Is Barry Meadow Right?

[jamey1977]

This horse racing business is just heartbreaking. These losing streaks are heartbreaking. Barry Meadow is a smart guy. One of his comments, he says." In 2000 races, what makes you think, just because something happened one way before ,what makes you think it will happen again ? The next 2000 races, something entirely different can happen and you're bankroll will be gone, nonetheless ". I also notice sometimes the damn horses just don't win, and this is straight Win bets , and our losing streaks go on. Are we the victims of random chance and random sequence that results in the inevitable end of our bankroll.? What the hell gives? Is the loss of our bankroll inevitable and our visit to the poor house inevitable? We can have 40 overlay rules, every rule meant, research and research and the frickin horses still blow it. How can we overcome this.? I have tried to conserve bets and yet the same losing streaks occur. Is Barry Meadow correct?

[KingChas]

In a nutshell;
When on a hot streak you are sitting on top the world.
Too bad it rotates................... :D

[bigmack]

From my experience, and I've fallen into the same trap, far too often players approach every race in a similar fashion. They zero in on the same style of betting or convergence of data to lead them down the same path.

I've grown to pay close attention to the spread of loot. Of yesteryear I'd approach every race to find a wiener.

Now, the bigger the spread, the wider my wager(s).

[KingChas]

bigmack,
From my experience, and I've fallen into the same trap, far too often players approach every race in a similar fashion.


You are so right!................... :ThmbUp:

[formula_2002]

This horse racing business is just heartbreaking. These losing streaks are heartbreaking. Barry Meadow is a smart guy. One of his comments, he says." In 2000 races, what makes you think, just because something happened one way before ,what makes you think it will happen again ? The next 2000 races, something entirely different can happen and you're bankroll will be gone, nonetheless ". I also notice sometimes the damn horses just don't win, and this is straight Win bets , and our losing streaks go on. Are we the victims of random chance and random sequence that results in the inevitable end of our bankroll.? What the hell gives? Is the loss of our bankroll inevitable and our visit to the poor house inevitable? We can have 40 overlay rules, every rule meant, research and research and the frickin horses still blow it. How can we overcome this.? I have tried to conserve bets and yet the same losing streaks occur. Is Barry Meadow correct?

From the way I hear and see most players approach the game, the answer is "YES"

Anyone who has not read Fabricand's "Horse Sence" or the "Science of Winning" or its like, willl never be a LONG TERM CAPITAL WINNER".
Winning does not always mean walking away with a profit, it also means knowing when NOT TO bet.
This is much more than a game of pace, or understanding the daily racing form, or any other bits and pices of the puzzle.
You need to know your edge,and you will not find it without knowing how to look for it. :)

[nalley0710]

record your bets before you make them including conditions of the race and everything you are thinking Before you bet and then the outcome. Your personality and mind are unique and you have some strengths and weaknesses. Only bet your strengths and youll skip a lot of races but you will be in the black after a while. You will slip and bet the races you suck at on occasion. Dont beat yourself up. Even the best professional does this. Just get back on your program. Skipping races is only magical formula that exists in this game. YOU ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT A DOUBT CAN BEAT THIS GAME IN THE LONG RUN. When you are in a losing streak, take a break from racing and do something else you like and recharge. People go out of form and need a layoff too. I really believe that you have some type of talent you can capitalize to win or you wouldnt be posting on this site looking for the answer. You need to honestly look at yourself and life and see what you are good at and translate it into betting.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

The big question is how a player reacts to the inevitable losing streak. Incredible losing periods have destroyed some of the greatest money managers in the trading and investing field also. Men and women who have had years of hard work turn into consistent winning ..and then the bottom fell out and the losing streak.

The advice is simple when a losing tern occurs reduce the wagers in a moderate position, or take a break...but do something because the losing streak is simply unavoidable in time.

[nalley0710]

good point

[formula_2002]

The big question is how a player reacts to the inevitable losing streak. Incredible losing periods have destroyed some of the greatest money managers in the trading and investing field also. Men and women who have had years of hard work turn into consistent winning ..and then the bottom fell out and the losing streak.

The advice is simple when a losing tern occurs reduce the wagers in a moderate position, or take a break...but do something because the losing streak is simply unavoidable in time.

THE PLAYER SHOULD KNOW THE PROBABILITY LENGTH OF ANY LOSING STREAK. THERE IS NO NEED TO ADJUST THE BET SIZE.
IF THE THE LENGTH EXCEEDS EXPECTATION, STOP BETTING AND RE-CALCULATE..
ONE'S REACTION TO AN EXPECTED LENGTH LOSING STREAK SHOULD BE AS COLD AS ICE..ELSE FIND A NEW GAME

[nalley0710]

The big question is how a player reacts to the inevitable losing streak. Incredible losing periods have destroyed some of the greatest money managers in the trading and investing field also. Men and women who have had years of hard work turn into consistent winning ..and then the bottom fell out and the losing streak.

The advice is simple when a losing tern occurs reduce the wagers in a moderate position, or take a break...but do something because the losing streak is simply unavoidable in time.

I witnessed this first hand on the Chicago Board Of Trade trading floor when I started as a runner. I knew traders who built up huge positions in the S&P futures pits over 4 years only to be wiped out in an afternoon in the 1987 crash. They were too tramatized to trade and worked filling orders for brokerages. I had never gambled before and couldnt understand it but I do now. For me the hardest part of speculation is getting to a point where I am indifferent to losing streaks emotionally.

[markgoldie]

One key to success is knowing when you have made a good bet that loses, versus when you made a bad bet that loses.

That said, it seems your initial question revolves around whether randomness makes it such that you can never know what bet was lost by bad luck or not.

Frankly, these thoughts cross my mind a lot when I witness what goes on out on the tracks. On the other hand, one thing brings me back to the reality of the situation and that is the more or less constant winning percentage of favorites. Included here would be the universal fact that over any reasonable time frame, favorites will win more than second choices, second choices more than third choices, etc.

This means that whatever it is handicappers do, they have a rock-solid insight on how the animals will perform on the track.

This fact alone should convince you that winning is possible through handicapping. No. Not by playing favorites, of course.

As far as recommendations, I will once again advise one and all not to attempt to make money by playing win. Win players are the major leaguers of the sport. With whale groups controlling final odds, often at the last blink, you may be betting against whales, but they have teeth like sharks.

Try a step down in class to AAA ball. Dime supers are a great area to start. Here, you can afford to tinker around with some creative ideas, and if you do it right, many times you can allow this wild randomness to work in your favor.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

I witnessed this first hand on the Chicago Board Of Trade trading floor when I started as a runner. I knew traders who built up huge positions in the S&P futures pits over 4 years only to be wiped out in an afternoon in the 1987 crash. They were too tramatized to trade and worked filling orders for brokerages. I had never gambled before and couldnt understand it but I do now. For me the hardest part of speculation is getting to a point where I am indifferent to losing streaks emotionally.

You can have a ten year record of wagers and be confident that you have a maximum loss expectation...and even then there is a possibility (albiet slight), that the mother of all losing runs occur. That's why it's important to understand the nature of the extended losing run and how to react to them.

[castaway01]

Mark, personally I have done better since switching to win and away from various exotic bets. However, I know you're a sharp guy and you advocate a different approach with dime supers, so I'd like you to clarify a couple things you said.

You mention late odds changes affecting win bettors, and obviously we've all see our odds drop during the race. I would counter by saying that if you're not betting the chalk sometimes your win odds go up. With that said, you're right that we don't know exactly what price we'll get when we bet, but 1) Don't the "whales" also bet exactas and various other exotics? I'm pretty certain they take the "value" from those pools as well using sophisticated computer programs in an attempt to come close enough to breaking even that they make a profit with rebates, and 2) Doesn't the much higher takeout on trifectas and superfectas as compared to the win pool take away whatever potential edge you're getting by hypothetically avoiding the "whales" in the win pool?

Thanks in advance.

[Light]

The next 2000 races, something entirely different can happen and you're bankroll will be gone, nonetheless ". Is Barry Meadow correct?

Ruin of a bankroll after success can be due to these 3 factors:

A) Deviating from the rules of a winning formula
B) self sabotaging ego.
c) If the above 2 factors are not involved then the "winning approach" was mathematically flawed in the first place.

[Dan Montilion]

Where did Barry make this statement?

[thaskalos]

I think that what Barry said was...that there is enough chaos within the game, to make it possible for a winning, everyday player, to have a losing year.

But I think that was in pre-simulcasting days. I doubt that he would make the same comment about today's game...

[jamey1977]

Where did Barry make this statement?
I spend my time reading threads. Going back to 2003. This was on a thread. About professional players, probabilities. I'll see if I can find it again. What he said always had me wondering. I never forgot that.

[Steve 'StatMan']

He's right. Limited knowledge of the future is a bitch. We think we know what we know, but how good do we really know it compared to the prices they pay, we may not truly know. We could have a good sample that says 'yes', but in reality just be in a smaller subset of a huge sample that says 'no', or just maybe. Then again, other bettors my get better and catch on to some of the things our own methods look at, and then the prices go down, and what was once profitable is still a reality but maybe no longer profitable (ala speed figures, pace figures, etc.)

[Overlay]

I spend my time reading threads. Going back to 2003. This was on a thread. About professional players, probabilities. I'll see if I can find it again. What he said always had me wondering. I never forgot that.

Here's the specific thread that you were referring to (from 2001):

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1172&highlight=makes+bankroll#post1172

The full quote from Barry Meadow was as follows:

"Sometimes we make a mistake of thinking "We really know this meet" when we have some winners, or "I can't understand this meet" when we have some losers.

Simply due to random fluctuations, it is possible to show a large loss one week and a large gain the next, or vice versa.

As the win percentage goes down and the mutuel prices go up, this becomes more and more the case. It is quite possible to come up with a nice profit over a 2,000-race series, then show a huge loss over the next 2,000 races, or vice versa. This does not necessarily have anything to do with a player's improved, or lessened, ability to handicap and bet--it's simply normal fluctuations.

Given any group of results, you can easily come up with a betting system that would have performed better, or worse, than Kelly, flat-betting, percentage-of-bankroll betting, or any other method you can name-- maybe tripling your bet every 15th play, or betting ten times your normal bet on every date that ends in a 1. The reason Kelly (or more accurately, fractional Kelly) is as good as any is that it addresses several important aspects of money management--size of bankroll, likelihood of the particular bet's winning, perceived edge. That "perceived edge" is the hard part.

One more thought: Be careful of anybody who claims he can make huge profits at the track. Anybody who claims he can make 12% annual on handle on a regular basis could easily bet $50,000 a week and qualify for an additional 9-10% rebate. Figuring a handle of $2.5 million a year at 21%, that would mean our hero could average $525,000 a year in racetrack profits.

Everyone I know who actually does this for a living makes nothing close to the percentages claimed by some people. Sure, it's nice to dream, but it's even nicer to deal in reality."

My only comment on the above would be that there are statistical tests available to determine whether a given set of results is within the limits of normal fluctuations or not, and whether the factors associated with those results are acting independently, or in conjunction with other factors. If the factors are independent, I would think that that would provide greater confidence that the results would continue into the future, barring some fundamental change in conditions (such as the introduction of artificial racing surfaces, for example) that would require the use of new averages and statistical limits taking those conditions into account.

[Overlay]

As an added note, the pari-mutuel value of those factors as stand-alone elements would also likely decline with time and increased use, even if the factors themselves remained as effective as ever in predicting winning probability. That's why considerations of wagering value and the use of multiple factors also have to be brought into play.

[Greyfox]

That's why considerations of wagering value and the use of multiple factors also have to be brought into play.

Exactly. That observation bears repeating over and over. :ThmbUp:

[completebill]

You should NOT interpret Barry's comments to suggest that long-term profits are not achievable. Remember--Barry Meadows IS a long-term WINNING player, over a period of many years. He is also an "expert" on statistics and mathematical possibilities/ probabilities as applied to horse racing

Barry DOES recognize, and warn against. normal expectations of short-term losing streaks. What most players fail to realize is that 2,000 races, or a month, or even a year (!) ARE short-term !!! Ask Barry to look at the expectations over a series of 20,000 or 200,000 races. His answer/viewpoint will be quite different (ASSUMING, of course a viable, winning,method/strategy, of course).

[thaskalos]

You should NOT interpret Barry's comments to suggest that long-term profits are not achievable. Remember--Barry Meadows IS a long-term WINNING player, over a period of many years. He is also an "expert" on statistics and mathematical possibilities/ probabilities as applied to horse racing

Barry DOES recognize, and warn against. normal expectations of short-term losing streaks. What most players fail to realize is that 2,000 races, or a month, or even a year (!) ARE short-term !!! Ask Barry to look at the expectations over a series of 20,000 or 200,000 races. His answer/viewpoint will be quite different (ASSUMING, of course a viable, winning,method/strategy, of course). In today's full-card simulcasting era...a winning, ambitious, hardworking horseplayer can make over 4,000 win bets a year...and still be selective. That's the equivalent of 6 years worth of play, in the "old" days.

The thought that a winning horseplayer can show a loss after such a period of time...is mind-boggling to me.

[Canadian]

Maybe someone can help me on this thread... I was going to post a new thread, I'm sure I saw it discussed by the probability wizards on here.

They were posting some logoritmic stuff on streaks. Say you calculate an event has a 5 or 10% chance of cominging in. And say you are correct. What kind of losing streaks can a person expect? A 5% event has a 1 in 20 shot of coming in, but we all know it doesn't work that way. Can anyone help me with this?

[Overlay]

Maybe someone can help me on this thread... I was going to post a new thread, I'm sure I saw it discussed by the probability wizards on here.

