Lessons from a pro

[46zilzal]

Our track hired a professional gambler this season, F.R. who puts out a daily (very good one too) tip sheet under the moniker of The Professor.

An open minded very knowledgeable fellow, who, follows a philosophy of LATERAL THINKING (de Bono), and, as such, looks where others don't. He uses HTR software so we have a good time comparing out comes. We are often very close.

He believes, like I do, that so much CAN and OFTEN DOES happen between the gate and the wire, that one has to cover the various possibilities. He doesn't wager vertically that often beyond exactas because "When it comes to the horses underneath, the number of possibilities, particularly in a super, become so outrageous and often illogical, that covering those bets takes a hefty bank roll and a bit of luck." He does delve into the occasional trifecta and the exacta is often a back up for him.

He is trying to get me interested in his specialty, the horizontal bet, particularly the pick 4. Strangely, he finds, that it is easier to find the winners in all legs than entering the REQUIRED large number of horses underneath when wagering vertically. Hence, he substantiates my philosophy, to consider a substantial number of horses to cover the under side of the trifecta. "You will never get the big ones unless you include the often illogical horses underneath."

His base Pick 4 bet goes like this. A is his first choice and B are his secondary choices.

The tickets are listed horizontally in this chart and the horses numbers in each position are listed vertically. Total cost $114.00

[gm10]

Our track hired a professional gambler this season, F.R. who puts out a daily (very good one too) tip sheet under the moniker of The Professor.

An open minded very knowledgeable fellow, who, follows a philosophy of LATERAL THINKING (de Bono), and, as such, looks where others don't. He uses HTR software so we have a good time comparing out comes. We are often very close.

He believes, like I do, that so much CAN and OFTEN DOES happen between the gate and the wire, that one has to cover the various possibilities. He doesn't wager vertically that often beyond exactas because "When it comes to the horses underneath, the number of possibilities, particularly in a super, become so outrageous and often illogical, that covering those bets takes a hefty bank roll and a bit of luck." He does delve into the occasional trifecta and the exacta is often a back up for him.

He is trying to get me interested in his specialty, the horizontal bet, particularly the pick 4. Strangely, he finds, that it is easier to find the winners in all legs than entering the REQUIRED large number of horses underneath when wagering vertically. Hence, he substantiates my philosophy, to consider a substantial number of horses to cover the under side of the trifecta. "You will never get the big ones unless you include the often illogical horses underneath."

His base Pick 4 bet goes like this. A is his first choice and B are his secondary choices.

The tickets are listed horizontally in this chart and the horses numbers in each position are listed vertically. Total cost $114.00

Why does the Pick 4 have 5 legs?

[Dahoss9698]

I can already tell this is going to be a thread to follow. Can't wait.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Hilarious stuff zil.

I guess every race has the exact same preference aspect......1 best horse over 3 other horses and all equal in their value range.

I know I come across 4 race sequences that fit this profile about once every decade or two.

If that's his specialty and this is his professional method.......run away as fast as you can.

[Greyfox]

He is trying to get me interested in his specialty, the horizontal bet, particularly the pick 4. Strangely, he finds, that it is easier to find the winners in all legs than entering the REQUIRED large number of horses underneath when wagering vertically.

I agree with line of thinking and but don't find it strange that it's easier to pick winners than the combinations running under them. I like the Pick 3.

[GaryG]

I agree with line of thinking and but don't find it strange that it's easier to pick winners than the combinations running under them. I like the Pick 3.Me too Fox, for the same reason. The title of this thread sounds like some mail order system from the old days.

[speed]

Why does the Pick 4 have 5 legs?
Used to be because of the weak exchange rate.
It took 5 Canadian races to make 4 American races. :)

[Stillriledup]

Our track hired a professional gambler this season, F.R. who puts out a daily (very good one too) tip sheet under the moniker of The Professor.

An open minded very knowledgeable fellow, who, follows a philosophy of LATERAL THINKING (de Bono), and, as such, looks where others don't. He uses HTR software so we have a good time comparing out comes. We are often very close.

He believes, like I do, that so much CAN and OFTEN DOES happen between the gate and the wire, that one has to cover the various possibilities. He doesn't wager vertically that often beyond exactas because "When it comes to the horses underneath, the number of possibilities, particularly in a super, become so outrageous and often illogical, that covering those bets takes a hefty bank roll and a bit of luck." He does delve into the occasional trifecta and the exacta is often a back up for him.

He is trying to get me interested in his specialty, the horizontal bet, particularly the pick 4. Strangely, he finds, that it is easier to find the winners in all legs than entering the REQUIRED large number of horses underneath when wagering vertically. Hence, he substantiates my philosophy, to consider a substantial number of horses to cover the under side of the trifecta. "You will never get the big ones unless you include the often illogical horses underneath."

His base Pick 4 bet goes like this. A is his first choice and B are his secondary choices.

The tickets are listed horizontally in this chart and the horses numbers in each position are listed vertically. Total cost $114.00


I disagree with this. I think its easier to get some slug to clunk up for 4th to complete the super than it is to pick 4 winners in a row....esp in 10+ horse fields.

[BlueShoe]

I agree with line of thinking and but don't find it strange that it's easier to pick winners than the combinations running under them. I like the Pick 3.
After becoming somewhat enchanted by supers and tris a couple of years ago, I too have realized that, for me at least, the horizontal exotic is much better than the vertical one. It just seems much, much easier to select the winner and second horse than the 3rd and 4th place ones. That 45-1 shot that has lost by double digit lengths in its last five races just seems to jump up and kill your ticket by landing in the lower rungs too often. At one time was an active pick 3 player, but drifted away from it, a mistake. Back to the rolling triples, with an occasional pick 4.

[Greyfox]

Used to be because of the weak exchange rate.
It took 5 Canadian races to make 4 American races. :)

:ThmbUp: Luv it. :lol: :lol:

[gm10]

After becoming somewhat enchanted by supers and tris a couple of years ago, I too have realized that, for me at least, the horizontal exotic is much better than the vertical one. It just seems much, much easier to select the winner and second horse than the 3rd and 4th place ones. That 45-1 shot that has lost by double digit lengths in its last five races just seems to jump up and kill your ticket by landing in the lower rungs too often. At one time was an active pick 3 player, but drifted away from it, a mistake. Back to the rolling triples, with an occasional pick 4.

My reasoning is ... jockeys have to make a living. They are on a lot of horses that they know can't possibly win, but if they ask them for an effort at the right time (late in the race), they know could possibly get third or fourth. If they a run a couple of third or fourth places each day, they still make a living.

[BlueShoe]

Used to be because of the weak exchange rate.
It took 5 Canadian races to make 4 American races. :)
Careful, because it is his thread, Zilly may respond with one of his murky political statements. ;)

[speed]

Careful, because it is his thread, Zilly may respond with one of his murky political statements. ;)
Come on,
This is good material.
I just hope HBO is reading. :)

[Exotic1]

Our track hired a professional gambler this season, F.R. who puts out a daily (very good one too) tip sheet under the moniker of The Professor.

An open minded very knowledgeable fellow, who, follows a philosophy of LATERAL THINKING (de Bono), and, as such, looks where others don't.....

Would a Lateral Thinker be considered a Horizontal Thinker or a Vertical Thinker?

[beertapper]

Our track hired a professional gambler this season, F.R. who puts out a daily (very good one too) tip sheet under the moniker of The Professor.

An open minded very knowledgeable fellow, who, follows a philosophy of LATERAL THINKING (de Bono), and, as such, looks where others don't. He uses HTR software so we have a good time comparing out comes. We are often very close.

He believes, like I do, that so much CAN and OFTEN DOES happen between the gate and the wire, that one has to cover the various possibilities. He doesn't wager vertically that often beyond exactas because "When it comes to the horses underneath, the number of possibilities, particularly in a super, become so outrageous and often illogical, that covering those bets takes a hefty bank roll and a bit of luck." He does delve into the occasional trifecta and the exacta is often a back up for him.

He is trying to get me interested in his specialty, the horizontal bet, particularly the pick 4. Strangely, he finds, that it is easier to find the winners in all legs than entering the REQUIRED large number of horses underneath when wagering vertically. Hence, he substantiates my philosophy, to consider a substantial number of horses to cover the under side of the trifecta. "You will never get the big ones unless you include the often illogical horses underneath."

His base Pick 4 bet goes like this. A is his first choice and B are his secondary choices.

The tickets are listed horizontally in this chart and the horses numbers in each position are listed vertically. Total cost $114.00

interesting..saw the sheet advertised when i was at hastings, but didn't think much of it... will check it out next time.

tickets look like crist et al. method..

[therussmeister]

I disagree with this. I think its easier to get some slug to clunk up for 4th to complete the super than it is to pick 4 winners in a row....esp in 10+ horse fields.

I agree with your disagreement. Although I theoretically have been playing supers for years, in reality I rarely did because it seemed trifectas were a better bet. About three months ago I set up a separate bankroll for supers so I would play regularly. I have since been stunned at how easy I find it to pick the fourth place horse.

On another (and contradictory) note, for the superior handicapper, that a certain type of bet is easier to win is the very reason you should not bet it. You need to find spots where your superior handicapping abilities gives you an edge, and avoid spots where you wind up sharing the pool with people who are "accidentally right".

[macdiarmida]

There was discussion a while back where there seemed to be much agreement that there wasn't the overlay advantage to playing P3s there once was. Also, the "requirement" to take a race you're not particularly good at or has stone solid chalk in it then puts you at disadvantage. C'mon, tell me you studiously avoid those walkovers that show up every day. That's gotten hard to do. Now if you always bet against those stone chalks, more power to you or warm greetings to your therapist. But if you hedge and always include those chalks without multiple ticket construction, I just send greetings to your therapist.

If the pro is a horizontal bettor, that means to me he must be looking at all chain bets including doubles and, equally, piling all the money in a win bet in one race. Did he say anything about that? (The vertical guy picks from WPS, exactas, tris, etc.) The idea (I thought, silly me) is to be in the right/most advantageous pool for the bucks you're throwing in.

Letting the bet type dictate how many bucks you play is kind of a weird concept. It assumes a largish bankroll IMO. Usually people end up cutting out eventual winners to cut down the ticket(s) to fit the bankroll. All you guys play $100 P3 multiple combo tickets or multiples of it as a matter of course? If your standard bet is, say, roughly $300, then you always play the $100 group of combos 3 times? And if you had a $64 P3 set of combos built, you'd always play that 5 times?

[Trotman]

I'm going to love following this thread too. As ITP said once in a decade. FR as Zilly tells us is a professional ya right it's Zilly's own work but he forgot to give us the rest.
FRAUD :lol:

[JohnGalt1]

I believe you shouldn't force a bet on a race, or races, but let the race or races determine the bet.

[delayjf]

If one is a big better who plays tickets higher than the 1 or 2 dollar variety, then you might have a problem with the fact that the P-3 pools usually only about half of those of the trifecta.

[46zilzal]

I'm going to love following this thread too. As ITP said once in a decade. FR as Zilly tells us is a professional ya right it's Zilly's own work but he forgot to give us the rest.
FRAUD :lol: You want to write him......I can send you his e-mail privately if you like. He is the best I have ever run into and have known him for years

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Going horizontal assumes that each race can be handicapped equally. Contradicts the old adage of "You can beat a race, but you can't be the races".

[markgoldie]

The Crist method is supported by logic. However, a really top-flight handicapper should have trouble in restricting himself to only A and B selections. The reason is simple: many times a longshot may have a reasonable chance of winning because his current form is unkown. So while you might want to use several such horses in a P4 sequence, even calling them B's blows up the ticket price radically since they must be played with all "A" selections.

The second problem with playing only A's and B's is that you have to use far more A's than B's and so you begin putting marginal animals as A's simply because you know that 1 (and only 1) B can hit in the sequence in order for you to cash.

This is where the "C" horse comes in. The problem with adding C's is that you now MUST change the increment bet amount or else there is no distinction between a B and a C. Naturally, when you change the increment, you up the price of the play significantly. A normal example would be when you play the A/B spread for $2 and the A/C spread for $1.

A very logical argument can be made that the more category distinctions you make, the more efficient the play. The reason being that it allows for better protection of your core play and also puts you in line to capitalize on the underplayed area of this inefficient market. This opens the possibility to adding even a "D" category. But again, this requires even more increments of the wager.

The bottom line here is in deciding if your bankroll can give you a sufficiently plausible shot at cashing the gimmick. If not, you are simply accomplishing a serial donation by playing a series of P4's in which you have only a miniscule chance of hitting.

A war analogy comes to mind. If you have 40 men that must fight an enemy of 100, your best chance of winning is to send the 40 out all at once rather than 2 men at a time.

The lure of horizontals is that they unwitingly convert normal chalk players into longshot artists. So, for example, the guy who never played a 50-1 shot in his life (and laughs at those who do), has no problem putting his $48 into a P6 where his rational odds of hitting may be 500-1 with such an investment.

So if you play complex horizontals, bankroll size and coverage-range are of paramount importance.

[markgoldie]

Going horizontal assumes that each race can be handicapped equally. Contradicts the old adage of "You can beat a race, but you can't be the races".
Excellent point. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

You are trapped by the races that are designated as part of the gimmick.

[46zilzal]

Excellent point. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

You are trapped by the races that are designated as part of the gimmick.

FR states that this approach is subject to the card of the day. NOTHING is rigid

[Trotman]

Zilly I call, sure send me a PM

[InsideThePylons-MW]

FR states that this approach is subject to the card of the day. NOTHING is rigid

The scheme in your picture is the definition of rigid. In fact it's so rigid that it's impossible to believe that everything it is related to isn't rigid too.

[thaskalos]

This is where the "C" horse comes in. The problem with adding C's is that you now MUST change the increment bet amount or else there is no distinction between a B and a C. Naturally, when you change the increment, you up the price of the play significantly. A normal example would be when you play the A/B spread for $2 and the A/C spread for $1.

A very logical argument can be made that the more category distinctions you make, the more efficient the play. The reason being that it allows for better protection of your core play and also puts you in line to capitalize on the underplayed area of this inefficient market. This opens the possibility to adding even a "D" category. But again, this requires even more increments of the wager.

The bottom line here is in deciding if your bankroll can give you a sufficiently plausible shot at cashing the gimmick. If not, you are simply accomplishing a serial donation by playing a series of P4's in which you have only a miniscule chance of hitting.
And this is the reason that a vertical wager like the 10-cent super is such a good bet for the player, IMO.

The low base of the bet allows the player to make these "distinctions"... placing more emphasis on the horses that warrant it...while also including the interesting looking longshots, on a lesser scale.

Great coverage and bet sizing, with a modest bankroll requirement.

[HuggingTheRail]

At what point does pool size become a factor (if at all). In the original post by 46, FR's plan invests $114. The Friday night WIN 4 pool at Hastings was just under $6,000 (granted, that is lower than usual as handle is down during the annual fair). That said, would you still invest an amount equal to 2% of the pool?

[46zilzal]

At what point does pool size become a factor (if at all). In the original post by 46, FR's plan invests $114. The Friday night WIN 4 pool at Hastings was just under $6,000 (granted, that is lower than usual as handle is down during the annual fair). That said, would you still invest an amount equal to 2% of the pool?


AGAIN let me state this is simply a starting point philosophically to conquer this bet. If you have ever seen FR or talked to him (he is down right near me at the paddock on all even numbered races) you will find out in 5 seconds that ROI is at the heart of ALL his wagering.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

At what point does pool size become a factor (if at all). In the original post by 46, FR's plan invests $114. The Friday night WIN 4 pool at Hastings was just under $6,000

Pool size coupled with the fact that he has AAAA for $11 makes it almost impossible that the A's could be anything but chalk. Would he have a 10-1 and 6-1 as A's? Not likely and if he did his betting structure would be that of a fool.

If he had a A in one race who was 10-1 that he thought had a great chance, his scheme is moronic because his 10-1 could win and have BBB win the other races and instead of winning the pool, he's "professionally" bet himself into getting back $0.

[46zilzal]

Pool size coupled with the fact that he has AAAA for $11 makes it almost impossible that the A's could be anything but chalk. Would he have a 10-1 and 6-1 as A's? Not likely and if he did his betting structure would be that of a fool.

If he had a A in one race who was 10-1 that he thought had a great chance, his scheme is moronic because his 10-1 could win and have BBB win the other races and instead of winning the pool, he's "professionally" bet himself into getting back $0.
This is a hoot...I will have to tell him of your professional assessment.
FR's top pick is NOT based on what you may or may not think so and A is not always the chalk as a recent $42.00 winner in a maiden race at Del Mar made me realize when I viewed how he uses this.

BTW he is also a consultant to a Pick 6 betting syndicate here in town and does very well. strangely, at Mountaineer


His profile is listed here;http://www.hastingspark.com/racing/horseracingcentral/newsletter/2010/jun11.aspx

[InsideThePylons-MW]

This is a hoot...I will have to tell him of your professional assessment.

Great.....You ask him if having an A at 10-1 and an A at 6-1 is a strategically correct wagering strategy into a $6000 P-4 pool using his structure you posted.


Just so you might understand a little before you ask the question......

He would have $44 of his entire bet using just those 2 horses singled.

$44 to win at 10-1 is $484 and $484 to win on a 6-1 is $3388 (could be more with breakage).

So basically he would be risking at least $3388 of value in the other 2 races to......

Win nothing

Win less

Get his money back + about $1000 if his ticket is the only winner


Boy....That sounds like a great "professional" way to bet :bang:

[Sinner369]

46zilzal:

Some questions for you:

1) The base Pick4.......the total cost is $113 dollars. If T1 is for one dollar only?...............

2) The meaning of A and B is subjective? Those are "the Professor A's and B's!

3) Like "B" means longshots with a chance?

4) And there is a condition with His Pick 4.......Two A's must come in for him to collect and it does not matter which leg?

5) Can you privately gave me his email.............?


Sinner

[46zilzal]

Great.....You ask him if having an A at 10-1 and an A at 6-1 is a strategically correct wagering strategy into a $6000 P-4 pool using his structure you posted.

He would be the last person on earth to risk big for a small return....I don't know where you get the assumption that this fellow would risk that investment for that small a return.....This fellow is the polar opposite to that.

This scenario was one we discussed as a starting point in order to cover if lower horses dominate. It is not written in stone and is applied when it is worth it...Bringing up a single incidence when a pool was small is ridiculous.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

He would be the last person on earth to risk big for a small return....I don't know wher you get the assumption that this fellow would risk that investment for that small a return.....This fellow is the polar opposite to that.

Bringing up a single incidence when a pool was small is ridiculous.

At what point does pool size become a factor (if at all). In the original post by 46, FR's plan invests $114. The Friday night WIN 4 pool at Hastings was just under $6,000


He's the professor at Hastings.

Hastings has P-4 pool of $6000.



I guess I was supposed to know or somehow figure out that this guy is some betting syndicate leader/advisor that has a humanitarian job helping newbies bet on the P-6 at Mountaineer where the pool is $2000 after a 3 week carryover.

[46zilzal]

He's the professor at Hastings.

I guess I was supposed to know or somehow figure out that this guy is some betting syndicate leader/advisor that has a humanitarian job helping newbies bet on the P-6 at Mountaineer where the pool is $2000 after a 3 week carryover.
He is hardly a total humanitarian although he is very generous with this time and experience. He is paid obviously, and, if you spoke to him for 4 minutes you would realize how very selective his wagers are.

I mentioned who he is many times during this thread.

[BlueShoe]

You are trapped by the races that are designated as part of the gimmick.
Not at all. The quick and easy solution is to pass. If, in a pick 3, you have a standout single but the other two legs are total blurs, just not betting is the wise course. Happens all the time, in fact, at tracks that offer the rolling triples, usually do not find more than one or two worth betting. Learned the hard way that if I spread more than one race in the sequence I really have no opinion, and am actually just guessing.

[garyscpa]

...

BTW he is also a consultant to a Pick 6 betting syndicate here in town and does very well. strangely, at Mountaineer.

...



A Pick 6 betting syndicate at Mountaineer, and he's the consultant? :bang:

[Saratoga_Mike]

I guess I was supposed to know or somehow figure out that this guy is some betting syndicate leader/advisor that has a humanitarian job helping newbies bet on the P-6 at Mountaineer where the pool is $2000 after a 3 week carryover.

So are you saying it's unwise to bet into a Pick Six pool of $2k? Zilly - what does the good professor have to say?

[46zilzal]

A Pick 6 betting syndicate at Mountaineer, and he's the consultant? :bang:
I said a consultant to a syndicate that often bets Mountaineer

[Saratoga_Mike]

I said a consultant to a syndicate that often bets Mountaineer

What is the MNR synidicate betting, if not the Pick 6?

[46zilzal]

I guess I was supposed to know or somehow figure out that this guy is some betting syndicate leader/advisor that has a humanitarian job helping newbies bet on the P-6 at Mountaineer where the pool is $2000 after a 3 week carryover.

So are you saying it's unwise to bet into a Pick Six pool of $2k? Zilly - what does the good professor have to say?
I never bet horizontally and we do not offer pick 6 here


I can't answer of him.......

[46zilzal]

What is the MNR synidicate betting, if not the Pick 6?
The SYNDICATE bets many tracks in many ways I am told

[positive4th]

I'll keep this simple.

Betting horizontal exotics is ABSOLUTELY the way to go for me, b/c it allows the unique opportunity to hedge and virtually guarantee a profit if you make it to the pay-off leg with several well-paying options that you can bet against for a self-induced "conso" return. Only 1 can win, and 1 HAS to win every single time.

Just my admittedly-amateur 2 cents on the unique benefits of horizontal exotics.

[Dick Schmidt]

You guys need to calm down and not go off on ol' #46. At least, unlike so many in "Off Topic" he actually goes racing. Disagree with his politics if you will, but this thread isn't political, it's about someone who makes money at the track. How many of you can say the same?

As for the comments that you can't use a rigid method, that is nonsense. I bet the pick 3s in both Northern and Southern California every day for about 2 years and ALWAYS made exactly the same bet. I used Dave Schwartz's software and found a setup that produced the winner in the top three 70% of the time. Do the math and you'll see that equates to about a 35% win rate using 3 horses in three races.

I had this argument with Barry Meadows once, where he insisted that you needed to structure tickets according to odds and strength ratings. Using about the same horses, he put in 8 tickets, I put in one. Took him 10 minutes, took me 30 seconds. Now, at the time, I was playing 6 races a day at both NoCal and SoCal, or 60 races a week. Post times were sort of staggered, but not always. I defy anyone to put in 60 tickets, taking no more than 4 or 5 minutes each, and not make at least one error. And that error will always cost you a win. Sure, sometimes I won and lost money. Sometimes I could have optimized my bet better. I showed a consistent 60% ROI over two years with my unstructured bad bets. I was content and had enough time to make other bets as well.

Please remember that odds projections, A and B ratings and all the rest are just guesswork. This is not an exact science and trying to achieve a perfectly balanced ticket using guesswork is futile. Know your win percentage and bet it.

Dick

The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion.
- Arnold H. Glasow

[positive4th]

Please remember that odds projections, A and B ratings and all the rest are just guesswork. This is not an exact science and trying to achieve a perfectly balanced ticket using guesswork is futile. Know your win percentage and bet it.

Dick

The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion.
- Arnold H. Glasow

I'm going to go ahead and assert that "win percentage" is no more of a definite indicator than A or B ratings, etc. Win percentage is exactly that, a percentage, not an absolute, which means you're agreeing in the terminology itself that its as fluctuating of a variable as anything else............A/B/C designations are, in fact, an expression of a "win percentage" opinion, so I don't see what the difference might be

[positive4th]

I'm going to go ahead and assert that "win percentage" is no more of a definite indicator than A or B ratings, etc. Win percentage is exactly that, a percentage, not an absolute, which means you're agreeing in the terminology itself that its as fluctuating of a variable as anything else............A/B/C designations are, in fact, an expression of a "win percentage" opinion, so I don't see what the difference might be

And my reply ignores the biggest reason for playing P3's/P4's in the first place............."hitting" 3x3x3 ($27) Pick 3's at a 35% clip will almost assuredly not be getting max value out of them. (And if you were hitting for a 60% ROI, then congrats!! That's pretty good.)

But if you're hitting at a high rate but showing a thinner profit than that, wouldn't you rather hit 1.5 or 2 out of 10 but show a higher profit b/c you reeled in the occasional longer-priced winner? It's a value bet, plain and simple.

[markgoldie]

I'm going to go ahead and assert that "win percentage" is no more of a definite indicator than A or B ratings, etc. Win percentage is exactly that, a percentage, not an absolute, which means you're agreeing in the terminology itself that its as fluctuating of a variable as anything else............A/B/C designations are, in fact, an expression of a "win percentage" opinion, so I don't see what the difference might be
Well, the difference might be in who has the larger data base when it comes to a proven win percentage over time. I can see where his approach leads to a very much simpler method of determining long-term cashing percentages.

On the other hand, the handicapper who is looking at races and assigning A, B, and C ratings based on gut feel may have no real data-base statistics to even begin to assign a probable cash rate.

So, this macro "bunching" approach might have some merit purely from a statistical standpoint. However, I am very skeptical that it can produce consistent positve ROI's because multi-leg gimmicks are always skewed toward favored combinations and I don't see how this could avoid a steady diet of favorite-types.

[positive4th]

However, I am very skeptical that it can produce consistent positve ROI's because multi-leg gimmicks are always skewed toward favored combinations and I don't see how this could avoid a steady diet of favorite-types.

Agreed. 100%.

[positive4th]

But can we stop calling them gimmicks??

It belittles the work that goes into putting multi-leg, multi-ticket wagers together thoughtfully.

Seriously.

[raybo]

Our track hired a professional gambler this season, F.R. who puts out a daily (very good one too) tip sheet under the moniker of The Professor.

An open minded very knowledgeable fellow, who, follows a philosophy of LATERAL THINKING (de Bono), and, as such, looks where others don't. He uses HTR software so we have a good time comparing out comes. We are often very close.

He believes, like I do, that so much CAN and OFTEN DOES happen between the gate and the wire, that one has to cover the various possibilities. He doesn't wager vertically that often beyond exactas because "When it comes to the horses underneath, the number of possibilities, particularly in a super, become so outrageous and often illogical, that covering those bets takes a hefty bank roll and a bit of luck." He does delve into the occasional trifecta and the exacta is often a back up for him.

He is trying to get me interested in his specialty, the horizontal bet, particularly the pick 4. Strangely, he finds, that it is easier to find the winners in all legs than entering the REQUIRED large number of horses underneath when wagering vertically. Hence, he substantiates my philosophy, to consider a substantial number of horses to cover the under side of the trifecta. "You will never get the big ones unless you include the often illogical horses underneath."

His base Pick 4 bet goes like this. A is his first choice and B are his secondary choices.

The tickets are listed horizontally in this chart and the horses numbers in each position are listed vertically. Total cost $114.00

Well, so you're saying the reason he doesn't play supers, in favor of Picks, is because he can't cover the bottom of the super ticket? Let me tell you friend, give me $114 to invest in a superfecta ticket for 1 race and you wager $114 on a 4 race ticket and I can guarantee you I'll be so far ahead of you in ROI in a couple of months that I could quit betting the rest of the year and you still wouldn't catch me.

I only have to pick 1 winning horse and with $114 to invest I can cover the bottom of the ticket like a blanket.

Superfectas are so much more cost efficient than the picks, it's ridiculous to even compare them.

[Greyfox]

The "Professors" method of constructing the bet is very sound.
If he hits the Pick 4, he may get it several times.
Nowhere, has it ever been suggested that "A" is chalk, although it could be.
The play is a variation of the late Dick Mitchell's style of betting.

Thank you 46Zilzal, for posting it.
I will stick with Pick 3's as my "weapon of choice."

[lansdale]

I'm going to go ahead and assert that "win percentage" is no more of a definite indicator than A or B ratings, etc. Win percentage is exactly that, a percentage, not an absolute, which means you're agreeing in the terminology itself that its as fluctuating of a variable as anything else............A/B/C designations are, in fact, an expression of a "win percentage" opinion, so I don't see what the difference might be

positive4th,

I believe you mentioned earlier in this thread that you are an amateur player, and the vagueness of your reasoning suggests that this is the case. You should be aware, first, that you're arguing with someone who made his living for many years from this game - a brilliant handicapper and something of a legend. You mention $27 P-3s, when he is more likely betting $270. His ROI is a good deal higher than that of Barry Meadow, although you won't catch him saying it in a thread like this. (And FTR, my politics are also the complete opposite of his).

If you know your hit rate, or ROI for specific factors over a sample of between roughly 2k and 3k, the issue of variance becomes moot, and believe me, Dick has a much higher sample of races on which to base his judgement. Based on what you say, my guess is you have no idea of what your performance levels are in these areas, and are simply depending on guesswork and high odds to bail you out. If you are really serious about making money, that won't cut it. Listen to what Dick says and you will benefit, as so many others have. And no, he's not a friend or relative. :)

Cheers,

lansdale

[positive4th]

positive4th,

I believe you mentioned earlier in this thread that you are an amateur player, and the vagueness of your reasoning suggests that this is the case. You should be aware, first, that you're arguing with someone who made his living for many years from this game - a brilliant handicapper and something of a legend. You mention $27 P-3s, when he is more likely betting $270. His ROI is a good deal higher than that of Barry Meadow, although you won't catch him saying it in a thread like this. (And FTR, my politics are also the complete opposite of his).

If you know your hit rate, or ROI for specific factors over a sample of between roughly 2k and 3k, the issue of variance becomes moot, and believe me, Dick has a much higher sample of races on which to base his judgement. Based on what you say, my guess is you have no idea of what your performance levels are in these areas, and are simply depending on guesswork and high odds to bail you out. If you are really serious about making money, that won't cut it. Listen to what Dick says and you will benefit, as so many others have. And no, he's not a friend or relative. :)

Cheers,

lansdale

I'm just saying I don't see how playing rolling Pick 3's constantly, and always taking the favorites, would yield that high of an ROI. Maybe it does. ($27 or $270 wouldn't matter - - - its the 3x3x3 structure that I'm suspecting couldn't sustain that high of a return.)

Also, I'm not 'arguing' with him.........maybe he really is making a huge return on 3x3x3 P3's, and if so that's fine.

[proximity]

AGAIN let me state this is simply a starting point philosophically to conquer this bet. If you have ever seen FR or talked to him (he is down right near me at the paddock on all even numbered races) you will find out in 5 seconds that ROI is at the heart of ALL his wagering.


and where is he before the odd numbered races??:)

[Tom]

and where is he before the odd numbered races??:)

OAB?

[sammy the sage]

I bet the pick 3s in both Northern and Southern California every day FOR ABOUT 2 years and ALWAYS made exactly the same bet...I showed a consistent 60% ROI over two years...I WAS content
Dick

The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion.
- Arnold H. Glasow

Well in order for Dick to have ANY crediablity w/his comments...he needs to tell us what he's DOING now...that gives BETTER than 60% return... :rolleyes:

Because if I could do that...I would QUIT my day job...I would quit if I could get the 60% :lol:

[toetoe]

We are often very close.






How very deflating that must be for the Perfesser.



Looking at the picture makes me want to ask, "Is the Perfesser the great John Nash ?"

[lansdale]

I'm just saying I don't see how playing rolling Pick 3's constantly, and always taking the favorites, would yield that high of an ROI. Maybe it does. ($27 or $270 wouldn't matter - - - its the 3x3x3 structure that I'm suspecting couldn't sustain that high of a return.)

Also, I'm not 'arguing' with him.........maybe he really is making a huge return on 3x3x3 P3's, and if so that's fine.

postive4th,

I don't really get your reply. Did Dick say he was playing all rolling Pick-3s? Did he say he always played favorites? I don't see either statement. My main point, and I think it was Dick's as well, is that he based his play on an established hit rate and ROI. Your initial statement is based on nothing more than a hunch- you offer no proof - likewise your reply. Dick is also saying that it doesn't matter how you structure your ticket if have no edge. He knows his edge. ROI is the bottom line.

Cheers,

lansdale

[Stillriledup]

I agree with your disagreement. Although I theoretically have been playing supers for years, in reality I rarely did because it seemed trifectas were a better bet. About three months ago I set up a separate bankroll for supers so I would play regularly. I have since been stunned at how easy I find it to pick the fourth place horse.

On another (and contradictory) note, for the superior handicapper, that a certain type of bet is easier to win is the very reason you should not bet it. You need to find spots where your superior handicapping abilities gives you an edge, and avoid spots where you wind up sharing the pool with people who are "accidentally right".

This is, in theory, correct, you should want stuff to be as hard as possible. The problem i find with a horiz bet, like a pick 4, is that you have to handicap 4 seperate contests and be 4 for 4. If you are dead right 3 times and wrong once, you lose. With a super, you have ONE race to handicap, you can spend all your time and resources to handicap that one race, set up your tri and super part wheels and either win or lose. You don't have to wait 2 hours with your money tied up to see the end result.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Nobody has mentioned the definitive reason why single race betting is better than multi-race betting.

[Stillriledup]

Nobody has mentioned the definitive reason why single race betting is better than multi-race betting.

Because if there is a scratch you get a refund instead of the post time favorite?

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Because if there is a scratch you get a refund instead of the post time favorite?

That is definitely a big reason riled and one that most people don't quite understand fully how bad it really is for the bettor, but not what I was looking for.

[Light]

Even with good software,I don't think you can just bet pk3's rigidly (blindly) without some discretion for choosing which ones to play.

You also need a lot of discipline to play in this manner. You can't second guess your software's top selections. Not as easy as it sounds.

[Light]

I used Dave Schwartz's software and found a setup that produced the winner in the top three 70% of the time. Do the math and you'll see that equates to about a 35% win rate using 3 horses in three races.

I checked this against limited data I have. My software picked 78% winners in its top 3 during the first 3 months of this year. That translated to a 35% hit rate as well in betting 123 3x3x3 pick3's.


I showed a consistent 60% ROI over two years with my unstructured bad bets.


Over those 3 months my ROI was only 20%. Invest $3321 return $4017.


However I also checked 2x2x2 pick 3's. My software picked 60% winners in its top 2 selections. That translated to a 17% pick 3 hit rate but an 84% ROI. Invested $984 returned $1817.

[Dick Schmidt]

Well in order for Dick to have ANY crediablity (sic) w/his comments...he needs to tell us what he's DOING now...that gives BETTER than 60% return... :rolleyes:

Because if I could do that...I would QUIT my day job...I would quit if I could get the 60% :lol:

OK, what I'm doing now is investing in FOREX trading. Much easier, takes less time and is a much bigger game. Also a thriving, growing market, unlike horse racing.

As for quiting my day job, that WAS my day job. I supported myself and my family at the track, and did so for almost 20 years. (You don't think Howard Sartin actually PAID us, do you?) I scaled down my horse racing when the fields started to get smaller, the prices began reflecting the increase in computer use and the whales came on board looking for inefficient pools.

The 60% ROI represents racing 7 or 8 years ago. I doubt that you could do it today. One point is that the software I was using put some decent priced horses in the top three and I cashed some large tickets. Sure, I usually had the favorite in there, and sometimes I won three races and lost money, but it was just one bet in an array of different investment tools. In the real world of live action, you just don't have time to carefully construct Pick-3 tickets, bet to win, maybe play an exacta or two and still handicap between the races (18-20 a day) in a poorly lit back room at Santa Anita where you might be able to plug in a computer. Times have changed and unfortunately so has horse racing.

Dick

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson

[The Judge]

Check out the post on Ron Cox professional handicapper now deceased from Northern Cal. http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28504&highlight=ron+cox. See post #23.

A Different day a lot has changed since the 80's when pic three was 1 per day and your home track. Play that or nothing.

[The Judge]

In the post it stated that ccc horses came in 2 times during Ron's study, the correct amount that they paid was $24,000 and $5,396. His study was based on 139 pic 3's run in Northern California many years ago.

I'm pretty sure he had a team working with him and filling out the tickets. There are people on this board that are more familiar with Ron's methods then I am maybe they know for sure.

[lansdale]

OK, what I'm doing now is investing in FOREX trading. Much easier, takes less time and is a much bigger game. Also a thriving, growing market, unlike horse racing.

As for quiting my day job, that WAS my day job. I supported myself and my family at the track, and did so for almost 20 years. (You don't think Howard Sartin actually PAID us, do you?) I scaled down my horse racing when the fields started to get smaller, the prices began reflecting the increase in computer use and the whales came on board looking for inefficient pools.

The 60% ROI represents racing 7 or 8 years ago. I doubt that you could do it today. One point is that the software I was using put some decent priced horses in the top three and I cashed some large tickets. Sure, I usually had the favorite in there, and sometimes I won three races and lost money, but it was just one bet in an array of different investment tools. In the real world of live action, you just don't have time to carefully construct Pick-3 tickets, bet to win, maybe play an exacta or two and still handicap between the races (18-20 a day) in a poorly lit back room at Santa Anita where you might be able to plug in a computer. Times have changed and unfortunately so has horse racing.

Dick

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson

Hi Dick,

Much thanks for your input. In the last year or so, I've also begun to conclude that horserace handicapping is reaching the point of no return, and am looking for alternatives. One trader I know, one of the former Turtles, has recommended getting involved with Forex, and has done pretty well himself, although his background is extensive. Would be grateful for any insight on the degree of difficulty and time investment involved.

Cheers,

lansdale

[Light]

Personally I think people who say they've lost their edge in this game because the game is not paying out are full of it. What's happening is YOU are not getting the payouts you need, but the payouts are still there. What's happening is what YOU are using has become outdated. Beyer complains that his figs used to pay more when only he knew them and now he gets peanuts because everyone has them. DUH, but that does not mean there are no other ways to get the prices you need. Favorites still win at the same rate they did 50 years ago and they still pay very handsomely at the same rate they did 50 years ago. In fact there are more ways to make money at this game today than ever before with the plethora of exotic betting, the reduced rates and the ability to choose any race in the country with the internet. Pk3's used to be $5 in the crusty days of Dick Schmidt. I just hit one at Ellis that paid $250 for 50 cents with a $4 investment 2x2x2. No real bombs,just mid priced horses.This was just basic handicapping. I'm not going to buy this die hard horse player sentimental crap. The difference is YOU. It's always YOU whether in horse racing or the stock market. This rhetoric is a cop out. If anyone wants to quit the game fine, but don't point the finger at the game. Point it at yourself. People act like 10-1 shots don't come in anymore or something. Give me a break.

[cj]

Personally I think people who say they've lost their edge in this game because the game is not paying out are full of it. What's happening is YOU are not getting the payouts you need, but the payouts are still there. What's happening is what YOU are using has become outdated. Beyer complains that his figs used to pay more when only he knew them and now he gets peanuts because everyone has them. DUH, but that does not mean there are no other ways to get the prices you need. Favorites still win at the same rate they did 50 years ago and they still pay very handsomely at the same rate they did 50 years ago. In fact there are more ways to make money at this game today than ever before with the plethora of exotic betting, the reduced rates and the ability to choose any race in the country with the internet. Pk3's used to be $5 in the crusty days of Dick Schmidt. I just hit one at Ellis that paid $250 for 50 cents with a $4 investment 2x2x2. No real bombs,just mid priced horses.This was just basic handicapping. I'm not going to buy this die hard horse player sentimental crap. The difference is YOU. It's always YOU whether in horse racing or the stock market. This rhetoric is a cop out. If anyone wants to quit the game fine, but don't point the finger at the game. Point it at yourself. People act like 10-1 shots don't come in anymore or something. Give me a break.

Increasing takeout has changed the game drastically. Small field sizes have made it even worse. Obviously you are THE handicapping god, but the rest of us mortals will naturally have a harder time under those circumstances.

Wait, aren't you the same guy that idolized that fraud cmoore?

[Canadian]

Personally I think people who say they've lost their edge in this game because the game is not paying out are full of it. What's happening is YOU are not getting the payouts you need, but the payouts are still there. What's happening is what YOU are using has become outdated. Beyer complains that his figs used to pay more when only he knew them and now he gets peanuts because everyone has them. DUH, but that does not mean there are no other ways to get the prices you need. Favorites still win at the same rate they did 50 years ago and they still pay very handsomely at the same rate they did 50 years ago. In fact there are more ways to make money at this game today than ever before with the plethora of exotic betting, the reduced rates and the ability to choose any race in the country with the internet. Pk3's used to be $5 in the crusty days of Dick Schmidt. I just hit one at Ellis that paid $250 for 50 cents with a $4 investment 2x2x2. No real bombs,just mid priced horses.This was just basic handicapping. I'm not going to buy this die hard horse player sentimental crap. The difference is YOU. It's always YOU whether in horse racing or the stock market. This rhetoric is a cop out. If anyone wants to quit the game fine, but don't point the finger at the game. Point it at yourself. People act like 10-1 shots don't come in anymore or something. Give me a break.



Good post. In a related sentiment we just had a pretty serious race fixing scandal hit the harness side and every handicapper with an axe to grind is coming out basically concluding its crooked horsemen that cost them all that money.

[thaskalos]

Personally I think people who say they've lost their edge in this game because the game is not paying out are full of it. What's happening is YOU are not getting the payouts you need, but the payouts are still there. What's happening is what YOU are using has become outdated. Beyer complains that his figs used to pay more when only he knew them and now he gets peanuts because everyone has them. DUH, but that does not mean there are no other ways to get the prices you need. Favorites still win at the same rate they did 50 years ago and they still pay very handsomely at the same rate they did 50 years ago. In fact there are more ways to make money at this game today than ever before with the plethora of exotic betting, the reduced rates and the ability to choose any race in the country with the internet. Pk3's used to be $5 in the crusty days of Dick Schmidt. I just hit one at Ellis that paid $250 for 50 cents with a $4 investment 2x2x2. No real bombs,just mid priced horses.This was just basic handicapping. I'm not going to buy this die hard horse player sentimental crap. The difference is YOU. It's always YOU whether in horse racing or the stock market. This rhetoric is a cop out. If anyone wants to quit the game fine, but don't point the finger at the game. Point it at yourself. People act like 10-1 shots don't come in anymore or something. Give me a break.If the game is so easy for you...why do you bother with 50-cent pick 3s...and $4 investments?

[Canadian]

Increasing takeout has changed the game drastically. Small field sizes have made it even worse. Obviously you are THE handicapping god, but the rest of us mortals will naturally have a harder time under those circumstances.

Wait, aren't you the same guy that idolized that fraud cmoore?


I do agree with the take out part. I don't moind small field sizes sometimes though.... got to use a different strategy.

[cj]

I do agree with the take out part. I don't moind small field sizes sometimes though.... got to use a different strategy.

The only way to overcome takeout is to take advantage of mistakes by the public. With smaller fields, there are less mistakes. There is no way around that.

[lansdale]

Personally I think people who say they've lost their edge in this game because the game is not paying out are full of it. What's happening is YOU are not getting the payouts you need, but the payouts are still there. What's happening is what YOU are using has become outdated. Beyer complains that his figs used to pay more when only he knew them and now he gets peanuts because everyone has them. DUH, but that does not mean there are no other ways to get the prices you need. Favorites still win at the same rate they did 50 years ago and they still pay very handsomely at the same rate they did 50 years ago. In fact there are more ways to make money at this game today than ever before with the plethora of exotic betting, the reduced rates and the ability to choose any race in the country with the internet. Pk3's used to be $5 in the crusty days of Dick Schmidt. I just hit one at Ellis that paid $250 for 50 cents with a $4 investment 2x2x2. No real bombs,just mid priced horses.This was just basic handicapping. I'm not going to buy this die hard horse player sentimental crap. The difference is YOU. It's always YOU whether in horse racing or the stock market. This rhetoric is a cop out. If anyone wants to quit the game fine, but don't point the finger at the game. Point it at yourself. People act like 10-1 shots don't come in anymore or something. Give me a break.

Light,

I don't know whether this was directed at Dick or myself, by just wonder why you feel anyone needs to confine their investment activities to one area. Dick was expressing what I think is a common sentiment, and certainly one I share, that the game is overall much less profitable than it was twenty or even ten years ago, and now, aggravated by the recession, appears to be in a death spiral. The number of tracks that have been turned into chalky dead zones by the factors Dick mentioned seem to grow by the month. This doesn't mean that it isn't possible to make money here and there, but why try to get blood out of a stone?

Most of my wagering income is derived from blackjack and other forms of advantage play, so racing has never been a mainstay for me, but in the last year alone, I've seen the profitable opportunities dwindle dramatically. Dick didn't mention this, but bet sizing also cuts out a number of smaller tracks for me, and I would guess, even moreso for him. I think he mentioned his average win bet as 1k.

Cheers,

lansdale

[Light]

Increasing takeout has changed the game drastically. Small field sizes have made it even worse.


More excuses.While I agree with what you stated,the only people the game has changed drastically for are the whales where 1% or 2% would make a significant difference.For the vast majority of us what does that mean? So I get $250 instead of $260 in that Pk3. Who cares. If you aren't good enough to overcome that minor deduction,maybe you would buy the "you can't win in this game" anymore philosophy.

As far as field size,who is forcing anyone to play them? Tracks are the big losers with those fields as everyone knows. You want big fields,go to Monmouth or how about lowly Evangeline. No one forces you to play small fields anymore with the internet.

[Light]

If the game is so easy for you...why do you bother with 50-cent pick 3s...and $4 investments?

That's the way I play. Bet small win big.

[Light]

Light,

... just wonder why you feel anyone needs to confine their investment activities to one area.

I agree. I haven't quit my day job.

[lansdale]

I agree. I haven't quit my day job.

Light,

Like Dick, CJ, and others in this thread, I'm a full-time AP.

Cheers,

lansdale

[Robert Goren]

Light sounds more like a horseman than a horse better. I don't know that to be fact, but that the way he talks in his posts.

[Charlie D]

Personally I think people who say they've lost their edge in this game because the game is not paying out are full of it. What's happening is YOU are not getting the payouts you need, but the payouts are still there. What's happening is what YOU are using has become outdated. Beyer complains that his figs used to pay more when only he knew them and now he gets peanuts because everyone has them. DUH, but that does not mean there are no other ways to get the prices you need. Favorites still win at the same rate they did 50 years ago and they still pay very handsomely at the same rate they did 50 years ago. In fact there are more ways to make money at this game today than ever before with the plethora of exotic betting, the reduced rates and the ability to choose any race in the country with the internet. Pk3's used to be $5 in the crusty days of Dick Schmidt. I just hit one at Ellis that paid $250 for 50 cents with a $4 investment 2x2x2. No real bombs,just mid priced horses.This was just basic handicapping. I'm not going to buy this die hard horse player sentimental crap. The difference is YOU. It's always YOU whether in horse racing or the stock market. This rhetoric is a cop out. If anyone wants to quit the game fine, but don't point the finger at the game. Point it at yourself. People act like 10-1 shots don't come in anymore or something. Give me a break.



This post gets a :ThmbUp: from me.

[Dave Schwartz]

Like Dick, CJ, and others in this thread, I'm a full-time AP.

What is an "AP?"

[lansdale]

What is an "AP?"

Hi Dave,

The term is used mainly by blackjack players who have spread their activities into the other profitable games, such as poker, video poker, and sports betting. Most also usually have other types of investment, hedge fund, real estate (now a 'disadvantage' play, I guess), etc.. Dick, both in his personality and the breadth of activities, fits the bill pretty well.

BTW, this is also the name of Don Schlesinger's website - advantageplayer.com, which is devoted to blackjack.

Cheers,

lansdale

[andicap]

One trader I know, one of the former Turtles, has recommended getting involved with Forex, and has done pretty well himself, although his background is extensive. Would be grateful for any insight on the degree of difficulty and time investment involved.


So which Turtle, Flo or Eddie?;)

Or maybe one of the minor Turtles? Al Nichol or Jim Pons.

[Fastracehorse]

Well, the difference might be in who has the larger data base when it comes to a proven win percentage over time. I can see where his approach leads to a very much simpler method of determining long-term cashing percentages.

On the other hand, the handicapper who is looking at races and assigning A, B, and C ratings based on gut feel may have no real data-base statistics to even begin to assign a probable cash rate.

So, this macro "bunching" approach might have some merit purely from a statistical standpoint. However, I am very skeptical that it can produce consistent positve ROI's because multi-leg gimmicks are always skewed toward favored combinations and I don't see how this could avoid a steady diet of favorite-types.

............................multi-leg gimmicks have to involve favorites: the more successive races without the fave the greater the ROI. Many tracks burn chalk as a habit.

fffastt

[Dave Schwartz]

"Advantage player" I know. Yes, it applies to video poker, especially.

Thanks for explaining.

[Dick Schmidt]

"Hi Dick,

Much thanks for your input. In the last year or so, I've also begun to conclude that horserace handicapping is reaching the point of no return, and am looking for alternatives. One trader I know, one of the former Turtles, has recommended getting involved with Forex, and has done pretty well himself, although his background is extensive. Would be grateful for any insight on the degree of difficulty and time investment involved.

Cheers,

lansdale"


Sorry not to answer promptly, but I don't visit every day and didn't see your post until tonight. Like in racing, the degree of difficulty is high. It demands all your attention and focus, plus lots of study and practice. Most people fail, but those who have survived the rigors of racing may find it less demanding. I did. Also, I was used to losing lots of my bets, so I didn't have the need to win every trade that gets so many in trouble. Careful of the system sellers; their ethics are on the same level as race track touts.

Time commitment is MUCH less. I normally trade for 2-3 hours a day (starting at midnight west coast time, when the London market opens. Forex is still a European game). I do play with stuff during the day when the mood strikes, and I used a practice account for 3 months to get started (this is free) but now I just keep doing what works for me and grind out a nice living.

I am also a member of a group called 4XLA that teaches and discusses Forex trading. They develop software (its all free) and keep each other informed on what's working. Sometimes I lead an online webinar doing live trading to show how I use the software (several of us take turns, again free). I would find a good Forex club and start attending. I think you'll find many people eager to help you get started. The Forex market is so huge that no one worried about competition. Retail traders (us) make up about 5% of the market world wide, which right now is averaging 3.5 Billion dollars a day. Fun stuff.

Dick

The final test of a gentleman is his respect for those who can be of no possible service to him.

[classhandicapper]

"Hi Dick,

Much thanks for your input. In the last year or so, I've also begun to conclude that horserace handicapping is reaching the point of no return, and am looking for alternatives. One trader I know, one of the former Turtles, has recommended getting involved with Forex, and has done pretty well himself, although his background is extensive. Would be grateful for any insight on the degree of difficulty and time investment involved.

Cheers,

lansdale"


Sorry not to answer promptly, but I don't visit every day and didn't see your post until tonight. Like in racing, the degree of difficulty is high. It demands all your attention and focus, plus lots of study and practice. Most people fail, but those who have survived the rigors of racing may find it less demanding. I did. Also, I was used to losing lots of my bets, so I didn't have the need to win every trade that gets so many in trouble. Careful of the system sellers; their ethics are on the same level as race track touts.

Time commitment is MUCH less. I normally trade for 2-3 hours a day (starting at midnight west coast time, when the London market opens. Forex is still a European game). I do play with stuff during the day when the mood strikes, and I used a practice account for 3 months to get started (this is free) but now I just keep doing what works for me and grind out a nice living.

I am also a member of a group called 4XLA that teaches and discusses Forex trading. They develop software (its all free) and keep each other informed on what's working. Sometimes I lead an online webinar doing live trading to show how I use the software (several of us take turns, again free). I would find a good Forex club and start attending. I think you'll find many people eager to help you get started. The Forex market is so huge that no one worried about competition. Retail traders (us) make up about 5% of the market world wide, which right now is averaging 3.5 Billion dollars a day. Fun stuff.

Dick

The final test of a gentleman is his respect for those who can be of no possible service to him.

Why did you choose Forex over the stock market?

I assume that Forex also requires a significant bankroll.

Some of my income comes from managing a portfolio of stocks and bonds. That includes some short term trading, options sales, etc..

[PaceAdvantage]

I trade index futures...S&P e-mini specifically at the moment...dabbled in oil futures, interest rate futures and currency futures for a while there, but have cut all that out and going strictly with S&P for the moment...

Never ever looked at Forex yet...maybe that will be my next adventure...however, what I'm doing at the moment revolves heavily around tracking momentum in terms of volume, and since I don't think there really is such a thing as accurate volume data as far as Forex is concerned, my current methods would not be sympatico. I suppose one might be able to substitute tick for volume...

Wow...I think we're really off topic at this point... :lol:

[Tape Reader]

[QUOTE=PaceAdvantage]I suppose one might be able to substitute tick for volume...

I also trade the S&P. I prefer tic to actual volume

IMO, it is the noise, argument, that tic volume shouts at important turning points.

[thaskalos]

How could self respecting horseplayers ever become involved in something as speculative as S&P trading?

[Charlie D]

This is absolutely ridiculous and also completely off topic at the same time...

If you want to debate politics keep it in off topic.





replace politics with forex, futures trading. :D

[Tape Reader]

How could self respecting horseplayers ever become involved in something as speculative as S&P trading?

Probably has something to do with takeout.

[PaceAdvantage]

replace politics with forex, futures trading. :DNo sir...that is incorrect...in fact, politics is the only thing EXPLICITLY prohibited from being discussed in the horse racing section via the Terms of Service of this message board...allow me to quote the relevant passage from this document (http://www.paceadvantage.com/TOS_PrivacyStatement.html) :Politically charged avatars and postings are strictly forbidden in any of the HORSE RACING topics. The OFF-TOPIC forums have been specifically designed for just this sort of subject.Please note that nowhere does it prohibit the discussion of trading futures or forex...in fact, there are many similarities between the two endeavors, and there have been many horse racing discussions injected with trading talk over the years.

I so enjoy it when folks go out of their way to try and point out non-existent hypocrisy on my part.

[Charlie D]

PA. I wasn't pointing out anything. I was however, trying to have a bit of fun.


I'll leave the comedy to the comedians in future.

If you and others want to discuss stocks and shares then do so, we who don't or have no interest in such topics, can skip these posts and ignore i suppose. Just as we can skip and ignore other non horses racing related discussions.

[PaceAdvantage]

PA. I wasn't pointing out anything. I was however, trying to have a bit of fun.Me too.

[DeanT]

There is a nice overlap with stock trading and horse racing and to me it is always on topic.

I have not met a serious player who would spend hours analyzing slot play, but I have met a pile who analyze moving averages. I think racing has a hard time knowing that we are different from other gamblers.

Betfair is cool because it attracts those players. Players scalp horse racing markets and so on, using moving averages and arb etc. Futures wagers are pure speculation as well, not unlike playing the futures markets.

Targeting stock trading types, and building bets/exchanges for them, could really help racing in my opinion.

[Charlie D]

Dean


IMHO. The only similarity is you are investing your hard earned. and with that, i'm done with what i think is a non horse racing related topic ;)

[PaceAdvantage]

Dean


IMHO. The only similarity is you are investing your hard earned. and with that, i'm done with what i think is a non horse racing related topic ;)And here I thought you were only having fun...

[Charlie D]

I was. Now i'm not, i'm now offering an opinion in reply to a post by Dean.

[thaskalos]

I have overheard, and also participated in, many conversations at racetracks and OTBs over my many years playing this game.

Many forms of gambling have been discussed, along with a myriad of other things...but never anything about stocks or futures trading.

So...in this case at least...I agree with Charlie.:)

[PaceAdvantage]

So...in this case at least...I agree with Charlie.:)Agree about what exactly?

And there is no surprise that topic wasn't brought up in any of your local OTBs...

You folks are acting as if I and a select few on here are the first to link wagering on horse races to speculation in the financial markets. I assure you, it's a topic that has been discussed quite liberally in all types of settings, including college campuses. As long as I have been reading about handicapping horse races, I have been reading comparisons to the stock market.

Now, how about we actually move on to something more productive, whether it be about handicapping, handicapping as it relates to the stock market, or whatever...

[thaskalos]

Oh...I see. You and Charlie can have fun, but I can't...

[DeanT]

I have overheard, and also participated in, many conversations at racetracks and OTBs over my many years playing this game.


I think that is why Thask. You are fishing in the wrong pond.

I remember back in the early 1990's. A friend bought a team to win the Super Bowl at 60-1 or something, and they went on a win streak. He bought it in Vegas and I think they went down to 10-1 or something. He saw he had value, but had no way to sell some.

He was beginning his career as a stock broker. And he thought how great it was to have a market for that, like an Ebay or what have you.

It was similar back in the 1980's when I went to the track. After a leg or two of a pick 4 or pick 7 (we had pick 7s at our track) inevitably the same guys each week would scurry around the grandstand wanting to sell their live tickets and piece them out. There was no way after a leg or two to put a dollar amount on it, other than creating a market and have people bidding.

Often times they would sell a quarter or a half for $400 or something.

Any bet we make, whether it be on gold, silver, oil, or a bet at a track, can have value over time. Anything that has value over time, is ripe for trading like a stock market.

The World Sports Exchange proved it in the mid 90's. They were created by two option traders on the Pacific Stock Exchange.

Later on, Betfair did it to perfection with their market. If you have a really good odds line and buy a horse at 6-1, who you think is going to be 3-1 at close, you have built in tradable value, and if you are good, and there is liquidity, you can end up, by trading having a horse on the board at 3-1, with a 25% chance to win, at 12 or 14-1.

If I ask 100 players at the OTB if they are interested in that - 99 would say no. But we should not care about them in this, because they are already playing horse racing via the pools. We need to look outside those 100 people, to grow the sport. You can not fish for trout in a pond filled with bass.

[PaceAdvantage]

Oh...I see. You and Charlie can have fun, but I can't...And this is precisely why I moderate as I do.

My moderation style is designed to avoid the kind of stuff we have had going on in this thread over the past handful of replies. I like to think that has contributed to the ongoing popularity of this website.

'Nuff said.

[thaskalos]

Dean...

I understand what you are saying, and believe me, it doesn't bother me in the least to discuss ANY form of gambling OR investing.

I play the horses seriously, but I also have money interests outside of the racetrack.

My post was placed in jest...and I am surprised that it drew PA's ire.

[thaskalos]

And this is precisely why I moderate as I do.

My moderation style is designed to avoid the kind of stuff we have had going on in this thread over the past handful of replies. I like to think that has contributed to the ongoing popularity of this website.

'Nuff said.Did I ever criticize you or your site?

Has it ever occurred to you that you have a very thin skin...for a guy who loves to "needle" people as much as you do?

[PaceAdvantage]

Did I ever criticize you or your site?

Has it ever occurred to you that you have a very thin skin...for a guy who loves to "needle" people as much as you do?Yes, you did. You criticized the fact that Charlie and I were having fun while I was not allowing you to have any...whatever that means.

And if I had a thin skin, this site wouldn't exist.

The longer you continue to reply to me on this ongoing saga, the more my point is proven and my moderation style vindicated.

[BUD]

There is a nice overlap with stock trading and horse racing and to me it is always on topic.

I have not met a serious player who would spend hours analyzing slot play, but I have met a pile who analyze moving averages. I think racing has a hard time knowing that we are different from other gamblers.

Betfair is cool because it attracts those players. Players scalp horse racing markets and so on, using moving averages and arb etc. Futures wagers are pure speculation as well, not unlike playing the futures markets.

Targeting stock trading types, and building bets/exchanges for them, could really help racing in my opinion.


Hey---It was You Dean Who shown me the value of an eagle eye on Betfair---Still use that Gauge as Play or pass----Damned hard to get BetFair Statesde---Has TVG made that easier-???----

OK-RESUME--

[PaceAdvantage]

Hey Bud...nice to see you posting again....

[lansdale]

"Hi Dick,

Much thanks for your input. In the last year or so, I've also begun to conclude that horserace handicapping is reaching the point of no return, and am looking for alternatives. One trader I know, one of the former Turtles, has recommended getting involved with Forex, and has done pretty well himself, although his background is extensive. Would be grateful for any insight on the degree of difficulty and time investment involved.

Cheers,

lansdale"


Sorry not to answer promptly, but I don't visit every day and didn't see your post until tonight. Like in racing, the degree of difficulty is high. It demands all your attention and focus, plus lots of study and practice. Most people fail, but those who have survived the rigors of racing may find it less demanding. I did. Also, I was used to losing lots of my bets, so I didn't have the need to win every trade that gets so many in trouble. Careful of the system sellers; their ethics are on the same level as race track touts.

Time commitment is MUCH less. I normally trade for 2-3 hours a day (starting at midnight west coast time, when the London market opens. Forex is still a European game). I do play with stuff during the day when the mood strikes, and I used a practice account for 3 months to get started (this is free) but now I just keep doing what works for me and grind out a nice living.

I am also a member of a group called 4XLA that teaches and discusses Forex trading. They develop software (its all free) and keep each other informed on what's working. Sometimes I lead an online webinar doing live trading to show how I use the software (several of us take turns, again free). I would find a good Forex club and start attending. I think you'll find many people eager to help you get started. The Forex market is so huge that no one worried about competition. Retail traders (us) make up about 5% of the market world wide, which right now is averaging 3.5 Billion dollars a day. Fun stuff.

Dick

The final test of a gentleman is his respect for those who can be of no possible service to him.

Hi Dick,

Much thanks once again for this detailed reply, and I too, am sorry for the delayed response. Thanks also for the contribution you've made to handicapping over the years, which has benefitted not only myself, but I would guess, a number of others who are members of this site.

Cheers,

lansdale

[BMeadow]

Dick Schmidt wrote this:

" I bet the pick 3s in both Northern and Southern California every day for about 2 years and ALWAYS made exactly the same bet... I was playing 6 races a day at both NoCal and SoCal, or 60 races a week...I showed a consistent 60% ROI over two years with my unstructured bad bets."

Usually I just ignore these types of posts, figuring no one would take this stuff seriously, but since Dick did mention my name, I figured I'd throw in my two cents:

Let's assume betting six pick 3's per day (in California they're rolling pick 3's, so you can bet races 2-3-4, 3-4-5, etc.), or just three per track per day. Certainly many players bet more pick 3's than that.

Let's also assume a measly $10 pick 3, which would cost $270 using the 3 x 3 x 3 method described in the post. Again, many players bet more.

Let's assume 300 betting days per year.

A player doing this would bet $486,000 per year on pick 3's. Assuming no rebates, a player with a 60% ROI would win $291,000 per year on pick 3's alone.

And then such a player says he quit doing this because, uh, why?

These kinds of boasts remind me of the claim in Pace Makes The Race (the Howard Sartin book) that Sartin took a group of truck drivers who had gambling addictions, taught them to win, and as soon as they learned how to win, they went back to driving trucks. Who on Planet Earth could actually believe such a thing?

A co-author of Pace Makes The Race was Dick Schmidt. Coincidence?

Maybe Dick Schmidt is a terrific handicapper and a winning player; I would have no way of knowing this, one way or the other, so I'm not speaking to that question. But the numbers don't add up.

[Trotman]

Barry, exactly his math wasn't even a head scratcher.

[46zilzal]

These kinds of boasts remind me of the claim in Pace Makes The Race (the Howard Sartin book) that Sartin took a group of truck drivers who had gambling addictions, taught them to win, and as soon as they learned how to win, they went back to driving trucks. Who on Planet Earth could actually believe such a thing?

.
No he helped them with their addictions

[thaskalos]

No he helped them with their addictionsYeah...as I recall, their problem was not that they were addicted to gambling...they were addicted to LOSING.

Once the good doctor showed them the way to win...their addictions naturally vanished...and they were able to go back to living fruitful lives.

[46zilzal]

Yeah...as I recall, their problem was not that they were addicted to gambling...they were addicted to LOSING.

Once the good doctor showed them the way to win...their addictions naturally vanished...and they were able to go back to living fruitful lives.
Howard Sartin was a modern day Phineas T. Barnum who changed the game forever. People are always trying to knock him down, but WHAT have you changed on a national scene like he did?

[Charlie D]

Howard Sartin was a modern day Phineas T. Barnum who changed the game forever. People are always trying to knock him down, but WHAT have you changed on a national scene like he did?


Would it not be correct to say, Andy Beyer and Howard Sartin did this??

[thaskalos]

Howard Sartin was a modern day Phineas T. Barnum who changed the game forever. People are always trying to knock him down, but WHAT have you changed on a national scene like he did?I was not referring to his handicapping contributions...I was responding to your post that he was able to cure gambling addictions.

Has anybody kept track of those formerly "addicted" truck drivers?

46zilzal...you appear to be an expert in everything Sartin...do you have any idea what his initial group of "winners" is currently up to?

[Charlie D]

It would be interesting to know what happened to those truckers, but my feeling is it was a Good PR gimmick.

[46zilzal]

It would be interesting to know what happened to those truckers, but my feeling is it was a Good PR gimmick.
Much akin to telling people that the first program was called Phase III to give the idea of some continuity only to discover that Phase I came out several years later and there never was a Phase II.