handicapping in horse racing?

[sly fox]

The key to baseball is pitching.
The key to hockey is goaltending.

[Rob_in_MN]

As much knowledge as you can pack into your brain about the game.

[Dave Schwartz]

Value!

[BIG RED]

Discipline!!

[dancingbrave]

Value is subjective. Discipline is useless without a method of gaining positive expectation in each wager ie: betting at greater odds than respective chances.

This is hard to achieve and a lot of work but everything else staking, discipline etc is all secondary.

[twindouble]

The key to baseball is pitching.
The key to hockey is goaltending.

If I have to pick just one factor it would be pace, everything else comes together with that in mind, conditions and so on.

[timtam]

$$$$ BANKROLL $$$$$$ :p

[banacek]

Discipline!!

I second that.

[Wizard of Odds]

The key to baseball is pitching.
The key to hockey is goaltending.

Identification of Overlays

[joeyspicks]

Dave + Big Red= VALUE + DISIPLINE

There is NO OTHER way!


Just like a baseball team can win a few games or even a series with sub-par pitching.....but in the long run of a full season finish down in the bottom half of their division.......A horse player can play without disipline or an eye toward value and make a short-term profit (and be FOREVER convinced that its impossible to make long term profits.....because THEY cannot!)

Dave said in another thread...something like: YOU MUST KNOW you can win !

When I am able to actually go to the track....I see (and hear) anything but confidence in making a profit. Some look so defeated you wonder why the heck they keep coming. When I go or play my actual mindset is the track is MY ATM machine! Seems corny, however its my EXPECTATION is that I will be leaving (the track or the computer) with more than I came with. Is it always true?? Of course not. Its a necessary mindset to have success.
If any of you saw Derek Jeter on 60 minutes a few months ago....he said something nearly the same: When asked.."do you EXPECT to get a hit every at bat"? Without HESITATION he looked straight into his eyes and said: YES, OF COURSE. Now this is in a sport that you are VERY successful if you get a hit 33 out of 100 (sound famillar?)....but he is THINKING of a hit EVERYTIME.
He fails 67 to 70 times out of 100! Horse racing is nearly the same....you hit close to 30% (not all favorites of course) you should be making money. Some guys play like they will never lose (undiscplined and all over the place) and some play like they can never win.

[Overlay]

To me, having a handle on value will provide discipline, especially if the calculation of value is based on statistical data or other concrete measures, rather than only on subjective opinion. Use of hard, proven data and a sound statistical model can be crucial in providing the confidence needed to maintain a long-term wagering plan, to bet only when value is present, and to provide maximum assurance that past success can be replicated in the future. Use of more subjective criteria, in my experience, leads to second-guessing, and results in too great a margin of error from one race to another.

[mcikey01]

I BELIEVE IT WAS "WEE WILLIE" KEELER WHO SAID THE SECRET TO SUCCESSFUL HITTING IN BASEBALL WAS TO "HIT 'EM WHERE THEY AIN'T!!!".

LIKEWISE, ONE COULD SAY THAT THE SECRET TO SUCCESSFUL HORSEPLAYING IS TO "BET 'EM WHERE THE MONEY AIN'T!!!"

[oddswizard]

Value has nothing to do with handicapping. It has everything to do about money management.
Handicapping is the art of picking winners & exotics. The secret to handicapping is the distance of the race. The distance determines how to handicap a race. To be a consistant winner you must be good at selecting winners. Then you must understand money management techniques that will assure you of value plays.

[twindouble]

I second that.

Discipline??

One can apply discipline in just about anything and be right but if you can't handicap a race properly your still left holding the bag.

The same goes for having a bankroll.

When you get right down to it, there isn't just one factor that will put you or keep you in the black.

Having a thread that would list those factors in some order would also differ from handicapper to handicapper but that wouldn't make them unimportant. For example, I put a lot weight on having a reasonable bankroll and having the discipline to pass races where the risk is to high or there's no value.

Being flexable when it comes to wageringis just as important to me as other factors. Regardless of how much anyone tries you can't force the out come of any race, so you have to limit the risk by using a wagering strategy, thats flexable and baced on the conditions that prevale that compliments your bankroll. The conditions that prevale are how you see the race and the potential to make money with no strict rules applied to how or what type of wager you make.

What else can I say other than learn how to handicap by including learning the tracks you wager on, following the horses and connections very closely. Like most know here, if your not willing to put the time in and live the game, you'll just have a lot of fun or you'll go broke! I no longer live the game, I just use what experience I have and it keeps me above water only because I've been doing it for so long. Like this post, conditions repeat so this old goat can grasp it a lot quicker than most, spend less time and enjoy the game.

Good luck,

T.D.

[Nikjak]

When asked what were the most important elements in race horses, D. Wayne opined: "Speed.....speed.....speed."

And I concur, but would add the caveat: "Ready? Ready? Ready?"

Jack

[Overlay]

Value has nothing to do with handicapping. It has everything to do about money management.
Handicapping is the art of picking winners & exotics. The secret to handicapping is the distance of the race. The distance determines how to handicap a race. To be a consistant winner you must be good at selecting winners. Then you must understand money management techniques that will assure you of value plays.

I must disagree there. I think handicapping at its core means evaluating the relative winning chances of every horse in a race, so that you can then proceed to the money management aspect of wagering based on the disparity between your estimate of a horse's actual chance of winning and the odds established by the betting public. To do otherwise (by focusing only on picking "the winner" of a given race) is to forfeit the advantage that separates horse racing from the great majority of gambling games (particularly most casino games), where the probabilities are always stacked against the bettor, and any success is purely a matter of luck. And it also implies the belief that it's possible to say with certainty which horse will win a given race before the race has been run. For me, the process of determining winning probabilities in order to detect wagering value is integrally connected with handicapping through the assignment of proper weights to a blend of basic performance factors that has the greatest power in predicting how each horse in a field will run, rather than just which horse is likeliest to win.

[Triple Trio]

What we must realize is that baseball, hockey, etc. are primarily spectator sports. Gambling on the results of a match is incidental to the sport itself. On the other hand, gambling is the raison d'être of horse racing. Without gambling, horse racing may be even less popular than show jumping.

Thus while most of the time we can assume that the teams will try get a good result from a match, not every horse in a race is trying to win. A trainer may use today's race to prepare a horse for a future race with bigger prizemoney; or he may want the horse to lose today for a bigger pay day down the road. Thus the most important thing for us is to separate the horses trying to win from the non-tryers, then we can sort of which of them will likely win.

[twindouble]

When asked what were the most important elements in race horses, D. Wayne opined: "Speed.....speed.....speed."

And I concur, but would add the caveat: "Ready? Ready? Ready?"

Jack

Yes, speed is important in car racing as well, how inlighting! In horse racing speed sets up the pace, either it can go the distance or it can't, if pressured early in a fast pace the horse quits or out classed the field and goes all the way. A slow pace speed can get a break and hang on to win, steal the race. A horse can be ready to run his best but be over matched. What race are you talking about where it's all speed and being ready? Speed will carry further on a wet track or hard fast track, there's a time to lean more on speed than other times. Nailing down the speed in a given race isn't as easy as one might think, just because a horse has a lot 1's in his pp's don't make him the speed in the race, what track produced those 1's and fast fractions for example compared to where he's entered now and what the track or conditions are in this race?

[xfile]

Identification of Overlays

I AGREE!:cool:

[RXB]

Key to handicapping, or winning?

There are all kinds of factors that enter into the handicapping equation. Some guys win with a particular focus on adjusted final times, some with pace, class, form, body language, etc.

But when it comes to winning money, I think there's a pretty easy division in terms of the probability of success. Separate the people who bet relatively infrequently from the people who bet a lot of races. On a per capita basis, the number of winners in the former group will be much higher than in the latter group.

That's the part that most people don't want to hear about or discuss. Let's face it: if you really want to make money, why get into something that only pays out 80 cents on every dollar invested?

[Wizard of Odds]

Key to handicapping, or winning?

Let's face it: if you really want to make money, why get into something that only pays out 80 cents on every dollar invested?

Yeah!!... Why are we doing this anyway? :bang:

With this much work, we should be Hedge Fund managers.


Wizard

[Nikjak]

The only relevant "speed" to me, is how fast said steed negotiates a particular distance. Then, is he ready to apply that best speed TODAY? That's what was meant by "speed" in my scenarios....I guess I should use another expression, like "speed for the distance", which does not, necessarily, have anything to do with early speed.

Most horses eventually will become "specialists" at certain distances, and when they're isolated in a race via their speed for those particular distances, along with the readiness factors, they are usually a very solid investment, the bread and butter of profits.

Jack

[Nikjak]

That's the part that most people don't want to hear about or discuss. Let's face it: if you really want to make money, why get into something that only pays out 80 cents on every dollar invested?

--------------------------------------
Because that problem can be buffered in several ways: a) race selection
b) track selection c) handicapping ability d) OVERLAYS

Jack

[Overlay]

But when it comes to winning money, I think there's a pretty easy division in terms of the probability of success. Separate the people who bet relatively infrequently from the people who bet a lot of races. On a per capita basis, the number of winners in the former group will be much higher than in the latter group.

It's conventional wisdom that successful players are selective in their wagering, while anyone who insists on a high volume of bets just to have "action" will end up a loser (with which I would generally agree). However, if you can reliably gauge what the actual winning chances of individual horses or combinations are, and then confine your wagers to situations where the odds are higher those chances, you'll be betting with the probabilities of the game, rather than against them. With a positive expectation such as that, it would mean that the more often you play, the better your end result will be.

[RXB]

That's the part that most people don't want to hear about or discuss. Let's face it: if you really want to make money, why get into something that only pays out 80 cents on every dollar invested?

--------------------------------------
Because that problem can be buffered in several ways: a) race selection
b) track selection c) handicapping ability d) OVERLAYS

Jack

Here come the rationalizations. Answer the question directly: if you want to make money, why not invest your time/capital in something where, in the long run, more money is returned to the entire population of investors/workers than is initially invested? You know, the idea of interest paid on principle, or guaranteed salary/wages, as opposed to 20% lopped off the top and everyone fights over the 80% that's left over?

[RXB]

It's conventional wisdom that successful players are selective in their wagering, while anyone who insists on a high volume of bets just to have "action" will end up a loser (with which I would generally agree). However, if you can reliably gauge what the actual winning chances of individual horses or combinations are, and then confine your wagers to situations where the odds are higher those chances, you'll be betting with the probabilities of the game, rather than against them. With a positive expectation such as that, it would mean that the more often you play, the better your end result will be.

And how often can the vast majority of handicappers, even most good handicappers, "reliably gauge" those actual chances? And how many could ride through the inevitable long losing streaks without destroying their confidence and their bankrolls? Answer: a very small percentage.

Show me a guy burning a path to the windows and another guy who spends most of his day sitting and waiting, and if one of those two is a winning player, I make Mr. Sitandwait 1/9 on my line.

[Nikjak]

From RXB: Here come the rationalizations. Answer the question directly: if you want to make money, why not invest your time/capital in something where, in the long run, more money is returned to the entire population of investors/workers than is initially invested? You know, the idea of interest paid on principle, or guaranteed salary/wages, as opposed to 20% lopped off the top and everyone fights over the 80% that's left over?__________________

The only "direct" answer I have is that "takeout" is neutralized if the investor is of a certain caliber. An analogy might be poker and its 'rake'. Less than 10% of people playing poker actually reside in the black (so I've read). Those darkened folks are of a certain caliber, men from the boys, so to speak. How do they accomplish this? Well, they are BETTER players. They are more disciplined, more knowledgeable, more consistent, better psychologically equipped.

It is the same for horse racing, although I've never run across a percentage statistic of how many bona fide horse players swim in the black. So, call it a rationalization, but doing do may mean one is simply not privy to what it takes to circumvent the .80 cent problem.

Jack

[midnight]

The one key is the ability to understand what's important in each individual race.

Don't waste your time looking for one factor that works over all races. There isn't one.

[Overlay]

Here come the rationalizations. Answer the question directly: if you want to make money, why not invest your time/capital in something where, in the long run, more money is returned to the entire population of investors/workers than is initially invested? You know, the idea of interest paid on principle, or guaranteed salary/wages, as opposed to 20% lopped off the top and everyone fights over the 80% that's left over?

