Would you like to increase you win pecentage

[BETKING]

I have increased my win percentage by a full 10%. It ran around 35% for the last 12 months and now I have it going at 45%. How did I do this? I read "Speed to Spare" by Joe Cardello. The trick is to be able to tell which of your contenders is ready to bounce. I read Joe's book about 5 times until I got it down cold. If you are interested, concentrate on the capter on "Beyer Bouncers". This is where the real money is. By the way, I use Bris PP and they work just fine.
Good luck,

BETKING

[sq764]

Has your ROI increased 10% along with your win %?

[BETKING]

Yes it has considerably. Alot of the time you can discard the favorite that you may have as your number 1 horse. That lets you concentrate on the higher price contenders. I am sure you can see that this alone will up your ROI. This book is the best thing thing to come along in the last 5 years. Give it a try, you will like the results.

[thoroughbred]

Bet King

Very Interesting.
I'd like to know how you define "Win Percentage."
Do you bet more than one horse in a race? Do you bet every race?
The reason I am interested, is that it has been shown, by many analysits, that it is almost impossible to sustain a win percentage of 40%, if you only bet one horse in a race and bet every race.

[Shacopate]

I agree that the book is strong for what it is. Just wondering, have you had any success with the "top figure plus" angle?

[Fastracehorse]

<Bet King

Very Interesting.
I'd like to know how you define "Win Percentage."
Do you bet more than one horse in a race? Do you bet every race?
The reason I am interested, is that it has been shown, by many analysits, that it is almost impossible to sustain a win percentage of 40%, if you only bet one horse in a race and bet every race.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I think I'd be lucky to hit 40 % with my primest of bets - and those are rare species.

fffastt




:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[VetScratch]

Would you like to increase you win pecentage?
Yes, within a few years I would like to cut my wagers back to one per month and win 100% of the time! From what I've heard, this should help me stay on even emotional keel and maintain a healthy psychological rhythm.

[sq764]

1 per month?

That would keep me bored as well.

[VetScratch]

Sq764,
You have a very "dry" sense of humor!:) :) :)

[sq764]

I was being serious.. If I was going to wager one time a month, I would just put all of my wagering money into cds and money market accounts.

They would give you a 100% win return as well.

[VetScratch]

At least someone is serious.
I'm getting too old to remain serious for too many more years!

[BETKING]

The above percentage was based on a 30 day period of betting one horse. I realize that this is a small sample and therefore don't know if this will hold up over the long haul. I use a mild progressive betting method which increases my over all ROI. I will dutch two horses when the situation calls for it but I consider that a side bet and is not included in the above data. In answer to the question about horses running their lifetime best speed rating this is the way I handle it. If this is a young horse and still is maturing you have to be very carefull because that is the way that young horses do. They increase their speed figure as they grow older. If the horse is 4 yrs or older I treat him as a very strong candidate for a horse that has topped and I love those double tops, they are money in the bank. As with every thing in horse racing, "SO FAR SO GOOD".

[Larry Hamilton]

I started the book and put it down when I found it filled with the following kinds of pronouncements:

"When a horse earns a huge Beyer or runs a very stressful race after a substantial layoff, you should be very skeptical about the horses chances in his next race." page 31

Do you guys realize how impossible this comment is to use to make a decision? There are at least 4 wiggle worms in one damned sentence.

1. How big is huge?

2. Define stressful

3. How long is substantial layoff?

4. Very skeptical? As opposed to a little skeptical?

So, I defined a few of them myself such as 3 up-1down-1up and tested it. It only loses 50 cents on each dollar spent. These days it is difficult for me to read, so any time spent research is precious. Therefore, I follow a very old rule. If there is one lie or one misrepresentation or one bold exaggeration--the rest is caca and not worth my time.

[BETKING]

If you are looking for absolutes in horse racing you had better take up Black Jack. Horse handicapping is an art not a science.
As Joe says, his theory is hard to explane but as the old saying goes "You will know it when you see it".

[Larry Hamilton]

Unbelievable! I present vagueness, followed with a conclusion and you tell me don't think critically.

[VetScratch]

C'mon Larry, "Speed to Spare" is more than a book; it's a complete kit that includes chants and potions!:D

[JustMissed]

Betking, I use TSN PP's. You said you use BRIS. Can you post an example of the "Beyer Bouncers" using the BRIS figs?


Thanks,

[alysheba88]

I have bought over a dozen handicapping books and without a doubt this was the least useful.

If I had read this like 15 years ago it would have helped. Thats when I started playing and using speed figures. But many of the conclusions are self evident after a while. And some outright misleading (he underestimates the way pace and trip influences the figures).

[Larry Hamilton]

As to the Art philosophy.

Art is the process of excusing lack of preparation.

I have this image of the value of art to a decision-making process such as race horse handicapping, I got from a recent tv movie. It doesn't matter if the example fits the discussion--it's what comes to my mind first when someone mentions the word ART. A naked man stands in front of a large, clean, white background. He inserts paint up his rectum, bends over, and explodes the paint on to the background--with three different colors--Art.

[alysheba88]

Larry,

When people saying handicapping is more art than science, I do not think they are inferring you should not be prepared. Or that extensive study is not valuable. I think just the opposite. Science implies there is some magic formula or law of nature waiting to be discovered. It does not exist in handicapping. The player has never been more informed than today. So many tools available. The successful players I run into are flexible and creative, not dogmatic.

[Larry Hamilton]

I know what it takes for me to win, and "paint" aint got a thing to do with it.

My opinion-- if you are a winner with artful decisions, it is inspite of their use not because of them.

My Facts--As to the magic formula--it exists.

[Larry Hamilton]

This art thing always comes down to the same thing and its why I made the comment about preparation.

"When a horse earns a huge Beyer or runs a very stressful race after a substantial layoff, you should be very skeptical about the horses chances in his next race." page 31

this sentence is ART to me. It says nothing and encompasses just about everything.

Now if you juice up the statement with detail, fact and probabilty you have a statement that is meaningful and useable.:

When a horse earns a Beyer 10% larger than his last or runs a within 1 length of the lead at every call in his last race or has been off for 45 days or more, you should bet on this horse only if you get odds of 5:1 or more in his next race.

[GameTheory]

Speed to Spare looks pretty lightweight, so it might be that it has nothing much to offer the more experienced. Or maybe it is just full of hooey.

But to the larger art vs. science point. I think art is the wrong word -- "skill" is a better one. You can buy a book that tells you how to swing a baseball bat or play the trumpet, but that doesn't mean you'll ever be good at either one of them no matter how much you study. In the case of handicapping, you've probably got to make a bit of a leap because many of the skills offered up in these books may just be phantoms. The first thing you've got to decide is whether you believe the skill even exists -- if what the author is saying is possible. For example, do you believe the skillful interpretation of Beyer figure up-and-down cycles can be especially predictive? A book can't help you much with that belief if the author believes a skillful interpretation is needed rather than mechanical rules -- the best the author can do is say, "I have found it to be true." He may be right, he may be fooling you, and he may be fooling himself. But if you aren't prepared to make the leap, then nothing in the rest of the book is going to do anything to change your mind.

So if you're willing to jump in and play around with the ingredients and guidelines that a book might suggest, you might learn something. Or you might be wasting your time. But to expect a book to "give" you a skill that has to earned is expecting too much. Books that go like this are great:

-- First, I'll prove to you what I have to offer beyond any doubt.

-- Then, I'll show you exactly how to do through a series of simple steps that anyone can follow using no judgement whatsoever.

-- Then, you'll make lots of cash.

But books like that are few & far between, and if they "work", then they won't work for long.

I suppose there are really two kinds of (good) books: those that try to teach how to handicap in a "human" way -- the skillful approach, and those tell you how you might program a computer to handicap. Since most people are human the first type predominates. That doesn't make them all bad because they're "vague" or suggest "you can *learn* to do this as well, but it will take practice and a honing of a mental skill" -- you've got to use that elusive human quality called judgement to decide which ones are worth your time. (And you've got to be willing to put in the time to learn the skill -- no way around it.)

You can try, but attempting to avoid thinking while handicapping is a tough road...

[Larry Hamilton]

anyways, POOOF I am gone, time for magic forumula use, should take me about 7 minutes to handicap every track in North America. Nine if you include Sulkie tracks.

[BETKING]

I did not intend to insinuate that the bounce theory is a total handicapping procedure. It is only another tool to use with your personnal method. If you do not consider the other factors in a race then you have no chance of winning. I use the bouncer scan only after I have finished my regular handicapping. If you want to know what I think the absolute strongest factor is I would have to say "Race Shape". I beleive that the shap of the race determines most of the winners. Notice!! I said most, for there is no absolutes in racing.

[andicap]

I think its pretty arrogant for someone to conclude that theres is the only way to win and to just dismiss a theory based on your personal experience. Ragozins tapes do a very good job of
presenting the bounce theory and they say there are no absolutes, just probabilities gleaned through looking at thousands of races over the years.
The "bounce" theory continues to work great for me -- not all the time and it probably doesn't work as well as it did 15 years ago because of drugs. Horses will put in more double tops than ever before and it pays to know your trainers. I've
gotten burnt on a few Scott Lake double tops so I've learned never to discount his horses no
matter how much they look like they'll bounce.

The problem with just using hard core data is it excludes the human element like in the example noted above.
Data is fine for examining general tendencies and developing spot plays(for me anyway, if it works
for others, great!), but I can't understand how you can dismiss someone who is having success
using a theory/method just because your "data"
says it won't work.

And the bounce theory is not absolute -- Ragozin
says so himself. It depends on the odds. One of
my favorite Raggie credos is "At 2-1 I hate the horse; at 20-1 I love the horse."

Now I'm not a Raggie, I don't believe in all of his theories -- just what I've found works for me using Beyer/Cramer figures. And I find it
incredulous his rejection of pace as well.

[Larry Hamilton]

You guys are right, I suffer from arrogance borne of winning. I also suffer from giving folks advice when they didnt ask for it. Who in the hell do I think I am? I measure stuff, I come to conclusions, I share those conclusions. What kinda dummy gambler shows the enemy his hole cards? Ill try to keep my arrogance, my mouth, my measuring and my hole cards in check.

[Suff]

Originally posted by Larry Hamilton
You guys are right, I suffer from arrogance borne of winning. I also suffer from giving folks advice when they didnt ask for it. Who in the hell do I think I am? I measure stuff, I come to conclusions, I share those conclusions. What kinda dummy gambler shows the enemy his hole cards? Ill try to keep my arrogance, my mouth, my measuring and my hole cards in check.

You'd like to but your hearts to big and You love this game to much. Your a giver. Those are your stripes. You'll get mad...But then you'll be right back helping people 3 weeks later.

Thats the world.

Some guys will give you the shirt off thier back.

Some guys would'nt give you Cancer if they had it.

You could be all alone down there in your own little world. But you keep coming out and mixing it up with the players. Its in you.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by Larry Hamilton
I started the book and put it down when I found it filled with the following kinds of pronouncements:

"When a horse earns a huge Beyer or runs a very stressful race after a substantial layoff, you should be very skeptical about the horses chances in his next race." page 31

Do you guys realize how impossible this comment is to use to make a decision? There are at least 4 wiggle worms in one damned sentence.

1. How big is huge?

2. Define stressful

3. How long is substantial layoff?

4. Very skeptical? As opposed to a little skeptical?

So, I defined a few of them myself such as 3 up-1down-1up and tested it. It only loses 50 cents on each dollar spent. These days it is difficult for me to read, so any time spent research is precious. Therefore, I follow a very old rule. If there is one lie or one misrepresentation or one bold exaggeration--the rest is caca and not worth my time.


Huge - My definition a win that is at least 2 lengths faster than any other win.

Stressful - losing race in which pace call of race at least 4 lengths faster coupled with an up close finish (within 3 lenghts) to winner

Substantial layoff - more than 60 days

very skeptical - 7 to 8 on a scale of 1 to 10.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[cj]

Stessful is tough to equate with numbers, its more about pressure from other horses. I horse can run 4 lengths faster than par on the lead, but if he's all alone, that's not a stressful trip. Try a horse who battles one horse, then fights off a presser, then puts him away and narrowly holds off a late closer. That's a stressful effort. Or dueling for 3/8 mile between horses. Some things can't be found in a database unless you put notes in there.

As far as substantial, I'd tend to lean towards Quinn's definition on this one, 4 months.

[VetScratch]

Here is how this thread started:I have increased my win percentage by a full 10%. It ran around 35% for the last 12 months and now I have it going at 45%. How did I do this? I read "Speed to Spare" by Joe Cardello.
Cardello's book may worth reading, but that introduction stamped this thread as a Shill-O-Gram in my mind, and I pretty much dismissed the thread as an opportunity for anything other than parody and fun.

In the third post, BetKing proclaimed, "This book is the best thing thing to come along in the last 5 years." When he evaded the question about what he meant by "win percentage" by replying that "The above percentage was based on a 30 day period of betting one horse," he certainly devalued the credibility of Cardello's book in my mind.

For this same reason, I'm sure many PA members stopped reading and never subscribed to this thread.
I subscribed by way of my sick little menopause parody, or I wouldn't be her now!

The shame is that this thread did develop into a very hot debate that evoked some good posts that will never reach many members. Quantitative versus qualitative will always be debated and needs exposure because it causes so much confusion on this board.

When something like this develops, and provokes thoughtful and cohesive posts like Game Theory's, or seriously lays out assertions about a perspective or a position, which was Larry's initial tact, a lot of folks have probably missed a worthwhile read.

[Fastracehorse]

< Quantitative versus qualitative will always be debated

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Like most disciplines the debaters theoretically would agree on a blend of the above.

fffastt

[Fastracehorse]

<there are no absolutes

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My sentiments absolutely.

fffastt

:) :) :) :) :) :) :)

[Show Me the Wire]

cj:

Very thoughtful post. My definition of stressful is comparing the horse to itself during a losing effort. In my mind it has nothing to do with pars.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[sq764]

My college baseball coach always told me stress was not knowing where your next meal was coming from..

I guess that doesn't fit this context..

[freeneasy]

if you dont know where your next meal is coming from that means you aint got no job, if you aint got no job, you aint got no money for your next meal, if you aint got no money for ypur next meal then you aint got no money for yor next bet, and if you aint got no money for your next bet then you aint got no money to buy your next form and if you aint got no money to buy your next form then you sho aint gonna know where your next winners coming from and if you dont know where your next winners coming from then you cant bet him, see, now thats stress.
i dont think that vincent van goh knew a thing about painting, he just loved it and a lot of people thought he was good at it and to the point of being a genius and outside of the fact that his paintings are worth millions, personally i wouldnt give a buck apiece for em :p

[sq764]

As they say .. One man's trash is another man's treasure..

[Fastracehorse]

A very taxing race.

One where the horse was alllllllllll out during the race.

He didn't finish all his oats that evening - I'm not kidding.

Sign of a weakened immune system - takes rest to recover.

fffastt

[Lefty]

Free, actually, Van Gogh was not appreciated in his own lifetime. He only sold one painting and that was to his brother.
In my mind, he was a genius.

Furthermore, I don't think everytime someone praises a book or a piece of software that he's necessarily a shill. Hey, Betking, I think, came across something that opened his eyes and he got excited about it and I thank him for sharing.

[Amazin]

This is a historic moment.Can we have a moment of silence please.Now drumroll.Confession:I agree with Lefty here.(ugh!feels weird saying that.Unatural or something.Need a shower)

Betking:

Once again something simple turns complicated on this board.I understand perfectly what you said.You now have a higher win rate because you learned how to avoid some losers.Nothing wrong with that.

As far as the book is concerned,I agree with Larry(feels weird saying that too(shiver).In this game you have to get specific.

[Suff]

Originally posted by Amazin
This is a historic moment.Can we have a moment of silence please.Now drumroll.Confession:I agree with Lefty here.(ugh!feels weird saying that.Unatural or something.Need a shower)

Betking:

As far as the book is concerned,I agree with Larry(feels weird saying that too(shiver).In this game you have to get specific.

huh? wtf do you know about thoroughbred racing? Now your suggesting you know what it takes to be a Handicapper?

You have to get "Specific". Great. How long you work to come up with that gem.

Some people say this is a good message board. Good information can be found here occasionally. Part of that is weeding out the crapola.

Tongue in cheek... Mostly. Amazin.

You've made 4000 posts about Politics...you've been in a running arguement for 13 months in off topic. You followed Lefty onto this thread to say something smart ass.

and what? You figured since this was'nt off topic you better say something about Horse racing?

when it come to thoroughrbreds amazin.. You could'nt find your ass using both hands.

The off topic forum is "Hair and Makeup". Out here with the players is "Show Time". Continue on with your "understudys" work in off topic. When we think your ready to play out here without getting hurt.......we'll let you know.

[VetScratch]

LOL - great post Sufferindowns - I loved it!

Knowing me, I bet you were surprised to get the first shot off.

Amazin somehow agrees with everyone but also scorns everyone???

I was dumbfounded and stymied, and maybe, to everyone's relief, the effects will last!:) :) :) :)

[Amazin]

Sufferin

What the hell is your Boston redsox ass trying to say.First of all the fact that your a diehard Bosox fan,reflects a loser mentality.Second no one needs to be "qualified" to post an idea regarding anything on this board.Third most posters reading comprehension is so low that it really doesn't matter what you say,they never get the point,like you.And finally,if you don't think I know about handicapping,I came in 18 in the last Bris contest in April without being able to play 1 race due to a freak technical problem or I may have taken the title.Now that's a little better than this entire board can do ey?

[freeneasy]

out of 18 aint bad

[BETKING]

I do beleive you have a Comspiracy Complex, but that alright if you look anything like your picture you can have any kind of complex you want.

[cj]

18th is 17th runner up, nice job. I think the racing term is "also ran."

[Trijack]

Amazin

Just for your INFORMATION I came in first in the first week of the April, 2000 contest. In october of 2002 I tied for FIRST for the whole contest and lost out in the tie breaker because the other person had the highest paying winner but I did win $1000.00 worth of Bris online credit. So in the future you should be sure of your facts and know more about what other people can do on this board. You know what happens when you assume.

[sq764]

I also know this old woman that goes to Delaware Park every weekend and boxes 1,2,3 trifectas. She hit for $6,000 2 weeks ago.

I guess that validates her as a solid horseracing handicapper too..