Leo's Wagering Method

[Capper Al]

My old friend Leo, who is no longer with us, had an interesting wagering method. He targeted his top pick for a $10 win bet. Should his pick be even money or greater, he would make his win bet. If his horse was under even, he would bet an exacta with his second pick for $10. Nothing unusual so far. It was what he did with his money when he won that I found interesting. If he hit a winner, on the next race if his horse was even money or more, he would bet $20 to win. If he hit again $30 to win. He would keep adding $10 to his wager as long as he kept winning. What I like about this system is that it is simple and one knows their outlay upfront, something with my wheeling that I lose sight of. So for a day at the races, Leo knew that if it was a 10 race card his investment would be $100 for the day.

So what? Most straight win wagers do something similar. Now I had another friend who used to argue that there really isn't all that up side with exotics if one wheels. Take for example exactas. Let's say one tags an overlay in their top three and wheels it with the other two, a 4 unit outlay. My findings, overlooking one or two big hits, is that a simple 2 unit Win/Place bet in the end would have been equally profitable (sometimes more) and less stressful. Establishing a routine and keeping it simple makes being profitable more attainable. Did Leo have a good idea? And please, skip the what works for you. Instead address the pros and cons of a simple straight system verses a complex wheeling system.

Thanks

[HottalkersinKY]

sounds interesting was the exacta a box or straight bet?

[Greyfox]

. My findings, overlooking one or two big hits, is that a simple 2 unit Win/Place bet in the end would have been equally profitable (sometimes more) and less stressful.

Thanks

If it worked for Leo that's great.

Personally, I like exotics (Pick 3's, exactas, and tris).

However, if I'm flat betting I find the 1 unit Win and 3 units Place approach works best for me.

[raybo]

My experience with exotics, exacta, tri, super, is that the non-wheeled bet will show a better ROI, over time, but the hit rate is so low that the net profit suffers drastically. And, of course, most players don't want to wait forever for a winning ticket.

[thaskalos]

I don't like uncle Leo's wagering plan.

It occurs to me that these "go up as you win" methods would work best in games where the bettor's winning percentage is higher than that of win-bettors at the track.

Race track winners don't come in bunches...

What happens if uncle Leo's $30 win-bet loses? Is it back to $10?

[traynor]

Wheeled exactas rarely return amounts equal to straight win bets--straight win bets are the obvious choice, and I am surprised that anyone seriously considers wheeled exactas (or part-wheel exactas) as a long-term strategy. Little has changed in that regard since Dick Mitchell's recommendation to back wheel the favorites at SoCal tracks. While tight exacta wheels (generally) return too little to support serious wagering, and the loose exacta wheels are (generally) more profitable, straight win bets offer the best return.

I think your late friend had it down pat. Way too many try to compensate for poor selections skills with various wagering schemes in the hope of an occasional windfall.

I am much less inclined to accept place betting as a useful strategy. Scott McMannis and others seem to think cashing a ticket (regardless of net profit) is worth more than turning a profit. I do not. Wagering two units on win will almost invariably result in a greater return than wagering one unit win and one unit place. Wagering larger amounts to place than to win rarely imroves the situation.

[lamboguy]

my method is to wait for a horse that should be a 1-5 shot and goes off at 10-1

then bet enough on the race in every pool to take down 20% of the total money in the pool. and keep repeating the same process over and over again in every race that i play.

that happens to be the only wining system that i know of.

[Greyfox]

my method is to wait for a horse that should be a 1-5 shot and goes off at 10-1

.

Yeah...I'm sure that happens a lot. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[traynor]

Without getting into a deep philosophical debate about wagering strategies in thoroughbred racing being one thing or another, Leo's underlying strategy is used (and has been used) successfully for years by players of various casino games.

[Capper Al]

I don't like uncle Leo's wagering plan.

It occurs to me that these "go up as you win" methods would work best in games where the bettor's winning percentage is higher than that of win-bettors at the track.

Race track winners don't come in bunches...

What happens if uncle Leo's $30 win-bet loses? Is it back to $10?

You're right. He's back to $10. The outlay for the day is always the same. It is easier to keep one's head with a simply defined system.

[lamboguy]

Yeah...I'm sure that happens a lot. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
all you need is some patience and a big bankroll

[Capper Al]

Without getting into a deep philosophical debate about wagering strategies in thoroughbred racing being one thing or another, Leo's underlying strategy is used (and has been used) successfully for years by players of various casino games.

I suspected that it is an old standard method of wagering. Quirin, I believe, studied various wagering systems. This would be close to the flat bet method except it increments with a win but never exceeds the planned outlay. I can testify that at times, I tie myself up in knots with wagering on overlay horses in the win/place, exacta, and double pools. A straight forward system like this makes for a clear head, and a clear head at the betting window has to be a good thing.

[thaskalos]

Without getting into a deep philosophical debate about wagering strategies in thoroughbred racing being one thing or another, Leo's underlying strategy is used (and has been used) successfully for years by players of various casino games.

I didn't know that it was possible to beat "various casino games"...

[Greyfox]

all you need is some patience and a big bankroll

And a huge imagination. You'll wait until the next two blue moons to find a horse that should be 1/5 going off at 10-1.

[Capper Al]

all you need is some patience and a big bankroll

I'm a Saturday warrior, who finds a way to play them all. I am amazed that I have been profitable. That's why I giving old Leo's method some thought.

[thaskalos]

I'm a Saturday warrior, who finds a way to play them all. I am amazed that I have been profitable. That's why I giving old Leo's method some thought.

If you have been profitable even though you play every race...then why look to adopt the methods of someone else?

Why not look to streamline your own methods?

It would occur to me that you would be even more profitable if you became a tad more selective. No?

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I think Leo's method is great for at least 90% of horseplayers. Most of us play lots of races, and don't have the precision to incorporate a "true odds" line, variable wagering, Kelly criterion, or other more complex wagering strategies.

Any method that introduces discipline to one's betting will most likely help, rather than hurt, the bankroll in the long run.

[lamboguy]

And a huge imagination. You'll wait until the next two blue moons to find a horse that should be 1/5 going off at 10-1.i think i am going to have one on Christmas Eve day. if you want to contact me i will alter your thought process and put you on the right path.

i might even have another one before that on December 19th. but i need to get the horse in the race and see how another horse runs on December 14th.

[lamboguy]

I'm a Saturday warrior, who finds a way to play them all. I am amazed that I have been profitable. That's why I giving old Leo's method some thought.i understand, i am a full time horse bettor. i bet all day, every day 365 days a year for the past 40 years.

[traynor]

I didn't know that it was possible to beat "various casino games"...

One of the great things in life is that it is always possible to learn new things, or to learn new ways of looking at old things.

[traynor]

I'm a Saturday warrior, who finds a way to play them all. I am amazed that I have been profitable. That's why I giving old Leo's method some thought.

Again, I have no interest in lengthy debates that are the equivalent of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." The simple fact is that for Saturday warriors, most statistics are utterly worthless, regardless of what the number crunchers would like one to believe. Specifically, all the malarkey about this or that being "statistically significant" is irrelevant unless applied over an immense number of events.

The advantage of Leo's approach is that one does not second guess one's self in the "heat of the moment" and wagers consistently. That is considerably better than scrambling. Saturday warrior betting is way different than betting multiple tracks on an everyday basis. The former is more concerned with making a profit on that particular days wagering, while the latter is mostly seeking a long-term profit. The point that many seem to miss is that focusing on profit one day at a time (rather than chasing statistical rainbows) is often far more rewarding in both the short term and the long term .

As I have said repeatedly, I don't really care how many X, Y, or Z horses won yesterday or last week--I am only interested in whether the horse I am betting on in this specific race is a good bet or not. I think more than a few might benefit from Leo's approach to wagering--and even improve their overall results by so doing.

[traynor]

I think Leo's method is great for at least 90% of horseplayers. Most of us play lots of races, and don't have the precision to incorporate a "true odds" line, variable wagering, Kelly criterion, or other more complex wagering strategies.

Any method that introduces discipline to one's betting will most likely help, rather than hurt, the bankroll in the long run.

Indeed. The complex wagering strategies are all well and good for those who routinely bet large numbers of races, week in and week out. For Saturday warriors, Leo's wagering method is great.

[Greyfox]

i think i am going to have one on Christmas Eve day. if you want to contact me i will alter your thought process and put you on the right path.

.

Thanks for the offer, but I pick my own steeds and do okay.

By the way, where are you playing horses on Christmas Eve day?

[lamboguy]

Thanks for the offer, but I pick my own steeds and do okay.

By the way, where are you playing horses on Christmas Eve day?PARX racing.

i am glad that you do well picking your own horses, everyone here seems to win! for the last 10 years, i must be the only guy that loses 9 out of every 10 weeks betting on horses.

[Greyfox]

PARX racing.

i must be the only guy that loses 9 out of every 10 weeks betting on horses.

Betting horses that you think should be 1-5 that are actually 10-1 can do that to a fella. :D

[Capper Al]

If you have been profitable even though you play every race...then why look to adopt the methods of someone else?

Why not look to streamline your own methods?

It would occur to me that you would be even more profitable if you became a tad more selective. No?

The truth is that I'm not giving up my ways because they are profitable. This is just me weighing alternatives and considering consequences of an alternative method. It's the simplicity that is attractive in Leo's method.

Actually, the way I bet, being more selective may not work. I'm in a process of starting to keep records in a database. My working has been too demanding for me to get to it. I'm not ready to give up my day job.

[Capper Al]

I think Leo's method is great for at least 90% of horseplayers. Most of us play lots of races, and don't have the precision to incorporate a "true odds" line, variable wagering, Kelly criterion, or other more complex wagering strategies.

Any method that introduces discipline to one's betting will most likely help, rather than hurt, the bankroll in the long run.

You are right about this method being right for the average fan. What is nice about it is that it allows for the big kill which I haven't been focusing on so far. If one hits three winners in a row, they got $30 bucks on the final kill. For low rollers this is a big one.

[DeltaLover]

Leo' system is a recipe for disaster and nothing more than this. A complete self-weighted 'money management' scheme with guaranteed loosing prospective.

Nothing wrong with been a weekend warrior whatever this implies.

How one is going to bet is more important than handicapping although very few seem to realize it.

It is far better to risk your complete hundred dollars bill in a single race than spreading it in fractions of $10 each.

NO GUTS NO GLORY

That's the name of the game, whether you want to admit it or not....

Conservative and protective betting plans can never strike it big....

The lower your bankroll is the more risk you can tolerate. If your 'bankroll' is only $500, it is just an illusion, it is not real..

You either managed to diminish a real bankroll to this level or simply you are playing with spare money.

If you are not prepared to bet this amount in three or four races then it makes no sense to get involved in endless debates about handicapping topics like speed figures creation...

AGAIN, I am not trolling. I have nothing against a retiree spending his day at the track, resulting to a daily handle of $228 or a rookie who found the best money
management derivative of martingale and decided to use it to make a few bucks, even if he is looking for 'overlays' using Meadow's books !

Actually I welcome their action and I am glad to bet against them.

On the other hand though, I will never seriously consider any kind of horse betting advice given by them since they are completely clueless about this topic...

[thaskalos]

Leo' system is a recipe for disaster and nothing more than this. A complete self-weighted 'money management' scheme with guaranteed loosing prospective.

Nothing wrong with been a weekend warrior whatever this implies.

How one is going to bet is more important than handicapping although very few seem to realize it.

It is far better to risk your complete hundred dollars bill in a single race than spreading it in fractions of $10 each.

NO GUTS NO GLORY

That's the name of the game, whether you want to admit it or not....

Conservative and protective betting plans can never strike it big....

The lower your bankroll is the more risk you can tolerate. If your 'bankroll' is only $500, it is just an illusion, it is not real..

You either managed to diminish a real bankroll to this level or simply you are playing with spare money.

If you are not prepared to bet this amount in three or four races then it makes no sense to get involved in endless debates about handicapping topics like speed figures creation...

AGAIN, I am not trolling. I have nothing against a retiree spending his day at the track, resulting to a daily handle of $228 or a rookie who found the best money
management derivative of martingale and decided to use it to make a few bucks, even if he is looking for 'overlays' using Meadow's books !

Actually I welcome their action and I am glad to bet against them.

On the other hand though, I will never seriously consider any kind of horse betting advice given by them since they are completely clueless about this topic...

It is at the betting window when the men separate themselves from the boys...
:)

[lamboguy]

It is at the betting window when the men separate themselves from the boys...
:)that is the only place that counts baby!

it really doesn't matter how you get to the cashier's window either, when you make it there you better make it count

[Capper Al]

Leo's been gone since 1996. Let's say into today's dollars the base unit is $20.00. With his method for a 10 race card, he would allocate $200.00 for the day. When a low roller steps up to the window going for that third win in a row, he's betting $60.00 on a single race. That's big time for low rollers on a single race. It's also 30% of his pot.

[Capper Al]

The advantage of Leo's approach is that one does not second guess one's self in the "heat of the moment" and wagers consistently. That is considerably better than scrambling. Saturday warrior betting is way different than betting multiple tracks on an everyday basis. The former is more concerned with making a profit on that particular days wagering, while the latter is mostly seeking a long-term profit. The point that many seem to miss is that focusing on profit one day at a time (rather than chasing statistical rainbows) is often far more rewarding in both the short term and the long term .



Absolutely.

[raybo]

I hope one thoroughly tests any handicapping/wagering "system", for merit, before attempting to use it for real money bets. I have serious doubts the wagering system presented will accomplish anything short of big losses. The obviousness of the system tends to make me think it has been tried by many over the years, and if it had any merit at all, that success would be well known by now.

Do you really think that this, and many other, progressive betting system has not already been tried by many?

I'm not trying to be negative, but that's all I can see in this method.

Please convince me I'm wrong, and I'll gladly recant this opinion.

[Magister Ludi]

I didn't know that it was possible to beat "various casino games"...

It's possible to legally attain an edge in virtually every casino game:
...blackjack.............card counting
.............................shuffle tracking
.............................playing with information (front loading)
...craps...................dice control
...roulette...............visual prediction
.............................acoustic prediction
.............................computer prediction
...video poker..........optimal strategy
...casino promotions

I've used all of the above tools (and many more) except for front loading. I'm too tall for that. All of the above tools are far more powerful if used with Kelly Criterion-sized bets. Uncle Leo's betting progression is not optimal.

[teddy]

i think i am going to have one on Christmas Eve day. if you want to contact me i will alter your thought process and put you on the right path.

i might even have another one before that on December 19th. but i need to get the horse in the race and see how another horse runs on December 14th.
Pm me too boss.. last one you gave me won by 20.

[teddy]

that is the only place that counts baby!

it really doesn't matter how you get to the cashier's window either, when you make it there you better make it count
I imagine when im 80 I will have to start walking to the windows before the first race to get there for the late pick 4, But I will make it. The bet will be down baby.

[teddy]

It's possible to legally attain an edge in virtually every casino game:
...blackjack.............card counting
.............................shuffle tracking
.............................playing with information (front loading)
...craps...................dice control
...roulette...............visual prediction
.............................acoustic prediction
.............................computer prediction
...video poker..........optimal strategy
...casino promotions

I've used all of the above tools (and many more) except for front loading. I'm too tall for that. All of the above tools are far more powerful if used with Kelly Criterion-sized bets. Uncle Leo's betting progression is not optimal.

My friend won a MUSTANG last night at the casino. Took the 15k free play offer instead. I think the car would have been better.

THats beating the casino!..

[Magister Ludi]

My friend won a MUSTANG last night at the casino. Took the 15k free play offer instead. I think the car would have been better.

THats beating the casino!..

Many years ago, a casino had a promotion. The tickets for an upcoming concert were selling too slowly. They stamped on the back of the concert tickets "Pay Double for Four [Denomination]". If you bought a ticket and got a four of a kind of that denomination on a video poker machine, you'd get paid double for it. Suddenly, 99.17% Bonus Poker was looking really good when you added another 5% to it for the double quads payoff.

I brought in two fellow advantage players and we went joint bankroll on $5 machines ($25/hand). The "Pay Double for Four Aces" tickets were scarce so we bought hundreds of tickets to make sure that we weren't caught short. After all, $4000 is much better for four aces than $2000, especially when concert tickets were only $10 each. In a few weeks, we made a little more than $100,000 each. I had three royals at $20,000 each.

We heard that something strange happened the day of the concert. The concert was sold out. However, there were only twelve people in the audience! Very mysterious.

[traynor]

I hope one thoroughly tests any handicapping/wagering "system", for merit, before attempting to use it for real money bets. I have serious doubts the wagering system presented will accomplish anything short of big losses. The obviousness of the system tends to make me think it has been tried by many over the years, and if it had any merit at all, that success would be well known by now.

Do you really think that this, and many other, progressive betting system has not already been tried by many?

I'm not trying to be negative, but that's all I can see in this method.

Please convince me I'm wrong, and I'll gladly recant this opinion.

In general, that is really good advice. However, it is definitely not so in regard to Leo's wagering strategy. Bettors who only wager at one track, or who only wager on weekends, or some other limited frame are far less interested in something being statistically proven to be impossible than they are in cashing a few winners.

It is one of the high points of human cognition that if someone sees a way to make a profit fairly simply, motivation to make a greater profit by (possibly) using more complex (and more rigorous) approaches automatically kicks in.

Leo's method has another very strong advantage that Capper Al pointed out above--it gives a modest bettor a chance at a decent (and meaningful) profit. Twiddling thumbs while waiting for long stretches between "bettable races" to squeeze out a modest profit may seem reasonable to bean counters, but--as a number of posters have pointed out recently--there seems little evidence that the bean counters are depleting the mutuel pools.

Just my opinion, of course, and no one should consider this an attempt to solicit postings to try to persuade or convince me otherwise. Taking other people's advice is not one of my strong points.

[thaskalos]

I think Leo's method is great for at least 90% of horseplayers. Most of us play lots of races, and don't have the precision to incorporate a "true odds" line, variable wagering, Kelly criterion, or other more complex wagering strategies.

Any method that introduces discipline to one's betting will most likely help, rather than hurt, the bankroll in the long run.

"ANY" method is not necessarily better than no method at all.

What I see in uncle Leo's method is a sure-fire way to wagering much more on losing bets than on winning ones.

Let's say that uncle Leo bet $10 on an even-money horse, and it won. He parlays the entire $20 collected on the next bet...and it loses. He has placed himself 1 betting unit behind...even though he has won one out of two bets.

Parlay betting has a place in this game...but only when we confine our bets to the more solid horses on the card. Parlaying doesn't work so well when we are betting every race on the card.

When we are betting every race on the card...winners don't come in streaks. Based on my experience, of course...

[traynor]

"ANY" method is not necessarily better than no method at all.

What I see in uncle Leo's method is a sure-fire way to wagering much more on losing bets than on winning ones.

Let's say that uncle Leo bet $10 on an even-money horse, and it won. He parlays the entire $20 collected on the next bet...and it loses. He has placed himself 1 betting unit behind...even though he has won one out of two bets.

Parlay betting has a place in this game...but only when we confine our bets to the more solid horses on the card. Parlaying doesn't work so well when we are betting every race on the card.

When we are betting every race on the card...winners don't come in streaks. Based on my experience, of course...

Assuming, of course, that someone using Leo's wagering strategy rarely wins. In which case he or she might be better off watching reruns on TV than betting on horse races. A bettor who hits a couple of nice winners back to back will see Leo's wagering strategy take on a whole new perspective. The distinction of switching to cold exactas when the win odds drop too low implies that the selections are already solid choices, not flyers.

Again, this is not intended as a "professional-level money management system." It is intended to be a chance for scramblers and occasional bettors to make a profit without a lot of long, involved, agonizing over whatever it is that most bettors agonize over. Should I reverse the exacta, just in case? What about the 7--should I make a small saver bet on the 7 to win so I don't lose it all? Why are so many people betting on the 4? Did I miss something? Three computer programs say the 5 should win, but the fourth says the 2 will win--what to do, what to do?

As for winners not coming in streaks--if that were true, the DD, Pick3, Pick4, Pick6, Twin Exactas, and Twin Trifectas would be dead in the water. That does not seem to be the case.

[thaskalos]

Assuming, of course, that someone using Leo's wagering strategy rarely wins. In which case he or she might be better off watching reruns on TV than betting on horse races. A bettor who hits a couple of nice winners back to back will see Leo's wagering strategy take on a whole new perspective. The distinction of switching to cold exactas when the win odds drop too low implies that the selections are already solid choices, not flyers.

Again, this is not intended as a "professional-level money management system." It is intended to be a chance for scramblers and occasional bettors to make a profit without a lot of long, involved, agonizing over whatever it is that most bettors agonize over. Should I reverse the exacta, just in case? What about the 7--should I make a small saver bet on the 7 to win so I don't lose it all? Why are so many people betting on the 4? Did I miss something? Three computer programs say the 5 should win, but the fourth says the 2 will win--what to do, what to do?

As for winners not coming in streaks--if that were true, the DD, Pick3, Pick4, Pick6, Twin Exactas, and Twin Trifectas would be dead in the water. That does not seem to be the case.

I would engage you in a lengthy debate about this...but you have already stated that you have no interest in such a thing.

So I will just say that the only reason the DD, Pick3, Pick4, Pick6, and Twin Trifectas are still alive and well, is because the bettors are allowed to include more than one horse in each race. If they were forced to select only ONE horse in each race -- or one combination, in the case of the Twin Trifecta -- then these bets would have seen a quick death.

[thaskalos]

The distinction of switching to cold exactas when the win odds drop too low implies that the selections are already solid choices, not flyers.


I wish I could find solid choices in every race...

[Capper Al]

Even money wins should only happen occasionlly. Leo's method has a lot in common with a left pocket/right pocket system that is recommended for the average Joe at the casino. A left pocket/right pocket system starts by putting your money for wagering in your left pocket. Bets are only funded from your left pocket. When Joe wins, the money is put in his right pocket. The left/right allows Joe to have some winning nights and fun. Even if Joe loses, he still should have some money at the end of the night in his right pocket. Leo's system differs only by reinvesting the intial $10.

[raybo]

Even money wins should only happen occasionlly. Leo's method has a lot in common with a left pocket/right pocket system that is recommended for the average Joe at the casino. A left pocket/right pocket system starts by putting your money for wagering in your left pocket. Bets are only funded from your left pocket. When Joe wins, the money is put in his right pocket. The left/right allows Joe to have some winning nights and fun. Even if Joe loses, he still should have some money at the end of the night in his right pocket. Leo's system differs only by reinvesting the intial $10.

Ok, now that you have explained that the system's purpose is to allow the possibility of some winning sessions, I agree that this might do that. So, if your goal is occasional winning days and long term losses, this system is as good, or a bit better than no system at all.

[traynor]

I would engage you in a lengthy debate about this...but you have already stated that you have no interest in such a thing.

So I will just say that the only reason the DD, Pick3, Pick4, Pick6, and Twin Trifectas are still alive and well, is because the bettors are allowed to include more than one horse in each race. If they were forced to select only ONE horse in each race -- or one combination, in the case of the Twin Trifecta -- then these bets would have seen a quick death.

And without even really trying, you may have scored another major point for Leo's wagering method--the tendency to narrow a race down to one major contender, or, in the case low odds selections, two contenders in exact (predicted) order of finish. A useful perspective for many bettors who seem adept at "narrowing a race to three or four major contenders" and then need a computer application to make their final choice(s).

Debates are pointless unless used to increase knowledge, rather than argumentation for the sake of argument, and an opportunity to expound on one's pre-existing position to no useful purpose.

I think you might be surprised at the number of bettors who specialize in "cold" exotics--especially the rolling Pick3--to good advantage. The press is given to the Beyer's and betting syndicates jousting at the windmills of fortune with multiple thousand dollar wagers to catch the big prizes. Makes for exciting reading for those fantasizing such.

[traynor]

Even money wins should only happen occasionlly. Leo's method has a lot in common with a left pocket/right pocket system that is recommended for the average Joe at the casino. A left pocket/right pocket system starts by putting your money for wagering in your left pocket. Bets are only funded from your left pocket. When Joe wins, the money is put in his right pocket. The left/right allows Joe to have some winning nights and fun. Even if Joe loses, he still should have some money at the end of the night in his right pocket. Leo's system differs only by reinvesting the intial $10.

Anyone who has ever been way ahead in the 6th race, and left the track broke, busted, and disgusted after the 9th can well appreciate the wisdom of that strategy. Again, it is not intended for those "playing professionally," nor is it intended to be a panacea for every betting ailment. It is a type of wagering that has resulted in (and will continue to result in) a number of people going home with cash that would otherwise have been tapped out.

Additionally, it still gives those same bettors a shot at a relatively generous profit occasionally, who would otherwise be bored to tears with an "ROI of 1.2" or whatever. Personally, I think there are very few casual (recreational or weekend warrior) bettors who would be willing to waste the time, effort, and expense of a day at the track in hope of earning a 10-15-20% profit to declare themselves "winners."

[raybo]

Anyone who has ever been way ahead in the 6th race, and left the track broke, busted, and disgusted after the 9th can well appreciate the wisdom of that strategy. Again, it is not intended for those "playing professionally," nor is it intended to be a panacea for every betting ailment. It is a type of wagering that has resulted in (and will continue to result in) a number of people going home with cash that would otherwise have been tapped out.

Additionally, it still gives those same bettors a shot at a relatively generous profit occasionally, who would otherwise be bored to tears with an "ROI of 1.2" or whatever. Personally, I think there are very few casual (recreational or weekend warrior) bettors who would be willing to waste the time, effort, and expense of a day at the track in hope of earning a 10-15-20% profit to declare themselves "winners."

Excuse me, but since when was 10-15-or 20% profit unacceptable, or a waste of time? Don't back-pedal now, tell us that you won't accept a profit of that magnitude. Oh heck, never mind, that is peanuts to you, I forgot. :rolleyes:

[traynor]

Excuse me, but since when was 10-15-or 20% profit unacceptable, or a waste of time? Don't back-pedal now, tell us that you won't accept a profit of that magnitude. Oh heck, never mind, that is peanuts to you, I forgot. :rolleyes:

Leo's wagering strategy is (apparently) intended for (and quite suitable for) the overwhelming majority of recreational bettors. That overwhelming majority is relatively unmoved at the thought of a 10-15-20% profit, primarily because of the "cost of admission"--parking, program, DRF, and so on. Unless they are betting relatively "large" amounts, that amount of profit is trivial and not really worth the effort. For recreational bettors, once the overhead costs are deducted, they are lucky to break even with what is (to them) a trivial profit. It is only the hard-core, dedicated gambling addicts who consider the overhead costs as "separate" from the betting fund, so any "profit" can be declared such--whether it is actually profit in the real world or not.

For someone betting online, who has a wagering account, who subscribes to a data service, and who bets substantially more than the typical recreational bettor--both in volume and amount--the same profit margin may seem highly desirable. There has been no suggestion that Leo's wagering method would be suitable for such bettors.

[raybo]

Leo's wagering strategy is (apparently) intended for (and quite suitable for) the overwhelming majority of recreational bettors. That overwhelming majority is relatively unmoved at the thought of a 10-15-20% profit, primarily because of the "cost of admission"--parking, program, DRF, and so on. Unless they are betting relatively "large" amounts, that amount of profit is trivial and not really worth the effort. For recreational bettors, once the overhead costs are deducted, they are lucky to break even with what is (to them) a trivial profit. It is only the hard-core, dedicated gambling addicts who consider the overhead costs as "separate" from the betting fund, so any "profit" can be declared such--whether it is actually profit in the real world or not.

For someone betting online, who has a wagering account, who subscribes to a data service, and who bets substantially more than the typical recreational bettor--both in volume and amount--the same profit margin may seem highly desirable. There has been no suggestion that Leo's wagering method would be suitable for such bettors.

That same "recreational" bettor still has the same overhead, whether he/she wins or loses in their wagering efforts. I doubt they would turn down a profit of any kind, in favor of his/her, more than likely, present unprofitable wagering.

[thaskalos]

Leo's wagering strategy is (apparently) intended for (and quite suitable for) the overwhelming majority of recreational bettors. That overwhelming majority is relatively unmoved at the thought of a 10-15-20% profit, primarily because of the "cost of admission"--parking, program, DRF, and so on. Unless they are betting relatively "large" amounts, that amount of profit is trivial and not really worth the effort. For recreational bettors, once the overhead costs are deducted, they are lucky to break even with what is (to them) a trivial profit. It is only the hard-core, dedicated gambling addicts who consider the overhead costs as "separate" from the betting fund, so any "profit" can be declared such--whether it is actually profit in the real world or not.

For someone betting online, who has a wagering account, who subscribes to a data service, and who bets substantially more than the typical recreational bettor--both in volume and amount--the same profit margin may seem highly desirable. There has been no suggestion that Leo's wagering method would be suitable for such bettors.

There have been posters who have called Leo's method "desirable and suitable for the vast majority of the bettors"...and other's who have said that the method isn't worth the paper it was printed on -- assuming that it was initially printed somewhere.

IMO...the horseplayer is horribly misguided if he spends his time thinking of methods which are designed to make sure that he "comes home with some money in his pocket".

You said previously that the horseplayer who cannot pick consecutive winners would be better served if he stayed home and watched TV reruns...

And I say, that even the recreational player should approach betting with some degree of seriousness...otherwise he would be better off at the casino...where uncle Leo's method would be more effective than it would be at the track.

[lamboguy]

why don't we keep this discussion simple. the takeout on win bets in NYRA racing is 16%, if you are a big player you might be able to score a 4% rebate on your win bet. that means you are paying 12% for the right to play those win pools. in order to win your payoffs need to be able to overcome that percentage. if someone has a better method than the #7 response that i made on this thread, i would like to learn it.

[traynor]

That same "recreational" bettor still has the same overhead, whether he/she wins or loses in their wagering efforts. I doubt they would turn down a profit of any kind, in favor of his/her, more than likely, present unprofitable wagering.

I think the biggest difference is that many recreational bettors have no real compulsion to bet. If they win, they win, and if they lose, they lose. They are unlikely to be risking enough money that a small percentage profit would be persuasive. Or even interesting.

That may be difficult to understand for those who think any profit is meaningful. For recreational bettors, in many cases the time and effort expended make relatively trivial profit margins meaningless.

[traynor]

There have been posters who have called Leo's method "desirable and suitable for the vast majority of the bettors"...and other's who have said that the method isn't worth the paper it was printed on -- assuming that it was initially printed somewhere.

IMO...the horseplayer is horribly misguided if he spends his time thinking of methods which are designed to make sure that he "comes home with some money in his pocket".

You said previously that the horseplayer who cannot pick consecutive winners would be better served if he stayed home and watched TV reruns...

And I say, that even the recreational player should approach betting with some degree of seriousness...otherwise he would be better off at the casino...where uncle Leo's method would be more effective than it would be at the track.

It is precisely that ponderous, weighty seriousness that makes recreational betting on horse races (in most cases) so boring. That is in stark contrast to the PA link a few days ago on the efforts of the HKJC to attract new bettors. Sha Tin and Happy Valley seem to have little trouble attracting large crowds of eager fans willing to wager vigorously (and happily).

[raybo]

I think the biggest difference is that many recreational bettors have no real compulsion to bet. If they win, they win, and if they lose, they lose. They are unlikely to be risking enough money that a small percentage profit would be persuasive. Or even interesting.

That may be difficult to understand for those who think any profit is meaningful. For recreational bettors, in many cases the time and effort expended make relatively trivial profit margins meaningless.

Ok, so you're saying that entertainment is entertainment, regardless of the cost of that entertainment. In your opinion, those players would not rather get that entertainment, for free?

Regardless of your response, I'm now convinced you have led a far too protected life, and have completely lost contact with reality.

[thaskalos]

It is precisely that ponderous, weighty seriousness that makes recreational betting on horse races (in most cases) so boring. That is in stark contrast to the PA link a few days ago on the efforts of the HKJC to attract new bettors. Sha Tin and Happy Valley seem to have little trouble attracting large crowds of eager fans willing to wager vigorously (and happily).

It isn't I who demands that the game be taken seriously; the onerous takeout demands it.

There is no profit in this game for the frolicsome player...short or long term.

[traynor]

why don't we keep this discussion simple. the takeout on win bets in NYRA racing is 16%, if you are a big player you might be able to score a 4% rebate on your win bet. that means you are paying 12% for the right to play those win pools. in order to win your payoffs need to be able to overcome that percentage. if someone has a better method than the #7 response that i made on this thread, i would like to learn it.

I don't understand why you think anyone is "paying 12% for the right to play those win pools." That type of logic may be good marketing strategy for rebate shops (implying the only reason bettors are losing is the "unfair takeout" on the amount they "should get"), but little else. The best solution to "overcome the takeout" is to pick more winners at better prices.

[thaskalos]

The best solution to "overcome the takeout" is to pick more winners at better prices.

Very profound...:ThmbUp:

[traynor]

Ok, so you're saying that entertainment is entertainment, regardless of the cost of that entertainment. In your opinion, those players would not rather get that entertainment, for free?

Regardless of your response, I'm now convinced you have led a far too protected life, and have completely lost contact with reality.

One thing I learned a long, long time ago is that success in business depends on pursuing dollars, not nickels and dimes. That applies equally to betting on horse races. Obsessing over trivial "profit" is what keeps the poor people poor, and the rich people rich.

[raybo]

One thing I learned a long, long time ago is that success in business depends on pursuing dollars, not nickels and dimes. That applies equally to betting on horse races. Obsessing over trivial "profit" is what keeps the poor people poor, and the rich people rich.

And yet, most businesses operate on profit margins far less than 10-15-or 20% profit.

You're digging yourself a hole, make sure you don't fall in.

[thaskalos]

One thing I learned a long, long time ago is that success in business depends on pursuing dollars, not nickels and dimes. That applies equally to betting on horse races. Obsessing over trivial "profit" is what keeps the poor people poor, and the rich people rich.

I don't know about that...

You've scoffed at the horseplayer's 20% ROI...even though that sort of edge can be rolled over into a truly outstanding yearly return.

Warren Buffett became the wealthiest man in the world...by compounding only a 26% yearly return.

But the horseplayer wants to "bet a little to win a lot"...

Good luck...

[Capper Al]

One thing I learned a long, long time ago is that success in business
depends on pursuing dollars, not nickels and dimes. That applies equally to betting on horse races. Obsessing over trivial "profit" is what keeps the poor people poor, and the rich people rich.

So right! Before I was profitable, I funded my online wagering account with $50 a month. I would play online contests for action while studying the game. I would have never became profitable had I obsessed over trivial profit.

[traynor]

And yet, most businesses operate on profit margins far less than 10-15-or 20% profit.

You're digging yourself a hole, make sure you don't fall in.

Not at all. Most businesses failures are attributable to expending too much effort for too little return. A profit margin of a few percentage points is all well and good if it is net profit on a high volume. It is not so good if the major activity of the business is chasing nickels and dimes--in which case that business is unlikely to show any profit at all.

[Capper Al]

Why are some having a hard time with this wagering system? It would be a great system for a novice going along with you to the track for a day's outing. There hasn't been any claims made for long term profits. The system is simple to implement for the novice, and he has an avenue to get lucky and make some money. Plus if he should cash 2 or 3 races out of a 10 race card, he'll have some money in his right pocket which should be the case even on a losing day. For me, I cherish the simplicity of it. Wish there was a profitable version as simple. And let's not forget, if you're not picking them you are not going to make any money with any system in the long run.

[traynor]

I don't know about that...

You've scoffed at the horseplayer's 20% ROI...even though that sort of edge can be rolled over into a truly outstanding yearly return.

Warren Buffett became the wealthiest man in the world...by compounding only a 26% yearly return.

But the horseplayer wants to "bet a little to win a lot"...

Good luck...

Yup. "Slow and steady wins the race." The tortoise and the hare. Got it all. Don't make waves, keep your head down, work hard, and eventually you will be successful. Free advice is worthless because you get what you pay for. Of such cliches are many strategies born.

I think anyone who wants to bet on the slowest horse in a horse race because it is "slow but steady" would be foolish. The same thing applies to any other type of business, including betting on horse races.

I seem to recall Beyer saying something to the effect that he had never encountered a single professional bettor who was a bean counter--that virtually every successful professional he knew attributed their yearly profits to a relatively small number of major scores--not a bean counter grind.

[thaskalos]

Why are some having a hard time with this wagering system? It would be a great system for a novice going along with you to the track for a day's outing. There hasn't been any claims made for long term profits. The system is simple to implement for the novice, and he has an avenue to get lucky and make some money. Plus if he should cash 2 or 3 races out of a 10 race card, he'll have some money in his right pocket which should be the case even on a losing day. For me, I cherish the simplicity of it. Wish there was a profitable version as simple. And let's not forget, if you're not picking them you are not going to make any money with any system in the long run.

Maybe some of us are having a hard time with this method, because we can't see how this is preferable to simple flat betting.

Unless you think it's a simple matter for novices to pick two and three winners in a row...

[Capper Al]

Maybe some of us are having a hard time with this method, because we can't see how this is preferable to simple flat betting.

Unless you think it's a simple matter for novices to pick two and three winners in a row...

The trackman has been know to hit two in a row

[thaskalos]

The trackman has been know to hit two in a row

Is he a novice?

[raybo]

The trackman has been know to hit two in a row


The system you are proposing is to bet every race, if you win, add $10 to the bet and bet it on the next race. That means that if you have a winner in the first race, that just happened to be a truly good bet, you're saying bet $10 more on the very next race, where the bet might be a truly terrible bet. You're saying that just because you win a race, the very next race is worth a larger bet. That sounds close to insane to me.

Now, if you're picking races to bet, based on a very good ability to determine wagering value, that's a different story. But, in that case, your perceived determination of value would still have to be very good, in reality.

However, since you've already stated that there is no long term positive expectation to your endeavor, then go for it. You'd do just as well betting random numbers, probably.

[thaskalos]

Yup. "Slow and steady wins the race." The tortoise and the hare. Got it all. Don't make waves, keep your head down, work hard, and eventually you will be successful. Free advice is worthless because you get what you pay for. Of such cliches are many strategies born.

I think anyone who wants to bet on the slowest horse in a horse race because it is "slow but steady" would be foolish. The same thing applies to any other type of business, including betting on horse races.

I seem to recall Beyer saying something to the effect that he had never encountered a single professional bettor who was a bean counter--that virtually every successful professional he knew attributed their yearly profits to a relatively small number of major scores--not a bean counter grind.

I love listening to some of you guys.

You have supposedly analyzed hundreds of thousands of races in order to validate your "significant" edge on various gambling games...and yet, you are unwilling to grind that edge into significant profits...because it's too "boring". It's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.

I happen to have lived in the gambling world for a while now too...and I have seen first-hand what happens to the more "flamboyant" players...

There is nothing wrong with grinding...if your edge on the game is "real" rather than imagined. Just look at the casino...the greatest grinder of them all.

You are fast becoming the king of contradiction, my friend...

On the one hand...you instruct novices never to place a wager unless they have proven conclusively to themselves that they are winners.

But then...you suggest that they follow simplistic progression methods, which cannot possibly improve their bottom lines.

You disparage handicapping authors...and ridicule those who read their books...and yet you will mention Beyer favorably whenever you feel his statements support your view -- even though in this case, they don't.

Consistency is not your strong suit...

[Capper Al]

The system you are proposing is to bet every race, if you win, add $10 to the bet and bet it on the next race. That means that if you have a winner in the first race, that just happened to be a truly good bet, you're saying bet $10 more on the very next race, where the bet might be a truly terrible bet. You're saying that just because you win a race, the very next race is worth a larger bet. That sounds close to insane to me.

Now, if you're picking races to bet, based on a very good ability to determine wagering value, that's a different story. But, in that case, your perceived determination of value would still have to be very good, in reality.

However, since you've already stated that there is no long term positive expectation to your endeavor, then go for it. You'd do just as well betting random numbers, probably.

How is a novice tagging along for a day at the races is going to distinguish between a good bet and q not so good bet?

[Capper Al]

Is he a novice?

Actially, Leo didn't do too bad.

[thaskalos]

How is a novice tagging along for a day at the races is going to distinguish between a good bet and q not so good bet?

Ah...is that who we are talking about now? The "novice player tagging along for a day at the races"?

I thought this wagering method was deemed "great" for 90% of the horseplayers out there.

Isn't that what Hoofless Wonder suggested...and you and Traynor followed right along?

[thaskalos]

I seem to recall Beyer saying something to the effect that he had never encountered a single professional bettor who was a bean counter--that virtually every successful professional he knew attributed their yearly profits to a relatively small number of major scores--not a bean counter grind.

I am not a grinder either...but only because I don't have what it takes to become a profitable one.

If I had a sure-fire, varifiable edge on this game...then I would be a grinder too; and so would Beyer.

We swing for the fences because that's the only way that works for us.

[traynor]

I love listening to some of you guys.

You have supposedly analyzed hundreds of thousands of races in order to validate your "significant" edge on various gambling games...and yet, you are unwilling to grind that edge into significant profits...because it's too "boring". It's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.

I happen to have lived in the gambling world for a while now too...and I have seen first-hand what happens to the more "flamboyant" players...

There is nothing wrong with grinding...if your edge on the game is "real" rather than imagined. Just look at the casino...the greatest grinder of them all.

You are fast becoming the king of contradiction, my friend...

On the one hand...you instruct novices never to place a wager unless they have proven conclusively to themselves that they are winners.

But then...you suggest that they follow simplistic progression methods, which cannot possibly improve their bottom lines.

You disparage handicapping authors...and ridicule those who read their books...and yet you will mention Beyer favorably whenever you feel his statements support your view -- even though in this case, they don't.

Consistency is not your strong suit...

I really think you might do better if you spent a bit more time reading what is actually written, and spent less time devising your reponses. The topic is Leo's wagering strategy, and the use of that strategy by weekend warrior bettors--recreational, casual, one-track bettors, more than likely at the track.

There is little or no relationship between the scenario above and a "serious bettor."

I do not instruct novices.

Many place handicapping writers--especially Ainslie and Beyer--on a pedestal of expertise. Because I don't consider such authors as revealing Ultimate Truth has no bearing on whether or not they may occasionally write or say something I agree with.

[traynor]

Ah...is that who we are talking about now? The "novice player tagging along for a day at the races"?

I thought this wagering method was deemed "great" for 90% of the horseplayers out there.

Isn't that what Hoofless Wonder suggested...and you and Traynor followed right along?

Perhaps we are discussing different topics? My assumption was that Leo's wagering strategy was useful for recreational bettors. That does not exclude, but definitely does not imply a designation of, a novice bettor.

[traynor]

I am not a grinder either...but only because I don't have what it takes to become a profitable one.

If I had a sure-fire, varifiable edge on this game...then I would be a grinder too; and so would Beyer.

We swing for the fences because that's the only way that works for us.

I agree wholeheartedly. In a kinder, gentler world perhaps, one could do both.

[thaskalos]

I really think you might do better if you spent a bit more time reading what is actually written, and spent less time devising your reponses. The topic is Leo's wagering strategy, and the use of that strategy by weekend warrior bettors--recreational, casual, one-track bettors, more than likely at the track.

There is little or no relationship between the scenario above and a "serious bettor."

I do not instruct novices.

Many place handicapping writers--especially Ainslie and Beyer--on a pedestal of expertise. Because I don't consider such authors as revealing Ultimate Truth has no bearing on whether or not they may occasionally write or say something I agree with.

I thought that this discussion was about Leo's method too...until I read your reply #65 -- which had nothing at all to do with Leo's method.

[Capper Al]

Leo did well with his system. Win or lose he alway had a clear head about him. He wasn't a novice.

[traynor]

I thought that this discussion was about Leo's method too...until I read your reply #65 -- which had nothing at all to do with Leo's method.

It sure did. Leo's wagering strategy (from my limited understanding of it) is the antithesis of the bean counter mentality that seems so prevalent (and so opposed) to such a strategy. (BTW, I am not implying that I think you have a bean counter mentality. I think--as I have always thought--that you are one of the more rational people posting on this site. I don't agree with many of your points, but that has nothing to do with it.)

[traynor]

Leo did well with his system. Win or lose he alway had a clear head about him. He wasn't a novice.

I never knew Leo, but I have known (and know) a number of recreational bettors, and even a few semi-serious bettors who have used a similar (or identical) approach for years, and are quite happy with the results.

[Capper Al]

I never knew Leo, but I have known (and know) a number of recreational bettors, and even a few semi-serious bettors who have used a similar (or identical) approach for years, and are quite happy with the results.

We used to play harness back then. This makes Leo's system even better because it's a little easier to pick winners, so you'll hit more in a row. I was a $2.00 bettor, but would outlay about $10 myself with wheeling and hedging. When Leo would lay down $10 on a horse's nose, I was in awe. He did have some very good nights. I miss him. He was a lot of fun at the track.

[dkithore]

[QUOTE=traynor]Yup. "Slow and steady wins the race." The tortoise and the hare. Got it all. Don't make waves, keep your head down, work hard, and eventually you will be successful. Free advice is worthless because you get what you pay for. Of such cliches are many strategies born.

I think anyone who wants to bet on the slowest horse in a horse race because it is "slow but steady" would be foolish. The same thing applies to any other type of business, including betting on horse races.

/QUOTE]

I have seen to my dismay/joy a slow horse (relatively speaking) win the race given a right pace scenario and at juicy payoff. The key is to have the keen sense of knowing of course, how the pace makes the race.

[Greyfox]

I have seen to my dismay/joy a slow horse (relatively speaking) win the race given a right pace scenario and at juicy payoff. The key is to have the keen sense of knowing of course, how the pace makes the race.

True. A few times a week boomers of that nature can come in after those who've competed are tired and wearying down the stretch.
But betting those animals is not the way to go.
Remember what Damon Runyan said:
“The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.”

[raybo]

How is a novice tagging along for a day at the races is going to distinguish between a good bet and q not so good bet?

That was my point. Why would you bet twice as much, than the previous race , if you don't know there's more value?

[eurocapper]

I suppose it might make sense with some intuitive handicapping approach, since then one is handicapping the handicapper.

[Capper Al]

[QUOTE=traynor]Yup. "Slow and steady wins the race." The tortoise and the hare. Got it all. Don't make waves, keep your head down, work hard, and eventually you will be successful. Free advice is worthless because you get what you pay for. Of such cliches are many strategies born.

I think anyone who wants to bet on the slowest horse in a horse race because it is "slow but steady" would be foolish. The same thing applies to any other type of business, including betting on horse races.

/QUOTE]

I have seen to my dismay/joy a slow horse (relatively speaking) win the race given a right pace scenario and at juicy payoff. The key is to have the keen sense of knowing of course, how the pace makes the race.

You are off topic for this thread. Did you notice that the discussion was on a wagering method? Greyfox jumped in also. Are you two lost or just angry?

[Greyfox]

[QUOTE=dkithore]

You are off topic for this thread. Did you notice that the discussion was on a wagering method? Greyfox jumped in also. Are you two lost or just angry?

Really?
dkithore was commenting on a comment that Traynor said. It was about wagering.
I was commenting on dkithore's contribution. It was about wagering too.
The thread is about Leo's wagering method.
Both posts were about wagering, albeit with no mention of Leo.
If you are going to try to police the thread for slight divergences like dkithore's and my contributions, I wish you well.
Your question above asking about whether either of us are lost or just angry,
would really throw this thread off topic if I were to answer it so I won't.

[Capper Al]

I suppose it might make sense with some intuitive handicapping approach, since then one is handicapping the handicapper.

It's the simplicity of the system. It might enchance the experience for the newbee.

[dkithore]

[QUOTE=dkithore]

You are off topic for this thread. Did you notice that the discussion was on a wagering method? Greyfox jumped in also. Are you two lost or just angry?

You are right. My apology.

[RaceBookJoe]

It's the simplicity of the system. It might enchance the experience for the newbee.

I have read all of Lou Holloway's stuff, and was also a big believer in raising wagers after a winner, even more so when already in the profit zone.

[Capper Al]

[QUOTE=Capper Al]

You are right. My apology.

No problem. I only mentioned it because it was about the third time that it happened. It's easy enough to do.

[Capper Al]

I have read all of Lou Holloway's stuff, and was also a big believer in raising wagers after a winner, even more so when already in the profit zone.

Leo used to say that incrementing the wager while you are hitting them is a good thing because you're seeing them right. And he would have his streaks. Must have been someting to it.

[traynor]

That was my point. Why would you bet twice as much, than the previous race , if you don't know there's more value?

There is a big difference between thinking there is value in a wager and knowing there is value in a wager. The latter is rare, while everyone seems to think he or she knows there is "value" in some bet or other, with little or no real world proof of that fact beyond (quite likely erroneous) preconceived notions of "value."

The advantage of Leo's wagering strategy is that it completely bypasses such silliness. That advantage, of course, is because Leo's strategy bypasses all those times that one (erroneously) believes that a particular wager "has value" or "lacks value" and does or does not wager accordingly. It eliminates second-guessing one's self with an inflated belief in one's predictive abilities (divining the outcome of this one specific race) and also eliminates indecision about what, how, and how much to wager. That is major clout for recreational or casual bettors.

[traynor]

I think there may be some misunderstanding about Leo's wagering strategy, based on "adding $10 to the previous bet." Some may be confusing the strategy with one used in various casino games, usually called "pressing." The difference is that in pressing, one rebets the amount of the previous win AND adds $10. After a win of a $10 bet using Leo's wagering strategy, the next bet is $20--NOT $30 or more, depending on how much was won on the previous bet. That is, the bet after a win is the same amount that would otherwise have been bet, with the addition of the original $10 "returned" by the win. The profit is still profit.

It seems some are equating Leo's wagering strategy with reckless abandon. It is actually quite conservative, and only slightly different than flat win bets, with a much better shot at earning a handy profit. Specifically, the "$10 added after a win" does not come out of pocket, nor does it alter the bankroll for the day (for example, $100 spread over 10 races at $10).

[thaskalos]

There is a big difference between thinking there is value in a wager and knowing there is value in a wager. The latter is rare, while everyone seems to think he or she knows there is "value" in some bet or other, with little or no real world proof of that fact beyond (quite likely erroneous) preconceived notions of "value."

The advantage of Leo's wagering strategy is that it completely bypasses such silliness. That advantage, of course, is because Leo's strategy bypasses all those times that one (erroneously) believes that a particular wager "has value" or "lacks value" and does or does not wager accordingly. It eliminates second-guessing one's self with an inflated belief in one's predictive abilities (divining the outcome of this one specific race) and also eliminates indecision about what, how, and how much to wager. That is major clout for recreational or casual bettors.
What makes you think that determining "value" and deciding how much to wager is such a major stumbling block for casual players?

The casual players that I know pick a horse that they like...and flat-bet it if it is offered at or beyond a pre-determined odds point.

The casual players may have problems when it comes to separating contenders...but they don't appear to me to have problems determining how much to bet on the horses that they choose.

Value determination and bet sizing appear to me to be the more advanced player's problem.

[Capper Al]

I think there may be some misunderstanding about Leo's wagering strategy, based on "adding $10 to the previous bet." Some may be confusing the strategy with one used in various casino games, usually called "pressing." The difference is that in pressing, one rebets the amount of the previous win AND adds $10. After a win of a $10 bet using Leo's wagering strategy, the next bet is $20--NOT $30 or more, depending on how much was won on the previous bet. That is, the bet after a win is the same amount that would otherwise have been bet, with the addition of the original $10 "returned" by the win. The profit is still profit.

It seems some are equating Leo's wagering strategy with reckless abandon. It is actually quite conservative, and only slightly different than flat win bets, with a much better shot at earning a handy profit. Specifically, the "$10 added after a win" does not come out of pocket, nor does it alter the bankroll for the day (for example, $100 spread over 10 races at $10).

Exactly. If you have a newbie tagging along with you, you could simply ask him how much is he comfortable with to lose for the day. You then divide the amount of races on the card, and he has his unit bet. The newbie actually is getting mentored without knowing it. He's being taught discpline from the get go.

[Capper Al]

What makes you think that determining "value" and deciding how much to wager is such a major stumbling block for casual players?

The casual players that I know pick a horse that they like...and flat-bet it if it is offered at or beyond a pre-determined odds point.

The casual players may have problems when it comes to separating contenders...but they don't appear to me to have problems determining how much to bet on the horses that they choose.

Value determination and bet sizing appear to me to be the more advanced player's problem.

Actually, I make my money betting that the public doesn't know the value of a horse more than I know the value of a horse.

[thaskalos]

Actually, I make my money betting that the public doesn't know the value of a horse more than I know the value of a horse.
Al, I am a very agreeable person...and I believe everything you tell me.

If you and uncle Leo say that it is possible to be profitable in this game even though you bet on every race on the card...I have no reason to disbelieve you. But I must insist that both of you must be proficient players, otherwise you couldn't pull it off.

Betting every race is a TERRIBLE idea, when you are a casual player...no matter HOW you wager your money.

When players tell me that they must bet every race...I send them to the casino. It's less dangerous over there...

[DeltaLover]

Exactly. If you have a newbie tagging along with you, you could simply ask him how much is he comfortable with to lose for the day. You then divide the amount of races on the card, and he has his unit bet. The newbie actually is getting mentored without knowing it. He's being taught discpline from the get go.


Is the objective to play as many races as possible?

I do not thing so...

Assuming the newbie operates in a small 'bankroll', instead of dividing by the number of races of the day, I would rather find the two best bargains I can find in the card and parlay the whole amount on them.

In my opinion the advice of splitting this 'bankroll' to many small equal increments if the worst you can give.

[Capper Al]

Is the objective to play as many races as possible?

I do not thing so...

Assuming the newbie operates in a small 'bankroll', instead of dividing by the number of races of the day, I would rather find the two best bargains I can find in the card and parlay the whole amount on them.

In my opinion the advice of splitting this 'bankroll' to many small equal increments if the worst you can give.

You might be forgetting about being new to the game. One needs to make those bets and lose. There's no other way to learn. The more experience one gets the more opportunity to learn.

[Capper Al]

Al, I am a very agreeable person...and I believe everything you tell me.

If you and uncle Leo say that it is possible to be profitable in this game even though you bet on every race on the card...I have no reason to disbelieve you. But I must insist that both of you must be proficient players, otherwise you couldn't pull it off.

Betting every race is a TERRIBLE idea, when you are a casual player...no matter HOW you wager your money.

When players tell me that they must bet every race...I send them to the casino. It's less dangerous over there...

I did it at Arlington with the PA crowd. PKTruckDriver out handicapped me, but in the end I had a very good day and he lost money. For me, it's all about picking contenders not winners.

[Capper Al]

Al, I am a very agreeable person...and I believe everything you tell me.

If you and uncle Leo say that it is possible to be profitable in this game even though you bet on every race on the card...I have no reason to disbelieve you. But I must insist that both of you must be proficient players, otherwise you couldn't pull it off.

Betting every race is a TERRIBLE idea, when you are a casual player...no matter HOW you wager your money.

When players tell me that they must bet every race...I send them to the casino. It's less dangerous over there...

BTW, you owe a dinner at Greek Town. Anyway, I want you to know that I'm in agreement that I should skip races. I just can't find a way to do it. I handicap 6 to 10 races a Saturday. That's it for the week. Skipping a race is just too painful.

[DeltaLover]

Skipping a race is just too painful.

This is sad but 100% truth

[eurocapper]

It's the simplicity of the system. It might enchance the experience for the newbee.

Maybe quinella betting might also be an option. Not as demanding as an exacta and no hedging like in two winner betting or exacta boxes.

[therussmeister]

Is the objective to play as many races as possible?

I do not thing so...

Assuming the newbie operates in a small 'bankroll', instead of dividing by the number of races of the day, I would rather find the two best bargains I can find in the card and parlay the whole amount on them.

In my opinion the advice of splitting this 'bankroll' to many small equal increments if the worst you can give.

You are assuming the object of the casual player is to maximize profits. Very often this isn't the case. Indeed it may not be a very high priority to be profitable at all. They just want to do a little socializing and have a little fun, and sitting on their hands isn't very much fun to them.

[DeltaLover]

You are assuming the object of the casual player is to maximize profits. Very often this isn't the case. Indeed it may not be a very high priority to be profitable at all. They just want to do a little socializing and have a little fun, and sitting on their hands isn't very much fun to them.

OK, I understand this and I also thing it is correct most of the time...

In the other hand though, this mentality is no good neither for the newbie nor for the game itself:

Most if not all of us, who eventually became horse racing addicts, up to the point to spend the majority of our off track time on the PA forums, at some point during our early exposure to the game we experienced a big win which multiplied our interest and the desire to understand and learn more about it..

Had we followed a self weighted approach like the one described by uncle Leo, yes we would not have been hurt a lot based in its build in conservatism but on the other hand chances are that relatively soon we would have had enough from the game and either completely stop playing it or wait for the big days to place some bets..

[InControlX]

Capper Al,

Thanks for sharing Leo's concept.

I think the late Leo's method has merit. The straight exacta backup for the even money picks solves the old diminishing returns problem, and the increment parlay can pay off nicely when a "boom" is hit. For 2000 wagers a year at 30% winning ratio (for discussion purposes) the typical boom is around six (while the bust is 18). Getting a few chance higher odds finishers in the boom streak would be very rewarding.

I'm going to compare Leo's approach to my usual % bankroll win betting over the past year and see what would have happened.

ICX

[CincyHorseplayer]

I'll try to explain this without it being a complete mess,bear with me if possible.

Reading Mitchell's Common Sense Betting last fall I was impressed by his suggestion that having a hybrid approach that maximizes profit while reducing the possibility of tapout was the way to go.He recommended a 50% Kelly Criterion/Constant Percentage betting approach.The 50% of KC was meant to cover both ideas as the CP was meant to bet more while winning and less while losing.That latter is what this thread reminded me of.

If my average muuel on win wagers was 3.5-1(which it actually was,9.50 and 9.47 the last 2 years),and my hit rate both years combined was 28%,then I calculate;

Edge=.28(hit rate) x 3.5(mutuel)-.72(losing rate)=.26 edge

Edge divided by odds=.0742857 is optimal bet divided by 50%=.037

Just for projection's sake I rounded down to 3%.

I didn't think I could project the ups and downs with constant percentage so what I did was broke the bets down into 5,100 bet sequences before the bet was increased assuming the overall proficiency just to see what the difference was between flat betting and the above.

The difference in profit from the above and flatbetting was over 4.5-1.I'm sure the more you bet eventually decreases the mutuel but this way was impressively more profitable and somewhat echoes the original idea I think.

[Capper Al]

I'll try to explain this without it being a complete mess,bear with me if possible.

Reading Mitchell's Common Sense Betting last fall I was impressed by his suggestion that having a hybrid approach that maximizes profit while reducing the possibility of tapout was the way to go.He recommended a 50% Kelly Criterion/Constant Percentage betting approach.The 50% of KC was meant to cover both ideas as the CP was meant to bet more while winning and less while losing.That latter is what this thread reminded me of.

If my average muuel on win wagers was 3.5-1(which it actually was,9.50 and 9.47 the last 2 years),and my hit rate both years combined was 28%,then I calculate;

Edge=.28(hit rate) x 3.5(mutuel)-.72(losing rate)=.26 edge

Edge divided by odds=.0742857 is optimal bet divided by 50%=.037

Just for projection's sake I rounded down to 3%.

I didn't think I could project the ups and downs with constant percentage so what I did was broke the bets down into 5,100 bet sequences before the bet was increased assuming the overall proficiency just to see what the difference was between flat betting and the above.

The difference in profit from the above and flatbetting was over 4.5-1.I'm sure the more you bet eventually decreases the mutuel but this way was impressively more profitable and somewhat echoes the original idea I think.

Remember this is only meant to be a beginners method until they find their way and what works for them.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Remember this is only meant to be a beginners method until they find their way and what works for them.

I know Al.I thought I saw some philosophical similarities.Leo's idea intrigued me.Overall I just think that Mitchell's approach maximized profit in a similar manner.In his brief description on Constant Percentage betting he said that it could outperform flat betting by nearly 13 times as much.I thought that increasing profits 450%+ simply by increasing the % after 100 bets was impressive enough.My hit/mutuel numbers have remained steady for a few years,I can't wait to see how this performs in 2013.

[Capper Al]

I know Al.I thought I saw some philosophical similarities.Leo's idea intrigued me.Overall I just think that Mitchell's approach maximized profit in a similar manner.In his brief description on Constant Percentage betting he said that it could outperform flat betting by nearly 13 times as much.I thought that increasing profits 450%+ simply by increasing the % after 100 bets was impressive enough.My hit/mutuel numbers have remained steady for a few years,I can't wait to see how this performs in 2013.

If I'm hearing you right, your method increases profits. Then why even look at Leo's method? Mitchell's variable increment method by percentage or Leo's by a flat static increment aren't new. I've seen studies on both. If you get lucky with Mitchell's, one can make a lot of money. The problem is that one can tap out and lose their money faster with Mitchell's. And I won't what a newbie getting overwhelmed at the window figuring out his horses and his percentages for a wager. Leo's method is just easy. And both Mitchell and Leo play on the same premise, increase your bet when you are seeing them right.

[InControlX]

This is a follow-up on my test of Leo's method vs. the %-bankroll win betting I've been settled on.

Per usual, no easy answers in handicapping. It appears that the majority of the gain in my run of Leo's method is made by the occasional and infrequent high value exacta hit as with most methods using exotics. This means that the period of review is critical. Although 2% better than straight % bankroll on eleven months, delete one exacta win and it's less. Who said this was simple?

ICX

[Johnny V]

There is nothing wrong with Leo's method and I think it is not only pretty good but a much better disciplined approach than most all of the haphazard betting going on at the track by newbies and recreational type weekend players.
A set amount to risk for the day with a chance to have a very good day with a few winners is the basis for a sound betting method for the beginner IMO. Actually it would serve well many of the daily so called "experienced" players as well in some cases.

[CincyHorseplayer]

If I'm hearing you right, your method increases profits. Then why even look at Leo's method? Mitchell's variable increment method by percentage or Leo's by a flat static increment aren't new. I've seen studies on both. If you get lucky with Mitchell's, one can make a lot of money. The problem is that one can tap out and lose their money faster with Mitchell's. And I won't what a newbie getting overwhelmed at the window figuring out his horses and his percentages for a wager. Leo's method is just easy. And both Mitchell and Leo play on the same premise, increase your bet when you are seeing them right.

I don't know how you reached that conclusion about tapout.If 3% bets are the base,Leo is suggesting betting 6% after a win and 9% after 2 wins.Plus Mitchell is suggesting constant percentage based on fluctuation of bankroll,so the % base will always be the same,whereas it will be inordinately high out of the gate using Leo's method,increasing tapout possibilities,or if it survives and grows,will underachieve if the denomination doesn't increase with bankroll size.All I was saying is that what I think I picked up from Mitchell is similar to the profit idea by Leo,but is more efficient in accomplishing that goal.At least in my opinion Al.

[thaskalos]

I am a little confused by what is meant by the term "casual horseplayer"...and what this person's frame of mind is.

Is the casual horseplayer really a person who has come to grips with the fact that he will never be able to at least break even in this game, so he can at least enjoy it as a hobby at little or no cost...and who is now resigned to looking for ways to make sure that he at least comes home "with a little money in his pocket" rather than coming home broke?

Is the casual horseplayer still interested in improving himself as a player...or is he just a habitual loser, who is just looking for reasons to continue playing this game...even if it's at a sizable cost?

[Greyfox]

I am a little confused by what is meant by the term "casual horseplayer"...?

Good question. There are likely dozens of types of casual players.

For example I know one lady and her family go for dinner at the races 3 times a year. They wouldn't want anything to do with Leo's system. They are there for fun evenings. If they win, they win. If they don't that doesn't bother them either as long as the meal was good.
I know other players who drop in once a month or so just to socialize.
It's doubtful that they'd have any use for Leo's system either.
I can understand how you are confused by the term.
Leo wasn't a newbie and he likely was not a casual player.
The system Capper Al is talking about is not designed for most of the newbies or casual players that I know.
It seems designed for someone with a reasonable knowledge of handicapping and someone who wants to stick with a betting plan.
Newbies and casual players are not in that realm.
So the obvious question becomes how come Capper Al isn't playing with this system?
Or if he is, what were the results?

[Capper Al]

This is a follow-up on my test of Leo's method vs. the %-bankroll win betting I've been settled on.

Per usual, no easy answers in handicapping. It appears that the majority of the gain in my run of Leo's method is made by the occasional and infrequent high value exacta hit as with most methods using exotics. This means that the period of review is critical. Although 2% better than straight % bankroll on eleven months, delete one exacta win and it's less. Who said this was simple?

ICX

It's virual is that it's an easy wagering method to implement.

[Capper Al]

There is nothing wrong with Leo's method and I think it is not only pretty good but a much better disciplined approach than most all of the haphazard betting going on at the track by newbies and recreational type weekend players.
A set amount to risk for the day with a chance to have a very good day with a few winners is the basis for a sound betting method for the beginner IMO. Actually it would serve well many of the daily so called "experienced" players as well in some cases.

There are time when I get all twisted in exotics and just wonder why do I make wagering so complicated. It really is a good wagering system to start out with.

[Capper Al]

I don't know how you reached that conclusion about tapout.If 3% bets are the base,Leo is suggesting betting 6% after a win and 9% after 2 wins.Plus Mitchell is suggesting constant percentage based on fluctuation of bankroll,so the % base will always be the same,whereas it will be inordinately high out of the gate using Leo's method,increasing tapout possibilities,or if it survives and grows,will underachieve if the denomination doesn't increase with bankroll size.All I was saying is that what I think I picked up from Mitchell is similar to the profit idea by Leo,but is more efficient in accomplishing that goal.At least in my opinion Al.

Cincy,

Quirin in the back of his book 'Winning at the Races' runs simulations of various types of wagering systems. He does do percentage increase. All wagering systems for the average good handicapper will still should a certain percentage of tapeouts. So will Leo's. Some are more extreme with a higher percent of tapeouts but with more chances to make a lot of money. Leo used his at harness where the percentage of picking winners is higher.

[Capper Al]

I am a little confused by what is meant by the term "casual horseplayer"...and what this person's frame of mind is.

Is the casual horseplayer really a person who has come to grips with the fact that he will never be able to at least break even in this game, so he can at least enjoy it as a hobby at little or no cost...and who is now resigned to looking for ways to make sure that he at least comes home "with a little money in his pocket" rather than coming home broke?

Is the casual horseplayer still interested in improving himself as a player...or is he just a habitual loser, who is just looking for reasons to continue playing this game...even if it's at a sizable cost?

It's meant to be vague. Some people play every week, lose within their limits, have a good time, never take themselves serious, and consider themself a casual player. That's okay. Why should they stress out on their money management system?

[Capper Al]

So the obvious question becomes how come Capper Al isn't playing with this system?
Or if he is, what were the results?

I've said that I play doubles, exacta, win and place 99% of the time. It fits what I do. Leo's system worked for Leo at the harness track where the likelihood of back to back winners is higher than in thoroughBreds. I find a lure to Leo's system after a day when I lost money and had a few winners. Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda used Leo's system on those days.