View Poll Results: gentlemen of the board please answer gross roi for the year
|
5k-10k
|
|
15 |
30.00% |
11k-20k
|
|
4 |
8.00% |
21k-30k
|
|
3 |
6.00% |
31k-40k
|
|
2 |
4.00% |
41k-50k
|
|
5 |
10.00% |
50k-75k
|
|
3 |
6.00% |
75-up
|
|
18 |
36.00% |
|
|
12-17-2005, 08:23 PM
|
#151
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,128
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastracehorse@DRF
Either way you are going to get the $140 rebate correct??
|
Of course, but you can't break even on a single wager so you can't be up $140 after it is over.
|
|
|
12-17-2005, 08:30 PM
|
#152
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,128
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastracehorse@DRF
Do you have an example of a factor you use for volume playing?? - I remember once you mentioned blinkers on in a post to me.
|
Any and all. My spot play methods tend to look at very small subsets of factors usually keying on something strange -- days since most recent workout or another we talked about is the last race comment. If you make it a point to research spot plays before you know it you can build up a stable of them giving you dozens of plays a day.
But when doing full-scale comprehensive handicapping and assigning explicit probabilities to each and every horse I expect to find 2 or 3 overlays in pretty much every race as well. But I have to factor in the public real-time odds for that, which I find tedious...
|
|
|
12-17-2005, 08:45 PM
|
#153
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,443
|
Yah, I admit it is tedious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GameTheory
Any and all. My spot play methods tend to look at very small subsets of factors usually keying on something strange -- days since most recent workout or another we talked about is the last race comment. If you make it a point to research spot plays before you know it you can build up a stable of them giving you dozens of plays a day.
But when doing full-scale comprehensive handicapping and assigning explicit probabilities to each and every horse I expect to find 2 or 3 overlays in pretty much every race as well. But I have to factor in the public real-time odds for that, which I find tedious...
|
It even hurts - but I do it for the occasional nugget.
All The Best to you and your family.
fffastt
|
|
|
12-18-2005, 05:02 PM
|
#154
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,527
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GameTheory
No, unless you can find a wager that pays off the same as a cancel (gives you your money back) and still gives you the rebate. You'd either lose the bet and be down $140 - $2000 = -1860 or be up $140 + ($2000 x payoff odds)...
|
I think this discussion has been more about the theoretical than about what actually happens in practice among spot players vs. volume players.
If both are breaking even on the bets and profiting only from rebates, then whichever method gets more money through the windows is preferable.
It would seem easier to get more money through the windows with a larger number of bets.
However, if one is getting a higher ROI from his bets (without rebates) by being more comprehensive in his handicapping and more careful about what price he'll take, then his method might be equal or even better even if he's getting less money through the windows.
I've seen spot players bet 10K per race on exotics playing NY and CA races only. I doubt there are many high volume players that bet that much per race, but perhaps they make up the difference (and more) in quantity of bets.
Personally, I think this debate is more about the time and energy you want to put into your handicapping, what your bankroll looks like, how much you can bet without the amounts impairing your judgment as a handicapper, and whether you enjoy gambling volume or gambling quality.
IMO, most people that are good enough to win could do just as well either way as long as they have the bankroll, temperment, and desire to work real hard.
|
|
|
12-18-2005, 08:23 PM
|
#155
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,443
|
I think you are right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
I think this discussion has been more about the theoretical than about what actually happens in practice among spot players vs. volume players.
If both are breaking even on the bets and profiting only from rebates, then whichever method gets more money through the windows is preferable.
It would seem easier to get more money through the windows with a larger number of bets.
However, if one is getting a higher ROI from his bets (without rebates) by being more comprehensive in his handicapping and more careful about what price he'll take, then his method might be equal or even better even if he's getting less money through the windows.
I've seen spot players bet 10K per race on exotics playing NY and CA races only. I doubt there are many high volume players that bet that much per race, but perhaps they make up the difference (and more) in quantity of bets.
Personally, I think this debate is more about the time and energy you want to put into your handicapping, what your bankroll looks like, how much you can bet without the amounts impairing your judgment as a handicapper, and whether you enjoy gambling volume or gambling quality.
IMO, most people that are good enough to win could do just as well either way as long as they have the bankroll, temperment, and desire to work real hard.
|
Both methods can be successful.
From my perspective however, there may be something to quality vs. quantity.
Good post Class and have a greatttttt Holiday.
fffastt
|
|
|
12-19-2005, 02:59 AM
|
#156
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
...
If both are breaking even on the bets and profiting only from rebates, then whichever method gets more money through the windows is preferable.
It would seem easier to get more money through the windows with a larger number of bets.
However, if one is getting a higher ROI from his bets (without rebates) by being more comprehensive in his handicapping and more careful about what price he'll take, then his method might be equal or even better even if he's getting less money through the windows...
|
Some of this would seem true, but it is tough to bet a lot in some pools. What if you do in depth handicapping and you find your 3 best plays for the day are at Tdn, GLD, and Lrl? You can't bet very much in those pools without hurting your price, like it or not. Further, you never even really know if it is a good bet the prices change so much after the break.
If you want to pick your spots and wait for the best bets and bet more on them, that is great, IF you are playing in New York or SoCal or a few other tracks. Trying it at the smaller tracks is not a good idea in my opinion.
|
|
|
12-19-2005, 07:00 AM
|
#157
|
Just another Facist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Now in Houston
Posts: 52,611
|
After yesterdays Hollywood Starlet.......... I need to change my vote!!!
__________________
WE ARE THE DUMBEST COUNTRY ON THE PLANET!
|
|
|
12-19-2005, 08:06 AM
|
#158
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: On The Bay
Posts: 9,857
|
cj's dad
How do we know that DrugS is sucessful; just because he says so !?!?
|
|
|
12-19-2005, 08:12 AM
|
#159
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,527
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
Some of this would seem true, but it is tough to bet a lot in some pools. What if you do in depth handicapping and you find your 3 best plays for the day are at Tdn, GLD, and Lrl? You can't bet very much in those pools without hurting your price, like it or not. Further, you never even really know if it is a good bet the prices change so much after the break.
If you want to pick your spots and wait for the best bets and bet more on them, that is great, IF you are playing in New York or SoCal or a few other tracks. Trying it at the smaller tracks is not a good idea in my opinion.
|
I agree.
I don't even think it's possible to do a comprehensive job of handicapping on more than 2 or 3 tracks per day. It's too time consuming if you actually want to have a life also.
I doubt many large spot bettors bet or even waste any time at all even looking at 3rd string tracks. It's mostly NY, CA, KY, seasonally in Florida and Meadowlands, and maybe a few others.
|
|
|
12-19-2005, 08:19 AM
|
#160
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,527
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastracehorse@DRF
Both methods can be successful.
From my perspective however, there may be something to quality vs. quantity.
Good post Class and have a greatttttt Holiday.
fffastt
|
I prefer quality. I hate when I get a little sloppy and I notice something after the fact that would have given me a $20 winner had I just reviewed the replay or looked at the charts and noticed a big bias etc... It's tough enough to win. I want to know as much as possible going in otherwise I might not understand the odds.
Great holiday to you too!
|
|
|
12-19-2005, 08:20 AM
|
#161
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: On The Bay
Posts: 9,857
|
cj's dad
It works for me. I'm not sure I'd recommend it to anyone else. I'm a bit obsessive about things, and have no problem sitting in front of my laptop for 6 or 7 hours at a time switching between video links, spreadsheets, PPs, etc. Others would probably go crazy. (My wife does sometimes have a problem with this )[/QUOTE]
Hard to believe you can concentrate on anything that long; if I remember correctly, you couldn't do homework for 6 to 7 MINUTES!!!
|
|
|
12-19-2005, 08:28 AM
|
#162
|
Just another Facist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Now in Houston
Posts: 52,611
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
I don't even think it's possible to do a comprehensive job of handicapping on more than 2 or 3 tracks per day. It's too time consuming if you actually want to have a life also.
I doubt many large spot bettors bet or even waste any time at all even looking at 3rd string tracks. It's mostly NY, CA, KY, seasonally in Florida and Meadowlands, and maybe a few others.
|
This is why I gave up on some of the small tracks. I play SoCal and KY with Florida mixed in. Sam Houston and Charlestown some for fun.
I haven't been playing that much, but using good software helps as a
solution to cut thru the races where there aren't as many opportunities. Yesterday I watched some races as the day went by and waited until the feature at Hollwood, played one race all day. Although I ran 3 different cards thru my computer. I wasn't really in the mood to play, ran some errands, took a nap and got up in time to play what I thought was the best opportunity for me to play, that day.
__________________
WE ARE THE DUMBEST COUNTRY ON THE PLANET!
|
|
|
12-20-2005, 06:14 AM
|
#163
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Asia
Posts: 52
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GameTheory
It may shock you to discover that Benter's program was amazingly rudimentary. I don't think it is a stretch to say that half the people reading this could handicap a single race as well as Benter's program. Any of the software programs we talk about here (HSH, HTR, Equisim, etc.) are 10 times more sophisticated than anything Benter had.
|
I'm shocked then! I think you will find that Benter's model and software were anything but rudimentary and i also seriously doubt that any of the software programmes you quote here are remotely close to being as sophisticated as Benter's.
__________________
"Reality is a hallucination brought on by lack of alcohol."
|
|
|
12-20-2005, 12:54 PM
|
#164
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,128
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mauvais
I'm shocked then! I think you will find that Benter's model and software were anything but rudimentary and i also seriously doubt that any of the software programmes you quote here are remotely close to being as sophisticated as Benter's.
|
It was a logit model with lots of factors like "normalized last race finish position". (I think he said that was his single best factor.) It took lots of tinkering to get it right and lots of elbow grease to input other factors that were based on video replays or body language stuff, but it was not terribly sophisticated, no. It was COMPLICATED on a logistical level to keep it running and the numbers of factors involved made it COMPREHENSIVE, but the model itself was not very COMPLEX. It was just a good, solid, robust model. Nothing wrong with it being simple in principle, the best things usually are. Maybe rudimentary is the wrong word. Simple is a better one. Simple, but not simplistic. Better?
My point it was not beyond the reach of anyone else willing to put in the tedious work and was not based on some advanced or innovative technology. Many others in HK eventually did put in that work (or used Benter's same program, which seemed to get passed around quite a bit after he split with his partner), and the profits went down, although I get the feeling that Benter moved on to other things more out of boredom. And the software I mentioned is DEFINITELY more sophisticated (lots more) than Benter's model, especially HSH which *is* full of advanced and innovative technology.
I was also making the point that what really made Benter successful was not his super-awesome model, but his persistence and single-mindedness in exploiting his advantage. There seems to be several of you in this thread hanging on to the notion that achieving profitiability betting on horse racing (here or in HK) depends MOSTLY on superior handicapping, and it just isn't true...
|
|
|
12-20-2005, 01:36 PM
|
#165
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 5,870
|
I always think of computer programs that complete, essentially all the handicapping for you as "robot" handicapping. I am not trying to offend anyone who uses this style as to each his own but for me it seems like any program that you run the data threw, crunches the numbers, spits out a line on a race, and says bet the biggest overlay is not much in the way of a game or puzzle. I guess the issues is the bottom line, but isnt the journey just as much a part of the game as the roi?
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
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
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|