PDA

View Full Version : Half - Winners- 1000 Dollars To Win ?


jamey1977
07-09-2011, 07:03 AM
Back in 1996-1997- I remember the story about the old guy in the stands, he would stay in the stands all week. Pass race after race after race. And then he would bet. Would bet 3 times a week on average- 1000 Dollars to win. He would win half of them At about a $ 5.40 average. That is 4200 dollar net profit a month. This dude was beating the game . Now the old guy is long passed. But I am interested in what he was doing. I say he was isolating the best horses there. Not bullcrud underlays that lose. But the winners. Can this work ? Can we do the same thing and will the percentages hold up.? I believe it. Isolating the winners and nailing them. Rather then betting horse after horse, that loses. Is this achievable or will the law of averages just make each horse lose. But what I say, what if we have the best damn horses on the grounds working for us? Do we have a shot to succeed like this old guy did, with this method ?

Hoofless_Wonder
07-09-2011, 08:43 AM
This approach can work, but requires the most elusive personality trait of all for horseplayers - discipline.

Back in the late 1980s I knew a guy at Fairmount Park who bet like the "old man" you described. We only had access to the Chicago card during the day (where he knew one of the trainers from college) and the nighttime Fairmount card. More often than not, he would pass on 9 races from Chicago and 10 races from Fairmount. He'd average 2, sometimes three bets per week. Sometimes he'd go two or three weeks without making a bet.

He had sold his business where he made $15K to $20K per year, and played the ponies to make a living. When he bet, it was almost always a $500 win bet, on a horse that was 2-1 to 5-1. He was clearing about the same amount of money from the ponies as he did from his job.

He would handicap the whole card, but bet few. One day he played a cold $2 pick six at Sportsmen's Park, when the carryover was about $80K. After winning the first race, he got beat in the second leg by a horse named Old Boots (wired the field), with his choice running second. Hit the next four and GOT NOTHING, as somebody hit the pick 6 that day (1 ticket for the whole pool IIRC), and Sportsmen's didn't pay out on 5 out of 6.

A horseplayer can make a profit betting very selectively, but 99+ percent of us need more action.....:p

JimG
07-09-2011, 09:24 AM
My guess is the rebate win pool churners would take that $5.40 avg. payoff in 96-97 and make it about $3.80 today.

Jim

raybo
07-09-2011, 02:49 PM
Yeah, I agree, I don't know about that "$5.40 average".

But, the "process" is absolutely do-able!!

Discipline, patience, and consistency are the 3 most important character traits a gambler can possess.

If you don't have all 3, then don't wager until you do!

Then tack on years of knowledge and experience, and maybe, you will be successful. Maybe!

This aint poker, where you can read a few books and get lucky, at the right times, and make a fortune. This is all about hard work and learning from your mistakes.

thaskalos
07-09-2011, 02:57 PM
Back in 1996-1997- I remember the story about the old guy in the stands, he would stay in the stands all week. Pass race after race after race. And then he would bet. Would bet 3 times a week on average- 1000 Dollars to win. He would win half of them At about a $ 5.40 average. That is 4200 dollar net profit a month. This dude was beating the game . Now the old guy is long passed. But I am interested in what he was doing. I say he was isolating the best horses there. Not bullcrud underlays that lose. But the winners. Can this work ? Can we do the same thing and will the percentages hold up.? I believe it. Isolating the winners and nailing them. Rather then betting horse after horse, that loses. Is this achievable or will the law of averages just make each horse lose. But what I say, what if we have the best damn horses on the grounds working for us? Do we have a shot to succeed like this old guy did, with this method ?
Sure...we can copy the old man's success...

We just have to know what he knew...

raybo
07-09-2011, 03:02 PM
Sure...we can copy the old man's success...

We just have to know what he knew...

Amen!! That's the "years of knowledge and experience" I was referring to.

therussmeister
07-10-2011, 12:02 AM
I would rather have the winners on the 50% of the races he lost.

raybo
07-10-2011, 12:25 AM
I would rather have the winners on the 50% of the races he lost.

Nah, just "some" of those winners, is enough.

After all we mustn't be greedy, and, we must be realistic. We can't get them all, no one ever has, and I doubt anyone will, in our lifetimes anyway.

BELMONT 6-6-09
07-10-2011, 07:58 AM
Andy beyer wrote about a friend Charlie is his book My $50,000 year at the races. Charlie would wait weeks and sometimes months before he made a bet, as he had to have 5/1 minimum. He would earn on a winning bet what a family would consider an annual income. His specialty was body language and that was his specialty.

It was pointed out that when Charlie lost a bet it was not a problem simply because he had the ultimate confidence in his success. There were times where he knew a horse was an absolute cinch, some at 4/1, but not his mandatory 5/1 that he waited for.

