A Foolish waste of time

[Show Me the Wire]

Foolish One:

Allow me to waste some more of my time as well as your time. I will be brief too. I propose horse racing is not a game. If horse racing is not a game then game theories do not apply (with apologizes to Game Theory).

Each horse race is a unique individual event. Each event is driven by decisions based on economics involving the owner and trainer. I am not going to rehash the core economics discussion.

A horse race is not consistent like real or true gambling games; you cannot fix the odds (probabilities) because unlike true games there are not a fixed number of cards in a deck, there is not a fixed number of doors, there is not a fixed number of combinations like dice and coin flips and certainly you are not trying to beat the house’s edge.

Horse race wagering is measured in probabilities, but probabilities of what? The probability you are wagering on is really the intent of the connections and racing luck.

I hope you chew on this for awhile, before you decide my posts are off topic and inane.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[kenwoodall]

My job is to weed out luck and intent and base betting on probability while considering the mostly man-made variables. When early speed carries on speedy tracks and stammina wins on slower tracks that is not luck. When I can spot a slow rail Wednesday on the far turn and stretch at BM 2 weeks ago that lasts all week and take advantage that is not luck. When jockey Morris is 3 wins in 84 races and I know it is because he pulls on the reins to balance, then I see at the fair he learned to loosen the reins, and I win on him lie crazy that is not luck. It is knowing how to spot overlay situations and taking advantage.

[Show Me the Wire]

Kenwoodall:

Racing luck i.e., not getting hit off strids at the gare, jock fallling off, horse breaking down in front of your luck, your horse bobbling at the start. I do not know anyone that palns for these event or even a way to quantify these random events. If you do that is wonderful.

Iwould aslo propose generaly,randomness has something to do with the track properties that day, because on the entry and draw date the participants do not know what the track properties will be on the day of competition. You notice I said generally, becuase some person may be clairvoyant or bribe the track maintenance crew to condition the track to favor certain running styles.

Thank you for reminding us that keen observation is important and you have honed that skill to a fine degree. I always enjoy to hear about success.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[ranchwest]

SMTW,

While you are certainly right about the significance of intent, intent is not enough. There must be a certain amount of ability there. Very often I see trainer intent and the horse comes second or worse because the trainer wasn't good enough to hold up his end of the deal.

[Show Me the Wire]

ranchwest:

Agreed, fastest, fittest horse at the distance with well meant trainer intent and nuetral or positve racing luck.

In my statement about what you are wagering on I assumed the handicapper could identify the physical ability through either final time, velocity times, pace, speed figures, etc.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[ranchwest]

If I understand your post, I believe you've missed my point.

Identifying a fit, well-placed, capable horse with a trainer with intent is not quite enough. If the trainer is a lousy trainer, you may see all of those qualities and still have a loser because the trainer cannot maintain the edge on the horse and give it that extra intangible that it takes to win. Just because the trainer intends to win doesn't mean he will.

[Show Me the Wire]

ranchwest:

Gotcha, you are right. I was in a hurry when I posted and I did not get the drift of your original post.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality