Interview With a Professional Gambler

[Dave Schwartz]

I did this very interesting interview today with a guy that makes 100% of his income from wagering.

Dave Schwartz Interviews a Full-Time, Professional Gambler (http://thehorsehandicappingauthority.com/dave-schwartz-interviews-a-full-time-professional-gambler/)

(Note: Right-click and "save target as..." will let you save it to your hard drive and play it later.)

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[mlbelang]

interesting

[horses4courses]

Excellent stuff, Dave.
Good to hear dedicated professionals in the business share their thoughts.

[Robert Goren]

This was an interesting Interview. Although I heard something at the end that disturbed me. He was saying he was in a groove understanding and making right plays and still losing big. Being in a groove and thinking you see things at level you have never done before is a trap, A BIG TRAP. I know because I have been there many times. If it isn't a constant struggle/fight to win at gambling, you are going to lose and general lose big. If you ain't scrambling, you won't be winning long. Gambling is all about scrambling and adjusting on the run. That is one of the few things I am sure about gambling.

He is new to being a pro. I talked at length to a friend of my dad's who raised 8 kids betting the ponies on the Nebraska curcuit in from the middle 50s to the late 70s. He said his biggest problem was depression. The new pro hasn't hit the 4 month big losing streak. It will come and how he react to it will determine how long he can live as a pro.

[mannyberrios]

Good one, Dave

[castaway01]

Thanks for posting this Dave, good stuff.

[Striker]

Nice interview Dave! Thx for posting!

[MartyZee]

I really liked the interview and feel that the Pro has his head on straight; he realizes that even if he makes the "right moves" and plays great he can still have a losing day.I know it's very important to have a positive attitude; I bet from home now but when I used to go to the track I always distanced myself from people whose thought process was How much will I lose today? They give off bad vibes and if you keep associating with those individuals you can sink to their level. Dave-if you were thought of as one of the best card players did you just grow to like horse racing more(and be more profitable). As I stated before I am not one of your shills but I find you to be one of the most intellectual horse racing enthusiasts(experts). Thanks for sharing /Marty

[baconswitchfarm]

I liked the interview. The guy seemed like he had his head on straight and should succeed. The only myth I want to dispel is that banks won't deal with pro gamblers. I have only had one person ever that it was a problem. Every one just wants to see two years taxes, and therein lies the problem. Most guys I know don't want to pay a quarter in taxes but are mad they can't get a mortgage.

[Helles]

Thank you for posting.

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave-if you were thought of as one of the best card players did you just grow to like horse racing more(and be more profitable).

I was a strong "natural" card player. However, in my early-20s I worked very hard to get rid of what I call "the killer instinct." When I did that, I lost the ability to be an excellent poker player.

However, it made me a far better human being.

For me, it was a good trade.

Dave

[traynor]

I liked the interview. The guy seemed like he had his head on straight and should succeed. The only myth I want to dispel is that banks won't deal with pro gamblers. I have only had one person ever that it was a problem. Every one just wants to see two years taxes, and therein lies the problem. Most guys I know don't want to pay a quarter in taxes but are mad they can't get a mortgage.

I disagree with the issue of not paying taxes on winnings--I think the simplest way to avoid problems is to keep accurate, detailed records and declare winnings as self-employment. It may cost a bit, but if one is winning, it is considered the cost of doing business.

On the other hand, if that income is less than one would like one's friends and associates to believe, one has the records to prove that one's income from wagering was either in the red or "just about even."

I don't know how it is off in lala land, but in the real world I am extremely skeptical of claims of high income from wagering that come from people who say they don't keep records so the IRS won't have a "paper trail" at tax time. Especially those who wager online.

There is one reason--and one reason only--not to keep accurate, detailed records. It is to avoid proof that one is really losing.

[traynor]

I was a strong "natural" card player. However, in my early-20s I worked very hard to get rid of what I call "the killer instinct." When I did that, I lost the ability to be an excellent poker player.

However, it made me a far better human being.

For me, it was a good trade.

Dave

Interesting. And illuminating. I understand the choice, and how much one has to give up. I am not so sure that it would be a good trade. In fact, I have never seriously considered it. At least not in the last 35 years or so.

“If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.”

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/if_a_man_does_not_keep_pace_with_his_companions/12159.html

[cato]

Interesting interview.

It's also interesting that he did not make it as a horse handicapper, had to take a break and then come back as a poker player.

[horses4courses]

Dave,

For the aspiring pro gambler, the biggest prompt in your interview was the value of having a good coach behind you to succeed.
As you rightly pointed out, the benefits of coaching are not limited solely to poker when it comes to business and gambling.
Sound advice :ThmbUp:

[Dave Schwartz]

It's also interesting that he did not make it as a horse handicapper, had to take a break and then come back as a poker player.

Actually, what he said (or explained to me) was that when he was playing the horses he was not interested in gambling full time. He has been gone from horse racing - or at least our software - for about 5 years.

It's funny because his view on poker is one that I had about blackjack 35 years ago: a feeling (or at least a perception) of "control." I struggled for a long time to make that connection with horse racing and still do to a great degree.

He has found that control; has it down to a system or routine that works for him. That is absolutely essential to succeed at gambling, or any other business endeavor, for that matter.


Dave
PS: Jeff told me after the interview that there was so much more he could have said if he had only thought of it at the time. Said he might start a blog - or maybe we might do a follow up interview. (I might suggest that.)

[traynor]

Actually, what he said (or explained to me) was that when he was playing the horses he was not interested in gambling full time. He has been gone from horse racing - or at least our software - for about 5 years.

It's funny because his view on poker is one that I had about blackjack 35 years ago: a feeling (or at least a perception) of "control." I struggled for a long time to make that connection with horse racing and still do to a great degree.

He has found that control; has it down to a system or routine that works for him. That is absolutely essential to succeed at gambling, or any other business endeavor, for that matter.


Dave
PS: Jeff told me after the interview that there was so much more he could have said if he had only thought of it at the time. Said he might start a blog - or maybe we might do a follow up interview. (I might suggest that.)

Uhhh ... a feeling of control? I am quite sure that I am not the only one who would be interested in a further description of what you mean.

[Aner]

The mystery gambler said that at local games he knew he was the best player at the table and he wins there big time. At top tournaments he said others were better than he was, and although he played the best poker of his life, he has not yet won at those venues. Is this what you mean by control (or lack of control)?

How does this translate to horse players? Do we do better when we think we are better handicappers than others?

[DeltaLover]

The mystery gambler said that at local games he knew he was the best player at the table and he wins there big time. At top tournaments he said others were better than he was, and although he played the best poker of his life, he has not yet won at those venues. Is this what you mean by control (or lack of control)?

How does this translate to horse players? Do we do better when we think we are better handicappers than others?


Although there similarities between the two games there are also significant differences.

Our game is much more complex and presents a much deeper challenge than poker. Poker is closer to be 'solved' as game especially in a head's up setup.
If this happen it will eventually loose any betting value, something that already happened with backgammon.

Horse racing is far from been solved any time soon.. The only absolute and axiomatic truth is that based in its chaotic nature the game is always in constant state of mutation that makes it impossible to solve. More that this the impact of 'luck' is such that it does not allow less skilled players to admit it and eventually quit. The same is not true for poker or pool for example where someone will quite early detect his inferiority and either quit or demand some type of a handicap.

It did not take me long to give up playing poker. After my records showed that I was no longer able to beat the game and I was transformed to the fish it was quite natural for me to stop donating my money to the pots... I had been playing high stakes for over twenty years... At a point I had reach a point that I was successful for several years finally I lost my advantage and after I realized it I never went back...

The same realization is much more difficult when you are betting horses.

While experts like Aner and Thaskalos keep on taking my money, I am always pumping my hard earned buck to the pools with no positive returns (eventually hitting a small win to keep me around), but come on now, the game cannot be beaten it is fixed and the take out too high... I don't really anyone who is beating the game, we are all suckers..

So I am OK, I am having some fun that naturally comes with a cost tag...

Meanwhile Aner, Thaskalos and Dahoss are racking up keeping their anonymity and transparency...

Of course there is a Darwinist effect even in this game but it is much slower. The average player needs to suffer badly from it and even then it is debatable if he will be able to quit... The bad thing though is that due to incapacity of the officials who actually run this game there is not enough new blood coming in, so the game becomes somehow restricted and a bit tougher. With this I mean that I would prefer instead of 100K Win pools that allow me to bet let's say up to 1K to my 10-1 shot to have a 1M pool where I will be able to bet 10 times more...

[Dave Schwartz]

Uhhh ... a feeling of control? I am quite sure that I am not the only one who would be interested in a further description of what you mean.

Sure. Be happy to explain.

When you get something working, and have experienced a pattern of winning for an extended period of time (not sure how long that is and would likely be dependant upon the individual), you just get into a routine. You know that by the end of the month you will be doing fine.

I experienced that at BJ. I firmly believed that about every 3,000-4,000 hands my percentage would come through. And if it didn't I'd accept the fact that a loser happens once in awhile.

I know of a horseplayer - not a client or connected in any way - who put together a massive number of consecutive winning weeks. He is a big player, and works very hard at the game. Simply gets the money every week. EVERY week.

Takes an occasional vacation - breaking for a couple of weeks to recharge. Then he goes right back at it.


The mystery gambler said that at local games he knew he was the best player at the table and he wins there big time. At top tournaments he said others were better than he was, and although he played the best poker of his life, he has not yet won at those venues. Is this what you mean by control (or lack of control)?

I am not sure that is exactly what he said. He has not won the TOP PRIZE at a contest. He has finished well in a couple (i.e. has taken home money) and I believe he told me he once finished 3rd. He did say that his most recent trip was the one where he played the best game ever and still got clobbered.

In terms of "control" I would say that he does not have it in the tournaments. He continues to play because that is where he gets an opportunity to improve; to play against better players. It is also where (his words) he has the opportunity for a life-changing payoff; something that is missing from the local games.


Thinking back on it, maybe a better word than "control" would be "expectation."


I think that was what changed me as a BJ player so many years ago. When I reached the point where I felt winning was inevitable.

Perhaps what I am describing as "control" is more like having the perception of control, based upon confidence that comes from past experience of winning.



Dave

[DeltaLover]

Hi Dave,

After listening the interview again I realized that the professional gambler you chose to feature here is a POKER player.

Wouldn't a professional HORSEPLAYER be more appropriate given the circumstances...or are we to assume that professional horseplayers are that hard to find ?

[baconswitchfarm]

For sure it is easier to find pro poker players than horse bettors. In my circles the poker players love to tell me how great they are. They horse players are pretty tight lipped.

[Dave Schwartz]

Wouldn't a professional HORSEPLAYER be more appropriate given the circumstances...or are we to assume that professional horseplayers are that hard to find ?

Getting ANY full time professional to talk about what they do is difficult.

[thaskalos]

Getting ANY full time professional to talk about what they do is difficult.
Mainly because few want to hear what he has to say.

The life of a professional gambler is different -- and requires a different set of skills -- than most people imagine.

[Stillriledup]

The mystery gambler said that at local games he knew he was the best player at the table and he wins there big time. At top tournaments he said others were better than he was, and although he played the best poker of his life, he has not yet won at those venues. Is this what you mean by control (or lack of control)?

How does this translate to horse players? Do we do better when we think we are better handicappers than others?

The difference between a great poker player and a great horseplayer is that the poker player gets to look into the eyes of his competition and can actually develop a skill to beat non professionals without needing the actual best hand of cards. Im sure it would be fairly hard to be a winning poker player without having great skills at reading the table. That edge is not available to the horseplayer.

[Track Phantom]

Why does the discussion of professional (winning) poker/horse players remind me of the debate over religion?

Both claim to exist. Both can offer zero hard proof. Both require others, who are not nearly as smart or privy to inside information, just take their word on faith. Both have minions who defend it to the nub, despite any hard factual evidence and are critical of those who disbelieve.

Forgive me if I am quite skeptical of anyone who claims to win EVERY week or YEAR after YEAR without offering anything more than their word.

I'm not saying there aren't some out there but it is shockingly absent of anything more than good stories and unverifyable detail.

No one here demands more than self-serving talk?

(and if this offends anyone here, wasn't my intent. I don't know anyone on this forum and you all could be taking down 6 figures a year gambling. I'll wait until the proof supports it).

[newtothegame]

Why does the discussion of professional (winning) poker/horse players remind me of the debate over religion?

Both claim to exist. Both can offer zero hard proof. Both require others, who are not nearly as smart or privy to inside information, just take their word on faith. Both have minions who defend it to the nub, despite any hard factual evidence and are critical of those who disbelieve.

Forgive me if I am quite skeptical of anyone who claims to win EVERY week or YEAR after YEAR without offering anything more than their word.

I'm not saying there aren't some out there but it is shockingly absent of anything more than good stories and unverifyable detail.

No one here demands more than self-serving talk?

(and if this offends anyone here, wasn't my intent. I don't know anyone on this forum and you all could be taking down 6 figures a year gambling. I'll wait until the proof supports it).
Valento, I disagree completely! There is very sufficient eveidence, in poker at least. There are plently of card player magazines that publish (at least most tourney wins) and that is as factual as it gets!
Or are you of the belief that Phil Ivey, Phil Helmuth etc etc are just myths?
I do agree with the Weekly week in and out comment. EVERYONE, at least those I know, go through streaks. But, as dave mentioned, over a number of hands, races, etc etc I think someone can win.
I know i love poker and play quite regularly. No, ( am not going to say I am one of those players lol). But, I can tell you there are some people I have met week in and week out at tourney's and they CONSISTENTLY cash.
I would also like to add there is another feature to poker, that has not been mentioned. In my opinion, when you sit at a table with one of the big time players, there are those who become almost in awe. They allow emotions to take over instead of staying within their game. And almost without fail, they are usually busted rather quickly. It is important to stay within yourself and play your game no matter WHO is at the table. Easier said then done sometimes!!!

[Stillriledup]

Why does the discussion of professional (winning) poker/horse players remind me of the debate over religion?

Both claim to exist. Both can offer zero hard proof. Both require others, who are not nearly as smart or privy to inside information, just take their word on faith. Both have minions who defend it to the nub, despite any hard factual evidence and are critical of those who disbelieve.

Forgive me if I am quite skeptical of anyone who claims to win EVERY week or YEAR after YEAR without offering anything more than their word.

I'm not saying there aren't some out there but it is shockingly absent of anything more than good stories and unverifyable detail.

No one here demands more than self-serving talk?

(and if this offends anyone here, wasn't my intent. I don't know anyone on this forum and you all could be taking down 6 figures a year gambling. I'll wait until the proof supports it).


I think the math suggests that people do win. Not every single person who bets horses or poker is 'down lifetime'.

[thaskalos]

Why does the discussion of professional (winning) poker/horse players remind me of the debate over religion?

Both claim to exist. Both can offer zero hard proof. Both require others, who are not nearly as smart or privy to inside information, just take their word on faith. Both have minions who defend it to the nub, despite any hard factual evidence and are critical of those who disbelieve.

Forgive me if I am quite skeptical of anyone who claims to win EVERY week or YEAR after YEAR without offering anything more than their word.

I'm not saying there aren't some out there but it is shockingly absent of anything more than good stories and unverifyable detail.

No one here demands more than self-serving talk?

(and if this offends anyone here, wasn't my intent. I don't know anyone on this forum and you all could be taking down 6 figures a year gambling. I'll wait until the proof supports it).

When online poker was freely allowed in this country...there were several websites which kept track of the playing results of the high stakes poker players...not only in tournament play, but in cash games as well. There were several well-known cash-game poker players who had won at least a million dollars a year for at least 5 years straight -- and this was after the play of millions of hands.

One of them -- a legendary player from Finland -- won at least $1.8 million a year for 5 years straight...including a year when he won the staggering amount of $8 million...strictly from cash games.

I happen to be acquainted with 2 young players...who were able to parlay totally insignificant deposited amounts into bankrolls of well over a million dollars in a matter of a couple of years -- with no fluky tournament wins included.

Make no mistake about it...some of these players have results which are easily varifiable.

[baconswitchfarm]

I never understand why these threads always come down to someone saying that they don't believe anyone is making a living betting. I don't think I can climb a mountain. I also don't run around saying no one really climbed Mount Everest because I haven't witnessed it my self. What would be enough evidence to put this doubt to bed ? There are private offices at tracks everywhere for their pro players. You think people work twelve hours or more a day , seven days a week , because they all are losing ? I can think of about a hundred things I would rather be doing every day when I leave for the track. Unfortunately , those things all pay zero.

[traynor]

I never understand why these threads always come down to someone saying that they don't believe anyone is making a living betting. I don't think I can climb a mountain. I also don't run around saying no one really climbed Mount Everest because I haven't witnessed it my self. What would be enough evidence to put this doubt to bed ? There are private offices at tracks everywhere for their pro players. You think people work twelve hours or more a day , seven days a week , because they all are losing ? I can think of about a hundred things I would rather be doing every day when I leave for the track. Unfortunately , those things all pay zero.

It is pretty simple. There are two options: accept that one is losing because one is incapable, incompetent, or lacks the skills necessary to win--or (the path of much less resistance) declare that winning is impossibly difficult and that no one could possibly do something that one consistently fails to do. It is called "protecting the ego."

Actually, it is more appropriately referred to as cognitive dissonance, which is directly related to self-perception. Basic human psychology that applies equally to many other fields of endeavor. It also neatly avoids the serious thinking and hard work necessary to win--there is no point in exerting too much effort to do something that one believes is impossible anyway.

[traynor]

Perhaps even more interesting is the question of what possible motivation there could be for someone who is winning to "prove" that fact to someone who is losing? The ego gratification of a brief moment of feeling superior or condescending? I don't know about the experience of others, but in my experience the winners have pretty strong egos already, and get little or nothing from the accolades or "stroking" that those with more tender egos seem to find necessary to survival.

I knew a guy once who was of the opinion that people never did anything because they liked to do it, they only did it to have something to talk about afterwards. The topic of discussion was sex, but it applies to horse racing as well. I think the typical winner is more highly motivated to keep a low profile than to "prove" anything to anyone.

[DeltaLover]

Perhaps even more interesting is the question of what possible motivation there could be for someone who is winning to "prove" that fact to someone who is losing?

I think way more interesting is why someone who is winning to advertise it and not keep it to himself....

[traynor]

I think way more interesting is why someone who is winning to advertise it and not keep it to himself....

That is pretty much what I said.

"I think the typical winner is more highly motivated to keep a low profile than to "prove" anything to anyone."

[Red Knave]

That is pretty much what I said.

I think Delta Lover means that we should properly suspect someone who advertises himself as a winner.

[traynor]

I think Delta Lover means that we should properly suspect someone who advertises himself as a winner.

I think some will go to absurd lengths to justify their losing as acceptable.

"It is pretty simple. There are two options: accept that one is losing because one is incapable, incompetent, or lacks the skills necessary to win--or (the path of much less resistance) declare that winning is impossibly difficult and that no one could possibly do something that one consistently fails to do. It is called "protecting the ego."

I would be interested in a rational explanation of why people continue betting and losing. That seems really odd behavior to me.

[Robert Goren]

Poker is lot different than horse racing. Poker is game theory. The theory varies some by the other player(s) but is still game theory. Horse racing is constantly changing. You can have a basic method for betting, but you must be able to adjust in a few seconds. Tracks may start to show a bias. A horse may look bad in the post parade or paddock that even if you didn't like, but it might change pace scenario. There maybe a late jockey change. A jockey or a trainer may be hot for the day. A late scratch may change the way the race is run. Horse racing is all about scrambling.

[Track Phantom]

It is pretty simple. There are two options: accept that one is losing because one is incapable, incompetent, or lacks the skills necessary to win--or (the path of much less resistance) declare that winning is impossibly difficult and that no one could possibly do something that one consistently fails to do. It is called "protecting the ego."

Actually, it is more appropriately referred to as cognitive dissonance, which is directly related to self-perception. Basic human psychology that applies equally to many other fields of endeavor. It also neatly avoids the serious thinking and hard work necessary to win--there is no point in exerting too much effort to do something that one believes is impossible anyway.

Show me one factual piece of evidence that shows a horse player is a consistent winner and I'll be satisfied. I love the game and want nothing more than it to be "beatable" for many. I just think there are too many things working against regular players (takeout, cheating, unknown variables) to allow for people to win CONSISTENTLY.

Maybe "protecting the ego" should actually read "protecting the rationalization for playing an unbeatable game'

[DeltaLover]

A horse may look bad in the post parade or paddock that even if you didn't like, but it might change pace scenario. There maybe a late jockey change. A jockey or a trainer may be hot for the day. A late scratch may change the way the race is run. Horse racing is all about scrambling.


Sure there are gazillion different factors that might have an impact to the final outcome in other words it is a chaotic experiment.

I dare to say though, that all the changes you are mentioning in your post can very well have no impact in a holistic model that is proven to function with a concrete set of attributes.

Estimating the outcome of this or any other chaotic event assumes an abstraction level that once defined and verified as successful should remain pure based in the expectation to verify its a-priori behavior in the real world.

Increasing the complexity of a model by adding as many constrains as possible is not the way to go. Our primitive data should remain minimal and by adding layers of composition we should form our final opinion in a clear and easy to comprehend set of data. Surely, the hidden layers of processing might add as much complexity needed but this will be limited to the processing tier as opposed to extending the input attributes.

[TrifectaMike]

Sure there are gazillion different factors that might have an impact to the final outcome in other words it is a chaotic experiment.

I dare to say though, that all the changes you are mentioning in your post can very well have no impact in a holistic model that is proven to function with a concrete set of attributes.

Estimating the outcome of this or any other chaotic event assumes an abstraction level that once defined and verified as successful should remain pure based in the expectation to verify its a-priori behavior in the real world.

Increasing the complexity of a model by adding as many constrains as possible is not the way to go. Our primitive data should remain minimal and by adding layers of composition we should form our final opinion in a clear and easy to comprehend set of data. Surely, the hidden layers of processing might add as much complexity needed but this will be limited to the processing tier as opposed to extending the input attributes.

Good advice and spot on.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[eurocapper]

Show me one factual piece of evidence that shows a horse player is a consistent winner and I'll be satisfied. I love the game and want nothing more than it to be "beatable" for many. I just think there are too many things working against regular players (takeout, cheating, unknown variables) to allow for people to win CONSISTENTLY.

http://www.drf.com/news/godfather-handicappers-pittsburg-phil-changed-game-forever

More cheating in those days I think, and no form either. But profiting isn't the same as winning of course.

[DeltaLover]

Good advice and spot on.

Mike (Dr Beav)

It's called KISS doc ;)

[thaskalos]

Show me one factual piece of evidence that shows a horse player is a consistent winner and I'll be satisfied. I love the game and want nothing more than it to be "beatable" for many. I just think there are too many things working against regular players (takeout, cheating, unknown variables) to allow for people to win CONSISTENTLY.

Maybe "protecting the ego" should actually read "protecting the rationalization for playing an unbeatable game'

The game is not beatable for "many". In fact...the majority of those who are the most driven to beat the game should not be in the game at all...because they lack the self control and the inner strength that everyday serious gambling demands.

The best handicappers are NOT the ones who make the most money...and many of the best and brightest end up destroying themselves and their families.

When you gamble every day, the game exposes all your character defects...and all your weaknesses are magnified 100-fold.

Find out who you really are -- and how you react to pressure-packed situations -- BEFORE you decide to play this game on a serious basis. Because if you let the RACETRACK show you who you really are...then it will cost you more than you think.

[Dave Schwartz]

So another potentially good thread has been hijacked by the guys who come in with the ridiculous idea that since they lose everyone else must lose.

Permit me a story.

I watch or listen to business seminars all the time. At one I just listened to, the primary speaker gave a great talk on the 80/20 rule (Paretto Principle).

(For anyone that is not aware, the basic concept is that in any group, 20% of the people will earn 80% of the money, and vice-versa.)


The speaker said that in any group there will always be the 80/20 rule. 20% of the population of the group will always stand out as performers and the other 80% will be average. As he spoke to the group - which was made up almost entirely of successful businessmen - they paid $6,000 each to be there, he said that is true of this group as well.

He said that 20% of this group would be on a completely different level than the other 80%.

He spoke of the "No child left behind" program, saying that despite the fact that it is a great program there will always be children left behind; there will always be somebody who does not keep up. There will also be people who excel.

Then he went on to say that among the 20%ers in the room, there would still be another 80/20 group. That group - the 20% of the 20% - the 4%ers, would achieve success at a level the original 80% (the masses) could not even fathom.

He went on to say that within this very room (the one he was speaking to) there are people (the low end of the 80%ers) who firmly believe that nobody else in the room could possibly succeed at the magnitude they portray themselves to be succeeding.

(Next comes the best part of all. It was so good that it made its way into my notes.)

80-20 rule: "You have got to dump 100% of the thinking and behavior of the group you don't want to be part of."


For those of you who believe that success is not even possible, that it is all a futile effort, --- which would put you in the lower quartile of the 80%ers, by the way - please feel free to hang on to your beliefs but quit trying to thwart the progress of those in the other group.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[ceejay]

Excellent interview. Thank you, Dave, for producing and sharing.

I thought that the discussion regarding the cash game portion of his business model was particularly interesting. Basically, Jeff capitalizes on "dead money" that is only there for entertainment purposes. Although the entertainment factor enters into the reason that I play the horses, I do not hesitate to not play a race that I don't believe is playable. Nevertheless, there is less and less dead money in the racing pools.

[Robert Goren]

About 10 years ago, I was watching the replay of yesterdays race's at LAD. I noticed that the last 6 races (all I caught) the 1 pp won. I bet 1 in first race on that day. It won. It won the the first 7 race and second in the 8th and won the last two. there was a $100 winner in there and couple of more over forty. It was by far the best day I ever had. If had stuck to usual method of handicapping I would have had no winners that day. I don't know what was going on that day, but something was. The fact I picked up on it, resulted in over $5,000 profit instead of dropping $50-$100. Not bad for just a small bettor who was just paying attention to was happening instead of blindly following my usual method of handicapping. I know days like that are rare, but..... If you are alert to what is happening on a particular day, your bottom line will improve. Of course you have to careful not jump at shadows or you lose your edge. Two favorites going wire to wire in the first 2 races does not necessary mean the track has an early speed bias. It is fine line that you have to balance.
If you play poker, you know you have handle a fish differently than you do a shark. In Horse Racing, it is same thing.

[PaceAdvantage]

About 10 years ago, I was watching the replay of yesterdays race's at LAD.Woah...trippy man...real trippy... :eek:

[senortout]

Woah...trippy man...real trippy... :eek:

I'm with you on this one PA

[Robert Goren]

Woah...trippy man...real trippy... :eek:That is what happens when you have no life and you stand in line to get to the simulcast center when it first opens its doors. You have time to kill until the first race at the first tracks opens for action. If you haven't done that, then you are not really a race track bum, a badge I wear proudly.

[cato]

Mr. Goren, perhaps my favorite post of all time...

Thanks, Cato

[PaceAdvantage]

That is what happens when you have no life and you stand in line to get to the simulcast center when it first opens its doors. You have time to kill until the first race at the first tracks opens for action. If you haven't done that, then you are not really a race track bum, a badge I wear proudly.Read what you actually wrote again:

"About 10 years ago, I was watching the replay of yesterdays race's at LAD."

Then maybe you'll understand my response (which was meant to be humorous).

[Track Phantom]

So another potentially good thread has been hijacked by the guys who come in with the ridiculous idea that since they lose everyone else must lose.

Permit me a story.

I watch or listen to business seminars all the time. At one I just listened to, the primary speaker gave a great talk on the 80/20 rule (Paretto Principle).

(For anyone that is not aware, the basic concept is that in any group, 20% of the people will earn 80% of the money, and vice-versa.)


The speaker said that in any group there will always be the 80/20 rule. 20% of the population of the group will always stand out as performers and the other 80% will be average. As he spoke to the group - which was made up almost entirely of successful businessmen - they paid $6,000 each to be there, he said that is true of this group as well.

He said that 20% of this group would be on a completely different level than the other 80%.

He spoke of the "No child left behind" program, saying that despite the fact that it is a great program there will always be children left behind; there will always be somebody who does not keep up. There will also be people who excel.

Then he went on to say that among the 20%ers in the room, there would still be another 80/20 group. That group - the 20% of the 20% - the 4%ers, would achieve success at a level the original 80% (the masses) could not even fathom.

He went on to say that within this very room (the one he was speaking to) there are people (the low end of the 80%ers) who firmly believe that nobody else in the room could possibly succeed at the magnitude they portray themselves to be succeeding.

(Next comes the best part of all. It was so good that it made its way into my notes.)

80-20 rule: "You have got to dump 100% of the thinking and behavior of the group you don't want to be part of."


For those of you who believe that success is not even possible, that it is all a futile effort, --- which would put you in the lower quartile of the 80%ers, by the way - please feel free to hang on to your beliefs but quit trying to thwart the progress of those in the other group.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Dave- This is why I don't have the religion debate, either. I love the principles and ideas laid out here but, again, it is great in theory. Is it as great in practice? I've played the game consistently for 30 years. When I mean consistently, I mean I've bet, handicapped and seen as many, if not more races than anyone else on this forum. I love the game and want to be an ambassador for it. I didn't mean to put myself into the "devil's advocate" role here but I just get so tired of the same old regergetation. There is always some "other guy" that makes a killing week over week with some unique approach. It may be true. All I can say is this game, the game of horseracing, appears to be a very tough one to consistently make money at due to the massive takeout, declining pools/population, smart money, cheating, on and on. I personally have never read, seen or heard any evidence that this game can be beat regularly. Again, doesn't mean it isn't happening. If a tree falls in an empty forest, does it make a sound....? I just don't believe it is possible to win on a CONSISTENT basis.

[traynor]

Show me one factual piece of evidence that shows a horse player is a consistent winner and I'll be satisfied. I love the game and want nothing more than it to be "beatable" for many. I just think there are too many things working against regular players (takeout, cheating, unknown variables) to allow for people to win CONSISTENTLY.

Maybe "protecting the ego" should actually read "protecting the rationalization for playing an unbeatable game'

Andrew Beyer's comment in regard to the title of his $50K book: "It is not unusual for us to do that in an afternoon now."

Paul Mellos' comment about income derived from wagering on horse races, indicating he made "about 60K a year from his business, and many times that wagering."

I dismiss claims by the likes of Dick Mitchell (RIP), who was far more interested in marketing his systems and computer apps than actually using them in the real world.

There are (at the very least) several hundred Sartin Methodologists--"old" and "new"--who are consistent winners, and have been for many, many years. They don't do the same old same old. They adapt and change to leverage advantage in a dynamic field of endeavor.

I think one thing that may confuse people is the "consistent" idea. A number of very serious bettors I know feel no compulsion whatsoever for "action." That "bet every day whether winning or losing" is the hallmark of someone with a serious gambling problem. That is--much as Beyer indicated in his various statements--there is a period of extremely aggressive, full-time wagering at a specific track or circuit that offers maximum leverage--with ample "in between times" of study and research.

To clarify, professional bettors tend to approach horse racing as a business, rather than as recreation. From my personal standpoint, I would rather do whatever I am doing for whatever period of time, and then do something else. It is really, really hard to get past the reality that horse racing is one of the most incredibly boring things around. The exception to that--and an activity that requires daily effort over an extended period--is trips. With all due respect to the sellers of various videos that supposedly enable buyers to do competent trip handicapping in the few seconds given to each horse's warmups before a race, I don't believe it for an instant. I think competent trip handicapping means being at the track every day, in preparation for and implementation of serious wagering.

Handicapping horse races as if playing a video game or doing a crossword puzzle, for lack of anything more meaningful to do with one's life, is a recipe for disaster financially. I agree completely that it is extremely difficult to wager almost non-stop for extended periods and do so profitably. However, I don't understand why anyone would want to turn something that can be as challenging, interesting, and profitable as horse racing can be (for relatively brief periods) into the equivalent of a daily grind at some dead end job making money for the boss. Frequent breaks, extended vacations, and a bit of enjoying life--way away from computers--will do more to improve your handicapping skills that the latest, greatest, gee whiz system or method.

It is no different than playing blackjack. The minute it gets to be a drudge job, losses start piling up. If one wants a job, well and good. I do not. I want to have fun, enjoy life, and have a LOT of time to do other things. That gives me a great deal more motivation than, "Wow--if I do this well enough I can keep doing it day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, until I lay down and die out of sheer, terminal boredom." Some people like that sort of life. That is why they have jobs.

Bean counter mentalities obsessively seeking "statistical advantages" really, really need to get out of the house more. There are too many other bean counters out there looking for the same imaginary "advantage."

[Dave Schwartz]

I just don't believe it is possible to win on a CONSISTENT basis.

You are entitled to your beliefs.

I suggest that it would be difficult for me (or anyone else) to change your mind. You would need to do that.

IMHO, ultimately, it boils down to hearing what people say and deciding if it is worth trying out or testing. Perhaps one should apply that to whether you should even listen to them in the future. That is, is it a good use of your time and resources? (Or a harsher way to say it: Is there anything in it for you?)

Just the other day I was telling the story of Charley Lau - might have been on Derek Simon's podcast (but I think it was in the interview). He was the guy that taught George Brett how to hit.

Lau was, himself, only an average hitter. Maybe even a below average for a major leaguer. However, he became the foremost teacher of hitting as a science in the game (in that era).

So much for "them that can do, and them that can't teach." The inference there, of course, is why would anyone want to take lessons from someone who could not succeed themselves? The answer to that question is that some people are far better at teaching than they are at doing.

I used to teach pitching. Never pitched a game in my life. Well, unless walking 3 and getting pounded in a single inning when I was 13 counts.

However, I was an excellent instructor because I was taught to be an instructor BY an excellent instructor: Al Downing. (Some of you might remember him. We met at Santa Anita, BTW, and struck up a friendship.)


My point is that everyone in racing seems to scream for "show me the winners." First, the winners have no need or desire to prove anything.

Second, when a self-proclaimed winner comes around here as a general rule he is run out on a rail by enough people to convince him never to try that again.


The world is full of experienced, knowledgeable horseplayers; guys who have been playing and losing for 30 years. When someone comes along to teach them, they respond by telling the teacher that they already know everything.

How can someone like that ever expect to learn anything new?

I close with this: Ultimately, it breaks down to hearing what somebody has to say and deciding:

A) is there something I can learn?
B) is it worth my effort to learn?


Long-winded but this is my opinion.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

PS: Traynor's post is right on! He and I do not always agree but his words are almost always worth reading.

[DeltaLover]

Dave- This is why I don't have the religion debate, either. I love the principles and ideas laid out here but, again, it is great in theory. Is it as great in practice? I've played the game consistently for 30 years. When I mean consistently, I mean I've bet, handicapped and seen as many, if not more races than anyone else on this forum. I love the game and want to be an ambassador for it. I didn't mean to put myself into the "devil's advocate" role here but I just get so tired of the same old regergetation. There is always some "other guy" that makes a killing week over week with some unique approach. It may be true. All I can say is this game, the game of horseracing, appears to be a very tough one to consistently make money at due to the massive takeout, declining pools/population, smart money, cheating, on and on. I personally have never read, seen or heard any evidence that this game can be beat regularly. Again, doesn't mean it isn't happening. If a tree falls in an empty forest, does it make a sound....? I just don't believe it is possible to win on a CONSISTENT basis.


Pretty understandable..

Let me underline though, that without the potential of this game to be beaten it has no interest at all. Why would someone not put thousands hours of research and then risk thousands of dollars if there is no hope at all ?

With no intention to change your opinion, which as you say was formed during a pretty long period of closely following the game I would like to ask you the following :

What you might accept as a proof that the game is beatable?

What is your proof that just the opposite is truth?

Do you mostly rely in your personal experience only to make such a statement or you have done some related research?

Have you ever met anyone who bets big (not a whale but still a big player), let's say 10K per day for long time without been a millionare?

If someone with an average job, let's say 100K / year proves to you that during his last year he bet close to 400K betting only weekends and holidays showing some profitability, lets say 30K are you going to reconsider your opinion?

[traynor]

Dave- This is why I don't have the religion debate, either. I love the principles and ideas laid out here but, again, it is great in theory. Is it as great in practice? I've played the game consistently for 30 years. When I mean consistently, I mean I've bet, handicapped and seen as many, if not more races than anyone else on this forum. I love the game and want to be an ambassador for it. I didn't mean to put myself into the "devil's advocate" role here but I just get so tired of the same old regergetation. There is always some "other guy" that makes a killing week over week with some unique approach. It may be true. All I can say is this game, the game of horseracing, appears to be a very tough one to consistently make money at due to the massive takeout, declining pools/population, smart money, cheating, on and on. I personally have never read, seen or heard any evidence that this game can be beat regularly. Again, doesn't mean it isn't happening. If a tree falls in an empty forest, does it make a sound....? I just don't believe it is possible to win on a CONSISTENT basis.

Again, there may be an issue of semantics involved. "Consistent" is an ambiguous term that may be defined differently by different people. To some, it may mean betting profitably on a daily basis, year 'round. I would be the first to agree that it is impossible or nearly impossible. I don't think anyone other than a degenerate gambler (usually very poor handicappers) or a hobby handicapper would consider that type of activity reasonable and rational.

However, if "consistent" is by the meet, by the season, or by the year, I think you will find that quite a few are "consistent" winners. Especially in areas with seasonal racing. I am really impressed by people who can maintain the keen edge of clarity and aggression that serious wagering involves, and keep doing it month after month after month. The reason I am impressed (or would be impressed) is that I have never seen, met, or encountered even one. Nor have I ever encountered anyone who believed that they could play serious blackjack for months on end (or anything more than a couple of weeks--tops--and that with extended breaks) without going seriously stale and losing a bundle.

[DJofSD]

http://joelaurentino.com/2009/06/what-kind-of-cup-golf-student-are-you/

[traynor]

You are entitled to your beliefs.

I suggest that it would be difficult for me (or anyone else) to change your mind. You would need to do that.

IMHO, ultimately, it boils down to hearing what people say and deciding if it is worth trying out or testing. Perhaps one should apply that to whether you should even listen to them in the future. That is, is it a good use of your time and resources? (Or a harsher way to say it: Is there anything in it for you?)

Just the other day I was telling the story of Charley Lau - might have been on Derek Simon's podcast (but I think it was in the interview). He was the guy that taught George Brett how to hit.

Lau was, himself, only an average hitter. Maybe even a below average for a major leaguer. However, he became the foremost teacher of hitting as a science in the game (in that era).

So much for "them that can do, and them that can't teach." The inference there, of course, is why would anyone want to take lessons from someone who could not succeed themselves? The answer to that question is that some people are far better at teaching than they are at doing.

I used to teach pitching. Never pitched a game in my life. Well, unless walking 3 and getting pounded in a single inning when I was 13 counts.

However, I was an excellent instructor because I was taught to be an instructor BY an excellent instructor: Al Downing. (Some of you might remember him. We met at Santa Anita, BTW, and struck up a friendship.)


My point is that everyone in racing seems to scream for "show me the winners." First, the winners have no need or desire to prove anything.

Second, when a self-proclaimed winner comes around here as a general rule he is run out on a rail by enough people to convince him never to try that again.


The world is full of experienced, knowledgeable horseplayers; guys who have been playing and losing for 30 years. When someone comes along to teach them, they respond by telling the teacher that they already know everything.

How can someone like that ever expect to learn anything new?

I close with this: Ultimately, it breaks down to hearing what somebody has to say and deciding:

A) is there something I can learn?
B) is it worth my effort to learn?


Long-winded but this is my opinion.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

PS: Traynor's post is right on! He and I do not always agree but his words are almost always worth reading.

I feel exactly the same way about your postings. I don't need to agree with someone to learn from them. Especially when it involves making money.

[Dave Schwartz]

What kind of cup are you?
http://joelaurentino.com/2009/06/what-kind-of-cup-golf-student-are-you/


DJ,

That was a very worthwhile, three-minute read. Kind of sums up things rather succinctly.


Dave
Who thinks DJ is another
guy worth listening to.

[overthehill]

i think that 80/20 rule for most endeavours is bunk. I think its more like 99/1.
the major difference i horse playing from other endeavours is that unlike in many situations where you profit from guessing ahead of time what the crowd will like eventually like stocks or business, or games of skill where you just have to be better than your opponenents, horse racing is unique in that you not only have to predict outcomes but you have to land in situations where you are going against crowd thinking.

[Robert Goren]

Read what you actually wrote again:

"About 10 years ago, I was watching the replay of yesterdays race's at LAD."

Then maybe you'll understand my response (which was meant to be humorous). I see what you mean. The phrasing leaves a bit to desired. Since you posted this reply, I have tried to figure out a new way to phrase it so next time something like this comes up I would do a better job. I haven't been able too. I am open to suggestions as I am always trying to improve my writing skills which are weak to say the least.

[JimG]

I am open to suggestions as I am always trying to improve my writing skills which are weak to say the least.

You wrote:

About 10 years ago, I was watching the replay of yesterdays race's at LAD.

You could say:

About 10 years ago, I was watching replays of races at LAD.

Jim

[PaceAdvantage]

"About 10 years ago, I was watching the replay of yesterdays race's at LAD."

We seem to be having a major communication issue, and I hate to beat this into the ground, but...

If you read the above quote at face value, it would seem that 10 years ago, you had a time machine that could look into the future and watch replays of races that hadn't happened yet. That's all I was getting at. I guess I'm the only one that found it humorous and it ceases to become funny when you have to analyze it like this... :lol:

[horses4courses]

"About 10 years ago, I was watching the replay of yesterdays race's at LAD."

We seem to be having a major communication issue, and I hate to beat this into the ground, but...

If you read the above quote at face value, it would seem that 10 years ago, you had a time machine that could look into the future and watch replays of races that hadn't happened yet. That's all I was getting at. I guess I'm the only one that found it humorous and it ceases to become funny when you have to analyze it like this... :lol:

I love races like that..... ;)

[098poi]

I see what you mean. The phrasing leaves a bit to desired. Since you posted this reply, I have tried to figure out a new way to phrase it so next time something like this comes up I would do a better job. I haven't been able too. I am open to suggestions as I am always trying to improve my writing skills which are weak to say the least.

About 10 years ago, I was watching a replay of the previous days racing.

[Robert Goren]

About 10 years ago, I was watching a replay of the previous days racing. That looks like a good way to go. Now maybe we can get back to point I was trying to make about the need to adjust to race day conditions occasionally.

[raybo]

Why does the discussion of professional (winning) poker/horse players remind me of the debate over religion?

Both claim to exist. Both can offer zero hard proof. Both require others, who are not nearly as smart or privy to inside information, just take their word on faith. Both have minions who defend it to the nub, despite any hard factual evidence and are critical of those who disbelieve.

Forgive me if I am quite skeptical of anyone who claims to win EVERY week or YEAR after YEAR without offering anything more than their word.

I'm not saying there aren't some out there but it is shockingly absent of anything more than good stories and unverifyable detail.

No one here demands more than self-serving talk?

(and if this offends anyone here, wasn't my intent. I don't know anyone on this forum and you all could be taking down 6 figures a year gambling. I'll wait until the proof supports it).

LoL, anyone here making 6 figures a year would be really stupid to produce the kind of proof you're talking about.

[raybo]

Dave- This is why I don't have the religion debate, either. I love the principles and ideas laid out here but, again, it is great in theory. Is it as great in practice? I've played the game consistently for 30 years. When I mean consistently, I mean I've bet, handicapped and seen as many, if not more races than anyone else on this forum. I love the game and want to be an ambassador for it. I didn't mean to put myself into the "devil's advocate" role here but I just get so tired of the same old regergetation. There is always some "other guy" that makes a killing week over week with some unique approach. It may be true. All I can say is this game, the game of horseracing, appears to be a very tough one to consistently make money at due to the massive takeout, declining pools/population, smart money, cheating, on and on. I personally have never read, seen or heard any evidence that this game can be beat regularly. Again, doesn't mean it isn't happening. If a tree falls in an empty forest, does it make a sound....? I just don't believe it is possible to win on a CONSISTENT basis.

Nobody said making consistent profit in horse racing isn't tough, very tough. It has to be, in order for those players to continue to make profit. If it wasn't tough others would do so also, and if enough do that then there will be no winners at all. As it is, there are an almost insignificant number of consistently successful horse players in the world. But, they exist just the same. In a paramutuel game, there must always be a large number of losers, which necessarily means that there a far fewer winners, and a much smaller number that win consistently year after year.

[raybo]

i think that 80/20 rule for most endeavours is bunk. I think its more like 99/1.
the major difference i horse playing from other endeavours is that unlike in many situations where you profit from guessing ahead of time what the crowd will like eventually like stocks or business, or games of skill where you just have to be better than your opponenents, horse racing is unique in that you not only have to predict outcomes but you have to land in situations where you are going against crowd thinking.

You don't have to go against crowd thinking, you have to go against the part of the crowd that "follows the crowd". If a horse goes off at 20/1 why was it not 99/1 (or higher)? Because some played that horse, enough to make his odds 20/1. One can make a handsome profit at average of 3/1 odds, is that going against the crowd? No it's not, it's just not blindly betting the crowd favorite.

I know I don't have to tell you that the odds don't mean winning probability, they are only a representation of how the money was bet in that race. Those who bet favorites lose money, why would you want to follow them? Is your opinion of horses' capabilities so bad that you would follow losers? Are you incapable of deciding for yourself which horse is the best one to bet? Is getting the winner your only goal? Or is making money your only goal? Are you able to understand that those who are winners, long term, lose many more bets than they win, just like those who lose? They just put their money in places, consistently, that offer leverage high enough to produce a long term, consistent profit.

[Dave Schwartz]

i think that 80/20 rule for most endeavours is bunk. I think its more like 99/1.

I think you missed the point. I was not saying that 80% of the players lose and 20% win.

I was saying that 80% of the players have no clue, and will never even try to have a clue. They will simply play at racing.

20% of the players have a clue but that isn't anywhere near good enough to win.

Within the 20% group, there will be another 80/20 group. 20% of them (i.e. 4%) will really work hard to become winning players.

Within THAT 4% there will be 20% or about 8/1000 that will get it all together well enough to become serious winners.

Personally, I think that number sounds about right.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[raybo]

I think you missed the point. I was not saying that 80% of the players lose and 20% win.

I was saying that 80% of the players have no clue, and will never even try to have a clue. They will simply play at racing.

20% of the players have a clue but that isn't anywhere near good enough to win.

Within the 20% group, there will be another 80/20 group. 20% of them (i.e. 4%) will really work hard to become winning players.

Within THAT 4% there will be 20% or about 8/1000 that will get it all together well enough to become serious winners.

Personally, I think that number sounds about right.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

I agree, that looks about right.

[baconswitchfarm]

8/1000 might be a little high, but it is certainly in the ballpark.

[Track Phantom]

I think you missed the point. I was not saying that 80% of the players lose and 20% win.

I was saying that 80% of the players have no clue, and will never even try to have a clue. They will simply play at racing.

20% of the players have a clue but that isn't anywhere near good enough to win.

Within the 20% group, there will be another 80/20 group. 20% of them (i.e. 4%) will really work hard to become winning players.

Within THAT 4% there will be 20% or about 8/1000 that will get it all together well enough to become serious winners.

Personally, I think that number sounds about right.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Just numbers with no basis. I appreciate your willingness to convince others that people win at this game consistently. They don't.

It has nothing to do with people keeping secrets or not wanting to let the cat out of the bag to ruin their winning.

Having said that, I won a bit in 2011 and am up a lot this year (thanks to a 38k pick 4 score at DMR). I do not consider myself a consistent winner. My definition of consistent, in this context, is enough to pay mortgage, car, food, entertainment, etc. for at least 5 consecutive years (or 4 out of 5 that were big enough to sustain a losing year).

Unless you are talking about players with VERY large bankrollls and playing large pick 6 (maybe pick 5/4) and chasing huge scores, MAYBE I could buy into that. If you're talking about a grinder, playing disciplined and betting win when the odds are in his favor....aint happening.

[baconswitchfarm]

I have a great suggestion for you if you have a little gamble to you. Take that 40k and offer to bet it heads up with a guy who can prove making a living for the last five years every year. I assume you will accept tax returns for five years. Write out what you will accept as proof and have a contract. Have a lawyer hold both funds and pay off to the person who proves himself correct. If you put up that 40k i bet you find someone to take your action and prove you wrong fairly quickly.

[raybo]

I have a great suggestion for you if you have a little gamble to you. Take that 40k and offer to bet it heads up with a guy who can prove making a living for the last five years every year. I assume you will accept tax returns for five years. Write out what you will accept as proof and have a contract. Have a lawyer hold both funds and pay off to the person who proves himself correct. If you put up that 40k i bet you find someone to take your action and prove you wrong fairly quickly.

He'd never offer such a wager. Because he knows only the people he fears the most, the successful players, would take the bet.

He's just another who can't do it, so nobody else can either. Seen it a thousand times here.

[DeltaLover]

If you're talking about a grinder, playing disciplined and betting win when the odds are in his favor....aint happening.

May I please ask how you have reached this conclusion?

Is it derived based in RD or it is just a personal opinion?


Unless you are talking about players with VERY large bankrollls and playing large pick 6 (maybe pick 5/4) and chasing huge scores, MAYBE I could buy into that.


What is exactly makes long picks more possible to show a profitability?

Can you please present your views?

[Robert Goren]

Where does this pro play? I am wonder where his endless supply of fish come from.

[raybo]

Where does this pro play? I am wonder where his endless supply of fish come from.

Never heard him say he had an "endless supply of fish", only that he felt he was usually the best player at the table, in his local game play. At tournaments he said he was playing against players better than himself, but still cashed in some, enough to make his tournament play profitable.

Just because you are the best player at a table doesn't mean the other players are all fish, you just have an edge over them that will eventually show itself in the long term.

[Robert Goren]

If the only people he plays with are almost as good as good he is then he is not making much money. At least that been my experence. For any real money to change hands at a poker table there needs to be at least one fish. This small edge stuff barely covers the rake in poker.

[RXB]

I think you missed the point. I was not saying that 80% of the players lose and 20% win.

I was saying that 80% of the players have no clue, and will never even try to have a clue. They will simply play at racing.

20% of the players have a clue but that isn't anywhere near good enough to win.

Within the 20% group, there will be another 80/20 group. 20% of them (i.e. 4%) will really work hard to become winning players.

Within THAT 4% there will be 20% or about 8/1000 that will get it all together well enough to become serious winners.

Personally, I think that number sounds about right.


I agree. And I'd say the final "get it all together well enough" group of which you speak separates itself mostly via discipline: passing races, keeping useful records of wagers, riding out the tough streaks without losing your equanimity (and, by extension, your bankroll). That was the final piece of the puzzle for me. I think there are more good handicappers than there are patient bettors, by quite a wide margin. (Probably about a 4:1 ratio, right? :) )

And thanks for posting that interview, Dave; quite interesting.

[raybo]

If the only people he plays with are almost as good as good he is then he is not making much money. At least that been my experence. For any real money to change hands at a poker table there needs to be at least one fish. This small edge stuff barely covers the rake in poker.

Agree, but he didn't say there were no fish at the table, only that he was usually the best player at the table, at least in his own mind anyway.

[Robert Fischer]

So another potentially good thread has been hijacked by the guys who come in with the ridiculous idea that since they lose everyone else must lose.

Permit me a story.

I watch or listen to business seminars all the time. At one I just listened to, the primary speaker gave a great talk on the 80/20 rule (Paretto Principle).

(For anyone that is not aware, the basic concept is that in any group, 20% of the people will earn 80% of the money, and vice-versa.)


The speaker said that in any group there will always be the 80/20 rule. 20% of the population of the group will always stand out as performers and the other 80% will be average. As he spoke to the group - which was made up almost entirely of successful businessmen - they paid $6,000 each to be there, he said that is true of this group as well.

He said that 20% of this group would be on a completely different level than the other 80%.

He spoke of the "No child left behind" program, saying that despite the fact that it is a great program there will always be children left behind; there will always be somebody who does not keep up. There will also be people who excel.

Then he went on to say that among the 20%ers in the room, there would still be another 80/20 group. That group - the 20% of the 20% - the 4%ers, would achieve success at a level the original 80% (the masses) could not even fathom.

He went on to say that within this very room (the one he was speaking to) there are people (the low end of the 80%ers) who firmly believe that nobody else in the room could possibly succeed at the magnitude they portray themselves to be succeeding.

(Next comes the best part of all. It was so good that it made its way into my notes.)

80-20 rule: "You have got to dump 100% of the thinking and behavior of the group you don't want to be part of."


For those of you who believe that success is not even possible, that it is all a futile effort, --- which would put you in the lower quartile of the 80%ers, by the way - please feel free to hang on to your beliefs but quit trying to thwart the progress of those in the other group.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

really a good post.

Thought you presented the story well. :ThmbUp:

[barn32]

Permit me a story...

The speaker said that in any group there will always be the 80/20 rule. 20% of the population of the group will always stand out as performers and the other 80% will be average. As he spoke to the group - which was made up almost entirely of successful businessmen - they paid $6,000 each to be there, he said that is true of this group as well.

There certainly was one gigantic winner among this group.

[barn32]

If the only people he plays with are almost as good as good he is then he is not making much money. At least that been my experience. For any real money to change hands at a poker table there needs to be at least one fish. This small edge stuff barely covers the rake in poker.There needs to be more than one fish in the game--maybe as many as eight or nine! (Actually, they don't have to be real fish--mediocre will do.) The typical poker game cannot sustain 8 or 9 winners. It can barely sustain 1 or 2.

This can be proven mathematically.

Imagine a poker game with a $3 per hand rake. (Small, by today's standards). Further imagine this game goes continuously 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for a month. At 30 hands per hour (again, a low number in most games) that's $90 an hour off the table--or $14,400 in a month.

That $14,400 has to come from somewhere.

Now in order for the two winning players in the game to make their $20 an hour, this means another $6400 has to come off of the table.

So between the two winning players and the rake $20,800 has to be lost by the other 8 players for a total of $2600 a month each. How many months can this go on? (This is why when you find a really good poker game it only has about a maximum 2-year life span (or less) before it starts to dry up. It wouldn't last this long, but some of the so-called winning players start turning into losing players thereby extending the life of the game.)

For every winning player you add to the mix, add another $3200 to the total.

[If you assume 3 winning players in the game at 40 hands per hour and a more realistic $4 per hand rake=$35,200 is coming off the table in a month and $4400 is lost per month for each losing player.]

Now yes, it is possible for one player to dump $14,400 in a month so the other 9 players can make $1600 a month each, but it's not realistic nor sustainable even though it can and does happen from time to time.

If the money is not there to lose, how are you going to win it?

Not as many people are winning at poker as you might think.

[erikeepper]

There certainly was one gigantic winner among this group.

:D

Well, he was in the 8/1000 -group.

[barn32]

[If you assume 3 winning players in the game at 40 hands per hour and a more realistic $4 per hand rake=$35,200 is coming off the table in a month and $4400 is lost per month for each losing player.]

Should read:

[If you assume 3 winning players in the game at 40 hands per hour and a more realistic $4 per hand rake=$25,600 is coming off the table in a month and $3657 is lost per month for each losing player.]

[Dave Schwartz]

There is always a segment of the population who knows all the rules for not winning.

[DJofSD]

I'll have to remember that one. And trot it out whenever I use the 'failing to plan is planning to fail' expression.

Thx.

[barn32]

I watch or listen to business seminars all the time. At one I just listened to, the primary speaker gave a great talk on the 80/20 rule (Paretto Principle).

(For anyone that is not aware, the basic concept is that in any group, 20% of the people will earn 80% of the money, and vice-versa...)

The speaker said that in any group there will always be the 80/20 rule. 20% of the population of the group will always stand out as performers and the other 80% will be average...

Then he went on to say that among the 20%ers in the room, there would still be another 80/20 group. That group - the 20% of the 20% - the 4%ers, would achieve success at a level the original 80% (the masses) could not even fathom.

Dave SchwartzSo, can we extrapolate from this that only 4% of the people who use your products are successful?

[Dave Schwartz]

Try again.

HSH customers are not typical of the average horse player.

Let us avoid degenerating this thread into something that is about how well my clients and customers do.

This thread was about what I felt was useful information - an interview with a real life winning player.


I am reminded of story from my past. The year was 1976 and I was at the absolute top of my blackjack career. I was hugely ahead for the year and was living the lifestyle that a free-wheeling, 25-year old single guy who was making as much money as he needed would lead.

My girlfriend du jour and I were at a cocktail party. (I can't believe I once went to those regularly back then. LOL) A 40-something banker asks me what I did for a living. I told him that I played blackjack.

He said, "No, I mean what do you do for a living? How do you support yourself?"

Once again, I verified that it was blackjack that provided 100% of my income.

He said (very emphatically), "That's impossible. I KNOW! I TRIED IT and it can't be done."


Is there anything I could have said to convince him that HIS experience was not the same as MY experience?

I simply chuckled and walked away.


Yes, it is a cute anecdotal story. Perhaps something can be learned from it, however.

As I said earlier, this thread was about what I felt was useful information. Now, perhaps this information is not useful to you. So be it. Feel free to completely ignore this thread.



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[RXB]

Where does this pro play? I am wonder where his endless supply of fish come from.

Horseplayers in the United States lose $2 billion -$3 billion annually, and keep coming back for more. Why would you think there aren't a nice supply of fish in poker, too?

[proximity]

Where does this pro play? I am wonder where his endless supply of fish come from.

i didn't listen to this because there are plenty of posters RIGHT HERE ON THIS SITE who are more than qualified to talk about successful HORSE betting, but possibly charles town or the sands. also i have limited experience there, but maybe the rivers.

[raybo]

i didn't listen to this because there are plenty of posters RIGHT HERE ON THIS SITE who are more than qualified to talk about successful HORSE betting, but possibly charles town or the sands. also i have limited experience there, but maybe the rivers.

The interview wasn't anything earth shattering, but, for the lesser player who wants to take the next step, there is some good stuff in it. The fact that Dave noted some valuable insights, and that a professional gambler, who at least appears to be someone doing a very good job of providing for his family by gambling, agrees with many of the things that the better players here say, lends some credence to what many here say it takes to become successful.

I enjoyed it quite a bit. There were a lot of comparisons made between poker and horse racing, and although the point wasn't made, the listener might have thought, what other endeavor, besides horse racing, requires the beginner to play against world class competition from the git-go. And people wonder why there is such a small percentage of winning players in our game.

[Capper Al]

I enjoyed the interview. Let's talk to him in 2 years and see how's he doing.

[raybo]

I enjoyed the interview. Let's talk to him in 2 years and see how's he doing.

He seemed to have his hat on straight and his ducks in a row, so unless poker changes dramatically, due to whatever reason, I expect he will continue to do well.

[Capper Al]

He seemed to have his hat on straight and his ducks in a row, so unless poker changes dramatically, due to whatever reason, I expect he will continue to do well.

I agree, BUT like with small businesses most fail by 5 years.

[raybo]

I agree, BUT like with small businesses most fail by 5 years.

True, but usually due to bad management. He appears to be a good manager.

[Capper Al]

True, but usually due to bad management. He appears to be a good manager.

Appears is the magic word. That's why we wait 2 years to find out. It's just like our horses. They may look good on paper, but are they?

[NJ Stinks]

It was really interesting. Thanks, Dave. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Two by-products I learned for sure:

1) It all comes back to the right woman!

2) Dave does something I wish I was better at. He really LISTENS. Nothing worse than an interviewer who doesn't absorb an interviewee's response.

[raybo]

Appears is the magic word. That's why we wait 2 years to find out. It's just like our horses. They may look good on paper, but are they?


I suppose after 2 years, it would be , let's wait 2 more years, or 5 more years?

Dave didn't seem to be promoting anything, nor did the gambler, why all the negativity? Do you think that in the future, either of them will be making money just because of the interview? I suppose we need to see all the professional poker players' IRS returns and bank statements before we can deem them professionals? What will 2 more years prove? Another interview where he says things have gone well and he's a better player than he was and making more money?

You either believe what he says now, or you never do.

[DeltaLover]

I believe that he might have the success he is claiming so far.

This does not mean that it will continue in the future. It does not even mean that he has an advantage.

His sample is very limited.

I've seen and know personally quite a few poker 'pros' who experienced great success in the past, one of them also was in the #1 position of the poker player magazine for over a year, who today are broke, looking for someone to stake them trying to rebuild a bankroll...

In contrary to the public belief, there are very few poker players who can be categorized as pros... Even those considered to be among the very top category most of the times rely in other sources of income.

In the long run the takeout will pretty much wipe out almost ALL the poker players (with very few exceptions). Especially in the low limit poker it is impossible to overcome the take out as the game is played today.....

The best betting game for someone who is willing to put the effort and the time was, is and it will always be the same: HORSES -> The most sophisticated and most rewarding game... The one that distinguishes a man from a boy....

Look not futher, it does not worth it....

[raybo]

I believe that he might have the success he is claiming so far.

This does not mean that it will continue in the future. It does not even mean that he has an advantage.

His sample is very limited.

I've seen and know personally quite a few poker 'pros' who experienced great success in the past, one of them also was in the #1 position of the poker player magazine for over a year, who today are broke, looking for someone to stake them trying to rebuild a bankroll...

In contrary to the public belief, there are very few poker players who can be categorized as pros... Even those considered to be among the very top category most of the times rely in other sources of income.

In the long run the takeout will pretty much wipe out almost ALL the poker players (with very few exceptions). Especially in the low limit poker it is impossible to overcome the take out as the game is played today.....

The best betting game for someone who is willing to put the effort and the time was, is and it will always be the same: HORSES -> The most sophisticated and most rewarding game... The one that distinguishes a man from a boy....

Look not futher, it does not worth it....

Yeah, that really makes sense, just because you're alive today doesn't mean you'll be alive tomorrow. Just because you worked your butt off today to be successful, doesn't mean that you will continue to work your butt off tomorrow to continue to be successful. I could go on and on but maybe you can see the point.

[DeltaLover]

Ray,
I would like to suggest you a book that might change your approach a bit:

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Improbable-Robustness-Fragility/dp/081297381X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1353598126&sr=1-1&keywords=black+swan

[traynor]

I believe that he might have the success he is claiming so far.

This does not mean that it will continue in the future. It does not even mean that he has an advantage.

His sample is very limited.

I've seen and know personally quite a few poker 'pros' who experienced great success in the past, one of them also was in the #1 position of the poker player magazine for over a year, who today are broke, looking for someone to stake them trying to rebuild a bankroll...

In contrary to the public belief, there are very few poker players who can be categorized as pros... Even those considered to be among the very top category most of the times rely in other sources of income.

In the long run the takeout will pretty much wipe out almost ALL the poker players (with very few exceptions). Especially in the low limit poker it is impossible to overcome the take out as the game is played today.....

The best betting game for someone who is willing to put the effort and the time was, is and it will always be the same: HORSES -> The most sophisticated and most rewarding game... The one that distinguishes a man from a boy....

Look not futher, it does not worth it....


I think that many may fail to grasp the significance of how misleading a small sample can be. Essentially random events occur in a cluster that makes them seem to be a "pattern" that is pure illusion. The same phenomena you describe concerning poker players is even more evident in professional blackjack. There seems to be an endless number of those who made (or are making) a bundle playing blackjack, believed (or believe) themselves "experts" and then lost (or lose) it all and much. much more in what they rationalize as a "negative statistical swing" that will "eventually end if they just keep playing their strategy."

For some reason, otherwise sensible people seem to go slightly demented when viewing a small sample of events--especially if that small sample contains things they want very badly to believe can be extrapolated into the future. In fact, it could be argued that the more desirable the illusion, the more quickly (and the more strongly) it will be accepted as predictive.

I think it is great. I need the money, and it has to come from somewhere.

[Dave Schwartz]

Everyone is, of course, correct about the sample size thing.

But geez, people... lighten up.

This interview is just a guy... who based upon sample size might be deluding himself into thinking he is really a winning player. While this will not be proven to the satisfaction of some for years to come, a few people might still like to hear what he has to say.

So, I guess you could wait until, what? 2015? ... to learn something from what he has to say. Would another 3 years be a large enough sample of him paying the bills month after month for you to get anything out of it?

Say... I just thought of something. How big is YOUR sample? Or MY sample? Why should ANYONE listen to either of us?

Maybe nobody should be listened to unless they are willing to post a 10,000-race sample of their bets.

In fact, maybe the Rules of Conduct should be amended to say that nobody should post until they can provide 10,000 races in the selection section, indicating that they are worthy of having an opinion about anything.

Yeah, this sounds like a good idea. Maybe we could form a committee of all the people who HAVE posted 10,000 profitable picks and they could monitor the picks section daily and do the score keeping.


Or maybe, we could just listen to what a guy like this has to say and learn or not based upon our belief (or lack thereof) in what he has to say.


For those who fall into the "interested" group, Jeff and I have been talking about an open call-in interview. I will let you know when (if?) that gets scheduled.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[raybo]

Ray,
I would like to suggest you a book that might change your approach a bit:

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Improbable-Robustness-Fragility/dp/081297381X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1353598126&sr=1-1&keywords=black+swan

I doubt that book, or any other you might suggest, will change my approach. Why would I change an approach that works? Just because there is randomness/illogic involved in racing, or poker, doesn't mean that ones approach can't be successful, and continue to be successful. It all depends on how your approach deals with randomness/illogic.

And this "small sample" stuff has been beaten to death. You guys take your samples of 10s of thousands, or millions of races/poker hands or anything else and keep working with it. You won't be the first, nor the last. There are still only an extremely small percentage of players that are successful, and if you're not one of them, then maybe you should be the one changing your approach.

[TrifectaMike]

I think that many may fail to grasp the significance of how misleading a small sample can be. Essentially random events occur in a cluster that makes them seem to be a "pattern" that is pure illusion. The same phenomena you describe concerning poker players is even more evident in professional blackjack. There seems to be an endless number of those who made (or are making) a bundle playing blackjack, believed (or believe) themselves "experts" and then lost (or lose) it all and much. much more in what they rationalize as a "negative statistical swing" that will "eventually end if they just keep playing their strategy."

For some reason, otherwise sensible people seem to go slightly demented when viewing a small sample of events--especially if that small sample contains things they want very badly to believe can be extrapolated into the future. In fact, it could be argued that the more desirable the illusion, the more quickly (and the more strongly) it will be accepted as predictive.

I think it is great. I need the money, and it has to come from somewhere.

Firstly, Happy Thanksdiving to everyone.

Secondly, you continually refer to "small samples", in your opinion, how do you determine sample size for horse racing events?

Sample size is such a relative term.

Mike (Dr Beav)

P.S. I am not a statistician, so be gentle.

[traynor]

Firstly, Happy Thanksdiving to everyone.

Secondly, you continually refer to "small samples", in your opinion, how do you determine sample size for horse racing events?

Sample size is such a relative term.

Mike (Dr Beav)

P.S. I am not a statistician, so be gentle.

I am a very pragmatic person, so my actual response would be "whatever works." I don't view sample size in horse racing the same as I would view sample size in blackjack, because the first has almost infinite variety while the latter is highly restricted.

Once the concept of possible confounding variables is introduced, my personal strategy is to leverage statistics and modeling more as indicators and pointers, rather than guarantees. It seems to work well, but there is room for improvement in everything. I am still working on the incorporation of Bayesian concepts into the models. Much to do, not much time.

[traynor]

It might be more relevant to consider sample size as a process, rather than a specific number (for my own practical purpose of constructing wagering models). I do not presume expertise in the subject--only that what I do (in the admittedly very small sample of my own personal experience) works.

It is not so much an issue of sample size directly, as it is whether or not the sample in question is representative of a larger group. Using 1000 races, for example, random sampling with and without replacement simulations in groups of 100 races should produce few--if any--spikes. More races, better, but the same generic approach. I want to eliminate the data spikes as much as possible before I consider the model "predictive" in any useful sense.

I started using this approach for mutuel prices four or five years ago, and extended it to most other factors. It was the spikes in the simulations that led to the discovery of a number of (previously unknown or ignored) confounding variables.

[Dave Schwartz]

It might be more relevant to consider sample size as a process, rather than a specific number (for my own practical purpose of constructing wagering models). I do not presume expertise in the subject--only that what I do (in the admittedly very small sample of my own personal experience) works.

:ThmbUp:

Traynor,

That is really well said, especially the "process" thing.

On the topic of this thread and the sample size issue, it would be good to remember that there is some calculation that would compute the likelihood that Jeff's performance is not aberrational; that he is, in fact, a real winning player.

Furthermore, it would be good to remember that with each passing month the likelihood that Jeff's performance is aberrational becomes smaller.


I really think that the sample-size-is-a-process concept is a good one. In reality, that is what most of us do. We build a system - perhaps taking months to build and test - then go out to play in the real world before actually having enough sample size in live test play to know with a high statistical confidence that it works.

We hope for the best. If we get wiped out on day 3 we generally chalk it up to "oh well." One could argue that we need a second or third test before "oh well" sets in but most of us do not do that.

Conversely, if it appears to work (i.e. we're profitable) we keep playing.

I think it is unrealistic to think that even the most scientific-minded among us would play live without betting for (say) 5,000 races to reach a real conclusion BEFORE we begin betting.


Dave Schwartz

[mountainman]

It's probably different in the case of regimented players that use specific methods, but for more intuitive handicappers like myself, LIFE is the representative sample. Taken alone, no month, year-or even decade- would truly reflect or extrapolate my roi.

My success rate is thus a fluid and progressive thing. WHat's important is that a player keeps an open mind, continues to learn, and processes a changing game in creative ways.

[eurocapper]

I believe a case could also be made that the profits are to be found in the aberrations not in the grey average of horse racing. The Brohamer model was maybe limited but is someone arguing it was not profitable at the time. Certain California tracks favored/favor early speed to an usual extent as I recall. Pro bettors have losing streaks too, maybe they are also profiting from aberrations instead of knowing the ultimate truth of horse racing.

[traynor]

I believe a case could also be made that the profits are to be found in the aberrations not in the grey average of horse racing. The Brohamer model was maybe limited but is someone arguing it was not profitable at the time. Certain California tracks favored/favor early speed to an usual extent as I recall. Pro bettors have losing streaks too, maybe they are also profiting from aberrations instead of knowing the ultimate truth of horse racing.

The success or failure of Brohamer models is not (and was not) based on the model itself, but on whether or not (luckily or unluckily, according to some) it accurately reflected a longer range perspective. A "model" of 20 races is not a model, other than if that particular slice is representative of a larger slice. Early speed dominance on California tracks was (and is) as much a product of the favored riding style as any influence of the track surface.

Specifically, a slice of random events is no more than that--there is no cause-and-effect relationship between a Brohamer model and the next 20 or 30 races except in a very roundabout manner. The success of those using the Brohamer model was more related to the idea of "bet the best horse in the race" rather than "bet the best horse according to the Brohamer model." That is still a very good policy. It doesn't matter if it can be mathematically proven that Horse A is better on paper if Horse B runs faster on the track today.

[eurocapper]

The success or failure of Brohamer models is not (and was not) based on the model itself, but on whether or not (luckily or unluckily, according to some) it accurately reflected a longer range perspective. A "model" of 20 races is not a model, other than if that particular slice is representative of a larger slice. Early speed dominance on California tracks was (and is) as much a product of the favored riding style as any influence of the track surface.

I can agree with that the success probably had more to do with the different riding style (which other bettors presumably ignored) than with track conditions. But that is still a profitable aberration.


Specifically, a slice of random events is no more than that--there is no cause-and-effect relationship between a Brohamer model and the next 20 or 30 races except in a very roundabout manner. The success of those using the Brohamer model was more related to the idea of "bet the best horse in the race" rather than "bet the best horse according to the Brohamer model." That is still a very good policy. It doesn't matter if it can be mathematically proven that Horse A is better on paper if Horse B runs faster on the track today.

I don't think I agree that pace handicapping produces "the best horse in the race". Also while rapidly changing track conditions maybe were not a factor in the success, jockeys/trainers could well be thinking there is some track bias or other for the meet and act accordingly. And even Beyer considers as I recall such a minimal model as the previous races of the day potentially profitable for detecting track bias. This is all about short term aberrations.

[traynor]

I can agree with that the success probably had more to do with the different riding style (which other bettors presumably ignored) than with track conditions. But that is still a profitable aberration.



I don't think I agree that pace handicapping produces "the best horse in the race". Also while rapidly changing track conditions maybe were not a factor in the success, jockeys/trainers could well be thinking there is some track bias or other for the meet and act accordingly. And even Beyer considers as I recall such a minimal model as the previous races of the day potentially profitable for detecting track bias. This is all about short term aberrations.

The real question, of course, is whether those short term aberrations are real or imaginary. I am skeptical of attributing causality to short term aberrations that may disappear as quickly as they (seem to ) appear, along with my money.

"Picking the best horse in the race" involved (and involves) considerably more than pace handicapping. That is clear when one sees the pace figures generated for different horses in the same race by different pace handicappers. In many cases, the pace figures are used to justify a decision already made using other criteria that may or may not be explicitly understood by the pace handicapper.

[bob60566]

It's probably different in the case of regimented players that use specific methods, but for more intuitive handicappers like myself, LIFE is the representative sample. Taken alone, no month, year-or even decade- would truly reflect or extrapolate my roi.

My success rate is thus a fluid and progressive thing. WHat's important is that a player keeps an open mind, continues to learn, and processes a changing game in creative ways.\

You must be reffering to Mountinneer this fall. :) :)

[raybo]

The real question, of course, is whether those short term aberrations are real or imaginary. I am skeptical of attributing causality to short term aberrations that may disappear as quickly as they (seem to ) appear, along with my money.

"Picking the best horse in the race" involved (and involves) considerably more than pace handicapping. That is clear when one sees the pace figures generated for different horses in the same race by different pace handicappers. In many cases, the pace figures are used to justify a decision already made using other criteria that may or may not be explicitly understood by the pace handicapper.

Of course, you understand that all "pace handicappers" don't just use pace in their handicapping. Just as all speed handicappers don't just use speed. Nor, do all class handicappers use just class in theirs.

What is your point, specifically? There are aberrations daily, some embrace them and others fear them. These "short term" aberrations are all part of the exercise, they are ingrained in the game. How do you use them, and to what extent, is the question. Do you make them the priority, in your play, or are they just another percentage of your overall method?

[thaskalos]

Everyone is, of course, correct about the sample size thing.

But geez, people... lighten up.

This interview is just a guy... who based upon sample size might be deluding himself into thinking he is really a winning player. While this will not be proven to the satisfaction of some for years to come, a few people might still like to hear what he has to say.

So, I guess you could wait until, what? 2015? ... to learn something from what he has to say. Would another 3 years be a large enough sample of him paying the bills month after month for you to get anything out of it?

Say... I just thought of something. How big is YOUR sample? Or MY sample? Why should ANYONE listen to either of us?

Maybe nobody should be listened to unless they are willing to post a 10,000-race sample of their bets.

In fact, maybe the Rules of Conduct should be amended to say that nobody should post until they can provide 10,000 races in the selection section, indicating that they are worthy of having an opinion about anything.

Yeah, this sounds like a good idea. Maybe we could form a committee of all the people who HAVE posted 10,000 profitable picks and they could monitor the picks section daily and do the score keeping.


Or maybe, we could just listen to what a guy like this has to say and learn or not based upon our belief (or lack thereof) in what he has to say.


For those who fall into the "interested" group, Jeff and I have been talking about an open call-in interview. I will let you know when (if?) that gets scheduled.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Great post, Dave...IMO.

I don't know about the rest of the people here, but I personally am always interested in what other knowledgeable players have to say...and I would go out of my way to find and listen to a professional gambler talk about how he goes about plying his trade.

I couldn't care less about sample sizes and years in the trenches; if an everyday player has a couple of years of successful play to recommend him...then I am interested in what he has to say.

I hope to see more of these types of interviews from you in the future...even if they carry a hefty pricetag.

[traynor]

Of course, you understand that all "pace handicappers" don't just use pace in their handicapping. Just as all speed handicappers don't just use speed. Nor, do all class handicappers use just class in theirs.

What is your point, specifically? There are aberrations daily, some embrace them and others fear them. These "short term" aberrations are all part of the exercise, they are ingrained in the game. How do you use them, and to what extent, is the question. Do you make them the priority, in your play, or are they just another percentage of your overall method?

The point is a simple one. What one calls short-term aberrations may be absolutely nothing more than random data points in a perfectly normal distribution, with zero value as "predictors." How one "uses" those aberrations is that person's personal affair, just as it is their personal prerogative to believe that whatever they are seeing represents "a pattern."

Any variation from an absolutely perfect statistical normal distribution is--according to some--proof that a short-term bias or aberration exists that can be used as a predictor of future events. I wish them good luck and many happy hours spent detecting further aberrations.

[traynor]

:ThmbUp:

Traynor,

That is really well said, especially the "process" thing.

On the topic of this thread and the sample size issue, it would be good to remember that there is some calculation that would compute the likelihood that Jeff's performance is not aberrational; that he is, in fact, a real winning player.

Furthermore, it would be good to remember that with each passing month the likelihood that Jeff's performance is aberrational becomes smaller.


I really think that the sample-size-is-a-process concept is a good one. In reality, that is what most of us do. We build a system - perhaps taking months to build and test - then go out to play in the real world before actually having enough sample size in live test play to know with a high statistical confidence that it works.

We hope for the best. If we get wiped out on day 3 we generally chalk it up to "oh well." One could argue that we need a second or third test before "oh well" sets in but most of us do not do that.

Conversely, if it appears to work (i.e. we're profitable) we keep playing.

I think it is unrealistic to think that even the most scientific-minded among us would play live without betting for (say) 5,000 races to reach a real conclusion BEFORE we begin betting.


Dave Schwartz

Clarification. I was not suggesting that the "small sample" referred to the person you interviewed. I was responding to TrifectaMike's question about what I considered an adequate sample.

I think the expertise of the person you interviewed is evident. "Proof" is not required to make the information in that interview both useful and relevant.

[traynor]

Good example of why small samples are often misleading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scatter_plot

Looking at a small chunk of a scatter plot and imagining that a "pattern" exists in that particular chunk that can be used to predict the location of the next (or next few) data points is not especially useful. Other (and perhaps stronger) terms might be appropriate, but I will stick with "not especially useful."

[Valuist]

Bump.

Somehow I had missed this interview from Dave Schwartz. Thanks for posting it.

[ReplayRandall]

I did this very interesting interview today with a guy that makes 100% of his income from wagering.

Dave Schwartz Interviews a Full-Time, Professional Gambler (http://thehorsehandicappingauthority.com/dave-schwartz-interviews-a-full-time-professional-gambler/)

(Note: Right-click and "save target as..." will let you save it to your hard drive and play it later.)

Regards,
Dave Schwartz
BUMP

Dave, can you contact the Pro gambler that you interviewed back in 2012 and have another discussion to see how he's doing now?

[Dave Schwartz]

That's a good idea.

I will contact him. (Of course, he might actually be reading this right now.)

[Greyfox]

That is an excellent interview Dave. :ThmbUp:

I don't know how I ever missed it when you had it posted before.

It's well worth listening right through to it's entirety.

[Dave Schwartz]

It really was.

[badcompany]

It was a good interview. That must be brutal pressure with four kids.

One thing that always seems to get left out of the story is how they get their initial bankroll. A guy like this would need a big roll to pull enough out every month in order to support a family of that size.

[Stillriledup]

Everyone is, of course, correct about the sample size thing.

But geez, people... lighten up.

This interview is just a guy... who based upon sample size might be deluding himself into thinking he is really a winning player. While this will not be proven to the satisfaction of some for years to come, a few people might still like to hear what he has to say.

So, I guess you could wait until, what? 2015? ... to learn something from what he has to say. Would another 3 years be a large enough sample of him paying the bills month after month for you to get anything out of it?

Say... I just thought of something. How big is YOUR sample? Or MY sample? Why should ANYONE listen to either of us?

Maybe nobody should be listened to unless they are willing to post a 10,000-race sample of their bets.

In fact, maybe the Rules of Conduct should be amended to say that nobody should post until they can provide 10,000 races in the selection section, indicating that they are worthy of having an opinion about anything.

Yeah, this sounds like a good idea. Maybe we could form a committee of all the people who HAVE posted 10,000 profitable picks and they could monitor the picks section daily and do the score keeping.


Or maybe, we could just listen to what a guy like this has to say and learn or not based upon our belief (or lack thereof) in what he has to say.


For those who fall into the "interested" group, Jeff and I have been talking about an open call-in interview. I will let you know when (if?) that gets scheduled.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

2015 is here! Lets do this.

[acorn54]

here is a interview from the ny times.


http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/09/business/earning-it-life-s-a-gamble-a-few-people-make-it-a-profession.html

[HUSKER55]

thanks for the post dave. I enjoyed it.

[Dave Schwartz]

**** BREAKING NEWS ****

I have a date on the calendar for the next interview with The Gambler.

The actual interview should be available before the end of April.

[JustRalph]

**** BREAKING NEWS ****

I have a date on the calendar for the next interview with The Gambler.

The actual interview should be available before the end of April.

Dave, tell him I said Hello.

[Stillriledup]

**** BREAKING NEWS ****

I have a date on the calendar for the next interview with The Gambler.

The actual interview should be available before the end of April.

How about soliciting questions from PA Nation and take the very best ones to stick into the interview?

[Dave Schwartz]

Sure. Fire away.

[badcompany]

Sure. Fire away.


1. What is the maximum percentage of his bankroll that he would risk on one session?

2. What type of savings cushion, in terms of time, did he have when he decided to make poker his primary source of income?

[glengarry]

After reading through most of this thread, my head is spinning trying to figure out what all the debate is about. Arguing back and forth whether anyone can make a living at this game. The answer shouldn't matter to anyone, as it offers no meaningful guidance. Sure, some people are up lifetime. Some make a profession of it. I know of a few, and have heard of some others. I also know of a few guys from my neighborhood that played professional baseball or football.

The point is I would strongly recommend to any young person to avoid committing serious money and effort to a game that treats its patrons like garbage. You want to try to beat a game with exorbitant takeouts that gives multiple chances to blatant cheats, go ahead. I can live with the cheats and takeout. What's tougher is the diminishing ability to find value in the game. Everything is out there for a price. You want workout reports. Fine. Speed figures. Tons of them for purchase. In pari-mutuel wagering, having what is not readily available is key. All the speed figures were great when they weren't widely available. Same with workout reports. Same with trip notes.

The takeout and other factors are chasing away all the bright young minds. Look at the people in the grandstands and simulcast rooms throughout America. Looks like a retirement home. The smart young people that like to gamble have gravitated towards poker. The saturation of poker will drive plenty of them away soon enough. You have money to burn? Learn how Wall Street operates. That's where the real fortunes are made. I get amused watching guys at the track screaming at the TV when their horse starts to rally. Meanwhile, CNBC is on another screen, showing moves in the markets where billions are made, and the crowd is silent. Unbelievable.

[Dave Schwartz]

GG,

So, you have no interest in this man's activity and would gain nothing from the interview,

If you feel so strongly negative about the game, why do you play? And if you don't play, then why are you here?

[Stillriledup]

After reading through most of this thread, my head is spinning trying to figure out what all the debate is about. Arguing back and forth whether anyone can make a living at this game. The answer shouldn't matter to anyone, as it offers no meaningful guidance. Sure, some people are up lifetime. Some make a profession of it. I know of a few, and have heard of some others. I also know of a few guys from my neighborhood that played professional baseball or football.

The point is I would strongly recommend to any young person to avoid committing serious money and effort to a game that treats its patrons like garbage. You want to try to beat a game with exorbitant takeouts that gives multiple chances to blatant cheats, go ahead. I can live with the cheats and takeout. What's tougher is the diminishing ability to find value in the game. Everything is out there for a price. You want workout reports. Fine. Speed figures. Tons of them for purchase. In pari-mutuel wagering, having what is not readily available is key. All the speed figures were great when they weren't widely available. Same with workout reports. Same with trip notes.

The takeout and other factors are chasing away all the bright young minds. Look at the people in the grandstands and simulcast rooms throughout America. Looks like a retirement home. The smart young people that like to gamble have gravitated towards poker. The saturation of poker will drive plenty of them away soon enough. You have money to burn? Learn how Wall Street operates. That's where the real fortunes are made. I get amused watching guys at the track screaming at the TV when their horse starts to rally. Meanwhile, CNBC is on another screen, showing moves in the markets where billions are made, and the crowd is silent. Unbelievable.

This is actually a great post, i enjoyed reading it, thanks GG.

At this point in time, i think the "treat like crap" isn't as applicable simply because people can just wager at home and never set foot inside a track to be "treated".

I know Gus has talked about this, but i think its worth repeating.....at the takeout price they're charging, there shouldn't even be a hint or a whisper of "shenanigans".

Trainers are making gobs of money with no real risk, Art Sherman just made 300k for CC running in Dubai....if CC finished last, he wouldn't have lost 300k he would have "broke even". If a horseplayer wanted to make 300k betting on Calif Chrome, he would have had to risk a lot of money to do it.....Art Sherman "hits" for 300k with no outlay or risk....and yet, if Art Sherman retired tomorrow, the game wouldn't change at all, tracks wouldn't make more money or less money and the game would go on as before with 0 change. BUT, if the bettor stuck 300k to win on CC, he gets back zero dollars and is negative 300k. So Art Sherman made 300k and didn't even win and had no risk and yet, if he left the game tomorrow, nothing would change. If a huge bettor left, a lot would change, everyone would make "less". To me, that's a broken model.

Great point about the financial markets, millions and millions of dollars are changing hands every second of every day that the market is open and nobody says a peep about it, nobody is slapping his leg with a rolled up program.

[Greyfox]

..... The answer shouldn't matter to anyone, as it offers no meaningful guidance..

glengarry - I'm wondering if you even listened to the interview at:

http://thehorsehandicappingauthority.com/dave-schwartz-interviews-a-full-time-professional-gambler/

There is a lot of food for thought that the gambler provides in that interview.
Yes, he was speaking about poker and no he didn't offer handicapping secrets.
But what he said with respect to attitude and preparation - both physical and mental, applies to those who want to get ahead in horse racing as well.

[glengarry]

GG,

So, you have no interest in this man's activity and would gain nothing from the interview,

If you feel so strongly negative about the game, why do you play? And if you don't play, then why are you here?

I am here to offer my own piece of advice:
1. Don't buy a touch screen computer. I was almost done responding to your post, and a fly flew on the screen and erased the post.
2. I can improve the bottom line of about 95% of the horseplayers in the world. Here is my simple yet powerful plan: Bet less races, bet less often, and therefore bet less money on horse racing. With each wager carrying a negative expectation, betting less is a surefire system to keep money in your pocket.

My other piece of advice would be for any young person that is mathematically inclined yet enjoys risk and the opportunity to avoid a "job" (which people somehow think horse race handicapping for a living is not) to try other endeavors with more regulation and a lower takeout.

I still enjoy the sport of horse racing, and the gambling portion, although not as much as I used to. Too many other obligations that require my time and energy, especially the energy needed for profitability. Game, IMO, is tougher than ever. It is a form of entertainment for me, and I still like the puzzle of handicapping, but more so enjoy the sharing of thrills with friends.

I understand you have a vested interest in this game, as a professional player and seller of handicapping software. I applaud you for your efforts and for making available products that can help the average and above average player. They certainly will need it. So I'm down on the game as a profession, although I'm sure it happens. It's still great entertainment, and I'm all for any product or advice that can help the masses improve their chance at a profit. But as I explain to many gamblers, before you become a winner, you have to start with losing less, then breaking even. That's true advice that most players simply ignore.

[Dave Schwartz]

I went back and read this thread from the beginning.

I had forgotten how it degenerated as so many of our threads do into the naysayers vs the knowers.

Still, I am glad the opportunity for a follow up is near.

I had sort of a pre-interview with him the other day. My guess is that our N vs K groups will be ever the more polarized after the 2nd interview.

[glengarry]

I went back and read this thread from the beginning.
I had forgotten how it degenerated as so many of our threads do into the naysayers vs the knowers.

Still, I am glad the opportunity for a follow up is near.

I had sort of a pre-interview with him the other day. My guess is that our N vs K groups will be ever the more polarized after the 2nd interview.

I haven't reviewed the board lately, as I tend to start get more focused as the Derby approaches. Sorry if what I'm about to suggest has been covered. Nothing wrong with offering up some ideas, including this interview, as a means of laying the groundwork for a career in gambling. I also believe that far more people can be reached if there is a thread on supporting the weekend warrior or entertainment oriented player that has neither the time, inclination, or skill to make a career out of this. Almost everyone who plays the game loses. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure that out. The average cappers lose the takout, the good ones try to beat the takeout, and the exceptional ones try to break even or better and live off of the rebates.

The benefit of reaching the vast majority of players is keeping them in the game and therefore keeping the handle up and the game solvent. If it helps keep more money in their pockets to spend on other things in life, included their families, even better. Very few people will beat this game. Offering encouragement or a philosophy for those that are close is fine. Most will never be close, even if Anthony Robbins joined the board doing his motivational spiel. If some of the products you offer can help improve my enjoyment of the game and my ROI, I'm in.

[badcompany]

Great posts GG. For me, horse racing is an equivalent having a partial season ticket plan for a baseball team, except that my Yankee Stadium is Saratoga.

[raybo]

If some of the products you offer can help improve my enjoyment of the game and my ROI, I'm in.

This interview was not one of Dave's "products", it was free to watch. And, if you didn't watch it then you have no idea what was offered that truly "can help improve my enjoyment of the game and my ROI".

One of the reasons that most players remain losing players is that they are incessantly seeking "products", rather than "characteristics". The products/tools a player uses are only part of the success solution, and probably not even the most important part.

[glengarry]

This interview was not one of Dave's "products", it was free to watch. And, if you didn't watch it then you have no idea what was offered that truly "can help improve my enjoyment of the game and my ROI".

One of the reasons that most players remain losing players is that they are incessantly seeking "products", rather than "characteristics". The products/tools a player uses are only part of the success solution, and probably not even the most important part.

I was referring to Dave's website and the handicapping products he offers. I heard the interview. In terms of characteristics, here are my suggestions: Hard work, discipline, focus, knowledge. You can get that by watching Shark Tank and listening to Mr. Wonderful.

As for why most people lose, let's start with an incredibly time consuming difficult game with a high takeout that has no rules against insider trading. Add to that a game that attracts some of the lowest form of human behavior, and that's the people inside the fence. Add the fact that many players are delusional, or feeding a habit, or just there to pass the time of day. The "characteristics" are not what separates them from winning or losing. For the especially gifted individual who is close to even or slightly better each year, the missing characteristic that can be gleaned from the interview may help. For most players, the best advice is to throw out everything that hasn't worked for your lifetime, and to bet less money until you find a better approach. Plus, why disparage Dave's or anyone's products by putting less importance on the product. Without a decent set of clubs, no attitude change will help you make the pro golfer's tour.

[Greyfox]

Without a decent set of clubs, no attitude change will help you make the pro golfer's tour.

True, but Ben Hogan and others have said that "Golf is 80 % mental."
For horse players that percentage has to be even much higher.

[glengarry]

True, but Ben Hogan and others have said that "Golf is 80 % mental."
For horse players that percentage has to be even much higher.

Golf is 80% mental when you are as good as Ben Hogan or Tiger Woods was, or Rory Mcilroy is. At that level, mindset is a huge factor. They already have the one in !00,000 skill sets and the finest equipment. For the average duffer, mindset isn't the maim issue. It's throwing out what limits them, and improving their skill sets. It's devoting more time to practice, being guided by a solid teaching pro that can impart valuable techniques. For 99% of horseplayers, it's the same thing.

[Greyfox]

Golf is 80% mental when you are as good as Ben Hogan or Tiger Woods was, or Rory Mcilroy is. At that level, mindset is a huge factor. They already have the one in !00,000 skill sets and the finest equipment. For the average duffer, mindset isn't the maim issue. It's throwing out what limits them, and improving their skill sets. It's devoting more time to practice, being guided by a solid teaching pro that can impart valuable techniques. For 99% of horseplayers, it's the same thing.

Yes, that is true.
However, if you take two identical twins, who are duffers give them good clubs, a skilled professional to teach them and lots of practice, they will improve to a degree.
But in a direct head-to-head competition the one with the best winning mindset will prevail over the other twin far more frequently.
The same is true of tennis, tiddly-winks, and yes, horse racing.
A powerful belief in yourself as a winner, on and off the track, is a huge edge in this game.

[raybo]

Golf is 80% mental when you are as good as Ben Hogan or Tiger Woods was, or Rory Mcilroy is. At that level, mindset is a huge factor. They already have the one in !00,000 skill sets and the finest equipment. For the average duffer, mindset isn't the maim issue. It's throwing out what limits them, and improving their skill sets. It's devoting more time to practice, being guided by a solid teaching pro that can impart valuable techniques. For 99% of horseplayers, it's the same thing.

Wrong, golf is mostly mental, regardless of the tools you use or the level of your play. Your mental abilities start with the consistency of your setup to the ball, after using your mental ability to decide what type of shot you need to make, after recognizing your strengths and weaknesses in shot making, and the obstacles that face you on any particular shot. One cannot separate the mental side of the game from the physical side, or from the tools you use. The mental part applies to everything in golf.

[raybo]

Plus, why disparage Dave's or anyone's products by putting less importance on the product. Without a decent set of clubs, no attitude change will help you make the pro golfer's tour.

LOL - I wasn't disparaging Dave's products at all. He has some excellent ones, and I've said so more than once. Your use of the "golf" analogy is flawed, badly. The "clubs" do not make the golfer, they are simply tools. Golf, and horse racing, is a battle against ourselves, no tool will make us successful without first having the "characteristics" of a winner.

Nobody said that either game is easy, they are both very difficult, as we all know. But, to say that mental, pschycological, and emotional control aren't absolutely needed in order to be successful in either, is flawed thinking. The tools can be obtained, the characteristics must be inherent, or developed over time. There is no way to be successful without them.

[badcompany]

Yes, that is true.
However, if you take two identical twins, who are duffers give them good clubs, a skilled professional to teach them and lots of practice, they will improve to a degree.
But in a direct head-to-head competition the one with the best winning mindset will prevail over the other twin far more frequently.
The same is true of tennis, tiddly-winks, and yes, horse racing.
A powerful belief in yourself as a winner, on and off the track, is a huge edge in this game.

While what you say is certainly true, it still doesn't make a bad game into a good one.

[Greyfox]

While what you say is certainly true, it still doesn't make a bad game into a good one.

I've never viewed horse racing as a "bad game."

[Dave Schwartz]

Guys, come on. This game is hard. Okay, ANY game is hard, but this game is the most difficult.

I get what everyone is saying about the mental side of the game, but an amateur is just not going to "mentalize" himself into playing at a world class level. That's why major league baseball players, PGA golfers, etc. are on a different level than anyone else: it takes real skill.

And make no mistake, winning at the horse racing with any significant amount of plays is playing the game at a world-class level.

[glengarry]

Guys, come on. This game is hard. Okay, ANY game is hard, but this game is the most difficult.

I get what everyone is saying about the mental side of the game, but an amateur is just not going to "mentalize" himself into playing at a world class level. That's why major league baseball players, PGA golfers, etc. are on a different level than anyone else: it takes real skill.

And make no mistake, winning at the horse racing with any significant amount of plays is playing the game at a world-class level.

Well said.

[Greyfox]

I get what everyone is saying about the mental side of the game, but an amateur is just not going to "mentalize" himself into playing at a world class level.

I don't believe Raybo or I ever said that or anything resembling that.
Obviously skill sets have to be built.
But if those skill sets aren't developed with a winning mentality one will never reach the world class level.
Just as an aside, I've coached athletes who've gone on to play in National and World Championships.
Even amateurs can improve by incorporating ideas such as those expressed in several of Timothy Gallway's "Inner Game" books.
Whatever level any player is at, they can get optimum performance out of themselves with the appropriate mind set.

[Dave Schwartz]

Greyfox,

I know you didn't say that precisely. But it is a common (mis)interpretation.

The mental side must be utilized to make you a greater percentage of all that you can be. the "ALL YOU CAN BE" part is determined by your level of skill, knowledge, etc.

In the application to horse handicapping, the mental side can push you to learn more, and improve, thereby raising your "AYCB" and, ultimately, your results.

One pushes the other.

My experience is that a great number of horse players do not, in fact, have the mental side when it comes to expanding one's skills. That is why they keep doing what they are doing, resulting in, logically, the same result.

[Greyfox]

The mental side must be utilized to make you a greater percentage of all that you can be. the "ALL YOU CAN BE" part is determined by your level of skill, knowledge, etc.

In the application to horse handicapping, the mental side can push you to learn more, and improve, thereby raising your "AYCB" and, ultimately, your results.

One pushes the other.

My experience is that a great number of horse players do not, in fact, have the mental side when it comes to expanding one's skills. That is why they keep doing what they are doing, resulting in, logically, the same result.

We agree. :ThmbUp:

Desire to improve and willingness to put in learning time are important.

[acorn54]

today making money of any significant amount is difficult in horseracing IN MY TAKE on the dynamics of the parimutuel market.
firstly the recreational money is all but non-existent in the off-season. add to that the remarkable drop in the size of the horse fields, that change the betting strategy of the past.
add to all this that in the past a substantial amount of money was bet early, as alot of horseplayers did not concern themselves with the odds.
i find it hard to believe in the present state, that the parimutuel market of horserace gambling is in, that a REGULAR and RELIABLE source of income can be generated.

[Dave Schwartz]

i find it hard to believe in the present state, that the parimutuel market of horserace gambling is in, that a REGULAR and RELIABLE source of income can be generated.

It is certainly being done. (Just look at the whales.) Therefore, it certainly can be done.

You are correct, though: it is not easy and and all but impossible for anyone who is not willing to put in a lot of effort to develop something that works.

And why would anyone believe that it could be done if they have not had some reasonable taste of success? (That does not mean cashing a few big tickets.)

Most handicappers seem to think that "trying something new" a is synonymous with "developing something that works." It goes far beyond that.

There are processes whereby the non-whale... someone without a staff to do research... can improve their results. It is not trivial. It is certainly not about saying, "I'm going to play a little differently today."


Although the core of my own approach has been not changed much for quite sometime, I still spend 60-90 minutes every night trying and investigating new things. EVERY NIGHT.

I track results, looking for hints of improvement in each component of the process. Gradually, the process evolves (and improves) over time.

Not all new, bright ideas pan out under the scrutiny of (say) 800 races. How many handicappers would consider handicapping (say) 500 races from 10 different ways and then, when none of those showed even a hint of improvement, try another 10 different ways?

[acorn54]

well dave one can't argue with success. i certainly have no intention of jumping ship and changing my betting strategy. i can only guess that people betting into short fields have a generous rebate shop which caters to millon dollar churn players.
i am a bet a little and win alot kind of bettor and have no complaints.

[raybo]

I agree Dave, it can, and is being done today. Besides myself, I know 2 other people who have been profitable for several years, 1 or them has been since the early '70s and still going strong (my mentor).

Yes, it is difficult, and some will never even come close. But, as you mentioned, one must be willing to put in the time and effort needed to improve, while thinking "outside the box". Constant evaluation and evolution is also required, at least in my opinion.

[Dave Schwartz]

well dave one can't argue with success. i certainly have no intention of jumping ship and changing my betting strategy. i can only guess that people betting into short fields have a generous rebate shop which caters to millon dollar churn players.
i am a bet a little and win alot kind of bettor and have no complaints.

Good for you, although I am not exactly what that has to do with any of the preceding posts.

Meaningful questions:

1. Do you win in the long term?

2. Would you recommend your approach to players that wanted to learn to play at the professional level?

[acorn54]

i did not mean to take this subject astray, i was just opining my personal experience. with what i see, short fields, low payouts, it is obvious to me one has to have a large amount of starting capital, and have a well researched approach.
i remember mr benter and alan woods in hong kong and reading their exploits of success. what stuck out to me is the fact that others tried and failed with millions of dollars lost.
i am not of the type that would venture such large outlays of my capital in such a risky venture.
anyway to answer your questions about my "success"- in the past 10 years, since i undertook seriously, the betting into the parimutuel market. i have been within the range of +/- 2%, for all except two years. one year, the year americans were allowed to bet the horses with the rebate shop, pinnacle, i made 1800 dollars making 2 dollar win bets, not much, but of course with my track record it would be foolish to bet more.
last year was a good year switching to mainly exotic wagering and using win bets only as "savers". i bet 1 dollar exactas, betting at most 20 dollars a race and carefully choosing races where there are large fields and the possiblity of large payouts in what i call chaos races, taken from the concept i learned from the HTR software.
MY comfort level is to bet a little to win alot. i don't mind losing 200 or 300 dollars at a clip before i collect on a windfall exacta.
to recommend this to others? i always found it odd to follow other peoples advice, one really has to experiment and learn what their comfort level is.

[Dave Schwartz]

Acorn,

i did not mean to take this subject astray, i was just opining my personal experience. with what i see, short fields, low payouts, it is obvious to me one has to have a large amount of starting capital, and have a well researched approach.

i remember mr benter and alan woods in hong kong and reading their exploits of success. what stuck out to me is the fact that others tried and failed with millions of dollars lost.
i am not of the type that would venture such large outlays of my capital in such a risky venture.


IMHO, what you have added is a great contribution with this new post.

Clearly, most of us - including me - are not currently, nor are we ever likely to be Benter or Woods. Perhaps we would like to be but it probably isn't happening for us.

I simply do not have such a large amount of cash to outlay. The accepted number to get started is around $450,000 and that is just for infrastructure and system building. That does not include the starting bankroll!


in the past 10 years, since i undertook seriously, the betting into the parimutuel market. i have been within the range of +/- 2%, for all except two years. one year, the year Americans were allowed to bet the horses with the rebate shop, pinnacle, i made 1800 dollars making 2 dollar win bets, not much, but of course with my track record it would be foolish to bet more.
last year was a good year switching to mainly exotic wagering and using win bets only as "savers". i bet 1 dollar exactas, betting at most 20 dollars a race and carefully choosing races where there are large fields and the possiblity of large payouts in what i call chaos races, taken from the concept i learned from the HTR software.

MY comfort level is to bet a little to win alot. i don't mind losing 200 or 300 dollars at a clip before i collect on a windfall exacta.

Based upon what you have said above, you fall into the category of what I call Competitive Recreational Player. On a regular basis, you go to and return from the races with a reality-based spring in your step.

I would say that is what maybe 80% of members here aspire to.

Congratulations to you!


to recommend this to others? i always found it odd to follow other peoples advice, one really has to experiment and learn what their comfort level is.

On a race-by-race basis, I agree with you.

Yet, we all learned from someone, either directly or indirectly. You mentioned HTR "lessons." And perhaps there were others.

Every once in a while we run into people in horse racing who say that they've never read a book about horse racing. Aside from finding that hard to believe, I find it a generally stupid approach. I mean, why would anyone put themselves in a position where they have to invent everything themselves?

Even if you lived in a complete vacuum and developed everything from scratch, you'd (logically) come up with similar conclusions to where the public is today. So, what is gained?


I am always in favor of people who make posts that have a practical, news-you-can-use component, even if you have to read-between-the-lines a little to find it.

:ThmbUp:

[traynor]

i did not mean to take this subject astray, i was just opining my personal experience. with what i see, short fields, low payouts, it is obvious to me one has to have a large amount of starting capital, and have a well researched approach.
i remember mr benter and alan woods in hong kong and reading their exploits of success. what stuck out to me is the fact that others tried and failed with millions of dollars lost.
i am not of the type that would venture such large outlays of my capital in such a risky venture.
anyway to answer your questions about my "success"- in the past 10 years, since i undertook seriously, the betting into the parimutuel market. i have been within the range of +/- 2%, for all except two years. one year, the year americans were allowed to bet the horses with the rebate shop, pinnacle, i made 1800 dollars making 2 dollar win bets, not much, but of course with my track record it would be foolish to bet more.
last year was a good year switching to mainly exotic wagering and using win bets only as "savers". i bet 1 dollar exactas, betting at most 20 dollars a race and carefully choosing races where there are large fields and the possiblity of large payouts in what i call chaos races, taken from the concept i learned from the HTR software.
MY comfort level is to bet a little to win alot. i don't mind losing 200 or 300 dollars at a clip before i collect on a windfall exacta.
to recommend this to others? i always found it odd to follow other peoples advice, one really has to experiment and learn what their comfort level is.

There is no lack of venture capital available to fund such endeavors. Lacking is the assurance (however slim) that it will not be simply another case of tossing money into a bottomless pit in the hope of filling it. Specifically, anyone capable of demonstrating a profit potential (in 2015, on US and Canadian races--not long ago and far away) will (not "should") have no trouble getting a million or three in startup funding.

It is not a lack of funding that prevents more (groups or individuals) from becoming "instant whales." It is a lack of a demonstrable strategy once that funding is available.

[thaskalos]

Sure. Fire away.

1.) Does he regret making the decision to become a professional gambler? Were there hidden obstacles that he encountered because of his career choice, the severity of which he underestimated early on? Does he feel that his dedication and his skill might be better rewarded in some other arena?

2.) I know from personal experience that the luck factor inherent in poker, coupled with the ever-increasing sophistication of the competition, results in dramatic downturns of fortune, as far as the bankroll is concerned. How does he handle those turbulent times...and does dealing with them become easier as one gets older?

3.) Has he found the playing level at which he is comfortable, or is he aiming to keep playing for higher and higher stakes...so he could discover to which heights his skill set could take him?

[thaskalos]

Guys, come on. This game is hard. Okay, ANY game is hard, but this game is the most difficult.

I get what everyone is saying about the mental side of the game, but an amateur is just not going to "mentalize" himself into playing at a world class level. That's why major league baseball players, PGA golfers, etc. are on a different level than anyone else: it takes real skill.

And make no mistake, winning at the horse racing with any significant amount of plays is playing the game at a world-class level.

I remember a "Success" seminar which I attended many years ago...in my youthful zeal to become "All that I could be". Speaker after distinguished speaker would take the stage, to tell the audience how important the proper "Mindset" was, in the pursuit of this ever-elusive "success" that we were all eagerly seeking.

The most decorated speaker of the evening -- whose name eludes me at the moment -- gave an impassioned speech about the mental requirements, without which success would surely remain a virtual impossibility...according to him, at least.

It went something like this:

"What is the most important ingredient in the recipe of success, without which, all the other ingredients prove bland and totally unsatisfying? Unquestionably...it's possessing the proper mental attitude. And what do I mean by "proper mental attitude"? What is the proper mindset to employ in order to make your financial dreams a reality? It's all very simple, when you really think about it...and if you heed my advice, the results will astonish you.

1.) BELIEVE FIERCELY IN YOURSELVES...EVEN IF THOSE AROUND YOU DOUBT YOU. Don't expect even your closest friends to encourage you as you embark on your journey to financial independence. The world is full of naysayers...who keep telling others that something is "impossible", simply because they themselves have been unable to achieve it. Well...I am here to tell you that NOTHING is impossible. All of us are exactly the same biologically...and, if ONE of us can accomplish something, then ALL of us can accomplish it as well...assuming that we want it badly enough. If the mind can conceive something, and we are willing to put forth the necessary effort...then that something is achievable by ALL. Don't let the doubters rain on your parade. The saying that "misery loves company" is one of life's great truths.

2.) DON'T LET THE INEVITABLE EARLY DISAPPOINTMENTS DISCOURAGE YOU, AND SEND YOU RUNNING FOR COVER. PERSEVERE! Nothing gets done without perseverance. Thomas Edison failed thousands of times before he became wildly successful. Abraham Lincoln lost election after election while seeking early public office, before he became perhaps our most admired president. Ask the most successful stock traders you can find...and they'll unanimously tell you that they've all gone broke repeatedly, before they finally put the pieces together...and became wildly successful. PERSEVERANCE...THAT'S what it's all about. Feel the fear...but do what you have to do anyway."

He went on and on...but that was the general idea. Self-belief, even in the face of widespread doubt...and perseverance, even after repeated failure. These two traits were absolutely necessary, if success was what we were really after.

I left the seminar with a distinct feeling of dissatisfaction...but I couldn't figure out why. And then it hit me...on the long drive back home. Yes...those two internal traits, which the featured speaker had identified, might well have been shared by the world's great successes...but those exact same mental qualities were shared by the world's most colossal failures, as well. I mean...you would have to have great self-belief in the face of great doubt in order to destroy yourself financially...right? And you would also need to shun a great deal of unsolicited advice from well-meaning friends...who were sure to warn you about the error of your ways. And it's also hard to be a colossal failure...if you don't possess a great deal of "perseverance". You are not likely to destroy yourself financially...if you are quick to abandon a losing enterprise.

It was on that long dark highway, many miles from home, when I first realized that the great failures had the "proper mental attitude" too...and that this WASN'T the key ingredient in the "recipe of success". And the "positive thinking" gurus know it too...but, because "proper mindset" could be neatly packaged and sold, their message has remained essentially the same through the years.

And gamblers sometimes buy into this too.

Yes...you can't succeed in gambling without the proper mental attitude. But there are other qualities which must be developed first, otherwise, even the world's greatest mindset won't do us any good. You need real skill, and maybe even some inborn talent, if you intend to take on the best players in the world, in a serious way. Otherwise...you are likely to be left holding the bag.

The proper mindset only comes into play later, when all the other pieces are in place.

[Greyfox]

The proper mindset only comes into play later, when all the other pieces are in place.

A proper mindset is always in play for people who want to improve.
That involves more than just "positive thinking" and belief in self, though those features help.
A healthy skepticism should always be present in determining realistic goals which are congruent with your current level of skill development.
Recognizing your comfort zone and what you have to do to get optimal performance in a higher comfort zone has to be constantly worked on.
Also a strong understanding of decisions and the various outcomes and probabilities of those outcomes happening has to be developed over time.

[raybo]

Self confidence and the proper mindset are certainly important. But, IMO the necessary traits one must have, or attain, are: patience, discipline, and consistency. Of course good skills must be in place also, but without those 3 traits it is doubtful that the skills will ever reach the level needed to be successful. One will flounder around and never get on the right track on both the handicapping and the wagering sides. It would be like a scientist or researcher not keeping notes and setting a course of action towards the goal they seek, one step forward and several steps backwards.

[Dave Schwartz]

Thaskalos,

I enjoyed your post. Thank you. It is accurate in many ways, and, clearly, you are a success in life. Of course, I knew that about you before I read that post.

I was heavily involved in baseball for much of my life. I used to lament that "baseball is a heartbreak."

Related to what you said - you must have this mental state; the one that demands excellence; the one that forces you to push ever-harder to improve.

I called it a heartbreak because the sweet spot (in baseball and other sports) for being a small success is 14-16 years of age. Sure, we have all heard the stories of late bloomers like Ted Williams, Michael Jordan, etc. But for every late bloomer story there are literally tens-of-thousands of kids that might have had potential but did not have the physical success early enough to develop the mental mindset necessary.

I mean, how many 14 year olds have that kind of drive? And one can argue that they need it even earlier than that!

Of course, there are also the stories of Dads who provided the drive for the kids. One of my kids, in adulthood, to this day blames me for him not being a baseball player. He says, "You were a really good coach. You could have MADE ME a baseball player."

(My response was, "I am your FATHER, not your baseball coach.)

I once coached a kid at the JC level who was the best ball-blocking catcher I ever saw. Turns out from age 6 to 11 his father put him in catcher's gear, tied him to a tree in the backyard and threw baseballs at him for an hour a day.

He might well have gone somewhere if only his father had taught him to hit a curve ball. (Used to fully collapse the backside on every off-speed pitch!)

Ironically, when I found him his high school coach had him at short stop. The guy couldn't move more than a step and a half either way, but by God, nothing was getting between his legs because he was on his knees every time. LOL


All that being said...

A proper mindset is always in play for people who want to improve.
That involves more than just "positive thinking" and belief in self, though those features help.

A healthy skepticism should always be present in determining realistic goals which are congruent with your current level of skill development.

Recognizing your comfort zone and what you have to do to get optimal performance in a higher comfort zone has to be constantly worked on.

Also a strong understanding of decisions and the various outcomes and probabilities of those outcomes happening has to be developed over time.

This would be the beliefs I embrace. Very well-said, and picks up the subtleties of how one could have the "proper mental attitude" and still be missing out.

Good post, Foxie.

In comparing the two, I see a Napoleon Hill in Think and Grow Rich, while in the other I see more of one of his later books - Grow Rich With Peace of Mind.

[traynor]

I remember a "Success" seminar which I attended many years ago...in my youthful zeal to become "All that I could be". Speaker after distinguished speaker would take the stage, to tell the audience how important the proper "Mindset" was, in the pursuit of this ever-elusive "success" that we were all eagerly seeking.

The most decorated speaker of the evening -- whose name eludes me at the moment -- gave an impassioned speech about the mental requirements, without which success would surely remain a virtual impossibility...according to him, at least.

It went something like this:

"What is the most important ingredient in the recipe of success, without which, all the other ingredients prove bland and totally unsatisfying? Unquestionably...it's possessing the proper mental attitude. And what do I mean by "proper mental attitude"? What is the proper mindset to employ in order to make your financial dreams a reality? It's all very simple, when you really think about it...and if you heed my advice, the results will astonish you.

1.) BELIEVE FIERCELY IN YOURSELVES...EVEN IF THOSE AROUND YOU DOUBT YOU. Don't expect even your closest friends to encourage you as you embark on your journey to financial independence. The world is full of naysayers...who keep telling others that something is "impossible", simply because they themselves have been unable to achieve it. Well...I am here to tell you that NOTHING is impossible. All of us are exactly the same biologically...and, if ONE of us can accomplish something, then ALL of us can accomplish it as well...assuming that we want it badly enough. If the mind can conceive something, and we are willing to put forth the necessary effort...then that something is achievable by ALL. Don't let the doubters rain on your parade. The saying that "misery loves company" is one of life's great truths.

2.) DON'T LET THE INEVITABLE EARLY DISAPPOINTMENTS DISCOURAGE YOU, AND SEND YOU RUNNING FOR COVER. PERSEVERE! Nothing gets done without perseverance. Thomas Edison failed thousands of times before he became wildly successful. Abraham Lincoln lost election after election while seeking early public office, before he became perhaps our most admired president. Ask the most successful stock traders you can find...and they'll unanimously tell you that they've all gone broke repeatedly, before they finally put the pieces together...and became wildly successful. PERSEVERANCE...THAT'S what it's all about. Feel the fear...but do what you have to do anyway."

He went on and on...but that was the general idea. Self-belief, even in the face of widespread doubt...and perseverance, even after repeated failure. These two traits were absolutely necessary, if success was what we were really after.

I left the seminar with a distinct feeling of dissatisfaction...but I couldn't figure out why. And then it hit me...on the long drive back home. Yes...those two internal traits, which the featured speaker had identified, might well have been shared by the world's great successes...but those exact same mental qualities were shared by the world's most colossal failures, as well. I mean...you would have to have great self-belief in the face of great doubt in order to destroy yourself financially...right? And you would also need to shun a great deal of unsolicited advice from well-meaning friends...who were sure to warn you about the error of your ways. And it's also hard to be a colossal failure...if you don't possess a great deal of "perseverance". You are not likely to destroy yourself financially...if you are quick to abandon a losing enterprise.

It was on that long dark highway, many miles from home, when I first realized that the great failures had the "proper mental attitude" too...and that this WASN'T the key ingredient in the "recipe of success". And the "positive thinking" gurus know it too...but, because "proper mindset" could be neatly packaged and sold, their message has remained essentially the same through the years.

And gamblers sometimes buy into this too.

Yes...you can't succeed in gambling without the proper mental attitude. But there are other qualities which must be developed first, otherwise, even the world's greatest mindset won't do us any good. You need real skill, and maybe even some inborn talent, if you intend to take on the best players in the world, in a serious way. Otherwise...you are likely to be left holding the bag.

The proper mindset only comes into play later, when all the other pieces are in place.

The key point that most fail to grasp is the utter folly of self-delusion. "Feeling good about one's self" becomes it own reward, and "positive thinking" takes a LOT less work than doing what is necessary to make the illusions a reality.

In lalaland, it is enough to think one can do something. It is not necessary to actually acquire the skills and knowledge to do that thing. I consider it my great good fortune that so many of my competitors rarely set foot outside the warm, cozy (and nearly impenetrable) borders of lalaland.

[Greyfox]

In comparing the two, I see a Napoleon Hill in Think and Grow Rich, while in the other I see more of one of his later books - Grow Rich With Peace of Mind.

Speaking of that, you might want to ask the Professional gambler:

"Are you able to plan on retiring comfortably some day?"
("Do you have retirement savings?")

[raybo]

Maybe like Doyle Brunson, he'll never retire? :lol:

I retired from regular work a few years ago (and live well below my means), but don't plan to retire from horse racing until I either can't see the monitor anymore or they kick the dirt over me.

[thaskalos]

The key point that most fail to grasp is the utter folly of self-delusion. "Feeling good about one's self" becomes it own reward, and "positive thinking" takes a LOT less work than doing what is necessary to make the illusions a reality.

In lalaland, it is enough to think one can do something. It is not necessary to actually acquire the skills and knowledge to do that thing. I consider it my great good fortune that so many of my competitors rarely set foot outside the warm, cozy (and nearly impenetrable) borders of lalaland.
I think most are fully able to grasp the utter folly of self-delusion...when they see it exemplified in others. The SELF-DIAGNOSIS part is where most lose their way. And I speak from experience here...

[traynor]

I think most are fully able to grasp the utter folly of self-delusion...when they see it exemplified in others. The SELF-DIAGNOSIS part is where most lose their way. And I speak from experience here...

The root of the problem is an inability to distinguish fantasy (internal thoughts/beliefs/wishin' and hopin') from external reality. It is not trivial. Reeves and Nass argued (in The Media Equation) that technology was a major factor. That technology developed almost in concert with recreational drug use, "positive thinking," and "humanist" pop psychology (in particular Rogers' "unconditional positive regard"). It is a mess.

What does all this have to do with horse racing? Everything. No matter how intensely one engages in "positive thinking" or displays of "supreme self-confidence" it does absolutely nothing to make one's horse run faster. A pity. It would make life so much easier for so many.

[Grits]

It was on that long dark highway, many miles from home, when I first realized that the great failures had the "proper mental attitude" too...and that this WASN'T the key ingredient in the "recipe of success". And the "positive thinking" gurus know it too...but, because "proper mindset" could be neatly packaged and sold, their message has remained essentially the same through the years.

And gamblers sometimes buy into this too.

Yes...you can't succeed in gambling without the proper mental attitude. But there are other qualities which must be developed first, otherwise, even the world's greatest mindset won't do us any good. You need real skill, and maybe even some inborn talent, if you intend to take on the best players in the world, in a serious way. Otherwise...you are likely to be left holding the bag.

The proper mindset only comes into play later, when all the other pieces are in place.

If not for narcissistic self thought how does one determine themselves to be remotely successful, or proclaiming of themselves as the best at any endeavor if they've not applied their time and sweat, over and over, prior? If they've not stood before others as proven and able to back up their skill? This I don't understand. Why would one pay to hear such individuals?

Thask, the long, dark, ride home was probably the finest use of your time on this particular evening.

[DeltaLover]

Woww!! This thread ended up to another theoretical discussion that I really believe it does not have much to offer...

WAY TOO MUCH THEORY AND VERY FEW FACTS BOYS

(It seems to me that you have lots of free time that you are looking to spend writing endless un-popperian theories!)

As far as horse player skill, let me add my 2 cents:

WHEN IT COMES TO HORSE BETTING I WOULD RATHER BE LUCKY THAN GOOD

[thaskalos]

Woww!! This thread ended up to another theoretical discussion that I really believe it does not have much to offer...

WAY TOO MUCH THEORY AND VERY FEW FACTS BOYS

(It seems to me that you have lots of free time that you are looking to spend writing endless un-popperian theories!)

If a single guy like you doesn't have plenty of free time...then you must be doing something wrong.

[Greyfox]

WHEN IT COMES TO HORSE BETTING I WOULD RATHER BE LUCKY THAN GOOD

You are the one asking for more facts, eh.
Tell us some facts on how lucky you are with that approach to the game.

[DeltaLover]

You are the one asking for more facts, eh.
Tell us some facts on how lucky you are with that approach to the game.

hhmmm.. all i can say, is that i am getting there (albeit a little slowly, i have to admit) :bang:

[ultracapper]

If the skills you have in handicapping have PROVEN to be successful, you better have confidence in them if you want to win at this game. If they haven't PROVEN to be successful, no amount of confidence is going to make a bit of difference. You have to be confident, but more important, you have to be a realist. Facts are the road to profits in this game, slavish commitment to theory the road to ruin.

I'll have been handicapping for 33 years come this Memorial Day, and I could dissertate for hours on my development, as we all could, but to keep it simple, assess what you're doing and assess it honestly. If it's working, accept it, if it's not, face it. Successful handicapping is definitely one of those "get knocked down 7 times, get up 8 times" kind of things.

To the handicappers that haven't been profitable, keep making those assessments. If you don't want to put in that effort, or have and have just come to the conclusion that you're never going to get on the right track, that's fine too. Play for fun and play small. This is a great game, either way.

To the guys that can't pick winners because the take is too high, or to those that always bet on the right horse but lose because the fix is in, or because all the other horses are on super drugs, I really don't know what to say to you other than...........Keep Bitchin' if it makes you feel better. Resolving those issues would make this a better game, but they won't make you a better handicapper.

[ultracapper]

Woww!! This thread ended up to another theoretical discussion that I really believe it does not have much to offer...

WAY TOO MUCH THEORY AND VERY FEW FACTS BOYS

(It seems to me that you have lots of free time that you are looking to spend writing endless un-popperian theories!)

As far as horse player skill, let me add my 2 cents:

WHEN IT COMES TO HORSE BETTING I WOULD RATHER BE LUCKY THAN GOOD

Let me give you some change for that 2 cents. For your sake I hope you're one of the guys that plays for fun and keeps it small.

[cato]

So Dave, I hope the interview is still on the schedule!

[Dave Schwartz]

It is scheduled for this week

[acorn54]

here is an excerpt from a times article on professional gambling;

"While actual numbers are hard to come by, people in the field say the number of professional gamblers may be 100,000 to 700,000 nationwide. Such gamblers are heavily regulated and must win a lot -- and keep good records -- to make the financials work.

Most of the nation's professional gamblers are stationed in Las Vegas and at horse tracks across the country. And although they pay taxes and are recognized by the Internal Revenue Service, they do not seek attention and go largely unnoticed."

the article link is below, an interesting read;

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/09/business/earning-it-life-s-a-gamble-a-few-people-make-it-a-profession.html

[raybo]

You should have included this in your quote: "Only one-half of 1 percent of all gamblers fall into the professional category,".

In horse race gambling, I suspect that percentage is lower.

[Stillriledup]

here is an excerpt from a times article on professional gambling;

"While actual numbers are hard to come by, people in the field say the number of professional gamblers may be 100,000 to 700,000 nationwide. Such gamblers are heavily regulated and must win a lot -- and keep good records -- to make the financials work.

Most of the nation's professional gamblers are stationed in Las Vegas and at horse tracks across the country. And although they pay taxes and are recognized by the Internal Revenue Service, they do not seek attention and go largely unnoticed."

the article link is below, an interesting read;

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/09/business/earning-it-life-s-a-gamble-a-few-people-make-it-a-profession.html

The reason most (or all) don't seek attention is because there's nothing in it financially for them to do so. Nothing good could ever come out of it.

[lansdale]

here is an excerpt from a times article on professional gambling;

"While actual numbers are hard to come by, people in the field say the number of professional gamblers may be 100,000 to 700,000 nationwide. Such gamblers are heavily regulated and must win a lot -- and keep good records -- to make the financials work.

Most of the nation's professional gamblers are stationed in Las Vegas and at horse tracks across the country. And although they pay taxes and are recognized by the Internal Revenue Service, they do not seek attention and go largely unnoticed."

the article link is below, an interesting read;

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/09/business/earning-it-life-s-a-gamble-a-few-people-make-it-a-profession.html

Conditions in the gambling world have changed big time since this article appeared 18 years ago, mainly due to the dramatic effect of the computer. Even for legends like Lem Banker, sportsbetting is now too tough to beat.


'But the size of the bets is nowhere near as large now, usually just a couple hundred dollars, maybe more on occasion. With a few exceptions, Banker doesn’t think much of modern-day sharp bettors.

“They’re all corporate ****ing assholes. It’s all computerized,” he says. “I could never do today what I did years ago. To do everything without any other income, I couldn’t do it myself. The bookmaking is so strong. The edge is with the bookmakers.”

http://www.covers.com/articles/articles.aspx?theArt=385165

[lansdale]

Conditions in the gambling world have changed big time since this article appeared 18 years ago, mainly due to the dramatic effect of the computer. Even for legends like Lem Banker, sportsbetting is now too tough to beat.


'But the size of the bets is nowhere near as large now, usually just a couple hundred dollars, maybe more on occasion. With a few exceptions, Banker doesn’t think much of modern-day sharp bettors.

“They’re all corporate ****ing assholes. It’s all computerized,” he says. “I could never do today what I did years ago. To do everything without any other income, I couldn’t do it myself. The bookmaking is so strong. The edge is with the bookmakers.”

http://www.covers.com/articles/articles.aspx?theArt=385165

Should add that the pros I know who are still beating sports are, without exception, people with advanced math backgrounds - and their discussions about the subject always revolves around technical matters, never fundamentals. Read Magister Ludi's posts if you want a sense of how they think.

[raybo]

The reason most (or all) don't seek attention is because there's nothing in it financially for them to do so. Nothing good could ever come out of it.

Yeah, nothing much - except - keeping the game alive and growing it, like what happened to poker when regular people started seeing successful card players on TV, and people like Brunson actually helping people play better, and deciding that they too can make some money, if they apply themselves.

One of the reasons there aren't more successful horse players is all the BS and negativity that abounds, and all the supposed "facts" and "truths" out there, and all the secrecy and sidestepping by those who really do know what they're doing. This game is dying slowly, and before long there will be even fewer successful horse players out there.

It's really a matter of survival of the game, not survival of the professional players. Without the game, there are no successful players.

[thaskalos]

Yeah, nothing much - except - keeping the game alive and growing it, like what happened to poker when regular people started seeing successful card players on TV, and people like Brunson actually helping people play better, and deciding that they too can make some money, if they apply themselves.

One of the reasons there aren't more successful horse players is all the BS and negativity that abounds, and all the supposed "facts" and "truths" out there, and all the secrecy and sidestepping by those who really do know what they're doing. This game is dying slowly, and before long there will be even fewer successful horse players out there.

It's really a matter of survival of the game, not survival of the professional players. Without the game, there are no successful players.

I couldn't agree more. :ThmbUp:

Compare the handicapping literature available to horseplayers with the poker books out there...and you would be STUNNED at the difference in the quality of the advice presented therein.

I have said here before that I ran into esteemed poker expert and prolific author David Sklansky many years ago, in a Las Vegas sportsbook...where he was betting horses. I had just read his book The Theory of Poker and was understandably very impressed, and I told him so. I then asked him what his chief motivation was in making certain information available which would likely have an adverse affect on the advantage that he himself current held on the game. Poker players like to say that Sklansky is nothing but a self-absorbed, money-hungry prick...but this is what he himself replied to my question:

"If you are a critically-thinking professional poker player, then your number one concern isn't the preservation of any "edge" that you might hold on the game. Your number one concern is the preservation of the game itself! What good is my edge if the game DIES OUT...which is exactly what will eventually happen, if responsible people don't step forth and provide some quality instruction...to better prepare those who might be interested in playing this game in a serious manner later on? People don't like to throw their money away at the tables, they like to give their money a fighting chance...and they need to be shown that it's possible to succeed while playing this game. And they need to be tutored by people who have been winners themselves. In gambling...you can't take someone to a place where you yourself haven't been."

I dare say that the same exact thing applies to horse racing. The quality of the advice circulating about is poor...and the average horseplayer is just throwing his money away at the windows. And then he gets disgusted with his losses...and flees the game for good. Or, when he looks around for a legitimate "expert", he adds to his problems...because the only "experts" who are forthright with any advice are the "horse racing merchants"...while the legitimate experts are hiding in the shadows...protecting their "edge".

And then the game will die off completely...and we'll all head home.

[raybo]

I couldn't agree more. :ThmbUp:

Compare the handicapping literature available to horseplayers with the poker books out there...and you would be STUNNED at the difference in the quality of the advice presented therein.

I have said here before that I ran into esteemed poker expert and prolific author David Sklansky many years ago, in a Las Vegas sportsbook...where he was betting horses. I had just read his book The Theory of Poker and was understandably very impressed, and I told him so. I then asked him what his chief motivation was in making certain information available which would likely have an adverse affect on the advantage that he himself current held on the game. Poker players like to say that Sklansky is nothing but a self-absorbed, money-hungry prick...but this is what he himself replied to my question:

"If you are a critically-thinking professional poker player, then your number one concern isn't the preservation of any "edge" that you might hold on the game. Your number one concern is the preservation of the game itself! What good is my edge if the game DIES OUT...which is exactly what will eventually happen, if responsible people don't step forth and provide some quality instruction...to better prepare those who might be interested in playing this game in a serious manner later on? People don't like to throw their money away at the tables, they like to give their money a fighting chance...and they need to be shown that it's possible to succeed while playing this game. And they need to be tutored by people who have been winners themselves. In gambling...you can't take someone to a place where you yourself haven't been."

I dare say that the same exact thing applies to horse racing. The quality of the advice circulating about is poor...and the average horseplayer is just throwing his money away at the windows. And then he gets disgusted with his losses...and flees the game for good. Or, when he looks around for a legitimate "expert", he adds to his problems...because the only "experts" who are forthright with any advice are the "horse racing merchants"...while the legitimate experts are hiding in the shadows...protecting their "edge".

And then the game will die off completely...and we'll all head home.

Yup, that's what I was saying when HANA was being born, for free, and what I was saying when the AllData Project was being created, for free. If anyone doesn't think that the ability to import and process data files, and use that data to explore outside the box, and save gobs of time and endless frustration, in something as basic and user friendly as a common spreadsheet app, doesn't offer the average losing pen and paper player the tools become a better player, and allows him/her to remain in the game longer, then I just don't know what to say to those people. :bang:

You can bet your butt that if I had the ability to write a horse racing book, giving away all my knowledge for only the cost of the book, I would gladly do it, and feel no remorse regarding the possibility of losing a portion of my edge. If the game grew because of it, not only would others be more prosperous in the game, so would I. It would be a "win-win".

[AndyC]

I couldn't agree more. :ThmbUp:

Compare the handicapping literature available to horseplayers with the poker books out there...and you would be STUNNED at the difference in the quality of the advice presented therein.

From the standpoint of a beginning player, racing is far more technical than poker. In a short period of time a person can be quite comfortable playing poker, albeit far from a winning player. The mathematics of poker is not difficult and it doesn't change. The same cannot be said for racing. Most racing books are opinion books.

[thaskalos]

From the standpoint of a beginning player, racing is far more technical than poker. In a short period of time a person can be quite comfortable playing poker, albeit far from a winning player. The mathematics of poker is not difficult and it doesn't change. The same cannot be said for racing. Most racing books are opinion books.
ALL the racing books are opinion books. But this still doesn't explain why we have so much garbage out there posing as responsible handicapping advice.

[Stillriledup]

Yeah, nothing much - except - keeping the game alive and growing it, like what happened to poker when regular people started seeing successful card players on TV, and people like Brunson actually helping people play better, and deciding that they too can make some money, if they apply themselves.

One of the reasons there aren't more successful horse players is all the BS and negativity that abounds, and all the supposed "facts" and "truths" out there, and all the secrecy and sidestepping by those who really do know what they're doing. This game is dying slowly, and before long there will be even fewer successful horse players out there.

It's really a matter of survival of the game, not survival of the professional players. Without the game, there are no successful players.

People who are winning hand over fist could care less, they don't care about the "game" they just care about THEM. If the racing industry wants these people to be valuable participants in the growth of the game, they need to sniff them out and PAY THEM to be spokesmen.

Seems like they're not too valuable.

Is Todd Schrupp a winning horseplayer?? He's the face of the #1 horse racing network, he's being paid handsomely i would imagine, is HE a "winner"? why not let him be the guy to squash all the secrecy and sidestepping and tell us how he's hammering the windows....he's the face of racing on tv.

[ReplayRandall]

People who are winning hand over fist could care less, they don't care about the "game" they just care about THEM. If the racing industry wants these people to be valuable participants in the growth of the game, they need to sniff them out and PAY THEM to be spokesmen.
The two people whose opinion's I value, and are closest to "on-the-air pros" that you're talking about SRU, are Andy Serling and Jeff Siegel. They're the only handicappers whose "opinions" I have seen directly influence tote-board movement.......But as far as an "IRS registered" pro-horseplayer having their own show?......absolutely no way, ever.

[acorn54]

i beg to differ about the lack of intelligent info out there.
ken massa who has his htr stuff and forum and jeff platte who has his jcapper site and software have been most generous in spreading useful info in the way of handicapping. in ken massa's reports he provides extensive research and jeff platt goes far and beyond a business relationship with his customers.

[Stillriledup]

The two people whose opinion's I value, and are closest to "on-the-air pros" that you're talking about SRU, are Andy Serling and Jeff Siegel. They're the only handicappers whose "opinions" I have seen directly influence tote-board movement.......But as far as an "IRS registered" pro-horseplayer having their own show?......absolutely no way, ever.

There's a long thread about tote board influence from public handicappers. its tricky to just say someone influences the board, i can't imagine big bettors are risking large money strictly on the 'say so" of someone who knows less than they do.

[ReplayRandall]

There's a long thread about tote board influence from public handicappers. its tricky to just say someone influences the board, i can't imagine big bettors are risking large money strictly on the 'say so" of someone who knows less than they do.
Not because they "say so", it's when they "say NO" on a favorite they absolutely hate......That's the real influence... :cool:

[Stillriledup]

Not because they "say so", it's when they "say NO" on a favorite they absolutely hate......That's the real influence... :cool:

I think that in order to really think that Serling or someone else influences the odds, you would have to think that enough money is being plunked down on a horse that wouldn't otherwise be bet. Also, a public handicapper doesn't get credit for a 4-1 going to 2-1 after he releases it on the air because we don't know if that horse was destined to go to 2-1 anyway, how can you know?

There's no doubt that Andy or other influential public voices sway the odds somewhat, the question is do they do it enough to make it noticible. Swaying a few 10 dollar bettors isn't going to be enough, you have to actually sway a HUGE bettor, i find it hard to believe that a huge bettor is going to plunk down a few grand on a horse that he didn't plan on playing originally.

Do the biggest players get to be the biggest players because they're betting large sums on other people's picks? I'm not sure, but its an interesting debate.

[acorn54]

as far as "free advice", the saying goes, the most expensive advice you will ever get is "free"
there is a conflict of interest, if you think about it, of a public handicapper,publicizing the horses he will wager on, after all it is a parimutuel market- a closed system, pitting bettors against each other for the share of the money in the pool.
of course if the public handicapper is not putting his money where his mouth is, how can you put your money on the info?

[thaskalos]

i beg to differ about the lack of intelligent info out there.
ken massa who has his htr stuff and forum and jeff platte who has his jcapper site and software have been most generous in spreading useful info in the way of handicapping. in ken massa's reports he provides extensive research and jeff platt goes far and beyond a business relationship with his customers.

Let's say that there is a young online poker player who has been left with no game to play after online poker's infamous Black Friday...and who is contemplating switching over to horse racing -- a game he knows very little about. He knows that there are tons of useful poker-related information out there for the beginning poker player looking to build a solid foundation to his game, and, knowing that you are a knowledgeable horseplayer yourself...asks you for your advice on which way to lean in order to start acquiring some useful handicapping knowledge about our favorite game.

Which way would you steer him?

[acorn54]

well had to think about this. first off i would not be stingy with spending some money for info and software that was intelligently designed.
the costliest knowledge for me thinking back on my personal journey was trying to get info that is valuable for low cost. i got what i paid for generally speaking.
my personal performance in the money sport of horserace gambling, came about when i met very intelligent and serious people on the internet.
i would tell someone new to horserace gambling to take advantage of the resources at hana. i don't think there is any other single website that gives you as much info and links and resources. just about all a beginning horseplayer needs is their.

[DeltaLover]

Let's say that there is a young online poker player who has been left with no game to play after online poker's infamous Black Friday...and who is contemplating switching over to horse racing -- a game he knows very little about. He knows that there are tons of useful poker-related information out there for the beginning poker player looking to build a solid foundation to his game, and, knowing that you are a knowledgeable horseplayer yourself...asks you for your advice on which way to lean in order to start acquiring some useful handicapping knowledge about our favorite game.

Which way would you steer him?

I would tell him to get a real job and forget about horse racing as a means of making a living!

Of course, moving to another country where online poker, is another viable option, if you are willing to take your chances and you really enjoy the lifestyle of a gambler...

I have heard of people moving to places like Malta (which is considered to be the paradise of a pro gambler) or even to Thailand and Cambodia (which are also a paradise for young dudes who like to gamble and party hard with their winnings)...

Check here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/174/poker-goals-challenges/broke-brothers-grinding-partying-cambodia-1424119/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/174/poker-goals-challenges/becoming-online-poker-pro-cambodia-1511479/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/174/poker-goals-challenges/hu-soul-crushing-thailand-1505685/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/174/poker-goals-challenges/grinding-cheap-southeast-asian-country-questions-1525262/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/174/poker-goals-challenges/sifiasco-2015-malta-grind-1501130/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/92/travel/free-room-living-comunity-malta-sliema-1525282/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/92/travel/looking-poker-house-676091/

[barn32]

Let's say that there is a young online poker player who has been left with no game to play after online poker's infamous Black Friday...and who is contemplating switching over to horse racing -- a game he knows very little about. He knows that there are tons of useful poker-related information out there for the beginning poker player looking to build a solid foundation to his game, and, knowing that you are a knowledgeable horseplayer yourself...asks you for your advice on which way to lean in order to start acquiring some useful handicapping knowledge about our favorite game.

Which way would you steer him?Point taken. There is no place to steer him.

[traynor]

Let's say that there is a young online poker player who has been left with no game to play after online poker's infamous Black Friday...and who is contemplating switching over to horse racing -- a game he knows very little about. He knows that there are tons of useful poker-related information out there for the beginning poker player looking to build a solid foundation to his game, and, knowing that you are a knowledgeable horseplayer yourself...asks you for your advice on which way to lean in order to start acquiring some useful handicapping knowledge about our favorite game.

Which way would you steer him?

To a racetrack. To watch the horses as they enter the track, in the paddock, and (with a good set of binoculars) warming up. Then to watch the races.

Then study (not just watch while daydreaming of easy riches) the videos on trip handicapping by Paul Mellos, and the body language videos by Bonnie Ledbetter and Trillis Parker.

Then--and only then--suggest he read The Winning Horseplayer. As for the rest of the writing about horse races, "handicapping" (especially pace handicapping and speed handicapping), and all the rest--tell him to ignore it as obfuscatory prose of little usefulness to anyone intent on winning.

Most emphatically, avoid any suggestion that piddling around with a computer is going to add anything to his skills--until he actually has a full set of skills from direct observation that can be augmented by "studying past performance data" in the limited range available from Equibase.

[thaskalos]

To a racetrack. To watch the horses as they enter the track, in the paddock, and (with a good set of binoculars) warming up. Then to watch the races.

Then study (not just watch while daydreaming of easy riches) the videos on trip handicapping by Paul Mellos, and the body language videos by Bonnie Ledbetter and Trillis Parker.

Then--and only then--suggest he read The Winning Horseplayer. As for the rest of the writing about horse races, "handicapping" (especially pace handicapping and speed handicapping), and all the rest--tell him to ignore it as obfuscatory prose of little usefulness to anyone intent on winning.

Most emphatically, avoid any suggestion that piddling around with a computer is going to add anything to his skills--until he actually has a full set of skills from direct observation that can be augmented by "studying past performance data" in the limited range available from Equibase.
I agree with you. But how is this young fan supposed to react, when he finds out that even the author of the aforementioned handicapping book -- and an accomplished race-watcher himself -- is having trouble beating this game on a regular basis?

[traynor]

I agree with you. But how is this young fan supposed to react, when he finds out that even the author of the aforementioned handicapping book -- and an accomplished race-watcher himself -- is having trouble beating this game on a regular basis?

Perhaps because he spends too much time watching exclusively US races at a handful of tracks. Or perhaps because he is (is he?) wagering on a "regular basis" like a nine-to-fiver drone, rather than using the specialized, intensive sessions of total dedication he used to attain his initial successes.

Consider it like hunting squirrels and rabbits, to keep fed, or hunting a quarry big enough to feed the whole village for an extended period when everyone can kick back and enjoy life for awhile. Both involve "hunting." The end goals are different. Those who believe the end goal of hunting is the hunt itself will always be piddling around targeting squirrels and rabbits. Those who realize the end goal of hunting is a respite from hunger and continual striving for the whole village will approach what they do (and conduct their activities) in a fundamentally different way.

[traynor]

I agree with you. But how is this young fan supposed to react, when he finds out that even the author of the aforementioned handicapping book -- and an accomplished race-watcher himself -- is having trouble beating this game on a regular basis?

That is why I suggested that he learn a basic skill set before delving into any of the "racing literature." It depends if one is seeking profit, or seeking heroes.

[barn32]

To a racetrack. To watch the horses as they enter the track, in the paddock, and (with a good set of binoculars) warming up. Then to watch the races.

Then study (not just watch while daydreaming of easy riches) the videos on trip handicapping by Paul Mellos, and the body language videos by Bonnie Ledbetter and Trillis Parker.

Then--and only then--suggest he read The Winning Horseplayer. As for the rest of the writing about horse races, "handicapping" (especially pace handicapping and speed handicapping), and all the rest--tell him to ignore it as obfuscatory prose of little usefulness to anyone intent on winning.

Most emphatically, avoid any suggestion that piddling around with a computer is going to add anything to his skills--until he actually has a full set of skills from direct observation that can be augmented by "studying past performance data" in the limited range available from Equibase.This is the problem, not the solution. For every person he asks for advice he is going to get a different set of solutions. Who does he listen to? Who does he believe?

Horse racing is a great game if you want to waste half a lifetime to figure it out.

[thaskalos]

This is the problem, not the solution. For every person he asks for advice he is going to get a different set of solutions. Who does he listen to? Who does he believe?

Horse racing is a great game if you want to waste half a lifetime to figure it out.

And then...when you finally do figure it out after half a lifetime...you discover that the game has now "changed", and further revisions are necessary.

[Stillriledup]

And then...when you finally do figure it out after half a lifetime...you discover that the game has now "changed", and further revisions are necessary.

Totally. This game is not even close to the game we "learned" in the 70s 80s and even the 90s. Nothing we knew back then works today, its a different sport that you have to learn all over again. Maybe its the newfound "fraglilty" of the modern T bred? Who knows, but its a constant changing landscape, we are essentially "old guys" who have to keep learning new tricks and that's VERY hard to do, it takes YEARS to get rid of the "1980s habits" we learned 35 years ago and get to become updated, modern, cutting edge, 2015 type players. Not easy to do for many "old dogs".

[dnlgfnk]

Let's say that there is a young online poker player who has been left with no game to play after online poker's infamous Black Friday...and who is contemplating switching over to horse racing -- a game he knows very little about. He knows that there are tons of useful poker-related information out there for the beginning poker player looking to build a solid foundation to his game, and, knowing that you are a knowledgeable horseplayer yourself...asks you for your advice on which way to lean in order to start acquiring some useful handicapping knowledge about our favorite game.

Which way would you steer him?

I unequivocally steer him to the built-in percentages in the game, not as a segue from poker, but as the basis for any success. To me, it is foundational to begin the handicapping process from the point of reference that the favorite loses this race, e.g., 67% of the time.

[raybo]

I unequivocally steer him to the built-in percentages in the game, not as a segue from poker, but as the basis for any success. To me, it is foundational to begin the handicapping process from the point of reference that the favorite loses this race, e.g., 67% of the time.

That was one of the basic "truths" that my mentor stressed, 36+ years ago. And, I still keep it in my mind to this day.

[AndyC]

I unequivocally steer him to the built-in percentages in the game, not as a segue from poker, but as the basis for any success. To me, it is foundational to begin the handicapping process from the point of reference that the favorite loses this race, e.g., 67% of the time.


So if a race has an even money favorite, what value is there in knowing that favorites only win 33% of the time ON AVERAGE?

[DeltaLover]

So if a race has an even money favorite, what value is there in knowing that favorites only win 33% of the time ON AVERAGE?

Spot on question!

The fact that the favourite is missing "67%" of the time does not mean the the crowd has it wrong of course. Quite the opposite!

The winning percentage of the favourite (or any other horse in the race) is completely meaningless unless considered in conjunction of the offered value, which happens to be very competitive to the point of neutralizing the value of traditional handicapping, to the point of creating a negative expected value very close to the take out.

[raybo]

If the fact that favorites lose twice as often as they win doesn't express a fundamental thought process for you, then there is nothing else that can be said. The question was asked about what you'd tell a new prospective player. Where else would you start than with the very beginning preface for "value" seeking? Of course other things must be shared/learned, but the basic tenet almost certainly has to start with the seeking of "value" and understanding what the public odds represent, that being that the odds do not represent winning probability, but rather a composite opinion of others.

[Greyfox]

So if a race has an even money favorite, what value is there in knowing that favorites only win 33% of the time ON AVERAGE?

In the last few years that percentage is at least a couple of points higher.

[JustRalph]

I am just impressed as hell that Dave Schwartz can get Kenny Rogers on the phone anytime he wants :ThmbUp:

[raybo]

In the last few years that percentage is at least a couple of points higher.

Yes, we know that but it's about the principle of the toteboard and what those odds/percentages represent, not whether or not it's 34.5% or 33%. The toteboard represents "money", and is that not what you want the new prospective player to think about first? If we assume that the new prospect has absolutely no knowledge of horse race handicapping or gambling, where do you start with your advice to him? Do you immediately jump into handicapping/factor analysis, or do you start with the art of gambling and making more money than you invest? Which one is more important, as a starting point? Which one do the vast majority of losing players start with, and do they start with fact or opinions? They probably don't start with fact, wouldn't you agree? They probably start with something that has very little to do with being successful in this game. And if they start there, how much time will they completely waste before they ever get on the path of being successful, if they ever do?

[AndyC]

If the fact that favorites lose twice as often as they win doesn't express a fundamental thought process for you, then there is nothing else that can be said. The question was asked about what you'd tell a new prospective player. Where else would you start than with the very beginning preface for "value" seeking? Of course other things must be shared/learned, but the basic tenet almost certainly has to start with the seeking of "value" and understanding what the public odds represent, that being that the odds do not represent winning probability, but rather a composite opinion of others.

My thought process is "how can I apply this stat to my handicapping/betting of any one particular race?" If I did so, I would come up with some ridiculous results. For example, if there was a race with a 7-2 favorite, I should bet it knowing that the favorite will win 33% of the time, right? Or conversely I should bet against every even money horse because the even money favorite would lose 67% of the time.

I would tell a new player to get educated in understanding probabilities and gambling. From that foundation your routes are endless. Too many players started by just trying to pick winners without any thought as to whether their pick was actually a good bet. Most of those players still employ the same style today.

[AndyC]

Yes, we know that but it's about the principle of the toteboard and what those odds/percentages represent, not whether or not it's 34.5% or 33%. The toteboard represents "money", and is that not what you want the new prospective player to think about first? If we assume that the new prospect has absolutely no knowledge of horse race handicapping or gambling, where do you start with your advice to him? Do you immediately jump into handicapping/factor analysis, or do you start with the art of gambling and making more money than you invest? Which one is more important, as a starting point? Which one do the vast majority of losing players start with, and do they start with fact or opinions? They probably don't start with fact, wouldn't you agree? They probably start with something that has very little to do with being successful in this game. And if they start there, how much time will they completely waste before they ever get on the path of being successful, if they ever do?

The problem is your so-called fact has no bearing on any race or outcome. It's trivia at best.

[raybo]

The problem is your so-called fact has no bearing on any race or outcome. It's trivia at best.

That's only because you are thinking about a single race result, rather than the long term. Winning or losing a single race, among presumably hundreds that you will play in a year means very little, if anything, at the end of the year, or 2 years, or 5 years, etc., especially when you're talking about horses that offer you very little leverage, if any. The 33-35% stat is a long term fact, not an individual race result fact. The "long term" focus thing is also a basic tenet that I would impress, strongly, upon a new prospective player.

[Dave Schwartz]

I am just impressed as hell that Dave Schwartz can get Kenny Rogers on the phone anytime he wants

LOL - That would be pure torture.

BTW, the interview has been recorded.

I have some editing to do because I kept forgetting and calling him by name and need to edit those parts out.

My email list will get it first - probably by Friday - then the rest of the world in about 2-3 weeks.

[AndyC]

That's only because you are thinking about a single race result, rather than the long term. Winning or losing a single race, among presumably hundreds that you will play in a year means very little, if anything, at the end of the year, or 2 years, or 5 years, etc., especially when you're talking about horses that offer you very little leverage, if any. The 33-35% stat is a long term fact, not an individual race result fact. The "long term" focus thing is also a basic tenet that I would impress, strongly, upon a new prospective player.

Just humor me and tell me how I can use the stat in a specific manner to win money betting horses.

I agree that a player should have a long-term perspective, but isn't it better to focus on making value bets on every race? If I do a good job race-to-race the long-term will take care of itself.

[raybo]

Just humor me and tell me how I can use the stat in a specific manner to win money betting horses.

I agree that a player should have a long-term perspective, but isn't it better to focus on making value bets on every race? If I do a good job race-to-race the long-term will take care of itself.

No, how about you humor me and state what you would tell the new prospective player, first. As I stated earlier: "If the fact that favorites lose twice as often as they win doesn't express a fundamental thought process for you, then there is nothing else that can be said."

[Magister Ludi]

When I was ten years old, I found my father’s college textbooks in the attic. Lo and behold, there was a calculus textbook in one of the boxes! My hands were trembling and my eyes were blurred with tears of joy as I opened the book and began reading.


Many years ago, a friend of mine was on the Porsche F1 pit crew. He had been hounding the team manager to give him a chance to drive. One day, one of the regular drivers was sick. The team manager turned to my friend and said, “Get into that 917 and show me what you can do”.

I asked my friend, “What did you do then?”.

He replied, “I drove it flat out”. [You can’t even imagine what that means unless you’re familiar with the 917]. He became a driver and won about 40 races in his career.


When a friend of mine was 16 years old, his mother took him to see his first ballet at the New York Ballet Theater. When they exited the theater after the performance, tears were streaming down his face.

“Oh mama. That’s what I want to do. If I can’t do that, I just want to die.”

He had an innate talent and was an insanely hard worker. Under George Ballanchine’s tutelage, he became principal dancer in the New York Ballet Theater and then became principal dancer in the American Ballet Theater, overshadowed only by his good friend Mikael Baryshnikov.


Years ago, I was given this book by a friend of mine:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Souls-Code-Character-Calling/dp/0446673714

I read it in one sitting. The next day I asked him, “How did you know?”

He smiled and said, “Isn’t it obvious?”


I’ve never whipped myself into a positive mindset. It’s my dynamic discontent and a sense of "calling" that’s whipping me every moment of every day.

[Saratoga_Mike]

When I was ten years old, I found my father’s college textbooks in the attic. Lo and behold, there was a calculus textbook in one of the boxes! My hands were trembling and my eyes were blurred with tears of joy as I opened the book and began reading.
]

You really were a wild child.

[TrifectaMike]

When I was ten years old, I found my father’s college textbooks in the attic. Lo and behold, there was a calculus textbook in one of the boxes! My hands were trembling and my eyes were blurred with tears of joy as I opened the book and began reading.

ML,

My first calculus textbook, "Elements of The Differential and Integral Calculus", by Granville and Smith, Copyright 1904, given to me by my seventh grade math teacher. That book was my inspiration.

Mike

[five-eighths]

Looking back at the San Antonio Stakes runs couple of months ago you had Shared Belief going off at 1:1 and California Chrome at 1.4:1

If you were of the opinion that Shared Belief should've been a 3:5, and all other horses as slight underlays or even, is there enough value there to make any bets?

I'm a weekend warrior and see similar types of races often when I like one of the favorites and I think I see value there, but don't always know the best way of betting them (exacta, tri, super). If your "key" horse isnt at least 3:1, is the race playable?

[thaskalos]

When I was ten years old, I found my father’s college textbooks in the attic. Lo and behold, there was a calculus textbook in one of the boxes! My hands were trembling and my eyes were blurred with tears of joy as I opened the book and began reading.



I had the exact same reaction when, as a highly impressionable 10 year-old, I accidently stumbled upon my older cousin's playboy magazines.

[Magister Ludi]

ML,

My first calculus textbook, "Elements of The Differential and Integral Calculus", by Granville and Smith, Copyright 1904, given to me by my seventh grade math teacher. That book was my inspiration.

Mike

I knew that you would understand!

[AndyC]

No, how about you humor me and state what you would tell the new prospective player, first. As I stated earlier: "If the fact that favorites lose twice as often as they win doesn't express a fundamental thought process for you, then there is nothing else that can be said."

See post #221.

Walk me through your fundamental thought process with regard to the % of winning favorites and how it makes a winning player.

[ReplayRandall]

ML,

My first calculus textbook, "Elements of The Differential and Integral Calculus", by Granville and Smith, Copyright 1904, given to me by my seventh grade math teacher. That book was my inspiration.

Mike
Mike, was the contents of the book your inspiration, or was it your seventh grade math teacher's caring gesture, that indeed was the catalyst for you to believe in yourself, having found your life's meaning, purpose and passion in the field of mathematics?

[DeltaLover]

I had the exact same reaction when, as a highly impressionable 10 year-old, I accidently stumbled upon my older cousin's playboy magazines.

In my case this reaction still remains pretty much the same, only a bit amplified! ( A big score usually balances the reaction with some real action though!)

[Stillriledup]

I had the exact same reaction when, as a highly impressionable 10 year-old, I accidently stumbled upon my older cousin's playboy magazines.


C2SkqaCO9c4

[raybo]

Looking back at the San Antonio Stakes runs couple of months ago you had Shared Belief going off at 1:1 and California Chrome at 1.4:1

If you were of the opinion that Shared Belief should've been a 3:5, and all other horses as slight underlays or even, is there enough value there to make any bets?

I'm a weekend warrior and see similar types of races often when I like one of the favorites and I think I see value there, but don't always know the best way of betting them (exacta, tri, super). If your "key" horse isnt at least 3:1, is the race playable?

My play in such a scenario would revolve around whether or not I could turn that 1/1 expected payout into a much higher payout, for the same money. if not, I would pass the race.

[raybo]

See post #221.

Walk me through your fundamental thought process with regard to the % of winning favorites and how it makes a winning player.

For me it's simple, it turns one into thinking long term positive ROI (profit) rather than short term hit percentage.

[Dave Schwartz]

For me it's simple, it turns one into thinking long term positive ROI (profit) rather than short term hit percentage.

How is it that the two are not always connected?

[raybo]

How is it that the two are not always connected?

They are connected, but ROI takes into account both hit rate and the average prices we receive, whereas hit percentage has nothing to do with average prices, but rather only number of winners versus losers.

Bet favorites if you want high hit rates, but don't expect to make long term profit. Beginners should not start their careers thinking about high hit rates, but rather high ROIs.

[ultracapper]

They are connected, but ROI takes into account both hit rate and the average prices we receive, whereas hit percentage has nothing to do with average prices, but rather only number of winners versus losers.

Bet favorites if you want high hit rates, but don't expect to make long term profit. Beginners should not start their careers thinking about high hit rates, but rather high ROIs.

YIKES!!! Beginners need to cash tickets. They need to experience the thrill of the win. When they get used to that, and are still losing a few bucks, then you can take the next step and start bringing them around to price awareness. There's no bigger turn off in gambling than losing from the get go, and no greater thrill than cashing in, even if it doesn't all add up immediately.

[acorn54]

YIKES!!! Beginners need to cash tickets. They need to experience the thrill of the win. When they get used to that, and are still losing a few bucks, then you can take the next step and start bringing them around to price awareness. There's no bigger turn off in gambling than losing from the get go, and no greater thrill than cashing in, even if it doesn't all add up immediately.


there you go. treating a beginning horse player like he is the village idiot. i find it hard to believe that there are that many young people in this high tech age that are mathematical and statistical illiterates.
what does hit rate have to do with anything.
if a person wants thrills they should go to an amusement part.
horse betting is to make money unless you have money to throw away.

[thaskalos]

there you go. treating a beginning horse player like he is the village idiot. i find it hard to believe that there are that many young people in this high tech age that are mathematical and statistical illiterates.
what does hit rate have to do with anything.
if a person wants thrills they should go to an amusement part.
horse betting is to make money unless you have money to throw away.

Come on. From the very beginning, horse betting should be about "making money"? That's ridiculous. All of us started losing money from the very beginning...and we all stayed with this game...even though none of us had any money to throw away. There is a tuition to be paid for winning, you know...

[Grits]

there you go. treating a beginning horse player like he is the village idiot. i find it hard to believe that there are that many young people in this high tech age that are mathematical and statistical illiterates.
what does hit rate have to do with anything.
if a person wants thrills they should go to an amusement part.
horse betting is to make money unless you have money to throw away.

Wow. This is pretty rough...

[DeltaLover]

Come on. From the very beginning, horse betting should be about "making money"? That's ridiculous. All of us started losing money from the very beginning...and we all stayed with this game...even though none of us had any money to throw away. There is a tuition to be paid for winning, you know...


I think that what most of the seasoned horse players have in common, is that at some point at their very early betting careers, they made a large score which exactly is the reason why they got hooked.. On the other hand, beginners who tried the game several times, always loosing their money, mover ahead to other forms of gambling and never looked back..

[ultracapper]

there you go. treating a beginning horse player like he is the village idiot. i find it hard to believe that there are that many young people in this high tech age that are mathematical and statistical illiterates.
what does hit rate have to do with anything.
if a person wants thrills they should go to an amusement part.
horse betting is to make money unless you have money to throw away.

If somebody really gets into this, it turns into a job like thing soon enough. It has to be fun first, then, if they like it, they can embrace the day to day grind of handicapping for profit. I never considered myself a village idiot when I started, but I sure as hell didn't know what a couple of the guys I went with were talking about most the time, and they didn't consider me an idiot when they told me to not worry about it for the time being.

[ultracapper]

This reminds me of a funny story from that first summer I started playing.

I was 19, and a couple of the guys I was going with were in their late 20s, and one of them already had a solid 10 years of playing under his belt. He had a yellow pad with pages and pages of scribbled notes, and while the 2 of them were discussing something in the form, I was fingering through his yellow pad. I don't remember what it was I was looking at, but I waited for them to finish, and I asked him about some of the notes concerning a particular angle or formula I wasn't understanding that he was addressing on those pages. He looked up at me and smiled and said "you'll be better off never understanding any of that". I think it was something he was working out, and it wasn't coming together the way he was hoping.

[Grits]

Acorn, here are a couple of examples of the ... either, new horse player or the one who is struggling with limited knowledge. Who knows, but one way or the other? I refuse to remotely consider anyone a village idiot. To do so is disappointing.

I read a lot, here, and in the Triple Crown thread alone, today, and this past week. Someone referred to the following:

1. "sheet readers". The question came up, someone asked, "what are these sheets you speak of"? Answer. Ragozin.

2. "run up". Last week, someone asked, "what is run up"? The short answer was given. A day or two later, a poster referred to "run off" in another thread, quickly having forgotten the term, "run up". Who had the heart to tell this poster that "run off" is something that happens when rain falls hard and fast? Thankfully, no one. The poster will get it, at some point down the road. Or they may not, however, still ... they may cash.

Not everyone is an engineer, yet somehow, people manage to cash tickets playing this game. Too, there are an awful lot of people here who I would bet have made a fine living, long before, and after they became involved in betting horses. They traversed the learning curve to a point that they are not only cashing tickets, but find themselves, engaged, and entertained. Therefore, to me, this could be termed as living well.

Its a rarity for you to write like this... but maybe this was simply a rush to judgement.

Ultracapper, JMHO, is 100% correct.

[ReplayRandall]

Nice post, Grits... :ThmbUp:

[raybo]

YIKES!!! Beginners need to cash tickets. They need to experience the thrill of the win. When they get used to that, and are still losing a few bucks, then you can take the next step and start bringing them around to price awareness. There's no bigger turn off in gambling than losing from the get go, and no greater thrill than cashing in, even if it doesn't all add up immediately.

Hmmm- you seem to think that the only advice I would give a new prospective player is what I have proposed. What I have proposed is my "first step" in the introductory process, and hopefully that player would at least get that embedded in his/her mind before moving on to "actual" play. From that first step, other things can be advised, which hopefully will allow him/her to get his/her feet wet, feel comfortable, and enjoy playing the horses, but if he/she wants to make money in racing, that first step must remain in his mind, forever.

I never said that thinking ROI is all that is required to play (and enjoy) this game. Where you got that is beyond me.

ROI is a very simple concept, not rocket science. Any 7th grader can understand it. A simple explanation of what the numbers on the tote board "actually represent" would suffice initially. I know the first time I went to the track, I thought that the lowest odds on the board would probably win each race. This is the kind of ignorance that some players never seem to get over, or waste a lot of time and money before they do.