Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Handicapping Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 02-19-2018, 01:01 PM   #46
pandy
Registered User
 
pandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lehigh Valley, PA.
Posts: 6,639
Rep Power: 23 pandy will become famous soon enough
Maloney talks about this type of wagering in his Betting With An Edge book. He shows how to attack a race while also protecting his investment, rather than just betting to win, or playing one or two exactas.
pandy is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-19-2018, 01:04 PM   #47
pandy
Registered User
 
pandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lehigh Valley, PA.
Posts: 6,639
Rep Power: 23 pandy will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz View Post
Franco,

Actually, I did say it in an earlier post that was VERY LONG.

For the most part, I agree with you.

The only statement I disagree with is in bold. (And I know you meant it somewhat metaphorically.)

The issue isn't that WE overestimate probabilities. The issue is that we overestimate sometimes, underestimate other times, and cannot tell the difference.

Many players make a line on a horse - say 3/1 - and (logically) think that if they double that to 6/1 they just HAVE TO be profitable.

Adding a margin of error will not overcome weak handicapping!

I actually had a coaching client years ago who said that he'd be better off playing against his own picks, so I told him to try it. He reported back a week later that his results improved. (Still lost money but not as badly.)


In my opinion, the single thing that prevents most players from winning is that they do not actually have a simple core handicapping approach.

Most players view each race as a unique problem to be solved.

It is much easier to be competitive (in terms of bankroll growth/deterioration) if you find commonalities between races and develop a "core method."

Viewing each race - and each horse in a race - as a unique puzzle to be put together leaves you with reinventing your approach in every race.

What I am saying is that when "puzzle players" develop a consistent core method, it is like providing them with a picture of the box showing the edges and corners. It gives them a logical place to begin.


Dave

I know for me, if I'm not doing well, it's often because I'm not playing to my strengths. And, yeah, looking at each race as a puzzle may not be the best approach. I do better when I look for certain types of horses in certain types of races.
pandy is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-19-2018, 01:14 PM   #48
thaskalos
"Awake!"
 
thaskalos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 20,478
Rep Power: 40 thaskalos is a splendid one to beholdthaskalos is a splendid one to beholdthaskalos is a splendid one to beholdthaskalos is a splendid one to beholdthaskalos is a splendid one to beholdthaskalos is a splendid one to beholdthaskalos is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMB@BP View Post
I normally agree with a lot of your thoughts but this one I have to diverge.

I actually think its very easy to be "that" guy.

The only way to consistently win is to find edge/advantage and then make bets that capitalize on that.

For me, see I aint so smart, so I keep it simple and only bet to win and I only make a handful of bets per week.

But if I was really good I would be able to make bets based on my superior predictions of races, which I truly believe I can do. I am right way more than I am wrong.

But these guys that are really good, they see that edge and can craft bets that take advantage. They may not even love the race(s) the bet, but they see something, a weak favorite, a very strong favorite, a chaos type race, etc etc and they put together tickets that advantage of that edge.

I believe Steve Crists book was brilliant, but I think when I see the bets laid out by some of these professionals, it was a little simplistic.
Yes...but can this be done without possessing an above-average set of handicapping skills? Can I reliably spot the "weak favorites" if I am not a strong handicapper?

This game is tough...and getting tougher. To stay afloat, the horseplayer must possess BOTH...adequate handicapping skills AND adequate betting skills. BOTH sets of skills are vital...and it's folly to believe that one set is "more important" than the other...IMO. In an ultra-competitive gambling endeavor such as this...there is no money left on the table for the player with glaring weaknesses in his game.

Of course...admitting that he is a weak handicapper is a major blow to the ego of the "veteran player"...so, he attributes his wagering losses to his haphazard betting. "I am a very good handicapper...but I just need a little help structuring my wagers"...he says. It's comforting when we deceive ourselves...
__________________
My whole body cries out against the inhumanity of regular employment.

Last edited by thaskalos; 02-19-2018 at 01:16 PM.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-19-2018, 03:26 PM   #49
AndyC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,661
Rep Power: 10 AndyC has a spectacular aura aboutAndyC has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
Yes...but can this be done without possessing an above-average set of handicapping skills? Can I reliably spot the "weak favorites" if I am not a strong handicapper?

This game is tough...and getting tougher. To stay afloat, the horseplayer must possess BOTH...adequate handicapping skills AND adequate betting skills. BOTH sets of skills are vital...and it's folly to believe that one set is "more important" than the other...IMO. In an ultra-competitive gambling endeavor such as this...there is no money left on the table for the player with glaring weaknesses in his game.

Of course...admitting that he is a weak handicapper is a major blow to the ego of the "veteran player"...so, he attributes his wagering losses to his haphazard betting. "I am a very good handicapper...but I just need a little help structuring my wagers"...he says. It's comforting when we deceive ourselves...
I get that being both a good handicapper and bettor is ideal. However, given a choice between the two I would definitely choose to be a good bettor. Being a good handicapper requires the skill of analyzing data and information. There is no shortage of good handicappers. Being a good bettor has an extra factor that doesn't come into play in handicapping, emotions. I think there could be a very long thread just on stupid emotional bets people have made. Many people have a betting strategy built around their emotional responses to just missing with their top selections.

With a skill as a good bettor I can easily find horses to bet by finding and listening to good handicappers. The reverse is much harder to do.
AndyC is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-19-2018, 03:47 PM   #50
CincyHorseplayer
Registered User
 
CincyHorseplayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cincinnati,Ohio
Posts: 5,216
Rep Power: 19 CincyHorseplayer is a jewel in the roughCincyHorseplayer is a jewel in the roughCincyHorseplayer is a jewel in the roughCincyHorseplayer is a jewel in the rough
I think it just comes down to when you win, how much?

We know that there is enough randomness, chalk, and junk that wins races and we aren't going to have them all figured out. Any handicapping factor can be learned in the information age. Putting together in your mind a coherent picture of good is an entirely different thing. That is the skill that is the missing link. For me personally betting in accord with x return can make up for some handicapping flaws but I have the race read right. And betting into tenuous type races by handicapping logic is a gamble we all take. We know the race is wide open but the returns can be big if we have it right. Knowing a loss is a loss anyway the betting logic is justified by say a 9-1 return on 6 outcomes. It's like a batting average and OBP in baseball. The best hitters aren't likely to ever hit .400. But they don't have to. Their SLG % when they make hits drives their OPS but so does taking walks(cashing tickets). Coming directly face to face with the SLG% per race or no bet is huge when there are so many decisions to make on any race day. I personally have been a .280/.440 hitter since I kept betting records 17 years ago. But have only been making the type of money consistently recently. And all I did was use the approach to take what is there and maximize it. The revolution was not overcoming the ego of handicapping. But the ego of thinking I could hit everything. That "I am a good handicapper I am going to hit most of my p3-4 and exactas at such a high rate profit is inevitable". Teeing off on certain races or sequences is all there is. They aren't going to be plenty. Making that distinction instead of the wholesale philosophy has been huge for me. And it takes some pressure off needing to be the perfect handicapper. The older I get I find simplicity after the fact of making things such a big mentally well organized mess is the revolution.
CincyHorseplayer is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-19-2018, 03:55 PM   #51
CincyHorseplayer
Registered User
 
CincyHorseplayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cincinnati,Ohio
Posts: 5,216
Rep Power: 19 CincyHorseplayer is a jewel in the roughCincyHorseplayer is a jewel in the roughCincyHorseplayer is a jewel in the roughCincyHorseplayer is a jewel in the rough
It's conversations like this since I have been on here in 2008 that have made me a better player. This is indeed the good stuff that really cannot be written about. Writing there is no give and take.
CincyHorseplayer is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 04-14-2018, 11:49 AM   #52
Frankie D
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 39
Rep Power: 0 Frankie D is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz View Post
The Principle
1a. The greater the percentage of pool represented by the horses we are going to bet, the less money we should bet in the race.

1b. The greater the percentage of pool represented by the horses we are NOT going to bet, the MORE money we should bet in the race.

2a. The greater the percentage of pool represented by the horses we call "contenders," the less money we should bet in the race.

2b. The greater the percentage of pool represented by the horses we call "NON-CONTENDERS," the MORE money we should bet in the race.

(The important principles 1b and 2b.)

Steps
1. Determine percent of pool NOT BET. ("PctNotBet")
2. Determine percent of pool NOT CONTENDER. ("PctNotCont")

RaceBet= $100 x PctNotBet x PctNotCont
Two Examples
Example 1
You are betting 40% of the pool, and your contenders make up 70% of the pool.

PctNotBet=60%
PctNotCont=30%

$100 x 60% x 30% = $18.

Example 2
You are betting 30% of the pool, and your contenders make up 48% of the pool.

PctNotBet=70%
PctNotCont=52%

$100 x 70% x 52% = $36

My experience has been that the higher the RaceBetAmt the more profitable the race is. Conversely, the smaller the RaceBetAmt amount, the lower the profit.

There is a tipping point at which the races produce a loss.

In my own handicapping, I have found that the tipping point to be $30. Wagers below $30 lose money, and the lower the bet size goes, the more the lose.


SUMMARY
What happens is that you wind up betting more money on the races where you've eliminated the greatest part of the pool.

The hardest part of this entire process is step #1 (picking good non-contenders). The other two steps are really pretty easy.


Perhaps this will provide you with some ideas.


Best Regards,
Dave Schwartz
Very interesting.

But what is going to be the best way to do the math for percentage of the pool with the tote flashing '0'? Got anything besides just totaling the number and dividing, or am I missing something easier on the last minute 'fly'?

Also, your 'tipping point' below which successful play becomes increasingly impossible - what is the logic or reason that this happens and why does it happen decreasing below the $30 mark in your example?

...and you say this point is in application of YOUR handicapping, would you expect variation for others?

...and is there anything that explains the different 'tipping points' significance between players?

Thanks in advance, Dave. This is gold for me and I appreciate you and the whole forum.
Frankie D is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
» Current Polls
Mega Barn "Super" Trainers are............... (You can choose more than one answer)
Good for the game - 15.15%
5 Votes
Bad for the game - 60.61%
20 Votes
Have "Super Vets" and "Super" vet bills - 39.39%
13 Votes
Just work harder than everyone else - 6.06%
2 Votes
Total Votes: 33
Non-members may not vote on this poll.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2018 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved -- Best Viewed in a modern browser @ 1280x720 Resolution Or Higher
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.