Interesting Article

[traynor]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

After a win, what do you do with wager size?

Stays the same. Meaning I don't favor percentage of bankroll or Kelly. I use a different process.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by traynor

Way back, I saw two books in a bookstore window, and bought both. I chose the direction of the first--Playing Blackjack as a Business--rather than the second (with a more engaging title)--Play Poker, Quit Work, and Sleep 'til Noon.

Your post almost makes me wish I had chosen the direction of the second book.

The book that you passed on was a GREAT book...and it would have brought back a pretty penny in resale.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

In parimutuel games like horse racing and poker...the "safer" a playing style is, the less profitable it becomes long-term. The players who embrace these safer playing styles are typically the ones whose temperament and personality can't cope with the high degree of variance associated with the more aggressive styles of play.

In no-limit holdem...the competent "loose-aggressive" players are the most dangerous and the most profitable...but they also suffer the most turbulent financial swings. The "nits", who always wait for a big hand before committing to a pot, aren't nearly as dangerous or long-term profitable...but they can scrape up a profit in the smaller games without the stress of the prolonged drawdowns that the bolder, more profitable players experience. For most players...a compromise between these two extreme betting styles would probably be the best thing.

In horse racing...the competent bettor who restricts his wagers to presumed overlays, and keys these overlays in win-bets and exotics, will have a chance at the highest profit levels that the game offers...but he will also have to pay the significant price of experiencing the biggest fluctuations to his bankroll. That's why your 2-horse exacta-box wagers resulted in the significant drawdown that I referenced earlier...even thought the method itself could very well have been highly profitable overall.

The horseplayer who opts to "spread out" more in his wagering, does so in an attempt to "smooth-out" the high degree of variance experienced by the more aggressive bettor...but by doing so, he sacrifices some long-term profitability. There is no "free lunch"...in life OR in gambling.

To summarize...the degree of bankroll fluctuations that horseplayers experience have less to do with the competency of their methods...and more to do with the aggressiveness of their betting styles. It all comes down to how much "gamble" the bettor has in him...and how much "risk" his temperament could effectively tolerate. As a good friend of mine likes to say..."you have to wear the clothes that suit you".

By the way...I think this thread is a much better fit in the horse racing section of the site.

I have encountered more than a few aggressive bettors who buried themselves because they lacked the accompanying strategic skills to make that aggression productive.

Many who believe themselves "gamblers" are simply engaged in "gambling activities" in which they believe (correctly or incorrectly) that they have an edge over the other bettors. Most of the "real gamblers" I know prefer baccarat or craps when "gambling." Blackjack and horse race betting (seems to me) "work," more than "gambling."

I never found much of interest in poker, so my views are probably much different than they might have been otherwise.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by traynor

I have encountered more than a few aggressive bettors who buried themselves because they lacked the accompanying strategic skills to make that aggression productive.

Many who believe themselves "gamblers" are simply engaged in "gambling activities" in which they believe (correctly or incorrectly) that they have an edge over the other bettors. Most of the "real gamblers" I know prefer baccarat or craps when "gambling." Blackjack and horse race betting (seems to me) "work," more than "gambling."

I never found much of interest in poker, so my views are probably much different than they might have been otherwise.

Yes...I think we've established that the two of us hold distinctly different definitions of the word "gambling".

[traynor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The book that you passed on was a GREAT book...and it would have brought back a pretty penny in resale.

Way back, I bought (and studied) pretty much every book that GBC had on horse racing, blackjack, AND poker. A LOT of books. Then the bleeping computers came along, and occupied (most of) the time I used to devote to reading. At least in those areas.

I liked Amarillo Slim's book, but that impression was from the time I first read it. Way back.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes...I think we've established that the two of us hold distinctly different definitions of the word "gambling".

Differences of opinion are good. As they say, that is what makes a horse race.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by traynor

Way back, I bought (and studied) pretty much every book that GBC had on horse racing, blackjack, AND poker. A LOT of books. Then the bleeping computers came along, and occupied (most of) the time I used to devote to reading. At least in those areas.

I liked Amarillo Slim's book, but that impression was from the time I first read it. Way back.

I too would read every "serious" gambling found in the GBC. In fact...Howard would call me directly whenever an interesting new title arrived at the store. And...since I never really "discovered" the computer...this obsessive reading habit has remained with me all along.

[classhandicapper]

Poker always reminded me of gambling at pool.

The key to winning money in both pool and poker is not how good you are, it's making good games.

Pool players are often rated as Professional and then A through D (with D level players being a little better than beginners). Years ago I knew C level players that could grind out a few thousand every year and A level players that lost their shirt regularly. It's the same with poker. You can be the 20th best player in the world at a particular game but if you are sitting at a table with a bunch of players better than you, you are dead. You can be a donkey like me and be profitable in a $1 - $2 limit game.

We don't have that luxury in horse racing.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

We don't have that luxury in horse racing.

Yes you do------>Tournaments, especially small field tourneys, where you can see who's already entered before you decide to play.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Yes you do------>Tournaments, especially small field tourneys, where you can see who's already entered before you decide to play.

Good point.

I have very limited experience in tournaments, but I don't like them. That's not to say they aren't great fun and profitable for some people, they just don't suit me.

My brain is fully wired to find horses that are better than they look on paper and bet them if the price is right. In tournaments there's an extra layer of strategy in that you have to see your position on the leader board, guess what other players are selecting, and then formulate a strategy to win the tournament. A lot of times that's going to take you away from the horse you would play for cash and even put you on underlays because it make strategic sense. That goes against my wiring.

The other thing that turned me off was that my very first tournament was an AQU and OP tournament. I was crushing at AQU and worked my way into the top few. In the very last race I played what I thought was a decent overlay. A bunch of people at the bottom of the standings who were terrible the entire tournament picked the longest shot on the board. They didn't "like him" per se. They probably hated the horse just like me. But it was the only way for them to get into the money so it made strategic sense to go for the hail Mary. That garbage can got a perfect trip, won, and knocked me just out of the money after a day of fairly excellent handicapping. If a bunch of people actually liked that horse, so be it. They found something I missed. But the way it happened left a sour taste.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by traynor

Way back, I bought (and studied) pretty much every book that GBC had on horse racing, blackjack, AND poker. A LOT of books. Then the bleeping computers came along, and occupied (most of) the time I used to devote to reading. At least in those areas.

I liked Amarillo Slim's book, but that impression was from the time I first read it. Way back.

You might have been one of the large handful of people who read my first book, The Condition Sign! Sold about half he copies through GBC.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

You might have been one of the large handful of people who read my first book, The Condition Sign! Sold about half he copies through GBC.

If it was at GBC late 70s to late 80s, I read it.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I too would read every "serious" gambling found in the GBC. In fact...Howard would call me directly whenever an interesting new title arrived at the store. And...since I never really "discovered" the computer...this obsessive reading habit has remained with me all along.

When I became interested in textual deconstruction and critical analysis, many of the later works (on gambling-related topics) seemed more like idle gossip than information. That is, a lot of he say-she say wrapping a (very) few bits of "information." My obsessive reading habit is unabated, but focused in other areas.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I too would read every "serious" gambling found in the GBC. In fact...Howard would call me directly whenever an interesting new title arrived at the store. And...since I never really "discovered" the computer...this obsessive reading habit has remained with me all along.

Wasn't John Luckman the first to "expose" blackjack teams?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by traynor

Wasn't John Luckman the first to "expose" blackjack teams?

Luckman was before my time...Howard Schwartz was the guy that I became acquainted with at the GBC.

True story:

I was at the GBC some 20+ years ago...and I bought all the books that I could find by the popular poker co-authors David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth. By wild coincidence...Mason Malmouth happened to walk into the store just as Howard was about to check me out at the register.

"Hey, Mason...my friend here is buying all your books. Would you like to sign one of them?"...Howard called out to the famed author/mathematician. Malmuth walked over to me and shook my hand, and apologetically told me..."I'm sorry, I don't do book signings".

I thanked him nonetheless for his contributions to the poker community...as Howard was quietly apologizing to me for what had just transpired.