Wrong approach?

[speculus]

All over the world some of the best brains of all generations have been attracted to this game, and their standard approach to beat this game has always been to study the form of each and every horse in each and every race, form opinions about their relative abilities (strengths & weaknesses), and then decide the betting action.

This elaborate process that consumes so much time and involves so much decision-making stress, could THAT actually be responsible for most people losing money over long term?

Because human mind is such that once it gets invested, it genuinely starts believing it has a profitable opinion about the race, and it's not wise to skip it—so a bet is in order. That may perhaps be the tragedy of some of the most brilliant handicappers around because despite having great knowledge they end up making too many bets for their own good.

Why put in the donkey's labour if you are anyway going to lose money at the end of it all?

A point that is worth noting is despite sophisticated technology, including computers, to help manage data and devise newer and finer methods, NOT ONE PUNTER IN THE WORLD has been able to give credible proof that he has a method or a system that has given him consistent profits over the long term.

Could something be radically wrong with the standard handicapping approach everyone brings to this game?

[Turkoman]

No doubt that there are very sharp horseplayers all over the place, but the takeout in this game is too high. That's why so many end up losing in the long run.

[Dave Schwartz]

Could something be radically wrong with the standard handicapping approach everyone brings to this game?

Since 98% (or more) of all players lose consistently, it stands to reason that what most people do does not work.

[Tom]

Since 98% (or more) of all players lose consistently

And we appreciate it very much!

[Overlay]

Because human mind is such that once it gets invested, it genuinely starts believing it has a profitable opinion about the race, and it's not wise to skip it—so a bet is in order. That may perhaps be the tragedy of some of the most brilliant handicappers around because despite having great knowledge they end up making too many bets for their own good.
As you note, selectivity is the key, which implies value assessment. Also, some means of forming an "opinion" -- which I put in quotation marks, because (to me) the word implies subjective judgment, while one's particular handicapping process may or may not involve such judgment -- are more valid/consistent than others on a race-to-race basis. Finally, I think that a major flaw of "traditional" handicapping is the normal approach of narrowing a race field down to the one most likely winner or combination through a process of elimination, rather than considering the chances of each horse in the field.

[lamboguy]

this is very simple.

standard handicapping approach deals with history. when you read pace numbers, sheet number's, racing forms, or watch replay's, it all goes back to the same losing strategy HISTORY. everyone knows HISTORY. some people interpret it differently.

i prefer to try to predict the future with tools that have different history than what everyone else looks at. those tools are not for sale like racing forms. and not everyone would know how to use those tools even if they had them.

[therussmeister]

A point that is worth noting is despite sophisticated technology, including computers, to help manage data and devise newer and finer methods, NOT ONE PUNTER IN THE WORLD has been able to give credible proof that he has a method or a system that has given him consistent profits over the long term.

Could something be radically wrong with the standard handicapping approach everyone brings to this game?

I was not aware that all the winning players were trying to give credible proof of their long term profits. Silly me! I assumed that they all just get on with the business of making money.

[Greyfox]

this is very simple.

standard handicapping approach deals with history. when you read pace numbers, sheet number's, racing forms, or watch replay's, it all goes back to the same losing strategy HISTORY. everyone knows HISTORY. some people interpret it differently.

i prefer to try to predict the future with tools that have different history than what everyone else looks at. those tools are not for sale like racing forms. and not everyone would know how to use those tools even if they had them.

It's good that you are using an approach that is unique to you for competing at this game. If it works, use it.

I personally don't feel that HISTORY is a losing strategy and doesn't deserve the hard knock that you are giving it.
(I note that in the next breath you say that you are working with tools that have a different history than what everyone else looks at. That's a bit puzzling. First you knock it, then your tools have it??)

Past Performances are usually reasonably good predictors of FUTURE performances.
The fact is not everyone, as you say, knows HISTORY.
Secondly, a large number of players who have access to HISTORY, are befuddled about what to do with the information that they have.
That's not HISTORY'S fault.
That's the players inadequacy in interpreting it.
For most races, virtually ALL OF THE INFORMATION that you need is right there in the PAST PERFORMANCE lines.
Certainly reviewing race replays (that's HISTORY) and observing the paddock and Post Parade can add to a handicapper's arsenal as well.

[thaskalos]

Could something be radically wrong with the standard handicapping approach everyone brings to this game?

In my opinion...these are the reasons why players have such a difficult time in this game:

INFERIOR HANDICAPPING - Why do serious players use the same handicapping methods over and over, even when they have been losing for many years?

Because they don't see that handicapping is their main problem. They prefer to blame their bad results on more "exotic" factors, like poor money management or lack of discipline.

We have invested too much time and effort in our handicapping methods, and they have become part of our identity. To declare that our methods are worthless is to admit that we have wasted decades in this game...and we need to start all over again.

It's a painful admission to make...but it often has to be done.

Another reason why we fail to see our handicapping weaknesses is psychological in nature:

All regular horseplayers have experienced many "near misses" in their horse-playing careers -- including some "life-changing" ones -- and this reinforces the belief that they have been victimized by bad luck...which is sure to "even-out in the long run".

It's hard to fault your handicapping when a photo finish separates you from a six-digit pick-6 payoff.

It's also hard to fathom that this scenario will never occur again in your entire horse-playing life.

It won't...

IMPROPER TEMPERAMENT WHILE GAMBLING -- The vast majority of those who blame money management for their losses at the track have misidentified their problem. Their money management problems are discipline and self-control problems in disguise.

Having a winning handicapping approach is one thing; having the temperament to put this approach to proper use in the stressful environment this game creates is something entirely different.

In my opinion...you have to be FLAWLESS in order to be a sizable winner in this game.

The good doctor, the good lawyer, the good brick layer, even the good poker player...they can all make good -- or even great -- livings in this world.

The good horseplayer starves...

[Robert Fischer]

NOT ONE PUNTER IN THE WORLD has been able to give credible proof that he has a method or a system that has given him consistent profits over the long term.

disagree, although it is rare

[Robert Fischer]

Could something be radically wrong with the standard handicapping approach everyone brings to this game?

sure, a lot of players do not understand the wagering system or the details of the sport.

the money is generally concentrated into smarter wagers

[teddy]

The only handicapping systems I have seen work are ones that take advantage of the publics mistakes or inability to spread out. Handicapping the public works IF you can find that edge and have the funds to take advantage of it.

[jk3521]

Since 98% (or more) of all players lose consistently, it stands to reason that what most people do does not work.

I know that I lose about 98% of the time. :lol:

[pondman]

That may perhaps be the tragedy of some of the most brilliant handicappers around because despite having great knowledge they end up making too many bets for their own good.



Not sure who you are trying to convince.

My wife and I are off to bet two singles today at $300 a pop. The geezer betting the high beyers box won't see em coming. It's got nothing to do with brilliance. It's all about creating the right approach that works. Notice the word create--as in creativity.

[MONEY]

those tools are not for sale like racing forms. and not everyone would know how to use those tools even if they had them.
So I guess that I should give up just like many others have, since I never had a chance.

[lamboguy]

So I guess that I should give up just like many others have, since I never had a chance.if you treat this as a recreational game, you can have a good time and enjoy these great animal's. we live in a capitalistic society. you go to the track and you pay the takeout to make your bets. if you think you can overcome that stiff takeout by putting up $7.00 to buy a racing form, you have a big problem.

i have lost money for the last 7 straight years before a rebate. in my mind, i think i am pretty good at what i do and i still lose.

[Meunuco]

i have lost money for the last 7 straight years before a rebate. in my mind, i think i am pretty good at what i do and i still lose.

many company heads think they're running things efficiently until an audit shows otherwise.

the way you phrased this is very telling psychologically.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by speculus
That may perhaps be the tragedy of some of the most brilliant handicappers around because despite having great knowledge they end up making too many bets for their own good.

Name three.

[Dave Schwartz]

That may perhaps be the tragedy of some of the most brilliant handicappers around because despite having great knowledge they end up making too many bets for their own good.

I believe this to be almost true.

I believe the issue is not the NUMBER of bets - could be too many (or too few).

Many truly expert handicappers simply do not know how to tell a good bet from a bad one.

[TrifectaMike]

I believe this to be almost true.

I believe the issue is not the NUMBER of bets - could be too many (or too few).

Many truly expert handicappers simply do not know how to tell a good bet from a bad one.

Dave, do you define a "good" bet as being race specific, horse specific or a combination of both?

Mike (Dr Beav)

[Dave Schwartz]

To me, a good bet is one where the handicapper can say, "In this race, this horse is a profitable play and I should bet this much."

[TrifectaMike]

To me, a good bet is one where the handicapper can say, "In this race, this horse is a profitable play and I should bet this much."

Thanks. You have the trifecta covered.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[Native Texan III]

"All over the world some of the best brains of all generations have been attracted to this game, and their standard approach to beat this game has always been to study the form of each and every horse in each and every race, form opinions about their relative abilities (strengths & weaknesses), and then decide the betting action. "


No one has a clue as to what other people do, apart for a few friends

"Because human mind is such that once it gets invested, it genuinely starts believing it has a profitable opinion about the race, and it's not wise to skip it—so a bet is in order. That may perhaps be the tragedy of some of the most brilliant handicappers around because despite having great knowledge they end up making too many bets for their own good."

Part of the art of handicapping is quickly avoiding wasting time on "unrateable" races. Even a rateable race may not be bet upon if the odds are not value. That requires temperament.


"A point that is worth noting is despite sophisticated technology, including computers, to help manage data and devise newer and finer methods, NOT ONE PUNTER IN THE WORLD has been able to give credible proof that he has a method or a system that has given him consistent profits over the long term. "

Nick Mordin, for one, has been writing in the British Weekender publication for nearly 30 years. Each week he gives a fully checkable system / method that has proven successful over 10 years. Some 1500 methods.

In general, why do handicappers expect people to reveal truly successful methods so that they immediately become unsucessful, as over-bet?

[bob60566]

"All over the world some of the best brains of all generations have been attracted to this game, and their standard approach to beat this game has always been to study the form of each and every horse in each and every race, form opinions about their relative abilities (strengths & weaknesses), and then decide the betting action. "


No one has a clue as to what other people do, apart for a few friends

"Because human mind is such that once it gets invested, it genuinely starts believing it has a profitable opinion about the race, and it's not wise to skip it—so a bet is in order. That may perhaps be the tragedy of some of the most brilliant handicappers around because despite having great knowledge they end up making too many bets for their own good."

Part of the art of handicapping is quickly avoiding wasting time on "unrateable" races. Even a rateable race may not be bet upon if the odds are not value. That requires temperament.


"A point that is worth noting is despite sophisticated technology, including computers, to help manage data and devise newer and finer methods, NOT ONE PUNTER IN THE WORLD has been able to give credible proof that he has a method or a system that has given him consistent profits over the long term. "
Nick Mordin, for one, has been writing in the British Weekender publication for nearly 30 years. Each week he gives a fully checkable system / method that has proven successful over 10 years. Some 1500 methods.

In general, why do handicappers expect people to reveal truly successful methods so that they immediately become unsucessful, as over-bet?

Excellent post

Mac :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[speculus]

"All over the world some of the best brains of all generations have been attracted to this game, and their standard approach to beat this game has always been to study the form of each and every horse in each and every race, form opinions about their relative abilities (strengths & weaknesses), and then decide the betting action. "


No one has a clue as to what other people do, apart for a few friends

"Because human mind is such that once it gets invested, it genuinely starts believing it has a profitable opinion about the race, and it's not wise to skip it—so a bet is in order. That may perhaps be the tragedy of some of the most brilliant handicappers around because despite having great knowledge they end up making too many bets for their own good."

Part of the art of handicapping is quickly avoiding wasting time on "unrateable" races. Even a rateable race may not be bet upon if the odds are not value. That requires temperament.


"A point that is worth noting is despite sophisticated technology, including computers, to help manage data and devise newer and finer methods, NOT ONE PUNTER IN THE WORLD has been able to give credible proof that he has a method or a system that has given him consistent profits over the long term. "

Nick Mordin, for one, has been writing in the British Weekender publication for nearly 30 years. Each week he gives a fully checkable system / method that has proven successful over 10 years. Some 1500 methods.

In general, why do handicappers expect people to reveal truly successful methods so that they immediately become unsucessful, as over-bet?

1. I am talking about the standard (as in 'most dominant') approach the majority of players bring to this game.

2. You are right. Temperament is the key. But I actually suspect temperament (and patience and discipline), the three essential allies you need on your side in this battle of nerves, come more easily to those who don't invest their time and energy in elaborate study of relative strengths of too many runners & too many races.

3. Maybe I worded it wrongly. No one needs to disclose the method/system (I don't;)), but in this age of web communication, one can always upload the proof of being a long term winner (minimum 5 years?) by publishing the ADW acc printout, especially when there are so many boastful claims floating around.

[proximity]

My wife and I are off to bet two singles today at $300 a pop. The geezer betting the high beyers box won't see em coming. It's got nothing to do with brilliance. It's all about creating the right approach that works. Notice the word create--as in creativity.

great post. this is an ideas game. hope you and your wife cashed your bets.

and to the original poster, i'm sorry, but some people on here are just good. real good. as a recent example, there is a thread on class vs speed in the triple crown forum where i was talking about a recent class overlay at charles town races in west virginia. well, p.a. moderator cj milkowski had this horse on speed and that absolutely shocked me as andy beyer himself had the place horse with a twelve point advantage.

on another recent thread in the selections forum paceadvantage himself had shackleford and caleb's posse dead even in the met mile at belmont park. his overlay shackleford won the race barely over caleb's posse. i had caleb's posse and passed the race. the "whales" did even worse with to honor and serve.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I believe this to be almost true.

I believe the issue is not the NUMBER of bets - could be too many (or too few).

Many truly expert handicappers simply do not know how to tell a good bet from a bad one.

I'd like to add to this by saying a good bet from a great one.I win many good bets while striking out on great ones,ie my judgement,and less money vs more money.I know it's a weakness.Right now in my horseplaying career it's what is separating me from awesome and mediocrity.

[CincyHorseplayer]

"All over the world some of the best brains of all generations have been attracted to this game, and their standard approach to beat this game has always been to study the form of each and every horse in each and every race, form opinions about their relative abilities (strengths & weaknesses), and then decide the betting action. "


No one has a clue as to what other people do, apart for a few friends

"Because human mind is such that once it gets invested, it genuinely starts believing it has a profitable opinion about the race, and it's not wise to skip it—so a bet is in order. That may perhaps be the tragedy of some of the most brilliant handicappers around because despite having great knowledge they end up making too many bets for their own good."

Part of the art of handicapping is quickly avoiding wasting time on "unrateable" races. Even a rateable race may not be bet upon if the odds are not value. That requires temperament.


"A point that is worth noting is despite sophisticated technology, including computers, to help manage data and devise newer and finer methods, NOT ONE PUNTER IN THE WORLD has been able to give credible proof that he has a method or a system that has given him consistent profits over the long term. "

Nick Mordin, for one, has been writing in the British Weekender publication for nearly 30 years. Each week he gives a fully checkable system / method that has proven successful over 10 years. Some 1500 methods.

In general, why do handicappers expect people to reveal truly successful methods so that they immediately become unsucessful, as over-bet?

They won't bet it anyway.I am far from a legendary handicapper but my greatest profit is from speed on the turf.Nobody will ever follow me down that road and it pays!

Great post.

[Versajoe]

For years I have believed that a person who knows how to beat the game would keep extremely quiet - and I am sure there are some out there who do.

But I seriously doubt that more than 1% of players make a profit. The takeout is just too high. Look at the paltry results the best handicappers achieve when there is a financial incentive to perform well publicly. (Handicapping contests, etc.) And consider that some of those winners just had a streak of luck.

We know for a fact that final odds tend to be spot on over the long term. This means that the public is pretty darned good at handicapping. This makes sense since there are fewer and fewer casual players left.

The simple truth is that if you want to make money, there are MUCH easier, and less risky, ways to do it. Play the game because you enjoy it. Consider it to be entertainment, and not a career. Anything else is not an efficient use at all of human capital.

[fmolf]

For years I have believed that a person who knows how to beat the game would keep extremely quiet - and I am sure there are some out there who do.

But I seriously doubt that more than 1% of players make a profit. The takeout is just too high. Look at the paltry results the best handicappers achieve when there is a financial incentive to perform well publicly. (Handicapping contests, etc.) And consider that some of those winners just had a streak of luck.

We know for a fact that final odds tend to be spot on over the long term. This means that the public is pretty darned good at handicapping. This makes sense since there are fewer and fewer casual players left.

The simple truth is that if you want to make money, there are MUCH easier, and less risky, ways to do it. Play the game because you enjoy it. Consider it to be entertainment, and not a career. Anything else is not an efficient use at all of human capital.
I agree people who are making money betting horses are not going to divulge any secrets or brag about their accomplishments.I am a serious recreational player I play from home and I am selective in placing my bets.I do other things at home when odds are not to my liking.At the track i bet every race sometimes betting underlays sometimes overlays...i just like the action, the twice a month i get to Belmont Park.

[speculus]

All over the world some of the best brains of all generations have been attracted to this game, and their standard approach to beat this game has always been to study the form of each and every horse in each and every race, form opinions about their relative abilities (strengths & weaknesses), and then decide the betting action.

This elaborate process that consumes so much time and involves so much decision-making stress, could THAT actually be responsible for most people losing money over long term?

Because human mind is such that once it gets invested, it genuinely starts believing it has a profitable opinion about the race, and it's not wise to skip it—so a bet is in order. That may perhaps be the tragedy of some of the most brilliant handicappers around because despite having great knowledge they end up making too many bets for their own good.

Why put in the donkey's labour if you are anyway going to lose money at the end of it all?

A point that is worth noting is despite sophisticated technology, including computers, to help manage data and devise newer and finer methods, NOT ONE PUNTER IN THE WORLD has been able to give credible proof that he has a method or a system that has given him consistent profits over the long term.

Could something be radically wrong with the standard handicapping approach everyone brings to this game?

I started this thread exactly a year ago.

The reason to start this thread was because at the time I was contracted to conduct a novel--and perhaps unique--experiment by a leading racing website in my country, Indiarace.com, and I wanted to discuss the idea with this board which I hold in very high regard. Later, however, I got too busy to visit PA, resulting in this thread becoming dead.

Well, the experiment, which was titled My Stable, was conducted over a period of one race season (Bangalore summer meet, 2012), and it addressed precisely the points raised by me in the opening post of this thread.

In the hope that some here would be interested in the findings of the experiment, I am listing the following links:

Announcement of the experiment (http://www.indiarace.com/mystablecontent.aspx?pagetype=mystable&date=5/29/2012)
Introducing the concept (http://www.indiarace.com/mystablecontent.aspx?pagetype=mystable&date=5/30/2012)
The FAQ (http://www.indiarace.com/mystablecontent.aspx?pagetype=mystable&date=5/31/2012)
The conclusion (http://www.indiarace.com/mystablecontent.aspx?pagetype=Performance&date=8/13/2012)

Regards,
Speculus

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Since he bumped a year old thread, I thought for sure Speculus was coming back with a story of riches. But no, his bankroll plunged like the Dow in the fall of 2008, or as he puts it, "How I turned gold into lead". Glad to see you brought the data and results to the experiment.

