What % Does Luck Play in Handicapping

[Beetlebomb]

If you become an expert and by all criteria should be able to locically pick a winner - What Per Centage of the Equation Will Be LUCK?

If you become the complete expert at handicapping - what per centage of your pick is STILL going to depend on sheer luck?

10%
20%
30%

Can you get good enough to beat the factor of luck in handcapping and making a buck?

[cj]

Long term, very little. But on individual races, could be 100%!

[Bill Olmsted]

Long term, very little. But on individual races, could be 100%!

This is a professional talking. Take it to heart.

B :)

[Tom Barrister]

None of your selections should be based on luck. The results (and I suppose I'm nit-picking) will be influenced to some degree by luck, and the amount that they are depends on how you handicap and what kind of horses you play. For example, if you play all lone-front-runners, luck will be less of a factor than if you play a lot of horses who come off the pace (and can get into more trouble during the race).

If you want it quantified, luck isn't supposed to be a factor in the long run, although probably nobody lives long enough for it not to be. Luck can directly influence any race, so on a race-by-race basis, it can be 100%.

[the_fat_man]

As I've posted before, there are 4 possibilities when you make a selection

1) you pick the RIGHT horse and it WINS

2) you pick the RIGHT horse and it LOSES ----this could be justified in any number of ways. You need to be objective. Typically, this would apply if your horse has a troubled trip or you just lose a photo.

3) you pick the WRONG horse and it LOSES --- time to re-evaluate

4) you pick the WRONG horse and it WINS ---be objective here as well. Best horse doesn't always win the race.


Of course, as pointed out above, this applies to the specific case and not the general one. In terms of accounting, 1 and 4 are conflated and 2 and 3 are conflated. Mathematically or monetarily a win is a win and a loss is a loss. A .300 hitter, for example, has a finishing average at the end of the year. This might include any number of slumps and hot streaks. A slump might be the result of poor hitting or poor luck (hitting ropes that are caught). At the end it doesn't matter, 'cause if the hitter has the skill to hit .300, he'll do so. At any given point of the season, however, whether a player is going well or badly, or the recipient of bad or good luck, plays a HUGE role psychologically. Which means it can AFFECT HIS GAME. If he's going poorly, for example, his head would be better if he were hitting the ball well and just having bad luck, than if he were basically stinking up the joint.

Same applies here. Therefore, the individual case can, psychologically, affect overall performance.

I just recently experience a cold streak, going 1 for 16. Now, I had 7 seconds in there as well. :bang: And of these, I was best in half of them.
So, I wasn't particularly concerned and busted out, if you will, going 5 for my next 7.

[Bill Olmsted]

If someone posts 10 selections on this board and the ROI ia 500%, you would think hey, this guy is good. But then, after 50 selections the ROI drops to 60%. Still, this guy is good. After 100 bets, the ROI drops further to 20%. Still not bad. After 200 bets, the guy is dead even. Then you start to wonder...is the law of large numbers catching up with him? Is he really good, or is he just another loser over the long run? Then after 500 bets he manages to pull his ROI back up to 5%. What would you conclude? Winner? Loser in waiting? Suppose further, that after 1000 bets he records a 3% ROI? Winner? Loser?

The point is that the longer you are able to survive, the less luck plays into the equation. If you can prevail over thousands of bets at 5% you are heads and shoulders above the hot shot who shows a 500% over the short run. In this game the race is won by those who can go the distance.

B :)

[kenwoodallpromos]

5%, and about 50% on probabilities holding up despite variables. That means that an expert should hit about 45% of their win picks if chosen solely on likelyhood of winning without regard to value of odds.

[Bill Olmsted]

5%, and about 50% on probabilities holding up despite variables. That means that an expert should hit about 45% of their win picks if chosen solely on likelyhood of winning without regard to value of odds.

I didn't know that PA allowed Greek spoken here.

[Light]

The point is that the longer you are able to survive, the less luck plays into the equation.If you can prevail over thousands of bets at 5% you are heads and shoulders above the hot shot who shows a 500% over the short run.


Works both ways.If a below average handicapper hits a lucky $50,000 pik6 on a $8 ticket, his roi is going to take a really long time to come down to a break even roi if he is a small time bettor. I mean we may all be dead by then. Lets say this guy averages a $1k loss over the next 10 years betting $5k a year. Basically he's a -20% ROI bettor.But when you include his Pk6 hit he's at +400% ROI overall. And there is no guarantee than he wont hit another $50k p6 from luck in the next 10 years while the guy who makes 5% over a 10,000 races has no guarantee that will continue to be the case on positive outcome.

[Overlay]

I think that unexpected occurrences resulting from random chance will likely even out over time as far as whether they help you or hurt you. A bigger obstacle (in my opinion) is the amount of substantive information about the horses in any given race that even a good handicapper does not (and perhaps cannot) know (which, according to estimates I've seen, can amount to as much as 45% of the total picture). I believe that the best long-term approach is to bet with the percentages, look for value, and add a premium on required odds to compensate for the unknown/unknowable.

[LemonSoupKid]

As I've said before, there is no such thing as luck. It is the ultimate in superstitious redundancy to talk about luck and probability in the same sentence. There is no such thing as LUCK. It's all probability. A built-in part of our wonderful universe has an essence of randomness among its design and stability. To act like some force is involved (esp. when betting) is absurd --- luck is a term simple minded people invented to describe when reality hasn't met expectation.

Know it.

[ceejay]

0%. Luck, by definition, is random and will even out to 0% over time.

[Greyfox]

0%. Luck, by definition, is random and will even out to 0% over time.

Agree totally. :ThmbUp:
Luck plays no factor in handicapping.
Luck, however, is a factor at cashing tickets. Eg. The teller punches out the wrong ticket and you fail to notice it. It wins. Eg. Your horse breaks a leg. You lose. And on it goes.
But not a factor at all in handicapping unless you are spinning a dart board and throwing darts at it to make your picks.

[jonnielu]

If you become an expert and by all criteria should be able to locically pick a winner - What Per Centage of the Equation Will Be LUCK?

It would depend on whether or not luck is at play considering the handicappers methods. If he is rolling dice to get the number to bet, the results could be considered to be 100% luck, good or bad.

Let's say a guy just figures that since the four picks at the bottom of the program page win 75% of the races, he'll just take the one that looks sharpest in the post parade. If he is skillfull at this and wins 30% of his bets, is he just lucky? We could figure that he is reducing the factor of luck with logical skills. How much, who could tell. He may be lucky, but not so dependent on luck as the dice roller.

Would he be lucky, or would he simply be allowing for the role luck may play on the track? Hard to say, the real question would be, could he reduce any dependence on luck further by developing other skills?

If you become the complete expert at handicapping - what per centage of your pick is STILL going to depend on sheer luck?

10%
20%
30%

You have the potential to take it down to "0".

Can you get good enough to beat the factor of luck in handcapping and making a buck?

Easy, when the results of the race figure to be impacted greatly by luck, just pass the race. There is another coming along in 20 minutes.

[Hajck Hillstrom]

If you become an expert and by all criteria should be able to locically pick a winner - What Per Centage of the Equation Will Be LUCK?From the postings thus far, one can see that "luck" is viewed with disdain.

So, let's just change the word to "chaos."

It has been accepted that the chaos factor is impacted at a level of 10-20%, but I factor the number at 25-30% in my analysis. Whatever I perceive as true value, I increase that number by 30%.

There are many ways of dealing with this, but if the favorite is vunerable, and the horse you like is 10-1 or higher, the ALL box becomes your best ally.... exotically speaking.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I didn't know that PA allowed Greek spoken here.
PM me and I can explain what I mean by "probabilities holding up" and variables.
As far as PA not allowing Greek here, we have had those discussions about what 1 length is and speed figures in other threads!!LOL!!

[Dave Schwartz]

I am not exactly sure what you mean by "luck" but I am going to take a stab at this anyway.


My estimation is that the outcome of 10-12% all races are totally unpredictable using the tools that I have at my disposal.

In other words, after the races are over, I would expect that when I ask the question, "Why did this horse win this race?" I do not have a good answer when I look at my own handicapping.

I think I did a study once the outcome of which was that like 92% of all the winners had a rank of 1 or 2 for something in our top 15 factors or so.

But having a high rank in a single factor such as "form" is not enough reason to qualify a horse as "believable." These one-dimensional horses rarely win and are generally huge losing propositions.



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Robert Fischer]

If you become an expert and by all criteria should be able to locically pick a winner - What Per Centage of the Equation Will Be LUCK?

If you become the complete expert at handicapping - what per centage of your pick is STILL going to depend on sheer luck?

10%
20%
30%

Can you get good enough to beat the factor of luck in handcapping and making a buck?

The better you get, the lower the % of your pick, that you have to depend on Luck or uncertainty.... Then when you get really good, the number starts to get bigger again! :ThmbUp:

[Beetlebomb]

According to your experience and what others indicating....

A person could become such a skilled handicapper that he virtually could project/predict the outcome of a race(s) and consequently profitable bet the race and make money.

What I am wondering or questioning - even with your very best handicapping - what is the likelihood of chance or "chaos" throwing off your pick or picks?

I am getting inference that this is an "over time" situation not a few races or meets.

Really am appreciating the comments and discussion -- I want to believe that
a person can become such a skilled handicapper that they can make money betting the horses - utilizing whatever kind or kinds of bets that are deemed appropriate.

[spilparc]

If you can determine the luck percentage in professional golf, then you have solved the luck percentage for professional handicapping.

[DeanT]

What I am wondering or questioning - even with your very best handicapping - what is the likelihood of chance or "chaos" throwing off your pick or picks?

Hi Beetle,

Impossible question to answer. Each race, imo, is by definition, chaos. Managing that chaos in a profitable manner is what a handicapper strives for.

[Dave Schwartz]

I want to believe that a person can become such a skilled handicapper that they can make money betting the horses - utilizing whatever kind or kinds of bets that are deemed appropriate.

Think of it this way...

If I have a race where there is:

a 3/5 favorite that I give a 50% probability of winning and is, therefore, a "bad" bet.

and

a 4/1 horse that I give a 30% probability of winning and is, therefore, a "good" bet.

and

I bet the 4/1 shot

and

the 3/5 horse wins...


... did I get it right or wrong?




The answer is, "I don't know."


Because the real issue is: "Will the horses that I collectively wager on return more money that I invest?"


It truth - this is important - does it even matter how the horses I do not bet on do?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[highnote]

What I am wondering or questioning - even with your very best handicapping - what is the likelihood of chance or "chaos" throwing off your pick or picks?

I read or heard somewhere where Howard Sartin said that there is about a 5% chance that something will go wrong with any given horse in a race. You can call in randomness or even bad luck.

So that is the figure I use when I handicap. I know that even if I have a "dead cert" there is a 5% he's going to find trouble.

* In case you're not familiar with the phrase "dead cert", it means the same thing as "a lock".

[jonnielu]

What I am wondering or questioning - even with your very best handicapping - what is the likelihood of chance or "chaos" throwing off your pick or picks?



The complete handicapper ( and, I am not implying that the incomplete handicapper does not enjoy a level of success), will be carrying a complete toolbox. In it, he will have an accurately calibrated chaos gauge. He may have gone to a chaos specialist to have it calibrated, but he operates it with skill.

Knowing that a chaos race is a chaos race before the gate opens, can enable the complete handicapper to make better decisions as a bettor, with regard to any such race.

