Mark Cramer-The Automatic Bet

[karlskorner]

http://www.winsports.com/current/autobet11.cfm

[KingChas]

Cramer; "I am not a fan of conventional handicapping like speed, pace, class and form. It never worked for me. As a handicapping tool those four things have failed miserably. The reason is horse racing is financed by recreational players. Fifteen billion is bet on the horses each year. If conventional approaches worked, we would be a nation of horseplayers. You would not be able to get a seat at a track or OTB."

All for naught? Guess the 'New Age Handicapping" tools are trainer patterns and tote board readers. :eek:

[1st time lasix]

I have met both Mark Cramer and Ed Bain. Listened to their varied approaches at the most recent DRF handicapping expo. Each is a unique individual. Bain believes in his trainer angles and "filters." Not sure he even watches the races Very meticulous.

[Light]

I like the automatic bet approach. Its what I've been working on myself allthough it doesnt deal with trainers. Bain summarized the reasoning for automatic betting well when he said:

The reason for the automatics is to reduce the amount of mistakes from over-handicapping or over-evaluating a bet.......It becomes a confidence issue.

I have lost more $ from going against my automatic bets by using reasoning. Only thing sorely lacking in the article is an ROI report. Not crazy about the link to his web site either at the end of the article for buying his automatic bets. If my automatic bets ever get ironed out,I certainly wouldn't need nor want a web site offering them to the public.

[the_fat_man]

Now, as a Humean, THIS makes alot of sense to me.

Consider Russell's (Bertrand not John) example:

the turkey eagerly runs out to meet the farmer every morning, knowing that it will get fed

until

Thanksgiving (eve)

Why would anyone actually put some thought (and effort) into the selection process when AUTOMATIC PLAYS are out there?

It's the American GET RICH QUICK way: LESS work, MORE money.

[ryesteve]

It's the American GET RICH QUICK way: LESS work, MORE money.
Did you even read the article? Saying that Bain's approach requires "less work" than anyone else's, sounds pretty far off the mark.

[the_fat_man]

Did you even read the article? Saying that Bain's approach requires "less work" than anyone else's, sounds pretty far off the mark.

I read it, Steve

now, go away

[kenwoodallpromos]

This trainer angle plays to the strength of the individual trainer's techniques and is broken down sufficiently. I like it!

[PaceAdvantage]

I read it, Steve

now, go away


Where are your manners boy?

[ryesteve]

I read it, Steve

now, go away
If you read it and still felt compelled to write that Bain is taking the lazy man's route, then go reread it again until you understand it. If you need some help with the big words, we're all here for you.

[skate]

[QUOTE=KingChas]Cramer; "I am not a fan of conventional handicapping like speed, pace, class and form. It never worked for me. As a handicapping tool those four things have failed miserably. The reason is horse racing is financed by recreational players. Fifteen billion is bet on the horses each year. If conventional approaches worked, we would be a nation of horseplayers. You would not be able to get a seat at a track or OTB."



well. i know ziltch bout cramers ( unless you refer to Cramerica), but when someone says that something can not work "because if it did, we would be a nation of .... whatevers" , i must ask (horse racing aside)(or not aside) is there anything that "would Work", mind you, i'm not talking bout racing, i'm saying what would work "at all, at anytime", because if anything worked, then by your reasoning, everbody would just do that which worked.

so everyone will sell fuel, it works.
so everyone builds computes, that works
so everyone makes porn movies, they work.

in my opinion, it is not (especially considerring THE odds) it is Not any simple formula that makes anyone a winner.
sides, the above that you mention, those points of interest are to a very very large degree, not even known to bout 90% of those 15 billion $.

It is not any one point that you mention that makes a winner, but when you combine some of the above along with other (? odds) points.....

[46zilzal]

[QUOTE=KingChas]it is Not any simple formula that makes anyone a winner.
sides, the above that you mention, those points of interest are to a very very large degree, not even known to bout 90% of those 15 billion $.


beg to differ: in maiden fields if one just bets those fastest to the 2nd call, they tip their hands at graduating next race out. Sounds overly simplisitic, but it works.

[RXB]

In MCL, yes. In MSW, no.

[46zilzal]

In MCL, yes. In MSW, no.
again beg to differ. maidens are simply maidens

[DrugSalvastore]

I just don't see how anyone can make a living beating the races solely with trainer stats....and doing no handicapping at all.

I know a lot of different people who have played the game chasing trainer stats at all the tracks---they all seem to miss a lot of weddings and catch a lot of funerals.

They also will find themselves on hopeless horses, who only get money, because of the trainer factor.

There are tons and tons of thing that go into sound handicapping---I think people try to get away from it and look for an easy way out...in a game where the rake is so high, there is no easy way out.

I think it's great to try and be a specialist at one facet of the plethora there are in the handicapping process. However, the ultimate goal should be to be a specialist at every possible facet there is...and rely on your personal analytical skills to sort everything out.

If people really think they can make a living betting on horses, simply by finding clever trainer trends, and doing no handicapping at all---I wish them good luck I guess.

[toetoe]

PA,

You as much as called tfm fat boy.

[Tom]

I love how people here are so quick to judge anything or anyone they don't understand. Bain puts in lots of work setting up his automatic bets, as does Cramer. Both probably do more work that watching replays on a couch!:rolleyes:
I have met Cramer in person - he is thin. Says a lot, eh?

BTW, I have been following his automatic bet evolution for years and have made some very healthy scores - particulary at AQU in the spring.

[the_fat_man]

Where are your manners boy?

My mistake was letting Stevie out of the iggy bin.

Won't happen again.

[the_fat_man]

I just don't see how anyone can make a living beating the races solely with trainer stats....and doing no handicapping at all.

I know a lot of different people who have played the game chasing trainer stats at all the tracks---they all seem to miss a lot of weddings and catch a lot of funerals.

They also will find themselves on hopeless horses, who only get money, because of the trainer factor.

There are tons and tons of thing that go into sound handicapping---I think people try to get away from it and look for an easy way out...in a game where the rake is so high, there is no easy way out.

I think it's great to try and be a specialist at one facet of the plethora there are in the handicapping process. However, the ultimate goal should be to be a specialist at every possible facet there is...and rely on your personal analytical skills to sort everything out.

If people really think they can make a living betting on horses, simply by finding clever trainer trends, and doing no handicapping at all---I wish them good luck I guess.

What's interesting to me in all this is that Bain focuses on 40% winning trainers for whatever angle and bets them automatically.

Why wouldn't he add a bit of handicapping and up the win percentage?

A wiz at statistics like Bain could certainly invest a few more minutes (well, his computer could, in any event) to uncover WHY some of the 60% that lose do so.

Guess he's just not greedy. I mean he probably makes up the difference selling his statistics online.

I happened to go over to his site and was reading through some of his articles; in particular his review of the conference a few years ago.

He clearly doesn't like Joe Cardello and was he mocking the betting consortiums (can't win without the rebate)?

I find it all AMAZING.

[parlay]

There is to my mind no standard way to analyze races.
The art is det ermining which information and what tools need to be applied to this specific encounter. An encounter that will only occur once under these exact conditions.
I believe that speed,pace and all other "figs" are usefull at times, but there
widespread availability has eroded there profit generation.
This has made finding the "other" winners a neccessary skill for those who
prefer profit to winners.
I have automatic bets.
Redboard ALERT
Opening day Keeneland,first race, i posted at another board that
Phil oliver pointed for this meet every year. I consider all his horses
live at this meet, and will bet them all blindly.
Lordly had run on the Mth turf 3 times in MdSwt company, essentially splitting all 3 fields. 3 different pilots and now reappeared off a 6 week layoff.
He was bet down to 4-1 in his two most recent efforts.
Valenzuela had been named to ride but was replaced with the jock who
i also stated was going to have a big meet, Bejarano.
At $31.60-1 i can play these kind all the time. I am pretty sure that regardless of wether Phil sends out another winner this meet i will have had another profitable year playing this Automatic bet.

[betovernetcapper]

[QUOTE=the_fat_man]What's interesting to me in all this is that Bain focuses on 40% winning trainers for whatever angle and bets them automatically.

Why wouldn't he add a bit of handicapping and up the win percentage?

I'm guessing that a lot of the profit from this kind of play would come from horses that look really bad in other respects. Handicapping might raise the win pecentage but lower the ROI.

[Light]

Why wouldn't he add a bit of handicapping and up the win percentage?

The answer is because automatic betting is in its own design an anti-handicapping approach.

[speculus]

Cramer; "I am not a fan of conventional handicapping like speed, pace, class and form. It never worked for me. As a handicapping tool those four things have failed miserably. The reason is horse racing is financed by recreational players. Fifteen billion is bet on the horses each year. If conventional approaches worked, we would be a nation of horseplayers. You would not be able to get a seat at a track or OTB."

All for naught? Guess the 'New Age Handicapping" tools are trainer patterns and tote board readers. :eek:

It's Bain who said it, not Cramer.
Here it is:
Mark: Can there be an automatic bet based on conventional handicapping, or is it absolutely necessary to go against the grain of the usual variables?

Ed: I am not a fan of conventional handicapping like speed, pace, class and form. It never worked for me. As a handicapping tool those four things have failed miserably. The reason is horse racing is financed by recreational players. Fifteen billion is bet on the horses each year. If conventional approaches worked, we would be a nation of horseplayers. You would not be able to get a seat at a track or OTB.

[KingChas]

It's Bain who said it, not Cramer.


Spec, Reread correct- my bad- :blush:

Actually my reply contained no malice,I am a firm believer in doing what works to win for any individual handicapper or bettor his own unique way.I think he's kind of stereotyping all conventional handicapping methods,players as losers.That is what I disagree with.As for the tote-boarders just responding to many recent threads here.Different strokes for different folks.
Handicapping is an individual pursuit that you've got to do your way,your style.(IMHO) ;)

[twindouble]

Spec, Reread correct- my bad- :blush:

Actually my reply contained no malice,I am a firm believer in doing what works to win for any individual handicapper or bettor his own unique way.I think he's kind of stereotyping all conventional handicapping methods,players as losers.That is what I disagree with.As for the tote-boarders just responding to many recent threads here.Different strokes for different folks.
Handicapping is an individual pursuit that you've got to do your way,your style.(IMHO) ;)

King, I agree with what you said, not that computerizing horse racing and extreme stats agrees with me. What Bain is doing isn't anything new, it's the degree he's leaning on it and supposedly making money. We all talk about how important the trainers are to this game, myself and many members stressed it many times. I thing we have all developed that "subset" of trainers that we keep a keen eye on along with our traditional handicapping. Over the years, I've gone deeper at the smaller tracks because I want the one that's going to blow everyone away. There many here that can come up with those $3.00 to $6.00 horses he refers to and achieve a comparable win rate. I'm really not impressed and like you say, good luck with what works for you.

T.D.

[1st time lasix]

I just don't see how anyone can make a living beating the races solely with trainer stats....and doing no handicapping at all.

I know a lot of different people who have played the game chasing trainer stats at all the tracks---they all seem to miss a lot of weddings and catch a lot of funerals.

They also will find themselves on hopeless horses, who only get money, because of the trainer factor.

There are tons and tons of thing that go into sound handicapping---I think people try to get away from it and look for an easy way out...in a game where the rake is so high, there is no easy way out.

I think it's great to try and be a specialist at one facet of the plethora there are in the handicapping process. However, the ultimate goal should be to be a specialist at every possible facet there is...and rely on your personal analytical skills to sort everything out.

If people really think they can make a living betting on horses, simply by finding clever trainer trends, and doing no handicapping at all---I wish them good luck I guess. That is exactly what he is doing....and doing sucessfully from what I have observed the past three years. {since I saw his presentation at the 2004 DRF handicapping forum in Las Vegas.} Based on my observation......he works very hard, monitors the statistics very carefully and constantly refines his "filters"to get a positive ROI. Don't think he needs your "good Luck"

[timtam]

Wasn't it in one of Barry Meadows newsletters where he stated let me

paraphrase Ed Bain makes more money selling his statisitcs than he

does betting horses ?

[classhandicapper]

Some of my biggest scores at the track have come off trainer patterns. Over my lifetime, I'm certain I am WAY ahead on every bet I ever made specifically because of a trainer pattern. Despite that, it's not a primary focus of mine. It's secondary.

The reason is that I can rarely figure out when a hot or cold stat reflects a specific strength/weakness (vs randomness), "soon enough to be useful". The problem is that as the samples get larger and the evidence accumulates, the odds on the board also change. As a result, so does the ROI.

Just because something was profitable over 30 races with 4 or more winners does not mean it will remain profitable over the next 30. That's true even if the stat reflects a real trainer technique. Once other horse players notice the pattern, they start betting it also and drive down the average mutual, thus reducing the ROI. The more evidence there is, the more they drive down the average price until it's ultimately unprofitable. If you start jumping on sooner, you will make a lot of bad jumps.

Another obvious problem with layoffs, first/2nd time starters etc... is that there's more to it than the trainer. Sometimes weather, health of the horses, and/or simple good or bad luck are involved. A trainer could be very skilled with layoffs/1st time starters and be aiming for a specific meet but because of weather, a cold that was going around in the barn, etc... have a few of his horses miss some time and work. So he sends them all out a race or two short. The next year everything goes smoothly and he sends them all out ready. If you aren't paying attention to this sort of thing you are going to get wipsawed all over the place. You'll bet all the losers one year and perhaps bet against a few of the winners the next year.

I can even give you a recent example. The article says that Bobby Frankel is great with layoffs. I agree. But recently in NY I happened to notice that he sent out a few odds on favorites off a layoff that clearly came back short of their best. So something was UP/WRONG. Soon after I noticed that he had another odds on horse entered that looked solid if it was ready. I bet against the horse at that price and it finished up the track. So the value was in observing the short term pattern and betting against the long term one that the public was betting on.

Then, when the first of those horses came back for its second start, it moved forward smartly. So from that point forward I started assuming the rest could/would too.

Point being that the value was in observing what was going on and not in the stats.

I've seen seasons where Zito did terribly with first time starters and many of his 2nd time starters moved forward and I've seen him have seasons where his best firsters were all firing right out of the box. It was a matter of preparation and not skill. Long term stats don't tell you things like that. You have to adjust and look at what's going on.

It's extremely difficult to do this without getting wipsawed all around (even though I know a couple of guys that do it profitably)

[cj]

I don't find the public is all that smart. Sure, they catch on to trends and bet them eventually. In the end, the public will overbet these trends and create overlays elsewhere. The general pattern is there is value in something, then it is neutral, then it becomes bet so heavily that it creates value elsewhere. That doesn't sound very smart to me.

Don't follow the pack, and you will do fine. Lead the pack. Then when the pack catches up, go off on another road until they catch up again.

[1st time lasix]

Wasn't it in one of Barry Meadows newsletters where he stated let me

paraphrase Ed Bain makes more money selling his statisitcs than he

does betting horses ? Barry Meadow has voiced critical negative skepitcism at every opportunity to every handicapping method known to man.....while I am not defending Ed Bain and his methods....it would be nice to see HOW Barry Meadow comes up with his own selections. Seen him twice now on panels....he was completely worthless as an instructer on how to win at the races. "Bet overlays....blah, blah blah" " What is your edge....blah, blah blah" he comes off as a pompous a--

[GaryG]

I keep these statistics in a similar way for the tracks I am following and they have been a cornerstone of my play for a long time. The public has the stats in the pps but they are not track specific. Also, there are many that the pps don't list, such as 3rd start off a layoff. A good point was made some time back, I think by Jerry Stokes, that trainer intent is embedded in speed and pace figures. Just another part of the puzzle that makes this such a great game.

[classhandicapper]

I don't find the public is all that smart. Sure, they catch on to trends and bet them eventually. In the end, the public will overbet these trends and create overlays elsewhere. The general pattern is there is value in something, then it is neutral, then it becomes bet so heavily that it creates value elsewhere. That doesn't sound very smart to me.

Don't follow the pack, and you will do fine. Lead the pack. Then when the pack catches up, go off on another road until they catch up again.

I agree with you.

I think trainer patterns have an added difficulty when trying to determine the value.

1. When you first start noticing a profitable trainer pattern the sample is usually relatively small. How do you know if it's a valid long term stat.

2. As the prices start to shrink on a legitimate trainer pattern, how do you know the point at which it is no longer profitable when it's more or less an isolated stat?

3. When a pattern that was formerly profitable runs into a cold streak, how do you know whether it's a short term random event within the still intact profitable long term pattern or whether the pattern itself is no longer valid.

Even when some of these patterns start to get overbet, I still don't ignore them.

For example, how can I get a good feel for the proper odds on another horse in the race if I don't know that trainer "X" is great with horses that he recently claimed when he drops them below the price he claimed them for as soon as they are out of jail?

Even if they overbet that horse and make him 4-5 instead of 7-5 (when on paper he looks like a 4-1 shot), if I don't have that knowledge, I might bet the second choice at 3-1 thinking he's an overlay when he's not because I am dramatically underestimating the chances of the pattern horse, thinking he should be 4-1.

I find these issues very complex and don't see how handicappers can get a big edge over the game without being somewhat comprehensive. At the same time, the more comprehensive you get the more difficult it gets to weigh all the factors well enough to have a lot of confidence in a bet.

[karlskorner]

As I have often said, in one form or another, " take the road least traveled "

To quote Casey Stangel " When you come to the fork in the road, take it "

[delayjf]

Tell us about the time you claimed French Melody at Saratoga (77) then entered him at The Meadowlands and cleaned up. According to Beyer, your the King of the Betting Coups. :D :D

[skate]

[QUOTE=skate]
beg to differ: in maiden fields if one just bets those fastest to the 2nd call, they tip their hands at graduating next race out. Sounds overly simplisitic, but it works.

ok ok 46zilzal;

what the ...what does your quote have to do with what i said. hey its tough for me to follow, could you please explain, or should i leave things as they are?

what is it that you are "begging to differ" with..?

i must say that , i don't use your simlistics, but i do not find fault with that which you stated.
which would only add strength to what i've said. that being, variations(betting horses) are unlimited.

and to dicredit any "One" singel method would be foolish.

[delayjf]

Where I would disagree with Ed and Mark is that I don't care what the stats are, I would never bet make any automatic bet at short odds. Why do I need to make the wager at even money? IMHO, any bet with a long term negative expectation is a bad bet. At 30% winners, I'd never make a bet at less than 7-2 or better.

[the_fat_man]

Tell us about the time you claimed French Melody at Saratoga (77) then entered him at The Meadowlands and cleaned up. According to Beyer, your the King of the Betting Coups. :D :D

That's news to me.

Did I cut him (feet) and tap him (ankles) per usual?

[ryesteve]

At 30% winners, I'd never make a bet at less than 7-2 or better.
That'd be a bad idea if, within those stats, it turns out that you win 50% of the time on 2-1 shots, and 5% of the time on 10-1 shots.

[delayjf]

That'd be a bad idea if, within those stats, it turns out that you win 50% of the time on 2-1 shots, and 5% of the time on 10-1 shots.

Agreed, Good point. I wonder if he's broken it down by odds?

THE FAT MAN
That was an inside joke, per your nondeplum, I assume you've read Beyers "My 50,000 Dollar year at the Races"

[delayjf]

I find these issues very complex and don't see how handicappers can get a big edge over the game without being somewhat comprehensive. At the same time, the more comprehensive you get the more difficult it gets to weigh all the factors well enough to have a lot of confidence in a bet.

I would agree with that accessment, I think you do need to be comprehensive. The way I approached trainer pattern to use them as a measure of trainer intent, and once I determine that the trainer is "sending his horse" then I would look at past speed / pace figures to answer the questions "how good is this horse and IF he runs his race, can he win." Where this can sometime become a leap of faith is when one is dealing with younger horses or horses attempting to try something for the first time. Speed / pace figures can be miss-leading if they come from races that the horse in question was not up to his best OR in that the trainer was not attempting to go all out.

I love longshots so to me playing a trainer pattern at even money is a no go. I look for trainer patterns as a clue that a horse in seemly bad form will suddenly turn it around. If the short odds / trainer pattern involves a layoff or some situation that could be interpeted as negative, I'm more inclined to bet against the pattern.

[saevena]

The Fat Man Beyer referred to in his book was Thomas J. Miller, an obscure trainer who has been out of the game for a long, long time and who, to my knowledge, never raced in Maryland.

[delayjf]

SAEVENA,

Thanks for the info, I had asked The Little Guy the same question but I guess Beyer was dubvious about revealing his identity, I assumed he was dead and therefore no big deal.

Bye the Bye, I do know that French Melody the horse that "the fat Man" claimed was not the horse's real name. I ran that name through the equibase database and nothing came up.

Do you know whatever happened to the Kid and Charlie? I could care less about their real names, just curious to know if their still in the game. I assume Charlie has passed away, that was about 30 years ago.

[GaryG]

106 For French Melody 1954
On 13-Oct-06 (c) Copyright 2006 Bloodstock Research Information Services, Inc.


*Royal Minstrel 25
First Fiddle
(1939) Rueful 27
French Melody, Ro, F
Foaled 1954 Jamestown 28
Virelay
(1942) Clever Song 36



Race Record:
Race Record in North America
1956 2 0 0 0 $0
Totals 2 0 0 0 $0

[delayjf]

My bust, what I meant was there was no French Melody racing on or about 1977, when The Fat Man supposedly claimed the horse at Saratoga.

[traynor]

[QUOTE=skate]
beg to differ: in maiden fields if one just bets those fastest to the 2nd call, they tip their hands at graduating next race out. Sounds overly simplisitic, but it works.

Some years ago, Bob Heyburn, in Fast and Fit Horses, made the same argument; "best to the second call in a sprint" was highly predictive. Long workouts at Aqu, if I remember correctly, that showed a decent return.

[traynor]

Wasn't it in one of Barry Meadows newsletters where he stated let me

paraphrase Ed Bain makes more money selling his statisitcs than he

does betting horses ?

In a PA posting some months ago, Barry Meadow mentioned that he makes about the same amount selling his newsletter as from wagering. Either he sells a LOT of newsletters or he doesn't bet very much. ;)

[saevena]

Delayjf:

To the best of my knowledge, the kid is still around and is a "racing economist." I have no idea who Charlie was.

[JimG]

Delayjf:

To the best of my knowledge, the kid is still around and is a "racing economist." I have no idea who Charlie was.

I thought the "kid" referred to in Beyer's book was the gentleman who posts here as "the little guy"

[toetoe]

The guy's full name is Kit Cloudkicker, but AB never was interested. He just called him Kid.

[Tom]

Now THAT is one cool name! :ThmbUp:

[Overlay]

Now THAT is one cool name! :ThmbUp:

Disney thought so, too!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Kit+Cloudkicker&btnG=Google+Search

[delayjf]

To the best of my knowledge, the kid is still around and is a "racing economist." I have no idea who Charlie was.

Charlie, was a handicapping associate of Beyer's ("My 50,000 Dollar Year at the Races") who introduced Beyer to trip handicapping. From his discription, I believe he was an older man whom I assume has sinced passed away.