What Would Your ROI Have Been 30 Years Ago - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Canarsie · 08-01-2011, 06:03 PM

Things like computers, data bases, enhanced information at your fingertips, the works. Let's even include cell phones since regular ones were locked up at the trackway back then.

Robert Goren · 08-01-2011, 07:13 PM

The same. If I had them and nobody else did I might have done a little better, But I was little ahead of my fellow betters techwise back then, so I did ok. But I was a hundred miles from away from a place to get down a bet to, so I made my trips to the track count. I had to make gas money. Today I am behind techwise. but I still hold my own. Even with all the tech it is still a thinking man's game.

cj · 08-01-2011, 07:16 PM

I couldn't bet 30 years ago.

classhandicapper · 08-01-2011, 07:22 PM

I do pretty much the same things now I did 20-25 years ago. The difference is that I have Formulator with replays, charts, my trip notes, my bias info, back fields, key races, trainer information, etc... all online instead of in piles of notebooks, 100s of old Daily Racing Forms, and in my IBM AT.

Of course, I also understand how all that information interrelates better, but basically there's not much difference other than the time it takes and the number of people that have access to same information.

Golf and Horses · 08-01-2011, 07:49 PM

30 years ago I thought horse racing was the dumbest thing going. I hated it. I couldn't stand when they would put horse racing on TV and messed up Saturday sports events. The Kentucky Derby on TV??? I used to think..."Why do you need an hour of TV time for a 2 minute race?" I wanna watch baseball dammit!!!

Good thing I got smarter as I got older...I think.

JBmadera · 08-01-2011, 07:53 PM

30 years ago I could only bet the local track. Nowadays, without HTR, I would be completely lost trying to keep up with all the action.

thespaah · 08-01-2011, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golf and Horses

30 years ago I thought horse racing was the dumbest thing going. I hated it. I couldn't stand when they would put horse racing on TV and messed up Saturday sports events. The Kentucky Derby on TV??? I used to think..."Why do you need an hour of TV time for a 2 minute race?" I wanna watch baseball dammit!!!

Good thing I got smarter as I got older...I think.

GREAT AVATAR!!!!!!!!Looks like the result of many a putt for me as well!

Stillriledup · 08-01-2011, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I do pretty much the same things now I did 20-25 years ago. The difference is that I have Formulator with replays, charts, my trip notes, my bias info, back fields, key races, trainer information, etc... all online instead of in piles of notebooks, 100s of old Daily Racing Forms, and in my IBM AT.

Of course, I also understand how all that information interrelates better, but basically there's not much difference other than the time it takes and the number of people that have access to same information.

Theoretically, race betting should have gotten easier because back in the day before simulcasting, the only people betting at a track were experts on that track. Now, you have people who are betting from faraway places, there's a certain percentage of money in the pools that's coming from people on the first floor's of tracks around the nation betting bingo numbers. You didnt have this bingo effect back in the day.

Also, rebates have helped non rebate players get better prices on horses. With many rebate players just 'spreading' and boxing up horses to get their handle higher, that creates a lot of money spread around on many combos, so, if you have an edge, this helps pad things a bit.

Also, with computer's betting, those computers dump money on almost every horse, to arbitrage the market, take a look at the 10th race at Monmouth on Haskell day. A horse named Coral Key was in the race with zero shot to win. He was 50-1 ML and didnt even belong in the race, yet he was under 30-1 for many minutes early in the betting. He eventually settled at 74-1, but this horse was bet by a 'computer' program who probably determined that he had an .001 percent chance to win, so the computer 'recommended' a wager of 13 dollars to win. (for example). This stuff didnt happen back in the day, and it happens now. Money on horse's with less than 1 percent chance to win.

There are still plenty of 40 dollar winners, 2k tri's and 10k supers....so, it should be as easy or easier to win than it was in the day. Back a few decades ago, there wasn't even a such thing as supers or pentas.

If its gotten 'harder' to win, its not by much.

pondman · 08-01-2011, 10:46 PM

We could hit the windows at Santa Anita in 14 minutes. We'd talk to Whittingham a lot as kids and we learned "He's training well" meant the horse had a shot. We kept our ears open listening to trainers going to the windows-- learned who was going to bet where. We learned to play Earl Scheib's by his ties. It was a friendly place back then.

I hung with track rats who didn't work. At that time, I didn't have the experience to sit out. I bet too many races. We get a long one, and then we'd party in Pasadena all night, and blow it quick.

I've got the experience now to play only good shots. My ROI is liveable, now. Although much of my betting has moved to online, I still think I could string a hammick on the top deck and never leave, if they'd let me.

I've also got positive ROIs going at 10+ tracks a year-- it a lot of sitting and waiting for the right horse with the right odds. I consider it a business now, and wouldn't consider betting $2 for fun.

pondman · 08-01-2011, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Theoretically, race betting should have gotten easier because back in the day before simulcasting, the only people betting at a track were experts on that track.

I know from my own experience, I can sit and watch the pool in Delaware (I'm in California) and slam it a half dozen times a month. It's almost like stealing from a piggy bank. That wouldn't have been possible 30 years ago.

The well informed spot player has many more options in today's world.

Thirty years ago the cleaning ladies would hit the 9th at SA. It was one heck of a fun place...just wacky with angles and tips. That's all gone now.

thaskalos · 08-02-2011, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Theoretically, race betting should have gotten easier because back in the day before simulcasting, the only people betting at a track were experts on that track. Now, you have people who are betting from faraway places, there's a certain percentage of money in the pools that's coming from people on the first floor's of tracks around the nation betting bingo numbers. You didnt have this bingo effect back in the day.

Also, rebates have helped non rebate players get better prices on horses. With many rebate players just 'spreading' and boxing up horses to get their handle higher, that creates a lot of money spread around on many combos, so, if you have an edge, this helps pad things a bit.

Also, with computer's betting, those computers dump money on almost every horse, to arbitrage the market, take a look at the 10th race at Monmouth on Haskell day. A horse named Coral Key was in the race with zero shot to win. He was 50-1 ML and didnt even belong in the race, yet he was under 30-1 for many minutes early in the betting. He eventually settled at 74-1, but this horse was bet by a 'computer' program who probably determined that he had an .001 percent chance to win, so the computer 'recommended' a wager of 13 dollars to win. (for example). This stuff didnt happen back in the day, and it happens now. Money on horse's with less than 1 percent chance to win.

There are still plenty of 40 dollar winners, 2k tri's and 10k supers....so, it should be as easy or easier to win than it was in the day. Back a few decades ago, there wasn't even a such thing as supers or pentas.

If its gotten 'harder' to win, its not by much.

In my opinion...it has gotten MUCH more difficult to win today than it was in the past...and full-card simulcasting is mainly to blame.

Full-card simulcasting has either bankrupted or has completely disheartened many of the "uninformed" players of years past...and we have a much more sophisticated player base, as a whole, than we did before.

And I expect that trend to continue...

With all these betting options we have available to us today, losses are hard to control...and losing players go broke in record time.

Before long, it will be the "sharks" against the "whales"...with hardly any "guppies" in sight...

Edward DeVere · 08-02-2011, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Theoretically, race betting should have gotten easier because back in the day before simulcasting, the only people betting at a track were experts on that track. Now, you have people who are betting from faraway places, there's a certain percentage of money in the pools that's coming from people on the first floor's of tracks around the nation betting bingo numbers. You didnt have this bingo effect back in the day.

Also, rebates have helped non rebate players get better prices on horses. With many rebate players just 'spreading' and boxing up horses to get their handle higher, that creates a lot of money spread around on many combos, so, if you have an edge, this helps pad things a bit.

Also, with computer's betting, those computers dump money on almost every horse, to arbitrage the market, take a look at the 10th race at Monmouth on Haskell day. A horse named Coral Key was in the race with zero shot to win. He was 50-1 ML and didnt even belong in the race, yet he was under 30-1 for many minutes early in the betting. He eventually settled at 74-1, but this horse was bet by a 'computer' program who probably determined that he had an .001 percent chance to win, so the computer 'recommended' a wager of 13 dollars to win. (for example). This stuff didnt happen back in the day, and it happens now. Money on horse's with less than 1 percent chance to win.

There are still plenty of 40 dollar winners, 2k tri's and 10k supers....so, it should be as easy or easier to win than it was in the day. Back a few decades ago, there wasn't even a such thing as supers or pentas.

If its gotten 'harder' to win, its not by much.

I'm certain there's something in this post I agree with. I just have to keep looking, right?

(People weren't playing "them's my numbers" back in the day? Seriously?)

Robert Fischer · 08-02-2011, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj

I couldn't bet 30 years ago.

yea I woulda been happy just losing the takeout%...at 2 years old!

I do have to brag up my 8yo season though....
overheard a couple owners in the paddock and told my father... First time starter (IIRC)6-1... and then hit Alysheba in the preakness ("dad, can you bet $2 for me"?)....
2 for 2 baby!

macguy · 08-02-2011, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Theoretically, race betting should have gotten easier because back in the day before simulcasting, the only people betting at a track were experts on that track. Now, you have people who are betting from faraway places, there's a certain percentage of money in the pools that's coming from people on the first floor's of tracks around the nation betting bingo numbers. You didnt have this bingo effect back in the day.

If its gotten 'harder' to win, its not by much.

I would argue that the majority of the "bingo" players have long since left horse racing. Not that they aren't still out there to some degree. Many of the "birthday number" and "lucky number" players have moved onto slots and state lotteries over the last 20 years or so. Why spend all day at the races for a chance to win a little cash when you can buy a monthly subscription to the lottery, quick pick your numbers and be eligible to win millions of dollars.

I think that's one thing that has hurt the serious horse players, a lot of the "easy money" is no longer hanging out at the racetrack, they opt for hanging out in a dark room playing a slot machine, or quick picking their $20 in powerball tickets.

Horseplayersbet.com · 08-02-2011, 11:11 AM

ROI was higher. I am a speed figure handicapper, and outside of fake variants found in the DRF that took averages, there was a huge advantage in doing your own track variants.
And of course, there was a lot of dummy money in the pools back then, prior to slots and other forms of gambling competition.
And to top it off, collective takeouts were at least 2 or 3 points lower as well (this doesn't change ROI, but makes it easier to win or break even).