet 75 races a day, keep records, sleep, write detailed notes to we other handicappers, maintain family relations, and win money to boot(!), that's bordering on the miraculous. do you take drugs? should i be taking drugs? let's look at the time frame per race: i will assume a. you progress from east to west, and mostly adhere to the major tracks (my close reading, which may be erroneous) and b. play three tracks at a time (your assertion): it seems to me you bet three races out the outset--i.e. approximately 10 minutes per race. but betting requires what? 20% of your time? (i will forgo the time lost in panic when a horse is disqualified, or a nose is being evaluated, i will cede that you are utterly unemotional in your play--nor will i assume you are betting percentages of bankroll, at least, updated per race) hence we have eight minutes per race. however, to pickup on the tracks that become available in the central time zone--(we're trying to get 77 races here)--you're suddenly juggling 3 to 6 races per 30 minute frame. you now have 5 minutes per race, minus the bet time 20%, or 4 minutes per race to analyze, factor and weigh the variables. and so it goes throughout your day. and then you encrypt the days efforts into the bettinganalyst, to run over statistics in your spare(!) time. now, i'm not a man with a smile on my lips or anything, but the stamina required to perform this herculean feat of handicapping boggles the mind. i mean, not only one time a week, but day after day? month after month? and still maintain the records, endure the stress, etc.? do you use the bathroom? take a bath? have you, through some miracle of science, eliminated the need to eat? is there anyone in this room so divine that he can perform to this pitch AND MAKE MONEY???? for god's sake, PLEASE, write another book and teach me how.

so, gee, i guess i'd better learn to do a little close reading though, in case i miss something, dick, you're right there. not that i'm in utter disbelief, no sir, i will buy the bridge, though to tell the truth, to be honest, i can feel my rational functions hemorrhaging here. who knows, maybe it's true. it may indeed be true, it could very well be true. say, where's doc sartin?, perhaps he can help me learn to clean the Augean Stables with a toothbrush!

p.s. sarcasm is a wonderful thing, isn't it dick? all one need do is sneer, and reason flies out the window.

PaceAdvantage

05-30-2002, 02:28 PM

alyingthief....At my peak I was betting 8 tracks (sometimes more) per afternoon, looking at and/or betting every race on the card through YouBet....8 tracks in the afternoon, and 3 or 4 more tracks at night (not counting the bridge tracks like SA, BM, TUP, etc). It's not too impossible if you're dedicated enough (or sick enough??? LOL)

What I can't figure out is why the guns blazing attitude towards Dick....

==PA

GameTheory

05-30-2002, 02:56 PM

Yeah, what's the big deal?

He said he gets his picks from his HSH printout, and then he probably does a quick check on the odds a few minutes before the race to see which horses to include. He's been doing this a long time, probably just takes a glance, and makes the bet. Probably spends two minutes a race. His record keeping, as he said, is also computerized, so possibly he has to enter his bets twice -- once in the wagering terminal, and once in his record-keeping program. Easy.

I know I've made 50+ plays in a day many many times -- just depneds on how you arrive at your selections...

so.cal.fan

05-30-2002, 03:09 PM

PA:

Don't you think, if a bettor is playing several tracks, they would almost have to have some statistical type system or computer program? Probably not betting every race, just races where they figure to have an edge?
I only handicap perhaps 3 races per week, and only at a So. Cal track. Once I was in Las Vegas in a tournament, I had to handicap two tracks and all the races! Talk about STRESS.
I know some of you guys thrive on this type of action, but it sure isn't for most of us. Of course...........that is to your advantage.
:confused: :confused:

alyingthief

05-30-2002, 03:40 PM

you BET 75 races per day?

the math is mind boggling: the day of racing begins at nine, and ends at 4.30 (NOT including night tracks, the meadowlands, friday evening bay meadows, etc.--but the man says he keeps records and has a family, so it's kinda difficult to believe he spends all his waking moments day in and day out at the grind) which is 450 minutes of handicapping time, into mr. schmidt's 75 bets ='s 6 minutes per race of analysis. excuse me, but i dont buy it, not and make money. i'm sorry. maybe, but i don't buy it, i have to see verified records on that one.

as to why i should take umbrage with mr. schmidt's pontificatory (hell, maybe i act the pope, too) snideness at my "lack of reading skills", why that's truly unacceptable in me, isn't it? let's just say, it's in the nature of my inner beast to question...and when something is claimed that runs counter to common sense and the probabilities, i have to ask, whence, wherefore, how? who knows, perhaps there are miracles, and this is one--but this business is proverbial for salesmen with bridges and pilosophers with alchemical resourses that transform mud to rubies--and the origins of this person's notoriety are deeply embedded in an organization tainted with just such blood into wine claims, are they not? it seems to me, just as an observation, that mr. schmidt is very quick to assert things, but not prove them. and that i find worthy of question. i also find it questionable that mr. schmidt limbers up his snide guns at the hopeless. myself, perhaps i'm no better, but i think if you examine my other posts you will find a dual personality at work here: one of which is snide at the outrageous, true--but the other quotes studies he himself has done, or resources that purport to provide answers to the nature of things at the track. (with the caveat that all "horse racing truth" is cyclical and local in kind). and when mr. schmidt elects to arrogantly deny others their reading skills, mr. schmidt may well expect to find himself at least occasionally in the hands of the literate, who will repost in kind--and to hopefully telling effect.

i myself honor those who make their money from the track--by speculations. unfortunately, i have only KNOWN of one man who made significant money--at the time of my acquaintance, he had made 7 figures in five out of the 7 preceding years--and i WATCHED THIS MAN BET DAY IN AND OUT for several months. i have known others who made decent money at it. i can with some truth attest that i have made money at the track, indeed, sometimes substantial money--though i cannot believe myself equipped with the emotional tools to make a living at it--and everyone of these speculators works his ass off in research for half the year, and in betting his bread and butter the other half.

mr schmidt's claims, on the basis of: my experience, the simple logistics of betting, and the requirements of family life, strike me as assailable. so should i remain mute? prove it, i ask: because, when assertions are made like this, the charismatic nature of those who make them induces delusions in the weak, the unprepared, and the lost--who then lose their paychecks attempting to duplicate these "truths". i saw just this kind of misfortune daily at the race books in vegas, and in reno/tahoe.

hogwash, i'm sick to death of hogwash. is this hogwash? it smacks of it, so i ask how, whence, wherefore.

alyingthief

05-30-2002, 03:57 PM

jesus, so you bet 50 races a day! i can bet 300 races a day! but can i make money? did you make money? can you do it day in and day out? in a business where the whales consider themselves fortunate if they make 10 percent roi consistently? who step up and do it, thousands a race, every day, 10% gentlemen! get real!! at that number of races, sirs, you WILL make mistakes, you have 6 minutes a race to make decisions and place your wagers! and with an edge so compromised by takeout?! you WILL NOT SURVIVE. gimme a fucking break! i'll bet you 5,000 dollars, ANYONE OF YOU, that you take a hypothetical bankroll of any size, betting the appropriate percentage, you bet 50 races a day with it, you will tap out in a month, at most, if not that vastly sooner. . . .any takers? i need the money, any takers? let's get real here, any takers?

all this is hearsay: post and verify! post and verify!!

karlskorner

05-30-2002, 04:35 PM

And I was feeling sad that I couldn't read the old Yahoo board anymore.

Topcat

05-30-2002, 04:48 PM

Let's see the man shares what he is doing, has nothing to gain from it, has a reputation for integrity, and because you can't do it it is called into question? Same as calling Tiger Woods inot question if he said he hit a drive 300 yards on the driving range (which he routinely used to do before turning pro )

75 races a day betting from home is not much more difficult than driving to the track and staying all day. 75 bets sound like a lot but you need to think mouse clicks and when it is your business and not a hobby-well maybe we'll have to call Schmidt a slacker! <g>

TC

JustRalph

05-30-2002, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Dick Schmidt
Lying Thief,

I said I play 3 tracks AT A TIME. I average 8 or 9 this time of year. I had 75 plays on Sunday, 66 on Monday, cut short by a family picnic. They schedule the usual 9 or 10 races a day, per track. Try reading carefully. It can be important to a handicapper.

Dick

The above can be done. he said "plays" not races. I just went over and audited one of my days and I placed 66 plays on one day this month. I can only think he is talking separate tickets. Thats easy.

I see your point about 75 separate races, that would be a little tough. But with the computer......probably possible in the right environment.

Derek2U

05-30-2002, 05:17 PM

imagine some1 being impressed w/ betting 75 races/day!
mere child's play. some1 i met at a local starbucks manages
to bet 150 races/day & has a family w/ 6 children & a babe on the
side. And, dictates his results into his recorder & transcribes
them into his notebook in the evenings and volunteers 15 hrs
per week reading to the blind. And he views racing with passion;
is joyful & never cranky & doesnt have the "thin skin" so common
among those who feel they know things the rest of us dont.

ranchwest

05-30-2002, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by karlskorner
And I was feeling sad that I couldn't read the old Yahoo board anymore.

You can't get this intellectual stimulation just anywhere.

Dave Schwartz

05-30-2002, 05:43 PM

Guys,

I assure you Dick is talking about races, and probably averages slightly over two horses per race. And I further assure you it is not that difficult to do. (That is, playing races is easy. It is the "winning" part that is tough.)

Personally, I have only about an hour a day to play, so I look at as many races as I can find in an hour. And a typical hour will have me placing wagers on around 9-10 races. (Yes, I play almost every race I look at.)

I know the methodology that Schmidt is using because I use something similar. (The difference is that mine is totally systematic while his has some degree of artfullness. His is way better.)

I know that Dick does all his decision-making from two screens. It is really quite simple (to him). He probably does all of his handicapping and decision-making in a race in under two minutes.

Furthermore, I can atest to seeing his betting records at a recent workshop we held here in Reno, along with a demonstration of his approach. His ROI was significantly beyond my wildest expectations and he made the whole thing look very do-able.

I struggled with his artfullness and, as such, wound up trying to systemize it. Thus far my systematic versions of his approach have produced only a slight profit.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Tom

05-30-2002, 07:04 PM

I have no clue what screens or printouts or anyhting else HSH does, but I use HTR and I know that it spits out a longshot list in a few second that covers all tracks every day. Today, there were 81 plays on it. The only time I would have to invest would be to call up of log on and bet everyone on the list. I could do this on my lunch hour. You make it sound like Dick is opening up a form and handicapping every race "old style" and I am sure this is NOT what he is doing. In HTR we have certain plays that are flagge dand I bet them automtically - I never look at a PP line. The only thing that will do is talk me out of the bet. The handicapping for these horses has been done already and I trust it. In the long run, I make money on these plays. I just never know when they will hit, but one of them was Proud Citizen in the Lexington, so we are not talking favorites on this list. I assume HSH has outputs that allow multiple bets without a lot of time needed per race. (No, I don't play every horse on the list-only on few tracks)

Doug

05-30-2002, 07:36 PM

Guys,

So what!!!!!

If the man is not telling the truth for whatever reason, So What!

If he is telling it like it is, So What!

If you are trying to brow beat him so he will divulge to you what his method is (so you too can become a winner) why don't you just ask him that question and when he tell you to go bleep yoorself, then let it go.

If you are trying to degrade hime, What the hell for?

If you are trying to show off your vocabulary and words of wisdom, I for one am really not impressed.

I have read many of Dick Schmidt's posts and agree sometimes he is a little rough, but jesus some people on this board continue to beat the hell out of him. Parsing his words, call him on typos etc.

Doug

Derek2U

05-30-2002, 08:08 PM

what the heck is parsing neways but i do no typos i think.
NEways ... its logical that if your gonna bet 2 horses per
race, on average, then you probley need to bet a lot of
races neWays. so it kinda formfull & make sense. i hope that
this response helps quell some of the missGuided furor of many
of U jealous of a winners tale.

Dick Schmidt

05-30-2002, 11:02 PM

My Goodness,

Step away from your computer for a day and look what happens. Accusations, Doing the Impossible, No He's Not, See, I can be sarcastic too, Can't be done. Such a lot of fuss over what is really very simple.

Yes, I do play between 70 and 80 races when I play for a full day. Some days less, like today when there aren't as many races on offer, sometimes more, like on a summer weekend when every track in the country seems to be running. I play about 75 separate races in one day, starting about 9:30 AM Pacific time, and ending when Mountaineer closes, about 7:30 our time. I bet one, two or three horses per race, average about 2. That's 150 horses bet per day.

I do this for two reasons. I find I make more money if I don't "overanalyze" races. Just bet the procedure that I have developed and let 'er rip. Works for me. Second, I play a lot of races because otherwise I get bored. I almost never spend more than 3 or 4 minutes on any one race, and sitting for 20 or 30 minutes waiting for a selected race is tedious and takes my head out of the game. I'm better when I go bang-bang down the list. Even doing 75 a day, I find I have a lot of dead time. Sometimes I read or even cruse over to the PA board.

What I have done is frontload my racing effort. 75 a day seems a lot, but I have a procedure that can do it. What you don't see is the 6 months of zero races a day doing research to develop the procedure in the first place. I also spend about 2 hours each evening entering the data from my worksheets to my record keeping program, Bettor Keep Track. This could be a killer schedule, but I don't play every day.

As for the method itself, I have posted it in full on the HSH board. I'd be glad to post it here, but it is impossible to follow, let along use, without a deep knowledge of HSH. If you really want to see it, it is there for all to share if you dig a bit. It is not transferable to any other program that I am aware of. Any and all HSH users are welcome to duplicate my methods, and I demonstrated it on 18 races (picked by one of the attendees) at Dave's last workshop.

So, no smoke and mirrors, just sit in front of a computer with HSH, the BRIS toteboard, E-Horse betting service and a video feed all open. HSH automatically imports the odds as they change, and getting a bet in at 1 minute to post is no problem. HSH arranges the races by post times, so I always have the next race fired up and ready to go. I don't work ahead and spend no more that a few minutes per race. Piece of pie, easy as cake, no worries.

Dick

P.S. For those who do miss the old Yahoo board (and we seem to have inherited a few of them) a couple of points. Ridicule is not sarcasm. Sarcasm is a response to an incorrect or mean spirited statement (you know, like "Duh, how do you play 28 races per track?). It is, at its best, sharp and penetrating. And above all, it is SHORT.

Point two: Ya' mudder wears army boots!

Aussieplayer

05-31-2002, 12:36 AM

Well, what a pity that all this crap had to go on! Dick prob.missed my post suggesting he write a short work on the subject, and sell it over the web. Just a working manual that we could all buy and enjoy.

Anyway, had a couple of questions I would like to ask:

Are you still using pace methods?

You rank your horses but don't price them (from memory).
Let's say your best horse is 2/1 and you whack $20 on that. Your next horse is (say) only 2/1 or even the odds on fav. Your third choice is 9/1.
Will you play 1st & 2nd choice, or skip the shortie 2nd choice and take the juicy 9/1 on your 3rd choice to play with your 2/1 top choice?

Cheers
AP

PaceAdvantage

05-31-2002, 02:04 AM

Doug,

MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY!!!!!

Thank You!

==PA

Dick Schmidt

05-31-2002, 03:35 AM

Aussieplayer,

"Are you still using pace methods?

You rank your horses but don't price them (from memory).
Let's say your best horse is 2/1 and you whack $20 on that. Your next horse is (say) only 2/1 or even the odds on fav. Your third choice is 9/1.
Will you play 1st & 2nd choice, or skip the shortie 2nd choice and take the juicy 9/1 on your 3rd choice to play with your 2/1 top choice?"

Yes, I still use pace. Sort of. I use pace as done by HSH, which creates artificial pace lines, does a bunch of adjustments and then runs the results through a blender. It can't work; I've told Dave that many times. This lucky streak of picking solid horses for the last year has got to end soon.

As for the betting question, my answer is a definite "it depends." If I actually had two horses at 2-1 (this doesn't happen often at all) and both qualified as legit contenders, I would most likely bet them both. That's an even money bet, but you capture a huge percentage of the pool. However, I can't remember such a situation coming up, and of course, I'd take a very long look at the 9-1 shot to see how he looked.

The real answer is that I almost never like two horses equally with a third qualifier in the wings, but I bet my top horse if he qualifies on form. If the odds allow, and it qualifies on form, I add a second horse. If the odds still allow, and the third horse qualifies on form, I add a third horse. I never think betting your third choice is a good idea just because it has long odds. If you're going to do that, you might as well skip handicapping. I mean, what's a first choice for if you don't bet it?

Dick

Rick

05-31-2002, 03:37 AM

The ultimate two-horse betting system would be one in which each horse's probability of winning would be negatively correlated with the other's probability. For example, maybe a pretty evenly matched frontrunner and a closer. If the frontrunner doesn't run his race the closer's chances are better and vice versa. Now this is easy to imagine but harder to do in practice, and the "closer" should probably be more of an E/P type than one that needs to come from farther back. I've seen this kind of situation in entries before and the team is practically unbeatable, but of course good entries usually are bet down too much. This is a concept in horse racing that hasn't been studied nearly enough. Anyone with a large database interested in looking into it? How does one identify complementary running styles?

Dick Schmidt

05-31-2002, 03:39 AM

PA and Doug,

Thanks for the support, but I've been called lots worse by much more intelligent people than this. As insults go, this is minor league. Howard Sartin's last insult included a lawsuit (big mistake, he outspent me 10-1 and wound up filing for bankruptcy).

Thanks again, but I don't let it bother me. I just consider the source.

XOXOXO

Dick

alyingthief

05-31-2002, 12:51 PM

let me understand this, dick: are you using the program of dave schwartz?

and i can certainly imagine that men more intelligent than myself have insulted you--believe me, i can see this as a truth.

5,000 dollars

Dick Schmidt

05-31-2002, 05:41 PM

Thief,

Much better. Short, turned my words around and used them against me, funny. Keep it up. You'll get the hang of it. Maybe someday you'll master the SHIFT key and appear literate.

I'll look forward to seeing your $5,000 some day soon.

Bye,

Dick

Tom

05-31-2002, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Dick Schmidt
Thief,

Maybe someday you'll master the SHIFT key and appear literate.

Bye,

Dick

Priceless.
The short jab is much more effective.
Right to the point.
I like the subtle caps on SHIFT....
Priceless.

Rick

05-31-2002, 10:36 PM

A very SHIFTY character indeed!

Derek2U

06-01-2002, 10:46 AM

stop your bickerings, please. as a budhist, i need calm reasoned
fraternal musings not these cat brawls which i ususally find in
my club outings. so lets get right to the point: can we really
beleive "his" winning rants?

Rick

06-01-2002, 11:09 AM

Derek,

Well, where's his gain in trying to convince you that he's winning? He's not selling you anything. I don't think he's trying to promote "Pace Makes the Race" because he's not saying he's winning using TPR. You'd only be convinced if he gave you a mechanical method of duplicating his results. As I've said previously, it only makes sense for people to share their secrets after they've lost most of their effectiveness. That's what books are written about, things that used to work. Maybe the better question would be why do you care so much?.

Derek2U

06-01-2002, 12:22 PM

No Rick, you got it wrong: Yes I care, but ONLY because I like knowing things about horseracing, not for any other reason. It's the same reason why I detest that Barry Meadows & his rag:
he's always Kvetching about how there's NEVER ANY winning system, yet continues to promote many of his favorite cronies, just like that NumbSkull in Vegas with his SportStats brochures that have only a feintest appearance of Fact .... by the way, when when will wee see the END of the IV as a statistic ... face it, if you make any living selling "continuously" to players your only playing them as suckers ... but no, he laughing at horse players
all the way to his bank ... etc etc ... so if someone ... AnyOne ...
claims he's making a Profit from betting races steadily, then I
orient my horse ears toward that source.
What I would like to really see is NOT his approach but his picks,
in advance, for just the next 20 bets. But maybe that's not
to happen & maybe someone so sensitive like you and so many
others here will find my wish to see these future selections as
intrusive.

Rick

06-01-2002, 01:10 PM

Derek,

The way I judge the validity of anything involves several tests for me. First, it shouldn't contradict my experience. For example, when someone says they can pick 70% winners in their top two horses playing every race, I'm skeptical because it's contrary to my experience. Now, it's possible that they're right and I'm wrong. I've just never seen it before.

Thats when I move on the second test, which is whether I can reproduce it using a fixed set of rules. If they say it can't be done because it requires judgement (selecting the right pace line based on intuition or whatever), I'm skeptical because I can't test it. Now, it's still possible that the person making the claims is some kind of handicapping savant, that is, someone who is very good at it but can't tell you how. That kind of talent exists, most often in solving mathematical problems.

Third, I'll look at what they've said in the past and how consistent their statements are. A person who changes their opinions weekly is usually a loser because they are constantly changing their methods as a result of poor performance. The list of rules may get more and more complex as time goes on in order to squeeze a profit out of their past results. Of course, that usually doesn't translate to profits in the future because it more likely indicates a bad general idea.

Fourth, I'll ask myself "what's in it for them"? They may be trying to sell me a product or just trying to prove they're the world's greatest handicapper. Most handicappers are pretty egotistical so the latter doesn't bother me as much as the former. There aren't too many good reasons for someone to want to teach you everything they know with no compensation, although there are exceptions (for example, low-paid teachers do exist).

Another thing I've found is that losers tend do get more angry than winners when challenged over small points. We've had more than a few here who thought that the way to gain credibility was to say more than the other guy and get progressively more insulting in their comments. Needless to say, that hasn't worked very well.

Anyway, Dick's claims pass all of my tests. Using pace oriented methods to make large numbers of selections and getting 54% winners with two horses seems entirely within the realm of possibilities to me. He's not selling us anything and his comments have always been pretty consistent to my way of thinking. He's more patient with people than I would be considering that he's getting attacked all of the time.

You shouldn't interpret this to mean that I believe in him as if he were some spiritual leader or something. I'm not really into the deity thing that much. That's the reason I generally had a lot of contempt for the Sartin thing. Although a lot of interesting things came out of their work, it was hard to separate the religion from the science.

