new book

[sligg]

Just got an email from American Turf Monthly pitching a new book:

4+30 Percentages and Profitability by Ed Bain

Published price $49 less 20% discount=$39.20

The description they give is not informative but I think it's about layoff horses, trainers and jockeys, and multiple bets per race.

[socalsportsbook]

Sal,

I've read Ed's book and I have used his 4+30 technique. I love it. You are correct about the book except for the multiple bets per race. Ed play one horse and only plays that horse to win.

The technique is a stand alone system which means it's hard to incorporate into any other style. You have to like to play trainers. It is totally statistics based and tracks layoffs and claims from everytrack in the country. The 4+30 come into play because that is the criteria. Any trainer who has a horse in today with 4 wins and a 30% hit rate is a potential play.

If this sound like it fits your style I can vouch for the book and for ED. I know Ed and his "Exotic Playing" wife. They derive all their income from playing the horses. I can't say enough good things about Ed, his style of play or his book. A Must Read!

[sligg]

Why do horseracing books cost so much? This book is all of 80 pages and costs $49.

Can you describe what's involved? If it's on trainers is there record keeping and what is the source of the data? Are you currently using it and how are the results as far as number of plays, hit rate, and ROI?

[socalsportsbook]

Sal,

Check out http://www.edbain.com

You decide.

[Lefty]

I think horserace books are expensive because they contain specific info tailered to a specific, and overall, small audience.
Most horserace books sell limited amount of copies and do not become bestsellers.

[JimG]

Sal:

If you are looking for a spot play method wherein you make no more than 4-5 bets per day after cherrypicking 6-7 tracks and have supreme discipline...then you would find Ed Bain's info and method to be very intriguing.

If you like to play more races in a given day or most races at a particular track or circuit...the method probably would not interest you much.

Jim

[aaron]

I have read the book and used the stats.I used the stats for about 4 months and if you have the discipline to follow the rules and use the filters you should do okay.Ed Bain will help you and guide you through your growing pains.So far this year I don't think it has been as profitable as years past,but from what I can see Ed will make the necessary adjustments.I think the climate of trainer handicapping has trained.I feel certain stats from certain circuits should be reevaluated.[Ex.The gulfstream meet}

[andicap]

As I recall with the 4 +30 method, it was unprofitable on its own -- that is, just blindly playing all the 4 +30 angles.

In his play, Ed I believe, keeps more refined stats on these plays and used to have a newsletter in which he'd discuss trainers in more detail.

[Derek2U]

Can you name 2-3 books on money management that get
your A+ rating. When I think about it, only this room seems
so knowledgeable on this topic. Mucho Thanks.

[JimG]

Originally posted by andicap
As I recall with the 4 +30 method, it was unprofitable on its own -- that is, just blindly playing all the 4 +30 angles.

In his play, Ed I believe, keeps more refined stats on these plays and used to have a newsletter in which he'd discuss trainers in more detail.

Your right Andicap, Ed uses what he calls "filters" to reduce the available 4+30 plays to around 3-5 bets per day total. As I recall a bet on all the 4+30's without filters returned about 1.90 or so for $2 bet which does beat the track takeout.


Jim

[JimG]

Originally posted by Derek2U
Can you name 2-3 books on money management that get
your A+ rating. When I think about it, only this room seems
so knowledgeable on this topic. Mucho Thanks.


Don't know about A+, but the book I liked was "Out of the Red, Into the Black", by Jerry Samovitz. I think it is still available through RPM.


Jim

[anotherdave]

Originally posted by JimG



Don't know about A+, but the book I liked was "Out of the Red, Into the Black", by Jerry Samovitz. I think it is still available through RPM.


Jim

I just sold my copy of that on ebay a couple of months ago. I never thought much about the book, although it has been years since I really looked at it. Wasn't it something like if you have 33% winners, then start at 5% of bankroll. After a win increase the % by 0.5% to 5.5%, if you lost decrease it by 1/4% to 4.75%, etc. And the raises and drops depended on your win percentage. That was pretty well it, wasn't it?

Might have been ok for some, but it didn't impress me much. After reading all of these plans for years, I decided to bet a flat amount each race at an amount reasonably comfortable. It was the best decision I ever made. For others, maybe some of these betting plans work?

AD

[JimG]

AD,

Don't remember specifically, but that was the gist of it. Certainly nothing wrong with flat betting. I believe that if you can't make a profit flat betting, money schemes won't bail you out in the long run.

Guess what I liked about it is...I tend to win and lose in streaks. You increase during a winning streak and decrease during a losing streak but at small increments in both ends. It was also one of the first books I read on money management and it stressed the importance of that topic. Until I read it years ago, I hadn't given much consideration to money management.



Jim

[Rick]

The worst thing about most money management schemes is that they assume you know your ROI in advance and that it's relatively constant over time. In my opinion, that's not usually the case, so you have to be conservative in order to avoid ruin in times when it's running worse than average. Another problem is that horse racing payoffs have a very high variance because of bets being made in a variety of odds ranges. I'd like to see someone develop an approach that takes into account these real-world problems. It's possible that there's no good mathematical model for these things and simulation may be the only workable approach.

So my recommended money management books are: none. Mitchell's book is interesting but it contains some major errors in mathematical reasoning regarding losing streaks. Sklansky's advice in a footnote in his book is probably safe enough but not very enlightening. Some of the books with papers on Kelly and other alternatives are interesting in theory if not in practice.

Any ideas on how to solve these problems? It needs to be some kind of self-adjusting procedure that takes into account the current ROI and average odds over some time window.

[CamptownRaces.com]

Originally posted by Rick
The worst thing about most money management schemes is that they assume you know your ROI in advance and that it's relatively constant over time. In my opinion, that's not usually the case, so you have to be conservative in order to avoid ruin in times when it's running worse than average. Another problem is that horse racing payoffs have a very high variance because of bets being made in a variety of odds ranges. I'd like to see someone develop an approach that takes into account these real-world problems. It's possible that there's no good mathematical model for these things and simulation may be the only workable approach.

So my recommended money management books are: none. Mitchell's book is interesting but it contains some major errors in mathematical reasoning regarding losing streaks. Sklansky's advice in a footnote in his book is probably safe enough but not very enlightening. Some of the books with papers on Kelly and other alternatives are interesting in theory if not in practice.

Any ideas on how to solve these problems? It needs to be some kind of self-adjusting procedure that takes into account the current ROI and average odds over some time window.

How about money management, Wagering Strategies, and good handicapping tips???

My New Book Features all of the above.

Take a look...

http://www.camptownraces.com

Charles

[anotherdave]

Originally posted by Rick
The worst thing about most money management schemes is that they assume you know your ROI in advance and that it's relatively constant over time. In my opinion, that's not usually the case, so you have to be conservative in order to avoid ruin in times when it's running worse than average. Another problem is that horse racing payoffs have a very high variance because of bets being made in a variety of odds ranges. I'd like to see someone develop an approach that takes into account these real-world problems. It's possible that there's no good mathematical model for these things and simulation may be the only workable approach.

So my recommended money management books are: none. Mitchell's book is interesting but it contains some major errors in mathematical reasoning regarding losing streaks. Sklansky's advice in a footnote in his book is probably safe enough but not very enlightening. Some of the books with papers on Kelly and other alternatives are interesting in theory if not in practice.

Any ideas on how to solve these problems? It needs to be some kind of self-adjusting procedure that takes into account the current ROI and average odds over some time window.

Hey I agree with you Rick and I'm one of those "math guys". About 7 or 8 years ago I decided that money management was the key to my losing. (The real key was that my handicapping hadn't dealt with the "Beyer in the racing form stage"). So I took about 6 months and read everything I could about money management. It became obvious that money management was not a road to riches, but lousy money management (in particular overbetting your bankroll ) was a sure trip to the poor house. So to me, I needed some procedure which assured that I was betting within my means and toward my goals. After that experience and a lot of research, I came to a new conclusion. It wasn't about money management, it was that I had become a losing handicapper. So I took another 6 months and revamped my handicapping. That process is continuous, but I am now a winning handicapper.

Once I got confidence in my picking, I decides that I should have a lifetime bankroll. I decided $10000 was enough. Now that wouldn't have to be in cash, but would be available if needed. (Now that may be a lot to a lot of you-me too- but think about losing a few hundred a month for a couple of years. I actually haven't needed more than $2000). I decided that my bet should be flat at $100 - that was the edge of my breaking point. That would make me think seriously about each wager I make. And my bankroll was enough to sustain it. If it doesn't, my handicapping must have to been poor.

There was no more maximizing of profits. I was betting all that I could psychologically handle. I couldn't make any more (or lose any more) because I was betting all that I could. Somehow the whole procedure relaxed me. I picked well. I only had one decision. To bet or not to bet - that is the question. As my bankroll grew I increased my flat bet (if that isn' t contradictory - when it hit $15000 I changed to $150 - I could handle that psychologically at that point. I never drop my bet size. I never like the percentage of bankroll where I get on a losing streak and finally get a good-priced winner and have hardly anything on it. That messed me up psychologically.)

But I guess you could call my plan money management. I just think you need to bet an amount comfortable with your bankroll and take money management out of the equation. Just figuring out whether to bet the horse or not is enough stress for me with 2 minutes to post.

AD

[Rick]

AD,

My approach is to start with a small amount, say $100, and start with $2 bets. If the method wins, I increase the bet size but never decrease it. If the method is a valid one, I'm soon betting a lot more with "other people's money". If it isn't, I lose a relatively small amount. I can bet just about any amount as long as it's OPM.

[aaron]

On money management stratergies I have noticed that a lot of the methods assume you will have a 30-33% hit rate.Unless you are playing the chalk,this is probably not a good assumption.I feel a good players hit rate will probably be closer to 25%,assuming you are playing one horse per race.Anybody have any thoughts on this?

[Dick Schmidt]

AD,

I think you have it exactly right. People who talk about betting thousands are just showing that they have never bet seriously. If you exceed your comfort range, you will crash and burn. I've done it and it really hurts. Took me months to get back on the horse, as it were. I use almost your exact betting scheme, though I bump my bet every $1,000 ($10,000 bank = $100 bet, $11,000 bank = $110 bet etc.) We wind up in exactly the same place. I just like to "sneak up" on the big bets.

Dick

[David McKenzie]

//I just think you need to bet an amount comfortable with your bankroll and take money management out of the equation.//

The "right" amount to bet is more than just a function of bankroll size. You can't ignore the human element and that varies from one person to another.

I think Dick Mithcell said it best. I don't remember the exact words, but they were to this effect, "I know I've reached my bet limit when I can hear my blood pounding in my ears."

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by aaron
On money management stratergies I have noticed that a lot of the methods assume you will have a 30-33% hit rate.Unless you are playing the chalk,this is probably not a good assumption.I feel a good players hit rate will probably be closer to 25%,assuming you are playing one horse per race.Anybody have any thoughts on this?

Win percentage is only important psychologically.

Some people can handle going a long time between big hits. Others want frequent hits.

ROI is what is really important. Making a profit. I can show you 40+% spot plays that lose money. I'm sure there are people on this board making money hitting below 20% winners.

I'm one of the ones wanting frequent hits and I get them and turn a profit.