DRF on Odds Plunging

[karlskorner]

http://www.drf2000.com/news/article/38596.html

[MikeDee]

thanks for the link Karl

a quote from the article
Ken Dunn, the president of Calder, said his mutuel managers have vigorously investigated the late changes and discovered nothing unscrupulous. But he remains concerned, and he is now urging industry officials to do something about the phenomenon, which he said is jeopardizing the perception of the game.

"Most people will argue that perception is just as important as fact or reality," Dunn said. "In this case, even the most sophisticated person, we can explain it to him, and he will say, 'I understand,' but then once he walks out the door, he says, 'Yeah, but . . .' There's still some level of skepticism. So we have to do everything in our power to correct the perception, because there's no problem with the system's integrity."

I agree 100%.... perception IS reality and racing needs to find a way to fix the preception.

[MikeDee]

Gee... I guess breaking the 1 min cycle time on updating the odds board is not so impossible after all. Now they are worried that they will give us to much information to fast.

My advice to the racing industry......give us the data (about every 15 seconds should be about right), and we'll figure out how to assimilate all this information.

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/todaysnews/newsview.asp?recno=23653&subsec=1

[GR1@HTR]

Actually noticed a winner last week go off at 1-1 and as he crossed the finish line it jumped up to 7-5...

[Rick]

If the current update cycle is one minute and nearly all races are less than one minute, how does it take until after the race for the last update?

[ceejay]

I'm not defending the odd's drops after the bell, but of course, some odds increase, especailly on longshots. I frequently play some very long-priced horses and see the odds increase after the bell, even on winners!

[karlskorner]

The above link is dead now, I guess they archived it. For those who didn't read it, I thought it was a pretty good explanation.

It still remains a mystery to me as to why this information is so important to those who subscribe to it. Is it to follow the so called "smart money", giving reason to make a decision at the last minute, one way or the other? Or does it have something to do with an interpretation of "value"? Either way, it sill remains a mystery. Being from the "old school" of handicapping, a winner is a winner.

Karl

[MikeDee]

why does it seem that after the bell the odds always seem to go up on my losers and down on my winners? :)

GR1 have a good time in vegas

[GR1@HTR]

MikeD,

I'm currently in dispute w/ priceline.com over my flight. They have me flying out Monday Morning (12:30 is am) and arriving back in Dallas at 500am. Naturally, I'm not too pleased about that gizmo...but have a feeling I'm fighting a losing battle there...If so, I'm gotta feeling I won't be making the trip...

[cj]

Originally posted by karlskorner
Being from the "old school" of handicapping, a winner is a winner.

Karl

Karl,

You've said this many, many times before, and if it works for you, great. It doesn't make a lot of the rest of us wrong. My method of rating horses and assigning a betting line works for me. It makes it a black or white decision for me as post time approaches, no second guessing, and I like that. The horses I wager on are rarely short priced enough to be affected much in the final minute, so that really isn't a problem for me.

CJ

[karlskorner]

cjmilkowski;

I don't think I have ever written "my way, or the highway" or implied that what others are doing is wrong, as has been often said "there is more than one way to win" in horseracing, fact being, the more "methods" used the better for all.

The "mystery" I implied to, is that I doubt very much that your "choice" would be impaired if the mutuals closed 1 min.. 1/2 a min. or 15 seconds prior to the running of the race, as everyone who is concerned would adjust.

Karl

[cj]

Karl,

I just got the impression that you look with disdain on "value" bettors. Sorry if I got the wrong impression.

I agree the late changes aren't that big a deal, and to be honest, they usually work in my favor. Best thing, IMO, is to lock the windows at the appointed time, then don't load the horses til the technology catches up and all money is accounted for and odds are final.

CJ

[MikeDee]

well that's a real bummer GR..the internet ain't it great.

[so.cal.fan]

I sort of feel the industry will eventually correct this, one way or another.
I'm beginning to think that unless one bets NOTHING but favorites, it will all equal out. You will have some that go up, some that go down.
I have decided not to worry about it.:)

[MikeDee]

Closing the windows before the race goes off does not fix the problem, it just moves the problem. Whenever the betting machines are turned off, the tote should reflect the actual odds period. We should not have to wait around for the tote to catch up with the action. Reduce the cycle time and the problem goes away.

I bet on the internet and I usually place my bet as they are loading them in the gate. I will simply pass a race if the odds on my pick are not there. I find it very fustrating when I have bet on horse at 5 , 7 or 6-1 in the last minute that ended up paying at 2-1 and 5-2. If I had known that prior to the bell I would have passed the race.

I don't have any data but IMO when there is a bet down favorite below 2-1, there is a real good chance the other horses at 4-1, 5-1,etc. will get bet down at the last minute as tote watchers, computer programs and other bettors look for something to bet on other then the favorite.

[karlskorner]

cjmilkowski;

It's not that I look at "value" bettors with disdain, i't's just I don't understand them. If the "value" bettor and I both have the same horse, but, the "value" is not there, than they refuse to wager on the animal. IMO, it has to be an advantage to me.

Karl

[cj]

Karl,

Let me see if I understand. You select a horse who you think is the most likely winner, then bet it regardless of price. For example, if you thought War Emblem was the most likely winner in the Belmont, you would have bet him to win?

CJ

[karlskorner]

cjmilkowski;

It's like MikeDee dropped in at the right moment (see above)

To quote part of his post "I will simply pass a race, if the odds on my pick are not there. I find it very frustating when I bet on a horse at 5, 7 or 6-1 and in the last minute that ended up paying 2-1 or 5-2. IF I HAD KNOW THAT PRIOR TO THE BELL I WOULD HAVE PASSED THE RACE"

On the assumption that MikeDee and I had both chosen the same animal and he chose not to wager on the animal because of his rules, who came out ahead?? It proves a couple of things to me (1) I am up 2 "units or more" and MikeDee (nothing personal Mike) is living with his principals (2) if the odds dropped from 7-1 to 2-1, than a lot of other people were of the same opinion as mine. The end result, the horse won.

Karl

PS Your sitting in the middle of a desert and I am living with 27 straight days of heavy, heavy rain And so it goes

[cj]

MikeDee,
I understand your dilemma, but paramutuel wagering is such that you will never know the exact odds you will get, period. My solution would only eliminate the perception that bets are being placed AFTER the race has started.

Karl,
I understood your post about you coming out ahead, but my question was if you bet the horse you feel is most likely to win with no care of the odds?

Could you send some of that rain?

CJ

[PaceAdvantage]

MikeDee sticking to his principles will allow him to make just as much money as Karl, without having to hit as many winners.....right??


==PA

[GameTheory]

My question to Karl would be -- do you show a profit on horses you bet whose final odds are less than 2-1? How about 3/2? Is there any odds cutoff where the prices got too low to sustain profitability, or does your win % go up in lock step with the odds as they go down?

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
MikeDee sticking to his principles will allow him to make just as much money as Karl, without having to hit as many winners.....right??


==PA

Not if Mike passed all the races and Karl didn't. If Karl won all of his, then Karl is way ahead.

[keilan]

It would appear Karl is very good at detecting false favourites if indeed he has so little regard for value.

Because if he wasn't I expect he would have full time employment somewhere other than the track.

[PaceAdvantage]

rw,

I was talking about a reasonably lengthy period of time to prove themselves, and I'm assuming both MikeDee and karl have proven winning methods....


==PA

[karlskorner]

PA, Gametheory, cjmilkowski;

PA. Wrong. Everybody is of the opinion that I wager only on "short priced" horses. I wager on the horse I belive will win, sometimes it pays $4.00, most times it pays much much more. If I go to the track with 10 races handicapped, I am of the belief, until the race is over, that every horse I have wagered on will win.
My opinion have been right 4-6 times a day for a long time.

CJ. The only time I look at the tote board, is to see what odds my winner went off at. If I let the tote board influnce my thoughts, I would be in a lot of trouble.

As I said earlier, I am grateful that everybody has their own "methods" and there is no doubt in my mind that there is more than one way to win at the business of horse racing, if we all did the same thing, we would be getting 10 cents on the dollar.

Karl

[cj]

karl,

Promise I'm not trying to beat you up, just get a feel for how different people go about things. Do you bet every race you handicap, or do you find some are unplayable?

CJ

[PaceAdvantage]

karl,

If MikeDee has a minimum acceptable odds of 6-1, and has a proven method that makes 10% at odds of 6-1 or higher, and your method bets every top horse you come up with, regardless of odds, and also makes 10%, then obviously MikeDee doesn't have to hit as many winners as you do to make your 10%, correct?

Therefore, he can make just as much money, without have to hit as many winners....



==PA

[ranchwest]

I don't mean to speak for Karl, goodness knows he can do that for himself, but I do want to remind everyone of an assertion that Karl has made many times but not today. Karl figures every race is independent of all other races. He's not going to do what you guys do, analyze his ROI on breakdowns of off odds. You're asking him that question and he hasn't any idea because he doesn't care. Karl looks at the money in his pocket at the beginning of the day and the end of the day, period. He just looks for winners. Karl, if I've misstated anything here, please correct me.

[Triple Trio]

I have a question for those who think value doesn't matter.

Let's say there are two horses that you like in a certain race, one of them is at 2-1 and the other 10-1. In the end, you decide to go for the 2-1 horse. The horse won, beating the 10-1 horse in a photo finish. Do you think you have made a good decision?

[cj]

I consider myself somewhat of a value guy, and even I say that would be a good decision! A nose or 10 lengths, a win is a win, so the right bet was made.

CJ

[karlskorner]

cjmilkowski, PA

cj: I am limited to 10 races a day (CRC/GP), the only races I don't play are (1) more than 2 FTS (2) off the grass (27 days of rain) I don't have the luxury of playing other tracks and woulnd't know where to begin. I play the same "unit" every race.

PA. 10% is unacceptable. If I had to live with 10% I wouldn't be sitting home on a "dark day" at CRC, in middle of a terrible rain storm, I would be punching a clock somewhere.

Karl

[GameTheory]

Karl,

Not to be a pest, but you didn't answer my question. Or maybe you just don't know/care like Ranchwest said? I believe you've also stated before you keep good records, so you probably have some idea.

My question being, "is there any odds cutoff below which you are not profitable"?

If you haven't checked, and you went through your records and discovered you were actually losing money on horses below 2-1, would you look at the tote then? Or do you just look at the total you've got at the end of the day and that's good enough?

(The directness of my questions may come off as a bit rude, but I don't mean it that way. I'm just curious as to how you operate.)

[GR1@HTR]

KCorner,

Show us the greatness behind your talk. Post picks your picks for the next 50 races at CRC and show us your Win% and ROI. There might be some who doubt your claims.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by GR1
KCorner,

Show us the greatness behind your talk. Post picks your picks for the next 50 races at CRC and show us your Win% and ROI. There might be some who doubt your claims.

I don't think that is neccessary. Karl has never claimed anything outrageous -- for a full-time specialist (a good one) on one circuit, a 45%-50% hit rate is about right. There are guys like him at every track in the country...

[keilan]

Game Theory

Karl has never claimed anything outrageous -- for a full-time specialist (a good one) on one circuit, a 45%-50% hit rate is about right. There are guys like him at every track in the country...


45% -50% hit rate ( one horse bettor )-- thats mighty fine handicapping day in-- day out. I don't know about the rest of you but that seems high to me regardless of number of tracks played.

No that seems impossible!! IMO

[karlskorner]

Gametheory, GR1

Gametheory: I am not trying to evade your question. As Ranchwest said and I'll try to explain further, I approach each race with the thought that it has never been run before nor will it ever be run again. The PP's you are looking at are history and although there are some who will say, history repeats itself, I don't believe that in horseracing. With regards to "odds cutoff" it comes down to "walking-in money and walking-out money", if my walking-out money is more than my walking-in money, I had a good day, if it's double, I have had a very good day.

GR1. Soon or later somebody would ask to post my picks, just like the old Yahoo Board days. Sorry, but I can't come out and play in the "sandbox". Although I leave home with a handicapped card, there are times I will change my mind after visiting the paddock, viewing the "shoe" board, watching the "workouts" in the back stretch through my glasses and get a gut feeling that this horse will really win this race. Besides, I have only one person to prove myself to.

Karl

[cj]

Originally posted by karlskorner
Gametheory, GR1
...Besides, I have only one person to prove myself to.
Karl

Those wives always want proof!

Just kidding Karl, thanks for your insights!

CJ

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by karlskorner
Gametheory, GR1

Gametheory: I am not trying to evade your question. As Ranchwest said and I'll try to explain further, I approach each race with the thought that it has never been run before nor will it ever be run again. The PP's you are looking at are history and although there are some who will say, history repeats itself, I don't believe that in horseracing. With regards to "odds cutoff" it comes down to "walking-in money and walking-out money", if my walking-out money is more than my walking-in money, I had a good day, if it's double, I have had a very good day.



Yeah, that's what I figured. You'd have to sit down with the result charts & a list of the horses you'd bet on to come up with such a stat.

If you're ever interested to know, send me 100 or so of your PAST picks and I'll be glad to figure it out (I've got all the charts).

I've got a feeling you're not that interested, though...

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by Triple Trio
I have a question for those who think value doesn't matter.

Let's say there are two horses that you like in a certain race, one of them is at 2-1 and the other 10-1. In the end, you decide to go for the 2-1 horse. The horse won, beating the 10-1 horse in a photo finish. Do you think you have made a good decision?

Most of us who don't follow the tote board figure a win is a win, no matter whether by a nose, a length, 40 lenghts, by a DQ or by every other horse in the racing dropping dead on the track. It's about not being stuck with losing tickets.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by keilan

45% -50% hit rate ( one horse bettor )-- thats mighty fine handicapping day in-- day out. I don't know about the rest of you but that seems high to me regardless of number of tracks played.

No that seems impossible!! IMO


It is quite possible. If you have an exhaustive knowledge & *familiarity* with:

-- Your track or circuit -- you know what wins there, you know the
surface, the biases, what idiosyncracies of each distance, you've got a good handle on the condition book, etc.

-- The local trainers, and their habits. You know how they prepare horses for a win, you know if they are betting trainers or not, you know if they win with short odds horses or long odds horses and in what spots.

-- The local horses. You've watched them all race before many times. You know the exact trips they took cause you were taking notes, etc.

Take that comfort level with all the local stuff, combine it with a solid handicapper with good business sense who is at the track every day actually looking at the damn horses, and you've probably got a guy that can hit 45% or better playing most races, day in & day out.

If you took such a person and dropped him at a foreign track, he would probably feel like he was on the moon, but he will clean up at his home track.

[keilan]

Game Theory

With all due respect " Why would any excellent handicapper play more than one track at a time ?" based on what you state.

It can't be because he would sacrifice wagering action over huge wagering profits.

[karlskorner]

It sometimes makes me wonder how a person sitting in the middle of Kansas (or wherever) who may or may not have visited a racetrack once, several times, or on weekends can make a statement that this or that can't be done by a handicapper. Reminds me of when I questioned Camptown etc. who stated he visited numerous tracks and something ( I forget what ) was not a possibility, I questioned how many people at each track did he interview, to make this into a fact.

I am going to leave this with one last thought, as to why I don't play simulcast. FRONT BANDAGES. Just about every simulcast screen through the country and at home is covered with "nose grease"
from people trying to see if the horse has front bandages.
Is it important to know? Ask yourself this, is he/she wearing FB and never had them before, has he/she worn them before and now their off, has he worn them up till 3 races ago, went 2 races without them and now they are back on, has he worn them all the time and now they are off? Is he for sale? Did the trainer put them back on because he's afraid someone might claim the horse, I could fill the rest of the page with FB question, but I think you can understand my thoughts.

Karl

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by keilan
Game Theory

With all due respect " Why would any excellent handicapper play more than one track at a time ?" based on what you state.

It can't be because he would sacrifice wagering action over huge wagering profits.


LOTS of reasons. Here are a few:


Maybe our excellent handicapper:

-- doesn't live near a track! (like me presently)

-- doesn't want to go there 5 days a week looking at the damn horses and absorbing all that information

-- finds that that isn't the only way to make money!


Use your imagination.



These horses running around the track are more predictable than most people think. Don't be blinded by Barry Meadow-type stats. Those are averages. For a person "in the trenches" at a particular track I really don't think a 45% hit rate is unreasonable.

I knew a number of guys in California acheiving that, and even some in Sante Fe, New Mexico. (What happened to Santa Fe Downs? Still exist? They had free admission.) They were there everyday taking notes on everything, studying tapes at night, etc. etc. I didn't say it was easy, but I don't doubt for a second that it can be done.

[keilan]

To All

Let me share a quick story with you.

I have sat with one of the top trainers at my track on a few social occasions. His percentage rating is always in the top three every year.

We converse about many things but generally the conversation returns to horse racing. One of the things he mentioned to me a couple of times over the years is this " I wish I had 10 cents for every dollar I bet "

The reason I mention this is because I truly believe even when your whole life is dedicated to one circuit as this gentlemen's is-- he would know most of the horses whether they are wearing a saddle cloth number or not. Many handicappers would not begin to know the ( considered inside information ) that any of several local trainers possess. Even with his considerable knowledge of the local circuit most trainers would starve as Horse Players.

That being said I truly find claims of this sort along with the perceived perception that if you dedicate all your efforts to one track you could " if a good enough handicapper " enjoy a hit rate of approx. 50%.

I too play one track at a time and my experience is not what appears in this thread. Maybe I'm not good enough.

But maybe those that continue to make these claims can post their selections just once without all the caveats.

I'm only asking you to do something which you claim is a way of life for you.

I agree once at the track some of your original selections may change for a host of different reasons, but surely not to the extent that you would go from a 50% win rate to 20% - 30% win rate or what would be the purpose of handicapping at all before reaching the track.

Most of us on this board would make allowances for changed selections and we as a group are surely bright enough to quantify your selections.

[Dick Schmidt]

Keilan,

Though I encounter this sort of thinking all the time, I really don't understand it. Someone reports results that you can't match. Since you can't do it, it can't be done. So the person reporting is somehow obligated to pick horses for you to "prove" himself to you. Somehow this just doesn't track. Since I just went through the same sort of thing when I mentioned I bet a lot of races and managed to win money, I can understand Karl's frustration and confusion. Why does he need to prove anything to you, or anyone else? If you choose not to believe him, so what? You think that's keeping him up nights?

Karl isn't trying to sell you anything, or influence you in any way. He is being generous with his time and contributing to a discussion. So you know a trainer who is a lousy bettor. No surprise. I'd book the action of any backstretch in the country. The "insiders" are notoriously bad bettors. I went to the races several times with Charlie Whitingham, a pretty fair trainer, and if I were running bets for him, I'd put them all in my pocket.

Either accept that Karl is a better horseman than you are, and possibly smarter than you are and shut up about it or decide he is a stone liar, ignore whatever he says and keep quiet. Challenging someone to "prove it" by posting picks is kids stuff.

Dick

[GameTheory]

Keilan,

You said your trainer friend was one of the top % trainers. He probably doesn't make his living betting horses, but from his share of the purse. You should find another trainer that makes money betting and see what he has to say. (Assuming he'd talk, which he wouldn't.)

In any case, that kind of stuff is only one part of the total picture. Most "inside" information is garbage because it is coming solely from the perspective of the insider. A guy like Karl can look at the total picture much better than one of the trainers because the trainer only knows what he himself is up to and Karl knows what they are all up to (and capable of).

[karlskorner]

Keilan;

I certainly didn't mean this post "to get Keilan" but I question your benchmarks. If the trainer you have talked with is not a winning player, does that make every trainer at your track a losing player? Hardly. If you and your friends can scratch out a 5-10% return at your track, does that mean the other 3000 in attendance are losing, or just breaking even ? Hardly.

I am going into my "bag" for one more thought you can ponder.
Owner/Trainer. I have been noticing for the past several years that more races contain "owner/trainer" than ever before, at least at my local track and I have to assume at others.

Ever wonder where a certain Trainer got the 25K he paid for a claim last week, or the 15K for a claim the week before, or the 27K he paid for a claim last month? Certainly not from his "day" money or the 10% of the purse from the race he won. He earned it the "hard way", he wagered on his horses and "others". A lot of trainers I know are getting fed up with "bouncing checks" from owners. having to foot the bills until the owner can pay him back, or have an owner insist the horse be placed in an Alw. race, when he really belongs in a 10K claiming race. If your training your own horse, or somebody elses horse, who do you think gets the most attention?

Just for the hell of it, the next time you go to the track, circle the "owner/trainer" with a red pen. Don't go to the bank and make a withdrawal just yet, it's not a black box. Unfortunately you will find more than one 'owner/trainer" in a race, sometimes 4 in an 8 horse field. You will be pleasantly surpised as to how many win.

Karl

[keilan]

Hi Dick

Why are some upset that anyone should question their claims? This in my opinion is called discussion.

If I recall you are in most instances at least a two horse and sometimes a three horse bettor and you stated that you win somewhere in the area of 53%. That is far different than choosing the win horse 47% - 50% each day as a one horse bettor.

The reason I made reference to local trainers is because of what Game Theory had stated (see below ) That was my point Dick I also would book bets in the backstretch. Not a lot of knowledge can be gained from conferring with these people. What you are basically stating is " trainers aren't good bettors-- wagering on their own horses but us clever handicappers can decipher their training patterns and win at a 50% clip.

( posted by GT ) The local trainers, and their habits. You know how they prepare horses for a win, you know if they are betting trainers or not, you know if they win with short odds horses or long odds horses and in what spots.

Handicapping win horses at a 50% win rate is just not believable for most people.


Agreed Karl isn't selling anything, generous with his time! ( Is his time more valuable than anyone else's on this board? ) And as far as contributing to a discussion I have yet to gain a worthwhile piece of information from his approach to handicapping. Granted I have been only been on this board less than a year.

You can understand Karl's frustration and confusion. There is nothing which I wrote that should frustrate or confuse anyone.

Please Dick easy with the ultimatums "either accept this" or "smarter than" "better than " or "shut up" and "keep quiet" comments.

These types of comments are not worthy of anyone, I'm embarrassed for you.


Game Theory -- agreed good handicappers measure all horses in the field and from that apply their individual handicapping style to select their top choices. No one is questioning/arguing those points. Yes and training angles enter into it for many.

My only comment in this discussion is that having a win rate of approx. 50% as a one horse bettor over an extended period is difficult for me to believe.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by keilan

My only comment in this discussion is that having a win rate of approx. 50% as a one horse bettor over an extended period is difficult for me to believe.

All I can say at this point is that I've known people that can do it, and I've given some hints as to how (in a general way -- they know everything that's going on locally and are just plain sharp otherwise.)

Therefore, I have absolutely no reason to doubt Karl since everything he has said falls in line with my experience, even if I can't reproduce his results. (Just as Karl probably couldn't win using computers & genetic algorithms and I can.) Furthermore, he never has made a point of bragging and doesn't contradict himself. Other people come along once in a while with crazy claims and insult everyone. Those people quickly go.

I didn't mean to put all the emphasis on the trainers, but here's an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about. Let's say you happen to know that whenever a solid looking favorite runs for trainer X in certain types of races, they only win about half as much or less or you would expect. Well, as you can imagine, that single piece of info is enough to make you profitable on races where that condition comes up. Now imagine you've been watching all these same trainers doing their thing for years, and you know their habits like they were members of your own family. Don't you think that familiarity is going to give you a huge edge? It goes beyond "stats". (Something like spotting a certain owner on the grounds could be valuable info if he's got a horse entered that day.) If you could put everything Karl "knows" about the South Florida circuit on paper, I doubt I could do much with it (for a while) because I wouldn't know WHEN to look at WHAT.

Most people handicap somewhat like they would do a crossword-puzzle. I would expect that what Karl does is more akin to flying an airplane. You could be an absolute expert on planes and know every instrument on the panel. But if you've never had the training to get the "feel for it" and I put you in the cockpit at 30,000 feet you are going to crash.

[hdcper]

Gentlemen,

I see nothing wrong with Keilan asking for proof of someone's claims. In what way does this make his challenge of proof, kids stuff?

Children actually are just the opposite, they tend to believe about anything that someone says until they get old enough to find out otherwise.

Whether you or Karl provide proof in anyway is unimportant, but if Keilan or anyone else questions your claims in a polite manner appears acceptable to me.

Back to capping,

Hdcper

[GameTheory]

Here's my proposal:

We pick out a trusted third-party. Anyone who cares to can send this third-party their picks in advance. At least 20 a week.

Those that achieve a +30% ROI or greater over a week will be given access to a special secret forum for the next week that only other such winners can access. You must maintain this ROI week after week to keep your access. Then everybody chatting away (brilliantly) in said forum can consider themselves "proven" and it will be strictly forbidden to question anyone's honesty within the sanctity of its cyberspace walls.


OR...

We can just take people at face value in the regular forum when it makes absolutely no difference to anyone if they make money or not, and especially so when they have absolutely nothing to gain by making things up!

[keilan]

Hi Game Theory

I have agreed with most of what you have commented on in this thread. I incorporate many of the variables and intangibles into my own handicapping daily.

Those that know me will tell you that my emphasis is always on only one or two tracks at any given time period. The obvious reason for this is I remain focused on all the little nuances that are track specific.

It seems our experiences differ greatly with regard to win rate, and that is okay.

Unless someone is willing to post their selections and back their claims this type of discussion soon becomes unproductive.

I believe Mr. Schmidt was eluding to this thread early when he stated --" Since I just went through the same sort of thing when I mentioned I bet a lot of races and managed to win money."

The Thread is titled " How Good Are You " As I understand from the thread Mr. Schmidt and Alyingthief will wager 5k each. Winner take all. Those of you who haven't had the opportunity to read that thread, you may find it of some interest.

This wager is supposed to take place sometime around October, I for one have marked it on my calendar this evening.

I always like to know if someone is trying to blow smoke up my ass!!

[smf]

Keilan (and hdcper, GT, etc),

Can I suggest something? Send Karlscorner a private message and agree on a date/ weekend you can meet him at the track during the live meet in so fla. This will accomplish the following:

-you get to see EXACTLY how he goes about his business at the track. Obviously you won't see him handicap from home (this I consider fair whether anyone else does or not) but it seems to me that the experience of seeing (in action) someone that hits at as high a rate as he does w/b well worth the expense of the trip.

-you'll learn a TON about how an on-track handicapper goes about his business, which btw is VERY different from what you 3 guys do when handicapping and betting from what I can tell. You'll likely learn a ton about physicality, trainer's body language and possibly what owners' presence are of import, and who's aren't...just to name a few things that can be learned.

- you get to see if he cashes or if he doesn't, but (perhaps) he can go thru the logic of his bets in real-time. Asking an on-track handicapper to post picks on the internet before going to the track is useless. Anyone that judges physicality, owner's and trainer quirks will have different wagers made at the window than what's jotted on paper....That is the truth.

While you're there, buy the guy a soda or some nachos as a friendly gesture, ok? I know you're thinking he OWES you proof that he bets for a living, but he doesn't owe any of us a damn thing.

Karl, if this doesn't set well w/ you, my humble apologies. My gut feeling is tho that you're the type that wouldn't mind walking thru one (or more) of these guys thru a day just to (a) show em it can be done (b) teach a computer capper that being on track (live) has more advantages than being in front of a cable modem feed.

Hopefully, Keilan (hdcper, GT, etc..), you choose to take advantage of the opportunity should it be there for you. I hate to see pissing matches on horse boards about "yes i can,// no you can't" stuff. Fly to Miami and learn from a guy who has been at it for 20+ years. That experience (and all the things learned) alone HAS to be worth 10 times the cost of the trip.

[smf]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by keilan
[B]Hi Dick



Agreed Karl isn't selling anything, generous with his time! ( Is his time more valuable than anyone else's on this board? ) And as far as contributing to a discussion I have yet to gain a worthwhile piece of information from his approach to handicapping. Granted I have been only been on this board less than a year.


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

FWIW...

Of the many things I've learned from karl in the past few months that have helped my capping...

-his shortcut of identifying key races on his personal chart (much faster than the conventional method).

-the daily scratch list for today's runners on brisnet.com.

-info on milkshakes.

-info on shoes (also valuable stuff from Obsever & So Cal Fan)

-posts on turf rails when the settings are out.

-Today he made a post about trainers betting and cashing. I think his post in this thread is true from what I HAVE occasionally seen at the windows (Candies last season) and the announced claims soon thereafter in the day's card or the following day.

I don't agree w/ everything I read from karl but I have learned some good stuff from him. While I doubt with all my heart that anyone at LS can hit 40% of the races at LS betting at least 8 races a day, I think it's possible at Calder. Lot of small fields and short prices there, and the horses are locked into that region. Shippers don't zoom in and out of Miami everyday like they do here.

[ranchwest]

For those who would trivialize the importance of physicality and visual information to a professional handicapper, I suggest that you get with one and make this agreement. He gives you any and all picks he has for the day, limit one per race. Before the first race, you go empty your pockets on those horses. Then, wait and see how many he actually plays and compare your bankrolls at the end of the day. I promise, you'll go broke. That is to say, if you did it for very many days you'd go broke. All the while, the pro will be making money.

[MikeDee]

wow.... this thread really took of since the last time I visited.

To answer some questions that were posed to a few pages back. My personal win % is such that I can not make money long term by playing short odds horses. So even though on any particular race I might have had a $7 winner I know that I cannot sustain my bank roll on horse like this so I don't feel bad about passing up this kind of winner.

To anyone who can make money on straight win bets on short odds horses...my hats off to them...live long and prosper.

[GR1@HTR]

Just a few thoughts…..

Let us assume the following:

One plays every race on the card (10), 5 times a week for 52 weeks. Bets $40/race to win over 10 races.

Scenario A:
Hits 40% with 1.25 ROI
Profit for one year: $26K pre-tax income

Scenario B:
Hits 40% with 1.50 ROI
Profit for one year: $52K pre-tax income


I could be off base here, but I say Scenario A is almost impossible and Scenario B IS impossible. It is possible to hit 40% w/ 1.25 ROI while skipping the MAJORITY of races, but not EVERY race, or even 8/10 races on the card.

Now I am not one to judge what is a good income for one or another…but $26K is difficult to live on if you have some bills (Car, house/rent, insurance, food). I would venture most of us would need more than $26K to have a pot to p*ss in…

Just my opinion...

[keilan]

To All

To be at 50% win rate the following things plus more need to happen.

1) let's say 20% of races are random. that means the winner for reasons not found anywhere are the" race winners".

2) That leaves in a 10 race program 8 races to which the 50% win handicapper must win no less than 5.

3) Of those 8 races there are situations where horses are struck in the gate, bad trips, jockey error, bumping/interference, unexpected poor performance from horse, race doesn't go accordingly to how you handicapped it. I could go on but you get my drift.

4) How many times of those races does the race look like 2 or 3 horses have an equal chance to win. The odds often dictate which horse to wager on. But a handicapper that selects the winner 50% of the time doesn't let the odds board select his play. i.e. more about maintaining that % than winning money !

5) Anyone who has played this game long enough understands there are simply days where the races don't unfold as scripted regardless of how one tries to adjust to what's happening before them.

6) How about the slump that every handicapper goes through from time to time. There can be for a host of different reasons.

Scenario:

Day 1-- Joe Player wagers on 8 of 11 races on today's card -- of those 8 races he loses by a head bob twice and incurs some misfortune in a few of the other races. At the end of the day he is 2 for 8. Didn't win near his 50% win rate but could have made money on the day.

Day 2 -- Same kind of day as above but wins 3 of 8. Still quite likely that he is making money or hasn't been hurt financially.

Day 3 -- He again wagers on 8 races -- to maintain a 50% win rate he needs to win 7 of the 8 races on day 3. I have only used three races days to help illustrate my point but the more days played would only further support my reasoning.

The reverse of Joe Player only requiring 1 win on day 3 is far less likely to occur as that described above.

There will be days were Joe Player wins 7 of 8 or even all wagers that day, but really am I to believe that that situation occurs at or near the same frequency as describe above.

I have no trouble believing someone can make money for Days 1 and 2, but to win at a 50% win rate being a one horse bettor over the long haul Good Luck!

Is it any wonder people like myself have some scepticism.

[Rick]

Surely we're not talking about hitting 50% winners playing every race are we? If we're talking about betting only selected races, just about anything is possible, but most people would be better off at the end of the year by playing more races at a lower win %. As to playing one horse in every race, I'd think that it would be pretty much impossible to reach or exceed the rate at which favorites win without losing money.

I think a lot of the arguments about this sort of thing involve whether it's wise for someone to expect to duplicate the results themselves. Whether or not someone else can do it, the odds are exponentially better in your favor of winning if you set your sights lower. Most horseplayers would do best if they first developed a method selecting horses at longer odds with maybe 15-20% winners. That's the easiest approach. Once you've been able to do that, then you can go on to higher percentage methods and multiple horse betting if you want. Trying to run before they can walk is the reason for most of the failures experienced by otherwise intelligent horseplayers. It's also the reason many of them believe that the higher levels can't be achieved. They've tried it and been burned. That's why I'm pretty negative about the Sartin approach being taught to novice players. Nearly all of those without a lot of experience will lose using that approach. It's not that it can't be done, it's just that it can't be done by someone without prior knowledge, regardless of how much they want it or practice it.

[so.cal.fan]

Rick writes:
"Trying to run before they can walk is the reason for most of the failures experienced by otherwise intelligent horseplayers. It's also the reason many of them believe that the higher levels can't be achieved. They've tried it and been burned. That's why I'm pretty negative about the Sartin approach being taught to novice players. Nearly all of those without a lot of experience will lose using that approach. It's not that it can't be done, it's just that it can't be done by someone without prior knowledge, regardless of how much they want it or practice it"

It seems EVERYONE at one time or another strives to find some simplistic formula that will show a consistent profit.
I know I spent a lot of years doing just that.
It just doesn't exist.
Now this is not to say you can't develop a great method for yourself, and make good money at it......YOU CAN.
Everytime I go up and make a bet, win or lose, the decision is based on past experience ofover 30 years , it is based on recent experience, say at the current meet, and it is based on in the moment experience......right now.
I'm subconciously calling upon a vast amount of information.
So are the rest of you. Honor that, and have confidence in your own ability.
I guess I just repeated Rick, but it is worth repeating.
;)

[karlskorner]

GR1, Keilan;

You boys are really knocking yourselves out, trying to prove a point and I don't even know why I am bothering to answer, but let me try to help you along

Tues. at CRC 10 races

1. $4.60, 2 $15.60, 3. lost, 4. $4.60, 5. lost, 6. lost, 7. lost,
8. $8.60, 9. lost, 10 $8.80.

2 horses were favorites, 2 horses were 3/1 and 1 horse at 6/1, now really is there anything abnormal about that, wouldn't either one of you had the same winners? Walking in money $400.00, walking out money $836.00 or a profit of $436.00 on a miserable rainy day at CRC. You want to extend that out by the week, month or year be my guest. Under the new math I don't know what the ROI would be, but I am quite sure someone will tell me.

To many formulas, gentlemen, to many books by non-winners, to many people telling you it can't be done and yet it can be done by any member of this board.

Karl

[GR1@HTR]

Originally posted by karlskorner
To many formulas, gentlemen, to many books by non-winners, to many people telling you it can't be done and yet it can be done by any member of this board.

Karl

Perhaps, but I just think you’re an internet personality that can’t pick chit...


My stats show that over the last 160 races at CRC, the MLO favorite has won 35% with a .88 ROI. A small no risk challenge to you Karl. I will send you $100 for your time if you can beat the MLO favorite at CRC at both Win% and ROI...For the next 100 races at CRC, you post your selections (every race at CRC) and match it up to the MLO favorite. Incase of a MLO favorite tie (ie two 2-1 horses), we will go with the one that goes off at lower odds.

Surely that is a simple enough challenge and a sure thing under your book. A no lose proposition for yourself, right? Start picking/posting...

[karlskorner]

GR1

Another bad hair day, they seem to be coming quite frequently.

Karl

[GR1@HTR]

Just what I thought...All talk, no walk...

Have a nice day my friend...

[ceejay]

Originally posted by karlskorner
GR1, Keilan;

You boys are really knocking yourselves out, trying to prove a point and I don't even know why I am bothering to answer, but let me try to help you along

Tues. at CRC 10 races

1. $4.60, 2 $15.60, 3. lost, 4. $4.60, 5. lost, 6. lost, 7. lost,
8. $8.60, 9. lost, 10 $8.80.

2 horses were favorites, 2 horses were 3/1 and 1 horse at 6/1, now really is there anything abnormal about that, wouldn't either one of you had the same winners? Walking in money $400.00, walking out money $836.00 or a profit of $436.00 on a miserable rainy day at CRC. You want to extend that out by the week, month or year be my guest. Under the new math I don't know what the ROI would be, but I am quite sure someone will tell me.

To many formulas, gentlemen, to many books by non-winners, to many people telling you it can't be done and yet it can be done by any member of this board.

Karl

Karl:

Changing the subject here, a 50% win rate corresponds to a 12.5% COLD Pick 3 hit rate, a 6.25% COLD P4 hit rate and a 1.56% COLD P6 hit rate. If you play the rolling pick 3's in a 10-race card you would hit, on average, one P3 per day.

These multi-race exotic bets would all pay greater than 8:1, 16:1 and 64:1 respectively. Do your bets and ROI's include these exotic pools, which each have the added bonus of a lower take per race than the straight pool?

[Rick]

Calder has a very high percentage of winning favorites and I would expect a good method to do better there as well. I had 41% winners on my top horse for 29 races in a recent 3 day period but I don't bet them all and haven't been betting there regularly. I think I could probably get 50% winners on maybe 3 races a day there and still show a good profit. I think I could probably still show a profit if I mixed in 7 other short-priced small underlays but I don't see the point in doing that.

[keilan]

Karl

You just can't stop beating that drum, old habits die hard.

( Karl writes ) now really is there anything abnormal about that, wouldn't either one of you had the same winners? Walking in money $400.00, walking out money $836.00 or a profit of $436.00 on a miserable rainy day at CRC. You want to extend that out by the week, month or year be my guest.

Here's a little more new math for you! If you can do this week in week out -- according to you, you have been doing this for years. Why are you only betting $40.00 a race. Heavens man you are missing out big time.

Based on your winning day at CRC yesterday in which you inferred was just another ho- hum typical miserable rainy day you state a $436.00 profit.

Lets say you wagered $200.00 a race, basically little or no risk as you maintain this win rate almost daily or at least over the calendar year. Secondly that minimal of a wager would not distort the odds at CRC. Based on yesterdays day at the track you would have netted $2160.00. But no you settle for $436.00.

So the question is why the $40.00 wagers? That's your comfort zone?please!!

Karl this is my last response to you concerning this thread. I give you the last word if you choose.

I'm hoping in the future we can find some common ground on other horse related topics.


Continued Good Luck
Keith.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by keilan
Karl

You just can't stop beating that drum, old habits die hard.

( Karl writes ) now really is there anything abnormal about that, wouldn't either one of you had the same winners? Walking in money $400.00, walking out money $836.00 or a profit of $436.00 on a miserable rainy day at CRC. You want to extend that out by the week, month or year be my guest.

Here's a little more new math for you! If you can do this week in week out -- according to you, you have been doing this for years. Why are you only betting $40.00 a race. Heavens man you are missing out big time.

Based on your winning day at CRC yesterday in which you inferred was just another ho- hum typical miserable rainy day you state a $436.00 profit.

Lets say you wagered $200.00 a race, basically little or no risk as you maintain this win rate almost daily or at least over the calendar year. Secondly that minimal of a wager would not distort the odds at CRC. Based on yesterdays day at the track you would have netted $2160.00. But no you settle for $436.00.

So the question is why the $40.00 wagers? That's your comfort zone?please!!

Karl this is my last response to you concerning this thread. I give you the last word if you choose.

I'm hoping in the future we can find some common ground on other horse related topics.


Continued Good Luck
Keith. Decided to weigh in at my own risk.I have a method that picks 100% winners.It's called Beteveryhorse.
Seriously though,I don't understand why some have a problem with the notion of a high win rate.If one chooses to pick his spots judiciously(playing one track/circuit would count) a high strike rate would be not only be possible but necessary to grind out a profit.
As others have stated just because you can't do it doesn't mean others can't.
I don't understand the "show me" thinking either.What Karl does is not easily passed to others,it probably comes from years of experience,of trial and error and observation.Since he doesn't sell or tout,i prefer to take him at his word.And be grateful he is willing to share his time with this board.His time could be more valuable than mine,I don't have to make my living at the track,so instead of posting this evening,he could be handicapping a race trying to make a buck,whereas I don't have that hanging over my head when I go to the track.
As far as comfort level goes Keith,if 40 dollars is Karls level,thats his level.I don't know what you do for a living,but you know what you need to do at work,sometimes if you try to do more you don't get much done or as good as you could have done the job because you've exceeded your "comfort"level.Your mind becomes distracted and less efficient.
Thats what happens if you bet too much for your own good.You might win more money,but you increase your potential losses as well.
If I tried to bet 40 bucks per race,I probably would be physically ill.That much on one bet is way beyond my comfort level.I would worry more about the money than having confidence in my wagering pick.And that leads to failure.
As for having every day result in profit,I wish.Some days you double your money(or better).stay even or lose.Even though you have a 50% win rate,it doesn't happen with consistency,its an average over time.
I don't mean any of this as an insult to you or anyone else,so please don't take it that way,just take it as an opinion based on my experiences at the track.

[tanda]

First, to my knowledge, Karl has never claimed a particular win rate. So my discussion below does not apply to any claim of his.

Instead, it is a mathematical and logical discussion of the possibility that a person could win 45%-50% at one track playing all races.

It is very, very unlikely.

If the card averages 9 races, he would hit 4-5 a day. 3 favorites win a day. Slightly less than 2 second favorites win a day. The average favorite pays 1.50:1. The average second favorite pays 3.15:1.

Worse case scenario, the 45%-50% win rate would generate 45% profits. Why? Assume he wins all favorites. Assume all other wins are on second favorites. Over 27 bets, he would win 9 favorites at 1.50:1 and 4 second favorites at 3.15:1 with a win rate of 48%. My example has an average mutuel of $6.01 and 2:1 odds. Not unreasonable assumptions.

This is the worst he would do since he would never win on any other than the second favorite. Now, let's add one third choice in place of a favorite. It is not unreasonable for a three day period that a third choice would be won. That choice pays 4.50:1. R.O.I. is now 56%.

As can be seen, the analyzed win rate will lead to 60%-70% profits if even medium longshots are occasionally won. It does not take many mid-priced winners to get the R.O.I to 100%.

Thus, it appears that a 45%-50% win rate on all races will yield an R.O.I. of 45%-100%. Personally, I do not think this is possible and I doubt many readers do either.

My doubts are based on the fact that the performance requires EVERY race to have a horse going as a 50+% overlay and the handicapper ALWAYS correctly identifying that horse.

For a horse to be a 50% overlay, the public must make an error of almost 88%. A horse with a 20% chance to win would have to have 11% bet on it. Yes, these errors occur but quite likely not in every race. But our mythical handicapper must find them in every race. The mathematics allow races where no horses go as overlays and, in fact, there are probably races that have no overlays. I would guess that not many races have 50% overlays. In fact, most probably have one overlay at most with the overlay a small amount.

So, I seriously question whether it is theortically possible to win 45%-50% betting every race.

[karlskorner]

Tanda;

You have convinced me. And I came early today, wonder why ?

Karl

[Rick]

I can verify that it's possible to have a very high ROI (30-50%) on about 2-3 races at a given track and at the same time maintain a win % of over 30%. Now, if a player picks his tracks carefully, it's possible to do much better than that. But you skeptics are right too in that it's probably impossible to do playing all races at all tracks. So what though! I don't really care where I win my money. Making money at the races is not the same as some stupid handicapping contest. YOU get to pick the spots that you excel at. That's the secret of success! Stop thinking about being the world's greatest macho handicapper who can pick winners at any track and you're wealth will improve immensely. Just my opinion, I could be wrong (but I'm not).

[smf]

karl,

When you say 'came early', if you're referring to why you're on the board while the Calder card is still running, I'd like to know why that is, myself. I thought you were there for every race. :confused: :cool:

[karlskorner]

smf

I came home after the 6th race, to see why, and stop all this nonsence, put your mailing address (or anyone) in my private box and I will mail you my day's work sheet. It's a single sheet and to complicated for a non-computer person like myself to fool with.

Karl

[smf]

Karl,

You didn't directly answer my question of 'I thought you were at the track for every race', but the fact you explained you came home early, well, that answers that I suppose. I'd noticed this spring that you were logged on while GP was running as well...I wasn't the only one that noticed btw, nor was I the first. I'm glad you cleared that up.

I'm not interested in your sheet, myself. I think others m/b tho. If you say you do whatever it is you do, I believe ya. More power to you.

In your defense, when someone asks an on track player (that relies on what he/ she sees at the track) to post picks prior to races, that's like asking a DRF capper to post his pick before pp's come out, is it not? It's like asking a s/w program player to post his picks before post positions are drawn. That imho isn't fair to you.

In short, if your 'daily sheet' is a pre-race concoction, then it's of no use to someone to judge your bets, right? You will likely change some of your propsed bets at the track from what you see visually (happens to me often). If it's a post-race biopsy of your bets, then get ready for these boys to label you as a redboard artist. Anyone c/ doctor a post mortem handicapping sheet.

I'm not insinuating you'd do that, but it seems that convincing Keilan (and others) w/ take perhaps a 'see it to believe it' experience....also, it puts the onus on them, all you have to do is what you normally do (plus it shuts people up when they see you're not BS'ing....not something to be under-rated btw, lol).

I'm off to LS... Hope your day was a prosperous one.

[karlskorner]

SMF

I wish I had the knowledge to doctor the sheet, but I dont'. I had 5 winners our of the 1st 6 races; I learned a long, long time ago, don't fool with the racing Gods. Go Home. That's probably why you saw I was home numerous times early from GP.

Beside above, I had 2 "key race" horses today, the 1st won lost, the 2nd (7th race) paid $7.20, I'll cash that tomorrow, and additional $104.00 to todays profits. Anybody, I got 23 stamps, your welcome to view. Just don't tell me it can't be done.

Karl

[Dick Schmidt]

Karl,

Welcome to the club. It's a drag, but don't let them beat you down, and please don't stop posting.

What all the guys who say what you do is impossible, and them make up scenarios to "prove" it, are saying is: "I can't do it, therefore it can't be done." The fact that you can win doesn't entitle them to anything, least of all proof, which always seems to wind up with you picking horses for them.

If you're polite enough to take a couple of people to the track with you, then you're a better man than I am. I stopped that long ago. I did find that if you agree to meet them at the track, but set a rule that they can't bet, the requests go way down.

Keep picking 'em.

Dick

P.S. For what it is worth, the only true body language expert I ever met (except for my grandfather, who didn't bet) didn't buy a Racing Form, didn't know or care who trained the horses, played 4 or 5 races a day and hit around 80% just by looking at them in the paddock. Didn't keep notes or follow horses from one race to another. Didn't even know their names. He just knew when a horse "looked happy" (Isn't that a great expression!). He offered to teach me a few simple things, but we soon discovered I had trouble telling a horse from a big dog.

[tanda]

Karl:

Your comment appears to me to indicate that you thought my post was directed to you.

Unfortunately, this is a pattern of yours. The pattern is an inability to possess the basic cognitive reasoning skills to understand simple english sentences.

My post began "First, to my knowledge, Karl has never claimed a particular win rate. So my discussion below does not apply to any claim of his. Instead, it is a mathematical and logical discussion of the possibility that a person could win 45%-50% at one track playing all races." Was this not clear to you? How could it not be?

I clearly stated that the discussion was not directed to you. Yet, you took it personally. Hopefully, this clarifies your misunderstanding. Please read more carefully in the future.

Rick:

Note that you discussed a 30%-35% rate on selected races. I was discussing the possibility of 45%-50% on all races. Quite different things.

My point was to start an objective discussion of the possibility that those rates are even attainable in theory. It relates to a further discussion on the "too many overlays" concept. That concept is that if a methodology indicates several significant overlays in a race, then a grave error has probably occurred based on the idea that it is very unlikely that several overlays could occur in a standard size field.

I certainly am not one who cares or brags about win rates since I believe that too much emphasis is placed on "picking winners". I just think that a look at the math (including other factors I did not discuss) indicates how unlikely those results are.


Not to jump on Karl, but ... I will note for what it is worth that if a handicapper bets $40 per race, 250 cards a year, 9 races a card with an R.O.I. of 33%, he would net $30,000 before expenses. I do question whether a person (if he has a family) could support himself on this. It works out to $15 an hour assuming 5 hours at the track and 3 hours handicapping per card. I am not sure that it beats punching a clock since a mediocre office clerk makes more.

[karlskorner]

PA

There were 4 messages between SMF and myself, prior to Dick Schmidt post. I can't find them. What happened. I was going to put a stop to this once and for all.

Karl

[karlskorner]

Tanda;

Stop with the math already, you are way way off. I wish the messages between SMF and myself got posted, I think you would be statisfied.

Karl

[karlskorner]

PA

There was also a rather long math type thing from Tanda, my reply and I think there was 1 other message also.

Karl

[melman]

Is it any wonder that full time players do not like posting?? And this is the best place, with the least name calling of any site related to racing on the net. Someone gets out a "set of numbers" and says "it can't be done". Which is of course baloney. What Tiger Woods does at golf is what can't be done. Hey just do the math. LOL Judge for yourself and please if you don't like the claims just say what is the fact and that is "I don't know anyone that can do it". I have met a player who is full time on the NYRA area that does almost the same thing as Karl. Just that he is not "on site" and he bets plenty of Pic3's. SMF's methods are very close to my own so no problem there. It's that surly member Richard Schmidt and his multiple horses that get me!!!! That just can't be done since I have never met anyone that does that. LOL Hey people maybe you should get out more!! A visit to the War Room may even help there are so very sharp people in there from time to time. I am surprised that it is not used more often. But since the "math" says it can't be done I guess it would be a waste of time anyway. I know I told a very serious player about this site but he has yet to sign up or post. He would have a lot to offer but maybe he does not like the idea of "proving" something. Mr Surly send me a e-mail if you still have my e-mail addy somewhere and I will tell you his name. Think you would know him. Really is quite a funny dude.

[PaceAdvantage]

Karl,

I see all the posts you claim are missing. There are 4 posts between you and SMF prior to the latest D.S posting...there is a post from tanda after the D.S posting....

Am I missing anything???


==PA


PS. A new page was added just prior to the D.S post....

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by tanda
Karl:

Your comment appears to me to indicate that you thought my post was directed to you.

Unfortunately, this is a pattern of yours. The pattern is an inability to possess the basic cognitive reasoning skills to understand simple english sentences.


Tanda,

Unfortunately, it is a pattern of yours to throw out totally uncalled-for insults in the middle of an otherwise intelligent post. The pattern indicates an absence of manners and a lack of respect for other people.

Please lighten up in the future.


Now, on to your logic, which is normally impeccable. I think it is flawed in this case. What do overlays and the possible lack of them have to do with win%? If I pick one horse a race, and that horse always wins, I have a 100% win rate. If half of them win, I have 50%. What do overlays have to do with it? If there were no betting allowed in the race (and therefore no "-lays" of any kind) and I just announced my pick before the race was run I would hold the same percentages. The one thing that determines win% is # of winners divided by # of bets.

You seem to be saying that since the profits from such a hit rate would be so high (around 100% roi -- which actually jives with what Karl's usual stated goal is -- to double his money) then the hit rate must not be possible (or so unlikely as to be unbelievable). That is what I believe is called a non-sequitur, i.e. it "does not follow". Profits are determined by the prices paid, and the prices are set (for all practical purposes) by the other bettors, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the selection process (in this case). Under your logic, if all the other bettors went mad and put 90% of the pool on the horse with the worst speed figures in every race (leaving every other horse as a massive overlay) then a high hit rate would suddenly be possible. But if our handicapper makes his picks without reference to the other bettors, then overlays/underlays have no effect on his win%, only his profits.

[karlskorner]

PA;

You must have a bigger screen than me. The last post on page 4 is from SoCalfan, the 1st post on "last page" is from Dick Schmidt, in between was a rather lengthy post from Tanda, which I unfortunately answered with a wise assed reply, and mentioned I had come home early today from CRC. SMF questioned it, stating he thought I stayed for every race, I replied that I had hit 5 of the first 6th races and knew enough not to tempt the racing gods and I have done this numerous times before. I offered to send him my single page computer work sheet, he replied that he believed me, but was off to LV. I replied that not being a "computer-person" there is no way in hell that I can alter the sheet and offered it to anyone who would put their mail address in my private box. That's what I was looking for. If you found it, why can't I?

Karl

[GameTheory]

I see all those posts too Karl.

Maybe your browser just needs a "refresh". If that doesn't work, shut down the browser and start it back up again and logon -- sometimes the "cookies" that keep track of these things can get mixed up...

[BillW]

Karl,

You mentioned a page 4 and last page. This is page 6 ... I think you missed page 5;)

[karlskorner]

Gametheory, BillW

God I admire you "computer people", took me 20 minutes to find the start button on this sucker 2 years ago when I unpacked it.

All I got is (upper left corner) is pages 1,2,3,4....last page

I refreshed, I shut down, I even went to the Frig for some milk for the "cookies", makes no difference. Thanks

Karl

[MikeDee]

Hey Dick....I'm with you. When I go to the paddock, I know which ones are the horses once the jockeys mount up and then I can pretty much tell which end is the front and which end is the back. That about covers my ability to pick'em on how they look!!!

[BillW]

The only way to get back to page 5 is to look at the top or bottom of this page. Unlike on the "menu" page it shows First ...< 3 4 5 [6]. Either selecting the arrow or the 5 will get you there.

This happens when topics overflow to more than 4 pages.

Bill

[karlskorner]

Tanda;

Your last paragraph and making $15.00 an hour. Between Tues. and today (dark days Wed./Thur) I cleared a little over $700.00. That's a mite better than $15.00 an hour.
The "new math" must be part of the training at The Arthur Anderson school of math. Stop already with the %'s and formulas, you are not getting through to me.

Karl

[karlskorner]

BillW

No such animal top or bottom. Got to go now, BIG day tomorrow at CRC, Festival of the Sun, 13 races and I don't want them to start without me.

Thanks
Karl

[karlskorner]

BillW

I found it. Damn machine.

Thanks
Karl

[Tom]

Originally posted by karlskorner
Gametheory, BillW

God I admire you "computer people", took me 20 minutes to find the start button on this sucker 2 years ago when I unpacked it.

Karl

The START button.....that's the one you click on when you want to STOP, right? :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes:

[tanda]

Game Theory:

I specifically stated that my post was not in reference to Karl. Yet, he read it that way. I merely stated that Karl does not appear to be able to understand plain english. Yes, it is harsh. But, apparently true. I should not be criticized for stating the truth. Also, Karl has completely misquoted me in the past even though my posts were as clear as the one at issue. This is a habit of his. I speak plainly. If a post is not directed at a person, I state so. The reason I sated at the beginning that the post was not in reference to Karl was exactly to prevent the response I received from Karl. I presumed he could read. Anybody who cannot understand plain sentences is ... well you can guess.

As to ROI, it is very important to the win rate isse because of the betting of every race. To bet every race and show a 50% R.O.I. requires a 50% overlay on every bet. Simple enough. I question whether every race has that large of an overlay. Yet, to bet every race at that R.O.I., that would need to be true.

And a 45%-50% handicapper betting every race would have at least a 50% R.O.I. since he could not bet favorites in every race. Favorites do not win 50% of every race.

The pari-mutuel system is a zero sum (actually 0.80 approximately) game. Any horse drastically underbet to being a 50% overlay must have corresponding action mistaken in the other direction. Thus, at least two massive errors must occur in EVERY race. Not minor errors, but huge.

Then, the handicapper must be perfect in always choosing the right horse. Always. Why always? Because if one horse should return 0.80 and instead returns 1.50, it is unlikely that another horse is an overlay. The handicapper that misses even one of those horses a card ends up with action on an underlay, which, since he must maintain a 50% or better R.O.I., fatally damages the return.

For the 45%-50% handicapper of every race who mostly plays low priced horses with, obviously, a lot of money on them, the math does not add up. For him to have a 50% R.O.I., then the public is making a huge error in every race with a heavy portion of its action.

I have thought deeply about odds-line issues and maybe I am not altogether clear so I will sum up my basic thoughts which this discussion was supposed to lead into.

1) The takeout and breakage require that some horses are underlays,

2) The takeout and breakage allow a race to occur with no overlays,

3) The effect of the takeout and breakage is such that many races probably have at most one overlay and a small overlay at that,

4) It is an open question how often overlays occur, but may be significantly lower than most handicappers would think,

5) Since underbet action most be counterbalanced by overbet action, the more overlays that a race appear to have, the more likely a mistake has occurred with the handicapper. This is because for the public to significantly underbet 4 horse in an eight horse field, they must also overbet one or more horse to counterbalance. The end result is that the handicapper's methodology may indicate that the public is wrong (by a significant) amount an all or almost all of the entries. In those cases, the handicapper needs to consider that maybe he is the one who is wrong,

6) My explanations have not been the most eloquent, but my point is that when you work the math, it does appear more difficult for significant overlays to exist then at first thought and, therefore, calls into question the ability to bet every race and find big overlays in each one.

[ranchwest]

Tanda,

1) Any time I have a winner, it pays more than my wager and you can take overlay and underlay and 50 cents and you can buy a donut.

2) If I hit 50% and every once in a while I get a $30 winner, my ROI will be very, very good. Today, I played two horses. One paid $8.70, the other was out. ROI on win wagers: 2.175.

We can't prove whether Karl is telling the truth, but I certainly believe that the mathematics of what he is saying is definitely possible. I'm not going to harrass Karl because I don't give a flip. If he tells me something I think might be of use, I check it out and see if I can incorporate it into what I'm doing. Otherwise, whether he is greatness or purports greatness really doesn't matter to me. I seperate the wheat from the chaffe in dollars and cents in my pocket, not his.

[GameTheory]

WARNING: LONG-WINDED POST

Originally posted by tanda
Game Theory:

I specifically stated that my post was not in reference to Karl. Yet, he read it that way. I merely stated that Karl does not appear to be able to understand plain english. Yes, it is harsh. But, apparently true. I should not be criticized for stating the truth. Also, Karl has completely misquoted me in the past even though my posts were as clear as the one at issue. This is a habit of his. I speak plainly. If a post is not directed at a person, I state so. The reason I sated at the beginning that the post was not in reference to Karl was exactly to prevent the response I received from Karl. I presumed he could read. Anybody who cannot understand plain sentences is ... well you can guess.


Tanda,

My general impression is that you do this sort of thing with a very high number of your posts, and not just when Karl is involved. I often find your manner rather like the stereotypical Catholic school nun with the steel ruler waiting to rap the knuckles of anyone not using proper penmanship. Instead of just saying, "I think you are in error, here's why..." you usually seem to say something more like, "I think you are in errror. Obviously you are stupid. Here's why..." I just don't get that.

Now I'm a person that loves to argue -- to debate. LOVES it. I like to bring clarity to an issue. But about the issue, not about the person.

Anyway, something to think about. I'm not going to harp it, because in fact I agree with you almost all of the time on the facts.



As to ROI, it is very important to the win rate isse because of the betting of every race. To bet every race and show a 50% R.O.I. requires a 50% overlay on every bet. Simple enough. I question whether every race has that large of an overlay. Yet, to bet every race at that R.O.I., that would need to be true.

And a 45%-50% handicapper betting every race would have at least a 50% R.O.I. since he could not bet favorites in every race. Favorites do not win 50% of every race.



Sure sure, BUT:

-- No one said anything about betting EVERY race, but MOST races, so fair enough.

-- No one made any claims (I don't think) about ROI, only about win%. I agree however that a 45% or better win rate would probably result in an ROI in the range you indicated.

Still, the connection just does not hold, at least not in the way you think. Or maybe it does, follow me now.

The prices you get do not cause you to win or lose races. It would be possible (if the distribution of the money in the pools were drastically different than it typically is in the real world) to win 50% of the time and lose money, if all the winners paid less than even money, or to hit 50% and make +1000% ROI if you were the only one betting on the winners. Right?

As you state, the math allows for a race to have to NO overlays.

Fine. Let's say ALL races are like that, and all races have no overlays. Is it still possible to make money?

Of course. Put a bet on every winner, and don't bet on any loser. You'll come out way ahead, all in glorious disregard to the fact that there wasn't a single overlaid horse in the race, or in any other race.

See what I'm getting at? A person who is a psychic, that can pick 100% winners, will always make money no matter what the overlay situation because the track is always required to give you back your $2 and then some more.

So, ok, outside of the seeing the future with a supernatural method, you would probably say it is impossible for a person to successfully cherry pick which one-third of the time a horse with a 33% chance of winning will actually win, because if he could that would mean 33% wasn't really his true probability in eace race. And if a person makes money at the races (over time), he neccessarily MUST be betting on overlays. I agree.

But I think you're letting the theory create the evidence for you, instead of the other way around. What I mean by that is that you say the public must be making all these gross errors all the time to allow this hypothetical performance level to exist. You don't think they are making such big errors because the stats show they are do quite well -- therefore such evidence must be false.

But I actually think it is quite likely they are making gross errors all the time, and letting huge overlays go to post on a regular basis. The thing is, the public does an excellent job ON AVERAGE determining probabilites. No one can argue with that. But it does not follow that they have that same level of performance for each individual race.

An example:

We have three races with the same three horses each time. They all have roughly equal ability and all are in top form. That's what we determine using our normal handicapping, anyway.

So we give each horse an equal chance in each race, and therefore any horse with higher odds than any other horse will be a good bet (let's assume it will always be enough to cover the take).

They run the three races, and each horse wins one time. Boy, we did an excellent job. It appears we determined their true probabilties, and they ran to form and as the law of averages would dictate. (Extrapolate to 300 races if three isn't good enough.)

The thing is, if we looked at each race separately, we could have been dead wrong about everything! Unbeknownst to us, Horse A & Horse B ate some bad oats the morning of Race #1, and could barely make it around they track. Horse C had nearly a 100% chance of winning that race. And darn it, that exact same thing happened in those other races too, and in fact each race had only one healthy horse in it.

And there was a guy like Karl, betting on the winner each time.

The moral: your stats and averages DO NOT APPLY to individual races even if they are exactly correct in the aggregate.

The other moral: if you have more information than the other guy, or just know how to use the same information better RACE BY RACE, it is quite possible to achieve these win%'s that otherwise must seem magical to you. (And don't you think a guy spending all his time at one track would tend to have some extra info & more experience applying it?)

You of course have to buy the part about the gross errors being made in individual races, which I do. Why? Because that's what the evidence LEADS me to believe, despite your theories. What's the evidence? The fact that I've seen & known a number of people who day-in, day-out achieve such performance, although I would still think that to be so without knowing those people.

There are a couple of basic scenarios:

-- the public vastly over-rates & under-rates certain horses in each race ALL THE TIME

-- the public handicaps quite accurately in every race, and big errors are rare

The thing is, both scenarios will give you the EXACT SAME SET OF STATS, because the first one averages out, and the second one doesn't need to.

So, in the absence of first-hand experience, it is basically a matter of faith which one you believe. Frankly, given human nature, and the relatively scant and inaccurate handicapping info most of us have, the first seems more likely.

For myself, having seen with my own eyes people hit 4 out of 9 or better at Santa Anita day after day, I have no choice but to believe the first scenario is closer to the truth because the second one can't be true or those people couldn't exist.

Ah, but they do.

[smf]

Originally posted by karlskorner
PA;

I offered to send him my single page computer work sheet, he replied that he believed me, but was off to LV.
Karl

KARL,

Two things:
1- I posted I was leaving for LS. Lone Star is 30 miles down the road, Las Vegas is 3 days down the road. :)

2-You and I approach 'challenges' in different ways apparently. No sweat...My suggested way would quell any doubters that you have, but it's your ballgame here... I'll let you handle it.

Dick,

I seriously doubt that GR1 (for example) would siphon picks off karl if he went to Miami. Last season I made some decent green at LS when we were out there together at the same time, and he never bet my picks. He has his own opinions and does well. This year LS has put a healthy whuppin to me and he didn't bet my picks this year either (very smart of him). He does more than just fine for himself at the windows, I think he's just asking for proof of the "~50% hit rate, etc" comments.

Karl can handle the inquisitions any way he chooses but trust me on this one---GR1 ain't gonna bet his own cash on karl's picks. Gr1 can bet and cash w/ pretty much anyone.

[Rick]

I don't think it can be proven that it's impossible to attain a high win % and ROI both by betting every race, regardless of how improbable it might be based on one's own experience. After all, if favorites win 1/3 of the time, then a handicapping "guru" could concievably get 50% winners and huge ROI by correctly selecting 2/3rds of the winning non-favorites. My experience suggests that any given method will generally select no more than about 3 overlays per day. But, if the guru used several relatively independent methods he might find a play in every race. As few as 3 different approaches might be adequate. One man's unplayable race is another man's bread and butter.

[Dick Schmidt]

Rick,

"All winners are overlays."

-Howard Sartin


Just some food for thought. If you hit half the races, you need only average a 2-1 mutuel to get a 50% return. Betcha the average payoff at CRC is over $6.00. The hard part is hitting half, which is why Karl is a pro. He can do the hard part.

Dick

[smf]

Originally posted by karlskorner
Tanda;

You have convinced me. And I came early today, wonder why ?

Karl

Karl,

I had to cap the card for LS late tonite but I wanted to go back and make sure I read your post correctly. This is the biggest chest thumping I've seen in some time. Disgusting.

You make this post above to Tanda. Take a look for yourself. "and i came home today early, wonder why?". Knowing someone w/ ask "ok, why", you chime 'BECAUSE I HIT 5 WINNERS IN THE FIRST 6 RACES THAT'S WHY', thump, thump.

"Bow down everyone! 5 of 6".!!

How much more "look at me" can you honestly get? You honestly could not wait to post it...sheesh.

Can you redboard just a LITTLE bit more, karl? This is really just an attempt for some cheap adulation if you ask me. I was in your defense till I saw this junk. I think GR1 has it *at least* 50% correct-- you're an internet personality. Whether you can pick chit is of no signifigance to me really, and you don't seem too eager to provide anything to the affirmative.

You seem pretty defensive to any and all questions regardless of the who or what. This post s/ justify that typical stance of yours, Karl--I'm not mincing words here. Not lying about anything either.

I'm not saying you're telling the truth or not, but PLEASE stop with the redboarding. It doesn't wear well on anyone.

I think you're an old time handicapper w/ a lot to share but drop in here for some reaffirmation and some adulation should anyone bother to give it. Affirmation in this business comes from the windows, karl.

I won't see your response till I get home from LS tomorrow nite. PA might take this down, but there's not a lick of untruth here, karl.

[karlskorner]

SMF

There are 400+ members on this board, when somebody post that mathematically this can't be done, or their database says that a certain % of this or that should take place, a large group of these members will start to think maybe they are right becaue they have proven the point with their mathematics or they have a zillion races stored and with the push of a button they created this "fact".

Your right though, I should have never made a point of 5 of 6 races, because it really isn't anyone's business, but before anyone really starts to belive some of these "theories" that are presented I knew of no other way than to say "ain't so", as I and numerous others say you are wrong.

Of the several things I have contributed to this Board, nobody has said it doesn't work, here on the board or the private messages I have received. What I did present was garnered from practical experience, not derived from a book or a computer. As to "internet personality" you are also right, I have spent too much time discussing the basics of "handicapping", which I soon will correct. Enjoy your 3 days at LS

Karl

[GameTheory]

Arthur C. Clarke's rules of thumb:

1) when a distinguished and elderly scientist says something is possible, he is almost certainly correct; when he says something is impossible he is very probably wrong

2) the only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little past them

3) any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

[so.cal.fan]

Game Theory:

I sure do like that theory!

I guess it is true.....no one knows enough to be a pessimist.

[Rick]

Dick,

I don't subscribe to the "all winners are overlays" theory. I think if you bet a 1-10 odds winner and it didn't win by more than 5 lengths you probably had an underlay. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of races where everyone jumped on the favorite and made the second favorite go off at surprisingly high odds. The races I really hate are the ones where my selection is the same as that of the public or MLO-maker. Those races as a group lose about 10% so I don't bet them to win, but since the -10% is still better than average I know I've got to look to longshots or exactas for overlays. And if it's a short field there may not be any overlays in any pool (according to my methods).

As to picking a very high percentage of winners, I think someone who focuses on one track, attends the track in person, and has a large bag of tricks can accomplish amazing things. Normally I follow a pretty boring set of formulas and rules to select horses on a day-to-day basis, but if I'm sitting in a race book or track and trying to pick winners in every race I still do pretty well. I've checked so many different types of systems that I can spot something with several positive factors in just about every race.

[hdcper]

Everyone,

It seems some of us would like proof that Karl can pick 50% winners at Calder betting every race(or at least have 5 winners before calling it a day). And like Dick said, the fact you can win doesn't entitle us to anything especially proof. But if we can come up with a simple way to monitor Karl's picks for say 100 races and provide Karl the means to apply his handicapping skills to their fullest, what has anyone got to lose.

Here is my idea. Does anyone other than Karl attend Calder on a regular basis or at least know a reputable official or maybe the track handicapper at Calder? Say the track handicapper(or official) is willing to review Karl's selection just prior to each race and record the results for the next 100 races. This provides Karl time to make any changes in his selection prior to the race and clear up this ongoing debate one way or the other.

What do you think?

Hdcper

[so.cal.fan]

Rick: You write,
"I've checked so many different types of systems that I can spot something with several positive factors in just about every race."
I know this is true, because I only bet one kind of race, but once I was in Las Vegas in a handicapping contest. I had to play all the races, and I did really well, because I remembered things about each type of race that were important, called upon obscure knowledge, like a certain No. Cal. owner sending a maiden down to So. Cal. The horse was a first time starter, paid 5/1.
I never bet it........but I selected on my contest.
The fact that I am not betting these selections with my own money or anyone elses, is important, because I make a pretty
objective opinion. I'd guess, I can pick about 35% winners.......maybe more, at certain tracks.....however........
if I was betting them......... the percentage would go down.

[cj]

I think we are beating a dead horse here. As with anything else you read, form your own opinion and move on. The questions raised will never be proved or disproved in this forum.

Each person must find there own way of doing things, and if it works, it doesn't matter what others say. As an example, I very rarely know who rides the horses I bet, or any of the others, as I feel this part of the puzzle is already factored into the odds well enough....works for me, though many disagree. I wouldn't argue the point with someone who focuses on riders, maybe that works for them.

The point, I guess, is if you don't think Karl can do what he says, ignore his advice, statements, etc., and move on. If you do, try to find a way you can attain those results as well.

CJ

[PaceAdvantage]

I think I should have closed this thread a long time ago, since it is so far off the original topic....but I let it continue so that Karl and others can get their funk on.....since that seems to be peetering out, and as CJM says, we are beating a dead horse, it's time to close this sucker...


==PA