They were posting some logoritmic stuff on streaks. Say you calculate an event has a 5 or 10% chance of cominging in. And say you are correct. What kind of losing streaks can a person expect? A 5% event has a 1 in 20 shot of coming in, but we all know it doesn't work that way. Can anyone help me with this?

I think that that formula was: ( log (1-confidence level)) / (log (losing percentage))

Dick Mitchell translated this into longest expected losing streak lengths for winning percentages of 14% to 80% based on confidence levels of 90%, 95%, and 99% on page 48 of Commonsense Betting. The expected streaks ranged from a high extreme of 31 (for 99% confidence at a 14% winning percentage) to a low value of 2 (for 90% confidence at a 79-80% winning percentage).

[markgoldie]

Mark, personally I have done better since switching to win and away from various exotic bets. However, I know you're a sharp guy and you advocate a different approach with dime supers, so I'd like you to clarify a couple things you said.

You mention late odds changes affecting win bettors, and obviously we've all see our odds drop during the race. I would counter by saying that if you're not betting the chalk sometimes your win odds go up. With that said, you're right that we don't know exactly what price we'll get when we bet, but 1) Don't the "whales" also bet exactas and various other exotics? I'm pretty certain they take the "value" from those pools as well using sophisticated computer programs in an attempt to come close enough to breaking even that they make a profit with rebates, and 2) Doesn't the much higher takeout on trifectas and superfectas as compared to the win pool take away whatever potential edge you're getting by hypothetically avoiding the "whales" in the win pool?

Thanks in advance.
I think the whales bet win and exactas, but not so much tris and supers. If you're not landing on the win horse they bet, sure, your odds will go up. On the other hand, they are sharp enough that if they are on a different horse, the greater odds you're getting will be mitigated by the fact that you're probably on the wrong horse. If you are getting rebates, you should be getting a much greater rebate on the exotics. If you're not, you need a better ADW. If you're not getting any rebates, you probably should stick to the win bets.

[Fastracehorse]

..................because we don't want to slow down after we have been on a bit of a roll.

What works: a methodical, thoughtful approach that doesn't have great expectations for a big score; but expectations for profit.

When U are playing well U have a strong sense of what is going to happen in a race - despite the outcome; when your not playing well you are betting the same way for races you don't have a strong connection to.

Bottomline is: most of your best scores exotically occur on tickets that are the least expensive; because you have a good opinion of what may happen.

1. Connect to the tracks U are playing
2. Be strong in your convictions
3. Don't try and set the world on fire; good things happen when U r in control

[thaskalos]

Bottomline is: most of your best scores exotically occur on tickets that are the least expensive; because you have a good opinion of what may happen.

The opposite has been the case, in my experience...

When my "exotics" opinion is very strong, and can be covered using a small investment...the odds are never high enough to make a "score" possible.

When the race is complicated...a costlier exotic ticket can be spread out to include the "overlooked" horses that trigger the kind of payoffs that can be called "scores".

[Greyfox]

You should NOT interpret Barry's comments to suggest that long-term profits are not achievable. Remember--Barry Meadows IS a long-term WINNING player, over a period of many years. He is also an "expert" on statistics and mathematical possibilities/ probabilities as applied to horse racing.
.

Barry has won, for sure.
He's also such a sceptic that reading his Meadows Reports (no longer printed) and contributions to various mags can be quite a turn off.
If he's still a winner, I'd be surprised.
One thing about winners is that they are optimists.
Yes I know he posts here in this forum, and is a bright guy, but his negativism raises doubts in my mind about whether or not he still wins.

[Force of One]

Some interesting points here...a few random things I will add.

1) I don't necessarily agree with the idea of "taking a break" when on a losing streak UNLESS you are clearly mentally affected by the losing and are making sub-par decisons b/c of it. In my experience, I want to get through those down swings as quickly as possible. Therefore, I try to work through with volume. Taking a break and then coming back in and hitting the ground losing again call almost make the losing streak seem greatly protracted. I have experienced this much more with poker than horseracing, personally

2) Mental attitude is key. Sometimes when I am on a bad run on my pick 4's I will try to hit a few "confidence building" higher percentage scores, maybe something like a show parlay or something just to get me a break in that "lose-lose-lose" feeling.

3) I try to make a pro-active effort to sharpen my handicapping skills during a losing streak. Maybe reading an interesting thread on here or reviewing a handicapping book or the like - something that I can honestly look myself in the mirror and say "yes, I am making an effort to move forward and succeed". Sometimes, I think we (at least I know I have) can get into a pattern of sitting in that losing hole, feeling sorrow for ourselves and waste a suprising amount of time not actually "climbing out" of it.

4) Don't get intimidated by the success of others, thereby compounding your own feelings of failure. I must admit, I feel into this a little bit playing poker tournaments. I would invariably read of some hot shot young kid who was riding high and they would almost always say in an interview "I started off winning" right away. Hmmm, must be nice. My start wasn't the same. I'm sure it must be great to hit the ground running with an instant bankroll cushion and winning confidence that comes from instant success. As soon as I was able to stop (ok, lessen ) the hating on another person's success I was able to funnel that time and energy into more productive avenues, like practice and study.

5) Lastly, I think being realistic about what your betting approach is important. Certain things carry much more varaince to them (ex. pick 6 wagers, poker tournaments) that is to be expected. If you go 100 wagers without hitting a pick 6, I would think that normal. A hundred win bets without a winner may suggest a flaw in your handicapping.

[bigbrown]

Even though one can test on an independent (ie not used to derive the wagering strategy) data set, 2000 races can be too little to reliably establish profitability. Therefore the next 2000 races can show something different.

[jonnielu]

This horse racing business is just heartbreaking. These losing streaks are heartbreaking. Barry Meadow is a smart guy. One of his comments, he says." In 2000 races, what makes you think, just because something happened one way before ,what makes you think it will happen again ? The next 2000 races, something entirely different can happen and you're bankroll will be gone, nonetheless ". I also notice sometimes the damn horses just don't win, and this is straight Win bets , and our losing streaks go on. Are we the victims of random chance and random sequence that results in the inevitable end of our bankroll.? What the hell gives? Is the loss of our bankroll inevitable and our visit to the poor house inevitable? We can have 40 overlay rules, every rule meant, research and research and the frickin horses still blow it. How can we overcome this.? I have tried to conserve bets and yet the same losing streaks occur. Is Barry Meadow correct?

Streaks go along with having 40 overlay rules, or consideration of any other pile of angles that are extraneous. Cut the factors down to those that well describe the horses ability to run a given distance, and say good-bye to streaks.

More information is not the answer to winning with consistency. Consideration of only those factors that are consistent will bring you to consistency in your play.

jdl

[jamey1977]

Streaks go along with having 40 overlay rules, or consideration of any other pile of angles that are extraneous. Cut the factors down to those that well describe the horses ability to run a given distance, and say good-bye to streaks.

More information is not the answer to winning with consistency. Consideration of only those factors that are consistent will bring you to consistency in your play.

jdl
I have too many rules. All of these rules give limitations and constriction. I should keep the 7 most important D.Q. rules and toss the rest. One rule to break is do not go on what The Closer Look comments say in The Racing Form. I will just ignore that. I also question betting on overlays. Many times we bet overlays that are 7 to 1 and up and they blow it and who wins the race ? , the slight underlay at 4 to 1. I mean I wanna just get to the point to just not bet the Top 2 and to hell with the price on the others. I missed out on 5 wins because of this stupid overlay rule. The 4 to 1's won the race. And they paid handsome prices. Me, waiting for a 13 to 1 , when 4 - 4 to 1's won right in front of me. That was the same as a 40 dollar longshot. I feel losing streaks develop because of our stupid rules. Trash the rules and bet superior horses other than the 1st and Second pick. If the overlay comes, it comes.

[highnote]

One thing I have found that has really helped me is to have a good sized bankroll and just bet a small fraction of it. That way when you lose you will not be bothered by it. It's just another in a very long sequence of bets. In fact, I don't look at individual bet results too much. Instead, I focus on how I did for the month.

For example... put together a $10,000 bankroll. Set aside $1,000 for betting. Use fractional kelly betting [(Edge / Odds) times bankroll].

Even if you bet full kelly it will take awhile to lose $1000. If you lose $1000 you've still got $9000 left.

With a thousand dollar bankroll your win bets will probably range from $10 to $50.

If you truly have an edge and bet only when you have an edge you will win.

If you lose all $10,000 then you probably never had a consistent edge.

Hopefully, you will not wait until you lose all $10,000 to figure out you need to change your method!

[xfile]

Am I reading this thread right? Some of you are bashing Barry Meadow? That man has more intelligent proven knowledge of this game than many of you combined times 1,000.

[thaskalos]

Am I reading this thread right? Some of you are bashing Barry Meadow? That man has more intelligent proven knowledge of this game than many of you combined times 1,000. You read the thread wrong...who were the people bashing Barry Meadow?

In my opinion...he is the only popular handicapping author who deserves the label "Professional gambler".

[Greyfox]

You read the thread wrong...who were the people bashing Barry Meadow?

".

I bashed him, if only for lack of postive beliefs.
I think his writings are excellent contributions, to a point.
Yes, I know that he's a contributor here.
No. I think that he's a sceptic and a turnoff to those of us who believe we can win at this game and do.
In that regard, his reviews inadvertently discourage young players beyond belief.
Yes. I know that he's been a big winner before and is a bright guy.
I said it earlier in this thread, so I will say it again, his reports essentially would want one to give up their hopes at this game.
His biggest contribution may well be to put a "brake" on your belief that you will beat the horses.
Having said that, in general, and as bright as he is,
I choose to feel more optimistic about whether or not I can beat this game.
A positive attitude is huge walking into a betting parlor or a track.
Never, ever forget that.
I've never met Barry except through his writings.
For the vast majority of horseplayers, he may well be right.
In my own instance, that ain't the case.

[jamey1977]

You read the thread wrong...who were the people bashing Barry Meadow?

In my opinion...he is the only popular handicapping author who deserves the label "Professional gambler".
This damn game is such a damn struggle. Every frickin thing we try results in losses. It's like there are just too many variables. What he says Scares the hell out of us and we keep trying. One day we will get there. There are solutions. Go through the races, bet superior horses other than The Favorite and 2nd Pick . Conserve your bets. Rules but not too many. Barry talks like we should all just quit but we don't. There are solutions and we will get there one day. One solution is we do not have to bet the next 2000 races. We can choose our spots, bet superior horses other than The Favorite and Second Pick. Spot those lousy Favorite races and toss them and bet on wide-open races. We do all this. We have a shot. Bet To Win, only. I never bashed Barry. He's like our parents. All Horse Players Die broke. There are solutions and we will find them.

[thaskalos]

I bashed him, if only for lack of postive beliefs.
I think his writings are excellent contributions, to a point.
Yes, I know that he's a contributor here.
No. I think that he's a sceptic and a turnoff to those of us who believe we can win at this game and do.
In that regard, his reviews inadvertently discourage young players beyond belief.
Yes. I know that he's been a big winner before and is a bright guy.
I said it earlier in this thread, so I will say it again, his reports essentially would want one to give up their hopes at this game.
His biggest contribution may well be to put a "brake" on your belief that you will beat the horses.
Having said that, in general, and as bright as he is,
I choose to feel more optimistic about whether or not I can beat this game.
A positive attitude is huge walking into a betting parlor or a track.
Never, ever forget that.
I've never met Barry except through his writings.
For the vast majority of horseplayers, he may well be right.
In my own instance, that ain't the case.Greyfox...

I find you to be a very reasonable person...and I hope you will hear me out.
We all started in this game, by reading books that claimed that a 20-25% ROI was very possible. Ainslie called the 25% return "very thin porridge". James Quinn called it "very attainable". Dick Mitchell outdid them both; he was claiming that his "platinum strategies" gave him a ROI of 40%+.

When asked about a "career" at the track...they all changed their song.

Ainslie would say that...YES, he could make a great living at the track...but it was a very stressful way to make a living.

Quinn would say that "horseracing is a wonderful hobby...but a very frustrating profession".

Mitchell would say that he could easily become a "Pro"...but his methods were so selective...that he couldn't make the "Rolls-Royce" wages he needed to make in order to be happy.

All these excuses fizzled out, when full card simulcasting entered the picture. Now...with the number of plays currently available...the player with the 20-25% edge - assuming he is diligent enough ( and why wouldn't he be?) - can get RICH in a hurry! In today's game...it is possible to make 70 bets a week...and still be very selective!

Some years ago...I asked a well known handicapping author - who claimed to be earning a 20% ROI...why he wasn't making $300,000 a year...given the number of races we have available to us every day.

He told me that his "comfort level" prevented him from wagering more than $250 a race.

Here was a man...telling me, that he was able to make the gradual jump from $20 to $250 a race...but now he froze...even-though he was convinced that the larger wagers would lead to much bigger profits.

This is the "business" approach that so many handicapping authors advocate?

What "real" businessman would refuse ta expand his "business"...if he was assured that his profits would double?

I am a very simple guy who started betting $20 a race, in 1981. I was a losing player for 24 years. 5 years ago, it was as if a light went on in my head...and I gave a new look to this old game. I have been winning ever since. And my bets got bigger...and bigger. I have NO comfort lever. As long as my bankroll, and the betting pools, are big enough to accommodate my wagers, then smaller wagers would only mean a pay cut for me.

If you asked me WHEN I was most afraid...I would tell you it was the time when I started betting $50 or $100 a race. I definitely wouldn't tell you that I am afraid now...because by now, large wagers have become routine for me. AND...I am much more confident in myself now, than I was then!

Am I that unique? Of course not! Any winning player, interested in profiting from this game, would do the same thing.

My point is this:

If a player can get a 20% ROI in this game (or anything close to that)...then he can get VERY RICH...regardless of how selective he is. And he wouldn't need any rebates to do it!

Unless, that is, he is lazy...which is unthinkable.

Barry Meadow NEVER said that this game cannot be beaten. I heard him say that the best a long term player can hope for, is a ROI of 10%...and I agree!

[Dave Schwartz]

Barry Meadow NEVER said that this game cannot be beaten. I heard him say that the best a long term player can hope for is a ROI of 10%...and I agree!

I believe that more recently Barry says 3-4% is the tops an expert can expect.

I disagree but that is another story.

[thaskalos]

I believe that more recently Barry says 3-4% is the tops an expert can expect.

I disagree but that is another story.Dave...if he says that...then I disagree too.

[Greyfox]

Barry Meadow NEVER said that this game cannot be beaten. !

I never penned that he said that.
Over the years I've just found his writings too cynical or skeptical to enjoy anymore. They're a "turn off" for young handicappers.

[xfile]

The thread title alone images/buttons/green/firstnew.gif (showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=73534) Is Barry Meadow Right? Or Is He Full Of Bull ? (showthread.php?t=73534) shows a lack of respect for one of the founding fathers of the overlay and it's importance.

[Overlay]

Go through the races, bet superior horses other than The Favorite and 2nd Pick.

Everybody likes a long price, but by automatically excluding favorites and second choices without even considering their chances in relation to their odds, you're throwing out over 50% of winners. Such horses are not as likely to be overlaid as those at higher odds, but when they are, they can offer a greater percentage degree of overlay, and a much better chance of cashing.

[rrbauer]

I never penned that he said that.
Over the years I've just found his writings too cynical or skeptical to enjoy anymore. They're a "turn off" for young handicappers.

Three posts in this thread by you talking about all the things you dislike about Barry Meadow's writings, articles, etc. And, yet not a single, specific example; or, any counterpoints to whatever it is that he writes that you disagree with. Personally, I haven't read anything that he's written in about the last six years...period. Prior to that, I always found his views about the game in his articles, as well as, when I spoke with him to be insightful. And, if what he's saying about the game today has a negative tone, as a horseplayer, I can understand that.

[TrifectaMike]

The thread title alone images/buttons/green/firstnew.gif (http://showthread.php/?goto=newpost&t=73534) Is Barry Meadow Right? Or Is He Full Of Bull ? (http://showthread.php/?t=73534) shows a lack of respect for one of the founding fathers of the overlay and it's importance.

one of the founding fathers of the overlay and its importance???

Really? You are joking or at the very least exaggerating.

In which universe did this occur in? Was he also the one of the founding fathers of probability?

Step aside Fra Luca Paccioli and Geronimo Cardano (two nice Italian guys). Have you ever heard of Blaise Pascal?

Barry is a smart fellow, but a founding father he is not.

Mike

[ceejay]

Everybody likes a long price, but by automatically excluding favorites and second choices without even considering their chances in relation to their odds, you're throwing out over 50% of winners. Such horses are not as likely to be overlaid as those at higher odds, but when they are, they can offer a greater percentage degree of overlay, and a much better chance of cashing.
Although (and I have no data to back this up) it seems like the short-price overlays tend to get hammered at the windows late.

[jamey1977]

Everybody likes a long price, but by automatically excluding favorites and second choices without even considering their chances in relation to their odds, you're throwing out over 50% of winners. Such horses are not as likely to be overlaid as those at higher odds, but when they are, they can offer a greater percentage degree of overlay, and a much better chance of cashing.
I meant the first 2 morning line picks. Many times the 6 to 1 morning line pick we bet comes in and Pays 8.60. I'll take it. I would focus on the 2nd Picks and guess who would come in. ? The 18.60's. These Top 2 pick races, where there are just 2 main contenders should be spotted and just passed. We end up playing a 7 to 1 and the horse blows it and one of the first 2 picks wins. Just pass the race. I find betting on one of the 2 main contenders just results in winning half or so. Just pass the race. The challenge is to find these Favorite races and pass them. We can conserve bets and get those higher priced horses. Even a second pick overlay. Who goes up to 4 to 1 they do get bet late and the favorite could still win and what do we get back ? . Little. I just wanna pass those races. Minimize to maximize. It would be great to put down 4 bets in one day and win 3 paying 22.60, 18.80 and 19.40. It can happen. That is the day we want.

[xfile]

one of the founding fathers of the overlay and its importance???

Really? You are joking or at the very least exaggerating.

In which universe did this occur in? Was he also the one of the founding fathers of probability?

Step aside Fra Luca Paccioli and Geronimo Cardano (two nice Italian guys). Have you ever heard of Blaise Pascal?

Barry is a smart fellow, but a founding father he is not.

Mike

I don't know why so many people try to make horse racing a mathematical equation. He wrote about overlays long before people spoke about it.

[castaway01]

I think the whales bet win and exactas, but not so much tris and supers. If you're not landing on the win horse they bet, sure, your odds will go up. On the other hand, they are sharp enough that if they are on a different horse, the greater odds you're getting will be mitigated by the fact that you're probably on the wrong horse. If you are getting rebates, you should be getting a much greater rebate on the exotics. If you're not, you need a better ADW. If you're not getting any rebates, you probably should stick to the win bets.

Fair enough, thanks.

[TrifectaMike]

I don't know why so many people try to make horse racing a mathematical equation. He wrote about overlays long before people spoke about it.

Horse racing can be represented by a mathematical equation. Maybe you haven't found the right one.

To the question of overlays, how do you determine an overlay? Do you just declare it so, and bet or is it based on some sound analysis?

And for the original premise of producing a profit after 2,000 races in one year and no profit in the next 2,000 races is pure nonsense.

The only way it can happen is if the game has been entirely changed. Maybe substituting donkeys for thoroughbreds and monkeys for jockeys (well, in many cases not a stretch).

Agreed the game does undergo pertubations. Anyone who can produce a profit over a 2,000 race sample should be able to calibrate the system and continue on to a profitable path. If you can't do the calibration, quit.

Play for fun and not for profit.

Mike

[xfile]

Horse racing can be represented by a mathematical equation. Maybe you haven't found the right one.

To the question of overlays, how do you determine an overlay? Do you just declare it so, and bet or is it based on some sound analysis?

And for the original premise of producing a profit after 2,000 races in one year and no profit in the next 2,000 races is pure nonsense.

The only way it can happen is if the game has been entirely changed. Maybe substituting donkeys for thoroughbreds and monkeys for jockeys (well, in many cases not a stretch).

Agreed the game does undergo pertubations. Anyone who can produce a profit over a 2,000 race sample should be able to calibrate the system and continue on to a profitable path. If you can't do the calibration, quit.

Play for fun and not for profit.

Mike
Ah Mike - It's a little bit of this and a little of that. That is why this game is an ART. Not a science nor math alone. Barry was an original artist. Or original gangster (OG)

[Steve 'StatMan']

I never looked at Barry Meadow's work as a hinderance or a turn-away. Usually people find the game and get excited about it and want to try to beat the races. At that point, many find Meadow's work and get a helpful does of reality. One can follow the races, bet the races, be profitable or not and have fun. But when one wants to get serious about making money, then they need the serious answers to the problem questions, or else they may lose serious money. That's where I found his work highly worthwhile. He doesn't tell people how to pick them. He just warns people who want to make a living at it about the realities.

[PaceAdvantage]

Mr. Meadow just posted on PaceAdvantage yesterday if I'm not mistaken, and posts here from time to time on a semi-regular basis.

[Greyfox]

Three posts in this thread by you talking about all the things you dislike about Barry Meadow's writings, articles, etc. And, yet not a single, specific example; or, any counterpoints to whatever it is that he writes that you disagree with. Personally, I haven't read anything that he's written in about the last six years...period.

If you're not reading what he has written in the last 6 years ...period, it's not for me to provide specific examples for you.
He offers a column every month in American Turf Monthly
entitled "The Skeptical Handicapper."
See the following link, buy the mag, and get yourself up to speed:
http://www.americanturf.com/current/

Personally, I've quit taking that publication, in part due to that type of contribution.

[Trotman]

Trifecta Mike all good points, Barry Meadow has made good points too so IMO a wash. What bothers me is XFILE saying what he says a founding father even Mr. Meadow would have a chuckle on that one, but then again what do expect from a out of touch system pusher, or BIG TIME REDBOARDER.

[xfile]

Trifecta Mike all good points, Barry Meadow has made good points too so IMO a wash. What bothers me is XFILE saying what he says a founding father even Mr. Meadow would have a chuckle on that one, but then again what do expect from a out of touch system pusher, or BIG TIME REDBOARDER.
The haters are ALIVE and active....lol....Why all that hate? God bless you brother.

[Trotman]

XFILE it is what it is there is no hate I expressed an opinion. I feel that I am free to do this when there are some on this forum that go about things the way you do while others sit back and let the people come to them, now they are the prople you listen to.

[xfile]

XFILE.....now they are the prople you listen to.
What the heck is a 'prople'?

[Trotman]

Xfile now I know your full of it, your the only sad f*** that couldn't figure it out that e next to r was a slip of the finger

[PaceAdvantage]

Please don't. This goes for both of you.

[Trotman]

PA I hear you. :)

[completebill]

Horse racing can be represented by a mathematical equation. Maybe you haven't found the right one.

To the question of overlays, how do you determine an overlay? Do you just declare it so, and bet or is it based on some sound analysis?

And for the original premise of producing a profit after 2,000 races in one year and no profit in the next 2,000 races is pure nonsense.

The only way it can happen is if the game has been entirely changed. Maybe substituting donkeys for thoroughbreds and monkeys for jockeys (well, in many cases not a stretch).

Agreed the game does undergo pertubations. Anyone who can produce a profit over a 2,000 race sample should be able to calibrate the system and continue on to a profitable path. If you can't do the calibration, quit.

Play for fun and not for profit.

Mike

Mike------PLEASE!-----If you actually believe what you wrote, follow your own advice, and bet for fun, and NOT for profit. (Although I do feel sorry for you--the game is a LOT more fun when you ARE profitable!).

I am a serious (and winning) player, and became profitable only after years of research, testing handicapping theories, angles, methods, and factors, on an ongoing basis, against a continuously updated database of several hundred thousands of races.

With all due respect, if you truly believe that a profit shown over a 2,000 race sample can enable ANYONE to "... calibrate the system and continue on to a profitable path...", you are indeed doomed to betting failure. This is exactly what Barry was CORRECTLY asserting! 20, 000 races is much closer to it.

By the way, GIVEN an adequate sample size, can you please let us know just how one goes about "calibrating the system"?

Finally, are you sure of your use of the word "pertubations"? Although the word does have a meaning in the astronomical sciences, which probably doesn't here relate, it is otherwise defined as: the state of being perturbed, or agitated.

[xfile]

Xfile now I know your full of it, your the only sad f*** that couldn't figure it out that e next to r was a slip of the finger
You are a very angry man. I feel sorry for you. I hope you find peace in life.

[BMeadow]

Some points:

I've never said anybody couldn't win at the track. Many kids want to play in the NBA, but few make it. Many would like to be famous actors, but few attain that, either. Some people will succeed. Most won't. Simple as that.

When I played blackjack, I used a simulation program to look at the potential range of results for a particular game given the perceived edge (say, 1% for a good counter), rules, bankroll size, and bet sizes. A terrifying thought is that with each bet at an assumed 1% advantage, the software calculated that it was quite possible (though not probable) for a player to still be losing after 10,000 bets. Anyone who's ever played on a high-stakes blackjack team can tell you stories of horrendous beats, lasting months.

At the track, where payoffs vary greatly--particularly for longshot players--it is quite possible to be ahead after 2,000 bets and then lose for the next 2,000. Take a player who makes win bets only. After 2,000 bets, he's ahead by 3% ($120 on $2 bets). In this sequence, he hit winners that paid $140, $96, and $88. In the next group of 2,000, he might not hit anything this high. Assuming he replicates all his other results (which may, or may not, be the case), he's now a 5% loser. And if his profit on 2,000 bets came from a couple of giant superfectas or pick 6's, let's just hope his good luck continues or things can get ugly quickly.

My column in American Turf Monthly is called The Skeptical Handicapper. It's designed as a reality check to all those "anybody can have a 25% ROI if he just tries a little" articles and books. The biggest, most successful rebate players--according to statistics released by RGS--generally have an ROI ranging from -6% to +4%, and make their money via rebates. Most of the professional players I interviewed in Meadow's Racing Monthly felt if they had a long-term ROI of 5%, they'd be delighted. (For various reasons, generally relating to the lack of reliable information available to the public, some quarterhorse, mule, and dog bettors may do a lot better than this.)

I will agree that it's possible to improve this ROI--but if your goal is to make serious money, you have to bet serious money, and many races. If you say you have a 20% ROI but you bet just two races a month at $400 per race, your year's total income from gambling would be less than $2,000, so what good is this giant ROI doing you (and if you hit a cold streak, ouch!)?

Yes, some people--particularly those selling you something--will tell you that you can have some kind of giant, long-term ROI doing this. "The sky's the limit, if you just believe and buy our software or selections or systems," they say. But for most of us who actually gamble full-time, it's more about making the kinds of bets that will keep us close to breakeven, so the rebates can kick in and we can make some real money. Waiting for some giant pick 6 to save the day won't do it, because it may never come.

I don't want to get into the optimism vs. pessimism discussion, because everybody is different. For some players, surely, having a positive attitude is a must. But not for everybone. There are players who constantly tell themselves "I'm a winner, I'm a winner" only they never win. Others, always gloomy, figure that their 20 years of steady profits probably means they've been lucky, and this is the year the math gods will take their revenge (yet they still manage to win).

Many of the concepts I've written about aren't new--they're just common sense. Do the work. Bet only when you believe you have an advantage. Analyze each race to see which pools this particular race (or series of races) requires. Bet within your comfort zone. Keep detailed records.

And maybe you'll be one of those who'll enjoy long-term success at this difficult game.

[xfile]

Thanks for weighing in Barry. Even to this day some people don't realize the secret is in the overlay. You can lead a horse to water......

[Robert Goren]

I wonder how many sucessful ideas were discarded prematurely because the person gave up on them when it started out a cold streak.

[Gapfire]

I wonder how many sucessful ideas were discarded prematurely because the person gave up on them when it started out a cold streak.

Great point. In many cases, what works one day won't work the next.
For example when they water the track between races at Del Mar, you get completely different results, than when they don't water between races.

So a good idea might be easily dismissed if it were to be tested on the wrong day.

[PaceAdvantage]

I wonder how many sucessful ideas were discarded prematurely because the person gave up on them when it started out a cold streak.A very insightful observation, which applies equally to the financial markets....

[Trotman]

A very insightful observation, which applies equally to the financial markets....
Robert Goren I have to agree with PA in fact I damned near fell out of my chair, very insightful observation. This is exactly my point in why handicapping software is not the be all and end all to snagging winners. If you keep changing the weighing factors with your database based on what is working or if you run cold you alter the weights again are you not pushing yourself further away from the truth, this is just my observation to another topic but your observation hit the nerve to get me going. :ThmbUp:

[DeanT]

May I nominate Barry's post as post of the month. There is more accuracy in that post on betting and gambling than 10,000 others I have read on gambling boards (in my opinion.)

Hell of a post.

[thaskalos]

May I nominate Barry's post as post of the month. There is more accuracy in that post on betting and gambling than 10,000 others I have read on gambling boards (in my opinion.)

Hell of a post.One has to wonder why Barry was not more vocal in his criticism of Dick Mitchell...and his outrageous ROI claims.

[Trotman]

Oh DeanT and thaskalos absolutely, I'd like to hear
Barry jump in.

[atlasaxis]

One has to wonder why Barry was not more vocal in his criticism of Dick Mitchell...and his outrageous ROI claims.

What were his claims and when & where were they made?

[jonnielu]

I guess I'll have to stand over there with Greyfox on this one, and continue hoping that modern man can recover the skill of independant thinking.jdl

[John]

What were his claims and when & where were they made?


In his monthly newsletter, I would think.

:) :) :)

[DeanT]

One has to wonder why Barry was not more vocal in his criticism of Dick Mitchell...and his outrageous ROI claims.

You did a good job on page three. Maybe there is no need to.

[classhandicapper]

I wonder how many sucessful ideas were discarded prematurely because the person gave up on them when it started out a cold streak.

Probably abut the same number that people got suckered into because it started off with a winning streak.

[classhandicapper]

Some points:
I don't want to get into the optimism vs. pessimism discussion, because everybody is different. For some players, surely, having a positive attitude is a must. But not for everybone. There are players who constantly tell themselves "I'm a winner, I'm a winner" only they never win. Others, always gloomy, figure that their 20 years of steady profits probably means they've been lucky, and this is the year the math gods will take their revenge (yet they still manage to win).



Here's an interesting twist on this phenomenon.

At various times I've noticed profitable opportunities and proceeded cautiously out of fear I was missing something only to have the opportunity evaporate as soon as I was ready to get very aggressive.

One such opportunity was place betting at a place called Tradesports (too long to explain)

Another was arbitrage opportunities between exchanges and rebate shops.

In both cases I made several thousand dollars, but I left much more than that on the table by being cautious. Sometimes you have to get your testosterone up as soon you see the whites in their eyes.

[Gapfire]

Here's an interesting twist on this phenomenon.



Another was arbitrage opportunities between exchanges and rebate shops.


I agree, sometimes you have to attack before the edge is gone.

Have these arbitrage opportunities disappeared?

[Foolish Pleasure]

Where theory and reality diverge:

Big edges are not easily replaced while bankrolls can be. Ask around, people always tell me things used to be easier, I wish I had bet more then.

Any gambling edge is typically dissipating while most money management systems have folks ramping up.

Can't spend ROI at a super market.


there is a circle of risk.
When things are going good take on more risk when things are going bad take on less risk-this going good or bad is a function of everything involved, preparation, the races being offered et al including chance. It is somewhat predictable-the better things are going the more likely one will be dilligent putting in the effort and vice versa but not entirely as obviously chance plays a factor. Once things start deteriorating, usually from taking on too much risk while things are going good-pull in the horns and look for only prime spots until things start going well again.

IMO once one gets past the incline to chase-This seems a natural pattern in investing, gambling or whatever where it is subjective and not purely objective.

[classhandicapper]

I agree, sometimes you have to attack before the edge is gone.

Have these arbitrage opportunities disappeared?

I used to get 2-3 a day with a wide spread. Now I am lucky to get 1 a week. Plus, the spread is so narrow now, I have some risk on the track side if the price drops a lot on the last flash. I got burned once or twice this year like that and gave away a chunk of profits. I almost don't even bother looking anymore unless I know I am going to pass the race otherwise.

[MPRanger]

Some years ago...I asked a well known handicapping author - who claimed to be earning a 20% ROI...why he wasn't making $300,000 a year...given the number of races we have available to us every day.

He told me that his "comfort level" prevented him from wagering more than $250 a race.

Here was a man...telling me, that he was able to make the gradual jump from $20 to $250 a race...but now he froze...even-though he was convinced that the larger wagers would lead to much bigger profits.

This is the "business" approach that so many handicapping authors advocate?

What "real" businessman would refuse ta expand his "business"...if he was assured that his profits would double?

I am a very simple guy who started betting $20 a race, in 1981. I was a losing player for 24 years. 5 years ago, it was as if a light went on in my head...and I gave a new look to this old game. I have been winning ever since. And my bets got bigger...and bigger. I have NO comfort lever. As long as my bankroll, and the betting pools, are big enough to accommodate my wagers, then smaller wagers would only mean a pay cut for me.

If you asked me WHEN I was most afraid...I would tell you it was the time when I started betting $50 or $100 a race. I definitely wouldn't tell you that I am afraid now...because by now, large wagers have become routine for me. AND...I am much more confident in myself now, than I was then!

Am I that unique? Of course not! Any winning player, interested in profiting from this game, would do the same thing.

My point is this:

If a player can get a 20% ROI in this game (or anything close to that)...then he can get VERY RICH...regardless of how selective he is. And he wouldn't need any rebates to do it!

Unless, that is, he is lazy...which is unthinkable.

Barry Meadow NEVER said that this game cannot be beaten. I heard him say that the best a long term player can hope for, is a ROI of 10%...and I agree![/QUOTE]


thasklos :


I have a growing file of wisdom and procedures which I snag from the internet. It's for my own use or I may refer to it to others. I usually save the link where I snagged it from.

I just added your post to it. I appreciate the way you think and your contributions.

[maddog42]

record your bets before you make them including conditions of the race and everything you are thinking Before you bet and then the outcome. Your personality and mind are unique and you have some strengths and weaknesses. Only bet your strengths and youll skip a lot of races but you will be in the black after a while. You will slip and bet the races you suck at on occasion. Dont beat yourself up. Even the best professional does this. Just get back on your program. Skipping races is only magical formula that exists in this game. YOU ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT A DOUBT CAN BEAT THIS GAME IN THE LONG RUN. When you are in a losing streak, take a break from racing and do something else you like and recharge. People go out of form and need a layoff too. I really believe that you have some type of talent you can capitalize to win or you wouldnt be posting on this site looking for the answer. You need to honestly look at yourself and life and see what you are good at and translate it into betting.


Nalley. This is a great post. I am knocking on the door of profitablilty (breaking even) but the ups and downs are huge. I have finally located my sweet spot of odds and I believe they are betwwen 5 to1 and 14 to 1. My studies tell me, that my profitability either erodes or is not there lower than
9 to 2. But you have got to keep records to know this. I believe everyone is different on this. My hit rate is low but I can pick winners at odds. I have pretty much given up the exotics. My bankroll and my abilities just can't do
them. my last 200 races are where i am getting this info, and i admit this may not be enough. i don't even calculate my 2 largest wins, because i don't trust
they will happen again. a cursory glance of over 400 races that i have recorded tells me i have eked out a tiny profit.
2000 races? I am pretty sure i will show a loss, but less than 10 percent.

great post!!!
p.s. my records get pretty sketchy from 6 months ago.

[Capper Al]

What gets me is that new systems seem to work at first and then fade. Why is this so?

[Overlay]

What gets me is that new systems seem to work at first and then fade. Why is this so?
Do you mean "fade" from a handicapping perspective, or from a wagering/ROI perspective? Fading from a wagering/ROI perspective is completely understandable and predictable for any system that is predicated on guiding everyone who uses it to the same horse (such as through a process of elimination (a checklist of qualifying rules), the application of an angle, or the use of a ranking mechanism (figures, for example)), where the selection is then to be bet at any odds. As the word about it gets out, people jump on the bandwagon, and ROI declines.

The system may remain as effective as it ever was in predicting performance and isolating winners, but, because the ROI as a stand-alone, bet-at-any-odds proposition is no longer there, people discard it and move on. In my opinion, the keys are the use of multiple weighted factors; the consideration of every horse in the race; and (especially) the incorporation of betting value into wagering decisions.

[bigmack]

What gets me is that new systems seem to work at first and then fade. Why is this so?
Fitting, your posts are as lofty as the town you reside.

Snap, crackle, pop.

[jk3521]

I laid off betting for periods of time and worked on new "systems". On paper ,not wagering, I get great results and I say to myself " I've done it!, i've found the holy grail of systems" So I dig right in and go for it. You can guess what happened, LOSER! I have an old handicapping program from the late 90's , thats 1990's, that I keep going back to because no matter how many software programs or systems I try, it has the greatest success. But after all these years I still won't rely only on that program. Why won't I rely only on the selections of that program?, I don't know. I always tinker with the settings and mess myself up . No matter how well we do we always think that we can do better.

[fmolf]

I laid off betting for periods of time and worked on new "systems". On paper ,not wagering, I get great results and I say to myself " I've done it!, i've found the holy grail of systems" So I dig right in and go for it. You can guess what happened, LOSER! I have an old handicapping program from the late 90's , thats 1990's, that I keep going back to because no matter how many software programs or systems I try, it has the greatest success. But after all these years I still won't rely only on that program. Why won't I rely only on the selections of that program?, I don't know. I always tinker with the settings and mess myself up . No matter how well we do we always think that we can do better.After 35 yrs of playing this game with limited success.Up some years down others,I believe the only system that works is good old fashioned nuts and bolts handicapping.Digging in then culling the pertinent info for that particular race.I have found that certain angles work better on certain type races.Everyone has their favorite angles the difference between winning and losing is knowing when to apply them.

[pondman]

This horse racing business is just heartbreaking. These losing streaks are heartbreaking. Barry Meadow is a smart guy. One of his comments, he says." In 2000 races, what makes you think, just because something happened one way before ,what makes you think it will happen again ?

Is Barry Meadow correct?

Ridiculous.

So far this year, I've had two different streaks of 6 losses on +$100 win bets. But I also nailed 5 straight with one horse paying $38. My ROI is still beyond the consensus on this forum-- of which most of you would think impossible. It's not that difficult to pick 40- 60% winners. I'm currently sitting on the low side at 44% (It's a cash register.)

[thaskalos]

Ridiculous.

So far this year, I've had two different streaks of 6 losses on +$100 win bets. But I also nailed 5 straight with one horse paying $38. My ROI is still beyond the consensus on this forum-- of which most of you would think impossible. It's not that difficult to pick 40- 60% winners. I'm currently sitting on the low side at 44% (It's a cash register.) You are not the first to compare our game to a cash register...or a personal bank. Several "geniuses" have done the same in the past.

I hope, for your sake, that you fare better in the long run than THEY did...

[pondman]

You are not the first to compare our game to a cash register...or a personal bank. Several "geniuses" have done the same in the past.

I hope, for your sake, that you fare better in the long run than THEY did...

I should clarify:


Shippers are my main source of butter (2/3rd of all my bets). I bet maidens, horses off maiden wins, and maidens on grass in S. California. I chose those areas to focus because...most handicappers have trouble with these.

[maddog42]

Ridiculous.

So far this year, I've had two different streaks of 6 losses on +$100 win bets. But I also nailed 5 straight with one horse paying $38. My ROI is still beyond the consensus on this forum-- of which most of you would think impossible. It's not that difficult to pick 40- 60% winners. I'm currently sitting on the low side at 44% (It's a cash register.)

Back in 1989 I had a streak where I won over 8k. I was using the old match-up Sartin program and playing my 4th rank sustained horse at odds above 10 to 1.I was also using other methods but this was the main one. This lasted about 90 days, and my roi was phenomenal ( over % 60). I thought I was going to get rich. Guess what ? I came crashing down and probably gave 4k back before catching on. I know from my own experience that 1000 races is nothing. I was playing on equitrack at Remington Park. Because I have always played Longshots to win the streaks are incredible :good and bad.
Good luck to you. These things don't usually last.

[pondman]

These things don't usually last.

I've been playing this method for about 15 years, after I heard A. Beyers at a book signing say he couldn't emperically convert times for shippers going from Santa Anita to Golden Gate.

So I threw out the numbers, and turned it into +50K a year at GG. So I sit in my office everyday (m-n section top deck at SA) and yell at the big screen of GG. I've added a number of B tracks to my method. Same method. I have few tracks I'll go back on maiden claiming winners. And I'm a grandmaster at playing maidens on the grass in Southern California. Why insist this is all going to vanish and go down in flames?

Sartin? Look at the 3/4 miles in Southern Calf. Back in the day I broke a lot of fractions for a blind guy; it will still work for picking contenders. You'd probably make some cash in exotics.