The best Handicapping Systems

[Profiler8]

Hello everyone,

can anybody recommend good Handicapping Systems or methods ? There are so many on the market and the most are bad.

Thanks...

Greetings
Tim

[Tom Barrister]

I cannot recommend a single method or system, and I've seen hundreds, if not thousands. A simple mechanical method that shows a long-term profit just doesn't exist commercially (and probably not otherwise, either).

[TrifectaMike]

I also can't recommend a particular system. With that said, the "best", in my opinion, are systems that don't use too many factors ( they tend to regress toward favoritism). The few that ever seemed promising were systems that selected horses based on some fading from the lead methodology... not badly beaten... usually beaten by a few lengths in the stretch and finished within "some number" of beaten lengths at the finish.

I hope this helps.

Mike

[Overlay]

I think that any method that focuses only on picking one horse in a race as its selection (as mechanical systems generally do), with no regard to the horse's odds, has a built-in self-destruct mechanism (no matter how effectively it may perform at first), as word gets out about it and the method's horses start being overbet. There has to be a means of assessing the winning chances of the method's horses so that you can compare them to each horse's odds, whether you're looking at just one horse in a race, or comparing the relative winning chances of all the horses in a field.

[Tipster1]

I cannot recommend a single method or system, and I've seen hundreds, if not thousands. A simple mechanical method that shows a long-term profit just doesn't exist commercially (and probably not otherwise, either).

I have to agree unfortunately. Over decades of analyzing tons of methods, systems, racing products, books, even tout services, racing sheets and "canned" software that gives picks nothing really works. NOTHING! Now I'm not talking about very flexible database software where there is no fixed method or system built into it and based on much research you develop your own method. These software products are a different story.

Also while it seems way too many players that post make this sport out to sound easy to beat, it is not. Will probably be one of the most difficult things you ever attempted in your life with no guarantee of success even after analyzing for not years but decades.

I would estimate that at least 98% of all that post on horse racing forums lose money longterm and all have some other source of income like a real job. Meaning they are either novices, amatuers or recreational players even though they may dream or think otherwise. The other 1% which is mostly made up of players that sell horse racing products such as any of above listed and may bring in some steady income from that ONLY. But that is not what is really considered a professional horseplayer. Then we have the remaining 1% who may be a truely a professional handicapper and makes their sole living year after year from WAGERING on horses. And those percentages may be actually too liberal. Harsh words but the facts unfortunately.

[Pace Cap'n]

Bottom line, there is no "system", and you must develop you own method.

Were I to make a single recommendation, it would be "Calibration Handicapping", by Jim Lehane. It is definitely not a system, nor a methodolgy,
but a reasoned approach to the challenges of the game. Google him.

[DanG]

can anybody recommend good Handicapping Systems or methods ? There are so many on the market and the most are bad.

There is something I have to keep reminding myself. Not everyone plays this game with the same goals.

My favorite chef at one of my family’s restaurants was a lifelong horseplayer and frankly a poor one. He LOVED it…win / lose draw when he got back from the track he threw his wife some cash and said he had a good day.

Al would have loved a “system” that helped him lose .09 cents on a dollar instead of the .35++++ cents he was losing.

The word “system" rather than “method” makes hard core players roll their eyes. But to the twice a month player who doesn’t want to blow a fuse studying, they could add real enjoyment.

[rokitman]

There is something I have to keep reminding myself. Not everyone plays this game with the same goals.

My favorite chef at one of my family’s restaurants was a lifelong horseplayer and frankly a poor one. He LOVED it…win / lose draw when he got back from the track he threw his wife some cash and said he had a good day.
Al would have loved a “system” that helped him lose .09 cents on a dollar instead of the .35++++ cents he was losing.

The word “system" rather than “method” makes hard core players roll their eyes. But to the twice a month player who doesn’t want to blow a fuse studying, they could add real enjoyment.Smart! :D

[russowen77]

After reading all of this it is kind of depressing.

I can make a living playing small stakes no hold em pocker. I average about $18 and hour. Since our money has gotten so cheap in th e eyes of the world it is going up. Get a table full of Japenesse and it gets close to 25 and I am talking rake etc. You even get free food after a couple of hours of play.

I am talking small stakes now. 4-8---5-10 per bet. If everyone is betting to see the flop then you have a loose table and happy times are coming. It is strictly mechainical and doesn't even take anything but a little focus.

The reason is that many players will stay in till the last card no matter what.

That 10 buck max bet is only four to most of the Euros or Assians at table. It is all in perspective. I have a strictly mechainical system that works. The trouble is is that it is a grind. NO big hits are possible and of course you fold a lot (the main advantage when many will never fold). I love HR. It is the best activity I know for older people I can thing of. HOwever, after playing all year, counting my expensese, I am down about 3 dollars. Nothing to cry about for sure but if I had spent the same time, even though it is boring to me, playing small stakes I would normally be up about 10k. I don't like the areas I am going to need to live in very much but I am in the process of rethinking. I love HRing but the volitility is unreal.

I can tear a dry OP track up. BUt not when at all wet.

[Light]

Nobody who has something that really works is going to tell you what it is. They may be using something mainstream,but how they're tweaking it is the key. Horse racing forces you to be creative when lady luck says adieu. What you're left with is long hours and a desire to win. And most of the time,that road isn't pretty.

[Partsnut]

Originally Posted by Tom Barrister
I cannot recommend a single method or system, and I've seen hundreds, if not thousands. A simple mechanical method that shows a long-term profit just doesn't exist commercially (and probably not otherwise, either).

Tom, I'm in full agreement with you.

If you think about it, all the data available to us comes from the same source. So more or less some data sources are better then others but for the most part doesn't make things change that much.
Horse racing is far from an exact science and there are too many invariables that can cause a race to go other then what the numbers project or the way you think it might go.

I've been at the game for 52 years and as of today have not found any stability in the various methods and commercial software that I've used.
Most people are in quest of the "magic bullet" or "quick fix". There is none.

[Doug3312]

I had great success with the CofeeTable Millionaire until it tanked, now I'm afraid of it. I also made a great living playing poker and when I took up this game in Oct of '05, I thought that by Christmas, I would have it nailed down. I have lost so much trying that I have all but given up, but I still enjoy it and love this board.;)

[Richard]

The closest thing to a winning "system" would be the Taulbot Pace Calculator.And that's not really a system as you are genuinely forced to think about the contenders.

[jonnielu]

Hello everyone,

can anybody recommend good Handicapping Systems or methods ? There are so many on the market and the most are bad.

Thanks...

Greetings
Tim

Simple, when the ML favorite is not bet to 1/2 that ML and the 3rd ML choice is at or below its ML, bet the 3rd choice. Pass everything else.

jdl

[JustRalph]

After reading all of this it is kind of depressing.

I can make a living playing small stakes no hold em pocker. I average about $18 and hour. Since our money has gotten so cheap in th e eyes of the world it is going up. Get a table full of Japenesse and it gets close to 25 and I am talking rake etc. You even get free food after a couple of hours of play.

I am talking small stakes now. 4-8---5-10 per bet. If everyone is betting to see the flop then you have a loose table and happy times are coming. It is strictly mechainical and doesn't even take anything but a little focus.

The reason is that many players will stay in till the last card no matter what.

That 10 buck max bet is only four to most of the Euros or Assians at table. It is all in perspective. I have a strictly mechainical system that works. The trouble is is that it is a grind. NO big hits are possible and of course you fold a lot (the main advantage when many will never fold). I love HR. It is the best activity I know for older people I can thing of. HOwever, after playing all year, counting my expensese, I am down about 3 dollars. Nothing to cry about for sure but if I had spent the same time, even though it is boring to me, playing small stakes I would normally be up about 10k. I don't like the areas I am going to need to live in very much but I am in the process of rethinking. I love HRing but the volitility is unreal.

I can tear a dry OP track up. BUt not when at all wet.

Russ, where are you getting that kind of poker game?

[Tipster1]

I have dealt with some of the smartest handicapping minds, most talented database programmers and most dedicated group of researchers around over several decades and when they say no mechanical method will ever beat the horses "longterm" you have to believe them. Sure there may be some things that work short term here or there at that track or this track. But when it comes to creating a method that will show profits longterm meaning tens of thousands of races with decent size samples of actual plays no method will hold.

This all goes the same when it comes to 99.9% of all racing products sold on the Net. From sheets to selection services to canned software programs and every thing in between also doesn't work longterm. Sure you may get lucky buying something and just happen to use it at the right time where it works enough to show profits. But if that happens the best thing to do is abandon it before it grinds it all back right in.

Just think if you had some method that truely worked long term or was able to really pick profitable longterm horses would you sell them or it. Of course not. I believe that most sellers no this upfront which is why they sell such stuff. Believe me they ain't trying to help out the struggling handicapper or player. If there is no money in using it but some money in selling it then what's a person gonna do. Hey, can you blame them?

Just be careful before you hand out yout hard earned money in the "hope" someone or some product will let you finally win. I seen most of everything offered over decades through myself or this group of dedicated reseachers and time after time it's not only a waste of time, expense but can be even worse losing betting money on such things.

Once again harsh words but a dose or reality.

[DanG]

Once again harsh words but a dose or reality.
Everything you said is true…as long as people keep “software” and the infamous classified ad “black-boxes” separate in their minds. My experience is even in 2008 so many confuse the two.

Side note; On a recent trip to England some “punters” asked me about my methods and when I mentioned HTR software one said…”I could never let a computer make my picks”. 2008 and the role of software is STILL so misunderstood it’s incredible. :bang:

[rokitman]

Simple, when the ML favorite is not bet to 1/2 that ML and the 3rd ML choice is at or below its ML, bet the 3rd choice. Pass everything else.

jdlDo not do that, Profiler. You will end up in the nuthouse, broke, with Loopy.

[jonnielu]

I have dealt with some of the smartest handicapping minds, most talented database programmers and most dedicated group of researchers around over several decades and when they say no mechanical method will ever beat the horses "longterm" you have to believe them. Sure there may be some things that work short term here or there at that track or this track. But when it comes to creating a method that will show profits longterm meaning tens of thousands of races with decent size samples of actual plays no method will hold.

This all goes the same when it comes to 99.9% of all racing products sold on the Net. From sheets to selection services to canned software programs and every thing in between also doesn't work longterm. Sure you may get lucky buying something and just happen to use it at the right time where it works enough to show profits. But if that happens the best thing to do is abandon it before it grinds it all back right in.

Just think if you had some method that truely worked long term or was able to really pick profitable longterm horses would you sell them or it. Of course not. I believe that most sellers no this upfront which is why they sell such stuff. Believe me they ain't trying to help out the struggling handicapper or player. If there is no money in using it but some money in selling it then what's a person gonna do. Hey, can you blame them?

Just be careful before you hand out yout hard earned money in the "hope" someone or some product will let you finally win. I seen most of everything offered over decades through myself or this group of dedicated reseachers and time after time it's not only a waste of time, expense but can be even worse losing betting money on such things.

Once again harsh words but a dose or reality.

When the brilliant minds announce that thoroughbred racing is without consistencies, I can only laugh. Reality so often escapes the brilliant mind. Perhaps if they examined the consistencies rather then deny them, their research might yield something of substance.

The shortcoming of all handicapping "systems" are that they are based on comparing past performances, one to the other. That information might be a third of what the successful horseplayer needs.

The successful horseplayer has sound and reliable ways to determine 3 things:

1. Ability
2. Condition - today
3. Effort - today

To the level that a horseplayer needs, ability is the only one that reliably comes out of past performances.

Without a sound and reliable indicator for the other two factors, the bettor is standing on one leg. If he/she is working a "system" that is based solely on past performances, he/she is starting a vast project with half vast ideas.

That is reality, it is not even close to "no system can work", anyone capable of thought while observing 10 horse races in a row could conclude that anything is possible.

And, of course, something to think about.... if the brilliant minds and avid researchers were on the right track, horseracing in 2008 would be a little less confusing than it was in the 1930's.... wouldn't it????

jdl

P.S. What would you base a superfecta system on?

[jonnielu]

Do not do that, Profiler. You will end up in the nuthouse, broke, with Loopy.

Don't want to work that one out over a meeting? How about this one, it provides more action for the wild-eyed gambler, and those dizzying longshot payoffs, that everybody believes that you can't get on purpose:

On the grass, distances over 1 mile, bet the slowest early speed horse to win.

jdl

[BillW]

Side note; On a recent trip to England some “punters” asked me about my methods and when I mentioned HTR software one said…”I could never let a computer make my picks”. 2008 and the role of software is STILL so misunderstood it’s incredible. :bang:

Dan,

As with all confusion in our fellow competition, that is a good thing! :D

[DanG]

Dan,

As with all confusion in our fellow competition, that is a good thing! :D
Good point Bill!!! :ThmbUp:

I admit to having a selfish reason for spreading the word on software I believe in. I want the hard working people providing it to stay in business and prosper. I wouldn’t want to lose HDW / HTR at this point and try and reconfigure so many reports etc… that I now take for granted.

I’m all for the independent merchant who is hands on. I’m one of those nuts who will stop at the bakery, butcher and cheese shop for one meal instead of the one size fits all / cattle calls that masquerade as a food store.

LOL…How’s that for drift…Why do I always go back to food analogies!!! :D

[jhilden]

A good system I’ve studied and played with is Pandy’s Pro Simulcast System. I tested many of the plays against my database and the results were not that bad. For the best system in the book, the hit rate was 25% with an ROI of .89 using a sample of 300 races playing the system mechanically. With added handicapping factors like pedigree and trainer %, the system broke even. ITM % was 65. YMMV, but I am happy with this system for finding longshot contenders and under horses for exotics. Like many systems out there, mechanical play will not make you rich, but should point out a contender skipped by many. Handicapping deeper is essential and knowing what races to skip (like not playing against a legitimate favorite) is beneficial. Then again, knowing what race has la legit fav is more then half the battle:bang:

[Tipster1]

That is reality, it is not even close to "no system can work", anyone capable of thought while observing 10 horse races in a row could conclude that anything is possible.

I have seen mechanical methods work through not hundreds or even thousands of races but tens of thousands. But when it came to retesting on new and different batches of races they failed everytime. Reason being is they were developed and created on a certain batch of races when results were already known even if that original batch was huge. The case of the backfitting dilemma.

You would think that even so if such a method can work over 40,000 races it should work decently on the next 40,000. But time and time again such methods fail miserably. This is what I mean that NO mechanical method can ever overcome the test of time and that huge track take. What happens in one set of races and how horses run may not continue exactly in the next set of races.

Sure some factors and variables will hold over time such as favorites, power, speed, pace or class ratings, jockey or trainer overall statistics, etc. But since these are all losing variables alone or even when combined they will continue to lose sample after sample.

If and it is a big IF there are a handful of real professional horse players in the entire world they probably rely on one of two things. They constantly change their way of handicapping and use subjective skills. Or they have a great source of "true" insider information not known to the general public.

[RaceBookJoe]

A good system I’ve studied and played with is Pandy’s Pro Simulcast System. I tested many of the plays against my database and the results were not that bad. For the best system in the book, the hit rate was 25% with an ROI of .89 using a sample of 300 races playing the system mechanically. With added handicapping factors like pedigree and trainer %, the system broke even. ITM % was 65. YMMV, but I am happy with this system for finding longshot contenders and under horses for exotics. Like many systems out there, mechanical play will not make you rich, but should point out a contender skipped by many. Handicapping deeper is essential and knowing what races to skip (like not playing against a legitimate favorite) is beneficial. Then again, knowing what race has la legit fav is more then half the battle:bang:

This is not an ad for Pandy, but when i walk into a racebook with no advanced plan to handicap, i look for a ProSimulcast Horse first, if none i either leave or sit and do some more intense study. I usually handicap the night before, but if i happen to go see a movie at the casino, on the way out I might look for a pandy horse just for kicks. Otherwise, in context of the thread, i have never seen/used a black box system with a longterm profit. Learn the basics and make your own system. Learn from the great minds here at PA.... some of these guys know a lot about pace,energy distribution, speed etc. Good Luck.

[jonnielu]

I have seen mechanical methods work through not hundreds or even thousands of races but tens of thousands. But when it came to retesting on new and different batches of races they failed everytime. Reason being is they were developed and created on a certain batch of races when results were already known even if that original batch was huge. The case of the backfitting dilemma.

Or, it could be that the factor that was backfitted just was not really so significant in the first place. An example would be time.

You would think that even so if such a method can work over 40,000 races it should work decently on the next 40,000. But time and time again such methods fail miserably. This is what I mean that NO mechanical method can ever overcome the test of time and that huge track take. What happens in one set of races and how horses run may not continue exactly in the next set of races.

Just have three horses of relatively equal ability in the race, and each result is a unique product. Now just put that reality into your mechanical system.

Sure some factors and variables will hold over time such as favorites, power, speed, pace or class ratings, jockey or trainer overall statistics, etc. But since these are all losing variables alone or even when combined they will continue to lose sample after sample.

They are not all losing variables alone, the favorite has maintained the same winning percentage for decades.
How do you come upon the belief that combining them will have any effect?

If and it is a big IF there are a handful of real professional horse players in the entire world they probably rely on one of two things. They constantly change their way of handicapping and use subjective skills. Or they have a great source of "true" insider information not known to the general public.

They rely on the public continuing to work with limited information. They need only to fully understand one and/or any unchanging consistency in order to beat the public year after year. They understand the consistencies that do exist and work with them, against an unknowing public that they can rely on to create opportunities for them through ignorance.

jdl

[Tipster1]

They are not all losing variables alone, the favorite has maintained the same winning percentage for decades.
How do you come upon the belief that combining them will have any effect?

When I say losing variables I mean losing from a roi view. Combining the many types of variables and factors together is what handicapping is based on. We are trying to unconver a certain set of variables, combination or equations that may turn out profitable in the end. But yes I agree if we start out with a bag of factors that are very negative as stand alone factors that most of the time when we combine them while this may help the roi it is still in negative territory.

[Overlay]

When I say losing variables I mean losing from a roi view. Combining the many types of variables and factors together is what handicapping is based on. We are trying to unconver a certain set of variables, combination or equations that may turn out profitable in the end. But yes I agree if we start out with a bag of factors that are very negative as stand alone factors that most of the time when we combine them while this may help the roi it is still in negative territory.

What about the possibility of combining consistently predictive factors (even if they individually show negative flat-bet ROI's as stand-alone variables) in a way that allows you to accurately project a horse's chance of winning a specific race, and to judge whether the horse's odds are offering betting value?

[Tipster1]

What about the possibility of combining consistently predictive factors (even if they individually show negative flat-bet ROI's as stand-alone variables) in a way that allows you to accurately project a horse's chance of winning a specific race, and to judge whether the horse's odds are offering betting value?

Normally when you combine two negatives they never will equal a positive. Now as far as what you're asking it seems you are asking about the odds line theory. There are some good software programs that give some of the best odds lines around. By that I mean they are near perfect. If they assign a 2/1 those horses will win 33%, 4/1 they will win 20% and so on.

Now forget about all that overlay stuff or waiting for a horse's final odds to be higher that it's odds line or probability of winning cause it won't work. If it did work that simply everyone will be using it. You can use all these odds lines and just backtest that idea by simply backtesting any odds line you want against the final odds. Such as playing only horses that are a certain percentage higher final odds vs it's odd's line. What happens that those original odds line "accurate" percentages go out the window and no longer win at their expected rate. Such as those 2/1 horses don't win near 33% anymore and so on. Sure with higher minimum odds their average payoffs will increase but their new much lower win% doesn't make up for it. In theory odds lines sound good but in reality they're not. Yes they may help remove some of the negative roi but not enough.

[jonnielu]

They are not all losing variables alone, the favorite has maintained the same winning percentage for decades.
How do you come upon the belief that combining them will have any effect?

When I say losing variables I mean losing from a roi view. Combining the many types of variables and factors together is what handicapping is based on. We are trying to unconver a certain set of variables, combination or equations that may turn out profitable in the end. But yes I agree if we start out with a bag of factors that are very negative as stand alone factors that most of the time when we combine them while this may help the roi it is still in negative territory.

A different point of view might say that the fav is very good on ROI, IF you don't have to bet all of them to cash on the 30% that do win.

Would you think that a mechanical system could have you consistently passing 30% of the losers?

[pandy]

A good system I’ve studied and played with is Pandy’s Pro Simulcast System. I tested many of the plays against my database and the results were not that bad. For the best system in the book, the hit rate was 25% with an ROI of .89 using a sample of 300 races playing the system mechanically. With added handicapping factors like pedigree and trainer %, the system broke even. ITM % was 65. YMMV, but I am happy with this system for finding longshot contenders and under horses for exotics. Like many systems out there, mechanical play will not make you rich, but should point out a contender skipped by many. Handicapping deeper is essential and knowing what races to skip (like not playing against a legitimate favorite) is beneficial. Then again, knowing what race has la legit fav is more then half the battle:bang:

Thanks for the plug. A programmer I know ran Pro Simulcast through his database without using all the rules (such as post position stats), just the basic rules, and it came within a half percent of breaking even, which he said was as high as anything he's ever tested and way better than most systems.

[Tipster1]

A different point of view might say that the fav is very good on ROI, IF you don't have to bet all of them to cash on the 30% that do win.

Would you think that a mechanical system could have you consistently passing 30% of the losers?

Not sure exactly what you mean by this? Favorites even though they win well over 30% of all races still do much worse than a -10% roi. And trying to figure out when it is good to pass a post favorite or even a morning line favorite ain't easy. No matter what they will still win a decent percent of the time.

I would say that in general mechanical methods that carry high win percentages have worse rois than those that carry low win percentages. In otherwords by playing methods that pick a higher average payoff tend to get closer to a breakeven roi. Reason for this is methods that are good at picking many winners use factors that become obvious to the public making them overbet. So even though the overall win percent is good the low average payoffs are never high enough to make up ground. Bottom line is longer shot methods do better overall but even then are never enough to make longterm profits.

[jonnielu]

Not sure exactly what you mean by this? Favorites even though they win well over 30% of all races still do much worse than a -10% roi. And trying to figure out when it is good to pass a post favorite or even a morning line favorite ain't easy. No matter what they will still win a decent percent of the time.

I would say that in general mechanical methods that carry high win percentages have worse rois than those that carry low win percentages. In otherwords by playing methods that pick a higher average payoff tend to get closer to a breakeven roi. Reason for this is methods that are good at picking many winners use factors that become obvious to the public making them overbet. So even though the overall win percent is good the low average payoffs are never high enough to make up ground. Bottom line is longer shot methods do better overall but even then are never enough to make longterm profits.

Well, let's just use the tote-board and the program then, the public will never catch on.
jdl

[Kaufman Stables]

I agree there must be thousands out there, but I don't think one exist for all situations. Its more important to have the knowledge from experiences or preferably someone elses. There is a site called **** that has a top 50 list of some of the best methods from what has worked for some the best handicappers. I refer to it daily and I have cashed more tickets than any system that I have tried. If you have the general knowledge and can spot opportunities you can win.. some may disagree but I think that experience and discipline will take you a log way. If you can get use someone who has 40 years of experience give you a tip on what works for them. I view this as gold!!!

Happy Handicapping

Joe

[timtam]

Is this your site or are you just recommending it?

[STABLEMATE]

It's clearly his site: here's the evidence, quoted from that site (referring to the 50 tips):
Download below for a limited time offer of $39.99 scratch that lets get 2008 off to a great start I will release it for $15.99 today!!



if you have any ideas or things that have been working for yourself let us know at

*** That yahoo address is a dead giveaway. I hope PA/Mike deletes his message.

[Kaufman Stables]

Yeah it is my webpage and I am new to this forum...sorry if it came off wrong. That webpage has more free information on betting horses than hardly any that I have seen. I love horseracing and put a lot of information that I think will help the average better, so I threw it out there. Sorry to upset anybody....

I have purchased quit a few systems trying to find one that works, but never had any luck.

Take care

Joe Kaufman

[Tom Barrister]

I'm certain that PA will accomodate you, if you want to become an advertiser here.

[njcurveball]

I have purchased quit a few systems trying to find one that works, but never had any luck.



Join the club of about a million or possibly more people (including me) who thought at one time there was one.

Todays pools are even harder to exploit when there are whales "cherry picking" the overlays with less than a minute to post and later than you and I have a chance to bet them.

The best "systems" will win if you can choose the correct tracks and months to exploit them. Winning at evey track 12 months a year for a long period (say 5 years) with anything mechanical is a miracle.

And just to clarify by mechanical I mean "simple" factors, K.I.S.S. A feet per second methodology is far from "simple.

Jim

[russowen77]

Just Ralph,

MS mostly. They like poker at some of the smaller casinos. I would tell you which ones but they change names a lot.

It is strictly mechainical. You have to learn a couple of pages of rules but it is not hard to follow. The only real reason it is probably so consistent is that lots of folks watch or read books about no limit poker. I think that is where much of the sucker money that used to go to the track goes. It is not real hard to find a loose game.

FYI, it is not a lot of fun btw. There is no bluffing etc and you crunch numbers all night but damn at least you can beat it. The house rake is not very large. Especially compared to the track.

If you go up in price and say play pot limit then be prepared to face some real players. Something I am not so I stay with the wives and the tourists.
Any game with Asian tourists will be real loose. Our money is not worth much to them and usually you will catch them after they have made their mecca to see the Kings house in Memphis so many will see every card no matter what they have in their hand or what the flop is.

[McSock]

I do well playing limit poker (hold'em and Omaha 8 most places), playing middle limit games. I play limit poke 90% by the numbers, it sounds like you are looking for the same thing that I have been looking for in handicapping, play by the numbers with a better than 50% chance of winning. I am finding a few spot plays that people on PA have mentioned that seem to fit into that catagory. Problem is I am not sure they are better than 50% over the long haul, I just do not have the information to make that statement. One place where the spot plays really relate to my poker game is waiting for a hand, playing very few hands and after handicapping races, I play very few races.

Guess there is just no "Black Box" and only solution is spending time and learning as you go.




After reading all of this it is kind of depressing.

I can make a living playing small stakes no hold em pocker. I average about $18 and hour. Since our money has gotten so cheap in th e eyes of the world it is going up. Get a table full of Japenesse and it gets close to 25 and I am talking rake etc. You even get free food after a couple of hours of play.

I am talking small stakes now. 4-8---5-10 per bet. If everyone is betting to see the flop then you have a loose table and happy times are coming. It is strictly mechainical and doesn't even take anything but a little focus.

The reason is that many players will stay in till the last card no matter what.

That 10 buck max bet is only four to most of the Euros or Assians at table. It is all in perspective. I have a strictly mechainical system that works. The trouble is is that it is a grind. NO big hits are possible and of course you fold a lot (the main advantage when many will never fold). I love HR. It is the best activity I know for older people I can thing of. HOwever, after playing all year, counting my expensese, I am down about 3 dollars. Nothing to cry about for sure but if I had spent the same time, even though it is boring to me, playing small stakes I would normally be up about 10k. I don't like the areas I am going to need to live in very much but I am in the process of rethinking. I love HRing but the volitility is unreal.

I can tear a dry OP track up. BUt not when at all wet.

[cj]

The dollar has fallen, but 10 of them are still worth a lot more the €4. Currently it would be about €6.40.

[Jake]

Yeah it is my webpage and I am new to this forum...sorry if it came off wrong. That webpage has more free information on betting horses than hardly any that I have seen. I love horseracing and put a lot of information that I think will help the average better, so I threw it out there. Sorry to upset anybody....

I have purchased quit a few systems trying to find one that works, but never had any luck.

Take care

Joe Kaufman

"I have interviewed some of the best horseracing handicappers in the country"--from his site.

Just curious, given the expertise of the readership here, exactly who these best horseracing handicappers are? Any names we might be able to recognize?

Jake

[CamptownRaces.com]

Nobody who has something that really works is going to tell you what it is. They may be using something mainstream,but how they're tweaking it is the key. Horse racing forces you to be creative when lady luck says adieu. What you're left with is long hours and a desire to win. And most of the time,that road isn't pretty.


I play off of the tote.... I record each minutes odds from 10 mins to 3 mins... Over 20+ yrs of doing this I found that there are MANY "Repeating Patterns" that are created by the way the public wagers on different "Types" of races. I can usually (66%) tell when the fav in the betting is going to be in the exacta. I also know "Who" to put with him. The Exatas usually pay about 35 to 40 on a 12 bet. At 66% if been ahead of the gamme for years. I wrote some Booklets a few years back. Some liked it, some didn't... If you like puzzles and what not, this is how I suggest that you play.

I don't even know the horses name that I am betting on, nor do I care.

[pandy]

I play off of the tote.... I record each minutes odds from 10 mins to 3 mins... Over 20+ yrs of doing this I found that there are MANY "Repeating Patterns" that are created by the way the public wagers on different "Types" of races. I can usually (66%) tell when the fav in the betting is going to be in the exacta. I also know "Who" to put with him. The Exatas usually pay about 35 to 40 on a 12 bet. At 66% if been ahead of the gamme for years. I wrote some Booklets a few years back. Some liked it, some didn't... If you like puzzles and what not, this is how I suggest that you play.

I don't even know the horses name that I am betting on, nor do I care.

When you say 12 bet, are you boxing 3 or keying one with 3?

[timtam]

Hey Camptown Charlie,

I know you were working on an excel program where you put the odds

into the program and it would give you your plays. Did you ever finish it

or did it come up short? It was about 5 years ago I think !

[CamptownRaces.com]

KEY + 3 boxed

[njcurveball]

I will offer all PA members ONE FREE card. They can pick which day they would like.



I miss the guys with the wild hats and tote tickets sticking out. They use to yell at the customers as they passed. Loved the tote tickets they had in their hat as well.

Had the Daily Double! Had the Daily Double! :lol:

[tholl]

Side note; On a recent trip to England some “punters” asked me about my methods and when I mentioned HTR software one said…”I could never let a computer make my picks”. 2008 and the role of software is STILL so misunderstood it’s incredible. :bang:

This does raise the question as to whether software, even as good as HTR, could ever be of great use in English/European racing.

[46zilzal]

We had a fellow who worked out the beaten lengths from the old Hong Kong photo race charts and used Sartin software quite well there for a few years there.

We have several Australian members at our site.

[Robert Fischer]

Hello everyone,

can anybody recommend good Handicapping Systems or methods ? There are so many on the market and the most are bad.

Thanks...

Greetings
Tim

talent and hard work

[CamptownRaces.com]

Hey Camptown Charlie,

I know you were working on an excel program where you put the odds

into the program and it would give you your plays. Did you ever finish it

or did it come up short? It was about 5 years ago I think !


No... It never came to be. I had one guy who had a program that would pull the minute to minute odds for me, and another person who was programing.

Both pulled out due to their own personal reasons. I still have everything it will take to put it together minus the odds pulling program.

[DanG]

This does raise the question as to whether software, even as good as HTR, could ever be of great use in English/European racing.
It would LOVE to test it and Massa has stated he’s very interested; but until points of call and fractional times (for example) are available it’s not really possible. :(

[njcurveball]

It would LOVE to test it and Massa has stated he’s very interested; but until points of call and fractional times (for example) are available it’s not really possible. :(


Good point Dan! We also are spoiled by the HDW data which has the Cramer Speed Figures and variants. You need more than raw times these days, so unless we can take 3 guys from HDW and clone them all a few times, England is still a large pond away.

Although I would love to take the program and bet into a pool where most of the people wager on the way the horse looks. :ThmbUp:

[CamptownRaces.com]

I tried to paste the html code that shows the odds, results, and what I played and exactly why. I have to post a link to my site that shows the race I just hit. There's nothing to buy and no links to anything else. Just showing you exactly what I've been talking about for years.

Take a look.


http://www.selectionshorseracing.com/AQU.html

[ryesteve]

I tried to paste the html code that shows the odds, results, and what I played and exactly why. I have to post a link to my site that shows the race I just hit. There's nothing to buy and no links to anything else. Just showing you exactly what I've been talking about for years.

Take a look.


http://www.selectionshorseracing.com/AQU.html
If all you're looking at is betting action, I don't understand your rationale for dumping the favorite. The horse was the 3rd ML choice, so it was being bet more heavily than expected, and it's W/S ratio was showing disproportionately high win pool money. To my way of thinking, this is a horse I'd be very concerned about, not one I'd assume is going to run off the board.

[CamptownRaces.com]

If all you're looking at is betting action, I don't understand your rationale for dumping the favorite. The horse was the 3rd ML choice, so it was being bet more heavily than expected, and it's W/S ratio was showing disproportionately high win pool money. To my way of thinking, this is a horse I'd be very concerned about, not one I'd assume is going to run off the board.

:lol:
My rules say he's 3rd or worse and i've been hitting races like this with these circumstances at tracks across the country for many, many years.

That's just the way my method works.

You really shouldn't use the split key wager in a short field, but when you're cutting the betting favorite out of the exacta, it can be worth the risk.

[ryesteve]

i've been hitting races like this with these circumstances at tracks across the country for many, many years.

It's just not clear what these "circumstances" are. I see a live favorite, you see a dead favorite... I have data that shows these kinds of betdowns overperform... just not in this cherry-picked instance. So I don't know what you mean by "these circumstances".

[CamptownRaces.com]

It's just not clear what these "circumstances" are. I see a live favorite, you see a dead favorite... I have data that shows these kinds of betdowns overperform... just not in this cherry-picked instance. So I don't know what you mean by "these circumstances".

There were certain things that were a "tip off" as to why that fav was no good. Actually very easy to spot if you know what you're looking for. I go after the exacta first and bet the tri about 50% of the time.

I try and spot when the betting fav is good, and when it's not. When I'm right I have the horses to play in it's place or with it about 66% of the time with the average payout at 2-1.

My problem is that I'm like most players. I don't have enough discipline to NOT bet on the races my method calls as a NO PLAY. If I could only play the higher % races I'd be doing a lot better. :D

I end up chasing after money that's not there :bang:

[Overlay]

Now forget about all that overlay stuff or waiting for a horse's final odds to be higher that it's odds line or probability of winning cause it won't work. If it did work that simply everyone will be using it. You can use all these odds lines and just backtest that idea by simply backtesting any odds line you want against the final odds. Such as playing only horses that are a certain percentage higher final odds vs it's odd's line. What happens that those original odds line "accurate" percentages go out the window and no longer win at their expected rate. Such as those 2/1 horses don't win near 33% anymore and so on. Sure with higher minimum odds their average payoffs will increase but their new much lower win% doesn't make up for it. In theory odds lines sound good but in reality they're not. Yes they may help remove some of the negative roi but not enough.

I understand what you're saying, but does it follow from that the public's odds always correspond exactly to a horse's true winning chances, or that it it is impossible to isolate cases with individual horses in individual races (however it is done) where the public has genuinely underestimated a horse's probability of winning? And if it is in fact possible to find such horses, how is that judgment to be made other than by a fair-odds figure (again, however arrived at), either for a full field, or at least for an individual horse? And without wagering value, what hope is there of consistent long-term profit?

[njcurveball]

If it did work that simply everyone will be using it.


And in this one simple sentence, you have totally overlooked the pari-mutuel nature of this great game.

Pari-mutuel (with an E not the A most people use to spell it), is not fixed odds. So the very definiton means that everyone cannot do the same thing and expect to win.

The fact that some people make great betting lines and win is documented daily by professionals. The fact that others make horrible lines where they have natural 20-1 shots rated at a fair price of 5-2 and lose does not make the methodology invalid.

This view sounds very similar to the "non computer" people who always seem to think the computer is making the picks and placing the bets.

Show me someone who can make an accurate line and I will show you a winner! :ThmbUp:

[ryesteve]

There were certain things that were a "tip off" as to why that fav was no good.
And it looks like we'll never know exactly what those certain things were.

If it's something you picked up off the PPs, that's fine, I don't need to know. But I thought you said that you only use the tote... and if that's the case, there's no way you're going to convince me on faith that a bet-down like this is a bad favorite, just off the tote. It'd be different is this was the 5/2 ML favorite that was bouncing back and forth between 3/1 and 5/2 during the last 10 minutes to post... but when it's a horse that didn't figure to be the favorite in the first place, that's not negative action.

[Tipster1]

If it did work that simply everyone will be using it.

This view sounds very similar to the "non computer" people who always seem to think the computer is making the picks and placing the bets.

Show me someone who can make an accurate line and I will show you a winner! :ThmbUp:

What do you mean by this? If a accurate line means the chances that a horse based on large groups will win X% probability of the time then there are tons of accurate lines out there. Try HTR, Jcapper, ValueLine and the list goes on and on. In any of these products tell you a group of horses that have a LINE of 2/1 they they will win close to 33%, 4/1 will win very close to 20% and so and on. Hec, almost the public morning line has some LINE merit. But that don't mean much.

So go ahead and show me the winner or in otherwords how to use such ACCURATE LINES to show "longterm" profits? Sure these lines have some value IF combined with many other factors but as a stand alone variable forget it. Cause when you add other "odds" factors into the mix they are now way off.

[ryesteve]

If a accurate line means the chances that a horse based on large groups will win X% probability of the time then there are tons of accurate lines out there.Except that's NOT how you'd measure the accuracy of a line, which pretty much negates the rest of your argument.

[Tipster1]

Except that's NOT how you'd measure the accuracy of a line, which pretty much negates the rest of your argument.

So are you saying LINES from these products are not accurate? To me a odds line is the same as a probability line. It's just converted into a number just as it does in Jcapper. The purpose of any line or at least these lines is to predict in advance the probability or chances of such a horse to win a race. And once this is based on large groups of tens of thousands of races and the line is very close to the actual results I would say such a line is accurate.

And if you mean the accuracy of line has to deal with what the odds line reads to what the actual post time odds are then these lines also pass such test. As in HTR which was was tested on large studies the actual odds line was very close to the actual post odds line on average. This meant that not only probability of a horse was correct but the post odds was also near perfect based on averages.

Now all this doesn't mean you can win with such lines which was the purpose of the last post. It was just showing how using even a decent line doesn't solve the problem. And that problem is based on large studies everything looks good. But based on individual race by race with a mixture of adding odds or other factors looking for the magical overlay proves nothing.

If not, then enlighten me on testing the accuracy of any line?

[Tipster1]

And in this one simple sentence, you have totally overlooked the pari-mutuel nature of this great game.


Don't let anyone kid you there are only one of two things that is important at beating this game. That is you are trying to find and use factors that win at a higher rate than what the public only thinks they can win which is based on what they make those same things pay. Or you are trying to find things that pay more than what the chances the public thinks they can only win. And these both mean the same exact thing. Either way that's all that matters at winning at any pari-mutuel game.

[ryesteve]

So are you saying LINES from these products are not accurate?
Where did I say that?? All I said was that YOUR presumption of how to measure the accuracy of an oddsline wasn't correct.

Rather than retread old ground, I'd recommend searching the board for "Johnson" and "valueline" and you will find many, many people going to great pains trying to explain what does and doesn't make a line "accurate"

[Tipster1]

Where did I say that?? All I said was that YOUR presumption of how to measure the accuracy of an oddsline wasn't correct.

Rather than retread old ground, I'd recommend searching the board for "Johnson" and "valueline" and you will find many, many people going to great pains trying to explain what does and doesn't make a line "accurate"

Ok thanks I'll try and find some old post on different kinds of odds lines. But do remembering reading much about it here and doubt I'll learn anything differently from the first readings. I have seen and tested most of the decent available odds lines or probability lines out there. Such as ones created in various software programs to publicy sold porducts such as Value Line. And not once have I seen "value" in any of them. I have tested them all in all kinds of increments and against post odds and morning line odds and they showed losses after losses. None came even close to breaking even. The public is just too smart to allow it.

While it seems on the surface the idea of creating an accurate odds line or probability line is the way to profits. But I have seen much different end results from the many I tested on large studies. This is why Johnson even retreated when the important questions where posted and asked. Cause he knew the results his product had over the long haul. Bad that is.

[pandy]

Ok thanks I'll try and find some old post on different kinds of odds lines. But do remembering reading much about it here and doubt I'll learn anything differently from the first readings. I have seen and tested most of the decent available odds lines or probability lines out there. Such as ones created in various software programs to publicy sold porducts such as Value Line. And not once have I seen "value" in any of them. I have tested them all in all kinds of increments and against post odds and morning line odds and they showed losses after losses. None came even close to breaking even. The public is just too smart to allow it.

While it seems on the surface the idea of creating an accurate odds line or probability line is the way to profits. But I have seen much different end results from the many I tested on large studies. This is why Johnson even retreated when the important questions where posted and asked. Cause he knew the results his product had over the long haul. Bad that is.

In your tests, did you test to see how you would do if you bet horses that went off at a certain percentage (such as 25%) over your line? If that didn't show a profit, then I would suggest either the line wasn't very good.

[Overlay]

Sure these lines have some value IF combined with many other factors but as a stand alone variable forget it. Cause when you add other "odds" factors into the mix they are now way off.

Wouldn't that be putting the cart before the horse? Isn't it the mix of factors that goes into the formulation of an odds line that contributes to its degree of accuracy, rather than first making an odds line, and then supplementing it with those factors afterwards? If you incorporate the factors up front in making the odds line, the line would not then be a true stand-alone variable, but would reflect the proportional influence of all the other elements that went into its development.

In your tests, did you test to see how you would do if you bet horses that went off at a certain percentage (such as 25%) over your line?

To me, the main thing that has to be compensated for in making a line is information that goes into the development of the toteboard odds that the individual player doesn't (and perhaps can't) know or have access to. Adding a premium (as you suggest) to fair odds that are as accurate as an individual can make them (based on the information available to any one person) seems to me the most practical way of addressing that.

[Tipster1]

In your tests, did you test to see how you would do if you bet horses that went off at a certain percentage (such as 25%) over your line? If that didn't show a profit, then I would suggest either the line wasn't very good.

Yes I did exactly that what is called a Odds Line vs Final Odds Ratio. Meaning I took different kinds of calculated odds lines and then within each of them extracted all sizes of what the odds line read. Then queried the final odds compared to what the odds line was and looked at all kinds of ratios or as you say percentages how much the final odds was above OR below the odds line. Not in one test or sample did any of them show profits anywhere. Except on tiny meaningless samples where say that the odds line was 2/1 and the horse went off at 30/1. These samples were so rare that they were almost null and even then many of them showed losses anyway.

And this test were from odds lines that I considered where very accurate to begin with at predicting the post odds and probability a horse will win a race on average. If you can show me a odds line that can be any more accurate than this I like to see it.

[Dave Schwartz]

I am going to resist the urge to get embroiled in this deeply but feel I must say something.

Over and over I hear this same idea - a "stats" guy comes along and says that he cannot find anything that beats the game. This is because the nature of a statistical approach is to demand a "significant" sample size.

Imagine you have a warehouse full of fruit; bushel upon bushel of all kinds of fruits. You want to study these fruits to determine how long they take to ripen, how long they last, how sweet they are, etc.

So, you begin by studying apples.

You have many, many bushels of apples.

However, you total supply of apples is made up of many different kinds of apples: Red delicious, golden delicious, Granny Smith, Macintosh, Winesap's, pippins, even "crab apples" (which aren't really apples at all).

You decide to start with the red delicious apples. As you begin to take notes, you quickly realize that you don't have enough red delicious apples to make a "significant" sample. No problem. You decide to include golden delicious. Still, the apple count is too low so you begin adding other kinds of apples.

As you add these other apples, the entire study begins to look very "average." The sweetness is average. The texture is average. The juiciness is average. In essence, you learned something about apples in general, but nothing about an individual kind of apple.

So, you have a dilemma. Do you try to analyze one kind of apple at a time and accept that you will never have anything that could be called "statistically valid" or do you add enough apple-kinds together to have the sample size but get no meaningful information?


Such is the problem with horse racing data. Races are unique enough that it is difficult to even designate a "race species." Inevitably, the stats guy opts for "sample size" and then wonders why he can't win.



As if this were not enough of a problem, we can make it even tougher.

If we do manage to build a system that makes some sense, how do we test it?

How do we prove that a particular system works?

I recall having a conversation with a really bright vendor/handicapper who sold software for many years. He said that he charted his number one pick in every race. After 1,000 races his top pick was projected to have 350 winners and he actually had 352. He said that this proved his system worked.

I said that it did not and presented the following example:


Suppose I handicap 4 races and my play in each race produces the following probabilities and results:

40% 1st race - winner
30% 2nd race - loser
20% 3rd race - loser
10% 4th race - loser

I have handicapped 4 races, projected 1 winner and my horses produced 1 winner. If I continued like this for 1000 picks, does it prove anything?


The party I was addressing said that it did.

I said, what if the probabilities looked like this instead?

40% 1st race - loser
30% 2nd race - loser
20% 3rd race - loser
10% 4th race - winner

For that matter, what if all of these horses were in the same race?

It does not matter what probabilities I assign to these horses as long as the total to the correct amount!


My point is that the only way to prove that a particular system works (to some degree or another) is to test the validity of its "overlays."

In other words, when I project a horse to be a $2.20 $net (i.e. +10%) does he actually perform at that level? Conversely, when I project a horse to be a $1.20 $net does he really lose 40% in the long run?



Please note:
This diatribe against classical statistics as an approach to horse racing is brought to you by a guy who is trying to integrate some statistical validity into his own handicapping.



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Tipster1]

Wouldn't that be putting the cart before the horse? Isn't it the mix of factors that goes into the formulation of an odds line that contributes to its degree of accuracy, rather than first making an odds line, and then supplementing it with those factors afterwards?

This is something I don't know since I am the one that didn't create such odds lines. They are proprierity formulas built within the software or product. Exactly what racing factors and how they are weighed together may vary different between them all.

All I know is ones that I did test I would say are accurate as the way I tested them for accuracy. That is "overall on average" what ever odds line or probability line is give to a group of horses that win and/or go off at that rate. Now to extract and use them into a profitable style of play is a whole new ballgame.

[Tipster1]

Over and over I hear this same idea - a "stats" guy comes along and says that he cannot find anything that beats the game. This is because the nature of a statistical approach is to demand a "significant" sample size.



I admit one piece of software I haven't analyzed is your HSH but heard and read good things about it. I assume it also contains it's own created odds or probability line. And most likely it is as accurate as others on the market. Yes anything can happen in small studies or on a race to race basis. There are so many variables in horse racing tugging and pulling in different directions anything sometimes happens. Which is why I like to look at large samples.

But the question is why if any such odds line is so accurate at predicting the hit percentage of horses over the long run when you mix in other factors such a morning line odds, post odds, power ratings, etc. they become I wouldn't say useless but less meaningful.

For example probably in your software you can test all horses that are assigned a 4/1 odds line or a 20% probability line. And these horses not only win 20% of the time but also there average post odds are close to 4/1. Not the average odds of winners of course. So you then test them when their post odds are at 5/1, their morning line odds is at 8/1, etc. Now that original 20% win rate probably goes out the window.

Shouldn't if this was a solid odds line that it should win at that rate regardless what the outside world thinks? No not to the point that 10/1 post odds horses will still win at a 20% rate. But at least something within limits were we can squeak out a profit by making strict plays. Have you ever tested such things using HSH?

For example Value Line boast about how their line is accurate based on 300,000 races. So what, if they don't release the true results of how "overlaid" horses do it doesn't really matter. And why don't they, cause the results would have the same conclusion - all losses.

Once a guy claimed that his odds lines which was actually a probability line was so solid that regardless what post odds a horse had if his line said it will win at that rate. I know don't laugh. Meaning his 30% line picks won 30% when they went off at 2/1, 4/1 17/1, 32/1, etc. Just don't we wish. Since he never proved it we knew this was impossible. Thanks for posting in.

[Dave Schwartz]

For example probably in your software you can test all horses that are assigned a 4/1 odds line or a 20% probability line. And these horses not only win 20% of the time but also there average post odds are close to 4/1. Not the average odds of winners of course. So you then test them when their post odds are at 5/1, their morning line odds is at 8/1, etc. Now that original 20% win rate probably goes out the window.

Oh, if that were only true.

It never works out that way.

If you are fortunate, you wind up with your horses above (say) a projected $2.10-$2.50 actually produce in that range.

That is do-able but certainly not automatic.


My post was not designed as a commercial for HSH.



Dave

[Bill Olmsted]

I have always thought it impossible to prove if any one horse or bet is an overlay due to the dynamics of the game. But, if after a reasonable amount of time, all of your bets produce a profit, then you can say that as a group, they are a "collective overlay." In other words, ovelays can only be measured in groups and in relation to each other. They can't stand alone....


...That is, unless you make one bet in your entire life, and it wins. Then no matter what the odds, it's an overlay!

B :)

[xtb]

I've thought that too. When a horse is referred to as an overlay, what needs to be added is "with respect to" whatever measuring stick is being used. Every horse that wins is somebody's overlay.

[Overlay]

I've thought that too. When a horse is referred to as an overlay, what needs to be added is "with respect to" whatever measuring stick is being used. Every horse that wins is somebody's overlay.

Isn't it by definition with respect to the odds assigned by the public? I agree that any race is only run once, and that after the race is over, the horse that actually won it will have had an effective 100% chance of winning, and the others will have had none. But the whole focus of the pari-mutuel system is assigning a probability to each horse by the distribution of wagers. If there's no effective means of making some before-the-fact judgment as to whether those probabilities are correct or not, it seems to me the entire process of handicapping becomes rather futile. As you say, people may come up with different judgments about what any horse's actual probability of winning is, but (in my opinion) that doesn't alter the fact that each horse has such a defined probability in relation to the field it's competing against, and the handicapper who can best determine that probability will reap the greatest rewards in a pari-mutuel environment.

[Bill Olmsted]

[QUOTE=Overlay]If there's no effective means of making some before-the-fact judgment as to whether those probabilities are correct or not, it seems to me the entire process of handicapping becomes rather futile. As you say, people may come up with different judgments about what any horse's actual probability of winning is, but (in my opinion) that doesn't alter the fact that each horse has such a defined probability in relation to the field it's competing against, and the handicapper who can best determine that probability will reap the greatest rewards in a pari-mutuel environment.[/QUOTE

You are correct. Line making involves before-the-fact judgment. But the effectiveness of any line can only be made after-the-fact and in relation to other wagers.

B :)

[Jake]

[QUOTE=Overlay]If there's no effective means of making some before-the-fact judgment as to whether those probabilities are correct or not, it seems to me the entire process of handicapping becomes rather futile. As you say, people may come up with different judgments about what any horse's actual probability of winning is, but (in my opinion) that doesn't alter the fact that each horse has such a defined probability in relation to the field it's competing against, and the handicapper who can best determine that probability will reap the greatest rewards in a pari-mutuel environment.[/QUOTE

You are correct. Line making involves before-the-fact judgment. But the effectiveness of any line can only be made after-the-fact and in relation to other wagers.

B :)

Bill,

Very nice summation. If someone doesn't believe in your suppostions, then logically all handicapping efforts are doomed. i just popped a $32 longshot at Penn because I had this horse at 3-1 in this field. All factor handicapping is relative and gap-based. Advantage is to the best predictive factors commonly ignored to derived an accurate probablility. The rest of the debate here is probably moot.



Jake

[xtb]

Isn't it by definition with respect to the odds assigned by the public?

But what is the "it" that is compared to the tote, to label a horse an overlay or an underlay? A proprietary oddsline, public oddsline, morningline, gut feel?

[Bill Olmsted]

Jake,

What if your $32 longshot had lost? Would it still be an overlay?
B :)

[Overlay]

But what is the "it" that is compared to the tote, to label a horse an overlay or an underlay? A proprietary oddsline, public oddsline, morningline, gut feel?

Sorry for misreading your previous post. To me, it would be whatever indicator the individual accepts as most accurate, based on judgment and/or past experience, although I personally would rather trust my own decisions, rather than relying on someone else's, especially without knowing what went into them. Some people can maintain and document an excellent record using intuition alone. In my case, I've found that a statistical base using probabilities associated with a range of fundamental factors helps me to have more confidence in developing odds, to be consistent from one race to the next, and to maintain betting discipline.

[ryesteve]

Jake,

What if your $32 longshot had lost? Would it still be an overlay?
B :)
If someone offers me 100-1 odds if I roll a 7, but the dice come up 6 instead, wasn't that bet still an overlay?

[Bill Olmsted]

If someone offers me 100-1 odds if I roll a 7, but the dice come up 6 instead, wasn't that bet still an overlay?

Sure, but you are comparing apples and oranges. It was known beforehand that the dice roll was a statistically genuine overlay. The same can't be said about a paramutuel overlay based on a single event. Setting odds in handicapping is an opinion. In dice it is a statistical fact.

B :)

[Tipster1]

Sure, but you are comparing apples and oranges. It was known beforehand that the dice roll was a statistically genuine overlay. The same can't be said about a paramutuel overlay based on a single event. Setting odds in handicapping is an opinion. In dice it is a statistical fact.

B :)

I agree dice are a 100% mechanical device where you can predict exact probabilities. So if we play constantly a number and it we are giving higher odds than the true expected rate for that number we are constantly betting a overlay and will show profits. No maybe not this roll or these 100 rolls but over the long run.

While horses are much different since there are so many variables to work with. Maybe this is why no odds line or probability line will ever be accurate enough as to say I'll play only my under 3/1 shots when they have over 5/1 post odds and profit from them. Wish it we're that simple but it is not. As I said I tested most of the odds and probability lines available and none came out ahead or even close over time regardless what increments or minimums/maximums settings I used. Not saying that maybe there is some "private constructed" line out there that has some merit and/or value but from public available products or software ones this is what I seen. Not saying you can't incorporarate them into your overall handicapping to help a bit but to solely rely on them forget it.

[ryesteve]

Sure, but you are comparing apples and oranges. It was known beforehand that the dice roll was a statistically genuine overlay. The same can't be said about a paramutuel overlay based on a single event. Setting odds in handicapping is an opinion. In dice it is a statistical fact.

B :)
True, but the point is that the result of one outcome, whether it be on a dice roll or a horse race, would not, in and of itself, negate the premise that the bet was an overlay.

[Bill Olmsted]

True, but the point is that the result of one outcome, whether it be on a dice roll or a horse race, would not, in and of itself, negate the premise that the bet was an overlay.

Prove it.
B :)

[TrifectaMike]

I agree dice are a 100% mechanical device where you can predict exact probabilities. So if we play constantly a number and it we are giving higher odds than the true expected rate for that number we are constantly betting a overlay and will show profits. No maybe not this roll or these 100 rolls but over the long run.

While horses are much different since there are so many variables to work with. Maybe this is why no odds line or probability line will ever be accurate enough as to say I'll play only my under 3/1 shots when they have over 5/1 post odds and profit from them. Wish it we're that simple but it is not. As I said I tested most of the odds and probability lines available and none came out ahead or even close over time regardless what increments or minimums/maximums settings I used. Not saying that maybe there is some "private constructed" line out there that has some merit and/or value but from public available products or software ones this is what I seen. Not saying you can't incorporarate them into your overall handicapping to help a bit but to solely rely on them forget it.

I have been betting using only an odds line. My experience so far has short of remarkable. I use it "black box". Will the success continue, I can't say. But the accuracy is uncanny... in so many ways. I believe it will continue to produce, because it is so accurate in so many ways.

[Jake]

Prove it.
B :)

No, you have it backwards. It won, so prove it wasn't an overlay. Say it runs 2nd by 2 lengths, it's still an overlay at 15-1. It is possible to set an
relative oddsline for a race and use those relative odds to look for overlays.

You can even use a simple naive method like win odds to derive fair place or show odds. I played the Ozzie races last night, using only the tote. In one race, a horse had a 7/2 ML and actual odds of 5/1, which made it the 3rd public choice, with a 5/2 and 7/2 horses preferred over it: no strong favorites. Assume the win odds reflect actual win probabilities, not necessarily true but useful here, nevertheless. What are the projected shows odds for the 7/2 ML/5/1 horse in this relative group? Say you think he at least has a 20% of running third. Show pools were 2% for this horse when I bet, paid $10+ to show. Will horses like this always be overlays? I say yes, which I prefer to the $2.40 show locks of the day, and simply ask that you demostrate why they aren't overlays.

Jake

[Bill Olmsted]

Jake,

I still need proof.

B :)

[ryesteve]

Prove it.
B :)
How is one supposed to prove that "you can't tell"??? That doesn't make any sense.

[Bill Olmsted]

I rest my case.

B :)

[Tipster1]

I have been betting using only an odds line. My experience so far has short of remarkable. I use it "black box". Will the success continue, I can't say. But the accuracy is uncanny... in so many ways. I believe it will continue to produce, because it is so accurate in so many ways.

Now is this your own created oddsline or a commercially available one? And is it within a database? If so you don't have to wait or guess to see if it holds showing longterm profits. Just query the crap out of it against final odds. I never seen one that was profitable based on all kinds of increments and ratios. If any were I would be using it all day long hammering win bets.

[ryesteve]

I rest my case.

B :)
So are you saying that you agree with me that you can't tell, or are you saying that you are correct to say "you CAN tell", since I can't prove you can't?

I don't know how you can rest your case when it's not even clear what your case is...

[TrifectaMike]

Now is this your own created oddsline or a commercially available one? And is it within a database? If so you don't have to wait or guess to see if it holds showing longterm profits. Just query the crap out of it against final odds. I never seen one that was profitable based on all kinds of increments and ratios. If any were I would be using it all day long hammering win bets.

It's not my odds line. I have free access to it. I don't know if it is commercially available. I have used it for several months, and I haven't been disappointed. I bet win, ex's, tri's and sup's, and so far at a profit.

[Jake]

Jake,

I still need proof.

B :)

With respect, you need to give me your definition of an overlay. An overlay to me is a horse that has a greater probability of winning that his listed odds. It doesn't matter if the horse wins or not, it's the projected probability. If your argument is you can't determine if a horse is an overlay or not until the outcome is known, then I disagree with you. There are good bets that lose and bad bets that lose, but only the good bets are ever going to be winning bets. So, the onus is really on you to prove why my overlay bets are bad bets, and not the other way around. If you can't prove that, then my plays are overlays, sorry.

It's not any different from your lock of the day. Given your selection criteria, it's a good bet, an "overlay" if the odds are acceptable. Yes, even when it loses.

Best explanation I have, Bill. If it comes up short for you, that's fine for both of us.

Jake

[chickenhead]

all he's saying is...it's an opinion, nothing more.

[Jake]

Fair enough.


Jake

[Tipster1]

It's not my odds line. I have free access to it. I don't know if it is commercially available. I have used it for several months, and I haven't been disappointed. I bet win, ex's, tri's and sup's, and so far at a profit.

Not sure what you mean. You have access to it but not sure if it is sold commercially as a oddsline product or maybe it is part of a commercially sold software program. Can you say what is the name it goes under or would you rather not?

[Tipster1]

With all those talk about overlays it doesn't matter if your horse wins or loses a specific race. The bottomline is if you are able to show profits over the longrun based on flat win bets this means you are playing overlays overall. That is your picks are winning at a higher percentage rate "overall" than what the public is making them pay on "average". That's it and all that matters.

[ryesteve]

it doesn't matter if your horse wins or loses a specific race.Yep... I think that's what we're all saying (except for maybe Bill... I still can't tell)

[TrifectaMike]

Not sure what you mean. You have access to it but not sure if it is sold commercially as a oddsline product or maybe it is part of a commercially sold software program. Can you say what is the name it goes under or would you rather not?

I'd rather not say. The gentleman who introduced it here was harshly treated and trashed. I followed the odds line since he posted it, and asked if I could continue. He obliged, and I have been using it ever since quite sucessfully.

[Bill Olmsted]

all he's saying is...it's an opinion, nothing more.

That's it exactly. This entire game is about opinion. In any given race, we may disagree on what we each believe constitutes an overlay. You like the #1 horse; I like the #6. We both think our respective horses are overlays. Who is right? That is the question. Who is right? Maybe you are right; maybe I'm right; maybe we're both right. All I'm saying is that it takes more than a single race to determine who is "right". But that's just my opinion!

B :)

[Bill Olmsted]

I'd rather not say. The gentleman who introduced it here was harshly treated and trashed. I followed the odds line since he posted it, and asked if I could continue. He obliged, and I have been using it ever since quite sucessfully.

I can attest to T-Mike's success with this line. I am just starting to get the hang of it myself but Mike has worked wonders with it, especially in the exotics. He's hit a long string of exactas, tris, even a super here and there. Prices are all over the board with some payoffs in the 1000's. I only hope I can do half as well as Mike with the line. So I'm bugging him to show me how he constructs his bets. That is the key as far as I can tell at this early stage. More later.

B :cool:

[Tipster1]

I can attest to T-Mike's success with this line. I
B :cool:

So is this odds line a commercially sold product and is their a website? If so I'm sure he would appreciate giving it out. Or is it privately constructed line and he is only sharing it with you two? Not sure what TM means this guy was brashed when posting about it. The only guy I can think of that maybe this happened to was the Value Line guys.

[pandy]

So is this odds line a commercially sold product and is their a website? If so I'm sure he would appreciate giving it out. Or is it privately constructed line and he is only sharing it with you two? Not sure what TM means this guy was brashed when posting about it. The only guy I can think of that maybe this happened to was the Value Line guys.


I figured he meant that Probability Line that was published by John Messina.

[Bill Olmsted]

I figured he meant that Probability Line that was published by John Messina.

That is correct.

[Jake]

That's it exactly. This entire game is about opinion. In any given race, we may disagree on what we each believe constitutes an overlay. You like the #1 horse; I like the #6. We both think our respective horses are overlays. Who is right? That is the question. Who is right? Maybe you are right; maybe I'm right; maybe we're both right. All I'm saying is that it takes more than a single race to determine who is "right". But that's just my opinion!

B :)

Actually, Bill, I thought the discussion had moved to the determination of whether a play could be called an overlay or not. If you are now trying to use an oddsline line (Probability Line) to create exotic combinations, why do that unless you believe it will create overlay bets, relative to actual odds? And, having done that, assume you lose a race...does that mean your method isn't good at defining the proper exotic overlay combinations? Really not trying to beat this to death, but to say it just everyman's opinion assumes that all these "opinions" have equal standing. Makes no sense to me.

Jake

[njcurveball]

I'd rather not say. The gentleman who introduced it here was harshly treated and trashed.

Here is an example of that "harsh" treatment!

Now, John.

We're all having too much fun to end things like this. I'm sure you know that
you won't be able to get away with tipping your oddsline success plays as
winners unless they are posted as a selection beforehand.

I have a feeling your link would magicly re-appear if you would give it a shot.
It only takes a few minutes to cut and paste your plays into a txt message.
It's obvoius to me, just from reading your posts here, that you are a
handicapper to the bone.

C'mon out and play, man. The water is fine.

Murph

[PaceAdvantage]

JM's posting demeanor rubbed some the wrong way, especially in the beginning. However, there were just as many folks who praised him as argued with him, I believe.

JM apparently stopped posting due to a misunderstanding by one of our moderators, even after I publicly tried to patch things up....he can't be too angry, as he recently contacted me privately to offer me access to his line...he's always welcome back here to continue posting his lines if he wishes....

[Bill Olmsted]

So far, I've had good days and bad days using Messina's line. There have been no "black box" profits. But that is to be expected since no mechanical method has ever been known to show a positive ROI over time. The line is another handicapping tool that is useful to varying degrees depending on who uses it. Like I said, I need more time to work with it.

B ;)

[Pace Cap'n]

Here is an example of that "harsh" treatment!

It might be noted that the referenced thread was started by yourself, with a post apparently so contentious that it was necessary for it to be deleted.

[jamey1977]

I can attest to T-Mike's success with this line. I am just starting to get the hang of it myself but Mike has worked wonders with it, especially in the exotics. He's hit a long string of exactas, tris, even a super here and there. Prices are all over the board with some payoffs in the 1000's. I only hope I can do half as well as Mike with the line. So I'm bugging him to show me how he constructs his bets. That is the key as far as I can tell at this early stage. More later.

B :cool: All samples would lose, just one migating factor.? What one has to do is figure out why a horse loses. There are easy losers, throw them the hell out Don't bet them. Look at your samples and have disqualification rules. I have 20 rules why a horse loses. I apply my 20 rules, throw out those crappy loser horses. I bet you I could show something. Who the heck said we have to bet every lousy horse.? If there is a horse who has finished 6th place in his last 2 races and there was no class drop and he's 1 for 17. I'm not wasting my money. He is disqualified. The race is passed. Throwing out losers through simple common sense D.Q. rules results in profits. I don't care what any computer says about that.

[Trotman]

As Richard said on the first page of this thread,he uses Taulbot's Pace Calculator and his view IMO is correct not a system but makes you think about the horses you are handicapping. As some of you might know a friend of mine for 40 or so years Andy used nothing but Taulbot's Calc and from the early 60's till he passed away this March would win 1 of every 3 bets but the bottom line odds he would accept more than made up for every 2 losers and he always was in the black. I too use the calc and find it very good but have had the advantage of reading all of Taulbot's works and was mentored by Andy who I believe was a clone of Taulbot. IMO I think there is good software out there but trying to use it as a black box makes me think it doesn't get the credit it deserves because the thinking is lost.

[Overlay]

All samples would lose, just one migating factor.? What one has to do is figure out why a horse loses. There are easy losers, throw them the hell out Don't bet them. Look at your samples and have disqualification rules. I have 20 rules why a horse loses. I apply my 20 rules, throw out those crappy loser horses. I bet you I could show something. Who the heck said we have to bet every lousy horse.? If there is a horse who has finished 6th place in his last 2 races and there was no class drop and he's 1 for 17. I'm not wasting my money. He is disqualified. The race is passed. Throwing out losers through simple common sense D.Q. rules results in profits. I don't care what any computer says about that.

I understand the temptation to not deal with more horses than you have to, but elimination-type approaches like that seem to me to always have the dual liability of eventually getting priced out of profitability by increased public knowledge and use (resulting in too many “chalk” horses); and of giving inadequate consideration to horses that have angles or aspects in their records which could make them worth a bet at the right odds, but that might be eliminated entirely by a go/no-go checklist approach. I think that it’s preferable to assess the winning chances of each horse in the field so that you can have visibility of wagering value wherever it may appear.

[jamey1977]

Beating this game is so damn difficult. I mean there could be horses that break all of your rules and then still win. I suppose the only way to beat this damn game and conquer any system with profits. Is to be subjective in your Win wagers. Go up and down. Take a 6 to 5 one time, a 5 to 1 another time and a 11 to 1 another time. There are some who bet 2 wagers on one race. 2 win wagers. I find that if you lose, you lose. Too cost prohibitive. I have tried that overlay game. I wind up betting some dumb 7 to 2 overlay from my 2 to 1 line and the 9 to 5 favorite just beats the hell out of the horse anyway. In a sample, the horses just win, horses don't keep track of any wager value. If I see a Bourbon Bay and decide to bet 600 to win and he wins at 3.60. My pro friend did this. Bourbon Bay won so damn easy. I will make 500 dollars in 2 minutes. Back and Forth up and down, and all around. I was always saying who the hell is betting these 4 to 5's. I thought the pros bet overlays only? It was much more complex than that. Finding profits is way more complex.

[Overlay]

I was always saying who the hell is betting these 4 to 5's. I thought the pros bet overlays only?

Just because a horse is 4-5 doesn't automatically mean that it isn't or can't be an overlay. Not typical, but not necessarily impossible.

[Jake]

Just because a horse is 4-5 doesn't automatically mean that it isn't or can't be an overlay. Not typical, but not necessarily impossible.

Agreed. but it's almost always a really tough call. Luckily, the overlay here is seldom in the win pool. Exotics work here.

[Overlay]

Agreed. but it's almost always a really tough call. Luckily, the overlay here is seldom in the win pool. Exotics work here.

That's entirely true. (Sorry for my omission in that regard.)

[Jake]

That's entirely true. (Sorry for my omission in that regard.)

Not being critical. Enjoying the discussion here.

Jake

[jamey1977]

That's entirely true. (Sorry for my omission in that regard.)
The problem is when there are 2 or 3 overlays from our line. Ties. So to say. So the best conclusion was for our overlay to be with the morning line favorite.? Or the favorite from our own line.? I had Compari - at 2 to 1. She should have been 3 to 5. She won the race. And perhaps Bourbon Bay could have been 1 to 2 on our line. My conclusion is to bet our favorite if there are ties. But the damn money switches around and I get so mad. I just bet and leave. I don't need the headaches. I bet a horse once at 5 to 2. He was 8 to 5 when the race was over. These computer hacks again.

[Overlay]

I use my own line in comparison to the public odds as the betting progresses, rather than with any reference to the morning line. I generally go for the greatest degree of overlay, rather than the overlay with the lowest actual or public odds (although it's easier for a horse with lower true odds by my line to offer the greatest degree of overlay). (That is, the public odds don't have to be as high to make the horse a greater proportional overlay than they would for a horse with higher true odds according to my line.)

[Knute Chapman]

So what type of player are you? Decide how you want to attempt to beat the game, then research a few methods or systems that come close to break even, from there you can attempt to develop you own mechanical system of play. I don’t think you can find a book that contains a system that you can play and beat the game, but some systems come close to break even, and with a few thousand races under your belt you can begin to sniff out how you might become a winner. You will find what works at one track fails miserably somewhere else, and what works for some races “never“ works in others. I am a “Class” handicapper using what most other’s would consider antiquated ideas, my horse playing friends tell me I’ve got the patience of Job, and I don’t win every day, or even every week, but the way I play makes me a winner. I recommend that you pursue developing your own method or system from an already existing system that almost breaks even. The guys winning are the guys doing something tweaked to their advantage, at least that’s been my experience.

[Overlay]

I don’t think you can find a book that contains a system that you can play and beat the game, but some systems come close to break even, and with a few thousand races under your belt you can begin to sniff out how you might become a winner. You will find what works at one track fails miserably somewhere else, and what works for some races “never“ works in others. I am a “Class” handicapper using what most other’s would consider antiquated ideas, my horse playing friends tell me I’ve got the patience of Job, and I don’t win every day, or even every week, but the way I play makes me a winner.

Given that there are winners, if one or more of them would choose to market their approach, what would keep other players from using it to beat the game (provided that it had found a way around the usual problem of eventually being overbet into obsolescence/unprofitability as a result of increased public awareness or use)?

[joeyspicks]

So what type of player are you? Decide how you want to attempt to beat the game, then research a few methods or systems that come close to break even, from there you can attempt to develop you own mechanical system of play. I don’t think you can find a book that contains a system that you can play and beat the game, but some systems come close to break even, and with a few thousand races under your belt you can begin to sniff out how you might become a winner. You will find what works at one track fails miserably somewhere else, and what works for some races “never“ works in others. I am a “Class” handicapper using what most other’s would consider antiquated ideas, my horse playing friends tell me I’ve got the patience of Job, and I don’t win every day, or even every week, but the way I play makes me a winner. I recommend that you pursue developing your own method or system from an already existing system that almost breaks even. The guys winning are the guys doing something tweaked to their advantage, at least that’s been my experience.



excellant post....and true in my experience too.

Of the ideas mentioned in you post (several good ones)...PATIENCE is the one that cannot be taught...and the one needed the most..!

[Eddie W]

By waiting it out, you become a winner...Playing everyday and putting there
picks online everyday you will lose, waiting and taking info to the track
is the best, and knowing what bets is best for you.

[jamey1977]

Given that there are winners, if one or more of them would choose to market their approach, what would keep other players from using it to beat the game (provided that it had found a way around the usual problem of eventually being overbet into obsolescence/unprofitability as a result of increased public awareness or use)?
That's why no one says anything. Heck, if we gave away our modus operandi, there goes the odds. Your best bet is to find books written by actual professional horseplayers. People are so lazy they don't even take the time to read books by actual players who are earning a living. They won't go over step by step with what they do so you can copy them but you can find clues and use your intelligence to come up with a profitable method. The ones who make serious profits Bet to Win only. Start with betting to win. Like Dick Mitchell says if you can't profit betting to win, don't even try the exotics. This game is being beaten but no one is saying anything. I believe they keep a low-profile because of the damn I.R.S. And their R.O.I. is way above 10 percent. No one believes that 10 percent crap.

[thaskalos]

That's why no one says anything. Heck, if we gave away our modus operandi, there goes the odds. Your best bet is to find books written by actual professional horseplayers. People are so lazy they don't even take the time to read books by actual players who are earning a living. They won't go over step by step with what they do so you can copy them but you can find clues and use your intelligence to come up with a profitable method. The ones who make serious profits Bet to Win only. Start with betting to win. Like Dick Mitchell says if you can't profit betting to win, don't even try the exotics. This game is being beaten but no one is saying anything. I believe they keep a low-profile because of the damn I.R.S. And their R.O.I. is way above 10 percent. No one believes that 10 percent crap. There is no evidence whatsoever that the successful bettors avoid the exotics. And as far as ROI is concerned, if a player could consistently maintain a ROI of 10%, with all the races currently available, and assuming he has a strong work ethic...he can end up with a great deal of money in very short order...

[shouldacoulda]

Bottom line, there is no "system", and you must develop you own method.

Were I to make a single recommendation, it would be "Calibration Handicapping", by Jim Lehane. It is definitely not a system, nor a methodolgy,
but a reasoned approach to the challenges of the game. Google him.

I agree and have his book. It was intuitive and helped a lot. That and James Quinns book The Handicappers Condition Book. Neither are clear cut systems but will open open your eyes. I never looked at a race the same after those two books.

[Overlay]

That's why no one says anything. Heck, if we gave away our modus operandi, there goes the odds.

With elimination-type, "pick-the-winner" systems, I would agree with you, but my point was that if a player could develop a method that would not get bet into unprofitability as it became more widely known, the usual obstacle to marketing such a method would have been eliminated, which would address/remedy Knute Chapman's original statement ("I don’t think you can find a book that contains a system that you can play and beat the game....").

[citygoat]

Learn little track quirks.Remember when Keeneland was gold inside.Equipment changes win more at certain tracks.Borel on the rail,Samyn on the green.

This game is all about blood and breath, not numbers.

[podonne]

With elimination-type, "pick-the-winner" systems, I would agree with you, but my point was that if a player could develop a method that would not get bet into unprofitability as it became more widely known, the usual obstacle to marketing such a method would have been eliminated, which would address/remedy Knute Chapman's original statement ("I don’t think you can find a book that contains a system that you can play and beat the game....").

I'm just going to throw this out there because I've heard that this is possible, to develop a system that doesn't suffer from being publically available. Any profitable system that provides selections or odds lines with no input from the user will become unprofitable once it is widely known. It has to.

No one would say that I can bet an infinte amount into a pool and not effect my odds. But people who claim this imply that an infinite number of people can bet into a pool without affecting the odds. Even when the system only provides an odds line, any deviation from that odds line will be eliminated by people using the system. Odds in racing aren't fixed, so an overlay at 5mtp wil be gone at 0mtp from everyone using the system.

An "edge" in horse racing is due to an imbalance of information (one system has better information that the general public). Ergo, once that information is MADE public, the edge is eliminated.

[speculus]

talent and hard work

Hard work is OPTIONAL. ;)

[jamey1977]

I'm just going to throw this out there because I've heard that this is possible, to develop a system that doesn't suffer from being publically available. Any profitable system that provides selections or odds lines with no input from the user will become unprofitable once it is widely known. It has to.

No one would say that I can bet an infinte amount into a pool and not effect my odds. But people who claim this imply that an infinite number of people can bet into a pool without affecting the odds. Even when the system only provides an odds line, any deviation from that odds line will be eliminated by people using the system. Odds in racing aren't fixed, so an overlay at 5mtp wil be gone at 0mtp from everyone using the system.

An "edge" in horse racing is due to an imbalance of information (one system has better information that the general public). Ergo, once that information is MADE public, the edge is eliminated.
That's why no one says anything. I will not divulge my secrets. And I read many books. Jim Quinn still won't tell you how he gets his odds lines and what they even are, no one says anything. All I can say is this game can be beaten and Bet To Win. Andy Beyer says at 10 percent we can say we are king of the world. Yeah, if we bet exactas. He can get there but it takes him 2 months to get that big score to get him to 10 percent. The Win betters, we can all say we are king of the world with a 40 percent R.O.I. And please don't think it's not possible. It is being done and there are players achieving more than that. Look at what the Steelers owner Art Rooney accomplished. He made "Let It Ride " reality, winning 160,000 dollars in one day. That's like 900 thousand dollars in today's money. And I have pro friends who see a sure thing at 5 to 2 and put up 1000 dollars to win. 10 times their usual bets. The odds fall to 2 to 1, sometimes That's 3000 dollars in 2 minutes. Does any computer program tell you to go for it and bet 10 times your usual bet if you feel right about one of your selections. 10 percent R.O.I. Yeah for them. These guys laugh at my 38 percent, they laugh at me. I will just say no one is here to get a damn 10 percent R.O.I, we want way more than that.

[thaskalos]

I'm just going to throw this out there because I've heard that this is possible, to develop a system that doesn't suffer from being publically available. Any profitable system that provides selections or odds lines with no input from the user will become unprofitable once it is widely known. It has to.

No one would say that I can bet an infinte amount into a pool and not effect my odds. But people who claim this imply that an infinite number of people can bet into a pool without affecting the odds. Even when the system only provides an odds line, any deviation from that odds line will be eliminated by people using the system. Odds in racing aren't fixed, so an overlay at 5mtp wil be gone at 0mtp from everyone using the system.

An "edge" in horse racing is due to an imbalance of information (one system has better information that the general public). Ergo, once that information is MADE public, the edge is eliminated. You are right...of course! All systems that are sold to the masses suffer as a result of this over-exposure...whether the systems provide selections OR odds lines.

In the selection-based system, the effect is easy to see. All the users of the system end up betting the same horses, the odds of these horses plummet, and the supposedly successful system becomes a losing proposition.

The effect on the odds-line based system is more difficult to see. The prevailing opinion seems to be that an accurate odds line somehow provides a safeguard against these "underlays" because an underlay in one place would theoretically create an overlay somewhere else.

The problem, of course, is that...if too many bettors possess THE SAME "projected" odds line...the race's final odds will resemble the system's odds so often, that no "true" overlays will be found ANYWHERE, with any degree of regularity.

[Overlay]

The effect on the odds-line based system is more difficult to see. The prevailing opinion seems to be that an accurate odds line somehow provides a safeguard against these "underlays" because an underlay in one place would theoretically create an overlay somewhere else.

The problem, of course, is that...if too many bettors possess THE SAME "projected" odds line...the race's final odds will resemble the system's odds so often, that no "true" overlays will be found ANYWHERE, with any degree of regularity.

Given the number of wagering opportunities available today with respect to both tracks and betting pools (including straight pools as well as exotics where projected payoffs are available), I would question whether, no matter how widely such a system were distributed, we would or could ever reach a state where every individual horse and every exotic combination in every race at every track every day went off at odds corresponding precisely to the system’s projected odds. The public is remarkably efficient in the aggregate over time, but not to that degree.

[podonne]

Given the number of wagering opportunities available today with respect to both tracks and betting pools (including straight pools as well as exotics where projected payoffs are available), I would question whether, no matter how widely such a system were distributed, we would or could ever reach a state where every individual horse and every exotic combination in every race at every track every day went off at odds corresponding precisely to the system’s projected odds. The public is remarkably efficient in the aggregate over time, but not to that degree.

That's true, but you can't deny that as a system becomes more popular, the number of overlays will decline.

If the number of overlays decline, someone hoping to keep making the same amount of money\year using the system will have to raise thier bet amounts, betting more money against a smaller number of overlays. This will drive down the odds on the overlays, thus making the number of overlays decline, and the vicious cycle continues until no overlays remain.

The best thing that a 100% black-box system\line seller can say is that the first people that buy it will make money for a while. Or maybe, I'm only selling it to x people. Or maybe its REALLY expensive, thus cost prohibitive for the general public.

My point is that anyone claiming to produce an odds line that is available to the general public CANNOT claim that it will never decline in value because its only an odds line. It will.

[Overlay]

That's true, but you can't deny that as a system becomes more popular, the number of overlays will decline.

Unpopular since 1997 (and planning to remain so)! ;)

[Greyfox]

That's true, but you can't deny that as a system becomes more popular, the number of overlays will decline.

If the number of overlays decline, someone hoping to keep making the same amount of money\year using the system will have to raise thier bet amounts, betting more money against a smaller number of overlays. This will drive down the odds on the overlays, thus making the number of overlays decline, and the vicious cycle continues until no overlays remain.

.

In theory you're right. In actuality that is not the case.
With respect to horse racing, systems can only become so good. There is an upper limit usually between 60 % to 80 % winners using the top 4 horses.
Then, if the track surface changes, any particular system may bomb out for a day or two.
Overlays will always exist as field sizes increase.
I refuse to play races with less than 8 horses, except when I am forced to in some horizontal wagers.

[podonne]

In theory you're right. In actuality that is not the case.
With respect to horse racing, systems can only become so good. There is an upper limit usually between 60 % to 80 % winners using the top 4 horses.
Then, if the track surface changes, any particular system may bomb out for a day or two.
Overlays will always exist as field sizes increase.
I refuse to play races with less than 8 horses, except when I am forced to in some horizontal wagers.

Sorry, but I will continue to push the point. In thoery and practice, whether the system is good or not, as the number of people and amount of money using a specific system increases, the value and profitability of the system will decline. That is absolute.

Where you suggest limiting the system to fields of a certain size, you are creating a new system.

[thaskalos]

Look what happened to the speed figure handicappers.

Supposedly, in the pre-Beyer days, competent speed figure handicappers made more "than the President of the United States". The public got hold of the figures, and the profits were effectively reduced to zero.

[Greyfox]

Sorry, but I will continue to push the point. In thoery and practice, whether the system is good or not, as the number of people and amount of money using a specific system increases, the value and profitability of the system will decline. That is absolute.


1. If a system isn't good, what your pushing isn't certainly absolute.

2. Most horse players do not have the discipline to stay with one methodology until they master it. They try it a few days and look for another way as soon as they have a couple of losing days. Most methods of value require time and effort. Many horse players can't or won't put in that time.

3. I could give you a system that works for me. But you have a different vocabulary or perceptual system than me, so you will vary the methodology slightly or even more than slightly. A handicapper can tell each of us what to do in a book and exactly how to do it. Unfortunately, we either forget or misinterpret what is being said and misapply his/her teachings.

4. No methodology applies to all surfaces every day. The track itself is a very important handicapping variable that most people do not take into account in a given card.

[thaskalos]

Out of the myriad of systems out there...is there ONE that a player can count on for consistent profits at the windows? Is it lack of discipline that causes all the players who follow these systems to lose?

[thaskalos]

It's hard to see the logic in selling a profitable system (or "methodology")...especially in a field as easily saturated as horseracing.

In pre-simulcast days, system sellers used to give the excuse that their systems were so selective, that they couldn't find enough plays to make using them worthwhile. Today, of course, this excuse is no longer valid.

Years ago, I asked a prominent speed and pace figure maker why he sold his figures to the public instead of keeping them for his personal use.

He told me that his income at the races was so unreliable that he had grown to appreciate the steady cash flow that his customers provided him with.

It was the only excuse that ever made sense to me...

[Overlay]

Look what happened to the speed figure handicappers.

Supposedly, in the pre-Beyer days, competent speed figure handicappers made more "than the President of the United States". The public got hold of the figures, and the profits were effectively reduced to zero.

Yes, but that's using it as a single stand-alone factor. The same would happen with any similar one-dimensional angle or approach designed to point everybody who uses it to the same horse to bet, regardless of odds (or even with odds, after enough people catch on to it, since the majority of winners would become underlays).

[dansan]

Ive been playing this game for 30 years started taking my wife to the track about a year ago showed her a few things in the DRF she has hade more 1099's in 6 months then I have have in the last 3o years sh'e never read a book! on handicapping

[PaceAdvantage]

Ive been playing this game for 30 years started taking my wife to the track about a year ago showed her a few things in the DRF she has hade more 1099's in 6 months then I have have in the last 3o years sh'e never read a book! on handicappingI've always thought not reading any books on handicapping might be a huge advantage when getting into this game...if only for the fact that you won't be trying to do what everyone else who has read those books is trying to do...following the crowd never works in racing...or any other endeavors...

[thaskalos]

I've always thought not reading any books on handicapping might be a huge advantage when getting into this game...if only for the fact that you won't be trying to do what everyone else who has read those books is trying to do...following the crowd never works in racing...or any other endeavors... Isn't a beginner's "initiation" period likely to be very costly and disheartening without some fundamental knowledge from the start? What other ways are there for a novice to learn some of the "key" points of the game?

The "hit or miss" approach is too long and painful IMO. And the advice of well meaning friends is almost always painful as well.

Beginners should read a good book or two...just don't believe everything you read...and keep your eyes open.

[dansan]

I dont want her to read any books she's doing just fine without the overload

[shouldacoulda]

Ive been playing this game for 30 years started taking my wife to the track about a year ago showed her a few things in the DRF she has hade more 1099's in 6 months then I have have in the last 3o years sh'e never read a book! on handicapping
Don't tell me she goes by the name :)
My friend has a close friend that goes by the name and claims to do okay. Anything with an Irish name or Irish in the name. I could never do that.

[dansan]

womans :lol: intuition

[jwel14]

Have noticed that many people have their own, "system" One guy I've seen several times does something simple such as adding the best 2 out of the last 3 speed figures for each horse. He did very well the times I saw him.

[jamey1977]

Have noticed that many people have their own, "system" One guy I've seen several times does something simple such as adding the best 2 out of the last 3 speed figures for each horse. He did very well the times I saw him.
Roger Stein His Funky Horseracing Talk Show I Always Listen To. Said This A Few Years Back. " A System Has No Memory " This is real effective advice. We are victims of random chance. Just 10 horses or in California - 5 horses running around on a track. Very serious problem that always agonizes my worry in trying to beat this game. So it worked for 200 races, will it work for 2000 ?, how about 8 thousand,? how about after 10 years ? . I prefer to use my own methods. I always said bets that are from 6 to 5 to 11 to 1. On game horses, real conservative in plays. Profits are guaranteed. Minimize to maximize. The 5 to 2's can get your money back and the longshots 7 to 1 to 11 to 1 can get that profit. I wanna do a 3 time bet on the 7 to 1's and up. . Like Jim Quinn advised in one of his books. I am testing this. The challenge is always is on what Roger Stein said, " A System Has No Memory " He was ever so correct.

[Robert Goren]

womans :lol: intuition Never doubt it openly, because if you do and it turns out to be right, you will never hear the end of it. Been there, done that, not going there again.:lol:

[Altair1]

I purchased Robert Elias Cal Q Meter & Pace Indicator in the 70's. Used it with moderate success in the exacta pool. His theory is that hidden class shows up in the running lines using a simple mathematical model. It picked enough high priced horses in the place pool, which I keyed with the speed that figured. I can't find his system on the internet. Have most of it memorized, but lost the device over the years. I purchased some books recently, but there complicated. This system is simple, and when the concept is understood, the horses jump out of the pps in playable races. I'd recommend this system if you can find it, but your going to have to study old pps until you understand the concept.

[workable]

there was a scientific method back in the 80,s name rate o win by robert nader.If any one knows of some one that has it and wants to sell it iam looking for it. thanks workable

[proffdw]

hi altair1. i also bought the CALQMETER back in the 70's,and i first used it at exhibition park in Vancouer B C in May of 1973 i believe it was.it was the second thing i bought for horse racing.i started playing the horses in 1967 at the old Longacres racetrack near Seattle Washington.i still live in Washington but in Olympia,and i don't get to the track very much anymore because of health,and transportation problems.i gone twice a year with Realatives in 2003,2004,2005,and the last day of racing in 2007.since then i've been to a betting place in my city maybe 6 times.when i saw your post about the CALQMETER it sure brought back some fond memories of that day in 1973. i went with a round trip bus ticket,and 65.00 to bet.at that time Canadian money was better than American,so i had to give 60 cents plus the 65.00 and i stayed for 17 days then came back with 265 dollars.i thought i had found the holy grail,but when Longacres opened the next year it didn't work very good.there are three things i remember most about that day.you can email me at this address if you want to talk more.
clift61@yahoo.com clift stevens

[Actor]

Al would have loved a “system” that helped him lose .09 cents on a dollar instead of the .35++++ cents he was losing.


Favorites at even money or less cost about 5 cents on the dollar
Odds-on-favorites to show cost 1 cent
All favorites to place cost 5 cents.

These numbers are from Ainslie's Complete Guide so they are about 40 years old, but I doubt they've changed much.

According to one source the third method (all favorites to place) was actually profitable up to about 1950, then then the word got out.

[Actor]

The problem, of course, is that...if too many bettors possess THE SAME "projected" odds line...the race's final odds will resemble the system's odds so often, that no "true" overlays will be found ANYWHERE, with any degree of regularity.On Wall Street this is known as an efficient market. :D

[Jeff P]

Favorites at even money or less cost about 5 cents on the dollar
Odds-on-favorites to show cost 1 cent
All favorites to place cost 5 cents.

These numbers are from Ainslie's Complete Guide so they are about 40 years old, but I doubt they've changed much.

According to one source the third method (all favorites to place) was actually profitable up to about 1950, then then the word got out.

About the bolded sentence in the above quote:

Those numbers have changed and are no longer valid.

Here's what I have in my calendar year 2009 database - all odds on post time favorites for races (thoroughbreds only) run in North America:
Data Window Settings:
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE RANKODDS = 1
AND ODDS <= 1


Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 26863.60 28506.00 28006.40
Bet -30976.00 -30976.00 -30976.00
Gain -4112.40 -2470.00 -2969.60

Wins 7944 11239 12408
Plays 15488 15488 15488
PCT .5129 .7257 .8011

ROI 0.8672 0.9203 0.9041
Avg Mut 3.38 2.54 2.26


-jp

.

[Eddie W]

BY far Prof jones Level 6

[formula_2002]

I USE JCAPPER AND BRIS DATA WITH A HOME GROWN ANALYSIS MODEL AND AM CONFORTABLE WITH;

EXPECTATIONS:
THE DBF HORSE (DONT BET THE FAVORITE) IS EXPECTED TO RETURN A WIN POOL .70 ROI. A GOOD LAY BET IF YOU CAN GET IT

THE LTCP, N155 AND N40_N34 HORSES ARE EXPECTED TO RETURN A WIN,PLACE OR SHOW POOL ROI OF >=.95 AND <=1.05

BETTING THE FAVORITE WHEN THE PROGRAM INDICATES TO DO SO, IS EXPECTED TO RETURN A 1.03 WIN POOL ROI

PLAYS ARE BASED ON A 18,000 PLUS RACE STUDY.
SEE MY HOME PAGE FOR STUDY RESULTS.

PLAYS ARE ALSO POSTED IN THE SELECTIONS FORUM

[formula_2002]

About the bolded sentence in the above quote:

Those numbers have changed and are no longer valid.

Here's what I have in my calendar year 2009 database - all odds on post time favorites for races (thoroughbreds only) run in North America:
Data Window Settings:
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE RANKODDS = 1
AND ODDS <= 1


Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 26863.60 28506.00 28006.40
Bet -30976.00 -30976.00 -30976.00
Gain -4112.40 -2470.00 -2969.60

Wins 7944 11239 12408
Plays 15488 15488 15488
PCT .5129 .7257 .8011

ROI 0.8672 0.9203 0.9041
Avg Mut 3.38 2.54 2.26


-jp

.


JEFF, AS YOU THE 0.8672 ROI IS IN PART, LOWER, BECAUSE OF THE TRACK TAKE.

WHEN I USE A 160,000 HORSE DATA BASE AND CALCULATE THE ACTUAL WINNERS / EXPECTED WINNERS, THE EXPECTED ROI JUMPS TO 0.926.
THAT WOULD BE FOR 2400 FAVORITES <=1-1

IN THIS CASE EXPECTED WINNERS = (1/(ODDS+1))/RACE BOOK PERCENTAGE

THE AVERAGE BOOK %= 1.229 ( 18.6% TAKE-OUT).

IN THIS ODDS RANGE, THE PUBLIC IS OFF BY ALMOST .08 ROI POINTS
COMPARED TO;
•Favorites at even money or less cost about 5 cents on the dollar
OF COURSE THIS 5 CENT COULD HAVE BEEN LOWERED WHEN ADJUSTED FOR THE BOOK PERCENTAGE

[Overlay]

I've always thought not reading any books on handicapping might be a huge advantage when getting into this game...if only for the fact that you won't be trying to do what everyone else who has read those books is trying to do...following the crowd never works in racing...or any other endeavors...

Going against the crowd is one thing, since people can be wrong, especially when they focus only on finding and betting the one horse that's most likely to win a race, to the total exclusion of every other entrant, and with no regard to the wagering value offered by their selection (or by any other horse in the race, for that matter).

However, ignoring (either intentionally or unintentionally) established percentages and probabilities associated with various performance factors when handicapping, or even purposely playing against those statistics, just for the sake of "not doing what everybody else is doing", would be making the task of winning consistently much more difficult. Books (at least some of them) can be useful in recognizing when the public has overlooked or undervalued specific factors or horses.

[thaskalos]

Going against the crowd is one thing, since people can be wrong, especially when they focus only on finding and betting the one horse that's most likely to win a race, to the total exclusion of every other entrant, and with no regard to the wagering value offered by their selection (or by any other horse in the race, for that matter).

However, ignoring (either intentionally or unintentionally) established percentages and probabilities associated with various performance factors when handicapping, or even purposely playing against those statistics, just for the sake of "not doing what everybody else is doing", would be making the task of winning consistently much more difficult. Books (at least some of them) can be useful in recognizing when the public has overlooked or undervalued specific factors or horses.Just because people read the same books doesn't mean that they get the same use out of them.

Unlike the betting systems of yester-year...the better handicapping books out there today don't present ready-made selection methods. The ideas they offer are open to varied degrees of interpretation.

[stats725]

Mike , you are so right. the use of 6 simple mechanical rules helped A group i know that had 9
winning months A year , for 20 years . The less rules you have, the more obvious it is as to what is producing the winners, and more important the overlays. also with just a few rules there is less chance that over time they will deteriorate. and begin to fail or change. this group researched repeaters, males only in claiming races, and found an edge in 7 day horses .they researched 15,000 with no computer in from 1962 to 1964. they had an amazing 20 years of profits, then realized about 1984 , as computers became more popular, that the percentage of winners remained almost exactly the same for 20 years on all their systems, but the average odds they paid had dropped about 30% about a year or two after the popularity of computers began in the early 80's. you are right about the fading horses, here is a system you may like, i have not played, ; EARLY SPEED LONSHOT SYSTEM
RULES;
The horse must have at least 5 speed points;

look at the last 5 races, giving a point for any 1st or 2nd call where the horse was running 1st 2ND or within 3 lengths of the leader.

2- the horse must have at least 2 wins in the last 10 races. if he has at least 3 wins in the last 10 races , skip rule 3;



3- this horse must have been in the money at least 5 times in the last 10 races.




4- i minute odds must be 5-1 or up.




tested on 588 races in california over 288 days at the track. in 588 races there were 856 horses bet. on 2.00 bets the investment was 1712.00 and the return was 2294.00 , for a profit of 582.00 which is a 34% return on dollars bet. there were 147 wins - 21% , on races bet, and 17% wins for horses bet. the average mutual price was 15.60. this test was done in 1977, so is is ancient history, but food for thought. my 35 years of burning the midnight oil with a little bit of success, says bet only one hoses per race, and use a recency rule. mike... good luck!!! i like to talk , but hate to type, call me if you like 702 877 2468 , iam one mile from las vegas. best wishes, Stats

[joecam]

I purchased Robert Elias Cal Q Meter & Pace Indicator in the 70's. Used it with moderate success in the exacta pool. His theory is that hidden class shows up in the running lines using a simple mathematical model. It picked enough high priced horses in the place pool, which I keyed with the speed that figured. I can't find his system on the internet. Have most of it memorized, but lost the device over the years. I purchased some books recently, but there complicated. This system is simple, and when the concept is understood, the horses jump out of the pps in playable races. I'd recommend this system if you can find it, but your going to have to study old pps until you understand the concept.

I purchased Robert Elias Cal Q Meter in the early 70's, after about a year I started to make some nice hits after about two years I started making money, I started using class and a few other handicapping factors and after almost 40 years I have it down to a science, I play only what I call good races and only play 2 or 3 races a day per track, the cheaper the track the better, I play Calder, Finger lakes, and Parx, next month I'll start playing Monmouth also. I bet only exacta's and triples. With triples I play my top choice it has to be at least 10-1 and I wheel it with the whole field and over the years I have hit hundreds of them. If I lost this system I would never play again, I keep a copy in my safe deposit box.

[John]

I purchased Robert Elias Cal Q Meter in the early 70's, after about a year I started to make some nice hits after about two years I started making money, I started using class and a few other handicapping factors and after almost 40 years I have it down to a science, I play only what I call good races and only play 2 or 3 races a day per track, the cheaper the track the better, I play Calder, Finger lakes, and Parx, next month I'll start playing Monmouth also. I bet only exacta's and triples. With triples I play my top choice it has to be at least 10-1 and I wheel it with the whole field and over the years I have hit hundreds of them. If I lost this system I would never play again, I keep a copy in my safe deposit box.

Last time i was on ebay.Cal Q Meter was for sale if anyone is intrested.

:) :) :)

[so.cal.fan]

I knew Robert Elias back in the 70's. He has been late for many years.
From what I could gather, he was never much of a winner, but was always trying to improve.
He was a nice man and would have been very pleased to know people were using his systems.

My take on this thread, I just now read it......interesting comments.
I have always believed that if one can classify horses correctly, be on track, know all the habits of trainers, owners and jockeys, and had a good eye for horses in the paddock.......winning is absolutely possible, provided you manage bets consistent with your temperment and do not bet favorites.
That is my humble opinion, anyway.

[appistappis]

I purchased Robert Elias Cal Q Meter in the early 70's, after about a year I started to make some nice hits after about two years I started making money, I started using class and a few other handicapping factors and after almost 40 years I have it down to a science, I play only what I call good races and only play 2 or 3 races a day per track, the cheaper the track the better, I play Calder, Finger lakes, and Parx, next month I'll start playing Monmouth also. I bet only exacta's and triples. With triples I play my top choice it has to be at least 10-1 and I wheel it with the whole field and over the years I have hit hundreds of them. If I lost this system I would never play again, I keep a copy in my safe deposit box.


you won't be able to play monmouth next month as they are done in early oct...as a fellow fan of the cheaper tracks may I recommend turf paradise and portland meadows for your fall and winter play.

[John]

you won't be able to play monmouth next month as they are done in early oct...as a fellow fan of the cheaper tracks may I recommend turf paradise and portland meadows for your fall and winter play.



appistappis, What about Suffolk Downs? another cheap track.

[acorn54]

Out of the myriad of systems out there...is there ONE that a player can count on for consistent profits at the windows? Is it lack of discipline that causes all the players who follow these systems to lose?
i'll chime in with my recent experience in research. i use the three most recent years of
racing in america as my datbase, never missing a day.
one of my recent data queries involved class description of the winners in one of my angles, to try to weed out some losers. the allowance classifications looked like very poor bets, losing with less return than if you had bet randomly, in two of the years, yet in the other year a profit of over 100% on money wagered!
play the devil's advocate all you want on my experience. but imo you need very large data samples and look to the very long run to come to any clear pattern.

[so.cal.fan]

Yes, Acorn, you are right about that.
Patterns change.
Here in So. California, we have three different types of racing surface.
Poly, Del Mar. Cushion, Hollywood, Dirt Santa Anita, and Fairplex dirt track is the closest thing to a turf course than a turf course.
Check out the horses running in the better races there, all turf runners.
It's been that way since I can remember and that would be back in the 1960's.

So.....every method of play is going to be different, different for every track, different for every season of the year, different for a dozen or more different changes, that are constant.

The only two constants in handicapping, again in my "opinion", are class and current condition.

[raybo]

Well, after reading this whole thread (except for a few posts that became too tedious and boring, regarding the same subject), it seems apparent that; almost everyone posting in the thread have it ingrained in their mind that there is no profitable "mechanical" method (the thread started about "systems" but that term was never defined versus "method", they are not the same, in my opinion, but that's neither here nor there), available to the public, that is long term profitable.

In my opinion, that thinking is in error. There are mechanical methods out here that are long term profitable, and available to the public.

Then there are those that say that; if such a profitable mechanical method is available to the public, it will, always, eventually become overbet and the profits will go away. Again, in my opinion, this thinking is in error.

The reason I say that is:

Just because a method is "mechanical", and it is available to the public, doesn't mean that all it's users will end up on the same horses, in the same races. That negates the "will be overbet and the profits will go away" belief.

How is long term profit achievable, if all the users of such a "mechanical method" don't end up on the same horses? Simple, not all the horses bet by some users will win, meaning that other users landing on other horses in those races, will win, and vice versa. So, some users win some races and other users win other races.

The key is that both sets of users can be long term profitable, while using the same "mechanical method". So, public availability, and resultant overbetting, are both removed from the profit equation.

The old saying, "Never say never" smacks you right in the noggin --- again.

[thaskalos]

Well, after reading this whole thread (except for a few posts that became too tedious and boring, regarding the same subject), it seems apparent that; almost everyone posting in the thread have it ingrained in their mind that there is no profitable "mechanical" method (the thread started about "systems" but that term was never defined versus "method", they are not the same, in my opinion, but that's neither here nor there), available to the public, that is long term profitable.

In my opinion, that thinking is in error. There are mechanical methods out here that are long term profitable, and available to the public.

Then there are those that say that; if such a profitable mechanical method is available to the public, it will, always, eventually become overbet and the profits will go away. Again, in my opinion, this thinking is in error.

The reason I say that is:

Just because a method is "mechanical", and it is available to the public, doesn't mean that all it's users will end up on the same horses, in the same races. That negates the "will be overbet and the profits will go away" belief.

How is long term profit achievable, if all the users of such a "mechanical method" don't end up on the same horses? Simple, not all the horses bet by some users will win, meaning that other users landing on other horses in those races, will win, and vice versa. So, some users win some races and other users win other races.

The key is that both sets of users can be long term profitable, while using the same "mechanical method". So, public availability, and resultant overbetting, are both removed from the profit equation.

The old saying, "Never say never" smacks you right in the noggin --- again.

You say that these elusive "profitable mechanical systems" DO exist...and that they available to the public.

Could we please have a little more information about them...like where they are...how much they cost...and what kind of results we can expect using them?

[raybo]

You say that these elusive "profitable mechanical systems" DO exist...and that they available to the public.

Could we please have a little more information about them...like where they are...how much they cost...and what kind of results we can expect using them?

You trying to get me in trouble with Mike? :lol:

My answer is, if I can create it, there has to be others out there doing it also, wouldn't you think? I'm not the sharpest player in the world, by a long shot, so is it not logical to assume there are other long term profitable mechanical methods available to the public, that can remain profitable, out there? You can start with Dave, for one.

[thaskalos]

You trying to get me in trouble with Mike? :lol:

My answer is, if I can create it, there has to be others out there doing it also, wouldn't you think? I'm not the sharpest player in the world, by a long shot, so is it not logical to assume there are other long term profitable mechanical methods available to the public, that can remain profitable, out there?

To be honest, Raybo...I'm not so sure. I guess it depends on how you define "mechanical".

If by that you mean a system that ANYBODY can use, without much effort, and without one's individual input needed in the analysis of the race...then my skepticism rises considerably.

Here is what you are forgetting, IMO.

You said that not EVERYBODY will necessarily bet on the same horses...so that means that a commercially available system can remain profitable.

If this is indeed a "mechanical system" that you are describing, then, even if ALL the users are not betting on the same horses...most of them probably will -- or, at least...you are not likely to have many users betting on different horses in the same race.

In this game, our edge is already pretty small and tenuous. It doesn't take much to make that edge go away.

[raybo]

In response to Thas' post above:

To be honest, Raybo...I'm not so sure. I guess it depends on how you define "mechanical".

I agree, but "mechanical, to me, means that the program tells you when to bet, when not to bet, what horses are contenders, and which ones you actually bet. Those things all apply to my program.

If by that you mean a system that ANYBODY can use, without much effort, and without one's individual input needed in the analysis of the race...then my skepticism rises considerably.

Change "ANYBODY" to "almost anybody" and take out the "without much effort" and that's what I'm saying. For instance, with my program, there are those who cannot stick it out and follow the program's rules, and, the user has maintenance activities that must be done, and that is on-going, so there is some user effort involved. I never said these programs did everything for you, but they are "mechanical" in that no subjective reasoning,by the user, is required.

Here is what you are forgetting, IMO.

You said that not EVERYBODY will necessarily bet on the same horses...so that means that a commercially available system can remain profitable.

If this is indeed a "mechanical system" that you are describing, then, even if ALL the users are not betting on the same horses...most of them probably will -- or, at least...you are not likely to have many users betting on different horses in the same race.

As I stated before, there are many users who will not or cannot follow the program's rules, and, in my program, for users to get exactly the same bets they would have to have identical cards and results in the database and they would have to use exactly the same rankings column setting and the same minimum odds setting. As you know, there are 2 different kinds of "profitability", high hit rate with lower ROI, and lower hit rate with higher ROI, some will choose one and some will choose the other. Some will choose a 1.02 ROI with many plays, while others will choose a 1.45 ROI with fewer plays, and everything in between (meaning they will come up with different contenders and different actual bets), using the same rankings column setting. Use a different rankings column setting and repeat the choices they have and you end up with many users betting different horses, in the same races.

In this game, our edge is already pretty small and tenuous. It doesn't take much to make that edge go away.

I guess that depends on where your edge lies, doesn't it? No offense meant.

[appistappis]

appistappis, What about Suffolk Downs? another cheap track.

john, I love suffolk but it is another that will be done soon for the winter,

[PaceAdvantage]

You trying to get me in trouble with Mike? :lol:Come to think of it, you have way too many links in your signature...

[raybo]

Come to think of it, you have way too many links in your signature...

How many are allowed?

[PaceAdvantage]

I allow everyone (including those people associated with commercial ventures who are NOT advertisers) one link...but in your case, I'll allow two if one of them is HANA...

[raybo]

I allow everyone (including those people associated with commercial ventures who are NOT advertisers) one link...but in your case, I'll allow two if one of them is HANA...

Ok, I'll change them.

[workable]

i had the cal-q-meter back in the 80s had a puppy chew the system to pieces. what iam asking is there any kind way that you can negotiate on a copy of the system.I would be most thankful.

[workable]

I was wondering how do measure ability in a thoroughbred and express it in a figure? I would be most thankful.

[raybo]

I was wondering how do measure ability in a thoroughbred and express it in a figure? I would be most thankful.

First, define "ability".

[John]

First, define "ability".


Second: at what distance and surface.

[flatstats]

Whilst there are many systems out there which do work you can not rely on one system and expect to clean up. You have to run a portfolio of systems. Doing so will iron out the ups and downs in performance and help create consistent profits.

Don't just look at an angle for favourites, or one for claiming races, or for a specific trainer / jockey combo. Look at running totally different systems for different angles at different times of the year; different prices etc.

Diversify. Do as a stock investor would do. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

[formula_2002]

Whilst there are many systems out there which do work you can not rely on one system and expect to clean up. You have to run a portfolio of systems. Doing so will iron out the ups and downs in performance and help create consistent profits.

Don't just look at an angle for favourites, or one for claiming races, or for a specific trainer / jockey combo. Look at running totally different systems for different angles at different times of the year; different prices etc.

Diversify. Do as a stock investor would do. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.
Give me a strong enough basket, and I'll put all my eggs in it.

[raybo]

Whilst there are many systems out there which do work you can not rely on one system and expect to clean up. You have to run a portfolio of systems. Doing so will iron out the ups and downs in performance and help create consistent profits.

Don't just look at an angle for favourites, or one for claiming races, or for a specific trainer / jockey combo. Look at running totally different systems for different angles at different times of the year; different prices etc.

Diversify. Do as a stock investor would do. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

Really? Wow, the things you learn on this forum! What makes you think a single program cannot perform all the things you listed, but, do you really need all those things in the first place? How many "systems" do you use, and what is your bottom line, by the way?

Whew!! Sorry ya'll, but this one just got to me in a big way.

[thaskalos]

Diversify. Do as a stock investor would do. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.
Thaskalos says, "put all your eggs in one basket...and watch the basket".

[flatstats]

Really? Wow, the things you learn on this forum! What makes you think a single program cannot perform all the things you listed, but, do you really need all those things in the first place? How many "systems" do you use, and what is your bottom line, by the way?

Whew!! Sorry ya'll, but this one just got to me in a big way.

If you are thinking a single Benter ratings type system then yes something like that can be successful on it's own.

But regular systems / spot plays have to use a portfolio approach because of the ups and downs / randomness throughout the year.

I use a core of around 20 systems, which are for turf and all weather, for winter season and summer, are based on trainers or jockeys ratings or sires. Each are different.

Some have returned crazy ROIs for years whilst some have floundered. Some have not yet returned a profit at all. Overall the net ROI is around 5-10%.

The key is knowing when to give up on a system and knowing when to stick with it. Of course, this all assumes that the systems are sound in the first place. You can't just backfit a dozen random systems and hope to profit from them in the future.

[Eddie W]

Prof jones.level#6 platium series
it has given me 90 percent in the top 4
as contenders...But of course, everybody knows
you still have to handicap thoses contenders, to
lower it...Nobody can play all 4 contenders in 6
or 8 races....So what iam doing is trying to play the top
choice, for the place-all....Put out 40.00 on the top choice
play only the top choice, in all 8 races in the place-all
why, because the top choice is hitting 40 percent ...the
2th choice is hitting 30 percent....The top two is hitting
70 percent in my ULTRA FILE....

[Robert Goren]

There are many successful system players. several post here. They all have one thing in common. They have several systems that may pick one horse every couple weeks or so each. Some of system are only used at certain times of year because involve shippers to newly open tracks. most of the time a system player trys to post methods for developing a a system they roasted over pretty good. This board is dominated by pace handicappers and some them of them are pretty critical of people who use a different method. Some methods such as the one use are never talk about here. The method I use is a value added to by certain things of horses going off at certain odds. different things to for different odds level. It requires a lot of research and is on hold because of illness. Things do changes and you have be to vigilant. But this method has worked since the early 70's when ever I took the time to keep up with the research.

[eurocapper]

I believe one needs to specialize in whatever is one's strength and then spot play if one intends to beat the crowd more often than not. If maybe class and pedigree is the thing more than pace then some stakes turf routes might be more appealing. If visual inspection before the race maybe something with a good portion of first timers. If it's pace maybe sprints more than routes.

[gm10]

I have a few winning "systems", all based on a multinomial logit model (I get up to 100 bets per day). My ROI is not spectacular (only 5% this year), and the bet size is limited.

Although I've had these 'winning systems' for a long time, they didn't actually make me any money until I 'outsourced' my system betting (the other guy's software places the bets based on my estimated value odds). I found it very difficult to be both handicapper and systematic bettor at the same time.

[lamboguy]

I have a few winning "systems", all based on a multinomial logit model (I get up to 100 bets per day). My ROI is not spectacular (only 5% this year), and the bet size is limited.

Although I've had these 'winning systems' for a long time, they didn't actually make me any money until I 'outsourced' my system betting (the other guy's software places the bets based on my estimated value odds). I found it very difficult to be both handicapper and systematic bettor at the same time.
5% ROI is more than spectacular, its sensational. i would be extremely happy if my ROI was a minus 5%.

keep up the good work

[raybo]

I assume you work from a huge bankroll, or your hit rate is extremely high.

[gm10]

I assume you work from a huge bankroll, or your hit rate is extremely high.

There are usually 2-3 bets per race, so the hit rate on a "per race" basis is high (if there are two, the value odds must be > 2/1, if there are three, they must be > 3/1).

Having multiple horses in the same race is mainly a stabilizer. It may not be the optimum strategy over the long term, but it makes long losing runs less likely.

[raybo]

There are usually 2-3 bets per race, so the hit rate on a "per race" basis is high (if there are two, the value odds must be > 2/1, if there are three, they must be > 3/1).

Having multiple horses in the same race is mainly a stabilizer. It may not be the optimum strategy over the long term, but it makes long losing runs less likely.

Understand, that's basically the way RS is implemented, multiple wagers per race, unless we're playing a track where only 1 or 2 of the 3 possible contenders is making a profit, then we only bet those 1 or 2 picks. Our minimum odds vary according to the track tested odds range results, so they could be anywhere from 1/9 to 11/1, for a particular track/season.

I never was a proponent of multiple "win" wagers until I created the RS program. It provides a nice "middle ground" of playable races, hit rate, ROI and total profit (something for everyone). Yes, occasionally we still have moderate losing streaks, but, depending on your base bet amount, it doesn't take a large bankroll to weather those streaks.

[Helles]

I apologize if this has already been mentioned. I didn't read all 14 pages of the thread. Dave Schwartz published a book, also available as an e-book, full of systems for different conditions.

It's not cheap, but nothing worthwhile is.

[Capper Al]

I'm back on a losing streak yet my percentage of winners is still around 30% and placers over 50%. Sometimes tweaking a system for more hits isn't the way to go. My current system is comprehensive taking into account many factors. My most profitable streak came from considering only two factors, pace and form while ignoring all the other factors such as class and connections. My wagering method gets shaken up and falls into disarray when I'm in a losing while hitting a high percentage. I keep second guessing myself wondering, with so many hits, could have I made money if I had played this way or that way? I'll dig myself out of the hole as I have so many times before.

To answer your question in post #1 about any system working outright? I'd say no not out of the box. The game is too varied to cover all the bases with a single play method.

[raybo]

I'm back on a losing streak yet my percentage of winners is still around 30% and placers over 50%. Sometimes tweaking a system for more hits isn't the way to go. My current system is comprehensive taking into account many factors. My most profitable streak came from considering only two factors, pace and form while ignoring all the other factors such as class and connections. My wagering method gets shaken up and falls into disarray when I'm in a losing while hitting a high percentage. I keep second guessing myself wondering, with so many hits, could have I made money if I had played this way or that way? I'll dig myself out of the hole as I have so many times before.

To answer your question in post #1 about any system working outright? I'd say no not out of the box. The game is too varied to cover all the bases with a single play method.

If you are a win bettor, 30% winners requires an average payout of $6.80, so if you're not averaging that payout then that is the reason for the losing streak, if you are consistent in your wagering.

Try another track? Pass a few more very low priced selections?

Hit rate is only 1 part of the success formula!! Record keeping! Record keeping! Record keeping! --- You gotta do it!

[Capper Al]

Record keeping is my next stage of my handicapping.