Do these players really exist?

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

One of britains most successful gamblers has a secret of success."before you make a bet, ask yourself seriously if you would be willing to bet ten times more on the outcome of the race,if the answer is no then don't bet.you arent really confident that you've picked the winner"

do these players really exist? Does any one on this site have any experiences that this type of player actually play's the game this way? i'm interested in any responses.

thank you and as always best of luck. zappi

[sjk]

It would never even enter my mind to be confident that I was betting a winner. All I need is confidence that I am making a good bet even if it has only a 2% chance of being a winner (as long as I am getting paid 100-1). When it comes to the 2% situations I would certainly not care to bet 10x as much.

I would think that if you only bet when you had a high level of confidence that you had a winner you would pass an awful lot of races. You would also find out that your confidence was not always borne out by getting paid.

[robert99]

The usual "good" advice trotted out is "never bet more than you can afford to lose". My contrarian view has always been "always bet more two times more than you can afford to lose". If you hesitate before the cash is down you then know you are making a bad bet and bail out. A lot of people have good methods that could steadily bring in returns but they cannot resist from the odd fun gamble and eventually blow the lot. If you believe anyone's unsubstantiated claim to be the most succesful gambler and this is my secret then please send your credit card details and PIN for my latest can't lose tipping service.

[traynor]

sjk wrote: <I would think that if you only bet when you had a high level of confidence that you had a winner you would pass an awful lot of races. You would also find out that your confidence was not always borne out by getting paid.>

You have a good point. For selections made on the basis of computer printout or numerical analysis, I agree completely. When the decisions are made subjectively, interpretively, through direct observation, then confidence is a very big issue. Qualitative decision making is fundamentally different than qualitative; the latter is often diminished in effectiveness by injecting subjective opinion. Qualitative decisions are "semi-intuitive" in nature, not because they require "intuition," but because they require a gestaltic grasp of complex input. That grasp often is made tenuous by second-guessing, or allowing quantitative data to take precedent.

In plain English, I bet by numbers because my computer says bet, and I win that way. I prefer to combine direct observation (at which I have a high level of confidence) and quantitative analysis, while leaning heavily toward the former. If my subjective opinion differs from my computer projection, I get to prefer my opinion over the computer. I am confident that when I disagree with the ratings, my opinion is superior. Which is fine, because I have no inclination to kick my computer if I lose.

Bottom line, there is room for both ways of thinking. I think a middle path that blends "intuitive," qualitative decision-making with quantitative analysis is the best of both worlds. Also profitable.
Good Luck!

[kitts]

Don't have a response for this other than my motto:
"Often wrong but never in doubt"

[Dave Schwartz]

IMHO, that approach would be the perfect model for failure.

It suggests that the way to play is to bet only "sure things."

I would say that exactly the opposite is more likely to be true: You least confident plays are generally the ones that generate the most profit.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Overlay]

"Before you make a bet, ask yourself seriously if you would be willing to bet ten times more on the outcome of the race,if the answer is no then don't bet.you arent really confident that you've picked the winner"


That statement captures the flaw in most "systems" -- trying to pick "the winner" with no consideration of the relationship between its odds and its true chances of coming in first. You don't have to be absolutely confident that you've picked the winner. Instead, the player should be seeking out and betting the horse that is offering the greatest potential return in comparison to its actual probability of winning (regardless of whether it's the single most likely winner in the race or not).

[ryesteve]

"before you make a bet, ask yourself seriously if you would be willing to bet ten times more on the outcome of the race,if the answer is no then don't bet.you arent really confident that you've picked the winner"
Who has a hit rate over 50%? Since we all lose more races than we win, there's no reason to be especially confident about the outcome of any one particular race.

[dav4463]

I label my races by a "confidence" rating as either an "A", "B", "C" or "D" race. "A" is a very confident in my selection race, "B" is a good chance at value among my top two choices, "C" is value among top three or four choices, and "D" were races in which I had no real clue and just took a stab for value only. My biggest profits come from "C" and "D" races. "A" has been a loser for me and "B" is treading water ! I guess I'm better off when I can see some possibilities, but have no clue who should win the race.

[Grifter]

Traynor -- You have provided an insight into a whole new lexicon of excuses for a bad day at the track. Now I can explain to my wife that -- despite evidence to the contrary -- I'm really quite a good handicapper, but that I've momentarily lost my "gestaltic grasp."

She's tired of my old excuse, which usually goes something like "my mojo ain't working."

-- Grifter

[traynor]

Grifter wrote: <Traynor -- You have provided an insight into a whole new lexicon of excuses for a bad day at the track. Now I can explain to my wife that -- despite evidence to the contrary -- I'm really quite a good handicapper, but that I've momentarily lost my "gestaltic grasp.">

Glad to help. That vocabulary cost me close to a quarter million in undergraduate and graduate school to pick up, but your definition seems to quite adequately convey the same thing.

Decision theory, especially as applied to managerial and executive decision-making, is a topic of great interest to me. It is the primary distinction between the majority--who barely earn enough to survive--and the CEOs, whose average income has increased so much in the last 10 years that most would not believe it. What they do, better than others, is make decisions. In this world, it is the ability to make effective decisions that separates the "masses" (including a whole lot with engineering and graduate degrees) from the "elite."

It is an endlessly interesting field of study, especially when it can be applied directly (with prompt, accurate feedback) at racetracks everywhere with great reward. If done properly.
Good Luck!

[traynor]

"Confidence" is a relatively ambiguous term, and may mean different things to different people. "Confidence level" is something that is trainable--refer to British Petroleum program to train engineers to locate petroleum deposits. It is a specific evaluation attached to predictions or evaluations.

What many call "confidence" is activation of a heuristic; a mental shortcut that, once activated, prevents further analysis. Something on the order of, "Don't try to confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up." The stronger the heuristic (not the more accurate, the stronger in subjective effect) the greater the tendency to stop thinking and ignore conflicting evidence.
Good Luck!

[Dave Schwartz]

Decision theory, especially as applied to managerial and executive decision-making, is a topic of great interest to me. It is the primary distinction between the majority--who barely earn enough to survive--and the CEOs, whose average income has increased so much in the last 10 years that most would not believe it. What they do, better than others, is make decisions. In this world, it is the ability to make effective decisions that separates the "masses" (including a whole lot with engineering and graduate degrees) from the "elite."


What "they do better than others" (really) is make sweet deals so that when the company has poor performance they get to walk with way more money than they deserve.

[melman]

This is one of those deals where you can go around and around and not have an "answer". The two books or booklets I most learned from were Steve Fierro's work and Dave's two booklets. That is what I learned from however a player must really understand his own make up first. If you are a person who is adverse to risk why in the world would you subject yourself to a "swing for the fences" style of play?? Overall I like the idea of low hit % but a high return when you do hit but that is my make up as a person. Someone else can still do very well with a much higher hit %. Same deal I think with number of races a person bets in a day. For me on a busy weekend 100 or more bets is not uncommon but I can see where a player would like to just "go with his best" and only bet a few races. One thing i will pass on is that as a "swing for the fences" type of player in the last two years I have really come to like the pic3/pic4 bet over the tri's or super's. Each to his own of course but I like getting those pic bets with a limit on investment.

[traynor]

Dave Schwartz wrote: <What "they do better than others" (really) is make sweet deals so that when the company has poor performance they get to walk with way more money than they deserve.>

Absolutely correct. Milk the cash cow dry, then leave accompanied by buckets of loot and the adoration of all. THAT is real skill. The really good ones get written up in the literature of management (and history books, if they happen to be politicians) as exemplary cases of "strategic management." I am not commenting on either the morality or ethics of the behavior--only on its effectiveness.
Good Luck!

[robert99]

Meanwhile the monthly balance of payment's deficits sore into the $billions, interest rate rise and the dollar still sinks into the ocean. If only those who make the decisons to appoint these parasites in the first place, had your insight into Decision Theory.

[NoDayJob]

What "they do better than others" (really) is make sweet deals so that when the company has poor performance they get to walk with way more money than they deserve.

Youse said it brudder. The corporate world and politics are full of very wealthy losers. And to boot it's next to impossible to get rid of them permanently. They just move to another company or another office. :bang: :bang:

[Vegas711]

Taking a shot often results in firing blanks.


The only time I now make a bet ( Win or Place only) is when I have a very strong feeling that my horse is going to win.The horse has to be atleast 2-1 and the race itself has no more than one question mark i.e. an easy race.
Hitting 5 or 6 winners in a row will quickly grow your bankroll.


The most inportant ingredient to winning is applying a winning method that is the opposite of what others do for instance I can only recall 2 races in the last 2 years that I knew who the jockey or trainer was.I still make money even if I ignore this and other information that the masses are using.

[BeatTheChalk]

Mostly I blow
and I'm not very keen
but .. I know what I know..
If..you know what I mean ! :bang: