Modest profit, how hard?

[Broken]

I would imagine the first response would bring a miriad of answers, but hear me out first.

I'd like to be able to turn a very modest profit from month to month, let's say as little as $100. The problem is I am a terrible handicapper (let's just assume that I can't even learn reguardless of who teaches me for the sake of argument).

That's the bad news, a considerable handicap in it's own.

Here's what I have going for me (I think)...

I have no interest in this being a hobby or entertainment. I don't care if I ever see the hores I bet on, this is strictly to make $100 a month.

I have constant, dedicated access to the internet and wagering via my laptop that is always with me and connected.

I have a bankroll.

I am willing to purchase software and data files.

I am willing to use an off-shore rebate shop.

My question to the good people of this board is this, is there a piece of software that pretty much anyone could learn to use coupled with a wagering strategy and a willingness to put in the required work (keep in mind I am only looking for $100/month so 40+ hours a week would be a bit much) that would prduce such a "turn-key" operation?


I guess the picture I have in my head is getting a piece of software, learnign to use it correctly and spend 2 hours the night before going over the next days races, decide on what races to play and a minute or two before the race goes off check and see if the odds make it playable, if so wager away.


I have read the forum here quite a bit and I see several of you have put years into becoming winning players, I respect that and appreciate any advice you could give me here.

The biggest edge I have going for me is I am not a gambler so to speak, I would treat this completely as an invenstment. No need to chase losses, no need to try and hit big, and I understand I am never playing with the houses money.

Thanks

[K9Pup]

So you would like to spend 2-3 hours per day, 5 days a week? and make $100 a month???? You have no real interest in "gambling" ??? Why not spend those 40 hours a month working a part time job. Even at $7/hr you will come way out ahead.

[Broken]

So you would like to spend 2-3 hours per day, 5 days a week? and make $100 a month???? You have no real interest in "gambling" ??? Why not spend those 40 hours a month working a part time job. Even at $7/hr you will come way out ahead.

I understand where you are coming from. Let me say I understand completely what I am trying to do.

I will ask you this in response, which is harder to do in the stock market, make $1 or $100 and why?

[K9Pup]

I understand where you are coming from. Let me say I understand completely what I am trying to do.

I will ask you this in response, which is harder to do in the stock market, make $1 or $100 and why?

I have no idea.

[Broken]

K9Pup, either is just as easy, problem is they both require the same amount of work to begin with.

If you can learn to make $1 at something you can make $100, $1000, etc..... (within reason).

The problem for most people is they can't learn to make just $1 at something, they don't have the disciplne, or if they do they can't keep that discipline long term.

The problem for me is I haven't found a way to do it with horse racing, yet.

[misscashalot]

K9Pup, either is just as easy, problem is they both require the same amount of work to begin with.

If you can learn to make $1 at something you can make $100, $1000, etc..... (within reason).

The problem for most people is they can't learn to make just $1 at something, they don't have the disciplne, or if they do they can't keep that discipline long term.

The problem for me is I haven't found a way to do it with horse racing, yet.

The folks here show passion for horse racing and/or betting. you show neither.

[Light]

Broken

I dont know your wagering strategy.What if its the first of the month,and you make $100 profit. Are you content to quit for the next 29 days? That's one problem.

Type of betting is another. WPS or exotics or both? For safety and that low a profit I would suggest my $50 a day system. Start with $20. Find a show horse that should pay at least $2.80 to $3.00 to show. You need 3 good show horses. Parlay them. So $20 turns to $30 then $45 then $70...and maybe more depending on payouts.

Before trying my $50 a day system,you need to study the qualifications a horse must have to show. Eventually you will find a high hit rate for horses with certain qualifications. The good thing about this system is if you complete the cycle only 50% of the time,you still make a profit. To me the biggest reason horseracing beats any other form of gambling is you don't have to win in order to collect.

[Broken]

The folks here show passion for horse racing and/or betting. you show neither.

I'm sorry you seem to dislike my intentions, I believe I was honest about them in my initial post.

[misscashalot]

I'm sorry you seem to dislike my intentions, I believe I was honest about them in my initial post.

No...you got me wrong. It was just an observation, not a judgment. It's just that it's hard for me to relate to your goals without that element because intuition is a part of the game, at least for me. I think youre looking for a computer program, and there's plenty of those around ( what does that tell you?)

[Broken]

Broken

I dont know your wagering strategy.What if its the first of the month,and you make $100 profit. Are you content to quit for the next 29 days? That's one problem.



I don't think I would run into a problem with that as I don't really see the "day, or month" as ever ending, it's one big long day of racing.

My intention, as with everything I do is to break it down to the simplest form and go from there. If I had shown up and said I want to make a million dollars by the end of the week and only had $6 to my name how serious could you take me?

I believe it's much better to have a simple goal, to make $100 a month you only need to profit $5 a day if you play 5 days a week. If you have the ability to do that and stick to what got you that $5 a say then your ability to earn is almost unlimited.

I truely believe the reason people fail in gambling is they have no plan, no self control, a need for action and no money management whatsoever. I am sure there are very good handicappers who can't seem to make that first consistent $1.

Those things I have covered, finding a solid formula to get the correct horses across the line is another story so far......

Your reply and help is much appreciated.

[bobphilo]

What makes horse playing worthwhile for more than the small percentage who manage to show a positive R.O.I. is the enjoyment the sport offers them.

Given that there is no such software that I know of that guarantees a monthly profit, I can’t see spending time on something that you are neither good at nor have an interest in for a modest return, which cannot even be assured. Imagine wasting time on something you don’t like and perhaps losing money in the bargain, which will happen with any system from time to time.

If your only concern is a guaranteed profit, I think you’d be far better off by finding something you’re good at and do that part-time as K9pup suggests.

Bob

[WJ47]

If you are a terrible handicapper, I don't think WPS wagering will be for you. Seeing you have a good enough bankroll, you may want to look into Daily Doubles, Pick 3 and Pick 4 wagers. You can kind of spread out and buy alot of extra horses which will help make up for lack of handicapping skills.

It may be worthwhile for you to get a few books on handicapping. Handicapping is actually the fun part for me, sort of like a puzzle or game. :)

[Broken]

Given that there is no such software that I know of that guarantees a monthly profit

To that extent I doubt such a piece of software exists, there are literally thousands that will monitor the stock market and guarantee the results, none of them, not one, has performed what it promises.

I do believe that with the right piece of software a user can, at least somewhat easily, find a set of guidlines to play by where the process may not be fun or entertaining, but profitable.

As far as the "modest profit" please understand why I chose that wording. Had I come on here and said I wanted to get rich quick my post would have been dismissed before being read.

I am of the belief that if you can profit at something consintantly, reguardless of how much or how little then you can find a way to profit much.

Would it be better if I had asked "hey guys, I am looking for a program that will get me above the break even point with no work at all"?

Somebody, years and years ago figured out how to give the house a 1% edge, now zillion dollar casino's are built every year because of a game called blackjack.

I'm looking for a 1% edge.

[singunner]

You'd do better specifying an ROI. The latest stage of my program produces an ROI of 1.03 over 6 months, so if you were comfortable getting your 100 dollars a month for 4,000 dollars wagered, you'd be set. It sounds like you're looking for something that can be scaled upwards.

[bobphilo]

To that extent I doubt such a piece of software exists, there are literally thousands that will monitor the stock market and guarantee the results, none of them, not one, has performed what it promises.

I do believe that with the right piece of software a user can, at least somewhat easily, find a set of guidlines to play by where the process may not be fun or entertaining, but profitable.

As far as the "modest profit" please understand why I chose that wording. Had I come on here and said I wanted to get rich quick my post would have been dismissed before being read.

I am of the belief that if you can profit at something consintantly, reguardless of how much or how little then you can find a way to profit much.

Would it be better if I had asked "hey guys, I am looking for a program that will get me above the break even point with no work at all"?

Somebody, years and years ago figured out how to give the house a 1% edge, now zillion dollar casino's are built every year because of a game called blackjack.

I'm looking for a 1% edge.

Broken,


I realize that what you are asking for is more realistic than a get rich quick scheme. But even achieving a modest profit in race betting is no modest feat. I think you are grossly underestimating the difficulty in showing any kind of profit at all. The vast majority of bettors do not show a profit – even a modest one. Your competitors consist of some extremely knowledgeable people who have devoted years to perfecting both their handicapping and wagering skills.


What in effect you’re asking a group of such people is “I don’t have much interest or ability in what you do, but would you please give me a easy way that I can outperform the majority of you”.


Bob

[betovernetcapper]

A factor in making a modest profit is the operating expenses are the same as a whale attempting to make a million. I think the cheapest data is HOS at around $75 a month. If your goal is $100, you then need to actually make $175. If your $1 roi is $1.10 then instead of betting $1000 a month to hit your goal, you need to bet $1750 to meet your goal + expenses. To me this makes hitting a modest goal a little difficult. :)

[skate]

that is a good question and i can understand just where you come from.


the answer i give is in your statement, "zillion dollar casinos, built on blackjack".

ill answer with a question, do you think the casinos were built ON BlackJack (which is beaten) or are casinos really built on 'Odds'.

your potential method (software?) has got to be variable along with the odds.
sure, it can be done (profit), and you can also lose under the same method.

thats why your stock programs didnt work for You, since we can see, the market has Never gone down, yet you say you lost. you can lose, no mater what someone else is teaching you.

sure you can win
right outta my book

[bobphilo]

I'm looking for a 1% edge.

Given the 17-25% takeout, a 1% edge still leaves you 16-24% in the hole. you need a 17-20% edge just to break even in racing. To outperform serious horseplayers by more than 17 to 20% for even a modest profit is no modest feat - especially without considerable skill.

Bob

[JimG]

Would it be better if I had asked "hey guys, I am looking for a program that will get me above the break even point with no work at all"?




Your asking the people you bet against to tell you how to make a profit with no work?

That's pretty damn funny! :lol::lol::lol:

[Broken]

Your asking the people you bet against to tell you how to make a profit with no work?

That's pretty damn funny! :lol::lol::lol:

This part of the statement was meant to show exactly what I was NOT asking.

Bobphilo, the 1% edge I was referring to was a metaphore, I am keenly aware of how a casino makes it's fortune, unfortunatly.


Skate, I didn't say the stock programs didn't work for me, quite the opposite, you just have to learn how to use them as they will not provide the riches the infomercials advertise straight out of the box. I was assuming/hoping there was a thoroughbred program available that would do the same. I am not looking for those results overnight, I am aware it will take some work.


The ROI questions are valid ones and I can't say I have spent a lot of time concerned with it, perhaps that is a flaw, pure profit at the end if the month is the goal.



I see there are some cynics amongst the replies, I really don't know how to be more up front about my intentions than I have already been. If I had the answers I would not be here asking for them.....

[skate]

Skate, I didn't say the stock programs didn't work for me, quite the opposite, you just have to learn how to use them as they will not provide the riches the infomercials advertise straight out of the box. I was assuming/hoping there was a thoroughbred program available that would do the same. I am not looking for those results overnight, I am aware it will take some work.



I see there are some cynics amongst the replies, I really don't know how to be more up front about my intentions than I have already been. If I had the answers I would not be here asking for them.....


didnt mean that you were losing on the market, i was trying for 'a point'.

IMO, if you give info on stocks and people listen, it can benifit the one giving the info. market goes higher or lower.
but if you give info on TR, it can hurt, odds drop.

[Broken]

but if you give info on TR, it can hurt, odds drop.

This is probably worthy of a thread all it's own, but here goes.

I have seen mention here, as well as other places about handicappers not wanting to share information or plays because it will hurt their price. How true can this be?

Dealing with win/place/show horses specifically, how much is my $100/$200 win ticket really going to affect the price of a horse at even a smaller track. I would only count a track that simulcasts as places that only take bets in house could certainly be ruined by a larger bet.

This is a paranoia I have never understood.

[ranchwest]

This is probably worthy of a thread all it's own, but here goes.

I have seen mention here, as well as other places about handicappers not wanting to share information or plays because it will hurt their price. How true can this be?

Dealing with win/place/show horses specifically, how much is my $100/$200 win ticket really going to affect the price of a horse at even a smaller track. I would only count a track that simulcasts as places that only take bets in house could certainly be ruined by a larger bet.

This is a paranoia I have never understood.

Most people are casual weekend players who'd only put $10 on a horse and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. The problem is, it only takes one guy betting big to significantly alter the odds.

[Broken]

The problem is, it only takes one guy betting big to significantly alter the odds.

It's difficult over the internet to detect the tone of someone's question, so being as honest as I can I will tell you I am asking and not being rude, but what do you mean by "significantly alter the odds"?

A $200 bet on a 4-1 horse at Churchill downs seems to me would affect the price at a hardly noticeable amount.

If it is bets of the several thousand dollar size you are concerned about, how many people do you know who play that way? How many here? I don't think I now anyone personally throwing that kind of coin around the OTB.

[ranchwest]

It's difficult over the internet to detect the tone of someone's question, so being as honest as I can I will tell you I am asking and not being rude, but what do you mean by "significantly alter the odds"?

A $200 bet on a 4-1 horse at Churchill downs seems to me would affect the price at a hardly noticeable amount.

If it is bets of the several thousand dollar size you are concerned about, how many people do you know who play that way? How many here? I don't think I now anyone personally throwing that kind of coin around the OTB.

I knew a guy at Delta Downs who would bet several thousand on a race. And that was before they had simulcasting. Imagine the types you might run into at CD. There are big bettors in this world.

[Broken]

There are big bettors in this world.

I am certain there are, I still think their contribution to the total pool is the minority share of it however.

Reguardless, I assure you my intentions are not to ruin the pool for anyone.

[MichaelNunamaker]

Hi Broken,

You asked "I have seen mention here, as well as other places about handicappers not wanting to share information or plays because it will hurt their price. How true can this be?"

It is 100% deadly accurate.

You also asked "Dealing with win/place/show horses specifically, how much is my $100/$200 win ticket really going to affect the price of a horse at even a smaller track."

The math is not complicated. Let's take the 9th race at Charlestown on April 1, 2007. The winner paid $30.80 and there was $14387 in the WPS. For the sake of argument, let's assume there was $10,000 in the win pool and the take was 17%. That would mean that $8300 was available after the take, which means there was $538 wagered to win on the winner. If someone had wagered an extra $200 on that horse, the win pool (after take) would have been $8466, but there would have been $738 wagered on the winner. This is a payoff of $24.80. That's roughly a 20% decrease in the payoff, and if a system picks horses like these, ROI would fall that much too. So a +10% ROI system suddenly just became a -10% ROI system.

Mike Nunamaker

[bobphilo]

Bobphilo, the 1% edge I was referring to was a metaphore, I am keenly aware of how a casino makes it's fortune, unfortunatly.


Broken, I was referring to the 17-25% takeout at the track. That is in ADDITION to the disadvantage you have to the good handicappers. At the casinos you are only playing against the house and, except for blackjack, a lack of skill is no handicap. Not that casino gambling is any bargain, but the only advantage of horse race betting is that if you are skillful at picking winners, you get to divide the money of those that are less skilful. If you try betting at the track without skill you and your money will be the source of the advantage that the good handicappers have, not the beneficiary. If you lack the ability to pick winners, the best, most disciplined money management system in the world will do you no good.



As someone giving advice for your benefit, I’d suggest a safer form of income. As a competitive horseplayer, I’d urge you to continue to underestimate the huge difficulty of showing a profit with your admited poor handicapping ability so that I may profit from your bets. Not meant as a dig – merely pointing out the reality.



Bob

[Broken]

As someone giving advice for your benefit, I’d suggest a safer form of income.



Bob

All of your advice is appreciated. What interests me about horse wagering is the incredible opportunity to get so much money through the window so many times. I'm not sure where a person could POSSIBLY have an edge AND use the same money over and over.

Obviously I could put the money in the bank and earn guaranteed interest, ONE TIME on that money each year.

A person wagering on horses can start with $1000, never have more than $1200 at any one time and end any given session with $1100 and actually put several thousand dollars through the window. A 10% ROI on the initial starting money.

This exponential opportunity is was attracted my attention.

While I don't share the love of the game, or interest in the sport others do what's not to like about the opportunity?

[The Judge]

If you are determined to do this I wouldn't use a computer at all. I would look for a system, a automatic spot play. Mark Cramer has been looking for years. One system that might work is Wm. L. Scott's last method. Scott is of "Investing At The Racetrack and How Will Your Horse Run Today" fame.

I would read both of those books but his last system was base on the Beyer numbers you would have to get ahold off his tape from Handicapping Expo 1993.

It went something like this you circle the last Beyer number then you circle the horses best Beyer number , then you circle his next best Beyer number. There are then elimination rules that I don't remember but I'm sure you are looking for some sort of obvious gaps.

He said this should beat the take and show a small but consistant profit.

[bettheoverlay]

Find a good computer generated odds line. Look at the two lowest odds horses only. Use some form rules, (Scott had some good ones) on these two horses, throwing out those horses that don't qualify. If either, or both horses remain, look for odds at 1M to post that are 50 % higher than the generated odds. Then.....

bet the overlay!

Might work...

[plainolebill]

Talk to Dave Schwartz.

[JustRalph]

Mike, Great post!

this question is so open ended. I wonder where some of this shit comes from sometimes. This is a game where you can turn a 2.40 superfecta box into a grand in two minutes............. the possibilities are endless...........

[Dave Schwartz]

The math is not complicated. Let's take the 9th race at Charlestown on April 1, 2007. The winner paid $30.80 and there was $14387 in the WPS. For the sake of argument, let's assume there was $10,000 in the win pool and the take was 17%. That would mean that $8300 was available after the take, which means there was $538 wagered to win on the winner. If someone had wagered an extra $200 on that horse, the win pool (after take) would have been $8466, but there would have been $738 wagered on the winner. This is a payoff of $24.80. That's roughly a 20% decrease in the payoff, and if a system picks horses like these, ROI would fall that much too. So a +10% ROI system suddenly just became a -10% ROI system.

Mike,

Here is what I had for that race:


WIN PROBABLES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
15.80 8.00 14.00 48.20 11.20 22.60 40.00 8.40 30.80 53.00

WIN POOL: 9291
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
972 1885 1092 318 1361 678 383 1815 497 290

PLACE POOL: 3286
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
264 479 550 171 566 306 183 468 229 70

SHOW POOL: 1801
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
140 244 226 153 309 140 229 231 84 45

[dav4463]

$100 a month. You can work one night per month at Chili's and wait tables. This is gambling, not a steady income. You can make $100 per month, but it might look like this: January -400 February -800 March -300 April +100 May -300......you are down $1700 heading into June and you hit a big one for a profit of +2300............there is your $600 profit in six months which = $100 per month.

[JustRalph]

$100 a month. You can work one night per month at Chili's and wait tables.

The Waitress and Waiter types make about 150-250 a night at my wife's place. The bartenders kill............ 200 is about average per weekday. The weekend gets into the 250-450 region..............and during the holidays they can break 600 on a party night..........

[Broken]

If you are determined to do this


I am not "determined" to do anything, this just peaked my internest. In the stock market you have two possibilities on a given interest and you can profit from both of those possibilities. Ufnortunatly the process is slow, meticulous, and limited in the sense you have to pass up opportunites if your money is tied up too much elsewhere. The best opportunites are always the most expensive it would seem.

An associate suggested we look into sports wagering, and again we knew nothing about handicapping college basketball teams on which we couldn't name one player, sorry I am just not up on San Jose State's current situation (do they even have men's basketball?). We found, so far, a wagering strategy that works in all but extreme conditions and have turned a SMALL profit, one most would consider not worth the time involved, live and learn.

I thought about horse racing, agian convinced that if you can turn a small profit then you can turn (within reason) any profit.

[chickenhead]

It's hard. Really hard.

[GaryG]

This is a very complex game. If you want to get into it with serious money you need to learn the game - throroughly. I doubt you are inclined to do this. No one is going to show you a simple way to earn steady profits. You have to do it yourself. Sorry.

[traynor]

A factor in making a modest profit is the operating expenses are the same as a whale attempting to make a million. I think the cheapest data is HOS at around $75 a month. If your goal is $100, you then need to actually make $175. If your $1 roi is $1.10 then instead of betting $1000 a month to hit your goal, you need to bet $1750 to meet your goal + expenses. To me this makes hitting a modest goal a little difficult. :)

While interesting in content, the responses in this thread are a stunning example of what Ruth Ellen Boetcher-Joeres referred to as "obfuscatory prose." It might have been simpler to toss out a simple "Is anyone turning a profit?" and see what kind of bites resulted.

The question is fair. If anyone knows of a software app that takes less than a grand in data downloads and "study" to prove it unworkable for a non-hobbyist intent on making a profit, they are certainly reluctant to share their knowledge.

PA makes a good argument for NOT getting involved with a software application--the "total cost of ownership" is unacceptably high for any but the most dedicated hobbyists on one hand, or fairly serious bettors on the other. Serious bettors tend to find better approaches than staring at computer screens waiting for an epiphany.

Similarly, ratings, especially those awful ratings so elegantly indicated in PA's signature line, should be avoided like the plague as too expensive for hobbyists and trivial bettors. (Again, thanks for the plug, PA.)

The notion that it takes years of losing, filled with the agony of defeat, to somehow "create" a competent handicapper, is misguided. One does not learn to win by repeatedly practicing losing.

If you are looking for a mecahnical edge in wagering online, try greyhound racing. A retired engineer in Florida named Robert Homberger wrote a book 20-25 years ago called the Dog Racing Investment System. Cranking out a modest profit with no more than the information in that book is easy.

While blackjack was a useful pursuit in years past, it is becoming much less so. Like horse racing fans, casino aficianados are willing to accept heaps of abuse from anyone willing to take their bets. Recent rules changes--most notably the widening 6-5 blackjack payoff--has essentially removed the "edge" enjoyed by counters. Similarly, the prevalence of "shuffle every hand" has flourished in Australia, and gives every indication of spreading around the world.

[traynor]

If you are determined to do this I wouldn't use a computer at all. I would look for a system, a automatic spot play. Mark Cramer has been looking for years. One system that might work is Wm. L. Scott's last method. Scott is of "Investing At The Racetrack and How Will Your Horse Run Today" fame.

I would read both of those books but his last system was base on the Beyer numbers you would have to get ahold off his tape from Handicapping Expo 1993.

It went something like this you circle the last Beyer number then you circle the horses best Beyer number , then you circle his next best Beyer number. There are then elimination rules that I don't remember but I'm sure you are looking for some sort of obvious gaps.

He said this should beat the take and show a small but consistant profit.

Good advice. If you zig when everyone else is zagging, you can do well with minimal effort. It might take some digging, either on paper or with a simple spreadsheet, to calculate the potential of "less-than-obvious" strategies. The result is often worthwhile.

Consider how often the majority of bettors fasten on some simplistic approach (like average top two Beyer) and make their decision based on that criteria, bolstered by "other evidence" to create a sense of complexity. Then consider that 95% of bettors lose (refer to a paper on the University of Arizona site for details). In short, find out what the crowd is doing and do something else.

That is not as complex as it seems. The only difficulty is insisting on complex answers to simple questions. I spent a very profitable season handicapping Pimlico and keeping a notebook log of horses that finished well, but ran out of the money. All I did--literally--was compare the names in my notebook with the daily entries. If one of the "good finishers" was entered, it was a bet. If two were entered, it was a box exacta.

Quite likely the source of profit was the "insider knowledge" that Pimlico is (in theory) an "early speed" track, and the overwhelming compulsion of bettors to follow the crowd and bet early speed. Nice payoffs when the early speed faltered.

[traynor]

This is a very complex game. If you want to get into it with serious money you need to learn the game - throroughly. I doubt you are inclined to do this. No one is going to show you a simple way to earn steady profits. You have to do it yourself. Sorry.

To quote Jim "The Hat" Bradshaw, "It ain't nothin' but a dang horse race. One horse goes out to take the lead, and the others chase it."

Complexity is in the eye of the beholder. It should not be confused with an excuse for losing.

[Broken]

Thanks for posting Traynor, I have a feeling you and I think at least somewhat alike.

[ranchwest]

Thanks for posting Traynor, I have a feeling you and I think at least somewhat alike.

Two Traynor's. Next thread. :lol:

[DanG]

Thanks for posting Traynor, I have a feeling you and I think at least somewhat alike.
Ladies and Germs; That is what they call in show business a “straight line”. ;)

Best of luck Broken…

Tough pursuit they way you’ve outlined it. If we were related I would spend a good portion of our time together trying to talk you out of it. However, we all have rights to pursue anything within the law we desire.

[Greyfox]

. Then consider that 95% of bettors lose (refer to a paper on the University of Arizona site for details). .

I've been to the University of Arizona site for details and I cannot seem to find any paper that says "95 % of bettors lose."
Traynor your own DDSS site says the same.
But I'm from Missouri, can you provide us with a link to the paper that says that? If you can please post it for us.

The 95 % loser axiom has been around for years. I'm pretty suspicious of it myself. But if you have evidence otherwise, I'd like to read it.

[SMOO]

More like 99%.

[Light]

I don't really see the "day, or month" as ever ending, it's one big long day of racing.


That's what everyone does and its a proven loser. I thought you wanted some sort of betting structure that would insure you $100 a month.

Someone who is truly sincere about a modest profit,not greedy,not emotionaly attached stands a very good chance of success because that person can certainly wait and find during the course of a month a few strong plays with which to make $100 a month or more.Your philosohy(according to your quote) is working against your stated goal and will destroy it.

[Kelso]

[QUOTE=traynor]
I spent a very profitable season handicapping Pimlico and keeping a notebook log of horses that finished well, but ran out of the money. If one of the "good finishers" was entered, it was a bet. If two were entered, it was a box exacta.
QUOTE]


Traynor,
Is this different than finding such horses in the PPs for a given race; say, looking for those that moved ... in their last race or three ... from second-half of the field at second call to 4th or 5th at the wire? (Or any such criteria.) In other words, did you get something from the notebook that you could not have got from the PPs?

Thank you.

[JPinMaryland]

Does anyone have a link to that handicapping book by Ruth Boetcher Joeres?

[ranchwest]

Does anyone have a link to that handicapping book by Ruth Boetcher Joeres?

She was a feminist writer. Unless you're interested in the literary aspects of distaff runners, I doubt she'll help you.

[badcompany]

The 95 % loser axiom has been around for years. I'm pretty suspicious of it myself. But if you have evidence otherwise, I'd like to read it.

I don't have any studies to link, but I have a pretty good handle on the game and the people who play it.

The overwhelming majority of horseplayers play the game as a pastime. It's not their bread and butter. Therefore, they do a lot of action betting. They don't keep records. They don't spend sufficient time studying. They don't put a lot of effort into betting strategies and money management.

Even when one does all those things, horseracing is a super tough game to beat. The casual player, on the other hand, has virtually no shot of showing a long term profit.

[raybo]

To make any consistent profit in this industry, as a wagerer, requires study and devotion. I think everyone here will agree with that statement. That said, if you want to make $100, or any other amount consistently, per month and you are willing to spend 3-4 hours a day 5 days per week then use that time becoming a good handicapper. Then, if you can handle designing a spreadsheet type handicapping program, you can get basic data for $1 per card and run it into your spreadsheet. Automate it as much as possible, but make the decisions yourself.

I would suggest betting exotics, $.10 superfectas would be a good choice. Plan on losing about 90% of your wagers, so be picky about the odds included in your tickets, as you must recoup all or most of your losses when you hit a super. Same with the other exotics to a lessor or greater extent. WPS wagering is very difficult to play and produce a profit consistently, unless you only bet firm overlays, and you are a good handicapper.

The keys in horseracing, IMO, are: developing your skills, being truthful with yourself and recognizing your weaknesses, developing a good consistent wagering strategy, being very patient, and having the money to see you through the inevitable losing streaks. If you don't do all these things you will more than likely join the vast majority of players who contribute to someone else's bankroll while watching your own dwindle away.

[thelyingthief]

like a true son of a boetcher.

[orrug2k]

I was wondering if anyone with a good database could pull the roi for this scenario

Kline = 6.0 to 7.0 to one odds
tote actual = 3-1 to 4-1 off odds

The obvious is that it should produce a terrible underbet roi if the Kline is correct. You could use your generated line if you dont have the htr line. I am wondering if the public line is better or if the roi isnt as bad as thought.

[jonnielu]

I would imagine the first response would bring a miriad of answers, but hear me out first.

I'd like to be able to turn a very modest profit from month to month, let's say as little as $100. The problem is I am a terrible handicapper (let's just assume that I can't even learn reguardless of who teaches me for the sake of argument).

That's the bad news, a considerable handicap in it's own.

Here's what I have going for me (I think)...

I have no interest in this being a hobby or entertainment. I don't care if I ever see the hores I bet on, this is strictly to make $100 a month.

I have constant, dedicated access to the internet and wagering via my laptop that is always with me and connected.

I have a bankroll.

I am willing to purchase software and data files.

I am willing to use an off-shore rebate shop.

My question to the good people of this board is this, is there a piece of software that pretty much anyone could learn to use coupled with a wagering strategy and a willingness to put in the required work (keep in mind I am only looking for $100/month so 40+ hours a week would be a bit much) that would prduce such a "turn-key" operation?


I guess the picture I have in my head is getting a piece of software, learnign to use it correctly and spend 2 hours the night before going over the next days races, decide on what races to play and a minute or two before the race goes off check and see if the odds make it playable, if so wager away.


I have read the forum here quite a bit and I see several of you have put years into becoming winning players, I respect that and appreciate any advice you could give me here.

The biggest edge I have going for me is I am not a gambler so to speak, I would treat this completely as an invenstment. No need to chase losses, no need to try and hit big, and I understand I am never playing with the houses money.

Thanks

Hey Broken,

Just pick up the Bris PP's and bet horse that is third in the odds line with a progression to make $2 per race.

As an example, if with your first bet, the odds on your #3 ML horse are 5-1, you would bet the minimum $2. If that bet lost, your next bet would be figured to recover the previous lost bet plus your $2 profit, plus $2 profit for the current bet. When your #3 ML horse wins, you simply start over.

Sorry, but you will make a little more then $100 per month.

[MitchS]

Part of a post by Raybo:

I would suggest betting exotics, $.10 superfectas would be a good choice. Plan on losing about 90% of your wagers, so be picky about the odds included in your tickets, as you must recoup all or most of your losses when you hit a super. Same with the other exotics to a lessor or greater extent. WPS wagering is very difficult to play and produce a profit consistently, unless you only bet firm overlays, and you are a good handicapper.

I've been betting win-place for years. Recently I've have been thinking about attacting the exoctics including the supers. Where can you bet on the .10 supers and from what online outlet can you bet such wagers?

[SMOO]

Hey Broken,

Just pick up the Bris PP's and bet horse that is third in the odds line with a progression to make $2 per race.

As an example, if with your first bet, the odds on your #3 ML horse are 5-1, you would bet the minimum $2. If that bet lost, your next bet would be figured to recover the previous lost bet plus your $2 profit, plus $2 profit for the current bet. When your #3 ML horse wins, you simply start over.

Sorry, but you will make a little more then $100 per month.
Why do you use Bris PP's if all you are doing is chasing the 3rd favorite on the ML? :confused:

[MitchS]

Nevermind my question I figured it out with a search, I'm jus' superfecta ignorant :D..

[singunner]

Why do you use Bris PP's if all you are doing is chasing the 3rd favorite on the ML? :confused:

I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that he's already deluding himself with the martingale system of wagering. Anyone who takes that seriously has already failed to accept basic logic.

[Broken]

I have messed around with the Martingdale theory/system enough to believe it has a certain place in your strategy if used very, VERY wisely.

To do what jonnielu recommended is a stretch. I'm not looking for something quite that black boxish.

A system/program that could, over the very long run with some tweaking/work give you even close to a 15% win rate only playing horse 1-1 or higher is more what I am looking for.

[K9Pup]

A system/program that could, over the very long run with some tweaking/work give you even close to a 15% win rate only playing horse 1-1 or higher is more what I am looking for.

I don't see how you can make money that way. With only 15% winners they need to average $13.30 just to break even.

[Broken]

I don't see how you can make money that way. With only 15% winners they need to average $13.30 just to break even.


I keep forgetting that everyone is very literal on this board. I meant I was originally looking for an answer in that form.

xx %
avobe 1-1

or something along those lines.

[chickenhead]

I meant I was originally looking for an answer in that form.

xx %
avobe 1-1

or something along those lines.


What was the question again? My favorite answer is "6"...but that doesn't fit your format.

[Broken]

What was the question again? My favorite answer is "6"...but that doesn't fit your format.



6 is the answer I was looking for, we can let the thread die at that.

Thanks to all those who helped.

[sjk]

What was the question again? My favorite answer is "6"...but that doesn't fit your format.

I don't know why you like 6. You might do a lot better with 13.

[K9Pup]

I don't know why you like 6. You might do a lot better with 13.

Hey they BOTH work!! 13% winners at 6-1 and above!! well almost.

[raybo]

Hey they BOTH work!! 13% winners at 6-1 and above!! well almost.

Lol, famous last words, "well almost".!!!

[jonnielu]

I have messed around with the Martingdale theory/system enough to believe it has a certain place in your strategy if used very, VERY wisely.

To do what jonnielu recommended is a stretch. I'm not looking for something quite that black boxish.

A system/program that could, over the very long run with some tweaking/work give you even close to a 15% win rate only playing horse 1-1 or higher is more what I am looking for.

I thought that you didn't want to do any handicapping, and were just looking to generate $100 a month with your bankroll, you could use the program morning line for that matter. So, are you looking for something that involves no handicapping or limited handicapping?

Since when doesn't anybody's third choice have a 15% win rate over the course of a week anyway?

[ryesteve]

Hey Broken,

Just pick up the Bris PP's and bet horse that is third in the odds line with a progression to make $2 per race.
And how exactly do you avoid the inevitable runout that will kill your bankroll?

[jonnielu]

And how exactly do you avoid the inevitable runout that will kill your bankroll?

I'm assuming that Broken's bankroll is over $37.83 and at least $1,000 because he called it a bankroll. $1,000 should easily withstand 25 losers in a row since he would only be looking for $20 a day. An idiot's third choice will win once to twice a day. Take the post time odds #3, pick a track, check the charts.

You will be able to avoid the inevitable runout on all of your picks when you can successfully prevent the jockey from taking the horse through the parking lot coming out of the turn.

[Lefty]

Playing 3rd choices I can guarantee you it will have more than 25 runouts in a row several times over the course of a yr.

[betovernetcapper]

the guy who used to post here that had a recovery system? He was part

of a group called __________ Mining. Anyhow they had this goal of making

$10 a day using good picks and a recovery system. They had their own web

site-computed track models-in general put in the kind of effort needed to

succeed.

Their handicapping was good and their approach sounded reasonable. To

their credit they posted their selections and the bet amounts. They'd do well

for a couple of days and then lose for a couple of days and then hit and start

again. Then the inevitable happened and they tapped out. They tried this

experiment twice on this board and God knows how many times on their on

with the same results.

I always think of their experiments when I'm tempted to try a recovery

system

[Robert Fischer]

the guy who used to post here that had a recovery system? He was part

of a group called __________ Mining. Anyhow they had this goal of making

$10 a day using good picks and a recovery system. They had their own web

site-computed track models-in general put in the kind of effort needed to

succeed.

Their handicapping was good and their approach sounded reasonable. To

their credit they posted their selections and the bet amounts. They'd do well

for a couple of days and then lose for a couple of days and then hit and start

again. Then the inevitable happened and they tapped out. They tried this

experiment twice on this board and God knows how many times on their on

with the same results.

I always think of their experiments when I'm tempted to try a recovery

system



I have one that I have messed around with, using only one horse to win, but it not worth the time and effort. The profit to bankroll ratio is terrible. The workload exceeds the profit. There is also a limit to how much you can scale your bets upward due to pool size , so even at maximum efficiency, we aren't talking about substantial wealth.

Theoretically you can do things like running concurrent systems spaced at intervals to prevent a total failure. Your goal is to work within the maximum probable expected losses for a given hit percentage and you have a number of losses for which point you will stop and take a "maximum loss" for a given system. So you can go on playing the game and grinding out a very small amount every time you win and according to probability you can stay ahead of the game (profit for the life of one system is ahead of the maximum-loss when x consecutive wagers "ends" a system) with much work. For the hit percentage required to operate, you probably should just be making equivalent flat bets. The only thing interesting about such a system would be rebates.

[ryesteve]

$1,000 should easily withstand 25 losers in a row
Yeah, that's great. So what happens when it hits 35 in a row? It IS inevitable.

[Overlay]

the guy who used to post here that had a recovery system? He was part of a group called __________ Mining.

Are you thinking of City Miner Books, located in either Berkeley or Fort Bragg, California? I used to get pitches from them regularly, but not lately.

[betovernetcapper]

If you had a $1000 bankroll were doing a Martingale and began with a $2 bet, you'd tap out after the 9th loss.
If you began with $2 and had 24 consecutive losses, your next bet would be
$33,554,432 .

[ranchwest]

Yeah, that's great. So what happens when it hits 35 in a row? It IS inevitable.

As I understand the system, you hit the minimum 35 times in a row.

[betovernetcapper]

Are you thinking of City Miner Books, located in either Berkeley or Fort Bragg, California? I used to get pitches from them regularly, but not lately.
No-it was a group like Data Mining or something mining.

[raybo]

Someone with a large database check the win % for 3rd favorite at post time and average odds posted, that should give you an idea of the feasibility of such a system.

My personal opinion is that the only way to make this work is to set a limit on consecutive losses according to the probability of the next bet adversely affecting the odds. This would depend on pool size, but I would think that you couldn't keep increasing your bets to cover all your losses for very long without running into this situation.

[Robert Fischer]

If you had a $1000 bankroll were doing a Martingale and began with a $2 bet, you'd tap out after the 9th loss.
If you began with $2 and had 24 consecutive losses, your next bet would be
$33,554,432 .

Right. Another important aspect is that something like 3rd choice, or an assumed hit percentage of 15% would be a terrible way to go about it because you are PROBABLY *digs into computer* going to have a probable maximum losing streak of 43 consecutive losses over 1000 wagers.
:blush:

at 60% we are talking 8 consecutive losing wagers. But 60% is unrealistic. 50% and 10 , 40% and we are at 14! and losing. Not only does the strike rate have to be amazing it has to be consistent to work within the probability model. You cant be at 70% this week and 35% for two weeks at Keeneland:bang:


If you adjust the progression for a given profit rather than double- say 5 cents or a small percent increase you could "buy" more rounds for a given bank (which has nothing to do with your probable consec. losses).

[jonnielu]

If you had a $1000 bankroll were doing a Martingale and began with a $2 bet, you'd tap out after the 9th loss.
If you began with $2 and had 24 consecutive losses, your next bet would be
$33,554,432 .

Are you doubling the bet for every race? That would be a little radical for a goal of $2 per race, wouldn't it.

What track are we at? If the third choice is being hammered down that hard, I'd have to move my gear over to some other place where the odds would be more like from 2-1 to 5-1 on that third choice. That way, after 11 losers, I'd only be down $202, and could still get a hot dog.

[jonnielu]

Right. Another important aspect is that something like 3rd choice, or an assumed hit percentage of 15% would be a terrible way to go about it because you are PROBABLY *digs into computer* going to have a probable maximum losing streak of 43 consecutive losses over 1000 wagers.
:blush:

at 60% we are talking 8 consecutive losing wagers. But 60% is unrealistic. 50% and 10 , 40% and we are at 14! and losing. Not only does the strike rate have to be amazing it has to be consistent to work within the probability model. You cant be at 70% this week and 35% for two weeks at Keeneland:bang:


If you adjust the progression for a given profit rather than double- say 5 cents or a small percent increase you could "buy" more rounds for a given bank (which has nothing to do with your probable consec. losses).

The win percentage of the third choice is not assumed to be 15%. It is, just like the post time favorite consistently coming in at 30%. 1000 races is about an entire meeting at a major track. I'd like to see where 43 consecutive losses for the third choice actually took place at a major track meeting.

If you wanted to assume that a streak of 43 consecutive losses were actually likely, there is one simple thing you could do address that likelihood and minimize losing bets. That would be to pass any race where your prospect does not warm up properly.

Of course, this is hard to do with an off-track scenario.

[jonnielu]

If you had a $1000 bankroll were doing a Martingale and began with a $2 bet, you'd tap out after the 9th loss.
If you began with $2 and had 24 consecutive losses, your next bet would be
$33,554,432 .

The odds would vary with each race, but the average on the third choice would be around 4-1. A model varying the odds between 2-1 and 5-1, might have you tapped at 16 consecutive losers.

Back in the old days of 1981 when I actually employed this, I dropped it because the approach to 20 consecutive losers was too risky to mental health. A horseplayer needs to be able to maintain good mental health. I was also trying to minimize handicapping, like Broken. I was also looking for more then $2 per race. My longest streak of consecutive losers was 21, and that got very hairy.

Maybe Broken would need a larger bankroll, there is only so much you can do in an off-track scenario with minimal handicapping, but then again, how much handicapping do you need to do when 70% of the time, the winner is one of those 4 horses whose numbers appear at the bottom of the program page?

I think what Broken is seeking is a reasonable way to avoid the real conundrum of handicapping. Probably in an effort to maintain good mental health.

[jma]

Aside from the utter insanity of the idea of betting the third choice for reasons others have already made clear, these days 70% of the money is bet in the last three minutes. You might not even know who the third choice is until very late, so you might bet a horse that turns out to be the 2nd or 4th choice. I understand trying to simplify the game, but putting a *little* thought into it is probably a good idea. If you don't enjoy it enough to even do that, then why bother?

[ryesteve]

As I understand the system, you hit the minimum 35 times in a row.
Apparently "hit" was a poor choice of words. We were talking about consecutive losses... I was referring to the length of the losing streak reaching 35.

[jonnielu]

Aside from the utter insanity of the idea of betting the third choice for reasons others have already made clear, these days 70% of the money is bet in the last three minutes. You might not even know who the third choice is until very late, so you might bet a horse that turns out to be the 2nd or 4th choice. I understand trying to simplify the game, but putting a *little* thought into it is probably a good idea. If you don't enjoy it enough to even do that, then why bother?

Some would say that there is nothing but utter insanity at a racetrack. These days, pools are pretty big too. You'd have to throw a lot of cash into one to change things in the last minute. There is nothing wrong with waiting until half the horses are in the gate either.

I thought that the question was how hard is it to make a small profit. You could make it as hard as you want to. It also doesn't have to be like a double shift mining coal with a spoon.

[Robert Fischer]

I am talking about the win percentage for the third choice in a race. The first choice (the favorite) will win about 33% of the time. That doesn't leave a lot of percentage points for the other horses. The third choice's win percentage will on average probably be less than 15%. The payouts are better for third choices, but in a recovery system the math centers around the maximum expected losing streaks not very much on individual payouts.

The 1000 races was an arbitrary number. Not very small, not overwhelming. If you play every race at 3 tracks a day you will reach that number faster, if you only play 5 plays a day it could take a year. Really should use 100,000 or some such number that is higher than the probable amount of plays for the career of the system to get a more accurate idea of max. expected losing streaks.

43 is probably the most consecutive losses that would occur during 1000 wagers at a 15% hit rate. Doesn't mean you will lose 43 times in a row the first time you wager 1000 times. Your longest losing streak may only be 37 or some such number. It just means that you aren't likely to lose more than 43 times consecutively in wagers. Could be at the same track, or every track mixed. It's probability, the math doesn't care, and yes if at a track meeting the third choice is a 15% hit rate you will see losing streaks in the high 30s and up to 43 and possibly but not probably exceeding 43.

If you don't have the bank to back up 43 consecutive losses and the pool that will accept such a wager - do not try such a system with a 15% expected hit rate.

Before you undertake a system you will check your realistic probability with solid math. You should be able to back up a "wagering system" with math that shows it to be profitable, or more commonly understand the probability of a losing outcome and how much. If you are hitting at much less than 50% just about every wager you make in such a system increases the chances of losing your entire bank.

The win percentage of the third choice is not assumed to be 15%. It is, just like the post time favorite consistently coming in at 30%. 1000 races is about an entire meeting at a major track. I'd like to see where 43 consecutive losses for the third choice actually took place at a major track meeting.

If you wanted to assume that a streak of 43 consecutive losses were actually likely, there is one simple thing you could do address that likelihood and minimize losing bets. That would be to pass any race where your prospect does not warm up properly.

Of course, this is hard to do with an off-track scenario.

[jonnielu]

I am talking about the win percentage for the third choice in a race. The first choice (the favorite) will win about 33% of the time. That doesn't leave a lot of percentage points for the other horses. The third choice's win percentage will on average probably be less than 15%. The payouts are better for third choices, but in a recovery system the math centers around the maximum expected losing streaks not very much on individual payouts.



I originally suggested the third choice according to the M/L odds. That favorite (the M/L favorite) will win about 26% of the time. The rest of the 7% is from those occasions when the second, third, or fourth M/L horse becomes the post time favorite.

Putting some thought into it, as suggested, how about if Broken passes every race where the M/L third choice is not the post time favorite. That way, he could avoid the possible 43 consecutive losses, while betting an appropriate amount to yield $1 per race on those occasions when the M/L third choice becomes the post time favorite. We'd probably still be looking at odds of 5-2, or 3-1.

And, why aren't you guys coming up with some ideas for Broken? :bang:

[raybo]

I originally suggested the third choice according to the M/L odds. That favorite (the M/L favorite) will win about 26% of the time. The rest of the 7% is from those occasions when the second, third, or fourth M/L horse becomes the post time favorite.

Putting some thought into it, as suggested, how about if Broken passes every race where the M/L third choice is not the post time favorite. That way, he could avoid the possible 43 consecutive losses, while betting an appropriate amount to yield $1 per race on those occasions when the M/L third choice becomes the post time favorite. We'd probably still be looking at odds of 5-2, or 3-1.

And, why aren't you guys coming up with some ideas for Broken? :bang:

Some are trying to think of a way to help him, however, if such a system existed it is either under severe wraps or is more complicated than any here have suggested.

IMO, such a system doesn't exist because, if it did, chances are that others would find out about it and it would have become unprofitable.

[K9Pup]

And, why aren't you guys coming up with some ideas for Broken? :bang:

Gosh I don't know. The guy wants to make a little money with no work and doesn't really care about racing or handicapping. Hmmmm.

[jonnielu]

Gosh I don't know. The guy wants to make a little money with no work and doesn't really care about racing or handicapping. Hmmmm.

Well sure, but there is an ass for every seat at the track. What about putting the top 6 in the first and second position, with the bottom six in the third and fourth position on .20 superfecta's. Only for turf races. Hell, every entrant has a shot at a turf race. And that makes for larger superfecta payoffs.

[ranchwest]

Well sure, but there is an ass for every seat at the track. What about putting the top 6 in the first and second position, with the bottom six in the third and fourth position on .20 superfecta's. Only for turf races. Hell, every entrant has a shot at a turf race. And that makes for larger superfecta payoffs.

If the public doesn't handicap turf races well, what is the logic behind ordering wagers based on the sequence of public favoritism?

[chickenhead]

What about putting the top 6 in the first and second position, with the bottom six in the third and fourth position on .20 superfecta's.


What about it? You'd go broke very quickly, as with your other idea.

[Broken]

Gosh I don't know. The guy wants to make a little money with no work and doesn't really care about racing or handicapping. Hmmmm.

That is not what I said and I clearly mentioned was not my intention. I did say I was willing to spend a couple hours a night looking through things. I was merely trying to shortcut the learning curve since this forum is full of people who have done this for years.

It's my mistake I didn't know people would be reluctant to share information, I have ran into this problem in no other venture. People have normally been very forthcoming with any help they could be as well as asked me for advice about investing, which I have always freely given.

I take exception to the comment you made above.

I have already asked people to let this thread die. I'll now ask if the moderator reads it to go ahead and lock it. The last thing I want is to start a flame thread on someon's forum.

I'll move along, thanks to those who tried to be of help, it's appreciated.

[chickenhead]

It's my mistake I didn't know people would be reluctant to share information, I have ran into this problem in no other venture.

There are...I don't know...100,000 posts on this website pertaining to how to make money at the races. I'm just curious as to in just what way you think your question is different than the one that the majority of the posts on this site attempt to answer?

Assuming your intentions are true...then use the search tool, read, learn. Come back and ask some specific questions once you know enough to ask some. People here are extremely helpful, but cannot answer the unanswerable.

Thats the best advice you're going to get all day. This site is a gold mine of information, use it.

[Lefty]

chick, damn fine post. You told him the truth of it all.

[Kelso]

I didn't know people would be reluctant to share information, I have ran into this problem in no other venture. People have normally been very forthcoming with any help they could be as well as asked me for advice about investing, which I have always freely given.


To be fair, and assuming you're not talking trading futures, "investing" is not a zero-sum game. Pari-mutuel betting, in contrast, is a negative-sum game. Nobody makes any money at a window without other people losing even more money. And while a capitalist is a guy who will sell the rope to his own hanging, people who have learned how to wring consistent profits from the track are not similarly myopic.

Nevertheless, I have asked far more than my share of questions in this forum ... and I've received back much more valuable and utile information than there has been any reason to expect.

Sure, I'd love to be taught a surefire way to make even $10 a week betting horses ... at the cost of but a few hours of daily study. It would take me about a week-and-a-half to ratchet such a system up to turning a thousand a day. That's why I don't expect to find one spelled out for me, here or anywhere else.

But, if I ever manage to stumble into such a wonderous system myself, I'm sure it will be based in large measure on the wealth of information that I've found so freely shared at PA. Chickenhead has it right.

[jonnielu]

If the public doesn't handicap turf races well, what is the logic behind ordering wagers based on the sequence of public favoritism?

I didn't say that the public doesn't handicap turf races well. The public generally handicaps as well as handicapping can be done. After all, the public is all of the other handicappers, or I should say all of the handicappers. For me, handicapping is a good start, and it is even reasonably accurate as an indication of which three or four horses should win a given race. And, it is already done.

The real work of analyzing a horse race is in an analysis of which if any of the M/L top four enjoys a real advantage over the other three. If so, you may have a bet. If not, further analysis of the rest of the field may reveal an overlooked horse that has a real advantage that is not obvious to the handicappers.

Sure, you'll need to be a pretty good handicapper to be able to grade the other handicappers papers like this, but that doesn't mean that you need to stay up all night handicapping. If you do, you risk falling in love with a past performance, the handicappers do enough of that. Besides it is hard to take advantage of handicappers mistakes when you are in there making the same mistakes.

Your clear analysis of the handicappers analysis may reveal that there is no single horse in a given race that has a real advantage over the other contestents. Or, put another way, each entrant is of relatively equal ability or disability. It is wide open. Like the average turf race. If you like the exotic bet, this is the place to practice it.

Because the likely result of this contest is that the favorite is still the favorite, but he might be out in the eighth lane while number one knows he has a shot, so the effort will be made. Two of your top six will likely cover first and second. The other four will likely say the hell with it when they are blocked coming into the turn or are passed in the stretch by two of your bottom six who don't understand that they are 15-1 and 20-1, with no chance, and they are better then the other two that are actually racing for third and fourth place.

Who says that I don't handicap?

Keep it simple

[K9Pup]

I take exception to the comment you made above.


Take exception if you want, but that IS the way you came across. I'm a dog handicapper, not horses. But I would NEVER ask people on this forum to "give" me a way to make money that required little work on my part.

Like I told you before, if you goal is to JUST make money, find a job.

[raybo]

I think that what Broken, and others who visit this site or other horseracing sites, doesn't fully understand is how very difficult it is to actually make a profit of any kind, over time. And to accomplish that with few handicapping skills is very nearly impossible, no, IS impossible.


Read the archives and improve your basic handicapping skills. Find out what is important and how you can apply that knowledge. Start slowly and stay on the point, because things don't remain static in racing. Adjust with the times. Strive to develop a feel for the game. Numbers alone won't work.

If you do your homework long enough, you might become one of the 1-2%, or less, of people in the game who actually make profits over the long term.

[Dave Schwartz]

I think that what Broken, and others who visit this site or other horseracing sites, doesn't fully understand is how very difficult it is to actually make a profit of any kind, over time. And to accomplish that with few handicapping skills is very nearly impossible, no, IS impossible.

No free lunch.

[jonnielu]

Take exception if you want, but that IS the way you came across. I'm a dog handicapper, not horses. But I would NEVER ask people on this forum to "give" me a way to make money that required little work on my part.

Like I told you before, if you goal is to JUST make money, find a job.

To keep the record straight, Broken asked about the degree of difficulty for making a meager profit. Not to be "given" a way to do it.

[K9Pup]

To keep the record straight, Broken asked about the degree of difficulty for making a meager profit. Not to be "given" a way to do it.

I think he would have had much better responses if he had said

"I've spent the last few weeks reading posts on this forum. I've used xxxxx software for months. I really enjoy the challenge of handicapping but my results have been depressing. If I can't get a little better at this and make a LITTLE money then I will be forced to quit. Any suggestions on how to proceed will be greatly appreciated."

[jonnielu]

I think he would have had much better responses if he had said

"I've spent the last few weeks reading posts on this forum. I've used xxxxx software for months. I really enjoy the challenge of handicapping but my results have been depressing. If I can't get a little better at this and make a LITTLE money then I will be forced to quit. Any suggestions on how to proceed will be greatly appreciated."

What? My responses aren't good?

[K9Pup]

What? My responses aren't good?

Honestly I don't know enough about the horses to tell. But I got the impression they weren't good enough for Broken.

[GaryG]

OK....here: Play every horse claimed last time out by Wayne Catalano, Tom Amoss or Cody Autrey. You should show a flat bet profit and it takes only a few minutes a day. Let us know how you do. It takes no knowledge and no work. Just what you requested right?

[jma]

There are...I don't know...100,000 posts on this website pertaining to how to make money at the races. I'm just curious as to in just what way you think your question is different than the one that the majority of the posts on this site attempt to answer?

Assuming your intentions are true...then use the search tool, read, learn. Come back and ask some specific questions once you know enough to ask some. People here are extremely helpful, but cannot answer the unanswerable.

Thats the best advice you're going to get all day. This site is a gold mine of information, use it.

Great post...

[DeanT]

Thinking along these lines of "sure profit" I was wondering if anyone has crunched numbers on large favorites - say under 3-5 closing odds, of late.

Fabricand and I think Quirin a bunch of years ago showed that these favorites showed a +/- 2% profit/loss. I think they used a large sample, as well. Seemingly applying filters to such data might be able to get you that elusive 1% edge with rebate, imo.

I am just wondering if that edge might be gone today with computer players, rebates and the like. I would think if you could find a statistically significant sample on flat bets with an angle yielding ROI of 0.91 or 0.92 you might be able to blind bet and make a flat bet profit using betfair and being very disiplined. Has anyone found a 0.90-0.95 ROI angle that can be played with huge volume in the world of internet betting in 2007?

[Indulto]

... while a capitalist is a guy who will sell the rope to his own hanging, people who have learned how to wring consistent profits from the track are not similarly myopic.:lol:

Anybody know if Frankel produces a flat-bet profit to win, place, or show on turf races at any track?

[Tape Reader]

Broken

I have also been trying to make a fully automatic selection process. I must stress that this is for a hobby only. I have had my best success over the last forty years in reading the tote board. I used to use specialy designed graph paper to "chart" the odds. Last year I decided to try to have it computerized.

I am not a programmer and decided to hire someone to help me with my HOBBY. To date I have spent $2000 and do not "yet" (we all love the game) have a sucessful automatic selection process.

If you do decide to go in this direction I can tell you some of the things that have helped me.

My system ranks the selections according to my algorithum that detects unusual betting patterns. Obviousoly this is not what I am going to share, or do I want to sell. (Not worth it at this point. Do your own research.)

What I can contribute is a sorting routine that I think is wortwhile.

My system ranks the top horses that are getting "the play." Therefore, I have the program select "high value" bets with the following conditions:

If the number one choice is the favorite, then it is a win only bet.

If the favorite is not the number 1 choice then an exacta is a high value bet.

If the favorite is not the number 1 or 2 choice, then a triple is a high value bet.

If the favorite is not the number 1, 2 or 3 choice then a super is a high value bet.

In all cases I would box the top choices, plus the next in line. Place and show would also be considered if the faforite was not in competition for that spot.

Even if I don't choose to play/watch, I enjoy each day applying technical analysis to the tote board.

Good luck.

[traynor]

[QUOTE=traynor]
I spent a very profitable season handicapping Pimlico and keeping a notebook log of horses that finished well, but ran out of the money. If one of the "good finishers" was entered, it was a bet. If two were entered, it was a box exacta.
QUOTE]


Traynor,
Is this different than finding such horses in the PPs for a given race; say, looking for those that moved ... in their last race or three ... from second-half of the field at second call to 4th or 5th at the wire? (Or any such criteria.) In other words, did you get something from the notebook that you could not have got from the PPs?

Thank you.

Definitely. The primary thing I considered was improvement in the stretch, relative to the other entries. There may not have been a corresponding position change from stretch to finish line, or the move may have started after the stretch call, and ended before the wire. Easy to see, hard to describe--it looks like one horse is going much faster than the other horses.

I tried to quantify it by either lengths behind or position improvement. Nothing seemed to work as well as watching the race finish, and noting the horse(s) that seemed to be "decelerating less slowly" than the others.

[Dave Schwartz]

Tape Reader,

There is a lot to be learned from your post. Very insightful.

If anyone thinks I am nuts, please read his post again. It contains some wonderful nuggets on how to beat the races.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz
PS: I have no interest in the tote method itself but the rest of the post is very powerful stuff.

[Kelso]

The primary thing I considered was improvement in the stretch, relative to the other entries. There may not have been a corresponding position change from stretch to finish line, or the move may have started after the stretch call, and ended before the wire.


Thank you, Traynor. Clears it up for me.

[jonnielu]

Broken


Even if I don't choose to play/watch, I enjoy each day applying technical analysis to the tote board.

Good luck.

This is a wonderful way to let others do the handicapping for you. Especially when considering that an all-nighter of handicapping is a good start. Couple some sharp betting analysis with some info on the horses physical condition and warmup, and you've got yourself a very consistent way to positively augment any type of handicapping.

[jonnielu]

[QUOTE=Kelso]

Definitely. The primary thing I considered was improvement in the stretch, relative to the other entries. There may not have been a corresponding position change from stretch to finish line, or the move may have started after the stretch call, and ended before the wire. Easy to see, hard to describe--it looks like one horse is going much faster than the other horses.

I tried to quantify it by either lengths behind or position improvement. Nothing seemed to work as well as watching the race finish, and noting the horse(s) that seemed to be "decelerating less slowly" than the others.

A good way spot the "good finisher" in last as a live contender today is to add a point to the speed rating for every length gained through the stretch.

There is a lot more behind this then its simplicity might suggest.

[raybo]

[QUOTE=traynor]

A good way spot the "good finisher" in last as a live contender today is to add a point to the speed rating for every length gained through the stretch.

There is a lot more behind this then its simplicity might suggest.

What about early speed gain in last race, isn't this also a sign of improving condition, depending on the distance?

[jonnielu]

[QUOTE=jonnielu]

What about early speed gain in last race, isn't this also a sign of improving condition, depending on the distance?

Early speed is cheap, and trainers will run early in races for several different reasons. The distances involved, can indicate intentions today, but this is also on the top part of the list for darkening a horses form.

To accurately gleen intentions from past performance running lines, you will need to have an accurate measurement of a horses basic ability in hand. If your rip and get speedball has the ability to win under todays conditions and he has been running early in the last or last couple of races, the question is, were those honest efforts to win, or just preps for today. The effort, or lack of effort, through the stretch is the best answer you can get from a recent PP running line. If he was everything but eased through the stretch, this could be prep for today.

But, before you head to the window to unload on this rip and get speedball that appears to be well intentioned today, you need to look at a few more horses because your speedball will need some co-operation from any other horses in the field that have greater ability. If they are also well-intended today, one of them will get on your speedball's hip by the 4f pole, even the normal closers. The greater ability will take over and the top of the stretch and your speedball might come in third, in an honest effort. Of course, you can congratulate yourself for digging up a well intended contender for today's race that made an honest effort at 15-1, but you won't be able to stop at the store and load up on pork chops for dinner.

This horse wins today, when the previous efforts have convinced the better horses in the field not to chase, if the other jockeys let him go, even for 2 lengths, they have lost. The stable also likes it when the handicappers are convinced that this horse can't run 6f with this class. they know what the horses abilities are, and the easiest thing for them is losing races.

If your handicapping is accurate for determining ability, you may be able to spot the early speed horse that is set for a win, but, if you can also reasonably determine that the better horse will hessitate or not chase at all, you can be celebrating with pork chops all around.

The off-track bettor is at a dis-advantage here, because the most reliable way to determine physical condition, and stable effort is to be at the paddock, and then at the grandstand for a full view of the pre-race warmups.
You can look for the stable's pork chop fund on the board, but, it can be difficult to discern, because everybody is looking to load up on pork chops.