Playing every race...is good.

[RaceIsClosed]

Everyone says that playing every race is suicide, but I disagree.

The thing people overlook is that by forcing yourself to play every race, you wind up getting good at handicapping all types of races. Of course you'll get slaughtered early on, but as your handicapping improves, you'll be able to cover any multi-race exotics with your best bets, you'll have more and wider experience with all types of races, and eventually, you'll even be a stronger spot player if you want to be because you'll truly know where your strengths lie.

I hear spot players talk as if one can just start out the game being patient, disciplined, and smart enough to know what type of races to focus on. Had I done that, I never would have become a jump "expert" (a few 20-1 winners at Saratoga the last few seasons makes me feel like one anyway).

[AwolAtPA]

well, my first reaction is NO WAY!!

then, on second thought: Yes, PRACTICE betting.

since handicapping is (maybe) half the game, a person really feels the commitment to the pick when you do a bet. I once went to the track and did only DIP (Do It on PAPER). Well, my attitude changed when the real money was at the window.

I do not bet every race and maybe use the DIP method to often.

I am going to try your idea but when a race really looks like a guess, I will do a pick and instead of a win bet use Place or Show. This way my betting history will have recorded that this was not a Prime bet but a Maybe. With enough history, MAYBE the maybe bets will change to be SHOULDA bet those races as Prime bets. Of course, the amount of the MAYBE bets will be much smaller than the Prime bets.

duane/Awol

[cato]

While I always felt that the theory of simulacsting was attarctive (able to select from hundreds, no thousands, of races). Cherry pick. Specialize, etc., its never really worked for me and it has led to a reduction of enjoyment of the game.

I prefer to focus on a card (or maybe a couple of cards) at a time rather than look at 10 tracks and trying to cherry pick. I tend to view a race card as something of an organic, living thing -- an 8 act play. It develops over time. I get a feel for the track and how the horses, jockeys and trainers are running that day. It leads to more of a feeling of anticipation, beginning and completion.

I haven't given up entirely on the cherry picking concept (thanks to the inspiration of Blackgold) but I am refocusing my play (when I ever start playing again) on one or two complete cards at a time...

best,

Cato

[cato]

That does NOT mean I am going to bet every race in a card....

[RaceIsClosed]

That does NOT mean I am going to bet every race in a card....

How else can you learn how to handicap and bet a type of race without actually doing it?

Perhaps the goal is to condition oneself to be able to handicap everything.

They said being an iconoclast is good didn't they?

[turfbar]

One question "Who"s money are you gonna use?"

Turfbar

[Overlay]

As long as the handicapper pays attention to the odds of the horses that he selects, and bets only when a horse's odds are higher than what he judges its true chances of winning to be (based either on his opinion, or on his concrete experience with his own particular method of handicapping), then the more often he plays, the greater will be the opportunity for that positive expectation to assert itself and work in his favor.

[kid4rilla]

I agree with what you are saying RIC. Back when I started playing, I would play every race on the card and expect to hit it. I was tough on myself when I didn't win as I thought that every race should be decipherable to a "good handicapper" :) This went on for at least 3 meets, and it is without a doubt the basis of why I am moderately successful playing the game.

[twindouble]

There's more than one thing to consider ESP today. For example many here say with their software they can scan many tracks, many races to make numerous bets.

Then theirs guys like me that find one or two tracks more than enough to digest. Any good gambler is going to assess the risk when looking at the card as a whole based on his or her wagering strategy, that may include the picks and gimmicks. On given days the whole card can be playable on others not so, it all depends on the conditions and how competitive each race is weighing the risk.

Lets face it, the amount of time and effort you put in is the key, today I don't put in a third of the time I used to, so I don't expect to put the world on fire, by comparison you can say I'm being sloppy. When you've done it as long as I have some day you may get to this point as well. Last year I showed a flash of brillance here and there and ended up with a fairly good year but I do sense by not putting the time or effort in I might end up sucking wind. Common sense tells me that.


T.D.

[Vegas711]

Jack of all trades master of none.