I tip my hat to you Spec for your humility. :ThmbUp:

I believe your approach has some merit. Even though your win wagers crushed your bankroll, your place/show bets held up fine. I know that my own "horses to watch" list does okay, and I often ignore the competition when playing those ponies if the price is right.

However, I'm less sure that your "stable" selections are a unique method. It seems more of a variation of any other spot-play or restricted play approach to the game. Playing to strengths, and focusing on a rigorous method.

As for the hypothesis that the vast majority of horseplayers lose due to analyzing all horses in all races, and then coming up with a bet regardless of whether or not an edge exists, that's probably true. But simply coming up with a method that focuses on fewer races isn't the road to riches. As Dave Schwartz pointed out, the key is to identify the profitable horse, and determine the optimum amount to wager.

Or, lacking that, come up with more accurate speed and pace pars for the Bangalore Turf Club..... :)

[PICSIX]

They won't bet it anyway.I am far from a legendary handicapper but my greatest profit is from speed on the turf.Nobody will ever follow me down that road and it pays!

Great post.

What, speed can't win on turf, are you out of your mind :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Robert Goren]

The only handicapping systems I have seen work are ones that take advantage of the publics mistakes or inability to spread out. Handicapping the public works IF you can find that edge and have the funds to take advantage of it.I think this is right. I see a lot of money bet on horses that have no chance everyday. As a small bettor, finding a no shot 6/5 horse isn't enough. I still have to find the winner out of the remaining 6 or 7 horses. A larger bettor has the ability and the weapons to jump all over this when it happens. The question then becomes, does the large bettor lose the ability to find these no shot horses when he is trying to maneuver all weapons at his disposal? I think it is clear that more tracks you play at the same time, the more ability to spot bad bets you give up.

[Valuist]

In my opinion...these are the reasons why players have such a difficult time in this game:

INFERIOR HANDICAPPING - Why do serious players use the same handicapping methods over and over, even when they have been losing for many years?



In many cases, they worked for many years. But that doesn't mean they will work going forward. I know there's horses I caught that paid $22 in 1990 where if the same circumstances were presented now, the horse would probably pay $11. The game certainly isn't getting easier. Doesn't mean its unbeatable, but it getting more difficult to find edges.

[RXB]

In many cases, they worked for many years. But that doesn't mean they will work going forward. I know there's horses I caught that paid $22 in 1990 where if the same circumstances were presented now, the horse would probably pay $11. The game certainly isn't getting easier. Doesn't mean its unbeatable, but it getting more difficult to find edges.

Easiest example is the parimutuel advantage for anyone with an accurate handle on handicapping early speed horses (not early pace horses); that advantage has dried up in the past dozen years or so on both dirt and grass. Not in the order of average payouts dropping from $22 - $11; more like $11 - $9. That's still a huge hit.

Game is different now, for sure. Pace handicapping and speed figures not nearly so useful anymore from a parimutuel perspective.

[cnollfan]

But because it is a zero-sum game minus the takeout, when one type of horse becomes overbet, by definition another type becomes underbet.

For instance (not redboarding because I didn't have a dime on the winner) I'll Have Another was 15-1 in the Kentucky Derby after winning the Santa Anita Derby, while Daddy Nose Best was 14-1 after winning the Sunland Derby. There is no way that Days of Yore bettors would have given more credit to the latter, but he had a big Beyer and I'll Have Another didn't.

[RXB]

But it's actually a minus-20% sum game. So horses can be significantly underbet and still be unprofitable as a group.

When a sizeable proportion of players become somewhat educated/informed in a game with a 20% takeout, the chances for profits really tighten up. There used to be a couple of relatively simple ways to get to the break-even point without even having to be particularly restrictive on the number of bets made; now the only simple way is never to bet.

[cnollfan]

But it's actually a minus-20% sum game. So horses can be significantly underbet and still be unprofitable as a group.



Right. Perhaps the true zero-takeout odds should have been 16-1 on I'll Have Another and 45-1 on Daddy Nose Best.

[DeltaLover]

This elaborate process that consumes so much time and involves so much decision-making stress, could THAT actually be responsible for most people losing money over long term?


No. The prime reasons why most people losing over long term should be attributed to the take out and the gambler's ruin concept.




Because human mind is such that once it gets invested, it genuinely starts believing it has a profitable opinion about the race, and it's not wise to skip it—so a bet is in order. That may perhaps be the tragedy of some of the most brilliant handicappers around because despite having great knowledge they end up making too many bets for their own good.

The sad true is that for most of us, regardless of how often we are visiting the betting windows our chances remain the same. The whole concept of spot betting is overvalued and to a large extend it presents a myth rather than a reality.

[pondman]

. The whole concept of spot betting is overvalued and to a large extend it presents a myth rather than a reality.

There isn't any difference between spot betting and betting every race, except some people look for the opportunities that they isolate as exceptionally profitable. It's not all that hard to spot play against a crowd of people who all play the same method. If a horse had the fastest time in it's last, the geezers bet it at 7-5. It's not hard for anyone who has spent any time playing to beat that method. But that's how the average player bets. It doesn't take much for a player to go from being a big loser to at least breaking even, if they just take a few notes and pay attention. But the overwhelming majority of players don't do anything but buy the drf and play high speed numbers. If that's they're game they can go for it. But there are people who will sit and wait and walk away with their money.

[thaskalos]

There isn't any difference between spot betting and betting every race, except some people look for the opportunities that they isolate as exceptionally profitable. It's not all that hard to spot play against a crowd of people who all play the same method. If a horse had the fastest time in it's last, the geezers bet it at 7-5. It's not hard for anyone who has spent any time playing to beat that method. But that's how the average player bets. It doesn't take much for a player to go from being a big loser to at least breaking even, if they just take a few notes and pay attention. But the overwhelming majority of players don't do anything but buy the drf and play high speed numbers. If that's they're game they can go for it. But there are people who will sit and wait and walk away with their money.

You are being too hard on the crowd...IMO; it takes much more than the "fastest time in its last" for the horse to go off at 7-5...at least on a continuous basis.

The majority of the bettors may not be sophisticated...but the majority of the money surely is. Those "geezers", who blindly bet on the best last-race Beyers, do not account for as much of the betting volume as you seem to think.