[46zilzal]

Differs race to race, but is always there. Once was pissed about a horse smashing into me at the break. I ran third. Couldn't help but over hear another complaining about the outside horse (post 10) coming into his 8.

BOTH taken down and I won. It is a funny game.

[jonnielu]

Think of it this way...

If I have a race where there is:

a 3/5 favorite that I give a 50% probability of winning and is, therefore, a "bad" bet.

First, it is a "bad" bet because the probability of winning is not 100%, second it is a bad bet because of the odds. That can be flip-flopped for anyones personal taste, but there are still 2 reasons that it is a bad bet.

and

a 4/1 horse that I give a 30% probability of winning and is, therefore, a "good" bet.

I would insist on 90% probability, anything under 50%, is a shot. Shots are never "good" bets. They can be good shots, but, the player must be aware that he took a good shot, if he ever takes shots.

and

I bet the 4/1 shot

and

the 3/5 horse wins...


... did I get it right or wrong?

You shot from the hip, better aim would give you better results, if you realize that it is a shot when you pull the trigger.




The answer is, "I don't know."

That is not good, how will you improve your aim? Sure, you have to do some trigger pulling to improve your aim, but once your sights are lined up, you then need to refine your trigger pulling too.


Because the real issue is: "Will the horses that I collectively wager on return more money that I invest?"

Yes, and often that only seems to be resolved because of all the slop that it will allow at any given time.


It truth - this is important - does it even matter how the horses I do not bet on do?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Absolutely, yes. If you bet to win, or key 1 horse on top, which is still a bet to win, and a good idea. If you expect to win by 3, and your fourth place prospect is second by a nose, you still collect, you still profit, you still win a win bet.

And, the second place finisher just advised you that there may be slop in your play that you are getting by with. The losers can tell you as much as the winners do.

[Light]

If a heavy favorite stumbles at the gate and comes flying to just miss beating an 80-1 shot how would you define luck? The guys who bet the 80-1 are "lucky" and the guys who needed the favorite to complete a nice paying pk4 or pk6 are "unlucky"? A contradiction on the same event.A parallel universe in the same universe.Was Barbaro's broken leg "bad luck" or meant to be. Since accidents are part of nature,as well as horse racing,you can use that term,but it all looks scripted from today's perspective.What "if" this happened or that happened.You can go crazy painting different scenarios.The whole picture of "luck" is defined by individual perspectives and bias as is what is good and bad. I use the term "luck" loosely as I really believe its all meant to be.

In the past I have had dreams and premonitions of the outcome of races that turned out to be true. My point in telling you this is that there is no way to know the future unless it has allready happened. "Luck" is scripted.

[Cratos]

If you become an expert and by all criteria should be able to locically pick a winner - What Per Centage of the Equation Will Be LUCK?

If you become the complete expert at handicapping - what per centage of your pick is STILL going to depend on sheer luck?

10%
20%
30%

Can you get good enough to beat the factor of luck in handcapping and making a buck?

Murray Wills, a former major league player who played with the LA Dodgers at one time, defined luck as: “Opportunity meeting preparedness.” If that definition is consistent with your question then luck has everything to do with handicapping because handicapping is all about being prepared and seizing the opportunity.

However if “luck” is defined as a probabilistic opportunity that occurs without preparedness then it has nothing to with handicapping.

[Robert Fischer]

The complete handicapper ( and, I am not implying that the incomplete handicapper does not enjoy a level of success), will be carrying a complete toolbox. In it, he will have an accurately calibrated chaos gauge. He may have gone to a chaos specialist to have it calibrated, but he operates it with skill.

Knowing that a chaos race is a chaos race before the gate opens, can enable the complete handicapper to make better decisions as a bettor, with regard to any such race.

good point

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
Think of it this way...

If I have a race where there is:

a 3/5 favorite that I give a 50% probability of winning and is, therefore, a "bad" bet.

First, it is a "bad" bet because the probability of winning is not 100%, second it is a bad bet because of the odds. That can be flip-flopped for anyones personal taste, but there are still 2 reasons that it is a bad bet.

and

a 4/1 horse that I give a 30% probability of winning and is, therefore, a "good" bet.

I would insist on 90% probability, anything under 50%, is a shot. Shots are never "good" bets. They can be good shots, but, the player must be aware that he took a good shot, if he ever takes shots.



What about for win bets ?

[garyoz]

A normal distribution curve. A given race or day may be in the tail of the distributions, but if you know what you are doing there will be a regression toward the mean (the central part of the bell-shaped curve). That's why you have a bankroll.

[Dave Schwartz]

I would insist on 90% probability, anything under 50%, is a shot. Shots are never "good" bets. They can be good shots, but, the player must be aware that he took a good shot, if he ever takes shots.

Are you saying that you only make wagers where you believe the horse has a 90% chance of winning?

[DeanT]

A normal distribution curve. A given race or day may be in the tail of the distributions, but if you know what you are doing there will be a regression toward the mean (the central part of the bell-shaped curve). That's why you have a bankroll.
Very good post :ThmbUp:

[Beetlebomb]

If I have HSH - HTR - JCAPPER - Buy the sheets and whatever, in theory I should be able to reliably place a bet with the odds - likelihood - very strongly in my favor.

Would that be correct?

However, as good as I might become - as a person told me one time -
"Hey, someday the horse just doesn't feel that good."

So - the best handicapper - picking the right races - how much of the element of chance can he or she eliminate. (I realize this is gambling.)

