Depending on rebates ain't capping

[misscashalot]

A guy who depends on rebates for positive roi ain't a capper in my book.
What he is I don't know, but he's not a capper.

[horses4courses]

So, betting without rebates makes you a better handicapper?

Hmmmm.......

[misscashalot]

So, betting without rebates makes you a better handicapper?

Hmmmm.......

yep

[BillW]

So every track should raise takeout even more to separate the men from the boys?

[thaskalos]

Sometimes we have to sacrifice a positive ROI, in order to make the maximum profit possible.

[misscashalot]

Sometimes we have to sacrifice a positive ROI, in order to make the maximum profit possible.

I dont understand, please explain.

[thaskalos]

I dont understand, please explain.
Do you think that the bettors with the highest ROI also net the most money at the end of the year?

Isn't the point of playing this game to try to make the most money, rather than to maintain the highest ROI?

[Tom]

Is your goal to pick winners or to make money?
Good handicappers are a dime a dozen.

[misscashalot]

Do you think that the bettors with the highest ROI also net the most money at the end of the year?
I dont know the answer to this, do you?

Isn't the point of playing this game to try to make the most money, rather than to maintain the highest ROI?
Yes, but what does this have to do with being a capper?





.

[misscashalot]

Is your goal to pick winners or to make money?
Good handicappers are a dime a dozen.
The way I look at it, you shouldnt have to churn a living for 7 to 10%. If you can afford to lose what you have to bet, then you shouldnt need the 7-10%.
But we're getting off the capping element.

[cj]

A guy who depends on rebates for positive roi ain't a capper in my book.
What he is I don't know, but he's not a capper.

Of course he is.

[thaskalos]

That's what I meant with my first post misscashalot...

We have 2 choices when we play this game. To play selectively and for modest amounts, in order to achieve the highest ROI possible...or to push the most money that we can through the windows, and then rely on the rebates in order to make the maximum PROFIT possible.

Since they don't give awards for best ROI...we choose to take the rebate money and run.

[misscashalot]

Of course he is.
A poor one

[Rutgers]

Rebates don’t make you win more, they only allow you to lose less.

In most cases, big bettors who are winning players with rebates would still be winning players without rebates they just would not be making as much because the rebates allow them to bet more.

Even a small bettor who breaks even or profits long-term with a rebate still has to beat the a large percentage of the takeout, something the vast majority of horseplayers can not do.

In either case, the long-term winning bettor knows there is more to winning then just “handicapping” well.

[bigmack]

A poor one
What do you think this is a competition? The name of the game is to make money. Are you green with envy of those that make money through rebates?

[misscashalot]

That's what I meant with my first post misscashalot...

We have 2 choices when we play this game. To play selectively and for modest amounts, in order to achieve the highest ROI possible...or to push the most money that we can through the windows, and then rely on the rebates in order to make the maximum PROFIT possible.

Since they don't give awards for best ROI...we choose to take the money and run.

OK
Here is me:
Im a profile player
I will not bet into situation of less than 40-40 roi and strike rate
Im a capper
A guy who will bet into a push roi in order to garner his 7% rebate,
to me is not a capper.

[misscashalot]

What do you think this is a competition? The name of the game is to make money. Are you green with envy of those that make money through rebates?

All I said is that he is not a capper. No more, no less.

No, envy is not an element of my personality. Hubris maybe, but not envy.

[bigmack]

All I said is that he is not a capper. No more, no less.
You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. Quit before you make a fool of yourself.

[misscashalot]

You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. Quit before you make a fool of yourself.
What chord did I strike in you to make you attack me personally?

[cj]

A poor one

Why? Because he figures out the playing field and handicaps to maximize his profit?

[thaskalos]

OK
Here is me:
Im a profile player
I will not bet into situation of less than 40-40 roi and strike rate
Im a capper
A guy who will bet into a push roi in order to garner his 7% rebate,
to me is not a capper.
What is your main motivation for playing this game? Maximum profit...or maximum ego gratification?

[misscashalot]

What is your main motivation for playing this game? Maximum profit...or maximum ego gratification?
Both

[Cardus]

A guy who depends on rebates for positive roi ain't a capper in my book.
What he is I don't know, but he's not a capper.

Could be a whale, more of whom we need in this sport.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Both

So if Ken Rudulph quit after picking Giacomo, he could call himself "The Greatest Handicapper Ever"?

[thaskalos]

Both
In this game...you can't have both. :)

[CBedo]

Someone doesn't understand the concepts of return on assets or marginal profit

[Fox]

OK
Here is me:
Im a profile player
I will not bet into situation of less than 40-40 roi and strike rate
Im a capper
A guy who will bet into a push roi in order to garner his 7% rebate,
to me is not a capper.

40% ROI and 40% strike rate? How many bets do you make a year? 1, 2, 3?

[Track Collector]

A guy who depends on rebates for positive roi ain't a capper in my book.
What he is I don't know, but he's not a capper.

Several names for this type of person might include winner and professional.

Cappers in your book tend can be located in the shallow end of the profits pool. The reality of racing is that achieving the highest ROI and making the most money are essentially mutually exclusive goals. I suspect that those who make the most money have ROIs slightly over 1.00, with rebates accounting for as much as 90% of their profits. Those who end up profitable with pre-rebate ROIs of a little less than 1.00 will still find a great deal of comfort in their overall profitability, despite not measuring up to your idea of a "capper".

[HUSKER55]

what is the point of this thread? If you are in the black at the end of the year you are a good capper.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

I have to side with Misscashalot

If you win with rebates after posting an initially negative ROI you are barred from the Handicapping Hall of Fame for life

[horses4courses]

you are barred from the Handicapping Hall of Fame for life

Yeah....we all have our acceptance speeches ready!
Even Pete Rose wouldn't feel left out of this HOF........it doesn't exist!

[baconswitchfarm]

Would I feel better about myself if I had a higher ROI and made alot less money ? This thread is like listening to your grandpa tell you about the old days. He shoveled snow with a spoon and you use a snow blower so you are somehow less than his generation. I might not be a hall of fame capper , but I got a bunch of rebate money to buy myself my own trophy.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

I view rebates the same way as I do training wheels or in a horse racing setting apprentices allowances/bug boy claims. Allowing an apprentice jockey to claim a few kilos or pounds of weight so they can compete with senior riders is a good idea. It helps new jockeys establish themselves

So if rebates were given to new players to the horse racing betting game it would be a great idea. When you first start the game of horse playing you are never going to be as good as the veterans out there. So paying out rebates to newbies is probably an excellent idea. (Of course some veteran players might try to rort the system by getting newbies to sign up on their behalf or whatever but as long as new players were getting most of the rebates fine)

Rebates to new players might help establish new bettors

But instead horse racing has it round the wrong way. Instead the biggest rebates generally go to the best players. Which is as stupid as giving the biggest weight claims to the best jockeys. Imagine if in Southern Cal Bejarano and Rosario got the biggest claims and the bug boys got no claim. Overtime no new jockeys would sign up in Southern Cal as it would be too hard to break in. Instead they would move off and try on another circuit. Or they might even quit being a jockey altogether

New players of USA horse racing after playing for a short while and seeing all the 4-6 and 6-4 shots winning are likely to throw their hands in the air and go off and try betting on sports or something else

In the long run rebates allow the established players to have it good for awhile but the fact you are discouraging new players joining means the pools get smaller and smaller

Winning with rebates should be like riding with a bug boy claim. Once you outride the claim you don't need it any more

[formula_2002]

A guy who depends on rebates for positive roi ain't a capper in my book.
What he is I don't know, but he's not a capper.
Anyone who can overcome a 18% take-out and break even...is a better handicapper than those that can't.

I've got it to a point where I only lose less than 1.5% ... buts it's at craps and blackjack :)

[serp]

This is a great troll.

[Spiderman]

The excessive takeouts create the spread for rebates. Bettors who shift their action to off-shore accounts where rebates are prevalent are those with substantial funding.

Whether they are of the 'bridge-jumper' mentality or play exotic wagers is unknown. Certainly, receiving up to 10% in rebates improves the bottom line.

I always wondered about the volume of pool money. Does the majority come from bets in the less than $20 range; $20-50; or higher?

[Jackal]

A good money manager will make more at any form of gambling....

[Horseplayersbet.com]

A good money manager will make more at any form of gambling....
Even at 3 card monte? OR against 30% track takeouts?

[ronsmac]

I don't think anyone is winning in the long run without rebates. Especially if they bet 200 or 250 days a yr. Year in and year out. Rebates were the only thing that kept me in the game from 2006 to 2009.

[CBedo]

I don't think anyone is winning in the long run without rebates. Especially if they bet 200 or 250 days a yr. Year in and year out. Rebates were the only thing that kept me in the game from 2006 to 2009.I agree, no one can beat this terrible game! :rolleyes:

What amazes me most is the fact that people who say you can't beat the game, keep betting. How low does one's IQ have to be to try to beat a game they know they can't beat? :bang:

[thaskalos]

I agree, no one can beat this terrible game! :rolleyes:

What amazes me most is the fact that people who say you can't beat the game, keep betting. How low does one's IQ have to be to try to beat a game they know they can't beat? :bang:
Considering that only 2% of the players are believed to be long-term winners...this means that, if your assessment is correct, the vast majority of the players must have the lowest IQs around.

[CBedo]

Considering that only 2% of the players are believed to be long-term winners...this means that, if your assessment is correct, the vast majority of the players must have the lowest IQs around.No, that means they aspire to be in the 2%. That is significantly different from unbeatable.

[HuggingTheRail]

No, that means they aspire to be in the 2%. That is significantly different from unbeatable.

There is also a thought that 20% of the 98% think they are in the 2%

[misscashalot]

There is also a thought that 20% of the 98% think they are in the 2%

where'd ya come up with that 2% Is it some magic number?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

where'd ya come up with that 2% Is it some magic number?
I believe that 2% was the folklore number 30 years ago. Even if it was close to that back then, it is not anymore. Over any 4 year span, I think the number might be 1 out of 500-1000 actually win betting horses, especially when you take all expenses into consideration.

Of course, I don't have evidence. But one thing is for sure, many players will either misstate that they are winners, though I think most of the time, these players actually think they are winners or close enough.

[DeanT]

This seems like an odd question to me. Misscash, you seem to have these two bettors mutually exclusive, when in fact (imo) they are not.

A dude who bets $25k a day and juices out a 2% ROI can (if he or she wants) have a higher hit rate and a high ROI. Most rebate players start off as winning handicappers first and change based on their personality and what they want out of the game. A rebate cant make someone a winner who was not already a winner.

With a rebate there are a whole bunch more qualities needed to stay above water, and a lot of players who play three races a day and win do not have it inside them. Conversely, I would submit someone that bets $25k a day would not be able to go back and play selectively three races a day, even tho he or she will be at a 20% ROI.

Rebated players have to live with huge swings. With a 50k balance it is not uncommon to lose 20-25% in a day, with a bad run of races. A lot of people can not lose $15,000 at a session and not drive themselves nuts. They also have to deal with bad beats and brush them off. For a recreational player a bad beat can stick with him for weeks. For a rebated player, he has 6 or 8 bad beats by 3PM. They also have to deal with the stress of playing four tracks at once and finding good bets. Structuring all sorts of tickets in seconds. Most play upwards of 12 hours a day. it is hardly easy money.

So, I am not sure about this question. There are a lot of poker players who can win a few bucks at the $1/$2 tables, but when you ask them to risk a ton at the $30/$60 tables they puke. Conversely, Phil Ivey could win at a $1/$2 table but he would be bored out of his mind. Both are decent poker players, and in racing anyone (whether they win by rebate, or by betting selectively like yourself) are both excellent handicappers; albeit with different betting DNA's.

[baconswitchfarm]

[QUOTE=DeanT]


Rebated players have to live with huge swings. With a 50k balance it is not uncommon to lose 20-25% in a day, with a bad run of races. A lot of people can not lose $15,000 at a session and not drive themselves nuts. They also have to deal with bad beats and brush them off. For a recreational player a bad beat can stick with him for weeks. For a rebated player, he has 6 or 8 bad beats by 3PM. They also have to deal with the stress of playing four tracks at once and finding good bets. Structuring all sorts of tickets in seconds. Most play upwards of 12 hours a day. it is hardly easy money.


The best paragraph of the thread. All completely true.