No one can master all types of races, if you want any chance to beat the game you have to isolate the situations that you have an edge on.This is why there is the saying " You can beat a race , but not the races" this saying means that you can not beat all types of races but you can beat a single type of race over and over again. The key is finding this type of race, a clue it is not a race that has 5 layoff horses in it or horses that never ran before.

[JustRalph]

As long as the handicapper pays attention to the odds of the horses that he selects, and bets only when a horse's odds are higher than what he judges its true chances of winning to be (based either on his opinion, or on his concrete experience with his own particular method of handicapping), then the more often he plays, the greater will be the opportunity for that positive expectation to assert itself and work in his favor.

I think you are crazy if you play every race with real money.

On the quote above, if you strictly adhere to this, you are probably right on. But, if you are waiting on big numbers all the time, you miss some decent winners. I am talking about waiting on 20-1 shots who should be 8-1.......I think you are out of whack. I think there are plenty of 7-1 shots who should be 4-1 or less and are good bets. As long as you don't get hung up on "longer numbers" you can score quite well.

[The Judge]

At one time if I handicapped a race I bet the race no matter what. It was as if I had already made the investment by investing the time. I don't do that anymore but today I spend less time handicapping and more time structuring the bet. At the beginning I see nothing wrong with betting every race for a few bucks to see if you are good at some particular race, turf,sprints ,mdns etc. but after awhile I think you are going to have to pass a few. I see nothing wrong with a fun day at the track where you do a little work and bet every race and just relax and have fun.

[Overlay]

I think you are crazy if you play every race with real money.

On the quote above, if you strictly adhere to this, you are probably right on. But, if you are waiting on big numbers all the time, you miss some decent winners. I am talking about waiting on 20-1 shots who should be 8-1.......I think you are out of whack. I think there are plenty of 7-1 shots who should be 4-1 or less and are good bets. As long as you don't get hung up on "longer numbers" you can score quite well.

As you say, many overlays will be in the lower-odds ranges, and it's easier for a horse in a lower "fair-odds" range (according to the handicapper's judgment) to be a proportionately greater overlay than a horse with higher fair odds. So, horses offering the greatest wagering value would not be confined to those with higher toteboard odds. (For example, a horse that you rate at even-money that is going off at 3-1 would a greater overlay than the horse you referred to with fair odds of 8-1 that is going off at 20-1.) I also agree that not every horse or even every race will necessarily be playable. The use of fair odds provides the tool needed to determine when to play (when wagering value and positive expectation are present) and when to pass (when they are not). The handicapper can also put further self-imposed limits on bets, such as not regarding every overlay as playable, but considering only overlaid horses that rank on top, or in the top two or three (or whatever criterion the handicapper chooses to use), according to the handicapper's own personal methodology. But, to me, the basic point (which you appear to agree with) is that the ability to reliably assign true winning probabilities (by whatever means), when applied across the full odds spectrum (not just high-odds horses), provides the potential for an increased rate of return from a higher volume of play.

[Overlay]

(For example, a horse that you rate at even-money that is going off at 3-1 would a greater overlay than the horse you referred to with fair odds of 8-1 that is going off at 20-1.)

Sorry, slip of the hand there. I meant to say that the hypothetical horse rated at even money was going off at odds of 4-1.

[RaceIsClosed]

Jack of all trades master of none.


No one can master all types of races, if you want any chance to beat the game you have to isolate the situations that you have an edge on.This is why there is the saying " You can beat a race , but not the races" this saying means that you can not beat all types of races but you can beat a single type of race over and over again. The key is finding this type of race, a clue it is not a race that has 5 layoff horses in it or horses that never ran before.


How does one determine what type of race they have an edge in without playing all types of races? AND, how does one get better at any type of race without handicapping and betting it?

Should he just go with a FEELING?

[Tom]

Keep records.

[hurrikane]

Keep records.

Come on Tom! What are you, crazy?????

IMO, doesn't matter either way. you make 20% on your money making $2.00 bets betting every race or bet $200 a race every 100 races. Same thing.

