How to make money?

[Nikjak]

Employ the KISS system (Keep It Simple, Stupid)

Begin with a bankroll between 2000 and 5000 dollars, using 200 dollar
units, betting win and/or place, only.

Have a separate 1000 dollar bankroll for the "windfalls" (gimmick betting),using
20.00 units.

Always have a good night's sleep; be relaxed; stay focused.

Ideally, work from home via computer.

Be sure you're right--then, go ahead.
--------------------------------------------------
Calder Race 1: #3 , Ladydoctorsfortune, is the primary interest. Breathing down her neck is #5, Regal Miss. The investment: 100 win/place on #3 20 dollar exacta box: 3--5.

This is a co-contender situation, the two within 1/2 length of the other. Often this scenario produces an exacta.
--------------------------------------------------
TBC:confused:

[cj]

I would never recommend betting $200 units with a bankroll of 5000, let alone 2000. Unless of course your usual bet is about 1/4 unit.

[Nickle]

You will go broke that way, I will guarantee it, 99% of people that play the horses loses and do not let anyone tell you other wise.

[Nikjak]

You will go broke that way, I will guarantee it, 99% of people that play the horses loses and do not let anyone tell you other wise.


Okay. Stay tuned......

[Nikjak]

I would never recommend betting $200 units with a bankroll of 5000, let alone 2000. Unless of course your usual bet is about 1/4 unit.
-------------------------------

All depends upon what the "study" has shown. If that's your experience, then your correct. However, my experience has been different.....so far...

[cj]

No study I have done, just common sense. 10% of your bankroll on one race is way too much, just my opinion, take it or leave it.

[timtam]

Be sure you're right and then go ahead

I had that on a Davy Crockett record when I was a kid

That brought back memories I think it was by Burl Ives :)

[so.cal.fan]

I have to agree with CJ.
Over the years I have seen several people fall into this trap.
They work something out on paper....think they will make a fortune betting real money. NEVER HAPPENS......NEVER HAPPENS.
Even 5% of your bankroll is probably too much to be betting.
I speak from over 40 years of experience at the racetrack.

[Nikjak]

No study I have done, just common sense. 10% of your bankroll on one race is way too much, just my opinion, take it or leave it.
Okay. 200 units, 5000.00 bankroll, would be .04.....but, all depends upon the "history" of the individuals, what their selection prowess has shown.....

[joeyspicks]

Nickle: 99% lose ? ?

Again.....ANOTHER guy on this board proclaiming 99% losers.
Are you that sure ?? (YOU guaranteed IT !) How would you know this ?? Its a reflection of your experience I would guess.

Sure the bet size mentioned for the bankroll size is way off and a person using this pct would most definitly...sooner or later bust out. I just am amazed at the views expressed (more than once on this board) that 99% are losers. What the heck sustains your interest in such a losing venture ? ?

[Nikjak]

Be sure you're right and then go ahead

I had that on a Davy Crockett record when I was a kid

That brought back memories I think it was by Burl Ives :)

--------------------------
Coulda been...although I don't recall Ives as the singer.......I always like embellish it with: "Be sure you're right, then go ahead--even if you're wrong."

[so.cal.fan]

Nikjak.....

Your past "history" is just that........it can and will change, and you do not know when that will happen, but trust me, it will.
Several years ago, two men checked into a hotel near Santa Anita at the beginning of the winter meet.
They brought $40,000 betting capital with them......they had studied Santa Anita for several years and were convinced they had a selection system and a money management system that would win them a fortune.
They were nicknamed "the Omaha gamblers"..........I believe they were engineers or scientists.......in other words, not dumb men........
They left Arcadia 3 1/2 weeks later........minus their $40K bankroll, promptly gave up horserace betting.
Now, perhaps their "system" would have worked the following year or year after, perhaps..

[cj]

I stick to about 1% per race. I like to have enough in the bank that a few losing days is barely noticable. If you bet $200 per and lose 15 in a row, and you will eventually, you will tighten up when that bank is down to 2,000.

[Nikjak]

I have to agree with CJ.
Over the years I have seen several people fall into this trap.
They work something out on paper....think they will make a fortune betting real money. NEVER HAPPENS......NEVER HAPPENS.
Even 5% of your bankroll is probably too much to be betting.
I speak from over 40 years of experience at the racetrack.

------------------------
Mine is 41 years. And I don't think you're correct. I think it might be a good exercise to "work something out on paper" and post it here, at least for the month of Dec. See where the chips fall. I predict a profit, oh, at least 10,000 plus. You (and others) predict failure, busting out, and it would also be a failure to hold one's own, too, to break even or to have minimum losses. Egg on my face? Crow-eating? Maybe, but not probably. We'll see.....:eek:

[joeyspicks]

1% is much closer to the right pct!

[Valuist]

$200 units w/a bankroll that small? Either it needs much more capital or much smaller units. As for the exotics, are you talking about $20 per race or $20 per ticket? A $20 trifecta part wheel would eat up significant bankroll in a hurry.

And we're never "sure" we're right. We may like our chances in some situations but there are no locks.

[twindouble]

You will go broke that way, I will guarantee it, 99% of people that play the horses loses and do not let anyone tell you other wise.


It really gets my goat when it comes to the figures that are just thrown out, like they are true, this isn't a run for some government office for crying out loud!

For years the consensus was that just 3 % win at the game, professional gamblers doing it for a living, now it's down to 1 %?? There hasn't been any study on what % of handicappers make money not doing it for a living that I know of. What about all those handicapping software programs out there that are suposed to be so successful, what about the books on how to win at the races, need I mention them all? Well I can't anyway. Who's selling who a bill of goods? What do you think, that 1 % take turns winning every year? No one can climb the ladder and we all stuck at the bottom being losers? If your not included in that 1 %, what the heck are you doing here, what do you have to sell? I'd like to see the math you use or the study that you've done. Even if you did a study it would hold water, the people that make money don't brag about it, they just continue to do it. My pad answer over the years to the nay sayers has been. "yes your right, I lost my shirt." Had to borrow this one,feel better now?" I have other answers as well, like "yes, I've been thinking about getting some help with my problem." :bang:

[cj]

I'm no math expert, but I would think a decent statistcis professor could come up with a reasonable accurate percentage of winning players.