The pari-mutuel take is a daunting obstacle to overcome. But because you're competing with your fellow bettors over the remainder, those with more knowledge and skill are rewarded. Plus, there's the fact that you can be selective in your play, and confine bets to situations where you have an edge on the odds (after the effects of the take have already been figured in). Besides, I handicap for fun. Endeavors where everyone benefits economically have fueled capitalism, but to me that's business/work, which certainly is necessary and has its place, but which is not what I'm looking for when I want to enjoy myself. I prefer racing in that regard, because it at least holds out the prospect of a positive return through skill, unlike almost any other gambling game, where you're at the mercy of blind chance, and where anyone who plays long enough is bound to lose.

[RXB]

From RXB: Here come the rationalizations. Answer the question directly: if you want to make money, why not invest your time/capital in something where, in the long run, more money is returned to the entire population of investors/workers than is initially invested? You know, the idea of interest paid on principle, or guaranteed salary/wages, as opposed to 20% lopped off the top and everyone fights over the 80% that's left over?__________________

The only "direct" answer I have is that "takeout" is neutralized if the investor is of a certain caliber. An analogy might be poker and its 'rake'. Less than 10% of people playing poker actually reside in the black (so I've read). Those darkened folks are of a certain caliber, men from the boys, so to speak. How do they accomplish this? Well, they are BETTER players. They are more disciplined, more knowledgeable, more consistent, better psychologically equipped.

It is the same for horse racing, although I've never run across a percentage statistic of how many bona fide horse players swim in the black. So, call it a rationalization, but doing do may mean one is simply not privy to what it takes to circumvent the .80 cent problem.

Jack

That's not my point. Let me try one last time: why not put your efforts into something where your analytical superiority affords you improvement on an existing built-in advantage of a few per cent (or a the very least, a disadvantage of only a couple of per cent), rather than a starting point of -20% (maybe only -15% if you play offshore), if your stated goal in the exercise is to make money? Because anyone who has enough smarts to come out ahead betting on horse races can almost certainly make more money, probably a lot more money, if they pursue other endeavours with the purpose of financial gain.

[RXB]

Besides, I handicap for fun.

Thank you. That's my point. People follow horse racing for fun, or for obsessional reasons, but not to make money. We might like to make money at the races, and a very small percentage succeeds in that regard, but for the most part horseplayers (including most diligent handicappers) aren't really in the game primarily to make money-- or even to try to make money.

[Nikjak]

That's not my point. Let me try one last time: why not put your efforts into something where your analytical superiority affords you improvement on an existing built-in advantage of a few per cent (or a the very least, a disadvantage of only a couple of per cent), rather than a starting point of -20% (maybe only -15% if you play offshore), if your stated goal in the exercise is to make money? Because anyone who has enough smarts to come out ahead betting on horse races can almost certainly make more money, probably a lot more money, if they pursue other endeavours with the purpose of financial gain.
------------------------

Then it must boil down to "interest". If a person has the 'smarts' to MAKE MONEY with his handicapping skills, and loves doing so, even though the goal is to make money, why would that person transfer to another endeavor that he might not be happy with, even though he makes money? Maybe I can make money raising pigeons, and am good at it. But I could make MORE MONEY raising sheep. But, I don't like raising sheep. Some would, some wouldn't, go for MORE MONEY.

The MAIN thing, of course, is to make money. Then, have fun while doing so.....

[RXB]

------------------------

Then it must boil down to "interest". If a person has the 'smarts' to MAKE MONEY with his handicapping skills, and loves doing so, even though the goal is to make money, why would that person transfer to another endeavor that he might not be happy with, even though he makes money? Maybe I can make money raising pigeons, and am good at it. But I could make MORE MONEY raising sheep. But, I don't like raising sheep. Some would, some wouldn't, go for MORE MONEY.

The MAIN thing, of course, is to make money. Then, have fun while doing so.....

Your first paragraph contradicts your final statement.

[hurrikane]

Plain and simple.

Like most things in life that create income it is information.

Information you have that others don't.

That's it. Now, good luck finding it.

[Overlay]

That's not my point. Let me try one last time: why not put your efforts into something where your analytical superiority affords you improvement on an existing built-in advantage of a few per cent (or a the very least, a disadvantage of only a couple of per cent), rather than a starting point of -20% (maybe only -15% if you play offshore), if your stated goal in the exercise is to make money? Because anyone who has enough smarts to come out ahead betting on horse races can almost certainly make more money, probably a lot more money, if they pursue other endeavours with the purpose of financial gain.

If you're aware of a recreational wagering activity that offers a built-in advantage of even a few percent, please share the wealth. Games with negative edges of only a couple percent make winning in the short term possible, but ensure long-term losses because of the mathematical nature of the probabilities upon which they are based, the reliance upon pure chance for success, and the speed and volume of play. Analytical ability is useless there because individual results cannot be reliably predicted. It is precisely because the outcomes of individual races can be reasonably forecast (as the public as a whole does one-third of the time, year-in and year-out), and because the odds of horses are based on fallible, subjective human opinion rather than on unchanging mathematical laws, that horse racing can offer an advantage to players with greater predictive skill.

[twindouble]

The only relevant "speed" to me, is how fast said steed negotiates a particular distance. Then, is he ready to apply that best speed TODAY? That's what was meant by "speed" in my scenarios....I guess I should use another expression, like "speed for the distance", which does not, necessarily, have anything to do with early speed.

Most horses eventually will become "specialists" at certain distances, and when they're isolated in a race via their speed for those particular distances, along with the readiness factors, they are usually a very solid investment, the bread and butter of profits.

Jack

Jack, thanks for spelling out what you mean, it's clear now where your coming from.

Good luck,

T.D.

[RXB]

If you're aware of a recreational wagering activity which offers a built-in advantage of even a few percent, please share the wealth.

When was I talking about recreational games, other than horse racing?

My initial point is, are you interested in handicapping or in winning money? Are you interested in action or in making profits?

My second point is, if your goal is to make money, why bother with an arena that makes it soooooo difficult? Why not go do something where making money is the rule rather than the exception?

It doesn't take much not to lose money on horse races. Don't bet. However, since I estimate that 98% of all horseplayers lose money via wagering when all is said and done, and yet they continue to bet, I have to believe that "making money" doesn't occupy the highest position on the list of motivations for horseplayers, save for a few professionals. (And even there, if those pros were primarily interested in "making money" they probably would've chosen a more lucrative line of work.)

[twindouble]

When was I talking about recreational games, other than horse racing?

My initial point is, are you interested in handicapping or in winning money? Are you interested in action or in making profits?

My second point is, if your goal is to make money, why bother with an arena that makes it soooooo difficult? Why not go do something where making money is the rule rather than the exception?

It doesn't take much not to lose money on horse races. Don't bet. However, since I estimate that 98% of all horseplayers lose money via wagering when all is said and done, and yet they continue to bet, I have to believe that "making money" doesn't occupy the highest position on the list of motivations for horseplayers, save for a few professionals. (And even there, if those pros were primarily interested in "making money" they probably would've chosen a more lucrative line of work.)

I don't know of any in depth study that supports what you said. When I say a small percentage of people making money I'm refering to those that do it for a living or it's their primary source of income. So, if I say to you I make money playing the horses and have over the years but I'm not part of that small percentage, how many are there like me? There's many player out there in my opinion that do OK playing the horses on a regular baces, not getting rich mind you but wouldn't trade it for anything else. Many recreational players make money as well, play for a weekend or one or two major races, never to be seen again untill the next year. So I don't know who's who when it come to making money but we all know not everyone wins over the long term, how many do win is question? I do think you'll find the % to be much higher than what your saying. Otherwise anyone who reads what's posted on this forum and others in for a big disappointment finding out we are all throwing a bunch a bull.


T.D.

[RXB]

Think about it, man. The takeout is 20%. (The decided majority of sports bettors lose and the juice is only 4.5%.) There is also the luck factor that means that someone who plays for an extended period of time is going to win back a reasonable chunk of his wagering dollar even if he's one of the worst handicappers and bettors that ever set eyes on a horse race. So it's not like there are a bunch of people losing virtually every penny that they bet, feeding the sharper players. There'll be few who don't get back 65% of their money over the longer haul. The biggest group will settle around 75% to 80%.