Lefty

06-01-2002, 01:38 PM

Rick, I agree 100% with this assessment. Yes, 70% prob. doable two horses with very select horses at low odds. If top 2 favs over 50% it's going to take some doing to up that almost 20% and still get a price. 54% seems very realistic and even at that at least 1 most of time going to be short but that's okay cause it's a dutch bet. I thank Dick for sharing and we shouldn't try to kick him or anyone who shares in some low spot.

alyingthief

06-01-2002, 01:42 PM

hey derek, what do you think of this one!!???

mr. schmidt has reported a 54% win rate over his last 1,000 races, with a reported return of 30% on his wagers--that is, he gleans 1.30 to 1 odds on every wager he makes. this indicates that mr. schmidt's average mutuel is $4.60 (reducing his bets to the $2 variety).

now then, let's look at some figures (i know you guys hate figures, but please bear with me here). Kelly--or, more accurately, suggested optimum percentage of bankroll to bet (if kelly, which is applied to each bet on the bases of the expected growth in THAT bet--it is one's edge divided into the projected growth of this unique bet, not a percentage of bankrool applied over and over--were wagered the returns moves swiftly into the trillions of dollars; generally we do not employ kelly, because we cannot specify our true odds of winning THIS particular wager, i.e. we cannot ascertain our true value with sufficient certainty to employ optimum wagers)--for mr. schmidt is 18.62%, with a growth multiple of 4732912640.00 (!!!!!). the following figures are random simulations of 1,000 bets based on a.) that 18.62% optimum, and b.) a more conservative 10% of bankroll bet, with its less lucrative growth multiple of 41106928.00 (!!!!!!).

i have assumed a starting bankroll of 200.00 dollars. i also ignore the maximum bet size one can float in real life pools. with numbers like these, i suspect you can damn well afford the vast happiness that money brings, no matter what the limits on your bets.

simulations at 18.62%:

bankroll

1. 1,323,364,232
2. 115,675,848,504
3. 77,620,404,024
4. 11,897,411,384
5. 130,176,840

let's stop this run: as you can see, mr. schmidt can well afford the taj mahal, most of the polynesian archipelago, and a trip to the fridge and bathroom whensoever he pleases. indeed, mr. schmidt would be correct in applauding his return in simulation number 2, with a projected return of 115 billion dollars over his 1,000 race cycle; and i weep with him when he realizes the modest returns of 130 millions. (please note that, with a starting bank roll of one thousand dollars, this amount of money is mere chicken feed: profits here run in numbers like 330,612,175,896).

however, let's look at a run which stipulates a more modest percentage wager of .10 of bankroll:

bankroll
1. 34,147,501,880
2. 8,085,883,192
3. 1,058,971,000
4. 2,109,622,328
5. 841,933,496

alackaday, the man projects to 841 million dollars at best. of course, with 75 races a day, this should result in the above numbers in how many race days? class? 15? correct!!!! multiply that 15 by 1.5 (there are ~22 race days per month) by 12, and mr. scmidt, at this modest rate, projects to ~15,138,000,000.

i don't know why, but i suspect that mr. schmidt will forthwith revise his numbers significantly, i don't know why i feel this, but i do. mr. schmidt can then write a book for us, detailing his method, and his 879 trillion dollar year at the races. either that, or mr. schmidt will wave a charismatic finger, and all his priests will shout amen. as for me, i very strongly suggest you gentlemen ignore both my harsh manner and dick's oily one, and look at the numbers.

yes, dick, i will gladly allow the moderator to hold my money in a wager. the stipulations are: 1,000 bets or tap out, an agreed upon number of bets per day, and lastly, PROOF of wagers MADE, from a verifiable source.

in summation, mr. schmidt, beware what ponds you go a-fishing, there may be sharks in it.

PaceAdvantage

06-01-2002, 02:15 PM

Guess somebody forgot to ask me if I wanted to play....well, I'll answer anyway....no thanks. I ain't holding anyone's money. I get into enough trouble as it is running this board...don't need anymore headaches.....

Derek2U

06-01-2002, 02:25 PM

Unless theres something more interesting then just retort,
I want 2 add my final word to the talk about someones winning
dutch method. (1) I think dutching is a Very Viable approach;
(2) I also think that confidence in ONE horse, on the NOSE, is
possible & workable PROVIDED you have GOOD probability
estimates of your WIN% and ROI (plus a Formula that says,
OK, bet your $$ to WIN or bet that same amount on Exactas
with the Key Horse ON TOP; and (3) I do not doubt the stats
made by the DutchWinner ... those stats seem real & doable.
I just would like to see some selections ahead of results.

wes

06-01-2002, 02:41 PM

How did the old joke go?

Did you hear about the constipated matematican handicapper?

He worked it out with a pencil.................

wes

alyingthief

06-01-2002, 02:52 PM

dear moderator: this is my last contribution to this discussion.

as to the rest of you, you have the mathematics, and the claims. you also have your belief structures to support. unfortunately, supporting one's belief structures all too often results in supporting those who make use of them to their own advantage. this is the particular nature of the paramutuel system--and those who provide services to the participants of the game. much can be gained by availing oneself of these services, but much can also be lost.

take care, you that are just starting out in horse (shit) racing, one's eyes too long directed at the heavenly summits of wagering wealth fall too often prey to the scandalous setting snares at your feet. and so forth.

Rick

06-01-2002, 03:02 PM

That math sounds pretty fuzzy to me. A lot of mistakes like "average mutuel is $4.60" combined with a lot of unjustified assumptions like that he would bet full Kelly and be able to bet unlimited amounts. Kelly seems to have a lot of flaws anyway that make it undesirable. If you're interested, there is a good book out now called "Finding the Edge" with several papers in it discussing the subject. The main problem seems to be with assuming an infinite time horizon, but there are others, especially in a case with varying probabilities and payoffs like horse racing.

alyingthief

06-01-2002, 04:25 PM

no comment

alyingthief

06-01-2002, 05:01 PM

no, i will comment: i will check my figures. i have made mistakes in my life, and both of em cost me.

Lefty

06-01-2002, 08:09 PM

"thief" you just can't blithely ignore the limits that one can wager in the parimutual pools. I would say Dick wagers at some tracks where $200 can cause a fluctuation. And one certainly can't overlook the psychology. Everyone has a "choke" point even Dick who seems to have ice in his veins. All this does factor in so most of your numbers are irrelevent.

JimG

06-01-2002, 09:51 PM

Gee, I go away on vacation and I miss all this. Thank goodness I can still read it. Thanks for the entertainment...I no longer miss the Yahoo board.

Jim

ranchwest

06-01-2002, 11:44 PM

$4.60 is the average return, not the average payoff.

Start over.

Derek2U

06-02-2002, 01:05 AM

my choke point is $50 to win; i notice when i go more i dont
enjoy the event

Handle

06-02-2002, 01:09 AM

This won't produce billions, and still assumes that a 30% roi can be achieved every day (making 50 bets a day). This is assuming a LOT. But, if one could do it....

How long does it take to make a million dollars given a 30% roi?

Bankroll 10,000
Bet Size: 1% of bankroll. Betsize recomputed every 50 bets.
NOTE -- at 1% of bankroll per race, and 50 races a day, this is half the bank roll in one day of betting....

Assumption One: you earn 30% return on every dollar bet, every day.
Assumption Two: You play 50 races a day constituting 50 different "plays". On average, you earn 30% return on each play.

Day / Bet Size for each race / Bank / Return for 50 races
1/100/1000/1500
5/174/17490/2623
10/351/35178/5276
15/707/70757/35378
20/1423/142317/21347
25/2862/286251/42937
30/5757/575754/86363
34/10069/1006998/151049

So, in about 34 days you could make 1,000,000 dollars by betting 1% of bankroll per race in this hypothetical world where pools are unlimited, you always make 30% ROI every 50 races, and you never have losing streaks that severely deplete bank roll.

If you capped the bet at 200$ per race, then it would take you
about 228 days to make a million. You'd make 55,113 at the 1000 race mark.