[JustRalph]

Bankroll? You guys have a bankroll? :D

[so.cal.fan]

There is no way of knowing how many people make money or go broke.
When I attended the races everyday, I knew most of the best handicappers in So. Cal....at least the ones who attended live racing.
I knew several people who made consistent profits. I knew even more who NEVER went broke. I knew a few that did go broke, of course, but it's no where near 99%.

[joeyspicks]

I'm no math expert, but I would think a decent statistcis professor could come up with a reasonable accurate percentage of winning players.

and it would be higher than 1% !



Question: IF you believe (as more than I realized seem to) that ONLY 1% win (are profitable...long term....say a 12 month min).......WHY would you make even one more bet ? ?

[Nikjak]

Assuming a 2000.00 bankroll and 1000 gimmick bankroll:


Dec 1st.....first investment ran 3rd...exacta ran 2nd and 3rd....now, 1800 bankroll....960 gimmick bankroll.....:)

[twindouble]

I'm no math expert, but I would think a decent statistcis professor could come up with a reasonable accurate percentage of winning players.

I wish someone would do just that, put an end to this nonsense. Either we support this game with honesty and facts or we'll lend to it's demise.

[RXB]

I wish someone would do just that, put an end to this nonsense. Either we support this game with honesty and facts or we'll lend to it's demise.

I find this to be a curious statement-- on top of a few other curious statements in your longer post in this thread-- given that, in the previous thread that discussed this issue, you said:

"I would hope to think, at least another 15% make money."

So, apparently it's okay for you to use "figures that are just thrown out" (to use another of your phrases) but it's not okay for anybody else to offer an estimate? At least mine are based on some reasonably sound observations and statistical concepts, rather than "hope to think."

If you understand anything about distributions, deviations, and how lack of predictability allows inferior analysis to win over superior analysis in many situations, you should understand the enormous difficulty in having more money returned to you than you wagered in your lifetime. If you're one of the relatively few who has done so, I tip my hat to you. But don't kid yourself about the overall numbers.

And I haven't even taken into account the expense factor. (Forms and other data, computer programs, admission, programs, etc.)

[so.cal.fan]

"Assuming a 2000.00 bankroll and 1000 gimmick bankroll:


Dec 1st.....first investment ran 3rd...exacta ran 2nd and 3rd....now, 1800 bankroll....960 gimmick bankroll....."


Before you persist (I'm guessing you are directing this post it me, so.cal.fan?)

Be aware that you are challenging an old lady who these days has a hard time remembering phone numbers! :lol: :lol: :lol:
My family is involved in the racing industry, but I rarely go to the races these days, as I have other interests.
If you wish to "challenge" someone....I'm sure there are one or two YOUNG men on this board (actually there are dozens of young men on this board) who would take up your challenge.
I rarely bet on anything but a horse that I see for myself, live in the paddock, but if wagering were offered on the contest between you and anyone of a dozen young handicappers I know on this board....I would confidently wager on the young handicapper.

Have a great day, Nikjak....good luck with your "system"

Diane

[xfile]

1% is much closer to the right pct!

I start out with 1/4 of 1% then increase (in a series of races for each level) to 1/2 of 1% then up to 1% then 1 1/2%, etc unil I cash. Works for me. I have not had to bet more than 1 1/2% all year. I've even had losing streaks upwards of 15 straight races (I bet only overlays and 8-1 and up) and still never had a negative dent in my bankroll. I usually stick to 5 races per level. :cool: .....For the year, which is almost over, I'm still at +11%....but that does not count my +3% rebate (I wager approx. $1000 per week average) from tcbets....so that would be an extra kick.

[joeyspicks]

XFILE: Thats a winning profile to me !:ThmbUp:

[twindouble]

I find this to be a curious statement-- on top of a few other curious statements in your longer post in this thread-- given that, in the previous thread that discussed this issue, you said:

"I would hope to think, at least another 15% make money."

So, apparently it's okay for you to use "figures that are just thrown out" (to use another of your phrases) but it's not okay for anybody else to offer an estimate? At least mine are based on some reasonably sound observations and statistical concepts, rather than "hope to think."

If you understand anything about distributions, deviations, and how lack of predictability allows inferior analysis to win over superior analysis in many situations, you should understand the enormous difficulty in having more money returned to you than you wagered in your lifetime. If you're one of the relatively few who has done so, I tip my hat to you. But don't kid yourself about the overall numbers.

And I haven't even taken into account the expense factor. (Forms and other data, computer programs, admission, programs, etc.)

RXB; "I would hope to think" means, I don't know what the figures are. That's not hard to understand. No, I don't know anything about distributions, deviations or your concept of inferior analysis. I can say this with confidence, I can handicap, if that means anything to you. That and I never said it's an easy game to win at, who in their right mind would. How well I've done over the years is my business, like I just said in another thread, I've got a gold mine in my back yard that has supported all my loses over the last 45 years. :jump:

[Nikjak]

[QUOTE=so.cal.fan]"Assuming a 2000.00 bankroll and 1000 gimmick bankroll:


Dec 1st.....first investment ran 3rd...exacta ran 2nd and 3rd....now, 1800 bankroll....960 gimmick bankroll....."


Before you persist (I'm guessing you are directing this post it me, so.cal.fan?)

Be aware that you are challenging an old lady who these days has a hard time remembering phone numbers! :lol: :lol: :lol:
If you wish to "challenge" someone....I'm sure there are one or two YOUNG men on this board (actually there are dozens of young men on this board) who would take up your challenge.


NO, no challenge to anyone....just posting a "curiosity piece"....might be informative, whatever occurs. If all ends well, maybe it'll give those of little faith that the light at the end of the tunnel is not a freight train (as some suggest) or not just another person with a flashlight.....

Have a great day, Nikjak....good luck with your "system"

Not a "system".....

[kenwoodallpromos]

What you call "windfall" bets I call "fun" bets. I make 500 fun bets with $1,000.00!

[Nikjak]

What you call "windfall" bets I call "fun" bets. I make 500 fun bets with $1,000.00!


Sure: windfall = unexpected = fun

[Nikjak]

Start: 2000.00

Current: 1800.00

Gimmick start: 1000.00

Current: 960.00
-------------------------------------

Dec 1: Penn National Race 3: 100 win/place on #1 :)

[classhandicapper]

The correct % of bankroll to bet is partly a function of what type of horses you are betting and party what kind of edge you have.

I don't think there are any hard fast rules that apply to all situations.

The higher percentage of the time you are cashing the more you can comfortably bet and the higher your ROI the more you can comfortably bet.

For example, you can bet a hell of lot more on short priced horses to place if you have a 10% edge than on big longshots to win where you have a 5% edge.

If you run simulations, those are the two major factors in determining how often you will go bust at various percentages of bankrolls when you go on an inevitable bad streak.

Ideally you don't want to go bust or really even get too close because you'll probably freak out emotionally. That makes it tough to wn. :lol:

[Nikjak]

Start: 2000.00

Current: 1780.00

Gimmick start: 1000.00

Current: 960.00
-------------------------------------

Dec 1: Penn National Race 3: 100 win/place on #1 :)

--------------------
Ran 2nd: 3.60

[Zaf]

Nikjak,

I hope you pull it off ! I love to see people beat this game.

Good Luck.

Z

[Nikjak]

Nikjak,

I hope you pull it off ! I love to see people beat this game.

Good Luck.

Z
------------------------
Thanks.

[RaceIsClosed]

No study I have done, just common sense. 10% of your bankroll on one race is way too much, just my opinion, take it or leave it.

Nothing wrong with betting 10 percent of your bankroll if you're a pro handicapper and can handle the volatility, but usually you're better off throwing 1-2 percent into the exotics.

[cato]

Betting 10% of a bankroll is ridiculous and will lead to having no bankroll sooner or later. But its even crazier than that....the original post said "Begin with a bankroll between 2000 and 5000 dollars, using 200 dollar
units, betting win and/or place, only. Have a separate 1000 dollar bankroll for the "windfalls" (gimmick betting),using
20.00 units."

So he has a bankroll of $2,000 and is betting in units of $200. AFter 5 losses he is betting 20% of bankkroll.

Mitchell did some work on this in his book on betting--he had a formula for finding what need to be bet to have the best channce of avoiding going broke and the % was incredibly low [although as noted by someone else, its dependent upon your win % and average mutual]

Eric Langjahr also often spoke on this topic and his position was that you needed to bet .05% or 1% of bankroll (or less).

Both of them wisely pointed out that the key was to avoid going broke.
(yes, its odd that the two people who have shaped my thinking on this the most and who counseled prudence for the long run are both dead)

This experiment proves nothing. If Nikjak avoids going broke and shows a profit this month, it means he did some good handicaping and had good handicapping luck. It does not mean that betting 10% of bankroll is a good idea.

CHeers, Cato

[Overlay]

For example, you can bet a hell of lot more on short priced horses to place if you have a 10% edge than on big longshots to win where you have a 5% edge.

Isn't gearing wager size to edge (as you suggest) what betting Kelly (or a constant percentage or fraction of Kelly) on either a long-term or per-race basis will do?

[RaceIsClosed]

Betting 10% of a bankroll is ridiculous and will lead to having no bankroll sooner or later. But its even crazier than that....the original post said "Begin with a bankroll between 2000 and 5000 dollars, using 200 dollar
units, betting win and/or place, only. Have a separate 1000 dollar bankroll for the "windfalls" (gimmick betting),using
20.00 units."

So he has a bankroll of $2,000 and is betting in units of $200. AFter 5 losses he is betting 20% of bankkroll.

Mitchell did some work on this in his book on betting--he had a formula for finding what need to be bet to have the best channce of avoiding going broke and the % was incredibly low [although as noted by someone else, its dependent upon your win % and average mutual]

Eric Langjahr also often spoke on this topic and his position was that you needed to bet .05% or 1% of bankroll (or less).

Both of them wisely pointed out that the key was to avoid going broke.
(yes, its odd that the two people who have shaped my thinking on this the most and who counseled prudence for the long run are both dead)

This experiment proves nothing. If Nikjak avoids going broke and shows a profit this month, it means he did some good handicaping and had good handicapping luck. It does not mean that betting 10% of bankroll is a good idea.

CHeers, Cato

Your premise is that one should never risk ruin, as if that were the only danger, when not capitalizing and wasting one's time are equal or greater risks.

Since it costs time and money to bet horses, and since those costs are fixed, larger betting units or percentages cut the cost of playing and increase your odds of long-term success.

Better to absorb a small risk of ruin so that one may profit more when they are right. If they aren't good enough to be right most of the time, they were probably not going to get rich anyway.

[cj]

Your premise is that one should never risk ruin, as if that were the only danger, when not capitalizing and wasting one's time are equal or greater risks.

Since it costs time and money to bet horses, and since those costs are fixed, larger betting units or percentages cut the cost of playing and increase your odds of long-term success.

Better to absorb a small risk of ruin so that one may profit more when they are right. If they aren't good enough to be right most of the time, they were probably not going to get rich anyway.

I think it would be wiser to build a bigger bankroll to increase wager size instead of betting too high a percentage. If your method is sound (producing profits) this will happen soon enough.

[sjk]

If your method is sound the whole concept of bankroll loses relevance.

[cj]

Any method, no matter how sound, can have a losing streak, and some quite long. If your bankroll can't support this, you are in trouble, no matter how good your method is.

[classhandicapper]

Isn't gearing wager size to edge (as you suggest) what betting Kelly (or a constant percentage or fraction of Kelly) on either a long-term or per-race basis will do?

Yes, but I have a small problem with the Kelly betting in that I like to keep my bets as flat as possible. It removes one of the tougher decisions from the process. When I used to fluctuate my bets a lot it caused me a lot of grief and hurt my results.

Right now I have two bet sizes. One for place betting and one for win/exotic betting.

[Overlay]

In Winning at the Races, Quirin tested various betting strategies using his multiple regression sprint system (which had produced 28.8% winners, an 8% overall profit, and an average win mutuel of $7.50). With those parameters, he found that flat bets of $80 to $100 (representing 8% to 10% of an original $1,000 bankroll) resulted in a 50% chance of losing the entire $1,000, rather than making a profit. But, he commented, "the profits, if realized, are much higher than they would be had the bets been kept smaller....It seems fair to say that if you bet $80 to $100 (8 to 10 percent) per race on this system, you stand a 50-50 chance of increasing your original $1,000 bankroll to $10,000. And a 50-50 chance of losing it completely. That is 9-1 odds on an even-money proposition." (I say this not to promote the merits of this particular system, but for the purpose of indicating the degree of risk associated with an 8% to 10% wager size on any system with the same approximate winning percentage, average mutuel, and percentage of overall profit as Quirin's sprint system.)

Quirin then tested numerous other systems with varying percentages of winners and profit, in order to find the betting level at which each would produce at least a 90% chance of coming out ahead after making 1,000 bets. For flat bets, where the bet size remained at a fixed amount expressed as a percentage of the starting bankroll (for example, 1% of an initial $2,000 bankroll being an unvarying flat bet of $20, no matter whether the bankroll went up or down), a system with a 10% winning percentage required a profit level of at least 20% to warrant risking even 1% of the starting bankroll per bet. 15% winners allowed risking 1% of bankroll at 15% profit, and 2% at a profit percentage of 20% or 25%. 20% winners permitted betting 1% of bankroll at the 10% profit level, 2% of bankroll at 15% profit, and 3% of bankroll at 20% or 25% profit. With 25% winners, you could bet 2% of bankroll at 10% profit, 4% at 15% or 20% profit, and 6% at 25% profit. The figures for 30% winners were 3% of bankroll at 10% profit, 5% at 15% profit, 6% at 20% profit, and 8% at 25% profit.

For progressive betting systems, where a constant percentage of bankroll was bet, with the dollar size of the bet not always staying the same, but going up as the bankroll increased, and down as the bankroll decreased, a system with 10% winners again required at least 20% profit in order to justify risking even 1% of bankroll. With 15% winners, the percentages of bankroll were 1% for 15% profit, and 2% for 20% or 25% profit. 20% winners allowed 1% of bankroll at 10% profit, 2% at 15% or 20% profit, and 3% at 25% profit. 25% winners permitted 2% of bankroll at 10% profit, 3% at 15% profit, and 4% at 20% or 25% profit. With 30% winners, you could risk 2% of bankroll at 10% profit, 4% at 15%, 5% at 20%, and 6% at 25%.

Just food for thought.

[classhandicapper]

Your premise is that one should never risk ruin, as if that were the only danger, when not capitalizing and wasting one's time are equal or greater risks.

Since it costs time and money to bet horses, and since those costs are fixed, larger betting units or percentages cut the cost of playing and increase your odds of long-term success.

Better to absorb a small risk of ruin so that one may profit more when they are right. If they aren't good enough to be right most of the time, they were probably not going to get rich anyway.

Well if you are spending a couple of thousand dollars per year on racing information you probably aren't going to net any money betting $2 per race even of you are very good. However, you want to make sure that you don't risk ruin once you start betting more seriously.

[Nikjak]

DEC 2nd:

Start: 2000.00 Current: 1780.00

Gimmicks: 1000.00 Current: 960.00
------------------------------------

Calder Race 4: 100 win/place #4, Champagne Brunch (must stay on turf)

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

("There ain't no Coup DeVille hiding at the bottom of a Cracker Jacks box...)

[Nikjak]

Dec 2: Gimmick 960.00

FingerLakes Race 3: 10.00 ex 2--7 5.00 ex 7--2 5.00 tri 3-2-7

Total invested: 20.00

[Nikjak]

DEC 02: Start: 2000.00 Current: 1580.00

(4th race at Calder won, but was DQed to 4th.....)

Gimmicks: 1000.00 Current 940.00

So far: 3rd, 2nd, winner dqed.....


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

Will be visiting Mountaineer Park later this evening....in cyberspace, of course.

[classhandicapper]

I wonder if any of Quirin systems are still profitable today?

[Overlay]

I wonder if any of Quirin systems are still profitable today?

To me, that depends. If you mean profitable from the standpoint of betting solely on the highest-rated horse regardless of its odds, I would say probably not. But if you're referring to the utility of Quirin's data in evaluating the true winning chances of all horses in a race so that you can then confine your wagers to those offering betting value (whether they are the top choice or not), my answer would be an unqualified yes.

[Nikjak]

Start 2000.00 Current 1580.00

Gimmicks: 1000.00 Current 940.00
------------------
Mountaineer Race 1: 20.00 DD 9--1

Mountaineer Race 1: 100 win/place #9

[classhandicapper]

To me, that depends. If you mean profitable from the standpoint of betting solely on the highest-rated horse regardless of its odds, I would say probably not. But if you're referring to the utility of Quirin's data in evaluating the true winning chances of all horses in a race so that you can then confine your wagers to those offering betting value (whether they are the top choice or not), my answer would be an unqualified yes.

Maybe it's time for a re-read. ;)

[Overlay]

Maybe it's time for a re-read. ;)

Take a look at Michael Nunamaker's Modern Impact Values also for a greatly expanded and more recent follow-up study on Quirin's basic findings.

[Fastracehorse]

Employ the KISS system (Keep It Simple, Stupid)

Begin with a bankroll between 2000 and 5000 dollars, using 200 dollar
units, betting win and/or place, only.

Have a separate 1000 dollar bankroll for the "windfalls" (gimmick betting),using
20.00 units.

Always have a good night's sleep; be relaxed; stay focused.

Ideally, work from home via computer.

Be sure you're right--then, go ahead.
--------------------------------------------------
Calder Race 1: #3 , Ladydoctorsfortune, is the primary interest. Breathing down her neck is #5, Regal Miss. The investment: 100 win/place on #3 20 dollar exacta box: 3--5.

This is a co-contender situation, the two within 1/2 length of the other. Often this scenario produces an exacta.
--------------------------------------------------
TBC:confused:

Bankroll is relative.

Alot of players think if they had a sizeable one they would be successful - and the only reason why they aren't successful is because they don't have one.

In reality, IMO, financial understanding is far more complex.

fffastt

[the little guy]

When you're not starting absurd fights for your own perverse and pathetic personal gratification over on the DRF Forum you are claiming to pick winners while pointing out that you don't bet.

Since I take it you are telling the truth, as you seem to consider yourself the arbitor of integrity over there, I have to ask you something. If you don't bet, how can you possibly expect anybody to give a damn what your opinions are in respect to what makes a successful bettor? If you don't even follow your own supposed rules why would anyone else?

[Nikjak]

Mountaineer park Race 3: 20.00 exacta 5--2

[Nikjak]

Gimmicks: Current.........900.00

Base: Current: 1670.00

Recap: 3rd, 2nd, 1st (DQed), 1st....
-----------------------
Next investments: Mountaineer Race 4: 200.00 win # 6.
20.00 exacta 6--7

[Nikjak]

Mountaineer just cancelled...track conditions


So: Current 1670.00 main bankroll
920.00 gimmicks bankroll

Tomorrow is another day......

[Nikjak]

Bankroll is relative.


fffastt

Whatever "relative" may mean? ALL--bankrolls, skills, discipline, patience, guts, passion, are "relative" in one way or the other; all are interdependent, intertwining building blocks that point to the most important criterion of all--the DECISION.

Jack

[cato]

The theory I posited earlier was that it was a good idea to avoid going broke and some people were still suggesting betting 10 or 20% of bankroll because while you had a risk of ruin you still had a decent chance of getting more money faster. Right. Good idea.

I just saw something from Cary Fotias, author of Blinkers Off and a pro. He said that at one ppoint last year he had 38--count em 38 -- losers in a row. While that was exceptional he knows that most years he will have a streak of from 15-25 losers in a row.

Now apprently a lot of people here are such successful handicappers that they can't admit to having such a streak... I mean, uh, have never had such a streak. But I know that folks who have written on this subject point out that streaks like this are very possible and to be expected.

Again, going back to Nikjak's theory of betting $200 a race with a $2,000 bankroll, you are out of the game -- OUT OF THE GAME -- after losing 10 bets in a row and I'm betting that all of the folks on this board have ahd a streak that long. Heck if you were looking at a lot of tracks your "pro" career could last just a few hours on a bad Saturday.

Cato

[twindouble]

Overlay; That's a lot food for thought.

Those percentages don't mean anything to me. Granted you have to wager a % of your bankroll regardless. That percentage should be flexable, complementing your bankroll, including the prevailing wagering condition of the race or races as you see it as a handicapper, baced on value and your risk assessment. That applies to what ever pools that are involved.

Think about it, if I can take 1 % of my bankroll and make super score of $3,000.00, I'll do it. On the other hand, if it takes 5% I'm still in. Plus if I can take down a $30 to $45.00 exacta 50 times with 5%, I'll do it. I could if the race warrents it, put in 10 to 15 % when theres serious value involved ESP if I think a pick 6 is playable along with the 4. Those are just examples, I'm not saying what my bankroll is, that's my business.

I'll wager what ever the bankroll will bare when I think I can make a buck. By that I mean, we don't win them all so I always want to stay in a reasonably strong position to stay in the game.

[xfile]

The theory I posited earlier was that it was a good idea to avoid going broke and some people were still suggesting betting 10 or 20% of bankroll because while you had a risk of ruin you still had a decent chance of getting more money faster. Right. Good idea.

I just saw something from Cary Fotias, author of Blinkers Off and a pro. He said that at one ppoint last year he had 38--count em 38 -- losers in a row. While that was exceptional he knows that most years he will have a streak of from 15-25 losers in a row.

Now apprently a lot of people here are such successful handicappers that they can't admit to having such a streak... I mean, uh, have never had such a streak. But I know that folks who have written on this subject point out that streaks like this are very possible and to be expected.

Again, going back to Nikjak's theory of betting $200 a race with a $2,000 bankroll, you are out of the game -- OUT OF THE GAME -- after losing 10 bets in a row and I'm betting that all of the folks on this board have ahd a streak that long. Heck if you were looking at a lot of tracks your "pro" career could last just a few hours on a bad Saturday.

Cato

I mentioned in an earlier post [on this thread i think] that I had 15 straight
losers in a row recently. Now - Because I use the .0025/.005/.01/.015 "tiered level progression" (maxed at 1.5%) bankroll percentage (1/4 of 1% up to 1.5%) I did not suffer a loss I couldn't recover quickly from (I use up to 5 races per level tier). And because I only bet overlays that go postward at 8-1 or higher my win % will be naturally lower than average. Overall, after a very nice score at AQU yesterday, I am sitting on a +12 ROI plus 3% in rebates = +15% ROI for the year. :cool:.

[Nikjak]

Dec 3rd: Day three

Start: 2000.00 Current....1670.00
Gimmicks: 1000.00 Current 920.00

--------------------
Big day, Grand Slam Day at Calder. Bailey and Mott on hand, plus the other New Yorkers getting ready for the upcoming Gulfstream.
--------------------
First investment: Calder Race 3: 200 place #4

[Nikjak]

[QUOTE=cato]
I just saw something from Cary Fotias, author of Blinkers Off and a pro. He said that at one ppoint last year he had 38--count em 38 -- losers in a row. While that was exceptional he knows that most years he will have a streak of from 15-25 losers in a row.

If this is true, then he shouldn't quit his day job as a writer.

Now apprently a lot of people here are such successful handicappers that they can't admit to having such a streak... I mean, uh, have never had such a streak. But I know that folks who have written on this subject point out that streaks like this are very possible and to be expected.

The only way I can accept that it is "very possible and to be expected" is if there are MISTAKES made. And even then, the odds of having such a streak should be off the chart, since, if the investor has adequate rules and guidelines, he or others should be able to catch those mistakes before repeating them.

Again, going back to Nikjak's theory of betting $200 a race with a $2,000 bankroll, you are out of the game -- OUT OF THE GAME -- after losing 10 bets in a row and I'm betting that all of the folks on this board have ahd a streak that long. Heck if you were looking at a lot of tracks your "pro" career could last just a few hours on a bad Saturday.


Actually, that was not what was stated. 2000 to 5000 is what I use as a starting point, but the PRIMARY emphasis is the minimum 200 unit. If the bankroll is 20,000, a 200 unit is the minimum to be used on the win and/or place end. As the bankroll rolls upward, a higher amount is used. A 200.00 minimum wager pays the bills....and more.

[Nikjak]

[QUOTE=Valuist]$200 units w/a bankroll that small? Either it needs much more capital or much smaller units.

The "bankroll" would be contingent upon what one's records show is the viable amount. It would be different for different handicappers. Those records should also show if a person needs to be involved seriously or should stay in a recreation mode.

As for the exotics, are you talking about $20 per race or $20 per ticket? A $20 trifecta part wheel would eat up significant bankroll in a hurry.


Initially, #20.00 max no matter the investment. No, no part-wheels at first, the concentration on DD, Exactas, maybe a Pick 3 when available. The more profit, the more exotic the investment can be, plus the minimum investment goes up.

And we're never "sure" we're right. We may like our chances in some situations but there are no locks.

"Be sure you're right, then go ahead--even if you're wrong....."

[Nikjak]

[QUOTE=cato]


This experiment proves nothing. If Nikjak avoids going broke and shows a profit this month, it means he did some good handicaping and had good handicapping luck. It does not mean that betting 10% of bankroll is a good idea.

Yes, "nothing" proved could be correct. But then, it could be incorrect in that it could be a microcosm of the macrocosm. If by chance, the racing gods grant me a profitable exercise for December, I'll be more than willing to extend to another month of 'exercise'. That too, if profitable, could mean "nothing"....but yet mean something.

[Nikjak]

[QUOTE=Nikjak]Dec 3rd: Day three

Start: 2000.00 Current....1470.00
Gimmicks: 1000.00 Current 920.00

--------------------
First investment: Calder Race 3: 200 place #4.........OTM


Next: Calder race 6: 200 win # 10....

[cj]

Next: Calder race 6: 200 win # 10....

I'd have a hard time making that bet with that jock on board at a short price.

[headhawg]

I believe that the late Dick Mitchell did some Monte Carlo simulations regarding % of bankroll methods in his book "Commonsense Betting". I don't remember it exactly but 10% would certainly lead to gambler's ruin if your win% is low enough.

Unless, of course, your bankroll is 100% of pocket.

[Nikjak]

I'd have a hard time making that bet with that jock on board at a short price.


Yep, she tends to ride "tall" in the saddle....but then she's riding for her dad, who is fairly competent, on a special day, and has already beat the same class with ease.....

[Nikjak]

Current: 1270.00
Gimmicks: 920.00


Next: 100 win and place # 5

[Nikjak]

Current: 1270.00
Gimmicks: 920.00


Next: 100 win and place # 5
Oops....That'll be Calder Race #8, 100 win place #5

[Nikjak]

Oops....That'll be Calder Race #8, 100 win place #5
Won: 7.40 3.40

Current 1610.00
Gimmicks: 920.00
---------------------------
Next: Calder Race 10 100 win place # 6.

[cj]

Yep, she tends to ride "tall" in the saddle....but then she's riding for her dad, who is fairly competent, on a special day, and has already beat the same class with ease.....

I think that is one of those "mistakes" that can lead a capper to a losing streak, betting a bad jock at 8-5.

[Nikjak]

I think that is one of those "mistakes" that can lead a capper to a losing streak, betting a bad jock at 8-5.



Only if he or she keeps repeating it....

[cj]

Only if he or she keeps repeating it....

True enough, and nice call on the other race.

[Nikjak]

Won: 7.40 3.40

Current 1610.00
Gimmicks: 920.00
---------------------------
Next: Calder Race 10 100 win place # 6.


----------------------
Won: 4.60 3.40

Current: 1820.00
Gimmicks: 920.00

[banacek]

Now - Because I use the .0025/.005/.01/.015 "tiered level progression" (maxed at 1.5%) bankroll percentage (1/4 of 1% up to 1.5%) I did not suffer a loss I couldn't recover quickly from (I use up to 5 races per level tier). .

xfile, can you expand on how you play your your tiered progression in practice.
(Do you play at 1/4% for 5 plays, then bump up to 1/2% for 5 races etc.)


Thanks

[douglasw32]

My interest is peaked also...

Now - Because I use the .0025/.005/.01/.015 "tiered level progression" (maxed at 1.5%) bankroll percentage (1/4 of 1% up to 1.5%) I did not suffer a loss I couldn't recover quickly from (I use up to 5 races per level tier).

Can you go into more detail ???

;)

[Nikjak]

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


Current: 1820.00
Gimmicks: 920.00

---------------
Calder Race 12: 10.00 ex box 6--7 (20.00 unit)

[Nikjak]

Originally Posted by Nikjak
----------------------


Current: 1820.00
Gimmicks: 920.00
-------------------------------------

PenNational Race 7: 15.00 exacta 2-5 5.00 exacta 5-2 (Total 20.00....current 900.00)

[Fastracehorse]

Whatever "relative" may mean? ALL--bankrolls, skills, discipline, patience, guts, passion, are "relative" in one way or the other; all are interdependent, intertwining building blocks that point to the most important criterion of all--the DECISION.

Jack

What I meant by relative is this: If you have a $50 or a $5000 bankroll it is irrelevant. If you haven't learned how to beat the game it doesn't matter what your bankroll is.

There is a common fallacy amongst horse players that: "If only I had a sizeable bankroll." Like it is one of the ingredients to success. IMHO, it isn't.

Money has to be managed before it can be put to good use.

fffastt

[the little guy]

Once again, ffffffffast, you don't even bet.

Your pretending to be in a position to tell others the realities of making money at this game are as disingenuous as they are laughable.

[Nikjak]

[QUOTE=Fastracehorse@DRF]
There is a common fallacy amongst horse players that: "If only I had a sizeable bankroll." Like it is one of the ingredients to success. IMHO, it isn't.

Not exactly. Money aside that is pristine from daily living problems is necessary. How "important" is "relative" to the handicapper's knowledge, discipline, etc. If not, then "scared money" would never have become a maxim.

Money has to be managed before it can be put to good use.

Actually, the USE may be the management.

[twindouble]

[QUOTE=Fastracehorse@DRF]
There is a common fallacy amongst horse players that: "If only I had a sizeable bankroll." Like it is one of the ingredients to success. IMHO, it isn't.

Not exactly. Money aside that is pristine from daily living problems is necessary. How "important" is "relative" to the handicapper's knowledge, discipline, etc. If not, then "scared money" would never have become a maxim.

Money has to be managed before it can be put to good use.

Actually, the USE may be the management.

First off anyone who thinks a sizeable bankroll doesn't give someone a huge edge over the average player with peanuts has no grasp of reality. I'm not saying that a player can't stay alive with a modest bankroll but they better be dam good with their handicapping and wagering strategy.

[Nikjak]

Start: 2000.00 Current 1820.00
Gimmicks: 1000.00 Current 900.00

----------------------------------
Tomorrow: Dec 4, the 4th day, Calder will be the interests...races 4, 10, 11.

Many of the northern stables are drifting in now, making the racing decisions more challenging, but more lucrative....

[cj]

First off anyone who thinks a sizeable bankroll doesn't give someone a huge edge over the average player with peanuts has no grasp of reality.

That is the smartest thing you've ever posted here.

p.s. I'm not saying the only smart thing!

[sjk]

To take the other side of the issue I don't see that a large bankroll is an advantage for the player in the win and exacta pools. I don't see what sorts of plays a large bankroll could make that a modest bankroll could not.

On the contrary if you have a large bankroll and feel impelled to bet a certain fraction of it you might be precluded from playing some of the smaller tracks.

[Nikjak]

[QUOTE=Nikjak]Start: 2000.00 Current 1820.00
Gimmicks: 1000.00 Current 900.00

----------------------------------
As of Dec 3, Recap: Winners......4 out of 8, one DQed
Place........5 out of 8, one Dqed
Show........6 out of 8, one Dqed
OTM..........2

Gimmicks: 0 out of 5
---------------------------------------------------------
Dec 4, first investment: Calder race 4: 100 win #7
100 place # 3

10.00 ex 7-3
5.00 ex 3-7
5.00 tri 7-3-2

[cj]

DQs are part of the game...a DQed winner is a loser. Period.

[Nikjak]

DQs are part of the game...a DQed winner is a loser. Period.


Of course, redundant. However, the DQed horse remains part of the statistics as to whether the speed, the class, or whatever angle works. That's important, very. What if I picked the best Beyer horses and 4 out 5 were DQed? Would that mean the Beyers weren't working? Well, no. It would only mean I had bad racing luck. It would impact my earnings but not my methods.

[cj]

I'm just saying it is pointless to count them. You play long enough, you will have horses put up as well as DQed. The only scoreboard that counts is cash.

Are you going to start listing 10 plays, 4 wins, but one DQed, 3 seconds, but two put up, while one was DQed to 4th, and 2 thirds, with one DQed to fifth but another placed second?

[Nikjak]

I'm just saying it is pointless to count them. You play long enough, you will have horses put up as well as DQed. The only scoreboard that counts is cash.

Are you going to start listing 10 plays, 4 wins, but one DQed, 3 seconds, but two put up, while one was DQed to 4th, and 2 thirds, with one DQed to fifth but another placed second?


Guess I'm going to do what I do.....:eek:

[classhandicapper]

First off anyone who thinks a sizeable bankroll doesn't give someone a huge edge over the average player with peanuts has no grasp of reality. I'm not saying that a player can't stay alive with a modest bankroll but they better be dam good with their handicapping and wagering strategy.

I think the only real advantage a big bankroll ever gave me was the ability to bet more money per race without risking or worrying about a bust. The major reason that was significant was because of the fixed costs of playing horses like buying the DRF, any other racing information I wanted, entrance, parking, overpriced food when I actually go to the track etc.... If I could only afford to bet $2/$4 per race, it wouldn't matter how good a handicapper and bettor I was, I could never make enough to overcome the fixed costs of playing and make it worthwhile on a dollar per hour basis.

We talk a lot of about maximizing profits, ROI, bet sizes, bankrolls sizes etc.... but IMO a big part of this should also be dollars per hour. If you are making 5K per year spending about 4 hours each weekend handicapping because that's all the time you want to put into it etc.., for most people that's better than making 10K per year playing 7 days per week because they have more free time to persue other money making ventures that may be more lucrative or personal pleasures.

[RaceIsClosed]

I'm just saying it is pointless to count them. You play long enough, you will have horses put up as well as DQed.

Yeah, they've been telling me that for years!

[Nikjak]

Gimmicks: 1000.00 Current: 880.00

Aqu Race 5: 18.00 exacta 5--7 2.00 exacta 7--5

[twindouble]

I think the only real advantage a big bankroll ever gave me was the ability to bet more money per race without risking or worrying about a bust. The major reason that was significant was because of the fixed costs of playing horses like buying the DRF, any other racing information I wanted, entrance, parking, overpriced food when I actually go to the track etc.... If I could only afford to bet $2/$4 per race, it wouldn't matter how good a handicapper and bettor I was, I could never make enough to overcome the fixed costs of playing and make it worthwhile on a dollar per hour basis.

We talk a lot of about maximizing profits, ROI, bet sizes, bankrolls sizes etc.... but IMO a big part of this should also be dollars per hour. If you are making 5K per year spending about 4 hours each weekend handicapping because that's all the time you want to put into it etc.., for most people that's better than making 10K per year playing 7 days per week because they have more free time to persue other money making ventures that may be more lucrative or personal pleasures.

The problem I have with these forums is many things that are said do have merit like your responce, hopefully mine as well. It's not within my nature to pick apart anything for the sake of arguement or to sell a bill of goods to satisfy an ego problem. What keeps me going is responces like yours, it's not confrontational or demeaning to anyone and like I said has merit. Myself, it's a little more difficut to achieve that in this medium, have work at it.

So I don't know how to organize all that's said or rate or put value on it that would lead to a reasonalbly sound approach to winning at the races. All I can do is put forth what has worked for me but on the other hand other people have unorthodox ideas or ways of doing it different than I.

Inspite of the above and my stubborn nature I still think you can't do the job without learning the basics and never lose sight of them. There is in my mind that reasonably sound foundation to operate from when it come to handicapping and wagering that increases your chances to win. Plus enjoy the game regardless of how much time you do or don't put into it, concidering what your exceptable goals are.

Good luck,

T.D.

[Nikjak]

Start: 2000.00 Current: 1620.00

Gimmicks: Start: 1000.00 Current: 860.00
-------------------------------------
Dec 4th: Aqu Race 5: 100 win/place #5

[Nikjak]

Start: 2000.00 Current: 1420.00

Gim's: 1000.00 Current: 865.00
---------------------------------
Dec 4: Calder Race 10: 100 win/place #8
18.00 exacta: 8--6
2.00 exacta: 6--8

[PaceAdvantage]

This thread gives me a headache! At last count, there were 3 or 4 different topics within this one thread. And shouldn't NikJak be posting his picks in the selections forum?