[speculus]

Since he bumped a year old thread, I thought for sure Speculus was coming back with a story of riches. ....... :)

I could have easily come back with a story of riches (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8Px-rJpOtB9RFJYY1JTcXg2bXM/edit) [in which a 10k starting bet from a bankroll of 100,000 on the 236 recommended bets (from about 720 races held) at Mumbai in two race seasons (2011-12 & 2012-13) could have turned into a record-breaking five million plus:cool:), but the purpose of starting this thread and reviving it after a year was not personal glorification, but just to point out that simple, easy, and common-sense handicapping methods as opposed to rigorous, complicated & sophisticated ones also have the potential to put you ahead in this game.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I could have easily come back with a story of riches (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8Px-rJpOtB9RFJYY1JTcXg2bXM/edit) [in which a 10k starting bet from a bankroll of 100,000 on the 236 recommended bets (from about 720 races held) at Mumbai in two race seasons (2011-12 & 2012-13) could have turned into a record-breaking five million plus:cool:), but the purpose of starting this thread and reviving it after a year was not personal glorification, but just to point out that simple, easy, and common-sense handicapping methods as opposed to rigorous, complicated & sophisticated ones also have the potential to put you ahead in this game.

While I agree that a simple and "common sense" method can be productive, I don't know if you'd ever find it to be easy.

A friend of mine in the late 1980s, and one of the few winning horseplayers I've ever known, used a method similar to the one described in your experiment. He would calculate basic speed figures, take trip notes, and keep tabs on trainer methods, one of the few edges still available at the time. His selections were restricted to a "working list", or stable if you will, of horses that came out of very fast races, had experienced troubled trips, or were falling into a trainer's "go" pattern. He typically added or subtracted several horses per week when betting the Chicago tracks during the day, and Fairmount Park at night. He only made a couple of bets per week and only handicapped the races in which one of these horses was running, but when he did bet, he unloaded his wallet.

Though he made a living from it for a couple of years, the daily grind of his relatively simple approach wore him down over time, and he went back to working for a living.

I don't think it's ever easy....

[speculus]

While I agree that a simple and "common sense" method can be productive, I don't know if you'd ever find it to be easy.

Believe me, it's easy as breathing. I actually got my life back after I changed my approach. Now I bet on maximum six racetracks in a week, but my action is decided in about 15 minutes on the morning of the race day.

But yes, I do spend about an hour every day, watching videos of the previous day's races to shortlist horses that could be my possible future bets under certain circumstances.

....He only made a couple of bets per week and only handicapped the races in which one of these horses was running, but when he did bet, he unloaded his wallet.....

My current average is about a bet or two on a card, and I make only WIN or SHOW bets if I feel the odds are generous as compared to the chances. However, I don't believe in creating odds line for reasons explained in this thread (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=62877) , but do have an intuitive feel about mis-priced situations, and I go by that.

As to the bet size, I now strictly follow the money management formula displayed in the "story of riches" link above which I finally devised in April last year, and which seems to be working exceedingly well.

The formula is based on my weird logic which I explained in this thread (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33518) and it creatively combines that logic with three things:
1) the odds offered on the horse (I bet with bookmakers, so I know the odds)
2) a superb trick used by Robert Lichello (on whose formula Dave Shwartz's HMI is based), and
3) the BB+SR method.

[DeltaLover]

1) the odds offered on the horse (I bet with bookmakers, so I know the odds)



This is a completly different game than what we playing here...

Your method might be applicable to India but I frankly do not see much hope for US. The game here is WAY more difficult than anywhere in the world (and dispite our usual beef, it remains the best for the astute handicapper)...

[speculus]

This is a completly different game than what we playing here...

Your method might be applicable to India but I frankly do not see much hope for US. The game here is WAY more difficult than anywhere in the world (and dispite our usual beef, it remains the best for the astute handicapper)...

Are you talking about the handicapping approach? Or the money management formula?

[speculus]

Sorry, I should't have asked that question. You are clearly talking about the money management part of it, its clear by the quote you have reproduced.

But there is a way out, although that's not the ideal solution. You can fill your expected average odds on winners [if you have kept past records, you know your average odds on winners (AoW)], and my belief is 'strike rate' & AoW generally stay reasonably constant over the long term as long as you don't change your handicapping and betting style drastically.

There is another option. Before I incorporated the odds factor last year, I had a formula that too I believe worked quite well, and gave superb results. I sent it to Dave Shwartz in the hope that he would modify his HMI with it. You may inquire with Dave if he has any plans of selling it (and pass on my share to me :cool: ).

[DeltaLover]

Are you talking about the handicapping approach? Or the money management formula?


- Handicapping is different due to the conditions of the races. who most of the times represent a complicated sieve creating events that are difficult to decipher and handicap. The most common race appears to be a claiming event consisting by very diverse group of horses, some of them been stale in the same conditions for longtime, others dropping sharply and other stepping up trying the level for first time. This happens due to the wide range of opportunities presented to the connections something that does not hold true when the racing options are limited. In the later case the racing secretary needs to classify the horses solely by the number of wins as they remain younger and later he has no choice than to create subdivisions using the weight as the major equalizing factor. This is why weight here in US is not considered as important as it is elsewhere where it is not uncommon to have an allowance race for older horses where the difference of the top to lower weight is 20Kg or more (more than 40 pounds!)... Here the need for such weight differences does not exist, simply because always there are enough "similar" horses to conduct a race....

- As far as the money management formula it remains inapplicable here in US because there is absolutely no way to know the final odds of your starter.. More than this I believe that the whole concept of money management is completely misunderstood and I doubt its utility. With few words MM has not impact in your bottom line which depends more on your handicapping, your betting ability and the risk you are willing to take.

- You also are mentioning that you only bet WIN and SHOW. I really think that you need more flexibility as bettor if you want to extract the maximum value from the pools. There are cases where WIN might be your best option but in other cases where you hold multiple strong opinions for a specific race, you need to be able to apply a more complex and liberal betting scheme, essentially parlaying your multiple opinions to the possibility of a large score.

[pondman]

You are being too hard on the crowd...IMO; it takes much more than the "fastest time in its last" for the horse to go off at 7-5...at least on a continuous basis.

The majority of the bettors may not be sophisticated...but the majority of the money surely is. Those "geezers", who blindly bet on the best last-race Beyers, do not account for as much of the betting volume as you seem to think.