If you never bet more than 100, but consistenly won 30%, it would take you about 665 days to make a million. You'd make 28,500 at the 1000 race mark.

Ultimately, its how compound interest works, only you get to compound a lot more often.

The real snafu here is the need to find a minimum set of races that you can play and consistently produce a postive ROI. If you can do that -- and the number of races in the set isn't gigantic -- its a gold mine.

-Handle

alyingthief

06-02-2002, 04:24 AM

first, let me apologize to all you fine mathematicians out there: i certainly did err in transferring the expected return (30%) into odds-to-one form. this, of course, requires me to make a retraction, and apologize to mr. schmidt as well: the average mutuel is NOT 4.61.

that's the good news.

however, the bad news is...Ex= (odds to one) X PW - PL, were PW and PL are percent winners and percent losers respectively, and Ex is expectation (30%), thus:

the average mutuel is in fact $4.82, escalating the growth multiple. if, and of course for all you literalists out there i guess i need to state this, one could bet into paramutuel pools of sufficient size, one's return would be as enormous as the figures i posted, only more so. even given the relatively small size of american pools, this kind of roll over (75 races a day!), and win percentage obtains a man multiple millions per year. since the number of folks making multiple millions via handicapping is non existent in this country, dick would be the very first.

as to why i used 4.82, for those who don't understand the mathematics of the paramutuel system--ranchwest--dick's average mutuel is based on a multiple horse wager, and the simulation i use requires the bet to be in a single wager format. also, mr. handle, these simulations were based on mr. schmidt's published, recommended, betting percentage of 10%. and while most bettors think a 1% of bankroll sufficient (with a 54% win rate, mr schmidt need fear losing a maximum of six consecutive races once in every 100 trials--hardly cause for such detrimental caution), it is not by any means what can be made by wagering sums actually more realistic and commensurate with this kind of win% and expectation. in fact, the optimum bet size for mr. schmidt's numbers is not 18+%, as reported, but 20+%. 10% is actually quite conservative.

5000

ranchwest

06-02-2002, 08:38 AM

>for those who don't understand the mathematics of the paramutuel system--ranchwest<

Yeah, I just don't understand how I make money at this. I don't understand the mathematics of it.

I just write a program and bet what the program tells me to bet and don't look at the board and cash the tickets and I just don't understand how I do it. I just don't understand.

Maybe I should seek some help.

smf

06-02-2002, 09:13 AM

RW,

Give it up! We've swap-mailed picks recently. The past 9 days you're 16 of 30 (wins). You suck! Go brush up on your math or something, will ya! ;)

ranchwest

06-02-2002, 04:52 PM

I apologize for my poor performance. You see, I had that one that was DQ'ed and... well, I'm just no good with the math.

Rick

06-02-2002, 05:21 PM

alyingthief,

OK, if you want to assume $2 bet per race then your average mutuel is correct now. I don't know where you could bet $1 per win selection, but nevermind about that. Here's what I want you to understand. NO pro ever bets full Kelly. I can say that absolutely positively for sure. If you think that, you've never been or been around a long-term winning player. They might bet 1/3 or 1/2 Kelly at the most or use a different method, but your idea about making millions of dollars betting horses with a 30% ROI is insane in the real world. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Lefty

06-02-2002, 07:48 PM

Rick, keerect. And we are in the real world. At least I think so.

Aussieplayer

06-03-2002, 02:45 AM

So Mr. Liar,
Going on your simulations, and your assertions, Barry Meadow was right - none of us can produce greater than approx. 5%!! Bummer!!! :)

So, considering you inadvertantly back Barry's assertion up (who seems a good bloke to me by the way - I have no problemo with him aside from disagreeing with this assertion), and considering he states 5% is achievable by great handicappers, could you run your simulations on 5% please? Let's say 2/1 average odds & a win strike of 35%.

Let's say we bet 2.5% of bankroll. We'll start with $1000. How many races to a million? Or $100 000? I'd just be interested in whether or not this comes out looking "realistic" or not.

Cheers
AP

PS. I don't believe nor hope this to be the case - BUT - no one seems to have brought up the possibility that Dick might be on a "run." How do you "know" that the 30 will remain that over the next 10 000 races? It sounds like it will only take a year for us to know the answer to that!!

Dick Schmidt

06-03-2002, 04:20 AM

Dear Aussie Person,

"PS. I don't believe nor hope this to be the case - BUT - no one seems to have brought up the possibility that Dick might be on a "run." How do you "know" that the 30 will remain that over the next 10 000 races? It sounds like it will only take a year for us to know the answer to that!!"

Now that was a really rotten thing to say. The fact that you may well be right doesn't mean I have to like it. The truth is this whole thing may collapse and I'd be left holding a bag full of losing tickets and no money. I played a lot of races (number unspecified) this weekend and did quite well (again, no specific numbers will be given). I do hope it hold on for a few thousand more races. Maybe I'll come visit you; you still in Tasmania?

Cheers,

Dick

alyingthief

06-03-2002, 02:24 PM

myself, just speaking entirely for myself, i refuse to inhabit the real world, there are mosquitoes there, and warts there. here, in my private universe, i have never seen a wart, the dogs mew, and the cats are naked--pigs here run like secretariat. it's marvelous.

the optimum bet per kelly is figured as expectation/odds-to-one. in mr. schmidt's case, .3 / 1.41, or around 21% of bankroll. so 10% is in fact half-kelly. also, in the money management section of Pace Makes the Race, you'll find mr. schmidt advising users of their TPR numbers and other strategies to bet first 5% of bankroll until doubled, then 7% of bankroll until doubled, and lastly 10% of bankroll as a normal wager. huey mahl developed a version of his PIP system (originally devised for football wagering, i think), which offers advice on extracting wagering profits at optimum points in bankroll growth, for the Sartin group, and i would assume mr. schmidt uses some variant of that system in his wagering (if, in fact, he's making money betting 7 races out of 9 on every card at every track he plays, as he says--still one helluvan if, to me). you will also note that mr. schmidt indicates in his book he started with a bank roll of $200. that mr. schmidt names these several indices as those he himself used is the reason i adopted them in the work out. by the way, a version of this PIP program is available, along with a primitive dutching program and a run-simulator, for free, on george green's website. i think it's greenthings.com, but you can slap the name into google and get there.

you might also look at pascual's book, if you haven't yet (i suspect andi, rick, game theory, and the rest of you long term players have), bankroll control: he there gives formulae for determining the appropriate bet size to capture the odds at any track without influencing them (you can specify the percent degradation of the odds you are willing to accept, from nil up). the major tracks, socal, ny, gs, cd--these pools allow very large bets indeed. myself, i have floated an $1800 bet on a horse in SA pool at 9/1 that did not even show up on the radar--well it went to 8 to 1 very briefly, which according to my computations was actually 8 and 3/4 to 1--and 5,000 on horses below 3/1 doesn't either. i will not inform you of the mound of shit i left in my seat when the horse won. and i can personally verify base bets of 3500--not always into just the win pool, but often enough--and sometimes greater, from one whale i was fortunate enough to monitor. this guy took 60,000 out of a g3 race one year on belmont race day: i saw this. and believe me, this guy did not confine his bets to chalk, a devastating turf and mud player, incredible. but these are major league pools. a number of years ago, after reading schwager's market wizards, i got in touch with one of the figures there interviewed, Ed Sakota. a MIT grad, this guy places optimum bets into futures pools; and part of our discussion involved bet sizes (the other part involved what kind of blow job i would give him for being taught his strategies). he uses computers to, among other things, make his wagers, and his programs have the sophistication to evaluate and project the envelope in which a wager can be made that will maximize his gain by sizing the wager according to the odds he needs to ensure his long term profit profile (a lot of the math is in bankroll control). and the advice that struck me most, was his insistence on using optimum bet size--developing the equanimity necessary to handle the chaotic ride of optimum betting--this guy went from nothing to a billion dollars for himself alone, and many of his clients are millionaires through him. a lot of handicappers could make a lot more money than they do, because they are afraid of (apparent) risk. or is it fear of success? on the other hand, a lot of handicappers haven't the vaguest idea what confidence to place in their strategies, either. believe me, at 54% of wins over a thousand races with 30% return, mr. schmidt may have supreme confidence, indeed. and while much of my workout was absurd, it was also to the point: this guy should be vastly wealthy, VASTLY wealthy. with this kind of strategy, he could afford to install, for his private use, the equipment necessary to develope fractional times at the races in hong kong, japan, and australia, and REALLY maximize his gain.

anyway, i said i'm going to quit talking about this, and i am. i do hope you readers will now extend me some courtesy, and assume i do my homework--i'm not blowing my nose by puffing through my ears, please. if you find something to quibble at in the workout, it's probably in error; maybe not, but probably. if you DO find something, and post it, i will evaluate it, and if i find an error, i will acknowlege it, and if not, simply ignore the post.

alyingthief

06-03-2002, 03:22 PM

Aussie:

a 5% edge requires a far more conservative strategy, even at 35% winners, in part because confidence in that expectation requires a very, very large number of trials to establish, and in part variance of return over any given cycle. a true 5% return could see 1000 race cycles in which you lose money, lot's of money, or make much more than 5%. which is, in fact, the reason for "real world" figures: most of us do not KNOW what our expectation and confidence is, because we haven't a sufficient sample to validate our strategy. at 10% ROI and a realistic win percentage you may still be talking thousands and thousands of races in order to set an accurate confidence. so we bet a conservative and need i say necessarily low per cent of bank roll? meadow might mean by his 5%, the minimum value he will accept in any cycle, which will require greater validation, a., and greater conservatism in his bets, b.

too, i think meadow's 5% horizon is a consequence of his style of play: he bets favorites i understand--and, in order to bet significant enough amounts to make the kind of money a middlemanager at microsoft does, he's forced to wager more races than he might like (you have to bet large sums to get back large sums, and an overly conservative race selection system will not allow you any velocity to your money, no churn, so your bet size is bounded even more than it might be WERE you more conservative), and this degrades his performance. moreover, his bet sizes would mushroom if he confined himself to really prime wagers--given a specific monetary goal, here, middle management income--pool size now does become an issue, since he would be betting much less often with much larger bets: you can't find nearly as many really prime bets as you need to make a living. it's a trade off, you accept a smaller edge, but you churn more often, in effect making more money.

myself, i have a much higher win rate and ROI than anything i've seen mentioned here, but that's because a.) i see 2 or 3 plays a day, maximum b.) confine my play to tracks and meets known for longshots--i.e. i'm stuck playing relatively few racing days per year, c.) seek out and focus my efforts on those races i find have much higher pay outs--sa sprint claiming 20-25K for instance. d.) perform a lot of analysis on each race, and lastly e.) know what horses are immediate toss outs, horses that the public loves. this requires a lot of research, most of it by hand: you can't get the kind of feel for things just running db's through sql, at least i cant.

to be honest, it's not worth the effort. betting football is better. so that's why i think 10% is a realistic maximum, if you want to make real money, because of the churn factor, or 'velocity'; unless you get rebates, of course.

in fact, velocity is the real reason for multiple horse wagers, not psychological comfort--that, and many fewer trials to set up one's confidence.

so.cal.fan

06-03-2002, 03:30 PM

Thief writes:

myself, i have a much higher win rate and ROI than anything i've seen mentioned here, but that's because a.) i see 2 or 3 plays a day, maximum b.) confine my play to tracks and meets known for longshots--i.e. i'm stuck playing relatively few racing days per year, c.) seek out and focus my efforts on those races i find have much higher pay outs--sa sprint claiming 20-25K for instance. d.) perform a lot of analysis on each race, and lastly e.) know what horses are immediate toss outs, horses that the public loves. this requires a lot of research, most of it by hand: you can't get the kind of feel for things just running db's through sql, at least i cant. >

Thief:
Do you bet in the WIN pool?

Interesting thread here, guys, better than a seminar!

Derek2U

06-03-2002, 03:46 PM

I would like to hear more about how you play ... Email me if
you can or care to. I agree with you primarily because my
style of play mimics yours: I play ONLY NY tracks (AQU/BEL/SAR)
and, in the summer, MONMOUTH.

I'm amazed at how many horses 5:1 I get & my WIN % is also
much higher than mentioned here, but its only because I know
most all the horses racing & that's the art part I guess.

so.cal.fan

06-03-2002, 06:46 PM

Derek,
I think you are confusing my play to the "thiefs", those were his comments, I copied and pasted.
No one here would be interested in my play.
I bet only on track, on live races, in the win pool.
I don't play exotics, because I believe a handicapper who is one dimentional, like myself, would lose doing so.
People I know who do well in these pools know how to "spread the net" I'm not good at that.

alyingthief

06-03-2002, 09:32 PM

socalfan:

i pretty much confine myself to the win pool; some of the betting statistics i maintain indicates that longer odds horses in my top three provide substantial profits in the place hole, so i bet there, too. i will also bet exactas and trifectas when i feel that i really understand a race. this is generally rare. again, i do okay, some would say quite well, but it's not as lucrative for me as betting football. the work load for both is immense, at least for me it is, but with football i can overcome the vigorish by a progression system--i know, i know, that's an idiot's paradise and all, but given the 50% winners i have by random play, which sees a maximum runout of 7 losers once per hundred plays on average; and the cost of play under 5% of the wager (not 15%, as in racing), i survive--so it costs me nothing to play. and i seem to have a feel for the game, an intuitive certainty about my play i just don't have in racing.

i don't know about you guys, but in football i start with a well defined sense of the inappropriateness of a given line and proceed by work to validate it; but in horse racing it's the opposite for me, i start with my stats and analysis and proceed to an intuition. i just don't trust myself.

no doubt it comes from being so very involved with football as a kid, and wondering what the hell a horse was until i saw one at 19 (just kidding) but you get my drift. on the other hand, i have had some monster payoffs in racing you just don't see in football. keeper hill's first big race, when she paid 114+, comes to mind.

p.s. you underrate yourself: i know i'm interested in ev'ryone's style of play; and from what i can tell, there's some sharp cookies that contribute to this bbs, and they no doubt have strong interest in other people's methods. it's a wonderfully complex game, and the more you know about it, the better your sense of things becomes. i really believe this is the key to great handicapping, having a well developed sense of things, where all the stats and mechanics and mathematics disappear in the grasp of the game. i think this game takes a very long time to master, at least it's taking me a very long time to master it. and somehow, it makes us better men: it takes character to beat this game.

freeneasy

06-03-2002, 10:21 PM

Tell you what thief,
you got a bet
Heres my poison.
I bet Dick Schmidt's bets.
You wire over your 5 Gs to PA and I"ll wire over my 5.
Then we"ll find out where the monkey hid the peanut
Take your time, be sure your right cause in this kind of game theres two kinds of facts,
facts you know about and
facts you dont know about

smf

06-03-2002, 11:32 PM

alyingtheif, freeneasy,

Looks from here like you boys (or girls) are just itchin' to rid yourselves of 5 grand each. Perhaps I can help you out.

If your angle in this thread is that "no one can make a living off racing", I'll take your 5k (up front, in cash) and offer proof, in person here in the Dallas area, that I make my daily bread from wagering. When you leave town, you'll be convinced.

If you guys/ gals are just after Dick, he'll have to satisfy your needs, LOL.

If you're interested, I'll outline details of our (hopefully soon) meeting in the Off Topic section. I'll even pay a local PA board poster 10% of the 5k (or 10k if freeneasy is interested) just to show up at our "meeting" and report back here what transpired so everyone knows we both kept our ends of the deal.

Gotta deal?

Rexdale You

06-04-2002, 12:21 AM

Hi Surly Member,,,,I enjoyed your posts,,,,You have a great system,,,,Your disipline is to be commended,,,,one question?,,,,How long did it take to arrive at your level of comfort,,,,I expect a responce of a minimum of 10 years,,,,Continued success,,,,Rex You,,,,:cool: :cool: :cool:

Rick

06-04-2002, 01:36 AM

Are you guys crazy? Are there really that many people willing to bet $5000 on whether someone they don't even know personally can win more than someone else they don't know in a small sample? Betting on the horses themselves seems easy compared with that alternative.

Rick

06-04-2002, 01:49 AM

Thief,

I do have a copy of Pascual's "Bankroll Control" and the most interesting thing is the fact that, in multiple horse betting, it is sometimes correct to include a horse than has a negative expectation on its own because it allows you to bet a higher percentage of your bankroll on the race. That would explain some of the appeal of two (or more) horse betting.

smf

06-04-2002, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by Rick
Are you guys crazy? Are there really that many people willing to bet $5000 on whether someone they don't even know personally can win more than someone else they don't know in a small sample? Betting on the horses themselves seems easy compared with that alternative.

Rick,

I can't speak for Schmidt, but the proposition I've offered has nothing to do w/ what you've posted.

Aussieplayer

06-04-2002, 02:53 AM

lol, Hey Dick, that was a rotten option to present, wasn't it :D

Naturally, I hope only positive things for you. Actually, it does allude to an underlying fear I always have - "so what if these results are positive, how do I know what the next 2 years will bring betting on these same horses?" This underlying attitude/fear probably comes from seeing so many "mechanical systems" fall down!!

This is a separate thread in itself. What do you do with that kind of feeling, other than to say, "to heck with it!"

I'm in that exact position at the moment with an experiment I'm doing with someone from over there too, who also writes books. We hit on something, decided to put it to a real test, & we're currently not in profitville. Perhaps a bit like PA's recent experiment.
I just find it knocks you back a couple of "confidence" pegs.

Cheers
AP

PS. Do you like seafood? We've got the best. But, if it holds up for you, it's your shout, okay? :D

Dick Schmidt

06-04-2002, 03:30 AM

Rexdale and Aussie Person,

Rex: I've been playing since about 1980, when I took a class in horseracing at Los Angeles City College (this is absolutely true) thought by Mark Cramer. His guest speaker was Dick Mitchell one evening. Before then, I didn't know the Racing Form existed.

As for current confidence, I developed that over about 6 months as Tom Hambleton and I put the final touches on the Total Pace Ratings (TPR). Before I "played" the horses, and earned a living as a writer. Suddenly I realized that I understood enough of what was going on to make a living at the track. Once that breakthrough comes, the rest is easy.

AP,

There is never a point where you can relax and say "I've got it figured, I can cruse now." The problem is twofold: racing changes and you never have a big enough sample for certainty. I can remember when horses with a full second advantage at the second call paid $14 at Santa Anita, a frontrunner's paradise. Racing has changed big time.

You do need to be aware in testing that you might just jump in when things are at the peak of they cycle. Or at the bottom. I sometimes wonder if I dumped some good stuff just because I happened to test it in a bad week.

I also have a theory about testing to certainty. Can't be done. I call it the Catch-22 of racing. By the time you have gathered enough races to be 99% certain (100% is a theory that can never be reached in the real world) the first races you looked at are so out of date they are no longer valid. You can never be sure, never relax. A good player needs to keep records and look at new things always. Sometimes the magic just stops. All you can do is ride those winners while they last.

Good luck.

Dick

freeneasy

06-04-2002, 03:37 AM

Gotta Deal?
first off, your a little bit all over the place
by your statement that thief and me are both itchin to rid ourselfs of 5k, garners the question, that in a yes- no bet, with one contestant betting yes and one contestant betting no, how will both contestants lose. So if thief bets no and the result is no, thief wins, if the result is yes I would win. How will both parties come to lose a yes-no bet with a must ending of either yes or no?

nextly: in your second paragraph you say 'if your angle in this thread is that no one can make a living off of racing......
where did you get this impression, certinley not me, and I feel pretty sure the dissagreement that alythief has with Dick Schmidt is in the way he makes his living at the track, so my question here is, who are you referring to? alythief or myself?

and I guess thirdly in your last paragraph you make absolutely nothing clear as to any spacific suggestions your trying to convey concerning something about, $10,000 if, IF? freeneasy is interested? interested in what? I mean whats the call here. you looking to bet me? you wanna bet thief? you want me to kick in another 5 dimes to make up a 10g cover? to cover what? whats the thought here? totellyouthetruthyouneedtogobackandreadwhatyouhave ntread.
somebody dropped their purse with the initials smf

smf

06-04-2002, 04:13 AM

freeneazy,

Pick up your purse, you'll need it.

Sorry, I thought it was all crystal clear. I'll make it easy on you. There is no "bet" on my part. Read on.

If either you or alyingtheif do not believe that someone (me for example) makes a living at betting the races, I'll take on that 5k offer made to Dick. Of course, I'll have to "prove" to you that I am not lying. By the time you leave it s/b quite clear that I am betting races for a living (not to mention 5k better off for it..if BOTH of you come, it's 10k...5k per person that comes to Lone Star...you and alyingtheif aren't the same person, i'm assuming).

If EITHER OR BOTH OF YOU (you or alyingtheif) want to take me up on the offer, cool! I'm here, ready to roll and I can give all the details of our future meeting over on the Off Topic section. I've asked 2 local PA board members if they wanted a 10% cut to witness the meeting, got 2 "yes" responses. All I'm waiting for is either of you to come to town and bring your cash.

Hey, the offer is on the table. Ya gonna take it or not?

Happy Trails!

Rick

06-04-2002, 04:22 AM

smf,

You're right. I don't have a clue as to what this 5K bet thing is all about. There seem to be two or three different versions of it. Just make sure your sample size is large enough if you really want to prove anything other than being willing to risk large amounts of money.

smf

06-04-2002, 04:51 AM

Rick,

I'm not putting up any cash. What I have to do is prove to (whoever) that I bet for a living. I can do that. I'll be at LS at any time of the day or night at (whoever's) request for the next 4 months. I normally tape/ watch/ bet races from home but for 5k (per person that takes the deal), hey, I'm flexible.

**the first thing that happens is I recieve 5k each (in person, face-to-face) from alt/ free/ whoever.**

I'll show my handicapping 'toys', explain in detail what I do. If (whoever) wants me there at 11am on Thursday, I'm there to meet "alt/ freeneazy/ whoever" (not a stand-in). If they want me there at 9pm on Friday, I'm there. Anytime, anyday. It's what I do.

When I worked at the 2 corporations I was employed with, I was at the same cubicle day in, day out. No one could possibly mistake me for a Nortel or Alcatel employee. Same deal here. They (whoever) call me to meet up at LS the next 4 months, and I will be there, period. It will be clear I'm not running cost and run production figs for a defense contractor. I'll be watching my tracks and bet when the opportunity is there.

The 5k up front from (whoever) to me is the deal on the first meeting, the first thing done. Cash is counted on the spot in front of a witness (PA board poster), then the deal begins.

Hey, I'm not in alyingtheif or freeneazy's face here. I just saw an offer that I'd like to take. If they want to take it on, cool. If not, then I'll just recognize the thread for what it is.

p.s. It will be apparent that i'm no retiree, so that "out" is gone... I may not be good looking, but I ain't old.

freeneasy

06-04-2002, 12:48 PM

I believe it is alyingthief's position of dissagreement that there isnt anyone who can make a living in the manner in which Dick Schmidt makes his living. The manner in which Dick Schmidt makes his living, not the manner in which you make your living.
the relatives here are the same in which you both make your living or at least a greater part of your living at the track, but the manner or structure in which you use to make your living is different. And that I believe is what alyingthief has his dissagreement with, and that is the manner or structure in which Mr Schmidt makes his living at the track.
Simply put I dissagree with Alyingthief and agree with Dick
So the invitation you have made cannot depend on the way you make your living at the track, but rather it would have to depend on the way Mr Schmidt's way of making a living at the track is structured. slight if not big difference.

Anyway I got to get to a job rite now, so Ill have to post this up and go

smf

06-04-2002, 01:45 PM

Fair enuff, Free. Have a good one.

alyingthief

06-04-2002, 02:10 PM

rick:

that's the whole stick behind modern portfolio theory (which is the title of a book written in the fifties i highly recommend reading--the math is relatively straightforward, probability stuff, and the author, h. markowitz, goes to extreme lengths to make it understandable. the work won a nobel prize for economics--and guess what? the guy bet the ponies at belmont for amusement!). you commingle investment vehicles of various kinds, so long as they are negatively correlated, to achieve consistent bankroll growth. the whole idea is to create a smooth growth curve: given the same rate of return, if one vehicle displays erratic growth development, and another smooth, given sufficient time, the smooth growth curve out-performs the erratic by multiples, 3 or 4 times the gain. i have some graphs that display this function, and it's amazing to look at.

and in a similar vein, have you ever noticed--i dont know if you bet multiple horses--how often your top two selections, if they are made the public's co-favorites or nearly so, run out and some bonker from yonkers comes grinning home on three legs? happens all the time. i really dont bet that odds grouping in any case, and certainly i feel much more comfortable with one horse at 8 to 1, and another at 5 to 2, 'cause i know i'm covering both sides--either the race will display logical characteristics, in which case the stronger horse on the numbers wins, or it breaks down and chaoticizes, and your bomb trots in. those are the races i put my efforts into.

alyingthief

06-04-2002, 02:12 PM

smf, free, and all:

uh, no (more) comments, i think i've said all i need to say on the matter. i sure as hell have said all i CARE to say on the matter.

bedford35

06-04-2002, 03:30 PM

To smf,

I would be very interested to hear your methods to make a living from wagering. Can you post here on those methods? Specifically, what tracks/circuits do you play? What information sources do you use? How many plays in a typical day so you wager on? Your r.o.i.? How long have you been playing for a living? You indicated you usually play from home, does that mean you utilize a satellite dish for viewing/taping and trip handicapping? Would love to hear answers from a real full time pro and believe me I have no axe to grind nor am I questioning your claims. Just sincerely interested. Hope you will reply. Thanks.

bedford35

smf

06-04-2002, 05:00 PM

Bedford,

I'll send you a private message thru the board later tonight, if I don't answer all your questions, feel free to shoot back in reply. I think if the long- time posters read any more about karl/ dick/ me on this subject, they'll puke.

It'll be around midnite or so when you recieve the private message. Hope it'll help.

Rick

06-04-2002, 06:49 PM

alyingthief,

Yes, but how do you find two horses that are negatively correlated to produce a less risky bet? You can't do it by using a front runner and a deep closer. They're not correlated, but the deep closer loses too much. My guess is maybe two E/P types but I don't know exactly how to make the decision. Maybe you can shed some light on this.

alyingthief

06-04-2002, 09:31 PM

rick:

i use the odds; races, as you're no doubt aware, have general lines: in my scheme of analysis, i label them as logically apparent (msw and nowinners series in the first part of the year, for instance); complex, but logical (large fields, turf fields, claiming races with many strong contenders); and chaotic (cheap claiming, m/c, graded races with no legitimate class in the field). for each of these types i look for differing correlations: the obviously strong horse, a sleeper from a good barn, a running style advantaged by the pace, these, among others, fit in the logically apparent; in the logical, but complex, i am more driven to find horses with conditioning pluses, and class advantages; in the chaotic, i use almost exclusively stats, or breeding, or condition.

but in all cases, i want the public perception of my selections to diverge; i not only seek horses seperated by advantages--as noted above--but by their return. if the race breaks down, i want a chance to win it in both directions.

as to using running styles, sometimes negative correlations like closer and front runner are effective, but i find these to require close monitoring of bias; and age plays a big part, too, young horses just go run. as quirin points out, and i've found to be true, races having two or three front runners vying for the lead is generally won by one of them--it takes an unusual degree of pressure to compromise those horses, unless a bias exists. moreover, given the speed oriented mindset of the public, all too often i won't get the odds on such contraries i want: i require higher odds on at least one of my selections or i pass; you're less apt to hit your long shot than your short odds horse, and over time you need higher priced horses to offset the cost of playing so many losers.

ranchwest

06-04-2002, 09:57 PM

>over time you need higher priced horses to offset the cost of playing so many losers<

That's easily solved. Select fewer losers.

Tom

06-04-2002, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by smf
Bedford,

I'll send you a private message thru the board later tonight, if I don't answer all your questions, feel free to shoot back in reply. I think if the long- time posters read any more about karl/ dick/ me on this subject, they'll puke.

It'll be around midnite or so when you recieve the private message. Hope it'll help.

1. Regular poster never get tired of listening to winners, that's why we are regulars.

2. Like your Troy Aikmen quote....Another one by him I like is from 2000 "Where am I?"

ranchwest

06-04-2002, 10:59 PM

Henrietta, Oklahoma

anotherdave

06-05-2002, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by Tom

1. Regular poster never get tired of listening to winners, that's why we are regulars.

Me too. Can't get enough.

AD

smf

06-05-2002, 01:37 AM

Bedford,

I tried to send you a private message but got a "no can do" on your nick. If you're still interested I have the message saved.

Tom, David McKenzie, A-Dave (and derek who asked in pvt msg), I cy'd the post to bedford and it's on the way to you. Warning: it's long, it's boring and the delete box is always there, lol.

smf

06-05-2002, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by Tom

2. Like your Troy Aikmen quote....Another one by him I like is from 2000 "Where am I?"

Tom,

In 2000, he was in last place in the nfc east along with Emmitt and Michael.

bedford35

06-05-2002, 09:41 AM

To Smf,

My email is bedford35@yahoo.com. Please send your message there. Thanks.

bedford35

Rick

06-05-2002, 10:30 AM

thief,

Thanks for the info. What I was thinking of is selecting two horses such that if one horse doesn't run his race, the other's chances are better to win. Like maybe a horse who could take the lead and go on to win, but if he's not in condition today the other horse stalking him has a better chance to win. I don't want two E types fighting it out for the lead because they might compromise each other's chances and I don't want a deep closer because they have to come from too far back. So, I think flexibility in running style is a very positive attribute. Two E/Ps wouldn't get in each other's way because they're comfortable running in either a leading or pressing role. I'd like to see my two horses at the head of the stretch running first and second separated by a length or two and everyone else way behind. I don't want them to be neck-and-neck because they might both tire. That's my fantasy race. Of course I also want the one at higher odds to win. Hey, it's my fantasy, so I can ask for anything I want, right?