And of the modest percentage of people who might be winning steadily or semi-steadily now, how many of them were significant losers in the past? How many will become losers in the future as times change and their current edge erodes?

[joeyspicks]

When was I talking about recreational games, other than horse racing?

My initial point is, are you interested in handicapping or in winning money? Are you interested in action or in making profits?

My second point is, if your goal is to make money, why bother with an arena that makes it soooooo difficult? Why not go do something where making money is the rule rather than the exception?

It doesn't take much not to lose money on horse races. Don't bet. However, since I estimate that 98% of all horseplayers lose money via wagering when all is said and done, and yet they continue to bet, I have to believe that "making money" doesn't occupy the highest position on the list of motivations for horseplayers, save for a few professionals. (And even there, if those pros were primarily interested in "making money" they probably would've chosen a more lucrative line of work.)


Rxb: 98% of players lose money ? ? ? Where do you get that figure ?

Certainly its high (like 90% or 80% ? ? ?)
That just means the winners are slicing a pretty big pie !!

You have a valid point though in saying you must make a choice between handicapping for fun or sport and making a profit. I have repeatedly said on this board (as have others) that you can make money (long term profits) and its not as hard as you think....its just most are looking in the wrong place. (Like better handicapping or the newest program...etc). Winning long term just isnt as thrilling or fun as "playing the horses". Its just ISN'T....AND never will be. Most want action, or ego thrill (to be right), or the thrill of a big hit. I dont know of any undiscplined player who makes money long term. (although a guy on this board tried to pass himself off as a moneymaker with a "wild and undisplined" style. Those in the know....just smile (or laugh)....because its impossible.

ps TWIN : weekend players who are up $1200 today and down $800 tomorrow are seldom long term profit makers. They always SAY they make money (unless they are uncommonly honest)......but its hard for a person to face the facts of continual losing (wasting both time and resources). IF they are in it for fun.....and they can afford losing on a steady basis (and THATS fun ? ? )...good for them. But few WANT to put in the time and discpline necessary for long term profitablitiy. Most would rather live with there illuisions or cherished "beliefs" than face the truth and adjust their play. Thats the part thats not easy!

[JackS]

I think "expectation " is the word to define. I play each race with the expectation that I might win not that I should win. Since we're not talking about coin flips and 50/50 outcomes, the word "expectation" must be carried into the future after many outcomes have been decided.
Thirty days should give you some idea of where your handicapping is at. Another 30 days should just about seal it.
Personally I would advise that you select one track and attempt to play every race every day for an extended period of time and at the same time ,try to maintain a bankroll (the one you started with.) After this extended period is over and you still have a bankroll, now you can decide if you need to be more selective in the race types you bet. Good luck.

[twindouble]

Think about it, man. The takeout is 20%. (The decided majority of sports bettors lose and the juice is only 4.5%.) There is also the luck factor that means that someone who plays for an extended period of time is going to win back a reasonable chunk of his wagering dollar even if he's one of the worst handicappers and bettors that ever set eyes on a horse race. So it's not like there are a bunch of people losing virtually every penny that they bet, feeding the sharper players. There'll be few who don't get back 65% of their money over the longer haul. The biggest group will settle around 75% to 80%.

And of the modest percentage of people who might be winning steadily or semi-steadily now, how many of them were significant losers in the past? How many will become losers in the future as times change and their current edge erodes?

Are you saying the sharper players are withing tha two percent that you mentioned in your other posts. I think there's a lot more players out there that fall in my catigory than you want to believe. I would hope to think, at least another 15% make money. Granted a lower takeout would put more money in your pocket but if you paid a cover charge to get into a night club, danced all night, had a good time and got the girl, are you going bitch about the cover charge? Of course not, you'll be telling your friends what a great club it was like we do here talking horses.

[RXB]

Rxb: 98% of players lose money ? ? ? Where do you get that figure ?

Certainly its high (like 90% or 80% ? ? ?)
That just means the winners are slicing a pretty big pie !!



Good post. I'll explain the 98% figure.

It's my estimate. I think it's a reasonably accurate estimate. A friend of mine who is quite intelligent and whose opinion I respect a great deal, estimates that 99% lose.

It's not just a number that I've picked out of my head. The combination of a high takeout and a bottoming-out level for incompetence that isn't too far from the median return means that there's just not enough money available to create a wide distribution that would allow for a significant percentage of winners. Now, with rebates a few more people will have edged into the plus category temporarily if they play offshore but that's still a pretty small sliver of the horseplaying population.

I'm not basing it on who's winning today or who's winning this year. I'm saying, when someone has joined the choir invisible and is therefore no longer going to be betting anymore horse races, what is his lifetime betting ROI?

[RXB]

Are you saying the sharper players are withing tha two percent that you mentioned in your other posts. I think there's a lot more players out there that fall in my catigory than you want to believe. I would hope to think, at least another 15% make money.

I say there's almost no chance that 5% of horse bettors are lifetime winners; 15% is impossible. Do the math.

[joeyspicks]

Good post. I'll explain the 98% figure.

It's my estimate. I think it's a reasonably accurate estimate. A friend of mine who is quite intelligent and whose opinion I respect a great deal, estimates that 99% lose.

It's not just a number that I've picked out of my head. The combination of a high takeout and a bottoming-out level for incompetence that isn't too far from the median return means that there's just not enough money available to create a wide distribution that would allow for a significant percentage of winners. Now, with rebates a few more people will have edged into the plus category temporarily if they play offshore but that's still a pretty small sliver of the horseplaying population.

I'm not basing it on who's winning today or who's winning this year. I'm saying, when someone has joined the choir invisible and is therefore no longer going to be betting anymore horse races, what is his lifetime betting ROI?


Lifetime betting ROI ?

oK...now thats a different story. For example it took me something like 15 years to learn what it took to win money( not handicap!) The past 5 years have been very very good to me. I play completly different and have had a positive ROI over those 5 years. Have I made enough to wipe out the years I was losing? NOPE! But I have learned a "skill" (or a way) to profit. My only problem has been the amount of time it takes. Its IS like a business...it requires time and capital. I play a pretty conservative style ( the only way I know to make consistent profits.....not dramatic....but consistent) and the only other players I know who win are also extremley conservative....others on this board have posted some pretty dramatic monthly gains and amounts bet, however I play a more steady, disiplined style. I consider those first 15 years as an "investment" in both time and money. I could have cut the time down considerably IF I only was aware of what it took. Will I end up with a positive lifetime ROI ?? I certainly will if I continue to play for the next year or so. (I recently have been slowed down with health issues in the family and havent played much at all in the past 6 months).

Why you ask would someone continue on with horseracing when other areas are more profitable? ? TRUE,....however for me horse racing has evolved into a business that I can do from home, make consistent profits (monthly withdrawals......nearly every month the past 5 years). The time factor I am working on....IF I can cut down the time I need daily to remain profitable...it will be the perfect, PORTABLE, profitable, business!!

[Rook]

My second point is, if your goal is to make money, why bother with an arena that makes it soooooo difficult? Why not go do something where making money is the rule rather than the exception?....

(And even there, if those pros were primarily interested in "making money" they probably would've chosen a more lucrative line of work.)

20 months ago, when my wife got pregnant, I decided to get serious about making money. I had been living from paycheck to paycheck for many years, as my salary was not saved or invested; it was spent on things like travel.

With a $2000 bankroll, what would have been the smartest thing to do to turn my fortunes around? Invest in some solid blue chip stocks? That would have been great if I wanted my future grandchildren to reap the rewards.

How about quitting my job and becoming a day trader? What percentage of them makes a good living with such a starting point?

I choose handicapping because I strongly believed that I could turn $2,000 into something substantial if I worked hard for several months and constantly tested ideas. I did not have to quit my day job because I could bet on the weekends and at nights.

Betting on horses has distinct advantages over the more "lucrative" fields like buying stocks. A bettor knows the result of his investment within a minute rather than waiting months or years. Therefore, after hundreds of bets made in a month, there is more immediate feedback about whether he is on the right track or not. A long term investor would have to wait a decade or more before he has a right to feel cocky about his approach.

I was a Vancouver Stock Exchange day trader for one year of my life and figured I was on the road to easy street when I turned $35k into $102 but that came to an end in an instant when BRE-X was revealed to be the biggest hoax of all time. All the penny gold stocks came crashing down and a huge percentage went bankrupt. I'm sure many on this board were also burned in a similar fashion by the tech bubble a few years later.

I've had nightmarish betting days too, of course, but at least I've had control over the maximum amount I could lose. There isn't really a horse racing equivalent to Black Monday.

The other advantage that racing has over stocks is that it is a more level playing field. CEOs and their circle have far more of an edge over the small investor than horse owners and trainers have over bettors. In a typical race, a pro handicapper has a huge amount of information that the horse connections don't have. But, no matter how hard an investor works, he is still going to have a fraction of the knowledge that a CEO has about his company.

It's also nice that racetracks don't give owners and trainers grants and options to purchase bets. Imagine how this game would be if connections got free win tickets without putting any money into the pool. Well, investors put up with this arrangement all the time with stock dillution.

I'm not saying that betting on horses is the choice that most people should make with their lives but if you have an attraction to the game, it is not an illogical pursuit.

[banacek]

I'm not saying that betting on horses is the choice that most people should make with their lives but if you have an attraction to the game, it is not an illogical pursuit.

Great post, Rook.

[Nikjak]

Your first paragraph contradicts your final statement.
------------------------------

I don't think so; guess it depends upon the reader.

If one can make money, i.e., horse racing, and loves it, to include the independence, the mental challenges, the satisfaction of succeeding where most fail, I, personally, can see no further reason to use the same energy applied to 'stocks' or? when I would have no interest in anything else. Stocks and bonds just wouldn't have the same draw, wouldn't have the same challenges. Even if I could make 5 times as much, I'd never find out. Why does a "lifer" stay a soldier when he could become a civilian, make substantially more, be relatively safer? Because that's where his heart is.

[Rook]

Bankroll or starting capital is the important variable to consider when evaluating the wisdom of an investment method. If I had 10s of millions of dollars, financially speaking, it would be a complete waste of time to try to win at tracks like Charlestown.

However, when all I had was $2,000, those Charlestown pools were potentially very important. My initial bankroll was down to $200 when I won a $3,000 triactor at Woodbine. A $3k win is only of modest importance to me now and is a trivial matter to a multi-millionaire but back then it was a small fortune. If instead of winning, I had tapped out, I shudder to think that perhaps I might never have reloaded my account. At the very least, I know would have spent months testing before giving it another shot.

The appeal of racing is that a knowledgable and hard working handicapper can turn hundreds into tens of thousands in a matter of weeks. If that person choose the "sensible" approach of investing, he would be fortunate if he turned his $2,000 into $2,500 within the year. This is a productive thing to do but it does not offer the prospect of immediate retirement.

I did not choose racing because I loved it the most. I got serious about handicapping because I believed I could reach my financial goals in as short as time as possible. Betting on horses need not be a sacrifice.

[exactajack]

I made my first bet when I was 10. I've been doing this ever since and I'm now 49. Fell in love with it. Thought of quitting many times. Had a racing form with me almost daily. In junior high and high school I made money for everyone. But guess what?? It's a roller coaster ride. Constantly. I bought programs and wrote programs. You have to stick your head in the form every day. I compare it to golf. You can't play once a week or once every 2 weeks. You gotta be there every day practicing. If you don't forget it! If you like amusement parks and roller coaster rides then you'll enjoy analyzing races and betting. Once you know how to pick apart a race then decipline is the best advice I can offer. Value is the latest craze being used these days. I disagree. If you got the winner then bet it. Last week I heard a guy say that he wouldn't bet his chioce unless it was 10-1 or above. It went off at 7-1. What's wrong with a $16 horse?? I'll take'm all day. DESCIPLINE!!

[dav4463]

Maybe that 7-1 shot was his third choice and his records show that his third choices show a loss at odds of less than 10-1.