Back to my real interest - If I devote the time and energycan I become a profitable parimutual investor - especially on little money?? - Note to David Schwartz the book your talking about producing - How to make a profit betting for the small better sounds very interesting)

[DeanT]

Hi Beetle,

You are, with respect, missing what CJ and Garyoz et al are mentioning (and it is sage advice) : Luck does not matter. It might be 2 out of 100 races that the bet you made is sick and races poorly, is having a bad day, or is hit with an act of god, or breaks down. On the flipside, you may have backed a horse who gets the benefit of that horses bad "luck". It is inconsequential and evens out over time. You will make thousands of bets.

Unsolicted advice from an anonymous internet guy who could have lost $500K this year: Never concentrate on what can get you beat, that is out of your control. I lose 77% of my win bets. I bet there are winning players on this board and elsewhere that lose 85% of their win bets. Winners/losers/luck means nothing.

I do like the question, don't get me wrong. I tried to do a little study on bridgejumping. I wanted to know what % of bridgejumping horses won, and if you subset them in some way, if they are profitable. Even with jockey error I found they are close to profitable with a few parameters. Heck, Rags to Riches had a hairline fracture and still showed at BEL in August. So knowing "luck" in that study is important. But it is not important for every day play.

Anyway, MO.

[alysheba88]

none

[Dave Schwartz]

So - the best handicapper - picking the right races - how much of the element of chance can he or she eliminate. (I realize this is gambling.)

Alysheeba's got it right. You do not eliminate ANY of the chance within an individual race.

Permit me to give you a small example:

Imagine that you are a casino owner booking a roulette game. If someone bets on a color (red or black) they are facing a 5.26% disadvantage. Their disadvantage is your advantage.

So, what are the chances of winning the next spin if a guy walks up and bets (say) $50,000? The correct answer is your "chances" are 20-out-of-38. In other words, he has a 47.4% chance of doubling his money and a 52.6% chance of losing it all.

Imagine, instead, that this same guy comes up and bets $1 at a time until his $50k doubles or goes away. What are the chances that he doubles his money now? Virtually nill because the law of large numbers prevents a casino owner from ever falling 50,000 units behind.

Get it?

Now, if you have the advantage, you are just like the casino owner. The question is, "How do you find such an advantage?"


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Beetlebomb]

By knowing more than the collective betting pool group --

by being smarter by intuition?

by having access to more information and knowing how to use it?

and, if so, what does this exactly mean?

[Dave Schwartz]

and, if so, what does this exactly mean?


Not sure what you are asking... but it is beginning to sound like you should be Grasshopper instead of Beetle.

:)

[jonnielu]

Are you saying that you only make wagers where you believe the horse has a 90% chance of winning?

If I am at the track, with so much more to base that assessment on beside PP's, yes. Off-track I'll take shots, because I am cut off from a lot of information. I won't take 50% shots though. And, I am talking about win probability.

If I'm off track, I might box two 70% shots in an exacta, where on track I might see that one is a 70% shot, while the other is more solid at 90%.

In 1981, my mentor said, "be conservative to win", he was right for several reasons.

[Beetlebomb]

Good post:blush:

I concur - jumping around a bit....

You pose the question,

How do you get the edge?

I don't know other than good basic handicapping - is there a best way to put the odds in your favor other than the comments preceeding??

Thanks, again, for the posts and help!:)

[Robert Goren]

Many years ago at Lincoln star fair park the horse running 2nd goes down after a quarter of mile and takes 7 other runners with him. 2 horses finish the race. The front runner who would have generally gave it up after a half and an 80 to 1 shot who was already 5 lengths back of the rest of the field. The front runner held on. The 80 to 1 shot circled the pile up and placed. The two split the show pool. I had to listen to a "lucky so-and-so" friend tell me how smart he was for picking the 80 to 1 shot to show for week.

[chickenhead]

If I am at the track, with so much more to base that assessment on beside PP's, yes.

And do you win 90% of your wagers on 4-1 horses?

[jonnielu]

And do you win 90% of your wagers on 4-1 horses?

70%, odds vary from 5/2 to 7/1, average track mid-meeting, you might be doing good to turn up three - four of these a week. Sometimes boredom will motivate a shot. And sometimes, I'm just in the mood for a shot, and I'll take one. The key is knowing it is a shot. But, I never take a shot based on PP information.

The first time that I saw a horse at a racetrack, that I could tell was in absolute peak physical condition, I passed at 50 - 1. It was a field of MdnSpWt's, maybe 8 firsters in a 12 horse field (what I would today call a chaos race). I was working on my physical game and having a hard time deciding if this totally peaked horse was energetic or fractious. He bucked twice coming out of the post parade, and the dumbass here headed for the hot dog stand. I don't remember the name, I do remember the 108.40 in lights.

From this and many other experiences, I have learned to better qualify shots. I've also learned that you can not really injure yourself by going conservative and passing a race, no matter how great a shot it was. Because horse races are like buses and women, there will be another one coming along in 25 minutes. No matter how great the shot, it is never your last.

[Kelso]

I read or heard somewhere where Howard Sartin said that there is about a 5% chance that something will go wrong with any given horse in a race.


SJ,
Does this translate into Sartin saying that odds at 105%+ of one's odds line constitutes an overlay?

Thank you.

[jonnielu]

What about for win bets ?

It can work like this:

You amble down to the plant around lunchtime with the intention of unloading on a suspect in the ninth. The only reason you are there, is to gather the trackside information that you need for the confident decision to go. If the horses get to the gate, and you've nothing but green lights, you are going to throw everything you can at your suspect at 5/2. Your choice is head and shoulders above anything else in this event. It is a stake too, so you won't even have to blow out any blood vessels figuring stable effort.

It is a long stretch from the 1st to the 9th, but since it is lunchtime, you easily slide by the 1st with hot dog #1. The 2nd and 3rd don't send you at all as you scoot past them, the results bolster your thinking today. Coming into the 4th, you decide some involvement might help pass the time, so you figure to practice your physical skills. Not a bad idea.

In the paddock, you notice that #5 is looking pretty good, that's the one you thought had a shot here from the PP's. Nothing glaring about #5, but he does look better then the rest, so you start comparing, just for the practice. By the time that the post parade is going, you're thinking that the #5 is a legitimate 70% shot. How could it hurt to take a flyer with just a few bucks on a 70% shot, especially when you realize that it is still a shot.

You pull the trigger.

#5 runs 2nd by a neck. 2 facts are now in,

1. You did an excellent analysis of this race.
2. You just lost money on a shot, in a race you intended to pass.

You assuage yourself with the fact that you knew it was a shot, you re-commit yourself to your original strategy, you are once again righted on the mental tight-rope that you know you must master, if you are to succeed.

You do it again in the 7th. This time, you are taking solace in the fact that you were 2nd by a whole length. At least it wasn't a nose. You again right yourself on the mental tight-rope, but your legs are a little shakey.

Now here we are, 9th race, your guy is busting with everything you want to see, the greens are lighting up one after the other, the board lights up green too, the public is going to miss this one at 5/2.

Your little-man is busier then a cat covering s##t, telling you things that you just don't need to be hearing right now, but the opportunity to duct tape his mouth has passed. His 1 reasonable question knocks your confidence ass over tea kettle. " What if this is just a shot too?"

Nobady needs their little man talking to them like this right before an important wager. Hell, you may as well bring the wife with you.

You cut back from the slammin' you intended and take a couple of taps on your horse, trying to negotiate the tightrope hand over hand to get off. They're off! The jockey asks going into the turn, your horse goes on the move from 4 back, a little bit of swing coming into the stretch and your horse easily slips by on the rail, he shows you everything that you knew was there, winning by 6.

You collect your money, you are up by $50, you are a winner. You have to listen to the little man all the way home, asking his one reasonable question, "why didn't you unload on that horse, that's what you came for?"

The only thing that shuts the little man up now, is the wife taking over.

[highnote]

SJ,
Does this translate into Sartin saying that odds at 105%+ of one's odds line constitutes an overlay?

Thank you.

I suppose it does. You have to factor in that some random element that you haven't considered can affect your horse.

Considering we're dealing with a horse race, maybe 5% is too low?

[Robert Fischer]

It can work like this:

You amble down to the plant around lunchtime with the intention of unloading on a suspect in the ninth. The only reason you are there, is to gather the trackside information that you need for the confident decision to go. If the horses get to the gate, and you've nothing but green lights, you are going to throw everything you can at your suspect at 5/2. Your choice is head and shoulders above anything else in this event. It is a stake too, so you won't even have to blow out any blood vessels figuring stable effort.

It is a long stretch from the 1st to the 9th, but since it is lunchtime, you easily slide by the 1st with hot dog #1. The 2nd and 3rd don't send you at all as you scoot past them, the results bolster your thinking today. Coming into the 4th, you decide some involvement might help pass the time, so you figure to practice your physical skills. Not a bad idea.

In the paddock, you notice that #5 is looking pretty good, that's the one you thought had a shot here from the PP's. Nothing glaring about #5, but he does look better then the rest, so you start comparing, just for the practice. By the time that the post parade is going, you're thinking that the #5 is a legitimate 70% shot. How could it hurt to take a flyer with just a few bucks on a 70% shot, especially when you realize that it is still a shot.

You pull the trigger.

#5 runs 2nd by a neck. 2 facts are now in,

1. You did an excellent analysis of this race.
2. You just lost money on a shot, in a race you intended to pass.

You assuage yourself with the fact that you knew it was a shot, you re-commit yourself to your original strategy, you are once again righted on the mental tight-rope that you know you must master, if you are to succeed.

You do it again in the 7th. This time, you are taking solace in the fact that you were 2nd by a whole length. At least it wasn't a nose. You again right yourself on the mental tight-rope, but your legs are a little shakey.

Now here we are, 9th race, your guy is busting with everything you want to see, the greens are lighting up one after the other, the board lights up green too, the public is going to miss this one at 5/2.

Your little-man is busier then a cat covering s##t, telling you things that you just don't need to be hearing right now, but the opportunity to duct tape his mouth has passed. His 1 reasonable question knocks your confidence ass over tea kettle. " What if this is just a shot too?"

Nobady needs their little man talking to them like this right before an important wager. Hell, you may as well bring the wife with you.

You cut back from the slammin' you intended and take a couple of taps on your horse, trying to negotiate the tightrope hand over hand to get off. They're off! The jockey asks going into the turn, your horse goes on the move from 4 back, a little bit of swing coming into the stretch and your horse easily slips by on the rail, he shows you everything that you knew was there, winning by 6.

You collect your money, you are up by $50, you are a winner. You have to listen to the little man all the way home, asking his one reasonable question, "why didn't you unload on that horse, that's what you came for?"

The only thing that shuts the little man up now, is the wife taking over.


Good advice :ThmbUp:


I think what could cause a little confusion earlier is when you see a 90% shot , Dave or I might call that same horse a 50% shot but I think we are actually talking about the same horse and the same situation.


Action Bets are the root of all evil!

[Robert Fischer]

I suppose it does. You have to factor in that some random element that you haven't considered can affect your horse.

Considering we're dealing with a horse race, maybe 5% is too low?

Some races seem relatively stable, and others can be very chaotic.

[DeanT]

Jonnie has 7-1 shots who have 70% probabilities of winning?

Not only can't I find those, if I did find those, I would be stumped on figuring out proper bet size.

[Overlay]

Jonnie has 7-1 shots who have 70% probabilities of winning?

Not only can't I find those, if I did find those, I would be stumped on figuring out proper bet size.

By full Kelly, it would be (70% - 12.5%) / (100% - 12.5%), or 57.5 / 87.5, or 65-5/7% of bankroll. (Good luck risking that much on a single race, though!)

[DeanT]

By full Kelly, it would be (70% - 12.5%) / (100% - 12.5%), or 57.5 / 87.5, or 65-5/7% of bankroll. (Good luck risking that much on a single race, though!)
I'm pretty good at knowing what I need to risk with half-kelly when I have a 0.20 horse who is 5-1, or a 0.50 horse who is 3-2. Anything way out of whack I would have to pull out the spreadsheet.

66% of bankroll? I think I would be sick in the bathroom before the race went off.

[jonnielu]

I'm pretty good at knowing what I need to risk with half-kelly when I have a 0.20 horse who is 5-1, or a 0.50 horse who is 3-2. Anything way out of whack I would have to pull out the spreadsheet.

66% of bankroll? I think I would be sick in the bathroom before the race went off.

For what possible reason would anyone want to bet 66% of the bank on a single race?

[DeanT]

For what possible reason would anyone want to bet 66% of the bank on a single race?
Not me.

Someone would with an edge like that tho. And it can be argued they are smart to do so.

[Dave Schwartz]

Jonn,

If I'm off track, I might box two 70% shots in an exacta, where on track I might see that one is a 70% shot, while the other is more solid at 90%.

Okay... I am confused here... How does one have a 90% and a 70% in the same race? Or are you talking place probability?



Dave

[jonnielu]

Not me.

Someone would with an edge like that tho. And it can be argued they are smart to do so.

It doesn't make sense Dean, you are not robbing a bank, and this is not a once in a lifetime event. It could be three days (at a crappy venue) before a similar opportunity comes up, not three years. 10% of the bank is plenty. Even if you are at 40%, or 30% for that matter.

[jonnielu]

Jonn,



Okay... I am confused here... How does one have a 90% and a 70% in the same race? Or are you talking place probability?



Dave

Hey Dave,

That is just my own way of looking at it, the idea that it confuses other people is just like a bonus.

I feel that handicapping generally consists of comparing one horse to the other, and I find that to be somewhat limiting when it comes to discerning whether one is actually better then the other, or enjoys some particular advantage going into todays race. Handicapping is about todays race, and a guy does it with past performances, which are about yesterdays race.

I like to sort them out by first throwing them into a pile and calling them all 50% probability shots. That way, if anybody asks me what I think of a particular horses chances, I can accurately say, "he's got a shot".

After I get to doing some sifting on the pile using the usual PP factors and criteria, the 50% and lower are the bottom half of the field. I sift that half further for anything likely to improve. The top half, I can usually sift further to reveal 2 or 3 horses that are actual threats to win the race. If there is only two of these, I call them 70% horses so that I recognize them as sound contenders. If there are three, all three I might call 60% horses. But, 70% is as high as I can rate any particular horse using only PP input.

It also tells me that I only have 70% of the information that I want for a sound betting decision. One 60% and two 70%, whispers into my ear that I shouldn't make any betting decisions here without more information. It tells me that this race is likely very competitive, based on the limited information I have. It has nothing to do with any actual mathematical probabilities of 1 horse out of ten winning a particular race at whatever odds.

But, if one of these gets to what I call 90%, by seeing that only one is:

Physically sound, thoroughly prepped, in top condition, ready and willing to run his best race.

And I can also get sound evidence that the stable has dotted every i and crossed every t in their effort to make the effort, and that this has been done with competence.... well then. I've now got a very sound betting situation. The way that it gets even better, is when the public is following all the rules and totally overlooking this horse because it is violating one of them.

[Kelso]

Considering we're dealing with a horse race, maybe 5% is too low?


This newbie certainly wouldn't fade Sartin on that question ... but, with modified internet bravado, I'll say it does seem to me to be on the low side.

[jonnielu]

Jonn,



Okay... I am confused here... How does one have a 90% and a 70% in the same race? Or are you talking place probability?



Dave

I don't look at any place probability, that spot is just usually filled by that horse that gets beat. I ran across a few lines this morning that I feel accurately describes what I do:

7. Overcome Denial and Shoot a Few Sacred Cows

In order to begin winning at the races, some changes are in order. Some of these changes involve an alteration in mindset.

By nature, we humans are a loyal breed. We are loyal to our friends and family, to our schools, but most of all to our ideas.

If you are to begin winning at the races, then you must be open to new ideas, especially those backed with hard fact. That is what we provide, facts.

It never ceases to amaze us when we are approached by someone that has endured 20 years or more of losing and still holds steadfastly to their current methods. Certainly that old axiom, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," applies to horse racing, but if what you are doing isn't working, then change it!

[Dave Schwartz]

yes, yes.

But how do you play a 50% to a 70% in an exacta?

[jonnielu]

yes, yes.

But how do you play a 50% to a 70% in an exacta?

That would be a wheel, depending on odds for the 70% prospect. If I were to reach for an exacta, which I probably wouldn't unless I hadn't seen any 90% for three days. But, I'm a little more patient these days too.

And, in the past year, I have developed in areas that are allowing me to relax the conservatism. After working so hard and long to develop & maintain the conservatism and patience, I am finding that it is not as necessary as it once was for me. However, it is never a bad habit.

In the old days, I would never have been able to entertain the idea of betting Talent Search/BC sprint to show, especially from several hundred miles south.

[advancedcapper]

I believe that there are several ways to look at the question on luck. I personally believe that my choices will ALL win when I place my wager. Have I had a Lucky moment or two during the week? SURE! Who hasn't? Would it matter in regards to my bottom line? I doubt it. I would assume that over the long haul, there would be as much bad luck as good luck, if not more.

Of course, the better the handicapper you are, the less luck factors in. I'm also sure that if one isn't as good a handicapper as another, what they consider luck could have been a miscalculation to begin with.

ac

[FastEddie]

From the postings thus far, one can see that "luck" is viewed with disdain.

So, let's just change the word to "chaos."

It has been accepted that the chaos factor is impacted at a level of 10-20%, but I factor the number at 25-30% in my analysis. Whatever I perceive as true value, I increase that number by 30%.

There are many ways of dealing with this, but if the favorite is vunerable, and the horse you like is 10-1 or higher, the ALL box becomes your best ally.... exotically speaking.

I'm pretty sure you are the Hajck Hillstrom the Matty C on TVG talks about. It's an honor to hear what a great handicapper has to say. If I may state one thing, the exacta wheel is the way to go. How many times do you get a double digit winner and a bomb comes second. Believe me the wheel works in the long run.

[advancedcapper]

Become a better handicapper and figure out HOW to pik that second horse instead of wasting money on wheels. Third in a tri, sometimes. In a super, sure, what the heck, as the pace dilutes at the end for the 4th spot, but to wheel an exacta and backit up with the caos factor..........give me a break and thanks for contributing to the pools and making my payoffs go up!

ac

[jonnielu]

Become a better handicapper and figure out HOW to pik that second horse instead of wasting money on wheels. Third in a tri, sometimes. In a super, sure, what the heck, as the pace dilutes at the end for the 4th spot, but to wheel an exacta and backit up with the caos factor..........give me a break and thanks for contributing to the pools and making my payoffs go up!

ac

Hey advanced,

Was that directed at my above response to Dave?

[advancedcapper]

I honestly don't know. Replies are hard to give on this site. You don't just get the first statement, you get everyone who has issued one for a particular post.

I was responded to whomever said that just wheel all you exactas, as it is the better way to go. That is so wrong, t doesn't even need a response. If you are THAT unsure of the second horse, just make a win bet. In the long run, you will make ore money. It is a proven fact.

I jest, i said to learn how to pick the second place finisher better.

Where exactly are you from, what tracks do you play and are you a serious gambler.

ac

[jonnielu]

I honestly don't know. Replies are hard to give on this site. You don't just get the first statement, you get everyone who has issued one for a particular post.

The origin of the converstion is usually just a few posts back. Jump in anytime, but it might help to know what you are jumping in on.

I was responded to whomever said that just wheel all you exactas, as it is the better way to go. That is so wrong, t doesn't even need a response. If you are THAT unsure of the second horse, just make a win bet. In the long run, you will make ore money. It is a proven fact.

Chaos race, the horse you are sure of is 12 - 1, you want to exploit more while risking less, reasonable strategy? Exacta wheel.

I jest, i said to learn how to pick the second place finisher better.

Easy to say.

Where exactly are you from, what tracks do you play and are you a serious gambler.

ac

I am from S. Florida, live now in eastern Tennessee, I am not a gambler at all.

[highnote]

jonnielu,

I like your tag line:


*****************************************
Warning: As you mosey through the above nebulous prattle, you may occasionally stub your toes on nuggets of racing fact.

While this commentary may at times seem terse, impatient, annoying, and/or insulting and inflammatory, it is offered as a sincere attempt to provoke thought and share ideas on thoroughbred analysis in general.

That is exactly what I try to do -- cajole, tease and be provocative. I never intend to insult or hurt anyone. I try to get to the truth through discussion, debate and argument.

[advancedcapper]

I play most days and haven't had a losing month for I don't know how long. Do I gamble? I say "no" when asked. I make "short term investments". I play Del/Phila/Lrl/Aque inner/Crc. I can handicap most circuits, but play the most on Del and Phila.

Do a study. A win bet is always better than an exacta wheel in the long run. Just look at the last month at any track and take the win money per race vs. the wheel money and you will see. Now, if you are telling me that you only do this with 12-1 and better, you are really losing, as I'm sure you win percentage is real low playing those types only. I personally pick at about 38-43% in any given month. I did stop keeping records about 4 years ago, as it didn't matter anymore.

Sure, I wheel a horse sometimes, but rarely. As for those people playing $5 in dime supers. You are betting against yourself. If you use more than 2 horses on top, the bet is most likely a waste and dime players do it MOST of the time.

I know one thing. It is one of the only bets a person can make and lose money even if they win.

[jonnielu]

I play most days and haven't had a losing month for I don't know how long. Do I gamble? I say "no" when asked. I make "short term investments". I play Del/Phila/Lrl/Aque inner/Crc. I can handicap most circuits, but play the most on Del and Phila.

Do a study. A win bet is always better than an exacta wheel in the long run. Just look at the last month at any track and take the win money per race vs. the wheel money and you will see. Now, if you are telling me that you only do this with 12-1 and better, you are really losing, as I'm sure you win percentage is real low playing those types only. I personally pick at about 38-43% in any given month. I did stop keeping records about 4 years ago, as it didn't matter anymore.

Sure, I wheel a horse sometimes, but rarely. As for those people playing $5 in dime supers. You are betting against yourself. If you use more than 2 horses on top, the bet is most likely a waste and dime players do it MOST of the time.

I know one thing. It is one of the only bets a person can make and lose money even if they win.

You could save a lot of jibber-jabber by taking note of the details. I said, a chaos race.

[advancedcapper]

So, you are saying that the races you LIKE aren't being used and yet you make money by wheeling horses in the races that you "don't like", or what? I assume caos means races where everyone is evenly matched, but you have an opinion on one horse at good odds?

I just find it hard to believe. I believe you, because I don't know what you bet, but I find it rather hard to believe that your "caos" races make a profit with wheels. If mycaos races were making a profit, they would be my good races, right.

And what tracks do you play, may I ask?

[Robert Fischer]

i played two races today.

got beat on an apprentice jockey who took a longshot to the lead in sub 22/ and made a great ride to hang on for second.

And a $180 dime super where I "saved a few bucks" by excluding the longest shot from the 4th slot who came in 4th.


It happens... bad luck? maybe I probably even had a positive expectation on the two wagers...

cream rises to the top

[jonnielu]

So, you are saying that the races you LIKE aren't being used and yet you make money by wheeling horses in the races that you "don't like", or what? I assume caos means races where everyone is evenly matched, but you have an opinion on one horse at good odds?

Well advanced, to go back to what was being discussed, Dave was asking me how I would play what I call a 50% shot to what I call a 70% shot, in the same race. Generally, I wouldn't because they are all pretty much 50% shots to me in the first place, what I call handicapping will usually elevate 2 or 3 of the field to 70%.

My attempted point to Dave was that, as I see it, this 70% is pretty much as far as it can go with PP information. Because the big question that we are trying to answer is "will this horse run to its ability today? PP's can only answer that question to an extent that I find a little short. So since I don't even like to take a lone 70% shot, much less try to compare 2 or 3 to make a choice, I rely on other indications to possibly elevate 1 contender to 90%. This is the horse I prefer to win bet. I am a win bettor. That should catch you up.

What may not have been real clear in the previous posts is, for me, except for the obvious loser, they are all 50% shots when I crack the form. It may have sounded like there were 4 at 30%, 3 at 50%, 2 at 70%. No, there is the field, the contenders at 70%, and maybe, if one of those can get to 90%, there is a bet to be made. 90% is because nothing is 100% at the track.

I just find it hard to believe. I believe you, because I don't know what you bet, but I find it rather hard to believe that your "caos" races make a profit with wheels. If mycaos races were making a profit, they would be my good races, right.

A chaos race, to me, yes, is one where the field seems very evenly matched. 10 champions, 10 goats, 10 in between, 10 sprinters going 12f on the grass.
A race with 8 first timers and 3 future lead ponies. The kind of race that is difficult to get a grip on. The kind of race where the public can be depended on to make huge mistakes. That is generally, a chaos race. It also can be any race that the public doesn't really understand well, while you do.

This is where you can, from time to time, find a head and shoulders stick-out in your face, 90% shot. Opportunity is only limited by the state of public wisdom. So what do you do if you would like to take full advantage with a win bet of $200 at 12 -1, and would also like to more fully capitalize while not putting much more at risk, after all, it is a horse race.

What if the rest of the field is only 7 horses, and since it is a chaos race except for your 90% shot, you've got no idea who could run second either. But, experience should tell you that the favorite is less likely then another longshot. What would your little man be saying to you all the way home if you decided to go to the exacta here for some gravy, but left out the right one at 10-1. What is it going to take to wheel this exacta for $20 bucks. I like the wheel here for a few reasons. Head protection is one of them. You might take more on that wheel then the win bet, and it is still a win bet also.

But, everyone has to adopt head protection strategies that fit their own heads. I don't know about you, but I like to keep my little man's mouth shut if I can.

And what tracks do you play, may I ask?

So far in the past week its been, KEE, MTH, CD, CRC, DEL.

I'm going to GP for the winter meet, wanna come too?

[advancedcapper]

You'll get em next time. Cheer up. I played a horse that swallowed his tongue! At 8/5, no less!

ac

[jonnielu]

jonnielu,

I like your tag line:




That is exactly what I try to do -- cajole, tease and be provocative. I never intend to insult or hurt anyone. I try to get to the truth through discussion, debate and argument.

Hey John,

Wouldn't it be great if more people had thick enough skin for it?

[highnote]

Hey John,

Wouldn't it be great if more people had thick enough skin for it?


Yes. It would be great.

What fun would it be if every post was mindnumbingly boring?

One of the reasons this board is one of the best is because of all the good posters -- some of whom I agree with and others I don't . But no matter what I think of their opinions, I appreciate and respect them for sharing their opinions.

I've actually had my mind changed on quite a few things since I started posting here.

Take the whip issue for example. I started that thread because I had an opinion, but it wasn't a strong opinion.

There has been some excellent discussion of whip use by people with good practical experience.

My argument against whip use was kind of philosophical. If people stopped training horses there would be no need for the use of a whip. Why train horses in the first place?

In this day and age, what practical benefit is there?

Sure it makes some people feel good -- it might be good therapy. But the person can go and train dogs. A whip is generally not needed to train a dog.

We don't rely on horses much for labor anymore -- unless you happen to be Amish or live in a third world country.

Race horses are trained for sport. When you think about it, is it really necessary to have horse races? Is it even necessary to domesticate horses?

Take away horse racing and you wouldn't need to be concerned about the role of luck in your horserace handicapping. :D

[keilan]

zip- nada - zilch

Matter of fact it's only "bad luck" that plays any role from day-2-day.

[advancedcapper]

Are you saying that I am thin skined?

ac

Are you crazy...........I play the horses for a living.

[jonnielu]

Are you saying that I am thin skined?

ac

Are you crazy...........I play the horses for a living.

Absolutely not you, I can tell that you don't mind taking a point right to the bitter end no matter how hard and fast the s**t flies. An admirable quality that is appreciated amongst the few who like a good point and counter point discussion. Some people just don't have enough sand in their craw to have developed the same sort of zeal for a rousing comparison of ideas.

[Greyfox]

zip- nada - zilch

Matter of fact it's only "bad luck" that plays any role from day-2-day.

:ThmbUp: keilan That's exactly what I said umpteen posts ago.
Luck plays no part in handicapping. Zip-nada-zilch.!
Luck plays a part in how the race ultimately develops.

[advancedcapper]

It is one thing to argue and a completely different thing to argue a good point. Even when I am write on a point (always....LOL) i still draw some thing constructive from the discussion, I think. That is the only way to get better, I think.

ac