How to maximize?

[Pell Mell]

I don't handicap every day. In the past month, 12/2-1/7, I played 20 days.

I had a total of 38 plays of which there were 19 winners and 31 placed.

The winners grossed $184.10 and the place grossed $189.60

I play all of them to place unless 5/1 or better. Then I play w/p

There were 8 plays 5/1 or better of which 4 were winners.

My question is; how would you bet to maximize the profit?

[singunner]

My question is, what did you NET? While the information could probably be derived, you could save us some footwork. What was the Total Wagered on winner/place and what was the Overall Gross of each?

Those figures will make it very easy to tell you how to maximize profit (if we were to assume your very small sample-size to be representative).

[Pell Mell]

The net on win bets was $108.10 based on a $2 bet. But I only bet win on the ones over 5/1

The net for place, which I bet them all, was $113.60 for a $2 bet.

[singunner]

I decided to try and derive the answers, but the very first line involving 38 plays, of which there were 19 winners and 31 places baffled me a bit. Did you bet on 38 horses and somehow get 50 horses to come in off of it? My understanding of racing terminology must not be quite where I thought it was.

[Pell Mell]

I think I confused the issue. The net for the winners was overall.

I actually only bet 8 horses to win which netted $66.40 for a $2 bet.

[singunner]

Well you certainly seem to be capable, eh? Off of your 16 dollars spent on winners, you got 124.10 (7.7 times your initial investment) and on place you got 189.60 off of 28 dollars (2.5 times your initial investment).

The obvious advice would be to increase your wager amount on winners, but given that you're only batting .500 on them, it'd be an increased loss as well without any guarantee that your current outcome was representative of the whole. Your 2.5 times on place with an 81 percent hit rate would seem a safer place to increase your wagering. It's always that eternal balance between risk and return. All the same, not bad off of 38 plays, eh?

[singunner]

Ahh. Then only 5.15 times on winners. About double your return from place bets, with all the before mentioned caveats.

[Pell Mell]

The reason I bet place is twofold. No long strings of losers and a much safer bet. And, on short priced horses there is not much difference between the win and place price, at least not enough to justify the risk.

What I wanted to know is if I should use something other than flat bets to gain a little more.

I know this is a small sample but it really doesn't matter because it's usually about the same. I used to keep records but quit doing that about 30 yrs ago but since reading some of the stuff you math wizards post, I decided to start keeping track again.

[singunner]

I'll leave this to someone else then. I can do the math part of things, but I'm still not sure of my footing on the betting side. If you had such a stalwart positive expectation though, mightn't it be easiest to simply increase your bet size all around?

[Robert Fischer]

all i can say is "great job".

You had 50% on your spot play win bets and 80% strike rate on your place bets.


With numbers like that, you don't need a fancy system.

Gradually and safely increase the wager amount (with $ from winnings if possible).

take a look at the exacta probables with horses >5/1.
8 of the 38 where over 5/1(your value mark to try a win bet).
Would be interesting to compare how the $4.00 invested in W/P would compare with a "top/bottom" exacta. Only when the situation fits.
What if you can exclude 2 win candidates and 1 place candidate in a 7 horse field?
something like 1X w/ 2,3,4,5,6 and 2,3,4,5 w/1X total of $9 (compared to $4 for the W/P). Instead of making $15-20 you have potential to grind out more. Check the probables.

[traynor]

The reason I bet place is twofold. No long strings of losers and a much safer bet. And, on short priced horses there is not much difference between the win and place price, at least not enough to justify the risk.

What I wanted to know is if I should use something other than flat bets to gain a little more.

I know this is a small sample but it really doesn't matter because it's usually about the same. I used to keep records but quit doing that about 30 yrs ago but since reading some of the stuff you math wizards post, I decided to start keeping track again.

With long prices and a fairly high relative win percentage (especially on place bets) you might look into a due column method. Not the silly "The track owes me $100 today, and when I win I go home" but a patterned incremental increase or decrease based on wins or losses.

There are any number of "experts" who will happily tell you how awful and impossible due column wagering is; most of the negative commentary is based on dumping buckets of cash on $3.60 winners. The late Russ Dietrich (of PRN) was a big fan of due column wagering, and wrote about it at length.

Does it work? Yes, very well. The only problem is that it won't work with chalk, which is what most "handicappers" pursue. It also won't work if you have missouts of 40-50 races at a whack.
Good Luck

[Pell Mell]

Thanks Tray and Fischer.

I had a couple long ones today that ran second and instead of betting win and place I bet place and put a couple on top in ex and caught both.

Tray, do you know where on the net I can get some info about the due column stuff. Did you mean 30-40 losers in a row?

[PriceAnProbability]

I don't handicap every day. In the past month, 12/2-1/7, I played 20 days.

I had a total of 38 plays of which there were 19 winners and 31 placed.

The winners grossed $184.10 and the place grossed $189.60

I play all of them to place unless 5/1 or better. Then I play w/p

There were 8 plays 5/1 or better of which 4 were winners.

My question is; how would you bet to maximize the profit?

Start with $1.00 per horse, because if your ROI is over 100 percent long-term, you'll be maxxing out the pools in about a week. If not, you'll be glad you didn't chase a phantom profit based on a short-term sample.

[PriceAnProbability]

The reason I bet place is twofold. No long strings of losers and a much safer bet. And, on short priced horses there is not much difference between the win and place price, at least not enough to justify the risk.

What I wanted to know is if I should use something other than flat bets to gain a little more.

I know this is a small sample but it really doesn't matter because it's usually about the same. I used to keep records but quit doing that about 30 yrs ago but since reading some of the stuff you math wizards post, I decided to start keeping track again.

Since an ROI of even $1.02 can make you a living, if your sample is even slightly representative of your true long-term ability, your only real dilemma will be which luxury items to buy, and which rich neighborhood to live in.

The question here you should have now is: is this real? If so, you should be betting on it steadily and building your life around your horseplaying, putting every available dollar into the venture, and if not, you should stop getting giddy every time you hit a hot streak.

Place betting is the same as win betting except you get paid for finishing second so you aren't going to have the long losing streaks in return for your average payoff being cut in half. If you are profitable, it makes sense to do this to eliminate the risk, but if you aren't profitable, it won't magically erase that either. Generally, if you are profitable in the straight pools, you'll improve your ROI by about $0.15 for each extra slot you use them in in the exotics, even if you blindly use the program favorites to fill out those wagers, because there is no second takeout to offset the second opportunity for the public to go astray while you cash in double on the same horse.

[Pell Mell]

Since an ROI of even $1.02 can make you a living, if your sample is even slightly representative of your true long-term ability, your only real dilemma will be which luxury items to buy, and which rich neighborhood to live in.

The question here you should have now is: is this real? If so, you should be betting on it steadily and building your life around your horseplaying, putting every available dollar into the venture, and if not, you should stop getting giddy every time you hit a hot streak.

Place betting is the same as win betting except you get paid for finishing second so you aren't going to have the long losing streaks in return for your average payoff being cut in half. If you are profitable, it makes sense to do this to eliminate the risk, but if you aren't profitable, it won't magically erase that either. Generally, if you are profitable in the straight pools, you'll improve your ROI by about $0.15 for each extra slot you use them in in the exotics, even if you blindly use the program favorites to fill out those wagers, because there is no second takeout to offset the second opportunity for the public to go astray while you cash in double on the same horse.



I don't understand the last part about the .15 for each slot in the exotics. Would you mind giving me an example.

I have been playing this method since DEC. 2001 and had so many horses run second that I started to bet for place. I used to play a lot of exotics and hit a lot of supers but then I got carried away and started gambling. I can tell you that this method has been working for a long time but it takes discipline to stick to the very strict rules.

I want to thank everyone for their help.

[PriceAnProbability]

I don't understand the last part about the .15 for each slot in the exotics. Would you mind giving me an example.

I have been playing this method since DEC. 2001 and had so many horses run second that I started to bet for place. I used to play a lot of exotics and hit a lot of supers but then I got carried away and started gambling. I can tell you that this method has been working for a long time but it takes discipline to stick to the very strict rules.

I want to thank everyone for their help.


If you have been achieving an ROI of plus 150 percent for five years, and have not become a multimillionaire by now, well, I'd be shocked.

The $0.15 comes from the fact that there is no takeout on the additioal slots in the exotics. Each slot gives you an extra horse to combat the takeout with. In an exacta, for example, you are parlaying the win price on a "secondary win bet" on the second horse to "win" a "race" in which the winner is "scratched," but where there is NO TAKEOUT. A horse who is worth $1.00 in the win pool on an $0.83 expected return would therefore be worth $1.15 or so in the place slot (to account for the 20 percent take). The ROI is more volatile, since you will only hit a fraction of exactas where your top horse wins, but it should average out to the extra $0.15, all other factors equal (which they of course never truly are).