This is still a game where 1/3 of the winners pay at least $12. Another way of looking at that statistic is to throw out the crowds top 4 contenders in 1/3 of the races. And there isn't any way you can focus on that group of horses without tossing the contemporary idea of the crowd, which is obsessed with the fastest horses in the PPs. The crowd is far too confident when they see a fast horse. The crowd is overly confident in most races.

There are successful people who do focus on other factors and do choose to play within the realm of the slower horses. If a method doesn't at sometime recognize that slower horses do win races, then I personally don't think it will go anywhere. This is where the money is made, buy avoiding horses slammed by the crowd. We all have our own opinion of contenders. Mine rarely coincide with the crowds. If they do, I won't bet them.

[proximity]

to be fair to the beyers, there was a second best last out rating that paid over $100 at Charles town last night. the seven teams of whales playing Charles town let it go!!:)

[speculus]

- Handicapping is different due to the conditions of the races. who most of the times represent a complicated sieve creating events that are difficult to decipher and handicap. The most common race appears to be a claiming event consisting by very diverse group of horses, some of them been stale in the same conditions for longtime, others dropping sharply and other stepping up trying the level for first time. This happens due to the wide range of opportunities presented to the connections something that does not hold true when the racing options are limited. In the later case the racing secretary needs to classify the horses solely by the number of wins as they remain younger and later he has no choice than to create subdivisions using the weight as the major equalizing factor. This is why weight here in US is not considered as important as it is elsewhere where it is not uncommon to have an allowance race for older horses where the difference of the top to lower weight is 20Kg or more (more than 40 pounds!)... Here the need for such weight differences does not exist, simply because always there are enough "similar" horses to conduct a race....

What makes you think racing outside the US is not as complicated? It's the same story wherever you go, only the nomenclature is different.

- As far as the money management formula it remains inapplicable here in US because there is absolutely no way to know the final odds of your starter.. More than this I believe that the whole concept of money management is completely misunderstood and I doubt its utility. With few words MM has not impact in your bottom line which depends more on your handicapping, your betting ability and the risk you are willing to take.

About the MM formula's applicability to the US scenario, I have already replied in the preceding post. But I am surprised you doubt MM formula's utility which converts 800k profit into 5.3 million without proportionately increasing the risk. Compare the percentages juxtaposed for both flat bet & MM under max, min & avg bet size to know what I mean. If this doesn't convince you, nothing will.

- you also are mentioning that you only bet WIN and SHOW. I really think that you need more flexibility as bettor if you want to extract the maximum value from the pools. There are cases where WIN might be your best option but in other cases where you hold multiple strong opinions for a specific race, you need to be able to apply a more complex and liberal betting scheme, essentially parlaying your multiple opinions to the possibility of a large score.

I believe in the wisdom of Warren Buffett who said, "I don't try to jump over 7‐foot bars. I look around for 1‐foot bars that I can step over."

[MJC922]

While I agree that a simple and "common sense" method can be productive, I don't know if you'd ever find it to be easy.

A friend of mine in the late 1980s, and one of the few winning horseplayers I've ever known, used a method similar to the one described in your experiment. He would calculate basic speed figures, take trip notes, and keep tabs on trainer methods, one of the few edges still available at the time. His selections were restricted to a "working list", or stable if you will, of horses that came out of very fast races, had experienced troubled trips, or were falling into a trainer's "go" pattern. He typically added or subtracted several horses per week when betting the Chicago tracks during the day, and Fairmount Park at night. He only made a couple of bets per week and only handicapped the races in which one of these horses was running, but when he did bet, he unloaded his wallet.

Though he made a living from it for a couple of years, the daily grind of his relatively simple approach wore him down over time, and he went back to working for a living.

I don't think it's ever easy....

As someone who played full time profitably for the better part of a decade and who now is playing part time and struggling to break even the post about your friend resonates with my own experience. While I do hold some optimism there might still be number crunching methods left out there for a part time player like me to leverage I'm not at all convinced. Full time play is a different animal. When you see all of those horses race every week, and you watch them in the ring and you watch them warm up etc, you have the local knowedge of the trainers, all of that amounts to a really vast pool of knowledge which allows you to overcome the huge takeout. My prime wagers in those days were off the overnight, you just know without seeing anything but the names. I was close to the belief that by the mid 1990's if you needed a racing form to choose your prime bets then you most likely were looking at a negative ROI. Real pros are workhorses, whether it's studying result charts, fractions, replays and / or making figures that's all part of it -- and it does lead to burnout. Ultimately when I look back on years of successful play, the true edge then wasn't about what was in the ink, it was about what didn't show up in the ink.

[speculus]

....When you see all of those horses race every week, and you watch them in the ring and you watch them warm up etc, you have the local knowledge of the trainers, all of that amounts to a really vast pool of knowledge which allows you to overcome the huge takeout.....

Strangely, I rarely, if ever, watch any of my horses in the ring, and I scrupulously stay away from any and all kind of inside information though I have personal acquaintance with most of the professionals (jockeys/trainers/owners/backstretch staff) here in India thanks to my journalistic background. The reason is I neither fancy myself as a body language expert [I know what I don't know], nor do I have much respect for the knowledge of most [not all] professionals who, most of the time, are as ignorant as the chronically losing punter.

The only time I like to see my play in the paddock/ring is when it has not shown up in fast work (spurt) for 2-3 weeks leading to the race, and then too, all I want to see is the precise moment when the jock mounts the horse. I just want to see the reaction of the horse in those moments. I believe I can, with some accuracy, sense the readiness (or willingness) of the horse to give out his best. The other exception is when a horse owner, who is planning a big bet on his horse on the trainer's advice, comes to me for a second opinion. I do make it a point not to miss the paddock show and the mounting moment.

[raybo]

Since 98% (or more) of all players lose consistently, it stands to reason that what most people do does not work.

True, if your method resembles traditional handicapping /wagering processes then you are just another statistic in the 98% losing players. It would probably be worth the effort to research what the public does and then do the opposite.

[raybo]

1. I am talking about the standard (as in 'most dominant') approach the majority of players bring to this game.

2. You are right. Temperament is the key. But I actually suspect temperament (and patience and discipline), the three essential allies you need on your side in this battle of nerves, come more easily to those who don't invest their time and energy in elaborate study of relative strengths of too many runners & too many races.

3. Maybe I worded it wrongly. No one needs to disclose the method/system (I don't;)), but in this age of web communication, one can always upload the proof of being a long term winner (minimum 5 years?) by publishing the ADW acc printout, especially when there are so many boastful claims floating around.

I did that on this forum once, and got accused of modifying it. Never again.

[PaceAdvantage]

I did that on this forum once, and got accused of modifying it. Never again.I'm sure it was nothing personal.

Even you must admit how easy it would be...

[raybo]

I'm sure it was nothing personal.

Even you must admit how easy it would be...

Might be easy for someone, but I dang sure don't know how to do it. Now, if it could be done in Excel, I might be able to figure it out. :lol:

[MJC922]

Strangely, I rarely, if ever, watch any of my horses in the ring, and I scrupulously stay away from any and all kind of inside information though I have personal acquaintance with most of the professionals (jockeys/trainers/owners/backstretch staff) here in India thanks to my journalistic background. The reason is I neither fancy myself as a body language expert [I know what I don't know], nor do I have much respect for the knowledge of most [not all] professionals who, most of the time, are as ignorant as the chronically losing punter.

The only time I like to see my play in the paddock/ring is when it has not shown up in fast work (spurt) for 2-3 weeks leading to the race, and then too, all I want to see is the precise moment when the jock mounts the horse. I just want to see the reaction of the horse in those moments. I believe I can, with some accuracy, sense the readiness (or willingness) of the horse to give out his best. The other exception is when a horse owner, who is planning a big bet on his horse on the trainer's advice, comes to me for a second opinion. I do make it a point not to miss the paddock show and the mounting moment.

My point isn't necessarily that appearance is vital to success but it's more about when you're missing great amounts of supplemental info (which a full time player has visibilty to) it's not just going to limit the upside of our profitability, quite frankly we may be missing the very key to profitable play. There are several dimensions players operate in, the first one I tag with 'all ink', that's a handicapper (and may be a very good one) using only whatever is found on the printed page like the racing form or track program. A good fundamental (ainslie-style) handicapper limited to all ink might break even these days. Then we have the players in the second dimension, they bring in supplemental info, key races, their own speed figures, pace figures, whatever it may be. These people understand it's very important to go beyond widely distributed information to gain an edge. Many of these 2nd dimension players are part time players but still manage to bring themselves slightly into the third dimension by taking the time to watch replays and pay attention to appearance. 3rd dimension players are the real profit makers, they do everything the 2nd's do and then some. Importantly, they see it all first-hand and they see it in the context of a race they just handicapped making a mental note of the result in that context. Maybe they don't takes notes on every last thing but they do see it and they recall it later on including tiny details. They use these bits of info to beat second dimensioners time and time again. A 2nd dimension weekend guy like me might even know that a big class dropper is walking bad in the paddock, but the 3rd dimension guy knows that he walked bad last week too. 1st dimension guys horse has a tongue tie and he probably doesn't even notice. 3rd dimension sees a particular trainer put the tongue tie on just before saddling in the paddock and from past observation might find meaning in that.

[Hosshead]

From what I see in the results from the Speculus article, he did pretty damn good with show betting.

A 56% Profit !!

He hit 71% of the show bets (whether there was a profit or break even)

And from what I calculate ( I may be wrong), the Avg. show price was about U.S $4.38
Thats a pretty nice avg. show price. (with a 71% hit rate)
Were these large fields, or just longer odds picks?

The next question is why the show and not the win?
I read that these selections were posted in the newspaper the morning of the race.
Could that have influenced anything?

[MJC922]

From what I see in the results from the Speculus article, he did pretty damn good with show betting.

A 56% Profit !!

He hit 71% of the show bets (whether there was a profit or break even)

And from what I calculate ( I may be wrong), the Avg. show price was about U.S $4.38
Thats a pretty nice avg. show price. (with a 71% hit rate)
Were these large fields, or just longer odds picks?

The next question is why the show and not the win?
I read that these selections were posted in the newspaper the morning of the race.
Could that have influenced anything?

His approach is on the right path IMO. First though the sample size < 80 plays is way too small to draw much of a conclusion. For example I have a mechanical method which had 170 plays in May with 48% wins and made 8%, now we're halfway into June and the profit is down to 1%and 45% wins. Looking at my median payoff it's 4-5 and losing the take, profit or no profit I'm not very confident at the moment. Second observation: How are the horses on his list selected? If it's random I don't see a lot of upside. One problem that I always ran into was finding enough horses worth 'following', that is, I always looked for horses that I would consider purchasing due to perceived hidden ability /class, unfortunately if you're following a single track there aren't many of them. If following multiple tracks it's hard to closely observe behavior, warm ups, post race, and not the least of which is to know the class of the others you're entered against.

[Hosshead]

Imagine playing Even Money Favorites and having a 71% Win Percentage.

That is what Speculus did with his show bets.

Of course I'm using a flat bet example, which he was not, but still, it's a good profit.

[Dave Schwartz]

For example I have a mechanical method which had 170 plays in May with 48% wins and made 8%, now we're halfway into June and the profit is down to 1%and 45% wins.

I have seen a system winning at 2,000 plays and losing badly by 3,000.

A lot has to do with how much the profit depends upon longshots.

I do not subscribe to the theory that you have to toss those because they may be what makes your system "sing." You just won't know until you get enough plays.

But the fact that you don't know for sure does not mean you cannot play the system.

[speculus]

From what I see in the results from the Speculus article, he did pretty damn good with show betting.

A 56% Profit !!

He hit 71% of the show bets (whether there was a profit or break even)

And from what I calculate ( I may be wrong), the Avg. show price was about U.S $4.38
Thats a pretty nice avg. show price. (with a 71% hit rate)
Were these large fields, or just longer odds picks?

The next question is why the show and not the win?
I read that these selections were posted in the newspaper the morning of the race.
Could that have influenced anything?

No. Maybe you have made an error in calculation. The strike rate of overall 70% for SHOW is right, but maybe you made some error about avg odds.

The maximum show payout was 3.40 to 1, which in the U.S. context would mean a show dividend of $8.80. But that was max, not average.

Of course, it can be said that because of the popularity of the experiment, all selections of the column started getting hammered in the show pool, and I believe the average (ROI) was down to 10 or 11% profit on flat-bet basis, or in the US context, an average return of $2.20 for a $2 bet.

However, due to the peculiar nature of the money management practiced (which you can find at the bottom of the FAQ (http://www.indiarace.com/mystablecontent.aspx?pagetype=mystable&date=5/31/2012) link), the profit was enhanced to 150%.

Of course it must be said that all ground rules (as I called them) of the experiment, including that of money management, were set well before the experiment began, and each rule was strictly adhered to till the end.

