Making a morning line

[Valuist]

OK, this may be obvious to the more advanced players. But here's how I do it. Several rules:

1. Make odds for ALL the horses. You can't have an accurate line if you are only pricing 4 horses. Unless you only bet to win, this should be obvious, and even then, you will have a sloppy line if you only price part of the field.

2. Make your odds total up to 124, not 100. Until they change the laws regarding takeout, we are on a base 124 mathematical system, not 100.

First, I separate the field into 4 categories: contenders, sleepers, tweeners, and no-chancers. Basically, I consider a no-chancer as a horse who's best race in its showing past performances will not put it into the trifecta in today's race. These types I price anywhere from 30-1 to 100-1. As for contenders, I usually cap it out at a max of 4-5 per race, and thats usually in a big field. Sleepers are horses with maybe some spotty recent form but often have some back form that would be good enough to win. Other sleepers are horses who had legit excuses in their last 2 or more races. For instance its a sprint on a dry track today and their last 4 races were a slop sprint, 2 turf routes and a Polytrack sprint. But the form prior to the Polytrack sprint was solid. I price the sleepers generally between 7-1 and 12-1. The tweeners are those that aren't completely hideous like the no-chancers, but realistically can't be priced below 15-1. They maybe could be used in the back slot of a tri or possibly even the under slot on an exacta, in a rare instance.

If a horse is borderline between 2 categories, I'll put an arrow next to it designating that it almost was placed in another category. That way I'll give it less credit than other horses in its own category.

I start with the no-chancers. We've all seen what legit 99-1 shots look like. But not all races have true 99-1 shots. Then I move to the tweeners, then sleepers, then contenders. If I finish and come up with less than 124, I'll take the difference and add it on to either the main contender, or the top 2-3 contenders, proportionately splitting it depending on how I've priced those contenders. For instance, if horse A is 2-1 (33 pts) and horse B is 7-2 and horse C is 9-2 and I've got 10 pts to add on, I would assign 5 more to horse A, 3 to horse B and 2 to horse C.

If I end up with too many parimutuel points, I'll look at the tweeners and sleepers first to deduct, since there figures to be little to take off the no-chancers.

I have found that splitting them into the 4 categories speeds up the process as well as help make the line more accurate.

[cj]

I don't see any value at all in creating a value line based on 124% instead of 100%. Please explain.

I also don't see any problem in not assigning a line to some horses. Rick's Natural Star, Shake the Bank are obvious examples, but similar very slim chance horses run every day in every type of race.

[mauvais]

2. Make your odds total up to 124, not 100. Until they change the laws regarding takeout, we are on a base 124 mathematical system, not 100.


Until they change the laws regarding simple maths, the sum of the probabilities for all horses in the race must add to 100%............ :bang: :bang:

I also don't see any problem in not assigning a line to some horses.

All horses have a chance no matter how low so to assign 0 probability to a runner is as absurd as making your odds total up to 124. You can bet a race whereby you assign 0 probability to a runner but all you will be doing is overstating the chances of all the other runners. No runner has 0 chance! ;)

[twindouble]

Valuist; Why bother creating a morning line when your ultimate dicision to wager on a horse or horses will have very little or nothing to do with your line or anyone elses? Please explain?

[TravisVOX]

The 124 is for morning line... the odds made by such folks as Eric Donovan have to add up to 124 or whatever the percentage to account for the take out. That's morning line. But value line, which I consider way different, I do up to 100. It makes you have higher odds versus the morning line.

I really like the categorizing... tweeners, no chance etc., but I wouldn't hold myself strict to the bad trip last two, or similar rules. That said, I do like the rule about best race on the tri ticket though...really makes you see when you're digging for gold that isn't there.

[TravisVOX]

Valuist; Why bother creating a morning line when your ultimate dicision to wager on a horse or horses will have very little or nothing to do with your line or anyone elses? Please explain?

Seriously? The key to winning at the races is value..and value only exists when you have a comparative structure, that is, a value line. You can bet underlays all day long, and lose in the long run... the only way to win, is to win consistently with overlays.

[Valuist]

OK, Ricks Natural Star and Shake the Bank are examples of legit 100-1 horses...although I believe RNS actually went off at around 40-1. But that isn't the norm. But there's definitely a difference between say a 30-1 horse and a legit 100-1 horse. I would say the majority of races that I price have the longest shots around 30-1, sometimes 50-1. And one could even make a case that Shake the Bank could've been 50-1 since he did figure to get the lead and he's at least won allowance races so it wasn't as if he had zero talent. As for RNS, he should've been 1000-1.

