psychology of the winning horseplayer

[beertapper]

has anyone checked this book out? it has some good comments by the late Tom Ainslie...

http://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Winning-Horseplayer-Tom-Hagerty/dp/1439219788

[Overlay]

I haven't seen the book or heard of it previously, but the description on Amazon says that its purpose is to provide the player with "the psychological insights that will enable him to develop good control, steel discipline, and presence of mind when the pressure is on". Maybe I need to get more in touch with my intuitive side, but, as far as I'm concerned, I already obtain all those benefits through reliance on objective, quantitative data, rather than on subjective opinion or "feel". I think I'll pass on this one.

[decs]

I read it. It was mainly some insights on the psychology of betting and using a system when playing the horses. Not much help to be honest.

[46zilzal]

How Fred is successful is not the way Bill is and so one..."How to" books often forget that

[Greyfox]

Previously on this board several members have expressed the belief that less than 10 % of the betting players at the track are winning.

Having said that anyone who wanted to write a book on The Psychology of Winning horse players would have to identify the winners and determine how they think differently from the losers.

That begs the question as to how does one do that?
Do you go up to various patrons and say:
"Excuse me sir are you a winning or losing horse player?"

And how many are going to answer you truthfully versus how many might give you a shot in the lip?

But assuming they agreed to answer the question honestly, you'd then have to separate your players into various groups and interview them, sample their beliefs and so on. Maybe someone at the Race Track program at the University of Arizona has done something like this? I don't know.

I'd be surprised that anyone anywhere has ever attempted such a study.
But it doesn't take a great deal of brains to write a chapter on positive self-talk, positive visualization, setting goals, discipline, finding a methodology, keeping records, yada yada yada.

I don't doubt the author knows psychology. I just doubt that he ever went out and found winning horse players. Any of the Inner Game books, or many other pop psychology books would give you the same concepts.

I'm guessing of course, because it's not a book that I've read or would buy.
Now if he wrote a book at Winning at the Ponies, I'd buy that.

[acorn54]

considering that horse betting is a parimutuel market any winning player that divulges his insights to others is just taking money out of his pocket.

[Greyfox]

considering that horse betting is a parimutuel market any winning player that divulges his insights to others is just taking money out of his pocket.

What you've said above is a popular belief. Many horse players hold it. They use it to knock handicapping authors like Brad Free, James Quinn, Andy Beyer and others.

I don't have a problem with winners sharing their ideas. Not too many think,
"I've got a secret and I'm not going to share it." One aspect of winners is that they will share, if you ask them.

Sharing doesn't put them at risk.
The truth of the matter is winners can tell others exactly how to do something and people won't do it. They might even say to 10 people bet the # 5 horse.
Of those ten people maybe one of them will bet it.
Now if people can't even bet the horse that they're told to bet, how are they going to invoke a methodology that a winner tells them to play?

[DJofSD]

has anyone checked this book out? it has some good comments by the late Tom Ainslie...

http://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Winning-Horseplayer-Tom-Hagerty/dp/1439219788
Doc Sartin would tell those that would listen, the difference between a losing horse player and a winning one was cashing on one more race in a twenty race cycle.

If you got just one idea or insight from reading the book, wouldn't it be of value to you? If others don't find the book valuable, does that mean there's no value to you?

Finding what works for you can allow you to cash on one more race in that twenty race cycle.

[acorn54]

What you've said above is a popular belief. Many horse players hold it. They use it to knock handicapping authors like Brad Free, James Quinn, Andy Beyer and others.

I don't have a problem with winners sharing their ideas. Not too many think,
"I've got a secret and I'm not going to share it." One aspect of winners is that they will share, if you ask them.

Sharing doesn't put them at risk.
The truth of the matter is winners can tell others exactly how to do something and people won't do it. They might even say to 10 people bet the # 5 horse.
Of those ten people maybe one of them will bet it.
Now if people can't even bet the horse that they're told to bet, how are they going to invoke a methodology that a winner tells them to play?

correct me if i'm wrong but before andy beyer published his book on making figures, "picking winners" didn't his technique for making figures show a positive roi on the top figure horse last start out and after his method was published this no longer was the case?

[Overlay]

correct me if i'm wrong but before andy beyer published his book on making figures, "picking winners" didn't his technique for making figures show a positive roi on the top figure horse last start out and after his method was published this no longer was the case?

That's true, but that increased public knowledge had (and still has) no bearing on the continuing effectiveness of the figures as a valid means of differentiating the horses in a race. As long as you use multiple factors, and consider the winning probability of every horse in a field -- rather than focusing on only one factor (like figures of whatever type), or just trying to find and bet the one most likely winner, regardless of its odds -- you don't have to worry about sharing information. As any particular factor, angle, or horse gets overbet, the odds on other horses in the race will rise, turning them into favorable betting propositions in comparison to their winning chances. The only way such an approach could become obsolete would be if the public suddenly started sending every horse in every race off at odds corresponding precisely to its true chance of winning, which would seem to me to be a practical impossibility.

[acorn54]

That's true, but that increased public knowledge had (and still has) no bearing on the continuing effectiveness of the figures as a valid means of differentiating the horses in a race. As long as you use multiple factors, and consider the winning probability of every horse in a field -- rather than focusing on only one factor (like figures of whatever type), or just trying to find and bet the one most likely winner, regardless of its odds -- you don't have to worry about sharing information. As any particular factor, angle, or horse gets overbet, the odds on other horses in the race will rise, turning them into favorable betting propositions in comparison to their winning chances. The only way such an approach could become obsolete would be if the public suddenly started sending every horse in every race off at odds corresponding precisely to its true chance of winning, which would seem to me to be a practical impossibility.


what you are saying is an accurate odds line will give you the overlays in the race. the problem here is the method used to develope an odds line. i believe you use impact values of various independent variables, correct. now if enough people bought your set of books and followed them in their betting then your impact value approach would lose it's value, so we are back to square one, that is we are operating in a parimutuel market where each bettor is in competition with one another for a limited amount of money in the parimutuel betting pools.

[Overlay]

what you are saying is an accurate odds line will give you the overlays in the race. the problem here is the method used to develope an odds line. i believe you use impact values of various independent variables, correct. now if enough people bought your set of books and followed them in their betting then your impact value approach would lose it's value, so we are back to square one, that is we are operating in a parimutuel market where each bettor is in competition with one another for a limited amount of money in the parimutuel betting pools.

As I said, I view the total absence of overlays in all races as something that will never happen (especially since it would be not only win bets, but also all exotic wagers where advance payoff information was available, to which that condition would have to apply). And if there truly were no overlays in any of those cases, I would give up the game, since there would be no way under those conditions for me (or anyone else) to maintain a consistent, long-term positive advantage.

[rrbauer]

correct me if i'm wrong but before andy beyer published his book on making figures, "picking winners" didn't his technique for making figures show a positive roi on the top figure horse last start out and after his method was published this no longer was the case?

Between his book deals and his deal with the DRF for his numbers, Beyer doesn't need to pick any winners and could care less about other peoples' ROI using his stuff.

And to go back on topic, here's the answer to how the author got information for his book:

"A professional gambler at Thoroughbred racetracks across the country for many years, the author has soaked up a lot of knowledge about what makes winning players. "

[nalley0710]

The book helped me a lot. I had always had a decent roi but when I started betting daily and looking for an income out of the track I experienced problems that were of a psychological nature, mainly fear. I had a well researched game plan but had problems implementing it. After digesting the information in the book it personally helped me turn the corner and make a hefty return. It could have just been a good run. Im sure you guys know what I mean by that. I do small tracks so from now to christmas is my busy simulcast time, so by the end of the year I'll know how much it has helped. For me personally going from recreational play to much more serious play turned the game into much more of a mental game with myself. I have already gained a lot of experience and knowledge through a lot of hard work over many years of streaks good and bad but always with a decent long term roi so the work on the psychological aspect of the game was something I hadnt had to work on before. Thats just my humble opinion for whatever its worth. Other people may have more natural ability in dealing with betting than I do and not need the book.

[Greyfox]

The book helped me a lot. I had always had a decent roi but when I started betting daily and looking for an income out of the track I experienced problems that were of a psychological nature, mainly fear..

That's good to hear.
Any book that gives you even one new idea or helps you as a player is well worth it. That's all you can ask for.

[jandrus]

I read the book in my opinion its one of thebest new books out there. it really opens your eyes about your inner self. a good book for all players.

[thelyingthief]

i bought the book, thumbed the pages, and returned it to Amazon.

thin on useful information, thin on grammar, thin book period.

tlt-

[proximity]

correct me if i'm wrong but before andy beyer published his book on making figures, "picking winners" didn't his technique for making figures show a positive roi on the top figure horse last start out and after his method was published this no longer was the case?

i don't know if you're "wrong" but in p.w. (chapter 9) the best examples of figure winners beyer could come up with paid 8/5 and 3/1.