any winners

[orlando]

Gentlemen of the board please answer gross profit ROI for the year?

5k-10k

11k-20k

21k-30k

31k-40k

41k-50k

50k-75k

75k-up

[oexplayer68]

I'm posting this for the benefit of anyone who doesn't think you can make a good living from playing the races. 2005 has proved to be a breakout year for me. To date, I have made $168,201 playing the races, and most of this has come since July when I quit my insurance job. This is not from one lucky score, or me being a "whale", because I am definitely not. Rather, a pretty consisten ROI in the low 20's, and of course the rebates have led to these profits.

With the advent of rebates, I was pretty certain I could at least break even, and grind out a profit with the rebates. My business plan called for 100K per month in total wagering, which would result in 7K in rebates. Prior to August, I had never wagered offshore, and thus was never a beneficiary of rebates or non-pooled wagers. The most powerful factor for me so far has been the fact that my wagers have not been co-mingled into the pools. It became quite obvious early on that I underestimated this in a big way. If your success depends on large exotic payoffs, this is factor alone is a huge advantage.

What is particulary gratifying is that no one had any faith that I could make a viable income from the races. Every single person I talked to, even my own mother, thought I was nuts, and would tap out sooner rather than later. There is no doubt this is the toughest game in the world to beat, but it certainly can be done, and in a big way.

I've profited every week and month since August. I also play every single race, at the track I play that day. Also, I have not made one win,place, or show wager.....which is also against conventional wisdom, or so they say. No computer stuff either, just reading the form the old-fashioned way.

So take it from me guys, making good money at the track is definitely not a pipedream. I've always wanted to be in the camp that could be this game consistently. My only hope is that the great opportunities that the internet has created (offshore wagering, rebates, ect.) do not disappear anytime soon.

I'm sure some of you will be skeptical, and that's totally fine by me. I don't have much of an ego, and debated whether to even post this. My rational behind this message is simply to say that it can be done. I myself would have had much doubt a few years ago, but I know now that it definitely is possible to make tremendous profits in this game.

Best of luck to everyone in 2006!

[twindouble]

I'm posting this for the benefit of anyone who doesn't think you can make a good living from playing the races. 2005 has proved to be a breakout year for me. To date, I have made $168,201 playing the races, and most of this has come since July when I quit my insurance job. This is not from one lucky score, or me being a "whale", because I am definitely not. Rather, a pretty consisten ROI in the low 20's, and of course the rebates have led to these profits.

With the advent of rebates, I was pretty certain I could at least break even, and grind out a profit with the rebates. My business plan called for 100K per month in total wagering, which would result in 7K in rebates. Prior to August, I had never wagered offshore, and thus was never a beneficiary of rebates or non-pooled wagers. The most powerful factor for me so far has been the fact that my wagers have not been co-mingled into the pools. It became quite obvious early on that I underestimated this in a big way. If your success depends on large exotic payoffs, this is factor alone is a huge advantage.

What is particulary gratifying is that no one had any faith that I could make a viable income from the races. Every single person I talked to, even my own mother, thought I was nuts, and would tap out sooner rather than later. There is no doubt this is the toughest game in the world to beat, but it certainly can be done, and in a big way.

I've profited every week and month since August. I also play every single race, at the track I play that day. Also, I have not made one win,place, or show wager.....which is also against conventional wisdom, or so they say. No computer stuff either, just reading the form the old-fashioned way.

So take it from me guys, making good money at the track is definitely not a pipedream. I've always wanted to be in the camp that could be this game consistently. My only hope is that the great opportunities that the internet has created (offshore wagering, rebates, ect.) do not disappear anytime soon.

I'm sure some of you will be skeptical, and that's totally fine by me. I don't have much of an ego, and debated whether to even post this. My rational behind this message is simply to say that it can be done. I myself would have had much doubt a few years ago, but I know now that it definitely is possible to make tremendous profits in this game.

Best of luck to everyone in 2006!


That 4th pargarph was music to my ears, you don't know what it means to me to hear from others that just relies on the DRF like I do. :faint: I have yet to take advantage of the rebates, been thinking about it but I still do just fine with out it. Nice to meet you oexplayer68 and continued success. It's late here, bed time. Looking forward to more posts from you.

T.D.

[DrugSalvastore]

I'm posting this for the benefit of anyone who doesn't think you can make a good living from playing the races. 2005 has proved to be a breakout year for me. To date, I have made $168,201 playing the races, and most of this has come since July when I quit my insurance job.

I've missed some real interesting stuff lately......

In real life---the takeout rate in thoroughbred horse racing ranges from 14.5%-to-30%....BUT, judging from the stuff I read on the internet---YOU WOULD THINK that there is a 20% GIVEOUT instead of takeout.

I read recentley about a guy---who claims to have made over $1,000,000.00 this year--and he says he did it with no rebate at all--and he says he spends just 30 minutes a day handicapping!

The guy above---he quits a job selling insurance in mid-year--and he's up "$168,201.00" this year!

I've very recently lost a friendship I had with a once prominent New Jersey horse owner---simply because I got tired of listening to his nonsense, about how he was up over $120K this year--and I started to mock him about his redboarding, and tease him for the lies he was telling me.

I have a pretty big bankroll I've built up, I am an incredibly versatile and skilled all-around player, and I devout insanely large chunks of time to this game---and I'm barely making a decent living doing this.

I'm seriously bothered when I hear people talk about this game--as though it is easy to beat.

I've been around bettors long enough to know--that they all pretty much lie about the success they are having. I've lied before myself...I can think of more than one time I had a horrible day betting, and when asked how I did, I simply replied "I'm about even" and changed the subject as fast as I could. I can think of many times when I've "sand-bagged" people, and told them I didn't make much of anything on days when I had big scores. You "sand-bag" people who you are affraid might try to get a loan off of you--and also people who might get upset if I told them I had a score on a horse, and I didn't mention that I liked the horse to them beforehand.

I'm just saying---this game is not the 'easy-to-beat' picnic that some make it out to be. I'm sorry if people disagree with that--but, I've found it be a bitter struggle--and even when you've achieved success and profitabilty---it seems to be so painfully tenuous!

[Dave Schwartz]

I will be very understated on this subject except to say that this has been the most profitable year I have ever had and next year figures to be a couple of magnitudes better.

I personally have knowledge of two million-dollar plus winners, one whom frequents this board (and does not use my software, so do not mistake this for a commercial).

Posts like the couple already seen in this thread should encourage others to believe that it can be done. Nobody is saying it is easy, but it can be done.

Not to belabor the Steve-thread issue, but that was a classic example of why the doers are not typically posters. Why would anyone in their right mind subject themselves to criticism and accusations just for the priviledge of trying to share what they know?

OexPlayer, congratulations on a fantastic year in your new career.


regards to all,
Dave Schwartz

[DrugSalvastore]

I personally have knowledge of two million-dollar plus winners, one whom frequents this board (and does not use my software, so do not mistake this for a commercial).

Posts like the couple already seen in this thread should encourage others to believe that it can be done. Nobody is saying it is easy, but it can be done.

Not to belabor the Steve-thread issue, but that was a classic example of why the doers are not typically posters. Why would anyone in their right mind subject themselves to criticism and accusations just for the priviledge of trying to share what they know?

Yea--it's real encouraging to me!! If I actually believed there was an outside shot of this stuff being true----I'd be strongly encouraged to quit....and do something else.

It's a sad reality--that it's much easier to make a giant profit by selling a handicapping product or touting---than it is to actually make that profit gambling through the windows. And I've always believed that individuals who go that way---want people to believe that extremely LARGE sums of money can be made with routine ease through the betting windows. That's not a knock on them though---I think they want to believe more than anyone that such success is very attainable.

I'm sorry if I'm doing anything to spoil this romantic vision people have---of a sea of great handicappers out there who are living a life of comfortable wealth based solely on gambling revenue won at the track.

In most cases---the people in question have already established their wealth doing other things...just my 0.02 cents on that.

[PaceAdvantage]

DRUGS,

What possible motive would oexplayer have in lying to us about the money he has made this year? We don't know him, and he don't know us....he has no reason to make this stuff up....he's been a member since August and has only posted 22 times....it's not like he's a dominant player on here like you or I.

Face it dude, there are people out there more talented than you or I. This happens in ALL walks of life. More talented, and more willing to do the work that needs to be done. There is ALWAYS going to be someone better than you.

There is no reason in the world why I should doubt what he says. Just because you haven't done it yet, doesn't mean it can't be done.

Believe it or not, I think you're dead wrong here....I know it must be incredibly difficult to swallow that reality, but you should get used to it....

[Light]

I think every horseplayers dream is to make a living at the track. So when Steve or Oexplayer68 comes on this board and claims to do so,it hits a nerve. Then everybody wants to know if they are lying or to tell us their secret. How those who claim to be earning a living come across makes a big difference to their audience. Sort of like picking up chicks. Come on too strong initially and you will get slapped in the face. Oexplayer68 comes accross much more low keyed than Steve.

[Dave Schwartz]

Drugs,

So, if someone is a losing player then that is okay, but all the winners are lying?

You can, of course, believe what you want. But one must ask, why do you even bother to post here if you feel that way?

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Niko]

Oex,
Congratulations on your breakthrough. And doing it the hard way, reading the form only.
There's always someone that will try to knock you down and few more that will jump on the bandwagon with them. I'm always skeptical but no reason to doubt what you say. Do you really on triples, exactas, supers? Playing every race has to be very tough unless you're playing rolling bets?

I haven't made the switch to off-shore yet but from what I've heard others say on the board is that when you become a big net-winner (like yourself) they start laying off in the pari-mutual pools. Are you starting to see any signs of this or are you concerned?

One of my plans was to go to Pinnacle in 06

[Niko]

Dave,

You've had some excellent tutilege by Schmidt and other succesful players. What helped you turn the corner this year and make you so confident for next year? Betting strategy, new handicapping approach?

My questions comes because I've had my most succesful this year but have also endured my worst losing streak this year. Now I have to re-evaluate my approach.

[Dave Schwartz]

One word: Rebates.

[kenwoodallpromos]

DrugS, where did anybody in this thread say profiting was easy? Show me!
If all you have is a negative attitude and a mistakenly slanted view along with not being able to understand what is written or read into something what is not there, I'm not surprised you are not posting about winning!
If bettors hear only what they want to hear, most likely it will be untrue and perpetuated by those who do not do the work to verify.
I know that from personal experience since my brother has been losing every year, month for over 30 years.
He asked me to help him study the form and argued about everything I said and thought and never bet my pick- he kept right on losing by believing all the BS put out that do not hold up by the numbers. He thinks he knows it all and was even going to put out a stupid book about how to bet chalk allowance horses.
The point is, You can sit and put down anyone on this board who has ideas and claims to win or you can follow those gurus who put out books and information and say every angle or method you buy from them works for every race and lose your shirt!
I have only been handicapping like 7 years but I do more research than almost anyone on this board and study the probabilities.
I have spend about 2 years off and on creating, testing, and learning when to use each various method. I have barley been able to use my track speed system this year because my tracks are running slower. But I have created systems for varied races and circumstances. No it is not easy.
My only easy picks or bets are the ones my handicapping experience tells me are obvious to me but very few others see it or utilize it. Once in a while.

[Dave Schwartz]

Okay, a little more...


In the late '80s I "made a living" at the races. Okay, so it wasn't a very good living. In the racebook at 6:30am and home at 10:30pm after Longacres finished. Never had a bankroll of any significance and once a month my wife would "blow the bankroll on the rent."

When I went to selling software my goals changed. Foremost was the software and company. Wagering became unimportant. For all intents and purposes I became a "recreational" player.

Now that has changed.


Someone asked me a few months ago what the most important thing most players need to win. My answer was "belief that it can be done and that they can do it."

Belief is very tough to get because you have to win to have belief and you have to believe to win. So, how do you do it?

I am deadly serious when I tell you that you piggy-back on someone else's belief. You find a role model - somebody that you believe is a winning player - and you listen to them. If possible, you spend physical time with them.

I was very fortunate in the last 18 months to have come into contact with two very successful human beings. One is a multi-million dollar winner at the races and the other is a man with a near-7-figure income in the business world.

Simply put, just like my past experiences with Dick Schmidt, being around these men raised my expectactions.

See, men like that - men who are winners in life - have a different viewpoint than us mortals do. I recall having dinner with the business success I mentioned above. He told me that he was planning on retiring in 2005. All he wanted to do was drive his race car every other week (it relaxes him?) and play the races every day. He said that he did not need to make much money at the races; that if he only made $100k that would justify his time. (Note that he made about $40k in his best, recent year.)

When he said that I looked him in the eye to do the veracity test. He passed.

Yup. I learned a lot from this guy and even more from the "doer" I mentioned. He simply does it and will not be denied in anything he attempts.

Dick Schmidt and I have played together perhaps 10 racing days, ever, counting web play together. Do you know that I have never had a single losing day in his presence? Being around someone like that simply lifts you to new levels.

The downside to Dick is that he has a bit of the Midas touch - everything he does seems to work so well for him. Since I cannot identify with that (wish I could) it is hard for me to learn more than "it can be done." Yet it still raises me to new levels.


So, find a mentor. Make an imaginery one if you have to. One way or another you've got to get some belief.

And if belief is tough because it just never seems to work, consider changing what you are doing. Most players that have been playing (and losing) for 30 years do not have 30 years of experience. They have one year of experience, thirty times.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[fmhealth]

CONGRATULATIONS Mr OEX!! By your screen name I take it that you were also an active options trader. Which I personally feel is far easier & more profitable than being a horseplayer. My results, 47 consecutive losing years at the track, 30%+ ROI yearly from the Options mkt(mostly selling Puts). For Put sellers on this board, you may want to look at the GDT Jan 65s at $1.20.

I just have one simple question for you. What is the primary type of wager that has helped you catapult into the rarified air of a major winner? I'm assuming it's per's &/or Tri's, but if possible I'd appreciate your confirmation.

In any event, continued success & best of health in the New Year.

[keilan]

When I come to Reno for a weekend can I hang with you? :cool:

[Dave Schwartz]

Keilan,

<G>

Dave

[the little guy]

CONGRATULATIONS Mr OEX!! By your screen name I take it that you were also an active options trader. Which I personally feel is far easier & more profitable than being a horseplayer. My results, 47 consecutive losing years at the track, 30%+ ROI yearly from the Options mkt(mostly selling Puts). For Put sellers on this board, you may want to look at the GDT Jan 65s at $1.20.

I just have one simple question for you. What is the primary type of wager that has helped you catapult into the rarified air of a major winner? I'm assuming it's per's &/or Tri's, but if possible I'd appreciate your confirmation.

In any event, continued success & best of health in the New Year.

Really. Thank you.

I happen to trade in the Guidant crowd, and am curious why you think selling 26.5 vol in that line is better than selling 35 vol in the 60 line.

[DrugSalvastore]

I know it must be incredibly difficult to swallow that reality, but you should get used to it....

Well guys, I'm kind of bored just sitting here burning $50 bills (they make a blue and green flame BTW) but I do have a pretty interesting story to tell regarding what happened to me this morning.

I was on a date with Jennifer Anniston (I'm her post-Brad Pitt rebound) and we had a really great time. After that, I went with my friend CJ (he posts here I think!) to the circus. At the circus, they shot me out of a cannon. It shot me so far I landed in the Ocean. I surfed home on the back of a Great White Shark. Pretty cool time.

You guys would flip out if you saw this really cool Trident sub I bought from my home-boy Dick Cheney yesterday! Really great price! It only cost $230 million. Damn, it's nice to have friends in high places!

Well anyway guys---I'll catch you later---I'm about to go for a ride on my pet unicorn. That's right, I have my own stable of unicorn's! 5 years ago, I challenged my good friend Shiek Mohhammed to a match-race. His star Dubai Millennium against my fastest unicorn Smoke Horn. Winner take all---$10 million pot going 9 furlongs at Nad Al Sheba. He flew in Dettori for the mount, I decided to use Andy Serling as my jockey. After a shoulder-to-shoulder stretch battle--Smoke Horn drew off from the great Godolphin star in the final 100 yards. I was over-the-moon about the result of the race. But, Smoke Horn was subsequently DQ'ed from victory when it was discovered, by UAE stewards, that his jockey tested postive for Clembuteral.

SERIOUSLY though, I can accept what you are saying PA---that some people could possibly be doing a lot better than I am. I just would prefer that they establish the fact that they are vastly superior horse players---by producing helpful or impressive posts in threads--and not by telling people how much money they've made this year. I don't know though---maybe I'm just a jealous person---but I think I'm someone who just doesn't believe anything until I see strong indications that I feel validate whatever is in question.

[fmhealth]

Little Guy, please excuse me but I'm not certain that I understand your question. I simply sold the GDT Jan 65 Puts because of three reasons, the BSX 72 tender, the fact that JNJ will probaly counter-offer in the high 60s(all cash) & the fact that GDT as a stand alone is a major earnings driver in years to come.

Also, JNJ desperately needs GDT. So I look for a protracted bidding-war. Strategy is to buy-back the 65s & rollout to the 70s in early Jan.

Hope this helps.

[the little guy]

Well, at least this guy discussed the rebate, which obviously was the reason for most of his so-called profits. I loved the exactness of $168,201 by the way.

Hey, there are plenty of guys out there making that much and more at the track. Fortunately they aren't making boastful claims on the internet. I'm sure some of them actually do post in chat rooms and I highly doubt they actually feel a need for cyberspace reinforcement. Anyone who doesn't believe there are people making a real living at this game, especially since the advent of rebates, hasn't been around or are kidding themselves.

On the other hand, I'm a skeptic, and tend to side with DrugS, as I find these boastful claims on the internet to be slightly more unreliable than, apparantly, most others do. But, judging by the responses here, and even from some I respect, I guess DrugS and I are in the minority....not that that's such a bad thing, especially when it comes to betting horses.

[the little guy]

As an option trader, if you sold the Jan 65 puts, and a bidding war ensued, you would get " smushed ".

[BIG RED]

I put 21k - 30k. I was petty banged up the beginning of the year (laid up) and took 1k for a base and played wildly. I really didn't care if I lost, but I had to do something considering I was housebound. But I did something I never did, played tons of exactas and tris from Feb to June (yes, the first week I hit for over 3k, helped me play much longer), which is not 'how' I bet. Made close to 30k by June. Was I lucky, you bet! . Then I started to walk again and with the good weather, wasn't around much. Played a little during July (lost 2.5k), then just about stopped most of the rest of the year. August (DMar - Sar) are usually a killer for me, and have only just started playing again. Hopefully come Jan, again I will jump right in. The guys in the warroom can atest to this, the first part of the year. Hate to bring melman into, by name, but I used to tell him when I would hit certain milestones. (say hit 10k, up 15k etc.)

Now this is what I learned betting crazy like that ( to me anyway)

1) I 'didn't care'. Beleive me, I didn't, was lucky to be around.
2) Was not stressed at all making bets. If I ran out of the grand, I was done. Bank was to have something to do instead of wasting away doing nothing in the house.
3) Still did my selections the way I normally do. Some told me it wasn't just luck, I had to pick the horses to come in period.
4) I think I did well because I had no stress betting. Beleive me, that was a feeling I rarely had when wagering! Now I'm back to simple w/p bets and some exotic spots, my usual. I would never probably get that feeling again.(struggling right now whith them)

[Niko]

Thanks for the explanation Dave....to have the Midas touch would be wonderful. I remember reading some of his posts where Mr. Schmidt would change his selection process and keep winning. I assumed it was something in his thought process and/or understanding of risk analysis pertaining to his method that helped him switch so succesfully. Haven't been able to get my brain there, maybe never will but it's been been a fun (and frustrating) ride trying to get there.

[the little guy]

I don't need no clembuteral to outride that Dettori guy.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I'm sure you had a time with your adventures. i do remember subs being sold by the Russians; I do know more sharks have been seen lately near shores. And a few years ago Ringling Brothers circus' main attraction that year was a large white goat that grew a real single horn out of the middle of its forehead.
So why should I not believe that at least some of your adventures were adapted from real events?
From Peta-"
On November 21, 1998 The Calgary Herald reported that the goat Ringling featured in 1980 as a "unicorn" was purchased from serial killer Leonard Thomas Lake. Lake abducted, tortured, raped, and murdered women before committing suicide when he was finally arrested in 1985. The "unicorn" was actually a mutilated goat whose horns had been manipulated to grow in the center of the animal's forehead."

[fmhealth]

Little Guy, if indeed an outright bidding war develops GDT would move substancially higher. In effect, the Put options I sold would expire worthless & I would keep 100% of the premium or about $1,200.

[the little guy]

I understand what you are saying but that's not how things work in options trading.

Truth be told, if you really believe that you would be FAR better off buying the stock. You would participate more on the upside and your risk would hardly be significantly worse on the downside.

Sorry, I didn't want this discussion to deviate into an options seminar. I just couldn't pass up the coincidence that of all the options out there you picked one I trade.

[Valuist]

I'm not going to sit here and say I believe this guy or that he's a liar. I have known a few professional horseplayers so I know it can be done. However, there did seem to be several possible red flags. Let's take another look:

1. As quoted earlier, the exactness of the profit number. I suppose this wouldn't be a huge stretch, if the person is really anal. There's others on here who are ahead for the year but could any of us say to the exact dollar? Yeah, if I looked it up on Excel but I certainly couldn't quote it off the top of my head.

2. Realistically, the rebate should not be considered part of the ROI. There's amount invested; amount returned; net profit/loss. The rebate should be treated separately.

3. The biggest red flag is saying "he didn't know if this could be done and he'd never bet offshore prior to August". Yet, immediately he goes into firing 100K thru the windows a month. Are there people who bet that? Sure. Are there people who aren't sure they can turn a profit betting that much? Not unless they've got a fortune to burn. It takes a while to gradually build up to wagering at that level. I find it highly unlikely somebody could start out at that level.....unless they were already rich. And if they were already rich, they'd probably lack the drive and desire to do all the paperwork it takes to beat the game.

4. "Beaten the game every week since August". That's about 19 weeks. I find it almost impossible to believe that somebody could win 19 weeks in a row. Race betting isn't like that; you have some big weeks and some slumps and when the dust clears at the end of the year, hopefully you are on the positive side of the ledger. If one had beaten the races for 19 consecutive weeks using exotic wagering exclusively, they'd likely have a far higher ROI than the low 20s.

To put that into perspective, IMO beating the races 19 weeks in a row would be more impressive than the sporting streaks of Ripken, Dimaggio and Favre.

[the little guy]

Believe me, I'm with you on almost everything you just said, but I have a serious disagreement with all the ROI discussions when it comes to being a professional/successful horseplayer. The name of the game is making money through playing horses, not delineating what return you get on every dollar bet, and if you get a rebate, and this subsequently increases your bottom line ( which it obviously will ), it all falls into the same box entitled " winnings ".

If I bet $250,000 throught the windows and make $25K, but didn't get a rebate, while another player made the same $25K, but got an 8% rebate, I am not " smarter " or " better " than him because my non-rebate ROI is higher....I am a schmuck because I could have and should have made an additional $20K by getting a rebate.

[fmhealth]

Little Guy, point well taken. I simply prefer a 1,200 immediate credit to my account rather than a 67,000 debit. But your thoughts are certainly valid & appreciated.

Continued success!!

[Valuist]

TLG-

I see your point; maybe I'm paranoid about the rebates drying up and I've been treating them separately. I guess the IRS probably wouldn't view them separately.

[DrugSalvastore]

To put that into perspective, IMO beating the races 19 weeks in a row would be more impressive than the sporting streaks of Ripken, Dimaggio and Favre.

As Hyperbolic as that sounds---I agree with that.

* I'm sure some wise-ass could possibly show a profit 19 weeks in a row by doing the following pointless exercise....

Betting $2 to show on a dominant horse in a short field. If the horse doesn't show, bet $41 to show on the next one etc. And by doing this, you could profit a dime a week for 19 straight weeks through the windows. Just to say you "won" 19 weeks in a row.

But, to actually bet the game seriously for 19 straight weeks, and produce profits each and every one of the 19 weeks---that's complete mastery if you ask me. The game is EASY for you if you can do that.

What's the most consecutive weeks in a row I've won? I really don't know, because I don't keep track of stuff like that. However, I've had some brilliant sustained hot streaks---and I can assure you I never got anywhere close to 19 weeks in a row.

In this game---you can have five disastorous losing weeks in a row, have one giant score, and than have five more dreadful weeks...and be quite profitable over that span because of the one big hit.

[Light]

Valuist

I did find the $1 at the end of $168,201 a bit much. I know a guy at the track who is a bonafied liar and likes to use odd numbers like that to sound genuine. The funny thing about him is if 3 different people ask him how much he made,there are 3 different answers.

Don't take offense oexplayer68. Not calling you a liar. I really don't care how much $ someone makes. IMO,anyone who makes alot of dough and talks about it, is foolish. Because alot of times it's not you.It's a gift.

[the little guy]

For what it's worth, and I don't mean this as a slight anyone else posting here, but your posts demonstrate as much as anyone's I've seen that you are a serious horseplayer who if nothing else understands extremely well the difficulties in playing this game full-time. I think that is why you, and I, are skeptical, to say the least, by the flippancy so many of these supposed winners demonstrate.

[sjk]

I don't find it the least bit suprising that a player would keep records which would show down to the last dollar his net winnings for the year. I have a piece of paper with numbers on it (some might prefer a spreadsheet) for each of the past 8 years and as of the last race at Crc today the last number on my page for 2005 ends in a 7.

Looking at my records for the past 8 years I do find 19 consecutive winnings weeks extrodinary. My best over the years was 11 winning weeks in a row and that was many years ago.

I know there are winning players out there and with the number of serious players that read this forum I would think that most (if not all) of those posting results above are genuine.

Call us what you will, some of us have done pretty well without signing up for rebates.

[the little guy]

I don't get a rebate either....so more than anyone, if I consider people that don't get them " schmucks ", then I am one.

[First_Place]

David Schwartz said:

"Most players that have been playing (and losing) for 30 years do not have 30 years of experience. They have one year of experience, thirty times."

Dave, you're brilliant. I've never heard it summed up so perfectly!

Regards,

FP

[PaceAdvantage]

I think that is why you, and I, are skeptical, to say the least, by the flippancy so many of these supposed winners demonstrate.

Truth be told, there have been a HANDFUL of folks who have come to this board and proclaimed themselves "winners" with actual dollar amounts. It's not as if this kind of thing happens every day....

Do you people actually believe nobody wins big money at this game? Of course you don't. Oexplayer has never raised any alarms with me with any of his posts (that I can remember). What is the great harm in accepting what he has to say at face value? Really, what is the big deal?

DrugS wants proof? What kind of proof would ever satisfy you, save for going to his house and hanging with him for a week or two complete with some forensic accounting exercises? Nothing less will ever convince you, and you know it....so stop the silliness.

[the little guy]

I guess my skepticism is derived from my absolute failure to understand people who come to internet chat rooms and boast of their general success. I just don't understand this and think if someone has something to add they would be much better served by joining in discussions. I suppose this is just another of my myriad of personal problems.

I didn't say this guy was lying, and hope for his sake he is telling the truth, and have no need or interest in proof of any kind. To be honest, while I am once again, like others here, skeptical of some things he said, I found his post truer than most of its kind. It's really my inablity to understand the motivation, or need, for someone to make a post like that to begin with.

I don't need to be convinced that people make money at this game, I understood that implicitly the first time I began to take this game seriously, when I was 12 years old in 1974 and first started going to Saratoga regularly. I know personally MANY successful players. Maybe its because none of them blow their own horns that I am suspicious of those that do. That does not mean I necessarily think those that do are lying.

[kenwoodallpromos]

OEX stuck to the subject of how much one made. So here we hgo with off-topics about the stock market and if somebody is BS ing.LOL! :faint: :ThmbDown:

[Tom]

I don't care 3who is winning or who is losing, but too many winners cuts into my pie, and that I don't like. So get out there and lose.

[TurfRuler]

This board is getting better and better by the minute!!! Congratulations to oex, Steve and Dave for making a profit at this game. My frustration is that for now I can only play it as a game and not for profit.

[CryingForTheHorses]

I'm posting this for the benefit of anyone who doesn't think you can make a good living from playing the races. 2005 has proved to be a breakout year for me. To date, I have made $168,201 playing the races, and most of this has come since July when I quit my insurance job. This is not from one lucky score, or me being a "whale", because I am definitely not. Rather, a pretty consisten ROI in the low 20's, and of course the rebates have led to these profits.

With the advent of rebates, I was pretty certain I could at least break even, and grind out a profit with the rebates. My business plan called for 100K per month in total wagering, which would result in 7K in rebates. Prior to August, I had never wagered offshore, and thus was never a beneficiary of rebates or non-pooled wagers. The most powerful factor for me so far has been the fact that my wagers have not been co-mingled into the pools. It became quite obvious early on that I underestimated this in a big way. If your success depends on large exotic payoffs, this is factor alone is a huge advantage.

What is particulary gratifying is that no one had any faith that I could make a viable income from the races. Every single person I talked to, even my own mother, thought I was nuts, and would tap out sooner rather than later. There is no doubt this is the toughest game in the world to beat, but it certainly can be done, and in a big way.

I've profited every week and month since August. I also play every single race, at the track I play that day. Also, I have not made one win,place, or show wager.....which is also against conventional wisdom, or so they say. No computer stuff either, just reading the form the old-fashioned way.

So take it from me guys, making good money at the track is definitely not a pipedream. I've always wanted to be in the camp that could be this game consistently. My only hope is that the great opportunities that the internet has created (offshore wagering, rebates, ect.) do not disappear anytime soon.

I'm sure some of you will be skeptical, and that's totally fine by me. I don't have much of an ego, and debated whether to even post this. My rational behind this message is simply to say that it can be done. I myself would have had much doubt a few years ago, but I know now that it definitely is possible to make tremendous profits in this game.

Best of luck to everyone in 2006!

Good for you, I love your post,Glad you have the "Heart" for the game.May 2006 be a good year for you

[twindouble]

I don't care 3who is winning or who is losing, but too many winners cuts into my pie, and that I don't like. So get out there and lose.

This handicapping and making money is old hat to me, like I am to most here, I'm here because I'm freaking boored, this getting old sucks and I'm not taking it that well, I need a new challenge, next year I'm shooting for million bucks just for fun. We'll be selling the house next year, going get me a nice sports car, a 20 year old and a years subscription to the DRF, any more than that might be a waste. :lol:

[kenwoodallpromos]

Just think of this website as the Land of OZ: very colorful; animated; things to put you to sleep; and if you claim to win at this game a house will fall on you!LOL!!

[Tom]

I'm working on my second million at the track.

I gave up on the first one.:p

[Dave Schwartz]

Twin,

We'll be selling the house next year, going get me a nice sports car, a 20 year old...

Have you told your wife about the 20-year old? And have you found a trainer yet?

Oh, wait. I thought you said two-year old.

<G>

[rrpic6]

[QUOTE=Valuist]I'm not going to sit here and say I believe this guy or that he's a liar. I have known a few professional horseplayers so I know it can be done. However, there did seem to be several possible red flags. Let's take another look:

1. As quoted earlier, the exactness of the profit number. I suppose this wouldn't be a huge stretch, if the person is really anal. There's others on here who are ahead for the year but could any of us say to the exact dollar? Yeah, if I looked it up on Excel but I certainly couldn't quote it off the top of my head.

If you use a website such as Winticket.com, you can search your Personal Wagering Account History. It even will break up each type of wager made and your bottom line and ROI. For example I am -$468.20 for Pick 6 wagers made there. My ROI is -0.15. So I have beaten the takeout. I should call myself anal for knowing this?? Think again....the MAN (IRS) is watching!!:(

[oexplayer68]

Wow, I never anticipated such a response on this thread. As stated before, my only reason for posting this is that the few of you who have toyed with the idea of playing the races professionally could maybe see that it isn’t out of the realm of possibilities. For those of you who thought I was boasting I’m sorry; however to me the numbers are very important to point out, as I’m sure we all have different levels of income we need to survive on.



Now, it’s certainly not easy, and I wouldn’t think too many people would be successful. For me, this has been a long battle going back almost 20 years. Trust me, I have definitely paid my dues in a big way, and it’s just in the past few months that it’s all come together. I tried this in 2001-2002, and was basically flat for about a year’s time. At this point I really kind of gave up, until the rebates came around. When I say this game has literally broken me in the past, that’s an understatement. I won’t go into the details, as that’s really not important any more. However, when this is your only source of income, the stakes change in a big way.



I certainly don’t have an agenda here, and won’t be selling any books, tout sheets, or revealing any of my strategies for obvious reasons. I don’t post often because I really don’t have much to add. Sorry, but bitching about TVG and NYRA just doesn’t do it for me. Most of you don’t care about my results or and I fully understand that. For any of you that do just know that my only message in all this is YOU CAN MAKE A GREAT LIVING PLAYING THE RACES.



I’m going to address some of your questions, and then go back to my gig. I will say that not one thing I have stated or will state is untrue. I certainly have the records to back all this up, but really feel no need to substantiate anything because that’s a no-win situation for me.



Take it to heart when I say horse-racing is a very predictable game, and that there are obvious ways to profit from this. Many of you already do, and good for you. For those of you that don’t, go back and look at why horses typically win. Will you win every time, of course not? Will some of these horses be 2-5 of course? The 80/20 rule applies to many things in life, most especially horse racing.



I wish all of you success either way. Maybe I’ll have something of substance to add in the future. I could certainly write a good novel of what not to do based on my past experiences. Hopefully some of you will experience success beyond my modest accomplishment this year.



Twindouble: Well I guess we are both throwbacks. Personally, I could just never get it through my mind that a computer could process things like my mind could. It’s difficult for me to see how a computer/system can see a inside speed horse that gets shuffled because he didn’t break sharp, or an outside horse in a route that gets hung in the five-path around the first turn. Of course there are many other scenarios that are “between the lines”. I definitely don’t have a problem stating that I am not sharp enough to be able to integrate these factors into a software package. Best of luck to you!



DrugSalvastore: I certainly understand your skepticism. You are right; this game is definitely not easy to beat. That said, there are certainly people out there that do it, and do it consistently. My learning curve is almost 20 years, and it’s just recently that I’ve been able to achieve for me what is great success. I can tell you that I am a net-loser since I began playing the races, and have no problem admitting it. I can also tell you that my results now are no fluke, and unless there is a major change to the gambling rules in this country, I will not ever have to work again. As improbable as this seems, and I’m sure you will view it this way, it’s a fact.



PaceAdvantage: Thank you for your vote of confidence! I am in no way trying to brag. I’m sure there are many folks out there who do much better than any of us at this game. A lot of us have a tendency to not want to believe that sometimes. Great site!



Light: Love the woman analogy! I also left off the change for your convenience<G>



Dave Schwartz: I appreciate your kind words, and congratulations to you on what sounds like a terrific 2005. Keep up the great work next year!



Niko: Definitely make the jump off-shore. You will be amazed at the power of rebates, and not having your wagers placed in the pools. It will be difficult to detect my wagers being layed off, unless a trifecta pays ALL in the third slot, which as you know doesn’t happen much. It will be a concern when it happens though, as I figure my ROI drops a few points for sure. Yes, I play only exactas and trifectas now. It’s usually around 80/20….remember the Pareto principle. Playing every race seems very odd I’m sure, but it works for me, as I never know exactly which race will produce the box-car payoffs. Good luck to you next year!



Kenwoodallpromos: You make a really good point about being open-minded. We all know the cards are against us in a big way, but with hard work and an open mind, it is possible to achieve some level of success at this game. Here’s to your continued success!



Fmhealth: I’m impressed you were able to decipher my handle. Yes, I did exclusively trade the S&P 100 for a number of years; however I never had the success you did. The breakage, along with some pretty weak-knees always had me scalping too soon, and missing out on the big moves. To answer your question about a wager that has helped me this year, it is no doubt the exacta. The way I play, there is definitely something to be said about a higher strike rate and the avoidance of long run-outs. As I’m sure you’ll agree, figuring out who’s going to run third or fourth is a lot harder than the top two slots.



The little guy: I’m sorry if you thought I was boasting. Believe me, there is a fine line in all that. Now if I told you that I lost about 30K between 2000-2004, I don’t guess that would be viewed as boasting. Anyway, you are right about the rebates helping a lot. They haven’t really comprised the bulk of my profits though. When I first quit my job, I viewed the rebates as a sort of safety net. They certainly help to cushion a bad day. Interestingly enough, I have found that the higher my rebates are, the worse I seem to do. Go figure.



BigRed: That’s awesome stuff. There is something to be said about “scared money” huh? Ever think of doing this full-time?



Valuist: As previously stated, I can certainly understand how someone could be skeptical of my results, or anyone else stating to make big money at the track. I’ll say it again though, I have no reason to fabricate my results, and definitely have no agenda here or anything to prove. Now, to answer your questions, yes I keep an excel spreadsheet that I update daily with results. It calculates daily, weekly, and monthly numbers for me. I used to be in the previous camp of not calculating results at all. I felt it was important to change this losing behavior, and I now devote a lot of time to analyzing my results quite often. I know now how I stand after every race and obviously at the end of the day as well.



With regards to me not playing off-shore before, you need to understand that I’d had a corporate job the past few years (so I didn’t really play enough to justify it), and had also never won consistently before which is perhaps the bigger factor. Now, since I had only played with BRIS for the past few years, it was easy to go back and see my results for any particular bet-type or track. What I found was several areas where I showed a return of between 5-10%, and this was certainly not obtained from a small sample. As stated before, the rebates were the wild card in my opinion….a sort of cushion in case my result deviated a bit.



Regarding the amount I wager, it’s really not hard to get to 100K per month if you bet between 200-400 per race, and bet every race on the card. I also rarely take a day off. I glanced at my spreadsheet, and see only 2 days between August and today that I haven’t made a wager. Since I’ve been winning, I haven’t quite reached the 100K amount yet. Again, this was just part of my business plan, and not anything that was set in stone.



We’ll I’ll be the first to say I would have never thought anyone could win 19 weeks in a row. There have been times in the past when I didn’t feel like I could pick the show-horse in a three-horse race. After a few weeks, I kept thinking to myself that it would be ending soon like always, but it hasn’t. In fact, my results are really improving, as I am now more certain than ever of my niche. Without a doubt it will come to an end at some point. If the chalk starts rolling in for more than a couple of days then I’ll be in trouble. I’ll take your baseball analogy as a compliment, since I know the truth lies within.



Sjk: I wish I had done a better job keeping records over the years. Brisbet put in something that did this automatically a few years ago. Of course the casinos really don’t do this on a longer-term scale, so you really have to do it yourself. I have toyed with detailing results based on different categories. Do you do anything like this? I know for a fact that I do not excel in turf races, but couldn’t tell you how much I’ve won or lost this year in that category. As much as I enjoy the challenge of horse racing, I am on the other end of the spectrum when it comes to computer stuff/record-keeping.



Turfruler: Like your handle, but am envious if you really are. I am really serious when I say I hope you can turn the corner in this game if that’s what you really want. There are certainly ways to do it, although not for everyone. It seems like being stubborn is a lot of it, as there certainly a lot better options for most folks. Best of luck!



McShellRacing: My thanks for your kind words. I am certainly very “passionate” about this game, as you are. I guess one regret that I have is that my money no longer flows into the pools to support people like you, who put the show on. That said, it’s a huge advantage for me, yet does leave a little bit of a bad taste. Hope you have an awesome 2006 with your business!



Rrpic6: Yes, I do keep detailed records of my daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly profits. I used to be in the camp who didn’t do this, but this is now a business for me, and it’s something I must do no matter what. I think one of the reasons I’ve done so well is that I know have these numbers at my disposal, and really focus on them constantly.



As well, I am a loyal BRIS customer, and have been for sometime. A lot of the reason I decided to pursue this was because I was able to see my ROI and results with just a couple of clicks. Pretty cool stuff for sure, however it’s would be way over my head to create something like this now, even though I would love to have it. Maybe the offshore places will integrate this? Somehow I kind of doubt it.

[twindouble]

Twin,



Have you told your wife about the 20-year old? And have you found a trainer yet?

Oh, wait. I thought you said two-year old.

<G>

Well for a while I was going through my after mid life change, all pumped up, woke up each morning singing a song, couldn't wait to get out the door to look at a couple farms in NY all excited thinking it will finely happen. My son's idea, not mine but it was always on the back of my mind to own horses. I think anyone who loves this game thinks about it owning. I was not to be for many reasons, the biggest one was the amount of capital needed, land was to expencive.

So, I'm stuck doing what I do, playing the horses making a score here and there, filling the void here thinking I'll make some kind of connection be it nostalgic or real. Weather you want to except it or not, there's a degree of passion that's part of handicapping and wagering on the horses, that's another reason why we are here or at the track. It isn't all about making money, being the best handicapper, the loudest or the smartest, but without that passion you miss the true essence of handicapping and wagering on the horses. You've heard the expression, "I've got the feel for this game." That can be any game. That's the only way I can explain it.


Good luck,

T.D.

[DrugSalvastore]

DrugS wants proof? What kind of proof would ever satisfy you, save for going to his house and hanging with him for a week or two complete with some forensic accounting exercises? Nothing less will ever convince you, and you know it....so stop the silliness.

PA, I never asked for any proof!

The last thing I'd want to see is some guy trying to prove that.

I guess the other guy from Tampa (who's "up over $1,000,000.00 this year") said he was all about sending his tax information out to everyone. FWIW, I know of a guy named T-Bone, who signs at 10% for people who hit big ones. If he was literate and felt the need--I bet he could convince a few of you guys he was having a nice year.

I just would like to see a poster---write something helpful or impressive regarding handicapping or even the sport of horse racing---for someone who can generate profits for 19 straight weeks and make a six-figure yearly profit through sustained dominance---that should be a piece of cake!!!

This poster seems like a nice friendly guy (which is rarely said about me!) and mainly the only thing he talks about is his opinion of different internet betting outlets (not that there is anything wrong with that!) Here's what I know....

In his most recent post, he ends by saying....
"As well, I am a loyal BRIS customer, and have been for sometime."

Three posts ago he wrote....
"I do this for a living, day in and day out, and there is no way I could ever make the money I do with BRIS, Youbet, ect."

That proves nothing---other than the fact that he might not know the true meaning of the word loyal. Although, he did start a thread about a giant 'BRIS constructed' Pick 6 ticket he got in with---that went up in smoke.

I see he did write that the vast majority of the races he bets are run at small tracks. I'll just be happy if the guy starts a thread on the advantages of playing small tracks as opposed to bigger tracks. I like reading anyones opinions on topics like that. I think that's far more interesting than telling people you're up $162,201.00 for the year.

[Bobby]

Im a break even player.

I agree with BIG RED I was VERY profitable when I didn't care. However, I care more now, trying to learn the intricacies of the game. ITs hard.

19 weeks in a a row is pretty astounding in my way of thinking.

[NoDayJob]

Okay, a little more...

Someone asked me a few months ago what the most important thing most players need to win. My answer was "belief that it can be done and that they can do it."

Belief is very tough to get because you have to win to have belief and you have to believe to win. So, how do you do it?

I am deadly serious when I tell you that you piggy-back on someone else's belief. You find a role model - somebody that you believe is a winning player - and you listen to them. If possible, you spend physical time with them.

So, find a mentor. Make an imaginery one if you have to. One way or another you've got to get some belief.

And if belief is tough because it just never seems to work, consider changing what you are doing. Most players that have been playing (and losing) for 30 years do not have 30 years of experience. They have one year of experience, thirty times.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz


Copy this, enlarge it and paste on the mirror that you use to shave with every morning. READ IT, MEMORIZE IT, BELIEVE IT, because it's the truth.

[DrugSalvastore]

Copy this, enlarge it and paste on the mirror that you use to shave with every morning. READ IT, MEMORIZE IT, BELIEVE IT, because it's the truth.

Kick me in the balls if I'm wrong---but I believe the biggest problem most unsuccessful bettors have is not lack of "belief"---rather, it is their own individual bad habits they flaunt when handicapping and betting.

Here are three basic things from a 'capping standpoint:

* They don't spend enough time and energy handicapping a race. Instead, they breeze quickly over horses who don't look competitive at first glance--and many times they wrap themselves up in factors that won't strongly impact the outcome of a race....like..

* Jockey & Trainer: I don't mind seeing a positive rider switch and I really like to see a "style-fitting jockey switch"--but, if a horse has established his form with Jerry Bailey riding him...why on Earth would people lean to this horse because Bailey is riding? Same thing with trainers! It's a positive when Dutrow takes over a horse from a low percentage underachieving trainer. But, when a horse has run seven straight times for Dutrow--his form's been established and the fact that Durtrow is his trainer means nothing...but people will lean to the horse because of the "Dutrow factor." Scott Lake is a very ordinary trainer with distance horses--but people still bet those type of horses like Lake is certain to move them way up--and it very rarely happens. I can go on and on.

* They don't make trip notes or even watch previous races closely: A lot of valuable information can be gained simply by watching races. I've beat this to death before---but, I just think people have to watch races and make notes, either in their head or in a spiral notebook.

Here are three basic things from a Betting Standpoint:

* They chase when they are losing and bet overly conservative when they are winning. This is a bad habit I had to deal with when I first started betting. A real surprising number of people never overcome this. When things aren't going right, at their own expense, people will franticly try to formulate a way to recoup betting losses and turn things around. Yet, a lot of times when the same player is winning--he will be in an overly thankful mood--and not bet races with the level of zest that he should. The key is to attack them when you're hot---and back off and try to regroup a little when you are cold.

* They spread and baseball their bets all-over the place, and don't bet as aggressively and precisely as they should when they have a strong opinion on a race.

* They don't lay off underlaid horses simply because they are the most likely winner of the race. I've noticed a shocking number of decent handicappers who have a hard time laying off of clear-cut favorites---who are legit most likely winners, but don't deserve a dime of money in the win pool at very short odds. why this is---I'll never know!

I know that I should just shut up and soak up everything I can from the real winners here---the guys who are winning 19 weeks in a row and the guys who are making over $1,000,000.00 a year betting horses. Sadly, I have a horrible flaw in that I feel I need to give my opinion out on stuff like this.

[keilan]

Kick me in the balls if I'm wrong---but I believe the biggest problem most unsuccessful bettors have is not lack of "belief"---rather, it is their own individual bad habits they flaunt when handicapping and betting.

Here are three basic things from a 'capping standpoint:

* They don't spend enough time and energy handicapping a race. Instead, they breeze quickly over horses who don't look competitive at first glance--and many times they wrap themselves up in factors that won't strongly impact the outcome of a race....like..

* Jockey & Trainer: I don't mind seeing a positive rider switch and I really like to see a "style-fitting jockey switch"--but, if a horse has established his form with Jerry Bailey riding him...why on Earth would people lean to this horse because Bailey is riding? Same thing with trainers! It's a positive when Dutrow takes over a horse from a low percentage underachieving trainer. But, when a horse has run seven straight times for Dutrow--his form's been established and the fact that Durtrow is his trainer means nothing...but people will lean to the horse because of the "Dutrow factor." Scott Lake is a very ordinary trainer with distance horses--but people still bet those type of horses like Lake is certain to move them way up--and it very rarely happens. I can go on and on.

* They don't make trip notes or even watch previous races closely: A lot of valuable information can be gained simply by watching races. I've beat this to death before---but, I just think people have to watch races and make notes, either in their head or in a spiral notebook.

Here are three basic things from a Betting Standpoint:

* They chase when they are losing and bet overly conservative when they are winning. This is a bad habit I had to deal with when I first started betting. A real surprising number of people never overcome this. When things aren't going right, at their own expense, people will franticly try to formulate a way to recoup betting losses and turn things around. Yet, a lot of times when the same player is winning--he will be in an overly thankful mood--and not bet races with the level of zest that he should. The key is to attack them when you're hot---and back off and try to regroup a little when you are cold.

* They spread and baseball their bets all-over the place, and don't bet as aggressively and precisely as they should when they have a strong opinion on a race.

* They don't lay off underlaid horses simply because they are the most likely winner of the race. I've noticed a shocking number of decent handicappers who have a hard time laying off of clear-cut favorites---who are legit most likely winners, but don't deserve a dime of money in the win pool at very short odds. why this is---I'll never know!

I know that I should just shut up and soak up everything I can from the real winners here---the guys who are winning 19 weeks in a row and the guys who are making over $1,000,000.00 a year betting horses. Sadly, I have a horrible flaw in that I feel I need to give my opinion out on stuff like this.



Copy this, enlarge it and paste on the mirror that you use to shave with every morning. READ IT, MEMORIZE IT, BELIEVE IT, because it's the truth.

[sjk]

Oexplayer68,

In answer to the question you asked me about record-keeping, I use the computer to calculate my bets for me as long as I am at home (which is 95% of the time) when playing. When I actually make the bets I mark them "y" and they are recorded in a table of bets made.

It is a simple matter to run a query to view results by month, track, distance, condition type, etc.

I need to use a piece of paper to keep up with my overall results because I do get out to the track from time to time. That way all total dollar wins/losses are recorded in one place regardless of the venue.

[Niko]

DrugSalvastore:
In his most recent post, he ends by saying....
"As well, I am a loyal BRIS customer, and have been for sometime."

Three posts ago he wrote....
"I do this for a living, day in and day out, and there is no way I could ever make the money I do with BRIS, Youbet, ect."

My guesses. Your winnings per race are limited offshore, not all tracks are covered offshore, video isn't available off shore, free PP's with Bris....

Gives enough reason to keep a Bris account going at the same time. Going from memory which is really crappy I believe CJ may still use Bris and Pinny as I'm sure others do as well.

I like your thoroughness in evaluating the post though and your points on handicapping are very valid in my little world.

[cj]

Gives enough reason to keep a Bris account going at the same time. Going from memory which is really crappy I believe CJ may still use Bris and Pinny as I'm sure others do as well.



I use BRIS just enough to continue to get video, no TVG in Belgium.

On an unrelated not, someone had mentioned you couldn't bet Tampa at Pinnacle in one of these threads, but this year, you can.

[Fastracehorse]

My favorite posts are about handicapping theory.

This isn't really un-related I just didn't feel like expanding at this time.

Have a Great Holiday Season everyone.

I've been eating too many Khalua chocolates and it's still 12 days to Christmas - luv those things - don't try 'em if you haven't already - especially if you have an addictive personality :p

fffastt

[PaceAdvantage]

DrugS isn't Andy Beyer's alter-ego, is it? :lol:

[the little guy]

I was thinking of getting Beyer to read some of these threads as their entertainment value is topnotch.

He's already ahead of the game....he knows the definition of " sycophant ".

[twindouble]

I was thinking of getting Beyer to read some of these threads as their entertainment value is topnotch.

He's already ahead of the game....he knows the definition of " sycophant ".

sycophant; A person who seeks favor by flattering people of wealth or influnence; parasite;

The more I read your posts my vocabulary improves, won't be long I'll have an arsenal of words to destroy anyone. :lol:

[DrugSalvastore]

DrugS isn't Andy Beyer's alter-ego, is it? :lol:

We did attend the same public high school for whatever that's worth---I don't think they would let me get within 15 blocks of Harvard or the Washington Post though.

[PaceAdvantage]

We did attend the same public high school for whatever that's worth---I don't think they would let me get within 15 blocks of Harvard or the Washington Post though.

All your recent talk about "crushing" a race when you have a strong opinion, coupled with your recent arrival in Tampa sent a shiver down my spine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Mr. Beyer become a big fan of Tampa Bay Downs in recent years?

[BillW]

We did attend the same public high school for whatever that's worth---I don't think they would let me get within 15 blocks of Harvard or the Washington Post though.

Hey Drugs, where do you live at? I used to live on W. 7th and awhile on Cherry.

[Topcat]

Orlando,

Maybe you should add negative brackets too?
------------------------------------------------

And gee I cut myslf shaving this morning because I had
so many things pasted on the damn mirror I couldn't see. <G>

[DrugSalvastore]

Hey Drugs, where do you live at? I used to live on W. 7th and awhile on Cherry.

I've lived on W. 26th street---and I've lived briefly on Auburn Street (just off of 26th) I've spent time just outside the city as well. I lived in McKean and Lawrence Park as well. I moved around a lot. I only spent one year at Strong Vincent, I went outside of the city after that. Not a very fun place IMO.

[BillW]

I've lived on W. 26th street---and I've lived briefly on Auburn Street (just off of 26th) I've spent time just outside the city as well. I lived in McKean and Lawrence Park as well. I moved around a lot. I only spent one year at Strong Vincent, I went outside of the city after that. Not a very fun place IMO.

It'll be nicer when they get a track back :)

[DrugSalvastore]

All your recent talk about "crushing" a race when you have a strong opinion, coupled with your recent arrival in Tampa sent a shiver down my spine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Mr. Beyer become a big fan of Tampa Bay Downs in recent years?

I've heard a lot of very insulting things said about Beyer over the internet, but this takes the cake! He would probably slit his wrist if he found out, some conspiracy minded wiseguy on the interent, was comparing him to me.

Can the guy who's up $162,201.00 this year, please post something to change the subject. This thread is getting silly.

For the record: 1. I'm much prettier than Beyer. 1A. I'm in FLA for Gulfstream, and have no interest in playing Tampa Downs (I don't want to face-off against wiseguys like Steve who annually make millions there) 1X. I have a really big crush on all chicks who wear real thick nerdy looking glasses.

[PaceAdvantage]

Relax. It was a joke.....

Hey, why don't you post that picture you sent me a while ago....who knows, you might end up with a date....

[DrugSalvastore]

Relax. It was a joke.....

Hey, why don't you post that picture you sent me a while ago....who knows, you might end up with a date....

The one where I was wearing a thong and jumping out of a cake??

Yea---I figured you would be impressed by that one. I'm a little more tan since that time---plus I think I've firmed up some in the rear end.

You know I'm just messing with you PA. Even though you lead the Anti-DrugS Coalition around here---I've given you much more reason than anyone to not like me. OXOX. You're a good sport for not banning me by now.

Once again, Can the guy who's up $162,201.00 please post something in here again and put an end to all this silly nonsense.

[PaceAdvantage]

You know I'm just messing with you PA. Even though you lead the Anti-DrugS Coalition around here---I've given you much more reason than anyone to not like me. OXOX. You're a good sport for not banning me by now.

Me? Anti DrugS? No way....lol

Truth be told, you've grown on me recently....

And if I didn't ban the guy who claimed to win $1,000,000 at Tampa, why would I ban you? Besides, banning is overrated.

[timtam]

Last year at Tampa Bay Downs Margo Flynn the track hostess had Andy

Beyer on as a guest. She never let him talk. Hmmmm

[GameTheory]

DrugS,

Although some often do make it sound like beating the races is quite easy, you make it sound near impossible. I think that has to do with your chosen path to your own profits, wherein you must be the World's Greatest Handicapper (or close to it) to be successful. You really seem to have a passion for the horses themselves and analyzing match-ups, etc. In other words, what I glean from your posts is that you are successful because you make it a point to know more about each of the horses in a race than everyone else. I haven't inferred your betting method, but I gather it is fairly selection-oriented -- you probably break down the race to determine the likely winner, and then bet if you get a decent price on your selection. That's just a guess, but I haven't heard you talking about making full-scale betting lines, assigning probabilities, etc. You've also explicitly said that you wouldn't bet a horse just because it fit some profile, so I gather angles and spot plays aren't your thing either.

All power to you, and I don't mean any of this as a criticism, but your chosen path has got to be the single most difficult way to make money betting on horse races. And it is by no means the only way, just the hardest! If I were you, I would start submitting your expert analysis to DRF, TVG, Bloodhorse or even an off-shore outfit and try to get myself a job as a paid analyst/handicapper. The stuff you post here is better informed than the stuff I read from the paid experts on big race days. Your work is going to waste bottled up in your own head if you aren't making a lot of money betting.

My own path, and this seems to be similar to the majority of the other successful players I've encountered, is for it to take 10-20 years to figure out how to win at this game, usually after realizing you don't have to be the World's Greatest Handicapper and putting your focus instead on figuring out how to take money from the other bettors via the pari-mutuel pools. It isn't really about the horses and the races -- that's just the arena we do battle in. It is about me vs. everyone else making a bet -- I'm trying to win a piece of the pot, not pick the winner of a race better than everyone else. Anyway, once you've figured out HOW TO WIN, then it often does become easy because it suddenly becomes simple. In Steve Fierro's book THE 4 QUARTERS OF HORSE INVESTING, handicapping is only one of the quarters, and I think he's correct. Only 25% of your time should be spent handicapping. Handicapping the horses is important, but it isn't that important. If you are going to try to beat the game by being the best handicapper, you really do have a tough road to prosperity. (And like I said, you really should get paid by someone for all that great insight. If no one wants to publish you, start a website with analysis and at least make advertising dollars. You might try your hand an some Vegas handicapping tourneys as well.)

Anyway, I'm not trying to pick on you, it just seems like you get a bit annoyed if anyone dares suggest they are making money and having an easier time at it than you are. But frankly, I would be a bit surprised if anyone making money DIDN'T have an easier time than you as you've chosen the most difficult way to do it!

But keep up the good work anyway, you really do know your stuff...

[Nicole]

Oexplayer68,

In answer to the question you asked me about record-keeping, I use the computer to calculate my bets for me as long as I am at home (which is 95% of the time) when playing. When I actually make the bets I mark them "y" and they are recorded in a table of bets made.

It is a simple matter to run a query to view results by month, track, distance, condition type, etc.

I need to use a piece of paper to keep up with my overall results because I do get out to the track from time to time. That way all total dollar wins/losses are recorded in one place regardless of the venue.

Do you use your own software or spreadsheet? Just wondering if anybody knows of a software that keeps track of wagers?

I like using Americatab's recall history, but what do you recommend a player using pini to use?

[DrugSalvastore]

Anyway, I'm not trying to pick on you, it just seems like you get a bit annoyed if anyone dares suggest they are making money and having an easier time at it than you are.

I get a bit annoyed when I hear people say they are making profits 19 consecutive weeks running--I get annoyed when I hear people say they are up over $1,000,000.00 this year, with no rebates, and by spending just 30 minutes a day handicapping....

I just feel like people are being deceived when they hear that stuff.

I also steadfastly believe that a lot of people really want there to be a perception that gigantic profits can be attained, with somewhat limited handicapping and betting skills.

I have a lot of pride in both my handicapping and betting skills--and I totally love the sport of horse racing---but that doesn't mean I think I'm "the world's greatest handicapper." I know it does kind of come across that I think that sometimes--but silly stuff like that isn't what I strive for.

I'm having a lot more fun with the game--than the impression some might get from my posts. I'm also exaggerating mildly when I say I'm barely making a living. I'm VERY certainly not living like a king---but it's hardly like I'm poor and starving either.

I've been a bit overboard with the sarcasm and off-topic comments the last few days---that's how I acted almost everyday on AOL--I'll go back to trying to act somewhat mature again.

[GaryG]

You mature???? I'll believe that when I see it.

[sjk]

Nicole,


My entire program is in Access and the proposed bets show up in a form which makes it very easy to mark as made and append to a records table. Sorry that this will probably not be very helpful.

[DrugSalvastore]

You mature???? I'll believe that when I see it.

To prove it, I'll resist temptation and aviod commenting on your confederate flag avatar....(or maybe not!)

I am really bad with history--but didn't the stars and strips wipe the floor with the confederacy in the civil war? That's what those lying teachers tried to tell us in the North East anyway. If that's so--at least the French have won a war before. Not that I respect the French or anything.

I see your sig--something about riding a long black train--to each his own.

It's a good thing I wasn't born a fish--I can't resist bait. Damn am I weak.

[GaryG]

Q.E,D.

[GameTheory]

I get a bit annoyed when I hear people say they are making profits 19 consecutive weeks running--I get annoyed when I hear people say they are up over $1,000,000.00 this year, with no rebates, and by spending just 30 minutes a day handicapping....While I would be skeptical of any particular individual making those claims because lots of people lie, I have no trouble at all believing that it is possible -- i.e. they COULD be telling the truth. If you have a computer method or a well-researched pencil-and-paper method, implementation can often be reduced to a fairly quick procedure. (All of my handicapping is creating METHODS and doing research -- evaluating a single race is done in a second by the computer and I can easily play every track running without doing any "real-time" handicapping at all. I can even have the computer place the bets for me.) As far as winning 19 consecutive weeks, that claim cannot be fairly evaluated without knowing the volume of bets they are making. The question is really how many bets do you make in a week. The most successful people I know bet pretty much every race, often in a variety of pools. They make 1000s of bets a day. In that context, a whole week is practically long-term.

[fmhealth]

Drugs, good luck at GP. Always a tough meet under the best of circumstances. Last year, as you may recall GP was a disaster of epic proportions. They never should have run a meet under those conditions. With that said, many of the FL papers are claiming that GP won't be ready this year either. Thus the arrangement with CRC.

If you wouldn't mind, after you've had a chance to tour the new facility, an update on what us 'cappers could expect if we head south this winter. I'll await your review along with anyone else who'll have some "hands-on" experience before making my plans.

Thanks in advance.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"The best-known of all Confederate flags—the battle flag—is often erroneously confused with the national flag of the Confederacy. The battle flag features the cross of St. Andrew (the apostle was martyred by being crucified on an X-shaped cross), "

[twindouble]

While I would be skeptical of any particular individual making those claims because lots of people lie, I have no trouble at all believing that it is possible -- i.e. they COULD be telling the truth. If you have a computer method or a well-researched pencil-and-paper method, implementation can often be reduced to a fairly quick procedure. (All of my handicapping is creating METHODS and doing research -- evaluating a single race is done in a second by the computer and I can easily play every track running without doing any "real-time" handicapping at all. I can even have the computer place the bets for me.) As far as winning 19 consecutive weeks, that claim cannot be fairly evaluated without knowing the volume of bets they are making. The question is really how many bets do you make in a week. The most successful people I know bet pretty much every race, often in a variety of pools. They make 1000s of bets a day. In that context, a whole week is practically long-term.


Game; There's lots a ways to cut the mustard, over the years I've had many
consecutive winning weeks but the bottom line was nothing to brag about plus if I took into concideration my time and over head that alone would have put some of those weeks in the red. I wouldn't think many here don't have the bankroll to bet a over a 1,000 races but I would agree a hefty bankroll makes money.

[JustRalph]

I see that 75k is winning the race on this poll. Damn, I am glad I am in the company of all these big time winners............not to mention the Millionaire among us............this place might be getting a little too high falutin for this good ole boy..........

[JimG]

I see that 75k is winning the race on this poll. Damn, I am glad I am in the company of all these big time winners............not to mention the Millionaire among us............this place might be getting a little too high falutin for this good ole boy..........

Why do I get the feeling if I met some of the folks that stated they made more than 75k in the last year, I would see some long noses.:lol:

[GaryG]

Why do I get the feeling if I met some of the folks that stated they made more than 75k in the last year, I would see some long noses.:lol:
This is getting like talking about the size of certain parts of your anatomy....:lol:

[cj]

This is getting like talking about the size of certain parts of your anatomy....:lol:

Alright, I'll come clean, I lost 75k last year, but I really am huge! :eek:

[GameTheory]

Game; There's lots a ways to cut the mustard, over the years I've had many
consecutive winning weeks but the bottom line was nothing to brag about plus if I took into concideration my time and over head that alone would have put some of those weeks in the red. I wouldn't think many here don't have the bankroll to bet a over a 1,000 races but I would agree a hefty bankroll makes money.That's the great thing about volume -- you don't need a big bankroll and it eliminates long losing streaks (in terms of time). If you had 1000 bets a day to make, you could bet $2000 a day with only $2 wagers. I find this approach much preferable to finding a small number of "prime" bets each day upon which you must make large wagers to make any money...

[cj]

That's the great thing about volume -- you don't need a big bankroll and it eliminates long losing streaks (in terms of time). If you had 1000 bets a day to make, you could bet $2000 a day with only $2 wagers. I find this approach much preferable to finding a small number of "prime" bets each day upon which you must make large wagers to make any money...

Exactly...think about this, you bet 100 races a day, $20 per race, that is $2,000. You get a 7% rebate, you are ahead $140 before you even start. If you are good enough to break even betting, and you play 20 days a month, that is $2800 profit per month. Multiply that by 12...anyway, you all can do the math, but there are a lot of pluses to this approach.

[the little guy]

Aside from the fact that I am incapable of handicapping 100 races a day ( 17 feels like about MY limit ) are you saying that spreading your play through many races is a generally good idea or that it works specifically if you are getting a rebate?

Hey, believe me, I'm all for whatever works for the specific bettor, and I'm not one of these " bet by appointment only " guys, but I would think concentrating on your stronger opinions, or certainly at least weighting you play based on strength of situation, is the greatest good.

[cj]

My program does most of the capping for me, and has allowed me to look at lots of races in a short period of time. It probably lowers my ROI to cap this way, but it allows me to play more races and put more money in the pools without too much riding on one race. I doubt I would play this way without the safety net of a rebate.

Guys were watching me at Saratoga, and said I should right a book. They titled a few chapters:

1. How to hanicap a race in 38 seconds.
2. I haven't watched a replay in 7 years.
3. Workouts (you turn the page, and the next chapter begins)

I also have no problem playing any track that happens to be running, within reason. This is also part of the benefit of spreading. Try betting $250 to win/place on a horse at CT or EmD or Tdn and see what happens! Better yet, bet a straight $75 exacta with 1 mtp at Hoo and watch the will pay tumble from $83 for $1 to $38 (true story).

It works for me. I'm not sure I'd recommend it to anyone else. I'm a bit obsessive about things, and have no problem sitting in front of my laptop for 6 or 7 hours at a time switching between video links, spreadsheets, PPs, etc. Others would probably go crazy. (My wife does sometimes have a problem with this :( )

[Dave Schwartz]

CJ,

Your description is almost a perfect match to how we play.

We are in and out of the handicapping portion of a race in 90 seconds or less and spend the next (last) 90 seconds preparing the wagering decision and making bets. I rarely look at a race more than 5 minutes before post time.

Churn 'em and burn 'em. Next!

Add a nice rebate, dutch a bunch of horses to win and in the exacta pool and we're off to the next race.

Dave

[joeyspicks]

ah yes

Its nice to KNOW you have an edge.....and just apply it!

[keilan]

This is an area I struggle with regularly.

Generally speaking I can handicap a race/card about as well as anyone I know but my maximum concentration period is only two cards a day – one card in the morning and another in the evening. And at the end of the day I’m exhausted.

I’ve tried playing 3+ cards simultaneously and trying to pick my spots but really I haven’t had many winning days with that approach. I admire guys like cj that have that ability and everything he states above makes perfect sense.

But like TLG I’m destined to attack races where I have a strong opinion and wager with both hands.

Question – how does someone write code for all the hundreds/thousands of pieces of information the brain processes when perusing a great set of numbers? I filter information that I’m looking at but the filters change even amongst the same class level depending upon the mix and or the strength of field. It gets complicated :D

[cj]

Seriously, do we really have 12 guys here pulling in 75k a year here betting horses? (Disclosure: I am not one of the 12)

[GMB@BP]

My program does most of the capping for me, and has allowed me to look at lots of races in a short period of time. It probably lowers my ROI to cap this way, but it allows me to play more races and put more money in the pools without too much riding on one race. I doubt I would play this way without the safety net of a rebate.

Guys were watching me at Saratoga, and said I should right a book. They titled a few chapters:

1. How to hanicap a race in 38 seconds.
2. I haven't watched a replay in 7 years.
3. Workouts (you turn the page, and the next chapter begins)

I also have no problem playing any track that happens to be running, within reason. This is also part of the benefit of spreading. Try betting $250 to win/place on a horse at CT or EmD or Tdn and see what happens! Better yet, bet a straight $75 exacta with 1 mtp at Hoo and watch the will pay tumble from $83 for $1 to $38 (true story).

It works for me. I'm not sure I'd recommend it to anyone else. I'm a bit obsessive about things, and have no problem sitting in front of my laptop for 6 or 7 hours at a time switching between video links, spreadsheets, PPs, etc. Others would probably go crazy. (My wife does sometimes have a problem with this :( )

I can play both approches, and have.........to be one hundred percent honest, I probably did a heir better with your approach, but had little fun....the game was kinda taken out of it........and maybe it means i win a little, or lose little.....i am in it for recreating...pathetic I know.

[GMB@BP]

Seriously, do we really have 12 guys here pulling in 75k a year here betting horses? (Disclosure: I am not one of the 12)

thats what I saw. over 1/4 of the people polled make this happen.....honestly this is the greatest collection of talant assembled since bafferts two year olds of 02' :D

[keilan]

Seriously, do we really have 12 guys here pulling in 75k a year here betting horses? (Disclosure: I am not one of the 12)


I haven't voted yet but I'd like to see names attached :liar:

[shanta]

[QUOTE=keilan]
my maximum concentration period is only two cards a day – one card in the morning and another in the evening. And at the end of the day I’m exhausted.
But like TLG I’m destined to attack races where I have a strong opinion and wager with both hands.


I am in this group. I have no clue how Cj and others play all these races! It truly is amazing.

Maybe time and technology is passing right by me.

"Tu Salute" Cj and friends

Merry Christmas
Richie :)

[JimG]

CJ,

Your description is almost a perfect match to how we play.

We are in and out of the handicapping portion of a race in 90 seconds or less and spend the next (last) 90 seconds preparing the wagering decision and making bets. I rarely look at a race more than 5 minutes before post time.

Churn 'em and burn 'em. Next!

Add a nice rebate, dutch a bunch of horses to win and in the exacta pool and we're off to the next race.

Dave

I noticed you said "we". Are you in a betting partnership? Are you using Horsestreet Handicapper to come up with your selections to play?

[twindouble]

That's the great thing about volume -- you don't need a big bankroll and it eliminates long losing streaks (in terms of time). If you had 1000 bets a day to make, you could bet $2000 a day with only $2 wagers. I find this approach much preferable to finding a small number of "prime" bets each day upon which you must make large wagers to make any money...

Wouldn't that be the same as using the quick pick in the State Lottery? That don't appeal to me at all. Sure anyone can get lucky playing a bunch a numbers day in and day out to break a losing streak. I would think all these programs are geared to speed figures, I doubt anyone could make that much betting on just speed alone with $2.00 wagers, win, place, show, or the gimmicks churning or not.

[JimG]

Wouldn't that be the same as using the quick pick in the State Lottery?

No, because handicapping races is not the same as a random number generator.

I would think all these programs are geared to speed figures, I doubt anyone could make that much betting on just speed alone with $2.00 wagers, win, place, show, or the gimmicks churning or not.

That is not true. Many programs, while they include speed figures, are not necessarily "geared" that way at all. HTR, HSH, JCapper, and Equisim are 4 programs I have used over the years that can be implemented without even using speed figures, depending on your methodolgy.

I would wager that folks like GameTheory that roll their own programs concentrate on many factors, including speed figures.

[BillW]

Seriously, do we really have 12 guys here pulling in 75k a year here betting horses? (Disclosure: I am not one of the 12)

And I haven't even voted yet :lol:

[JustRalph]

I would think all these programs are geared to speed figures

Way off on that one Twin. Some of "these programs" have modules that have nothing to do with speed figures. The database portions of some of the programs are pretty awesome. Just to name one facet..........

[the little guy]

Twin is still trying to figure out why his calculator won't work on a cloudy day.

[Dave Schwartz]

JimG,

I noticed you said "we". Are you in a betting partnership? Are you using Horsestreet Handicapper to come up with your selections to play?

Yes.

It is illegal for me to wager across state lines from Nevada. So my job is to write the software, keep it running and collect the checks. <G>



Dave

[twindouble]

Way off on that one Twin. Some of "these programs" have modules that have nothing to do with speed figures. The database portions of some of the programs are pretty awesome. Just to name one facet..........

I just got it in my head everyone today is speed crazy including the breeding aspect. Speed is important in your handicapping but it's just one factor of many as we all know. I guess the only way I can get to understand what it's all about is either buy a program, put it to the test or sit down with someone to show me how it works. I have to admit I'm somewhat burnt out handicapping every day so I back off, then a week later I'm back with the same enthusiamsm. Just can't get it out of my blood, not that I want to but at my age things tend to slow down. I don't know, to me handicapping a race and see it unfold as I predicted does a lot for me, it's a unqiue personal achievement. To each his own, I just can't picture myself just punching in numbers and hoping for the best out come. Making money is nice but it's not everything.

Good luck,

T.D.

[GameTheory]

Wouldn't that be the same as using the quick pick in the State Lottery? That don't appeal to me at all. Sure anyone can get lucky playing a bunch a numbers day in and day out to break a losing streak. I would think all these programs are geared to speed figures, I doubt anyone could make that much betting on just speed alone with $2.00 wagers, win, place, show, or the gimmicks churning or not.I'm not talking about betting randomly, but on stuff where you've got a proven edge. With a rebate, that edge might actually be a flat-bet loss of a few percentage points, and you make your profit on the rebate and with volume. And where did this speed figures stuff come from? Who said anything about speed figures? "All these programs"? All what programs? You've lost me...

[cj]

Twin is still trying to figure out why his calculator won't work on a cloudy day.

I just doubled over and literally did roll on the floor laughing!

[twindouble]

I'm not talking about betting randomly, but on stuff where you've got a proven edge. With a rebate, that edge might actually be a flat-bet loss of a few percentage points, and you make your profit on the rebate and with volume. And where did this speed figures stuff come from? Who said anything about speed figures? "All these programs"? All what programs? You've lost me...

I was just talking in general, more to do with betting 1,000 races a day and the time spent handicapping. In other words the programs are doing your handicapping. Am I wrong? Sure getting rebates does give an edge, goes without saying. If you all are saying I could design a program the incorperates all my handicapping factors and it shows me who's going to where in a race at the calls and selects the winners. You've got me sold. On the other hand, trip handicapping, trainer intent, track condition, trouble races, and form cycles go out the window, right? I am confused without a doubt and a little thick, primarly because I haven't really taken everything that's said seriously.
sorry about that.

T.D.

[Dave Schwartz]

Twin,

Actually, you hit it right on the head. Playing for profit and volume is not much fun. You have no chance to watch the races let alone enjoy them.

I actually take 3 or 4 days per month and play with my Philly Park account - recreationally (i.e. no rebate) for much smaller stakes. I play about 3 tracks and just try to enjoy the day.

Like you said...

Making money is nice but it's not everything

Don't misunderstand. There is no fun without winning for me. But "beating the game into submission" and "winning" are not exactly the same thing.


Dave

[sjk]

Question – how does someone write code for all the hundreds/thousands of pieces of information the brain processes when perusing a great set of numbers? I filter information that I’m looking at but the filters change even amongst the same class level depending upon the mix and or the strength of field. It gets complicated :D

Computers excel in dealing with complication. Usually you just break the problem up into a bunch of small pieces (evaluate the mix and strength of the field; define filters; define a selection process to go from the mix and strength to the proper filter; etc).

It often takes a considerable amount of time both to figure out how to break up the problem and to develop the solution to each piece. When it is done the solution may involve dozens or hundreds of steps.

The great part about the computer is once this is done it can be relied on to follow those steps without fail (and without human effort) whenever called on to do so.

[twindouble]

Computers excel in dealing with complication. Usually you just break the problem up into a bunch of small pieces (evaluate the mix and strength of the field; define filters; define a selection process to go from the mix and strength to the proper filter; etc).

It often takes a considerable amount of time both to figure out how to break up the problem and to develop the solution to each piece. When it is done the solution may involve dozens or hundreds of steps.

The great part about the computer is once this is done it can be relied on to follow those steps without fail (and without human effort) whenever called on to do so.

Like I said, I just can't get it to sink in. When I read this, it reminds me of blue prints on the job, theres no question you can build the same building off the same prints. I just can't emagine anyone thinking that's what horse racing is all about. :bang:

[sjk]

Imagine that you have to choose between building a building with or without blueprints. You might hope to be succesful without them but the blueprint will get you more consistent satisfactory results.

[keilan]

Computers excel in dealing with complication. Usually you just break the problem up into a bunch of small pieces (evaluate the mix and strength of the field; define filters; define a selection process to go from the mix and strength to the proper filter; etc).

It often takes a considerable amount of time both to figure out how to break up the problem and to develop the solution to each piece. When it is done the solution may involve dozens or hundreds of steps.

The great part about the computer is once this is done it can be relied on to follow those steps without fail (and without human effort) whenever called on to do so.


Thanks sjk -- wish I had your expertise with such things :)

[GameTheory]

[/b]If you all are saying I could design a program the incorperates all my handicapping factors and it shows me who's going to where in a race at the calls and selects the winners. You've got me sold. On the other hand, trip handicapping, trainer intent, track condition, trouble races, and form cycles go out the window, right? No, none of those things go out the window. All are incorporated (if desired). In general, if you can do it, so can the computer once programmed properly to do so. Also in general, the computer can consider a volume of factors that you couldn't possibly, which may or may not be helpful depending on the factors. If your idea of using trip handicapping, trainer intent, track condition, trouble races, and form cycles relies on "hunches" and have no methodlogy other than "That one looks good to me" then the computer won't be much help to you. However, if can explain to me what you are looking for in terms of trainer intent, etc, then you simply program those steps into the computer. Even if you CAN'T explain your methods but you are fairly consistent as a handicapper anyway, it might be possible to reverse-engineer YOU by taking a large sample of your selections and letting the computer discover what factors you are weighting, etc.

[the little guy]

It seems to me what you are talking about is a regression formula, which I believe is what Benter used in Hong Kong, and always seemed, at least in theory, to be the best possible way someone could ultimately " handicap ". Of course making an accurate program may be close to impossible....but it would certainly go a long way to making someone potentially very profitable.

I know with the Hong Kong formula the trip handicapping was farmed out ( as I had a roommate in Florida one winter who did trip work for them ).

[sjk]

The use of a regression formula would be one way that a computer could be useful. It can also do the job in a much less straightforward way that mimics what a human handicapper might do although the amount of data it can look at in detail and the consistency with which it does it would be large compared with what a human could do in a reasonable amount of time.

The way a human handicapper puts his information together does not conform to a linear equation and a computer is not constrained to do so either.

[GameTheory]

It seems to me what you are talking about is a regression formula, which I believe is what Benter used in Hong Kong, and always seemed, at least in theory, to be the best possible way someone could ultimately " handicap ". Of course making an accurate program may be close to impossible....but it would certainly go a long way to making someone potentially very profitable.

I know with the Hong Kong formula the trip handicapping was farmed out ( as I had a roommate in Florida one winter who did trip work for them ).It may shock you to discover that Benter's program was amazingly rudimentary. I don't think it is a stretch to say that half the people reading this could handicap a single race as well as Benter's program. Any of the software programs we talk about here (HSH, HTR, Equisim, etc.) are 10 times more sophisticated than anything Benter had. He did however incorporate body language and other things in real-time. Like I said earlier in the thread, handicapping is only about 25% of the winning equation....

[the little guy]

Benter also had access to the exotic pools and the ability to " batch bet " I believe.

I don't doubt what you're saying, as I'm sure you know way more about it than I do, and also am guessing that even his rudimentary program, coupled with his wagering advantages, gave him a big edge.

[GameTheory]

Benter also had access to the exotic pools and the ability to " batch bet " I believe.

I don't doubt what you're saying, as I'm sure you know way more about it than I do, and also am guessing that even his rudimentary program, coupled with his wagering advantages, gave him a big edge.Huge pools, a closed circuit, anti-scientific handicapping bias in the HK population (i.e. lots of dumb money) -- Benter had lots of things going for him for sure...

[sjk]

Many years ago I was on a tour bus in Hong Kong passing by Happy Valley. The tour guide mentioned that 4 symbolized death. I wondered if you could make any money betting on the 4 horse.

[twindouble]

It may shock you to discover that Benter's program was amazingly rudimentary. I don't think it is a stretch to say that half the people reading this could handicap a single race as well as Benter's program. Any of the software programs we talk about here (HSH, HTR, Equisim, etc.) are 10 times more sophisticated than anything Benter had. He did however incorporate body language and other things in real-time. Like I said earlier in the thread, handicapping is only about 25% of the winning equation....

I can't believe you've sparked some interest, hold on I need a drink. :eek:

[formula_2002]

Gentlemen of the board please answer gross profit ROI for the year?

5k-10k

11k-20k

21k-30k

31k-40k

41k-50k

50k-75k

75k-up
I haven't done too much betting this year, but in the past, I 'd say I fall into that 11-20 k range.
I'd say is was closer to the -20 k :cool:

[twindouble]

I haven't done too much betting this year, but in the past, I 'd say I fall into that 11-20 k range.
I'd say is was closer to the -20 k :cool:


20 k?? Heck, I gave out that much in tips. :lol:

[Dave Schwartz]

I thought that 4 symbolized good luck.

[MichaelNunamaker]

Hi Dave,

You wrote "I thought that 4 symbolized good luck."

Only if you consider death good luck<G>. In Chinese, the number four is a homonym for the word for death. A reference I found is below.

http://workabroad.monster.com/articles/chinaetiquitte/

Mike Nunamaker

[Dave Schwartz]

No wonder HSH isn't big in Hong Kong.

<G>

[Triple Trio]

Huge pools, a closed circuit, anti-scientific handicapping bias in the HK population (i.e. lots of dumb money) -- Benter had lots of things going for him for sure...

GT,

If you really believe there are lots of dumb money in Hong Kong, you should go there and see whose money is dumber. :D :D :D

It's amazing how knowledgeable people can still hold on such outdated info. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just take a look at the Hong Kong Jockey's website and see the abundant amount of free info that's available. You think everyone in Hong Kong is an idiot or what??? :confused: Not to mention the many sophisticated, well funded teams operating there.

[GameTheory]

GT,

If you really believe there are lots of dumb money in Hong Kong, you should go there and see whose money is dumber. :D :D :D

It's amazing how knowledgeable people can still hold on such outdated info. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just take a look at the Hong Kong Jockey's website and see the abundant amount of free info that's available. You think everyone in Hong Kong is an idiot or what??? :confused: Not to mention the many sophisticated, well funded teams operating there.It is also amazing how little people actually read and consider the context in which something is written before shooting their mouth off. Key word in my post was "had" -- past tense. I was talking about when Benter was operating there years ago. When he started there were no computer teams, etc....

[Triple Trio]

The full context of your post is that Benter won money because he had an easy time against stupid opposition, and that anyone here at PA can churn out more advanced software half asleep. Your envy has prevented you from acknowledging what the guy has achieved. Benter might have a lot of things going for him, it doesn't diminsh his outstanding achievements. He and his partner were real trailblazers. Let's give them credit where it's due.

GT, I normally admire your writing. I only jump in because I think you displayed small-mindedness and arrogance towards Benter.

[twindouble]

It is also amazing how little people actually read and consider the context in which something is written before shooting their mouth off. Key word in my post was "had" -- past tense. I was talking about when Benter was operating there years ago. When he started there were no computer teams, etc....

It's good thing I know nothing about Benter or Hong Kong racing, heck I'm shrinking as it is. I suck when it comes to English but when you said "had" would it be out of context to think Bentor just quit, and there's still a lot dumb money to be had?

Thanks.

T.D.

[GameTheory]

The full context of your post is that Benter won money because he had an easy time against stupid opposition, and that anyone here at PA can churn out more advanced software half asleep. Your envy has prevented you from acknowledging what the guy has achieved. Benter might have a lot of things going for him, it doesn't diminsh his outstanding achievements. He and his partner were real trailblazers. Let's give them credit where it's due.

GT, I normally admire your writing. I only jump in because I think you displayed small-mindedness and arrogance towards Benter.I am not belittling Benter in any way shape or form. Do not put words in my mouth.

I've modelled my own approach after his in a general way, and I've got nothing but respect for the guy. What are you talking about? I'm praising the guy for god's sake for finding an advantage and squeezing *millions* of dollars out of it. Getting into a situation where he had "lots of things going for him" shows that Benter is intelligent, and knows a good bet when he sees it. Am I supposed to believe that Benter's success came despite his foolishly getting into a situation where he had nothing but disadvantages and he just got lucky?

My point was that Benter was not successful primarily because of his devastatingly awesome handicapping -- hell, Benter will tell you that himself. But it WAS better (at that time) than the handicapping the general HK public was doing. So he exploited it. To recognize this fact is somehow an insult to Benter?

He will also tell you he got out of HK because the pools got a lot smarter thanks to all the big computer teams that were copying him (many with his exact same program, which didn't help). I am not offering opinion or conjecture or envy here -- just stating some simple facts. What is the problem? Everything I've said here is basically a paraphrase from Benter himself...

[PaceAdvantage]

The full context of your post is that Benter won money because he had an easy time against stupid opposition, and that anyone here at PA can churn out more advanced software half asleep. Your envy has prevented you from acknowledging what the guy has achieved. Benter might have a lot of things going for him, it doesn't diminsh his outstanding achievements. He and his partner were real trailblazers. Let's give them credit where it's due.

GT, I normally admire your writing. I only jump in because I think you displayed small-mindedness and arrogance towards Benter.


Triple Trio, where are you getting this from? Stop injecting your own words and off-the-mark conclusions into another member's post! I couldn't agree LESS with what you just posted. Man are you out in left field with this one....please step back from the keyboard and reassess the situation before you post another word.

[Triple Trio]

PA,

So GT and I have disagreements. I might be right; or I might be wrong. The exchange may be a bit heated. What's so unusual about this situation in an open forum like this? You are also free to think I am an idiot, but please spare me the sermon. Thank you.

[PaceAdvantage]

PA,

So GT and I have disagreements. I might be right; or I might be wrong. The exchange may be a bit heated. What's so unusual about this situation in an open forum like this? You are also free to think I am an idiot, but please spare me the sermon. Thank you.

I enjoy certain privileges around here. One of them is to comment on anything I damn well please. (Not unlike yourself towards Game Theory)

Basically what I am saying to you is cut the bullshit....you're way out of line and you badly misinterpreted GameTheory's post. I'm also starting to think you're doing this on purpose to get some sort of flame war going, but I'll hold that opinion in check for now....

There, happy?

[GameTheory]

So GT and I have disagreements. I might be right; or I might be wrong. The exchange may be a bit heated. What's so unusual about this situation in an open forum like this? You are also free to think I am an idiot, but please spare me the sermon. Thank you.I take it you are Asian yourself and were offended by the phrase "dumb money" as if I were calling the HK people stupid? (Cause that ain't what it means.) I thought we were all horse-players here and knew what these phrases meant. Either that or maybe you are a white guy in HK now trying to crack the HK pools and finding it quite difficult and therefore the suggestion that Benter had an easy time of it (not saying he did) annoys you because it might imply you are not so smart? Either one close?

Let me rephrase -- Benter found that certain cultural biases existed in Hong Kong whereby a large portion of the public found it "unsavory" (for lack of a better term) to use computers and statistics to predict the running of races of live animals. Benter, having a Western cultural bias of own that favors things like computers and stats and tends to ignore the fact that horses are not in fact machines, nevertheless found that his bias helped in this particular situation as he was able to use a computer-based method to arrive at reasonably accurate probabilities for the various equine entrants. (Another reason he was able to do this so well is because of the closed circuit -- only 1400 or so horses to keep track of unlike the thousands in North America. Does the fact that he operated on a closed circuit insult anyone?) And since he was the only one (or one of very few anyway) using these methods in gigantic pools dominated by the public money, his probabilities were naturally not all that correlated with the public's. In other words, he found inefficiencies he was able to take advantage of, and make huge bets without adversely affecting his odds. All of which equals big money for Benter. Good for him.

How these simple statements are small-minded or arrogant regarding Benter or the residents of Hong Kong I can't fathom...

[Triple Trio]

[QUOTE=PaceAdvantage]I'm also starting to think you're doing this on purpose to get some sort of flame war going, but I'll hold that opinion in check for now....QUOTE]

I have been on this board for a while (my join date is May 2002). I don't post often because I don't think I am as knowledgeable as other members here.

Now why would I want to start a flame war now??? As I've said, I admire GT's writings in general. It's just that based on my reading of his post, he didn't think much of Benter (who happens to be one of my heroes). Now you can say I was wrong, or that I over-reacted. But to infer from this I want to start a flame war on purpose...

[PaceAdvantage]

You're right TT. I take back that last comment. It was out of line.

It's just that I respect GameTheory a whole lot as a member of this board, and don't think it was right of you to go off on him like that....In addition, I didn't agree at all with your take on his post.

[NoDayJob]

:liar: :liar: :liar: :liar: :liar: :liar: :liar: :liar: :liar: :liar:

But it's delivery!

[classhandicapper]

oexplayer68,

How many different tracks do you play per day?

I've been under the impression that it was extremely difficult to earn a high ROI playing many different circuits because the incremental information required to pump up the ROI takes a lot of extra time and energy.

It seemed to me that there were two common approaches among the winners I know.

1. Playing many circuits daily with a very narrow edge and most of the profits coming via rebates plus or minus a little.

2. Playing 1 or 2 circuits intensely with a wider edge and larger bets and rebates just piling on top of that.

[sjk]

The questions wasw not addressed to me (and I am not $168k ahead this year) so perhaps I should not answer it but here goes.

I play many tracks and since I use a computer to do all of the work I don't believe it affects my ROI in a negative way or creates an undue amount of work. Not sure how high your standards are but I consider myself as having greater than a narrow edge.

[Fastracehorse]

Exactly...think about this, you bet 100 races a day, $20 per race, that is $2,000. You get a 7% rebate, you are ahead $140 before you even start. If you are good enough to break even betting, and you play 20 days a month, that is $2800 profit per month. Multiply that by 12...anyway, you all can do the math, but there are a lot of pluses to this approach.

Not trying to be a smart a$$ but with a 7% rebate you'd be up $140 with one $2000 bet too......no??

fffastt

[GameTheory]

Not trying to be a smart a$$ but with a 7% rebate you'd be up $140 with one $2000 bet too......no??
No, unless you can find a wager that pays off the same as a cancel (gives you your money back) and still gives you the rebate. You'd either lose the bet and be down $140 - $2000 = -1860 or be up $140 + ($2000 x payoff odds)...

[Fastracehorse]

If some of the '200 races a day' players would give us an example of a selection process.

I'm not skeptical that it can be successful.

From my perspective: The '200 races a day' approach would kill some nice p-4 tickets for example.

'Digging deep' while handicapping does have it's merits.

It would be interesting if we did have comparative examples of 'prime playing' versus 'volume playing.'

fffastt

[GameTheory]

If some of the '200 races a day' players would give us an example of a selection process.

I'm not skeptical that it can be successful.

From my perspective: The '200 races a day' approach would kill some nice p-4 tickets for example.

'Digging deep' while handicapping does have it's merits.

It would be interesting if we did have comparative examples of 'prime playing' versus 'volume playing.'

I for one never said that # of wagers = # of races played. You might have 10 wagers in a single race on a variety of horses in different pools.

The best way to go is to play both ways. Do a bunch of quickie volume stuff, and then pile the prime bets on top of that. Bet on anything where you have an advantage, bottom-line...

[Fastracehorse]

No, unless you can find a wager that pays off the same as a cancel (gives you your money back) and still gives you the rebate. You'd either lose the bet and be down $140 - $2000 = -1860 or be up $140 + ($2000 x payoff odds)...

Either way you are going to get the $140 rebate correct??

Thanx,

fffastt

[Fastracehorse]

I for one never said that # of wagers = # of races played. You might have 10 wagers in a single race on a variety of horses in different pools.

The best way to go is to play both ways. Do a bunch of quickie volume stuff, and then pile the prime bets on top of that. Bet on anything where you have an advantage, bottom-line...

Do you have an example of a factor you use for volume playing?? - I remember once you mentioned blinkers on in a post to me.

fffastt

[GameTheory]

Either way you are going to get the $140 rebate correct??
Of course, but you can't break even on a single wager so you can't be up $140 after it is over.

[GameTheory]

Do you have an example of a factor you use for volume playing?? - I remember once you mentioned blinkers on in a post to me.Any and all. My spot play methods tend to look at very small subsets of factors usually keying on something strange -- days since most recent workout or another we talked about is the last race comment. If you make it a point to research spot plays before you know it you can build up a stable of them giving you dozens of plays a day.

But when doing full-scale comprehensive handicapping and assigning explicit probabilities to each and every horse I expect to find 2 or 3 overlays in pretty much every race as well. But I have to factor in the public real-time odds for that, which I find tedious...

[Fastracehorse]

Any and all. My spot play methods tend to look at very small subsets of factors usually keying on something strange -- days since most recent workout or another we talked about is the last race comment. If you make it a point to research spot plays before you know it you can build up a stable of them giving you dozens of plays a day.

But when doing full-scale comprehensive handicapping and assigning explicit probabilities to each and every horse I expect to find 2 or 3 overlays in pretty much every race as well. But I have to factor in the public real-time odds for that, which I find tedious...

It even hurts - but I do it for the occasional nugget.

All The Best to you and your family.

fffastt

[classhandicapper]

No, unless you can find a wager that pays off the same as a cancel (gives you your money back) and still gives you the rebate. You'd either lose the bet and be down $140 - $2000 = -1860 or be up $140 + ($2000 x payoff odds)...

I think this discussion has been more about the theoretical than about what actually happens in practice among spot players vs. volume players.

If both are breaking even on the bets and profiting only from rebates, then whichever method gets more money through the windows is preferable.

It would seem easier to get more money through the windows with a larger number of bets.

However, if one is getting a higher ROI from his bets (without rebates) by being more comprehensive in his handicapping and more careful about what price he'll take, then his method might be equal or even better even if he's getting less money through the windows.

I've seen spot players bet 10K per race on exotics playing NY and CA races only. I doubt there are many high volume players that bet that much per race, but perhaps they make up the difference (and more) in quantity of bets.

Personally, I think this debate is more about the time and energy you want to put into your handicapping, what your bankroll looks like, how much you can bet without the amounts impairing your judgment as a handicapper, and whether you enjoy gambling volume or gambling quality.

IMO, most people that are good enough to win could do just as well either way as long as they have the bankroll, temperment, and desire to work real hard.

[Fastracehorse]

I think this discussion has been more about the theoretical than about what actually happens in practice among spot players vs. volume players.

If both are breaking even on the bets and profiting only from rebates, then whichever method gets more money through the windows is preferable.

It would seem easier to get more money through the windows with a larger number of bets.

However, if one is getting a higher ROI from his bets (without rebates) by being more comprehensive in his handicapping and more careful about what price he'll take, then his method might be equal or even better even if he's getting less money through the windows.

I've seen spot players bet 10K per race on exotics playing NY and CA races only. I doubt there are many high volume players that bet that much per race, but perhaps they make up the difference (and more) in quantity of bets.

Personally, I think this debate is more about the time and energy you want to put into your handicapping, what your bankroll looks like, how much you can bet without the amounts impairing your judgment as a handicapper, and whether you enjoy gambling volume or gambling quality.

IMO, most people that are good enough to win could do just as well either way as long as they have the bankroll, temperment, and desire to work real hard.

Both methods can be successful.

From my perspective however, there may be something to quality vs. quantity.

Good post Class and have a greatttttt Holiday.

fffastt

[cj]

...
If both are breaking even on the bets and profiting only from rebates, then whichever method gets more money through the windows is preferable.

It would seem easier to get more money through the windows with a larger number of bets.

However, if one is getting a higher ROI from his bets (without rebates) by being more comprehensive in his handicapping and more careful about what price he'll take, then his method might be equal or even better even if he's getting less money through the windows...



Some of this would seem true, but it is tough to bet a lot in some pools. What if you do in depth handicapping and you find your 3 best plays for the day are at Tdn, GLD, and Lrl? You can't bet very much in those pools without hurting your price, like it or not. Further, you never even really know if it is a good bet the prices change so much after the break.

If you want to pick your spots and wait for the best bets and bet more on them, that is great, IF you are playing in New York or SoCal or a few other tracks. Trying it at the smaller tracks is not a good idea in my opinion.

[JustRalph]

After yesterdays Hollywood Starlet.......... I need to change my vote!!!


:lol:

[cj's dad]

How do we know that DrugS is sucessful; just because he says so !?!?

[classhandicapper]

Some of this would seem true, but it is tough to bet a lot in some pools. What if you do in depth handicapping and you find your 3 best plays for the day are at Tdn, GLD, and Lrl? You can't bet very much in those pools without hurting your price, like it or not. Further, you never even really know if it is a good bet the prices change so much after the break.

If you want to pick your spots and wait for the best bets and bet more on them, that is great, IF you are playing in New York or SoCal or a few other tracks. Trying it at the smaller tracks is not a good idea in my opinion.

I agree.

I don't even think it's possible to do a comprehensive job of handicapping on more than 2 or 3 tracks per day. It's too time consuming if you actually want to have a life also.

I doubt many large spot bettors bet or even waste any time at all even looking at 3rd string tracks. It's mostly NY, CA, KY, seasonally in Florida and Meadowlands, and maybe a few others.

[classhandicapper]

Both methods can be successful.

From my perspective however, there may be something to quality vs. quantity.

Good post Class and have a greatttttt Holiday.

fffastt

I prefer quality. I hate when I get a little sloppy and I notice something after the fact that would have given me a $20 winner had I just reviewed the replay or looked at the charts and noticed a big bias etc... It's tough enough to win. I want to know as much as possible going in otherwise I might not understand the odds.

Great holiday to you too!

[cj's dad]

It works for me. I'm not sure I'd recommend it to anyone else. I'm a bit obsessive about things, and have no problem sitting in front of my laptop for 6 or 7 hours at a time switching between video links, spreadsheets, PPs, etc. Others would probably go crazy. (My wife does sometimes have a problem with this :( )[/QUOTE]


Hard to believe you can concentrate on anything that long; if I remember correctly, you couldn't do homework for 6 to 7 MINUTES!!!

[JustRalph]

I don't even think it's possible to do a comprehensive job of handicapping on more than 2 or 3 tracks per day. It's too time consuming if you actually want to have a life also.

I doubt many large spot bettors bet or even waste any time at all even looking at 3rd string tracks. It's mostly NY, CA, KY, seasonally in Florida and Meadowlands, and maybe a few others.

This is why I gave up on some of the small tracks. I play SoCal and KY with Florida mixed in. Sam Houston and Charlestown some for fun.

I haven't been playing that much, but using good software helps as a
solution to cut thru the races where there aren't as many opportunities. Yesterday I watched some races as the day went by and waited until the feature at Hollwood, played one race all day. Although I ran 3 different cards thru my computer. I wasn't really in the mood to play, ran some errands, took a nap and got up in time to play what I thought was the best opportunity for me to play, that day.

[mauvais]

It may shock you to discover that Benter's program was amazingly rudimentary. I don't think it is a stretch to say that half the people reading this could handicap a single race as well as Benter's program. Any of the software programs we talk about here (HSH, HTR, Equisim, etc.) are 10 times more sophisticated than anything Benter had.

I'm shocked then! I think you will find that Benter's model and software were anything but rudimentary and i also seriously doubt that any of the software programmes you quote here are remotely close to being as sophisticated as Benter's.

[GameTheory]

I'm shocked then! I think you will find that Benter's model and software were anything but rudimentary and i also seriously doubt that any of the software programmes you quote here are remotely close to being as sophisticated as Benter's.It was a logit model with lots of factors like "normalized last race finish position". (I think he said that was his single best factor.) It took lots of tinkering to get it right and lots of elbow grease to input other factors that were based on video replays or body language stuff, but it was not terribly sophisticated, no. It was COMPLICATED on a logistical level to keep it running and the numbers of factors involved made it COMPREHENSIVE, but the model itself was not very COMPLEX. It was just a good, solid, robust model. Nothing wrong with it being simple in principle, the best things usually are. Maybe rudimentary is the wrong word. Simple is a better one. Simple, but not simplistic. Better?

My point it was not beyond the reach of anyone else willing to put in the tedious work and was not based on some advanced or innovative technology. Many others in HK eventually did put in that work (or used Benter's same program, which seemed to get passed around quite a bit after he split with his partner), and the profits went down, although I get the feeling that Benter moved on to other things more out of boredom. And the software I mentioned is DEFINITELY more sophisticated (lots more) than Benter's model, especially HSH which *is* full of advanced and innovative technology.

I was also making the point that what really made Benter successful was not his super-awesome model, but his persistence and single-mindedness in exploiting his advantage. There seems to be several of you in this thread hanging on to the notion that achieving profitiability betting on horse racing (here or in HK) depends MOSTLY on superior handicapping, and it just isn't true...

[GMB@BP]

I always think of computer programs that complete, essentially all the handicapping for you as "robot" handicapping. I am not trying to offend anyone who uses this style as to each his own but for me it seems like any program that you run the data threw, crunches the numbers, spits out a line on a race, and says bet the biggest overlay is not much in the way of a game or puzzle. I guess the issues is the bottom line, but isnt the journey just as much a part of the game as the roi?

[GameTheory]

I always think of computer programs that complete, essentially all the handicapping for you as "robot" handicapping. I am not trying to offend anyone who uses this style as to each his own but for me it seems like any program that you run the data threw, crunches the numbers, spits out a line on a race, and says bet the biggest overlay is not much in the way of a game or puzzle. I guess the issues is the bottom line, but isnt the journey just as much a part of the game as the roi?Not for me, "robot" handicapping is my goal. There is an another journey -- making robots -- that for some of us is much more interesting than horse racing. And some just want to make money, period.

[mauvais]

Simple is a better one. Simple, but not simplistic. Better?

And the software I mentioned is DEFINITELY more sophisticated (lots more) than Benter's model, especially HSH which *is* full of advanced and innovative technology.


Now you are saying that Benter's software is simple...... :bang: :bang:

If it was simple and only involved tedious work then everybody would be doing it successfully and making vast sums of money in the US and HK. - not happening IMO.

With all due respect to HSH software, what you are suggesting here is that a piece of software that costs $613-00 is DEFINITELY more sophisticated than Benter's model. :lol: :lol: Highly unlikely IMO.

[GameTheory]

If it was simple and only involved tedious work then everybody would be doing it successfully and making vast sums of money in the US and HK. - not happening IMO.No, you're missing the point. Having a good model is only part of the battle to making money. Not even half the battle. So not everyone would be doing it by a long shot. And we are talking about the past when Benter had no competition. Benter's model became less effective over time -- go read one of his speeches or papers on the subject. (Although I should mention that there ARE a decent number of teams operating in both HK and the US that ARE making vast sums of money still to this day. Benter is rare in that he is somewhat willing to talk about his work so you don't hear much about the others.) You are also assuming (it seems) that the problem is exactly the same in HK as it is in the US when in fact there are big differences between the two arenas.

With all due respect to HSH software, what you are suggesting here is that a piece of software that costs $613-00 is DEFINITELY more sophisticated than Benter's model. :lol: :lol: Highly unlikely IMO.With all due respect to you, it is not even close in terms of sophistication. You are simply off-base here. You are confusing sophistication with effectiveness. Benter's model was tremendously effective, obviously. You give yourself away when you say "highly unlikely", a choice of phrase that indicates you are simply guessing (wrongly) and don't know anything about the software choices available today. Remember Benter was operating in HK quite a few years ago now. The stuff that software is doing these days wasn't even possible at that time without a supercomputer due to lack of available processing power. Benter's model HAD to be somewhat simple because that was the only choice. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT HIS MODEL WASN'T GOOD. IT DOESN'T MEAN IT DIDN'T WORK. It was simple, like a brick shithouse is simple -- just bricks on top of bricks -- and it did the job.

Why are people arguing about this? Why is it so important to you guys that Benter be viewed as some sort of demi-god or wizard? Benter didn't INVENT anything -- he put together a solid model with a computer team and exploited an advantage where no one had exploited it before. If Benter hadn't done it, someone else would have (and they have, he just did it first). Where do I get all this information? BENTER! He has talked and written about all this at length...

[mauvais]

I'm not guessing.

What you are saying now is that benter's model was brick shithouse simple is plainly absurd and incorrect! Likewise your comments re HSH software.

[GameTheory]

I'm not guessing.

What you are saying now is that benter's model was brick shithouse simple is plainly absurd and incorrect! Likewise your comments re HSH software.Then please detail its sophistication for me...

[mauvais]

Perhaps you could detail the amazing 10 x level of sophistication of HSH etc?

As the basic information regarding Benter's model is public information, many are aware to some extent of how his model is set up.

I think you will find that you have things in reverse and it is far more likely that Benter's model is 10 x more sophisticated than HSH etc.

[Figman]

Mauvais,
Here's a start!
http://tinyurl.com/apvj8

[mauvais]

I'm not sure that this is sophisticated?

Does HSH use a logit model and spit out r2 and coefficients etc?

[GameTheory]

Perhaps you could detail the amazing 10 x level of sophistication of HSH etc?

As the basic information regarding Benter's model is public information, many are aware to some extent of how his model is set up.

I think you will find that you have things in reverse and it is far more likely that Benter's model is 10 x more sophisticated than HSH etc.Yeah, that's what I thought you'd say. Are you saying that a logit model is the height of sophistication? The cutting edge as it were? Nothing more advanced has been developed since 1986 when Bolton & Chapman first proposed the logit model for horseracing and Benter followed their lead?

Isn't a parametric model (like a logit model) that forces the data to fit a particular distribution inherently less sophisticated than a non-parametric model that allows the data to "speak for itself"? Isn't there a reason why researchers in all fields that do data analysis are moving away from logit and other similar models as available computing power increases? Do they need that extra computer power because the techniques of today are SIMPLER than ones of 20 years ago? Technology has been on a downhill slide since the "peak" of Benter's model, is that it?

Is it not possible that those who came after Benter and used his methods as a starting point have now possibly gone beyond what he did?

[mauvais]

Certainly possible GT but u seem to be suggesting that HSH etc are the ones leading the charge and are thus 10x more sophisticated?

Not sure where your factor of 10 comes from? I'd love to see something that was 10x the sophisication of Benter's model.

[GameTheory]

Do you have a point? You start off ridiculing the idea that a piece of software could be much more sophisticated than Benter's model when you don't seem to know anything about the software that is available. Then you say you are "not guessing" indicating you DO know something about it, and now you are asking what the software does, etc indicating once again that you don't know anything about it.

If you aren't in a position to comment, then what did you start all this for?

[46zilzal]

there are just so many ways to figure out a race..it's ll been done.

[mauvais]

No I'm not guessing GT but it seems you are.

My point is that you are completely wrong to suggest that HSH etc are 10x more sophisticated than Benter's original model.

You started out suggesting this but now when I ask you to back up your spurious claim you fail to do so. Keep it up.

[GameTheory]

My point is that you are completely wrong to suggest that HSH etc are 10x more sophisticated than Benter's original model.This is getting really retarded. How could you possibly know if I am completely wrong if you DON'T KNOW ANYTHING about "HSH etc"? It seems you are saying it is impossible for something to exist that is more sophisticated than Benter's model. Benter's model is *IT* as far as you are concerned -- the absolute height of man's achievement.

Lemme ask you this -- what is something that you would consider "more sophisticated" (I don't even know what that means at this point) than Benter's model? What does "sophistication" mean to you?

[boxcar]

GT, Methinks you'd farther by reasoning with that simple brick outhouse. :D

Meanwhile, I do have a question fer ya: Of what does the other 75% of the game consist?

Boxcar

[GameTheory]

GT, Methinks you'd farther by reasoning with that simple brick outhouse. :D

Meanwhile, I do have a question fer ya: Of what does the other 75% of the game consist?
Well, since I gave credit to Steve Fierro for pinning down handicapping to 25% of the equation, we'll follow his lead on the other 3 quarters as well:

-- Attaching value (after you identify your contenders you must determine at what odds you will play them), i.e. what are they "worth"?

-- Performing while investing, i.e. actually betting. Managing your time, keeping your nerve, sticking with the plan, etc.

-- Record keeping. If you don't keep books, you're not a real pro. You won't know where you've been, so you won't know where you are going.


Fierro's point was that you'd spend about 25% of your effort on each thing. I'd have minor quibbles with some of what Steve writes, but basically he's on the money...

[twindouble]

Well, since I gave credit to Steve Fierro for pinning down handicapping to 25% of the equation, we'll follow his lead on the other 3 quarters as well:

-- Attaching value (after you identify your contenders you must determine at what odds you will play them), i.e. what are they "worth"?

-- Performing while investing, i.e. actually betting. Managing your time, keeping your nerve, sticking with the plan, etc.

-- Record keeping. If you don't keep books, you're not a real pro. You won't know where you've been, so you won't know where you are going.


Fierro's point was that you'd spend about 25% of your effort on each thing. I'd have minor quibbles with some of what Steve writes, but basically he's on the money...

I feel for you guys that spend 25% of your time counting your money, I would think your missing a lot things when it comes to handicapping and your not watching many races that closly or enjoying them. I start with a bankroll and end with one, not a lot figuring going on there. I don't need a computer to tell me Im not making money on one type of wager or another, that would be very obvious to me.

When it comes to time that's another story, to me that's most difficult part of the game because the lack of it makes the game even tougher, ESP if you have to share a lot time with others or on more pressing things. When it comes to people that play 100 races or more taking advantage of rebates aren't handicappers in my opinion, we need another name for them, I'm talking the ones that make money. Pari-mutuel Investors is fitting because even in the building trades today most that work in it are considered mechanics, not craftsmen, they are a thing of the past with the exception of a few that specialize in one craft.

I spend more time handicaping to find races that are playable, looking for those contenders and puting together a wager to make money than I do anything else.

Good luck,

T.D.

[Overlay]

For me, a statistically-based fair-odds line for each race rolls all four "quarters" together nicely. Using the probabilities associated with a well-distributed mix of fundamental factors simultaneously ranks the horses; produces fair odds through the ratio of the final product generated for each horse to the sum of products for the field; provides a greater degree of both confidence and discipline in wagering than would be the case if decisions were based only on opinion or guess; and facilitates both record-keeping of results, and isolating the cause of any significant variations or changes in performance.

[formula_2002]

For me, a statistically-based fair-odds line for each race rolls all four "quarters" together nicely. Using the probabilities associated with a well-distributed mix of fundamental factors simultaneously ranks the horses; produces fair odds through the ratio of the final product generated for each horse to the sum of products for the field; provides a greater degree of both confidence and discipline in wagering than would be the case if decisions were based only on opinion or guess; and facilitates both record-keeping of results, and isolating the cause of any significant variations or changes in performance.


Any numbers you care to share with us..

[twindouble]

For me, a statistically-based fair-odds line for each race rolls all four "quarters" together nicely. Using the probabilities associated with a well-distributed mix of fundamental factors simultaneously ranks the horses; produces fair odds through the ratio of the final product generated for each horse to the sum of products for the field; provides a greater degree of both confidence and discipline in wagering than would be the case if decisions were based only on opinion or guess; and facilitates both record-keeping of results, and isolating the cause of any significant variations or changes in performance.

Your a Pari-mutuel Investor, not a handicapper if you don't have your own opinion on a race. Granted the data and formulas are yours and may produce a profit but that's a far cry from being a handicapper. The heart of the game is doing what I do. That's just the way I feel about it. Sorry about that Overlay.

[Overlay]

Any numbers you care to share with us..

Not at the moment. I'll post later tonight.

[Overlay]

Your a Pari-mutuel Investor, not a handicapper if you don't have your own opinion on a race. Granted the data and formulas are yours and may produce a profit but that's a far cry from being a handicapper. The heart of the game is doing what I do. That's just the way I feel about it. Sorry about that Overlay.

To me, "handicapping" means assigning a probability of winning to each horse in a race, just like the public does through the pari-mutuel system. I do have an opinion as to which horse is the likeliest to win, but that doesn't mean that I think it is the only horse that can win. The odds on the horse have to offer me a sufficient rate of return to justify the risk I am taking by betting it before I consider it to be worth a wager. I'm not sure how that differs from the meaning that you assign to the term "pari-mutuel investor". I do think that seeking only to find the one horse that is most likely to win, and then betting it without regard to the odds the horse is being held at, is not "handicapping", as I define the term.

[mauvais]

I feel for you guys that spend 25% of your time counting your money

I'm guessing here but I would suspect that someone who thinks 25% is an appropriate time to spend on the menial task of record keeping is easily confused by numbers?

[twindouble]

To me, "handicapping" means assigning a probability of winning to each horse in a race, just like the public does through the pari-mutuel system. I do have an opinion as to which horse is the likeliest to win, but that doesn't mean that I think it is the only horse that can win. The odds on the horse have to offer me a sufficient rate of return to justify the risk I am taking by betting it before I consider it to be worth a wager. I'm not sure how that differs from the meaning that you assign to the term "pari-mutuel investor". I do think that seeking only to find the one horse that is most likely to win, and then betting it without regard to the odds the horse is being held at, is not "handicapping", as I define the term.

Looking for overlays or what I and others call value is as old as the game. What your saying is you have a program that will do it and is more refined than my plain old handicapping, evaluating the potential to make money based on how I see the race bet or pass. If your wagers are based on the what the program produces and not all the factors of handicapping then you may fall into being a pari-mutuel investor, on the latter I was refering to those that play many tracks and a mulitude of races getting rebates.

T.D.

[GameTheory]

I'm guessing here but I would suspect that someone who thinks 25% is an appropriate time to spend on the menial task of record keeping is easily confused by numbers?Not at all, unless you can memorize every wager you make, and you know your exact performance on every subset (like sprint maiden claimers, turf routes, etc.). There is a lot more to keeping good records then adding or subtracting the bottom line. The idea is to run it like a business -- you can see where you made good decisions and bad ones, what factors you may be overvaluing/undervaluing, and how to improve.

Also, when we talk about 25% this and that, most people who now spend 90% of their time handicapping think, "I'm supposed to spend THAT amount of time EACH on three other things?!" No, the point is that you are probably spending way too much time handicapping IF your goal is to make as much money as possible, and you should be allocating some of that same time to the other things...

[RaceIsClosed]

To me, "handicapping" means assigning a probability of winning to each horse in a race, just like the public does through the pari-mutuel system. I do have an opinion as to which horse is the likeliest to win, but that doesn't mean that I think it is the only horse that can win. The odds on the horse have to offer me a sufficient rate of return to justify the risk I am taking by betting it before I consider it to be worth a wager. I'm not sure how that differs from the meaning that you assign to the term "pari-mutuel investor". I do think that seeking only to find the one horse that is most likely to win, and then betting it without regard to the odds the horse is being held at, is not "handicapping", as I define the term.

ANY horse can win ANY race, pretty much. We always see those $95.60 puzzlers come down the pike once in a while to remind us that we're not always going to be right. I know I didn't need an odds line when my $117.00 winner at Laurel hit the day after Thanksgiving!!

I understand what value handicappers do. I also understand it when they don't explain how they assign probabilities to horses. By definition, they have to be using a formula, one that can be easily summarized, explained, and executed. If they say they are selling it, then it goes back to "buy my stuff" rather than sharing any handicapping.

I also think value handicappers often don't take into account that a horse who has a superior chance of winning often will get the best trip, or have the trainer who is best motivated to win, thus causing it to be stronger than it appears, or what you might call an overlay.

"Find overlays" is not handicapping advice. It doesn't tell the horseplayer anything he doesn't already know. Telling him which horses are overlays, and why, does.

[GameTheory]

I also think value handicappers often don't take into account that a horse who has a superior chance of winning often will get the best trip, or have the trainer who is best motivated to win, thus causing it to be stronger than it appears, or what you might call an overlay.A value handicapper worth his salt would have incorporated all that into his line.

[boxcar]

Well, since I gave credit to Steve Fierro for pinning down handicapping to 25% of the equation, we'll follow his lead on the other 3 quarters as well:

-- Attaching value (after you identify your contenders you must determine at what odds you will play them), i.e. what are they "worth"?

-- Performing while investing, i.e. actually betting. Managing your time, keeping your nerve, sticking with the plan, etc.

-- Record keeping. If you don't keep books, you're not a real pro. You won't know where you've been, so you won't know where you are going.


Fierro's point was that you'd spend about 25% of your effort on each thing. I'd have minor quibbles with some of what Steve writes, but basically he's on the money...

Thanks, GT, for the reply.

In principle, I have no quibble with any of this. But one hardly needs to devote an equal amount of time or even effort to each. For example, once I developed a money management plan that covered all the contingencies that I would entertain for betting purposes, that plan became etched in stone, as it were. Why in the world would I need to devote more time and effort to it each and every day? Even you say that once you develop a plan, stick with it.

Ditto for the bookkeeping work. Depending on many tracks I played in a day, my book work would take me anywhere from 10 to 30 minutues of time, at the most. (But maybe that was because I was spot player.)

As far as the "value" part, I discussed whose price line I used on another thread, why, etc. Time spent on this factor prior prior to the race was zero up until several minutes before post time of the actual race.

So, this allowed me to devote the most time and effort to the most fundamentally important aspect to turf specuation, i.e. handicapping. As important as all these other things are, the inescapable fact remains that unless one has the ability to at the very least consistently isolate the likely contenders in playable races from the rest of the field, this player's efforts in these other areas will be for nought. Bookkeeping or record keeping isn't going to put you on the winner. Even money management will not put you on the winner. All this aspect will do is tell the player how to bet the race -- not who to bet. The "value" aspect will only tell a player if the race is investment-worthy or not, and in many cases help the player to further whittle his final contenders on the basis of their tote board prices.

Anyhooo...that's my 2.5 cents worth. Maybe someday when I write a book, I'll explain all this in more detail. :D

Boxcar

[GameTheory]

Let's just say all 4 areas are of importance. None can make you a winner by themselves, but being deficient in any can prevent you from winning. Handicapping goes for naught if you can't bet sensibly. You can't make a plan for improvement if you have no idea what your weaknesses are, etc. No one is saying handicapping is not important. But since 99% of horse racing talk is handicapping-centered, as if it were the be all and end all of being a winner, the point is the balance is seriously skewed. Most losers, especially marginal losers who are on the bubble of becoming winners, think that if they just pick a few more winners they'll be there, when in fact most them are probably excellent handicappers and simply need to streamline their betting, bet only when value is offered, keep records to eliminate race types they are not good at, etc. Handicapping comes first, but there are several opportunites to falter after that. And no matter what your handicapping level of expertise, the other areas can improve your bottom line if you are currently ignoring them...

[twindouble]

Anyhooo...that's my 2.5 cents worth. Maybe someday when I write a book, I'll explain all this in more detail. :D

Boxcar, I agree, so that adds another 2.5 cents, keep it up and we'll have $2.00 to wager. :cool:

[mcikey01]

OVERLAY:

For me, a statistically-based fair-odds line for each race rolls all four "quarters" together nicely. Using the probabilities associated with a well-distributed mix of fundamental factors simultaneously ranks the horses; produces fair odds through the ratio of the final product generated for each horse to the sum of products for the field; provides a greater degree of both confidence and discipline in wagering than would be the case if decisions were based only on opinion or guess; and facilitates both record-keeping of results, and isolating the cause of any significant variations or changes in performance.



twindouble:

Your a Pari-mutuel Investor, not a handicapper if you don't have your own opinion on a race. Granted the data and formulas are yours and may produce a profit but that's a far cry from being a handicapper. The heart of the game is doing what I do. That's just the way I feel about it. Sorry about that Overlay.



OVERLAY:

To me, "handicapping" means assigning a probability of winning to each horse in a race, just like the public does through the pari-mutuel system. I do have an opinion as to which horse is the likeliest to win, but that doesn't mean that I think it is the only horse that can win. The odds on the horse have to offer me a sufficient rate of return to justify the risk I am taking by betting it before I consider it to be worth a wager. I'm not sure how that differs from the meaning that you assign to the term "pari-mutuel investor". I do think that seeking only to find the one horse that is most likely to win, and then betting it without regard to the odds the horse is being held at, is not "handicapping", as I define the term.



twindouble:

Looking for overlays or what I and others call value is as old as the game. What your saying is you have a program that will do it and is more refined than my plain old handicapping, evaluating the potential to make money based on how I see the race bet or pass. If your wagers are based on the what the program produces and not all the factors of handicapping then you may fall into being a pari-mutuel investor, on the latter I was refering to those that play many tracks and a mulitude of races getting rebates

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

Can't we all just get along here? (Just kidding....)

I respect both you guys for you devotion to your differing handicapping/investment philosophy and your honesty and clarity sharing what you each feel is a better approach to the "game".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[mcikey01]

Overlay:
For me, a statistically-based fair-odds line for each race rolls all four "quarters" together nicely. Using the probabilities associated with a well-distributed mix of fundamental factors simultaneously ranks the horses; produces fair odds through the ratio of the final product generated for each horse to the sum of products for the field; provides a greater degree of both confidence and discipline in wagering than would be the case if decisions were based only on opinion or guess; and facilitates both record-keeping of results, and isolating the cause of any significant variations or changes in performance.


Formula_2002
Any numbers you care to share with us..


__________________________________________________ _________________


I'm confused? What numbers interest you..... the handicapping factor ranking, the fair odds calculations, samples of actual races or statistical results of playing by this method (or something else)?

[twindouble]

Mcikey01 quote;


Can't we all just get along here? (Just kidding....)

I respect both you guys for you devotion to your differing handicapping/investment philosophy and your honesty and clarity sharing what you each feel is a better approach to the "game".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks. I just want to point out I'm tring to get clarification as well but sofar my experience here tells me that Overlay and many more members understand the game as well is I do. In my mind there is a clear distinction between those that like I said, play many tracks including a large number of wagers than others here. They are in a different world than the majority of players but how well they do I don't know, unless you want to believe the poll that was posted here. Myself, I'll give them the benifit of doubt only because there isn't a heck of lot I argue over that's posted when it comes to handicapping in general. Only you can decide who's in the ball park or not.


T.D.

[boxcar]

Let's just say all 4 areas are of importance. None can make you a winner by themselves, but being deficient in any can prevent you from winning. Handicapping goes for naught if you can't bet sensibly. You can't make a plan for improvement if you have no idea what your weaknesses are, etc. No one is saying handicapping is not important. But since 99% of horse racing talk is handicapping-centered, as if it were the be all and end all of being a winner, the point is the balance is seriously skewed. Most losers, especially marginal losers who are on the bubble of becoming winners, think that if they just pick a few more winners they'll be there, when in fact most them are probably excellent handicappers and simply need to streamline their betting, bet only when value is offered, keep records to eliminate race types they are not good at, etc. Handicapping comes first, but there are several opportunites to falter after that. And no matter what your handicapping level of expertise, the other areas can improve your bottom line if you are currently ignoring them...

You're absolutely right, GT. None of the four can make you a winner, but only one of the four can point the player to the logical or solid contenders in the race. I just don't see where all this time must be spent on the other three (as important as they are), unless the handicapper doesn't have any business sense or even common sense, and he finds himself constantly tweaking this, adjusting that, revising something else, etc., etc.

My greatest battle as a turf speculator was adjusting psychologically to the
vagaries of the game. I'm a perfectionist of sort, so it was tough for me when starting out to accept losing. I took it personally. :) But once I truly came to terms with the true nature of the beast (the high risks that naturally inhere in horse racing and on betting on the outome of races), then I became at peace with myself. I just accepted the fact that no matter how well I could analyze race problems, I would always select more losers than winners.
Once I cleared this major hurdle, everything else fell into place very nicely.

Boxcar

[GameTheory]

....doesn't have any business sense or even common sense, and he finds himself constantly tweaking this, adjusting that, revising something else, etc., etc.Uh...that describes about 95% of the people betting. More common than you might think...

[Overlay]

In response to Formula 2002's request, consider the following value matrix as an example of specific factors that could be combined through multiplication to produce an effective fair-odds line, while keeping the total of variables involved to a workable number. (The three impact values listed on each line corrrespond to dirt sprints, dirt routes, and turf routes, respectively.)(Sorry for the formatting problems.)

Overall Factors:

Best Speed in Last 30 Days (Speed/Condition)
Number of “Good” Races in Last Three Starts (Condition/Consistency)
Quirin Speed-Point Total (Early Speed/Pace)
Two-Year Earnings (Class)
Jockey (Connections/Intent)

Best Speed in Last 30 Days (Rank in Field):

First 2.08 2.07 1.83
Second 1.52 1.45 1.55
Third 1.18 1.09 1.39
Front Half .97 1.06 1.04
Rear Half .59 .59 .60


Number of “Good” Races in Last Three Starts

3 1.54 1.53 1.45
2 1.29 1.25 1.19
1 1.03 .93 .86
0 .67 .61 .64

Quirin Speed-Point Total:

8 1.58 1.58 1.22
7 1.54 1.34 1.22
6 1.52 1.26 1.12
5 1.24 1.15 1.01
4 1.20 1.02 1.01
3 1.10 .90 1.01
2 .93 .89 .90
1 .91 .88 .90
0 .65 .65 .90



Two-Year Earnings (Rank in Field):

First 1.65 1.57 1.60
Second 1.35 1.35 1.39
Third 1.16 1.13 1.19
Front Half 1.05 1.01 .92
Rear Half .72 .74 .76


Jockey:

Top 5 at Meeting 1.50 1.37 1.37
“Good" Race on Horse 1.17 1.07 1.07
Neither of the Above .58 .64 .64

[mcikey01]

In response to Formula 2002's request, consider the following value matrix as an example of specific factors that could be combined through multiplication to produce an effective fair-odds line, while keeping the total of variables involved to a workable number. (The three impact values listed on each line corrrespond to dirt sprints, dirt routes, and turf routes, respectively.)(Sorry for the formatting problems.)

Overall Factors:

Best Speed in Last 30 Days (Speed/Condition)
Number of “Good” Races in Last Three Starts (Condition/Consistency)
Quirin Speed-Point Total (Early Speed/Pace)
Two-Year Earnings (Class)
Jockey (Connections/Intent)


Tim: Have you ever experimented with the Average#of Winners/Expected #of winners (A/E ratio) applied to handicapping factors for fair odds/overlay estimation and compared the results to using impact values?

Or used the A/E ratio with a threhold value as a filter to either accept or reject an impact value as being meaningful?

[boxcar]

Uh...that describes about 95% of the people betting. More common than you might think...

Well, that explains, then, why the vast majority of players lose. If most players' modi operandi are in a constant state of flux, they'd stand a better chance of balancing themselves on one leg in soft, shifting sand than they would profiting from turf speculation.

Boxcar

[GameTheory]

Well, that explains, then, why the vast majority of players lose. Yes, it does. Fierro's point, which I agree with, is that winning at racing is Business 101, not solely a contest to out-handicap the other guy. Most bettors have no structure whatsoever to their plan of attack. They have no plan at all. There are TONS of people that are good enough handicappers to win, but lose anyway...

[twindouble]

Yes, it does. Fierro's point, which I agree with, is that winning at racing is Business 101, not solely a contest to out-handicap the other guy. Most bettors have no structure whatsoever to their plan of attack. They have no plan at all. There are TONS of people that are good enough handicappers to win, but lose anyway...

I agree, some of us have many years of experience being around those type of players, I couldn't begin to count them. The thing is they are all packaged different, some do well for a while then start pushing the envelope, don't know if it's an ego thing or greed maybe both with others. I've had buddies that believe it or not would be ahead at any given point in the card $3 or $4 hundred 5 days out of the week and still end up losing. They were action players.

I'm still not convinced there's only 3 to 5% that win in the long run, has to be more than that.

[Overlay]

Tim: Have you ever experimented with the Average#of Winners/Expected #of winners (A/E ratio) applied to handicapping factors for fair odds/overlay estimation and compared the results to using impact values?

Or used the A/E ratio with a threhold value as a filter to either accept or reject an impact value as being meaningful?

I revisited the Gordon Pine article (that I had read previously) where he discusses use of the A/E ratio. I can't dispute his mathematics, but the problems I couldn't get past (if I'm reading him correctly) were: 1) how do you go back and reconstruct the average odds at which the horses possessing a given handicapping characteristic ran in a past sample of races to determine whether the horses truly performed better than expected given their odds, short of doing all data collection personally, without reference to any available second-hand information (no matter how otherwise reliable)? (Even Pine concedes the difficulty of calculation of this measure.); and 2) it seems to me that Pine is implying that a horse's odds by themselves are a factor in determining how the horse will run. The interpretation I put on findings such as Quirin's that I discussed earlier is that, while odds are predictive of winning percentage (that is, the actual winning percentage associated with each odds range will tend to be fairly constant over time), the odds themselves are not the determinant of that percentage, with the exception of the five scattered ranges that Quirin found, the pattern of which he interpreted as insufficient to refute the hypothesis that horses generally tend to win as often as their odds say they should. In my view, the horse's performance is the product of its objective record (which can be analyzed statistically), and the odds reflect the public's subjective filtering of that information. Yes, the various odds ranges do have long-established (and mathematically determinable) winning percentages associated with them. But the assignment of any given odds figure to a horse in a particular race by the public does not, in my view, have a deterministic bearing on how the horse will actually run. It only reflects the degree of accuracy with which the public has judged the horse's winning chances. In the aggregate, those judgments will be very accurate in the long term. But on a race-to-race basis, they can be subject to significant error as far as individual horses are concerned, and it is those selected instances that I view the use of objectively-based, regularly-recurring impact values as helpful in detecting.

(This discussion also brings to mind texts I have read that caution handicappers to think twice about betting a horse that they believe is significantly overlaid on the assumption that the horse is offering betting value (especially if they have the horse rated as one of the main contenders in a race)(like a horse that you put at fair odds of 3-1, but that is going off at 20-1). These texts contend that the very fact that the horse is being held at odds that are significantly higher than the handicapper thinks they should be is an indication that the horse does not have as good a chance of winning as the handicapper believes. But, to me, going down that road gets into discussions of the kind of behind-the-scenes maneuvers and conspiratorial "smart money" mindset that can drive a player crazy. I'm not saying that various parties never try to darken form or manipulate the odds for a price, or that horses that otherwise appear fit and ready to win are not purposely stiffed from time to time. I just don't see the use of getting bogged down in that, though. To me, there are a sufficient number of repeating performance patterns that have valid, objective data associated with them, and that have remained applicable over many years, that it's possible to handicap with reference to those elements (as long as you use them as a means of assigning probabilities of performance, rather than as a stand-alone go/no-go measure or as a guarantee of a winning effort today), without resorting to more subjective handicapping criteria. (Again, I have nothing but admiration for anyone who can make those kind of subjective judgments, and do so consistently and successfully over an extended period. It's just not what works best for me.)

[classhandicapper]

Overlay,

I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the odds ARE practically an independent factor in determining the horses chances of winning over and above things like speed, pace, class, running style, recent activity, and other factors we are all looking at.

It took me a long time to reach that conclusion because it runs counter to everything I have believed for the last 30 years.

I now believe there's generally enough inside money (trainers, clockers, owners, grooms, vets etc...) in the pools to influence the odds often enough to matter much more often than I once thought.

Those insiders may not be better or even as good a group of handicappers as the rest of us, but they often know things about a horse's condition that aren't in the DRF. The most obvious circumstances are layoffs and first time starters, but I believe it's more widespread than I once thought.

I am getting more sensitive to things like being "dead on the board" and "surprise action" in more routine races. I'm not sure how to work it into my game properly, but these days I feel much better about a horse I like at 8-1 when I knew going in no one would like him than I do about an 8-1 that I thought would be 7-2 because some of favorable qualities I thought would be obvious to the public. In the latter case, I get worried someone knows something I don't.

[mcikey01]

Overlay:
Can't deny your contention that a horse's odds are more predictive than determinant of a horse's chances of winning. Put another way, odds are correlative or confirmative of a horse's winning potential as subjectively assessed by the public not causative of winning percentage. Bur I think you misinterpret the implications of the A/E ratio.

From my perspective, the A/E ratio could be utilized (if one has gathered the data and conducted the research or employed the resources and services and resources of an existing handicapping database/data warehouse) to confirm the profitability of an individual or mix of hadnicapping factor imapct values. Also, one could utilize these ratios selectively to identify horses that seem to outperform their odds.The latter takes on even more meaning when there are a set of horses with common trainer/jockey/owner connections that display similar performance patterns. Which leads me to...

Classhandicapper:
The fact that inside money seems to affect a horse's chance's of winning is merely to state that stable or insider intent is a short-term predictor of a horse's probability of winning. It doesn't determine the race outcome- too much can go happen before or during a race to compromise a "ready" horse's chances of winning and, of course, the horse has no real clue that it is "well-meant" in the upcoming race..
.
Gordon Pine conducted an extensive statistical analysis related to the effect of inside money.in his article "Bet-Down as a Handicapping Predictor" where he demolished the idea that (over the long-term) ML bet-downs are any more predictive of winning percentage or more profitable than horses with final odds higher than their ML odds. I think we can assume that most of those insider money situations you speak of can be characterized as bet-downs.

Ironically, if my premise concerning a horse's tendency to out perform its odds line over a large series of races is true (and assumng a "stable" set of stable connections) , then one should expect the opposite of significant "insider money" showing in the betting pools on these horses.These could be "well-meant" horses spotted by their connections where they can get a inflated mutuel price.

(I think I'm starting to sound like Ray Taulbot, one of the seminal figures in the art of handicapping)

[mcikey01]

Tim: I do realize the deteminant power of the intersection of "high impact" handicppaing factors... I do wonder whether their predictive profitability of the combination of handicapping factors via the A/E ratio is a practical correlative tool. Someday,.......

Anyway, I have developed an odd line using a combination of weighted handicapping factors derived from a proprietary source. It works for me........

Now you have me wondering what the actual impact values are for these handicapping factors(and theirr multiplicative product in different race scenarios), how an odds line derived from the product of impact values would look relative to my odds line and what the respective A/E ratios would be.

Thanks for the stimulating dialogue

[boxcar]

Classhandicapper:
The fact that inside money seems to affect a horse's chance's of winning is merely to state that stable or insider intent is a short-term predictor of a horse's probability of winning. It doesn't determine the race outcome- too much can go happen before or during a race to compromise a "ready" horse's chances of winning and, of course, the horse has no real clue that it is "well-meant" in the upcoming race..
.
Gordon Pine conducted an extensive statistical analysis related to the effect of inside money.in his article "Bet-Down as a Handicapping Predictor" where he demolished the idea that (over the long-term) ML bet-downs are any more predictive of winning percentage or more profitable than horses with final odds higher than their ML odds. I think we can assume that most of those insider money situations you speak of can be characterized as bet-downs.

Ironically, if my premise concerning a horse's tendency to out perform its odds line over a large series of races is true (and assumng a "stable" set of stable connections) , then one should expect the opposite of significant "insider money" showing in the betting pools on these horses.These could be "well-meant" horses spotted by their connections where they can get a inflated mutuel price.

(I think I'm starting to sound like Ray Taulbot, one of the seminal figures in the art of handicapping)

Ray Taulbot!? The suprises of all suprises. Didn't think anyone here would know much about him or his work. :)

Like anything else, when one researches a factor to the exclusion of the others that are closely related to it, the results will be skewed. In fact, the results will be virtually meaningless! There are times (read: under certain circumstances) when a ML bet down is a pretty good indicator of stable intentions. Apart from these specific situations, though, I would say the angle is worthless.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I now believe there's generally enough inside money (trainers, clockers, owners, grooms, vets etc...) in the pools to influence the odds often enough to matter much more often than I once thought.

Those insiders may not be better or even as good a group of handicappers as the rest of us, but they often know things about a horse's condition that aren't in the DRF. The most obvious circumstances are layoffs and first time starters, but I believe it's more widespread than I once thought.

I am getting more sensitive to things like being "dead on the board" and "surprise action" in more routine races. I'm not sure how to work it into my game properly, but these days I feel much better about a horse I like at 8-1 when I knew going in no one would like him than I do about an 8-1 that I thought would be 7-2 because some of favorable qualities I thought would be obvious to the public. In the latter case, I get worried someone knows something I don't.

Sometimes the "insiders" know and sometimes they're just hoping they know.
But remember: The "outsiders" enjoy one advantage over the "insiders": Objectivity.

Up until about 8 years or so ago, I regularly attended the tracks on my circuit. I knew all the trainers by sight, as well as many of the people who were closely associated with them. Very often I would see a trainer or one of the starter's connections at the windows. During all that time, I can say that seeing these things never influenced my own decisions. For one thing, I had a good deal of confidence in my own personal judgment. And for another, how would I know for sure just what the connections were betting in the race?

The odds a horse is about to be sent off only has predictive value under some circumstances. But even then...as a handicapping angle pointing to possible trainers' intentions -- it is only one angle -- one indicator. It's not the end all or be all of anything. Yes, it's a good thing whenever a contender qualifies on an odds angle because it gives the selector another reason to back the animal. But the absence of such an angle should never deter a player from backing a contender that appears to be "well meant" on the basis of other angles.

Some years ago I was tutoring a young fellow in my methodology, and in retrospect I'm almost sorry that I revealed my odds angles to him because he would allow more than few big bombs get a way, during a meet, due to the lack of any odds evidence that they were well meant. He had a tough time understanding that when a betting stable is interested in getting a decent price on its horse that is being sent out to win if it can, the connections frequently will not bet very much at all in order to keep the price inflated! Conversely, other outfits will indeed bet down their horses very sharply at times -- sometimes to even single digit payoffs when a coup is in the offing.

Or what about situations when a contender was held at low or moderately low odds in its most recent races, but today it's being sent off at 22-1? Should this kind of animal become an automatic toss-out? Not hardly! Not in my book.

In summary, there are good, productive odds angles out there, providing the user knows when and how to use them, and also recongnizes their limitations.

Boxcar

[Overlay]

Sometimes the "insiders" know and sometimes they're just hoping they know.
But remember: The "outsiders" enjoy one advantage over the "insiders": Objectivity.

Reminds me of Ainslie's take on the value of "inside information", where he believed that any given race would normally contain multiple horses with connections that truly believed that "today could be the day", and that it was preferable just to sort a field out using standard handicapping criteria rather than attempt to judge the merits of the competing hopes or intentions of the stables involved, especially based on rumors or tips. (I can't recall his thoughts about a possible scenario involving collusion among two or more competing interests in a race, but I would think he would have been dismissive of factoring that into the handicapping of a race, as well (although I don't believe he would have been naive enough to deny that such manipulation did not or could not happen on an isolated basis).)

[mcikey01]

Boxcar: You've definitely been channeling the spirit of Ray Taulbot...That was super!!!

ATM shouldn't be recycling and refreshing old Taubot articles...They should hire you to revive his byline with fresh stuff...:) :

[classhandicapper]

Sometimes the "insiders" know and sometimes they're just hoping they know.
But remember: The "outsiders" enjoy one advantage over the "insiders": Objectivity.Boxcar

To me it doesn't matter much whether they are good handicappers, objective, good line makers, winners, losers etc.... What matters is extra information.

If I like a horse that I thought would be 7-2 and he's 8-1 on the board because much of backstretch knows he was sick for a few days after his last start and missed some training, not knowing is a disadvantage. At first glance I'm going to think he's a huge overlay. However, in this case the odds may actually reflect the dimished chances of him winning due to that missed training.

If I don't like a horse that I thought would be 8-1 and he's 7-2 on the board because much of the backstretch knows he had some problems that have since been corrected, not knowing is a similar disadvantage.

The problem of course is seperating when odds that don't make sense reflect information you don't have vs. when they reflect a mistake by the betting public. That's why my favorite situation (for example) is liking a horse that I know is going to go off at 8-1/10- 1 because his merits are well hidden and then seeing him at that price on the board.

[twindouble]

To me it doesn't matter much whether they are good handicappers, objective, good line makers, winners, losers etc.... What matters is extra information.

If I like a horse that I thought would be 7-2 and he's 8-1 on the board because much of backstretch knows he was sick for a few days after his last start and missed some training, not knowing is a disadvantage. At first glance I'm going to think he's a huge overlay. However, in this case the odds may actually reflect the dimished chances of him winning due to that missed training.

If I don't like a horse that I thought would be 8-1 and he's 7-2 on the board because much of the backstretch knows he had some problems that have since been corrected, not knowing is a similar disadvantage.

The problem of course is seperating when odds that don't make sense reflect information you don't have vs. when they reflect a mistake by the betting public. That's why my favorite situation (for example) is liking a horse that I know is going to go off at 8-1/10- 1 because his merits are well hidden and then seeing him at that price on the board.

Class, the problem with the first three paragraphs is most of that information is flawed or wishfull thinking on the connections part, that's been my experience.

Taking that information is one of the worst things that can happen to a good handicappper ESP by some stroke of luck it worked out a couple times, the poor sucker would have to have an army of people on the backside feeding him information then weed it all out to win in the long run. If that's possable.

Good luck,

T.D.

[boxcar]

Boxcar: You've definitely been channeling the spirit of Ray Taulbot...That was super!!!

R.T. and I are soul mates. :D

ATM shouldn't be recycling and refreshing old Taubot articles...They should hire you to revive his byline with fresh stuff...:) :

I could add plenty of "fresh stuff" to his methodology. Maybe someday if I ever decide to work again... :)

Boxcar

[Fastracehorse]

The odds a horse is about to be sent off only has predictive value under some circumstances. But even then...as a handicapping angle pointing to possible trainers' intentions -- it is only one angle -- one indicator. It's not the end all or be all of anything. Yes, it's a good thing whenever a contender qualifies on an odds angle because it gives the selector another reason to back the animal. But the absence of such an angle should never deter a player from backing a contender that appears to be "well meant" on the basis of other angles

=========================================

You are obviously well schooled in the game of "hard-knocks". Correct me if I am wrong but were you once a man of 'principles' with your handicapping theories?? You seem to very well know that principles are over-rated - correct me if I'm wrong.

fffastt

[boxcar]

You are obviously well schooled in the game of "hard-knocks". Correct me if I am wrong but were you once a man of 'principles' with your handicapping theories?? You seem to very well know that principles are over-rated - correct me if I'm wrong.

fffastt

Not so sure about the "game of 'hard knocks'"; however I can assure you that I graduated magna cum laude from the school thereof.

I'm equally not certain what you're getting at with your "'principles'" question or your following remark. Care for another shot for clarification purposes?

Boxcar

[formula_2002]

I also play every single race, at the track I play that day.




This looks like the perfect place for my misinformed idea to be corrected.

“It's not possible to bet every race and show a profit because anyone could then throw darts at the , in this case, the exacta matrix board, and make the same profit.
You must be able to pass certain unplayable races.”

The number of those unplayable races is a function of;
odds,
true win %
%profit
and if you get really picky, the number of wins that will not exceed (say) zero deviations.
I have a post that goes into detail with respect to the win pool.
I have no reason to doubt it could apply to any into any pool.

[GaryG]

Boxcar: You've definitely been channeling the spirit of Ray Taulbot...That was super!!!

ATM shouldn't be recycling and refreshing old Taubot articles...They should hire you to revive his byline with fresh stuff...:) :
I would just like to read some of the RT original articles from the 50s. One of his catch phrases "Figures, Angles and Price" is as relevant as it ever was. I believe he grew up on the big XIT spread in Texas.

[cj]

I think you are greatly over estimating the amount of "backstretch" money, especially at the bigger tracks I know you like to play. The ones that could use information like you suggest most often are the ones least likely to be betting a lot of money. Those are the barns with the best horses.

At Belmont, sick horse or not, no horse that is 8-1 would have been 7-2 if the backstretch was betting, or visa versa.

[boxcar]

I would just like to read some of the RT original articles from the 50s. One of his catch phrases "Figures, Angles and Price" is as relevant as it ever was. I believe he grew up on the big XIT spread in Texas.

Notwithstanding the invention of simos, the introduction of a large menu of exotic wagers, the advent of offshore betting, the lure of rebates, etc., RT's compreshensive Pace-Composite Methodology is as relevant today as it was back in the 50s, 60s, 70s, etc., This is due essentially to three fundamentally important factors: a) horses are basically trained the same way as they were back then; b) the betting public keeps repeating the same mistakes; and c) the public has not become any more proficient in its selection process than they were in previous decades, despite all the elaborate, creative, complex, scientificly-orientied handicapping approaches that have evolved over the many years.

Better than RT's "original articles" that were written for public consumption, you should keep your eyes peeled for his unpublished works that were geared for private use; for those works were written in much greater detail for those who were aspiring to make turf speculation their vocation. There were three separate series of lessons, with each succeeding series a little more advanced than the previous one; and there were 39 lessons all told.

You might want to search the Ebay auctions occassionally. I saw where one of his difficult-to-get works Positive Factor Handicapping was auctioned off recently. Another, of course, is Gamblers' Book Store; however, I'm pretty sure they have a long waiting list for any of his materials.

Boxcar

[Richard]

I had recently purchased a booklet on eBay written by RT titled IMPROVED PACE HANDICAPPING (copywright 1955 by AMERPUB Co.)Pretty interesting stuff.Not at all pie-in-the-sky.Obviously the predecessor to the Pace Calculator.Not at all a difficult method to use and also not the Holy Grail to profits at the track.Evn RT said in the booklet that you should expect no more than one or two possible plays a day with this method.

[boxcar]

RT was a big believer in being pretty selective through spot plays, even with his full-blown methodology.

Boxcar

[classhandicapper]

Class, the problem with the first three paragraphs is most of that information is flawed or wishfull thinking on the connections part, that's been my experience.

Taking that information is one of the worst things that can happen to a good handicappper ESP by some stroke of luck it worked out a couple times, the poor sucker would have to have an army of people on the backside feeding him information then weed it all out to win in the long run. If that's possable.

Good luck,

T.D.

If you are talking about tips and stuff, I agree with you. I'm not talking about insiders touting when they will actually win or not. They have extra information though.

I worked on the backstretch for a little while many years ago and there was plenty of information I picked up that supplemented my handicapping in a positive way.

There were horses I saw coming off very good efforts that came out of their last race with swollen legs that were in ice buckets for days. They missed days of training and did only light work after that. The horse would look like a lock in the PPs . Yet it might go off 4-1 or so instead of the expected 8-5. Without what I knew about the horse's real condition I would have thought it was the biggest overlay on the planet. Yet in the race, my money was going on anther horse because I knew that 4-1 had almost no shot.

In just a few months of work I was constantly being exposed to things like that.

[boxcar]

If you are talking about tips and stuff, I agree with you. I'm not talking about insiders touting when they will actually win or not. They have extra information though.

I worked on the backstretch for a little while many years ago and there was plenty of information I picked up that supplemented my handicapping in a positive way.

There were horses I saw coming off very good efforts that came out of their last race with swollen legs that were in ice buckets for days. They missed days of training and did only light work after that. The horse would look like a lock in the PPs . Yet it might go off 4-1 or so instead of the expected 8-5. Without what I knew about the horse's real condition I would have thought it was the biggest overlay on the planet. Yet in the race, my money was going on anther horse because I knew that 4-1 had almost no shot.

In just a few months of work I was constantly being exposed to things like that.

Just your observations alone is justification enough for refusing to take a short price on any horse in just about any race.

Boxcar

[formula_2002]

Overlay:

Formula_2002
Any numbers you care to share with us..



I'm confused? What numbers interest you..... the handicapping factor ranking, the fair odds calculations, samples of actual races or statistical results of playing by this method else)?

The high lighted kind of stuff.. the kind of stats that suggest your method has value.

Thnaks
Joe M

[mcikey01]

Formula_2002:

The method i use involves weighting of 5-7 fundamental handicapping factors (depending on race conditions) and indexing of these weighted numbers to ultimately derive win probabilities

I set minimum win probability standards for contenders (depending on field size) , 4-1 ML minimum odds( most bets are in advance of final odds)and 10-1 ML maximum odds--after adjustements for scratches, minimum overlay requirements (appoximately 40% based on estimated win probability)

I pass most races where total estimated probability of contenders (with low ML odds) is too high, play no grass races, 1 1/2 M or more marathons, or sprints less than 5F, fields with 50% or more FTS, fields size less than 5 or greater than 12.

Most plays (60-70%) are automatic, since the above conditions are strictly met. Some plays that are borderline or where there are three or more contenders require judgment of the relative advantage of the individual weighted scores for each factor for each horse and use of angles derived from the weighted handicapping factors and race conditions.

win bets only- I repeat- win bets only

The long-term results:

20% wins, wagering 1.4 horses per race, 5.0 average win odds, ROI of 20%. average of 3-4 wagers per day per track.

And at least 2-3 hours per day in preparation for plays, even with computer generated data.

[formula_2002]

Formula_2002:

The method i use involves weighting of 5-7 fundamental handicapping factors (depending on race conditions) and indexing of these weighted numbers to ultimately derive win probabilities

I set minimum win probability standards for contenders (depending on field size) , 4-1 ML minimum odds( most bets are in advance of final odds)and 10-1 ML maximum odds--after adjustements for scratches, minimum overlay requirements (appoximately 40% based on estimated win probability)

I pass most races where total estimated probability of contenders (with low ML odds) is too high, play no grass races, 1 1/2 M or more marathons, or sprints less than 5F, fields with 50% or more FTS, fields size less than 5 or greater than 12.

Most plays (60-70%) are automatic, since the above conditions are strictly met. Some plays that are borderline or where there are three or more contenders require judgment of the relative advantage of the individual weighted scores for each factor for each horse and use of angles derived from the weighted handicapping factors and race conditions.

win bets only- I repeat- win bets only

The long-term results:

20% wins, wagering 1.4 horses per race, 5.0 average win odds, ROI of 20%. average of 3-4 wagers per day per track.

And at least 2-3 hours per day in preparation for plays, even with computer generated data.

Thanks for your reply M.

[formula_2002]

This looks like the perfect place for my misinformed idea to be corrected.

“It's not possible to bet every race and show a profit because anyone could then throw darts at the , in this case, the exacta matrix board, and make the same profit.
You must be able to pass certain unplayable races.”


I"ll correct that "same profit" to read, "improve their return" (lessen their loss or increase their profits).

[Lucky Maria]

I'm not going to challenge anyone on this board making claims to be a winner, being someone who did that and regretted it. [Boy, those private messages can get nasty.] I returned to my lurking. But I wanted to come out and ask.

If a rebate shop is NOT mingling your wagers AND you are winning at a 20% ROI how in the world can they also give you rebates? This just doesn't make good business sense to me. They would have to drop your business to stay in business. Also, if an offshore shop decided simply not to pay you, is there any legal recourse?

Just curious.
Thanks
Maria

[First_Place]

Dave Schwartz uttered:

"Someone asked me a few months ago what the most important thing most players need to win. My answer was "belief that it can be done and that they can do it."

Amen bro. I'll add another:

"If you think you can, or if you think you can't--you're right!"

Regards,

FP

[First_Place]

Game Theory said:

"Most bettors have no structure whatsoever to their plan of attack. They have no plan at all."

No better place to see this firsthand than at the race track. Man, oh man...especially when it's a group, i.e. concensus, 'effort.'

FP

[First_Place]

DrugSalvastore said:

"I'm sorry if I'm doing anything to spoil this romantic vision people have---of a sea of great handicappers out there who are living a life of comfortable wealth based solely on gambling revenue won at the track."

No, not a "sea" but more like a small lake (or pond?) of year-in, year-out winner$ "out there who are living a life of comfortable wealth" (of varying degrees).

If there's a sea of anything, it's a "sea" of less-than-great handicappers out there.

Regards,

FP

[MichaelNunamaker]

Hi Maria,

You wrote "If a rebate shop is NOT mingling your wagers AND you are winning at a 20% ROI how in the world can they also give you rebates?"

If you are a huge bettor and they never put money into the pool, the shop would surely turn you away. However, an offshore can selectively put money into the pools (even without a rebate, just to hedge). So, if you are making a 20% profit, the offshore can use this information to put the money on any horse you wager on into the pool. Not just the money you bet on it, but anything the shops _other_ customers wagered as also.

Of course, this could drive down the prices our hero gets by more than the rebate amount. But who said this game was easy. ;)

Mike Nunamaker

[Fastracehorse]

Not so sure about the "game of 'hard knocks'"; however I can assure you that I graduated magna cum laude from the school thereof.

I'm equally not certain what you're getting at with your "'principles'" question or your following remark. Care for another shot for clarification purposes?

Boxcar

I was just noticing there is alot of thought in your handicapping procedures - if I may.

And these procedures - again if I may :p - evolved through trial and error - lastly if I may ;)

fffastt

[dastar]

Hi,

Agree with you about handicappers telling little to big lies.

When someone tells me how much they make:
My first thought is good for them.

Also, horse racing is a very unpredictable game and anything can happen.

Further more, there are people who make a living with progressive betting, doing nothing more than playing 1 number, and increasing the bets, when losses occur to offset a lossing streak of length.

If you have a big enough bank roll it can certainly be done.

Whenever someone tells how much they make, just revert them to Bill Benter, and how his syndicate makes millions weekly.

Finally, I have learned to ALWAYS be happy for others success, for when we are happy to see them make it, we are open ourselves to succeed.

Great WIN PENN STATE (Though a little too sloppy)

Dastar
FROM PA.

[Unicorn]

Kick me in the balls if I'm wrong---but I believe the biggest problem most unsuccessful bettors have is not lack of "belief"---rather, it is their own individual bad habits they flaunt when handicapping and betting.

Here are three basic things from a 'capping standpoint:

* They don't spend enough time and energy handicapping a race. Instead, they breeze quickly over horses who don't look competitive at first glance--and many times they wrap themselves up in factors that won't strongly impact the outcome of a race....like..

* Jockey & Trainer: I don't mind seeing a positive rider switch and I really like to see a "style-fitting jockey switch"--but, if a horse has established his form with Jerry Bailey riding him...why on Earth would people lean to this horse because Bailey is riding? Same thing with trainers! It's a positive when Dutrow takes over a horse from a low percentage underachieving trainer. But, when a horse has run seven straight times for Dutrow--his form's been established and the fact that Durtrow is his trainer means nothing...but people will lean to the horse because of the "Dutrow factor." Scott Lake is a very ordinary trainer with distance horses--but people still bet those type of horses like Lake is certain to move them way up--and it very rarely happens. I can go on and on.

* They don't make trip notes or even watch previous races closely: A lot of valuable information can be gained simply by watching races. I've beat this to death before---but, I just think people have to watch races and make notes, either in their head or in a spiral notebook.

Here are three basic things from a Betting Standpoint:

* They chase when they are losing and bet overly conservative when they are winning. This is a bad habit I had to deal with when I first started betting. A real surprising number of people never overcome this. When things aren't going right, at their own expense, people will franticly try to formulate a way to recoup betting losses and turn things around. Yet, a lot of times when the same player is winning--he will be in an overly thankful mood--and not bet races with the level of zest that he should. The key is to attack them when you're hot---and back off and try to regroup a little when you are cold.

* They spread and baseball their bets all-over the place, and don't bet as aggressively and precisely as they should when they have a strong opinion on a race.

* They don't lay off underlaid horses simply because they are the most likely winner of the race. I've noticed a shocking number of decent handicappers who have a hard time laying off of clear-cut favorites---who are legit most likely winners, but don't deserve a dime of money in the win pool at very short odds. why this is---I'll never know!

I know that I should just shut up and soak up everything I can from the real winners here---the guys who are winning 19 weeks in a row and the guys who are making over $1,000,000.00 a year betting horses. Sadly, I have a horrible flaw in that I feel I need to give my opinion out on stuff like this.

I'm one of those guys who does not buy any information off the internet and I do not use a DRF. You can figure out patterns and angles with free info on the internet. It took me 4-5 years to turn horrible into breaking even or making a profit.

[Unicorn]

It can be done without spending tons of $ on handicapping information or coming up with algorithms.

[castaway01]

It can be done without spending tons of $ on handicapping information or coming up with algorithms.

The thread is from 2006.

[Unicorn]

I see that. I just stumbled upon this.

[castaway01]

I see that. I just stumbled upon this.

Just saying you might not get a reply from DrugSalvatore, though it would be cool if you did.

[classhandicapper]

This is a very good thread. It was worth a bump.