Playing for Profit with Small Bankroll: Part1 Starting and Wagersize

[Robert Fischer]

putting some ideas/questions/roadblocks down about playing for profit with a small bankroll

hopefully everybody can contribute

[Cubsfan]

Whatever the size of your bankroll don't wager over 5% of it on any one race.

[raybo]

I think the general rule, when starting, is 2% of bankroll. As your bankroll grows, so do your wagers. 50 losses in a row would be tough to do, unless you're betting supers, :lol:.

[jonnielu]

Get your mind right, and realize that you don't need to beat the favorite everytime, just most of the time. Never bet a favorite, if you can't bet against the favorite, pass.

Take note of the morning line, and then ask 3 handicappers for their take. Then eliminate any at 30 - 1 or more ML, and figure which horse is the closest to exactly opposite of the consensus you have from the handicappers and ML.

Don't consider time, speed ratings, workouts, recency, or any other PP criteria, but if your animal looks sharp in the post parade bet $20 to win out of your $200 bankroll. When the handicappers inquire as to your "system" that seems to produce consistent winners at 5-1 to 15-1, tell them that you are guided solely by their wisdom and savvy.

jdl

[Dave Schwartz]

I would put forth a totally different perspective.

Let's say that I have $200 to play with. If my money goes away, I will be able to put together another $200 bankroll next month. In other words, this isn't my last bankroll.

Let us further suppose that I believe I have a winning approach and that I have done at least some degree of due diligence in determining that my methodology is profitable.

Finally, let us assume that my approach is a win-bet approach. Exotics would neccessitate a few changes, especially in unit size.


Under these circumstances...

The idea of wagering $2 or even $5 would not excite me too much because I just wouldn't have much chance of growing a bankroll. I need a money management approach that would give me a reasonably good chance of growth, along with a little excitement, without a huge chance of losing it all.


OKay... here goes.


Plan A
I would view my bankroll as a "session" comprised of between 20 and 30 units. A session ends when my bankroll in the session has double or has gone down to zero (or below 1 unit).

Here is the session plan:


Amount If won Next# If lost Next#
1) $200 + 200 2 - 200 1 (when I get my next bankroll)
2) $300 + 500 3 - 100 1 (when I get my next bankroll)
3) $500 +1000 4 0 1
4) $800 +1800 5 + 200 2
5) $1300 +3100 Victory! + 500 3



This is a somewhat fibonacci-like sequence that gives you a shot at taking $200 to over $3,000 in just 5 sessions. If you have a distinct advantage in your play, winning 7+ sessions out of 10 is do-able.

One would expect some false starts - i.e. win #1, lose #2, come up with more money and start again. Or win 1,2,3 only to lose 4 and go back to step 2.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[HUSKER55]

For what it is worth, I have found out that the art of learning how to wager is just as important as to figuring out who the contenders are. (Maybe more)

I think it varies as no two people are alike. What works for one may not work for someone else.

For me, I have a weekly limit. If I lose that much then I quit for the week.

This requires discipline because I am tempted to say,"I'll bet next weeks money and replace it". After all, I have the winner.

Yes, I own the Brooklyn Bridge. :D

husker55

:)

[Robert Fischer]

Wow great responses already.





prerequisites:


establish consistent and repeatable profitable play
have a sufficient bankroll size
have a wager-size strategy
?? what else?

Profitable?
How much average expected ROI is acceptable to start playing?
+10-15% ($1.10 ROI) seems intuitively adequete to me. Many players may be fine with simply a break even ROI for the purpose of simply playing the game. This would depend on the profit goals.

Bankroll Size
What is the minimum bankroll worth playing with?
I don't think it would be worth the time to start with less than $500, and maybe $1000 would be a better starting point for a small-bankroll player.
Thoughts??

[Robert Fischer]

I like the Session approach Dave.
I am going to print that out and look at it tonight.




Cubsfan/Raybo <5% , 2% to start

Wager Size Strategy
I use estimated hit rate(and also estimated value!) to help determine wager size. So that a higher percentage play like place or show will end up having a larger wager size % than say a straight exacta...
For the sake of thinking in terms of an average , maybe my average play hits at say 25%...
2% SEEMS about right if I am starting with a 1000. Technically i could go up to 5% ... MAYBE?? to start , but honestly If i start with 1000 and I fall below $800, then there is going to be a big mental pitfall there. A big loss of confidence for me. With 2% i could lose the first 9 or 10 plays and still be above $800.
You want the law of large numbers to set in and with too large a wager size you start putting more "hope" behind your initial plays and the first 5 or so plays in the sequence. Was considering if a small bankroll player should incorporate less(or don't use at all) low percentage plays (cold exotics for example) when he is starting out..
More thoughts on this tomorrow /

[barn32]

What is the minimum bankroll worth playing with?
I don't think it would be worth the time to start with less than $500, and maybe $1000 would be a better starting point for a small-bankroll player.
Thoughts??Unless you're playing professionally, and if you are this thread is moot, it doesn't really matter how much you start with. The less the better. If you're trying to compensate yourself for your time, then you need to start with a LOT of money. Otherwise start with $50 and bet $2 a race. Why not?

How much money you start with is relative.

[barn32]

Plan A
I would view my bankroll as a "session" comprised of between 20 and 30 units. A session ends when my bankroll in the session has double or has gone down to zero (or below 1 unit).

Here is the session plan:


Amount If won Next# If lost Next#
1) $200 + 200 2 - 200 1 (when I get my next bankroll)
2) $300 + 500 3 - 100 1 (when I get my next bankroll)
3) $500 +1000 4 0 1
4) $800 +1800 5 + 200 2
5) $1300 +3100 Victory! + 500 3



This is a somewhat fibonacci-like sequence that gives you a shot at taking $200 to over $3,000 in just 5 sessions. If you have a distinct advantage in your play, winning 7+ sessions out of 10 is do-able.

One would expect some false starts - i.e. win #1, lose #2, come up with more money and start again. Or win 1,2,3 only to lose 4 and go back to step 2.


Regards,
Dave SchwartzI don't follow this. How much are you betting per race? What do you do if you lose a bet--win a bet--all I can make of this is the bottom line which magically ends at $3100.

Don't get it.

[Jeff P]

If you ask me, it can be very much worth your while to treat a very small starting bankroll as if it were a very large sum of money (the last bankroll you'll ever be able to scrape together) provided you have the mental capacity to actually do that.

Hear me out.

Profits = (edge) x (handle)

If you have an edge and can size each bet as a small pct of bankroll (.015 to .025 depending on strength of play) and recalculate size of bank after the results of each play becomes known...

In THEORY you can make it work just like compound interest. If we replace handle in the above equation with an ever growing bet size repeated across 1000's of plays over the next few years...

Profits becomes a VERY large number.

But almost everyone who tries this will very quickly discover real life and theory can be two entirely different things.

You see most players have absolutely no understanding of the incredible amount of discipline it takes to make something like this work - to actually grow a small bankroll into a large one.

Sometime during 2001 after conceptualizing the gist of what I just posted as something attainable (as theory) I promised myself that before I could look myself in the mirror and call myself any kind of horseplayer I would first have to prove it to myself by actually growing a small bankroll into a large one in real life.

I had several failed attempts at this during 2001-2002. Looking back, the reason I failed was that in each case I treated my bankroll as if it were expendable... which ultimately proved to be the case.

I would make a few dozen plays at 2 pct of $300.00. I might have a good run or a bad run... it didn't matter. Eventually I would grow bored with the idea of $5.00 and $8.00 win bets. Where was the thrill? I'd react to that by overbetting my bankroll... $30.00 or $40.00 to win on horses I thought were overlayed. Funny thing though - as soon as I would hit a losing streak my bank would evaporate. I actually blew through several banks in 2002. God, it's a good thing I had a job at the time.

In late 2003 the software shop I was working for had too many eggs in one basket. The Marine Corps opted to award a defense contract to a competitor rather than renew with us. The owners of my co. had no choice but to lay a bunch of us developers off.

I had an early version of what would soon evolve into JCapper and decided to take a serious run at playing full time. I began flat betting to win on horses I viewed as overlays. I had ups and downs. But overall my approach was working. I was winning money. Enough to cover living expenses and then some. But that was about it. I wasn't growing a bankroll.

In May of 2004 I decided come hell or high water I was finally going to muster the discipline to grow a tiny bankroll into a large one. Either that or die trying. I made a $250.00 deposit at Pinnacle and was determined to treat it as if it were all the money I had left in the world.

I began making bets on horses I thought were overlaid at .015 to .025 of bankroll. I actually based the pct on strength of play. A few weeks in and my $250.00 had grown to almost $400.00.

I can't tell you how much I wanted to scrap the whole idea. Here I was supposedly playing horses for a living while making $3 to $8 win bets.

But I kept on. Somehow I convinced myself that money wasn't the objective. Discipline was. Because I KNEW deep down that my theory about growing a bankroll had to be correct. And the only thing that had stopped me from making it work in the past had been, well... me.

IF I could somehow muster the discipline now, I could carry my edge into the long run - and grow this tiny bankroll into something I could be proud of.

Several months and 1000's of plays later my $250.00 had grown to almost 4k. Was I was over the hump? Not hardly. 4k isn't what you'd call a security blanket.

As I played I discovered that a pct of bankroll approach presented a set of challenges I hadn't envisioned. I've already mentioned the importance of discipline. But it goes much further than that. No matter how good of a player you might be, most of the overlays you find yourself betting are overlays in the first place because the public ignores them (at least to some degree.) And if you study racing data you know that higher odds horses have lower win rates than lower odds horses. This is true no matter how good of a handicapper you might be. So betting overlays (at least mine) will eventually lead to losing streaks of unknown (beforehand) duration. You have to understand going in that as a player you can do everything right and lose 30 (or more) bets in succession.

You have to be psychologically equipped beforehand to handle this. If not, stop reading this post right now. Treat horses as a hobby only from now on and forget about even trying to grow a tiny bankroll into a large one.

If you are practicing a pct of bankroll approach when this happens your bankroll WILL shrink. If you plot changes in the size of your bank from live play on a graph (vertical axis = $$ and horizontal axis = time) you will see a lot of ups and downs. But if you have an edge the general trend as you carry an edge into the long run despite the ups and downs will be bankroll growth.

BTW, the degree to which bankroll growth is possible using a pct of bankroll approach dwarfs what is possible using flat betting. The trade off though is that flat betting as an approach is far far easier to put into practice.

Regardless, you have to be emotionless during both losing and winning streaks. Because emotion can cause you to do things that are incredibly stupid.

I realized something while I was making this work. And this will always be true. True for the rest of my life - or at least as long as I choose to play professionally. No matter how much money I might win or have - the ONLY thing separating me from the path I have found and worked so hard to get on is a couple weeks of blown discipline. A lapse in discipline will ALWAYS have the ability to evaporate a bankroll and cause me to have to go back to work.

Overbetting a bankroll WILL lead to ruin. Count on it.

Yet for the first time in my life I found that I had grown a tiny bankroll to the point to where betting a pct of it was easily covering my living expenses.

I kept on. Research I did in the summer of 2005 found me improving my selection process - significantly. Fewer plays. But plays of a much higher quality. By year's end, even though I took money off the table several times, and was making regular withdrawals to cover living expenses, my tiny $250.00 starting bank was now well into 5 figures.

2006 saw a completely different set of challenges which I overcame. 2007 even more.

This post is already way too long. So maybe it's time to wrap things up.

Profits = (edge) x (handle)

If you can change handle to a pct of bank repeated 1000's of times, you can (in theory) make the whole thing work like compound interest. Carrying an edge into the long run is doable. But it takes an incredible amount of discipline. I'm really proud of the fact that I've actually done this.

One of the keys (at least for me) when it came to mustering the needed discipline was the ability to treat my starting bank with respect... as if it were the last $250.00 I had to my name. For me, this was the difference maker between all of my previous attempts and the one that finally took off. It was the only way (for me) to give a starting bank the respect it actually deserves.

Thanks for reading,


-jp

.

[barn32]

If you ask me, it can be very much worth your while to treat a very small starting bankroll as if it were a very large sum of money (the last bankroll you'll ever be able to scrape together) provided you have the mental capacity to actually do that.

You and I do things almost the exactly the same way. The only difference with me is that I bet 1% of bank and made my bets smaller as my bank got bigger. The more money I had the more I wanted to protect it. I was in no hurry to build a big bankroll. I was more concerned with protecting it as it grew.

Variance will kill a gambler quicker than a girlfriend with a credit card.

I agree 100% that all money should be treated respectfully. Especially the money that you start with.

[proximity]

I realized something while I was making this work. And this will always be true. True for the rest of my life - or at least as long as I choose to play professionally. No matter how much money I might win or have - the ONLY thing separating me from the path I have found and worked so hard to get on is a couple weeks of blown discipline. A lapse in discipline will ALWAYS have the ability to evaporate a bankroll and cause me to have to go back to work.
.

there is a scene in an old paul newman movie called HUD where the bannon family's entire herd of infected cattle are ushered into a pit and shot. afterwards hud's aging father says, "it doesn't take too long to kill things,... not like it does to grow them..." to me, no matter how far on tilt you get in this game.... this must always be remembered.

excellent post jeff p!!

[ryesteve]

the best advice, ever
:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[MarquisMark]

If you ask me, it can be very much worth your while to treat a very small starting bankroll as if it were a very large sum of money (the last bankroll you'll ever be able to scrape together) provided you have the mental capacity to actually do that.

Yeah, disciple is the hardest part of this game. I only play the horses once or twice a week so I like to bet a decent amount of races while I do and end up betting races I shouldn't.

That is great advice on money management. Especially for starting on a limited bankroll.

[LottaKash]

The following betting approach, is for the not so-good handicappers that are still struggling with betting their selections.......As a long-time player (too long), I have tapped out more times than I care to remember....Consequently, I made many, many frequent trips to the bank to replenish my ammo....

At some point, I finally came to the realization that, even tho I wasn't the winning player that I aspired to be, there must be a way to cut down on my losses and the endless trips to the bank......

People who like to play Slots, know they are going to lose in the longrun, but they are there to gamble, to be entertained and have fun and possibly hit a jackpot in the process.....They just want to stay in the game to the end of the session, before they have to go and reload....

In this spirit, I submit a way to extend the ride for awhile, before the inevitable trip back to the Source......It has worked well for me in the past, although I do not do it this way since advancing in knowledge......

This is nothing new, but here goes.....Save and start with a bankroll of sufficient size to carry you a reasonably longish way.......maybe $500 for a start, then make you wager sized to account for a 40 bet ride......So, if $500 then your bet size woud be $20, for a win bet.....If you are losing, always divide you BR by 40 and that will be your next bet-size and you will always have the luxury of having 40 bets left before you tap out.....

If you are not a winning player as of yet, you will tap out, just not so quickly, and will always have the confidence in the notion, that you still have 40 bets left......For me, during the very hard years, it was nice to have a way of keeping me calm and even tempered, just knowing I had 40 bets left......

humbly,

[jonnielu]

Get your mind right, and realize that you don't need to beat the favorite everytime, just most of the time. Never bet a favorite, if you can't bet against the favorite, pass.

One exception to this, when the handicappers are letting the favorites go, then you would bet the favorite, because that is opposite.

Take note of the morning line, and then ask 3 handicappers for their take. Then eliminate any at 30 - 1 or more ML, and figure which horse is the closest to exactly opposite of the consensus you have from the handicappers and ML.

Don't consider time, speed ratings, workouts, recency, or any other PP criteria, but if your animal looks sharp in the post parade bet $20 to win out of your $200 bankroll. When the handicappers inquire as to your "system" that seems to produce consistent winners at 5-1 to 15-1, tell them that you are guided solely by their wisdom and savvy.

jdl


If you are win betting, and continue to lose a $200 bankroll, you are still too much a gambler to play this game full time.

jdl

[098poi]

Posted by Jeff P

In late 2003 the software shop I was working for had too many eggs in one basket. The Marine Corps opted to award a defense contract to a competitor rather than renew with us. The owners of my co. had no choice but to lay a bunch of us developers off.

I had an early version of what would soon evolve into JCapper and decided to take a serious run at playing full time.


Ah Ha! Writing handicapping code instead of doing your work. So it's your fault the contract wasn't renewed!!!!!!!!!!:D

Whenever I get a pint of Haagen Dazs (spelling?) I say I'll eat a percentage now and save the rest for tomorrow. That system seems to work. NOT!!
Discipline, discipline my kindom for some discipline.
Nice post Jeff.

[RichieP]

If you ask me, it can be very much worth your while to treat a very small starting bankroll as if it were a very large sum of money (the last bankroll you'll ever be able to scrape together) provided you have the mental capacity to actually do that.

Hear me out.
jp
.

Post of the year in my opinion. There is money all over it and I am picking some up. Thanks Jeff :ThmbUp:

[facorsig]

Here is the session plan:


Several of us are successfully applying the session plan approach. The quoted statistics are realistic. I suggest that others consider learning more about this approach as a money management tool to marry with your handicapping.

Fred

[MitchS]

If you ask me, it can be very much worth your while to treat a very small starting bankroll as if it were a very large sum of money (the last bankroll you'll ever be able to scrape together) provided you have the mental capacity to actually do that.

Hear me out.

Profits = (edge) x (handle)

If you have an edge and can size each bet as a small pct of bankroll (.015 to .025 depending on strength of play) and recalculate size of bank after the results of each play becomes known...

In THEORY you can make it work just like compound interest. If we replace handle in the above equation with an ever growing bet size repeated across 1000's of plays over the next few years...

Profits becomes a VERY large number.

But almost everyone who tries this will very quickly discover real life and theory can be two entirely different things.

You see most players have absolutely no understanding of the incredible amount of discipline it takes to make something like this work - to actually grow a small bankroll into a large one.

Sometime during 2001 after conceptualizing the gist of what I just posted as something attainable (as theory) I promised myself that before I could look myself in the mirror and call myself any kind of horseplayer I would first have to prove it to myself by actually growing a small bankroll into a large one in real life.

I had several failed attempts at this during 2001-2002. Looking back, the reason I failed was that in each case I treated my bankroll as if it were expendable... which ultimately proved to be the case.

I would make a few dozen plays at 2 pct of $300.00. I might have a good run or a bad run... it didn't matter. Eventually I would grow bored with the idea of $5.00 and $8.00 win bets. Where was the thrill? I'd react to that by overbetting my bankroll... $30.00 or $40.00 to win on horses I thought were overlayed. Funny thing though - as soon as I would hit a losing streak my bank would evaporate. I actually blew through several banks in 2002. God, it's a good thing I had a job at the time.

In late 2003 the software shop I was working for had too many eggs in one basket. The Marine Corps opted to award a defense contract to a competitor rather than renew with us. The owners of my co. had no choice but to lay a bunch of us developers off.

I had an early version of what would soon evolve into JCapper and decided to take a serious run at playing full time. I began flat betting to win on horses I viewed as overlays. I had ups and downs. But overall my approach was working. I was winning money. Enough to cover living expenses and then some. But that was about it. I wasn't growing a bankroll.

In May of 2004 I decided come hell or high water I was finally going to muster the discipline to grow a tiny bankroll into a large one. Either that or die trying. I made a $250.00 deposit at Pinnacle and was determined to treat it as if it were all the money I had left in the world.

I began making bets on horses I thought were overlaid at .015 to .025 of bankroll. I actually based the pct on strength of play. A few weeks in and my $250.00 had grown to almost $400.00.

I can't tell you how much I wanted to scrap the whole idea. Here I was supposedly playing horses for a living while making $3 to $8 win bets.

But I kept on. Somehow I convinced myself that money wasn't the objective. Discipline was. Because I KNEW deep down that my theory about growing a bankroll had to be correct. And the only thing that had stopped me from making it work in the past had been, well... me.

IF I could somehow muster the discipline now, I could carry my edge into the long run - and grow this tiny bankroll into something I could be proud of.

Several months and 1000's of plays later my $250.00 had grown to almost 4k. Was I was over the hump? Not hardly. 4k isn't what you'd call a security blanket.

As I played I discovered that a pct of bankroll approach presented a set of challenges I hadn't envisioned. I've already mentioned the importance of discipline. But it goes much further than that. No matter how good of a player you might be, most of the overlays you find yourself betting are overlays in the first place because the public ignores them (at least to some degree.) And if you study racing data you know that higher odds horses have lower win rates than lower odds horses. This is true no matter how good of a handicapper you might be. So betting overlays (at least mine) will eventually lead to losing streaks of unknown (beforehand) duration. You have to understand going in that as a player you can do everything right and lose 30 (or more) bets in succession.

You have to be psychologically equipped beforehand to handle this. If not, stop reading this post right now. Treat horses as a hobby only from now on and forget about even trying to grow a tiny bankroll into a large one.

If you are practicing a pct of bankroll approach when this happens your bankroll WILL shrink. If you plot changes in the size of your bank from live play on a graph (vertical axis = $$ and horizontal axis = time) you will see a lot of ups and downs. But if you have an edge the general trend as you carry an edge into the long run despite the ups and downs will be bankroll growth.

BTW, the degree to which bankroll growth is possible using a pct of bankroll approach dwarfs what is possible using flat betting. The trade off though is that flat betting as an approach is far far easier to put into practice.

Regardless, you have to be emotionless during both losing and winning streaks. Because emotion can cause you to do things that are incredibly stupid.

I realized something while I was making this work. And this will always be true. True for the rest of my life - or at least as long as I choose to play professionally. No matter how much money I might win or have - the ONLY thing separating me from the path I have found and worked so hard to get on is a couple weeks of blown discipline. A lapse in discipline will ALWAYS have the ability to evaporate a bankroll and cause me to have to go back to work.

Overbetting a bankroll WILL lead to ruin. Count on it.

Yet for the first time in my life I found that I had grown a tiny bankroll to the point to where betting a pct of it was easily covering my living expenses.

I kept on. Research I did in the summer of 2005 found me improving my selection process - significantly. Fewer plays. But plays of a much higher quality. By year's end, even though I took money off the table several times, and was making regular withdrawals to cover living expenses, my tiny $250.00 starting bank was now well into 5 figures.

2006 saw a completely different set of challenges which I overcame. 2007 even more.

This post is already way too long. So maybe it's time to wrap things up.

Profits = (edge) x (handle)

If you can change handle to a pct of bank repeated 1000's of times, you can (in theory) make the whole thing work like compound interest. Carrying an edge into the long run is doable. But it takes an incredible amount of discipline. I'm really proud of the fact that I've actually done this.

One of the keys (at least for me) when it came to mustering the needed discipline was the ability to treat my starting bank with respect... as if it were the last $250.00 I had to my name. For me, this was the difference maker between all of my previous attempts and the one that finally took off. It was the only way (for me) to give a starting bank the respect it actually deserves.

Thanks for reading,


-jp

.


Nice post Jeff ! Your post has made me re-think JCapper.....

[TrifectaMike]

As I played I discovered that a pct of bankroll approach presented a set of challenges I hadn't envisioned. I've already mentioned the importance of discipline. But it goes much further than that. No matter how good of a player you might be, most of the overlays you find yourself betting are overlays in the first place because the public ignores them (at least to some degree.) And if you study racing data you know that higher odds horses have lower win rates than lower odds horses. This is true no matter how good of a handicapper you might be. So betting overlays (at least mine) will eventually lead to losing streaks of unknown (beforehand) duration. You have to understand going in that as a player you can do everything right and lose 30 (or more) bets in succession.

You have to be psychologically equipped beforehand to handle this. If not, stop reading this post right now. Treat horses as a hobby only from now on and forget about even trying to grow a tiny bankroll into a large one.


One the best post I've read on this forum. And the above quote IMO is the best portion of the post.

Mike

[kitts]

Must agree. Among the best posts I have read on this forum. The only thing I can add is to maintain the discipline. I am a longshot bettor looking for overlays at minimum 9/2 and recently endured a losing streak of 54 in a row. My ROI dropped to .57 (based on a $1 unit) and I was ready to jump off the building. My worst ever but I maintained somehow and when the streak broke in late July I turned things around to ROI .81. I still have a ways to go, but 30 losing bets in a row is common and hard for many to handle.

Keep the faith

[CincyHorseplayer]

Likeyou JP I had a revelation about my betting over the course of 2007-08.I have kept records since 2001 and had ideas floating around about bets but after years of overbetting marginal races or betting too many races period,undercapitalizing on races I had strong insights about,or wavering on betting strategy and last minute shutouts I knew I had to step back from the game and formulate a WORKABLE gameplan down to the most minute detail like getting to the damn window with time to spare so you CAN bet!!!Anyway I cam up with this basic approach.

I'm with you percentage players.The lower the % the least likelihood of going broke,but it's up to the disgression of the individual and that works when you are in YOUR comfort zone.I either start with $1200.00 at the beginning of a meet or I put in $100 a week til I reach that point(deposits plus winnings)and I bet 1-2% or $24 and down.

I know most days I'll play between 3-7 races so over a 5 day week I'll make around 25 bets at a 1.5% average or $450.00.

I divide my "Hits" into two separate categories=Primary and Secondary and I'll have target amounts for each,for example;

Primary Hit=anything over $100.00-($150.00 target avg)

Secondary Hit=anything under $100.00-(60.00 target avg)

I play exactas mainly,unless the field is wide open for place or I get worthwhile odds I won't pass up.So wether it's a $1 or $3 or $5 or $10 or $14 combination or a $12 or $18 or $24 bet,the payoff falls into one of those categories.Unless it's under $40.Those are put into the saver category(for me).

For whatever reason I bet an average of 28 bets a 5 day week and still average around $450.00 in bets,so that's where I get my average payout and Hit Percentage numbers.For instance;

At 28 bets a week,$450 in bets here are my numbers for the 29% hit rate bracket.The first number is primary hits,the second number is secondary hits,and the third is savers(which I'll leave at zero since this is just an example).Then I have the gross payoff,net payoff and ROI %.

(6-2-0)-$1020.00 gross=$570.00 net-(127% ROI)
(5-3-0)-930.00 gross=$480.00 net-(107% ROI)
(4-4-0)-840.00 gross=$390.00 net-(87% ROI)
(3-5-0)-750.00 gross=$300.00 net-(67% ROI)

Here are my 25% Hit Percentages

(6-1-0)-960.00 gross=$510.00 net-(113% ROI)
(5-2-0)-870.00 gross=$420.00 net-(93% ROI)
(4-3-0)-780.oo gross=$330.00 net-(73% ROI)
(3-4-0)-690.00 gross=$240.00 net-(53% ROI)
(2-5-0)-600.00 gross=$150.00 net)-(33% ROI)

And so forth.Because of the way I play I'll still show a profit when cashing 18% of my bets.And because I play a lot of exactas,needing only to have my key horse win or place a don't normally sustain excessively long losing runs.

Hindsight is 20/20 goes the cliche and I've only been using this approach effectively for a few meets and I'm in the process of building a larger bankroll because I'm going to make a crossover at some point.I usually try to hit one big bet a day on average(Primary Hit)and pick up smaller hits along the way but based on recent actual numbers and projections from past records using this approach my numbers overall look like this

20% Primary Hits
17% Secondary Hits
11% Savers

A 37% total hit rate and a 49% cash rate.

For me structuring my bets for decent payoffs around the win AND place slots takes off the pressure of NEEDING to pick a high % of winners or a low % at big mutuels.

Anyway that's my take!

Rod

[Robert Fischer]

valuable information

very inspirational and informative post Jeff P. It was especially nice for a horse player discuss a % bankroll strategy with a small wager strategy. There is actually quite a backlash among (a vocal minority of) recreational players against a patient disciplined small wager approach.

Profits = (edge) x (handle)
this is what it all boils down to. :ThmbUp:

[Robert Fischer]

quickly going over a few basic necessities before shifting focus...



ADW = ADVANCED DEPOSIT WAGERING
for my style of play,it is necessary for me to use an Advance Deposit Wagering (ADW). Going to a Track or OTB for each and every wagering session costs me time, money, and I do not have access to the same pool information that I have online.
Speak on quality ADWs (or ones to avoid?) and related topics.


Information Sources / past peformances & pace figures
You need a good source of information, that you are able to play with to find the plays that you need to show a profit. This has to be included in your costs. Different players are comfortable with different sources. Some of the more popular are the DRF, Bris, Equibase, or Custom Figures (some members of Pace Advantage Forum provide high quality custom figs.). There are also many good Race Replay resources to take advantage of as well as several good live Pool information sites. Please add any related advice including quality figures you have used.


OTHER?
Anything else that a player needs to start a for-profit approach with a small bankroll?

[Robert Fischer]

Playing for Profit with Small Bankroll:

Playing The Game

(Bankroll Building Strategies, Pitfalls and Slumps)



While leaving the discussion open to all previous topics , we can advance from the Starting point and into the heart of Horseplaying.

[HUSKER55]

As I stated earlier in this thread, I have a fixed amount I can spend each week and when that is gone so am I for the balance of the week.

After reading these great posts I have come to the conclusion that I might have more problems than I first imagined.

I have always tried to get a minimum of 3:1 on my first pick. Preferably flat money. If that fails then I hunt for a second place pick to go with my first pick in the exacta pools to get the odds I want.

My problem is I don't seem to be growing a bankroll. I am never down but never really up either. After reading this thread I think it is not my handicapping but my betting strategy that needs an overhaul

Will someone tell me if I am right or wrong. I'm still learning.

As always, your input is appreciated.

Thanks

husker55

:)

[Stevie Belmont]

Discipline is very important, especially with a small bank roll. I play almost every weekend and I decide what my bankroll before hand. I focus on Pick 3 and 4's if it looks good. I look at the card the night before, and I form a preliminary strategy of what I might do, only so much you can do before you actually see the horses and/or adjust to other variables.

If I have a small bank roll, I will make win bets. You have not get wild, make sure you don't start betting horses because you have to. Have an opinion on a horse, only if you really like them, play them. I have been able to expand many a bank roll with like this.

I get the ball rolling, but I do not change the way I bet.

Bet the races you like the most. I can sit out 2 or 3 races with no problem, sometimes more.

[barn32]

I have always tried to get a minimum of 3:1 on my first pick. Preferably flat money. If that fails then I hunt for a second place pick to go with my first pick in the exacta pools to get the odds I want.

My problem is I don't seem to be growing a bankroll. I am never down but never really up either. After reading this thread I think it is not my handicapping but my betting strategy that needs an overhaul

Will someone tell me if I am right or wrong. I'm still learning.

As always, your input is appreciated.

Thanks

husker55

:)What are your statistics for win betting only? In other words, are you a profitable win bettor? If not, I'd chuck the exactas until you show a consistent profit win betting.

[jonnielu]

As I played I discovered that a pct of bankroll approach presented a set of challenges I hadn't envisioned. I've already mentioned the importance of discipline. But it goes much further than that. No matter how good of a player you might be, most of the overlays you find yourself betting are overlays in the first place because the public ignores them (at least to some degree.) And if you study racing data you know that higher odds horses have lower win rates than lower odds horses. This is true no matter how good of a handicapper you might be. So betting overlays (at least mine) will eventually lead to losing streaks of unknown (beforehand) duration. You have to understand going in that as a player you can do everything right and lose 30 (or more) bets in succession.

You have to be psychologically equipped beforehand to handle this. If not, stop reading this post right now. Treat horses as a hobby only from now on and forget about even trying to grow a tiny bankroll into a large one.



Man, you have got to be kidding. This concept might be good for selling poor information, but anyone that buys this idea will be learning disabled on the subject of horseracing. To lose 30 bets in a row, you would have to figure out a way to exclude every consistency of racing from your consideration, or be playing some screwball angle that has no basis in any consistency of horseracing.

While you train yourself to expect 30+ losers in a row, keep in mind that you get what you expect.

jdl

[barn32]

Man, you have got to be kidding. This concept might be good for selling poor information, but anyone that buys this idea will be learning disabled on the subject of horseracing. To lose 30 bets in a row, you would have to figure out a way to exclude every consistency of racing from your consideration, or be playing some screwball angle that has no basis in any consistency of horseracing.

While you train yourself to expect 30+ losers in a row, keep in mind that you get what you expect.

jdlIf your exacta hit rate is 16%, then it's perfectly reasonable to lose 30 in a row.

[log .005 / log .84=30.38]

[jonnielu]

If your exacta hit rate is 16%, then it's perfectly reasonable to lose 30 in a row.

[log .005 / log .84=30.38]

Then your exacta hit rate is too low, how can losing be reasonable if you supposedly have an idea of what is going on? Is the expectation to lose the way to win? What do you I need to be smoking to get on that perspective?

jdl

[DJofSD]

Man, you have got to be kidding. This concept might be good for selling poor information, but anyone that buys this idea will be learning disabled on the subject of horseracing. To lose 30 bets in a row, you would have to figure out a way to exclude every consistency of racing from your consideration, or be playing some screwball angle that has no basis in any consistency of horseracing.

While you train yourself to expect 30+ losers in a row, keep in mind that you get what you expect.

jdlYour interpretation of Jeff's statement differs from mine. I believe what Jeff was saying is understand the realities, while you seem to think his objective was to lose 30 bets in a row.

If the psychological impact of losing 30 bets in a row is too much for a bettor to tolerate then the reality of the bottom line along with the self defeating mind games the bettor needs to admit to should dictate a change is needed.

[nobeyerspls]

putting some ideas/questions/roadblocks down about playing for profit with a small bankroll

hopefully everybody can contribute

Here are some princioples that work for me.

1. Learn your strengths and structure your wagers around them.
2. Handicap two or three tracks well before the start of the race day and locate a total of eight to twelve solid plays.
3. Assign your capital to these races on a weighted basis, emphasizing exotics.
4. Expect returns of 20-1 to 40-1 from exotics.
5. Bet the same amount weather winning or losing.
6. Skip races and avoid action plays.
7. Do not be influenced by the odds board.
8. Spend your winnings on something other than another bet.
9. Don't focus on ROI. Any profit at all means that you beat the takeout.
10. Be a good winner and a good loser. Don't sulk when you lose a head bob or gloat when you win.

[Bobzilla]

Speaking for myself personally, I find my hit rate now to be considerably lower than it was during my first several years as a player back in the late eighties and early nineties; and yet, where things really matter, at the margin, I'm enjoying much better results. I think it needs to be remembered that different players have different approaches to this quest, and that there is more than one way to successfully skin this cat.

I have no reason to doubt that some contributers to this thread are enjoying some success with their thrillingly high hit percentages and non existent losing streaks. Whatever works for them. For myself, I have done much better with premium odds requirements associated with the angles I wait for. Naturally, as a result I score less but in the long run I do better. I think one would need to consider one's average payoff over time to frame the proper context to judge whether or not a strike percentage is too low. The formula barn52 shared with us, I believe, was first offered by Dick Mitchell. With my own experience I find it to be almost frighteningly accurate. To those who wait for the value they demand, gut-wrenching losing streaks are a reality, they are to be expected as they are only in the natural order of things, universally speaking.

Robert Fisher, great thread and thank you for starting it. Jeff P, I congratulate you on your success as a profesional player and I thank you for sharing your experience. You're a great writer on this topic and I believe you should consider writing a book. Whenever I find myself about to go on tilt and want to get back to basics and shorten that golf swing, so to speak, I often go back and read "The Sphere". Great stuff, Jeff.

[ryesteve]

Then your exacta hit rate is too lowToo low for what? If I'm keying 10/1 shots over 2 or 3 contenders, 16% would be a spectacular hit rate.

[jonnielu]

Your interpretation of Jeff's statement differs from mine. I believe what Jeff was saying is understand the realities, while you seem to think his objective was to lose 30 bets in a row.

If the psychological impact of losing 30 bets in a row is too much for a bettor to tolerate then the reality of the bottom line along with the self defeating mind games the bettor needs to admit to should dictate a change is needed.

I took it as "be mentally prepared to withstand 30 losers in a row". If someone has a method that would require that to remain mentally stable, then their mental state would have to already be insane.

If your criteria is capable of putting you on 20 losers in a row, you need to dump that criteria as fast as you can, and replace it with some thing that has some sort of consistency.

If your criteria is worthwhile, you will see evidence of it at work on any single day's race card. If you don't, you are playing an inconsistent angle of some sort. Preparing yourself for that mentally, will only make it acceptable to you to destroy a bankroll of any size.

Horseracing is not dice, roulette, or cards. To a large degree, a great many people set out to win horse races on purpose, and this creates several consistencies that any astute player can base his/her play on.

You will never build a bankroll large or small, or become an astute player if your play is based on inconsistencies that require you to expect that you may have to withstand 30 losers in a row.

jdl

[jonnielu]

Too low for what? If I'm keying 10/1 shots over 2 or 3 contenders, 16% would be a spectacular hit rate.

So then, expecting 50% until you get it would be no good?

jdl

[DJofSD]

I took it as "be mentally prepared to withstand 30 losers in a row". If someone has a method that would require that to remain mentally stable, then their mental state would have to already be insane.

If your criteria is capable of putting you on 20 losers in a row, you need to dump that criteria as fast as you can, and replace it with some thing that has some sort of consistency.

If your criteria is worthwhile, you will see evidence of it at work on any single day's race card. If you don't, you are playing an inconsistent angle of some sort. Preparing yourself for that mentally, will only make it acceptable to you to destroy a bankroll of any size.

Horseracing is not dice, roulette, or cards. To a large degree, a great many people set out to win horse races on purpose, and this creates several consistencies that any astute player can base his/her play on.

You will never build a bankroll large or small, or become an astute player if your play is based on inconsistencies that require you to expect that you may have to withstand 30 losers in a row.

jdlLot's of points to discuss.

Regarding the 'you may have to withstand 30 losers in a row' what are the expectations of the pick 6 players?

[ryesteve]

So then, expecting 50% until you get it would be no good?
If you think you can hit 50% of your exactas that have a 10/1 shot on top, you're even further out of your mind than we already think you are...

[ryesteve]

You will never build a bankroll large or small, or become an astute player if your play is based on inconsistencies that require you to expect that you may have to withstand 30 losers in a row.
Did you read all of Jeff's post? He already has. You're arguing as if this is all hypothetical.

[jonnielu]

If you think you can hit 50% of your exactas that have a 10/1 shot on top, you're even further out of your mind than we already think you are...

Why would I even insist that a 10-1 be in it? If I'm trying to win exactas with some consistency, why would I wrap it in an inconsistency? The 10-1 could start out at 6 - 1. I would want to be betting the most likely horses for 1st and 2nd, the odds are happenstance. The public makes the final odds, the public believes in happenstance, I don't.

jdl

[jonnielu]

Lot's of points to discuss.

Regarding the 'you may have to withstand 30 losers in a row' what are the expectations of the pick 6 players?

If I were to guess at it, I would say that they expect to lose the bet. If they went about it in a manner that would support an expectation of winning at about 30%, they would be needing to put about 1k into it.

Most seem to prefer to gamble $14 with an expectation of losing.

jdl

[jonnielu]

Did you read all of Jeff's post? He already has. You're arguing as if this is all hypothetical.

How many 30 loss streaks did he withstand with the same bankroll?

jdl

[ryesteve]

Why would I even insist that a 10-1 be in it? I would want to be betting the most likely horses for 1st and 2nd, the odds are happenstance.
I have great sympathy for the people who've actually spent money to be "educated" by you, if your strategy is to pick the "most likely winner", odds be damned.

Utterly f'ing amazing...

[CincyHorseplayer]

I know there is definitely a middle ground between 45% winners at a 6/5 mutuel and 20% winners at an 8-1 mutuel because reality doesn't allow that type of rigidity to predominate on a consistent basis.Unless one gravitates to those ideals.It's basically just a symmetrical relationship;if one picks 28% winners at 4-1 or 40% winners at 5/2 both get around a 50% ROI.Does it really matter how you skin the cat????After all we're all betting our own real money and big or small losing it hurts.

Either extreme seems just that IMO,extreme,but that's just my 2 cents.I think it's healthy psychologically to not endure long droughts of trips to the cashier's window but if you have an ROI that doesn't get close to 30%(or better) does it really matter how often you cash tickets???

Maybe I'm just presumptuous but I think relatively frequent cash rates,solid ROI's,and decent mutuels are an attainable reality,and each level of that aspiration is achieved in a different manner.

[barn32]

Then your exacta hit rate is too low, how can losing be reasonable if you supposedly have an idea of what is going on? Is the expectation to lose the way to win? What do you I need to be smoking to get on that perspective?

jdlWhat is your win betting rate? Is it 50%? Then you can reasonably expect upwards of seven losses in a row.

[log .005 / log .5 = 7.64]

[jonnielu]

I have great sympathy for the people who've actually spent money to be "educated" by you, if your strategy is to pick the "most likely winner", odds be damned.

Utterly f'ing amazing...

It's not odds be damned, I won't bet at under 5-2. You go ahead and do things the same way as everybody else and expect something different to happen, that is what I find utterly f'ing amazing.

jdl

[jonnielu]

What is your win betting rate? Is it 50%? Then you can reasonably expect upwards of seven losses in a row.

[log .005 / log .5 = 7.64]

If it were 50% on a daily basis, I should reasonably expect how many?

jdl

[ryesteve]

You go ahead and do things the same way as everybody else and expect something different to happen, that is what I find utterly f'ing amazingNo, what's utterly f'ing amazing is that you somehow think your strategy of "picking the most likely winner", rather than focusing on edge and value, is a contrarian approach, when in reality it's what mostly "everybody else" is doing.

[Robert Fischer]

Probability

First let me try the example 16% Hit Rate
For a 16% hit rate the maximum expected losing streak for a sequence of 1000 plays is 40.
All that means is that it is improbable to lose more than 40 consecutive plays in a 1000 wager sequence. So for the debate about 30 consecutive losses = yes it is within the realm of possiblity.
But how LIKELY are you to lose 30 consecutive plays at any given time if you hit at 16%?? 0.0054 so 5.4 out of every thousand plays on average would have the probability of snowballing to 30 straight. Again this states the possibility of 30 wager losing streak. Don't think it can't happen with a solid 16% hit rate. The nice thing is that it should be a rare event.
TRICK QUESTION :liar:: What if you never have a 30 game losing streak and you have played 1000 wagers?? Are you "DUE" to have a terrible losing streak?? - Of course not, the chances are still only 0.0054 of it happening.;)

copy paste math for spreadsheets
=ROUND(LN(1000)/-LN((1-0.16)),0)
=(1-0.16)^30

[raybo]

If it were 50% on a daily basis, I should reasonably expect how many?

jdl

Glad you put "if" before the 50% hit rate cause if you hadn't and meant that was your hit rate, I'd have to sit next to you and see for myself, for about 5 years in a row, before I'd believe it.

16% exacta hit rate with average of anything over about 8/1 on top would be very, very respectable.

[Robert Fischer]

The smaller the bankroll, the more important is HIT%

I believe in avoiding low% plays if your bankroll is small.
However, I don't think this means that you can't play any high-value exotic wagers. What I do is consider Hit% as an important part of my wagersizing.

With a $$LARGE BANKROLL$$
$2VALUE=($2pay*hit%)/2 Churn baby churn, and your ROI will show at about your edge.

With a SMALL BANKROLL you have no guarantees that you will withstand the risk of ruin and let your ROI show through.:(
In other words, playing low% plays invites PROBABILITY OR "LUCK" to play a role in your success.

What I have been working with is using Hit% twice when sizing my wagers. I think it is that important.
Here is an example of how I may treat some different wager types:


First Diagram Using $250 BANKROLL

(Numbered from left hand side of picture)

#8) is a 25% hit rate win wager paying $10.40 wager size = $4
#9) 40% WIN $6.50 = $7wager
#10) 4% EXACTA $65 = $1wager (CAN'T PLAY)
#11) 7% EXACTA BOX $38 = $5wager
#12) 75% SHW $3.50 = $12wager
#13) 0.8% SUPER $1000 = 0$wager (CAN'T PLAY)

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6936/value250ag6.jpg


2ND DIAGRAM = SAME WAGERS WITH A $1000 BANKROLL
NOTE THAT THE STRAIGHT EXACTA(#10) AND THE SUPER(#13) NOW BECOME PLAYS.

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/193/value1000yp9.jpg


You can download this spreadsheet here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/141158374/value_calculator.xls.html

[jonnielu]

No, what's utterly f'ing amazing is that you somehow think your strategy of "picking the most likely winner", rather than focusing on edge and value, is a contrarian approach, when in reality it's what mostly "everybody else" is doing.

Most likely according to what? Steve. My most likely or same likely is probably far from yours, it is usually as opposite the favorite as there is in the race. The favorite is the most likely to lose, even though it does win at a very consistent rate, it is overbet 90% of the time. A bet on the favorite is never worth the risk.

And what the edge is, depends on where you are standing, any racing secretary worth his/her paycheck will throw at least 3 relatively equal horses at you, most major venues have the stock that allows 4 and 5 in the modern game. The modern game must support a full menu of wagering, having 1 "best" horse in a race will bring bankruptcy pretty damn fast.

Imagine if people could read a cou[ple of books and practice for a couple of months to be able to find that 1 "best" horse in most races more often then not. Not that simple, but not that complex either. Just get 3 in there that are relatively equal and "best" is out the window because it is all about which has an actual advantage and that could be anything at any given time. Usually, it doesn't have a big red sign in the PP's.

In the swirl, there are still consistencies that you can hang onto, those, along with understanding that the known is the key to the unknown, and that the slow are as much of the contest as the fast, is enough to keep any thinking man away from 30 shot losing streaks.

P.S. I often bet the slowest horse in the race, not just to be contrary, but, because sometimes, that is the edge. But, even my slow horse might be different from your slow horse.

jdl

[jonnielu]

Glad you put "if" before the 50% hit rate cause if you hadn't and meant that was your hit rate, I'd have to sit next to you and see for myself, for about 5 years in a row, before I'd believe it.

16% exacta hit rate with average of anything over about 8/1 on top would be very, very respectable.

I find it amazing, how does a guy carry himself through the pitfalls with an un wavering belief that he can succeed, when he is un-willing to entertain the notion that someone else is successful.

It is not that difficult for an experienced horseplayer to cut to the 2 races on a card that are most winnable, and win one of them. The discussion was about expectations, why would this be beyond yours?

If the skill required to accomplish it were identified as the ability to pass, why would you not develop that skill with the expectation that you could reach a 50% hit rate on win bets.

The way the world works is that you see it WHEN you believe it. If you believe something is unattainable, it never shows up, and you are right.

I simply offer that if you were unwilling to accept a 30 shot losing streak, you wouldn't have one. Who wants one anyway.

What would mankind ever have discovered if it weren't for some lunatic looking at what is possible?

jdl

[ryesteve]

But how LIKELY are you to lose 30 consecutive plays at any given time if you hit at 16%?? 0.0054 so 5.4 out of every thousand plays on average would have the probability of snowballing to 30 straight.But if you're making 25-30 bets a day, doesn't this mean that on average, you'd have such a streak approximately once a week?

My most likely or same likely is probably far from yours, it is usually as opposite the favorite as there is in the race.If you're seldom picking the favorite, then you're NOT picking the most likely winner. You might THINK it's the most likely, but it'd be easy to demonstrate that your hit rate is less than that of the favorites.

[barn32]

A bet on the favorite is never worth the risk.

I'd have to see that math on that one.

[barn32]

Glad you put "if" before the 50% hit rate cause if you hadn't and meant that was your hit rate, I'd have to sit next to you and see for myself, for about 5 years in a row, before I'd believe it.

Try looking at this from the perspective of sports betting. Betting sports anyone can (and should) be able to hit 50% winners. (If you're not, try flipping a coin to pick your teams.)

Now, betting sports, is it out of the realm of possibility to believe you could lose seven in a row every once in a while?

[HUSKER55]

Somehow, I think I got lost. If a card has ten races and 4 of them are races I don't like, (maiden for example), and I concentrate on the six I do like, is it unrealistic to expect to hit 3 of them?

If your strike rate was 2 races per card and you now specialize, wouldn't you expect at least 1 more winner per card?

In this example that would be be 3 out of 6. Is that unrealistic or have I missed the boat?

Thanks for the assistance

husker55

:)

[raybo]

I find it amazing, how does a guy carry himself through the pitfalls with an un wavering belief that he can succeed, when he is un-willing to entertain the notion that someone else is successful.

It is not that difficult for an experienced horseplayer to cut to the 2 races on a card that are most winnable, and win one of them. The discussion was about expectations, why would this be beyond yours?

If the skill required to accomplish it were identified as the ability to pass, why would you not develop that skill with the expectation that you could reach a 50% hit rate on win bets.

The way the world works is that you see it WHEN you believe it. If you believe something is unattainable, it never shows up, and you are right.

I simply offer that if you were unwilling to accept a 30 shot losing streak, you wouldn't have one. Who wants one anyway.

What would mankind ever have discovered if it weren't for some lunatic looking at what is possible?

jdl

I didn't say I couldn't narrow a card to 2 races and hit one of them. I said that if YOU have a 50% hit rate, on exactas, over time, I'd have to see it with my own eyes to believe it, especially when you say that betting the favorite is not in your process. If favorites only hit 33% of the time then your win horses will hit much less than that, and that's just considering the win horses, what about the rest of the exacta?

I didn't say that you weren't successful, did I?

I also qualified my post by saying that having a 16% hit rate, on exactas, with win horses averaging anything over about 8/1 would be very, very respectable.

Can I narrow a card to 2 races and average 50% hits? I believe I could, but not by leaving the favorite out of the process, and there's no way I could hit 50% with my win horses averaging over 8/1 unless I want to pass most cards on a daily basis. That would require patience way beyond the capabilities of even the most successful players. They would be bored to death and couldn't bet enough races and wager what they would need to in order to make any kind of decent profit without running their exacta payouts down to nothing.

I think you got into this discussion in order to show your philosophy concerning positive attitude, not in order to properly reply to the starting thread post as it was written, and meant. None of us need lessons on the importance of a positive attitude, no matter what the endeavor. That isn't what the thread is about.

[ryesteve]

Somehow, I think I got lost. If a card has ten races and 4 of them are races I don't like, (maiden for example), and I concentrate on the six I do like, is it unrealistic to expect to hit 3 of them?No, hitting 3 out of 6 is not unrealistic; but hitting 300 out of 600 would be very unrealistic, unless of course you're only betting even money shots.

[jonnielu]

Somehow, I think I got lost. If a card has ten races and 4 of them are races I don't like, (maiden for example), and I concentrate on the six I do like, is it unrealistic to expect to hit 3 of them?

If your strike rate was 2 races per card and you now specialize, wouldn't you expect at least 1 more winner per card?

In this example that would be be 3 out of 6. Is that unrealistic or have I missed the boat?

Thanks for the assistance

husker55

:)

No, you are on track. Even if you were crazy enough to only bet favorites, the thing to do would be to develop skill in recognizing those races on the card where the favorite has the advantage, if you get those right, your hit rate could be from 60 - 100%.

jdl

[jonnielu]

I didn't say I couldn't narrow a card to 2 races and hit one of them. I said that if YOU have a 50% hit rate, on exactas, over time, I'd have to see it with my own eyes to believe it, especially when you say that betting the favorite is not in your process. If favorites only hit 33% of the time then your win horses will hit much less than that, and that's just considering the win horses, what about the rest of the exacta?

I didn't say that you weren't successful, did I?

I also qualified my post by saying that having a 16% hit rate, on exactas, with win horses averaging anything over about 8/1 would be very, very respectable.

Can I narrow a card to 2 races and average 50% hits? I believe I could, but not by leaving the favorite out of the process, and there's no way I could hit 50% with my win horses averaging over 8/1 unless I want to pass most cards on a daily basis. That would require patience way beyond the capabilities of even the most successful players. They would be bored to death and couldn't bet enough races and wager what they would need to in order to make any kind of decent profit without running their exacta payouts down to nothing.

I think you got into this discussion in order to show your philosophy concerning positive attitude, not in order to properly reply to the starting thread post as it was written, and meant. None of us need lessons on the importance of a positive attitude, no matter what the endeavor. That isn't what the thread is about.

This is what I like Raybo, to get a little discussion going. I wasn't talking about a 50% hit rate on exactas. I was talking about win betting, speaking to the development of conservatism and discipline that Jeff wisely pointed out as a good habit to develop.

Because I know that it is the best way to accomplish high hit rates in the short and long term. But, for motivation in the development of that kind of discipline, you should have the expectation of accomplishing the high hit rate.

For win betting, the favorite is never my subject because that horse will likely lose 7 races today. In the 3 that it will likely take, it will also likely be overbet in all of them. Betting the 3 and losing 1 for a 67% hit rate will leave me short on money and without opportunity.

If I look to the 7 races that the favorite will lose, I have a much greater opportunity for profit here. Actually, if I am smart enough to identify these 7 races correctly, I could be dumb-assed enough to win only 1 of them and still have a profit, IF the public does in that particular race what they do most dependably. A horseplayer is always ahead if he can cover dumb-assedness.

Exactas are a different game, the favorite will often be included since half of the time when it gets beat, it is second. If I want a hit rate high enough to provide re-inforcement, I will have at least 3 horses in the exacta. If losing 3 in a row is a risk to my tender mental make-up I will include 4.

I prefer the superfecta to the exacta though, and the Pk3 to win betting. The Pk3 is the best solution to what the racing secretary is doing to you in the modern game.

P.S. I got into the discussion because I know that your expectations are what will lead you to a level of knowledge and/or understanding of this game.

The concept that you can do everything right, and you should still expect 30 losers in a row is a very low expectation that will not lead you to any appreciable understanding of this game. It is not rocket science, nor is it craps.

And, anyone that expects 30 losers in a row, needs something.

jdl

[Robert Fischer]

But if you're making 25-30 bets a day, doesn't this mean that on average, you'd have such a streak approximately once a week?

Yes. what was it 0.0054 ? or 5.4/1000 which can be reduced to 1/185
30 bets a day for 6 days is 180 bets. Good Call.:ThmbUp:
You don't want your average bet to be a 16% chance unless you have some bankroll to protect you.

[Robert Fischer]

http://rapidshare.com/files/141350154/value_calculator.xls.html

Features = Value Calculator, "fair odds calculator", my wagersize calculator

^^^
for those that wanted to or already downloaded the spreadsheet, I had to make a change in the f-11 cell. Above is a new version.



Or if you Already Have it & are handy with spread sheets you can do it manually
F-11 Cell copy and paste "=IF(C11<1.3,0,D11*E11*0.05)"

[Robert Fischer]

Jonnielu I like your ideas about passing races until you find a very strong play. Also the idea of going against the consensus. :ThmbUp:


here are some contrarian plays i am considering today

Del Park R8 (Kent Stakes) #5 SEEYOUINTHECITY - stop raining! :bang:
Woodward Sar10= #8Wanderin Boy(win/place/show) #7OutofControl.(underneath)
Timonium r6 #7Kenharra (got a tip/underneath)
Saratoga r8 #9 Hello Broadway(underneath)

[Dave Schwartz]

Yes. what was it 0.0054 ? or 5.4/1000 which can be reduced to 1/185
30 bets a day for 6 days is 180 bets. Good Call.

Actually, that would not be correct.

When you computer the chances of consecutive losers, each win represents a "cycle." Thus,


LLLW

That represents only 1 cycle.

One would not get 180 cycles out of 180 races.

You can certainly compute how many races "on average" it takes to complete a cycle but it is certainly more than 1.

[raybo]

This is what I like Raybo, to get a little discussion going. I wasn't talking about a 50% hit rate on exactas. I was talking about win betting, speaking to the development of conservatism and discipline that Jeff wisely pointed out as a good habit to develop.

Because I know that it is the best way to accomplish high hit rates in the short and long term. But, for motivation in the development of that kind of discipline, you should have the expectation of accomplishing the high hit rate.

For win betting, the favorite is never my subject because that horse will likely lose 7 races today. In the 3 that it will likely take, it will also likely be overbet in all of them. Betting the 3 and losing 1 for a 67% hit rate will leave me short on money and without opportunity.

If I look to the 7 races that the favorite will lose, I have a much greater opportunity for profit here. Actually, if I am smart enough to identify these 7 races correctly, I could be dumb-assed enough to win only 1 of them and still have a profit, IF the public does in that particular race what they do most dependably. A horseplayer is always ahead if he can cover dumb-assedness.

Exactas are a different game, the favorite will often be included since half of the time when it gets beat, it is second. If I want a hit rate high enough to provide re-inforcement, I will have at least 3 horses in the exacta. If losing 3 in a row is a risk to my tender mental make-up I will include 4.

I prefer the superfecta to the exacta though, and the Pk3 to win betting. The Pk3 is the best solution to what the racing secretary is doing to you in the modern game.

P.S. I got into the discussion because I know that your expectations are what will lead you to a level of knowledge and/or understanding of this game.

The concept that you can do everything right, and you should still expect 30 losers in a row is a very low expectation that will not lead you to any appreciable understanding of this game. It is not rocket science, nor is it craps.

And, anyone that expects 30 losers in a row, needs something.

jdl

I'm glad you finally cleared up what you meant, if not said. Statements like the one I replied to are typical of posts that do not promote healthy discussions in a thread but rather, antagonism. There is plenty of that here already.

The highlighted portion of your thread above makes more sense. What any successful wagerer should be most concerned with is value. Value is the reason I stopped win betting back in 1993 and began studying proper ways to exploit the exotics. I started the study with exactas, shortly after that, after discovering that there was, indeed, value in exactas, I switched my study to trifectas and found even more value. Back then trifectas paid handsomely. For quite some time I played the tris, successfully, but the value started to decline as more and more players discovered them. The jump to superfectas, in 1997, was daunting, to say the least. The procedure was very similar to trifecta wagering but with the added dimension of having to concentrate much more analysis towards the non-contenders. I, over the years, have developed 4 distinctly different "grading" systems for the contenders for each of the 4 betting lines, win, place, show, and 4th. This was the beginning of the evolution of my ticket construction process, which, in my opinion, is more important than my handicapping abilities. With value as the single, over-riding factor in my ticket structure process, exceedingly profitable play emerged. The second most important factor in my superfecta play has always been, aside from a short period of time which caused me to stop wagering completely for over a year, discipline, in both handicapping processes and bet/ no bet decisions. There is no substitute for discipline, period.

[Robert Fischer]

Jonnielu I like your ideas about passing races until you find a very strong play. Also the idea of going against the consensus. :ThmbUp:


here are some contrarian plays i am considering today

Del Park R8 (Kent Stakes) #5 SEEYOUINTHECITY - stop raining! :bang:
Woodward Sar10= #8Wanderin Boy(win/place/show) #7OutofControl.(underneath)
Timonium r6 #7Kenharra (got a tip/underneath)
Saratoga r8 #9 Hello Broadway(underneath)

should have kept her to myself! 5th choice 6-1 ML gets bet down to 5-2 fav?
just kidding, that is to be expected with trainer-Intent and a track like tim where a 15K win pool..

[Robert Fischer]

Actually, that would not be correct.

When you computer the chances of consecutive losers, each win represents a "cycle." Thus,


LLLW

That represents only 1 cycle.

One would not get 180 cycles out of 180 races.

You can certainly compute how many races "on average" it takes to complete a cycle but it is certainly more than 1.

Cool Way of looking at that.
I don't think the previous play's result has any affect on the probability of the current play becoming a consecutive loss streak , but I know what you are saying.

------
wow , SEEYOUINTHECITY takes them to deeeeeep stretch @ 23-1 ing the G3 Kent stakes and stops to 4th - real heartbreaker:lol:! very tough ride opening up early, and tough luck with the track coming up a little soft , but of course Dunkelberger/Good-track were known well in advance.
I played it expecting at least $7 to show payout @ a 50% hit rate.

[Dave Schwartz]

Cool Way of looking at that.
I don't think the previous play's result has any affect on the probability of the current play becoming a consecutive loss streak , but I know what you are saying.

I agree.

However, simply put, you are measuring the liklihood of a 30-loss streak. That is not per race. That is [/i]per win.[/i]


Dave

[Tampa Russ]

should have kept her to myself! 5th choice 6-1 ML gets bet down to 5-2 fav?
just kidding, that is to be expected with trainer-Intent and a track like tim where a 15K win pool..

Exactly what I was thinking, but thanks anyway!:)

[Jeff P]

Man, you have got to be kidding. This concept might be good for selling poor information, but anyone that buys this idea will be learning disabled on the subject of horseracing. To lose 30 bets in a row, you would have to figure out a way to exclude every consistency of racing from your consideration, or be playing some screwball angle that has no basis in any consistency of horseracing.-and-The concept that you can do everything right, and you should still expect 30 losers in a row is a very low expectation that will not lead you to any appreciable understanding of this game. It is not rocket science, nor is it craps.

And, anyone that expects 30 losers in a row, needs something.
Jonnielu, I guess you and I just see the game differently.

Consider the following - hopefully it'll shed some light on what I was trying to convey in my earlier post. Here is a calendar year recap for one of the UDMs (spot plays) that I currently use in live play:
Data Window Settings:
Divisor = 999 Odds Cap: None

Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*)
From Index File: C:\2007\pl_CPace_1.txt


Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 12727.70 11004.60 10089.90
Bet -10934.00 -10934.00 -10934.00
Gain 1793.70 70.60 -844.10

Wins 915 1690 2360
Plays 5467 5467 5467
PCT .1674 .3091 .4317

ROI 1.1640 1.0065 0.9228
Avg Mut 13.91 6.51 4.28Understand that this is not the be all end all of my selection process. The above UDM is just one of many pre-defined play types in my arsenal. Variations of this particular UDM have produced similar results for me in each of the past 8 years now. And (so far) 2008 is proving no different.

Take a close look at the method's performance broken out by post time odds. Specifically take note of what happens at 10-1 and higher. THAT's where the bulk of this UDM's profits are coming from:
By: Odds Range

>=Min < Max Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
-999.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
0.00 5.00 -130.40 4350.00 0.9700 538 2175 .2474 1.4779
5.00 10.00 308.50 3650.00 1.0845 252 1825 .1381 0.8250
10.00 15.00 319.20 1364.00 1.2340 65 682 .0953 0.5695
15.00 20.00 612.10 626.00 1.9778 35 313 .1118 0.6681
20.00 25.00 13.60 320.00 1.0425 7 160 .0438 0.2614
25.00 30.00 231.10 218.00 2.0601 8 109 .0734 0.4385
30.00 35.00 229.20 102.00 3.2471 5 51 .0980 0.5858
35.00 40.00 125.00 100.00 2.2500 3 50 .0600 0.3585
40.00 45.00 10.60 76.00 1.1395 1 38 .0263 0.1572
45.00 50.00 -52.00 52.00 0.0000 0 26 .0000 0.0000
50.00 55.00 -34.00 34.00 0.0000 0 17 .0000 0.0000
55.00 60.00 -18.00 18.00 0.0000 0 9 .0000 0.0000
60.00 65.00 -4.00 4.00 0.0000 0 2 .0000 0.0000
65.00 70.00 -8.00 8.00 0.0000 0 4 .0000 0.0000
70.00 75.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
75.00 80.00 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
80.00 85.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
85.00 90.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
90.00 999999.00 192.80 10.00 20.2800 1 5 .2000 1.1950Low win rate, decent roi, lots of plays.

I want to emphasize three words: lots of plays. They are important for getting the compounding effect required for growing a bankroll.

Now, every time a horse qualifies as one of this UDM's selections, I have a choice to make:

Play or Pass.

Knowing (approximately) what to expect beforehand based on the UDM's performance history over the past 8 years - low win rate, acceptable roi...

What should my decision be? Play or Pass?

Personally, I choose Play every time.

My own experience says that a 30 race losing streak using this (and similar) UDMs is not just a very real possibility. It's a mathematical certaintly.

How many 30 loss streaks did he withstand with the same bankroll?My answer: 24 such streaks for this UDM over the past 5 years. BTW still growing the SAME bankroll.

You will never build a bankroll large or small, or become an astute player if your play is based on inconsistencies that require you to expect that you may have to withstand 30 losers in a row.I completely disagree with this statement.

My own real life experience shows that including a few UDMs like this (low win rate, decent roi) as part of an overall portfolio of UDMs used for live play (and bankroll building) helps the bottom line - PROVIDED I'm careful to size the bet accordingly.

Remember...

Profits = (edge) x (handle)

Betting lots of plays from low hit rate UDMs is just one way of increasing my own handle.

I hope I've managed to convey my train of thought here in a way that most everyone can follow. I'm not sure I managed to do that with my first post.

-jp

.

[ryesteve]

I agree.

However, simply put, you are measuring the liklihood of a 30-loss streak. That is not per race. That is [/i]per win.[/i]
DaveI disagree; it's not per race or per win; it's per each sequence of 30 races. Each race must be looked at as the start of a sequence. If you have 60 races, there are 31 sequences of 30 races in there, regardless of how many winners are there.

[Dave Schwartz]

Steve,

If you run a simulation, you will see that you do not get 100 results out of 100 races.

But I will agree to disagree.

Dave

[ryesteve]

If you run a simulation, you will see that you do not get 100 results out of 100 races.I'm not sure what you mean by a "result", but I'm not saying there are 100 sequences of 30 races within 100 races; but there are 71

[jonnielu]

-and-
Jonnielu, I guess you and I just see the game differently.

Consider the following - hopefully it'll shed some light on what I was trying to convey in my earlier post. Here is a calendar year recap for one of the UDMs (spot plays) that I currently use in live play:
Data Window Settings:
Divisor = 999 Odds Cap: None

Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*)
From Index File: C:\2007\pl_CPace_1.txt


Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 12727.70 11004.60 10089.90
Bet -10934.00 -10934.00 -10934.00
Gain 1793.70 70.60 -844.10

Wins 915 1690 2360
Plays 5467 5467 5467
PCT .1674 .3091 .4317

ROI 1.1640 1.0065 0.9228
Avg Mut 13.91 6.51 4.28Understand that this is not the be all end all of my selection process. The above UDM is just one of many pre-defined play types in my arsenal. Variations of this particular UDM have produced similar results for me in each of the past 8 years now. And (so far) 2008 is proving no different.

Take a close look at the method's performance broken out by post time odds. Specifically take note of what happens at 10-1 and higher. THAT's where the bulk of this UDM's profits are coming from:
By: Odds Range

>=Min < Max Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
-999.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
0.00 5.00 -130.40 4350.00 0.9700 538 2175 .2474 1.4779
5.00 10.00 308.50 3650.00 1.0845 252 1825 .1381 0.8250
10.00 15.00 319.20 1364.00 1.2340 65 682 .0953 0.5695
15.00 20.00 612.10 626.00 1.9778 35 313 .1118 0.6681
20.00 25.00 13.60 320.00 1.0425 7 160 .0438 0.2614
25.00 30.00 231.10 218.00 2.0601 8 109 .0734 0.4385
30.00 35.00 229.20 102.00 3.2471 5 51 .0980 0.5858
35.00 40.00 125.00 100.00 2.2500 3 50 .0600 0.3585
40.00 45.00 10.60 76.00 1.1395 1 38 .0263 0.1572
45.00 50.00 -52.00 52.00 0.0000 0 26 .0000 0.0000
50.00 55.00 -34.00 34.00 0.0000 0 17 .0000 0.0000
55.00 60.00 -18.00 18.00 0.0000 0 9 .0000 0.0000
60.00 65.00 -4.00 4.00 0.0000 0 2 .0000 0.0000
65.00 70.00 -8.00 8.00 0.0000 0 4 .0000 0.0000
70.00 75.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
75.00 80.00 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
80.00 85.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
85.00 90.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
90.00 999999.00 192.80 10.00 20.2800 1 5 .2000 1.1950Low win rate, decent roi, lots of plays.

I want to emphasize three words: lots of plays. They are important for getting the compounding effect required for growing a bankroll.

Now, every time a horse qualifies as one of this UDM's selections, I have a choice to make:

Play or Pass.

Knowing (approximately) what to expect beforehand based on the UDM's performance history over the past 8 years - low win rate, acceptable roi...

What should my decision be? Play or Pass?

Personally, I choose Play every time.

My own experience says that a 30 race losing streak using this (and similar) UDMs is not just a very real possibility. It's a mathematical certaintly.

My answer: 24 such streaks for this UDM over the past 5 years. BTW still growing the SAME bankroll.

I completely disagree with this statement.

My own real life experience shows that including a few UDMs like this (low win rate, decent roi) as part of an overall portfolio of UDMs used for live play (and bankroll building) helps the bottom line - PROVIDED I'm careful to size the bet accordingly.

Remember...

Profits = (edge) x (handle)

Betting lots of plays from low hit rate UDMs is just one way of increasing my own handle.

I hope I've managed to convey my train of thought here in a way that most everyone can follow. I'm not sure I managed to do that with my first post.

-jp

.

Jeff,

What was the size of the original bankroll, and is the UDM from your own research. What I am getting at was what was your comfort level with this UDM going in with the original bankroll?

While you say this is one of several, would you expect the average player to use this one with a small bankroll and keep his head on straight through 30 losers. I think that the average guy needs more re-inforcement.

I'm sure that we see the game from differing perspectives, but many obstacles having to do with getting around the corner are the same for everybody. So, I am assuming that you had also learned not to reach before going in with this original bankroll. I'll also guess that you had become cognizant of how and when you had previously gotten in your own way, and learned how to not do that.

jdl

[Jeff P]

Jeff,

What was the size of the original bankroll, and is the UDM from your own research. What I am getting at was what was your comfort level with this UDM going in with the original bankroll?

While you say this is one of several, would you expect the average player to use this one with a small bankroll and keep his head on straight through 30 losers. I think that the average guy needs more re-inforcement.

I'm sure that we see the game from differing perspectives, but many obstacles having to do with getting around the corner are the same for everybody. So, I am assuming that you had also learned not to reach before going in with this original bankroll. I'll also guess that you had become cognizant of how and when you had previously gotten in your own way, and learned how to not do that.

jdlThe original bank was just $250.00. The UDM is based on my own research using factors of my own creation. When I started out I was 100 pct confident that the UDM would produce for me.

The iffy part was whether or not I could produce. I wasn't sure whether or not I had the discipline to stick it out. Hundreds of tiny $3 and $5 win bets (.015 x bank size rounded down) weren't very exciting (certainly not at first.) But when I saw the bank begin to grow as a result of churn and compounding - Believe me, my interest level spiked in a hurry.

Would I expect the average player to use something like this and keep his head on straight during a losing streak?

Hell no. After 10 or 12 consecutive losses I'd expect the average player to drop the whole idea and start looking for something else. Either that or start doubling up after each loss trying to catch lightning in a bottle.

Reinforcement?

I'm going to go off on a short tangent.

I talk to lots of players all the time. I've learned that we are reinforcement junkies. We all crave reinforcement.

For some reason we are wired to instinctively think it's ok to load up on a logical contender at 5/2...

But give the average player 16/1 on the same horse in the same race instead of 5/2... and give him access to the same playing bank as well... and you'll see the average player do one of three things:

1. Make a $5.00 win bet instead of a $50.00 win bet.

2. Split the bet WP or WPS instead of straight WIN.

3. Whiff on the $34.00 winner and make a $40 or $50 bet on some OTHER horse at 2/1.

IOW the average player is average for a reason. He constantly makes bad decisions. Day in and day out. But somehow he feels good about those bad decisions. Or worse, he may not even realize he's making bad decisions in the first place.

I personally think a big part of bad decisions is a result of reinforcement.

He cuts back his bet to $5.00 and watches the horse he was going to bet $50.00 to win on finish 4th. Reinforcement.

He splits the bet WP. The horse finishes 2nd and plays $9.80 to place. Reinforcement... despite the fact that he's studied racing data and knows that in the long run betting straight win vs WP returns much higher total $$ for the same money bet on that type of play.

Or he whiffs on his contender at 16/1... let's say for argument's sake the horse had a 10 pct chance to win outright and was the one true overlay Mr. Average picked all day... and instead bets $20.00 to win on a 2/1 horse that for argument's sake was maybe 30 pct likely to win (an underlay)... and reinforcement happened when the horse won and $62.00 fell out of the sky and into his pocket.

And because of reinforcement the average player shows up tomorrow and makes the same set of mistakes all over again...

Hey, we're ALL average players to one degree or another... I can be as average as anybody sometimes.

But it wasn't until I treated that $250.00 like it was all the money I had to my name that I stopped being average long enough to grow a bankroll.


-jp

.

[Dave Schwartz]

Okay, Steve. I'll try once more. So, you recognize that a 30-race losing streak in a 100-race sample causes one to only have 71 trials.

What about when you have a 25-race losing streak and win #26 in that same 100 race sample? What about a 5-race losing streak? Or a 2-race is losing streak? Every one of those becomes a "successful" cycle. (Successful in the sense that it was not a 30-race losing streak.)

So, if I said, "How often do I experience a 30-race losing streak?" that means that a 29-race loser followed by a winner is categorized as a winner but took 30 races to complete.

Do you see my point this time?

Dave

[Premier Turf Club]

Try to develop an odds-line, know matter how crude it is so you'll know when you're taking a price less than the probablility of that particular animal. There are any number of ways to do this. There are some very good odds line generating programs, JCapper, Horse Street, Handicapping OS, HTR, etc. I have my own Monte Carlo model that uses speed figures (amongst other things). Whatever you use, employ the line as a guide when constructing your plays.

Don't bet horses bet prices. If you make your top choice 2-1 and he's even money, take a look at your second choice, or your third choice. When playing with a small bankroll it's very important to hit often enough to stay alive. For that reason, I will rarely key a horse I make more than 10-1. Most of your plays should be between 3-1 and 8-1 on your line. My rule of thumb is bet 70% of the play with your choice winning, and 30% with your choice running second. If your selection is a high enough price don't be afraid to play an All/Your Horse exacta in addition to using your horse with the logical contenders. I hit 2 different $1000 exactas this summer when my choice ran 2nd to 40-1+ shots I wouldn't have had without a wheel.

Find out what your good at and stick to it. I have about a $1.10 ROI betting to win in grass routes. My ROI in dirt sprints is probably 0.65 and I am just about as bad in supers. I haven't lost money in any given month on grass racing in a very long time. Unfortunately, I get bored and play other types of races which is a real drag on my ROI.

I think that's a long-winded enough answer. The above is JMHO, but I have been playing for 30 years now, and I think without the kind of discipline those posting here have described it's impossible to achieve long-term success. :)

[Bobzilla]

Jeff P,

When you were playing .015, .020, and .025 percents of your bankroll was the allotted amount for your play entirely to win, as I would guess, or were you ever doing 50/50 win-place depending on the odds. Say you liked Greeley's Conquest in yesterday's Forego who the public let go off at 38.50/1, would you have done $8 to win or $4 to win-place?

I've always done something similar to Ian's 70/30 rule, but more like 80/20. The 20% is just used to get as much of my money back, if not more, if my longshot should outrun his odds but not quite get up. Usually it's along the lines of backwheels and/or concentrated exacta plays behind some of the shorter priced choices. By attempting the latter I might just be dribbling more money away in the long run but I'm not really sure. When a horse goes off at 38/1 it's sure nice to get something back.

A math major I'm not, so maybe the following question might seem elementary to some of the sharp statistical/mathematical minds on this board, but I've often thought of taking the time to backtest years of raw data to see if one would do better in the long run by doing $200 to win, or, $100 win-place on longshots. Maybe $150win $50 place and maybe even $100 win $50place-show if odds are at 10/1 or higher. As my place percentage (wins or 2nd) is about 2.5 to 3 times higher than my win only percentage, I would guess that in the long run the returns on simply win might be higher but the win-place return wouldn't be too far behind and the ride would be much less volitile. Perhaps the tradeoff of not getting as much back with the win wagers when doing the win-place would be off-set by the many times my longshot doesn't win but runs second.

[ryesteve]

Okay, Steve. I'll try once more. So, you recognize that a 30-race losing streak in a 100-race sample causes one to only have 71 trials.Unforunately, that's not what I said or meant. No result is going to "cause" anything. Whether they're all wins or all losses, you will still have 71 sequences of 30 races within those 100 races.

Anyway, since we can't seem to get on the same wavelength, and this all started with an attempt to hypothesize an answer that Jeff has subsequently given (24 streaks in 5 years), I guess we'll just turn the page on this one...

[jonnielu]

The original bank was just $250.00. The UDM is based on my own research using factors of my own creation. When I started out I was 100 pct confident that the UDM would produce for me.

The iffy part was whether or not I could produce. I wasn't sure whether or not I had the discipline to stick it out. Hundreds of tiny $3 and $5 win bets (.015 x bank size rounded down) weren't very exciting (certainly not at first.) But when I saw the bank begin to grow as a result of churn and compounding - Believe me, my interest level spiked in a hurry.

Would I expect the average player to use something like this and keep his head on straight during a losing streak?

Hell no. After 10 or 12 consecutive losses I'd expect the average player to drop the whole idea and start looking for something else. Either that or start doubling up after each loss trying to catch lightning in a bottle.

Reinforcement?

I'm going to go off on a short tangent.

I talk to lots of players all the time. I've learned that we are reinforcement junkies. We all crave reinforcement.

For some reason we are wired to instinctively think it's ok to load up on a logical contender at 5/2...

But give the average player 16/1 on the same horse in the same race instead of 5/2... and give him access to the same playing bank as well... and you'll see the average player do one of three things:

1. Make a $5.00 win bet instead of a $50.00 win bet.

2. Split the bet WP or WPS instead of straight WIN.

3. Whiff on the $34.00 winner and make a $40 or $50 bet on some OTHER horse at 2/1.

IOW the average player is average for a reason. He constantly makes bad decisions. Day in and day out. But somehow he feels good about those bad decisions. Or worse, he may not even realize he's making bad decisions in the first place.

I personally think a big part of bad decisions is a result of reinforcement.

He cuts back his bet to $5.00 and watches the horse he was going to bet $50.00 to win on finish 4th. Reinforcement.

He splits the bet WP. The horse finishes 2nd and plays $9.80 to place. Reinforcement... despite the fact that he's studied racing data and knows that in the long run betting straight win vs WP returns much higher total $$ for the same money bet on that type of play.

Or he whiffs on his contender at 16/1... let's say for argument's sake the horse had a 10 pct chance to win outright and was the one true overlay Mr. Average picked all day... and instead bets $20.00 to win on a 2/1 horse that for argument's sake was maybe 30 pct likely to win (an underlay)... and reinforcement happened when the horse won and $62.00 fell out of the sky and into his pocket.

And because of reinforcement the average player shows up tomorrow and makes the same set of mistakes all over again...

Hey, we're ALL average players to one degree or another... I can be as average as anybody sometimes.

But it wasn't until I treated that $250.00 like it was all the money I had to my name that I stopped being average long enough to grow a bankroll.


-jp

.

Hey Jeff,

So you are very comfortable with the spot play going in, which I would think helps greatly to withstand 30 losers. I would still operate to shorten that potential losing streak. We see the game from differing perspectives, and I would assume that yours suits your makeup as an individual, as does mine.

When I say re-inforcement, I mean the kind that tells you that you are on the right track with your thinking. Not the sort that says, "I need the agreement of others to sustain this idea."

To take it back to the root of the conversation, I was talking about expectations. I have found that you will be taken as far as your expectations in learning about what is actually happening on the racetrack.

My goal was to understand horse racing, for a long time there was only one re-inforcement that sustained that idea, and it was never the agreement of others with my notion that horse racing differs from dice, because it can be understood. That single re-inforcement was the 16-1 winner that you have noted to be very hard for joe average to bet on. Even though it is exactly what he spends his time looking for.

Everytime that horse bounded out, or separated itself from the pack by 6 lengths while reaching for another four feet with every stride and snapping it's tail up and down as if to say, "you failed to see the obvious again." The idea that it was no accident was re-inforced. My expectations, which have always been too much, according to others, became that I would be able to see this horse 5 minutes before post time.

You can get what you pursue, most people just don't want to pursue that much, and there is nothing wrong with that. Another thing I have learned along the way is that most people are quite happy with their belief's, and they just get mad at you if you suggest that any are just vapor.

jdl

[Robert Fischer]

Try to develop an odds-line, know matter how crude it is so you'll know when you're taking a price less than the probablility of that particular animal. There are any number of ways to do this. There are some very good odds line generating programs, JCapper, Horse Street, Handicapping OS, HTR, etc. I have my own Monte Carlo model that uses speed figures (amongst other things). Whatever you use, employ the line as a guide when constructing your plays.


That is BIG. We have been talking about % , and the odds-line is where you are going to come up with those percentages. You MUST have an opinion on how much a horse is worth, so that you can buy the Big Value tickets and pass on the rip offs.
Premier Turf Club is an Advanced Deposit Wagering (ADW) that has some features like conditional wagering, and offers a nice rewards program.

[DJofSD]

When I say re-inforcement, I mean the kind that tells you that you are on the right track with your thinking. Not the sort that says, "I need the agreement of others to sustain this idea."
Confirmation or validation of the hypothesis would suggest being on the correct track with the approach.

[Robert Fischer]

So you are very comfortable with the spot play going in, which I would think helps greatly to withstand 30 losers. I would still operate to shorten that potential losing streak. :jump:

What about Slumps?
First a player has to be real careful about knowing the difference between a slump and a "natural" losing or winning streak.

We've already said that if your hit% is 16% it is Natural that you have an 84% chance of losing any given play!

The Difference between a Slump and a Natural "streak" is this =
MISTAKES , ERRORS

I happen to be a very subjective handicapper. That is I play what I see, I watch a lot of video, I make assumptions based on the past performances and what I know about the sport of horse racing. The more you depend on your own opinion = the more you are subject to Mistakes and Errors.

Types of Mistakes/Errors -

CARELESS MISTAKES - shut out, mis-read, missed a layoff.., screwed up wager, greedy and doubled wager, etc...

HANDICAPPING ERRORS - misjudged the horses

Careless mistakes should be kept to a minimum. If you are making them often, then you are in a real SLUMP.

Handicapping errors are a little more forgiveable, and more difficult to separate from Natural streaks.

I like this quote on handicapping errors from a PA member and trip-handicapper:
Four possible outcomes in a given race:
1) right horse and wins
2) right horse but loses --stewards, bad trip, etc.
3) wrong horse and loses
4) wrong horse BUT wins --stewards, good trip, etc.
In other words evaluate, and don't automatically link win/lose to whether your play was right.


SLUMP BUSTERS?
Would like to hear some players slump busters ?

Whenever I make too many Careless mistakes or a great many handicapping errors I first look in the mirror. Am I tired, burnt out, time to eat?
And I STOP PLAYING WITH MONEY. The next wagering day, I play on "paper" for the first 3 plays, doing things as closesly to regular play as possible. Can I make a few mistake-free wagers? Am I into it and alert?

[DeanT]

that is really good discipline Robert. I assume you must be a good player.

I wish I had that as well as you. I cut my bet size now, which is good when my bankroll falls and so forth, but I am not able to paper play.

[Overlay]

The more you depend on your own opinion = the more you are subject to Mistakes and Errors.

Well-put.

[ranchwest]

A bet on the favorite is never worth the risk.
jdl

That's probably the worst thing I've ever seen posted on this board and I've seen some LuLu's.

I haven't had time to bet much lately, but the last time I did I hit an exacta with the favorite over the longest shot on the board. Paid a few cents shy of $100.00.

Last year, I hit a super with an even money favorite on top. On a dime, it paid about $137.

I've also seen some juicy horizontal payoffs.

And, there's even the occassional win ticket that is worth the risk on a favorite -- not my cup of tea usually, but sometimes it is what I call "money on the ground -- pick it up with a small wager".

I'm not much into favorites, but to claim that favorites are never worth the risk is just wrong.

[barn32]

you will still have 71 sequences of 30 races within those 100 races.

Is there a simple algebraic formula to come up with the "71 within 100" answer?

Thanks

Oh wait a minute. Is it simply (100-30)+1?

[jonnielu]

:jump:

What about Slumps?
SLUMP BUSTERS?
Would like to hear some players slump busters ?

Whenever I make too many Careless mistakes or a great many handicapping errors I first look in the mirror. Am I tired, burnt out, time to eat?
And I STOP PLAYING WITH MONEY. The next wagering day, I play on "paper" for the first 3 plays, doing things as closesly to regular play as possible. Can I make a few mistake-free wagers? Am I into it and alert?

Streaks, whether winning or losing are found more in your perception of the game as opposed to reality. In reality, racing doesn't care how you are doing, it just keeps doing what it does naturally and with the same consistency that it always has.

Most do not see racing as a game that turns on consistencies, and they liken the game to tumbling dice without noticing that some things happen day in and day out.

How can it be a likened to the turn of a card, when the ML and the track handicapper can give you the 4 horses that will win 70% of the races everyday. Sure, it is not enough in itself, but it is a stunning and overwhelming consistency when you consider that we are betting on 10 horses running a mile in all kinds of weather with a whip-wielding maniac on its back.

Why should you accept the idea of a streak, when this much can be produced so generally correct with almost boring consistency. Even the long-shot group can bore you with consistency, if there are appreciable streaks by nature, how do we know that some bum is likely to win the 10th?

Check your perception, that could be where the streak is coming from. Check your perception this way, this week, on the side of whatever else you are doing.

Assume that all of the horses are equal in there ability to run. Compare them on that basis to find which, if any, have an advantage or an edge on the others. Give the favorite the advantage of being the favorite, and narrow the field accordingly as best you can and as far as you can take it without deciding that one is just better then the other. Don't try to reduce the number of contenders by considering any better or best criteria. If you have 5 you have 5. But, from that number of contenders decide whether or not there is a wagering opportunity in the race and make note, along with how many contenders are on the board when it is in.

This should show you where the streak comes from.

Slumps are different, there can be several causes for the slump, but usually you are doing one of two things when the slump arrives. One is being sloppy and making mistakes, which can be a result of the primary cause of slumps... needing to win. The minute you realize that you need to win, for whatever reason, shut it down and take a break. Come back when you don't need to win, because that need is going to cause you to reach, get sloppy, and make mistakes. The only way to cut this short is to stop right there and do anything else until you can come back and stay out of your own way so that the winnings can find you.

jdl

[HUSKER55]

I think I got lost again. Suppose you handicap a race with 5 horses and decide that anyone of them has a legitimate chance of winning. Therefore each horse, according to you, would be at 20 : 1. Is that right?

So if you get to the track and the public has decided that one of the horses should get no better than 30 : 1 then that would be your bet,...right?

Next question:

Suppose you chose a horse you really like to win a race and you truly believe he can't be beat. Your oddsline says the horse should go at 3:1 but the public offers 1:1. Do you pass the race? Are you going to bet against your own first pick? What do you do?

Thanks for the input guys and gals, I appreciate the help.

husker55

:)

[jonnielu]

That's probably the worst thing I've ever seen posted on this board and I've seen some LuLu's.

I haven't had time to bet much lately, but the last time I did I hit an exacta with the favorite over the longest shot on the board. Paid a few cents shy of $100.00.

Last year, I hit a super with an even money favorite on top. On a dime, it paid about $137.

I've also seen some juicy horizontal payoffs.

And, there's even the occassional win ticket that is worth the risk on a favorite -- not my cup of tea usually, but sometimes it is what I call "money on the ground -- pick it up with a small wager".

I'm not much into favorites, but to claim that favorites are never worth the risk is just wrong.

More backlash for my habitual assumption that people have some brains, and not spelling out the context clearly.

WITH REGARD TO WIN BETTING... I FIND THE FAVORITE TO BE NOT WORTH THE RISK.

EVEN THOUGH THE FAVORITE WILL WIN 3 RACES TODAY, AND ON OCCASION THE PUBLIC WILL LET ONE GO INSTEAD OF POUNDING IT TO DUST.

This is my own personal outlook because I find that 1 - 8-1 win is worth the chalk players whole day. And the doors of opportunity swing open much wider if I bet against the favorite 100% when WIN BETTING.

Because the favorite is the target for every other horse in the race, AND usually the key to the winner's profile AND how the race will be run, only a fool would leave this horse out of any exotics. The favorite is always the favorite, it is as likely to come 2nd or 3rd as it is to win.

With a 30% win rate and the key to the race, you will cash very few Pk's without the favorite in each and every one of them, the favorite is again the key to winning Pk's.

Every once in awhile, there isn't a candidate to beat a favorite, and I'll pass that race because there is another coming up in 25 minutes, 60 more next week, and the week after that. The favorite is also the key to betting against the favorite, altogether a very valuable animal... its least value however, is betting it to win.

jdl

[Overlay]

I think I got lost again. Suppose you handicap a race with 5 horses and decide that anyone of them has a legitimate chance of winning. Therefore each horse, according to you, would be at 20 : 1. Is that right?

So if you get to the track and the public has decided that one of the horses should get no better than 30 : 1 then that would be your bet,...right?

Next question:

Suppose you chose a horse you really like to win a race and you truly believe he can't be beat. Your oddsline says the horse should go at 3:1 but the public offers 1:1. Do you pass the race? Are you going to bet against your own first pick? What do you do?

Thanks for the input guys and gals, I appreciate the help.

husker55

:)

(1) If each horse in a five-horse field is equally likely to win, they would each have a 20% chance of winning, which would translate to odds of 4-1 (not 20-1). (I believe you were confusing percentages and odds.) Any horse held at odds above 4-1 would be an overlay under those circumstances.

(2) If you've assigned fair odds of 3-1 to a horse, that means that you think that the horse has a 25% chance of winning. If you truly believe that the horse literally could not be beaten, you would assign it a 100% probability, and it would be an overlay at any odds. If your assignment of 3-1 odds means what it says (i.e., that the horse has only a 25% chance of winning), it would be an underlay at even money, and you shouldn't bet it.

If other horses in that same race were offering value (with actual odds that were higher than the fair odds that I had assigned), I would look elsewhere in the field (that is, other than the 3-1 horse) for my bet, even though I might end up betting against the horse that I thought was the most likely winner.

If you absolutely did not want to bet against your first choice to win (even if it was underlaid), you could also check the payoffs on exotic combinations with your first choice on top (in a vertical wager) or as one of the race winners (in a horizontal wager), to see if any of them were offering value (based on the fair odds of both your first choice and the other horse in the combination).

[ranchwest]

More backlash for my habitual assumption that people have some brains, and not spelling out the context clearly.

WITH REGARD TO WIN BETTING... I FIND THE FAVORITE TO BE NOT WORTH THE RISK.

EVEN THOUGH THE FAVORITE WILL WIN 3 RACES TODAY, AND ON OCCASION THE PUBLIC WILL LET ONE GO INSTEAD OF POUNDING IT TO DUST.

This is my own personal outlook because I find that 1 - 8-1 win is worth the chalk players whole day. And the doors of opportunity swing open much wider if I bet against the favorite 100% when WIN BETTING.

Because the favorite is the target for every other horse in the race, AND usually the key to the winner's profile AND how the race will be run, only a fool would leave this horse out of any exotics. The favorite is always the favorite, it is as likely to come 2nd or 3rd as it is to win.

With a 30% win rate and the key to the race, you will cash very few Pk's without the favorite in each and every one of them, the favorite is again the key to winning Pk's.

Every once in awhile, there isn't a candidate to beat a favorite, and I'll pass that race because there is another coming up in 25 minutes, 60 more next week, and the week after that. The favorite is also the key to betting against the favorite, altogether a very valuable animal... its least value however, is betting it to win.

jdl

You can't state your point properly, so you are condescending to me? Wow!

You toss stats around like you have no choice in when to be selective. Why not just wait until the favorite has a 90% likelihood at, say, 2-1? That's when it makes sense in the win pool. If that's not enough, there's always the exotics.

[ranchwest]

(1) If each horse in a five-horse field is equally likely to win, they would each have a 20% chance of winning, which would translate to odds of 4-1 (not 20-1). (I believe you were confusing percentages and odds.) Any horse held at odds above 4-1 would be an overlay under those circumstances.

(2) If you've assigned fair odds of 3-1 to a horse, that means that you think that the horse has a 25% chance of winning. If you truly believe that the horse literally could not be beaten, you would assign it a 100% probability, and it would be an overlay at any odds. If your assignment of 3-1 odds means what it says (i.e., that the horse has only a 25% chance of winning), it would be an underlay at even money, and you shouldn't bet it.

If other horses in that same race were offering value (with actual odds that were higher than the fair odds that I had assigned), I would look elsewhere in the field (that is, other than the 3-1 horse) for my bet, even though I might end up betting against the horse that I thought was the most likely winner.

If you absolutely did not want to bet against your first choice to win (even if it was underlaid), you could also check the payoffs on exotic combinations with your first choice on top (in a vertical wager) or as one of the race winners (in a horizontal wager), to see if any of them were offering value (based on the fair odds of both your first choice and the other horse in the combination).

You are correct about the pure odds, but with takeout the odds would be closer to 7/2 rather than 4/1.

[HUSKER55]

Thank you Overlay for the response. I did get the percent and odds mixed up.

TThanks also for the other info, I appreciate it.

husker55
:)

[Overlay]

You are correct about the pure odds, but with takeout the odds would be closer to 7/2 rather than 4/1.

Of course, you're correct about the takeout reducing pure odds, but if you make a 100% betting line, you can compare your odds directly with the toteboard odds as given in determining whether betting value is present, since value will be based on the actual return that you would receive on a winning bet, and the odds listed on the tote board would reflect that by already having taken the "take" into account, and representing the actual minimum payoff that the bettor will receive for a winning wager.

For example, if your fair odds on a horse (using a 100% line) are 4-1, then anything above 4-1 on the toteboard represents a true overlay, because the take will have already been deducted before those toteboard odds were calculated. (What degree of overlay you require before a horse might be worth a bet is another issue.)

[ranchwest]

Overlay, good points.

[jonnielu]

You can't state your point properly, so you are condescending to me? Wow!

You toss stats around like you have no choice in when to be selective. Why not just wait until the favorite has a 90% likelihood at, say, 2-1? That's when it makes sense in the win pool. If that's not enough, there's always the exotics.

Sorry, it has only been in recent years that I have been in touch with many other horseplayers, and it comes as a surprise to me that the favorite is held in such high esteem by so many experienced players.

I have always been a win better except for recent years where I have found that the most high-percentage win betting might be done in the Pk3. I've never been a stats hound beyond the generalities, because I am basically lazy.

In the past, my loose objective was to win 30% of my win bets in the odds range of 5 - 10 -1. I found, that for me to do this well, I had to give up what many might agree as being past performance handicapping. That is, to me, making selections from the form in pre-race hours.

My take was, that with the abundance of pertinent information that comes available during the 20 minutes before post, it didn't pay to get locked in to any particular horse from PP's. If the horse that I was looking for was in the race, it was much more visible in the pre-race goings-on then in past performances, so the PP's became a reference for me as opposed to a guide.

Many have said, that I started to work ass-backward, and to a large degree that is true, because I found myself to be more in tune with the stable then other handicappers. I don't mind people calling me ass-backwards, I was a breach baby anyway.

jdl

[Jeff P]

Jeff P,

When you were playing .015, .020, and .025 percents of your bankroll was the allotted amount for your play entirely to win, as I would guess, or were you ever doing 50/50 win-place depending on the odds. Say you liked Greeley's Conquest in yesterday's Forego who the public let go off at 38.50/1, would you have done $8 to win or $4 to win-place?

I've always done something similar to Ian's 70/30 rule, but more like 80/20. The 20% is just used to get as much of my money back, if not more, if my longshot should outrun his odds but not quite get up. Usually it's along the lines of backwheels and/or concentrated exacta plays behind some of the shorter priced choices. By attempting the latter I might just be dribbling more money away in the long run but I'm not really sure. When a horse goes off at 38/1 it's sure nice to get something back.

A math major I'm not, so maybe the following question might seem elementary to some of the sharp statistical/mathematical minds on this board, but I've often thought of taking the time to backtest years of raw data to see if one would do better in the long run by doing $200 to win, or, $100 win-place on longshots. Maybe $150win $50 place and maybe even $100 win $50place-show if odds are at 10/1 or higher. As my place percentage (wins or 2nd) is about 2.5 to 3 times higher than my win only percentage, I would guess that in the long run the returns on simply win might be higher but the win-place return wouldn't be too far behind and the ride would be much less volitile. Perhaps the tradeoff of not getting as much back with the win wagers when doing the win-place would be off-set by the many times my longshot doesn't win but runs second.
The following is a set of results for one of my UDMs for the current calendar quarter:
Data Window Settings:
Divisor = 999 Min Odds = 3.00 Odds Cap: None
Filters Applied: 6.0FMIN-

Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*)
From Index File: C:\2008\Q3_2008\pL_profile.txt


Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 505.90 401.90 381.10
Bet -376.00 -376.00 -376.00
Gain 129.90 25.90 5.10

Wins 38 67 96
Plays 188 188 188
PCT .2021 .3564 .5106

ROI 1.3455 1.0689 1.0136
Avg Mut 13.31 6.00 3.97Almost every successful method of play that I have ever evaluated (the exception being methods centered around very low odds horses) produces numbers that are almost identical in one aspect:

The win column returns more money (has a higher roi) than the place column.

I've done a LOT of statistical research into what happens when a player employing a pct of bank approach tries to grow a bankroll betting straight win vs. a split bet between win-place. My evaluations include tracking thousands of my own plays made in real life - as well as simulation models involving millions of simulated plays and the result is always the same:

WIN produces greater bankroll growth than win-place or place.

If you are trying to grow a bankroll using a pct of bank approach: DO NOT HEDGE.

But, many methods of play produce very good hit rates and roi in the place column.

And many will tell you that hedging is good for the psyche (reinforcement.)

But the simple fact is, when you hedge, in almost all cases you are costing yourself money.

Why?

Profits = (Edge) x (Handle)

It's very hard to get away from that. Keep in mind that in almost all cases edge from win is higher than edge from place.

Unless your bank has grown to the size where a pct of it produces a win bet that is causing you to overbet the win pool (a topic for another discussion) you are better off betting straight win than any form of hedging.

In my opinion the best strategy for long term bankroll growth is to bet as much handle as you can (without overbetting your bankroll) on the highest edge situations you can find.




-jp

.

[cj]

Hey Jeff,

The only argument I would have for betting place is not hedging. It involves playing yet another pool where you can get profits. This is particularly important at the smaller tracks.

It is much better at those places to spread your bets around the pools than to put it all into one in my opinion.

[Jeff P]

CJ,

Agree 100 pct.

Every pool has a point that when exceeded actually diminishes total $$ returns.

At small tracks it's pretty easy to overbet the win pool. Spreading to other pools once the win pool has been hit hard enough can be a very good strategy for increasing one's handle.

-jp

.

[raybo]

I suppose that betting into the place and/or show pool might make some sense at smaller tracks or if you are in a real hurry to grow your bankroll. Maybe I'm just too old and stuck in my ways but I've always heard and experienced myself that if you're going to risk real money you should reasonably expect fair compensation for each dollar risked. If I can get, say, $8.80 for a $2 investment if I bet the win, but only a percentage of that if I bet to place or show, would it be wise to risk $2 for the higher reward or the smaller one? It takes a smaller percentage of my bankroll to regroup a loss in the win pool than in the other 2 pools. If I lose 3 win bets in a row, I can potentially get that back with only 1 bet at $2, I don't see how you can do that in the other 2 pools unless you're betting profound longshots (@ a lower hit rate, probably). :confused:

[Robert Fischer]

I suppose that betting into the place and/or show pool might make some sense at smaller tracks or if you are in a real hurry to grow your bankroll. Maybe I'm just too old and stuck in my ways but I've always heard and experienced myself that if you're going to risk real money you should reasonably expect fair compensation for each dollar risked. If I can get, say, $8.80 for a $2 investment if I bet the win, but only a percentage of that if I bet to place or show, would it be wise to risk $2 for the higher reward or the smaller one? It takes a smaller percentage of my bankroll to regroup a loss in the win pool than in the other 2 pools. If I lose 3 win bets in a row, I can potentially get that back with only 1 bet at $2, I don't see how you can do that in the other 2 pools unless you're betting profound longshots (@ a lower hit rate, probably). :confused:
In "Theory" Place and Show betting are the same as Win betting.

For example the following three wagers are the aprox. same value:

WIN $8.80 at 30%Hit Rate
PLC $5.20 at 50% Hit Rate
SHW $3.50 at 75% Hit Rate

For a small bankroll player the place and show wagers here are actually better, because of the fact that they offer higher hit% which guards against risk of bankroll ruin.

Win wagers should always be the core of your wagering strategy, and in reality Place and Show betting offers some challenges and difficulties that aren't worth every player's time and effort.
It is hard, especially if it isn't a common bet of yours, to estimate what percentage chance a place or show wager has of hitting. It is harder to estimate the payout.
Everybody else sees what you see - If the heavy favorite is going to pay upwards of $4 to show - trust that thousands of other dollars also see this "steal". It is harder to know the late money patterns and safely low-estimate the price you will get. You almost have to enjoy pool watching and playing the guessing-game.
Like other wager-types many players find it helpful to develop spot-plays or situations where they tend to get consistent results.

[Robert Fischer]

More than one wager for same race ? :confused:

I would like to ask you guys a question. - If you think you have two high value plays on the same horse (such as win and place) - how do you proceed??

Do you bet both provided they exceed value demands? Do you just bet the best one? Best value? Best% most comfortable?
Same with exotics , or more likely to mix a win with an exotic ?

[Overlay]

More than one wager for same race ? :confused:

I would like to ask you guys a question. - If you think you have two high value plays on the same horse (such as win and place) - how do you proceed??

Do you bet both provided they exceed value demands? Do you just bet the best one? Best value? Best% most comfortable?
Same with exotics , or more likely to mix a win with an exotic ?

You're raising issues not only of value, but also of security. In general, if you want just one type of wager on the horse, I'd say you're better off in the long run betting the horse by itself just to win, since that's really the only situation where you can have any kind of advance idea of the degree of value you're receiving, without being dependent on the performance of other horses, and where (in my opinion) what you're forfeiting as far as bet security will be more than compensated for by the generally higher rate of return you'll receive.

As an alternative for greater security, you might try mixing the win bet with value-priced vertical exotics where the horse is on the bottom of the combination.

[riskman]

jonnielu:

"More backlash for my habitual assumption that people have some brains, and not spelling out the context clearly".




Always acknowledge a fault. This will throw those in authority off their guard and give you an opportunity to commit more.
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)

[Premier Turf Club]

More than one wager for same race ? :confused:

I would like to ask you guys a question. - If you think you have two high value plays on the same horse (such as win and place) - how do you proceed??

Do you bet both provided they exceed value demands? Do you just bet the best one? Best value? Best% most comfortable?
Same with exotics , or more likely to mix a win with an exotic ?

If two (or more) of my horses are overlays and I've made them 10-1 or less on my line, I will typically play them both (all). For example say I've got the following odds line on a race:

#1 7/2
#3 8-1
# 5 9-1

and their odds at post are

#1 8-1
# 3 15-1
# 5 40-1

I'd probably split my bet 60/15/25 using a $100 bank. Bet more on the high prob horse but cover myself if any of the other two nice overlays come in. More on the #5 because he is a gigantic price. Just to be safe I play $2 exactas top 2 faves (unless I hate one of them) over my two biggest bets, and a $1 box (1,3,5) in case I'm dead on. You really can't afford to use ALL on top here because you're spreading so much to win.

JMHO.

[jonnielu]

jonnielu:

"More backlash for my habitual assumption that people have some brains, and not spelling out the context clearly".




Always acknowledge a fault. This will throw those in authority off their guard and give you an opportunity to commit more.
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)

Well, I really screwed up by not providing an example, I know how much Ranchwest enjoys them.

jdl

[Tom]

Yes, RW usually has a winner to show, not just talk.

[jonnielu]

Yes, RW usually has a winner to show, not just talk.

Well Tom, I doubt that Robert's thread here is the appropriate place to be showing examples of why I prefer to bet against favorites when win betting, and bet for and against favorites in serial exotics. We've already stepped on his topic to an extent.

Perhaps a thread started for the purpose of the type of bare-knuckled discussion that we and RW, Ryesteve.... and others enjoy most, would be more appropriate. If you will give Robert two paragraphs on his topic here, currently streaks and slumps/betting multiples, I'll start a thread:

Examples of dumbassed reasons to bet against favorites -

We can go through the entire SAR meeting from yesterday to opening day, and you can ridicule me all you like, think of the opportunities.

jdl

[DJofSD]

Examples of dumbassed reasons to bet against favorites -

We can go through the entire SAR meeting from yesterday to opening day, and you can ridicule me all you like, think of the opportunities.

In all seriousness, starting a thread to review why SAR favorites were bet against, whether they won or lost, could be interesting. I'd be interested in your thoughts about the Bill Mott entry, Dynaforce, in yesterday's 11 furlong 8th race.

(BTW, I tried to get a discussion started about this horse when I asked about a gross error in the final time for a race. No one bit. Even a couple of people I spoke with on track at DMR just prior to the race didn't not notice it or have an opinion about it. Oh well.)

[Robert Fischer]

In all seriousness, starting a thread to review why SAR favorites were bet against, whether they won or lost, could be interesting. I'd be interested in your thoughts about the Bill Mott entry, Dynaforce, in yesterday's 11 furlong 8th race.

(BTW, I tried to get a discussion started about this horse when I asked about a gross error in the final time for a race. No one bit. Even a couple of people I spoke with on track at DMR just prior to the race didn't not notice it or have an opinion about it. Oh well.)

That would be a good idea. Super important part of racing.

If you can beat favorites, you will have an edge.

[ranchwest]

Well Tom, I doubt that Robert's thread here is the appropriate place to be showing examples of why I prefer to bet against favorites when win betting, and bet for and against favorites in serial exotics. We've already stepped on his topic to an extent.

Perhaps a thread started for the purpose of the type of bare-knuckled discussion that we and RW, Ryesteve.... and others enjoy most, would be more appropriate. If you will give Robert two paragraphs on his topic here, currently streaks and slumps/betting multiples, I'll start a thread:

Examples of dumbassed reasons to bet against favorites -

We can go through the entire SAR meeting from yesterday to opening day, and you can ridicule me all you like, think of the opportunities.

jdl

Nice dodge.

BTW, the last time I read a thread where we agreed to evaluate a race ahead of time, I think I was the only one to pony up. I gave out the winners of the race someone else selected. So, been there, done that.

[barn32]

That would be a good idea. Super important part of racing.

If you can beat favorites, you will have an edge.If you can know when to bet favorites, you will also have an edge.

[jonnielu]

:ThmbUp: Nice dodge.

BTW, the last time I read a thread where we agreed to evaluate a race ahead of time, I think I was the only one to pony up. I gave out the winners of the race someone else selected. So, been there, done that.

No, I believe that was a race at Belmont that I threw into also, if I am thinking of the right occasion, I believe three ponied up. I could be thinking of another time though.

And, as I have stated before, I'm not posting any pre-race stuff for two reasons:

1. I don't think it is fair to my subscribers who have jacked up tremendous cash to have the ratings.

2. The last day that I posted Belmont for free, the three contenders were the trifecta with a $60 horse on top. I figured that is enough freebies when as far as I can tell nobody even bet it. I don't put up tracks that I am following either, and I hate to see $60 horses go to waste, so I started following Belmont in my spare time. NY always seemed like a favorite parade to me, but I found that it only looks that way.

Actually, I owe you some thanks, it was your dis-satisfaction with my ratings that motivating me to answer the question of why doesn't the low number always win, better and more completely. It lead to a better and more complete understanding of my ratings that has and will continue to lead to more success in betting on horses. So thanks for your skepticism, keep up the good work.:ThmbUp:

jdl

[Tom]

Having a $60 horse in the top three is one thing, betting it is another. Did you post that was a bet or just a contender? Heck, any program has a LS in the top 3 time to time. Betting the LS in the other 8 races on a card can wipe out that payout.

[jonnielu]

In all seriousness, starting a thread to review why SAR favorites were bet against, whether they won or lost, could be interesting. I'd be interested in your thoughts about the Bill Mott entry, Dynaforce, in yesterday's 11 furlong 8th race.

(BTW, I tried to get a discussion started about this horse when I asked about a gross error in the final time for a race. No one bit. Even a couple of people I spoke with on track at DMR just prior to the race didn't not notice it or have an opinion about it. Oh well.)

Well, the first thing I would note is that the race is 11fTurf, so i am going to expect that the most likely candidate for a win here will be a slow early horse. That is not to say that speed does not win at distance on the grass, because it does, usually the horse possessing speed would prefer to use it late rather then early at 11f turf, in such a case, the question would be whether the horse will be forced to contest for an early lead or not.

The slow early horse has an advantage, because it can pick it up early if need be to stay comfortably close without struggling.

This is the Ability-X chart for the 8th SAR 9/1/08:

8th - 11fTurf
# POST ErlSpd / ML/Comp

105 6 86 6 191
91 3 85 1.2 176
83 1 84 6 167
87 4 82 3 169
90 2 81 12 171
109 5 0 15 109
If it can be accepted that the "run" rating represents each horses ability to run this distance with the lower number signifying running easy, the rating of the favorite becomes the key to understanding how this race will likely be run and which, if any may show up at the wire in front of the favorite.

At face value, there are three here that are rated better then the favorite and two of those are likely to run at an early speed that will allow them to finish well, #2 and #4. #4 has a better rating at a higher early speed then #2 and a better rating at a slower and more appropriate for this distance and surface early speed, then the favorite.

#3 will get pounded to dust because people will bet on the jockey and trainer and #4 will probably go off at 3-1. If you were going to bet the race which one would you bet? I think that the better bet is easy to see, you can go into many other factors with the PP's, but I believe that #4 should still look like the better bet. I'd like it better at 6 - 1, but it is tough to get a price in a small field.

And many won't like the simplicity of this but, the longer the race, the more likely that the fastest and the slowest will be on the board and or contesting the race in the vicinity of the wire. If you put that in mind, how does the #4 look in comparison to the others? And does the favorite look that good?

jdl

[amazingD]

Hi, I thought I would add that I had the exact experience Jeff P stated on playing my spot plays. They made a ROI of $1.10 for 2 years but I was unable to grow my bankroll due to overbetting and trying to bet different amounts based on my trying to handicap each pick instead of just making a flat 2% of bankroll bet. I couldn't pull the trigger on $40 win bet when it came up with longshots. I would place bet them or skip them. I remember one day when 2 of them came in and that probably made most of the profit for the month. Just too hard to only bet a few races a day too. I would bet a hundred of the bank on p3 or what ever was coming next. With all the Mining going on you would think my plays would get crushed. They don't because everyone or almost everyone is like me and cant show the needed restraint. I need a service where i can send my cash and my spot plays and they just play them for me and don't let me bet anymore. On $20 win bets I would be up 24k this year with the incentives added to my handle.

[ranchwest]

:ThmbUp:

No, I believe that was a race at Belmont that I threw into also, if I am thinking of the right occasion, I believe three ponied up. I could be thinking of another time though.

And, as I have stated before, I'm not posting any pre-race stuff for two reasons:

1. I don't think it is fair to my subscribers who have jacked up tremendous cash to have the ratings.

2. The last day that I posted Belmont for free, the three contenders were the trifecta with a $60 horse on top. I figured that is enough freebies when as far as I can tell nobody even bet it. I don't put up tracks that I am following either, and I hate to see $60 horses go to waste, so I started following Belmont in my spare time. NY always seemed like a favorite parade to me, but I found that it only looks that way.

Actually, I owe you some thanks, it was your dis-satisfaction with my ratings that motivating me to answer the question of why doesn't the low number always win, better and more completely. It lead to a better and more complete understanding of my ratings that has and will continue to lead to more success in betting on horses. So thanks for your skepticism, keep up the good work.:ThmbUp:

jdl

You must have a helluva memory because I didn't even know you make ratings. :lol:

[CincyHorseplayer]

Hi, I thought I would add that I had the exact experience Jeff P stated on playing my spot plays. They made a ROI of $1.10 for 2 years but I was unable to grow my bankroll due to overbetting and trying to bet different amounts based on my trying to handicap each pick instead of just making a flat 2% of bankroll bet. I couldn't pull the trigger on $40 win bet when it came up with longshots. I would place bet them or skip them. I remember one day when 2 of them came in and that probably made most of the profit for the month. Just too hard to only bet a few races a day too. I would bet a hundred of the bank on p3 or what ever was coming next. With all the Mining going on you would think my plays would get crushed. They don't because everyone or almost everyone is like me and cant show the needed restraint. I need a service where i can send my cash and my spot plays and they just play them for me and don't let me bet anymore. On $20 win bets I would be up 24k this year with the incentives added to my handle.

I had the same problem and even keeping accurate betting records it took me a few seasons to get my level of action down on marginal races to where it wasn't ruining my profit margin on hand picked plays.I think it was due to just being purely a greenhorn and sifting my way through winning factors.I'm always going to be learning(I hope!)but the discipline is there to maximize the strongest opinions,to pass races,and not be emotionally blownout.Have always trusted my own opinion,even when it contradicted a handicapping dictum or a heavyweight author,that has always been my greatest strength.Believe me,where you're at I think everybody who has taken this even vaguely serious has been.Confidence and restraint come with time and you're talking to a non pro who after 12 years at the races and a good handicapping foundation is just really learning to maximize my betting style!!Sounds like you are on the cusp of greatness when you do.Good luck man!

[amazingD]

I can't say I keep notes on all my gambling but I have printed out my spot play picks and played them on paper at $20 to win and seen the constant progression up and down but always has continued to climb. I started keeping exact notes 3 months ago and started with a $200 bank. It went to $500 and then back down to $200 but is now over $1200 with hundreds of plays. This is without rebates so if you added those its well over 3k. Im positive though that if it hit that number I would have an allstar pick 4 or two played from it. Point is though that it is very reinforcing to see the number grow on paper. I use 8 spot plays to track this. I feel like it gives me more action and diversity. Oh and after a month I went thru the plays and refined them to only winning factors in side each play. This cut down on my plays but I have won 12 of 14 days in a row. Pretty impressive proof to mine deep into each play.. or a fluke.

I try to add logic to a play such as jt30%...form cycle is high.. thinking the trainer is putting the best jock on when the horse is coming into form. Anyone have any other logical plays.

[jonnielu]

Having a $60 horse in the top three is one thing, betting it is another. Did you post that was a bet or just a contender? Heck, any program has a LS in the top 3 time to time. Betting the LS in the other 8 races on a card can wipe out that payout.

Well Tom, I guess you've got me pretty much figured out. I'm just another flim-flam artist selling Ebooks for $5.95 that come with 30 days of ratings (once I get people hooked into that deal, I send the suckers ratings for 3 tracks) and tell them to email me anytime with questions, if they have some.

I spend my time just stacking up the profits from the 2 sales a day, while I try to bamboozle those folks into attending a major track with me for a 3-day seminar, of course the poor suckers that take me up on that are invited to attend every day of the meeting also, if they can. That way, I have a shot at ripping them off even more.

Every once in awhile, I get lucky and am able to get my hooks into the poor bastards a little farther by throwing out something like this:

KEE - 4/20/08
4th - 6fD
# POST/ErlSpd/ML/Comp
327 5 97 30 424
328 10 96 2.5 424

308 9 95 6 403
322 7 94 15 416
304 6 93 10 397
147 1 0 12 147
137 2 0 15 137
156 3 0 6 156
295 4 0 5 295
131 8 0 15 131
238 11 0 4 238

5,7,9,10 [ 4,11 ]


4th - Five looks like a gift from heaven with that rating, and right in line with the fav. too. The high rated firsters are the question for messing up bank deposits here, #4 has a nice post here.

Then, I jump in their pockets a little deeper by explaining how and why the betting decisions were made as they happened.

4th Race - Keeneland - Sunday, April 20th, 2008

Conditions: Maiden Special Weight, $50,000, F (fillies) 3 yo, 6F, Dirt.Off Time: 2:40 Start: 11 went. Good for all. Won driving. Track: Fast Weather: Cloudy 56o
Pedigree: 5 - Horticulture, Chestnut Filly, 3, by Forest Wildcat - Substance by Diesis (GB)
Fractions: :222, :463, :59, 1:112 (:22.47, :46.62, :59.00, 1:11.50)

# Horse Jockey Weight Win Place Show
5 Horticulture Graham James 120 130.20 45.80 13.20
9 City Flag Leparoux Julien R. 120 14.80 6.40
11 Winning Turn Albarado Robby 120 4.80

Wager Type Payoff Winning Numbers Pool
$2 Pick 3 $3,725.20 5-8-5 (3 Correct) $35,416
$2 Exacta $1,376.00 5-9 $275,976
$2 Superfecta $24,594.20 5-9-11-10 $111,439
Trifecta $4,635.25 5-9-11 $200,514
Owner: Culture Vulture Stable
Trainer: James Bredin
Breeder: Juddmonte Farms, Inc. (KY)
Also Ran: 10 - Antepova, 1 - Crimson Hope, 4 - Chit Chat Cat, 6 - Get Going Bertie, 2 - Lacy's Luck, 7 - Trumpet Call, 8 - Caledon, 3 - Casero

I really like to get a good look at any high rated first timers if I am playing a win focus, but without that option for the Pk3's, I had bet my primary Ability-X stickouts here and #4 and #11 are looking pretty sharp in the paddock. I decide that since I am playing the win focus and trying to stick with it for the day, I should make the same exacta box as my Pk3 because #5 and the Fav. #10, are so much right on par with their ratings. The #4 scares me, so as the odds climb on #5, and remembering my recent exploits on these high odds horses, I decide to bet the #5 across. This seems to me that I am making good bets, and being well covered in the way that I am doing it and taking advantage of the value possibilities while I am at it. This is the basic reason that you stay with a group on the Pk3's, they are expensive to play this way, and you should only add them to your play when your bank can handle them, but they are a very profitable addition in the long run. It also helps to be able to bet exactas along with them for good cover, this also depends on your bank, add the exactas to W/P/S betting first.

Sitting in a Lexington motel pounding out that days analysis for the people that I was ripping off this way on my Keeneland seminar, the call came in from my daughter telling me that she couldn't get GP done because of a corrupt data file. I scrambled to resolve that problem, because there were those people that I was ripping off too, and it was closing day at GP.

By 11:30am, all I could do was to send the GP bunch my KEE analysis for the day truncated at the fourth race, so that I could get my ass to the track. I was hoping that might make it up to them the GP subscribers, and, what the hell, I'm just ripping off everybody anyway.

One of those subscribers posted on the $130 winner, and he was properly ridiculed for being taken in by my bamboozling ratings. After all, it was the second time he had been so brazen. I had hooked him in the first place on a $55.00 freebie at AQU from this board.

But, I guess you've had my number ever since I said on this board before the race, that Jiboom ($28.80) might ruin everybody's dinner plans at KEE last fall. Oh well, I guess you can't fool all of the people.

jdl

[Tom]

Simple question - are you not capable of anwsering it?
You can cut the poor ole me routine....just answer the question.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I can't say I keep notes on all my gambling but I have printed out my spot play picks and played them on paper at $20 to win and seen the constant progression up and down but always has continued to climb. I started keeping exact notes 3 months ago and started with a $200 bank. It went to $500 and then back down to $200 but is now over $1200 with hundreds of plays. This is without rebates so if you added those its well over 3k. Im positive though that if it hit that number I would have an allstar pick 4 or two played from it. Point is though that it is very reinforcing to see the number grow on paper. I use 8 spot plays to track this. I feel like it gives me more action and diversity. Oh and after a month I went thru the plays and refined them to only winning factors in side each play. This cut down on my plays but I have won 12 of 14 days in a r.

I've developed an exacta betting approach that yields a composite 63% ROI on a 25% hit ratio that I've used in the past successfully,18% HR still puts me in the black,and 29% HR has an 87% ROI.

But I'm shooting for the fall meets at Beulah/TDN in Ohio and Belmont and I want to start with a $1600.00 bankroll minimum.I have undercapitalized in the past by being undercapitalized!I want to see how much I can get that up by using an escalating bet scale and not taking any out.I feel I'm on the cusp of being a more fulltime player after having played fulltime during some tough winters and I'm taking some good advice I've got on here and growing a bigger bankroll.I've never been scared of either time or the compounding of bets but I have robbed myself of profit margins in other ways.No more!!!!

[jonnielu]

Simple question - are you not capable of anwsering it?
You can cut the poor ole me routine....just answer the question.

Already did, try post #118. I make my win betting decisions in the 15 minutes before post.

jdl

[Tom]

OK, then you didn't post it here as a winner.
That was easy, wasn't it?

[amazingD]

Sorry I have no idea how to do the quote thing but thought I would say I did look and on my betting site my roi on exactas was great compared to my tri.pick3 and 4. Exacta makes the most sense for higher rebates too and most large whales make exacta plays non stop from what I hear. MY bets are win and place, so I could switch to exactas but it would require waymore handicapping and a much larger bankroll. From what i have read the exacta is usually comprised by two horses with different styles...such as an early with a closer or a closer with an early pace horse. I have considered keying my horse with the opposite style horses that were in the top 4 contenders.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Sorry I have no idea how to do the quote thing but thought I would say I did look and on my betting site my roi on exactas was great compared to my tri.pick3 and 4. Exacta makes the most sense for higher rebates too and most large whales make exacta plays non stop from what I hear. MY bets are win and place, so I could switch to exactas but it would require waymore handicapping and a much larger bankroll. From what i have read the exacta is usually comprised by two horses with different styles...such as an early with a closer or a closer with an early pace horse. I have considered keying my horse with the opposite style horses that were in the top 4 contenders.

Sometimes it's just the two best horses on overall form that complete the exacta,or it's a solid value-horse that won't beat a favorite on bottom.I keep place profiles so on days when it's E/P++,yes,exactas will come from the runners within 3 lengths.But normally it's something simple like an everyday pace set-up if you have a (3H duel 50)expect an offpace horse to get a piece even on a speed favoring track.Or favorites on bottom and overlays to win when the favorite has the wrong running style for the track that day.These type of plays are give me's and they routinely pay in the $25-40 range.Having $7-12 combinations on these one-ways can add up and are cost efficient.

[amazingD]

Has anyone gone thru there spot plays to exclude horses on the win end that are hangers and run in second constantly. Even though they are kicked out as a win bet by your spot play. This scares me to do even though its logical.

[jonnielu]

OK, then you didn't post it here as a winner.
That was easy, wasn't it?

So now what? I guess you don't want to do a few paragraphs on Robert's topic in the spirit of good threadsmanship? Where was it at, betting multiples?

An excellent method for offsetting the confusion that the modern racing secretary works so hard to invoke. Where he/she does that job to a degree of excellence, betting multiples can be a very workable answer.

However, to fight fire with fire, it is necessary to consider how the racing secretary is lighting things up. He or she knows the best way to grow handle is to have several horses in any particular race of relatively equal ability.

The better this job is done, the more vexing it is for the handicapper to isolate a worthy bet to win, and the more topsy-turvy the results tend to be. The bettor needs to understand that there just isn't such a big difference in horses of a given class and use this perspective to his/her advantage when attempting to counter the good moves that the racing secretary makes, like having four relatively equal horses in each race.

To take advantage of the nature of the situation, the bettor needs only to look to the Pick3. Here is a wagering format that will allow for a group of horses to be bet, without high cost or high risk. This is true because the best feature of this wager is that you can bet on the favorite while you bet double against the favorite at the same time.

This is better then the two-way hat at a football game, because no matter which one wins, you can make a profit. Get one out of three right on a consistent basis, and you are winning without caring. But, that is the hard part, because one of your three contenders is going to have to be a longshot. Which one?

The favorite is an automatic contender, and if you can accept that horse as the key to the other two, the other two can be easy to find. Question #1, is the fav. fast, slow, or middle on early speed? If the fav. is fast, then one of the others is the best "slow" horse, usually, this is the longshot. The other horse is best middle. If the fav. is middle, then the other two are best "fast" and best "slow". And, if the favorite is slow, the other two are best "middle" and best "fast".

Now, I am sure that the simplicity of this will probably bring some of the usual ridicule and various huffing an puffing in some corners. But, if it seems interesting to you at all, IM me and I'll send you the whole KEE spring meeting with how this worked to win a high percentage of Pick bets. 15 days of racing is a bit long to post.

jdl

[Tom]

You did not pick the horse before the race.
You have stats to back up what playing every horse rated like this will return.

Call that ridicule if you want to. I call it red boarding.
Anecdotal winners after the fact are the province of 46. You are in good company. :rolleyes::D

[jonnielu]

You did not pick the horse before the race.
You have stats to back up what playing every horse rated like this will return.

Call that ridicule if you want to. I call it red boarding.
Anecdotal winners after the fact are the province of 46. You are in good company. :rolleyes::D

The win perspective that I will focus on, involves identifying the Morning Line favorite on an Ability-X chart, and then finding two other horses that are faster and slower then the favorite and have ability ratings that are "in relation" to the rating of the favorite. This will consistently yield the top three contenders for the win spot. This will provide three sound contenders that will run for the win and provide the basis of any Win/Place/Show betting strategies. Which would include the Exacta, Daily Double, Pick 3, 4, and 6.

To start, I will explain that I have highlighted the top four Morning Line (ML) Odds choices in four shades of blue, the favorite is always navy blue. This is the horse that we will always accept as the horse to beat and use as a benchmark for comparison. When the ML favorite is scratched from the race, I simply move the other three up one position, making the original second choice the favorite.

Since Ability-X ratings are a true measure of ability, I often see, by the ratings that the favorite is legitimate by past performance handicapping standards, but not always by the standard of having the ability to win. Frequently the ratings will show that several horses clearly have the ability to win, but this may not be apparent to the bettor from the perspective of past performances. When analyzing horses with Ability-X ratings, the favorite is always the key to understanding the other legitimate contenders. This provides an advantage that just does not exist when you are doing handicapping in the same way as everyone else, with the same data, in the same format.

To put it into perspective for what is likely to happen today, we need to understand that the favorite is usually the favorite because recent performance clearly shows that this horse is able to win today's race. What is aways true about this, in the case of the favorite, those past races may well be the peak of ability. And, while the favorite is our benchmark for ability under todays conditions, the favorite today is also the target for any other horse that may be attempting to win this race.

Perhaps the best way to look at the favorite is in the light of showing the way. If there is a longshot in today's race that has ability to run on a par with the favorite, the favorite has usually already shown how this type of race can be won. All that the longshot has to do is follow that lead. Once you have the format of past performances out of your way, you will find that several horses have the ability to win today. Of all the measurements that there are, morning line odds, and running lines, "form" in general may be some of the worst indicators of what may happen today.

Accepting that past perfromance handicapping is generally correct, I use that as a starting point and make the favorite my standard of measure for comparison. I also call on much of what I have learned from using the ratings in this way, and I will explain that as I go through the examples. Since the favorite is already marked with navy blue, I then mark two other horses with some orange, usually by highlighting their early speed ratings in this color so that I can consider them, also in comparison to the favorite. To start with, I am noting where the favorite is located on the chart according to early speed. The chart is also laid out from top to bottom on the basis of early speed from fastest to slowest. This figure is always from the last race that the horse ran, the same with the "run" rating.

The objective for our analysis is to identify the two other sound contenders for winning the race based on their "run" ratings considered in relation to the favorite, and their comparable position in early speed from the last race. Also, in relation to the early speed of the favorite, and then in relation to the distance of the race. The object of the distance consideration is to find any contender for the win that may be specifically prepped, or have a distinct advantage for today's distance and surface. This is usually the longshot winner that surprises the handicappers by winning at higher odds when conventional handicapping revealed nothing positive about the horse. This type of contender usually has the evidence of the ability to win buried within a poor, or negative looking past performance.

An eighth place loser may have run as well as a winner, but the past performance handicapper can not see that performance as positive. When primarily using time to measure ability, in a face value way, the slower horse is always negative. The past performance handicapper overlooks many sound previous races because of this, and is often a victim of his own methods. What escapes the conventional handicapper is measurement of the run itself expressed as ability, and that is all we look at in our analysis of the past race, and what it means to today's race. If the horse ran last with the ability to win today, but simply started slowly in the last race, it will run faster today. How fast? That depends on the fast horses today. The slow horse will run fast enough to stay in range. The fast horse from last may slow it down a bit too, but one thing we can always depend on is that the race will always be between the fast and the slow and how they execute their ability to run over the distance.

The ability will not likely change from the last outing to this one today, but, the execution of that ability may be a night and day difference. This reality is what keeps pace handicappers going in circles.

Stats - KEE April 4th - 25th 2008

Starting Bank for Pick3's, Pick4's - $1000, Net return - $86,000

I'll have to gather up the won/lost percentage for you, I never pay much attention to that particular trivia.

And, 46 may as far out on one end politically as you are on the other, but I suspect he gets closer to the mark on the horseracing. Of course, we have to wonder where you are on the horseracing, you never say much about it, with your air-filled posts.

jdl

jdl

[barn32]

What is an "ability rating," and how is it calculated?

[Tom]

Jon, why so defensive?....just asking for stats on your ability ratings, not your using them.

[jonnielu]

Jon, why so defensive?....just asking for stats on your ability ratings, not your using them.

Tom, I've pointed out to you in the past that I am not a stat keeper, personally, I don't find much value in them. And then, from what perspective do you want stats? I offered to take a review of the SAR meeting to another thread so that you and anyone else could put together whatever stats you like.

I'm not throwing rocks here, but I suspect that your perspective on the game is probably completely different from mine. I'm not saying that any style of play is better or worse, but if you are asking me if Ability-X ratings will support your style well without any change in your style or perspective, I don't know. I believe that an understanding of my ratings will change your style and perspective, because they are from my perspective and have caused more enhancement then change to that perspective, they have completely changed my style.

It is fair to say that over the past year, I have had little knowledge or appreciation for how widely my perspective differs from most past performance handicappers. That has been a large mistake on my part, that I seek to correct.

My thinking is that when you say you want stats, to me that means that I'll have to aproach you within the scope of your perspective, rather then my own. I think that my analysis of Ability-X ratings has been brought more in line with your perspective because I now base that analysis on the favorite, and the criteria that make the favorite.

That change was made between the GP meet and the KEE spring meet, and has helped me get across to past performance handicappers through the CD, AP, BEL,SAR, and DMR meet. I suggested that we go thru SAR because I am assuming that you are most familiar with NY racing, we could go through that meeting and gather the bare stat for the win % for the horse in the race that compares best to the favorite in Ability-X rating. With no additional analysis and/or handicapping. Flat win bet, selecting one horse or the other with no other criteria except odds.

Is that a stat that you would want to consider?

jdl

[jonnielu]

What is an "ability rating," and how is it calculated?

It is a rating that reflects a horses ability to run, its calculation is proprietary.

jdl

[Robert Fischer]

FINAL STEPS: KEEPING RECORDS

Finally, a for-profit player with a small bankroll is going to need to keep good records. At the very least you need to know your $ wagered , your $ returned and therefore your ROI.

It can be as simple as tracking your progress through the records with your ADW. Often(always?) there is a wagering history section that tracks your account history.
Records can be more complex to include details like race type, surface, distance, etc... .
You may even want to keep special information like your pre-race estimated payouts and hit% or comments.

Keeping more detailed records allows you to sort through your wager history and look for strengths and weaknesses. Maybe you are great at Turf races? What about turf races >9 Furlongs compared to all your turf races?
How about races at a flat dirt Mile ?? Are you VERY strong or weak at some specific race type?...

The tradeoff is time. It takes a little more time and effort to keep detailed records. You may find a diamond in the rough, but you have to enter more data. You also must be careful to know the difference between a few chance losses or wins, and a true strength or weakness.

As we wrap this topic up :), I would be interested in your opinions on RECORD KEEPING, and if you would like, submit an example Record Keeping sheet or set up.

I will post a spread sheet for keeping basic records, and one with room for keeping more advanced data.

[maiom01]

I think this post is dead on for many players. Create a simple spreadsheet and continue to update it with your bank balance so you know what your next wager is.

As for wager selections, I'm sure many players have found plays they thought worked but when put into live wagering, their emotions took over when the losing kicks in.

Play small, prove you can win and step up as your roll grows.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I'm a part time player and play from a small bank.I start with a set amount or make a deposit once a week(as I usually play)til I reach that amount.

Bets

I base my play on a $1200.00 bank.My bets are 2% and down(don't laugh,it's big scratch to me!!)I like to be able to bet 5 races a day,usually between 1-2% of that bank,but it's not set in stone. Based on a 5 day week I use this formula;

25 bets x 1.5%=$450.00


Hits,Savers,and Records

-I divide whatever tickets I cash into 3 categories based on payoffs alone-Primary Hits,Secondary Hits,and Savers;

-Primary Hits-are anyhting over $100.00(I target a $150.00 average)

-Secondary Hits-are anything under $100.00(60.00 avg based on experience)

-Savers-are anthing under $40.00

You can substitute whatever amounts correspond to your play.These numbers are based on my experience,averages,and I've played ping-pong with them back and forth between projections and reality.But dividing them into 3 parts makes for a fairly accurate projection method than just for instance "edge x handle",for me anyway.I can see from a certain display of numbers what I can expect to make when I have x amount of tickets cashed from each of the 3 subcategories.I play mostly exactas,but my win-place bets are recorded in the same manner.Here is a sample from my 29% Hit Rate Bracket,the first number is Primary Hits,the second is Secondary Hits,and the third is Savers which I'll leave at zero since this is just an example.(my hit percentages are based on 28 races played.From experience it deviates from the above formula,but stays within the bet range)

29% Hit Rate(8 hits)

(6-2-0)-1020.00 gross=$570.00 Net(126% ROI)

(5-3-0)-930.00 gross=$480.00 Net(106% ROI)

(4-4-0)-840.00 gross=$390.00 Net(86% ROI)

(3-5-0)-750.00 gross=$300.00 Net(66% ROI)

(2-6-0)-660.00 gross=$210.00 Net(46% ROI)


That's my projection method and it usually errs on the conservative side.A lot of the exactas I get are in the $25-40 range,so larger payoffs will put the totals past the projections.I make a chart ranging from 18% to 40% depending on what I'm going to bet every 5 day period,when I am getting ready for a meet and I start just trying to get "On the Board" in those payout ranges.

[jonnielu]

I think this post is dead on for many players. Create a simple spreadsheet and continue to update it with your bank balance so you know what your next wager is.

As for wager selections, I'm sure many players have found plays they thought worked but when put into live wagering, their emotions took over when the losing kicks in.

Play small, prove you can win and step up as your roll grows.

But then again, if you are a small bankroll player, why wrap your whole philosphy around scraping small percentages up over long periods of time by betting chalk in the first place? Why not adopt a strategy that offers big leverage from small wagers that is much in tune with modern racing?

Instead of you working against the nature of modern racing in an effort to be right enough times in a day to scrape up a profit, why not put the nature of modern racing to work for you, so that you've got the time and money to chat up the girls and buy them ice-cream? Then you could just play that way without having to scrape up a big bankroll in the first place.

Question is - why is win betting so touchy in modern racing?

Answer is - modern racing must support a full wagering menu.

= reality - There are usually 4 horses in any given race of relatively equal ability, whether they look that way in the form or not. They are there, and you can bet on it.

At the risk of being called condescending one more time, I offer that you can bet on it with the pick3 wager and just make a living off of your small bankroll. The possibilities are endless by just keying the favorite in the race as the benchmark ability for that race, and just rounding up 2 other animals of similar ability, but coming off differing levels of early speed from their last.

So that you have "fast", "middle", and "slow" early speed that includes the favorite, and two others with ability that is "in relation to" the known ability of the favorite. These contenders give you the best chance at covering the win, betting three horses in a way that is profitable, and chosing your contenders this way will usually snag the best longshot in the race.

Ability-X - Saratoga 7/26/2008 Saturday - The horses are listed in order of early speed, and that is the rating on the right. The Ability-X rating is at left. First time starters or foreign shippers are listed in green and their ratings are notable at 150+.
1st - 6fD

# POST ErlSpd / ML/Comp

286 8 99 3.5 385
290 5 98 1.8 388
306 2 94 20 400
255 7 92 10 347
300 3 92 20 392
275 1 90 4 365
375 9 89 12 464
296 10 86 10 382
r8,5,1



2nd - 6fD

# POST ErlSpd / ML/Comp

363 5 95 30 458
332 8 91 12 423
135 2 0 15 135
172 3 0 2 172
161 1A 0 3 161
234 4 0 6 234
167 6 0 4 167
148 7 0 6 148
r3,6,2,5

3rd - 8.5fTurf

# POST ErlSpd / ML/Comp

117 2B 102 10 219
97 9 93 20 190
84 1 85 5 169
112 10 85 6 197
99 2 84 10 183
86 4 84 8 170
117 7 83 6 200
110 3 82 4.5 192
104 6 80 3 184
163 8 0 8 163
r3,8,6

$2 Pick 3 $109.00 8-3-3

4th - 9fD

# POST ErlSpd / ML/Comp

66 7 96 3.5 162
69 1A 93 6 162
76 3 93 8 169
42 2 92 3 134
55 5 91 2 146
73 8 91 20 164
101 4 87 20 188
97 6 85 12 182
r1,5,6

$2 Pick 3 $262.00 3-3-1

5th - 8.5fTurf

# POST ErlSpd / ML/Comp

130 6 95 15 225
113 11 93 15 206
137 7 93 30 230
69 5 92 5 161
83 10 90 20 173
95 3 89 3 184
53 2 88 12 141
112 1 88 8 200
115 12 84 8 199
99 8 84 3.5 183
90 4 83 12 173
212 9 82 20 294
r8,3,9

$2 Pick 3 $520.00 3-1-8
$2 Pick 4 $1,207.00 3-3-1-8



6th - 7fD

# POST ErlSpd / ML/Comp

150 2 99 4.5 249
164 6 95 4 259
145 8 93 6 238
167 12 92 20 259
212 7 92 20 304
193 4 92 20 285
193 1A 91 15 284
177 14 91 12 268
193 10 91 50 284
133 3 87 12 220
209 11 86 20 295
300 1 0 15 300
222 5 0 12 222
147 13 0 12 147
r11,2,8

$2 Pick 3 $4,773.00 1-8-1

7th - 9fTurf

# POST ErlSpd / ML/Comp

59 3 90 12 149
60 5 86 4.5 146
86 10 85 10 171
66 6 85 8 151
56 4 85 3 141
75 7 85 6 160
59 1 84 12 143
38 8 83 15 121
106 2 81 4 187
51 9 79 20 130
r8,2,7,5

$2 Pick 3 $3,388.00 8-11-8

8th - 6fD

# POST ErlSpd / ML/Comp

279 3 101 4.5 380
321 7 98 15 419
273 2 98 4 371
246 1 97 6 343
251 4 97 15 348
236 5 95 3 331
r5,2,4,1

$2 Pick 3 $2,425.00 11-8-5

9th - 9fD

# POST ErlSpd / ML/Comp

49 3 95 15 144
47 6 93 8 140
40 1 92 0.5 132
86 4 92 5 178
65 5 90 10 155
83 7 85 20 168


r1,5,3

$2 Pick 3 $77.00 8-5-1

10th - 9fD

# POST ErlSpd / ML/Comp

5 1 103 3 108
41 6 97 12 138
108 11 95 20 203
61 4 94 20 155
51 3 93 5 144
58 2 87 4 145
54 5 87 15 141
54 7 87 10 141
50 9 87 10 137
66 8 86 10 152
78 10 85 6 163

r1,10,8,3

$2 Pick 3 $30.80 5-1-1
$2 Pick 4 $442.50 8-5/6-1/2-1

11th - 5.5fTurf

# POST ErlSpd / ML/Comp

368 7 97 8 465
405 4 97 30 502
328 5 95 15 423
298 1 94 4 392
313 6 92 6 405
305 9 92 10 397
309 12 91 20 400
297 8 89 12 386
310 3 89 15 399
299 11 89 5 388
294 10 88 20 382
274 2 88 3.5 362
r8,7,6,9

$2 Pick 3 $173.50 1-1-8

[nobeyerspls]

It is a rating that reflects a horses ability to run, its calculation is proprietary.

jdl

Hi Jon

Visit the selections section tomorrow morning and join Chalky and Longball in the Cappin Chatter thread as a guest handicapper. They'll be posting selections in three races and you can demonstrate how the ability x ratings work in those races. This will be an "in your face" event for those who acuse you of redboarding. I know that you like to wait until just before a race so we'll take that into account.
See you tomorrow.

[big frank]

Great info Jeff.... It really shows that if you are strict and follow a plan and play for value , you have a good shot to make money .... i have one question for you or anyone else here , if you broke it down to a daily win/loss record , what % of winning days did you have ? i read Steve Fierros book and he said he had a 50% record of winning days, i believe he broke it down to a couple of months and won 61 days and lost 59 days , but the winning days were much better then his losing days. Is that your experience or do you have a higher DAILY win % Thanks

[Jeff P]

At first I was actively shooting to max the compounding effect. I really immersed myself in it. I wanted lots of plays with an edge. I forced myself to make every possible play I could find at about 14 tracks that I was following. Even though it sometimes meant playing 10-12 hrs a day 7 days a week for months at a time I did it anyway. During this time I really wasn't concerned with daily wins and losses. It was all about growing the bankroll. But glancing at records from that time period shows I could expect to have a winning day about 55-56 pct of the time.

After the bankroll grew large enough I began evolving as a player. I'd grown tired of being a slave to the toteboard. I did a lot of R&D into predicting situations where final odds on UDM selections would probably be high enough to justify a bet. I had confidence in my research and decided to try something new.

After getting early scratches I began pre-betting entire cards based on predicted odds. The results weren't quite as good as what I knew I could achieve if I sat glued to a monitor actively following the tote. But results were certainly good enough. Profitable. I had traded a pct of my edge for free time. No longer a tote slave, I could pre-bet whatever cards I was interested in, turn off the computer, go outside, and have a life outside of racing.

Obviously I couldn't recalculate bank size between bets. So I started doing it in the morning at the start of each new race day. The bankroll continued to grow. Glancing at records during this time period shows I could expect to have a winning day about 52-53 pct of the time... a winning week 65-70 pct of the time. During the year that I did this I had 10 winning months and 2 losing months.

I still had plenty of evolving to do. I'll come back and post more about that later.


-jp

.

[Robert Fischer]

After the bankroll grew large enough I began evolving as a player. I'd grown tired of being a slave to the toteboard. I did a lot of R&D into predicting situations where final odds on UDM selections would probably be high enough to justify a bet. I had confidence in my research and decided to try something new.

After getting early scratches I began pre-betting entire cards based on predicted odds. The results weren't quite as good as what I knew I could achieve if I sat glued to a monitor actively following the tote. But results were certainly good enough. Profitable. I had traded a pct of my edge for free time. No longer a tote slave, I could pre-bet whatever cards I was interested in, turn off the computer, go outside, and have a life outside of racing.

This is a problem of mine. I don't have the confidence to step away from the tote. Something to try and work on. I would like to at least add the ability to pre-bet when i want/need to.

Interested in hearing more about your process.




Still planning to post a record-keeping sheet when i get some free time.

[jonnielu]

This is a problem of mine. I don't have the confidence to step away from the tote. Something to try and work on. I would like to at least add the ability to pre-bet when i want/need to.

Interested in hearing more about your process.




Still planning to post a record-keeping sheet when i get some free time.

The tote is not informative in general, you must know when the tote might hold some answers. Sunday's 10th BEL is an example of when tote info is relevant.

jdl

[barn32]

The tote is not informative in general, you must know when the tote might hold some answers. Sunday's 10th BEL is an example of when tote info is relevant.

jdl

Why?

[cj]

The tote is not informative in general, you must know when the tote might hold some answers. Sunday's 10th BEL is an example of when tote info is relevant.

jdl

Is this because the race came off the turf and the 12-1 ML horse with very logical dirt firm won and paid $7?

[jonnielu]

Is this because the race came off the turf and the 12-1 ML horse with very logical dirt firm won and paid $7?

Partly, turf to dirt + AE + taking money + an Ability-X rating that says, I'll be coming on turf or dirt. The tote is always a sidebar tool, if the horse weren't an AE, I would have taken the the betting for handicappers reaching.

The ML is always generally accurate, it will be followed generally. If the betting on this horse were only handicapper recognizing good dirt form, I doubt the odds would have gotten south of 5-1. Even if the public was betting the jockey.

Besides, handicappers couldn't be so sharp on the 10th, when they let the 6th, 7th, and 8th blow right past them.

jdl

[Niko]

At first I was actively shooting to max the compounding effect. I really immersed myself in it. I wanted lots of plays with an edge. I forced myself to make every possible play I could find at about 14 tracks that I was following. Even though it sometimes meant playing 10-12 hrs a day 7 days a week for months at a time I did it anyway. During this time I really wasn't concerned with daily wins and losses. It was all about growing the bankroll. But glancing at records from that time period shows I could expect to have a winning day about 55-56 pct of the time.

After the bankroll grew large enough I began evolving as a player. I'd grown tired of being a slave to the toteboard. I did a lot of R&D into predicting situations where final odds on UDM selections would probably be high enough to justify a bet. I had confidence in my research and decided to try something new.

After getting early scratches I began pre-betting entire cards based on predicted odds. The results weren't quite as good as what I knew I could achieve if I sat glued to a monitor actively following the tote. But results were certainly good enough. Profitable. I had traded a pct of my edge for free time. No longer a tote slave, I could pre-bet whatever cards I was interested in, turn off the computer, go outside, and have a life outside of racing.

Obviously I couldn't recalculate bank size between bets. So I started doing it in the morning at the start of each new race day. The bankroll continued to grow. Glancing at records during this time period shows I could expect to have a winning day about 52-53 pct of the time... a winning week 65-70 pct of the time. During the year that I did this I had 10 winning months and 2 losing months.

I still had plenty of evolving to do. I'll come back and post more about that later.


-jp

.

Jeff;

Question. I usually use enough bets before re-sizing to let the percentages work in my favor. In other words if I win 20% of the time I want to make at least 5 bets before re-calculating. Means that on average I will have more winning cycles compared to single bets and it smooths the volatilty, drawdowns and profits. You don't get the wild rides up, but you don't get the wild rides down and it's helped me. That's one reason I also don't increase or decrease too much at one time.

Do you find that calculating after the days races has helped or hurt you?

[Jeff P]

Do you find that calculating after the days races has helped or hurt you?My goal when first starting out was to get as much handle out there with an edge as I possibly could without overbetting the bank. For me that meant resizing after each bet. Because resizing after each bet meant more handle (with less risk) than resizing every now and then.

But as a bank grows it eventually reaches a point that changes your perspective. You become risk averse... at least I did.

I typically average 2-3 plays per track. At 10-12 tracks a day getting 25-30 plays is about average. Occasionally a day comes up with 40-50 plays. I was recalculating bank size after each bet and sizing each bet at close to 2 pct of bankroll. Those times I did hit a 30 play losing streak I was able to keep my cool because I was reducing the size of the bank with each loss. 30 losers in a row would still leave me with close to 55 pct of the bank intact. Not an impossible task to recover from that position.

Once I started pre-betting entire cards things changed. Not resizing after each loss was something I found to be really scary. Imagine finding a day with 40 plays. At 2 pct of bank for each play that meant there were times I was submitting (risking) 80 pct of the entire bank in the form of bets when pre-betting without resizing.

If you do that, what happens if you lose the first 30 in a row?

Your bank is only 40 pct intact.

But now, you can't resize. Because the next 10 bets (half your remaining bank) have already been submitted in the form of bets. Suddenly each of those submitted bets matters. Your next 10 bets are now 5 pct of bank instead of 2 pct. At this point you are in danger of tapping out. You're overbetting your bank.

Lose 10 bets in a row at this point (you have to consider the possibility) and what started out as a day full of 40 good looking plays has wiped out 80 pct of a bank that took you months to grow.

Does it sound like I am describing a horror movie instead of a day at the races? Well, I am. Because I faced this exact same scenario not long after I started pre-betting entire cards. After successfully growing a bank for almost a year I found myself in a position one day where the next 10 bets I'd already submitted to Pinnacle really mattered. I got lucky that day. One of those next 10 bets won and paid $44.00. Another paid $15.00.

I only lost 20 pct of the bank that day instead of 80 pct. But I had to face the possibility and it certainly could have happened.

Afterwards I put controls in place designed to prevent me from being in that position ever again.

Losing streaks are a fact of life. Even for the best of players. Resize often.


-jp

.

[jonnielu]

Losing streaks are a fact of life. Even for the best of players. Resize often.


-jp

.

How is it that this concept can be so acceptable by people who on the other hand whole-heartedly believe that the winner can be consistently figured?

If acceptence and belief in one will rule out the other, which would you adopt?

How is it possible, that in a game where 1 of 4 horses will win 70% of the races on a day in and day out basis, the handicapper is willing to accept the idea of a 30 race losing streak?

Would not the both occupying the same space at the same time suggest that your criteria is not well rooted in the consistencies that are existent in the game?

Have you got an EARLY speed figure for the records in your database, or is it just times?

jdl

[Jim the Tolerable]

I've been watching this thread with great interest. I hope it keeps going. Thanks, Jeff!
As far as losing streaks go, am I off base to look at it like this?
If you are betting on the flip of a coin, you should win 50% of the time in the long run, but if you make that bet long enough (or enough times) you will eventually lose 30 in a row.

[ryesteve]

How is it possible, that in a game where 1 of 4 horses will win 70% of the races on a day in and day out basis, the handicapper is willing to accept the idea of a 30 race losing streak?My question: why is one unwilling to accept the inevitability of a fact that is easily proven via a basic understanding of math and probability?

[ryesteve]

As far as losing streaks go, am I off base to look at it like this?
If you are betting on the flip of a coin, you should win 50% of the time in the long run, but if you make that bet long enough (or enough times) you will eventually lose 30 in a row.You are absolutely correct... although jonnielu will complain that you must be using the wrong coin if you are willing to accept this inevitability.

[njcurveball]

How is it possible, that in a game where 1 of 4 horses will win 70% of the races on a day in and day out basis, the handicapper is willing to accept the idea of a 30 race losing streak?



I guess it is acceptable when your winners can pay $60 or more. ;)

[Robert Fischer]

If you are betting on the flip of a coin, you should win 50% of the time in the long run, but if you make that bet long enough (or enough times) you will eventually lose 30 in a row.

i don't want to throw you off the concept - which is that losing streaks are an expected part of the game...

However - If you are actually averaging 50% for your hit rate (betting the flip of the coin) your chances are going to be a lot lower to run into a 30 Loss streak than the 16% we were talking about before.

If you bet 100,000 times with a 50% hit rate (fair coin), the highest probable losing streak that you would suffer would be 17 consecutive losses.

The chances of any given 50% play leading to a 30 play Losing streak is 9.31323E-10 (small number).

Eventually - yes after a 100 million plays 30 play losing streaks @ 50% start to be a risk. :faint:

This goes back to Hit% being especially important to small bankroll players.

And this only applies to true 50% (or whatever your estimate) wagers - if you feel like a 50% hitter, and you are really operating at 25% you are subject to the 25%. We are also talking about a long-term average hit%. It is easy with a fair coin, assuming it never warps from all those tosses - In racing each wager is going to fluctuate in estimated actual hit%. We are forced to estimate a ballpark figure, and even if our horse wins or loses it doesn't necessarily prove right or wrong. Tough Game:ThmbUp:

[jonnielu]

My question: why is one unwilling to accept the inevitability of a fact that is easily proven via a basic understanding of math and probability?

If I bet the favorite every race, is a 30 race losing streak inevitable. Or is it more inevitable if I bet the horse with the longest tail? The message of an inevitable 30 race losing streak would be to look to more consistent criteria. Why would someone want to base betting decisions on inconsistent criteria?

jdl

[Niko]

Great example and well articulated Jeff. Shows how you have to take into account win percentage, size of bets, how often you can adjust and what can happen. I only play 3-4 tracks a day so it's easier to resize because I usually only have 1-2 main bets per track. I'll have to go back through my betting records again.

Your example is why I always advise people to take not the probable but the improbable losing streak into consideration when sizing bets.

A lot of it depends on your pain tolerance too. If you're a conservative person by nature and freak out when you've lost 50% of your bankroll, you have to bet at a lot smaller percentage. Your freak out level is usually when your judjement starts getting impaired and your results suffer unless you have nerves of steel or a hell of a lot of confidence in your method.

Your bet size seemed a bit low to me but I'll have to revisit myself. Right now I'm trying to better optimize my betting returns. I've revisited Kelly and I'm toying with some ideas there. Maybe you have some insight.

Poker teams usually play at 1/3 to 1/4 of Kelly. Future traders at 1/6 of Kelly or less because of voloatility and never knowing for sure what their actual edge is (more similar to horse racing than Poker). If you play in a team or group a series of bets together you can be more aggressive and use higher Kelly for each sequence (but less per bet) which reduces volatility. at about 1/5 of Kelly your risk of ruin is very low but you could still suffer large drawdowns.

I don't have the perfect formula yet but I'm looking at less than 1/6 of Kelly to try and compare to what I'm doing now. It's that balance between maximizing returns and maintaining a level head during drawdowns. How did you come to your current percentage of bankroll?

I know the risk of ruin for various percentages of Kelly but don't know the percentage of different drawdown levels. Does anyone have that? Could it be as simple as; The risk of ruin at full Kelly is 13.53% so the risk of a 50% drawdownis around 27%?

[Niko]

Another reason I'm looking at this again is because I'm moving away from horse racing except for a few of the big tracks, days etc towards the markets where this also plays a big role.

[jonnielu]

You are absolutely correct... although jonnielu will complain that you must be using the wrong coin if you are willing to accept this inevitability.

It's a question of your viewpoint, if you see racing as being without consistencies, you will never discover any consistencies, or understand what drives those consistencies that do exist.

If the track handicapper can avoid putting up a false favorite 30 times in a row, you should be able to avoid betting a loser 30 times in a row. Why do you see horse racing from the perspective of roulette?

jdl

[ryesteve]

If I bet the favorite every race, is a 30 race losing streak inevitable. Or is it more inevitable if I bet the horse with the longest tail? The message of an inevitable 30 race losing streak would be to look to more consistent criteria
Yes,
Yes,
and unless your hit rate is 100%, losing streaks are a mathematical certainty.

[ryesteve]

It's a question of your viewpoint, if you see racing as being without consistencies, you will never discover any consistencies, or understand what drives those consistencies that do exist.
Consistency is not certainty. As long as you have a measurable chance of losing, you also have a measurable probability of having that compounded into a losing streak of any given length.

[INFRONT07]

I typically average 2-3 plays per track. At 10-12 tracks a day getting 25-30 plays is about average. Occasionally a day comes up with 40-50 plays.

JEFF;
As a full time player myself let me ask you this;how in hell do you find time to size your bets after each bet playing this many races?with all the other info you should be looking at?

[jonnielu]

Consistency is not certainty. As long as you have a measurable chance of losing, you also have a measurable probability of having that compounded into a losing streak of any given length.

I say consistency, and you go to certainty. I don't want to sound like a broken record here, but it is not dice. What are you doing the first weekend of October?

jdl

[ryesteve]

I say consistency, and you go to certainty. I don't want to sound like a broken record here, but it is not dice. What are you doing the first weekend of October?

a) Because as I said, without certainty, losses are inevitable no matter how "consistent" you might be. I'm not saying it's dice, but as long as we're talking about events with a probability under 100%, you can't escape the inevitable.

b) Hiking in Sedona

[jonnielu]

a) Because as I said, without certainty, losses are inevitable no matter how "consistent" you might be. I'm not saying it's dice, but as long as we're talking about events with a probability under 100%, you can't escape the inevitable.

b) Hiking in Sedona

And, we were talking about losses to the tune of 30 in a row, not just losses. I would not junk my criteria over a few losses, I would call iut into question after 10 consecutive losses.

Too bad, but keep your eyes open in case you stumble over some good criteria for analyzing horse races.

jdl

[amazingD]

ok if my hit percentage is 33% win , how much should i bet with a 107 roi...or how much should I bet with a start of $500.00. I am going to do this with my spots for sure. To avoid the pitfalls Im going to only bet once a day and use a diff account to wager from for all other plays. Yes this means no resizing but If I play in that account all day then bad things will happen. HOPEFULLY. If one has a 8% rebate should they just figure it on a 115 roi. What kind of losing streak should I expect in reality. Not just what is possible.

[cj]

And, we were talking about losses to the tune of 30 in a row, not just losses. I would not junk my criteria over a few losses, I would call iut into question after 10 consecutive losses.

Too bad, but keep your eyes open in case you stumble over some good criteria for analyzing horse races.

jdl

If you haven't lost 10 races in a row, you have a lot of low priced horses in the mix.

[ryesteve]

And, we were talking about losses to the tune of 30 in a row, not just losses. I would not junk my criteria over a few losses, I would call iut into question after 10 consecutive losses.

Too bad, but keep your eyes open in case you stumble over some good criteria for analyzing horse races.

If you lose races with any sort of normal frequency, the laws of mathematics still apply to you, regardless of your level of hubris.

And you keep your eyes open for that losing streak, because your attitude is buying you a lot of bad karma.

[jonnielu]

If you haven't lost 10 races in a row, you have a lot of low priced horses in the mix.

Maybe, I'm just not betting enough races, losing just takes so much of the fun out of it. Anybody should be able to look at what they do well and focus on that to the extent that they can eliminate betting on those races where they don't do well.

In the past I didn't get grass, I knew I didn't get grass, so I passed them. Why bet a race when you don't understand the differences? I also used to pass any race with 3 or more firsters, I saw no information to work with. Why analyze horse races for half of the day and roll dice the other half.

Work what you are good at, and work at understanding what you are missing with the rest. There is no need to just throw money around to see if something will fall from the sky today. Use what you do know to discover what you don't.

There are too many consistencies at work in a horse race, for the bettor to accept the notion of a 30 loss streak. There would have to be several recognizable hot dog races in there. Ice cream if it is summer time.

The top four ML, the top trainers, jockeys, breeders, tracks, meetings, horses.... all consistencies that are at work everyday. All of those efforts bring a degree of consistency to the results. How can the astute bettor fail to get in on this, except thru the failure to simply recognize it.

Then, there is the greatest consistency of all, the average payoff. I've been asking for it to be cited for a year and a half now, and nobody pops up with it. It actually makes me wonder if it has changed since the last time I actually checked it, or if the statisticians just don't want to bother thinking on it for a spell. To my knowledge, it has always shook out at around 4-1. Not a particularly low price. But it speaks volumes on the consistency of this sport, for anyone that cares to listen.

But, it all depends on what kind of guy you are, there is something to be said for all arguments, and there is always something to be learned.

jdl

[jonnielu]

If you lose races with any sort of normal frequency, the laws of mathematics still apply to you, regardless of your level of hubris.

And you keep your eyes open for that losing streak, because your attitude is buying you a lot of bad karma.

You have no sense of humor Steve, and I don't have a normal bone in my body.

jdl

[MakinItHappen]

ok if my hit percentage is 33% win , how much should i bet with a 107 roi...or how much should I bet with a start of $500.00. I am going to do this with my spots for sure. To avoid the pitfalls Im going to only bet once a day and use a diff account to wager from for all other plays. Yes this means no resizing but If I play in that account all day then bad things will happen. HOPEFULLY. If one has a 8% rebate should they just figure it on a 115 roi. What kind of losing streak should I expect in reality. Not just what is possible.

I will apologize in advance AmazingD for not fully answering your question, but I will provide you with some information that may help you arrive at a reasonable answer to your question.

If you have a 33% hit rate, you can expect the following "in reality":

You have a 99.83% chance of experiencing a losing streak of 10 over 1000 races

You have a 55.6% chance of experiencing a losing streak of 15 over 1000 races.

You have a 10.24% chance of experiencing a losing streak of 20 over 1000 races.

You have a 0.19% chance of experiencing a losing streak of 30 over 1000 races.

For those of us who may not be human loss streak calculators, I would recommend checking out the following link:

http://www.sbrforum.com/Betting+Tools/Streak+Calculator.aspx

Best of Luck AmazingD and Everyone!

MakinItHappen

[amazingD]

THanks makinithappen. Sounds like I need to keep it below 2% to keep the chances of 20 losses from wiping me out. Thats $20 bets which is enough action to keep it interesting and to not get me too gun shy on longshots.

[Jeff P]

JEFF;
As a full time player myself let me ask you this;how in hell do you find time to size your bets after each bet playing this many races?with all the other info you should be looking at?I guess the answer is that I don't handicap on race day. The only thing I want to see on race day is a list of horses selected by my UDMs. I'll generally refuse to look at anything else. I don't even want to know what my UDM selections look like in traditional pp's like those presented in the DRF. That's not a knock on the DRF. You have to understand that my approach is a complete departure from what everybody else does. And that's by design.

Each of my UDMs represents a LOT of R&D time. Translation? Work. When a horse is selected by one of my UDMs I know at a glance from the UDM name WHY that horse was selected. My UDM design is done in such a way that any facet of the game can become part of my game... early speed, late speed, pace matchup, form, fitness, workouts, class, ability from speed figs, trainer intent, breeding, track profile, overlooked riders and trainers... race chaos and value too. I have UDMs that tell me when horses have advantages over their fields in these areas and when they don't. If a horse isn't selected by one of my UDMs I won't play it.

An absence of UDMs in a race is a strong signal that I'm staring at a race where my own R&D has shown that long term profitable play (for me) is nearly impossible. And that just screams PASS.

R&D / UDM development (for me) is a constant ongoing effort. It's work... bet work that almost always pays off in the end.

On race day I fire up the laptop, download race card files, get scratches, click a Calc Races button, log into my ADW accounts... and I'm ready to go - literally within minutes.

Someone watching me "work" on race day would see me clicking buttons and listening to music while having fun watching races and (and if all goes well) making money. They wouldn't see all the hard work that goes into it ahead of time... Without the work I wouldn't stand a chance.

On race day my focus is centered on executing my game plan and nothing else... making play or pass value based decisions about UDM selections... structuring tickets (which includes bet sizing) to get max value should a selection run well.

On race day there isn't any other info (my perspective) I should be looking at.


-jp

.

[barn32]

On race day my focus is centered on executing my game plan and nothing else... making play or pass value based decisions about UDM selections...
-jp

. What is a UDM, and what does it stand for?

[CincyHorseplayer]

Maybe, I'm just not betting enough races, losing just takes so much of the fun out of it. Anybody should be able to look at what they do well and focus on that to the extent that they can eliminate betting on those races where they don't do well.

In the past I didn't get grass, I knew I didn't get grass, so I passed them. Why bet a race when you don't understand the differences? I also used to pass any race with 3 or more firsters, I saw no information to work with. Why analyze horse races for half of the day and roll dice the other half.

Work what you are good at, and work at understanding what you are missing with the rest. There is no need to just throw money around to see if something will fall from the sky today. Use what you do know to discover what you don't.

There are too many consistencies at work in a horse race, for the bettor to accept the notion of a 30 loss streak. There would have to be several recognizable hot dog races in there. Ice cream if it is summer time.

The top four ML, the top trainers, jockeys, breeders, tracks, meetings, horses.... all consistencies that are at work everyday. All of those efforts bring a degree of consistency to the results. How can the astute bettor fail to get in on this, except thru the failure to simply recognize it.

Then, there is the greatest consistency of all, the average payoff. I've been asking for it to be cited for a year and a half now, and nobody pops up with it. It actually makes me wonder if it has changed since the last time I actually checked it, or if the statisticians just don't want to bother thinking on it for a spell. To my knowledge, it has always shook out at around 4-1. Not a particularly low price. But it speaks volumes on the consistency of this sport, for anyone that cares to listen.

But, it all depends on what kind of guy you are, there is something to be said for all arguments, and there is always something to be learned.

jdl

Good post Jonnielu.I agree.

While it is a reality(happened to me in December of 2002),I think there is too much of a fixation on 30 race losing streaks.That's not the kind of subliminal message you want to keep pounding into your head and it seems like some are almost touting the 30 RLS.I can understand with justifiable pride betting in such a manner as to be able to withstand such a run,but I don't care what your average mutuel is,should it be a goal to aspire to.I get the point.I can deal with the reality of losing and even the best lose more than they win but I know when I get on a run I'll have a hit rate of about 32-40% and when losing it'll be closer to 15-20% and even out somewhere in the middle.I've kept records since 2001 and I've endured only one 2 for 28 run and an 0 for 21 in Spring 2004.It seems like those who tout value(and I am a value seeker myself)seem to get the wrong message across,that 20% hit rates at 4-1 are the solitary goal and while endorsing the 30 RLS seem to be the one's telling new bettors to not hedge bets because it'll reduce your overall ROI.These days I bet mainly exactas but I remember even in my win-place bet days that if I bet strictly to win my ROI would go up 10% overall but losing runs with place wagers intact cut my losses by 40%.The tradeoff was well worth it.You live for another day.

Philosophy and reality are always at odds in this game but like a baseball player,aspiring to be a 5 tool handicapper should be the goal-hit for power(high hit%),hit for average(high cash rate),speed(fluid thinking),defense(smart bets),arm(cutting down mistakes with self perception)!!!!!

[Overlay]

What is a UDM, and what does it stand for?

It stands for user defined model. Jeff discusses it here:

http://www.jcapper.com/Program_Features.html

[DJofSD]

Considering the losing steak sub-theme ever present, I'm surprised winning streaks have not been brought up as a part of the discussion.

[Robert Fischer]

Here is a sample spreadsheet for keeping records.

The most important thing is to keep track of Starting Bankroll, $Wagered, and $Returned.

This sheet also does some bankroll calculations, and allows you to track things like Wager Type, which you could could eventually sort and look for strengths and weaknesses.


click to enlarge image
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/9456/recordssz6.th.jpg (http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/9456/recordssz6.jpg)

download excel spreadsheet
http://rapidshare.com/files/145842630/recordBook.xlsx.html


Instructions
1. enter Starting Bankroll
2. Enter amount Wagered and amount Returned on your bet
3. Use drop down menus for additional information

[barn32]

Here is a sample spreadsheet for keeping records.

The most important thing is to keep track of Starting Bankroll, $Wagered, and $Returned.

This sheet also does some bankroll calculations, and allows you to track things like Wager Type, which you could could eventually sort and look for strengths and weaknesses.


click to enlarge image
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/9456/recordssz6.th.jpg (http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/9456/recordssz6.jpg)

download excel spreadsheet
http://rapidshare.com/files/145842630/recordBook.xlsx.htmlI've been playing around with your spreadsheet. Thanks for that. I have a question about ROI. Maybe I'm dense, but I always thought ROI was Profit/Investment. Bet $10, get back $40, ROI = $30/$10 = 300%. Now, those numbers will come down to a more realistic figure as your sample size increases.

In your spreadsheet, for ROI you have current bankroll/starting bankroll. Is that ROI, or is that percentage increase/decrease of bankroll?

So, on your spreadsheet for the same example $10 wagered, $40 returned, you have the ROI at 1.06, or 6%. The $30 profit is 6% of your original starting bankroll.

Just wondering if I've been doing things wrong. What am I missing here?

[Robert Fischer]

You are right. Boneheaded error on my part.

download the corrected version here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/145883478/recordBook.xlsx.html

or
if you are handy with the spreadsheets you can copy and paste the following into the B6 cell formula bar:
=(SUM(B9:B1000)-SUM(A9:A1000))/SUM(A9:A1000)



-------------------------

=B5/SUM(A9:A1000) will also work


thanks for pointing that out.


I've been playing around with your spreadsheet. Thanks for that. I have a question about ROI. Maybe I'm dense, but I always thought ROI was Profit/Investment. Bet $10, get back $40, ROI = $30/$10 = 300%. Now, those numbers will come down to a more realistic figure as your sample size increases.

In your spreadsheet, for ROI you have current bankroll/starting bankroll. Is that ROI, or is that percentage increase/decrease of bankroll?

So, on your spreadsheet for the same example $10 wagered, $40 returned, you have the ROI at 1.06, or 6%. The $30 profit is 6% of your original starting bankroll.

[amazingD]

Do you guys think we have gotten too good with all the computer handicapping software? To the point where there is little hidden profits. There must be thousands of guys running and testing spotplays daily. They all get somewhat the same ideas of course. MOstly when they test something and it shows a profit. Front runners used to hold a profit but they are now reduced to the track takeout. Seriously, how can our spotplays stay profitable more than a few months before they are hammered. Should we all start using the horsestreet approach? I think it involves betting spot plays when they are bet down to unprofitability and catching the upswing when the other miners get off them because they show a loss.

[098poi]

I downloaded your file but can't open it. If I change the extension to xls it just looks like machine code or something?

[Dave Schwartz]

Bob,

Excel 2003 converted the file to an older format. You must be using an older version of Excel.


Dave

[098poi]

You are correct sir, Excel 2002. Oh well. Thanks for the tipoff.

[2low]

If you ask me, it can be very much worth your while to treat a very small starting bankroll as if it were a very large sum of money (the last bankroll you'll ever be able to scrape together) provided you have the mental capacity to actually do that.

Hear me out.

Profits = (edge) x (handle)

If you have an edge and can size each bet as a small pct of bankroll (.015 to .025 depending on strength of play) and recalculate size of bank after the results of each play becomes known...

In THEORY you can make it work just like compound interest. If we replace handle in the above equation with an ever growing bet size repeated across 1000's of plays over the next few years...

Profits becomes a VERY large number.

But almost everyone who tries this will very quickly discover real life and theory can be two entirely different things.

You see most players have absolutely no understanding of the incredible amount of discipline it takes to make something like this work - to actually grow a small bankroll into a large one.

Sometime during 2001 after conceptualizing the gist of what I just posted as something attainable (as theory) I promised myself that before I could look myself in the mirror and call myself any kind of horseplayer I would first have to prove it to myself by actually growing a small bankroll into a large one in real life.

I had several failed attempts at this during 2001-2002. Looking back, the reason I failed was that in each case I treated my bankroll as if it were expendable... which ultimately proved to be the case.

I would make a few dozen plays at 2 pct of $300.00. I might have a good run or a bad run... it didn't matter. Eventually I would grow bored with the idea of $5.00 and $8.00 win bets. Where was the thrill? I'd react to that by overbetting my bankroll... $30.00 or $40.00 to win on horses I thought were overlayed. Funny thing though - as soon as I would hit a losing streak my bank would evaporate. I actually blew through several banks in 2002. God, it's a good thing I had a job at the time.

In late 2003 the software shop I was working for had too many eggs in one basket. The Marine Corps opted to award a defense contract to a competitor rather than renew with us. The owners of my co. had no choice but to lay a bunch of us developers off.

I had an early version of what would soon evolve into JCapper and decided to take a serious run at playing full time. I began flat betting to win on horses I viewed as overlays. I had ups and downs. But overall my approach was working. I was winning money. Enough to cover living expenses and then some. But that was about it. I wasn't growing a bankroll.

In May of 2004 I decided come hell or high water I was finally going to muster the discipline to grow a tiny bankroll into a large one. Either that or die trying. I made a $250.00 deposit at Pinnacle and was determined to treat it as if it were all the money I had left in the world.

I began making bets on horses I thought were overlaid at .015 to .025 of bankroll. I actually based the pct on strength of play. A few weeks in and my $250.00 had grown to almost $400.00.

I can't tell you how much I wanted to scrap the whole idea. Here I was supposedly playing horses for a living while making $3 to $8 win bets.

But I kept on. Somehow I convinced myself that money wasn't the objective. Discipline was. Because I KNEW deep down that my theory about growing a bankroll had to be correct. And the only thing that had stopped me from making it work in the past had been, well... me.

IF I could somehow muster the discipline now, I could carry my edge into the long run - and grow this tiny bankroll into something I could be proud of.

Several months and 1000's of plays later my $250.00 had grown to almost 4k. Was I was over the hump? Not hardly. 4k isn't what you'd call a security blanket.

As I played I discovered that a pct of bankroll approach presented a set of challenges I hadn't envisioned. I've already mentioned the importance of discipline. But it goes much further than that. No matter how good of a player you might be, most of the overlays you find yourself betting are overlays in the first place because the public ignores them (at least to some degree.) And if you study racing data you know that higher odds horses have lower win rates than lower odds horses. This is true no matter how good of a handicapper you might be. So betting overlays (at least mine) will eventually lead to losing streaks of unknown (beforehand) duration. You have to understand going in that as a player you can do everything right and lose 30 (or more) bets in succession.

You have to be psychologically equipped beforehand to handle this. If not, stop reading this post right now. Treat horses as a hobby only from now on and forget about even trying to grow a tiny bankroll into a large one.

If you are practicing a pct of bankroll approach when this happens your bankroll WILL shrink. If you plot changes in the size of your bank from live play on a graph (vertical axis = $$ and horizontal axis = time) you will see a lot of ups and downs. But if you have an edge the general trend as you carry an edge into the long run despite the ups and downs will be bankroll growth.

BTW, the degree to which bankroll growth is possible using a pct of bankroll approach dwarfs what is possible using flat betting. The trade off though is that flat betting as an approach is far far easier to put into practice.

Regardless, you have to be emotionless during both losing and winning streaks. Because emotion can cause you to do things that are incredibly stupid.

I realized something while I was making this work. And this will always be true. True for the rest of my life - or at least as long as I choose to play professionally. No matter how much money I might win or have - the ONLY thing separating me from the path I have found and worked so hard to get on is a couple weeks of blown discipline. A lapse in discipline will ALWAYS have the ability to evaporate a bankroll and cause me to have to go back to work.

Overbetting a bankroll WILL lead to ruin. Count on it.

Yet for the first time in my life I found that I had grown a tiny bankroll to the point to where betting a pct of it was easily covering my living expenses.

I kept on. Research I did in the summer of 2005 found me improving my selection process - significantly. Fewer plays. But plays of a much higher quality. By year's end, even though I took money off the table several times, and was making regular withdrawals to cover living expenses, my tiny $250.00 starting bank was now well into 5 figures.

2006 saw a completely different set of challenges which I overcame. 2007 even more.

This post is already way too long. So maybe it's time to wrap things up.

Profits = (edge) x (handle)

If you can change handle to a pct of bank repeated 1000's of times, you can (in theory) make the whole thing work like compound interest. Carrying an edge into the long run is doable. But it takes an incredible amount of discipline. I'm really proud of the fact that I've actually done this.

One of the keys (at least for me) when it came to mustering the needed discipline was the ability to treat my starting bank with respect... as if it were the last $250.00 I had to my name. For me, this was the difference maker between all of my previous attempts and the one that finally took off. It was the only way (for me) to give a starting bank the respect it actually deserves.

Thanks for reading,


-jp

.

I hope nobody minds me resurrecting my new favorite post on the site:) I think it's worth another look anyway. I've been looking for something like this. Excellent thread idea, too.

This is about the same exact bankroll building procedure I'm in the process of attempting myself - starting on November 18th with a $50 deposit into a new account to go along with $180 left over in an old account. Now that I'm confident in my handicapping approach, I'm making 2% of bankroll win bets based on my Monday morning bankroll. I suppose if I go on a losing streak towards the beginning of the week I'll have to scale down before the next Monday, but I don't ever ratchet the bets up before the next Monday.

I hope my story will proceed half as well as Jeff P's.

[DanG]

I hope nobody minds me resurrecting my new favorite post on the site:) I think it's worth another look anyway. I've been looking for something like this. Excellent thread idea, too.\\
Thanks 2Low / Jeff; that was a very enjoyable read. :ThmbUp:

[BIG RED]

You are correct sir, Excel 2002. Oh well. Thanks for the tipoff.

My Excel sent me to this, if interested....

Compatibility Pack (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=941B3470-3AE9-4AEE-8F43-C6BB74CD1466&displaylang=en)

[Robert Fischer]

hey, I remember this thread ;)
Classic post by Jeff P





ITS TIME in 2009
Put it all together this year!

wishing everybody a happy holidays
and a positive horseplaying experience

JK "robert fischer" :ThmbUp:

[rusrious]

Hey Guys,

Take it for what its worth, as Im not pro.. I have spent countless hours breaking down the DRF, watching races, READING, and reading some more.. Off and on, Ive been at his for 15 years.. Sometimes got burnt out from looking at numbers and crunching angles, trying out software, and all that good stuff..

I have definitly learned SOOO much about the sport. I have a track in my backyard (3 miles- Presque Isle Downs ), and feel it could be a automatic ATM for me.

Im starting with $100...

I'll be betting 1/20th of my bankroll, with is $5

When I double my bankroll, I will double my bets to $10

I make ONLY place bets, AND ONLY when the price is right.

I've learned that not having a good betting plan, no patience, no consistency, and not being disciplined enough to even be in the sport, is key to winning.

Im going to go Pro, In my mind anyways, and treat it as a business, with goals..

I love the atmosphere of the track, I feel at home, I guess you can say.

Im really going to start taking it seriously..

Im aiming for a 80-90% hit rate..

My tips. avoid more then 9 runners per race, Avoid trying to "recoup" loses, as it can kill your bankroll, JMO...

My goal for 6 months, $32,000

Good luck today,

[raybo]

Im starting with $100...

I'll be betting 1/20th of my bankroll, with is $5

I make ONLY place bets, AND ONLY when the price is right.

Im aiming for a 80-90% hit rate..

My tips. avoid more then 9 runners per race, Avoid trying to "recoup" loses, as it can kill your bankroll, JMO...

My goal for 6 months, $32,000

Good luck today,

Whew!!!! Good luck! :)

[big frank]

Hey Guys,

Take it for what its worth, as Im not pro.. I have spent countless hours breaking down the DRF, watching races, READING, and reading some more.. Off and on, Ive been at his for 15 years.. Sometimes got burnt out from looking at numbers and crunching angles, trying out software, and all that good stuff..

I have definitly learned SOOO much about the sport. I have a track in my backyard (3 miles- Presque Isle Downs ), and feel it could be a automatic ATM for me.

Im starting with $100...

I'll be betting 1/20th of my bankroll, with is $5

When I double my bankroll, I will double my bets to $10

I make ONLY place bets, AND ONLY when the price is right.

I've learned that not having a good betting plan, no patience, no consistency, and not being disciplined enough to even be in the sport, is key to winning.

Im going to go Pro, In my mind anyways, and treat it as a business, with goals..

I love the atmosphere of the track, I feel at home, I guess you can say.

Im really going to start taking it seriously..

Im aiming for a 80-90% hit rate..

My tips. avoid more then 9 runners per race, Avoid trying to "recoup" loses, as it can kill your bankroll, JMO...

My goal for 6 months, $32,000
play lotto , you have a better shot
Good luck today, play lotto, you have a bettter shot

[Hank]

Hey Guys,

Take it for what its worth, as Im not pro.. I have spent countless hours breaking down the DRF, watching races, R EADING, and reading some more .. Off and on, Ive been at his for 15 years.. Sometimes got burnt out from looking at numbers and crunching angles, trying out software, and all that good stuff..

I have definitly learned SOOO much about the sport. I have a track in my backyard (3 miles- Presque Isle Downs ), and feel it could be a automatic ATM for me.

Im starting with $100...

I'll be betting 1/20th of my bankroll, with is $5

When I double my bankroll, I will double my bets to $10

I make ONLY place bets, AND ONLY when the price is right.

I've learned that not having a good betting plan, no patience, no consistency, and not being disciplined enough to even be in the sport, is key to winning.

Im going to go Pro, In my mind anyways, and treat it as a business, with goals..

I love the atmosphere of the track, I feel at home, I guess you can say.

Im really going to start taking it seriously..

Im aiming for a 80-90% hit rate..

My tips. avoid more then 9 runners per race, Avoid trying to "recoup" loses, as it can kill your bankroll, JMO...

My goal for 6 months, $32,000

Good luck today,

Read "Winning thoroughbred strategies" and 'Money secrets at the race track", because your stated goal is (absent devine intervention)a mathematical impossibility.:(

[raybo]

Read "Winning thoroughbred strategies" and 'Money secrets at the race track", because your stated goal is (absent devine intervention)a mathematical impossibility.:(

Yeah, his goals and expected methods of accomplishing those goals are, quite optimistic, to say the least.

[Laron]

thanks i relly enjoyed the post

[Overlay]

Do you guys think we have gotten too good with all the computer handicapping software? To the point where there is little hidden profits. There must be thousands of guys running and testing spotplays daily. They all get somewhat the same ideas of course. MOstly when they test something and it shows a profit. Front runners used to hold a profit but they are now reduced to the track takeout. Seriously, how can our spotplays stay profitable more than a few months before they are hammered.

No matter how sophisiticated software or the betting public may become, there will always be overlays on a race-to-race basis that go off at odds that are longer than their true chance of winning. (If this weren't the case, horse-race betting as a whole would become an exercise in futility.) The way out of the spot-play obsolesence cycle that you describe is to concentrate on the predictive power of multiple factors with regard to all the horses in a race, rather than focusing on narrowing a field to the one most likely winner through application of a single angle or aspect of performance.

[raybo]

Do you guys think we have gotten too good with all the computer handicapping software? To the point where there is little hidden profits. There must be thousands of guys running and testing spotplays daily. They all get somewhat the same ideas of course. MOstly when they test something and it shows a profit. Front runners used to hold a profit but they are now reduced to the track takeout. Seriously, how can our spotplays stay profitable more than a few months before they are hammered. Should we all start using the horsestreet approach? I think it involves betting spot plays when they are bet down to unprofitability and catching the upswing when the other miners get off them because they show a loss.

Even though many players use "spot plays" in their wagering arsenal, there are still variables within those spot plays that allow differing results, just as when players use the same software for selecting winners but come up with different plays.

It is almost impossible that all profitable spot plays would become unprofitable due to overuse.

At any one time there is a finite number of players using the same spot plays, and even then, they may still arrive at differing results, and there are so many tracks and races every day it is hard for me to imagine there will ever be no profitable plays remaining.

[rusrious]

Read "Winning thoroughbred strategies" and 'Money secrets at the race track", because your stated goal is (absent devine intervention)a mathematical impossibility.:(

Thanks, I will read these..

So far, Profit $180 in 20 minutes, Went to the Track Jan 1st to kick off things right, and won my first 3 bets, profited $180. Accually got some looks of disgust from some old timers,

Going today, see what happens.. When you hit 94% of the time, let your bankroll work for you..:cool:

[salty]

This is my first post on the forum. So i decided the best place to start is where I am. I have been betting at least once a week for about the last 6 months and have lost my whole bankroll of $200 once and that was at the end of august.

I think the best value you can get for your money with a small bankroll is with an exacta bet. i don't know how else you can get the same returns with only $2-$4 bet per race.

example:

Pha 2nd race (11 horses in race)

#__win____place__show
8__16.80___8.80__5.00
10________5.40___3.20
3_______________5.60
Exacta: $87.20
tri: $565
I won with a $2 exacta box.

I think all starting players should think risk and reward. You could have matched the exacta but you would have to risk a more than a $10 win bet, 3 times more money at risk for the same reward. If i had bet a $5 box i could have hit $218 with my $10. As far as betting a tri goes, I think it would be very tough to hit that tri with less than $4 dollars bet. With $4 you could only get 4 combinations of the possible 990.

With the starting bankroll of $200 playing win bets at $10 I have 20 chances to hit something on 20 bets.

With a starting bankroll of $200 playing exacta boxes i have 100 chances to hit something on 50 bets.

I agree with everyone else that discipline is the most important part of winning with a small bankroll. Second to discipline is managing your risk and reward. Third is to try your best to quit while you are ahead, there is nothing worse then hitting some good races then handing it all back. :bang:

-salty

[raybo]

This is my first post on the forum. So i decided the best place to start is where I am. I have been betting at least once a week for about the last 6 months and have lost my whole bankroll of $200 once and that was at the end of august.

I think the best value you can get for your money with a small bankroll is with an exacta bet. i don't know how else you can get the same returns with only $2-$4 bet per race.


I think all starting players should think risk and reward. You could have matched the exacta but you would have to risk a more than a $10 win bet, 3 times more money at risk for the same reward. If i had bet a $5 box i could have hit $218 with my $10. As far as betting a tri goes, I think it would be very tough to hit that tri with less than $4 dollars bet. With $4 you could only get 4 combinations of the possible 990.

With the starting bankroll of $200 playing win bets at $10 I have 20 chances to hit something on 20 bets.

With a starting bankroll of $200 playing exacta boxes i have 100 chances to hit something on 50 bets.

I agree with everyone else that discipline is the most important part of winning with a small bankroll. Second to discipline is managing your risk and reward. Third is to try your best to quit while you are ahead, there is nothing worse then hitting some good races then handing it all back. :bang:

-salty

Welcome!!

It looks like you are starting out in the right direction. Risk/reward is indeed the key to any sound investment strategy. Although, there are many here who are successful playing the straight bets: win, place, show. Their hit rate is much higher than on the exotics and they can churn lots of money through the windows enabling them to leverage their initial investment.

Churning, however, means that they have to play multiple tracks and distances which does add to the difficulty considerably, and requires are high degree of handicapping skill.

IMO, the exotics ( exacta, trifecta, superfecta ) are the best opportunity in racing. You can be more selective on the races in which you wager and can concentrate on fewer tracks and distances, which will make you more consistent in your approach.

Have you considered the $.10 superfectas? This wager type, again IMO, is the absolute most efficient use of the "risk/reward" philosophy.

You stated: "As far as betting a tri goes, I think it would be very tough to hit that tri with less than $4 dollars bet. With $4 you could only get 4 combinations of the possible 990."

With the $.10 superfecta wager you get 40 combinations for the same $4. You can do quite well with a hit rate below 10%. Your possible profit on a hit is only limited by the amount of money in the pool. If you have the only winning ticket in the pool, you get it all. Your $200 initial investment would have gone a long way with only $1.20 to $6.40 wagered per race.

Again, welcome to PA!!!

[gm10]

putting some ideas/questions/roadblocks down about playing for profit with a small bankroll

hopefully everybody can contribute

It all depends on the type of bets you will make. If you will mainly back longshots, then you will quickly go bankrupt if you risk more than 1% of your bank roll. For general handicapping (30% winners) I would suggest 2% as the max size.

You really want to do some simulations. Write down your selections for a few weeks, write down the final odds and whether the selection won or not, and then do some P&L with different stake sizes.

[rusrious]

If your really confident of your selection, $15 to place, collect, put $15 back in your pocket, bet the remaining amount on your next "sure bet" to place, then repeat. You out nothing if you win your first bet. The key is to "be sure" your selection will finish at least second best.

So, your mission for each day is to "find" 6-7 "sure bets", I use this method on Saturdays and Sundays, If I lose my first bet, Im done for the day.

If you start to get on a roll, anything over $35 put in your pocket. It sounds like alot, but your playing with winnings, so you lose nothing. But if that one horse wins at 8/1, your stacking some bankroll. This can add up fast, but you MUST BE SURE of your selection. Be SELECTIVE, ALWAYS, no matter how much you are up, have a great time, and dont get greedy.

My Tip: Make sure your jockey/trainer % is strongly influenced in your pick, as this is usually my starting point.;)


Take it for what it worth, Im up $500 this week/year.

[scgmhawk]

I thought I'd chime in since my $500 bankroll fits this category! In my opinion, I agree that exotics are the way the go if you aren't going to play a ton of races and create enough churn to grow your bankroll sufficiently. Personally, I'm trying to figure out MY wager of choice. It was exactas, and then I moved on to Trifectas the past 3 months. Since I'm not typically betting more than $12/race (and usually $4-8), I have found that analyzing a race for the trifecta -- is the early speed going to hold up, is there a closer that can win or will he finish just short but in the money, is there a standout horse but a 0% trainer -- has really helped me a lot in visualizing the race. Since I'm not betting a lot of combinations (I need to have a key in one of the positions), I have to be very exact. That being said, I've missed hitting some good exactas and Win bets (which I rarely make) while missing out on the Tri. My bankroll's remained flat for the last 3 months playing this way -- some great hits and long droughts. I'm still working on my overall strategy -- should probably play prime exacta play along with Tri to cash more frequently. This post probably doesn't provide much direction but I thought I'd share what I've been doing of late!

[formula_2002]

putting some ideas/questions/roadblocks down about playing for profit with a small bankroll

hopefully everybody can contribute
I'm still trying to work my way up to the playing for profit chapter!! :)

[gopony]

Plan A
I would view my bankroll as a "session" comprised of between 20 and 30 units. A session ends when my bankroll in the session has double or has gone down to zero (or below 1 unit).



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

I would second or third this approach. Dave went over this approach in one of his classes, for me it works. He left out some of the details, but you can find them in his book I believe. I haven't bought it yet. But applying what I know about it so far has helped tremendously.
And I don't always wait till the $200 dollars is gone to end a session. If I go to $100 and haven't hit a winner, then I can usually tell I've got a problem and need to back up and see what I'm missing. If I think I've found it I may continue the session. But if I've lost 5 or 6 in a row, I know I'm off on something and need to re-evaluate what the heck I am doing.
If I lose 2 sessions in a row then I know I need to hang it up for awhile, because I'm way off the mark. Then I'll re-evaluate again until I start winning virtual sessions.
If I've been away from the track for more than five days I'll start with a virtual session from previous days I missed, until I get back into the swing of things.

[WinterTriangle]

The public makes the final odds, the public believes in happenstance, I don't. jdl

Interesting subject unto itself.

I don't even look at the odds until I make my own assessment.

I'm a newbie, so not sure how much value I can lend to this topic, but I often see that the toteboard seems to get some "steam" from the main "tout sheets" that are made available to the public, which creates false favorites. Often these patterns are very obvious, even to a know-nothing like me.

On the other hand, I like to remember that "the public" also includes horseplayers who are much more knowledgeable than I am, as well as insiders like trainers and barn people who may know something I don't know.

I do my own handicapping carefully, and then check the odds to see if it will be a profitable play. The tote board might show me I missed something, but oftentimes not.

Yesterday, my handicapping showed a 6-1 horse would win (7-1 at post!) so just for ha-ha's, I scanned every "picks" site, as well as the "for sale picks" put out by the majors. The horse wasn't in the top 4, and not even on the radar, no matter where I looked. If I had let the odds or the public influence me, I would not have made the play.

The horse won. :)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that once you've dilligently done your homework, trust yourself. That has been my biggest failure, moreso than bankroll management and wager structuring. Confidence is a big part of this game, IMHO, and developing that will take care of not becoming a "follow-the-lemmings" bettor, and thereby decrease the happenstance that JL talks about?

I played on paper for a year before ever spending a dollar. As a matter of fact, not a bad exercise for any horseplayer who is not succeeding to the level they want. Go back to the basics and don't spend $ until you have refined your skills and have confidence again. :)

Of course, a tote-board player would have an entirely different perspective????

[scgmhawk]

I agree that trusting yourself is extremely important and you need to to find the longshot winners. It's something I struggle with as well.

[formula_2002]

JEFF, THE ATTACHED ARE RESULTS FOR PICKS I RECENTLY POSTED ON PA. (THERE ARE SOME SLIGHT VARIATIONS DUE TO LATE SCRATCHES)
117 PLAYS PRODUCED;
.97 ROI FOR A WIN BET
1.04 ROI FOR A PLACE BET
AND A 1.02 ROI FOR A SHOW BET.

COLUMNS R AND S ARE THE BET SIZES FOR WIN AND PLACE POOL AND CALCULATED AT 5% OF BR AND A 5% EDGE.

REGARDLESS HOW YOU MAY CHANGE THE BETTING STRUCTURE (ADJUSTING %POOL OR %EDGE),
THE RESULTS ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN A FLAT BET..
I HAVE AN IDEA WHY THIS HAPPENS (EITHER A MISTAKE ON MY PART OR SOMETING ELSE :)) . IF YOU HAVE SOME TIME LOOK INTO IT AND LET ME KNOW YOUT THOUGHTS.

THANKS.

[Jeff P]

Joe, I mostly agree with you.
Profits = (Edge) x (Handle)That simple formula always applies - no matter what. There's just no getting away from it.

Edge comes from a combination of the strength of the player's selection process AND the player's ability to get the most bang for his buck.

Let's talk about the phrase "bang for his buck" for a second.

Taking the plays listed in your spreadsheet - which if they represent the long run are very close to break even - you could get more bang for your buck by giving your business to an outfit that offers a rebate (like PTC for example) as opposed to supporting a venue that doesn't, such as driving to the track or playing through TwinSpires, etc. That alone has the ability to turn time spent on your selection process into something substantially more than a break even endeavor.

Since most of these plays appear to be on the chalky side - you might also consider avoiding the win pool. Studies of large data samples have repeatedly shown that place and show roi generated from playing horses with very low odds tends to be higher than win roi. Your spreadsheet is just further confirmation of that.

Another way to get more bang for your buck might be to reevaluate your plays in terms of what happens when they are used in the exotics pools. I find quite often I can get far more value out of a set of plays by using them intelligently as singles in their leg of a pick-X as opposed to playing them in the straight pools.

Ok. Those are just a few thoughts relating to Edge and bang for your buck. While important, that's only one part of things. I'll try to come back later and post some thoughts on the areas of strength of play and handle.


-jp

.

[formula_2002]

Joe, I mostly agree with you.
Profits = (Edge) x (Handle)That simple formula always applies - no matter what. There's just no getting away from it.

Edge comes from a combination of the strength of the player's selection process AND the player's ability to get the most bang for his buck.

Let's talk about the phrase "bang for his buck" for a second.

Taking the plays listed in your spreadsheet - which if they represent the long run are very close to break even - you could get more bang for your buck by giving your business to an outfit that offers a rebate (like PTC for example) as opposed to supporting a venue that doesn't, such as driving to the track or playing through TwinSpires, etc. That alone has the ability to turn time spent on your selection process into something substantially more than a break even endeavor.

Since most of these plays appear to be on the chalky side - you might also consider avoiding the win pool. Studies of large data samples have repeatedly shown that place and show roi generated from playing horses with very low odds tends to be higher than win roi. Your spreadsheet is just further confirmation of that.

Another way to get more bang for your buck might be to reevaluate your plays in terms of what happens when they are used in the exotics pools. I find quite often I can get far more value out of a set of plays by using them intelligently as singles in their leg of a pick-X as opposed to playing them in the straight pools.

Ok. Those are just a few thoughts relating to Edge and bang for your buck. While important, that's only one part of things. I'll try to come back later and post some thoughts on the areas of strength of play and handle.


-jp

.

Thanks Jeff.
I'll look into the PTC idea.