Works the same way if you are losing 20% too.

The way I see it is, as with many things in life, you can be a specialist or a jack of all trades. Thinking it through, which usually gets paid more?

[twindouble]

Come on Tom! What are you, crazy?????

IMO, doesn't matter either way. you make 20% on your money making $2.00 bets betting every race or bet $200 a race every 100 races. Same thing.

Works the same way if you are losing 20% too.

The way I see it is, as with many things in life, you can be a specialist or a jack of all trades. Thinking it through, which usually gets paid more?

hurrikane;

You can't extract the individual, their personality, hang ups, strengths or weaknesses from this game. Who you are and how you see or approach the game tells the story. It's evident to me that we can argue day and night as to who's methods work the best, that's why most here almost demand to see how each method holds up, not just a few races but over time.

My position is there's basic things that hold up when it comes to handicapping and wagering along with those that we can say without doubt are dumb things to do. To me that's the foundation I refer to so where anyone takes it from there is anyone's guess when it comes to how successful they are based on their commitment and abilities. The only conflict I see is what direction new players will take when it comes using modern day methods, ( computer progams) or triditional handicapping and wagering methods.

T.D.

[Buckeye]

If you can beat every race play every race. Works for me.

Winning every race is not required of course!

If you can beat MCL races why then can't you beat Stake races?

Exactly.

[Vegas711]

It is my opinion that the types of races, methods of handicapping and types of bets should match the personality of the user. I am not the gambling type so I look for races that do not have a lot of unknowns , I pass races that have first time starters or any race where there is a horse with less than 5 starts, I also pass races where more than 1 horse is coming off of a long layoff.etc.etc. becouse I eliminate a lot of uncertanity I do not hit very many horses with long odds. I play only win , some win/place, most of my bets are on horses with odds of 2-1 to 8-1. The types of races that I like would make terrible races for trifectas etc, my goal is to hit 35 to 40 % winners with odds of 2-1 to 7/2, my personality is one of the grinder type, low risk moderate payoffs. I have found that certain types of races FIT my method of choice while others do not.

If you want to hit large paying races you need to focus on the types of races that produce these payoffs. If you are not the gambling type you will not be sucessful playing these types of races. It is my opinion that a person should be either a Win or Win/Place better or strictly an exotic player rather than trying to be both.If you are the type who bets 10 cent supers or $1 EXACTAS you are not the gambling type and you would be better served playing races that are more like what I do.

[hurrikane]

Ok, lets get a point of reference here

I datamine every race at every race track in the US every day of the week. I play races where a horse(or horses) have a statistical advantage over the field that typically the public will not see.

Karl plays every race every day (until he doubles his money and heads for the bar) at the south Fla circuit (gp, crc) .

So, if you say 'play every race' who is playing every race. You could say Karl is playing every race. I say he is specializing in the fla circuit. You could say I am 'playing' every race as I check every single race in the US every single day and play races that are to my advantage. But I don't bet every race.

I suppose both could be right and both could be wrong. yin and yang. it's the grey matter, as so much is in horse racing (and in my head).

As for the 'you can beat MCL why not stakes.' I suppose that could be true. I doubt the inverse is true and it is certainly not true for me. For me, I have a couple of plays that are very profitable in MCL races. I seldom play stakes. I've never been good at them even when I did paper and pencil and DRF and there was a 10th of the information out there that there is now. I think I get to emotionally involved in the horse in high stakes races. I play them for fun and mostly to watch beautiful horses at the top of the game. It's not a money maker for me. It's one of the few things I do in this endeavor strickly for the enjoyment and love of the game.

[karlskorner]

2 small corrections, I don't play where there are 2 or more FTS and I don't play switch from grass to dirt and a small typo should read the car not the bar.

__________________________________________________ __________
How's the track playing today, walk up to the far turn during the first race and LISTEN

[twindouble]

Ok, lets get a point of reference here

I datamine every race at every race track in the US every day of the week. I play races where a horse(or horses) have a statistical advantage over the field that typically the public will not see.

Karl plays every race every day (until he doubles his money and heads for the bar) at the south Fla circuit (gp, crc) .

So, if you say 'play every race' who is playing every race. You could say Karl is playing every race. I say he is specializing in the fla circuit. You could say I am 'playing' every race as I check every single race in the US every single day and play races that are to my advantage. But I don't bet every race.

I suppose both could be right and both could be wrong. yin and yang. it's the grey matter, as so much is in horse racing (and in my head).

As for the 'you can beat MCL why not stakes.' I suppose that could be true. I doubt the inverse is true and it is certainly not true for me. For me, I have a couple of plays that are very profitable in MCL races. I seldom play stakes. I've never been good at them even when I did paper and pencil and DRF and there was a 10th of the information out there that there is now. I think I get to emotionally involved in the horse in high stakes races. I play them for fun and mostly to watch beautiful horses at the top of the game. It's not a money maker for me. It's one of the few things I do in this endeavor strickly for the enjoyment and love of the game.

See, you have your own way of playing the game as I do and many others. We do have one thing in common, that's your last statement, the only differences is, I'm not emotionally involved when I'm hadicapping.

Sounds like your datamining works for you and allows you to wager on many races slectively and is making you money. Making money is great but that type of gambling still goes agains't the grain for me because I enjoy every race I wager on win or lose.

I'm still somewhat skeptical, but I would hope to think most here can understand that knowing where I come from for so many years. Prior to me signing on here I was going to set up my own site, just to get on the same page with handicappers like me, the more time I spend here the more I think about doing that.

Good luck,

T.D.

[hurrikane]

Sorry about the typo Karl, that 'C' is so close to the 'B'. :D

[mainardi]

Come on Tom! What are you, crazy?????

IMO, doesn't matter either way. you make 20% on your money making $2.00 bets betting every race or bet $200 a race every 100 races. Same thing.

Works the same way if you are losing 20% too.

The way I see it is, as with many things in life, you can be a specialist or a jack of all trades. Thinking it through, which usually gets paid more?
:rolleyes: Come on hurrikane! What are you, crazy????? :faint:

Assuming that you're telling Tom that it's CRAZY to keep records... sorry, but I have say it... it's "crazy like a fox". In my first foray into record keeping in the mid-90s, I saw just how cr@ppy a handicapper/bettor I was... so bad that I stopped keeping records for FIVE years. When I got back into record keeping, I decided to learn from those mistakes, and my record keeping has not only kept me from tossing money around "like a drunken sailor on leave" (no disrespcet to sailors :) ), but also helped me learn what works and what doesn't.

I suppose that if one doesn't ever plan on [a] learning from their mistakes or [b] winning, then not keeping records is good. :rolleyes:

[Two Bucks To Win]

There is no way that anyone can overcome a 15% or more takeout by betting every race. Too many races are determined by factors which are unknown to the handicapper. Stick to races where there is some measure of predictability, or horses from your stable mail.

Look at the math: the typical $100 bill that enters the track before the first race of a 10 race card, if churned every race, will leave the track as a $5 bill at the end of the day. So an every race bettor is in effect going against a 95% takeout. And with simulcasting giving you the opportunity to bet 100 races a day you'll be lucky to have enough to make a phone call. If you bet every race you WILL be grinded into the dirt and the only way to have a chance is to bet where you KNOW you have an edge.

[mainardi]

Going from personal experience -- watching two great handicappers (my Dad and a good buudy) money MISmanage themselves to the poor house -- playing every race with real money is [a] undisciplined and [b] foolish... just my opinion mind you, but one based on facts. I believe the expression is "that's a GREAT idea, but not with MY money!" :faint:

On the other hand, if you're trying to learn what's best for you, then playing "every race" (on paper, in order to build a profile) is VERY good indeed.

[tahoesid]

I'm not much on statistics but it's not going to matter whether you play every race or one race a day, the takeout is part of a long term thing and if you have a negative edge it will defeat you, just more quickly one way than the other.

