In what area does your game need improvement?

[jonnielu]

Hey All,

I thought I would start this thread to get some discussion going about individual need for improvement. First to look at commonalities, and second to discuss ideas on how to work toward actual improvement in some areas.

I'll try to get it rolling by sharing my story on first examining the value of adding physicality to my game, and then the method I used to improve in that area.

In 1981, my mentor handed me a few insights into how to answer the stable effort question that revolved around physicality. I grew up with horses, and the ideas made a lot of sense to me, so I started taking note of the situations he had pointed out. It seemed to be a very strong indicator for answering that one single question, so I started practicing.

It didn't take too long in the practice stage to decide that I needed to improve strongly here in order to add this to my game, in a way that would make my game stronger overall. I saw that I could use physicality, and now needed to get good at it. The question was, how would I know its true value, and whether or not I was really any good with it. If past performances were locking me in on horses, it would be difficult to answer these questions objectively.

In order to improve, plus objectively answer my questions on the real value of it, I decided to see if I could survive for a month with just a program in my hand. What an opportunity for learning something this turned out to be.

After surviving the month, I decided to join the two techniques and then start learning how to have them work together in harmony to accomplish my further goals. The biggest goal at the time was to master conservatism.

These days, I find that it would be good for me to learn how to loosen it up more.

[Zaf]

I have solid handicapping tools & a good amount of experience playing the races, BUT.......need to definatly improve on the money management/betting decisions area.

Z

[Robert Goren]

If I look at the PP long enough I can always find a losing bet. It is hard to skip a race.:cool:

[whyhorseofcourse]

I said money management.
Its hard.
Often I go to the track with my dad.
He usually bets $50 to win $100 exactas and stuff like that.
Its really hard to bet while he is there because I always feel the need to bet more.
But also looking at PP's.
I often look at a horse and once I see one I like I just stop looking at the race. Its a terrible habit.

[DeanT]

Good poll Jonnie!

I picked one. Better handicapping. With sharks so often in the pools I have to be better at finding hidden horses. That takes so much work. I can handicap a card and come away with several winners, but at post time I am off them for something else, because this game is tough.

Money management is fine for me. I had trouble with it, but it is like riding a bike for the first time. You have many unsuccessful attempts at it, but when you get it, it tends to stick with you forever, imo.

[Overlay]

Since I use a quantitative/statistical approach to past-performance analysis, odds calculation, and bet sizing, those areas are all pretty much cut-and-dried for me. What I'd like to develop greater skill in is the physicality side of the game, as an indicator of when my "paper" handicapping should be adjusted based on how the horse looks or appears to be feeling today, and, if an adjustment is indicated, then in what direction, and by how much.

[Zman179]

I would do ten times better at the races if I was a poor handicapper, but an excellent bettor.

[shanta]

I need to improve my ability to be patient in waiting for races that make sense to me and what I do.

When I try to treat all races the same and wager as such I am done. I'm not very good as a wide open player.Not good at all man.

Richie

[jonnielu]

If I look at the PP long enough I can always find a losing bet. It is hard to skip a race.:cool:

I'd bet that every player can feel that one. Passing is a skill that is hard to acquire and develop. Every handicapper has to have an optimistic nature. But, what if you could turn it 180 and make the race literally drag a bet out of you. Like look for reasons not to bet until you just can't find any for a particular horse in a race.

[jonnielu]

Good poll Jonnie!

I picked one. Better handicapping. With sharks so often in the pools I have to be better at finding hidden horses. That takes so much work. I can handicap a card and come away with several winners, but at post time I am off them for something else, because this game is tough.

Money management is fine for me. I had trouble with it, but it is like riding a bike for the first time. You have many unsuccessful attempts at it, but when you get it, it tends to stick with you forever, imo.

It's easy to get sucked in on a horse that just peaks your suspicions, especially for a good handicapper because you know that dark horse is always out there. Usually, the one that you struggle to toss.

These are always the things that mess with you on betting decisions too, and gets your little man going. Why can't he pop in with some good stuff before the race?

[QuarterCrack]

The biggest thing I need to work on is avoiding information overload. I'm guilty of trying to seek out every little scrap of information about a race, and getting away from the basics. Also, I'll spend WAY too much time on each race, and this just muddies the waters even more. What usually happens is that I talk myself off of a horse I liked previously or I just get all confused after making a case for every horse in the race.

It happened twice today, actually - I talked myself off of the logical winner after making a case for another horse in the race, only to watch my original logical horse win.

[jonnielu]

Since I use a quantitative/statistical approach to past-performance analysis, odds calculation, and bet sizing, those areas are all pretty much cut-and-dried for me. What I'd like to develop greater skill in is the physicality side of the game, as an indicator of when my "paper" handicapping should be adjusted based on how the horse looks or appears to be feeling today, and, if an adjustment is indicated, then in what direction, and by how much.

If you are at the track, it is not very difficult to sharpen up on the physical side. I had a previous glimpse of the possibilities before I dove into it that helped to make me confident about pursuing it further. The year before, at Calder, I had bet a horse named Sweet Lizabeth off of the monitor at the track because we were inside. She paid $44.20 to win. Her PP's were pitiful.

Even with this bit of success, I thought some cheating would be in order if I were going to rely on this to the point of going without a form. So, for one week or so, I limited myself to the four program choices. If none looked sharp, I passed. If one looked sharp, I bet, if two looked sharp, I passed rather then compared.

Once I had some consistency here, I then opened up to the rest of the field. Figuring that the group had an equal shot with the favorite. Then it became, if none of the choices looked sharp, and one of the field did, I didn't pass.

This became the core of my method for recognizing when to pass and when to go, because it was so consistently accurate. Without regard to PP's. It also helped me to be patient and stop reaching by letting me know when I reached.

[Murph]

Objectivity in my decision making is a weakness in my game. I often
will rely on results where I have made an error in judgement about a
previous performance or occurance on the track.

In addition, not properly structuring my tickets to take full advantage
of ODDS for each individual runner is also a firm weakness for me.

Some of us have been following BBB's pik 4 plays over in the selection threads.
I thought his comments upon review of Fridays result would be of some
insight to the 3/4 of poll respondants who believe money management and
decision making are a weakness in their game.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40996

Solid pick four players learn how to bend tickets to incorporate percentages (probabilities) and the only thing bent by us was our woeful ticket structure. Play Sunday. BBB

Here is a top handicapper comming to grips with his dilema. I would like to give him my full support.

Thanks for sharing this with us BBB !!

Murph

[Robert Fischer]

Being even more selective of my races and then spreading deeper and being less conservative.

[jonnielu]

Objectivity in my decision making is a weakness in my game. I often
will rely on results where I have made an error in judgement about a
previous performance or occurance on the track.

In addition, not properly structuring my tickets to take full advantage
of ODDS for each individual runner is also a firm weakness for me.

Some of us have been following BBB's pik 4 plays over in the selection threads.
I thought his comments upon review of Fridays result would be of some
insight to the 3/4 of poll respondants who believe money management and
decision making are a weakness in their game.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40996



Here is a top handicapper comming to grips with his dilema. I would like to give him my full support.

Thanks for sharing this with us BBB !!

Murph

It is a fine example of how a small oversight in handicapping can snowball into a bigger blunder on the betting end. If it were me, I'd think about loosening up a little on the inclusion/exclusion because the P-4 payoff will allow for some slop. #7 in that race was an easy replacement for the scratches, but it was also a close call on ability. Being sloppy enough to include every horse that came out of the previous 9fD at KEE would have been a good call.

Hard to bend your head to it, but sometimes sloppy play is the thing that can tighten up the results on exotics. After all, you are actually looking for an exotic payoff that reflects some slop, could be an idea to put some slop into it on the reckoning end. What do you think of that idea?

[toetoe]

I guess the worst habit would fall under betting decisions --- taking short prices. I'm not talking about the Olmsted Rockcrusher (the latest Robert Ludlum thriller, and not too riveting, as the author's dead). I mean the quest of the majority of us to find decently priced winners. We know what to do/not do, but somehow we just fall into the trap of playing the horse that:

is the most likely winner;

just looks much the best;

owes the player money. :bang:

[Overlay]

I guess the worst habit would fall under betting decisions --- taking short prices. I'm not talking about the Olmsted Rockcrusher (the latest Robert Ludlum thriller, and not too riveting, as the author's dead). I mean the quest of the majority of us to find decently priced winners. We know what to do/not do, but somehow we just fall into the trap of playing the horse that:

is the most likely winner;

just looks much the best;

owes the player money. :bang:

To me, that quest for value highlights the advantage of hard data versus subjective opinion. It allows greater confidence in wagering, and in sticking with or following through on your conclusions (rather than second-guessing your way off of a horse because its odds are too high), by giving you a concrete, substantive basis for saying, "This is what this horse's chances of winning this race are, and this is how and why I made that determination."

[jonnielu]

I guess the worst habit would fall under betting decisions --- taking short prices. I'm not talking about the Olmsted Rockcrusher (the latest Robert Ludlum thriller, and not too riveting, as the author's dead). I mean the quest of the majority of us to find decently priced winners. We know what to do/not do, but somehow we just fall into the trap of playing the horse that:

is the most likely winner;

just looks much the best;

owes the player money. :bang:

What do you think causes it? Is it just the hangup of wanting some approval of others? Does someone feel more confident betting at low odds then betting at longer odds? I feel safer and more protected with longer odds.

Could it be a matter of what someone takes as reinforcement? For me, a favorite reinforces nothing except that I know I can't keep them from winning 30% of the time. But, everytime there is a winner at 5-1 and up, I take that as re-inforcement of the idea that the favorite is a 70% loser.

[jonnielu]

To me, that quest for value highlights the advantage of hard data versus subjective opinion. It allows greater confidence in wagering, and in sticking with or following through on your conclusions (rather than second-guessing your way off of a horse because its odds are too high), by giving you a concrete, substantive basis for saying, "This is what this horse's chances of winning this race are, and this is how and why I made that determination."

But, in the quest for value, you need to be right often enough that the results reinforce your betting decisions rather then cause questioning and doubt. I have everything tilted toward value because that is what I am looking for, but sometimes the favorite is just too solid to go with a 9-2 shot just for spite. In this case, passing will usually re-inforce my overall tilt to value.

If I bet and lose, then I have to kick myself for my favorite hating ways. If I pass, even if the 9-2 shot noses one out, I can tell myself that the decision was still good, because I would've looked at the win as mostly luck, and therefore undependable/inconsistent. Insisting on a strong advantage helps in doing this. A close finish re-inforces that you were aware of no strong advantage.

[dav4463]

I'm convinced that that making the right bet for the situation is the hardest part of this game.

[the_fat_man]

If you are at the track, it is not very difficult to sharpen up on the physical side.....

Two aspects to the thing, IMO.

1) picking out the PRETTY WOMEN --- this is trivial

2) picking out those women that, today, look better than they did when we last saw them ----- not as trivial if only because I'd need to have seen them the time before, made some notes, and then see them again to compare against these notes.


Once again, the reality of the game, the way things really are, is not exactly consistent with the PA representation of things.

:ThmbUp:

[toetoe]

Sure. *I* understood that. Yeah, I really did. :cool:

[jonnielu]

Two aspects to the thing, IMO.

1) picking out the PRETTY WOMEN --- this is trivial

2) picking out those women that, today, look better than they did when we last saw them ----- not as trivial if only because I'd need to have seen them the time before, made some notes, and then see them again to compare against these notes.


Once again, the reality of the game, the way things really are, is not exactly consistent with the PA representation of things.

:ThmbUp:

Fat, must you complexify things so?

[the_fat_man]

Objectivity in my decision making is a weakness in my game. I often
will rely on results where I have made an error in judgement about a
previous performance or occurance on the track.

In addition, not properly structuring my tickets to take full advantage
of ODDS for each individual runner is also a firm weakness for me.

Some of us have been following BBB's pik 4 plays over in the selection threads.
I thought his comments upon review of Fridays result would be of some
insight to the 3/4 of poll respondants who believe money management and
decision making are a weakness in their game.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40996



Here is a top handicapper comming to grips with his dilema. I would like to give him my full support.

Thanks for sharing this with us BBB !!

Murph

yeah, he's been trying to hit the P4 since SAR. In most cases he's laying out 50 combos or so. It got to the point where I was starting to feel sorry for the dude, posting his picks, and then his explanation for why he screwed up, every day. And, he made so many STUPID moves at SAR (especially on the turf, where he's a self proclaimed expert). It was comical at times.

It was only a matter of time before he hit one, however --and 54 combos got him $387.40 (if I'm not mistaken):lol:

Oh, BTW, if Electric Chant isn't blocked for 3/4 of the stretch run, YBC doesn't win the 7th and our boy doesn't get his 3:1 after 100 or so attempts (at $50 - $100 a pop). But, we're in luck, HE FINALLY HIT!!!

Good capping.

:rolleyes:

[DeanT]

You should post some pick 4 picks Fat and show him how it is done. You seem to be (from reading your posts about your skill) an amazing handicapper :jump:

[Robert Fischer]

I'll settle for a woman with a positive expectation :kiss:

[jonnielu]

yeah, he's been trying to hit the P4 since SAR. In most cases he's laying out 50 combos or so. It got to the point where I was starting to feel sorry for the dude, posting his picks, and then his explanation for why he screwed up, every day. And, he made so many STUPID moves at SAR (especially on the turf, where he's a self proclaimed expert). It was comical at times.

If I may, I think that what Fat is suggesting here, in his warm and lovable way, is that handicapping methods are the key to sound or unsound money management decisions.

It was only a matter of time before he hit one, however --and 54 combos got him $387.40 (if I'm not mistaken):lol:

He obviously speaks from wide and deep experience, with the suggestion that sound handicapping coupled with an appropriate level of conservatism, would likely lead to better money management.

Oh, BTW, if Electric Chant isn't blocked for 3/4 of the stretch run, YBC doesn't win the 7th and our boy doesn't get his 3:1 after 100 or so attempts (at $50 - $100 a pop). But, we're in luck, HE FINALLY HIT!!!

It is testament to Fat's caring and concern for his fellows, that he offers his wisdom so freely, with congratulations for a job.... done.

Good capping.

:rolleyes:

I agree with Fat, it can never hurt to tighten up the operations.

[bellsbendboy]

Hey Fats

I do not at all mind you trashing me or my selections, in fact I rather enjoy it, but if you would use a bit of accuracy, I would appreciate it.

First, I select a day to play, and play unless the track is sealed. ALL of my pick four plays the last three years or so are posted on a national forum. I seldom bet more than 36 combinations and often less. I tirelessly answer all private messages and tell people what I know.

In the last eighteen months I have posted 22 winning pick four tickets. The largest was $10,280 for a dollar ($32 bet) on the Delmar forum. Another paid $6600 for a dollar at Nola ($16 ticket). This year I have posted two tickets that returned over $3,000.

I may be a self proclaimed expert, but I can guarantee you that I have put a lifetime of hard work into learning how to be a better handicapper and have forgotten more about handicapping than you will ever know. Your childlike charts could not be any more primitive and lack several vital pieces of data.

I am sure I made some "stupid" selections at Saratoga, but why wait two months to call me on that and then bury it in an unrelated thread. Good capping indeed! BBB

[Murph]

There should be some middle ground here, fellows.

I like anyone who will anaylize a race and set his wager out to be tracked
publicly. You both are top handicappers with different methods. I find some
excellent value in both of your insights.

It is not an absolute lock when any handicapping statements are made.

Anyone who posts, like either of you have in the past, with thoughtful
informed opinions should try to find some inner peace in being right OR
wrong.

I'll look to put the opinions here together to try and hit a nice PIK
bet this weekend. I hope BBB and Fat Man both weigh in.

Murph

[jonnielu]

There should be some middle ground here, fellows.

I like anyone who will anaylize a race and set his wager out to be tracked
publicly. You both are top handicappers with different methods. I find some
excellent value in both of your insights.

It is not an absolute lock when any handicapping statements are made.

Anyone who posts, like either of you have in the past, with thoughtful
informed opinions should try to find some inner peace in being right OR
wrong.

I'll look to put the opinions here together to try and hit a nice PIK
bet this weekend. I hope BBB and Fat Man both weigh in.

Murph

I think that Fat and Bells would make an excellent team if they would quit sniping and join forces in an alliance. It is obvious that they could cover the middle very well from their respective opposite ends.

[DeanT]

With BBB placing up $11K pick 4's (on a public forum for all to see) and spending $12 to hit them, I think he is doing just fine by himself.

[Fastracehorse]

The biggest thing I need to work on is avoiding information overload. I'm guilty of trying to seek out every little scrap of information about a race, and getting away from the basics. Also, I'll spend WAY too much time on each race, and this just muddies the waters even more. What usually happens is that I talk myself off of a horse I liked previously or I just get all confused after making a case for every horse in the race.

It happened twice today, actually - I talked myself off of the logical winner after making a case for another horse in the race, only to watch my original logical horse win.

I like your log in name :cool:

fffastt

[jonnielu]

With BBB placing up $11K pick 4's (on a public forum for all to see) and spending $12 to hit them, I think he is doing just fine by himself.

Maybe so Dean, but I just think a FatBells alliance would produce several pick 4's a day. What if each of them is the others missing piece?

[DeanT]

Maybe so Dean, but I just think a FatBells alliance would produce several pick 4's a day. What if each of them is the others missing piece?

If Fat Man places up an $11K win 4 on the board for all to see, on 24 combinations you might be correct.

Until then, I'll stick with the guy who has put his picks up who hits.

[Dave Schwartz]

Gentlemen, I am just thrilled to see that so many of us are on the same page in this thread as I am working on a book that is 100% about how to wager.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[jonnielu]

Gentlemen, I am just thrilled to see that so many of us are on the same page in this thread as I am working on a book that is 100% about how to wager.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

So, what will be the thrust? How to grind with the percentages? Or, how to bring up your accuracy and consistency?

[jonnielu]

If Fat Man places up an $11K win 4 on the board for all to see, on 24 combinations you might be correct.

Until then, I'll stick with the guy who has put his picks up who hits.

But, Dean, you might be getting blinded by flash, we don't know how hard Fat may have hit Curlin in the BC, but for a guy that operates as Fat does, we might do well to assume that he hit him pretty hard.

My suggestion is that there may be more to learn in the wiley ways of the Fat Man. The voting here is 75% + that everyones biggest problem is money management. BBB and Fat Man are both giving lessons that address opposite ends of this problem.

I wonder if each has built his method to address money management within the scope of their differing personalities.

Yeah, I'm trying to pump some adrenaline into this thread.

[DeanT]

Yeah, I'm trying to pump some adrenaline into this thread.

Sure, that's good.

OK, I will play.

I picked Handicapping. Most have picked money management. 58 people is a lot.

My question to them is (since I am happy with my money management):

1. Are all of you sure your strike rate is above your fair odds, and that you are profitable in the first place? Are wagering records kept?

2. Do you play with a bankroll, or just bring $100 to the track?

3. If 1 is yes and 2 is no (ie you play with a proper bankroll), then what do you do? Do you bet 5% to win, then bet too many exotics? Bet 10% win, place show bets sometimes? Slide your bet scale based on A bets, B bets etc? Do you have a wagering plan? Do you go on tilt? Is your bet size within your personal threshold?

If you have 1 and 2 figured out, 3 should come fairly easy if you stick to it, imo.

One of Ian's best features is bet tracking, imo. If you are with him, you can use that to help formulate a money management plan. It will take awhile to get a profile on low hit rate bets (and whether you should stop playing them) but after awhile it should be apparent where your strengths and weaknesses are, imo.

[bellsbendboy]

My biggest liability as a capper is in using short priced horses that have marginal chances in order to clear the race. I play almost strictly pick fours and it often is very difficult to find a live longshot (twelve or fifteen to one) in any given leg. Taking the top two favorites in any given race will win roughly fifty percent of the time. Quality cappers taking four in any race should clear that heat roughly eighty percent of the time. I make many more statistical errors than handicapping ones, and sadly I have passed several courses in statistics while an undergrad at Kentucky!

Also I want to post an apology to FAT MAN. Although I viewed his post, this thread, at me, as a cheap shot, I came off with a little too much vinegar. No hard feelings at all Fat Man, although your math could use some polish. BBB

[jonnielu]

My biggest liability as a capper is in using short priced horses that have marginal chances in order to clear the race.

Hey BBB,

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass here, but most cappers have this same liability. I can't understand how it is maintained. If you know the short priced horses have marginal chances, at the point you use them, you are betting on hope. The problem to be solved is whether you are looking at a live favorite, or a dead one. If any capper is lacking here, this is the area to address with your own analytical abilities. Is the favorite the favorite because of proven ability, or just because of some move that is perceived as positive in PP's? Like the un-established class dropper.

I play almost strictly pick fours and it often is very difficult to find a live longshot (twelve or fifteen to one) in any given leg. Taking the top two favorites in any given race will win roughly fifty percent of the time.

In the long haul, but today's fourth race deviates from the standard a little bit. To use statistics as anything more then a rough guide is financial suicide. There are several races going on today in which the racing secretary is making a specific effort to screw you up, in an effort to do his job well. The fifty percent come into play more specifically in particular types of races, in others it is out the window. The capper needs to be able to recognize one from the other.

Quality cappers taking four in any race should clear that heat roughly eighty percent of the time.

I'd say closer to 100%, if not, I would have to question that idea of quality.

That is not a smart-assed remark either, take the four at the bottom of the program page for two weeks, and check the percentage of that. Every capper should do that, to assess their quality. You might find that you are doing a lot of un-justifyable work.

I make many more statistical errors than handicapping ones, and sadly I have passed several courses in statistics while an undergrad at Kentucky!

Have you ever noticed that it is the horse that you have the least information on that usually beats you. Like a foreign shipper, or first time starter, or just an average looking goat? I doubt there are statistics on that, but every time one rolls in, all of the statistics are a little out of kilter. Because of that, they are best used as a general guide and nothing more.

Also I want to post an apology to FAT MAN. Although I viewed his post, this thread, at me, as a cheap shot, I came off with a little too much vinegar. No hard feelings at all Fat Man, although your math could use some polish. BBB

I still think that you and Fat would make a good team, because it is not all handicapping, and to a larger then appreciated extent, the result of today's race is a product of today's gathering of contestants. That is the real hard part for any capper, what is this specific gathering going to produce?

[Dave Schwartz]

So, what will be the thrust? How to grind with the percentages? Or, how to bring up your accuracy and consistency?

Simply put, "How to bet."

Consider these two races:


CRC03 (Monte.) Bet Int=8
sort:Pct+$Net Time: 7:59:31 Min: 2:15:28
Prime Cont=4 FH Cont=50% +1
Prg Horse Con Odds Prob $Net Opt% Gr |
5 NOVO SECRETO C 1.30 30.4 $1.40 -23.08% C |
8 ELTISH STAR C 2.20 29.7 $1.90 -2.27% B+ |
1 SUMMER PARTY GIRL C 2.60 16.4 $1.18 -15.77% F |
6 FIRST PRINCE C 6.80 15.4 $2.41 3.01% A+ |
3 GONNA FLEE f 37.80 4.4 $3.40 1.85% A+ |
7 NATIVE DOOD 49.60 3.0 $3.00 1.01% A+ |
2 JK'SJAZZMAN 32.80 0.7 $0.45 -2.36% F |
4 ARROGANT CRUISER 76.90 0.1 $0.22 -1.16% F |


CD 10 (Monte.) Bet Int=8
sort:Pct+$Net Time: 7:51:30 Min: 6:10:29
Prime Cont=4 FH Cont=50% +1
Prg Horse Con Odds Prob $Net Opt% Gr |
1 ROLLING SEA C 4.00 22.7 $2.27 3.38% A |
7 WINDY C 1.80 21.6 $1.21 -21.94% D- |
3 HIGH HEELS C 7.20 12.8 $2.10 0.69% A- |
9 TRENDY LADY C 8.00 10.9 $1.96 -0.25% B+ |
5 MY CHICKADEE f 22.10 9.4 $4.34 5.29% A+ |
8 PLEASANT HILL 6.90 8.5 $1.34 -4.78% D+ |
4 CHANGE UP 7.40 7.7 $1.29 -4.80% D |
2 LADY BELSARA 6.60 6.5 $0.98 -7.73% F |





From a handicapping standpoint, these are two distinctly different races. As such they should be wagered differently.

The typical player has no clue how to properly exploit these races. All they can see are the perceived profitable horses.


How to Exploit Your Handicapping is what the book is about.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[DeanT]

Boy, seems like you would have a field day at Betfair Dave.