Robert Goren
07-10-2011, 10:06 AM
Very few people have the patience to wait for only 3 bets a weeks when there are hundreds of races be run every day of the week except tuesday. Picking 50% winners is not all that easy either even if you are betting only 3 races a week. Being very selective and the willingness to bet very low prices can get you to 40%, but to get much above it is extremely difficult.
I am doing this bridge jumper thing and it is very hard to look at a race and not bet it when the bridge jumper doesn't show up. Sitting on his hands is not a natural thing for a gambler to do. Even the tightest of poker players has trouble not giving in the temptation of running a bluff after an hour of tossing starting cards in to the middle.

BELMONT 6-6-09
07-10-2011, 10:11 AM
What about the times when these "solid" high percentage expectation wagers fall prey to the inevitable seconditus...along with the bad beats...just the reality of the hard task at hand when the value premise is removed from the equation.

salty
07-12-2011, 03:46 AM
It seems so unbelieveable that this game is just that hard to beat for everyone. I'm not saying I'm beating it but in all reality; would it really be that hard to pick 10 even money shots each week out of the hundreds of races run each week? or 3 7/2's a week? Doesn't sound impossible to me.

How about betting serious money like 200 to win on each one. hit 2 of 3 for $1200 a week just betting 3 horses and only having to hit two. only 1 hit and still have $300 a week. then take one $200 unit a week and play fun bets that would be nice to hit but your profitability is gaurenteed. I might even start a selection thread to see how possible it is.

mannyberrios
07-12-2011, 09:31 AM
It seems so unbelieveable that this game is just that hard to beat for everyone. I'm not saying I'm beating it but in all reality; would it really be that hard to pick 10 even money shots each week out of the hundreds of races run each week? or 3 7/2's a week? Doesn't sound impossible to me.

How about betting serious money like 200 to win on each one. hit 2 of 3 for $1200 a week just betting 3 horses and only having to hit two. only 1 hit and still have $300 a week. then take one $200 unit a week and play fun bets that would be nice to hit but your profitability is gaurenteed. I might even start a selection thread to see how possible it is.
Sounds good to me

ElKabong
07-13-2011, 12:31 AM
Andy beyer wrote about a friend Charlie is his book My $50,000 year at the races. Charlie would wait weeks and sometimes months before he made a bet, as he had to have 5/1 minimum. He would earn on a winning bet what a family would consider an annual income. His specialty was body language and that was his specialty.

It was pointed out that when Charlie lost a bet it was not a problem simply because he had the ultimate confidence in his success. There were times where he knew a horse was an absolute cinch, some at 4/1, but not his mandatory 5/1 that he waited for.


I remember that part of the book. If I recall, Charlie bet maidens going 2 turns for the first time, only. Something like that.

If you've played full time before, you know you'd need a really fat amount of savings (not bankroll, not retirement plan, but real cash "savings") to make Charlie's method work. I'm talking 3 yrs or more of living expenses safely tucked away b/c if you waited months for a bet, sufferered the normal bad beats etc, you'd need to wait out a few yrs of losing. Everyone goes thru bad streaks.

But I do think this would be a do-able method. It's just that not many of us have 130-160k (or whatever 3 - 4 yrs of living expenses are for a given individual) in real savings we can let sit idle and not use as bankroll

But if you had that kind of real savings, and the patience (and knowledge of your circuit of course), that would be a do able situation imo.

windoor
07-13-2011, 07:02 AM
Today, I looked at twelve cards and played two horses to win. I usually find more than that, but that is all the day will give.

I placed the wagers with Twinspires a little while ago (6:45 am) with a condition that the odds are over two to one. I am done for the day, and will download tomorrows cards late tonight.

I find it quite easy to do these days with a PC and online wagering account.

In the days when I went to the track, I would never be able to show this kind of discipline. Now it's just another job that needs to be done. Download, Capp, wager. What's for breakfast?

Regards,

Windoor

pondman
07-13-2011, 09:30 AM
Do we have a shot to succeed like this old guy did, with this method ?

Hate to say it, because you will send spit balls, but-- you've described me (except my bets are in the $100-300 range.)

This is what I've been try to say for several months.

jamey1977
07-13-2011, 11:38 PM
Hate to say it, because you will send spit balls, but-- you've described me (except my bets are in the $100-300 range.)

This is what I've been try to say for several months.
Patience- I have tried to find the best horses in the country,- I found Rose Catherine- a win machine running at Belmont- a horse as game as anyone. And guess what ? July 9- Belmont- She threw in a stink bomb- It's like no matter how great a horse is the horse could still lose. I am still interested in what the old guy was doing. The half winners, takes a long time to reach that level , could take a month and a half of bets- 2 months sometimes. And the seconditis and bad beats are worrisome. I thought I had a method but I went 0 for 6 with 6 seconds, just awful. No one said getting half winners at even 5 dollars is easy. A long process. But I always remember what Pittsburgh Phil said- He said " Forget the past, what matters is how will your horse run today ? Maybe the old guy was watching the horses on-track condition. Many do this.