As regards your next question, the performance of the same selections in the "Recommended bet" category, which was not restricted to WIN only but had a mix of SHOW & SHP (SHP stands for Second Horse Pool, you get paid if and only if the horse finishes second; this pool is hugely popular as most bettors hedge their WIN bet with SHP), was, disastrous, especially because of the same money management method that enhanced SHOW performance!

I feel there are two important lessons to be drawn from this: One, if you have a good handicapping method, you should not burden it with too many layers of decision making, that will only deduct from the efficacy of your model. And two, any money management method based on an anti-martingale principle is the friend of 'high strike rate' but enemy of 'low strike rate'.

Interestingly, if you consider only the WIN category, then barring the six races in which the system had more than one horse to follow, there were 64 races (or bets) & 19 of them won (29.7%) with avg odds being 1.72 to 1, resulting in a flat-bet loss of 19% which is close to the standard takeout rate.

Also, besides these 19 winners, another 19 came in second & 16 finished third--giving a combined strike rate of 77% for SHOW--surely not bad for a method which doesn't even look at any other horse except its own miniscule short list.

[speculus]

A lot has to do with how much the profit depends upon longshots.



The more I think the more I feel that only a method with either an exceptionally high strike rate or exceptionally high avg odds is perhaps the only solution to be a consistent winner (as over long term) at this game. Any other method (with mid-range or "average" values for either, or both) is fraught with potential (long term) failure though it may occasionally (short term) show brilliance in flashes.

[MJC922]

I have seen a system winning at 2,000 plays and losing badly by 3,000.

A lot has to do with how much the profit depends upon longshots.

I do not subscribe to the theory that you have to toss those because they may be what makes your system "sing." You just won't know until you get enough plays.

But the fact that you don't know for sure does not mean you cannot play the system.

In my opinion when it comes to identifying a profitable system we unfortunately need a better measure than ROI. True ROI is all that really matters once we're putting down hard cash but I feel for test purposes it's leads us down blind alleys more often than not. For example I'm coming off a condition study where I sequenced nearly 2 million pp lines. I then queried up every sequence winning over 20% of the time with ROI over 20% and with 15 wins or more for sample size. At this point there were just over 170 'spot plays' that qualified for closer scrutiny. When I dug deeper though I found that only about two dozen were still able to show a profit when median payoff was the measure as opposed to avg payoff (ROI). Most of them when you examined the payoffs were small samples of 50 starters and just 'caught' one random 25-1 shot with the rest of the prices under $10. IMO these bombs are random, they will occur but we need to ignore them until we can project how often. To this end I have a strong suspicion median payoff is the key metric. Either median payoff is by itself all that matters or there should be a way to project the true avg payoff over time using median payoff.

[Hosshead]

re: Show Bets

No. Maybe you have made an error in calculation. The strike rate of overall 70% for SHOW is right, but maybe you made some error about avg odds.
Yes it appears an error because I was calculating on a flat bet.
But your Money Management system has increased the flat bet profit immensely.
However, due to the peculiar nature of the money management practiced (which you can find at the bottom of the FAQ (http://www.indiarace.com/mystablecontent.aspx?pagetype=mystable&date=5/31/2012) link), the profit was enhanced to 150%.
Trying to understand about the 150% profit, as I thought it was 56%

I believe the average (ROI) was down to 10 or 11% profit on flat-bet basis, or in the US context, an average return of $2.20 for a $2 bet..

Now that I know your flat-bet ROI, I calculated that your hit rate of 71% and about a 10% profit overall = about a $3.10 Payoff for each ($2) bet that you won/hit.
But again, your MM system comes to the rescue !

Only natural to ask:
Could your MM system turn a 10% flat bet loss into a profit?

I found this whole experiment interesting Speculus, and the fact that you documented this in real time, out on a limb, In A Public Newspaper , whether win or lose, is commended. Good going !
_________

[Robert Goren]

I have seen a system winning at 2,000 plays and losing badly by 3,000.

A lot has to do with how much the profit depends upon longshots.

I do not subscribe to the theory that you have to toss those because they may be what makes your system "sing." You just won't know until you get enough plays.

But the fact that you don't know for sure does not mean you cannot play the system. And it could very well be profitable again at 4000 plays. Systems that pick random huge pay offs are tough to know about. To be sure, it has be profitable without the boxcar payoffs. If it profitable if throw out the largest 5% of the payoffs, then you might have something, maybe.

[speculus]

....Trying to understand about the 150% profit, as I thought it was 56%.....


If I had not varied my bet size and wagered a constant amount of first bet (500) on all 76 bets, I would have bet 38k and made profit of approximately 3.8k (about 10% profit on turnover), but due to the peculiar way of managing money, I ended up making about 5.6k profit as you can see. I was referring to that enhancement (5.6k/3.8k) as about 150%.

....Only natural to ask:
Could your MM system turn a 10% flat bet loss into a profit?.....

NO, not yet. Though at times, I have found it doing something similar, I must say that could be due to the peculiar WIN-LOSS sequence in that particular sample.

However, in most cases it would reduce the loss, like say turning a 10% negative into a 4% negative, and that may be thought of as a significant achievement if you consider the existence of rebates.

But before Mike steps in with the charge of violation of terms, let me make clear it is NOT FOR SALE.:p

[speculus]

NO, not yet. Though at times, I have found it doing something similar, I must say that could be due to the peculiar WIN-LOSS sequence in that particular sample.

However, in most cases it would reduce the loss, like say turning a 10% negative into a 4% negative, and that may be thought of as a significant achievement if you consider the existence of rebates.

But before Mike steps in with the charge of violation of terms, let me make clear it is NOT FOR SALE.:p

Just to avoid the confusion, Hosshead.

What I wrote above is NOT related to the simplistic but peculiar money management method I adopted during the My Stable experiment to which you responded, but it was related to my MM research as described on this page (http://www.indiarace.com/mystablecontent.aspx?pagetype=mystable&date=6/4/2012) or this upload (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8Px-rJpOtB9RFJYY1JTcXg2bXM/edit?pli=1), which too, incidentally, were recommendations published in my selections column (http://www.rwitc.com/viewPgArticles.php) on the race club's official website.

By the way, I wonder if any other race club in the world has ever done it---making available profitable recommendations FREE for three straight seasons now as my column, despite the phenomenal following it enjoys, has managed to show flat-bet profit on recommendations since it started: Mumbai (2011-12), Pune (2012) & Mumbai (2012-13).:cool: