Upper Percentile

[Larry Hamilton]

Couple of weeks ago, some one claimed to be in the 5-10% percentile of handicappers. IT isn't important who made the claim. Consider these facts:

Are we talking skill or bucks? How do you measure skill? How do you measure bucks? (you have no idea how much I play for or how much I take home). The point is this: if you can't put my abilities/money in a box, how can you rate yourself against me?

There is another way to attack this problem of "How good am I".... Feel free to invent your own scale, as it was early in the morning when I invented this one.


Best--one who leaves the plant with more money than he came with, and pays his bills monthly out of his winnings

Good--one who frequently leaves the plant with more money than he came with, but pays his bill out his day job.

Fair--one who occasionally leaves the plant with gas money and gets frequent calls interupting supper.

Poor--one who almost always leaves the track without a shirt. Has few bills he can pay and no credit. Undaunted, he will be back tomorrow with the rent money because he had an epiphany studying his garage full of old DRF's

you couldn't put anyone in the above boxes either, but hey, I was on bored and taking a db break...

[Larry Hamilton]

The above was only a little light-hearted.

Can you define what it takes to be a winning handicapper? This is the crux of the game, for if you can define a winner, we can outline a program of how to get there. The program would devolve, so to speak, from results to initial training. First, let us presume that every handicapper starts this game to be "the best". Conversely, no one starts this game to be "poor".

So, the first step is define a winning handicapper.

[Rick Ransom]

Larry,

I've been reading this garbage for years about a certain percentage of horsplayers are winners and had the same thoughts as you. Most of them are just repeating what someone else said or guessing. I think a few of them try to be "scientific" about it by calculating the percentage of people who would win in a given period of time, usually a day, if everyone had equal skills. Anyone who's been to the racetrack even once should know better than that.

My opinion is that there's absolutely no way of knowing, even if you took a poll and everyone was hooked up to a lie decector, because I think there are a lot of people who believe they are winners when they are really losing 5-10%. Very few people really know (or want to know) what their bottom line is. If I had to guess, I'd say there might be 5% "near-winners" but less than 1% real winners.

Another thing you have to consider is what period of time or number of races you're talking about. I had one year where I won for the first 6 months and lost for the last 6 months, winding up about even. Was I a winning horseplayer that year? Well, technically yes because I think I won a couple of dollars overall, but the second 6 months were painful. By then I'd already shown a profit on more than 1000 races and was confident that I would continue to do well. But these were pace oriented plays that worked very well at the tracks I played the first 6 months and not so well at the tracks I played in the last 6 months, so there was a good reason and it did contribute to my "education".

[Slider]

My definition of a winning horseplayer is one who meets their own expectations. That may range from cashing a show ticket to making wages. The entertainment factor is a strong factor. I have seen many burned out horseplayers who USED to make a living capping the horses. Without the entertainment and challenge factors this is can be quite stressful. There are a lot easier ways to make a living.

Slider

[Tom]

I agree with slider-what is your goal? Did you meet it?
If you did, then nothing else matters. Some goals may be more ambitious than others.."I want to win a million dollars this year, and do it betting to show!"
Others may be more realistic..."I want to break even-pay for my form and parking and admisison out of my winnings - then I have a free hobby"
Others may be more desperate..."I want to keep the house another year!"
Whatever, you can't compare one player to another.
I was able to maintain a 67-70% win percentage betting two horses for long periods of time using Sartin's philosophy, but what I was lacking was any meaningful profits. I once hit 7 out of 10 races at Batavia Downs - and lost money for the night.
On the other hand, I prefer not to wait for that one pick six every year to make up for $50,000 in losses and then make a few grand profit all at once.
TOm

[hurrikane]

Lots of variables here folks.

You could say a winning horse player is one who can say I won x$ or % this year. As oppossed to some one who LOST x$ this year. An old poker friend told me the money was just a way to keep track of who is losing and who is winning the game...the game is what it is all about. Well...money would be a good gauge. (I never understood tournaments that payout for the most wins and not the most $ won. Most wins has nothing to do with the game)

Do you count the tournaments. Years ago pool players made there money hustling up a game...same with golf. Now they play for other peoples money. Some people I imagine have made more recently off of tourneys than actual betting..this may in fact be the future of the game.

Who do you consider the better player..the guy betting 40k at SA on chalk to make 3% or the guy betting longshots at MNR for $100 making a 30% return(actually, a $100 bet at MNR would likely move the horse out of the longshot category)? Thats a tough one...

I agree with the goals part of it. I don't think I could raise 2 kids(one in college one on the way) and live the lifestyle I do on what I could pull out of the track each year. Yet I consider myself a winner. At least my ROI is very positive.

One thing I believe is certain. If you can't produce documents to show your a winner then you're a losers. You can't know if you are a winner,..and I believe you can't win at this game, if you don't know specifically where you stand at any given point in time.