Can You Still Make Money In This Game?

[SpeedyG]

Is it me or has the percentage of short horses that win (especially in N.Y.) has risen? They don't even put it in the form anymore.

Are there too many smart guys in the game now? Is anyone out there making more than a ham sandwich these days?

What do you guys think? I know there's a few sharps around here, interested in your opinions.

[Stillriledup]

The players are SO good that the margin for error is incredibly slim. The slimness of the margins is magnified by the excessive takeout.

[ManeMediaMogul]

Stillriledup is right.

Short fields also have a bearing on this situation.

From 2001 to 2004 I was pushing about a grand a week through the windows but from then on, it's been about half that. I find fewer and fewer wagering opportunities because short fields mean shorter prices and I don't like to make a major wager unless I'm getting an overlay at 5-1 or more.

Racing's overall product is pretty poor right now. Most cards are dominated by state-bred races and cheap maidens. There are always going to be solid bets to be made but the expression "spot play" has taken on a whole new meaning.

[illinoisbred]

My total dollars wagered per year has been falling the last 3 years. A combination of short fields causing less than desirable odds on choices, the introduction of polytrack causing fewer good opportunities the 1st month at Arlington,and conversely the 1st month back at Hawthorne in the fall.

[sjk]

I had a good year last year but my win rate was down and average payoff was up compared to all previous years so I think there is still value but it is in the higher odds horses.

[ranchwest]

I think the game has always been changing, but in the past 10 years the change has accelerated. The challenge is to change with the game. It's not easy.

For one thing, it is difficult to react to odds. The challenge in this regard is to accurately predict the odds, to get a grip on what factors currently influence the money flow. For me, I prefer to have spot plays that are designed to find profitable plays in multiple plays rather than worrying about the odds on a particular play. I believe it is possible to evaluate "value" over multiple races rather than just a signle race.

The claiming game has changed significantly.

Computer handicapping has changed significantly.

There's always the questions about whether the number of "enhanced" runners is going up or down.

Paramutuel wagering is still about zigging when others zag.

The only way I can be effective is with spot plays, but I don't find as many plays as I once did. Of course, I'm not working as hard at finding spot plays as I once did. For me, I've always had to work really hard to find currently effective spot plays. Right now, I only have one, getting about 2 to 6 plays a week. It's been pretty good so far, so I'm hoping it doesn't dry up any time soon. Even though I'm making a nice profit so far, I don't think I could make significant money on so few plays.

I've also got enough weaknesses in my game to bring me down, but a lot of those I could better control if I worked at it.

[acorn54]

overall the number of horses in an average race has gotten fewer in the last few years and the percentage of favorites that win has risen according to my database.

[JohnGalt1]

My theory--with the economy and the reduced interest in horseracing in general--we are now competing with better handicappers, especially during the week.

Who goes to and bets Hawthorne in February for fun? Not many. Just people like us, who expect to make money.

On summer weekends Aunt Martha and the families that attend once or twice a year betting the grays and on cute horse names add money to the pools with their silly bets for us to take.

An exacta that we bet that pays $25 mid-week may pay $30 on weekends because of the dumb money spread on hopeless horses with cute names.

Another example--a six horse stakes race that all can win. But put one in an allowance race and it has a better chance to win.

We used to be that stakes horse competing in allowance races--now there are fewer allowance horses.

[Trotman]

I have to agree with you all here,the game is changing and for me spot play is about it and is usually exotics. Back in the day I used to like the mid week cards and avoided the crowds of weekends,now like John Galt 1 said I go for the
weekend card hoping first timers help me on price.

[raybo]

Can you still make money in this game?

Yes.

[classhandicapper]

I think there are fewer overlays, but at the same time you should always be improving and expanding your game to try to offset the improvement of the crowd. I feel like if I knew 15 years ago what I know now, I'd be crushing the game, but I still get similar results with a slightly altered approach.

[therussmeister]

I think there are fewer overlays, but at the same time you should always be improving and expanding your game to try to offset the improvement of the crowd. I feel like if I knew 15 years ago what I know now, I'd be crushing the game, but I still get similar results with a slightly altered approach.

I think there are overlays in virtually every race; certainly every race with at least seven betting interests, and most with six.

I very rarely play New York, and never California, so that might influence my thoughts on this.

[Overlay]

I think there are overlays in virtually every race; certainly every race with at least seven betting interests, and most with six.


As you imply, I don't think that we'll ever reach the stage where the public sends every horse in every race off at the correct fair win odds (not to mention the value possibilities of exotics).

[ranchwest]

johngalt1, that's a good post -- especially the part about the changes in allowance races (not to minimize the rest of the post).

[raybo]

As you imply, I don't think that we'll ever reach the stage where the public sends every horse in every race off at the correct fair win odds (not to mention the value possibilities of exotics).

Correct!! In the WPS pools, and Exacta/quinella pools, and maybe the trifecta pool, the player will have to become more and more "value" oriented than they are now. In supers, not so much but you still will have to look at the odds spreads to determine if you're getting value, vs hit rate, or not.

[jonnielu]

Is it me or has the percentage of short horses that win (especially in N.Y.) has risen? They don't even put it in the form anymore.

Are there too many smart guys in the game now? Is anyone out there making more than a ham sandwich these days?

What do you guys think? I know there's a few sharps around here, interested in your opinions.

The percentage of short priced horses that win is about the most rock solid, consistent percentage known to the game. In times such as these, favorites are simply more overbet in short fields then in full fields. In a full field (12), the overbet favorite might go to post at 7/5, and higher. In a short field (8), the same horse goes to post at 1/1, or less.

In a short field, the overbet favorite has less real competition, and picks up a little additional advantage due to that. In the short field scenario, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th ML choices are also overbet somewhat, so when any of them win (70%), it looks like everybody is smart because the average payoff is $6.00.

Conversely, add 4 competitive horses, and the percentages stay roughly the same, while the average payoff is more like $12.00.

When the industry cuts field sizes, it usually is the easiest, lazy man's way to respond to the fact that fewer people are showing up to bet, and the short field will appeal more to the hard core handicapper that insist's on everything being formful and happening like it is supposed to. The entertainment seeker that likes things a little more topsy-turvy isn't showing up until summer-time anyway.

jdl

Of course, thoroughbred racing remains as the best game to make money at, it is just that fewer people know that.

[cj]

It is impossible to make money at this game because johnnielu is siphoning off all his winnings.

[proximity]

It is impossible to make money at this game because johnnielu is siphoning off all his winnings.

and if you think the game is hard now..... just think if patrick would have stuck around to learn the rest of his secrets!!:)

[Charlie D]

Can You Still Make Money In This Game?


Yes


Just go look at the results and you see horses paying 4-1, 6-1, 10-1 12-1 etc almost everyday


The Wisdom of the Crowd is not all it's cracked up to be.

[GaryG]

Sure you can still make money. You need good figures, the ability to interpret form cycles and (to borrow from Dick Schmidt) a fascist system of money management. Thanks again Dick for your fine book, I refer to it often.

[SpeedyG]

Sure you can still make money. You need good figures, the ability to interpret form cycles and (to borrow from Dick Schmidt) a fascist system of money management. Thanks again Dick for your fine book, I refer to it often.


What's good money? Think anyone's doing 6 figures, cause I just can't see it anymore. 5 & 6 dollar horses, even 10 dollar horses, are a total waste of time.

[Charlie D]

What's good money? Think anyone's doing 6 figures, cause I just can't see it anymore. 5 & 6 dollar horses, even 10 dollar horses, are a total waste of time.

5, 6,10 dollar horses a waste of time?? :eek:


These are the bread and butter, the 20, 30, 40 dollar horse if you can find them are the icing on the cake.

[Charlie D]

5, 6,10 dollar horses a waste of time?? :eek:


These are the bread and butter, the 20, 30, 40 dollar horse if you can find them are the icing on the cake.


I probably shouldn't have said that, but eh!!, there's plenty of racing to go at.

[SpeedyG]

I probably shouldn't have said that, but eh!!, there's plenty of racing to go at.

God bless you Charlie. What the hecks your win percentage anyway ... 30%. Come on man, be serious. A good capper is lucky if he can hit over 20% long-term. And because you sound like a heck of a guy Charlie, I'll even tack 2% on there for you which now makes you a 22% capper long-term.

2-1 shots ... Forget them.

[Charlie D]

God bless you Charlie. What the hecks your win percentage anyway ... 30%. Come on man, be serious. A good capper is lucky if he can hit over 20% long-term. And because you sound like a heck of a guy Charlie, I'll even tack 2% on there for you which now makes you a 22% capper long-term.

2-1 shots ... Forget them.

£100 on a 2-1 pays $200 X 5 = $1000


Do you really want me to forget these bill payers??

edited to add, i shouldn't have said that.

[SpeedyG]

£100 on a 2-1 pays $200 X 5 = $1000


Do you really want me to forget these bill payers??

edited to add, i shouldn't have said that.

What about when they lose? They're not all going to win. If your anywhere near 20% winners long-term (which I highly doubt, no offense), betting 2-1 shots isn't going to do it. It will only do one thing, eliminate your money.

[Charlie D]

Of course they are not all going to win, but those that do will help pay for PP's, Internet connection etc

I'm amazed that you tell me to pass over value (which a fair % of the horses at the head of the market are) when this game is all about obtaining value long term.

[SpeedyG]

Of course they are not all going to win, but those that do will help pay for PP's, Internet connection etc

I'm amazed that you tell me to pass over value (which a fair % of the horses at the head of the market are) when this game is all about obtaining value long term.

Feel free to prove me wrong. I'll be the first to tip my hat to you! Post as many races as you like, you pick the number beforehand, 100 races, 300 races, whatever, throw all the short horses in there you like (that you claim have VALUE), and we'll see if your're a winner. Any takers on this? I challenge the whole forum on this one.

[Charlie D]

Aqeduct Feb 7th

Race 1 6.80
Race 5 9.70
Race 7 4.10
Race 9 4.10


All races had running lines to go on if i remember correctly and all were getable using one methodology or another.


If you found them your Internet connection is paid for this month

I shouldn't have said that!!

[Charlie D]

Speedy

I'm not into these challeges and i don't normally do this, but look, from BF account
USA Aque (US) 7th Feb / 19:24 R5 6f Claim / 2. Hopeforthebest
Back


USA Aque (US) 7th Feb / 20:20 R7 6f Allw / 5. City Broad
Back


USA Aque (US) 7th Feb / 18:26 R3 1m Allw / 6. More Than a Reason
Back



Now i have loser in other races, but eh don't turn your nose up at some good investments imho as it is these that keep head above water

[SpeedyG]

Aqeduct Feb 7th

Race 1 6.80
Race 5 9.70
Race 7 4.10
Race 9 4.10


All races had running lines to go on if i remember correctly and all were getable using one methodology or another.


If you found them your Internet connection is paid for this month

I shouldn't have said that!!


LOL... Charlie, you're suppose to post them before the races go off. LOL. Watch, they're won't be one challenger on this whole forum. And according to your VALUE speech, there should be hundreds, especially, when 200 races (lets say) is not even close to LONG-TERM.

[jonnielu]

Yes


Just go look at the results and you see horses paying 4-1, 6-1, 10-1 12-1 etc almost everyday


The Wisdom of the Crowd is not all it's cracked up to be.

That's about a 180 from the CharlieD of a year back.... what happened?

jdl

[Charlie D]

That's about a 180 from the CharlieD of a year back.... what happened?

jdl

Sorry Johnie my memory is not as good as yours can you remind me what was stated for you to post above??

[lamboguy]

RICH PERLOFF of TVG says all you have to do is wait for bridgejumping to come into a pool and bet against the bridgejump, no need for numbers or handicapping. i don't happen to agree with him, but on the surface i would say you could have other systems that would be worse. RICH pointed out the WHIRLAWAY STAKES in new york sat. feb 6 3rd race where there was an equipment malfunction on the horse EIGHTYFIVEINAFIFTY and the horse bolted towards the grandstand and blew up the show pool and those that played the rest of the field got rewarded for their wagers. i wuld have happened to agree with RICH on this one but didn't play it because going into the gate the horse had a normal amount of show money on him. when they sprung the latch the amount went from $12,000 to $45,000. if that type of bridgejumping goes on and i think it does, you are not only going to have to handicap the race, but handicap wheather you think late bridgjump money is going to come into the pools. i suspect that the person or people making those large bets on suspect horses are hedging themselves on the race and don't want to give away their hand so they would hurt their payoffs should the main horse run out.

[Charlie D]

LOL... Charlie, you're suppose to post them before the races go off. LOL. Watch, they're won't be one challenger on this whole forum. And according to your VALUE speech, there should be hundreds, especially, when 200 races (lets say) is not even close to LONG-TERM.


Speedy go scan results for a few meets bud and i think you'll see plenty of horses winning at prices i posted.

Your job as capper as you probably know is to decide which ones make good investments and which don't

I'll be back at Aqu for more of above on Wednesday hopefully.

[jonnielu]

What about when they lose? They're not all going to win. If your anywhere near 20% winners long-term (which I highly doubt, no offense), betting 2-1 shots isn't going to do it. It will only do one thing, eliminate your money.

There are winners in the full range of odds, what range you make money at will be determined by your bank. If your bank is 1k, you should probably stay with the average of 4 - 1. If your bank is 100k, winning at 2 - 1 brings back a few more dollars.

jdl

[Charlie D]

Speedy, also don't be afraid of betting two of your contenders. Thats how i got Reason.

My other ended up with jock on floor.

[jonnielu]

Sorry Johnie my memory is not as good as yours can you remind me what was stated for you to post above??

I was extoling the virtues of the longshot and you were insisting that longshots are very inconsistent. That betting short prices, and even odds-on was more consistent and the better bet.

jdl

[Charlie D]

I was extoling the virtues of the longshot and you were insisting that longshots are very inconsistent. That betting short prices, and even odds-on was more consistent and the better bet.

jdl


Ah i think i'm with you now Jonnie, wasn't that discussion similar to this dicussion here and was i not saying similar???

[Charlie D]

People have been kind enough to help and share their knowledge with me so i can understand the game, with the above and other posts i'm trying to help so please try not to think me a lunatic on some racing forum.


It may not come across as coming from an intelligent person, , but thats my fault, however, the intention is all good.

[raybo]

God bless you Charlie. What the hecks your win percentage anyway ... 30%. Come on man, be serious. A good capper is lucky if he can hit over 20% long-term. And because you sound like a heck of a guy Charlie, I'll even tack 2% on there for you which now makes you a 22% capper long-term.

2-1 shots ... Forget them.

If you can't hit 30% long term, you might want to try doing something else. My black box can do that and so can Handifast default, I'm very sure, along with others. The key is to get some value with that 30+%.

[nobeyerspls]

It's still the same game for me. Live longshots and vulnerable favorites abound. When they're in the same race, the verticals are great. When they're in a sequence of races, then the horizontals have value. Even short priced horses don't bother me. A recent pick3 at Aqu had winners that were 2/5,7/2,and 3/2. It paid $73 for a deuce. All three winers could be singled.

[misscashalot]

It's still the same game for me. Live longshots and vulnerable favorites abound. When they're in the same race, the verticals are great. When they're in a sequence of races, then the horizontals have value. Even short priced horses don't bother me. A recent pick3 at Aqu had winners that were 2/5,7/2,and 3/2. It paid $73 for a deuce. All three winers could be singled.


:ThmbUp: Good to hear a satisfied player.

[Charlie D]

It's still the same game for me. Live longshots and vulnerable favorites abound. When they're in the same race, the verticals are great. When they're in a sequence of races, then the horizontals have value. Even short priced horses don't bother me. A recent pick3 at Aqu had winners that were 2/5,7/2,and 3/2. It paid $73 for a deuce. All three winers could be singled.


Good skill nobeyerspls


This is not posted for ego, it's just so you know same scenario exists day in day out and in UK should you decide to expand your portfolio and dip your toe over this side of pond


Today at Southwell (i know orrible synthetic stuff ) field size similar to a lot of US races, 3 favourites priced above 2-1 and below 3-1 were bet, 2 winners and an increase in bank of 20%

Get cappin, get bill payers found imho and Good skill to you all.

End of message.

[GaryG]

What's good money? Think anyone's doing 6 figures, cause I just can't see it anymore. 5 & 6 dollar horses, even 10 dollar horses, are a total waste of time.$10 horses might be a waste of your time but I welcome them. Most of my best plays are between 3-1 and 10-1 with the odd longshot once in a while. If you stick to tracks with full fields you will not see all of the 3-5 shots. It's still out there, just like it always has been. And I agree with Ray that if you cant hit 30% when dealing with mid-range horses you should refrain from betting until you can do so.

[Charlie D]

Hope Speedy and Jonnie are getting these gimme's :) at Philly

Singles, Exactas and Pick 3 all within reach of a competent capper.

[Charlie D]

Just having a bit of fun above guys ;)

After a couple of nice price winners, there she blows again at Philly

Winner, Exacta reachable for competent cappers

Uncompetitive racing CAN have it's advantages.


Good Skill to all

[formula_2002]

Is it me or has the percentage of short horses that win (especially in N.Y.) has risen? They don't even put it in the form anymore.

Are there too many smart guys in the game now? Is anyone out there making more than a ham sandwich these days?
What do you guys think? I know there's a few sharps around here, interested in your opinions.

The answer may lay here:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=66455.
I plan on posting NYRA tracks for some time to come.
Currently 83 wins plays, returning a 1.06 roi, excluding a $34.00 bomb.

I previously posted over 300 plays from multiple tracks and showed a positive roi.

[jonnielu]

Hope Speedy and Jonnie are getting these gimme's :) at Philly

Singles, Exactas and Pick 3 all within reach of a competent capper.

Your posts here are similar, but in the past you were leaning quite a bit toward the idea that longer prices are quite inconsistent. Perhaps you have seen some consistency there recently.

Exactas and pick 3's are within reach of everyone, maybe moreso for the player that is dumb enough to play in an inclusive way.

jdl

[SpeedyG]

I think it's pretty safe to say Charlie D's cable bill isn't getting paid from winnings at the track.

Four dollar horses .... Whew! Not even a chance.

As far as all you other guys that claim you can hit 30% long-term and make a profit betting short horses... Anyone willing to prove that starting now? Or is it all going to be more bullshit.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

SpeedyG

The fact there are so many threads with people writing that takeout needs to be lowered suggests it is pretty tough to win on USA racing at the moment

If no one wants to take up your challenge you can always look at the Selections section. There are lots of selections posted there before the race was run and checking out how those went should tell you if anyone is making enough to pay for that ham sandwich

[SpeedyG]

At least you say it like it is Seabiscuit.

I was getting ready to go buy a high pair of boots.

30% long-term, LOLOLOLOL.

What good is it if your average price is 7 bucks?

[GameTheory]

At least you say it like it is Seabiscuit.

I was getting ready to go buy a high pair of boots.

30% long-term, LOLOLOLOL.

What good is it if your average price is 7 bucks?
Well, that's a 5% pre-rebate profit. That's better than the whales do. I'd take that anyday if I can bet most races.

[Charlie D]

I think it's pretty safe to say Charlie D's cable bill isn't getting paid from winnings at the track.

Four dollar horses .... Whew! Not even a chance.

As far as all you other guys that claim you can hit 30% long-term and make a profit betting short horses... Anyone willing to prove that starting now? Or is it all going to be more bullshit.


My Bill is being paid by other bettors Speedy believe me.

[Charlie D]

Your posts here are similar, but in the past you were leaning quite a bit toward the idea that longer prices are quite inconsistent. Perhaps you have seen some consistency there recently.

Exactas and pick 3's are within reach of everyone, maybe moreso for the player that is dumb enough to play in an inclusive way.

jdl



Jonnie, poeple making money and paying bills are not the dumb ones imho. the dumb ones are probably those that turn their nose up at these "Jump up from Page" bets.


Anyway, thats it. this is definitely the End of this message. (at least from me anyway)


Good skill all.

[Charlie D]

Harry dumb?? don't make me laugh.

"The real money is in the short prices," he says. "I know I'm never going to make more than 4 per cent [on turnover] so if I don't bet in tens of thousands, I'm not going to make much of a living. And the only way you can bet real big, in terms of getting on, is on the short prices.
"There are three things people have to understand: a) you can get on; b) you get value; c) you get confidence. And no matter what you do in life, confidence is the number one. Say one fellow bets 20-1 shots. After 20 losers, he backs a winner, and he's level. Another fellow's betting evens. After 10 winners and 10 losers, he's level. They've both got the same money, but he's been right 10 times. Who's going to have more confidence? But nobody talks about confidence, the mental instabilities involved in gambling. And that's what it's all about. It's all about how you perform under pressure, how you perform when it all goes wrong"




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/flash-harry-the-outrageous-world-of-britains-premier-punter-793573.html

[Charlie D]

I should have bolded b for those that can not see.

[SpeedyG]

My Bill is being paid by other bettors Speedy believe me.



LOLOLOLOLOL.

[Charlie D]

Like i stated i should have bolded B in the Harry Findlay article for those that can not see.

[SpeedyG]

Well, that's a 5% pre-rebate profit. That's better than the whales do. I'd take that anyday if I can bet most races.


Game, you better get a rebate, because I'm giving you a lot there. For starters, you're not hitting 30% long-term. And if you do (which you won't), your average price will be junk.


Your better off going down to Wallmart and getting a job as a greeter ... You'll make more money! Especially, if you like 7 to 5 shots like Charlie D.

[Charlie D]

I do not think Speeedy gets it guys and maybe thats the reason for this thread.


Value is found at the Top, middle and bottom of the market Speedy

[SpeedyG]

I do not think Speeedy gets it guys and maybe thats the reason for this thread.


Value is found at the Top, middle and bottom of the market Speedy


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOL.

[Charlie D]

Well i've tried to the best of my ability, but you get to know when your :bang: and it becomes time to pack in and seeing all Speedy can post LOL it is now that time.

I will though repeat for those that are having difficulty seeing.



Uncompetive racing has advantages

[SpeedyG]

Charlie,

This is what guys who look at 7 to 5 shots should do ... Now listen to me, cause it's the truth.

Next time your gonna play the ponies, the first guy you see, just hand him over the money that you we're going to bet for the day, because at least you'll make some guys day ... Rather than donate it to the track!

[Charlie D]

Speedy


You don't see me starting threads like "can you still make money at this game" and i think that should tell you something.


Now that's enough from me as i am a little fed up of :bang: and i mean that.

[SpeedyG]

Speedy


You don't see me starting threads like "can you still make money at this game" and i think that should tell you something.


Now that's enough from me as i am a little fed up of :bang: and i mean that.

It tells me a lot ... Who's honest, and who just wants to sling bullshit around for everyone to read. That's OK though, I got my boots on.

[Charlie D]

Jebus, sorry guys but i can't ignore someone quoting me.



Go back re- read thread , then go adjust your handicapping methodolgy because you are missing some exceptional value at the head of the market.


The fault lies with you and no one or anything else.

Stop whinging and get working.


Good skill.

[SpeedyG]

Jebus, sorry guys but i can't ignore someone quoting me.



Go back re- read thread , then go adjust your handicapping methodolgy because you are missing some exceptional value at the head of the market.


The fault lies with you and no one or anything else.

Stop whinging and get working.


Good skill.

LOL!

If you stuck needles in my eyes, I wouldn't take advice from a horse player that bets 7 to 5 shots! Because that guy, can't win mustard packs, much less a ham sandwich.

[Charlie D]

FFS

You just don't get it do you. dumb ass.


One last time.


VALUE is found at the TOP, Middle and Bottom of the market.


A lot of racing is uncompetive, meaning the TOP is the place where you want to be.

Philly last night, , easy money for competent cappers , Exactas paying $21 bucks for competent cappers, dumb ass.

These are the BREAD and BUTTER bets, the long shots are the ICING on the cake.


As you can see i am now getting very frustrated with trying to make you SEE

[SpeedyG]

FFS

You just don't get it do you. dumb ass.


One last time.


VALUE is found at the TOP, Middle and Bottom of the market.


A lot of racing is uncompetive, meaning the TOP is the place where you want to be.

Philly last night, , easy money for you , Exactas paying $21 bucks for you you dumb ass.

These are the BREAD and BUTTER bets, the longs shots are the ICING on the cake.

Prove it!

In other words, stop bullshitting everyone like you've been doing, and prove it! Man up and be honest.

Now you're betting exactas? LOL.

[Charlie D]

The PROOF is in the RESULTS dumb ass


Now goodbye.

[Charlie D]

Prove it!

In other words, stop bullshitting everyone like you've been doing, and prove it! Man up and be honest.

Now you're betting exactas? LOL.




This is BS bud.


I never asked Doc Sartin, Jim Bradshaw, Richie P, Nick Mordin, Andy Beyer, Simon Rowlands, Alan Potts, Harry Findlay or any of the many posters on various racing forums like this to PROVE IT.


I read what they stated and got stuck into some work and i suggest you do the same.

[jonnielu]

This is BS bud.


I never asked Doc Sartin, Jim Bradshaw, Richie P, Nick Mordin, Andy Beyer, Simon Rowlands, Alan Potts, Harry Findlay or any of the many posters on various racing forums like this to PROVE IT.


I read what they stated and got stuck into some work and i suggest you do the same.

I would second that suggestion. If you want to know what is real, there is no replacement for doing the research yourself, reality can change your perspective.

jdl

[Charlie D]

I would second that suggestion. If you want to know what is real, there is no replacement for doing the research yourself, reality can change your perspective.

jdl


Wise words there Jonnie imho.

[raybo]

For someone with only 16 posts, I fear his life on this forum is extremely limited.

[Charlie D]

read, practice, maybe ask questions about the topic the people are writing about if unsure, learn from your mistakes, more reading, more practice, more practice, more practice

Thousands of races have now been played and what does all that equal:


EDUCATION


dumbs asses like Speedy can not SEE the above

[Tom]

My Bill is being paid by other bettors Speedy believe me.

Touche! :ThmbUp:
Probably Speedy! :D

[46zilzal]

Feel free to prove me wrong. I'll be the first to tip my hat to you! Post as many races as you like, you pick the number beforehand, 100 races, 300 races, whatever, throw all the short horses in there you like (that you claim have VALUE), and we'll see if your're a winner. Any takers on this? I challenge the whole forum on this one.
One can POST choices till the cows come home but wager creation is much much much MORE than that: it is often the instinct to include horses that are marginal and let chaos intervene.

SIMPLY handicapping a race is only chapter TWO. this is after you have discovered the tracks where both your style and the $$$$$ is worth it. ONCE you have a handle on a course, THEN you begin to create wagers on what you know and that by itself is a plastic process based upon what each track is giving you THAT DAY.

[SpeedyG]

For someone with only 16 posts, I fear his life on this forum is extremely limited.

Come-on Raybo be serious! Cause I call a guy out, because he's full of shit I'm gonna get thrown off? What 's this the wifes club or something?

Hard to believe there's not one guy on this whole forum that doesn't take my side that betting 7 to 5 shots is a suckers racket. Not one.

Starting to smell real bad around here ... Kind of like low-tide.

[newtothegame]

Speedy....you threw a challenge out there...right....
ANYONE on this forum...etc etc right?
Well would you consider YOURSELF one who is currently on this forum?
Or are you above your own challenge?
I believe as someone here stated...the proof is in the pudding!!!

Feel free to prove me wrong. I'll be the first to tip my hat to you! Post as many races as you like, you pick the number beforehand, 100 races, 300 races, whatever, throw all the short horses in there you like (that you claim have VALUE), and we'll see if your're a winner. Any takers on this? I challenge the whole forum on this one.

Yep, it was you.....the above was your post (bolded by me)....so pick a number there speedy...step right up, post your picks before the races go off and lets "see if your a winner"!

[Charlie D]

Market has a horse @ 2-1,my estimate of prabability is 60%
Market has a horse @ 3-1, my estimate of probability is 40%
Market has a horse @ 4-1, my estimate of probability is 50%


Speedy says these kind of bets are a waste of time.


Who talks shit and who do think does not undestand the concept of VALUE??

[Seabiscuit@AR]

To be fair to SpeedyG, horse racing is set up so that most bettors and owners of horses are losers. It is a massively negative sum game for both. Most bettors have to be losers especially if betting on the tote but even if betting elsewhere

Most of my bets are losers

[Charlie D]

Tampa Bay yesterday, 6 winning horses with odds paying single digits.



A competent capper should have no real problems finding some of these as the races they run in are in the main uncompetitive.


Professional bettor Harry Findlay tells you the favourites can offer VALUE.


Speedy says these are a waste of time


Who should you take notice of Harry or Speedy?????

[Charlie D]

http://www.posttimedaily.com/racing_articles/michael_pizzolla/shocking_truth.html




Good handicapping starts with your beliefs. In my opinion, the number
one belief you must have is that the game is about finding good value bets.

An excellent article overall, but what Mr Pizzola does not tell you is a lot of horses at the TOP of the market can be good investments, but thats ok as Harry's article takes up the slack there.


read, read more and get an education imo.

[raybo]

Come-on Raybo be serious! Cause I call a guy out, because he's full of shit I'm gonna get thrown off? What 's this the wifes club or something?

Hard to believe there's not one guy on this whole forum that doesn't take my side that betting 7 to 5 shots is a suckers racket. Not one.

Starting to smell real bad around here ... Kind of like low-tide.

You said a lot more than that.

[formula_2002]

Come-on Raybo be serious! Cause I call a guy out, because he's full of shit I'm gonna get thrown off? What 's this the wifes club or something?

Hard to believe there's not one guy on this whole forum that doesn't take my side that betting 7 to 5 shots is a suckers racket. Not one.

Starting to smell real bad around here ... Kind of like low-tide.

I isolated model plays where final odds<=7-5 shots.
My posted plays in the selection forum are based on the model.
I have to do a bit of work to break out the <=7-5 shots for the posted plays.
I'm curious my self, so I'll do it shortly.
However, the attached <7-5 model plays shows a 1.10 roi , over 95 flat bets .
All plays are outside of the basic sample.
see attached
enjoy :)

[Track Collector]

What's good money? Think anyone's doing 6 figures, cause I just can't see it anymore. 5 & 6 dollar horses, even 10 dollar horses, are a total waste of time.

I've just started a spot play that shows the following:
2008 --> Plays = 1486, Win% = 31, Ave $2 Payout = $ 7.23
2009 --> Plays = 1484, Win% = 33, Ave $2 Payout = $ 7.06

No guarantee that these numbers will continue for 2010, but if they are even close to the historical data, I'm going to love "wasting my time" on these 7-dollar horses. Note to Myself.....be prepared for results much less than the database view. :mad:

SpeedyG, others have indicated success with low-priced horses, so clearly something in your handicapping methodology is flawed. You can either be encouraged that others are doing better and work hard to examine and analyse how to improve your handicapping, or remain bitter at your lack of success. The choice is YOURS. :)

[Charlie D]

I've just started a spot play that shows the following:
2008 --> Plays = 1486, Win% = 31, Ave $2 Payout = $ 7.23
2009 --> Plays = 1484, Win% = 33, Ave $2 Payout = $ 7.06

No guarantee that these numbers will continue for 2010, but if they are even close to the historical data, I'm going to love "wasting my time" on these 7-dollar horses. Note to Myself.....be prepared for results much less than the database view. :mad:

SpeedyG, others have indicated success with low-priced horses, so clearly something in your handicapping methodology is flawed. You can either be encouraged that others are doing better and work hard to examine and analyse how to improve your handicapping, or remain bitter at your lack of success. The choice is YOURS. :)


TC you will now probably wish you had not shown those stats :)

[CincyHorseplayer]

I bet to win,win/place,exactas,rolling doubles,and the occasional pick 4.I have a few simple rules I apply just from experience or simply my personal tastes.

-I never bet a horse to win less than 2-1

-I bet to win only on horses 2-1 to 4-1

-If no exacta play is warranted I will bet to win and place on horses 5-1 and up

-if I can't figure out the exacta,double etc on a horse less than 2-1=no play


I believe in James Quinn's dual approach with win and exotic betting.As he says one is a nice foundation based off proficiency and the other whose ROI is often off the charts gives one the best ability to beat the game.

In not betting horses under 2-1 to win my average mutuel is 7/2.At 33% winners last year I had a 58% ROI.Which was a nice foundation since exotics did roast me a new one last year.

The win only bets from 2-1 to 4-1 occur with greater frequency than my overall win % so they are profitable.

My place bets on horses 5-1 and up also show a profit.

Passing races is one of the most profitable angles IMO.There is so much to look at and play out there that bets on marginal horses can be reduced,if not eliminated.

I will bet 1-4% on win bets,3% normally.But if I have a 3rd or 4th choice on my line that is a huge overlay I will bet 1% with an exacta play also or 2% max.That these lower choices win less than prime plays,the value makes up for it,but can't be heavily played because they might only win 20% of the time,or less.

Exactas and other exotics I keep at 1.5-2%,flat all year.The fluctuations can be so great in my experience that this is a good idea.

I had an overall losing year last season but the win,win/place bets saved me from getting destroyed.In most years I have won though,it was due to solid success in exotics.The balance of play is both structured and exciting.It works for me.

[raybo]

I've just started a spot play that shows the following:
2008 --> Plays = 1486, Win% = 31, Ave $2 Payout = $ 7.23
2009 --> Plays = 1484, Win% = 33, Ave $2 Payout = $ 7.06

No guarantee that these numbers will continue for 2010, but if they are even close to the historical data, I'm going to love "wasting my time" on these 7-dollar horses. Note to Myself.....be prepared for results much less than the database view. :mad:

SpeedyG, others have indicated success with low-priced horses, so clearly something in your handicapping methodology is flawed. You can either be encouraged that others are doing better and work hard to examine and analyse how to improve your handicapping, or remain bitter at your lack of success. The choice is YOURS. :)

Looks like the ROI is going up, not down, so maybe the future won't be as bad as you might fear. Better get it while you can cause sooner or later, well, you know.

[DeanT]

Hard to believe there's not one guy on this whole forum that doesn't take my side that betting 7 to 5 shots is a suckers racket. Not one.

I cant win with them. 9-5 or under I am fish food.

[jonnielu]

Come-on Raybo be serious! Cause I call a guy out, because he's full of shit I'm gonna get thrown off? What 's this the wifes club or something?

Hard to believe there's not one guy on this whole forum that doesn't take my side that betting 7 to 5 shots is a suckers racket. Not one.

Starting to smell real bad around here ... Kind of like low-tide.

I'm sure that there must be a few that share your disdain for the low-odds horse. But, I believe that what you said was that no one can be successful playing low-odds horses. I believe that this is what stirs the backlash, because there is always one way to succeed playing all kinds of horses.

Learn when to pass. Just get that right about half of the time, and if you are betting the right low-odds horse about half of the time, you have few days without some kind of profit. If anyone can get to doing that well, then they have success going on.

jdl

[Stillriledup]

Charlie,

This is what guys who look at 7 to 5 shots should do ... Now listen to me, cause it's the truth.

Next time your gonna play the ponies, the first guy you see, just hand him over the money that you we're going to bet for the day, because at least you'll make some guys day ... Rather than donate it to the track!

Speedman, there's no right or wrong way to win. Everyone has their own ways of doing things. There must be at least one sportsbettor out there in sportsbetting land who's a lifetime winner, and most of his bets are laying a dollar ten to win a dollar. Some sports bettors are making a living on 9 to 10 shots, so it can be done.

[SpeedyG]

If Charlie D had any nuts (which he don't), he would have took my challenge and posted all his short horses, but he knows he can't win. All he had to do is be honest, or maybe just keep quiet and stop giving people (that don't know the score) false hope. He's the one preaching about all that value bullshit on short horses, not me. Yeah, it sounds good on paper, but that's about it ... In the real world it's a bunch of crap!

I'm going to be keeping a very close eye on all the fibbers around here from now on.

[Stillriledup]

If Charlie D had any nuts (which he don't), he would have took my challenge and posted all his short horses, but he knows he can't win. All he had to do is be honest, or maybe just keep quiet and stop giving people (that don't know the score) false hope. He's the one preaching about all that value bullshit on short horses, not me. Yeah, it sounds good on paper, but that's about it ... In the real world it's a bunch of crap!

I'm going to be keeping a very close eye on all the fibbers around here from now on.

Watch those fibbers, keep an eye on em.

[formula_2002]

I think that at any given point in time there are many people that are ahead in the game only eventually to fall behind, leaving others ahead.

For most, I see it as a cycle of highs and lows with a downward trend.

My position is, that to statistically prove a win betting method of play requires more data than has ever been demonstrated to do so.

For me, a knock out punch would mean a hundred sets of thousands races at a minimum of a 5% odds differential, with all data .out of sample.

I would feel comfortable with those results!! :)

[Charlie D]

If Charlie D had any nuts (which he don't), he would have took my challenge and posted all his short horses, but he knows he can't win. All he had to do is be honest, or maybe just keep quiet and stop giving people (that don't know the score) false hope. He's the one preaching about all that value bullshit on short horses, not me. Yeah, it sounds good on paper, but that's about it ... In the real world it's a bunch of crap!

I'm going to be keeping a very close eye on all the fibbers around here from now on.


Speedy


Can't be sure, but i don't think i said betting solely short horses you can win. however, what i have replied to (along with others ) all along is your dumb ass statement of 4,5,6 10 dollar horses are a waste of time.

One last time just for you.

4,5,6 10 dollar horse CAN be VALUE and a competent capper should be able to find some of these.


These are the bread and butter of the bettor, the longshots are the icing on the cake.



The problem lies with you. STOP whinging, STOP challenging and GET working.

[Tom]

Yeah, Speedy...let's see YOU prove you can make money on horse over $10.
Post your next 100 bets. No winner under $11 counts. Put up or shut up. :lol:

[Charlie D]

Hard to believe there's not one guy on this whole forum that doesn't take my side that betting 7 to 5 shots is a suckers racket. Not one.



You should really take note of the the lack of replies here Speedy, but being a dumb ass you probably won't.

The sucker is probably you and that is probably one of the reasons you started this thread.

[sealman]

I haven't looked at every post here, so maybe somebody already said this, but I think the biggest problem today is that the casual (uninformed) horseplayer no longer exists: he is now buying lottery tickets and going to casinos. So we end up with only the cognoscenti going to the $2 window. Couple that with the proliferation of information resources and the result is paltry mutuels. I was always an advocate of comprehensive (i.e., Ainslie-style) handicapping but these days I think the answer lies in spot plays and angles and judicious exotics.

[Charlie D]

A lot of racing is uncompetitive and as a result of that you see more 4,6, 8, 10 dollar horses that Speedy says are a waste of time in the winners enclosure.


This uncompetitive racing has it's advantages as i've been trying to point out.

Most Graded races are uncompetitive, in that there are 1,2 maybe 3 TRUE contenders with NO HOPERS filling the field.


No one who bet Zenyatta at 5-2 in Classic thought it a waste of time did they???

[Charlie D]

If you don't believe me, go find and read Mr Crists excellent article on Inner.- NO HOPERS


What he states applies in a lot of races across the USA. - NO HOPERS

Then go read Ian Meyers excellent Post (#5) here http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=66577&page=1


for more help. NO HOPERS.


(He will now probably wish he had not said it :) )

[Charlie D]

BTW Speedy

I do believe Mr Crist includes 4,5,6 and 10 dollar horses in his Pick 4's and 6's



Do you think he is wasting his time?????

[Overlay]

I haven't looked at every post here, so maybe somebody already said this, but I think the biggest problem today is that the casual (uninformed) horseplayer no longer exists: he is now buying lottery tickets and going to casinos. So we end up with only the cognoscenti going to the $2 window. Couple that with the proliferation of information resources and the result is paltry mutuels. I was always an advocate of comprehensive (i.e., Ainslie-style) handicapping but these days I think the answer lies in spot plays and angles and judicious exotics.

Don't give up on comprehensive handicapping (provided that it takes the full field and wagering value into account, and is not designed solely to narrow a race down to the one most likely winner). You'll then have a basis for value-oriented play on both individual horses and exotics that spot plays and angles either do not provide, or inevitably lose with time.

[Charlie D]

The majority of winners will be sat 1st, 2nd, 3rd and and 4th in the betting market because of

1, recent form
2, no hopers filling the field.
3, smart money from inside racing.



Get reading, get working and get making some money that will pay for PP's, Internet connection etc etc.


It's not a gimme, but If your any good at reading form and making the right decision, you could be the next Mr Crist, Alan Potts, Harry Findlay or Bill Bentor.

[raybo]

He's just another example of the closed minded, "my way or no way", mentality exhibited by many participants (?) in racing.

[Charlie D]

An open mind will help with the education imo raybo.


Anyway, must go the Inner is calling.

[46zilzal]

There is no one way to the mountain top but some of the "cause and effect" explanations for horse's performances I hear proposed as fact, are too funny for words.

[Robert Goren]

Hard to believe there's not one guy on this whole forum that doesn't take my side that betting 7 to 5 shots is a suckers racket. Not one.

I do. The problem with betting 7/5 shots is that they very often turn into 4/5 shots as the gate opens.

[lamboguy]

Come-on Raybo be serious! Cause I call a guy out, because he's full of shit I'm gonna get thrown off? What 's this the wifes club or something?

Hard to believe there's not one guy on this whole forum that doesn't take my side that betting 7 to 5 shots is a suckers racket. Not one.

Starting to smell real bad around here ... Kind of like low-tide.if i could bet 10 seconds after the break and find a 7-5 with a 2 length lead i would be happy to get 3-5 on them, but only if i could bet after the break.

as far as winning at this game, the game is set up so that no living human can beat it on a regular basis. its like a raked poker game, the house eventually gets all the money. 30 years ago i could beat this game because there was alot of volume in it and people walking into a racetack looking for an imediate rush of gambling that didn't have a clue as to what they are doing.

today is a different story, you have guys putting out pace numbers, stats on trainers, public clockers. you name in this game today it has been bisected and disected

i have seen pace numbers that are fantastic, there are formulators and black box programs that are supposedly good too. most serious players have those tools at their disposal.

[Charlie D]

as far as winning at this game, the game is set up so that no living human can beat it on a regular basis.


So those serious players are wasting their time with thier fantastic pace number and black boxes????

[Partsnut]

Charlie D : So those serious players are wasting their time with thier fantastic pace number and black boxes????

Hi Charlie,

IMHO, these are great tools. They were conceived by some very smart and very well versed players on this board. Keep in mind that horse racing is all about the numbers. Most of us have access to the data and tools needed to formulate an assumptive fair odds line. 10 different users can come up with 10 different variations of a fair odds line The trick and key to the game is to find a tool, software or you can use the racing form by hand and look for the parameters that work for you. If you expect to be a winner on a daily basis and don't have the discipline and patience needed to beat the game then possibly you might want to consider another game. This game takes long hours and lots of work and might be considered a grind to many.
The overlays are still there but in todays world of high technology and more informed betting public,a bit more difficult to find.
Because a horse goes off at a low price does not mean that is not an overlay.
Most overlays are low priced.
I suggest you might want to read " Horse Racing Logic" by Glendon Jones if you are lucky enough to find a copy. Steve Fiero's " Four Quarters Of Horse Investing" is a must read.

If this were an easy game to beat then everyone would be doing it. :)

[Charlie D]

A nice post Partsnut imho and thanks for the heads up on the books.

[46zilzal]

Charlie D :


I suggest you might want to read " Horse Racing Logic" by Glendon Jones if you are lucky enough to find a copy. Steve Fiero's " Four Quarters Of Horse Investing" is a must read.

When, and IF EVER, the rank and file get out of splitting hairs and the minutia of OVER-handicapping and learn to WAGER, then the rest of us are in trouble. But i don't see that happening anytime soon.

[Charlie D]

Zil

Before you can run you first need to learn how to walk.

[46zilzal]

Zil

Before you can run you first need to learn how to walk.
I run very well but I am continually amazed at how many people wager who haven't a clue what they are doing once they figured out the prospective race scenarios that might occur.

[Charlie D]

You may run well, but some have not even learnt to walk yet and before they can run like you and others they must learn to walk first.

[raybo]

Players who can't beat this game, long term, just haven't figured out the right way, for them, yet.

There are many ways to become profitable, long term. The problem, for most losing players, is finding one that they can handle, both intellectually and psychologically.

Most will never find it, so, those of us who have, will continue to prosper, as long as the game continues to exist as a paramutuel event.

There are more than enough losers out there, and always will be, to provide for the winning player.

[Charlie D]

I like raybo, he talks a lot of sense.

[46zilzal]

There are several ways to become profitable, long term. The problem, for many losing players, is finding one that they can handle, both intellectually and psychologically.
I see these types all the time hanging around the paddock. Rather than test and stay with ideas, they change almost minute to minute and try playing 5 or 6 tracks simultaneously, both standard bred and t-bred.

No wonder they cannot do it.

[raybo]

I like raybo, he talks a lot of sense.

Thanks, I try not to pull punches and, also, to not state anything, as fact, that I can't verify.

Personally, I could be profitable using several different approaches, but, I possess tons of patience, am well organized, and persistent. Many players aren't lucky enough to possess these traits. For me, of the several "winning" approaches I could choose, I have chosen the one that requires the least amount of work, during the races, with the highest profit potential. But, my choice requires gobs of patience, organization, and persistence.

Not for everyone and not for the weak-hearted!

[raybo]

I see these types all the time hanging around the paddock. Rather than test and stay with ideas, they change almost minute to minute and try playing 5 or 6 tracks simultaneously, both standard bred and t-bred.

No wonder they cannot do it.

Agreed!!

My handicapping partner is a prime example, although he is a long term winner. He tries new ideas continually, looking at all types of racing platforms. He's just one of those guys that can never say, "it's good enough".

I have to constantly, "rein him in" when he starts getting way out there with his ideas. But, if it weren't for his "questioning" and trying to constantly improve his, already profitable methods, I wouldn't be half the player I have become over the last 30+ years.

[jonnielu]

I run very well but I am continually amazed at how many people wager who haven't a clue what they are doing once they figured out the prospective race scenarios that might occur.

After spending all of the time on hair-splitting minutia, who has time to think about what to do about anything as far as betting? Which is just as well since all the hair-splitting minutia consideration promotes an exclusive view, rather then an inclusive one.

Maybe the skimpy pools are the result of years of needless exclusive hair-splitting that is taught by all of the handicapping books. Maybe teaching that you must bet every race was supposed to make up for it.

jdl

[castaway01]

Thanks, I try not to pull punches and, also, to not state anything, as fact, that I can't verify.

Personally, I could be profitable using several different approaches, but, I possess tons of patience, am well organized, and persistent. Many players aren't lucky enough to possess these traits. For me, of the several "winning" approaches I could choose, I have chosen the one that requires the least amount of work, during the races, with the highest profit potential. But, my choice requires gobs of patience, organization, and persistence.

Not for everyone and not for the weak-hearted!

I like your posts too Raybo. I have a question. You mentioned patience, organization, and persistence. I imagine you had those qualities from the beginning, but were you actually profitable from the beginning and/or how long did it take you to start making at least some profit each year?

Thanks,
Jerry

[Tom]

Zil

Before you can run you first need to learn how to walk.

And the Four Quarters is all about wagering! :lol:

[raybo]

I like your posts too Raybo. I have a question. You mentioned patience, organization, and persistence. I imagine you had those qualities from the beginning, but were you actually profitable from the beginning and/or how long did it take you to start making at least some profit each year?

Thanks,
Jerry

Well, I'm the kind of guy that doesn't throw away his money. I'm very "tight". It's amazing that I ever got started in this game in the first place, because I, generally, deplore "gambling". But, fortunately, my handicapping partner was just as tight and just as persistent as I. He is the one that convinced me that you can take the "gamble" out of it, if you know what you're doing.

For both of us, the game revolves around risk and potential return on investment. Early on we discovered that WPS wagering was not the most efficient vehicle for investment, due to the "potential return" on each investment, ie., $20 wagered at 4/1 = $80 profit. At a 33% hit rate you can make a long term profit but to make a living that way involves much more wagering (putting money at risk) than we thought wise.

This realization took less than a year. That was in 1978-79. I didn't make many more wagers (very few) until 20 years later, after we had wrestled with the "risk vs potential return" thing all that time. We went through Quinellas, exactas, and finally trifectas, before we finally found a vehicle (superfectas) that offered the wisest, in our opinion, "risk vs potential return".

I started being profitable shortly after that, once we figured out, again, in our opinion, what was the best ticket structure, for the way we handicapped.

So, if you're talking about total time, from the "git-go", the answer is 20+ years, but, in terms of actual wagering, about 1 year or so. The wagering cost of the 20 years of figuring out how to make a living at this, probably less than $200, for me (much more for him, because he's more of a gambler than I am), because I only wagered 1 time in that first year, at LAD on a Saturday, and wagered, during the next 20 years of study, only a couple of times.

I said I am tight, right?!!

I also hate the word "gambling"!!!!!!!

[SpeedyG]

Watch those fibbers, keep an eye on em.

LOL.......

[SpeedyG]

Yeah, Speedy...let's see YOU prove you can make money on horse over $10.
Post your next 100 bets. No winner under $11 counts. Put up or shut up. :lol:

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Listen up Tom, because you definitely use to sit in the corner with the dunce hat on!

The game is pretty much done, what would you like me to prove that I can still win a ham sandwich or that betting short horse is a losing proposition? That's the whole point of this thread! This game is over my friend, there is nothing left!

All through the 80's and 90's did very well ... No Bullshit (like Charlie D likes to do)! Killed them a matter a fact (for 20 years)!

Use to start at one end of the vegas strip (at the old Aladdin) early in the morning, and by the time I reached the other end (the Stardust) I had a whole bunch down. Would get as much down in each joint as they would allow ... One hundered here, Two hunder there, Three hundred there, during that time everything was non-pari-mutuel, which of course helped in a big way. Even when it went to pari-mutuel though, still did decent for a while, but over the last bunch of years or so it's been slim pickens, almost not worth the time.

There's nothing to prove Tom. The game is on it's way out and it's so sad to see!

I'm sure there's a few guys (very few) still grinding them out, but whatever it is, it's small potatos.

[Tom]

Loser. The game isn't done, you are.:sleeping:

[newtothegame]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Listen up Tom, because you definitely use to sit in the corner with the dunce hat on!

The game is pretty much done, what would you like me to prove that I can still win a ham sandwich or that betting short horse is a losing proposition? That's the whole point of this thread! This game is over my friend, there is nothing left!

All through the 80's and 90's did very well ... No Bullshit (like Charlie D likes to do)! Killed them a matter a fact (for 20 years)!

Use to start at one end of the vegas strip (at the old Aladdin) early in the morning, and by the time I reached the other end (the Stardust) I had a whole bunch down. Would get as much down in each joint as they would allow ... One hundered here, Two hunder there, Three hundred there, during that time everything was non-pari-mutuel, which of course helped in a big way. Even when it went to pari-mutuel though, still did decent for a while, but over the last bunch of years or so it's been slim pickens, almost not worth the time.

There's nothing to prove Tom. The game is on it's way out and it's so sad to see!

I'm sure there's a few guys (very few) still grinding them out, but whatever it is, it's small potatos.

You want to know whats sad???
here's a clue for ya speedy.....
You talk in terms of the old days and its granduer of how you used to "kill em". I find this fascinating...really...because I believe you. But, stick with me for a moment...
With the above being said, I get the feeling you love this game of horses.
So, please tell me why someone who once lived his dream of killing em...and obviously loves this game..would go on to totally diminish or trash another horse player?? THATS WHAT"S SAD!!
If you truly believe that Charlie has no clue and will lose his money, then wouldnt you, as an opposite person in the same pools want him to lose? There is a term in the poker world that I would suggest you read up on......
"If you can't find the fish at the table, its probably you"!
Secondly, I would also suggest that if you ever do find that fish at the table.....don't run him off. There are enough sharks for all of us!

[SpeedyG]

You want to know whats sad???
here's a clue for ya speedy.....
You talk in terms of the old days and its granduer of how you used to "kill em". I find this fascinating...really...because I believe you. But, stick with me for a moment...
With the above being said, I get the feeling you love this game of horses.
So, please tell me why someone who once lived his dream of killing em...and obviously loves this game..would go on to totally diminish or trash another horse player?? THATS WHAT"S SAD!!
If you truly believe that Charlie has no clue and will lose his money, then wouldnt you, as an opposite person in the same pools want him to lose? There is a term in the poker world that I would suggest you read up on......
"If you can't find the fish at the table, its probably you"!
Secondly, I would also suggest that if you ever do find that fish at the table.....don't run him off. There are enough sharks for all of us!


You should believe me, because it's 100% true my friend! The stuff you read in books I did it for 20+ years, no bull!

Any yes, you are right about me being a little too tough on CharlieD. However, the part about me wanting him to lose is a bunch of crap. It's just the opposite Newtothegame, if he started posting his horses I would have rooted for him (100%), not against him! How you think me wanting him to lose and me knowing he is a bullshitter is the same thing, is beyond me.

[newtothegame]

You should believe me, because it's 100% true my friend! The stuff you read in books I did it for 20+ years, no bull!

Any yes, you are right about me being a little too tough on CharlieD. However, the part about me wanting him to lose is a bunch of crap. It's just the opposite Newtothegame, if he started posting his horses I would have rooted for him (100%), not against him! How you think me wanting him to lose and me knowing he is a bullshitter is the same thing, is beyond me.

I didnt say they were the same.....forgive the miscommunication. But, what I am saying is if you think he is losing at the track, why would you want to belittle him or trash him for that? Its obvious you arent going to be constructive and show him the error of his ways. So, again, why trash him and potentially have him not put his money into those pools which you want to "kill"? Seems to me that the more "dead" money in the pool for someone who can kill em...would be an easy target...right?

Now if you think he is just a bullshitter as you proposed, why waste your time? Is it so that by pointing this out to the world it somehow makes ya feel better?

This is the major problem in all of horse racing from the bettors side that I see....
You would be hard pressed to find anyone on this forum who thinks this game is thriving. For multiple reasons of course but of which one is the bettor who remains is getting smarter and the pools are getting smaller.
So, then a new person (lets use me for example) comes along and is interested in the game. For the most part, I have got to tell you that alot of the people I have encountered are total buttheads and as arrogant as all get out. There are some though that have been extremely nice and helpful with most questions I have had.
If you don't believe me...just look at your post in regards to charlie. Now I don't know either one of you but I can tell you that you come across as totally arrogant, know it all, and if its not your way well then its the highway. I would like to believe that thats not the case, but look at it. Another poster pointed it out as well. How do you "experienced" horse players plan on building interest in this sport with those types of attitudes???
You can go to any one of the threads here and find a hundred different ways to "play the ponies". Everyone thinks their way is the best. What I believe is that everyone needs their own way to suit their own needs and wants. It is not for me to say they are "bullshitting". After all, they may be right and I might be the fool trying to work it out. Ya never know...... if that makes sense.
How do you know for sure that Charlie isnt making 5,000 a month? Or more? No one here is willing to give away "the secret strategy to making a million bucks at the races". So how do you know? There is a GREAT GUY on here who I have had the pleasure of actually speaking with on the phone several times. I am just sorry I have not been able to stay in touch as much as I would like. But guess what...I have no clue whether the guy wins or loses. But I sure as hell wouldnt get on here and tell the guy in so many words he's a P.O.S. For the price I may have lost on a few bets is miniscule in comparison to the priceless chats we have had and the possible friendship I hope to have made. (P.S. Ben, if your reading this, I do apologize greatly that I havent been able to stay in touch as much sir....)
You all want to fix this game.....try being nice sometimes!

[Charlie D]

Speedy, i told you Prove It was BS, but here you go

USA Aque (US) 12th Feb / 19:24 R5 1m Claim / 2. Commodore Way
Back

USA Aque (US) 12th Feb / 18:55 R4 6f Mdn Claim / 7. Dontquityourdayjob
Back

USA Aque (US) 12th Feb / 17:30 R1 6f Claim / 4. Fashion Queen
Back


While you and your ilk are whinging about the game, some are paying the bills, buying food etc, etc with these type of bets.



Has the point i've been trying to make all along sunk in yet????

[newtothegame]

Speedy, i told you Prove It was BS, but here you go

USA Aque (US) 12th Feb / 19:24 R5 1m Claim / 2. Commodore Way
Back

USA Aque (US) 12th Feb / 18:55 R4 6f Mdn Claim / 7. Dontquityourdayjob
Back

USA Aque (US) 12th Feb / 17:30 R1 6f Claim / 4. Fashion Queen
Back


While you and your ilk are whinging about the game, some are paying the bills, buying food etc, etc with these type of bets.



Has the point i've been trying to make all along sunk in yet????

Charlie....I think a bettor who is selective (key) can win playing short priced horses. Although, I think to each their own as well....
but to your post, and the part that I don't think your getting in all of this is IT EASY TO POST WINNERS AFTER THE FACT. Thats what speedy is saying about your post. Redboarding is...well lets just say I could easily hit winners if I were allowed to pick them after the race was decided. Now I am not saying your doing this...I am just saying that posting results AFTER the race really doesnt amount too much. Unless your showing who won the race!
Its hard to prove your point posting races after.

[Charlie D]

Speedy has been calling me allsorts on this thread, so i think i may be allowed a bit of slack on redboarding.

It was also needed to finally try and get this dumb ass to understand that these bets ARE the bread and butter of the bettor.


If you want to sit twiddling thumbs waiting for double digit horses to come along then do so, but in doing so you will miss some exceptional value.


Waste of time Speedy, yep your right.


FFS, no wonder most lose if they think like Speedy.

[Charlie D]

Not all these horse at the Top end of the market will be a betting proposition obviously, but if you are not seeing a fair few horses like i've posted as VALUE bets or GOOD INVESTMENTS then you are doing something wrong imho.

[raybo]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Listen up Tom, because you definitely use to sit in the corner with the dunce hat on!

The game is pretty much done, what would you like me to prove that I can still win a ham sandwich or that betting short horse is a losing proposition? That's the whole point of this thread! This game is over my friend, there is nothing left!

All through the 80's and 90's did very well ... No Bullshit (like Charlie D likes to do)! Killed them a matter a fact (for 20 years)!

Use to start at one end of the vegas strip (at the old Aladdin) early in the morning, and by the time I reached the other end (the Stardust) I had a whole bunch down. Would get as much down in each joint as they would allow ... One hundered here, Two hunder there, Three hundred there, during that time everything was non-pari-mutuel, which of course helped in a big way. Even when it went to pari-mutuel though, still did decent for a while, but over the last bunch of years or so it's been slim pickens, almost not worth the time.

There's nothing to prove Tom. The game is on it's way out and it's so sad to see!

I'm sure there's a few guys (very few) still grinding them out, but whatever it is, it's small potatos.

If you call "grinding them out" wagering 1 to 2 tracks, 3 days per week and showing 46+% profit, every year since 2004 (except 2005 when I took a year off from wagering, you can search the archives for the reason), then I guess I'm "grinding them out".

[Charlie D]

If you call "grinding them out" wagering 1 to 2 tracks, 3 days per week and showing 46+% profit, every year since 2004 (except 2005 when I took a year off from wagering, you can search the archives for the reason), then I guess I'm "grinding them out".



From above. You can imagine a bettor playing 2 or 3 tracks a day, every day making a very tidy sum can't you.


And some people are saying game is on it''s way out. :eek:

[lamboguy]

i am glad everyone out there makes money at this game because i think i am pretty good and i lose on a very consistant basis. i think i lost 47 out of 52 weeks last year, and that is after having 600 first time starters go through my hands. my return on investment is -6.63%.

[Charlie D]

i am glad everyone out there makes money at this game because i think i am pretty good and i lose on a very consistant basis. i think i lost 47 out of 52 weeks last year, and that is after having 600 first time starters go through my hands. my return on investment is -6.63%.



That obviously tells you you are doing something wrong, so you try and identify the problem or problems and make the adjustments needed to turn it loss into gain.

I couldn't tell you if QR, RA or Zen were Group horses without looking at race title a while ago, but with a bit of help from some kind people sharing thier knowledge, i can tell you these three horses are Top Class and very closely Matched and should they meet it will be some race.


Hard work pays dividends.

[lamboguy]

That obviously tells you you are doing something wrong, so you try and identify the problem or problems and make the adjustments needed to turn it loss into gain.

I couldn't tell you if QR, RA or Zen were Group horses without looking at race title a while ago, but with a bit of help from some kind people sharing thier knowledge, i can tell you these three horses are Top Class and very closely Matched and should they meet it will be some race.


Hard work pays dividends.
i work 18 hours a day betting horses 7 days a week 365 days a year. i have great money management skills. i will have to work on making adjustments to my game.

[Charlie D]

Thats a lot of work for no reward. Have you thought analysing your records and becoming a more selective bettor???


I know it's not easy, but that is one of the tings i know a few bettors do this side of pond.


Here is tip from Alan Potts (Professional Bettor since the 70's) that you could try.

See if you can write around 50 words why the horse should be bet, if you can't get near it, move on.

[Charlie D]

Another tip that may help is take at least a day or two off a week and do something totally away from racing. you may be on auto pilot and not seeing what you should maybe see


The days off will refresh you and your mind may help with the "Minds Eye" as J Bradshaw called it.

[toussaud]

why would you go to the bankruptcy court and ask everyone is it possible to start a successful business?

[Charlie D]

why would you go to the bankruptcy court and ask everyone is it possible to start a successful business?

You wouldn't,however there are books, articles, forum posters out there who can and do help with education.


Your job is to take on board what is being put forward in these and follow Jonnielou's earlier post on this thread.

[acorn54]

i am glad everyone out there makes money at this game because i think i am pretty good and i lose on a very consistant basis. i think i lost 47 out of 52 weeks last year, and that is after having 600 first time starters go through my hands. my return on investment is -6.63%.

don't believe what you hear about gambler's saying they make money on gambling. any form of gambling. gamblers are liars when it comes to an appraisal of gambling activities.

[toussaud]

I just don't' see the point of these posts.. you are going to get 1 of two things


1. people whose handicapping skills are overrated but their ego is to big to admit it, telling everyone else who you can't be successful

2. people who are besides the fact couldn't' last a week at the track, boasting how much money they make


it's why i stay out of the handicapping discussions here. most are nothing more than a chest bumping fest or a woe is me party.

[Charlie D]

In 2004 Charlie D knew nothing like most out there, these kind of threads/posts and the books, articles i've read now mean i am educated enough to go find the bets posted here.


Keep wrting guys and keep educating me please.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Considering the fact that the average track takeout is 20% give or take a point, and nowadays the playing field is very equal, in other words, someone with a good set of their own track variant or pace figures isn't going to be much off the figures that are in a Brisnet or Trackmaster form, I think that it takes basically a miracle to beat the takeout.
For someone to actually win means that there must be a lot of consistent losers who have ROI's in the low 70's or 60's. Or a majority that have ROI's in the mid to high 70's.

That is reality.

Possibly 15 years or more, that was a possibility because the pools were full of dumb money. But the dumb money is all but dead today.

There are winners out there, but these are players who are good enough to have ROI's in the .93-.97 range.

[toussaud]

Considering the fact that the average track takeout is 20% give or take a point, and nowadays the playing field is very equal, in other words, someone with a good set of their own track variant or pace figures isn't going to be much off the figures that are in a Brisnet or Trackmaster form, I think that it takes basically a miracle to beat the takeout.
For someone to actually win means that there must be a lot of consistent losers who have ROI's in the low 70's or 60's. Or a majority that have ROI's in the mid to high 70's.

That is reality.

Possibly 15 years or more, that was a possibility because the pools were full of dumb money. But the dumb money is all but dead today.

There are winners out there, but these are players who are good enough to have ROI's in the .93-.97 range.


if dumb money was "all but dead" justwhistledixie would not have been the post time fav a few weeks back at santa anita after east coast shippers had gone 0-43 in the last 2 breeders cup


the dumb money is taking resource classes.. but it's still pretty dumb.

[Charlie D]

Plenty of dumb money ( including some of mine) out there. If there were not, you would not see winning horses paying 4,6,8, 10, 12, 20, 30 40 bucks. You would not see nice paying Exacta's Pick 3, 4's

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Plenty of dumb money( including some of mine) out there, if there were not, you would not see horses pating 4,6,8, 10, 12, 20, 30 40 bucks.
Everything is based on probabilities. Even the average $80 shot who had a mathematical chance of 1 in 49 going into the race. There are horses who win who deserve to go off at such odds.
But the thing is that average $80 shot today probably would have paid $90 plus 20 years ago. Might even have been an overlay and had a one in thirty chance of winning.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

if dumb money was "all but dead" justwhistledixie would not have been the post time fav a few weeks back at santa anita after east coast shippers had gone 0-43 in the last 2 breeders cup


the dumb money is taking resource classes.. but it's still pretty dumb.
Justawhistle would have probably gone off at even lower odds 20 years ago.
Every horse has a collective perceived chance to win, and Justawhistles do win today every now and then and pay more than they would have 20 years ago.

What I'm trying to say is that overlays 20 years ago are either no longer overlays today or lesser overlays today. And there are a lot less underlays today than when there was dumb money in the pools as well. Yet the takeout has stayed the same. Collective takeout has increased and taken a toll on bankrolls because of high take tri's and supers available in the majority of races today.

[Charlie D]

Of course TO is high and being so it is reducinhg pay out, but that does mean the Greatest Game in the World is finished or unbeatable.

[lamboguy]

Considering the fact that the average track takeout is 20% give or take a point, and nowadays the playing field is very equal, in other words, someone with a good set of their own track variant or pace figures isn't going to be much off the figures that are in a Brisnet or Trackmaster form, I think that it takes basically a miracle to beat the takeout.
For someone to actually win means that there must be a lot of consistent losers who have ROI's in the low 70's or 60's. Or a majority that have ROI's in the mid to high 70's.

That is reality.

Possibly 15 years or more, that was a possibility because the pools were full of dumb money. But the dumb money is all but dead today.

There are winners out there, but these are players who are good enough to have ROI's in the .93-.97 range.it is absolutely impossible to walk up to a mutual window and have your $2.00 turn into $1.60 when you walk away from it. not in today's world. i was able to do it 30 years ago before all these pace figures and track varients. i can't do it today and i don't even use that stuff any more. i go strickly on what i see watching races and what i know about first time starters. if pace figures and black boxes can out do me playing that way , i got to wish them lots of luck.

[Charlie D]

There is no wonder racing is struggling to attract new bettors, the negative vibes we see posted here and and in other threads is enough to put anyone off the Greatest Game in The World and go play Slots.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

There is no wonder racing is struggling to attract new bettors, the negative vibes we see posted here and and in other threads is enough to put anyone off the Greatest Game in The World and go play Slots.
It is reality. 30-35 years ago we had Winning at the Races and My $50,000 Year At The Races. People playing with speed figs could overcome takeout with a little luck and patience.
Anyone writing such a book today would be lying through their teeth if they say they were betting without substantial rebate.
Can someone who bets $10k a year make money? Possibly, with luck and patience, they might be ahead what it cost them to buy racing forms betting straight into the parimutuel pools. If someone bets more than that though the laws of takeout will kill them no matter how much patience or luck. That isn't going to attract newbies to the game.

[toussaud]

There is no wonder racing is struggling to attract new bettors, the negative vibes we see posted here and and in other threads is enough to put anyone off the Greatest Game in The World and go play Slots.


becuase you are dealing with egos and not the game of horse racing.


damnit if I can't make a living going this ovbiously no one else can etiher and that person must be lying

or


damnit I have to keep my internet street cred up under all circumstances and post stuff i know i can't back up


you aren't going to get anything of real substance here.


if you want to get better betting horse racing, watch horse races and bet them.

[raybo]

i am glad everyone out there makes money at this game because i think i am pretty good and i lose on a very consistant basis. i think i lost 47 out of 52 weeks last year, and that is after having 600 first time starters go through my hands. my return on investment is -6.63%.

I know that some of the people on this forum who claim to be consistently profitable aren't. However, at the same time, this forum is not typical of the general horse racing public. This forum, being, IMO, one of the most educated and experienced group of players anywhere, contains a much more specific set of players. You can't categorize this forum as a representative sample of players, in general. If you can't see that then there's no need to finish reading this post. If you can see that then you should also see that there is a higher percentage of consistently profitable players here than in the horse racing community, at large.

While it would be almost impossible to, absolutely, weed out the fake winners from the real winners here, you can, almost absolutely, determine which ones are fakes and which ones are real by simply reading their posts.

I've gone as far as posting my account summary from Brisbet (before having to switch to BetPad and then Twinspires) showing my ROI. But, as you can imagine, that wasn't even enough to convince the naysayers that I was indeed telling the truth. They claimed that I must have "doctored" it up somehow.

In my own defense, I'll add this. I play only superfectas, I have an 8% hit rate, my minimum expected payout (based on the odds spread on the 4 shortest priced horse on my ticket) is $300 for a 1$ super (and I fudge that, in my favor, a bit to ensure I get at least 300/1 when I hit), at an average ticket cost of $12. You do the math.

Like the old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but, you can't make it drink".

Believe what you want, but, if you're not a successful player, guess who's fault it is?

[formula_2002]

can't resist posting this favorite here..it's one of the most profitable of the model plays, and yes it will go off at <7-5 :)
aqu, feb, 12, race 9 #10

oh, and don't forget to hook it up in the exacta over the 2nd and 3rd choices..
gl

[lamboguy]

I know that some of the people on this forum who claim to be consistently profitable aren't. However, at the same time, this forum is not typical of the general horse racing public. This forum, being, IMO, one of the most educated and experienced group of players anywhere, contains a much more specific set of players. You can't categorize this forum as a representative sample of players, in general. If you can't see that then there's no need to finish reading this post. If you can see that then you should also see that there is a higher percentage of consistently profitable players here than in the horse racing community, at large.

While it would be almost impossible to, absolutely, weed out the fake winners from the real winners here, you can, almost absolutely, determine which ones are fakes and which ones are real by simply reading their posts.

I've gone as far as posting my account summary from Brisbet (before having to switch to BetPad and then Twinspires) showing my ROI. But, as you can imagine, that wasn't even enough to convince the naysayers that I was indeed telling the truth. They claimed that I must have "doctored" it up somehow.

In my own defense, I'll add this. I play only superfectas, I have an 8% hit rate, my minimum expected payout (based on the odds spread on the 4 shortest priced horse on my ticket) is $300 for a 1$ super (and I fudge that, in my favor, a bit to ensure I get at least 300/1 when I hit), at an average ticket cost of $12. You do the math.

Like the old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but, you can't make it drink".

Believe what you want, but, if you're not a successful player, guess who's fault it is?i believe you and don't have any doubt in what you are saying. the fact that you play supers certainly must help vs. others. i don't play them bcause i don't know how to pick a potential 4 horses in a race, sometimes i can eliminate horses which makes more sense to me, in any event, i hope you continue to win

[Charlie D]

becuase you are dealing with egos and not the game of horse racing.


damnit if I can't make a living going this ovbiously no one else can etiher and that person must be lying

or


damnit I have to keep my internet street cred up under all circumstances and post stuff i know i can't back up


you aren't going to get anything of real substance here.


if you want to get better betting horse racing, watch horse races and bet them.


Toussaud


I post my opnion from my experiences and knowledge i have gained and i'm sure there are a plenty of others that do this too. I do not post about nothing i have no experience of like computer progamming, Thoro - Graph numbers etc, etc


Our job as members is to read, take on board and post an opinion based on experiences or read, take on board and get stuck into finding out what the poster is stating is real or not as Jonnielou stated.

[raybo]

i believe you and don't have any doubt in what you are saying. the fact that you play supers certainly must help vs. others. i don't play them bcause i don't know how to pick a potential 4 horses in a race, sometimes i can eliminate horses which makes more sense to me, in any event, i hope you continue to win

Eliminating horses (I call it "X"ing them off) is the first thing I do. Of the remaining horses I cover at least 1/2 the field plus 1. The next chore is to find the "probable" winner, no matter his/her odds (because if the horse I choose as the winner doesn't win then nothing else on the ticket matters). Once I have the winner figured, then I put the remaining horses on the bottom of the ticket, then I remove the weakest of these horses (looking at the race shape and which one will be most disadvantaged), that makes up the 3rd row (show contenders). For the place contenders I try to put the 2nd best speed horse and the best closer there (if the best speed horse is my winner, otherwise I would put the best speed horse and the 2nd best closer on the 2nd row). That's my basic ticket, but, this basic ticket will be modified depending on: the number of speed horses and the number of closers and the total number of horses in the race, and the size of the pool, as well as the distance and surface being run).

What it all boils down to is that I must have a mixture of running styles on all rows, except the win line, of course, and, when my winner hits, I want to cash the ticket. At a 30+ hit rate on winners, to hit 8% of my supers, I have to have the remaining 3 horses most of the time. It's called "coverage", that's the name of the game in supers.

[Charlie D]

Eliminating horses (I call it "X"ing them off) is the first thing I do. Of the remaining horses I cover at least 1/2 the field plus 1. The next chore is to find the "probable" winner, no matter his/her odds (because if the horse I choose as the winner doesn't win then nothing else on the ticket matters). Once I have the winner figured, then I put the remaining horses on the bottom of the ticket, then I remove the weakest of these horses (looking at the race shape and which one will be most disadvantaged), that makes up the 3rd row (show contenders). For the place contenders I try to put the 2nd best speed horse and the best closer there (if the best speed horse is my winner, otherwise I would put the best speed horse and the 2nd best closer on the 2nd row). That's my basic ticket, but, this basic ticket will be modified depending on: the number of speed horses and the number of closers and the total number of horses in the race, and the size of the pool, as well as the distance and surface being run).

What it all boils down to is that I must have a mixture of running styles on all rows, except the win line, of course, and, when my winner hits, I want to cash the ticket. At a 30+ hit rate on winners, to hit 8% of my supers, I have to have the remaining 3 horses most of the time. It's called "coverage", that's the name of the game in supers.



This is why i join, read racing forums - knowledge and education from people like raybo.

[markgoldie]

Eliminating horses (I call it "X"ing them off) is the first thing I do. Of the remaining horses I cover at least 1/2 the field plus 1. The next chore is to find the "probable" winner, no matter his/her odds (because if the horse I choose as the winner doesn't win then nothing else on the ticket matters). Once I have the winner figured, then I put the remaining horses on the bottom of the ticket, then I remove the weakest of these horses (looking at the race shape and which one will be most disadvantaged), that makes up the 3rd row (show contenders). For the place contenders I try to put the 2nd best speed horse and the best closer there (if the best speed horse is my winner, otherwise I would put the best speed horse and the 2nd best closer on the 2nd row). That's my basic ticket, but, this basic ticket will be modified depending on: the number of speed horses and the number of closers and the total number of horses in the race, and the size of the pool, as well as the distance and surface being run).

What it all boils down to is that I must have a mixture of running styles on all rows, except the win line, of course, and, when my winner hits, I want to cash the ticket. At a 30+ hit rate on winners, to hit 8% of my supers, I have to have the remaining 3 horses most of the time. It's called "coverage", that's the name of the game in supers.
Raybo:

I have noticed your posts in the past and of all the other posters here, you and I seem to share the most in common. We both seem to favor complex verticals. I use a little different approach that I have found works very well.

First, I am aware of the one-half plus one rule, but I don't follow it because the degree of contention is more important to me than the raw cutoff based on a numerical formula. I suppose half plus one would be a minimum for me, but I'll frequently use more. Also, I'll always use more than one horse on top, but rarely the favorite. So, I am looking for races in which there is a high degree of contention BUT with a potentially weak favorite, because normally if the favorite wins, I don't want the ticket. Recently, I've been experimenting with KEY horses. That is, horses who must appear on the ticket. This saves money over the long run because the spread can be cut way down when a single horse must appear in one of the 4 positions on a super ticket. I have also been experimenting with dual KEYS, that is constructing tickets in which one of two horse must appear in the 4 positions. This has the advantage of being able to use two different running styles such that if the pace scenario favors front runners OR closers, you have the advantage of using one of each. When doing this, however, I don't like the very deep closers because their win percentages are so low. On the other hand, the deep closers make great inclusions on the bottoms of the tickets, say third and fourth.

As far as the general discussion here, as I have said, I make a living at this but not without a significant rebate. In my best years, I have a minus 2-3% ROI but I really think those days are over because of the smaller field sizes we are seeing more and more. And so, I am currently running at about -6%. But my rebates average close to 16%. So for me, it's a volume game and to be frank, even with nearly 50 years experience in the game, I couldn't survive without rebates. As far as the win bettors, I know it's a much, much tougher game. Not only is is tougher to show a good ROI, but the rebate picture is far worse. So, for example, even if I could show a break-even ROI, I would make less than I do with a -6% gimmick ROI. And yes, I agree with those who say the game is getting harder and harder. But not impossible with the right niche.

[Charlie D]

Look at that, poster MarkGoldie has chimmed in - more knowledge and education for us to take on board, play with and see if what they are saying is real or not.





I'm like that robot on Short Circuit - more data, more data :D

[castaway01]

I know I'm 40 posts late with my reply, but thanks for your detailed answer Raybo. Very interesting stuff.

[raybo]

Raybo:

I have noticed your posts in the past and of all the other posters here, you and I seem to share the most in common. We both seem to favor complex verticals. I use a little different approach that I have found works very well.

First, I am aware of the one-half plus one rule, but I don't follow it because the degree of contention is more important to me than the raw cutoff based on a numerical formula. I suppose half plus one would be a minimum for me, but I'll frequently use more. Also, I'll always use more than one horse on top, but rarely the favorite. So, I am looking for races in which there is a high degree of contention BUT with a potentially weak favorite, because normally if the favorite wins, I don't want the ticket. Recently, I've been experimenting with KEY horses. That is, horses who must appear on the ticket. This saves money over the long run because the spread can be cut way down when a single horse must appear in one of the 4 positions on a super ticket. I have also been experimenting with dual KEYS, that is constructing tickets in which one of two horse must appear in the 4 positions. This has the advantage of being able to use two different running styles such that if the pace scenario favors front runners OR closers, you have the advantage of using one of each. When doing this, however, I don't like the very deep closers because their win percentages are so low. On the other hand, the deep closers make great inclusions on the bottoms of the tickets, say third and fourth.

As far as the general discussion here, as I have said, I make a living at this but not without a significant rebate. In my best years, I have a minus 2-3% ROI but I really think those days are over because of the smaller field sizes we are seeing more and more. And so, I am currently running at about -6%. But my rebates average close to 16%. So for me, it's a volume game and to be frank, even with nearly 50 years experience in the game, I couldn't survive without rebates. As far as the win bettors, I know it's a much, much tougher game. Not only is is tougher to show a good ROI, but the rebate picture is far worse. So, for example, even if I could show a break-even ROI, I would make less than I do with a -6% gimmick ROI. And yes, I agree with those who say the game is getting harder and harder. But not impossible with the right niche.

Mark,

I agree with your post almost entirely.

In the first thread in which you posted, on this forum, I posted that, of all the members who claim to be winning players I would put my money on you as one who truly is successful. The reasoning for my belief, is because we have a lot in common in the way we approach the game, and I know I'm successful, so, I have no doubts that you are too. I'm a little surprised that your ROI is as low as you say it is. You wouldn't be "sandbagging" me would you?:lol:

Obviously, you play many, many more races than I do as I could never qualify for rebates as high as you're getting. I've never received a rebate at all.

I understand your preference for "key" horses. True, the cost is lower than playing a pyramiding ticket structure, singling (most of the time) 1 horse on the win line. For me, it's a case of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". I've been playing my modified "box/wheel" structure for years now and it still works just as well as when I first started using it. So, for now, I'm stickin' with it.

If you reread my post you'll notice that I said "at least 1/2 the field plus 1". That is the minimum coverage I require. Also, "1/2 the field" refers to the remaining horses, after ""X"ing them off". Meaning, in a 10 horse race, if I can "X" off 3 horses, then that leaves 7 horses as contenders for making it on my ticket. So, 1/2 the field would equal 3.5 and adding the extra horse makes it 4.5, rounding up would make it 5. So, I'm going to have at least 5 horses on my ticket. If there are ties or other extenuating circumstances there will be another horse or 2 or 3 on the ticket.

My smallest "basic" ticket is: 1 w 23 w 234 w 2345, while the most efficient ticket, regarding overall ROI is: 1 w 23 w 2345 w 2345.

While it is unusual, I will occasionally play 2 horses on top, if the race is contentious enough and the pool is large enough. I make a determination, prior to placing the wager, as to the likelihood of few tickets hitting, in which case I might put extra horses on the ticket. After all, if I think I can "get it all" I feel the increased investment is well worth it. A lot of this "determination" stuff depends on how well I know the track patrons' "betting personalities" and how well I know how much money will be in the pool (which varies depending on the race type, distance, surface, and which race on the card it is. Typically, the deeper in the card you are, the more money is in the pool, for obvious reasons.

You said that "if the favorite wins, you don't want the ticket". Generally, I agree, but I don't care whether my "winner" is the favorite or not, until I have constructed the ticket and looked at the odds spread on the lowest 4 priced horses on the ticket. Having developed the ability to estimate what these 4 lowest priced horses will pay (hedging in my favor a little), allows me to make a "bet-no bet" decision. Again, I require $300 for a $1 super payoff, on the 4 lowest priced horses on my ticket or I don't bet (I sometimes go days at a time without placing a wager). This, for me, is a guarantee of continued profitability, in light of my hit rate and average ticket costs.

I've said it before, but, "risk vs potential return" is the basis for my wagering philosophy. If I can't get 300/1 I ain't bettin'!!

[raybo]

I know I'm 40 posts late with my reply, but thanks for your detailed answer Raybo. Very interesting stuff.

Thanks!

[formula_2002]

can't resist posting this favorite here..it's one of the most profitable of the model plays, and yes it will go off at <7-5 :)
aqu, feb, 12, race 9 #10

oh, and don't forget to hook it up in the exacta over the 2nd and 3rd choices..
gl
Aqueduct - Race 9
# Win Place Show
10 $2.90 $2.20 $2.10
3 . $2.80 $2.40
2 . . $4.40

Wager Type Winning Numbers Paid
$1.00 Exacta 10-3 $3.75

NOW THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZgS03Md3mQ

[proximity]

I'm going to be keeping a very close eye on all the fibbers around here from now on.

don't put undue strain on your eyes or anything.

because the consistency of some of the returns around here would make even bernie madoff blush.:blush:

did you win every day, week, and month when you were in vegas?

[Rutgers]

If someone bets more than that though the laws of takeout will kill them no matter how much patience or luck.


The laws of takeout are more complex then many understand them to be. Horseplayers can make money at this game if they understand takeout. (And a review of today’s Tampa Bay Downs charts reveals most do not or they do not really care about the effects of takeout) Takeout alone does not kill them. Knowledgeable horseplayers can lessen the impact of takeout by being selective about the races they play and the wagers they make.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

The laws of takeout are more complex then many understand them to be. Horseplayers can make money at this game if they understand takeout. (And a review of today’s Tampa Bay Downs charts reveals most do not or they do not really care about the effects of takeout) Takeout alone does not kill them. Knowledgeable horseplayers can lessen the impact of takeout by being selective about the races they play and the wagers they make.
Of course, by being more selective one can increase their ROI. But you have to be a lot more selective, a lot more, than you did 20 years ago.

And I've stated over and over again, that most bettors don't care about takeout, just like almost every slot player doesn't care about slot payback, however when people go home with less money than they used to or even if they just don't last if they are new to the game, they are likely not to come back as fast....this isn't an overnight thing, but something that happens over time. Their frequency cuts down over the months, some quit, some stop watching when they normally would, and others find other ways to gamble, and more likely they will last longer in just about any other form of gambling other than lotteries.

[salty]

I think it is beatable. I was wondering how many people just play a few horses through the year.

ex if you bet $5 on rachel every race she ever ran then you would make back your $5 eveytime and have 18.75 profit at the end of last year.
so $100 each race would get you al your hundreds back plus 375.

I know i didnt catch on until the oaks so i could only have gotten 295 on top of my 500.

zenyatta this year i would get my 600 back plus 390

and thats all without rebates.

both of them were/are the biggest horses of last year and raced in big races so you could lay thousands on them and not make a huge dent in the pools
not to mention you could have put show and place money on them and churned out a small bit of money plus rebates. or playing exactas with them. I don't know I've just been thinking about why I didn't think of that earlier and plan my betting accordingly.

[Stillriledup]

The game is not beatable according to Steven Crist (Sunday Feb 14 DRF article: Dream matchip a pricey promotion)

[Track Phantom]

I think the game is impossible to beat, especially long term. When you think about it, 20 years ago, the only money in the pool was "local money" or "track money" and one would think that local money should be a bit smarter then out of staters who aren't following the track closely enough. In other words, there should be more dumb money in the pools now that simulcasting has made its way on the scene. Instead, the game is being ravaged by starved wolves tearing at a dead carcus.

Here is what I believe is the reason the game has become virtually impossible:
1) Drugs: Super trainers are bet into the blind and they are winning at off the chart rates. Certain trainer angles (long layoffs, 2 sprints to a route, etc) mean nothing since drugs are now the great equalizer. When Jamie Ness has a horse in a race, it is 10 points lower than it would be with a non cheater...and he wins at near 40%. Hard to buck that trend. In general, performance enhancing drugs have destroyed the game, completely and utterly.

2) Small fields: Too many 6 horse fields.

3) Information: 20 years ago, good players had an edge by keeping good data. Now, everyone has that critical data and the odds suffer accordingly.

4) Takeout: Even though takeout has always been a part of parimutual wagering, it is now being used to subsidize critical revenue losses elsewhere. The player cannot overcome such high deductions in the current state.

All in all, the game is suffering immensely. It needs a major overhaul in order to inspire potenital new players and revive the long time players. I don't see that happening and, amazingly, there is a very real chance that the game salts away.

[SpeedyG]

I think the game is impossible to beat, especially long term. When you think about it, 20 years ago, the only money in the pool was "local money" or "track money" and one would think that local money should be a bit smarter then out of staters who aren't following the track closely enough. In other words, there should be more dumb money in the pools now that simulcasting has made its way on the scene. Instead, the game is being ravaged by starved wolves tearing at a dead carcus.

Here is what I believe is the reason the game has become virtually impossible:
1) Drugs: Super trainers are bet into the blind and they are winning at off the chart rates. Certain trainer angles (long layoffs, 2 sprints to a route, etc) mean nothing since drugs are now the great equalizer. When Jamie Ness has a horse in a race, it is 10 points lower than it would be with a non cheater...and he wins at near 40%. Hard to buck that trend. In general, performance enhancing drugs have destroyed the game, completely and utterly.

2) Small fields: Too many 6 horse fields.

3) Information: 20 years ago, good players had an edge by keeping good data. Now, everyone has that critical data and the odds suffer accordingly.

4) Takeout: Even though takeout has always been a part of parimutual wagering, it is now being used to subsidize critical revenue losses elsewhere. The player cannot overcome such high deductions in the current state.

All in all, the game is suffering immensely. It needs a major overhaul in order to inspire potenital new players and revive the long time players. I don't see that happening and, amazingly, there is a very real chance that the game salts away.


Glad there's someone around here who knows wtf is going on in the world around them instead of being in a coma!

Now go out and bet a ton of short horses on top of all this ... Really think you have a chance? Whew.

[Stillriledup]

I think the game is impossible to beat for me, especially long term. When you think about it, 20 years ago, the only money in the pool was "local money" or "track money" and one would think that local money should be a bit smarter then out of staters who aren't following the track closely enough. In other words, there should be more dumb money in the pools now that simulcasting has made its way on the scene. Instead, the game is being ravaged by starved wolves tearing at a dead carcus.

Here is what I believe is the reason the game has become virtually impossible for me:
1) Drugs: Super trainers are bet into the blind and they are winning at off the chart rates. Certain trainer angles (long layoffs, 2 sprints to a route, etc) mean nothing since drugs are now the great equalizer. When Jamie Ness has a horse in a race, it is 10 points lower than it would be with a non cheater...and he wins at near 40%. Hard to buck that trend. In general, performance enhancing drugs have destroyed the game, completely and utterly.

2) Small fields: Too many 6 horse fields.

3) Information: 20 years ago, good players had an edge by keeping good data. Now, everyone except me has that critical data and the odds suffer accordingly.

4) Takeout: Even though takeout has always been a part of parimutual wagering, it is now being used to subsidize critical revenue losses elsewhere. The player cannot overcome such high deductions in the current state.

All in all, the game is suffering immensely. It needs a major overhaul in order to inspire potenital new players and revive the long time players. I don't see that happening and, amazingly, there is a very real chance that the game salts away.


Fixed your post for ya! :jump:

[Charlie D]

The game is not beatable according to Steven Crist (Sunday Feb 14 DRF article: Dream matchip a pricey promotion)





Does not say it's unbeatable. He says most will probably lose money, year after year and keep playing. Which subsequently means there is plenty of "dumb money" around for those bettors willing to put in the hard work.

[Charlie D]

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=614601#post614601


Boomer has it absolutely right when he says: " I have always preached to my students that since the very essence of the parimutuel system is still "player vs player" that you can beat your opponents (the other horseplayers) consistently if you outwork them and out prepare them and I firmly believe that to be true to this day." I supported myself at the track for 15+ years and did it without any special insight or skill. I didn't out think the crowd, I out worked them.

"Define winner." For me, a winner is someone who is making enough to live in his or her preferred manor. For instance, I didn't buy a bigger house or fancy car, but I did pay off the mortgage and buy my wife a new Honda Accord for cash, which pleased me. It's not a dollar amount that matters, it is how the player is living and if they are pleased with their life. If so, they are a winner no matter how much or how little they win.

Dick




Racing should get people like Dick, Bommer on tv because if people listen to you lot then game is done.

[Charlie D]

Oops

Boomer not Bommer :)

[Charlie D]

I think the game is impossible to beat, especially long term. When you think about it, 20 years ago, the only money in the pool was "local money" or "track money" and one would think that local money should be a bit smarter then out of staters who aren't following the track closely enough. In other words, there should be more dumb money in the pools now that simulcasting has made its way on the scene. Instead, the game is being ravaged by starved wolves tearing at a dead carcus.

Here is what I believe is the reason the game has become virtually impossible:
1) Drugs: Super trainers are bet into the blind and they are winning at off the chart rates. Certain trainer angles (long layoffs, 2 sprints to a route, etc) mean nothing since drugs are now the great equalizer. When Jamie Ness has a horse in a race, it is 10 points lower than it would be with a non cheater...and he wins at near 40%. Hard to buck that trend. In general, performance enhancing drugs have destroyed the game, completely and utterly.

2) Small fields: Too many 6 horse fields.

3) Information: 20 years ago, good players had an edge by keeping good data. Now, everyone has that critical data and the odds suffer accordingly.

4) Takeout: Even though takeout has always been a part of parimutual wagering, it is now being used to subsidize critical revenue losses elsewhere. The player cannot overcome such high deductions in the current state.

All in all, the game is suffering immensely. It needs a major overhaul in order to inspire potenital new players and revive the long time players. I don't see that happening and, amazingly, there is a very real chance that the game salts away.


Of course Drugs and drug violators are a problem, racing needs to take a zero tolerance stance on these people and get rid.

Small fields are the result of oversaturation of product, but as posted these can have thier advantages to the bettor.


Information - See Dick's post.

Of course Take Out is too high and needs bringing down to an optimal level. HANA is trying it's best to make those in charge aware of this.




None of the above however, mean the game is unbeatable.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Of course Drugs and drug violators are a problem, racing needs to take a zero tolerance stance on these people and get rid.

Small fields are the result of oversaturation of product, but as posted these can have thier advantages to the bettor.


Information - See Dick's post.

Of course Take Out is too high and needs bringing down to an optimal level. HANA is trying it's best to make those in charge aware of this.




None of the above however, mean the game is unbeatable.
At what takeout rate would you say that the game is completely unbeatable. I'm guessing with what I'm reading, that takeout level doesn't exist.

In other words, would you still say that the game is still beatable if takeout was 50%....would you think that someone with patience and good handicapping and money management skill could win long term?

I'm just curious.

Myself, I believe at a 20% takeout, only a person who bets less than 10,000 a year has a chance to win form money over the course of 10 years if they are extraordinarily lucky.

[Charlie D]

The game in it's currect form is not unbeatabe as shown in that thread by Ron Tiller from 2008 and some of the posts shown here.


Now you can either carry on whinging or get working.

You choose.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I think the game is impossible to beat, especially long term. When you think about it, 20 years ago, the only money in the pool was "local money" or "track money" and one would think that local money should be a bit smarter then out of staters who aren't following the track closely enough. In other words, there should be more dumb money in the pools now that simulcasting has made its way on the scene. Instead, the game is being ravaged by starved wolves tearing at a dead carcus.

Here is what I believe is the reason the game has become virtually impossible:
1) Drugs: Super trainers are bet into the blind and they are winning at off the chart rates. Certain trainer angles (long layoffs, 2 sprints to a route, etc) mean nothing since drugs are now the great equalizer. When Jamie Ness has a horse in a race, it is 10 points lower than it would be with a non cheater...and he wins at near 40%. Hard to buck that trend. In general, performance enhancing drugs have destroyed the game, completely and utterly.

2) Small fields: Too many 6 horse fields.

3) Information: 20 years ago, good players had an edge by keeping good data. Now, everyone has that critical data and the odds suffer accordingly.

4) Takeout: Even though takeout has always been a part of parimutual wagering, it is now being used to subsidize critical revenue losses elsewhere. The player cannot overcome such high deductions in the current state.

All in all, the game is suffering immensely. It needs a major overhaul in order to inspire potenital new players and revive the long time players. I don't see that happening and, amazingly, there is a very real chance that the game salts away.
Good post. Just a minor correction, 20 years ago and before that, there was lots of local dummy money that has now shifted to slots and lotteries. 25 years ago and before, one in three people at the track used a racing form or any type of past performances. Heavy betting on favorites, newspaper selections, and "tips."
And takeout has collectively gone up in the past 20 years as well with more money shifting to high takeout supers and tris that seem to be available in almost every race.

[formula_2002]

Boomer has it absolutely right when he says: " I have always preached to my students that since the very essence of the parimutuel system is still "player vs player" that you can beat your opponents (the other horseplayers) consistently if you outwork them and out prepare them and I firmly believe that to be true to this day." I supported myself at the track for 15+ years and did it without any special insight or skill. I didn't out think the crowd, I out worked them.

one element is left out of the above . it shoul be player vs (player +track).
:)

[Horseplayersbet.com]

The game in it's currect form is not unbeatabe as shown in that thread by Ron Tiller from 2008 and some of the posts shown here.


Now you can either carry on whinging or get working.

You choose.
We've lost even more handle and potential dumb money since even 2008.

I didn't say the game is unbeatable. I say it is unbeatable without substantial rebate.

All I can say is delude yourself all you want. Horse racing needs thousands of players like you.

[Charlie D]

So you don't believe the information provided by Ron Tiller, Dick, raybo and others who say they beat or have beaten the game.



That negative mind could be a reason for most bettors losing year in, year out as Mr Crist stated.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

So you don't believe the information provided by Ron Tiller, Dick, raybo and others who say they beat or have beaten the game.



That negative mind could be a reason for most bettors losing year in, year out as Mr Crist stated.
The takeout is why most people lose year in and year out :lol:

If takeout was 75% (and to me 20% might as well be 75% in light of today's horse racing environment), you could have the most positive attitude in the world that with a little patience and luck, that you could make a living betting horses....but how realistic would it be? Would your positive attitude give you a chance?

[lansdale]

We've lost even more handle and potential dumb money since even 2008.

I didn't say the game is unbeatable. I say it is unbeatable without substantial rebate.

All I can say is delude yourself all you want. Horse racing needs thousands of players like you.

Hi HPB,

You're the only person who answered a question I asked in another thread about the disappearance of discretionary money from the pools since the recession began. Since I assume you have a more objective perspective than most here on the amount and type of money being bet, I wonder if you could elaborate on this.

Cheers,

lansdale

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Hi HPB,

You're the only person who answered a question I asked in another thread about the disappearance of discretionary money from the pools since the recession began. Since I assume you have a more objective perspective than most here on the amount and type of money being bet, I wonder if you could elaborate on this.

Cheers,

lansdale
I can only guess on this, but I do think the recession has taken out a few players, at least they might not be betting as much as before. That is part of it. Players are dying or quitting and not being replaced pound for pound. And another thing we are seeing in the last year is that signal fees tracks charge have been on the rise, and this makes many big bettors cut back because their net takeout increases, so they are treading more carefully and betting less as well. If the trend continues, the offshore bookies will start getting back customers.

[Charlie D]

[QUOTE=Horseplayersbet.com]The takeout is why most people lose year in and year out :lol:
QUOTE]


I do not think that is true, like in US most people lose in UK year in year out and they have fixed odds betting and exchanges.


Losers tend to blame this, that and other, when they should actually be looking in the mirror.

[lansdale]

I can only guess on this, but I do think the recession has taken out a few players, at least they might not be betting as much as before. That is part of it. Players are dying or quitting and not being replaced pound for pound. And another thing we are seeing in the last year is that signal fees tracks charge have been on the rise, and this makes many big bettors cut back because their net takeout increases, so they are treading more carefully and betting less as well. If the trend continues, the offshore bookies will start getting back customers.

HPB,

Since you made some comments about the likely ROIs of many players in an earlier post, I'm assuming that you see the records of many bettors, and wondered if you could say what percentage are at or above the .95 level that I think you mentioned, and that most would accept, as the level of winning play. My guess it would be not more than 1 in 200.

Cheers,

lansdale

[Horseplayersbet.com]

HPB,

Since you made some comments about the likely ROIs of many players in an earlier post, I'm assuming that you see the records of many bettors, and wondered if you could say what percentage are at or above the .95 level that I think you mentioned, and that most would accept, as the level of winning play. My guess it would be not more than 1 in 200.

Cheers,

lansdale
I honestly haven't done any studies outside of my own records and from people I trust.
I think your guess is probably very accurate.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

[QUOTE=Horseplayersbet.com]The takeout is why most people lose year in and year out :lol:
QUOTE]


I do not think that is true, like in US most people lose in UK year in year out and they have fixed odds betting and exchanges.


Losers tend to blame this, that and other, when they should actually be looking in the mirror.
You understand that in order for the game to exist, people have to lose money. There are actual winners in the UK who can make a living at it because exchange betting offers a takeout of under 4%.

Lets say everyone was optimistic like you............would it change the fact that 2 billion is lost by horseplayers in North America each year due to takeout?

[Rutgers]

At what takeout rate would you say that the game is completely unbeatable....


There is no cut and dry answer to that. Whether a takeout rate and hence the game is beatable depends on wager type, field size and pool size in addition to takeout. In a 10 horse field and trifecta pool size of $150K, a trifecta takeout rate of 26% is completely beatable. With a pool size of $25K, the rate becomes a lot less beatable.. A 6 horse field and a trifecta takeout of 26% is definitely unbeatable regardless of pool size. A 10% takeout rate on any wager in a 6 horse field is probably unbeatable.



And I've stated over and over again, that most bettors don't care about takeout, just like almost every slot player doesn't care about slot payback, however when people go home with less money than they used to or even if they just don't last if they are new to the game, they are likely not to come back as fast....this isn't an overnight thing, but something that happens over time. Their frequency cuts down over the months, some quit, some stop watching when they normally would, and others find other ways to gamble, and more likely they will last longer in just about any other form of gambling other than lotteries.

So if given a choice of 6 horse fields with 10% takeout across the board vs. 10 horse fields with today’s takeout rates, what situation do you think would be best for horse racing and the horseplayer?

[Charlie D]

I understand that for me, you, raybo Ron Tillers customers to win/ make a profit we have to make better decisions than our opponents in the market place.


This can be done through hard graft depite the obstacles put in front of us.

Rigt, Ii've wasted enough time and energy on this topic. so i'll now take a lurking position


Good Skill to all and if your not winning, ask yourself why??

[Tom]

Good idea Charlie....you won't gain anything from arguing with all these losers! :lol:

[jonnielu]

[QUOTE=Horseplayersbet.com]The takeout is why most people lose year in and year out :lol:
QUOTE]


I do not think that is true, like in US most people lose in UK year in year out and they have fixed odds betting and exchanges.


Losers tend to blame this, that and other, when they should actually be looking in the mirror.

How could something so simple make so much sense? The individual is in complete control of making a bet... or not making a bet.

For the loser of any particular wager, the takeout (from his/her pocket) is 100%.

For the winner of any particular wager, the takeout (from his/her pocket) is 0%.

So it would seem that, if an individual simply wins more wagers then they lose, a myriad of problems are solved, in particular, the beating the game/takeout problems.

jdl

[Horseplayersbet.com]

[QUOTE=Charlie D]

How could something so simple make so much sense? The individual is in complete control of making a bet... or not making a bet.

For the loser of any particular wager, the takeout (from his/her pocket) is 100%.

For the winner of any particular wager, the takeout (from his/her pocket) is 0%.

So it would seem that, if an individual simply wins more wagers then they lose, a myriad of problems are solved, in particular, the beating the game/takeout problems.

jdl
:lol:
So if takeout was 99%, and you bet on a horse that paid $2.10, the fact you won, makes the game beatable?

[castaway01]

We've lost even more handle and potential dumb money since even 2008.

I didn't say the game is unbeatable. I say it is unbeatable without substantial rebate.

All I can say is delude yourself all you want. Horse racing needs thousands of players like you.

Japan's takeout is 25% for an average wager yet they have twice our handle...your explanation?

I know you're busy trolling but get back when you can.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Japan's takeout is 25% for an average wager yet they have twice our handle...your explanation?

I know you're busy trolling but get back when you can.
Trolling?
Anyway, less than 3% of what is bet in Japan goes to purses. I would imagine that most of it goes to the state. Lots of incentive to promote it to the public at large when that happens.
There is also limited competition in Japan. Since competition like soccer betting on lottery sprung up, handle has been dwindling from year to year. No casinos there either.

[jonnielu]

[QUOTE=jonnielu]
:lol:
So if takeout was 99%, and you bet on a horse that paid $2.10, the fact you won, makes the game beatable?

No.

jdl

[jonnielu]

Trolling?
Anyway, less than 3% of what is bet in Japan goes to purses. I would imagine that most of it goes to the state. Lots of incentive to promote it to the public at large when that happens.
There is also limited competition in Japan. Since competition like soccer betting on lottery sprung up, handle has been dwindling from year to year. No casinos there either.

Sounds like people couldn't care less about takeout in Japan too.

jdl

[Saratoga_Mike]

How can any logical person say "takeout rates don't matter at all?" That's absurd. Think about poker. If a casino offered a game where they took out 75% from each pot, wouldn't that make it a worse game than say a 3% takeout game? Even if you're the best player in the place (no doubt trained by Johnnie-Lou), you'd still want to play in the 3% game, not the 75% game.

Where did the "trolling" comment come from? HPB is one of the more thoughtful posters on this forum. I can't say I'm totally won over by his arguments, but he makes them in a cogent and civil manner.

[markgoldie]

Mark,

I agree with your post almost entirely.

In the first thread in which you posted, on this forum, I posted that, of all the members who claim to be winning players I would put my money on you as one who truly is successful. The reasoning for my belief, is because we have a lot in common in the way we approach the game, and I know I'm successful, so, I have no doubts that you are too. I'm a little surprised that your ROI is as low as you say it is. You wouldn't be "sandbagging" me would you?:lol:

Obviously, you play many, many more races than I do as I could never qualify for rebates as high as you're getting. I've never received a rebate at all.

I understand your preference for "key" horses. True, the cost is lower than playing a pyramiding ticket structure, singling (most of the time) 1 horse on the win line. For me, it's a case of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". I've been playing my modified "box/wheel" structure for years now and it still works just as well as when I first started using it. So, for now, I'm stickin' with it.

If you reread my post you'll notice that I said "at least 1/2 the field plus 1". That is the minimum coverage I require. Also, "1/2 the field" refers to the remaining horses, after ""X"ing them off". Meaning, in a 10 horse race, if I can "X" off 3 horses, then that leaves 7 horses as contenders for making it on my ticket. So, 1/2 the field would equal 3.5 and adding the extra horse makes it 4.5, rounding up would make it 5. So, I'm going to have at least 5 horses on my ticket. If there are ties or other extenuating circumstances there will be another horse or 2 or 3 on the ticket.

My smallest "basic" ticket is: 1 w 23 w 234 w 2345, while the most efficient ticket, regarding overall ROI is: 1 w 23 w 2345 w 2345.

While it is unusual, I will occasionally play 2 horses on top, if the race is contentious enough and the pool is large enough. I make a determination, prior to placing the wager, as to the likelihood of few tickets hitting, in which case I might put extra horses on the ticket. After all, if I think I can "get it all" I feel the increased investment is well worth it. A lot of this "determination" stuff depends on how well I know the track patrons' "betting personalities" and how well I know how much money will be in the pool (which varies depending on the race type, distance, surface, and which race on the card it is. Typically, the deeper in the card you are, the more money is in the pool, for obvious reasons.

You said that "if the favorite wins, you don't want the ticket". Generally, I agree, but I don't care whether my "winner" is the favorite or not, until I have constructed the ticket and looked at the odds spread on the lowest 4 priced horses on the ticket. Having developed the ability to estimate what these 4 lowest priced horses will pay (hedging in my favor a little), allows me to make a "bet-no bet" decision. Again, I require $300 for a $1 super payoff, on the 4 lowest priced horses on my ticket or I don't bet (I sometimes go days at a time without placing a wager). This, for me, is a guarantee of continued profitability, in light of my hit rate and average ticket costs.

I've said it before, but, "risk vs potential return" is the basis for my wagering philosophy. If I can't get 300/1 I ain't bettin'!!
Hey Ray;

I guess we're a little more different than I thought (other than specializing mostly in supers). For example, I would never consider playing a super that I thought would pay only $300 for a $1 ticket. I'm really looking for the $3000 and up payouts. And I am looking for fields in which I think the degree of contention warrants using 8 or 9 horses albeit not all in the top position. A "perfect" play set up for me would be 5 x 6 x 7 x 8 (in a 10 or 11-horse field) and I would typically play for $1250 for a $2 ticket. However, there are many variations to this pyramid based on my analysis of the probability of horses landing in a particular position, meaning that the proper coverage is far more important to me than the exact ticket construction. If I am using a key horse, it will appear in all positions on the ticket and my only restriction is price. I want a minimum of 5-1 and prefer even higher. This particular type of play necessitates more of a "show" player's mentality. That is, you are looking for an animal with a high degree of consistency, although not necessarily the best chance of winning. Following the logic of a "normal" pyramid of 12345/123456/1234567/12345678, a ticket construction of this type would be (assuming that the key is the #1 horse): 1/23456/234567/2345678; 2345/1/234567/2345678; 2345/23456/1/2345678; 2345/23456/234567/1. This ticket costs $738 for the $2 punch and offers a considerable 41% savings over the master pyramid. (Notice that underneath horses are NOT promoted in position as the key horse slides down in position. That's because promoting them would defy the logic of the "master" pyramid on which this is based. For example, if the #7 horse is a third and fourth position selection only in the master pyramid, he will not be promoted to a higher position simply because the key horse is sliding down in position. This not only saves money, but is fully consistent with the original assessment of possibility.

Using a second key horse is a similar set of punches. This brings the total investment to $1476, which although is an 18% acceleration over the master play, it has the distinct possibility of yielding double the payout. This, as I say, is aided by selecting horses with opposing running styles.

At any rate, I have only been doing this for a short period of time, whereas I have been playing pyramids for years and years. So far, I am happy with the results of this approach, although it is very race-specific. That is, it should only be used with two reliable performers with opposing running styles, both at decent odds and in contentious fields. With all these restrictions, you can imagine that it cannot be used very frequently, but I now believe it is the potentially the best situation that I am able to find. The single key is obviously far riskier since any horse may fail to perform in any race. So far, I think the advantage of the single key is the whopping 41% savings in investment. Naturally, the investment numbers I am quoting can be cut way down by playing dime supers.

As far as the main theme of this thread, I am enough of a purist to say outright that my situation is not typical and that I take no great pride in making money off of rebates that the average player cannot get. Therefore, nothing said here either confirms or denies the argument. However, I will say that if I were able to be more selective, I believe I might show a modest positive ROI on a non-rebate basis. However, it simply doesn't pay me to try.

[DeanT]

How can any logical person say "takeout rates don't matter at all?" That's absurd. Think about poker. If a casino offered a game where they took out 75% from each pot, wouldn't that make it a worse game than say a 3% takeout game? Even if you're the best player in the place (no doubt trained by Johnnie-Lou), you'd still want to play in the 3% game, not the 75% game.

Where did the "trolling" comment come from? HPB is one of the more thoughtful posters on this forum. I can't say I'm totally won over by his arguments, but he makes them in a cogent and civil manner.

Hey Mike,

I have both betfair up and the tote for the third at TAM.

Tote odds (betfair odds at low takeout):

1: 3-1 (7-2)
2: 60-1 (60-1)
3: 7-5 (5-2)
4: 25-1 (70-1)
5: 9-1 (21-1)
6: 3-1 (3-1)
7: 30-1 (44-1)
8: 5-1 (6-1)

If you make an odds line and that governs your play, the lower take line will certainly give you more options, and increase the bet.

PS: I am still trying to get you over to the low takeout dark side LOL

[Saratoga_Mike]

Hey Mike,

I have both betfair up and the tote for the third at TAM.

Tote odds (betfair odds at low takeout):

1: 3-1 (7-2)
2: 60-1 (60-1)
3: 7-5 (5-2)
4: 25-1 (70-1)
5: 9-1 (21-1)
6: 3-1 (3-1)
7: 30-1 (44-1)
8: 5-1 (6-1)

If you make an odds line and that governs your play, the lower take line will certainly give you more options, and increase the bet.

PS: I am still trying to get you over to the low takeout dark side LOL

You've pulled me more to your side over time, but I'm not totally there!

Does Tampa get a cut from Betfair? I don't know how that works. Thanks.

[DeanT]

Hey Mike,

I don't know. I was just illustrating that high win pool takeout gives a player fewer options than a low takeout one. As well, if you bet size with a version of Kelly, your stake size goes down as well in the higher take pool.

I watched a harness race the other day and there were three 2-1 shots and another horse at 5-1. How racing management could believe we will bet into a race like that with any volume is flooring. As one smart horseplayer said once "the intelligence of the modern horseplayer is overlooked by those in power"

[Dave Schwartz]

From what I understand, BetFair also wants 20% of your profit on a weekly basis.

Thus, if you lost $100 per week over the course of 3 weeks, and then won $200 in week 4, they want $60 from you.

Now, they subtract whatever commissions you have paid during the week, but you still owe the rest.

That is a tough nut to crack unless you win almost every week.

(Certainly not as tough as the U.S.)

[DeanT]

That's not true Dave. The commission (3-5%) is taken off after a win. That is split up and some given to racing thru the Gross profit funding formula at use in the UK.

What you might be referring to is the charge for traders/bots. There are a ton of bots and software at use on betfair, and those make thousands of trades a minute, which does hurt the average horseplayer looking to simply play the horses, so it is a way to discourage that.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

There is a bot charge but there is also a premium charge that affects 1 out of 200 players or so:
http://forum.betfair.com/aboutUs/Betfair.Charges/
See 6.
I need a translator to figure it out though.

[DeanT]

That's the same thing. If you are a pool skimmer you pay extra cuz pool skimmers screw up the markets.

[acorn54]

Japan's takeout is 25% for an average wager yet they have twice our handle...your explanation?

I know you're busy trolling but get back when you can.


yes japan has much more money in the horse betting pools, but there is a big difference in the culture. people in hong kong use the horse betting pools like americans use the scratch offs and pik three/pik four lottery tickets. if you got the americans to bet the horses rather than the scratch offs and the numbers lottery of pik three and pik four you would see a large handle like you do in hong kong.

[Stillriledup]

Does not say it's unbeatable. He says most will probably lose money, year after year and keep playing. Which subsequently means there is plenty of "dumb money" around for those bettors willing to put in the hard work.

He implies its unbeatable because he never mentions its beatable.

[SpeedyG]

At what takeout rate would you say that the game is completely unbeatable. I'm guessing with what I'm reading, that takeout level doesn't exist.

In other words, would you still say that the game is still beatable if takeout was 50%....would you think that someone with patience and good handicapping and money management skill could win long term?

I'm just curious.

Myself, I believe at a 20% takeout, only a person who bets less than 10,000 a year has a chance to win form money over the course of 10 years if they are extraordinarily lucky.


LoLoLoLol!!! Is the game still beatable if the takeout is 50%? Horseplayersbet kills me!

[riskman]

LoLoLoLol!!! Is the game still beatable if the takeout is 50%? Horseplayersbet kills me!

How will you be able to post in the afterworld ? Perhaps the takeout will be greatly reduced in your post-apocalyptic America. You will have a chance to rebuild yourself in a brand new horse players society. Along the way, you can attempt to solve the mystery of what caused the downfall of Thoroughbred racing and report back to us survivors here.

[lamboguy]

if any of you guys are good enough out there i can tell you how you can still win in today's world betting on horseracing. you must first get your blackboxes and pacefigures together and hop on a plane and head to las vegas. have all your work ready everyday and head over to a few racebooks that still take house quinella's. bet house q's until the casino gets sick of paying you and then move to another one until you get them too. you don't have to worry about takeout because there isn't any on that bet. the only problem that you are going to have is that the casino's only take limited action on that bet if they still take it at all. what i used to do years ago was a find a very high action sucker that played craps or blackjack and have them walk to the window and make the bets for me. when they gave him a problem the guy used to say you take whatever i want to bet on a blackjack hand and you don't even want to take a small bet on a stupid horse race. i am going across the street now to another hotel that is going to treat me better.

if you guys have any doubt about house q's i suggest you ask dave swartz about them. i think he lives in the desert and knows all about them

[CincyHorseplayer]

Reading between the lines of Raybo's post,in my opinion says it all.Make high ROI plays or don't bet at all.Be math friendly to yourself.He has admitted an 8% strike rate,being uber-patient,with a 47% ROI.

I think either James Quinn or Mark Cramer invented the term "passing attack".It is an attack.Plus it takes the burden off the shoulders.You don't have to be perfect to beat the game.Just quit betting everything under the sun.

I'm not a fulltime player but I refuse to bet on horses to win at less than 2-1,so my average mutuel is 7/2 at about a 30% clip rate since 2001.A 43% ROI.And the average exacta play,my Raybo-esque personal betting forte,yields a 6-1 return.This can be wildly streaky but a 25% hit rate yields over an 80% ROI.20% hit rate a 45% ROI.

Or I don't bet.To me and apparently everybody else that attempts to win,it's about isolating high probability situations or not betting at all.

[jonnielu]

How can any logical person say "takeout rates don't matter at all?" That's absurd. Think about poker. If a casino offered a game where they took out 75% from each pot, wouldn't that make it a worse game than say a 3% takeout game? Even if you're the best player in the place (no doubt trained by Johnnie-Lou), you'd still want to play in the 3% game, not the 75% game.

Where did the "trolling" comment come from? HPB is one of the more thoughtful posters on this forum. I can't say I'm totally won over by his arguments, but he makes them in a cogent and civil manner.

How can any person with even a feel for reality think that people care about takeout? Which is what I said, I did not say that takeout doesn't matter, although as a result of people not caring about it, it doesn't matter.

If a lot of people started caring about it, then it would matter. The very small group of people that care about takeout can quit betting at any time they choose.

The takeout is 100% for the losers of any particular wager.

Look at it this way, if you live in this country, and have a job, you most likely have the government "taking out" 35% of every dollar you work for, and they give you nothing for it.

People don't care about takeout, perhaps if takeout got high enough, people might, but until it gets that high, one can only speculate while perhaps making decisions for themselves.

jdl

[jonnielu]

yes japan has much more money in the horse betting pools, but there is a big difference in the culture. people in hong kong use the horse betting pools like americans use the scratch offs and pik three/pik four lottery tickets. if you got the americans to bet the horses rather than the scratch offs and the numbers lottery of pik three and pik four you would see a large handle like you do in hong kong.

Now there is a tough nut to crack. People can win $5000 on a $1 dollar scratch off. They don't need to buy a racing form, sign-up for anything, think, or work at it. Sure, if they win, the takeout might be as high as 50%, but they don't care.

jdl

[SpeedyG]

if any of you guys are good enough out there i can tell you how you can still win in today's world betting on horseracing. you must first get your blackboxes and pacefigures together and hop on a plane and head to las vegas. have all your work ready everyday and head over to a few racebooks that still take house quinella's. bet house q's until the casino gets sick of paying you and then move to another one until you get them too. you don't have to worry about takeout because there isn't any on that bet. the only problem that you are going to have is that the casino's only take limited action on that bet if they still take it at all. what i used to do years ago was a find a very high action sucker that played craps or blackjack and have them walk to the window and make the bets for me. when they gave him a problem the guy used to say you take whatever i want to bet on a blackjack hand and you don't even want to take a small bet on a stupid horse race. i am going across the street now to another hotel that is going to treat me better.

if you guys have any doubt about house q's i suggest you ask dave swartz about them. i think he lives in the desert and knows all about them

if any of you guys are good enough out there i can tell you how you can still win in today's world betting on horseracing. you must first get your blackboxes and pacefigures together and hop on a plane and head to las vegas. have all your work ready everyday and head over to a few racebooks that still take house quinella's. bet house q's until the casino gets sick of paying you and then move to another one until you get them too. you don't have to worry about takeout because there isn't any on that bet. the only problem that you are going to have is that the casino's only take limited action on that bet if they still take it at all. what i used to do years ago was a find a very high action sucker that played craps or blackjack and have them walk to the window and make the bets for me. when they gave him a problem the guy used to say you take whatever i want to bet on a blackjack hand and you don't even want to take a small bet on a stupid horse race. i am going across the street now to another hotel that is going to treat me better.

if you guys have any doubt about house q's i suggest you ask dave swartz about them. i think he lives in the desert and knows all about them

You're about 10-15 years too late on this. You'll never get anything down, except a few peanuts.

[SpeedyG]

Reading between the lines of Raybo's post,in my opinion says it all.Make high ROI plays or don't bet at all.Be math friendly to yourself.He has admitted an 8% strike rate,being uber-patient,with a 47% ROI.

I think either James Quinn or Mark Cramer invented the term "passing attack".It is an attack.Plus it takes the burden off the shoulders.You don't have to be perfect to beat the game.Just quit betting everything under the sun.

I'm not a fulltime player but I refuse to bet on horses to win at less than 2-1,so my average mutuel is 7/2 at about a 30% clip rate since 2001.A 43% ROI.And the average exacta play,my Raybo-esque personal betting forte,yields a 6-1 return.This can be wildly streaky but a 25% hit rate yields over an 80% ROI.20% hit rate a 45% ROI.

Or I don't bet.To me and apparently everybody else that attempts to win,it's about isolating high probability situations or not betting at all.


A much much better approach than Charlie D's, but if I had to guess, you're betting small (which there is nothing wrong with that, just saying). It's a shame you can't bet any money in this game anymore!

[Charlie D]

A much much better approach than Charlie D's

Charlie D's approach is to try and find VALUE and invest his hard earned on what he thinks are the GOOD INVESTMENTS in the market place.




If there is a better approach than this Speedy please give Charlie D some education.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Charlie D's approach is to try and find VALUE and invest his hard earned on what he thinks are the GOOD INVESTMENTS in the market place.




If there is a better approach than this Speedy please give Charlie D some education.

Yeah I think Charlie D's approach is that he doesn't bet with monopoly money and this isn't a completely philosophical conversation in regards to betting money on a personal pi$sing contest.We value our money.And bet accordingly.I have no idea how this poster reached the conclusion that our ideas are separate.

[Saratoga_Mike]

How can any person with even a feel for reality think that people care about takeout? Which is what I said, I did not say that takeout doesn't matter, although as a result of people not caring about it, it doesn't matter.
If a lot of people started caring about it, then it would matter. The very small group of people that care about takeout can quit betting at any time they choose.

The takeout is 100% for the losers of any particular wager.

Look at it this way, if you live in this country, and have a job, you most likely have the government "taking out" 35% of every dollar you work for, and they give you nothing for it.

People don't care about takeout, perhaps if takeout got high enough, people might, but until it gets that high, one can only speculate while perhaps making decisions for themselves.

jdl

You "didn't say takeout doesn't matter," then went on two clauses later to say "takeout doesn't matter." Does it matter as much as HPB claims? I'm not sure. Is it irrelevant as you claim? No.

You still didn't answer my poker game question - would you prefer the house taking 75% or 3%?

If only everyone would just focus on the morning line, which most of the time is derived by morning line oddsmakers using BEYERS, the racing world would prosper. :rolleyes:

Anyway, are you claiming you win consistently each yr? If you don't look at the PPs and rely solely on the ML, I don't believe it. I don't even think Steve Crist, who arguably has one of the sharpest minds in racing, wins every year.

[lamboguy]

You're about 10-15 years too late on this. You'll never get anything down, except a few peanuts.i think 15 years is right on this one! they still take $10 Q's from new faces i am told until you win, and then they tell you that you have reaced the book's extension.. i haven't been in the dessert this century yet and don't plan to be there until next century.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

You "didn't say takeout doesn't matter," then went on two clauses later to say "takeout doesn't matter." Does it matter as much as HPB claims? I'm not sure. Is it irrelevant as you claim? No.

You still didn't answer my poker game question - would you prefer the house taking 75% or 3%?

If only everyone would just focus on the morning line, which most of the time is derived by morning line oddsmakers using BEYERS, the racing world would prosper. :rolleyes:

Anyway, are you claiming you win consistently each yr? If you don't look at the PPs and rely solely on the ML, I don't believe it. I don't even think Steve Crist, who arguably has one of the sharpest minds in racing, wins every year.
Honestly, I give up on him. He is typing Martian as far as I'm concerned.
The concept behind track takeout being too high doesn't need the public to know about it for it to be bad.
A high takeout coupled with informed bettors causes almost the odds on every horse to be an underlay. It is almost, but not all the time like taking odds of less than even money on a coin toss. Sure, you might win a few tosses and go home a winner one day, but if you keep playing you have no chance.

Anyway, check this out if you haven't already:
http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2010/02/big-squeeze.html

[Charlie D]

A high takeout coupled with informed bettors causes almost the odds on every horse to be an underlay.





My methodology says above, so i'm right and you lot with an opposite view are talking BS.


Have your ever thought your methodology could wrong or a be poor one at best??? Probably not, because if you had you would not be stating the above.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

My methodology says above, so i'm right and you lot are talking BS.


Have your ever thought your methodology could wrong or a poor one??? Probably not because if you had you would not be stating the above.
I don't care what the methodology is. My statement is correct.

[Saratoga_Mike]

My methodology says above, so i'm right and you lot with an opposite view are talking BS.


Have your ever thought your methodology could wrong or a be poor one at best??? Probably not, because if you had you would not be stating the above.

Could you translate this into English? Thanks.

[Charlie D]

I don't care what the methodology is. My statement is correct.


There is on this thread evidence to suggest your statement is incorrect.

[Charlie D]

Could you translate this into English? Thanks.


Sorry Mike


Insert Horseplayers where My and I'm is and it should become clear.

If not let me know.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

There is on this thread evidence to suggest your statement is incorrect.
I would like to see a sample of 500 plays based on spelled out restrictions (a win bet equals one play, all superfecta plays made on the same races equals one play, etc.) with a positive ROI attached.

[Saratoga_Mike]

CharlieD,

What is your exact position on takeout? I'm more in HPB's camp, but not completely.

[Charlie D]

Mike

I've have already posted my opinion on TO earlier.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Ok, I'm sure it's an interesting position. Have a good day.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Winning at the Races had quite a few winning angles. Though the sample size wasn't as great as I would like most of the time.
Here is an interesting one. Simple.
Standard Routes 1 mile to 1 1/8 on mile tracks (has to be two turns)
There was no artificial dirt back then.
Here is his results:
pos1 2233 races 359 winners a return of $2.09 on every $2.00 bet.

OK, someone with a data base, feel free to check and see what dirt tracks today produce under the same parameters.

[Charlie D]

I would like to see a sample of 500 plays based on spelled out restrictions (a win bet equals one play, all superfecta plays made on the same races equals one play, etc.) with a positive ROI attached.


I would like to see some of Betfairs top earnerss betting records too as i would probably then be able work out what they are doing.


Just not going to happen is it??, However you could get working on the methodology that is telling you


A high takeout coupled with informed bettors causes almost the odds on every horse to be an underlay.

[Charlie D]

If you go read CJ's Beyer sham thread you will see differening opinions of QR's performance. Same with the threads about RA and Zenyatta

What does this do?? create a market that has VALUE and GOOD INVESTMENTS in it depending on your "Minds Eye"





It's is that simple.


If your not beating the game then obviously you need to work on YOUR methodology because beating the game is NOT unobtainable as you can see from the evidence contained in this thread

It is that simple.


Good skill to all

[DeanT]

Charlie,

Do you honestly believe that over the last 15 years takeout hikes and the introduction of mass information on horses has not hurt profitability for bettors?

I agree with most that value can be found in exotics, but the win pool is amazingly efficient nowadays, imo.

[jonnielu]

You "didn't say takeout doesn't matter," then went on two clauses later to say "takeout doesn't matter." Does it matter as much as HPB claims? I'm not sure. Is it irrelevant as you claim? No.

You still didn't answer my poker game question - would you prefer the house taking 75% or 3%?

If only everyone would just focus on the morning line, which most of the time is derived by morning line oddsmakers using BEYERS, the racing world would prosper. :rolleyes:

Anyway, are you claiming you win consistently each yr? If you don't look at the PPs and rely solely on the ML, I don't believe it. I don't even think Steve Crist, who arguably has one of the sharpest minds in racing, wins every year.

I originally said that the majority couldn't care less about takeout, then I said that due to that fact... takeout doesn't matter. I concluded with... if takeout gets high enough, maybe the majority might care about takeout, and then do something about it.

My prediction is... that will never happen. People have been citing the takeout as their reason for losing for 35 years that I know of, and is is pretty much still the same people waving that banner. They aren't the ones that have left the game. I could argue that the proposition has kept people from taking up the game, but not caused one to leave.

On the poker game issue, same as horse racing, the takeout pays for the show and the amenities. If I were a good player, and the house wanted 75%, but they would provide me with a fluffer while I played, I may find that worth the cost.

As far as the ML goes, I personally think that it is a wonderful thing that today's players have no idea as to its consistency. What I said there, is that BSR's are no more predictive then the ML. People can focus on whatever they like, there are many ways that the game can be played. If people knew that, they might play this game.

I rely on the consistency of the game to win consistently. Of the various components involved in that, PP's at face value are the least reliable. The ML, coupled with the ability of the horse, coupled with the condition of the horse today compose the most reliable criteria. The PP's are the smallest part of that because within that 100+ year old format (including all speed figures), ability is easily hidden.

That, along with your belief in track variant/bias, the stupidest of trainers can easily obscure any horses ability.

It may be quite true that Mr. Crist is in possession of one of the greatest minds in all of horse racing. So let's go ahead and just accept that as gospel truth, hard fact.

It is on the record, that Mr. Crist had to include 8 horses in a Pk-6 wager in order to win it. Not only is he one of the "greatest minds", but he also supposedly has all of the other "greatest minds" working for him. I would think that he could just get somebody on the cell to help him cut a race down to 4 or 5 horses anyway. After all, they are all "the greatest minds", he should be blogging about pocketing a Pk6 every other day.

No, I don't believe the same things as you do, one of the greatest and longest standing consistencies in the game is that the majority will be wrong 70% of the time. Nothing special about me for noticing that it is true either, it sits in front of everyones face 24/7. What the individual may recognize can vary widely.

jdl

[Charlie D]

Charlie,

Do you honestly believe that over the last 15 years takeout hikes and the introduction of mass information on horses has not hurt profitability for bettors?

I agree with most that value can be found in exotics, but the win pool is amazingly efficient nowadays, imo.


Dean

Anything that reduces profit HURTS..


There is in my humble opinion still VALUE and GOOD INVESTMENTS to be found in win pool as i've tried to show here. If your not" seeing " those like i posted then in my humble opinion your methodology needs work.

[Charlie D]

I originally said that the majority couldn't care less about takeout, then I said that due to that fact... takeout doesn't matter. I concluded with... if takeout gets high enough, maybe the majority might care about takeout, and then do something about it.

My prediction is... that will never happen. People have been citing the takeout as their reason for losing for 35 years that I know of, and is is pretty much still the same people waving that banner. They aren't the ones that have left the game. I could argue that the proposition has kept people from taking up the game, but not caused one to leave.

On the poker game issue, same as horse racing, the takeout pays for the show and the amenities. If I were a good player, and the house wanted 75%, but they would provide me with a fluffer while I played, I may find that worth the cost.

As far as the ML goes, I personally think that it is a wonderful thing that today's players have no idea as to its consistency. What I said there, is that BSR's are no more predictive then the ML. People can focus on whatever they like, there are many ways that the game can be played. If people knew that, they might play this game.

I rely on the consistency of the game to win consistently. Of the various components involved in that, PP's at face value are the least reliable. The ML, coupled with the ability of the horse, coupled with the condition of the horse today compose the most reliable criteria. The PP's are the smallest part of that because within that 100+ year old format (including all speed figures), ability is easily hidden.

That, along with your belief in track variant/bias, the stupidest of trainers can easily obscure any horses ability.

It may be quite true that Mr. Crist is in possession of one of the greatest minds in all of horse racing. So let's go ahead and just accept that as gospel truth, hard fact.

It is on the record, that Mr. Crist had to include 8 horses in a Pk-6 wager in order to win it. Not only is he one of the "greatest minds", but he also supposedly has all of the other "greatest minds" working for him. I would think that he could just get somebody on the cell to help him cut a race down to 4 or 5 horses anyway. After all, they are all "the greatest minds", he should be blogging about pocketing a Pk6 every other day.

No, I don't believe the same things as you do, one of the greatest and longest standing consistencies in the game is that the majority will be wrong 70% of the time. Nothing special about me for noticing that it is true either, it sits in front of everyones face 24/7. What the individual may recognize can vary widely.

jdl


We may give Jonnielou an hard time now and then , but he does post some good stuff now and then.

[Charlie D]

40-1 bombs at Philly 2-1, pokes at Aqu, 5-2 at Tampa, 4-1 at SA etc


All make the WIN POOL still playable guys.

[Charlie D]

http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6621


Chart tells you between 31 and 44% of chalk wins.


Now some of that Chalk will be VALUE and a GOOD INVESTMENT, some of it not, however, more important is that around 60-70% of chalk don't win, more VALUE, more GOOD INVESTMENTS to be found in WIN POOL


Our job as cappers is to find those VALUE bets and GOOD INVESTMENTS that exist at the Top, Middle and bottom of the market.


If you not "seeing" them then your methodology needs work, if your not proftiable then your methodology needs work - It's just that simple.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

40-1 bombs at Philly 2-1, pokes at Aqu, 5-2 at Tampa, 4-1 at SA etc


All make the WIN POOL still playable guys.
That is same logic that makes lotteries playable too.

[DeanT]

It's pretty tight tho Charlie. Tougher to find diamonds in the rough, even at places like Betfair.

You can see the implied line bisects the actual line on many occasions but more or less tracks it. The conclusion being that the market is pretty efficient at assessing accurate implied probabilities simply through the pricing mechanism available in the market place. If you pay 2.00 in digital odds (You accept odds with a 50% implied probability) the selection will, over time, come in around 50% of the time. The total average variance against all odds versus implied probability was small. A variation of 0.271%. This means that on average the difference between the odds you are seeing on the screen and the actually chance of the event happening is tiny.

http://www.probabilitytheory.info/images/horses_impliedvsactual_odds.jpg

[Charlie D]

The BF chart tells you the market is efficient, however a glance at resullts and that chart from AD tells you inefficiency exists everyday does it not???

[DeanT]

Yes, I realize that.

The point is, from 1972-84 a BSF line would be above implied, cj's figs would be above implied and so on. With a tracking line like it is today, the winners are crowded out more and more.

Finding out where the actual is above implied is the key to beating the races. It is very difficult to do. As well, a lot of people think they have an edge because they are looking at only a window where they are profitable, when they do not, because over time the lines converge.

Mark Cramer's choas race angle would not have worked 20 years ago, but with quasi perfect information it works today. That is the angle where we have a chaos race (according to him). Most players see that as a "beat the favorite" angle because in such a race we have to have a weak chalk. It is anything of the sort. The chalk wins those type races at a higher ROI, because the board handicaps the chaos race better than the crowd does. The betting market might be the most sophisticated market alive in 2010.