View Full Version : Live Handicappers' Exposition: Part 2
Dave Schwartz
12-13-2012, 12:35 PM
Based upon the response of this board, I may have to reconsider the idea of trying to make this happen.
The people who are known to us on THIS board may very well have the ability to draw from THIS board, but (no offense meant here) people like Thaskalos and Aner are just not household words that will fill enough seats to justify this endeavor.
Let me ask a slightly different but more obvious question:
"Who would you be willing to PAY to hear talk at a Live, On-line Handicapping Exposition?"
Would you PAY for a group comprised of the following people (alphabetical order):
Group A
Aner
CJ
Craven
DaHoss
Delta Lover
Game Theory
Kipness
Mark Goldie
Platt
Raybo
Schwartz
Thaskalos
I mean no disrespect to these guys but I was thinking more along the lines of:
Group B
Beyer
Brohamer
Free
Kipness
Litfin
Pizzolla
Quinn
Schwartz
Serling
Trifecta Mike
So, the real question is in the poll.
thaskalos
12-13-2012, 01:04 PM
Something tells me that this idea will never come to fruition...:)
I mean no disrespect to these guys but I was thinking more along the lines of:
Group B
Beyer
Brohamer
Free
Kipness
Litfin
Pizzolla
Quinn
Schwartz
Serling
Trifecta Mike
No disrespect, and I don't even think that I belong in Group A, but come on Dave.
thaskalos
12-13-2012, 03:48 PM
Based upon the response of this board, I may have to reconsider the idea of trying to make this happen.
The people who are known to us on THIS board may very well have the ability to draw from THIS board, but (no offense meant here) people like Thaskalos and Aner are just not household words that will fill enough seats to justify this endeavor.
Let me ask a slightly different but more obvious question:
"Who would you be willing to PAY to hear talk at a Live, On-line Handicapping Exposition?"
Would you PAY for a group comprised of the following people (alphabetical order):
Group A
Aner
CJ
Craven
DaHoss
Delta Lover
Game Theory
Kipness
Mark Goldie
Platt
Raybo
Schwartz
Thaskalos
I mean no disrespect to these guys but I was thinking more along the lines of:
Group B
Beyer
Brohamer
Free
Kipness
Litfin
Pizzolla
Quinn
Schwartz
Serling
Trifecta Mike
So, the real question is in the poll.
I mean no disrespect either, but, in my opinion...this is Group B:
Beyer
Quinn
Davidowitz
Ragozin
Friedman
Brohamer
Fotias
Cornman
Serling
Schmidt
classhandicapper
12-13-2012, 03:49 PM
I would pay for Paul Cornman because I don't have access to him and have very specific questions I'd like to ask him.
I might be interested in Brad Thomas also.
Most of the rest have written books, write articles, post here etc..
RunForTheRoses
12-13-2012, 04:27 PM
I would pay for Paul Cornman because I don't have access to him and have very specific questions I'd like to ask him.
I might be interested in Brad Thomas also.
Most of the rest have written books, write articles, post here etc..
Brad Thomas would be a good participant.
RunForTheRoses
12-13-2012, 05:12 PM
The name Paul Cornman rang a bell from the past (Harvey Pack Show). Googled and found this very interesting article from 1988 about a day at Belmont. Hard to believe 1988 was that long ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/24/magazine/belmont-makes-the-heart-beat-faster.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
jk3521
12-13-2012, 06:21 PM
The name Paul Cornman rang a bell from the past (Harvey Pack Show). Googled and found this very interesting article from 1988 about a day at Belmont. Hard to believe 1988 was that long ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/24/magazine/belmont-makes-the-heart-beat-faster.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
WOW! Those were the days!
traynor
12-13-2012, 06:39 PM
Based upon the response of this board, I may have to reconsider the idea of trying to make this happen.
The people who are known to us on THIS board may very well have the ability to draw from THIS board, but (no offense meant here) people like Thaskalos and Aner are just not household words that will fill enough seats to justify this endeavor.
Let me ask a slightly different but more obvious question:
"Who would you be willing to PAY to hear talk at a Live, On-line Handicapping Exposition?"
Would you PAY for a group comprised of the following people (alphabetical order):
Group A
Aner
CJ
Craven
DaHoss
Delta Lover
Game Theory
Kipness
Mark Goldie
Platt
Raybo
Schwartz
Thaskalos
I mean no disrespect to these guys but I was thinking more along the lines of:
Group B
Beyer
Brohamer
Free
Kipness
Litfin
Pizzolla
Quinn
Schwartz
Serling
Trifecta Mike
So, the real question is in the poll.
A bit of advice. I think few would pay to listen to a number of people expounding on the use of statistics in racing, as interesting as that might be to computer handicappers. No one wants to pay good money to hear an expert destroy his or her cherished illusions about small sample models.
Similarly, aside from bragging rights (as in "I was at Handicapping Expo 2020, and I heard yada yada say blah blah" or whatever), I don't think that people who are primarily turf writers would do more than re-run stuff they have already written. Re-cycled Handicapping 101, as others have indicated elsewhere.
If you want to put together something useful and valuable (and well worth paying for), bypass the panel that uses such venues as product or service promotion, and find the likes of Paul Mellos. Fill in information gaps, rather than putting together a group of people promoting their latest books, DVDs, or whatever else they are selling. The Handicapping Expos were a great idea handled poorly.
Paul Mellos would be on top of a very short list. You might consider others of his caliber, most likely Australian or British. Along with someone extremely knowledgable about the specifics techniques of analyzing races at Sha Tin and Happy Valley.
I'd love to hear Cornman as I still think of him as a harness handicapper from the days he worked at Sports Eye. Be nice to hear how he made the transition from trotters to TBreds.
Also, would love to see a pace handicapper versue someone who doesn't care about pace. How about CJ versus Freidman?
No one wants to pay good money to hear an expert destroy his or her cherished illusions about small sample models.
You greatly underestimate bettors, or overestimate yourself. Maybe it is some of both. One thing you obviously underestimate is the value of small samples. The game is parimutuel, so if you wait too long, many of those big samples will only show you what formerly worked, not what works now.
There is value in both short and long term models IF you know how to use them.
traynor
12-14-2012, 03:26 AM
You greatly underestimate bettors, or overestimate yourself. Maybe it is some of both. One thing you obviously underestimate is the value of small samples. The game is parimutuel, so if you wait too long, many of those big samples will only show you what formerly worked, not what works now.
There is value in both short and long term models IF you know how to use them.
Tell it to a statistician, not me.
thaskalos
12-14-2012, 03:32 AM
A bit of advice. I think few would pay to listen to a number of people expounding on the use of statistics in racing, as interesting as that might be to computer handicappers. No one wants to pay good money to hear an expert destroy his or her cherished illusions about small sample models.
Similarly, aside from bragging rights (as in "I was at Handicapping Expo 2020, and I heard yada yada say blah blah" or whatever), I don't think that people who are primarily turf writers would do more than re-run stuff they have already written. Re-cycled Handicapping 101, as others have indicated elsewhere.
I don't presume to know what most people would care to pay for -- although the results of this poll clearly indicate that most would not be willing to pay for anything -- but I know what interests me. And I would gladly pay to hear an expert destroy whatever illusions or misconceptions I might have about the game. It occurs to me that such information would be a bargain at any price.
I also disagree with the notion that turf writers would have nothing to offer other than "re-cycled handicapping 101" advice.
Some of these authors also happen to be two-fisted bettors with many years of experience...and they have not written anything in more than a decade. I would have to assume that they have more to offer today than what they have previously written many years ago. Beyer himself hasn't written at length for over 18 years.
eurocapper
12-14-2012, 05:50 AM
I suspect there is a tendency for authors to throw out what they have used before (when it's becoming unprofitable) while keeping the most recent angles for themselves. I think Beyer for example states he is nowadays playing to surface switchers. But how to bet is not a handicapping secret.
Tell it to a statistician, not me.
Too deep for you?
You said the statisticians were experts, not me.
I suspect there is a tendency for authors to throw out what they have used before (when it's becoming unprofitable) while keeping the most recent angles for themselves. I think Beyer for example states he is nowadays playing to surface switchers. But how to bet is not a handicapping secret.
It is probably more likely they "throw out" what is working at the time they write, and after becoming popular it doesn't work as well.
traynor
12-14-2012, 10:59 AM
Too deep for you?
You said the statisticians were experts, not me.
I think presenting "arguments" that require a lack of knowledge on the part of the audience to be considered valid are pointless. Rather than trying to convince an audience that lacks the knowledge to see the holes and deficiencies in your argument, you might do better to present that argument to those willing to take the time and exert the effort to point out the shortcomings. I am not one of those people. I don't especially care whether you believe small samples are predictive or not, or whether you believe that you can "make them work" because of some inside knowledge.
The basic fact is that the underlying premise is absurd. Not my idea. The idea of just about everyone with more than a superficial acquaintance with the topic. Hence--my suggestion that you put together an argument to convince a statistician that your premises are correct. Hopefully, one that does not require uncritical acceptance of personal experience or subjective belief to be meaningful.
The only statistic that maters is how much money you make.
The idea you can't make money on short term/small samples is ridiculous.
It is done every day.
DeltaLover
12-14-2012, 11:19 AM
The idea you can't make money on short term/small samples is ridiculous.
Hopefully this 'idea' can be analytically proven...
In other words it is a Popperian statement.
Can you please state the underlined theory and the related evidence ?
I think presenting "arguments" that require a lack of knowledge on the part of the audience to be considered valid are pointless. Rather than trying to convince an audience that lacks the knowledge to see the holes and deficiencies in your argument, you might do better to present that argument to those willing to take the time and exert the effort to point out the shortcomings. I am not one of those people. I don't especially care whether you believe small samples are predictive or not, or whether you believe that you can "make them work" because of some inside knowledge.
The basic fact is that the underlying premise is absurd. Not my idea. The idea of just about everyone with more than a superficial acquaintance with the topic. Hence--my suggestion that you put together an argument to convince a statistician that your premises are correct. Hopefully, one that does not require uncritical acceptance of personal experience or subjective belief to be meaningful.
How is it absurd? The proof is easy. Nearly every long term "statistic" or a combination of a few or even several that shows a profit in the past WILL NOT show a profit in the future. The win percentage may very well remain the same, but the prices will shrink. You can take that to the bank. That is real life in combination with what you call computer handicapping.
Aren't you the guy that said you could bet all your 3rd choices at 4 to 1 (or whatever odds) because you knew they won at a higher rate without breaking down the set to see, if in fact, those that went off at 4 to 1 were actually profitable alone?
Hopefully this 'idea' can be analytically proven...
In other words it is a Popperian statement.
Can you please state the underlined theory and the related evidence ?
It is proven by the increase in bankroll.
You play statistics. I'm play horses.
This is the real world, not a text book.
DeltaLover
12-14-2012, 11:38 AM
How is it absurd? The proof is easy. Nearly every long term "statistic" or a combination of a few or even several that shows a profit in the past WILL NOT show a profit in the future.
This could be truth.
What you are missing here is that computer handicapping does not necessarily consists of an array of finite state machines.
In its more advanced levels computer handicapping evolves to an expert system with no reliance to concrete patterns that happened to be profitable in the past having instead the ability to take stochasticity in consideration resulting to a composing tier that makes decisions in a more intuitive fashion..
Hopefully this 'idea' can be analytically proven...
In other words it is a Popperian statement.
Can you please state the underlined theory and the related evidence ?
It is a parimutuel game. You have to catch on before the public does. Good luck doing that with a 10 year database. Sure, you can find some things, particularly if you use your own, not publicly available, data. But the vast majority of things you find will not hold up going forward because the public already knows by the time you find them.
This could be truth.
What you are missing here is that computer handicapping does not necessarily consists of an array of finite state machines.
In its more advanced levels computer handicapping evolves to an expert system with no reliance to concrete patterns that happened to be profitable in the past having instead the ability to take stochasticity in consideration resulting to a composing tier that makes decisions in a more intuitive fashion..
I am fully aware of what computers can do. I also know they can only do exactly what a human tells them to do, nothing more, nothing less. They can just do it faster and more accurately than a human can.
If a person doesn't program a computer to catch short term situations that are profitable before the public does, they are missing out on the majority of limited opportunities available in this game.
DeltaLover
12-14-2012, 11:49 AM
It is a parimutuel game. You have to catch on before the public does. Good luck doing that with a 10 year database. Sure, you can find some things, particularly if you use your own, not publicly available, data. But the vast majority of things you find will not hold up going forward because the public already knows by the time you find them.
It is not possible to add a layer of indirection having this 10 year db instead of looking for actual profitable apporaches to detect the rate of their adoption from the public and the frequency of their generation?
It is not possible to add a layer of indirection having this 10 year db instead of looking for actual profitable apporaches to detect the rate of their adoption from the public and the frequency of their generation?
Sure it is. But that isn't what I was arguing in the beginning. I was arguing with the person that said it is absurd to think small samples can be predictive. You seem to agree with me if I'm understanding your questions.
Robert Fischer
12-14-2012, 12:16 PM
I think presenting "arguments" that require a lack of knowledge on the part of the audience to be considered valid are pointless. Rather than trying to convince an audience that lacks the knowledge to see the holes and deficiencies in your argument, you might do better to present that argument to those willing to take the time and exert the effort to point out the shortcomings. I am not one of those people. I don't especially care whether you believe small samples are predictive or not, or whether you believe that you can "make them work" because of some inside knowledge.
The basic fact is that the underlying premise is absurd. Not my idea. The idea of just about everyone with more than a superficial acquaintance with the topic. Hence--my suggestion that you put together an argument to convince a statistician that your premises are correct. Hopefully, one that does not require uncritical acceptance of personal experience or subjective belief to be meaningful.
There's a difference between not being able to statistically prove that a small sample is significant, and claiming that a small sample can not be significant. This is not emphasized enough.
DeltaLover
12-14-2012, 12:22 PM
Sure it is. But that isn't what I was arguing in the beginning. I was arguing with the person that said it is absurd to think small samples can be predictive. You seem to agree with me if I'm understanding your questions.
What constitutes a small or large sample is relative to the what we try to do.
In general a larger sample increases precision of estimates.
Assuming independent variables following the same distribution they will converge to the expected value as the size of population is growing.
The size of the sample is a function of the desired significance level.
For example for chi square we require minimum sample size for each category at least 5.
Here you can see on on line sample size calculator:
http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
What constitutes a small or large sample is relative to the what we try to do.
In general a larger sample increases precision of estimates.
Assuming independent variables following the same distribution they will converge to the expected value as the size of population is growing.
The size of the sample is a function of the desired significance level.
For example for chi square we require minimum sample size for each category at least 5.
Here you can see on on line sample size calculator:
http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
For about the 100th time, I don't need a Stats tutorial. I've taken all the classes and done very well in them. The problem with stats is in their application. You either use them well, or you don't. Stats are misused in sports all the time, and racing is no different. This is especially true because of the parimutuel nature of the game.
I am not saying statistics can't be used to help win money. What I am saying is you better have a very deep knowledge of thoroughbred horse racing before you use them, and your knowledge of the game better evolve as the sport changes, because it always is.
DeltaLover
12-14-2012, 12:38 PM
Stats are misused in sports all the time, and racing is no different. This is especially true because of the parimutuel nature of the game.
agree 100%
What I am saying is you better have a very deep knowledge of thoroughbred horse racing
Obvously you need some domain specific knowledge but its necesary depth of it is debatable and become the topic of a separate thread since we hijacked this one for good...
In its more advanced levels computer handicapping evolves to an expert system with no reliance to concrete patterns that happened to be profitable in the past having instead the ability to take stochasticity in consideration resulting to a composing tier that makes decisions in a more intuitive fashion..
How many of those intuitive decisions have you cashed in on this week?
Robert Fischer
12-14-2012, 12:40 PM
Assuming independent variables following the same distribution they will converge to the expected value as the size of population is growing.
The problem here is that trends tend to be driven by independent variables which follow the same distribution, for a limited time only.
DeltaLover
12-14-2012, 12:46 PM
How many of those intuitive decisions have you cashed in on this week?
0
traynor
12-14-2012, 05:12 PM
How is it absurd? The proof is easy. Nearly every long term "statistic" or a combination of a few or even several that shows a profit in the past WILL NOT show a profit in the future. The win percentage may very well remain the same, but the prices will shrink. You can take that to the bank. That is real life in combination with what you call computer handicapping.
Aren't you the guy that said you could bet all your 3rd choices at 4 to 1 (or whatever odds) because you knew they won at a higher rate without breaking down the set to see, if in fact, those that went off at 4 to 1 were actually profitable alone?
I think it might be more accurate to say people actually find far fewer "long-term" statistics or combinations than they believe they have found. That such views fail to perform as expected in the future, or fail to preduct future events accurately, should come as no great surprise to anyone. Because there were only high hopes, expectations, and illusions to begin with, it is not surprising that they fail to show a profit in the future.
traynor
12-14-2012, 05:22 PM
There's a difference between not being able to statistically prove that a small sample is significant, and claiming that a small sample can not be significant. This is not emphasized enough.
One of Michael Pizzola's favorite sayings was that the worst mistake a handicapper can make is to attribute causality where none exists. That pretty well sums up the use of small samples to "predict" events. Some times it works, some times it doesn't--just like picking numbers randomly, or throwing darts at DRF tacked to the wall. Because something seems to work once in awhile has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of that something as a reliable predictor.
I think it might be more accurate to say people actually find far fewer "long-term" statistics or combinations than they believe they have found. That such views fail to perform as expected in the future, or fail to preduct future events accurately, should come as no great surprise to anyone. Because there were only high hopes, expectations, and illusions to begin with, it is not surprising that they fail to show a profit in the future.
This is simply not true. Give me a database with 10 years of racing, and I'll find plenty of factors and combos of factors that WOULD have been profitable. Many of them will not win at the same rate going forward, and even more will win as often but pay much less when they do win. You have to stay ahead of the crowd, or you will lose. If you lag behind the crowd, you'll lose even more.
bob60566
12-14-2012, 07:59 PM
This is simply not true. Give me a database with 10 years of racing, and I'll find plenty of factors and combos of factors that WOULD have been profitable. Many of them will not win at the same rate going forward, and even more will win as often but pay much less when they do win. You have to stay ahead of the crowd, or you will lose. If you lag behind the crowd, you'll lose even more.
Cj
I have to ask what do you need to handicap to stay ahead of the crowd??? :)
traynor
12-14-2012, 08:04 PM
This is simply not true. Give me a database with 10 years of racing, and I'll find plenty of factors and combos of factors that WOULD have been profitable. Many of them will not win at the same rate going forward, and even more will win as often but pay much less when they do win. You have to stay ahead of the crowd, or you will lose. If you lag behind the crowd, you'll lose even more.
And if you believe you are doing something that you are actually not doing, or believe that you see something that is not really there, you will lose most of all.
I am not contesting that retrospective analysis may uncover things that look like they could have been profitable, if you had known about them or if you believed them to be a significant trend, at a particular point in time. Whether or not those observations would have been predictive in use is much less clear--they only seem to be trends when viewed after the fact. Viewed before the fact, they could every bit as easily be no more than random data points in a perfectly natural distribution.
If I remember correctly, we have had this same discussion before. You posted the results of a big chunk of races, and I asked if you had corrected the results for mutuel outliers. The specific data you posted had one or two unusually high mutuels that I thought were unlikely to be repeated (and therefore seriously distorted the ROI). Your response was that there were "many such mutuels" in your results, so you never corrected for outliers.
Given that correcting for outliers is such a basic, primary, baby-first-step in data analysis, it didn't seem worthwhile to pursue a discussion about how many statistics classes you had taken, or how well you had done in those classes.
I don't try to stay ahead of the crowd, and I have very little fear of falling behind the crowd. I have found it much more profitable to mostly ignore the crowd, because most are chasing rainbows with strategies based on false premises.
thaskalos
12-14-2012, 08:18 PM
I don't try to stay ahead of the crowd, and I have very little fear of falling behind the crowd. I have found it much more profitable to mostly ignore the crowd, because most are chasing rainbows with strategies based on false premises.
Most of the crowd may indeed be chasing rainbows...but, collectively, their betting dollars seem to do a rather remarkable job in predicting the winning chances of the horses.
And the bigger the sample, the more amazing the crowd's predictive ability seems to get.
traynor
12-14-2012, 08:20 PM
Lest there be misunderstanding, I am NOT saying that statistics are the be all and end all of horse racing. I think statisticians do a remarkably poor job of applying their knowledge in the real world. It is way more complex than crunching a few pages of numbers with some snarky stat app and believing one has discovered the greatest thing since sliced bread. Specifically, I think statistics are a valuable indicator of possible trends and influences. I do NOT think that statistics "prove" things even close to the degree that statisticians would like people to believe.
I would be quite interested in an "Expo" with a presenter knowlegable in statistical processes and data analysis, who could explain why and how short samples can be reliable indicators for wagering purposes. Especially one who does not rely on the use of the names Beyer or Davidowitz as "expert opinion" and who can present an argument without the use of the word "bias."
Not preaching to the choir, or appealing to the true believers by creating a false dichotomy between the "real world" and "theory" (apparently believed to be the result of explorations in the "unreal world"), but rather someone knowledgable enough to explain the basis for his or her beliefs. Whether I would be willing to pay for it or not would depend on how credible the presenter's credentials were.
traynor
12-14-2012, 08:22 PM
Most of the crowd may indeed be chasing rainbows...but, collectively, their betting dollars seem to do a rather remarkable job in predicting the winning chances of the horses.
And the bigger the sample, the more amazing the crowd's predictive ability seems to get.
I paraphrase a quotation by one of my heroes--Admiral William Halsey.
"Natural fertilizer, no matter how fast you shovel it, or how high you stack it, is still natural fertilizer."
thaskalos
12-14-2012, 08:25 PM
Lest there be misunderstanding, I am NOT saying that statistics are the be all and end all of horse racing. I think statisticians do a remarkably poor job of applying their knowledge in the real world. It is way more complex than crunching a few pages of numbers with some snarky stat app and believing one has discovered the greatest thing since sliced bread. Specifically, I think statistics are a valuable indicator of possible trends and influences. I do NOT think that statistics "prove" things even close to the degree that statisticians would like people to believe.
I would be quite interested in an "Expo" with a presenter knowlegable in statistical processes and data analysis, who could explain why and how short samples can be reliable indicators for wagering purposes. Especially one who does not rely on the use of the names Beyer or Davidowitz as "expert opinion" and who can present an argument without the use of the word "bias."
Not preaching to the choir, or appealing to the true believers by creating a false dichotomy between the "real world" and "theory" (apparently believed to be the result of explorations in the "unreal world"), but rather someone knowledgable enough to explain the basis for his or her beliefs. Whether I would be willing to pay for it or not would depend on how credible the presenter's credentials were.
The only credentials I pay attention to are the length of a horseplayer's gambling career, and the size of his bankroll.
The rest, I safely brush aside...
Robert Fischer
12-14-2012, 08:43 PM
One of Michael Pizzola's favorite sayings was that the worst mistake a handicapper can make is to attribute causality where none exists. That pretty well sums up the use of small samples to "predict" events. Some times it works, some times it doesn't--just like picking numbers randomly, or throwing darts at DRF tacked to the wall. Because something seems to work once in awhile has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of that something as a reliable predictor.
A skilled handicapper almost instantly spot a small sample that may or may not be a trend (as opposed to randomness). Or, maybe part of his process might be to look at the recent results statistics for a qualifying factor that happens to be part of a play.
Once a possible small sample trend has been spotted, he can then focus, and look beyond things that may not be reflected within database statistics.
traynor
12-14-2012, 08:56 PM
The only credentials I pay attention to are the length of a horseplayer's gambling career, and the size of his bankroll.
The rest, I safely brush aside...
I prefer to factor in quality, rather than considering only quantity. Specifically, one year of experience repeated 20 times is not especially impressive. And some of the biggest bettors I have ever known are also some of the most foolish. Their only saving grace is income from an outside source.
traynor
12-14-2012, 09:06 PM
A skilled handicapper almost instantly spot a small sample that may or may not be a trend (as opposed to randomness). Or, maybe part of his process might be to look at the recent results statistics for a qualifying factor that happens to be part of a play.
Once a possible small sample trend has been spotted, he can then focus, and look beyond things that may not be reflected within database statistics.
I agree wholeheartedly. I do it on a daily basis. It only took me however many years of study to be able to isolate such from the semantic noise of the small samples others seem to believe are predictive. Specifically, there is a BIG difference between finding anomalies that can be leveraged, and finding a sprinkling of random data points and considering them representative of a "trend."
When I criticize the use of small samples as foolish, I am specifically referring to the "Brohamer model" type sample advocated by Sartin and (many) others, in which virtually every little wobble from a baseline is considered a "trend" or "bias." The implication of those models is that some kind of cause-and-effect relationship is being observed. That is almost never the case. What they are seeing is a perfectly normal distribution of random data points within a range of values.
thaskalos
12-14-2012, 09:08 PM
I prefer to factor in quality, rather than considering only quantity. Specifically, one year of experience repeated 20 times is not especially impressive. And some of the biggest bettors I have ever known are also some of the most foolish. Their only saving grace is income from an outside source.
If bankroll and bet size is not a good enough barometer in judging the expertise of players...then what to we go by? The handicapping theory that they spew out at every opportunity?
It has been my experience that even those gamblers who have destroyed their lives can still talk a great game.
traynor
12-14-2012, 09:20 PM
If bankroll and bet size is not a good enough barometer in judging the expertise of players...then what to we go by? The handicapping theory that they spew out at every opportunity?
It has been my experience that even those gamblers who have destroyed their lives can still talk a great game.
Talk is cheap. So is reiteration of the boring experiences of others. I think it is far more interesting to learn how to do things myself, and that requires a thorough understanding of the conceptual framework by whoever presumes to do the teaching. I am a great believer in classical martial arts. However, when the referee says, "Hajime!" it is all out war. Black belts, brown belts, instructors, wannabes--NOTHING matters except winning. There is no deference, there is no respect, there is nothing but an all out focus on victory. That is as it should be. We call it kime.
thaskalos
12-14-2012, 09:45 PM
Talk is cheap. So is reiteration of the boring experiences of others. I think it is far more interesting to learn how to do things myself, and that requires a thorough understanding of the conceptual framework by whoever presumes to do the teaching. I am a great believer in classical martial arts. However, when the referee says, "Hajime!" it is all out war. Black belts, brown belts, instructors, wannabes--NOTHING matters except winning. There is no deference, there is no respect, there is nothing but an all out focus on victory. That is as it should be. We call it kime.
What form of classical martial arts?
I am an aikido devotee...and even studied under the late George Leonard for a few years.
If I remember correctly, we have had this same discussion before. You posted the results of a big chunk of races, and I asked if you had corrected the results for mutuel outliers. The specific data you posted had one or two unusually high mutuels that I thought were unlikely to be repeated (and therefore seriously distorted the ROI). Your response was that there were "many such mutuels" in your results, so you never corrected for outliers.
Why are they outliers? Did you ever consider that it might be a sound strategy to identify when these so called outliers are likely to happen and bet them? If your strategy is designed to hit at long odds, his can you in turn discount them when analyzing results?
dkithore
12-15-2012, 03:42 AM
I think presenting "arguments" that require a lack of knowledge on the part of the audience to be considered valid are pointless. Rather than trying to convince an audience that lacks the knowledge to see the holes and deficiencies in your argument, you might do better to present that argument to those willing to take the time and exert the effort to point out the shortcomings. I am not one of those people. I don't especially care whether you believe small samples are predictive or not, or whether you believe that you can "make them work" because of some inside knowledge.
The basic fact is that the underlying premise is absurd. Not my idea. The idea of just about everyone with more than a superficial acquaintance with the topic. Hence--my suggestion that you put together an argument to convince a statistician that your premises are correct. Hopefully, one that does not require uncritical acceptance of personal experience or subjective belief to be meaningful.
bsolutes
With all due respect, name me a few statisticians that are winning horse players! One thing I learned as I get older is, there are no absolutes.
traynor
12-15-2012, 04:16 AM
What form of classical martial arts?
I am an aikido devotee...and even studied under the late George Leonard for a few years.
Aikido was the preferred activity of another of my heroes--Carlos Castaneda. I was fortunate to have witnessed (on television, unfortunately) a number of demonstrations by Uyeshiba, and later Tohei. Very impressive indeed. I was even more fortunate to have personally met--and to have trained with for a few days--Mas Oyama. Kyukushinkai. Because of a lack of instructors in the US, I tended toward the more popular Shotokan for a number of years.
It is complex. There are areas that are much more than they seem to be on the surface, and their complexity is only understandable in the context of other complexities. I am particularly interested in the techniques developed in the second Shaolin monastery in Fujian. Those techniques formed the basis, the underlying strucure, that migrated to Okinawa as "China fist", there to be toned down, altered, and made into a sport by Funakoshi, and later the JKA, Shotokan. I prefer the original version.
As you know, martial arts are much window dressing over something else, using the outer physical form as a means of developing something else. Ki is only a small part of that something else. It is that something else that interests me. Martial arts are one way of seeking it. Or finding it, as the case may be.
I apologize for the thread drift. To me, handicapping horse races is an extension of martial arts.
traynor
12-15-2012, 04:35 AM
Why are they outliers? Did you ever consider that it might be a sound strategy to identify when these so called outliers are likely to happen and bet them? If your strategy is designed to hit at long odds, his can you in turn discount them when analyzing results?
I think we are talking about apples and oranges. Controlling for outliers does not in any way exclude them from future wagers. The primary effect is to make projections that do not depend on anomalies for profitability. A handful of outliers in a 1000 race sample can make a particular strategy appear to be profitable, but may not be repeated in the next 10,000 races. The smaller the sample, the stronger the distortion caused by outliers.
Regardless of the sample size, including multi-year databases, it is always useful to weed out the anomalies. Again, that does not in any way affect betting on them--it simply means that it might not be useful to depend on a handful of $70-80 mutuels popping up in the limited number of wagers made with a strategy that (when corrected for anomalies) produces an average mutuel of $10-12.
If a strategy is not profitable when corrected for outliers, it is probably not worth betting on in the first place.
traynor
12-15-2012, 04:40 AM
bsolutes
With all due respect, name me a few statisticians that are winning horse players! One thing I learned as I get older is, there are no absolutes.
With all due respect, the request is spurious. The older I get, the less interest I have in convincing others of my point of view. It is your money. If you want to bet it on small samples with a few rainbows, by all means do so.
castaway01
12-15-2012, 08:19 AM
With all due respect, the request is spurious. The older I get, the less interest I have in convincing others of my point of view. It is your money. If you want to bet it on small samples with a few rainbows, by all means do so.
Traynor, with all due respect, you've got about 2500 long-winded posts where you do exactly that.
Based on the vote, I guess we're not going to get Dave's Handicappers' Exposition, which is a shame because I think it would have been interesting. A few big names, a few lesser names---I think we could all stand to learn something, because none of us knows it all about handicapping, wagering, money management, etc.
acorn54
12-15-2012, 09:08 AM
If bankroll and bet size is not a good enough barometer in judging the expertise of players...then what to we go by? The handicapping theory that they spew out at every opportunity?
It has been my experience that even those gamblers who have destroyed their lives can still talk a great game.
personally i would go by what is on the "experts" line 21 of their 1040, after accounting for gambling losses.
Johnny V
12-15-2012, 09:21 AM
I prefer to factor in quality, rather than considering only quantity. Specifically, one year of experience repeated 20 times is not especially impressive. And some of the biggest bettors I have ever known are also some of the most foolish. Their only saving grace is income from an outside source.
Good point. I used to sit next to a friendly guy who would come in 3 times a week and he was strictly a $2 bettor. He would play selectively and seldom bet anything less than 3/1. He was totally focused on the racing form sitting there smoking his cigar and he never even marked up his form. He was one of the better handicappers I have ever met. No one ever asked him who he liked because he was a small bettor. The ones who were throwing away big bets through the windows got all the attention and the questions.
Originally Posted by traynor
Talk is cheap.
This is all he has proven so far in many threads.
Dave Schwartz
12-15-2012, 10:44 AM
You guys make me laugh. Seriously.
So, the majority of you have no interest in hearing what anyone except a bonafide, proven winner has to say. So, I assume that none of you has ever read a book written by anyone on horse racing then.
To my knowledge, not a single author has ever PROVEN he was a winning player. According to some of your demands, this would include Beyer, Brohamer, Quirin, Davis, Scott, Ainslie, Doust, and all the others.
For that matter, either has anyone else on this forum.
Then we have a guy who takes the original topic of this thread - which was "Would you be interested in attending..." - to HIS favorite topic - statistical handicapping - then apologizes for thread drift when he talks about martial arts.
Back on topic...
All the previous handicapping expos have been in Las Vegas. What does the total cost of a trip to Las Vegas run these days? Including the airfare, hotel, food and (say) $500 for the expo, I'd say it's got to be like $3,000 or more. When you add lost work time or bringing a spouse, plus some gambling money, it can easily reach $5,000.
And what about the cost to the promoter? Do you guys have any idea how much a guy like Andy Beyer gets for a one-day appearance?
I am trying to put together an online experience where you will get to hear LIVE talks from major players in our game - AND ASK THEM QUESTIONS - at a total cost to you guys that could be like $250 or less. TOTAL COST.
So, if you have no interest in coming, FINE. But how about not ruining the chances for everyone else.
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
traynor
12-15-2012, 12:09 PM
Traynor, with all due respect, you've got about 2500 long-winded posts where you do exactly that.
Based on the vote, I guess we're not going to get Dave's Handicappers' Exposition, which is a shame because I think it would have been interesting. A few big names, a few lesser names---I think we could all stand to learn something, because none of us knows it all about handicapping, wagering, money management, etc.
There is a fundamental difference between commenting on the obvious (small samples are little more than statistical noise, failure to correct for outliers can generate silliness disguised as "models") and "my point of view." You have no clue what my "point of view" is, other than my comments on what should be obvious to anyone wagering on horse races for more than an occasional weekend flurry. Please note my preference for citing sources for the basis of my comments, preferring Kahnemann and Tversky to Beyer and Ainslie. Do not confuse postings intended as commentary on general theory as being an attempt to "convince others of my point of view."
traynor
12-15-2012, 12:12 PM
Good point. I used to sit next to a friendly guy who would come in 3 times a week and he was strictly a $2 bettor. He would play selectively and seldom bet anything less than 3/1. He was totally focused on the racing form sitting there smoking his cigar and he never even marked up his form. He was one of the better handicappers I have ever met. No one ever asked him who he liked because he was a small bettor. The ones who were throwing away big bets through the windows got all the attention and the questions.
Contrast that with the snarks in Vegas who think little of dumping a quarter of a million to a half million to a million in a weekend of wild histrionics at the baccarat tables. I will take the $2 bettor with a brain over the flakes with the money any day of the week, and twice on the weekend.
bob60566
12-15-2012, 12:34 PM
Dave
I find it strange that Cramer has not been mentioned?? :confused:
Dave Schwartz
12-15-2012, 12:36 PM
Do you mean Mark or Jim?
If you mean by me, it was merely an oversight. I threw that list together in like 3 minutes.
It was meant more as "people like this..."
bob60566
12-15-2012, 01:25 PM
Mark
andicap
12-15-2012, 02:28 PM
I think of the guys on List B as kind of old time thinking, not on the cutting edge (except f maybe or people like Cary Fotias, Jim Cramer would be good as well. Still, I've read Cary's book. What new can he add? ) I would include Dave Schwartz in boith groups as well as CJ, whose figures are second to none and is an original thinker.
That's why I will not buy the Quinn book unless someone tells me he has completely updated his thinking for playing the races in 2012.
Also, it depends on how MUCH I would have to pay. I mean, I've paid money just to hear Dave Schwartz give a series of online talks.
And what would these experts talk about? I listened to a lot of those old handicapping expo tapes and for the money, a lot of them were a waste of time and cash. Basically reiterating a lot of stuff they had already written about. What new would they bring to the table?
I would pay to listen to original thinkers who can teach me how racing has changed and how their handicapping methods have adopted to racing in 2012-2013. Drugs, short fields. Super trainers. Artificial turf. Timers that don't work (tho that probably has been an age-old problem.) Last minute betting that drastically change the odds.
How do I adapt my game, my use of speed and pace figures to fit the game as it is right now, not in Beyer's heyday or Brohamers.
that's why i would listen to someone like Aner. he won the contest, obviously he has something on the ball. I'd be an idiot not to listen to someone like him. Just because he's not a published author or a newspaper writer -- and I certainly would have little patience with many newspaper handicappers.
I disagree with dave to some extent on this: Dave reads every book and manages to get a nugget or two out of everything. Dave, however, is in the position of being able to test many of these theories, empirically. Most of us are not. We have to spend a lot of our considerable shrinking spare time to verify non-empirical findings.
I'd rather not chase 100 false leads to come up with one decent nugget. I just have other things to do. Maybe that will make me a losing handicapper in the long run but so be it. And that's the problem with today's game: Very few people are willing to spend the time to verify what they read actually works.
That's why I pay Dave Schwartz good money: He does the work for me.
thaskalos
12-15-2012, 02:45 PM
Contrast that with the snarks in Vegas who think little of dumping a quarter of a million to a half million to a million in a weekend of wild histrionics at the baccarat tables. I will take the $2 bettor with a brain over the flakes with the money any day of the week, and twice on the weekend.
The $2 bettor has not been exposed to the violent swings inherent in the world of serious gambling...so his gambling education is woefully incomplete.
Do you mean Mark or Jim?
If you mean by me, it was merely an oversight. I threw that list together in like 3 minutes.
It was meant more as "people like this..."
Add Mark Hopkins.
I think, from the couple of times he spoke at FL, he would fill the gap andicap is looking for. Good handicapper, great speaker.
bob60566
12-15-2012, 03:10 PM
The $2 bettor has not been exposed to the violent swings inherent in the world of serious gambling...so his gambling education is woefully incomplete.
Does the $2 bettor want to enter the world of serious gambling, apples and orange scenario. :)
thaskalos
12-15-2012, 03:29 PM
Does the $2 bettor want to enter the world of serious gambling, apples and orange scenario. :)
My friend...allow me to explain.
I am not impressed by those who profess to be serious "handicappers"...unless they aspire to be serious bettors as well. Handicapping "theorists" are a dime a dozen. The best handicappers don't make $2 bets, just as the best poker players don't waste their time at the $1-$2 tables.
I have no problem with the $2 bettor. I just don't think that he is playing the same game that I or others are playing.
It's easy to get "creative" with $2 bets...
So let me get this straight, there are pros and $2 bettors. That is it?
Johnny V
12-15-2012, 04:21 PM
My friend...allow me to explain.
I am not impressed by those who profess to be serious "handicappers"...unless they aspire to be serious bettors as well. Handicapping "theorists" are a dime a dozen. The best handicappers don't make $2 bets, just as the best poker players don't waste their time at the $1-$2 tables.
I have no problem with the $2 bettor. I just don't think that he is playing the same game that I or others are playing.
It's easy to get "creative" with $2 bets...
We should all be playing within our means. If we are betting, let us say 2% of our betting bankroll on win bets for example, then we are indeed playing the same game. We all know the limit that we can take when our bets make us sweat and we have that feeling of pressure before those gates open that we may have bet the top limit that our psyche can take. Does that mean that when you have reached your limit there and someone else can bet more than you are without feeling your same pressure yet that you and him are not playing the same game?
A person can be at a $5 blackjack table and be playing a smart intelligent game and another is betting $100 and not so smartly, they are indeed playing the same game but who would you talk blackjack theory with if you were so inclined? We are all in this together trying to improve our game and be more profitable whatever we are betting. I think we all started out as $2 bettors.
We should all be playing within our means. If we are betting, let us say 2% of our betting bankroll on win bets for example, then we are indeed playing the same game. We all know the limit that we can take when our bets make us sweat and we have that feeling of pressure before those gates open that we may have bet the top limit that our psyche can take. Does that mean that when you have reached your limit there and someone else can bet more than you are without feeling your same pressure yet that you and him are not playing the same game?
A person can be at a $5 blackjack table and be playing a smart intelligent game and another is betting $100 and not so smartly, they are indeed playing the same game but who would you talk blackjack theory with if you were so inclined? We are all in this together trying to improve our game and be more profitable whatever we are betting. I think we all started out as $2 bettors.
I think you guys misunderstand. I don't think Thask ever said or implied that would should be listening to a big, but bad, bettor either.
turninforhome10
12-15-2012, 04:28 PM
The $2 bettor has not been exposed to the violent swings inherent in the world of serious gambling...so his gambling education is woefully incomplete.
Are those the same swings that are inherent with doing anything for a profession. Trying to play the game for a serious living is much different than playing the game for recreation and semi-serious. When you are looking at paying bills with your winnings, which are your main income stream then you don't take the chances that somebody who goes to work for someone else for thier income. A bankroll becomes a sacred cow that must be preserved at all costs. I have just started playing for a living and I must say it is tough. Even with clocking in the morning and having built my own methods to learn the inner workings of a popular east coast track, it is not all about handicapping it becomes more about reason and trusting your own judgement to put food on your table rather giving a contribution for a Saturday at the races.
Handicapping and making a living are two different things.
Making a living on your handicapping requires a different mentality than the average person who has a job to fall back on.
Capper Al
12-15-2012, 04:31 PM
My friend...allow me to explain.
I am not impressed by those who profess to be serious "handicappers"...unless they aspire to be serious bettors as well. Handicapping "theorists" are a dime a dozen. The best handicappers don't make $2 bets, just as the best poker players don't waste their time at the $1-$2 tables.
I have no problem with the $2 bettor. I just don't think that he is playing the same game that I or others are playing.
It's easy to get "creative" with $2 bets...
You've never played nickle/dime poker with us. It's cut throat. But I do agree with you. There's something to big bucks.
Dave Schwartz
12-15-2012, 04:31 PM
TFH,
Good post.
Welcome to "the Pit," which is my name for it.
I am planning to re-enter that environment for the first time in many years within the next few months. It is a major adjustment.
Dave
turninforhome10
12-15-2012, 04:47 PM
TFH,
Good post.
Welcome to "the Pit," which is my name for it.
I am planning to re-enter that environment for the first time in many years within the next few months. It is a major adjustment.
Dave
It just boils down to how hard you are willing to work. If you are not willing to put in the time as far as knowing your horses, than it is just gambling:D .
When you can start to see knees and ankles and other ailments in the paddock, and can keep good notes, it is a big edge. Having an idea of trainer intent is a must and without it, again it is just gambling. When you start to really play a meet you almost have to look at the whole card each week and understand all the races available for the trainers and if a race today is the best race for the horse to win. Looking for extras when you already know the trainer has a bullet can pay big dividends.
I digress.
Looking forward to the big days ahead :faint:
Having an idea of trainer intent is a must and without it, again it is just gambling.
Well, for good trainers. For incompetent ones, of which there are many, I don't care what the intent is.
turninforhome10
12-15-2012, 04:57 PM
Well, for good trainers. For incompetent ones, of which there are many, I don't care what the intent is.
When you consider that it cost the average trainer around 3-500 dollars to ship around on the East Coast, you are correct. You either ship to win or ship to come home with an empty trailer.
thaskalos
12-15-2012, 08:54 PM
You guys make me laugh. Seriously.
So, the majority of you have no interest in hearing what anyone except a bonafide, proven winner has to say. So, I assume that none of you has ever read a book written by anyone on horse racing then.
To my knowledge, not a single author has ever PROVEN he was a winning player. According to some of your demands, this would include Beyer, Brohamer, Quirin, Davis, Scott, Ainslie, Doust, and all the others.
For that matter, either has anyone else on this forum.
Then we have a guy who takes the original topic of this thread - which was "Would you be interested in attending..." - to HIS favorite topic - statistical handicapping - then apologizes for thread drift when he talks about martial arts.
Back on topic...
All the previous handicapping expos have been in Las Vegas. What does the total cost of a trip to Las Vegas run these days? Including the airfare, hotel, food and (say) $500 for the expo, I'd say it's got to be like $3,000 or more. When you add lost work time or bringing a spouse, plus some gambling money, it can easily reach $5,000.
And what about the cost to the promoter? Do you guys have any idea how much a guy like Andy Beyer gets for a one-day appearance?
I am trying to put together an online experience where you will get to hear LIVE talks from major players in our game - AND ASK THEM QUESTIONS - at a total cost to you guys that could be like $250 or less. TOTAL COST.
So, if you have no interest in coming, FINE. But how about not ruining the chances for everyone else.
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
How much does Beyer charge for a one day appearance, Dave...and how does he justify it?
Will he promise to share some esoteric knowledge with the audience...or will it be the same information that we could readily get for $19.99 at any bookstore?
IMO...these expos should come with a money back guarantee.
Dave Schwartz
12-15-2012, 09:04 PM
Guarantee of what?
thaskalos
12-15-2012, 09:23 PM
Guarantee of what?
Guarantee that the speakers will be worth the fee that they command.
They should not be paid for their "appearance"...
They should be paid for the content of their lecture.
Dave Schwartz
12-15-2012, 09:47 PM
Is that how they sell tickets to other events?
"I went to watch the Rolling Stones. They weren't very good tonight so I got my money back."
Simply put, then there would be no events.
Just as this event will not likely happen either. You have certainly convinced me of that. Thanks for saving me the trouble.
You know, you have summed up pretty clearly the problem with horse racing today: Everybody is clamoring for more "good" horse racing material. But nothing is ever good enough is it? I mean, if it doesn't make you rich then it has no value.
And then, of course, the ever-popular "If it was any good, why would anyone sell it?"
I have been in the horse biz for almost 23 years. It gets very tiring listening to that same old mantra again and again. Especially considering how many times it has been answered.
The more I think of what you ask, Thaskalos, the more I realize how REALLY typical that is of the horse player of today.
A couple of hours ago, TFH says that what it takes to win is to work hard at your craft; he asks, "How hard are you willing to work to win?"
The typical horse player wants to be HANDED a system that will "make me rich." Oh, they won't admit that, but that is what they want and expect.
Furthermore, he expects that such a system should be very affordable to him.
How unrealistic is that?
But let's go beyond that for a moment and look at what it actually takes to win.
People do not win by trying different systems and ideas until they find one that works. They win by taking a system and sticking with it, making small, incremental improvements.
In other words, you pick a system that sounds plausible to you, and you try it for some period of time. I don't mean three days. You try it and you record your results after several hundred races.
Then you tweak the system and do a few hundred more races and record the results again. Maybe the system with the new tweaks showed improvement and maybe it didn't.
You repeat this process, possibly for years, until you wind up showing a profit. (Note that there are methods that can accelerate this process, but this is the process nonetheless.)
Of course, the typical player says, "Well, I am certainly not going to do THAT. LOL - That would take me a year or more!" And instead he keeps right on doing what he is doing: LOSING.
And the losing (and complaining) goes on for years.
Here is the bottom line: Players listen to someone (or buy something) for the ideas that they MAY GET which MIGHT add some incremental improvement to your bottom line, thereby accelerating the process of becoming profitable.
You may not like that model, but that is what it takes.
Of course, a winner of such magnitude that they do not need to learn anything new might see it differently. I have never met such a winner myself.
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
Robert Goren
12-15-2012, 10:06 PM
My friend...allow me to explain.
I am not impressed by those who profess to be serious "handicappers"...unless they aspire to be serious bettors as well. Handicapping "theorists" are a dime a dozen. The best handicappers don't make $2 bets, just as the best poker players don't waste their time at the $1-$2 tables.
I have no problem with the $2 bettor. I just don't think that he is playing the same game that I or others are playing.
It's easy to get "creative" with $2 bets...I am not to sure of either of those statements. There are thousand reasons why expert gamblers play with small amounts and not all have to do with skill. I am not sure about high stakes horse players, but I have watched enough high stakes poker to know that a lot of the losers( and some of the winners) in the high stakes could not hold their own in a college dorm game of 50 cent limit, I played in the 1960's. In Poker some best players even in the high stakes games are not even pros. They are doctors. The best player I have seen on tv was a dentist from I believe from Texas or Oklahoma.. I have check his record once and he doesn't play often in live tourment, but when he does he is almost always a high cash.
I think if Dave is going get a sucessful horse better to share his revolutionary idea(s), it is going to be a small time player with a real life and a real job. The big boys are not going to give away their secrets. The big boy is going to give you a bunch of bull crap for your money. He might tell you a little bit about his operation, but no handicapping secrets, which is what most of us want. JMO
thaskalos
12-15-2012, 10:15 PM
Is that how they sell tickets to other events?
"I went to watch the Rolling Stones. They weren't very good tonight so I got my money back."
Simply put, then there would be no events.
Just as this event will not likely happen either. You have certainly convinced me of that. Thanks for saving me the trouble.
You know, you have summed up pretty clearly the problem with horse racing today: Everybody is clamoring for more "good" horse racing material. But nothing is ever good enough is it? I mean, if it doesn't make you rich then it has no value.
And then, of course, the ever-popular "If it was any good, why would anyone sell it?"
I have been in the horse biz for almost 23 years. It gets very tiring listening to that same old mantra again and again. Especially considering how many times it has been answered.
The more I think of what you ask, Thaskalos, the more I realize how REALLY typical that is of the horse player of today.
A couple of hours ago, TFH says that what it takes to win is to work hard at your craft; he asks, "How hard are you willing to work to win?"
The typical horse player wants to be HANDED a system that will "make me rich." Oh, they won't admit that, but that is what they want and expect.
Furthermore, he expects that such a system should be very affordable to him.
How unrealistic is that?
But let's go beyond that for a moment and look at what it actually takes to win.
People do not win by trying different systems and ideas until they find one that works. They win by taking a system and sticking with it, making small, incremental improvements.
In other words, you pick a system that sounds plausible to you, and you try it for some period of time. I don't mean three days. You try it and you record your results after several hundred races.
Then you tweak the system and do a few hundred more races and record the results again. Maybe the system with the new tweaks showed improvement and maybe it didn't.
You repeat this process, possibly for years, until you wind up showing a profit. (Note that there are methods that can accelerate this process, but this is the process nonetheless.)
Of course, the typical player says, "Well, I am certainly not going to do THAT. LOL - That would take me a year or more!" And instead he keeps right on doing what he is doing: LOSING.
And the losing (and complaining) goes on for years.
Here is the bottom line: Players listen to someone (or buy something) for the ideas that they MAY GET which MIGHT add some incremental improvement to your bottom line, thereby accelerating the process of becoming profitable.
You may not like that model, but that is what it takes.
Of course, a winner of such magnitude that they do not need to learn anything new might see it differently. I have never met such a winner myself.
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
I apologize for discouraging you about promoting this handicapping expo, Dave...but I must say I am surprised that my little post here was capable of such a thing. I would have thought that the results of this poll that you posted here would have already given you enough discouragement about the prospects of your idea.
And I would like to thank you for the nice summation on what the "typical" horseplayer thinks, and what he needs to do in order to "win" in this game.
If I should ever decide to take my game to the next level...then I'll make sure to heed your advice.
How much does Beyer charge for a one day appearance, Dave...and how does he justify it?
They pay it.:rolleyes:
I bet he gets at least $250!
That would make everyone else FREE!! :jump:
A few posts ago, you moaned that you had no patience for people who were not willing to bet serious money. :lol:
Dave, the problem with asking that question here is that everyone already knows everything. Just ask them.
Greyfox
12-15-2012, 11:11 PM
They should be paid for the content of their lecture.
You are a bright guy thaskalos and there is no question about your ability in this game.
You know a lot about it. That has been demonstrated.
Possibly, the value of any speaker, might not appear to add much to your knowledge bank today, or he/she just might, and possibly for other audience members too.
The other side of the coin is, if a speaker gives you 1 idea that changes your vision of the game, even slightly , (and perhaps even not registering that evening for you) and over the next 500 races that idea aquits itself with payouts at the teller several times over the cost of the lecture, what should the lecturer have been paid?
How much was that content worth? You haven't indicated what it should be.
thaskalos
12-15-2012, 11:27 PM
They pay it.:rolleyes:
I bet he gets at least $250!
That would make everyone else FREE!! :jump:
A few posts ago, you moaned that you had no patience for people who were not willing to bet serious money. :lol:
No, my friend...YOU moan. I patiently explain.
I never said that I had no patience for those not willing to bet serious amounts. I just said that I don't believe the game's better handicappers waste their time making $2 bets.
We exchange opinions here...and I offered mine in this thread.
I have bought the cassettes and the DVDs of the previous handicapping expos...and I was disappointed. There was not enough substance.
When I said that the speakers should not be paid an "appearance" fee, I meant that they were not there for picture-taking. They are there to SPEAK...and should be paid for what they SAY!
I meant nothing personal by this opinion of mine, and I certainly didn't deserve the reply given to me by Mr. Schwartz...who blamed ME for changing his mind about promoting this thing.
I only give honest opinions...I don't try to hurt people's feelings...or sabotage their business plans.
Robert Goren
12-15-2012, 11:29 PM
They pay it.:rolleyes:
I bet he gets at least $250!
That would make everyone else FREE!! :jump:
A few posts ago, you moaned that you had no patience for people who were not willing to bet serious money. :lol:He got to get a lot more than $250. When I still working, I made that running a parking garage a day.
traynor
12-16-2012, 02:22 AM
...
The other side of the coin is, if a speaker gives you 1 idea that changes your vision of the game, even slightly , (and perhaps even not registering that evening for you) and over the next 500 races that idea aquits itself with payouts at the teller several times over the cost of the lecture, what should the lecturer have been paid?
How much was that content worth?
Fortunately, I think the expectation of many bettors has become that of receiving more than a few crumbs that might--someday, somehow, in some way--improve their return. That is, they expect that if they pay for a product or service, there should be a clear, prompt, and measurable value gained from that product or service, .
I do not consider such unreasonable. I think raising the bar of what bettors are willing to pay for is of benefit to all--to sellers (who have more motivation to produce superior products and services) AND to buyers (who rightfully expect to receive superior products and services).
Speed Figure
12-16-2012, 02:57 AM
He got to get a lot more than $250. When I still working, I made that running a parking garage a day.
He had to leave off a 0! has to be $2500.
thaskalos
12-16-2012, 04:14 AM
You are a bright guy thaskalos and there is no question about your ability in this game.
You know a lot about it. That has been demonstrated.
Possibly, the value of any speaker, might not appear to add much to your knowledge bank today, or he/she just might, and possibly for other audience members too.
The other side of the coin is, if a speaker gives you 1 idea that changes your vision of the game, even slightly , (and perhaps even not registering that evening for you) and over the next 500 races that idea aquits itself with payouts at the teller several times over the cost of the lecture, what should the lecturer have been paid?
How much was that content worth? You haven't indicated what it should be.
You are a bright guy too, Greyfox...and so are the vast majority of the other members here. But part of being bright is making sure that one gets value for his money.
I never suggested that this idea of Dave's was a bad one; I only suggested -- in Capper Al's other thread -- that a slightly different format be used than the one followed in the handicapping expos that have already taken place in the past. I thought suggestions of this nature were the reason that Dave Schwartz asked for our opinions in the first place.
Now, I have no problem with seeing the expert speakers rehashing the same information that they have written about extensively in the past...but I would like to see them actually analyze a race ahead of time...so we could get to see their methods at work. Is anything wrong with that?
If I want to see Andy Beyer just give a speech about the creation and function of his speed figures...then I can get that from youtube.com, at no cost at all.
As I said before...I have bought the tapes and the DVDs of prior handicapping expos, and was very disappointed with them. They were geared for the beginning player...even though they were not advertised as such. If these experts are only willing to share superficial information with the audience...then these expos should not be advertised as the gatherings of "the game's most brilliant minds"...and they should not be peddled to the advanced horseplayers out there.
I would like to invite you to take a look at the results of the poll that Dave has set up for us in this thread. The star-studded "Group B" is having trouble beating out the online "nobodies" of Group A...while the majority of the voters are clearly declaring that they would not pay to hear ANYBODY!
Now...Dave Schwartz is telling us that this shows, that the "typical" horseplayer of today wants things HANDED to him...and is unwilling to work hard to perfect the craft of successful horseplaying. That's Dave's opinion...and he is entitled to it.
But I am entitled to my opinion too...and my opinion is a little different.
I think that the horseplayer has become cynical and jadded...because the vast majority of the material masquerading as "breakthrough discoveries" are nothing more than unproven generalities and skewed data...surrounded by hand-picked examples meant to show us how brilliant the authors are...and fraudulent commentary about how easy it is for the reader to duplicate the author's results.
And I don't care much for the idea of shifting through 300 pages of questionable advice...so I can get to the one idea that might benefit me in the future.
THAT'S why the "experts" cannot beat out the "nobodies" in this thread's poll...and THAT'S why people are unwilling to pay for information from ANYBODY!
They've been burned too many times by the "experts", and they don't know WHOM to trust.
And I can't say that I blame them...
Capper Al
12-16-2012, 06:28 AM
I never suggested that this idea of Dave's was a bad one; I only suggested -- in Capper Al's other thread ...
I heard my name used.
Dave,
As I posted in the Handicapper's Corner, gearing the target audience to have minimum handicapping knowledge would be the way to go. It would be better if none of the speakers spent time telling us to add the second call to the final time for a pace figure. What we want goes beyond that. A prerequisite understand of the level of participants would be a great help. Drawing a line stating that the speakers won't reiterate concepts found in the following books would help:
Handicapping 101 by Brad Free
Picking Winners by Andy Beyer
An Idiot's Guide to Betting on the Horses
However, the speakers could extrapolate on any of these basic concepts just not present them again as if is the audience's first experience with them.
Ciao
eurocapper
12-16-2012, 06:55 AM
Maybe some of the posters want it to be some kind of workshop format instead of lecture format. Doesn't Mr. Schwartz also sell some kind of coaching services. That might appeal to the pro bettors around here more (but I suppose the price would have to go up to limit the number of participants).
DeltaLover
12-16-2012, 07:17 AM
You are a bright guy too, Greyfox...and so are the vast majority of the other members here. But part of being bright is making sure that one gets value for his money.
I never suggested that this idea of Dave's was a bad one; I only suggested -- in Capper Al's other thread -- that a slightly different format be used than the one followed in the handicapping expos that have already taken place in the past. I thought suggestions of this nature were the reason that Dave Schwartz asked for our opinions in the first place.
Now, I have no problem with seeing the expert speakers rehashing the same information that they have written about extensively in the past...but I would like to see them actually analyze a race ahead of time...so we could get to see their methods at work. Is anything wrong with that?
If I want to see Andy Beyer just give a speech about the creation and function of his speed figures...then I can get that from youtube.com, at no cost at all.
As I said before...I have bought the tapes and the DVDs of prior handicapping expos, and was very disappointed with them. They were geared for the beginning player...even though they were not advertised as such. If these experts are only willing to share superficial information with the audience...then these expos should not be advertised as the gatherings of "the game's most brilliant minds"...and they should not be peddled to the advanced horseplayers out there.
I would like to invite you to take a look at the results of the poll that Dave has set up for us in this thread. The star-studded "Group B" is having trouble beating out the online "nobodies" of Group A...while the majority of the voters are clearly declaring that they would not pay to hear ANYBODY!
Now...Dave Schwartz is telling us that this shows, that the "typical" horseplayer of today wants things HANDED to him...and is unwilling to work hard to perfect the craft of successful horseplaying. That's Dave's opinion...and he is entitled to it.
But I am entitled to my opinion too...and my opinion is a little different.
I think that the horseplayer has become cynical and jadded...because the vast majority of the material masquerading as "breakthrough discoveries" are nothing more than unproven generalities and skewed data...surrounded by hand-picked examples meant to show us how brilliant the authors are...and fraudulent commentary about how easy it is for the reader to duplicate the author's results.
And I don't care much for the idea of shifting through 300 pages of questionable advice...so I can get to the one idea that might benefit me in the future.
THAT'S why the "experts" cannot beat out the "nobodies" in this thread's poll...and THAT'S why people are unwilling to pay for information from ANYBODY!
They've been burned too many times by the "experts", and they don't know WHOM to trust.
And I can't say that I blame them...
I am in complete agreement with Daskalos in this post.
In the same spirit I would have to emphasize that the era of a paid conferences where experts and 'experts' are cashing out their fame is gone. As Daskalos is mentioning anyone can refer to the Web for almost any kind of information he can think about and find it from the comfort of his living room at no charge at all.
Complete classes from world's top educational institutions, conference speeches from top level experts and any kind of tutorial are all available for free today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxYlbK2c7E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9ngd6zCeUc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLBvCB2kr4Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES1aE7Emjw4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=966b0IgA3DA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbNDNkvzzuk
These are some links where top quality knowledge is transmitted completely free from the top guys in their field. The list can easily grow to tenths of thousands or more similar videos that are usually escorted from other sources of info like web sites, pdf books etc
Going a step further, I would like to repeat that out of the professionals of our game, I would only have been interested to listen to the likes of Schwartz, CJ, Raybo and have no interest to Beyer, Free or Litfin to name a few.
Why?
Just because the former speak with me daily, I can debate with them endlessly in PA exchanging opinions and thoughts, I know and respect their though process and their determination and agility to discuss their approaches with anyone having alternative opinions and processes. In other word their involvement with the community is not limited to journalism and book authoring from the position of the 'expert'.
dkithore
12-16-2012, 07:43 AM
Maybe some of the posters want it to be some kind of workshop format instead of lecture format. Doesn't Mr. Schwartz also sell some kind of coaching services. That might appeal to the pro bettors around here more (but I suppose the price would have to go up to limit the number of participants).
Eurocapper,
I agree with your view.. I have gotten more from Dave's webinar (workshop) format than reading all the best seller books on handicapping, IMO. Al Capper's ideas could be incorporated as he always comes through as a pragmatic member of the blog. I like new methods or insights from authors like Cramer and others and incorporate in my personal method. His article in Ed Bain's Newsletter (free) was quite insightful, for example.
http://www.equi-stats.com/news.html
I gain more by someone who does paper and pencil approach to dissect a race as Thask had promised a while ago. Compare that to other respected winner from competition. I would pay for it.
Dave does the same in his presentation using his own software (which unfortunately I can't use.)
turninforhome10
12-16-2012, 08:18 AM
IMHO, the big thing that is missing from most handicappers reportoire is physical handicapping. The ability to see a horses problems and noting them. All the handicapping advice in the world can't help you if you cannot figure out an ankle. Not very many seminars available on this topic. Why? Same goes for condition book handicapping. If a trainer has options understanding motive goes a long way, yet most are more interested in speed figs and pace models.
raybo
12-16-2012, 09:04 AM
Hopefully this 'idea' can be analytically proven...
In other words it is a Popperian statement.
Can you please state the underlined theory and the related evidence ?
I bet you'd love for him to do that.
The evidence is in the bankroll/bank account.
DeltaLover
12-16-2012, 09:11 AM
IMHO, the big thing that is missing from most handicappers reportoire is physical handicapping. The ability to see a horses problems and noting them.
Although a vet or maybe trainer might reach some conclusions based in the appearence of the horse if they can examine it closely, 'physical handicapping' especially through a TV screen is comparable to numerology and astrology....
raybo
12-16-2012, 09:12 AM
I think it might be more accurate to say people actually find far fewer "long-term" statistics or combinations than they believe they have found. That such views fail to perform as expected in the future, or fail to preduct future events accurately, should come as no great surprise to anyone. Because there were only high hopes, expectations, and illusions to begin with, it is not surprising that they fail to show a profit in the future.
One "long term combination" that will never fail to perform, if done correctly, and kept updated (damn those small samples), is: the makeup of a race versus the individuals in that race. Take that to the bank ---- from now on.
raybo
12-16-2012, 09:32 AM
Why are they outliers? Did you ever consider that it might be a sound strategy to identify when these so called outliers are likely to happen and bet them? If your strategy is designed to hit at long odds, his can you in turn discount them when analyzing results?
Absolutely agree! When one's method is designed to point to longer odds horses, why would "outliers" be removed from the total? That is what the method was designed to do. It appears that some are only interested in hitting many lower odds horses that fit into some large sample and the data points all fall in a nice tight pattern. That is why methods that worked in the past don't work any longer, the prices just keep getting lower and lower. The key to longevity of success, in this subject, is to pick winners that the vast majority miss.
I love what these people call "outliers", that's the name of my game. When a majority of your winners pay over $20, why would you throw out those that pay over $80? You will hit those because you are using factors that point to those horses. The degree of "outlier" is just that, degree, they are not flukes or aberrations, they are just better payouts. Once your method becomes of this type, selecting winners that pay large, those payouts can get extremely large, it's the nature of the public. To them a 15/1 horse is no better than a 30/1, or 40/1 horse, they won't bet it anyway, so the odds go up on those horses dramatically.
DeltaLover
12-16-2012, 10:10 AM
the prices just keep getting lower and lower
Can you please explain what do you mean here, it not very clear..
I love what these people call "outliers", that's the name of my game. When a majority of your winners pay over $20, why would you throw out those that pay over $80?
I think the answer to this dilemma is obvious.
I a am sure you will object to it but I will still make an attempt to explain it....
Think that you are in a room full of 1000 people ranging from 1 to 100 years old.
The mean age of them happens to be 50
The older one among them is leaving the room.
Now we have 999 people in the room.
What do you have to say about the mean age ?
How much it will change?
Let's change our example a bit:
In the same room, now we have a VC convention and the richest person on earth happens to attend.
Again we have 1,000 people present.
Their mean wealth is $3,000,000
Now, the richest person on earth is leaving the room.
Now we have 999 people in the room.
What do you have to say about the mean wealth ?
How much it will change?
Try to understand the result of these two examples and see how they are similar to considering outliers in a sample of races.
The answer to your question:
why would you throw out those that pay over $80?
lies exactly there...
He got to get a lot more than $250. When I still working, I made that running a parking garage a day.
Duh.
raybo
12-16-2012, 10:37 AM
Back to the subject of this thread. Although listening to acknowledged "experts" can be interesting and one may be able to extract some "general" direction, one still doesn't get the specifics, at least not enough of the specifics to actually comprise a profitable method. But, those generalities are still valuable, if the listener is willing, and has the ability, with or without highly technical tools, to expound on those generalities in order to find the specifics needed to complete the method.
In other words the listener MUST do the work. And this can take months or years to accomplish, if ever at all. How many players are willing to do that? The generally accepted figure, 2% or less, comes to mind.
Should one pay for these generalities? That is a personal decision each must make, one that depends on that person's needs and wishes, and ability to pay. Should they expect to gain from that, immediately? Only if they are willing to go to work immediately and keep at it many hours per day, for many weeks in a row.
There are many here who give these "generalities" out every day, for free. Some even offer the method, complete with the specifics needed, but none of those offerings are free. Those specifics cost the creator many years of work, along with all the related stress and tears. To the creator, the cost of the specifics is justified. And it should be justified to the purchaser, also. He/she is getting someone's vast experience for a few dollars, that's a bargain in the true sense of the word!
So, would I pay for the generalities that I can get for free? Would you? Only you can decide.
raybo
12-16-2012, 10:47 AM
Can you please explain what do you mean here, it not very clear..
I think the answer to this dilemma is obvious.
I a am sure you will object to it but I will still make an attempt to explain it....
Think that you are in a room full of 1000 people ranging from 1 to 100 years old.
The mean age of them happens to be 50
The older one among them is leaving the room.
Now we have 999 people in the room.
What do you have to say about the mean age ?
How much it will change?
Let's change our example a bit:
In the same room, now we have a VC convention and the richest person on earth happens to attend.
Again we have 1,000 people present.
Their mean wealth is $3,000,000
Now, the richest person on earth is leaving the room.
Now we have 999 people in the room.
What do you have to say about the mean wealth ?
How much it will change?
Try to understand the result of these two examples and see how they are similar to considering outliers in a sample of races.
The answer to your question:
lies exactly there...
What I'm saying is that neither the oldest person, nor the richest person, leaves the room. If one's method selects mostly high paying winners, then the "outliers" aren't outliers, they are part of the total and will always be there. It might happen in the first day of the meet, or the last day, or anywhere in between, but they are still there in the long term.
banacek
12-16-2012, 10:51 AM
The more I think of what you ask, Thaskalos, the more I realize how REALLY typical that is of the horse player of today.
A couple of hours ago, TFH says that what it takes to win is to work hard at your craft; he asks, "How hard are you willing to work to win?"
The typical horse player wants to be HANDED a system that will "make me rich." Oh, they won't admit that, but that is what they want and expect.
Furthermore, he expects that such a system should be very affordable to him.
How unrealistic is that?
I respectfully disagree. I have become a better and better horseplayer the past 10 years to a point of reasonable profitability. And I have worked VERY hard to get there probably 10 times harder than I initially thought it would take - and the harder I worked the better the results. And it was all worth it. I have never wanted to be handed a system, but I do want to keep learning.
Some of the things that I have bought have helped me along the way. Almost every book has given me something to think about and often sometimes use in my handicapping. For $20 or $30 that's a great deal. If there is nothing it's not a lot of money.
I have bought a set of Pizzolla's tapes, got something out of it..sold them back on ebay. Not a bad deal. I have bought some of your work (Early vs. Late, Basics of Winning, Renegade Handicapper). Got something out of the first couple, nothing out of the latter..win some you lose some, but still not a bad deal.
The DRF Handicapping Expos...got very little from them. If I had actually spent the money to go to one of those-and I seriously thought about it- and received that for my money I would have felt ripped off. But if I am going to pay $250+, I don't want something like that.
I want some detailed intermediate to advanced material. I want to watch the process the speaker goes through a few races. Watch them handicap, watch them make betting decisions. I understand that those particular selections may or may not be profitable, but watching them do it may well be.
I am more than willing to pay $250+ for such an education. But as thaskalos says, if it is anything like the drf handicapping expos, count me out.
I think you may be underestimating the ability and drive of many of the horseplayers on this board. There may be some who want a black box...I'd love one, but I realize that hard work is my black box. There are many others on this board like me, I would guess. People who are willing to put in the work to beat this game.
But to be a good horseplayer you have to understand the value of money. $250 spent on a seminar can be an overlay or it could be an underlay. Just because Andrew Beyer is speaking doesn't make it an overlay. The information that is conveyed will decide that.
raybo
12-16-2012, 10:56 AM
In answer to your question about why the prices keep getting lower, those "nice tight patterns" invariably consist of a majority of lower priced winners, and those lower priced winners continue to pay less and less as time goes by. That has been proven over and over again. Those lower priced winners are lower priced because many people are betting them, the public has gained the knowledge required to select them. It's not rocket science, the more public the knowledge, the more people have access to it, and the more people use that knowledge, and bet it. The more bets on a particular horse the lower its price becomes.
DeltaLover
12-16-2012, 11:07 AM
What I'm saying is that neither the oldest person, nor the richest person, leaves the room. If one's method selects mostly high paying winners, then the "outliers" aren't outliers, they are part of the total and will always be there. It might happen in the first day of the meet, or the last day, or anywhere in between, but they are still there in the long term.
If most of them are $20 winners then yes an $80 is an outlier.
Let me try to present it in another way:
Assume that all the winners over $20 are in the following vector:
[ S1 ($20), S2 ($25), S3 ($35), ..... Sn($150)]
(starter S1 payed $20 etc)
To make our example easier assume all except Sn are below $40
Now assume that you trying to find a strategy to select winners over $20
Obviously no stratery will be able to pick all of them instead each one will select a specific subset of them :
For example the winning picks of such a strategy might be the following:
[ S10, S12, S21 ]
another one might be
[ S1, S11, S31, S42 ]
Note that a strategy that will happen to pick Sn automatically will appear superior to the others just because of this despite the fact that most likely this particular pick was just a radnom selection and will not be repeated in the future.
For your strategy creation you have to find a way to work around the outlier nature of Sn: For example you can completely eliminate this race from your sample or you have to enforce a maximun value with the normal deviation of the other members of the population....
Thing about the following hypothetical case:
Someone tells you that the average payout of the last two races is $40
What do you have to say about each of the two starters?
What is more likely to happen:
- Both winners payed $40 each
- One of them paid $70 and the other $10
The answer to this will help you to understand the importance of elimitaing outliers from samples.
raybo
12-16-2012, 11:12 AM
I respectfully disagree. I have become a better and better horseplayer the past 10 years to a point of reasonable profitability. And I have worked VERY hard to get there probably 10 times harder than I initially thought it would take - and the harder I worked the better the results. And it was all worth it. I have never wanted to be handed a system, but I do want to keep learning.
Some of the things that I have bought have helped me along the way. Almost every book has given me something to think about and often sometimes use in my handicapping. For $20 or $30 that's a great deal. If there is nothing it's not a lot of money.
I have bought a set of Pizzolla's tapes, got something out of it..sold them back on ebay. Not a bad deal. I have bought some of your work (Early vs. Late, Basics of Winning, Renegade Handicapper). Got something out of the first couple, nothing out of the latter..win some you lose some, but still not a bad deal.
The DRF Handicapping Expos...got very little from them. If I had actually spent the money to go to one of those-and I seriously thought about it- and received that for my money I would have felt ripped off. But if I am going to pay $250+, I don't want something like that.
I want some detailed intermediate to advanced material. I want to watch the process the speaker goes through a few races. Watch them handicap, watch them make betting decisions. I understand that those particular selections may or may not be profitable, but watching them do it may well be.
I am more than willing to pay $250+ for such an education. But as thaskalos says, if it is anything like the drf handicapping expos, count me out.
I think you may be underestimating the ability and drive of many of the horseplayers on this board. There may be some who want a black box...I'd love one, but I realize that hard work is my black box. There are many others on this board like me, I would guess. People who are willing to put in the work to beat this game.
But to be a good horseplayer you have to understand the value of money. $250 spent on a seminar can be an overlay or it could be an underlay. Just because Andrew Beyer is speaking doesn't make it an overlay. The information that is conveyed will decide that.
It appears you made Dave's point. The "work" and time involved is something the vast majority of players are unwilling to do. the vast majority of players, if they pay for something, expect immediate results, but they are unwilling to "immediately" go to work with that information, and continue that work "consistently", with "discipline and focus", for a shorter period of time, in order to achieve that immediate result. For most, it would turn into "less work", "less consistency", and "less discipline and focus", and a "much longer period of time", and even then, most would give up anyway, and never attain the result.
turninforhome10
12-16-2012, 11:13 AM
Although a vet or maybe trainer might reach some conclusions based in the appearence of the horse if they can examine it closely, 'physical handicapping' especially through a TV screen is comparable to numerology and astrology....
Ok agreed HDTV is a big impovement but tracks should pay much more attention to the paddock and post parade instead of all the BS.
Bottom line-
If the given the choice of getting a one day seminar with either (and this is ficticous in a sense), which would be more valuable?
A physical handicapping session with say Mac Miller or John Nerud in the paddock at Belmont, or a session with Doc Satrin or Andrew Beyer discussing pace and speed?
I ask the forum.
raybo
12-16-2012, 11:15 AM
If most of them are $20 winners then yes an $80 is an outlier.
Let me try to present it in another way:
Assume that all the winners over $20 are in the following vector:
[ S1 ($20), S2 ($25), S3 ($35), ..... Sn($150)]
(starter S1 payed $20 etc)
To make our example easier assume all except Sn are below $40
Now assume that you trying to find a strategy to select winners over $20
Obviously no stratery will be able to pick all of them instead each one will select a specific subset of them :
For example the winning picks of such a strategy might be the following:
[ S10, S12, S21 ]
another one might be
[ S1, S11, S31, S42 ]
Note that a strategy that will happen to pick Sn automatically will appear superior to the others just because of this despite the fact that most likely this particular pick was just a radnom selection and will not be repeated in the future.
For your strategy creation you have to find a way to work around the outlier nature of Sn: For example you can completely eliminate this race from your sample or you have to enforce a maximun value with the normal deviation of the other members of the population....
Thing about the following hypothetical case:
Someone tells you that the average payout of the last two races is $40
What do you have to say about each of the two starters?
What is more likely to happen:
- Both winners payed $40 each
- One of them paid $70 and the other $10
The answer to this will help you to understand the importance of elimitaing outliers from samples.
Read my post again, I said "over $20", not $20.
raybo
12-16-2012, 11:23 AM
For me, a true outlier is when you run through a whole meet and 2 of the 3 possible picks from the program show a negative return, and the 3rd pick shows a profit turning the entirety into a net profit, but when you look at the listing of the plays, for all the races in the database, you see that that 3rd pick only showed a profit because of 1 or 2 very big payouts. That particular ranking method would be rejected. There are 7 other methods available, and if all of them are rejected then you simply don't play that track.
banacek
12-16-2012, 11:29 AM
It appears you made Dave's point. The "work" and time involved is something the vast majority of players are unwilling to do. the vast majority of players, if they pay for something, expect immediate results, but they are unwilling to "immediately" go to work with that information, and continue that work "consistently", with "discipline and focus", for a shorter period of time, in order to achieve that immediate result. For most, it would turn into "less work", "less consistency", and "less discipline and focus", and a "much longer period of time", and even then, most would give up anyway, and never attain the result.
I agree with him on the hard work part...I just think there are many more willing to do the hard work that he (or apparently you) think. And people who are not willing to do the work shouldn't be spending $250+ on the seminar..they are wasting their time and the time of the others at the seminar.
If the people at the seminar are serious about doing what it takes, then it could be an amazing event. The interaction between the speakers and the horseplayers could be great. Ok so that means fewer are likely to attend..charge $500..and now maybe it is an overlay.
(Somehow this reminds me of the P90X infomercial...that's a hard exercise program and I know 3 people who have done it and it worked for them. The same guy also sells "The Ten Minute Trainer" specifically for those that don't want to put the effort required to do the P90x program.)
Dave Schwartz
12-16-2012, 11:33 AM
Banacek,
Funny, but it sounds to me like you agree with me.
I have no problem raising the bar on what the speakers "produce." The problem is (unlike you and the other winners) very few people are willing to dig out what they need. Instead, they want it all handed to them for $1.95.
Personally, I can agree with doing a seminar with nothing but speakers who meet the mark. Unfortunately, it would cost an arm and a leg to put it on and would be a financial bust because the only way to fill seats is to put the "big names" on.
Personally, there are some of the big names that I get very little from. There are some authors that write books that just do nothing for me. Meanwhile, some of those same authors are ones that others say, "I can't wait for his next book."
There is no accounting for taste.
About 15-16 years ago I did an in-person weekend seminar where all I did was handicap races for 3 hours per day and then we went to the racebook and played.
At the end of it, one of my very loyal followers said that this would be his last seminar if all I was going to do was to show everybody that I was a far better handicapper than they were. He wanted to know how to become that himself.
The long and the short of it is not everyone who reads a book or attends a seminar is going to get precisely what he would like to get from each speaker, but if they dig they will get something worthwhile from some of the speakers.
At the end of the day, I believe that the quality of the PROMOTER and what he expects/demands from the speakers, will determine whether or not a seminar is an OVERLAY or UNDERLAY.
As several people here have said (and I thank all of them for the kind words) the products I put out are ALWAYS clearly explained. You may not agree with the ideas, perhaps you do not integrate them into your handicapping but they are NEVER simply a superficial talk with no substance.
While this seminar is not a done deal (either as a yay or a nay), I have done some concrete work towards it. I have, to date, contacted and made verbal agreements with two major speakers/authors that would likely pass muster from MANY here, though I am POSITIVE not all would approve of. - LOL
In addition, I have contacted several vendors who have agreed to speak. The ground rules that I laid out for the vendors works like this:
1. You get two opportunities of 45 minutes each to do a VIDEO presentation. The presentation must be LIVE.
2. The first one MUST be geared towards giving out handicapping ideas that can be used without purchasing or signing up for ANYTHING. In other words, it CANNOT be a sales pitch.
3. The second one may be a product demo if you choose. You may even make an offer of a special deal if you choose.
4. At the end of the 45 minutes, there will be a 15-minute question and answer period as well as the occasional question during the presentation.
5. All sessions will be recorded and sent to the attendees on DVD a few days later.
6. I will provide the "audio/visual engineer" to help with the live production.
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
PS: Please note that by the time I got this posted, there were two more pages of responses.
traynor
12-16-2012, 02:04 PM
It appears you made Dave's point. The "work" and time involved is something the vast majority of players are unwilling to do. the vast majority of players, if they pay for something, expect immediate results, but they are unwilling to "immediately" go to work with that information, and continue that work "consistently", with "discipline and focus", for a shorter period of time, in order to achieve that immediate result. For most, it would turn into "less work", "less consistency", and "less discipline and focus", and a "much longer period of time", and even then, most would give up anyway, and never attain the result.
This is 2012, almost 2013. That idea of "work hard and suffer or you don't deserve the reward" went out a long time ago. People expect that if they pay for something, that something should do more than require they work hard and suffer while chasing rainbows. The deficiency is not on the part of the buyers with unreasonable expectations. The deficiency is on the part of sellers with unreasonable expectations.
traynor
12-16-2012, 02:08 PM
For me, a true outlier is when you run through a whole meet and 2 of the 3 possible picks from the program show a negative return, and the 3rd pick shows a profit turning the entirety into a net profit, but when you look at the listing of the plays, for all the races in the database, you see that that 3rd pick only showed a profit because of 1 or 2 very big payouts. That particular ranking method would be rejected. There are 7 other methods available, and if all of them are rejected then you simply don't play that track.
Outliers are not subject to personal opinion. This is not Wonderland, and words don't get to mean "just what you want them to mean--no more and no less." Haggling over what a "true outlier" should or should not be does little more than display a lack of knowledge.
Robert Fischer
12-16-2012, 02:12 PM
And I don't care much for the idea of shifting through 300 pages of questionable advice...so I can get to the one idea that might benefit me in the future.
Unfortunately, you have to be realistic.
As an "advanced" player, by definition - you are already well versed with the basics. This will usually be the only way you will benefit from handicapping books and seminars.
The idea that some mastermind who bets BIG full-time is going to walk you through his methodology for $20 a head, is a fairy tale.
If you can get one idea that stimulates you, you have benefited.
thaskalos
12-16-2012, 02:14 PM
This is 2012, almost 2013. That idea of "work hard and suffer or you don't deserve the reward" went out a long time ago. People expect that if they pay for something, that something should do more than require they work hard and suffer while chasing rainbows. The deficiency is not on the part of the buyers with unreasonable expectations. The deficiency is on the part of sellers with unreasonable expectations.
...and exaggerated claims.
Robert Fischer
12-16-2012, 02:32 PM
This is 2012, almost 2013. That idea of "work hard and suffer or you don't deserve the reward" went out a long time ago. People expect that if they pay for something, that something should do more than require they work hard and suffer while chasing rainbows. The deficiency is not on the part of the buyers with unreasonable expectations. The deficiency is on the part of sellers with unreasonable expectations.
That is fine, but if their only leverage in the situation is the ability to pay for something, they had better expect to pay a large sum. They also had better choose to invest in the right teacher. Only the elite insight is going to be enough to leap-frog over the process and the growing pains.
traynor
12-16-2012, 02:46 PM
That is fine, but if their only leverage in the situation is the ability to pay for something, they had better expect to pay a large sum. They also had better choose to invest in the right teacher. Only the elite insight is going to be enough to leap-frog over the process and the growing pains.
I agree completely. If there is value to the buyer, the money is well spent. If the product or service is the result of hard work and effort on the part of the seller but does not provide real value to the buyer, the hard work and effort of the seller are irrelevant.
I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a "finished product" if I buy something. Give me something and tell me I have to work hard and suffer to make it work, and that is reasonable. Try to sell me something with the same story, and I am going to expect the hard work and suffering has already been done for me--THAT is what I am paying for. If I have to work hard and suffer to make it work, I can do that on my own--using my own study, research, and programming if needed--for free.
traynor
12-16-2012, 02:58 PM
Although a vet or maybe trainer might reach some conclusions based in the appearence of the horse if they can examine it closely, 'physical handicapping' especially through a TV screen is comparable to numerology and astrology....
The idea that one can glimpse a horse for a few seconds on a TV screen (HDTV or no) and make reasoned judgements about the condition and potential of that horse is foolish, and little more than wishful thinking by those who choose their reality in electronic format.
Observational handicapping takes a bit to learn, and requires a physical presence ontrack to be useful. However, when learned to even a modest degree, it provides insights that go way beyond those displayed by numbers on a computer screen. In conjunction with those numbers, it provides a level of knowledge that is quite useful.
That is why I suggested that it might be a good topic for Dave's seminar idea. A presentation by someone knowledgable on the topic of using observational handicapping in conjunction with wagering.
Outliers are not subject to personal opinion. This is not Wonderland, and words don't get to mean "just what you want them to mean--no more and no less." Haggling over what a "true outlier" should or should not be does little more than display a lack of knowledge.
In a game of stats, ,yes.
This is the real world - horse racing.
"True outliers" - haggling over terms displays your lack of knowledge of the game.
Robert Fischer
12-16-2012, 03:02 PM
I agree completely. If there is value to the buyer, the money is well spent. If the product or service is the result of hard work and effort on the part of the seller but does not provide real value to the buyer, the hard work and effort of the seller are irrelevant.
I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a "finished product" if I buy something. Give me something and tell me I have to work hard and suffer to make it work, and that is reasonable. Try to sell me something with the same story, and I am going to expect the hard work and suffering has already been done for me--THAT is what I am paying for. If I have to work hard and suffer to make it work, I can do that on my own--using my own study, research, and programming if needed--for free.
I agree with you. Also having a hard time putting numbers into a realistic example.
What's a fair price for what we are talking about?
$100,000 or so ?
Assuming there was a pro even willing to sell his insight for such an amount, there may or may not be any buyers on the board interested in the investment.
However there are people on the board interested in spending much much less for some level of benefit.
Meaning a market does exist.
These buyers can't reasonably expect to bypass the hard work.
A physical handicapping session with say Mac Miller or John Nerud in the paddock at Belmont, or a session with Doc Satrin or Andrew Beyer discussing pace and speed?
I ask the forum.
Satin/Beyer.
Why waste time learning something your will not be able to use from the TV?
If you go to one track everyday, fine, but, as we have seen in the past, even when TV commentators, experts in physicality, tell us a horse looks bad, it mean nothing if the horse always looks bad. Not only do you need to know what to look for, you need to know what a the horse looks like normally. Not a big pie to slice up for betting purposes.
myhorse1
12-16-2012, 03:06 PM
[QUOTE=Dave Schwartz]
While this seminar is not a done deal (either as a yay or a nay), I have done some concrete work towards it. I have, to date, contacted and made verbal agreements with two major speakers/authors that would likely pass muster from MANY here, though I am POSITIVE not all would approve of. - LOL
this does NOT sound promising--if they are major speakers or authors i have probably read them or heard them and i would think i just going to get a rehash of their books or talks. not interested.
much more interesting to me would be to pick a day and have 3 or 4 of those listed in group a (from this board) handicap live 8 or 9 races--not just who they would bet but the process used in getting their picks and how horses's are eliminated and how they would structure their bets.
possibly have questions and answers live for 10 minutes before race starts.
raybo
12-16-2012, 03:30 PM
Outliers are not subject to personal opinion. This is not Wonderland, and words don't get to mean "just what you want them to mean--no more and no less." Haggling over what a "true outlier" should or should not be does little more than display a lack of knowledge.
So, now I have a "lack of knowledge" about horse racing. We're not talking about anything except horse racing here. You keep expounding the same stuff, saying that something won't work, and you and your buddies in academia, know what is true and what is not. Invariably, when you say something like that and then try to show proof, it is always in a subject that is not horse racing.
I could have said you had a lack of knowledge about horse racing long ago, but I didn't, because I haven't done the things you do, regarding horse racing, so I cannot downplay your method. You have not done the things I have done, either, but you seem to think that you can say, without doubt it seems, that I have a lack of knowledge about horse racing. Who do you think you are?
traynor
12-16-2012, 03:32 PM
In a game of stats, ,yes.
This is the real world - horse racing.
"True outliers" - haggling over terms displays your lack of knowledge of the game.
Declaring a subjective (and quite possibly erroneous) view as the "real world" leaves little room for discussion. I think your view of the "real world of horse racing" may be quite different than the view of others on what constitutes the "real world of horse racing." A pity.
traynor
12-16-2012, 03:36 PM
I agree with you. Also having a hard time putting numbers into a realistic example.
What's a fair price for what we are talking about?
$100,000 or so ?
Assuming there was a pro even willing to sell his insight for such an amount, there may or may not be any buyers on the board interested in the investment.
However there are people on the board interested in spending much much less for some level of benefit.
Meaning a market does exist.
These buyers can't reasonably expect to bypass the hard work.
There is a relevant example typical in business schools. In the scenario in which every marketing dollar results in a two dollar increase in sales, what should the marketing budget be? There is only one correct answer. Every dollar you can beg, borrow, or steal from every other budget.
The value of whatever is set by the results produced by whatever--not by the work, cost, or effort that went into its development.
traynor
12-16-2012, 03:39 PM
Satin/Beyer.
Why waste time learning something your will not be able to use from the TV?
If you go to one track everyday, fine, but, as we have seen in the past, even when TV commentators, experts in physicality, tell us a horse looks bad, it mean nothing if the horse always looks bad. Not only do you need to know what to look for, you need to know what a the horse looks like normally. Not a big pie to slice up for betting purposes.
A comment that I can agree with 100%. It is equivalent to betting a horse that "got into trouble" in its last race, when that horse seems to always "get into trouble."
traynor
12-16-2012, 03:44 PM
So, now I have a "lack of knowledge" about horse racing. We're not talking about anything except horse racing here. You keep expounding the same stuff, saying that something won't work, and you and your buddies in academia, know what is true and what is not. Invariably, when you say something like that and then try to show proof, it is always in a subject that is not horse racing.
I could have said you had a lack of knowledge about horse racing long ago, but I didn't, because I haven't done the things you do, regarding horse racing, so I cannot downplay your method. You have not done the things I have done, either, but you seem to think that you can say, without doubt it seems, that I have a lack of knowledge about horse racing. Who do you think you are?
You seem unaware of the most fundamental aspects of statistics as they are applied to horse racing (or any other topic), while declaring such to be a major component of your method(s). That seems a bit peculiar to me.
raybo
12-16-2012, 03:47 PM
You seem unaware of the most fundamental aspects of statistics as they are applied to horse racing (or any other topic), while declaring such to be a major component of your method(s). That seems a bit peculiar to me.
Many of the things you respond to here, appear to be a bit peculiar, to you. Maybe that's because you are just you, everyone else is everyone else. So, we should believe only you, when almost everyone else here disagrees with you? That would be a bit peculiar, wouldn't you say?
traynor
12-16-2012, 04:18 PM
Many of the things you respond to here, appear to be a bit peculiar, to you. Maybe that's because you are just you, everyone else is everyone else. So, we should believe only you, when almost everyone else here disagrees with you? That would be a bit peculiar, wouldn't you say?
I do not suggest that anyone "believe" me. If "belief" is required, that puts horse racing off into the area of metaphysics. I do, however, suggest that anyone interested in serious handicapping would be well advised to learn at least the fundamentals of statistics, to be able to distinguish fact from wishful thinking.
I don't consider that unreasonable, nor does it require "belief" in much of anything. It is the notion that horse racing exists in some kind of knowledge vacuum in which processes that apply to pretty much everything else in the world are somehow suspended that requires "belief." And (in the subjective view of some, apparently) a complete cessation of critical thinking and cognitive processing.
turninforhome10
12-16-2012, 04:26 PM
Satin/Beyer.
Why waste time learning something your will not be able to use from the TV?
If you go to one track everyday, fine, but, as we have seen in the past, even when TV commentators, experts in physicality, tell us a horse looks bad, it mean nothing if the horse always looks bad. Not only do you need to know what to look for, you need to know what a the horse looks like normally. Not a big pie to slice up for betting purposes.
Tom, this is the deficiency of the product IMHO. Horses should be able to more closely scrutinized. Better paddock cams, and maybe even allowing the public to watch the horses cool out in a visible but protective forum. Truth be told, disclosure has never been the most important detail for the racing officials to adhere to. I think about it like this, would you buy a stock without being able to vet it. Yet we accept the notion that this is not important, you know the little details, noticing a new ring bit after the horse was trying to run off in last.
Devils in the details.
traynor
12-16-2012, 04:44 PM
Suggested seminar topic: the use (and misuse) of basic statistics in handicapping horse races. Not necessarily a presentation by an "ivory tower" statistician, or by a developer selling a product or service, but someone who actually understands (and routinely uses) basic statistical functions in his or her handicapping research/wagering.
That seems a topic in which a knowledge vacuum exists, in which the benefits could be directly translated into an improved bottom line, and in which an investment in knowledge acquisition would be money well spent.
Possible presenters might include any of a number of professional bookmakers in Australia or the UK, whose livelihood depends on their skill. Their occupation carries its own validation of expertise.
Declaring a subjective (and quite possibly erroneous) view as the "real world" leaves little room for discussion. I think your view of the "real world of horse racing" may be quite different than the view of others on what constitutes the "real world of horse racing." A pity.
Not really. The pity is those who only talk about it.
Devils in the details.
No that it is unimportant, just that it is unavailable.
No sense worrying about it - NTRA will NEVER put cameras on the other side of the track so that you see the damn horses in the PP. Just the limitations of tracks being run by people who do not give a shit or have no clue, take your pick.
I think most tracks are challenged enough to draw cards and count the hot dog money. I expect nothing to change in my lifetime.
dkithore
12-16-2012, 05:44 PM
One "long term combination" that will never fail to perform, if done correctly, and kept updated (damn those small samples), is: the makeup of a race versus the individuals in that race. Take that to the bank ---- from now on.
Raybo,
Will u care to explain a little more? It is an interesting point. Thanks.
raybo
12-16-2012, 06:25 PM
Raybo,
Will u care to explain a little more? It is an interesting point. Thanks.
That would be better handled in another thread. This one has gotten off the topic enough already. Race makeup/race shape/pace pressure versus individual horses' preferences and abilities has been discussed at length before, but if you want to start a new thread about it I will gladly participate.
thaskalos
12-16-2012, 06:30 PM
That would be better handled in another thread. This one has gotten off the topic enough already. Race makeup/race shape/pace pressure versus individual horses' preferences and abilities has been discussed at length before, but if you want to start a new thread about it I will gladly participate.
I would gladly participate too.
It fits in well with my handicapping philosophy when I analyze certain types of races.
Cratos
12-16-2012, 06:44 PM
Suggested seminar topic: the use (and misuse) of basic statistics in handicapping horse races. Not necessarily a presentation by an "ivory tower" statistician, or by a developer selling a product or service, but someone who actually understands (and routinely uses) basic statistical functions in his or her handicapping research/wagering.
That seems a topic in which a knowledge vacuum exists, in which the benefits could be directly translated into an improved bottom line, and in which an investment in knowledge acquisition would be money well spent.
Possible presenters might includeany of a number of professional bookmakers in Australia or the UK, whose livelihood depends on their skill. Their occupation carries its own validation of expertise.
Traynor, your posts are well stated and eloquently to the point, but the audience or at least the "vocal" audience on this forum is not listening and never will because they don't have a basic understanding of statistics and because you do you have contextually become the "outlier" in this discussion.
However what is laughable is that horse racing according to data that can found on the Internet is the largest statistical sport in North America followed by baseball.
Furthermore just taking a stat course is not enough even though you might become familiar with some basic concepts, it is the use of statistics in real life applications that one begin to understand the power of statistical analysis.
Yes, you need to have an understanding of the subject under analysis and in this case it is horse racing which I believe you and many others who post here have, but in reading many posts I have found the understanding of basic statistics severely lacking.
However you shouldn't be concerned (and I don't think that you are) because this is a player vs. player game and as Alfred P. Sloan once stated: "when the man with money meets the man with knowledge, the man with money gets the knowledge and the man with knowledge gets the money."
Traynor, your posts are well stated and eloquently to the point, but the audience or at least the "vocal" audience on this forum is not listening and never will because they don't have a basic understanding of statistics and because you do you have contextually become the "outlier" in this discussion.
Not true.
The reason is that people here are interested in cashing tickets.
Maybe if guys ever got to that part of it, people would pay attention.
This is a game of cashing, not talking. Since this thread started, I've chased tickets on over 20 races using CJ's practical methods. One of the theroy guys posted he has bet 0 races this month.
End of lesson.
baconswitchfarm
12-16-2012, 07:42 PM
I think Dave will get enough customers to have this. I would suggest it be geared toward beginner and mid level players. I just don't think the pool of top level players is large enough to draw from.
On the subject of hard work I must chime in. People who do not do this, can not imagine the hours and the boring grind that this is year in and year out. To play full time for a living is as tedious and slow as anything I can imagine. It also eventually grinds the joy out of the game for you. People who love gambling always tell me I am living their dream . I use this analogy for them. Imagine your passion is mountain climbing. Now go get a job taking people mountain climbing eighty hours a week for five years. Then tell me what you do on your day off . I bet it isn't climb a mountain. That is the type of work and hours it requires to win at this game.
If Dave does find a presenter that has a way to win without working hard , call me. I will pay a lot more than $250 to for it.
thaskalos
12-16-2012, 07:55 PM
I think Dave will get enough customers to have this. I would suggest it be geared toward beginner and mid level players. I just don't think the pool of top level players is large enough to draw from.
On the subject of hard work I must chime in. People who do not do this, can not imagine the hours and the boring grind that this is year in and year out. To play full time for a living is as tedious and slow as anything I can imagine. It also eventually grinds the joy out of the game for you. People who love gambling always tell me I am living their dream . I use this analogy for them. Imagine your passion is mountain climbing. Now go get a job taking people mountain climbing eighty hours a week for five years. Then tell me what you do on your day off . I bet it isn't climb a mountain. That is the type of work and hours it requires to win at this game.
If Dave does find a presenter that has a way to win without working hard , call me. I will pay a lot more than $250 to for it.
Would you rather work for somebody else?
traynor
12-16-2012, 08:03 PM
Not true.
The reason is that people here are interested in cashing tickets.
Maybe if guys ever got to that part of it, people would pay attention.
This is a game of cashing, not talking. Since this thread started, I've chased tickets on over 20 races using CJ's practical methods. One of the theroy guys posted he has bet 0 races this month.
End of lesson.
Anyone can cash tickets. All they need to do is the "New York Special" of betting every horse in the race, stashing the tickets in different pockets, so that no matter what happens, a "winning ticket" can be pulled out and waved with a smug, "I had that one. Did you?"
Cashing tickets is a fool's game. One can lose a dozen races in a row, then finally cash a ticket and declare himself or herself to be a "winner." (A strategy I think more than a few may employ.) Cashing tickets with a return that exceeds the amount of the wagers over an extended period of time should be the goal. Doing so with a bottom line that is significant is an even better goal.
I have the records to show I am winning.
Do you? I said I cashed 20 tickets. I lied. I just cashed two more.
You seem to create imaginary people to argue against to hide the fact that you never close the deal. You never get past the talking.
You have not even gotten to the cash a ticket stage you describe, let alone profits.
traynor
12-16-2012, 08:13 PM
Would you rather work for somebody else?
I think that is the point where baconswitchfarm's simile falls apart. It equates handicpping with an 80-hour a week "job." It might be better viewed as the equivalent of an independent consultant, who is able to choose when, where, how long, and for how much he or she "works," picking and choosing only projects that are interesting, challenging, and quite rewarding. With the option of working or not working for a day, a week, or a month--at his or her sole choice--if the inclination arises.
Yes, some put in lots of hours at handicapping. Some of them do it because it is way more enjoyable than almost anything else they do. And they get paid for it.
traynor
12-16-2012, 08:16 PM
I have the records to show I am winning.
Do you? I said I cashed 20 tickets. I lied. I just cashed two more.
You seem to create imaginary people to argue against to hide the fact that you never close the deal. You never get past the talking.
You have not even gotten to the cash a ticket stage you describe, let alone profits.
I think you know far less than you pretend to know. I think you know absolutely nothing about what I do or do not do, and to pretend you do is as foolish as anything I have ever read, here or elsewhere.
Kevroc
12-16-2012, 08:28 PM
On the subject of hard work I must chime in. People who do not do this, can not imagine the hours and the boring grind that this is year in and year out. To play full time for a living is as tedious and slow as anything I can imagine. It also eventually grinds the joy out of the game for you. People who love gambling always tell me I am living their dream . I use this analogy for them. Imagine your passion is mountain climbing. Now go get a job taking people mountain climbing eighty hours a week for five years. Then tell me what you do on your day off . I bet it isn't climb a mountain. That is the type of work and hours it requires to win at this game.
I am in agreement with you about the work, but there is something to be said for loving what you do. Horseplayers and cardplayers do get into that 'grind' where the joy can be sucked out of the game.
My question to you would be, is there another line of work that you would rather do and have racing as your weekend activity?
I'd guess that the answer would be 'no'. I'm not disagreeing with the statement that it takes hard work, but you do love what you do and that is a leg up on many others.
Question #2.. What do YOU do for recreation?
I think you know far less than you pretend to know. I think you know absolutely nothing about what I do or do not do
That is exactly what I have been saying.
You are using a lot of post to say nothing.
Maximillion
12-16-2012, 09:12 PM
I think that is the point where baconswitchfarm's simile falls apart. It equates handicpping with an 80-hour a week "job." It might be better viewed as the equivalent of an independent consultant, who is able to choose when, where, how long, and for how much he or she "works," picking and choosing only projects that are interesting, challenging, and quite rewarding. With the option of working or not working for a day, a week, or a month--at his or her sole choice--if the inclination arises.
Yes, some put in lots of hours at handicapping. Some of them do it because it is way more enjoyable than almost anything else they do. And they get paid for it.
traynor
If I understand correctly,what you do is fully automated....my question is this...Do you ever look at your queued bets for the day and say "Na, not this one.....its 2 for 37 and the pattern (or whatever) may be a tease"(or some such thing).... .or do you find in the long run its better to just stick with your application?
Not being snarky...an honest question.
In other words,do you sometimes "overide" your potential bets?
Cratos
12-16-2012, 10:57 PM
Not true.
The reason is that people here are interested in cashing tickets.
Maybe if guys ever got to that part of it, people would pay attention.
This is a game of cashing, not talking. Since this thread started, I've chased tickets on over 20 races using CJ's practical methods. One of the theroy guys posted he has bet 0 races this month.
U
End of lesson.
Congratulations you are making money at the game of horse race wagering, but why should anyone else care but you; not unless they have a vested interest in your wagerimg. For you stating why someone come to this forum is just conjecture on your part to further an insidious agenda because I don't believe you know why the people who come here in anonimity, come here.
Also there are a mirade of reasons why someone wouldn't reveal his or her winnings, ranging from probable tax consequences to personal.
baconswitchfarm
12-17-2012, 12:57 AM
[QUOTE=traynor]" It might be better viewed as the equivalent of an independent consultant, who is able to choose when, where, how long, and for how much he or she "works," picking and choosing only projects that are interesting, challenging, and quite rewarding. With the option of working or not working for a day, a week, or a month--at his or her sole choice--if the inclination arises.
I read this to other guys who bet for a living so they could have a good laugh too.
traynor
12-17-2012, 01:16 AM
traynor
If I understand correctly,what you do is fully automated....my question is this...Do you ever look at your queued bets for the day and say "Na, not this one.....its 2 for 37 and the pattern (or whatever) may be a tease"(or some such thing).... .or do you find in the long run its better to just stick with your application?
Not being snarky...an honest question.
In other words,do you sometimes "overide" your potential bets?
What I do is partially automated. That is, specific portions involve very little decision-making on individual races. Wagers are made according to models. Other portions use models, but all decisions are made in real time according to the individual attributes of the entries in that particular race--the only thing automated is the modeling process.
traynor
12-17-2012, 01:21 AM
[QUOTE=traynor]" It might be better viewed as the equivalent of an independent consultant, who is able to choose when, where, how long, and for how much he or she "works," picking and choosing only projects that are interesting, challenging, and quite rewarding. With the option of working or not working for a day, a week, or a month--at his or her sole choice--if the inclination arises.
I read this to other guys who bet for a living so they could have a good laugh too.
If you folks have to work 80 hours a week to earn your beans and beer, you might consider working at Wal-Mart. With time and a half after 40 hours, it would probably net you more income, as well as being much less stressful. Something to think about while you folks are sitting around discussing the realities of wagering for a living.
baconswitchfarm
12-17-2012, 02:31 AM
The difference is i am discussing the realities of wagering for a living with other people like myself, who wager for a living. We are not selling books, or theories of what might make it possible to wager for a living. I have an idea though which will take some hours out of my work day. I figured out over the last ten thousand races that horses dropping in class, and cutting back in distance, while on the River Downs turf course, with a jockey change to a Panamanian rider, under a full moon, in the horses month of birth, while in the six gate, while the third choice is a late scratch, on a Tuesday, have a positive ROI % while bet in a show parlay with the favorite in the first race. Of course I eliminated all the outliers. I will just use this to make six figures next year again and not work nearly so hard.
Good luck with your seminar Dave.
The full moon - that is the missing link!
Thanks you so much! I now have it all! ;)
eurocapper
12-17-2012, 08:03 AM
The wai I see it there are two basic propositions.
1. Most horseplayers are stupid and one just needs a little effort or some special insight to find some permanent angle in order to beat them in a mechanical manner. That angle is to be found through statistical analysis.
2. Most horseplayers are smart and one needs to do more work than they do to win consistently. Computer applications can be helpful but are not required.
Maybe 1. used to be the state of things, but 2. closer to the truth nowadays.
Congratulations you are making money at the game of horse race wagering, but why should anyone else care but you; not unless they have a vested interest in your wagerimg. For you stating why someone come to this forum is just conjecture on your part to further an insidious agenda because I don't believe you know why the people who come here in anonimity, come here.
You miss the point.
The object of horse race wagering is to make money.
You and Traynor never get to the end game. Endless theoretical discussion without any validation of it is pointless. My point was that all the while this what we should do talk has been going on, people are out there using the stuff you put down to make real money.
One wonders if you guys ever actually bet.......
Endless theoretical discussion without any validation of it is pointless.
Bingo.
bob60566
12-17-2012, 10:20 AM
The difference is i am discussing the realities of wagering for a living with other people like myself, who wager for a living. We are not selling books, or theories of what might make it possible to wager for a living. I have an idea though which will take some hours out of my work day. I figured out over the last ten thousand races that horses dropping in class, and cutting back in distance, while on the River Downs turf course, with a jockey change to a Panamanian rider, under a full moon, in the horses month of birth, while in the six gate, while the third choice is a late scratch, on a Tuesday, have a positive ROI % while bet in a show parlay with the favorite in the first race. Of course I eliminated all the outliers. I will just use this to make six figures next year again and not work nearly so hard.
Good luck with your seminar Dave.
This angle should help and there is no charge except for the addons and works on any given day at the track.
On a even day you eliminate all the odd number horses in a race, you then look at the pp for the horses last race in days and elimiinate all the odd days for remaining horses and these are your contenders, If you have to go further to eliminate contenders i am working on that as i only have very small sample database. :) :)
Magister Ludi
12-17-2012, 10:23 AM
You miss the point.
The object of horse race wagering is to make money.
You and Traynor never get to the end game. Endless theoretical discussion without any validation of it is pointless. My point was that all the while this what we should do talk has been going on, people are out there using the stuff you put down to make real money.
One wonders if you guys ever actually bet.......
Let me preface this by saying that I'm singling you out. I'm genuinely happy that you're cashing tickets and making money doing what you love to do. I appreciate your obvious intelligence and great sense of humor. However, I've yet to read any of your posts which I could categorize as thought-provoking. "Endless theoretical discussion" is what drives us to consider and test new ideas and to make them our own and enables us to "cash tickets" and "make real money". I could regale you with stories about "cashing tickets" and "making real money" that would make your head spin, but it wouldn't put a penny to your pocket. However, just one new idea that germinates and comes to fruition inside of you can make more money for you than you ever thought possible. Again, I mean the above respectfully and not in a mean-spirited way.
However, just one new idea that germinates and comes to fruition inside of you can make more money for you than you ever thought possible.
I agree 100% with you.
But we don't seem to get to that point here.
I would love to see some of this stuff put to practice.
raybo
12-17-2012, 11:03 AM
Endless theoretical discussion without any validation of it is pointless.
One wonders if you guys ever actually bet.......
There you go! :ThmbUp:
Magister Ludi
12-17-2012, 11:24 AM
Let me preface this by saying that I'm singling you out. I'm genuinely happy that you're cashing tickets and making money doing what you love to do. I appreciate your obvious intelligence and great sense of humor. However, I've yet to read any of your posts which I could categorize as thought-provoking. "Endless theoretical discussion" is what drives us to consider and test new ideas and to make them our own and enables us to "cash tickets" and "make real money". I could regale you with stories about "cashing tickets" and "making real money" that would make your head spin, but it wouldn't put a penny to your pocket. However, just one new idea that germinates and comes to fruition inside of you can make more money for you than you ever thought possible. Again, I mean the above respectfully and not in a mean-spirited way.
Tom,
I inadvertantly left out the word "not" in my previous post. I meant to say, "Let me preface this by saying that I'm NOT singling you out". You certainly don't have a corner on that market. I apologize for any misunderstanding.
raybo
12-17-2012, 11:24 AM
Let me preface this by saying that I'm singling you out. I'm genuinely happy that you're cashing tickets and making money doing what you love to do. I appreciate your obvious intelligence and great sense of humor. However, I've yet to read any of your posts which I could categorize as thought-provoking. "Endless theoretical discussion" is what drives us to consider and test new ideas and to make them our own and enables us to "cash tickets" and "make real money". I could regale you with stories about "cashing tickets" and "making real money" that would make your head spin, but it wouldn't put a penny to your pocket. However, just one new idea that germinates and comes to fruition inside of you can make more money for you than you ever thought possible. Again, I mean the above respectfully and not in a mean-spirited way.
Quite right. Saying you are successful is just talk. Posting a substantial example of that success is something else. By substantial, I would think a whole meet at the same track, or 3 or 4 months at mixed tracks would be good enough to at least lend credence to your claims. A full year is even better. Chances are that if you can show success for a complete year, you are capable of repeating it, of course nobody can guarantee anything in the future, but at least some one who shows some example of more than a few races or cards would take much of the doubt out of his/her claims.
But, someone who continually posts negative remarks, and espouses that they know the best way, without producing any example of that method, ever, has no merit here, or anywhere else. Just saying that they have no interest in convincing anyone of anything, while continually posting the same things as being better, or even good, makes them a liar, pure and simple, and "once a liar always a liar", you can never again trust anything that person says.
So, how can one take any "nugget" of information from anything such a person might post? Why would one want to waste their time on something said by such a person, one they can't trust as being, at least, honest?
Tom,
I inadvertantly left out the word "not" in my previous post. I meant to say, "Let me preface this by saying that I'm NOT singling you out". You certainly don't have a corner on that market. I apologize for any misunderstanding.
No problem.
I'm usually on someone's list or another! :D
I didn't even catch it.
Capper Al
12-17-2012, 12:58 PM
The way I see it is that our development as handicapper grows in stages. I can't expect a pro to show us their hard learned lessons. No expert wants to follow in Dowst or Beyers' footstep giving away their secrets and making their methods unprofitable. The problem for us as consumers in need of any expert help that we can get is that those who claim to be experts aren't and only want the presitage and money that comes from being an expert. It's a catch 22. In review, the only audience that could possible get their money's would be the beginners.
Dave Schwartz
12-17-2012, 01:21 PM
I know that this will not surprise anyone but I have an opinion!
Admittedly, my outlook on racing is different than many/most, because I want every morsel of potential new ideas I can get and am willing to pay for it if necessary. (It is that "pay-for" part that is probably different.)
In the business world, one is deluged with materials to purchase. Seminars, software, marketing plans, joint ventures, you name it. Many of the products are expensive enough that they come with a seminar as a sales pitch.
The good news is that the seminars themselves are often loaded with ideas you can use.
The bad news is that there are just so many opportunities. I literally spend 5-6 hours per month watching seminars. I have checked out of some of them by the 10 minute mark because I did not come for a 90-minute sales pitch that does not contain stuff that I can use.
Horse racing is different. There is hardly anything new to watch, buy, whatever. To me that is BAD news. It should be to you as well.
The point is, that anyone who is willing to share new ideas should be encouraged to do so. That is, encouraged, in contrast to being told to prove whether or not they should be listened to.
Get this - IT IS THE IDEA THAT COUNTS - not the quality of the speaker. Heck, even an idiot can have a bright idea once in awhile.
Just consider what happens if a guy that you have no respect for; no belief in; no desire to emulate... presents an idea that sounds pretty good. Do you automatically reject it or do you mull it over, and, perhaps, use it anyway?
In my humble opinion...
You guys are attaching way too much importance on the pedigree of the speaker when you should be clamoring for a fountain of new ideas.
raybo
12-17-2012, 01:26 PM
I know that this will not surprise anyone but I have an opinion!
Admittedly, my outlook on racing is different than many/most, because I want every morsel of potential new ideas I can get and am willing to pay for it if necessary. (It is that "pay-for" part that is probably different.)
In the business world, one is deluged with materials to purchase. Seminars, software, marketing plans, joint ventures, you name it. Many of the products are expensive enough that they come with a seminar as a sales pitch.
The good news is that the seminars themselves are often loaded with ideas you can use.
The bad news is that there are just so many opportunities. I literally spend 5-6 hours per month watching seminars. I have checked out of some of them by the 10 minute mark because I did not come for a 90-minute sales pitch that does not contain stuff that I can use.
Horse racing is different. There is hardly anything new to watch, buy, whatever. To me that is BAD news. It should be to you as well.
The point is, that anyone who is willing to share new ideas should be encouraged to do so. That is, encouraged, in contrast to being told to prove whether or not they should be listened to.
Get this - IT IS THE IDEA THAT COUNTS - not the quality of the speaker. Heck, even an idiot can have a bright idea once in awhile.
Just consider what happens if a guy that you have no respect for; no belief in; no desire to emulate... presents an idea that sounds pretty good. Do you automatically reject it or do you mull it over, and, perhaps, use it anyway?
In my humble opinion...
You guys are attaching way too much importance on the pedigree of the speaker when you should be clamoring for a fountain of new ideas.
You're right, of course, but then --------
In my humble opinion...
You guys are attaching way too much importance on the pedigree of the speaker when you should be clamoring for a fountain of new ideas.
Certainly nothing wrong with that. Even when I hear an idea I think sounds great, and turns out to be less than good, I still learn something in the testing. At a minimum I learn the idea is not good, but usually more.
DeltaLover
12-17-2012, 02:17 PM
I know that this will not surprise anyone but I have an opinion!
Admittedly, my outlook on racing is different than many/most, because I want every morsel of potential new ideas I can get and am willing to pay for it if necessary. (It is that "pay-for" part that is probably different.)
In the business world, one is deluged with materials to purchase. Seminars, software, marketing plans, joint ventures, you name it. Many of the products are expensive enough that they come with a seminar as a sales pitch.
The good news is that the seminars themselves are often loaded with ideas you can use.
The bad news is that there are just so many opportunities. I literally spend 5-6 hours per month watching seminars. I have checked out of some of them by the 10 minute mark because I did not come for a 90-minute sales pitch that does not contain stuff that I can use.
Horse racing is different. There is hardly anything new to watch, buy, whatever. To me that is BAD news. It should be to you as well.
The point is, that anyone who is willing to share new ideas should be encouraged to do so. That is, encouraged, in contrast to being told to prove whether or not they should be listened to.
Get this - IT IS THE IDEA THAT COUNTS - not the quality of the speaker. Heck, even an idiot can have a bright idea once in awhile.
Just consider what happens if a guy that you have no respect for; no belief in; no desire to emulate... presents an idea that sounds pretty good. Do you automatically reject it or do you mull it over, and, perhaps, use it anyway?
In my humble opinion...
You guys are attaching way too much importance on the pedigree of the speaker when you should be clamoring for a fountain of new ideas.
I am in complete agreement with that. New ideas, usually born by accident rather than specific research are the catalysts both for evolutions and revolutions that occur within a domain.
Despite this universal truth, I think that horse racing handicapping still have not reached its maturity and still has long way to go. I can detect a huge vacuum when it comes to theoretical background which is accompanied from antiquated and limited data sources and policies (inadequate theoretical analysis and staled data sources are working together having the one complementing the other).
Try to compare horse racing against other similar industries, like for example foreign exchange or sports betting. While as members of a racing forum we still need to explain what an expert system is and face resistance and skepticism, the forex equivalent posters are not promoting nineteen century's theories but are in the cutting edge of the technology. Exactly the same applies to sport's betting where we have PHD's earned for handicapping sport events and line creation...
We, us horse players, think that, yes, we know better.. We do not need to learn about this ridiculous concept called Pattern Recognition, which after all, will end up just proposing the obvious favorites... We do not really need historical data... Large data bases are for theorists... Those who shadow trade their forex models using millions of data points, obviously do not know that small samples is the way and they just need a week worth of data to show real profitability...
This mentality is responsible for an osmotic balance keeping the racing word antiquated and far from the evolutions of the modern technology. It is spread from and to all the relative factors, from horse players, to journalists and public handicappers and to data providers. A natural consequence of it, is to keep young people far from it since those who want to gamble will naturally try other sectors where they will find better and cheaper data, better textbooks and fresher mentality.
Can you think of an aspiring horseplayer seeking some advice from a typical PA member?
Young newbie: How long you think it will take me to master the game?
Rob Goren : Look young man, if you are smart and talented, it might take you anywhere from 20 to 30 years...
What do you think it will happen?
So to go back to Dave's statement about new ideas, which of course are absolutely necessary to keep anything going, I have to conclude that yes, we need them but we need to cultivate them in parallel efforts to modernize the industry elevating it up to our era standards..
thaskalos
12-17-2012, 02:39 PM
Can you think of an aspiring horseplayer seeking some advice from a typical PA member?
Young newbie: How long you think it will take me to master the game?
Rob Goren : Look young man, if you are smart and talented, it might take you anywhere from 20 to 30 years...
What do you think it will happen?
If anything...I think Goren was being too optimistic.
The young man might be neither smart nor talented...
Personally, I would be hard pressed to steer a young and talented individual into this game in its current shape. Sad, but true...
thaskalos
12-17-2012, 03:17 PM
Personally, I would be hard pressed to steer a young and talented individual into this game in its current shape. Sad, but true...
Couldn't agree more...:ThmbUp:
barn32
12-17-2012, 04:52 PM
You can get poker training videos everywhere. There is no shortage of "professional" poker training sites willing to teach you how to win at the game for a fee.
This doesn't exist for horse racing.
Why do you suppose that is?
MightBeSosa
12-17-2012, 04:55 PM
The only new idea I'm interested in is how to get the takeout down to 10 % or less. Everything else is a lesson on how to die slowly.
MightBeSosa
12-17-2012, 04:56 PM
You can get poker training videos everywhere. There is no shortage of "professional" poker training sites willing to teach you how to win at the game for a fee.
This doesn't exist for horse racing.
Why do you suppose that is?
Very simple. Glad you asked.
one word son, and its not plastics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parimutuel_betting
thaskalos
12-17-2012, 05:35 PM
You can get poker training videos everywhere. There is no shortage of "professional" poker training sites willing to teach you how to win at the game for a fee.
This doesn't exist for horse racing.
Why do you suppose that is?
Because poker is a game of BETTING...and poker players know that.
There is theory involved, of course...but success depends upon making the right BETS...and keeping your wits about you when things go wrong. The real value of the poker training videos you speak of comes not from the poker "theory" that the experts share with the viewer...but from the discipline and courage they display when making their bets...and the composure they maintain when luck turns against them. Entire books have been written on tilt-control alone.
Horse players seem to think that HANDICAPPING is where the secret to success lies in this game...and the other aspects of it get only rudimentary mention -- probably because few are really interested in "boring" topics such as these. We are attracted to the handicapping "theorists"...when the disciplined but fearless BETTORS are the ones worth listening to and emulating.
Give a talk on the fine points of handicapping...and people are clamoring to sit down and listen.
Say that you will talk about discipline, courage under fire, and self-control...and people roll their eyes, and move along...
Dave Schwartz
12-17-2012, 05:36 PM
Horse players seem to think that HANDICAPPING is where the secret to success lies in this game...and the other aspects of it get only rudimentary mention -- probably because few are really interested in "boring" topics such as these. We are attracted to the handicapping "theorists"...when the disciplined but fearless BETTORS are the ones worth listening to and emulating.
Give a talk on the fine points of handicapping...and people are clamoring sit down and listen. Say that you will talk about discipline, courage under fire, and self-control...and people roll their eyes, and move along...
Okay, this is like a 5-star post!
:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:
thaskalos
12-17-2012, 05:52 PM
Okay, this is like a 5-star post!
:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:
And this is why Thaskalos will decline the invitation to speak at the event you are thinking of promoting, Dave...
People just don't seem to be interested in what I want to talk about...and I don't want to talk about what they are interested in.
myhorse1
12-17-2012, 07:13 PM
Horse players seem to think that HANDICAPPING is where the secret to success lies in this game...and the other aspects of it get only rudimentary mention -- probably because few are really interested in "boring" topics such as these. We are attracted to the handicapping "theorists"...when the disciplined but fearless BETTORS are the ones worth listening to and emulating.
Give a talk on the fine points of handicapping...and people are clamoring to sit down and listen.
Say that you will talk about discipline, courage under fire, and self-control...and people roll their eyes, and move along...
If you cannot pick winners successfully being a fearless BETTOR
is certainly not the answer.
thaskalos
12-17-2012, 07:17 PM
If you cannot pick winners successfully being a fearless BETTOR
is certainly not the answer.
Learning to be a good handicapper is the easy part...
Thask - People wold be interested in hearing about the topics you mentioned!
And Dave I love the re-statement of what you want to present which is NEW IDEAS (I'll add creative variations on current approaches). The problem with the more famous people list (can't recall if that was A or B) is that in my experience they don't have new ideas. Mnay of them are vested in the traditional approaches and have written books and various regurgitations of their earlier books. Much of it is theory that sounds great but never translates to the track. Reading most of the mainstream books that have been offered up in the last 20 years has been like reading a modified version of Ainsle...which is great as an intro but not so much as a way to profits
So bring on the new and newer ideas... (and if you find some "name" folks in the list of people with new ideas, then great, sign them up because that will help the marketing!).
The new, newer, interesting ideas to me would involve a workshop on taking the analysis, the information, the product of whatever approach one uses and translating that to betting decisions and structures (but it could be a lot of different things to others). That is the beauty of an internet presentation - you can have the analysis and the approach and feedback and discussion and then run the race and do an post-race analysis. Yes, the experts could go 0-fer. People are smart enough to understand that **** happens and people lose races. Personally I'd make this a series over several weekends - or one weekend a month so its easier to manage for everyone.
And I do think people will attend depending on cost and effective marketing. I think if you have some top names (you and a couple of others) who are the organizers (so people will have confidence in the product), some good endorsements of the speakers and some effective e-marketing then it could be successful.
Keep noodling, I think it could work
Best, Frank
proximity
12-17-2012, 07:32 PM
bottom line is the majority of consistent p.a. posters w/500 plus posts are at least peers of those on the lists and don't need to pay to be lectured to. most of us probably can gain by going out to a track from time to time and talking WITH other good posters from this site. and we shouldn't have to charge each other for something like this.
raybo
12-17-2012, 07:37 PM
Learning to be a good handicapper is the easy part...
Agree, the easier of the 2 anyway. Lots of people can come up with good contenders, but they still lose money because they can't, or won't, control the wagering side of the equation. Stress control, for me anyway, was the real killer, trying to put food on the table, and pay the rent, etc.. Once you lose your composure; discipline, patience, consistency, and good decision making, all go right out the window (or rather "in the window", never to return).
Dave Schwartz
12-17-2012, 07:41 PM
bottom line is the majority of consistent p.a. posters w/500 plus posts are at least peers of those on the lists and don't need to pay to be lectured to. most of us probably can gain by going out to a track from time to time and talking WITH other good posters from this site. and we shouldn't have to charge each other for something like this.
Great idea.
When was the last time a trip like that with organized speakers occurred?
And when you went to that event, did you get to take a lot of notes?
My experience is that very little teaching/learning goes on at the track. Perhaps your experience is different.
My belief is that EVENTS happen because SOMEONE organizes them. What would cause you to put 50-100 hours into doing something like that?
If you will do it for free, then please, by all means, get it going. I'd be interested in attending.
raybo
12-17-2012, 07:47 PM
bottom line is the majority of consistent p.a. posters w/500 plus posts are at least peers of those on the lists and don't need to pay to be lectured to. most of us probably can gain by going out to a track from time to time and talking WITH other good posters from this site. and we shouldn't have to charge each other for something like this.
I tend to agree, there is plenty of information right here on this forum, for someone who wants to create their own method, but the "create" part seems to be the breaking point between those that win and those that don't. The work involved in putting all those bits of knowledge into a workable method, one that doesn't take an hour per race, etc., is a big turnoff for many. That's where the software creators come in.
Get the info for free, or get the software, for a fee.
raybo
12-17-2012, 07:56 PM
By the way, I voted "D", neither group. I didn't vote for "E" because of the word "never". Never say never.
proximity
12-17-2012, 08:17 PM
Great idea.
When was the last time a trip like that with organized speakers occurred?
And when you went to that event, did you get to take a lot of notes?
My experience is that very little teaching/learning goes on at the track. Perhaps your experience is different.
idk, dave. i used to have some old handicapping expo 93 tapes that i'd listen to in my car and some of them even came with notes. but i can't say that they've been more helpful to my game overall that meeting and running ideas by different p.a. members at the track.
maybe i'm spoiled because if i want i can go to the track and talk with a guy like p.a. member tonyk@hsh (would you say this guy's a good handicapper?) or american turf's frank cotolo on a consistent basis? one night frank cotolo even had barry meadow there. other times i've met p.a. members at the track, and this is just hanging out with no other motives... but it can be and usually is, beneficial.
proximity
12-17-2012, 08:31 PM
thaskalos, didn't a bunch of you midwestern p.a. members meet up at arlington a few months back? was this pretty much a waste of time for you?
therussmeister
12-17-2012, 08:32 PM
By the way, I voted "D", neither group. I didn't vote for "E" because of the word "never". Never say never.
In my 27 years betting the horses, I've learned far more from fools than wise men. (That includes books by fools.) But it's not like I'm thinking, although that guy's a fool, this time he has a good idea, rather I learn from constructing an argument against his bad idea and come up with a nugget of truth usually diametrically opposed to his idea.
That is why I read TVG forums right up to the very end, and why I still go to B&M wagering establishments. I need a steady access to fools to improve my game. But I'm not willing to pay them for it. Not when they give away so much for free.
I reluctantly voted "E" instead of "D" because I'm not at all sure, before paying, who has valuable information.
I'll just stick to "fool's gold."
Kevroc
12-17-2012, 09:25 PM
Get this - IT IS THE IDEA THAT COUNTS - not the quality of the speaker. Heck, even an idiot can have a bright idea once in awhile.
Thanks! :D
bob60566
12-17-2012, 09:35 PM
Agree, the easier of the 2 anyway. Lots of people can come up with good contenders, but they still lose money because they can't, or won't, control the wagering side of the equation. Stress control, for me anyway, was the real killer, trying to put food on the table, and pay the rent, etc.. Once you lose your composure; discipline, patience, consistency, and good decision making, all go right out the window (or rather "in the window", never to return).
Ray
Again you bring these three very important words to peoples attention.
Discipline
Patience
Consistency
thaskalos
12-17-2012, 10:51 PM
thaskalos, didn't a bunch of you midwestern p.a. members meet up at arlington a few months back? was this pretty much a waste of time for you?
Yes, we did meet at Arlington some time ago...and no, it was not a waste of time for me; in fact...I enjoyed it very much.
It takes a little time to warm up to people you've never met before...but we have something that binds us together, so we get comfortable with each other pretty quickly.
It's quite rewarding to sit down with other serious-minded players and talk about handicapping and betting...and I would much prefer that to hearing a lecture by some of handicapping's "household names".
Few things would please me more than sitting down for breakfast with the likes of Cj, Dave S, Tom, Raybo, Dahoss, you, Capper Al, etc...as we analyze the day's racing together.
That would be the ideal handicapping expo for me...
raybo
12-17-2012, 11:19 PM
Ray
Again you bring these three very important words to peoples attention.
Discipline
Patience
Consistency
Yeah, I know, I can't help it, those 3 things have served me well over the years, probably more than anything else in this game.
Delta Cone
12-17-2012, 11:22 PM
Few things would please me more than sitting down for breakfast with the likes of Cj, Dave S, Tom, Raybo, Dahoss, you, Capper Al, etc...as we analyze the day's racing together.
That would be the ideal handicapping expo for me...
When I win the lottery I will buy a luxury box at the Breeders Cup and fly this group out as highly paid consultants and managers of my handicapping mutual fund.:)
Dave:
It's clear that many people here are not interested for a variety of reasons.
having said that I think there are a number of people that dropped out of this thread several pages and thousands and thousands of words ago who would be interested in hearing presentations (and paying for them)... depending on what is offered up and who will be doing it and how it is marketed. But I'm thinkin' Raybo will probably not be there :)
Here's my view of what we don't need -- I went to the DRF site and looked at the books offered up and saw the description of Brad Free's book (and certainly Brad Free can handicap circles around me) "Brad Free walks new and old players through the enduring basics of speed, pace, class, and condition, in this new edition"...jeez, a new edition which has a rehash of enduring basics ...now there's an idea....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Best, Frank
raybo
12-18-2012, 12:33 AM
But I'm thinkin' Raybo will probably not be there :)
You would be correct. I would not pay to listen to any of the people listed, including myself. If I were you, I would also not pay to hear me speak. What could I possibly say that I haven't already said here, for free? The only things I could tell you that you can't find in the archives, are some "specifics", some proprietary calculations, those are things that I am unwilling to give away, for free. Everything else is already here.
thearmada
12-18-2012, 01:16 AM
Because poker is a game of BETTING...and poker players know that.
There is theory involved, of course...but success depends upon making the right BETS...and keeping your wits about you when things go wrong. The real value of the poker training videos you speak of comes not from the poker "theory" that the experts share with the viewer...but from the discipline and courage they display when making their bets...and the composure they maintain when luck turns against them. Entire books have been written on tilt-control alone.
Horse players seem to think that HANDICAPPING is where the secret to success lies in this game...and the other aspects of it get only rudimentary mention -- probably because few are really interested in "boring" topics such as these. We are attracted to the handicapping "theorists"...when the disciplined but fearless BETTORS are the ones worth listening to and emulating.
Give a talk on the fine points of handicapping...and people are clamoring to sit down and listen.
Say that you will talk about discipline, courage under fire, and self-control...and people roll their eyes, and move along...
I attended the PA meetup at Arlington this summer. I talked with thaskalos about this and this ended up to be one the best handicapping tips I have ever gotten. It makes more and more sense each time I handicap.
traynor
12-18-2012, 02:50 AM
Is a seminar still in the works?
Capper Al
12-18-2012, 06:32 AM
In my 27 years betting the horses, I've learned far more from fools than wise men. (That includes books by fools.) But it's not like I'm thinking, although that guy's a fool, this time he has a good idea, rather I learn from constructing an argument against his bad idea and come up with a nugget of truth usually diametrically opposed to his idea.
That is why I read TVG forums right up to the very end, and why I still go to B&M wagering establishments. I need a steady access to fools to improve my game. But I'm not willing to pay them for it. Not when they give away so much for free.
I reluctantly voted "E" instead of "D" because I'm not at all sure, before paying, who has valuable information.
I'll just stick to "fool's gold."
That's the upside to all this that there is gold in them there hills even if it's mined by fools.
Capper Al
12-18-2012, 06:34 AM
Learning to be a good handicapper is the easy part...
Agree.
Capper Al
12-18-2012, 06:38 AM
Yes, we did meet at Arlington some time ago...and no, it was not a waste of time for me; in fact...I enjoyed it very much.
It takes a little time to warm up to people you've never met before...but we have something that binds us together, so we get comfortable with each other pretty quickly.
It's quite rewarding to sit down with other serious-minded players and talk about handicapping and betting...and I would much prefer that to hearing a lecture by some of handicapping's "household names".
Few things would please me more than sitting down for breakfast with the likes of Cj, Dave S, Tom, Raybo, Dahoss, you, Capper Al, etc...as we analyze the day's racing together.
That would be the ideal handicapping expo for me...
PkTruckDriver, another PA member, and myself met at a diner for breakfast while we were at Arlington for the PA weekend. This diner is downtown Arlington and is owned by a horse player. It was fun to watch others cap. Our methods were all different.
Few things would please me more than sitting down for breakfast with the likes of Cj, Dave S, Tom, Raybo, Dahoss, you, Capper Al, etc...as we analyze the day's racing together.
You buying? :kiss:
Dave Schwartz
12-18-2012, 10:53 AM
LOL - Anybody who sat to to breakfast with me would be very disappointed about discussing that day's upcoming races. We'd be discussing how good the crab omelet was instead.
I do not look at a race until it is almost post time and then, only to click a few buttons.
I am equally boring on BC day.
aaron
12-18-2012, 11:00 AM
LOL - Anybody who sat to to breakfast with me would be very disappointed about discussing that day's upcoming races. We'd be discussing how good the crab omelet was instead.
I do not look at a race until it is almost post time and then, only to click a few buttons.
I am equally boring on BC day.
I feel the same as you. To discuss races weeks or even days in advance makes no sense to me. I usually don't look at the day's races till the night before or the morning of the races.
traynor
12-18-2012, 01:30 PM
Quite right. Saying you are successful is just talk. Posting a substantial example of that success is something else. By substantial, I would think a whole meet at the same track, or 3 or 4 months at mixed tracks would be good enough to at least lend credence to your claims. A full year is even better. Chances are that if you can show success for a complete year, you are capable of repeating it, of course nobody can guarantee anything in the future, but at least some one who shows some example of more than a few races or cards would take much of the doubt out of his/her claims.
But, someone who continually posts negative remarks, and espouses that they know the best way, without producing any example of that method, ever, has no merit here, or anywhere else. Just saying that they have no interest in convincing anyone of anything, while continually posting the same things as being better, or even good, makes them a liar, pure and simple, and "once a liar always a liar", you can never again trust anything that person says.
So, how can one take any "nugget" of information from anything such a person might post? Why would one want to waste their time on something said by such a person, one they can't trust as being, at least, honest?
I actually appreciate this comment. I think it clearly indicates that "unwanted advice"--regardless of how well intentioned--is pointless. I don't get anything at all from changing anyone's opinion about anything regarding handicapping horse races. I do what I do because it works. I have tried doing the same things (including the use of a number of software applications) that others claim are working, and they rarely (if ever) work as claimed. I am still looking.
bob60566
12-18-2012, 02:17 PM
Is a seminar still in the works?
Has Dave got you signed up??
Greyfox
12-18-2012, 03:38 PM
Have they won many contests run here? !
Thaskalos ' team won the P.A.I.H.L Contest which may be the toughest challenge on this board and was a finalist the next year.
jdhanover
12-18-2012, 03:43 PM
Yes, we did meet at Arlington some time ago...and no, it was not a waste of time for me; in fact...I enjoyed it very much.
It takes a little time to warm up to people you've never met before...but we have something that binds us together, so we get comfortable with each other pretty quickly.
It's quite rewarding to sit down with other serious-minded players and talk about handicapping and betting...and I would much prefer that to hearing a lecture by some of handicapping's "household names".
Few things would please me more than sitting down for breakfast with the likes of Cj, Dave S, Tom, Raybo, Dahoss, you, Capper Al, etc...as we analyze the day's racing together.
That would be the ideal handicapping expo for me...
Hmmm....sparks an idea. Sat morning breakfast for the PA Arlington crowd........Will see if there is interest (I will post a separate thread about it).
myhorse1
12-18-2012, 04:21 PM
It's quite rewarding to sit down with other serious-minded players and talk about handicapping and betting...and I would much prefer that to hearing a lecture by some of handicapping's "household names".
Few things would please me more than sitting down for breakfast with the likes of Cj, Dave S, Tom, Raybo, Dahoss, you, Capper Al, etc...as we analyze the day's racing together.
That would be the ideal handicapping expo for me...
Dave,
This is something i and i think others would be interested in also.
I would really only be interested in people on the A list(people on this board).
Could this be set up on Skype?
Both the presenters and the audience could benefit from a cross pollination of ideas in use today by themselves and other successful handicappers.
I would predict a very successful and enjoyable outcome.
thaskalos
12-18-2012, 04:47 PM
You buying? :kiss:
With pleasure!
Jay Trotter
12-18-2012, 05:04 PM
Gentlemen, IMO the most important thing to note here is that 90% of the posts here are 100% bullshit. The expurtz continually use big/confusing words the average guy never uses to make you think they know something you don't. These touts rarely if ever throw you a bone by posting anything in the selections thread for free to prove what they think they know. Have they won many contests run here? Now one must ask oneself, why is that? Because they are not about to expose the BS they spout to the world. You'd pay someone for that? I'm not! ....
This shit is NOT brain surgery just learn to read the pp's!
First, I finally got around to voting and I voted that I would pay to hear Group A. I think I would really enjoy listening to the so called "regular guys" like Aner and Gus and the like rather than an "expert". I like experts too though!
Now I just gotta call "bullshit" on our resident expert here -- are you seriously counting your "4 horse plays without results" as posting selections to prove what you know? :lol:
Now, I see we've got one new contest under way and the PAIHL setting up to kick off and what do you know -- I don't see SG signed up for either of these!!! WTF You talk a pretty good game, but man, I don't see you walkin' the walk! :rolleyes: Step up man!
Sincerely,
Mr. Trotter
Member of the reigning P.A.I.H.L. Champion Parlay Kings
ps. I wouldn't pay to listen to myself or reccomend anyone else should either but I do have a fairly good golf game for a horseplayer.
Capper Al
12-18-2012, 05:10 PM
Thaskalos ' team won the P.A.I.H.L Contest which may be the toughest challenge on this board and was a finalist the next year.
DaCappers are whipping them this year!
raybo
12-18-2012, 07:08 PM
Gentlemen, IMO the most important thing to note here is that 90% of the posts here are 100% bullshit. The expurtz continually use big/confusing words the average guy never uses to make you think they know something you don't. These touts rarely if ever throw you a bone by posting anything in the selections thread for free to prove what they think they know.Have they won many contests run here? Now one must ask oneself, why is that? Because they are not about to expose the BS they spout to the world. You'd pay someone for that? I'm not!
Just learn the basics of the game and you'll be fine. The fastest horse that is in condition wins most races barring jockey error post position.
Ex: the favorite wins 30% of all races run in NA every year. The 2nd betting choice will win another 20% or so. Lastly, any thing can run 3rd or 4th.
This shit is NOT brain surgery just learn to read the pp's!
I finished 2nd in the PA Black Box Challenge, using a thrown together black box at the last minute. And I have made many posts for races.
So, I assume you're not referring to me or Thas.
raybo
12-18-2012, 07:10 PM
ps. I wouldn't pay to listen to myself or reccomend anyone else should either but I do have a fairly good golf game for a horseplayer.
Me too!!!
PaceAdvantage
12-18-2012, 07:53 PM
First, I finally got around to voting and I voted that I would pay to hear Group A. I think I would really enjoy listening to the so called "regular guys" like Aner and Gus and the like rather than an "expert". I like experts too though!
Now I just gotta call "bullshit" on our resident expert here -- are you seriously counting your "4 horse plays without results" as posting selections to prove what you know? :lol:
Now, I see we've got one new contest under way and the PAIHL setting up to kick off and what do you know -- I don't see SG signed up for either of these!!! WTF You talk a pretty good game, but man, I don't see you walkin' the walk! :rolleyes: Step up man!
Sincerely,
Mr. Trotter
Member of the reigning P.A.I.H.L. Champion Parlay Kings
ps. I wouldn't pay to listen to myself or reccomend anyone else should either but I do have a fairly good golf game for a horseplayer.Please don't feed the trolls. I was late in deleted his post...
Jay Trotter
12-18-2012, 09:11 PM
Please don't feed the trolls. I was late in deleted his post...Sometimes, I just can't help myself............I'm compelled! It's like looking away from a car crash. :ThmbUp:
proximity
12-18-2012, 10:01 PM
I do have a fairly good golf game for a horseplayer.
i did learn from gerry okuneff's expo 93 tape that golf and horses don't mix! of course then live at the track i would later find that there are indeed dual threats like tonyk@hsh walking amongst us mortals!! :)
raybo
12-18-2012, 10:19 PM
I feel the same as you. To discuss races weeks or even days in advance makes no sense to me. I usually don't look at the day's races till the night before or the morning of the races.
Me too, except maybe the TC or BC, maybe a few big stakes during the year. Hell, except for those races, I don't even know the names of the horses. Download the file, import it, click the 1st race, check scratches, update the runners if there are scratches, then check the tote for my bets. 5 minutes maybe.
raybo
12-18-2012, 10:27 PM
i did learn from gerry okuneff's expo 93 tape that golf and horses don't mix! of course then live at the track i would later find that there are indeed dual threats like tonyk@hsh walking amongst us mortals!! :)
Nah, golf and horse racing have a lot in common, lots and lots of variables and scenarios/situations, master the fundamentals, know your strengths and weaknesses, continuous work on the latter, patience, discipline, consistency, play within yourself, and know when the possible reward isn't worth the risk of the shot you're contemplating. Only thing different, unless you're a pro golfer, is the money side.
traynor
12-19-2012, 12:46 PM
Has Dave got you signed up??
Is there something definite to sign up for?
thaskalos
12-19-2012, 01:05 PM
Is there something definite to sign up for?
No.
maddog42
12-19-2012, 03:10 PM
Absolutely agree! When one's method is designed to point to longer odds horses, why would "outliers" be removed from the total? That is what the method was designed to do. It appears that some are only interested in hitting many lower odds horses that fit into some large sample and the data points all fall in a nice tight pattern. That is why methods that worked in the past don't work any longer, the prices just keep getting lower and lower. The key to longevity of success, in this subject, is to pick winners that the vast majority miss.
I love what these people call "outliers", that's the name of my game. When a majority of your winners pay over $20, why would you throw out those that pay over $80? You will hit those because you are using factors that point to those horses. The degree of "outlier" is just that, degree, they are not flukes or aberrations, they are just better payouts. Once your method becomes of this type, selecting winners that pay large, those payouts can get extremely large, it's the nature of the public. To them a 15/1 horse is no better than a 30/1, or 40/1 horse, they won't bet it anyway, so the odds go up on those horses dramatically.
You and Cj have made 2 of the more astute and meaningful observations I have read on this Board in a long time. It took a long time for me to come to a similar observation. I have a "sweet" spot of odds that I have been playing to for about a year now. The high end of those odds is around the
$42 mark and the low end is about $14. When I bet outside of these parameters, I don't make any money. This may seem extreme to a lot of people here, but I have a lot of trouble identifying value in a horse below
$10.
maddog42
12-19-2012, 03:39 PM
You and Cj have made 2 of the more astute and meaningful observations I have read on this Board in a long time. It took a long time for me to come to a similar observation. I have a "sweet" spot of odds that I have been playing to for about a year now. The high end of those odds is around the
$42 mark and the low end is about $14. When I bet outside of these parameters, I don't make any money. This may seem extreme to a lot of people here, but I have a lot of trouble identifying value in a horse below
$10.
I didn't get to finish the above because of screaming Grand Kids. My horses above $40 still hit and I still bet them, but only $2.
How many of you guys have actually analyzed and kept records on your Odds range/profits ?
raybo
12-19-2012, 04:00 PM
I didn't get to finish the above because of screaming Grand Kids. My horses above $40 still hit and I still bet them, but only $2.
How many of you guys have actually analyzed and kept records on your Odds range/profits ?
I analyze hit rates, ROI, and profit/loss for ranges from 1/9 and up through 11/1 and up. I don't analyze odds ranges above that, but, you can bet that if 1 of my final contenders is 60/1, or even higher, at post time, I'm gonna bet the same amount on it that I do on the 3/1 contender in the same race. I don't need many of those kinds of winners to cover, a lot of losing bets, which as we know, are inevitable.
You and Cj have made 2 of the more astute and meaningful observations I have read on this Board in a long time. It took a long time for me to come to a similar observation. I have a "sweet" spot of odds that I have been playing to for about a year now. The high end of those odds is around the
$42 mark and the low end is about $14. When I bet outside of these parameters, I don't make any money. This may seem extreme to a lot of people here, but I have a lot of trouble identifying value in a horse below
$10.
I have found similar. No matter how much value I perceive a longshot to have, over certain odds it is a long term loser for me.
I analyze hit rates, ROI, and profit/loss for ranges from 1/9 and up through 11/1 and up. I don't analyze odds ranges above that, but, you can bet that if 1 of my final contenders is 60/1, or even higher, at post time, I'm gonna bet the same amount on it that I do on the 3/1 contender in the same race. I don't need many of those kinds of winners to cover, a lot of losing bets, which as we know, are inevitable.
Similar to what I just posted, you might be surprised. There is usually a line where the odds are too high as well. Maybe it won't be true for you, but I'd take the time to check.
raybo
12-19-2012, 04:26 PM
Similar to what I just posted, you might be surprised. There is usually a line where the odds are too high as well. Maybe it won't be true for you, but I'd take the time to check.
That depends on how you reach your contenders/bets. I'm not betting horses just because they are high odds, I'm betting them because they are win contenders, I don't care what the public thinks about them, unless they bet them down below my minimum odds.
classhandicapper
12-19-2012, 04:49 PM
How many of you guys have actually analyzed and kept records on your Odds range/profits ?
I used to and learned a few things, but even that can get dangerous. If you find a sweet spot in your results, you can start altering your standards trying to take advantage of your new knowledge without realizing it.
That depends on how you reach your contenders/bets. I'm not betting horses just because they are high odds, I'm betting them because they are win contenders, I don't care what the public thinks about them, unless they bet them down below my minimum odds.
I get that, I'm just saying that it couldn't hurt to see if your 11-1 and up group contains a subgroup at higher adds that are big losers.
Capper Al
12-20-2012, 09:11 AM
That depends on how you reach your contenders/bets. I'm not betting horses just because they are high odds, I'm betting them because they are win contenders, I don't care what the public thinks about them, unless they bet them down below my minimum odds.
I do the same.
raybo
12-20-2012, 10:21 AM
I get that, I'm just saying that it couldn't hurt to see if your 11-1 and up group contains a subgroup at higher adds that are big losers.
I understand, but haven't gotten that far with the odds summary report in the RS black box yet. Too busy playing right now to get that put in the program. Might be a while, DeD is going right now and OP is coming up next month, both hugely profitable in RS.
PIC6SIX
12-22-2012, 11:37 AM
Traynor mentioned Paul Mellos. I remember hearing about MR Mellos from some of the Handicapping Expo tapes of years ago. I remember that he lived in the NY area and bet the NY tracks. He was very detailed taking trip notes, viewing the horses in warm-ups, and kept a log of bandages on bandages off. I also remember that he took time off from betting to tend to a sick son. Anyway I would be interested in listening to him and his approach to the game today since now much of the record keeping he did is now available in the details listed in the DRF form. Anyway, Mr Mellos and Mr. Cornman, I would be interested in listening to since they seemed like the consumate professional handicappers. I remember Mr Cornman and A. Beyer giving hcp. seminars at Saratoga years ago and Mr. Cornman did much better than A. Beyer. Saw him on the elavator at the Bellagio some time ago and he said he now lives in Vegas (probably gets some kind of rebate). Also I would like to hear Gordon Jones speak. He is the only named PRO I have ever seen at the money tournaments in Vegas. Saw him win the summer or Fall contest at the Orleans a year or two ago. Also saw him at the Cal Neva contest some years ago. I would pay the hear these three gentlemen speak on horseracing and handicapping in todays world.
traynor
12-22-2012, 08:09 PM
I understand, but haven't gotten that far with the odds summary report in the RS black box yet. Too busy playing right now to get that put in the program. Might be a while, DeD is going right now and OP is coming up next month, both hugely profitable in RS.
I think many on this forum (not just me) would like to see postings of your selections for Delta Downs and Oaklawn Park. Hugely profitable is always interesting.
Maximillion
12-22-2012, 09:00 PM
Delta Downs (at least for me) is very difficult.....I often find many potential plays there but many of the races are so contentious (almost like a turf course). I find I need to be real selective there or I can lose money in a hurry.
Cratos
12-22-2012, 09:07 PM
Dave,
While I would not pay to see/hear any of the names listed in your post, I would if I had the power to back in time pay a lot of money to listen to Phil Bull, mathematician and founder of Timeform; Sam "the genius" Lewin, former racing secretary at Monmouth Park; and Frank Whiteley, the great trainer of Damascus.
I think many on this forum (not just me) would like to see postings of your selections for Delta Downs and Oaklawn Park. Hugely profitable is always interesting.
Do you post selections?
traynor
12-22-2012, 09:16 PM
Do you post selections?
No. I don't sell software either.
thaskalos
12-22-2012, 09:21 PM
No. I don't sell software either.
Have you ever?
No. I don't sell software either.
Neither does Raybo. It takes some balls to ask another guy to post picks when you never do while proclaiming greatness.
Dave Schwartz
12-22-2012, 09:55 PM
While I would not pay to see/hear any of the names listed in your post, I would if I had the power to back in time pay a lot of money to listen to Phil Bull, mathematician and founder of Timeform; Sam "the genius" Lewin, former racing secretary at Monmouth Park; and Frank Whiteley, the great trainer of Damascus.
Good to know. I will attempt to channel them. Perhaps I should try to reach Arthur Ford.
http://www.amazon.com/Arthur-Ford-Speaks-From-Beyond/dp/B0006WD28O
thaskalos
12-22-2012, 10:12 PM
Good to know. I will attempt to channel them. Perhaps I should try to reach Arthur Ford.
http://www.amazon.com/Arthur-Ford-Speaks-From-Beyond/dp/B0006WD28O
While you are at it...why don't you try Pittsburg Phil too. And Nostradamus.
traynor
12-22-2012, 11:27 PM
Neither does Raybo. It takes some balls to ask another guy to post picks when you never do while proclaiming greatness.
Basically, I am just curious. Nothing more significant than that.
traynor
12-22-2012, 11:28 PM
Have you ever?
Yes, but not to the general public. Contract development. So, technically, the answer would be yes.
Cratos
12-23-2012, 12:08 AM
Good to know. I will attempt to channel them. Perhaps I should try to reach Arthur Ford.
http://www.amazon.com/Arthur-Ford-Speaks-From-Beyond/dp/B0006WD28O
You misread my post; I never asked you to get anyone.
Dave Schwartz
12-23-2012, 01:16 AM
I completely understood your post.
You would only pay to talk to dead guys who wouldn't have a clue about racing today.
Cratos
12-23-2012, 03:00 AM
I completely understood your post.
You would only pay to talk to dead guys who wouldn't have a clue about racing today.
Thanks for informing me.
Capper Al
12-23-2012, 03:14 AM
Because of all this expo talk, I have been peeking at the DRF expo DVDs again. They didn't do a bad job. I appreciate them more than before.
raybo
12-23-2012, 03:40 AM
Neither does Raybo. It takes some balls to ask another guy to post picks when you never do while proclaiming greatness.
Actually, RS is not a free workbook like the others in the AllData Project. I originally created it for my own use, to help improve the top of my superfecta tickets (to get more and higher priced winners and place horses. Once I found that it makes an excellent win/exacta program I decided to make it available to a limited number of players, but not for free). As you probably know, it's not easy to protect an Excel workbook and I didn't want to just put it on the web and then have some schmuck go through it with a fine toothed comb and grab all the proprietary stuff, or worse start selling it on Ebay or something.
bob60566
12-23-2012, 08:58 AM
Yes, but not to the general public. Contract development. So, technically, the answer would be yes.
Does your product use the existing data providers and could I use it on windows 8.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.