If you can get a positive ROI playing every race(of course you aren't going to win every race) then the takeout really doesn't matter because it is already compensated for.

If you are playing for fun then the takeout will eat you up quickly but it is less fun waiting for that one race. Playing $2 a race isn't going to kill you no matter what the takeout is. Unfortunately the tracks can't seem to get into their heads that lowering the takeout will be more fun for the patrons and they are still going to get the whole amount anyway in most cases.

[dav4463]

I would think if you can narrow down a certain angle or type of race that you are really good at, then you should be patient and wait for those situations to arise. However, if you are very good at picking big longshots that hit the board, but you never know when they may pop up, then you should play a lot more races, but with less money.

[hurrikane]

Yo 2 dollar Joe,

Crazy???.....was sarcasm. Tom, and I, are big advocates of keeping records.

One day I mention people should handicap themselves if they want to increase their ROI, next thing I know people are writting articles.

I don't take credit for the idea, learned it when I first started playing.
It's a business for me. If I were a weekend player I would just have fun and forget all the crap. But for a business you need records.
I have stockholders to answer too!!! :D

If you are indeed keeping records then you should raise your bet to 4 bucks. You are already ahead of most of the public and most of the people up here I'm guessing.

[RaceIsClosed]

I would think if you can narrow down a certain angle or type of race that you are really good at, then you should be patient and wait for those situations to arise. However, if you are very good at picking big longshots that hit the board, but you never know when they may pop up, then you should play a lot more races, but with less money.

Kind of like one should pick which sport they want to play professionally before they play any of them?

[rmania]

I would think if you can narrow down a certain angle or type of race that you are really good at, then you should be patient and wait for those situations to arise. However, if you are very good at picking big longshots that hit the board, but you never know when they may pop up, then you should play a lot more races, but with less money.
I get to the track (Del Mar) a couple of times each year. On those occasions I’ll play every race as I’m there to have fun.

Other than that, I focus primarily on sprints. Why? Fewer variables come into play when determining the outcome and the pace is usually honest.

I also play only one circuit (SoCal). Why? With familiarity comes a certain comfort level. And that comfort translates to confidence when it’s time to make that bet.

Even though I’ve narrowed my scope I can still find an abundance of “value” plays. And when I find them I feel confident playing them.

It’s no big deal for me to throw a couple of hundred bucks on a 30-1 shot because if I’ve done my homework I’m confident that it’s going to hit the board. Of course, they don’t always (shit happens), but they do more than they don’t. ;)

[twindouble]

Kind of like one should pick which sport they want to play professionally before they play any of them?

I played every race last night at Mnr and lost everyone one. :confused: The day before, I think I bet 6 at Mnr one blindly at OP and won 3. :cool:

I bet more races than I norm do while in the war room, why? Because it's fun to do and I get a chance now and then to throw out why I like a horse or how I see the race will run. Even though I was zero for 9 last night, I won't change anything that I do. Again the last race I had pegged in the sense that I knew there was no clear winner and it warranted a sizeable investment in the super, I had the horses in my play but not in the right order and it was another first three and all. My point is, I didn't do everything wrong, even keyed a winner but missed the exacta play, 1st and 3rd. I have no excuses for the other races with the exception most were 5 1/2 and 6f sprints whereas I tend to do better in longer races. So it wasn't the best card for me to have in hand. Today is another day, we'll see what happens.

T.D.

[Cesario!]

It’s no big deal for me to throw a couple of hundred bucks on a 30-1 shot because if I’ve done my homework I’m confident that it’s going to hit the board. Of course, they don’t always (shit happens), but they do more than they don’t. ;)

Wow....You're hitting 30-1 shots at a better than even money rate? You must be the richest man in the whole wide world.

I know what you mean, but the literalist in me couldn't resist. :)

[joeyspicks]

One of the nice things I have noticed about rmania's LS picks; they almost always run well. I mean even when they lose they finish 2md, 3rd or 4th a lot! (I havent kept numbers.....and "a lot" is hardly a measurable pct:lol: )....
Its just an observation.......and really an indication of high quality picks.:ThmbUp:

[rmania]

Wow....You're hitting 30-1 shots at a better than even money rate? You must be the richest man in the whole wide world.

I know what you mean, but the literalist in me couldn't resist. :)
Granted, I don't play that many 30-1 shots but I can honestly say that those that I do find almost always figure in the mutuals.

My point is that, regardless of the odds, I'm confident (going in) that my horse will turn in an honest effort.

[kingfin66]

I played every race last night at Mnr and lost everyone one. :confused: The day before, I think I bet 6 at Mnr one blindly at OP and won 3. :cool:


Twin,

My only recommendation here is that you restrict your wagering to horse racing and skip those Mountaineer mule races :)

[twindouble]

Twin,

My only recommendation here is that you restrict your wagering to horse racing and skip those Mountaineer mule races :):lol:

Yes, I was told the same thing when I first started with that track, it was rough going at first but I can assure you if it didn't turn a profit I would have hung it up. Sure there's races where you just shake your head and think what the heck happend but when your on the payoffs are good and that makes up for the bad days. It is a roller coaster ride that's for sure.

T.D.

[JackS]

To each his own. I personally like to find a way to play every race including the ones I don't like . These include two types-1. short fields with a short odds "can't be beat"types that will produce minimal rewards even in the exoctics and 2.-the race that can't be figured. In both cases , I will start a P3. The "can't be beat" as a single, and possibly 2-3 non-favorites in races that I assume (right or wrong) can't be figured using standard logic.
I'm not trying to promote this method since I do not know weather there is any profit doing this but it does serve the purpose of maintaining action for the entire day. It also soothes my ego in that I have the feeling that at least I'm trying to come to grips with races I really might be better off passing.
I also limit the amount bet to maybe half of standard.

[mainardi]

Yo 2 dollar Joe,

Crazy???.....was sarcasm. Tom, and I, are big advocates of keeping records.

One day I mention people should handicap themselves if they want to increase their ROI, next thing I know people are writting articles.

I don't take credit for the idea, learned it when I first started playing.
It's a business for me. If I were a weekend player I would just have fun and forget all the crap. But for a business you need records.
I have stockholders to answer too!!! :D

If you are indeed keeping records then you should raise your bet to 4 bucks. You are already ahead of most of the public and most of the people up here I'm guessing.
Of course... I kinda figured that's where you were going... I was just using your opening to Tom as an excuse to continue the sarcastic movement in the thread! ;)

Yeah, my nickname doesn't reflect my wagering limits... I've gone WAY past $2... that's probably why I don't play every race. :)

[twindouble]

Of course... I kinda figured that's where you were going... I was just using your opening to Tom as an excuse to continue the sarcastic movement in the thread! ;)

Yeah, my nickname doesn't reflect my wagering limits... I've gone WAY past $2... that's probably why I don't play every race. :)


Well the beat goes on, I was 3 for 9 last night at Mnr in one I caught the ex but lost the tri, chalk so I lost money, in another I hit the super and again lost money, chalk. The one race I hit just produced a $30 profit, those vulnerable chalks didn't turn out so vulnerable,:D at least in those three. Where there was a good payoff, I was nowhere, it felt like I didn't read the form at all. In one race the jock on my key horse in an Ex thought he had an opening at the quarter and he quickly got squeezed out and I mean squeezed, it's a wonder he and others didn't go down. That race would have squared things off at that point plus.

So what to do? Do I panic and head to another track? No I won't do that. What I will do is put extra time in and be more selective with the cards and races but still follow what's going on. With the weather breaking I assume there will be more consistency to boot and hopefully the conditions will be in my favor.


T.D.

[Cesario!]

Granted, I don't play that many 30-1 shots but I can honestly say that those that I do find almost always figure in the mutuals.

My point is that, regardless of the odds, I'm confident (going in) that my horse will turn in an honest effort.

That's great. Sorry, my biggest pet peeve about this whole business is people who consistently mistate their bottom line or exaggerate their successes. It's like hanging out with a bunch of fisherman.

A quote:

"As I got to know the regulars, it became clear that few were truly supporting themselves in this way. Even the braggarts who said they were beating the game consistently turned out to be living off an inheritance or a wealthy spouse, or at least a recent insurance settlement. There's almost an infallible rule of thumb equating how a horse player says he's doing with how he's actually doing. Those who are losing claim they're breaking even. Those who are breaking even claim to be way ahead of game. Those who really do win say very little -- except that the game is humbling and that betting the horse is a very tough way to make a living." -- Steven Crist, Betting on Myself

[twindouble]

That's great. Sorry, my biggest pet peeve about this whole business is people who consistently mistate their bottom line or exaggerate their successes. It's like hanging out with a bunch of fisherman.

A quote:

"As I got to know the regulars, it became clear that few were truly supporting themselves in this way. Even the braggarts who said they were beating the game consistently turned out to be living off an inheritance or a wealthy spouse, or at least a recent insurance settlement. There's almost an infallible rule of thumb equating how a horse player says he's doing with how he's actually doing. Those who are losing claim they're breaking even. Those who are breaking even claim to be way ahead of game. Those who really do win say very little -- except that the game is humbling and that betting the horse is a very tough way to make a living." -- Steven Crist, Betting on Myself

To me it's arrogant, rude and self serving to throw a blanket over all that have something to say about their experiences or condition when it comes to winning or losing. I've found over the years that those that don't express themselves are the ones that are hiding the truth. In other words they present an air of having some covert hidden method and others don't have a clue. I wouldn't trust those suckers as far as I could throw them.

From your point of view, just about anything that's said here can be tossed out as nothing but lies and everyone here are just promoting themselves as being something they are not!


T.D.

[Cesario!]

That's not what I'm saying at all. It's very easy to talk about handicapping, strategy, winning/losing and the like, without making unverified statements about your success.

Personally, I found it very disheartening when I was a beginner and I found out that most people were completely disingenous (this includes self-lying). Now, that didn't stop me from figuring out ways to make it work within a realistic framework. However, it's still left a bad taste in my mouth when I see any sort of bragging.

I should also add that it's not just in handicapping. In my "real" job, I focus on the relationship between power, ego, and others. "Bragging" for lack of a better term is very related, but it can have devastating effects on newcomers to any arena and suppress new and innovative ideas.

[twindouble]

That's not what I'm saying at all. It's very easy to talk about handicapping, strategy, winning/losing and the like, without making unverified statements about your success.

Personally, I found it very disheartening when I was a beginner and I found out that most people were completely disingenous (this includes self-lying). Now, that didn't stop me from figuring out ways to make it work within a realistic framework. However, it's still left a bad taste in my mouth when I see any sort of bragging.

I should also add that it's not just in handicapping. In my "real" job, I focus on the relationship between power, ego, and others. "Bragging" for lack of a better term is very related, but it can have devastating effects on newcomers to any arena and suppress new and innovative ideas.

Understood but go back and look at the poll that was take here where we were asked what we made playing the horses, you can't say those that said they did well were bragging, now can you? Or if they were down right liars. Most are respected members here plus many here have expressed they have a positive ROI right along so where do you draw the line when it comes to your psycho analyses?

T.D.

[rmania]

....Sorry, my biggest pet peeve about this whole business is people who consistently mistate their bottom line or exaggerate their successes....
The longshots I find/play are posted on the Selections forum for all to see.
If you feel that I have mistated my bottom line or exaggerated my success... Oh well.
The topic is "playing every race... good or bad".
For me, NOT playing every race is good. And the confidence factor is the biggest reason.

[Cesario!]

I'll apologize. And I agree -- your response was appropriate for the topic. However, while the specifics probably don't apply to you, I'll still stand by my general assertions regarding the effects of false boasting on the incoming horseplayer.

I also tend to agree with your general approach, and I found that playing only when I have an edge...when the logic appears natually and is not forced...has helped my handicapping immensely.

For me, I like the real estate analogy. Just because you look at a property doesn't make it an investment candidate. You may need to sort through dozens of properties before you find one worth the risk. If you try to convince yourself that it's a good investment, you're doomed to fail over time.

[Murph]

To each his own. I personally like to find a way to play every race including the ones I don't like . These include two types-1. short fields with a short odds "can't be beat"types that will produce minimal rewards even in the exoctics and 2.-the race that can't be figured. In both cases , I will start a P3. The "can't be beat" as a single, and possibly 2-3 non-favorites in races that I assume (right or wrong) can't be figured using standard logic.
I'm not trying to promote this method since I do not know weather there is any profit doing this but it does serve the purpose of maintaining action for the entire day. It also soothes my ego in that I have the feeling that at least I'm trying to come to grips with races I really might be better off passing.
I also limit the amount bet to maybe half of standard.

My thoughts have always been that I can't decide to pass a race if I don't know how to handicap it. I set out to be an expert for every race on the card.

When I started out I handicapped every race on the card for the days I could get to KY. and planned a bankroll designed to bet every race as well. I was a mildly successful and very naive player.

Deciding that I could pass races and improve my roi I quickly discovered that I was missing some decent payoffs on contenders. Turned out I was not experienced enough to reliablely handicap the races I did play either.

Long story short .. learning how to extensively handicap every race on a card has made me a much stronger player. The excercise has led me to some unique information and knowledge from a wide range of sources. To expand my handicapping horizions I've included quarterhorse, harness and jump racing into my experience portfolio.

I think that passing races out of hand will lead to missed wagering opportunities and a mindset that will prevent growth in the handicapping process. The more you can learn about horses and horse races and the people who own and handle these fine beasts can only make you a better handicapper.

Leave no stone unturned and learn to understand and handicap every race. Then you will know whether it is truly wise to pass or bet on a particular contest.

Murph

[twindouble]

I think that passing races out of hand will lead to missed wagering opportunities and a mindset that will prevent growth in the handicapping process. The more you can learn about horses and horse races and the people who own and handle these fine beasts can only make you a better handicapper.

Leave no stone unturned and learn to understand and handicap every race. Then you will know whether it is truly wise to pass or bet on a particular contest. Quote; Murph.

That's sound advise Murph for beginners but I wouldn't tell them to go hog wild betting the unknown like the babies or 3yo's coming into their own. Sound handicapping is based on past performaces, we do need something to look at other than breeding or a race or two.


T.D.

[Tom]

I handicap most of them, but play only about 1 in 10 (that is up - i'm getting looser this year!)

My records showed me "hitting" 3 in 36 at Oaklawn - guess where I'm not betting today? At Gulfstream, Im hitting over 25% short term - I'm focusing there until I cool off. Gey, I got lots of choices everyday - send money where it is likley to come home with friends! ;)

[JackS]

One thing I've noticed about the occasional ,unreasonable and possibly un-handicappable race is that general concensus will invaribly come to some conclusion that a certain horse deserves to be the favorite.
When you know that the favorite really has no bettable advantage over many other horses in the same race it's time to put money at risk on one or more of the other horses who should be at inflated odds.
The hit rate on these types of races will probably not be very good for anybody but the prices offered can be an offset if looked at over a long period of time.
Many of these types of races become single factor in which the single factor should probably be the favorite but isn't.

[twindouble]

One thing I've noticed about the occasional ,unreasonable and possibly un-handicappable race is that general concensus will invaribly come to some conclusion that a certain horse deserves to be the favorite.
When you know that the favorite really has no bettable advantage over many other horses in the same race it's time to put money at risk on one or more of the other horses who should be at inflated odds.
The hit rate on these types of races will probably not be very good for anybody but the prices offered can be an offset if looked at over a long period of time.
Many of these types of races become single factor in which the single factor should probably be the favorite but isn't.

Jacks, believe it or not I get a little excited when those conditions exist, ESP when I know I can knock out at least 4 horses in the race including the chalk.

Good luck,

T.D.