Question: Are there data files for Hong Kong? Since late odds changes are not as prevalent there, I would think that would be a decent track for you to marry your program to value bets.

[Dave Schwartz]

Boy, seems like you would have a field day at Betfair Dave.

Small pools and lots of big sharks.


Question: Are there data files for Hong Kong? Since late odds changes are not as prevalent there, I would think that would be a decent track for you to marry your program to value bets.

Hong Kong, like BetFair, has tremendous sophistcated competition.

By the way, neither the book nor the concept has anyhing to do with HSH. They are simply concepts.

You do your handicapping and then you figure out how to exploit that handicapping.

Want an example from those races?



Dave

[jonnielu]

Small pools and lots of big sharks.




Hong Kong, like BetFair, has tremendous sophistcated competition.

By the way, neither the book nor the concept has anyhing to do with HSH. They are simply concepts.

You do your handicapping and then you figure out how to exploit that handicapping.

Want an example from those races?



Dave

Trot it on out.

[DeanT]

Small pools and lots of big sharks.

If you are confident with your odds line, and the race is televised over there, I think you'd be able to go green on each horse and dutch nicely.

I don't know what all your categories are there on the software. But, yeah, let us know your strategy there. I enjoy this stuff.

[Dave Schwartz]

I don't have a strategy there as I have very little interest.

As I said, too many sharks in the water.

[DeanT]

I don't have a strategy there as I have very little interest.

As I said, too many sharks in the water.

I meant general strategy with your lines and $net numbers Dave, not to do with fixed odds betting. How would you play those races?

[Dave Schwartz]

Dean,

I meant general strategy with your lines and $net numbers Dave, not to do with fixed odds betting. How would you play those races?


I have not (since the previous post) developed a strategy and do not currently have a desire to do so. What would be the point? I cannot bet there anyway.


Dave

[DeanT]

My communication is never good so this is no surprise :)

Forget everything about betfair Dave. I am not asking about that.

You said this:

Want an example from those races?

My answer is "yep, fire away". I would like to see your thinking regarding playing the races with the stats you placed up (in the pools, not on betfair or any fixed betting site), along with final board odds.

[toetoe]

Thrust ?

Grind ?

WHO wants it more ?!? :jump:

[Dave Schwartz]

CRC03 (Monte.) Bet Int=8
sort:Pct+$Net Time: 7:59:31 Min: 2:15:28
Prime Cont=4 FH Cont=50% +1
Prg Horse Con Odds Prob $Net Opt% Gr |
5 NOVO SECRETO C 1.30 30.4 $1.40 -23.08% C |
8 ELTISH STAR C 2.20 29.7 $1.90 -2.27% B+ |
1 SUMMER PARTY GIRL C 2.60 16.4 $1.18 -15.77% F |
6 FIRST PRINCE C 6.80 15.4 $2.41 3.01% A+ |
3 GONNA FLEE f 37.80 4.4 $3.40 1.85% A+ |
7 NATIVE DOOD 49.60 3.0 $3.00 1.01% A+ |
2 JK'SJAZZMAN 32.80 0.7 $0.45 -2.36% F |
4 ARROGANT CRUISER 76.90 0.1 $0.22 -1.16% F |


CD 10 (Monte.) Bet Int=8
sort:Pct+$Net Time: 7:51:30 Min: 6:10:29
Prime Cont=4 FH Cont=50% +1
Prg Horse Con Odds Prob $Net Opt% Gr |
1 ROLLING SEA C 4.00 22.7 $2.27 3.38% A |
7 WINDY C 1.80 21.6 $1.21 -21.94% D- |
3 HIGH HEELS C 7.20 12.8 $2.10 0.69% A- |
9 TRENDY LADY C 8.00 10.9 $1.96 -0.25% B+ |
5 MY CHICKADEE f 22.10 9.4 $4.34 5.29% A+ |
8 PLEASANT HILL 6.90 8.5 $1.34 -4.78% D+ |
4 CHANGE UP 7.40 7.7 $1.29 -4.80% D |
2 LADY BELSARA 6.60 6.5 $0.98 -7.73% F




Okay... I am going to make this short and sweet.


This lesson is entitled Sugar Packets, which comes from the prop that I used to explain this for the first time.

I was at lunch with a horse player who "always seemd to wind up broke." I took out 4 white and 4 blue sugar packets and laid them on the table. First, I took the 4 white ones and laid them out vertically. And described a race like the first one.



Consider only your contenders, of which I am referring to the best 4 horses in the race. That is, these are the top 4 probability (3 in a small field) horses as YOU view them. This means that your contenders are the result of your handicapping, not the start.

So, in this first race, your contenders are:

6/5
2/1
5/2
6/1

The first 4 public choices, in order. Each of these is represented by a white packet because they are "low-priced." In this simple system, an "all-white" race is the classic grade "F" race - very tough to make money from. (Note: 6/1 is almost enough to warrant a blue packet, but because he is 4th choice in the list, he only gets a white.)

Consider what happens if we decided that the 2/1 horse was not worthy of being a contender and, instead, we replaced him with the 32/1 horse.

6/5 - white
5/2 - white
6/1 - blue
32/1 - blue

I marked the 6/1 horse as "blue" beacuse he is now up to 3rd and the 3rd "public choice" is usually well under 6/1.

Suppose we could replace the 5/2 with another long shot, say 12/1. (Pretend there is a 12/1 in the race.)


6/5 - white
6/1 - blue
12/1 - blue
32/1 - blue


Okay... this moving packets around is all about value.

4 whites is an "F" race.
3 whites is a "D" race.
2 whites is a "C" and sometimes a B, if there is a double-digit horse.
1 white is at least a "B" and usually an "A" race.

"A" races are so great that you can box 4 in the exacta an be profitable. I played such a system for almost a year and my "A" race exactas produced a +70% ROI.

"B" races are marginally profitable.

"A" races cause the horses to be profitable to win as well (because of all the wasted pool money) on the non-contenders.


Okay... simple example.


Dave

PS: 0 whites and you've probably mishandicapped the race.

[toetoe]

That's allot of info. :ThmbUp:

It reminds me of a friend's method in one important regard. He writes little notes ("speed," "odds") which are, on their face, useless, even downright mistaken. However, they are motivators to bear down and handicap/weigh/judge right up to the cusp of overhandicapping.

Dave, I don't claim your method is so useless as that. It's great, but it also has that artificial motivator built right in, a way to visualize and systematize. That is a huge tool ( :blush: ).

[DeanT]

That's interesting Dave. 70% ROI huh? I believe it. Sharp playing.

What about other bets?

I would probably make 1% win bets on My Chickadee and Gonna Flee in those two races, maybe even a couple of small exotics. How do you play your long ones? Do you bet a couple bucks to win on those blindly, or do you rehandicap the race to make sure the program has not put you on a long horse who should be long?

[Dave Schwartz]

CD 10 (Monte.) Bet Int=8
sort:Pct+$Net Time: 7:51:30 Min: 6:10:29
Prime Cont=4 FH Cont=50% +1
Prg Horse Con Odds Prob $Net Opt% Gr |
1 ROLLING SEA C 4.00 22.7 $2.27 3.38% A |
7 WINDY C 1.80 21.6 $1.21 -21.94% D- |
3 HIGH HEELS C 7.20 12.8 $2.10 0.69% A- |
9 TRENDY LADY C 8.00 10.9 $1.96 -0.25% B+ |
5 MY CHICKADEE f 22.10 9.4 $4.34 5.29% A+ |
8 PLEASANT HILL 6.90 8.5 $1.34 -4.78% D+ |
4 CHANGE UP 7.40 7.7 $1.29 -4.80% D |
2 LADY BELSARA 6.60 6.5 $0.98 -7.73% F




I would structure a bet against Windy.


Dave

[DeanT]

That's a race to salivate over. You can make so many good bets there pitching Windy.

I think that is one of my problems. I have no fear in betting longshots. The play there would probably be focusing on the solid edge you have with Rolling Sea, and weighting bets accordingly pitching Windy. I however do this too much: Home run ball. I know for a fact I would bet heavier than I should on My Chickadee. If I have a horse at fair odds of 10-1 and he is 40-1 I take that too far, imo. I have to watch that.

[Dave Schwartz]

Dean,

Now you are getting it.

This is what most people miss... they look for the "advantage" horse and think that is the answer.

Check out this thread on our BBS from today... it becomes a lesson in looking for "vulnerable favorites," which is one strategy that the horse player needs in his arsenal.

http://www.horsestreet.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/001704.html



Dave

[DeanT]

Thanks Dave. I will have some solid reading for a bit!

The bombers are something that I have gotten better at. I now make a small bet then bet others accordingly. I often bet more than one horse every race, altho I need to get better at hedging exotics in my favor. I think a lot has to do with two things: Exchanges (you could get My Chickadee at 50 or 60-1 there and that is difficult to pass up) and "The Big Score". You remember big scores mightily. They can save your bacon, but overall they are tough to bet regularly. Delusions of granduer. It takes a strong discipline not to chase those after you hit some, imo.

Anyway, thanks. Off to read the board.

[jonnielu]

CD 10 (Monte.) Bet Int=8
sort:Pct+$Net Time: 7:51:30 Min: 6:10:29
Prime Cont=4 FH Cont=50% +1
Prg Horse Con Odds Prob $Net Opt% Gr |
1 ROLLING SEA C 4.00 22.7 $2.27 3.38% A |
7 WINDY C 1.80 21.6 $1.21 -21.94% D- |
3 HIGH HEELS C 7.20 12.8 $2.10 0.69% A- |
9 TRENDY LADY C 8.00 10.9 $1.96 -0.25% B+ |
5 MY CHICKADEE f 22.10 9.4 $4.34 5.29% A+ |
8 PLEASANT HILL 6.90 8.5 $1.34 -4.78% D+ |
4 CHANGE UP 7.40 7.7 $1.29 -4.80% D |
2 LADY BELSARA 6.60 6.5 $0.98 -7.73% F




I would structure a bet against Windy.


Dave

Hey Dave,

I'm assuming that the lineup here is my handicapping, and that the odds are the ML would that be correct?

[Dave Schwartz]

That would be partially correct.

The order is your handicapping and the odds are the final odds.

[gallahadion]

Thanks Dave. I will have some solid reading for a bit!

The bombers are something that I have gotten better at. I now make a small bet then bet others accordingly. I often bet more than one horse every race, altho I need to get better at hedging exotics in my favor. I think a lot has to do with two things: Exchanges (you could get My Chickadee at 50 or 60-1 there and that is difficult to pass up) and "The Big Score". You remember big scores mightily. They can save your bacon, but overall they are tough to bet regularly. Delusions of granduer. It takes a strong discipline not to chase those after you hit some, imo.

Anyway, thanks. Off to read the board.

The higher the odds of a horse you like, the more you should bet, correct? Or maybe said another way, if you liked a horse and his odds are high, you wouldn't make just the minimum bet as a "saver" , that is defeatist thinking, at the minimum you should make a regular "flat bet" if thats your thing.

[DeanT]

The higher the odds of a horse you like, the more you should bet, correct? Or maybe said another way, if you liked a horse and his odds are high, you wouldn't make just the minimum bet as a "saver" , that is defeatist thinking, at the minimum you should make a regular "flat bet" if thats your thing.
Hi Gallahad,

No, not for me. It has nothing to do with savers. It has to do with making money and minimizing risk. When you have a horse at 10-1 in your odds line, who is 20-1, your edge is somewhat muddied. As you get higher in odds the percentage difference is small, and tends to be less accurate, imo. I tend to unit bet in a lot of ways now. If I want to make, say $100, I structure my bets to do that. So a ten to one shot I would bet $10 to make a hundred. A 5-1 shot I would bet $20 etc. I overbet bomb races quite a bit at one time. It does not work for me.

[njcurveball]

. When you have a horse at 10-1 in your odds line, who is 20-1, your edge is somewhat muddied. As you get higher in odds the percentage difference is small, and tends to be less accurate, imo.

This is exactly what a winning player would write! :ThmbUp:

20-1 is 5%, 10-1 is 10%. There is a 5% spread there.

50-1 is only 2.5% and also only 2.5% difference than 20-1.

If your line is accurate, there is much more profit with a horse going off at 3-1 (25%) who you make 2-1 (33.3%). The 8% spread there leaves much more room for the usual bad racing luck, physicality problems, jockey error, etc.

A Kelly approach will have you bet way too much money if you follow the odds as they increase.

[DeanT]

Thanks for the comment NJ, but I am not tripping over loafs of hundred dollar bills on the way to the bathroom the past while ;)

What do you Kelly players do nowadays? The late odd changes are brutal. I try to estimate final odds and play accordingly, but that is still tough. Had a major green light bet a bit ago: 4-1 while loading into the gate. I bet him as if he would go down to 5-2. Alas, at the second split he was 3-2 and a red light bet. I am having serious trouble making proper bet size bets on edge the past 12-24 months.

[Dave Schwartz]

The higher the odds of a horse you like, the more you should bet, correct? Or maybe said another way, if you liked a horse and his odds are high, you wouldn't make just the minimum bet as a "saver" , that is defeatist thinking, at the minimum you should make a regular "flat bet" if thats your thing.

You have perfectly illustrated the thinking of the typical horse player.



Consider this...

Suppose you are in charge of the resources of your company, who specializes in business ownership. You have $100,000 in available capital that you want to invest.

One opportunity appears to have a very rate of return (i.e. will return many times the investment) but actually has a low chance of success (5% or less).

A second opportunity has a very low payoff but a very high hit rate (60% or more).

Would the correct business decision be to put most of the money in the high-profit/high-risk investment? I think not.


Now, don't get me wrong. If this approach is working for you, then, by all means, continue with it. Hey, it is a well-known fact that Ty Cobb did not swing with his hands together on the bat and he reached a reasonable level of success.

It is not the way I would recommend to play.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[gallahadion]

You have perfectly illustrated the thinking of the typical horse player.

Dave, I believe exactly the opposite. The typical horseplayer sees the high odds and while, willing to make a bet on the horse, the typical horseplayer only bets the minimum. When the horse does win, the typical horseplayer only has the minimum on it and kicks himself for not betting more. I've been there, I used to be that guy. Elmhurst is a great example for me, BC 97 I believe ??, at 16-1 he was a great overlay yet I only bet the minimum. Thunder Gulch is another great example for myself, loved , loved, loved that horse, yet when it came down to it, I only bet the minimum at 25-1.

Now most horses in everday racing aren't Elmhurst or Thunder Gulch, but I think you get my point. I regarded these horses highly, yet the "typical horseplayer" in me feared the high odds, which led to the minimum bet. Since then I've progressed in both handicapping prowess and betting strategy and no longer make that mistake.

And of course when I'm talking about high odds, I don't necessarily mean 20-1, 30-1, 40-1, etcc.... just higher than what I really think they should be. Does that make a little more sense now?

[Dave Schwartz]

Does that make a little more sense now?

It makes pefect sense. I just do not agree with it.

The fact that I "like" (i.e. perceive as profitable) a longshot does not mean that the wager is a good one from a risk-reward situation. Permit me a small example.

Imagine that you have found two huge overlays in a large field at SAR. One of then is 20/1 and the other is 40/1. You decide to bet them in an exacta (reversed) and hope to cash a huge ticket. After all, if you make this bet often, you will eventually have to hit it, right?

Wrong! Even though it is a "great bet" you do not have to hit that bet in your lifetime.


In the table below we look at all 9+ fields at SAR. We have assigned letter grades to the each of the odds ranges. The bet we are talking about falls into the "D-to-E" category.

Exhibit "A" - Table of all SAR races since 2001, field size 9+
A=2.99 B=9.99 C=19.99 D=39.99 E=Above


Exacta Analysis

A=2.99 B=9.99 C=19.99 D=39.99 E=Above
Comb Ways Pays Pct $Net AvgPay
A-A 928 78 8 $1.81 $21.56
A-B 4,503 223 5 $1.54 $31.10
A-C 3,131 105 3 $1.84 $54.82
A-D 2,430 47 2 $1.75 $90.26
A-E 1,804 11 1 $0.65 $107.10
A-? 12,796 464 4 $1.55 $42.66

B-A 4,503 139 3 $1.49 $48.30
B-B 13,830 264 2 $1.56 $81.79
B-C 8,732 80 1 $1.57 $171.23
B-D 7,085 50 1 $2.01 $285.22
B-E 4,990 19 0 $2.25 $589.73
B-? 39,140 552 1 $1.72 $122.23

C-A 3,131 38 1 $1.34 $110.22
C-B 8,732 69 1 $1.68 $212.84
C-C 5,060 28 1 $2.51 $453.28
C-D 4,072 11 0 $1.65 $611.42
C-E 3,000 3 0 $1.66 $1,657.30
C-? 23,995 149 1 $1.80 $290.36

D-A 2,430 9 0 $0.77 $206.67
D-B 7,085 18 0 $1.06 $418.87
D-C 4,072 6 0 $1.18 $799.91
D-D 3,004 4 0 $1.64 $1,234.50
D-E 2,125 1 0 $0.70 $1,495.20
D-? 18,716 38 0 $1.10 $542.96

E-A 1,804 5 0 $1.07 $384.65
E-B 4,990 7 0 $1.04 $738.49
E-C 3,000 2 0 $0.80 $1,195.85
E-D 2,125
E-E 1,920
E-? 13,839 14 0 $0.69 $677.45



What this table says is that in the 6 years of SAR races, there have been 2,125 such occurences and precisely 1 hit. That is 1 hit in 1,164 races.

Thus, you would have wagered 2,125 x $4 = $8,500
and
returned $1,495, for a $35 of $0.35.


Of course, let us assume that you were smart enough to actually realize a profit of (say) 40%.

$1495 x .40 = $598 profit.

$1495 - 598 = $897.


Summary: You made 224 wagers of $4 each. And you hit once. And you made 40% profit on your money.

Even if you are profitable it is not a good use of money.


My point here is that just because you have a "good bet" does not mean that you should bet.



Is this an extreme case? Sure it is. I contend that it is just as meaningful at lower odds, without 350-1 shots.

I am not saying that one cannot be profitable betting longshots. Mid-priced and up are almost always the profit center in any successful wagering program. But one must learn how to manage those wagers using some sort of reasonable risk-reward strategy.

The idea that I am just going to wager on all those perceived-as-profitable longshots and wait for the money to engulf me just never seems to happen.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[jonnielu]

That would be partially correct.

The order is your handicapping and the odds are the final odds.

Well, if Windy is second by my handicapping, haven't I already tossed that one from consideration for a win? And, if I haven't, why would I want to toss just on the basis of the odds?

Have we started this conversation before?;)

[jonnielu]

Thanks for the comment NJ, but I am not tripping over loafs of hundred dollar bills on the way to the bathroom the past while ;)

What do you Kelly players do nowadays? The late odd changes are brutal. I try to estimate final odds and play accordingly, but that is still tough. Had a major green light bet a bit ago: 4-1 while loading into the gate. I bet him as if he would go down to 5-2. Alas, at the second split he was 3-2 and a red light bet. I am having serious trouble making proper bet size bets on edge the past 12-24 months.

OK, but what happened with the 3/2 shot?

[jonnielu]

It makes pefect sense. I just do not agree with it.



My point here is that just because you have a "good bet" does not mean that you should bet.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Yeah, but, isn't the error here that the horseplayer puts on the gambling glasses and gets to thinking that somehow this is a "good bet" in the first place. How could something with 1 hit in 1150 chances ever be considered a "good bet"?

[Jeff P]

Dave, I like your analogy. The winning player is in charge of business capital. He or she has a job to do: invest money (a playing bankroll) to get a return.

Each race card (for some players each race) presents a variety of investment opportunities. For the sake of argument, let's make the assumption that a hypothetical player has a fixed playing bankroll and is faced with two horses on the same race card where his or her own record keeping indicates both are long term profitable plays. For the sake of argument let's also assume that the player's probability assessment - this won't always be the case but let's assume it is here - is correct.

HORSE A
PROB .300
ODDS 3-1
LONG TERM WIN ROI 1.20

HORSE B
PROB .100
ODDS 11-1
LONG TERM WIN ROI 1.20


Both types of plays offer exactly the same long term flat win bet roi. Both are profitable plays. And IMHO both types of plays should be made. But not for the same amount.

There's something that comes into play when managing money. It's called element of ruin theory. In short, as a player, one of the things you need to do is manage the risk of losing your entire bankroll... something very likely to happen if you make a habit of betting too large a percentage of it on plays that come up for you. You have to arrive at bet size relative to your bankroll appropriate for the strength of each situation you are faced with.

Each player will have a different risk tolerance for element of ruin as relates to his or her playing bankroll. Generally, I find that that the less a bankroll means to a player the higher his or her risk tolerance. I may ruffle some feathers here but after talking to a lot of players I have come to believe that recreational players (weekend warriors) are the ones who give element of ruin theory very little consideration and are the ones most likely to overbet their bankroll... almost to the point of insuring that they will tap out at some point.

In the above example IMHO our hypothetical player should bet both horses. But the bet size should take element of ruin into account. My recommendation (based on my own risk tolerance) would be something on the order of no more than about 1.8 percent of an active playing bankroll on HORSE A to win its race and about 1/3 of that (0.6 percent of bankroll) on HORSE B to win its race.

IMHO, bet size relative to bankroll and element of ruin theory are things you should be considering if you are at all serious about beating this game.



-jp

.

[DeanT]

OK, but what happened with the 3/2 shot?

Raced ok. Ran second.

[Dave Schwartz]

Jonnie,

Well, if Windy is second by my handicapping, haven't I already tossed that one from consideration for a win? And, if I haven't, why would I want to toss just on the basis of the odds?

YOU can do whatever you want to do, of course. Sounds like you are saying that the only horses that ever win are your top horses.



Dave Schwartz

[DeanT]

Good post Jeff. Only disagreement I would have is if the player is great at handicapping, but poor at estimating edge. That person might be better to bet a flat 2% on each bet, if he has records that show profit, and if he has a really nice bet mix that isnt heavily weighted to bombs who can kill a bankroll.

[Dave Schwartz]

Jeff,

For the sake of argument let's also assume that the player's probability assessment - this won't always be the case but let's assume it is here - is correct.

A classic approach, Gambler's Ruin. Another is to use Kelly to compute the theoretical optimums and wager proportionately.

Of course the whole thing goes to hell when we consider that there are NO CORRECT ASSESSMENTS. The best we can hope for is some degree of correctness.


So we accept our error-filled ways, and, if the errors in our assumptions are small enough we have growth.


Dave

[Jeff P]

A classic approach, Gambler's Ruin. Another is to use Kelly to compute the theoretical optimums and wager proportionately.

Of course the whole thing goes to hell when we consider that there are NO CORRECT ASSESSMENTS. The best we can hope for is some degree of correctness.


So we accept our error-filled ways, and, if the errors in our assumptions are small enough we have growth.


Dave
No assessment is perfect. The wonderful thing about this game is that it doesn't have to be. I tend to shoot for assessments with enough basis in reality that are different enough from what everybody else is doing... and somehow that produces growth.

-jp

.

[gallahadion]

It makes pefect sense. I just do not agree with it.

Dave, you don't have to agree with it only I have to agree with it, I was just trying to get you to see things from the 99% of racing fans point of view.

Imagine that you have found two huge overlays in a large field at SAR. One of then is 20/1 and the other is 40/1. You decide to bet them in an exacta (reversed) and hope to cash a huge ticket. After all, if you make this bet often, you will eventually have to hit it, right?

Dave, I doubt even a fool would make this sort of an assumption. And those that would aren't the sort of people gracing the pages of this forum.

What this table says is that in the 6 years of SAR races, there have been 2,125 such occurences and precisely 1 hit. That is 1 hit in 1,164 races.

Dave, an incorrect assumption you made here is that I would play SAR (or any track for that matter) everday they run for 6 years and make that same bet everytime.

My point here is that just because you have a "good bet" does not mean that you should bet.

It seems that maybe my definition of a good bet and yours are probably 2 different things. That doesn't mean that your right and I'm wrong or vice versa, it just means we have different approaches to the game. My God man, there are an infinity of ways to approach this game and win, not just one, and not just yours.

Also, it seems that you and others here approach handicapping as a science rather than an art, which is the way I approach it. Using a computer program is a nice tool if that's your thing and I use some spreadsheets with formulas to track certain statistics, but they aren't "black boxes" outputting all the right answers.

One last thing. I had responded to your email about the free HSH. I got a "canned" email message back from you. When I responded asking some questions about your offer and some details, I got the same "canned" email back from you and you didn't answer any of my questions. Could you look at my email again and send me a response to my questions? When I looked at your website and read the "Tour" sections I was very impressed / interested with your programs approach and may in the future look into it.

thanks!

[jonnielu]

There's something that comes into play when managing money. It's called element of ruin theory. In short, as a player, one of the things you need to do is manage the risk of losing your entire bankroll...

Wouldn't that be best addressed thru accurate analysis of any particular horses edge over the other?



something very likely to happen if you make a habit of betting too large a percentage of it on plays that come up for you.

-jp.

It would seem that if you made a habit of betting larger on plays that come up, you are succeeding. How could you bet this situation too much?

The element of ruin here would be a poor analysis leading to a poor betting decision.

[jonnielu]

Raced ok. Ran second.

That's interesting, if it had gone to 7/5, I would have considered it a live favorite. Were you watching the odds on the winner also?

[jonnielu]

Jonnie,



YOU can do whatever you want to do, of course. Sounds like you are saying that the only horses that ever win are your top horses.



Dave Schwartz

No, I'm asking why you might toss Windy, because you pointed out, that according to your chart, you would structure a bet against Windy. So, I am asking you a question pertaining to that statement on your part. We are discussing your chart. Or, I am attempting to.

[jonnielu]

Jeff,



A classic approach, Gambler's Ruin. Another is to use Kelly to compute the theoretical optimums and wager proportionately.

Of course the whole thing goes to hell when we consider that there are NO CORRECT ASSESSMENTS. The best we can hope for is some degree of correctness.

If we had an expectation for a high degree of correctness, are you offering that such an expectation is unfounded. We can only hope for a lower degree of correctness. What about the notion of getting what you set out for?


So we accept our error-filled ways, and, if the errors in our assumptions are small enough we have growth.


Dave

And, what usually happens when you continually set the bar low?

[jonnielu]

No assessment is perfect. The wonderful thing about this game is that it doesn't have to be. I tend to shoot for assessments with enough basis in reality that are different enough from what everybody else is doing... and somehow that produces growth.

-jp

.

Wouldn't it be great if you set out for knowing how to produce growth on purpose, and discovered a way. Of course, it would figure to be difficult when you don't expect that it is possible.

[Dave Schwartz]

Gallahad,


Dave, you don't have to agree with it only I have to agree with it, I was just trying to get you to see things from the 99% of racing fans point of view.

I certainly understand that this is where the typical player is coming from. This is why the typical player is not winning.



Dave, I doubt even a fool would make this sort of an assumption. And those that would aren't the sort of people gracing the pages of this forum.

You cannot connect the same principles to 8/1 and 12/1?



Dave, an incorrect assumption you made here is that I would play SAR (or any track for that matter) everday they run for 6 years and make that same bet everytime.

What made you think I was talking about you?


It seems that maybe my definition of a good bet and yours are probably 2 different things. That doesn't mean that your right and I'm wrong or vice versa, it just means we have different approaches to the game. My God man, there are an infinity of ways to approach this game and win, not just one, and not just yours.

And you see my post as adversarial to what you have said above? You read my post as my way is the only way?


Also, it seems that you and others here approach handicapping as a science rather than an art, which is the way I approach it. Using a computer program is a nice tool if that's your thing and I use some spreadsheets with formulas to track certain statistics, but they aren't "black boxes" outputting all the right answers.

How wonderful for you. And this helps other people improve their game how?

We have different goals in this thread. Mine is to try to share a "non-standard" approach that both makes sense and works. Yours is what again? To show that you are artful? Can you teach that artfulness?


One last thing. I had responded to your email about the free HSH. I got a "canned" email message back from you. When I responded asking some questions about your offer and some details, I got the same "canned" email back from you and you didn't answer any of my questions. Could you look at my email again and send me a response to my questions? When I looked at your website and read the "Tour" sections I was very impressed / interested with your programs approach and may in the future look into it.

A multi-page list of questions for a free offer. That is simply unrealistic. I received so many replies similar to yours that I decided the "free" program would simply burn my time without reasonable compensation.

I actually had one person tell me that he hated the idea of having to spend money on downloads while he decided if he liked the program and could I please give him just six months of free downloads to try it out? I wrote back and asked if he would like me to include a free computer for him to try it out on as well.


Now that the "free" offer has passed, if you have interest you can send along an email and we will set up a time to discuss your questions over the telephone. However, I doubt that you, as an artful handicapper, would be a good match for our science-based approach.


Good luck to you.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Dave Schwartz]

Jonnie,

No, I'm asking why you might toss Windy, because you pointed out, that according to your chart, you would structure a bet against Windy. So, I am asking you a question pertaining to that statement on your part. We are discussing your chart. Or, I am attempting to.

What do you mean by "toss?" Does that mean "can't win?"


CD 10 (Monte.) Bet Int=8
sort:Pct+$Net Time: 7:51:30 Min: 6:10:29
Prime Cont=4 FH Cont=50% +1
Prg Horse Con Odds Prob $Net Opt% Gr |
1 ROLLING SEA C 4.00 22.7 $2.27 3.38% A |
7 WINDY C 1.80 21.6 $1.21 -21.94% D- |
3 HIGH HEELS C 7.20 12.8 $2.10 0.69% A- |
9 TRENDY LADY C 8.00 10.9 $1.96 -0.25% B+ |
5 MY CHICKADEE f 22.10 9.4 $4.34 5.29% A+ |
8 PLEASANT HILL 6.90 8.5 $1.34 -4.78% D+ |
4 CHANGE UP 7.40 7.7 $1.29 -4.80% D |
2 LADY BELSARA 6.60 6.5 $0.98 -7.73% F


I did not "toss" Windy. I chose to play against Windy, and I did so because she appears (to me) to be a bad bet. As such, she adds money to the pool that makes the rest of the field more profitable. Thus, making any horse I wager upon a better bet.


>>>>I said: So we accept our error-filled ways, and, if the errors in our assumptions are small enough we have growth.<<<<

And, what usually happens when you continually set the bar low?


Please. That is the nature of racing prognostication.


I find your responses falling ever-more into the "devil's advocate" pile and simply not worth responding to.

Why don't you run off and play with the other word-playing, talk-hobbiests that simply want to constantly play antagonist to every positive statement without ever adding anything meaningful to the conversation?

Then Jeff and I can get back to adding something of potential value; something that can be used.



Dave Schwartz

[gallahadion]

Gallahad,


Now that the "free" offer has passed, if you have interest you can send along an email and we will set up a time to discuss your questions over the telephone. However, I doubt that you, as an artful handicapper, would be a good match for our science-based approach.


Good luck to you.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz:ThmbDown:

Dave, I'm sorry that you took my constructive, critical, questions as being adversarial (sp?) , they certainly aren't intended that way. The whole point of my original post in this thread was trying to relay how that typcial railbird thinks when he/she comes across a horse that he/she really likes yet has high mutuel odds and the way I believe you should approach that situation.

I believe there are definately things I could learn from your program and I believe I've said as much in several postings. I'm sorry you don't feel you have the time to respond to questions from potential customers.

A wise man once said "you will be judged on how well you treat people you don't have to be nice to".

[jonnielu]

Jonnie,

Please. That is the nature of racing prognostication.

So, we set the bar low since we expect poor results, then we expect to get better without ever raising the expectations. But, in here somewhere we should expect your book to be helpful. Why should I buy a book about winning if it is written by a guy that expects to lose and is offering an adventure in compensation?


I find your responses falling ever-more into the "devil's advocate" pile and simply not worth responding to.

So, you like to make statements, but don't like to be challenged on anything.

Why don't you run off and play with the other word-playing, talk-hobbiests that simply want to constantly play antagonist to every positive statement without ever adding anything meaningful to the conversation?

That's good, prevent a conversation from taking place, while you accuse me of not adding anything meaningful to it. At least you understand that nothing plus nothing equals nothing.:ThmbUp:

Then Jeff and I can get back to adding something of potential value; something that can be used.

Dave Schwartz

Sure, but try to remember when you ask if anyone wants to discuss your products, that could mean that you would need to be willing to discuss them too. I'll be standing right here.

[DeanT]

Also, it seems that you and others here approach handicapping as a science rather than an art, which is the way I approach it. Using a computer program is a nice tool if that's your thing and I use some spreadsheets with formulas to track certain statistics, but they aren't "black boxes" outputting all the right answers.

Hi Gallahad,

I dont (and I dont think Jeff/Dave) believe in any black boxes. Just general principles of managing risk, like a chapter in a book for a CFA managing a hedge fund.

Having said that: Just like a money manager of a fund would use certain risk assessments, a guy who flips penny stocks would use a completely different set of assessments. Player A might bet chalk and player B might bet longshots. Different ways to play. An example for me is an angle I had that I once spoke with Jeff about. It had an ROI of 8.0 over about 60 plays and it works to this day with longshots. I would be completely nuts to play that angle with a tiny bet size. A player I know who bets physicality and does a wonderful job tends to play horses north of 8-1 with it, and he succeeds to a decent degree. I would not tell him to bet his plays small either. Why would he? His hit rate and ROI is positive and he can manage risk with a proper bankroll as to not go broke. He of course doesnt play 5% flat win bets. That comes with the territory.

Anyway, a completely long winded way to say I do agree with you - more than one way to skin a cat in this game, or any game, imo. It all hinges on profitability, managing ruin with a proper bankroll, and knowing what and where your success lies.

[Dave Schwartz]

I'm sorry you don't feel you have the time to respond to questions from potential customers.

That is certainly not the way I feel and you were not a "potential customer."

I have never been stingy with my time. What do you suppose I am doing here?

As I recall from your email, you said you were not willing to spending $129 per month for the downloads but if I would build a BRIS import so that you could get the little bit you needed for $3 you'd even be willing to spend the $600.

Could I have responded to your email? Sure, I could have spent 30 minutes writing out a neat response but why should I waste my time on someone who has already stated they were not a potential customer because we do not support BRIS?

I sent you plenty of information about the software anyway.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Dave Schwartz]

I dont (and I dont think Jeff/Dave) believe in any black boxes. Just general principles of managing risk, like a chapter in a book for a CFA managing a hedge fund.

Actually, I DO believe in black boxes. That is what most of our users are building: their own private black box.

That is the entire point of HSH.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[DeanT]

Actually, I DO believe in black boxes. That is what most of our users are building: their own private black box.

That is the entire point of HSH.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz
Is it fair to say, however (my point above), that you believe you can't succeed in money management and profitability without a black box?

[Dave Schwartz]

Is it fair to say, however (my point above), that you believe you can't succeed in money management and profitability without a black box?

Dean,

That is absolutely NOT the way I feel.



I believe that their is a place for both approaches - artful and systematic.

In fact, many of the major enhancements in our newest release, version 5, are to allow the user more ability to modify their personal black box.

Imagine if you can get build an approach (like the one I posted the other day from MNR) where the expectation is breaking even or better wagering on all your contenders. Heck, even if you lose a little betting 4-5 horses per race, you should be able to improve on that with some added artfulness.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[jonnielu]

Actually, I DO believe in black boxes. That is what most of our users are building: their own private black box.

That is the entire point of HSH.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

How far from the point is it still? Or, is that another question that you'd rather not discuss?

[jonnielu]

Dean,

That is absolutely NOT the way I feel.



I believe that their is a place for both approaches - artful and systematic.

In fact, many of the major enhancements in our newest release, version 5, are to allow the user more ability to modify their personal black box.

Imagine if you can get build an approach (like the one I posted the other day from MNR) where the expectation is breaking even or better wagering on all your contenders. Heck, even if you lose a little betting 4-5 horses per race, you should be able to improve on that with some added artfulness.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Ya know, I hate to bother you with a lot of questions about your products, since you obviously stay pretty busy dodging questions that you don't want to hear, but.

Reckon if a guy really needs a black box, just to do that??

[DeanT]

Dean,

That is absolutely NOT the way I feel.



I believe that their is a place for both approaches - artful and systematic.

In fact, many of the major enhancements in our newest release, version 5, are to allow the user more ability to modify their personal black box.

Imagine if you can get build an approach (like the one I posted the other day from MNR) where the expectation is breaking even or better wagering on all your contenders. Heck, even if you lose a little betting 4-5 horses per race, you should be able to improve on that with some added artfulness.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz
That's what I thought. Most of your posts seem to reflect that. And the strategy of making HSH better seems to take account that (fro what I have read about it).

I think I would like your software. I am a customer of Jeff's and one of the things I like is that you can really dig deep to look for things that are hidden to most. You can have a horse that is 10-1 in his line, but have several profitable models which make it a solid bet at 3-1. I love the mallebility of such programs and to me they are key to success in such approaches.

[gallahadion]

That is certainly not the way I feel and you were not a "potential customer."

I have never been stingy with my time. What do you suppose I am doing here?

As I recall from your email, you said you were not willing to spending $129 per month for the downloads but if I would build a BRIS import so that you could get the little bit you needed for $3 you'd even be willing to spend the $600.

Could I have responded to your email? Sure, I could have spent 30 minutes writing out a neat response but why should I waste my time on someone who has already stated they were not a potential customer because we do not support BRIS?

I sent you plenty of information about the software anyway.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Dave, I re-read my email I sent you regarding HSH and I never asked you to program the HSH for BRIS files. I was only speculating that if that had been the case I would have been more apt to become a customer. You yourself stated that copies of HSH weren't "flying of the shelf" at $600 a pop which is why you decided on the "free" offering. I did clearly ask though, why you had programmed HSH for only the files from HDW. It is clear to me now that you and HDW are in colusion somehow to only work with each other, some sort of kickback scheme I suspect. And the point I was trying to make is that you are cutting yourself off from alot of potential customers by not making the program BRIS compatible.

At this point, I will have to agree with you on one thing, NOW I am definately NOT a potential customer.

Enjoy your Saturday as it's a beautiful day here in Lexington, Kentucky.
My dog and I are now going to go hiking.

[Dave Schwartz]

It is clear to me now that you and HDW are in colusion somehow to only work with each other, some sort of kickback scheme I suspect.

LOL - A kickback scheme?

We get a commission from HDW. What did you think... we would give away the software and what? Wait for you to send gifts?

Amazing how changing the word from "commission" to "kickback" manages to make it sound dirty.


Enjoy your dog walk and let's put this to rest, shall we?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Dave Schwartz]

I think I would like your software. I am a customer of Jeff's and one of the things I like is that you can really dig deep to look for things that are hidden to most. You can have a horse that is 10-1 in his line, but have several profitable models which make it a solid bet at 3-1. I love the mallebility of such programs and to me they are key to success in such approaches.

There is certainly more than one tool out there that will do a good job of separating skin-from-cat.

I wish you well.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Tom]

Ya know, I hate to bother you with a lot of questions about your products, since you obviously stay pretty busy dodging questions that you don't want to hear, but.

Reckon if a guy really needs a black box, just to do that??

Just curious...is it your intention to pollute evey good discussion here with BULLSHIT replies?

[jonnielu]

Just curious...is it your intention to pollute evey good discussion here with BULLSHIT replies?

You wouldn't know a discussion if it ran your adle-brained ass over. You certainly don't want to participate in one either. Your just another one that has your yap writing checks that your brain can't cash. I'm thrilled to see that you have a new brain, but you might get something out of it you actually used it.

[gallahadion]

Just curious...is it your intention to pollute evey good discussion here with BULLSHIT replies?

Tom, I think Jonnielu was spot on with his analysis.

[Tom]

I think he is nothing but a troll who has hijacked two good threads so far.
And throws little hissy fits when anyone dares question him/her.

And you are too new to even bother reading yet. Dave pegged you right early on.

[jonnielu]

I think he is nothing but a troll who has hijacked two good threads so far.
And throws little hissy fits when anyone dares question him/her.

Hey Tom,

Here is a chance for you to actually participate in a discussion, and excercise that new brain a little bit. It'll be great, with just a little work, you could hit social security with a used and working brain.

How do you start a thread, and Hijack it?



Just to attempt to keep the thread that I started on topic, I'll also offer you an idea (that is something then can occur from initial thought, with further thought, many ideas have become discoveries), for your consideration. (consideration will also work that new brain a little bit)

If the favorite's (bottom of the program page, farthest to the right) post time odds are 1/2 of its ML odds. Consider that favorite live. If not, consider that favorite dead, for the win slot.

Check that out, and then you've got an opportunity to come back with your findings to join in on a discussion with on-topic material.:jump:

[jonnielu]

Dave, I re-read my email I sent you regarding HSH and I never asked you to program the HSH for BRIS files. I was only speculating that if that had been the case I would have been more apt to become a customer. You yourself stated that copies of HSH weren't "flying of the shelf" at $600 a pop which is why you decided on the "free" offering. I did clearly ask though, why you had programmed HSH for only the files from HDW. It is clear to me now that you and HDW are in colusion somehow to only work with each other, some sort of kickback scheme I suspect. And the point I was trying to make is that you are cutting yourself off from alot of potential customers by not making the program BRIS compatible.

At this point, I will have to agree with you on one thing, NOW I am definately NOT a potential customer.

Enjoy your Saturday as it's a beautiful day here in Lexington, Kentucky.
My dog and I are now going to go hiking.

Admirable execution:ThmbUp:

[jonnielu]

Hey All,

I thought I would start this thread to get some discussion going about individual need for improvement. First to look at commonalities, and second to discuss ideas on how to work toward actual improvement in some areas.


In order to improve, plus objectively answer my questions on the real value of it, I decided to see if I could survive for a month with just a program in my hand. What an opportunity for learning something this turned out to be.



Well, there is a week of voting in, and money management is still a strong leader, with handicapping factors, and physicality starting some closing moves.

The strategy above also worked well for me to evaluate the overall worth of handicapping in general, and money management. It might shine some light for you too, and it don't cost nothing to look it over. You can do this on the side of whatever you are doing now too.

Make note of the top four according to ML, and then verify for yourself that these four will account for 70% of the wins on pretty much a daily basis. Yes, strange things happen, but not with this kind of consistency.

Now, the only handicapping that you want to do with these four is to decide when to bet the favorite, and when not to bet the favorite.

With Tom taking part in the discussion now, we'll see what his report on live and dead favorites looks like and then we'll expand on this with his solid findings. Go Tom:ThmbUp:

[Tom]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't play with children and your behaviour is nothing short of childish. I don't know what your problem is, but you have gone out your way to attack SMTW, Dave, and me. You had a fit because SMTW picked a winner and you didn't. Accused SMTW of using the program picks! What a parnoid little person you are. You obviously need to reinforce your self worth by verbal attacks on people, but acting like a teenager on crack is not the way to do it. You have shown in several threads your inability to interact with adults or accept any view other than your own.

I suggest you grow up and seek some professional help. You have a very serious character flaw. It is not healthy to be delusional, and dude, you are not in touch with the real world.

[jonnielu]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't play with children and your behaviour is nothing short of childish. I don't know what your problem is, but you have gone out your way to attack SMTW, Dave, and me. You had a fit because SMTW picked a winner and you didn't. Accused SMTW of using the program picks! What a parnoid little person you are. You obviously need to reinforce your self worth by verbal attacks on people, but acting like a teenager on crack is not the way to do it. You have shown in several threads your inability to interact with adults or accept any view other than your own.

I suggest you grow up and seek some professional help. You have a very serious character flaw. It is not healthy to be delusional, and dude, you are not in touch with the real world.

Dis-appointment is always expected from you Tom.... and don't call me Dude

[Jeff P]

If the favorite's (bottom of the program page, farthest to the right) post time odds are 1/2 of its ML odds. Consider that favorite live. If not, consider that favorite dead, for the win slot.
Identifying vulnerable favorites is always a good place to start. Better to fish in the right pond than the wrong one.

If Morning Line Odds Ratio = Odds / ML then...

Here is a look at all post time favorites in my calendar year 2006 database broken out by Morning Line Odds Ratio where the top row represents those post time favorites bet down below 1/2 of its ML odds:
Data Window Settings:
Data Window Settings:
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None
Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*)
From Index File: C:\2007\Q1_2007\pl_Favorites_1_06.txt


Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 43138.30 45695.60 45472.70
Bet -52064.00 -52064.00 -52064.00
Gain -8925.70 -6368.40 -6591.30

Wins 9103 14481 17671
Plays 26032 26032 26032
PCT .3497 .5563 .6788

ROI 0.8286 0.8777 0.8734
Avg Mut 4.74 3.16 2.57
By: Morning Line Odds Ratio

>=Min <Max Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
-999.00 0.50 -3129.40 20242.00 0.8454 4143 10121 .4093 1.1706
0.50 0.75 -3432.60 20136.00 0.8295 3336 10068 .3313 0.9476
0.75 1.00 -1682.50 8708.00 0.8068 1250 4354 .2871 0.8210
1.00 1.25 -478.60 2426.00 0.8027 318 1213 .2622 0.7497
1.25 1.50 -186.50 430.00 0.5663 39 215 .1814 0.5187
1.50 1.75 0.70 90.00 1.0078 14 45 .3111 0.8897
1.75 2.00 -7.60 20.00 0.6200 2 10 .2000 0.5719
2.00 2.25 -3.20 6.00 0.4667 1 3 .3333 0.9532
2.25 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
2.50 2.75 -4.00 4.00 0.0000 0 2 .0000 0.0000
2.75 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
3.00 3.25 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
3.25 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
3.50 3.75 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
3.75 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
4.00 4.25 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
4.25 4.50 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
4.50 4.75 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
4.75 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
5.00 999999.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000

Those races where the favorite is bet down by half of its morning line odds appear to have favorites that are legit.

But... What if we can improve on that?

I'll make the argument that far more betting opportunity exists for the player in those races (where the favorite is bet down) than in races where it isn't provided the player can accurately identify the favorite in those races as vulnerable. If the player can do that he or she will be smarter than a large chunk of the money in the pools for those particular races.

Here is a look at just those favorites bet down below 1/2 of their ML, this time broken out by one of JCapper's power ratings - something I call the Alchemy Rating:
Data Window Settings:
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None
Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*)
From Index File: C:\2007\Q1_2007\pl_Favorites_1_06.txt)


Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 17112.60 18136.20 17923.60
Bet -20242.00 -20242.00 -20242.00
Gain -3129.40 -2105.80 -2318.40

Wins 4143 6254 7271
Plays 10121 10121 10121
PCT .4093 .6179 .7184

ROI 0.8454 0.8960 0.8855
Avg Mut 4.13 2.90 2.47

By: Alchemy

>=Min <Max Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
-999.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
20.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
25.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
30.00 35.00 -30.00 30.00 0.0000 0 15 .0000 0.0000
35.00 40.00 -51.90 92.00 0.4359 7 46 .1522 0.3717
40.00 45.00 -41.00 158.00 0.7405 18 79 .2278 0.5566
45.00 50.00 -113.20 232.00 0.5121 24 116 .2069 0.5054
50.00 55.00 -85.00 304.00 0.7204 41 152 .2697 0.6589
55.00 60.00 -122.10 468.00 0.7391 65 234 .2778 0.6786
60.00 65.00 -186.20 682.00 0.7270 96 341 .2815 0.6877
65.00 70.00 -185.90 914.00 0.7966 149 457 .3260 0.7965
70.00 75.00 -194.70 930.00 0.7906 152 465 .3269 0.7985
75.00 80.00 -378.90 1768.00 0.7857 306 884 .3462 0.8456
80.00 85.00 -341.70 1694.00 0.7983 304 847 .3589 0.8768
85.00 90.00 -290.80 1986.00 0.8536 399 993 .4018 0.9816
90.00 95.00 -159.80 2228.00 0.9283 502 1114 .4506 1.1008
95.00 100.00 -335.80 2714.00 0.8763 604 1357 .4451 1.0873
100.00 999999 -612.40 6042.00 0.8986 1476 3021 .4886 1.1936
Notice what happens to those bet down favorites when Alchemy is below 85? Suddenly almost 40 percent of them don't look so imposing anymore.


-jp

.

[Grits]

Very simply put. I am NOT good at watching race replays, not at all. And I think they are quite valuable.

Too, I am not good at structuring wagers, be they multiple race exotics, or exactas and trifectas using backup combos, etc, etc. Not good at either.

I wish I was good at both. It is difficult to settle, in this sport, solely on win wagers, as we know the percentages regarding our choices.

[jonnielu]

Identifying vulnerable favorites is always a good place to start. Better to fish in the right pond than the wrong one.

If Morning Line Odds Ratio = Odds / ML then...

Here is a look at all post time favorites in my calendar year 2006 database broken out by Morning Line Odds Ratio where the top row represents those post time favorites bet down below 1/2 of its ML odds:

.

Thanks for chipping in with that Jeff, Lord knows we can't depend on Tom for any participation. And, It's always good to run into a software salesman that isn't afraid to throw some goods on the table.:ThmbUp:

So, to keep it simple for now and build on the simple premise that we are starting with, would you say that 1/2 the ML at post time is a reasonable method of identifying a live favorite? Because first we are trying to get a rough idea of the value of handicapping, and work in some money management principals as it goes.

[Jeff P]

I do think non ML bet downs are a reasonable place to start looking for vulnerable favorites if all you have is a Racing Form and a pencil. But take a closer look at the flat win bet roi of the vulnerable favorites identified that way. Virtually all of them are still over .80. As a player you'll get a lot more wagering value on your own plays if you can do a better of identifying vulnerable favorites than that. You want to consistently jump into races where the roi of the favorite is considerably less than .80. It really doesn't matter what you use to get the job done... software... Racing Form and pencil... physicality... sheets... whatever - if you take the time to develop ways to handicap race favorites as vulnerable and keep records you can identify situations where race favorites have statistically horrible win rates and roi. Those are the races you want to jump into.


-jp

.

[jonnielu]

I do think non ML bet downs are a reasonable place to start looking for vulnerable favorites if all you have is a Racing Form and a pencil. But take a closer look at the flat win bet roi of the vulnerable favorites identified that way. Virtually all of them are still over .80.

-jp

.

Stay calm Jeff, and don't take this the wrong way, but we are trying to not jump on anything yet. We don't even have a racing form yet, we are only working with the program and four choices on the bottom of the page.

Now, according to what we've got so far, we could bet the live favorites, and pass on the dead favorites, and survive.. right?

Now, what does the old dB tell us about the other three choices when the favorite is dead? Have we got a decent little pool to swim in there, under those circumstances?

[Jeff P]

...We don't even have a racing form yet, we are only working with the program and four choices on the bottom of the page.

Now, according to what we've got so far, we could bet the live favorites, and pass on the dead favorites, and survive.. right?No. The take would eat us alive. We need to do better... and drastically so. We haven't made enough of a difference yet.



Now, what does the old dB tell us about the other three choices when the favorite is dead? Have we got a decent little pool to swim in there, under those circumstances?I don't have it set up to tell us that... at least not the way we're using the bottom of the program to flag live and dead favorites. Will be happy to reconfigure to answer the question and come back and post the info later.


-jp

.

[jonnielu]

No. The take would eat us alive. We need to do better... and drastically so.




I don't have it set up to tell us that... at least not the way we're using the bottom of the program to flag live and dead favorites. Will be happy to reconfigure to answer the question and come back and post the info later.


-jp

.

That would be great Jeff, and don't be so pessimistic, we'll probably even crank up some software around post #150.;)

[Steveh]

Pessimistic? When some folks find themselves in too deep, thier responses just don't make sense at times.

I don't talk much in here because I've found that I learn more by listening. This Jeff didn't seem pessimistic to me and his posts are almost always worth reading. It just makes no sense to strike out at someone in a forum where we are all trying to learn from each other.

[Jeff P]

I maintain a smallish database that contains a smattering of race card files... about 150 race dates in all. The database contains randomly selected race cards from various tracks around the country throughout the year. The idea is that (hopefully) this little database is large enough to be meaningful when I test out new ideas. The advantage for me of working with a smaller database is that I can make changes to it and quickly rebuild to get the answers to my questions in a timely manner. If the idea I am testing shows promise I'll then follow up by verifying my findings against a larger database before making the idea part of my own live play.

I have added a new field to this database... a true/false that flags the post time favorite in each race as either live or dead according to the bet down below 1/2 of ML criteria suggested earlier.

Here are some samples from that database:

when Favorite is flagged as Live - all starters in the database:
Data Window Settings:
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None
Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*)
From Index File: C:\2007\ASmattering\pL_profile.txt


Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 7216.20 6729.00 6707.70
Bet -9238.00 -9238.00 -9238.00
Gain -2021.80 -2509.00 -2530.30

Wins 570 1131 1668
Plays 4619 4619 4619
PCT .1234 .2449 .3611

ROI 0.7811 0.7284 0.7261
Avg Mut 12.66 5.95 4.02
By: Odds Rank (when Favorite is flagged as Live)

Rank Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 -199.80 1184.00 0.8313 238 592 .4020 3.2578
2 -209.40 1104.00 0.8103 104 552 .1884 1.5267
3 -219.30 1128.00 0.8056 76 564 .1348 1.0920
4 -268.00 1114.00 0.7594 52 557 .0934 0.7565
5 -76.20 1124.00 0.9322 45 562 .0801 0.6489
6 -325.00 1030.00 0.6845 23 515 .0447 0.3619
7 -209.60 874.00 0.7602 16 437 .0366 0.2967
8 -467.00 678.00 0.3112 4 339 .0118 0.0956
9 119.90 460.00 1.2607 8 230 .0348 0.2819
10 -54.40 294.00 0.8150 2 147 .0136 0.1103
11 -25.00 160.00 0.8438 2 80 .0250 0.2026
12 -76.00 76.00 0.0000 0 38 .0000 0.0000
13 -8.00 8.00 0.0000 0 4 .0000 0.0000
14 -4.00 4.00 0.0000 0 2 .0000 0.0000
15 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
16 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
17 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
18 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
19 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000



Non Favorites when Favorite is flagged as Live
Data Window Settings:
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None
Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*)
From Index File: C:\2007\ASmattering\pL_profile.txt


Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 6232.00 5687.10 5637.40
Bet -8054.00 -8054.00 -8054.00
Gain -1822.00 -2366.90 -2416.60

Wins 332 774 1231
Plays 4027 4027 4027
PCT .0824 .1922 .3057

ROI 0.7738 0.7061 0.7000
Avg Mut 18.77 7.35 4.58
By: JPR Rank (Non Favorites when Favorite is flagged as Live)

Rank Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 -0.70 480.00 0.9985 49 240 .2042 2.4764
2 -208.90 910.00 0.7704 62 455 .1363 1.6528
3 -208.20 988.00 0.7893 52 494 .1053 1.2768
4 55.70 1034.00 1.0539 53 517 .1025 1.2435
5 -290.20 1086.00 0.7328 39 543 .0718 0.8712
6 27.40 1012.00 1.0271 34 506 .0672 0.8150
7 15.70 870.00 1.0180 23 435 .0529 0.6413
8 -544.80 676.00 0.1941 8 338 .0237 0.2871
9 -295.20 456.00 0.3526 7 228 .0307 0.3724
10 -194.20 294.00 0.3395 3 147 .0204 0.2475
11 -158.00 158.00 0.0000 0 79 .0000 0.0000
12 -56.40 78.00 0.2769 1 39 .0256 0.3110
13 -8.00 8.00 0.0000 0 4 .0000 0.0000
14 43.80 4.00 11.9500 1 2 .5000 6.0648
15 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
16 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
17 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
18 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
19 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000





Favorite flagged as dead - all starters in the database:
Data Window Settings:
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None
Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*)
From Index File: C:\2007\ASmattering\pL_profile.txt


Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 11078.60 10738.50 10590.70
Bet -13672.00 -13672.00 -13672.00
Gain -2593.40 -2933.50 -3081.30

Wins 832 1654 2468
Plays 6836 6836 6836
PCT .1217 .2420 .3610

ROI 0.8103 0.7854 0.7746
Avg Mut 13.32 6.49 4.29
By: Odds Rank (Favorite flagged as dead)

Rank Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 -423.80 1722.00 0.7539 235 861 .2729 2.2426
2 -254.20 1656.00 0.8465 187 828 .2258 1.8556
3 -177.20 1620.00 0.8906 141 810 .1741 1.4303
4 -302.10 1632.00 0.8149 98 816 .1201 0.9868
5 -406.10 1622.00 0.7496 67 811 .0826 0.6788
6 -148.30 1562.00 0.9051 49 781 .0627 0.5155
7 -283.20 1346.00 0.7896 26 673 .0386 0.3174
8 -199.50 1026.00 0.8056 16 513 .0312 0.2563
9 -194.60 710.00 0.7259 7 355 .0197 0.1620
10 14.20 424.00 1.0335 5 212 .0236 0.1938
11 -66.60 200.00 0.6670 1 100 .0100 0.0822
12 -122.00 122.00 0.0000 0 61 .0000 0.0000
13 -18.00 18.00 0.0000 0 9 .0000 0.0000
14 -12.00 12.00 0.0000 0 6 .0000 0.0000
15 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
16 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
17 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
18 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
19 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000



Non Favorites when Favorite is flagged as Dead
Data Window Settings:
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None
Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*)
From Index File: C:\2007\ASmattering\pL_profile.txt)


Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 9780.40 9311.20 9087.60
Bet -11950.00 -11950.00 -11950.00
Gain -2169.60 -2638.80 -2862.40

Wins 597 1235 1911
Plays 5975 5975 5975
PCT .0999 .2067 .3198

ROI 0.8184 0.7792 0.7605
Avg Mut 16.38 7.54 4.76
By: JPR Rank (Non Favorites when Favorite is flagged as Dead)

Rank Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 21.70 822.00 1.0264 79 411 .1922 1.9238
2 -75.70 1226.00 0.9383 109 613 .1778 1.7796
3 -132.70 1428.00 0.9071 105 714 .1471 1.4718
4 -532.90 1552.00 0.6566 88 776 .1134 1.1350
5 -304.40 1576.00 0.8069 76 788 .0964 0.9653
6 -538.30 1512.00 0.6440 47 756 .0622 0.6222
7 -218.80 1328.00 0.8352 34 664 .0512 0.5125
8 -199.80 1014.00 0.8030 28 507 .0552 0.5527
9 -61.50 716.00 0.9141 15 358 .0419 0.4193
10 -56.00 426.00 0.8685 11 213 .0516 0.5169
11 46.10 200.00 1.2305 4 100 .0400 0.4003
12 -122.00 122.00 0.0000 0 61 .0000 0.0000
13 -16.00 16.00 0.0000 0 8 .0000 0.0000
14 20.70 12.00 2.7250 1 6 .1667 1.6681
15 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
16 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
17 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
18 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
19 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000


The above smallish sample demonstrates that there is more opportunity for profit when the player can jump into races with vulnerable favorites and stay out of races with legit favorites. I know from my own experience that this is true. I also know from my own experience that this effect can be magnified when the player puts some real work into identifying vulnerable favorites.

I'll say this though... results using this simplistic way (ML bet downs) of identifying vulnerable favorites surprised me. They were better than I would have expected.


-jp

.

[jonnielu]

The above smallish sample demonstrates that there is more opportunity for profit when the player can jump into races with vulnerable favorites and stay out of races with legit favorites. I know from my own experience that this is true. I also know from my own experience that this effect can be magnified when the player puts some real work into identifying vulnerable favorites.

I'll say this though... results using this simplistic way (ML bet downs) of identifying vulnerable favorites surprised me. They were better than I would have expected.


-jp

.

Thanks Jeff,

For saying that, and not taking offense at any of my prodding.

Because my point was that sound, consistent fundamentals are often simple, and often overlooked as making for a working key, or a strong foundation.

Sound money management can evolve from this same simple beginning too. Because here you have a sound method for deciding when to bet, and when it may be prudent to pass.

Sophisticate this, and you put the horse in front of the cart that will take you wherever you want to go.

jdl

[DeanT]

By: JPR Rank (Non Favorites when Favorite is flagged as Dead)

Rank Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 21.70 822.00 1.0264 79 411 .1922 1.9238
2 -75.70 1226.00 0.9383 109 613 .1778 1.7796
For the non-users of Jcapper, is the Bris Rank #1 and #2 about similar?

Regardless, right there (for a fairly decent number of races) you are profitable with rebate, without even being able to read a racing form.

[banacek]

So 69% (including me) say money management and betting decisions. Seems like there is an opening for a really good book on the topic - and yes I've read them all.

[sally]

How about Exotic Betting by Steven Crist?? Should I invest in that book? And, it was suggested to me to look up Modern Pace Handicapping by Brohamer...but is that one going to be awfully technical??

[Grits]

How about Exotic Betting by Steven Crist?? Should I invest in that book? And, it was suggested to me to look up Modern Pace Handicapping by Brohamer...but is that one going to be awfully technical??

No. Learn the fundamentals first, and I think others would indicate this as well. Exotic wagering and its multiple strategies--are NOT the place to begin. And Stephen Crist probably knows this better than anyone and would be the first to tell you so.

[gallahadion]

How about Exotic Betting by Steven Crist?? Should I invest in that book? And, it was suggested to me to look up Modern Pace Handicapping by Brohamer...but is that one going to be awfully technical??

Sally, I haven't picked it up yet but I am planning on getting The One Minute Handicapper. From everything I've read its a great place for a novice to start and even a good tome for the more experienced player as well. Heck, even Dave Schwartz from this forum endorses it !!!!!

[how cliche]

I haven't posted in a while. I've been undergoing some serious introspection in regards to my status as a horseplayer. This is the comebacking post where I wear my heart on my sleeve.

I am a good handicapper. I will not doubt this fact any longer. I've reached the point in my career where I can trust my skills as a prognosticator. I understand & accept however, that I will be wrong a whole lot more than I am right.

I've always bet very conservatively favoring win bets to gimmicks. In the process I almost always forego excellent leveraging opportunities should win bets arise in consecutive races. There have been a dozen or so times during my tenure where I've wagered say $50 win and then placed a $20 cold double to the win bet in the very next race. It's a beautiful play. Should the first horse prevail, the second win bet can stay in my wallet. and should the double come in, as it sometimes does, it is THE leverage play on the card.

I mention all of this because I was on a break & only resurfaced once for the cup & then again for a drf qualifyer at GGF last saturday. Since FPX opened those are the only times I've played.

Little did I know how spot on my handicapping would be. As good as my handicapping was, my betting was just as bad. On cup saturday I selected 5 of 8 top pick winners, 3 in a row at one point, & back to back cold exactas. Good handicapping. When I looked at the card the most likely winners in my mind were Ginger Punch, Kip Deville & English Channel in that order. When I looked at the late pick 4 all 3 of those were my top picks & Curlin was my 2nd choice in the nitecap. In all of those races I could not see past my second choices either. Did I hit either the Kip/Excellent or Ginger/Hysterical cold exactas? Did I smoke the Kip-Ginger Double? Did I kill the Kip/Ginger/English pick 3? Did I pummel the Kip-Ginger-English-Curlin pick 4? That would be a giant negative on all counts my good people. I did what I always do. I stayed conservative.

Fast forward to the drf qualifyer at GGF on Saturday. I handicapped the card and took a lot of shots in the contest, but only wanted to bet 3 runners on the card, two of them were entered in back to back races. The first bet lost in the 5th. Down 50. The next 2 won the 8th and 9th. Did I rock the $220+ double? Negatory. I stayed conservative.

I'm not going to complain because winning is winning & I'll take it every time. I will criticize myself though. I'm too conservative. Why? It took me almost 8 years to recognize it, but my primary thought has always been, 'What if I'm wrong. What if I'm wrong.' Even when I've bet huge amounts on a single runner I haven't gone in with the attitude of sheer confidence. My thought in those cases was always, 'It's taking everything I have to overcome my doubt.'

I really want to turn a positive corner in my career in lieu of the five to twenty thousand dollar financial shift that was available to me that I simply passed on. In order to achieve this I need a 180 degree flip in my primary thought process. From here on out I must think, 'What if I'm right.' Good handicappers are common. Good horseplayers are rare. I aspire to be a good horseplayer. A complete horseplayer. I aspire to be as proud of my betting decisions as I am of my handicapping acumen. I aspire to be as profitable as I possibly can whenever I'm right. This is where I begin anew. 'What if I'm right.'

[PaceAdvantage]

Nothing cliche about that reply....you're quite the writer if the handicapping gig falls through....

But seriously, thanks for sharing that....

[riskman]

jp said"Here is a look at just those favorites bet down below 1/2 of their ML, this time broken out by one of JCapper's power ratings - something I call the Alchemy Rating"

What does the "achemy rating" consist of, or is it proprietary ?

[riskman]

[QUOTE=jonnielu]Well, there is a week of voting in, and money management is still a strong leader, with handicapping factors, and physicality starting some closing moves.
In order to improve, plus objectively answer my questions on the real value of it, I decided to see if I could survive for a month with just a program in my hand. What an opportunity for learning something this turned out to be.
The strategy above also worked well for me to evaluate the overall worth of handicapping in general, and money management. It might shine some light for you too, and it don't cost nothing to look it over. You can do this on the side of whatever you are doing now too.

Make note of the top four according to ML, and then verify for yourself that these four will account for 70% of the wins on pretty much a daily basis. Yes, strange things happen, but not with this kind of consistency.

"Now, the only handicapping that you want to do with these four is to decide when to bet the favorite, and when not to bet the favorite."


"If the favorite's (bottom of the program page, farthest to the right) post time odds are 1/2 of its ML odds. Consider that favorite live. If not, consider that favorite dead, for the win slot"

Was that the reason for this thread in the first place---your amazing discovery of the top four on the ML program and your adventure into the real world of attending the track(not sure if you were at the track) with just a program like most of the regular "Joes". Yep, thats your competition-90% of the people who attend the track never read a single handicapping book. How many had copies of the DRF? Maybe 20%.Most are betting on a hunch, advice from friends or a tout.Thats your competition for the most part--- the balance is to be taken seriously. Did it improve your game? Do you now appreciate the wealth of information available on the internet and the cappers on this forum --who break their ass every day and try to improve their game? Well.....

[jonnielu]

[QUOTE=jonnielu]Well, there is a week of voting in, and money management is still a strong leader, with handicapping factors, and physicality starting some closing moves.
In order to improve, plus objectively answer my questions on the real value of it, I decided to see if I could survive for a month with just a program in my hand. What an opportunity for learning something this turned out to be.
The strategy above also worked well for me to evaluate the overall worth of handicapping in general, and money management. It might shine some light for you too, and it don't cost nothing to look it over. You can do this on the side of whatever you are doing now too.

Make note of the top four according to ML, and then verify for yourself that these four will account for 70% of the wins on pretty much a daily basis. Yes, strange things happen, but not with this kind of consistency.

"Now, the only handicapping that you want to do with these four is to decide when to bet the favorite, and when not to bet the favorite."


"If the favorite's (bottom of the program page, farthest to the right) post time odds are 1/2 of its ML odds. Consider that favorite live. If not, consider that favorite dead, for the win slot"

Was that the reason for this thread in the first place---your amazing discovery of the top four on the ML program and your adventure into the real world of attending the track(not sure if you were at the track) with just a program like most of the regular "Joes". Yep, thats your competition-90% of the people who attend the track never read a single handicapping book. How many had copies of the DRF? Maybe 20%.Most are betting on a hunch, advice from friends or a tout.Thats your competition for the most part--- the balance is to be taken seriously. Did it improve your game? Do you now appreciate the wealth of information available on the internet and the cappers on this forum --who break their ass every day and try to improve their game? Well.....

I started the thread because I wanted to know where the handicapper that has been working to improve his/her game stood in that.

[Jeff P]

What does the "achemy rating" consist of, or is it proprietary ?It's a comprehensive power rating. It's far from being the crux of my handicapping. Rather it's just one of many tools in the box. But yes, it's proprietary.

-jp

.

[Jeff P]

Make note of the top four according to ML, and then verify for yourself that these four will account for 70% of the wins on pretty much a daily basis. Yes, strange things happen, but not with this kind of consistency.

"Now, the only handicapping that you want to do with these four is to decide when to bet the favorite, and when not to bet the favorite."
If you want to take the time to develop skills assessing horses purely on their physicality, this is a great place to start.

-jp

.

[jonnielu]

If you want to take the time to develop skills assessing horses purely on their physicality, this is a great place to start.

-jp

.

It is a great place to start on adding some physicality to your game, by getting some backup on live or dead favorites. You can also mix in some money management by then basing a decision to bet or not bet the favorite based on this criteria.

As you develop skill for live or dead favorite, you can start to develop skill for who else may be live or dead the same way.

If you look at the four choices as even on handicapping criteria, you can learn to spot other real edges. This helps to discover what is more significant, and what is less significant.

jdl

[horseraceguy101]

Honestly i could improve in all of them I think everyone needs improvement in all of them. No i am not saying everyone is bad but no one is perfect. We are always trying to improve to get better. So at least for me i say everything.

[cmoore]

I think everyone on this site would know which answer was going to be the overwhelming one. Money Money Money Money monnnnneyyyyyyy....I Got To Have it...Only if you bet right...

[cmoore]

If I look at the PP long enough I can always find a losing bet. It is hard to skip a race.:cool:

Now thats one funny quote..:D:D:D

[cmoore]

I would do ten times better at the races if I was a poor handicapper, but an excellent bettor.

Then you would be betting right, but the wrong horses..Not too sure about that one..

[cmoore]

The biggest thing I need to work on is avoiding information overload. I'm guilty of trying to seek out every little scrap of information about a race, and getting away from the basics. Also, I'll spend WAY too much time on each race, and this just muddies the waters even more. What usually happens is that I talk myself off of a horse I liked previously or I just get all confused after making a case for every horse in the race.

It happened twice today, actually - I talked myself off of the logical winner after making a case for another horse in the race, only to watch my original logical horse win.

I used to do that Quartercrack..The Ultimate pps from Brisnet were too much information. So I changed to the tsn pp genarator. I only print 5 races back for each horse. This really helped my contest play at DHC. Some will argue that you can't see running cycles. My experience it helps way more then it hurts.

[BCOURTNEY]

Small pools and lots of big sharks.




Hong Kong, like BetFair, has tremendous sophistcated competition.

By the way, neither the book nor the concept has anyhing to do with HSH. They are simply concepts.

You do your handicapping and then you figure out how to exploit that handicapping.

Want an example from those races?



Dave

Hong Kong's market is appropriate bet sizing and wagering, and has little to do with selection. The classic overfocus of 99% of all players. The horses don't pay us anything, the other players do.

[BCOURTNEY]

Everyone votes for a disscussion of successful wagering strategies, then the posts gravitate to selection methods. The importance of seperating these two things is required for a successful system. It's alot easier to adjust your wagering strategy which you are in control of completely, such that you maximize it to your current or future selection strategy so it produces the greatest return, as opposed to trying to squeeze a few more percentage points hit rate in whatever methods you employ.

[BCOURTNEY]

Gentlemen, I am just thrilled to see that so many of us are on the same page in this thread as I am working on a book that is 100% about how to wager.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Does the book suggest reinvestment of earnings in a non-linear way?

[JBmadera]

It is a great place to start on adding some physicality to your game, by getting some backup on live or dead favorites. You can also mix in some money management by then basing a decision to bet or not bet the favorite based on this criteria.

As you develop skill for live or dead favorite, you can start to develop skill for who else may be live or dead the same way.

If you look at the four choices as even on handicapping criteria, you can learn to spot other real edges. This helps to discover what is more significant, and what is less significant.

jdl

Not disimiliar from the others, money management is an issue plus, since I used to own horses (performance QH's, not race horses), I tend to make too many late changes to my wagers based on how a horse looks on the track and since I bet ADW and watch the races on video/tvg I do not get a decent view to make a determination - but I change my friggin' bet anyway - :bang:

My goal is to make an investment in h-capping software and spend 6 months really learning to use it.

[Dave Schwartz]

Does the book suggest reinvestment of earnings in a non-linear way?

I am not sure what that means.

[joeyspicks]

Gentlemen, I am just thrilled to see that so many of us are on the same page in this thread as I am working on a book that is 100% about how to wager.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

One of the better threads I have "lurked" over of late. Most of my earlier posts (when I had the time) concerned the importance of Money management. I consider this area along with "emotional control" and awareness to be ignored or just given lip service. Great improvement to the bottom line ROI can be acheived thru a better understanding and application of money management.

Thanks for this thread, especially Jeff and Dave.......
and Dave I look foreward to the publication of your new book!:ThmbUp:

[Cratos]

I'd bet that every player can feel that one. Passing is a skill that is hard to acquire and develop. Every handicapper has to have an optimistic nature. But, what if you could turn it 180 and make the race literally drag a bet out of you. Like look for reasons not to bet until you just can't find any for a particular horse in a race.

You are correct, learning when not to bet when to bet take a lot of discipline which most of us do not have.

It took me many years to acquire such behavior and I did it by limiting my handicapping selections to 2-3 choices when I attend the racetrack with the amounts on each choice defined before I get to the track. Unlike my erratic behavior of the past I today never change my mind and sometimes I am self-victimize by such rigidity, but discipline is the key and I stick to it.

[BCOURTNEY]

I am not sure what that means.

Do the gains get reinvested in the bankroll to be wagered as a percentage of bankroll?