[44PACE]

Looks like a very nice return, keep it up.


How do you do over a longer period of time like 6 months. Designing a wagering strategy will be more accurate with a larger data sample.During bad times what is your maximum lossing streak and what are your most typical % of wins and losses in a 20 race cycle, how often do you win x # of races in a row and same for losses?Same goes for good times.Do you go thru bad and good streaks,and etc.etc.

Answering these questions will answer your question.

If you do not have a year or 2 of betting records then start now. This is something that only takes 3 minutes a day but its pure gold.Even weekend players can reap the benefits of this.

[Kelso]

In the past month, 12/2-1/7, I played 20 days.
I had a total of 38 plays of which there were 19 winners and 31 placed.


Pell,
How many tracks did you play each day during this period? Is two plays per day about average for this number of tracks and the way you cap? Thank you.

[traynor]

Thanks Tray and Fischer.

I had a couple long ones today that ran second and instead of betting win and place I bet place and put a couple on top in ex and caught both.

Tray, do you know where on the net I can get some info about the due column stuff. Did you mean 30-40 losers in a row?

Yes, 30 or 40 losers in a row is bad, because you increment upwards. It really isn't complex. Suppose you have a $300 bank with $10 increments. Starting bank is $300. You divide the bank by 20, bet is $15. If you win, next bet is still $15. If you lose, add the bet, plus $10, to the "running bank."

Total in the running bank is $325, next bet divides the amount of the running bank by 20, so the next bet is $325/20 = $16 (rounded). If you win, take the full amount off the balance until you get down to $300 (or below) and just keep betting at the $15 level.

If you lose the next bet, repeat the process of adding the amount of the bet, plus $10, to the running bank. If you don't often go more than 12-15 races without a win, you can bump up to $15 (or more) added per race. If you pick decent priced winners fairly frequently, it can give you a huge amount of leverage. Be sure to try it on paper first!

Several heavyweight betting syndicates use a spin that is not much more complex than the above, and rake in major money like autumn leaves. Except they do it all year.

Problems--long missouts with no wins, or betting chalk so there are lots of ups and downs with no real scores. Other than that, a LOT of people use it and do very well. For a long, involved explanation of the ins and outs, Michael Pizzola made a presentation of the method at a Sartin seminar in New Orleans many years ago. Someone may still have audio tapes from the seminar, or printed material. It has also been written up in various issues of the Phillips Racing Newsletter.

Can anyone use it? Again, not if you bet chalk, or have long missouts. Those are the main caveats.
Good Luck

[Kelso]

you have a $300 bank with $10 increments. Starting bank is $300. You divide the bank by 20, bet is $15. If you win, next bet is still $15. If you lose, add the bet, plus $10, to the "running bank."

Total in the running bank is $325, next bet divides the amount of the running bank by 20, so the next bet is $325/20 = $16 (rounded). If you win, take the full amount off the balance until you get down to $300 (or below) and just keep betting at the $15 level.

If you lose the next bet, repeat the process of adding the amount of the bet, plus $10, to the running bank. If you don't often go more than 12-15 races without a win, you can bump up to $15 (or more) added per race.




Traynor,
1) How does the "running bank" become $325 following a $15 loss?
2) Wouldn't adding $10 to each bet that follows a loss lead to an exhausted bank after 7 straight losers? (15+25+35+45+55+65+75 = 315).

Thank you.

[singunner]

Sounds statistically about the same as flat betting. I don't see how that would get you any more money than a regular flat bet. It seems like a psychological cushion. I'd welcome any evidence to the contrary.

[PriceAnProbability]

Yes, 30 or 40 losers in a row is bad, because you increment upwards. It really isn't complex. Suppose you have a $300 bank with $10 increments. Starting bank is $300. You divide the bank by 20, bet is $15. If you win, next bet is still $15. If you lose, add the bet, plus $10, to the "running bank."

Total in the running bank is $325, next bet divides the amount of the running bank by 20, so the next bet is $325/20 = $16 (rounded). If you win, take the full amount off the balance until you get down to $300 (or below) and just keep betting at the $15 level.

If you lose the next bet, repeat the process of adding the amount of the bet, plus $10, to the running bank. If you don't often go more than 12-15 races without a win, you can bump up to $15 (or more) added per race. If you pick decent priced winners fairly frequently, it can give you a huge amount of leverage. Be sure to try it on paper first!

Several heavyweight betting syndicates use a spin that is not much more complex than the above, and rake in major money like autumn leaves. Except they do it all year.

Problems--long missouts with no wins, or betting chalk so there are lots of ups and downs with no real scores. Other than that, a LOT of people use it and do very well. For a long, involved explanation of the ins and outs, Michael Pizzola made a presentation of the method at a Sartin seminar in New Orleans many years ago. Someone may still have audio tapes from the seminar, or printed material. It has also been written up in various issues of the Phillips Racing Newsletter.

Can anyone use it? Again, not if you bet chalk, or have long missouts. Those are the main caveats.
Good Luck

Wow, another member of the Martingdale family is here!

They all say the same thing: "This system works because you'll never get the one losing streak that could theoretically wipe you out."

[traynor]

Traynor,
1) How does the "running bank" become $325 following a $15 loss?
2) Wouldn't adding $10 to each bet that follows a loss lead to an exhausted bank after 7 straight losers? (15+25+35+45+55+65+75 = 315).

Thank you.

If you lose the first bet, you add the amount of the bet plus the "due" of $10 for a total of $25. The $10 is added to the running bank every time you make a bet, whether the last bet won or lost.

The bank is not exhausted because the "running bank" is only a means of keeping score. The bets are not incremented quite that fast, because they are always the amount of the running back divided by 20. In the example above, the second bet would be $16, not $25; the amount of the bet ($15) plus the "due" ($10), adds $25 to the $300 bank. Divide that figure by 20 and round it to get the amount of the next bet.

If the second bet loses, the $16 bet plus the "due" of $10 is added to the $325 in the running bank (not the "real" bank) for a total of $351. For the third bet, that amount is again divided by 20; $351 / 20 is $17.55, rounded to $18 for the amount of the third bet. And so on.

The notion of "banks" are more conveniences to allow calculations than anything else. I used to use a TI-83 with a short utility program to keep track of it. The difference between due column and flat betting is the "due" column--the $10 or $15 a race that is added to the amount needed to "break even." In due column, "breaking even" is considered the time when your mutuel payoff, deducted from the running bank, reduced it to $300 or less. Then the whole process starts over.

Due column is popular with a lot of greyhound bettors, who use it for quiniela betting. It is a little more complicated, but the principle is all the same. In essence, you are forcing a net profit in your wagering. If you are picking winners and making a profit gives you a great deal of leverage. If you are kidding yourself, and not really showing a profit, it is best avoided.

Jim Selvidge developed a very complex (needlessly) wagering scheme that did essentially the same thing, that he called BB+SQ (for base bet plus the square root of something or other, I think profit). Understand that Bill Ziemba was pushing his "inefficiencies in the wagering pool" algorithms at the same time, and Kelly Criterion wagering was considered a badge of honor; money management was believed to be at least as important (or more so) than selecting entries.

Due column has been used successfully for years by some very serious bettors. Unfortunately, when push comes to shove, a lot of bettors who think they are doing well or "about even" are losing. If you are losing, due column will make you lose a lot faster. If you are winning, it will make you win a lot faster. I think that was the reason for this thread, wasn't it?
Good Luck

[For the casino fans in the forum, yes, it is a lot like the old cancellation system for roulette and craps. It fails with negative expectation wagers; you need the leverage of occasional large mutuels to make it work. It will fail just as fast wagering on horse races if you are kidding yourself how much and how often you are winning, or you are habitually betting chalk.]

[Pell Mell]

Kelso, I look at 50-70 races per day out of which I find an average of 2-3 plays per day.

My strings of winners or losers will max about 10 in a row. I have had 10 losers in a row but not very often. When I do get a losing streak it is usually because I'm "Forcing" plays. My play requires a certain amount of judgement and when I can't find any action I kind of stretch things a little. Also, sometimes I know a horse will run big but the big is probably not good enough but when the horse is 20/1 it's hard to resist.

I don't look every day and during Dec. there were 15 days that I didn't look. So far this month I skipped 6 days.

I throw out a lot of morning line favorites which cuts my play down. Of the horses I do play there seems to be no relationship between odds and chances of winning. I play lots of 2/1 shots and 20/1 bombs and usually accord them the same chance of winning. I do however get a lot of long ones that run second. There's always that other horse!

I learned 50 yrs. ago that if you can't find an edge then you shouldn't be betting.

I don't use pace or speed figures to determine a play. I believe that if you find a horse with an edge in spd. and/or pace you are going to back an odds on horse.

I am in NO WAY trying to tell anyone here how to play but I will say this; horses can't add and neither can most trainers and jockeys but this game is run and controlled by people not horses. Horses are animals that do what they are made to do and trainers and jockeys are pulling the strings.

[PriceAnProbability]

Kelso, I look at 50-70 races per day out of which I find an average of 2-3 plays per day.

My strings of winners or losers will max about 10 in a row. I have had 10 losers in a row but not very often. When I do get a losing streak it is usually because I'm "Forcing" plays. My play requires a certain amount of judgement and when I can't find any action I kind of stretch things a little. Also, sometimes I know a horse will run big but the big is probably not good enough but when the horse is 20/1 it's hard to resist.

I don't look every day and during Dec. there were 15 days that I didn't look. So far this month I skipped 6 days.

I throw out a lot of morning line favorites which cuts my play down. Of the horses I do play there seems to be no relationship between odds and chances of winning. I play lots of 2/1 shots and 20/1 bombs and usually accord them the same chance of winning. I do however get a lot of long ones that run second. There's always that other horse!

I learned 50 yrs. ago that if you can't find an edge then you shouldn't be betting.

I don't use pace or speed figures to determine a play. I believe that if you find a horse with an edge in spd. and/or pace you are going to back an odds on horse.

I am in NO WAY trying to tell anyone here how to play but I will say this; horses can't add and neither can most trainers and jockeys but this game is run and controlled by people not horses. Horses are animals that do what they are made to do and trainers and jockeys are pulling the strings.


Back to the basic question here: what's your long-term win ROI?

If you've been substantially profitable with a reproducible method for five straight years like you claim, what's the problem? Still not sure of the method enough to dump on it? If not, there might be a reason.

At two to three plays a day, an ROI of anything over $1.05 should make you wealthy in short order.

[Robert Fischer]

...
At two to three plays a day, an ROI of anything over $1.05 should make you wealthy in short order.

It is not as easy as it may sound.

[K9Pup]

It is not as easy as it may sound.

I agree. Maybe it depends on the definition of wealthy. To make $100K (without rebates) per year you would need to push $2M through the windows. At 2-3 plays per day, 250 days per year that would be $2-3K per race???? Hmmmm.

[Murph]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Fischer
It is not as easy as it may sound.

I agree. Maybe it depends on the definition of wealthy. To make $100K (without rebates) per year you would need to push $2M through the windows. At 2-3 plays per day, 250 days per year that would be $2-3K per race???? Hmmmm. I agree as well.

How many individuals are able to generate this type of handle in a given year?

I realize there is no way for me to detrmine the answer but when considering numbers like these I usually ask myself this question.

Murph

[traynor]

It is not as easy as it may sound.

In fact, it is really difficult. When you are playing a tightly restrictive method that has only a few plays, you run smack into the problem of mutuel pool size and the effect of your wagers on the mutuel payoff.

Even if you are wagering at Santa Anita, Aqueduct, or other majors, there is still a finite limit to the amount you can wager without shooting yourself in the foot. A 5% advantage can disappear in a hurry when you start pushing stacks of money through the window.

Specifically, unless you know that you are winning in the real world, with the amounts you are actually betting, the "advantage" you have may be an illusion. The obvious problem with "regression analysis" is that the advantage is calculated on races you didn't bet. When you bet on those races, if the bets are anything more than trivial, they could have a substantial impact on the amount (or even the existence) of your advantage.
Good Luck

[traynor]

I agree as well.

How many individuals are able to generate this type of handle in a given year?

I realize there is no way for me to detrmine the answer but when considering numbers like these I usually ask myself this question.

Murph

Personal opinion: I think anyone with an ROI less than 115% should be highly skeptical of long time profit, with or without rebates. Paper profits of less than 10% tend to disappear when pursued in the real world, because of the additional money in the mutuel pools. The situation is even skatier when exotics are involved.
Good Luck

[PriceAnProbability]

Personal opinion: I think anyone with an ROI less than 115% should be highly skeptical of long time profit, with or without rebates. Paper profits of less than 10% tend to disappear when pursued in the real world, because of the additional money in the mutuel pools. The situation is even skatier when exotics are involved.
Good Luck

A paper profit of 10 percent in the NYRA pools wouldn't disappear until you started betting at least $500 a race, plus you'd be scaring away other money on your horse (one reason people dump on them early).

Horses tend to gravitate to their morning line.

On the other hand, your post is a great endorsement of my method, because I advise players to play small units in many pools for many races, where the dilution factor is almost nil.

[PriceAnProbability]

I agree. Maybe it depends on the definition of wealthy. To make $100K (without rebates) per year you would need to push $2M through the windows. At 2-3 plays per day, 250 days per year that would be $2-3K per race???? Hmmmm.

If a method has a five-year track record that solid, and is based on solid theory, that's exactly what one should be betting, but they also could begin moving into the exotic pools to further capitalize, and then pinhooking horses to the people who bought the Green Monkey with those winnings.

[K9Pup]

If a method has a five-year track record that solid, and is based on solid theory, that's exactly what one should be betting, but they also could begin moving into the exotic pools to further capitalize, and then pinhooking horses to the people who bought the Green Monkey with those winnings.

With only a 5% margin dumping that much money into the pools HAS to impact the percent of return. A 5% margin on paper playing $2000 bets will quickly turn to a loss paying for real. Remember this guy says he plays 2-3 races a day.

[traynor]

A paper profit of 10 percent in the NYRA pools wouldn't disappear until you started betting at least $500 a race, plus you'd be scaring away other money on your horse (one reason people dump on them early).

Horses tend to gravitate to their morning line.

On the other hand, your post is a great endorsement of my method, because I advise players to play small units in many pools for many races, where the dilution factor is almost nil.

I hearitly endorse your definition of your wagering approach--scattering smaller bets over multiple tracks and races gives you the best leverage, and the least chance of diminishing your own return with your wagers.
Good Luck

[traynor]

With only a 5% margin dumping that much money into the pools HAS to impact the percent of return. A 5% margin on paper playing $2000 bets will quickly turn to a loss paying for real. Remember this guy says he plays 2-3 races a day.

Totalmente de acuerdo. 5% on paper should stay on the paper, and the money should stay in the pocket. That slim a margin--especially when based on races on which no wagers were made--is little more than high hopes and wishful thinking.
Good Luck

[Kelso]

this game is run and controlled by people not horses. Horses are animals that do what they are made to do and trainers and jockeys are pulling the strings.



If there's a book somewhere in that comment, please put me down for a copy.

No, wait. Put me down for three copies. I don't have a trade or profession to pass on to my sons; but, with your stated returns, this will do very nicely.

And I surely admire your patience. Playing just 5% or so of the races at which you look takes solid self-discipline. (Hmmmm, maybe I should spring for only the paperback version. :blush: )

[PriceAnProbability]

With only a 5% margin dumping that much money into the pools HAS to impact the percent of return. A 5% margin on paper playing $2000 bets will quickly turn to a loss paying for real. Remember this guy says he plays 2-3 races a day.

Okay, let's do the math.

$300k in the win pool at NYRA

A 2-1 shot has about 28 percent of that money, or $84,000.

$3,000 on that 2-1 shot might lower his price by 10 cents on the dollar.

So if it pays $5.90 instead of $6.00, most of the profit remains intact, as only about 1 percent of the payoff is sacrificed.

[PriceAnProbability]

I hearitly endorse your definition of your wagering approach--scattering smaller bets over multiple tracks and races gives you the best leverage, and the least chance of diminishing your own return with your wagers.
Good Luck

I agree, yet most gurus preach "spot playing."

It occurred to me when I began buying cold tickets for $1 in every pool that I wouldn't have to worry about killing my prices much. Not that I've gotten to that point yet, but it does pay to plan ahead. I've been profitable for close to two years again after losing my edge when the Beyer figs hit the Form in 1992, and I'm still finding my way again, trying to make sure it's not a fluke.

At the end of the day, however, I think superior horseplayers are like superior horses, and just find a way to win regardless of "racing luck."

[PriceAnProbability]

Totalmente de acuerdo. 5% on paper should stay on the paper, and the money should stay in the pocket. That slim a margin--especially when based on races on which no wagers were made--is little more than high hopes and wishful thinking.
Good Luck

It depends on how mechanical the method is.

The more mechanical the method, the more reliable the paper trial.

That said, I've always conducted any "research" in realtime just because I don't like having to do it twice if it wins the first time, with me feeling like I missed the boat. The cost of a losing theory isn't that prohibitive as to make this not worthwhile.

[K9Pup]

Okay, let's do the math.

$300k in the win pool at NYRA

A 2-1 shot has about 28 percent of that money, or $84,000.

$3,000 on that 2-1 shot might lower his price by 10 cents on the dollar.

So if it pays $5.90 instead of $6.00, most of the profit remains intact, as only about 1 percent of the payoff is sacrificed.

So now his margin is only 4%? Assuming of course ALL of his pools are $300k plus. Aqueduct this past Saturday had WPS pools in some races less than $250k. And I believe he said he plays PLACE mostly, which will be even less.

The lower the odds on his play the less impact his $3K bet will make. But I believe he stated he only played WIN if the odds on his horse is 5-1 or greater. So $3k in that pool will impact the price more than $3K in a pool when his horse is 2-1.

I don't dispute that the guy can make money, I just don't believe he can make it in the volumes you suggest.

[Pell Mell]

This has developed into a most interesting discussion. Everyone has made some valid and prudent points and I thank all for the input.

Before I continue I wish to point to my picks which I posted yesterday:

I posted various types of selections of which you can see that my play of the day was the #2 in the 2nd at PP which won at 5/1.

The longshots are basically for entertainment purposes.

The others I posted were horses that I thought had an edge but were probably going to go off too short for the risk involved. Of the 7 posted:

One was scr. and the other 6 were all in the money, 3 of which were winners and I even skipped 1 that turned out to be a 5/2 winner.

Even though there were 3 winners & one that placed it was only a break even deal.

I only mention this to make a point, which is, it isn't hard to find these short priced horses every day but it's just a lesson in futility. I suppose I could grind out a profit from them which is why I asked the initial question of how to maximize.

In your posts you had progressed to the point of discussing the effect of pouring money into the pools and the resulting effect which might be diminishing returns.

If any one cares to check, it is there to see, and that is that, I started posting on another site about 1 1/2 yrs ago. I posted so many winners that I was getting over 300 hits a day and my email box was full of thank you notes and comments. However, after about 6 mos. I noticed that my plays were getting hammered at the windows and I didn't know if it was because of my postings or not.

I then started to post different types of plays and bets. I even started a bankroll posting starting with nothing other than the initial days bets and had the bankroll over $400. and I quit doing that.

So, as regards some of your comments concerning the effect on the pools, I came to the conclusion that it is foolish to display winning plays. There is a negative aspect especially at the smaller tracks.

In addition, I have read here or elsewhere, that some of the offshore betting outfits may be laying off into the mutual pools. I don't know if this is true or not and I don't know if they track their winning players but I was betting with an offshore book.

I have decided to quit posting winners as I believe some of you are correct in your assumptions and again I want to thank all of you for your generous comments.

[traynor]

I agree, yet most gurus preach "spot playing."

It occurred to me when I began buying cold tickets for $1 in every pool that I wouldn't have to worry about killing my prices much. Not that I've gotten to that point yet, but it does pay to plan ahead. I've been profitable for close to two years again after losing my edge when the Beyer figs hit the Form in 1992, and I'm still finding my way again, trying to make sure it's not a fluke.

At the end of the day, however, I think superior horseplayers are like superior horses, and just find a way to win regardless of "racing luck."

One of the first things I learned was to take "crusher bets" with a grain of literary salt. They make great recreational reading, but are inappropriate as a betting strategy. If an entry is good enough to warrant a crusher bet, it will likely not pay enough to be worth the effort.

It seems far more sensible to find an edge, and play to it.
Good Luck

[traynor]

It depends on how mechanical the method is.

The more mechanical the method, the more reliable the paper trial.

That said, I've always conducted any "research" in realtime just because I don't like having to do it twice if it wins the first time, with me feeling like I missed the boat. The cost of a losing theory isn't that prohibitive as to make this not worthwhile.

Yes and no. The only advantage of a mechanical method is that you can be a bit more confident that you are comparing similar results. The caveat is that any time you are doing a regression on races you didn't bet--mechanical or not--you cannot judge the impact of your wagers on future, similar events.

Repetition of events, in horse racing, depends not only on the mechanical portion, but on the crowd's responses and actions. If Event A precedes a win in mechanical fashion, you may not be the only one to observe it. So not only your actions, but the actions (and wagers) of the other observers are involved in the repeated events.
Good Luck