As for the 124 pts, I think it simplifies things. If I have all the horses with MY odds listed, then write in next to it the actual odds, I have a nice easy comparison. I play multiple tracks, when its race time I don't want to have to bother w/conversions.

I should also point out that as one who bets far more exactas and trifectas than win bets, the classifying into categories is really more important than the actual odds. I'm always looking for sleepers and tweeners to fill out the exactas and/or trifectas.

[cj]

All horses have a chance no matter how low so to assign 0 probability to a runner is as absurd as making your odds total up to 124. You can bet a race whereby you assign 0 probability to a runner but all you will be doing is overstating the chances of all the other runners. No runner has 0 chance! ;)

Shake the Bank, Rick's Natural Star, the two "rabbits" for Saint Liam, etc. All of them put together had 0 chance, as the only chance was all the other horses falling down, which would then be declared a non-event.

But, even so, most people advocate assigning a line of say 20% to all of your non-contenders, or something similar. This seems to be what Valuist is talking about. Why waste time assigning a line to a horse with little chance? What is the difference between 50-1 and 40-1? Is that worth fretting over on a maiden claimer at Beulah on a Tuesday afternoon?

[Valuist]

Twindouble-

I'm not sure what you are asking. My wagers are based on who I feel is being underbet that merits a chance, and going against those who I perceive as overbet. I felt Lost in the Fog merited favoritism in the Sprint (in a thread I quoted him at 3-2) but at 3-5 he was grossly overbet so I tossed him out.

CJ-

To accurately price your contenders, you have to accurately price the garbage and mediocre types. Just because a horse isn't likely to win doesn't mean they should be 40-1 or 50-1. I don't like the idea of assigning a flat number of pts for non-contenders. To me, handicapping and wagering is about specifics, not generalities.

[TravisVOX]

All of them put together had 0 chance, as the only chance was all the other horses falling down, which would then be declared a non-event.

I don't think they'd declare that a non-event, there was still win money on the rabbits...

[twindouble]

Seriously? The key to winning at the races is value..and value only exists when you have a comparative structure, that is, a value line. You can bet underlays all day long, and lose in the long run... the only way to win, is to win consistently with overlays.

To me an overlay is a horse you like to win or be on the board with value, regardless of what others think. For example, if I like a horse to win and he was 8-1 in the morning line, not that I check and he's going off at 40-1 would you you call that an extreme overlay and not bet the horse? The tote don't pick horses you do, right?

T.D.

[Valuist]

Mauvauis-

Making odds is NOT the same as probabilities. A 1-1 shot does not have a 50% chance of winning. They have about a 33% chance of winning. Yes, the odds are BASED on the probabilities but due to takeout they aren't the same. I see you are in Asia so you may be betting into less takeout, but even so, it has to be at least 10% even in Australia.

[cj]

CJ-

To accurately price your contenders, you have to accurately price the garbage and mediocre types. Just because a horse isn't likely to win doesn't mean they should be 40-1 or 50-1. I don't like the idea of assigning a flat number of pts for non-contenders. To me, handicapping and wagering is about specifics, not generalities.

I guess for me it is a matter of time. I'm playing between 8 to 12 tracks a day. Further, I don't want to bet horses that I think have less chance of winning than the horses natural odds anyway. So if a horse is 15-1 on my line in a 10 horse field, I'm not interested. Just how I do it, and it works for me.

I am trying to get a reasonable assessment on as many races as possible for the day. In all honesty, if I think a horse should be 49-1, and he is going off at 99-1, I'll pass. I'm saying the horse has a 2% chance to win, the public 1%. I don't think my handicapping is that good. Now, if I think a horse should be 4-1, and he is 6-1, I'm in. If he is 10-1, I'm in bigger.

I still don't get the 124%, what exactly are you comparing this to?

[Overlay]

My question (other than about not using a 100% line, as others have pointed out) would be: Although assigning any kind of odds is a step in the right direction, are you relying strictly upon subjective opinion to arrive at your odds figures? If so, how can you be sure you're being consistent in odds assignment from race to race? It would seem to me that, even if you have a documented record of the past accuracy of your odds, you wouldn't have assurance that your success would continue into the future without the use of some kind of hard performance data outside of your personal judgment.

[cj]

Mauvauis-

Making odds is NOT the same as probabilities...

If I make a horse 4-1, that is the same as saying he has a 20% chance to win. Takeout isn't a factor. It only is a factor in the odds you see on the tote.

[Valuist]

OK, here's an example of how I'd categorize a race. I did this on the train ride in this morning so I haven't assigned odds yet. Many play New York, so here's how I categorized the 6th race today, assuming it stays on grass:

Contenders: Be My Prince, Shhh Please, Drinkwater
Sleepers: Gryffindor, Fiddlers Cat, Mikethemoondog, Incredible Speed
Tweeners: Emotrin, Theconfidenceman
No chancers: Charimount, Deelites Gold (arrow pointing toward tweeners) and Metallic Moon

[twindouble]

I guess for me it is a matter of time. I'm playing between 8 to 12 tracks a day. Further, I don't want to bet horses that I think have less chance of winning than the horses natural odds anyway. So if a horse is 15-1 on my line in a 10 horse field, I'm not interested. Just how I do it, and it works for me.

I am trying to get a reasonable assessment on as many races as possible for the day. In all honesty, if I think a horse should be 49-1, and he is going off at 99-1, I'll pass. I'm saying the horse has a 2% chance to win, the public 1%. I don't think my handicapping is that good. Now, if I think a horse should be 4-1, and he is 6-1, I'm in. If he is 10-1, I'm in bigger.

I still don't get the 124%, what exactly are you comparing this to?

Why assign odds to horses you think have no shot anyway? All your saying is you like a horse to win and the pubic don't in your 4-1,6-1,10-1 example.

[cj]

Why assign odds to horses you think have no shot anyway? All your saying is you like a horse to win and the pubic don't in your 4-1,6-1,10-1 example.

I don't, that was the whole point.

[Overlay]

If I make a horse 4-1, that is the same as saying he has a 20% chance to win. Takeout isn't a factor. It only is a factor in the odds you see on the tote.

The odds on the tote add up to around 124% because the track take has been subtracted from the total pool before the tote odds are figured. But if you make a 100% fair-odds line (as cj recommends), you can compare your fair odds directly with the tote odds in determining whether a horse is an overlay or not, because the odds on the tote represent the minimum payoff you will receive in the event of a successful win wager. There's no need to make any adjustments to compensate for the take under those circumstances, since (as stated above) the take has already been figured in before the tote odds are posted.

[Overlay]

Why assign odds to horses you think have no shot anyway? All your saying is you like a horse to win and the pubic don't in your 4-1,6-1,10-1 example.

I always make a point of assigning fair odds to every horse in a field, since ultra-longshots will usually come from among those horses who are at long odds to begin with (and therefore are considered to have little or no chance of winning). Since I'm basing my wager size on the disparity between my fair odds and the tote odds, wagering on horses that are at high odds in my fair-odds line, but which are going off as overlays at even higher odds than I have assigned them, doesn't put a significant dent in my bankroll, while at the same time assuring that I'm covered on those occasions when one of these horses does wake up and win a race.

[Valuist]

CJ-

There's another reason to price all the horses. I know you are a Pinnacle account holder and those of us w/Pinny accounts have access to matchup plays. I love the matchup plays and bet 1-3 most days that I wager. Sure, they sometimes will take the marquee horses, like pitting St. Liam against Borrego, but that definitely isn't always the case. Check out the 6th race at Churchill matchup: Deputy Star against Kay Chee Chop Chop. Both of these are listed at double digit odds in the morning line and both could go off at longshot prices.

[Figman]

The 124 pts. is dependent on the win pool takeout at the individual track. If your are making a line for a racetrack (as I did professionally for over 20 years), you start with dividing "1" by the net pool percentage given back to winning bettors. It is not always the same within the same state. For instance, in NY the NYRA win pool takeout is 14% while at Finger Lakes in NY it is 18%.

With the 14% win pool takeout in NY the formula in getting to the starting point in figuring out the total points is 1/(1.00-.14) which is 1/0.86 and equals 116 pts. Depending on the number of wagering interests, there has to be some additional points added to the base, in this instance "116" to account for differences within certain subsets of odds. For example, there must be an accounting for the difference within 5 to 1 odds in that one might be $5.05 to 1 (closest to 16 pts.) while another might be $5.95 to 1 or closest to 14 pts.). My solution to these subset differences was to add points equal to half the number of betting interests in a given field to get my target number.

Therefore, a NYRA field with 8 betting interests and a 14% win takeout would establish my target at 120 pts. (The "116" calculated earler plus 1/2 of 8 betting interests or an additional 4 pts.)

This is where the disagreement is on this thread question.
Are you making a handicapping (betting) line where 100% is acceptable.
Or are you making a "morning line" where only real conditions are acceptable? You must handicap the race in either case.

My job was to make a "morning line" for the official track program. I would figure out who the favorite in the race would most likely be when the public was finished betting. Upon deciding that, I would ask myself if this is going to be a strong favorite or a weak one and set the odds on that one horse accordingly. Then I would proceed with each horse and compare each one to the next assigning preliminary odds as I went along. Upon completion I would add up all values or Points (that can be found in an Odds-Percentage Table) and I have them memorized in my head. Instinctively I knew that a 5-1 would equal 16 points and an 8-5 equals 37 points; 2-1 equals 33 points, etc.

Upon adding up all the preliminary assigned points I would get a total and match it against my established target total. To get to the target total exactly, I would go back and adjust individual horses higher or lower as needed. It was like doing nine or ten crossword puzzles each day and getting paid for doing it.

Hope this helps the understanding of one man's process of making an odds line in a professional manner that few attempt in today's racing world.

[Valuist]

Figman-

You're exactly right. And to answer your question, the thread title was about making a morning line. Of course I do use it as a betting line. Why do I not use 100? I've been doing it too long the other way and that's what I'm used to. I see no point in changing.

[JackS]

Valuist- I see no problem in your method as long as you take the 24% take into account at the time of your bet. CJ has it nailed for me though, I don't want to spend any effort or time attempting to assign odds to horses I 'm not going to play anyway. Perhaps a group assignment for you might be better in which all horses in the "no-chance" catagory could be lumped as a single number to account for even a slight chance that does occur from time to time. Arbritrarly, 10% or your own guestimate on your 124% total.
This would leave you three catagories to assign odds with the remainder (112%).
This method would not be better than your present method, just faster and easier and would allow more time for those horses that really do have a chance.

[Wizard of Odds]

Sounds like Figman is Donald LaPlace.

[classhandicapper]

Making a morning line is different than making a value line. A morning line incorporates the take and a value line is only interested in the probabilities of winning assuming there was no take.

You guys are bringing up some very interesting issues regarding making a value line. You really can't make an accurate value line on the contenders without assigning probabilities to the non-contenders also. However, it's extremely difficult to assign probabilities to 5-6 non contenders whose chances of winning can vary from between 10% and 2% (with the occasional no shot like rabbites etc..).

I used to try to make value lines, but now I lean more towards ranking the contenders in oder of probability of winning while keeping the degree of difference between them in mind. (a semi odds line)

If IMO they are making the wrong favorite, I am immediately interested in betting the horse I think should be the favorite. If I am right, his odds will almost always be high enough to more than offset the track take unless the public is totally screwing up the race.

If IMO the 4th choice should be a close second choice, I am interested etc...

I'll take that pretty far down the rankings if the odds are VERY long and I am pretty sure of my analysis.

The key of course is to be sure of your analysis.

If you can't out-handicap the public, then all your oddslines and rankings are often pretty worthless.

So what I really like is when I LOVE a horse and I KNOW WHY the public doesn't like it as much or when I HATE A HORSE but I UNDERSTAND why the public likes it and I disagree.

The rest of the time, I'm not too sure who is right because it may just be that my information is in error, incomplete, or I am misunderstanding something.

That's why I like focusing my attention on horses that had a hidden bad trip, ran against a bias, were part of a hot pace, have a strong trainer pattern going for them, will get an easy trip etc... Even if I can't put exact percentages on all the horses, I know going in the public might be underestimating the horse (and vice versa).

[michiken]

I'm playing between 8 to 12 tracks a day.

CJ When do you find time to SLEEP:p?

[JackS]

To be honest, I don't make a line. We have the ML and the publics final estimation. I do reference the ML and compare both but my final choice will always be my own. I have experimented in the past adjusting the ML to 100% but don't even do this anymore. It could be worthwhile but really don't know one way or the other..

[dancingbrave]

Very strange some of your thinking. What is the point of creating a ML? If you assessing your percieved possible probabilities for each horse to win - it's a different matter and that can be used for selection and staking strategy. This isn't a rough thing that you should be doing and must add up to 100% else it is futile.


Complete waste of energy and pointless exercise otherwise.

[aaron]

In my opinion making a line in many cases can be a waste of time.There are many races with too many unknowns.For instance in many maiden races horses who have had many chances will figure because they have numbers that can win the race,but seldom do.Of course,as soon as you throw out one of these horses they will win and pay $60.00.Sometimes making a line will make you look at horses you really don't like but are overlays.
When I look at a race and come up with horses I like,I automatically have a pretty good idea of what price I will accept.
I realize there are many players who can make lines on every horse and be sucessful,but for me it takes me off more winners than it leads me to.

[RXB]

Mauvauis-

Making odds is NOT the same as probabilities. A 1-1 shot does not have a 50% chance of winning. They have about a 33% chance of winning. Yes, the odds are BASED on the probabilities but due to takeout they aren't the same. I see you are in Asia so you may be betting into less takeout, but even so, it has to be at least 10% even in Australia.

Actually, 1/1 shots win about 40% of the time, given the standard win pool takeouts in North America.

It's impossible to bet horses properly off of a fixed odds 100% line. We're not rolling dice, where the probabilities are fixed and knowable. We're estimating, and we can be very wrong sometimes.

[Valuist]

I guess Dancing Brave is still upset over the fact I mentioned Manila and Theatrical in another thread, both of whom finished in front of his namesake. Your bitterness is amusing. You basically asked a rhetorical question that you answered yourself.

RXB-

True. We don't have to be right 100% of the time or even close and what makes racing such a great game. Betting sports, I have to be right 52% of the time to break even w/a ceiling of approximiately 58.5 to 60%. Much better profit margins in racing, esp. w/the rebates.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I like your idea of classifying the horses into categories, although intead of making an actual line i compare program odds to the tote.
I find it interesting that horses are put at 50-1 or 30-1 even if they have won 1 of 8 or 1 of 15 of their career starts!
Question for all linemakers- how do you adjust for a contender who scratches?

[dancingbrave]

valuist - I have nothing against you and whether my namesake gets beat or not means nothing to me but I ask a very simple question in that what purpose does a rough ML to 124% serve?

No one who trys to determine probabilities for each individual horse will do it absolutely accurately but at least they are trying to reflect a horse's probabilty of winning and can use that as basis of some decision making.

Ad hoc ML or a figure plucked out thin air seems a crazy way to base matters concerning hard earned cash.

[46zilzal]

Most morning lines add up to around 120% if you add up all the probabilities (2/1 being 0.3333 probability) toward unity, or 1.0

[DrugSalvastore]

CJ When do you find time to SLEEP:p?

I think it's very wise of him to play that many tracks. After studying his figures, I'm pretty impressed with them, but I still think you're better off making the analytical judgements and writing them all in a spiral notebook.

My way is very tedious, involves a good degree of skill, a lot of VCR tapes, it's very time consuming work, and you are very limited to the amount of tracks you can follow. With his figures, he gives himself the oppertunity to strike anywhere.

Some people would rather have a slow moving, hand picked army, that is made up of the toughest and most well preped fighters. Some people like an army that might not be loaded with invincible fighters, but it can beat you because it's very mobile and never gets bogged down.

A beauty of the CJ way, is that he probably doesn't need to bet uncomfortably large sums of money on each race he likes a lot. He has a lot more spots to pick.

The way I approach the game---when I feel I have an edge, I have to go for the kill shot and bet a lot of money on the race, because if I bet cautiously, I can't make enough money to justify me doing this.

There are pro's and con's to our methods....but he obviously is much better off than I am, because he has a nice job to go along with his betting. If I took a job, I'd literally be TOAST from a betting standpoint. I wouldn't have the time or energy to do the quality of work that I can do now.

[cj]

...he probably doesn't need to bet uncomfortably large sums of money on each race he likes a lot. He has a lot more spots to pick...

...There are pro's and con's to our methods....but he obviously is much better off than I am, because he has a nice job to go along with his betting. If I took a job, I'd literally be TOAST from a betting standpoint. I wouldn't have the time or energy to do the quality of work that I can do now.

You've pretty much nailed why I play the way that I do. Rebates are also a factor.

[Overlay]

Question for all linemakers- how do you adjust for a contender who scratches?

I base my line on the ratio between the concrete numerical value I assign to each horse to the total of the values for all the horses in the field. So if a horse (contender or non-contender) scratches, I refigure my variables and rankings based on the absence of the scratched horse, and create a new odds-line which may or may not be significantly different from my original line, depending on the original fair odds I had assigned to the horse that was scratched. If it was a longshot by my fair-odds line to begin with, its removal from the field will probably have little effect. If it was a contender, the odds on all other horses will expereince a greater shift, and in a downward direction.

[Valuist]

Ken-

You got the post. The biggest point was how the classification into categories can expedite the process. While I use 124 pts, it works for a 100 value betting line as well.

As for your question on scratches, I say there's a couple ways to deal w/it. First, you need to total up the mutuel points of the scratched horses (i.e. 18 pts for a 9-2, 25 points for a 3-1, etc) and figure out how to distribute them. One way is to distribute those points proportionately among the top contenders. If a horse is 25-1 or 50-1, I likely will not add anything on to them. Generally looking at those at 10-1 or less. Another way which must be considered is to see how the pace scenario changes after the scratches. Maybe going into the race you saw 3 early speed types and 2 pressers and after scratches now there's only 1 early speed and 1 presser. This would be a case where I would junk the original line and completely reconfigure the odds. Another case would be a race that comes off the turf; first there's likely going to be scratches, and secondly there's going to be some turf specialists who can't stand up on dirt and maybe some main track onlys who draw in.

I admit there's plenty of times when I just classify into categories and don't make an actual line. If I feel I have a good handle on a race, or its a smaller field, that may be enough. I play 3 circuits, which I find time consuming enough; I want to make as few mental mistakes as possible (getting shut out, not playing a Pic 3 I had originally planned on playing, etc.) so organization is important. I know some play far more tracks than I do; if it works great. If I get sloppy, I will feel it in the account and/or wallet.

[classhandicapper]

drugsalvastore,

I think the more effort you put into handicapping a particular card, the higher your ROI potential will be. Your odds lines and ratings will be more accurate as a result of more information and greater scrutiny.

However, a higher ROI doesn't automatically translate into more profits. 10 bets at 5% is more than 2 bets at 20%. On the flip side, you can probably bet a higher percentage of your bankroll without risking ruin if you have a higher ROI.

I think the trick is to maximize your profit within the amount of time you are willing to dedicate while keeping overall pleasure in mind also.

What good is making more money if it feels like work or if it comes at the expense of other important things?

[DrugSalvastore]

What good is making more money if it feels like work or if it comes at the expense of other important things?

I think everyone on here has made their money by doing what feels like work--and sometimes at the expense of other important things.

I really enjoy racing and betting--I used to spent way to much time on the AOL board, now i'm spending way to much time screwing around on this board, but I'm doing it because I like it.

The approach I take to handicapping and betting involves a lot of work, and even though I whine about it a lot, I really don't mind the work, and I love the results of the work.

I think I've been genuinely lucky as a bettor. I started with practically no true bankroll, and thanks to a pair of early big scores I had one built up. I'm not an excessive spender (I still don't even own a car) and through good life money management and betting I was able to build my bankroll to where I have it today...without ever tapping out on the way.

When things were going good, I took a few calculated risks on the way, like owning race horses (cheaper claimers at slot tracks), and betting on baseball and football. I had no success with any of that, but I did well enough to not hurt myself. Although, I have hurt myself with football betting this past year, but my bankroll is so healthy now, that my stupidity with football didn't really hurt me any.

I've been looking to get away from this, not because I don't like it, but because I want to give myself a chance to make good dependable money. I chickened out on the car salesman thing..., because, after meeting my co-workers, it just didn't seem like it would be as fun as I first thought.

I have a room in Arcadia Cal. all set for me. As soon as I recover from my wisdom teeth surgery, I'm heading down there. I'm going down there as a bettor, but I'm going to try and see if I can get a job for myself doing something related...where I still can bet. Like writing, or chart calling, or doing trip notes or a 'horses to watch list' for a publication, even ugly old-fashion touting if one of the many racing radio shows out there would hire me.

I thought about trying on New York instead of California, because I'm a little more comfortable with Eastern racing--but I've followed So. Cal racing since I was a little boy, so I think I'll be okay down there. Everyone I talk with told me I'd fit in much better in Cal than I would in New York.

[aaron]

Good luck,
Doug

[classhandicapper]

DrugS,

We have similar approaches to the game, but I've always (until recently) had a steady job and good income. The way I balanced it was to only play horses on weekends. I wound up playing a lot of stakes races in NY. It became sort of a specialty (I was doing better at them) because following the best horses closely was always more enjoyable for me. These days I can follow and bet stakes on a national level which gives me more opportunities to bet.

I'm not sure if that plan would work for you, but if you enjoy high quality races, want to limit the time and energy you put in, and fit racing into a life that includes working Monday thru Friday or other important things you might consider it.

From time to time I try to playing horses everyday (or multiple tracks) and it becomes work.

Good Luck whichever way you go.