[twindouble]

This thread gives me a headache! At last count, there were 3 or 4 different topics within this one thread. And shouldn't NikJak be posting his picks in the selections forum?

Like I said before, you can move or delete anything I say, no problem. I'll more than likey repeat myself anyway. :D

[Vegas711]

Anyone, who wants to proove what they write by posting their picks i support.

It takes guts to put yourself on the stage for all to see. Anyone else who wants to proove that they can win I would be interested in seeing their results for a month. Anyone can say that they win $2000 a month even if they lose that, posting your bets on line leaves no doubt that it is the truth.

It is an interesting idea.

Good Luck.

[Fastracehorse]

First off anyone who thinks a sizeable bankroll doesn't give someone a huge edge over the average player with peanuts has no grasp of reality. I'm not saying that a player can't stay alive with a modest bankroll but they better be dam good with their handicapping and wagering strategy.

Instead of saying: 'A player can stay alive with a modest bankroll'..........

I say: 'How long can a player stay alive with a large bankroll??'

In otherwords: Again, IMHO - one needs the method to make money before he can put large amounts of money to good use.

fffastt

[Fastracehorse]

Anyone, who wants to proove what they write by posting their picks i support.

It takes guts to put yourself on the stage for all to see. Anyone else who wants to proove that they can win I would be interested in seeing their results for a month. Anyone can say that they win $2000 a month even if they lose that, posting your bets on line leaves no doubt that it is the truth.

It is an interesting idea.

Good Luck.

I really appreciate this post.

fffastt

[twindouble]

Instead of saying: 'A player can stay alive with a modest bankroll'..........

I say: 'How long can a player stay alive with a large bankroll??'

In otherwords: Again, IMHO - one needs the method to make money before he can put large amounts of money to good use.

fffastt

Originally Posted by twindouble
First off anyone who thinks a sizeable bankroll doesn't give someone a huge edge over the average player with peanuts has no grasp of reality. I'm not saying that a player can't stay alive with a modest bankroll but they better be dam good with their handicapping and wagering strategy.

Fast, I would say the same would apply, regardless of how much a bankroll exceeds a modest one. Didn't think I'd have to explain bring that to anyone's attention.

[Fastracehorse]

Originally Posted by twindouble
First off anyone who thinks a sizeable bankroll doesn't give someone a huge edge over the average player with peanuts has no grasp of reality. I'm not saying that a player can't stay alive with a modest bankroll but they better be dam good with their handicapping and wagering strategy.

Fast, I would say the same would apply, regardless of how much a bankroll exceeds a modest one. Didn't think I'd have to explain bring that to anyone's attention.

True Twin,

But I didn't think I had to explain it takes money to make money either - but I have!

But that wasn't my point.

fffastt

[twindouble]

True Twin,

But I didn't think I had to explain it takes money to make money either - but I have!

But that wasn't my point.

fffastt

You wouldn't have had to if you read the first sentence of my post.

[Nikjak]

Took the selections to the Selection Forum.....as per suggestion.

Nikjak

[BIG RED]

Nikjak,

I hope you pull it off ! I love to see people beat this game.

Good Luck.

Z

Me too, Nikjak. There have been some members here that have shown their picks for a reasonable amount of plays and have won. It's good to follow along and hope the best for you. One question, is this paper bets, or are you actually betting them?

Good luck

[Nikjak]

Me too, Nikjak. There have been some members here that have shown their picks for a reasonable amount of plays and have won. It's good to follow along and hope the best for you. One question, is this paper bets, or are you actually betting them?

Good luck


Sure I bet them. Having said that, it doesn't mean much as to veracity since it's just another assertion via this medium. But, here's another assertion: I bet "others" which I don't post. I'm not into giving free info, ordinarily, since the recipients are potential competitors. So, the few I do post is just a public service, one way or the other, an experiment, maybe, and will end. I do want others to realize it's not impossible to win, although for most, like any other form of decision-making, improbable, mostly due to the "flaws" of personalities.
We'll see where it all goes. If Dec is successful, I might extend to January in order to erase the "fluke" notions. If January's successful, then maybe one more month. That should be enough "proof" for most....maybe...:)

It was suggested I post all of this on the "Selections Forum", which I've done....

[Jingle]

[QUOTE=Nikjak] I do want others to realize it's not impossible to win, although for most, like any other form of decision-making, improbable, mostly due to the "flaws" of personalities.
We'll see where it all goes. If Dec is successful, I might extend to January in order to erase the "fluke" notions. If January's successful, then maybe one more month. That should be enough "proof" for most....maybe...:)

NIKJAK

I wish you success and I'm sure "most" people on this Forum do. However, you seem to make an assumption that "most" people have a problem with the decision-making process due to "flaws of personalities" wheras you (implied) are somehow free of these "flaws".

Have you ever considered taking a Dale Carnegie Course on "How To Win Friends and Influence People"? You might even get "all" rather than "most" people wishing you success!! Its probable.

[Nikjak]

[QUOTE=Nikjak] I do want others to realize it's not impossible to win, although for most, like any other form of decision-making, improbable, mostly due to the "flaws" of personalities.
NIKJAK

I wish you success and I'm sure "most" people on this Forum do. However, you seem to make an assumption that "most" people have a problem with the decision-making process due to "flaws of personalities" wheras you (implied) are somehow free of these "flaws".

Here's an analogy: Poker. Those who make the difficult, the proper, and the consistent "laydowns", win. It is this facility that "separates the men from the boys," the "winners from the losers". Why can't those losers make the same laydowns? I don't know. Call it a "flaw" or whatever euphemism comes to mind, but it is a reality that is extant. It just IS. Some are more prone to "tilt" than others. Didn't mean to offend.

Have you ever considered taking a Dale Carnegie Course on "How To Win Friends and Influence People"? You might even get "all" rather than "most" people wishing you success!! Its probable.

Not sure what to do with this since my emphases is neither to win friends or influence people. And nothing I said was meant to be personal. However, less than 12 inches from my left typing hand is a copy of "How to Stop Worrying and Start Living," by Carnegie. Does that count?

[First_Place]

"99% of people that play the horses loses and do not let anyone tell you other wise."

That much...really? Wow. I thought it was closer to 95%.

Regards,

FP (proud member of the 1% club)

[ezpace]

pass the Aspirin.