What are the worst mistakes a bettor can make?

[JackS]

Teach yourself to be relatively unemotional with winning and losing bets.
Bad beats can destroy your reasoning for upcoming races and the reverse, easy wins can make you over confident. Using some pyscology on oneself at the racetrack is the mediator.

[JackS]

With the widespread use of ATM's every where, There should be no excuse for anyone barrowing money. Anyone who doesn't own a bank account shouldn't even be at the track let alone any gambling venue.

[riskman]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Formulating a bet at home and then changing it at the track, with respect to horse, size of bet, or type of bet.
Typically this mistake is made when one sees the tote board. When the odds are too low or too high, the bettor wavers.
Occasionally you may see a reason to change the bet as a result of information gained from the Paddock or Post Parade.
But that should be a very rare occasion.

Good advice. . Before wagering at the track or at home develop and commit to paper what kind of wagers you are looking for and how you will play them when you find them. Having this game plan of your wagering strategies and then following the plan will insure that you are wagering in a disciplined manner. Discipline is the the single most important trait of a successful horseplayer. If things are not going well ,and you are at home or the track take a short break. Do something else at home for awhile, (your significant other might be surprised) or handicap a couple of races in a row that look like good ones to pass. If at the track go out to the paddock or watch a couple races at ground level near the finish line.
If you are on a long losing streak stay away from wagering for a time. When you feel refreshed and are better focused, get back on your game. I take these breaks quite often.

[arno]

Worst is you take too long to wager and too long talking to the mutual teller and then returning to your dining table seeing your girl friend and wallet gone.

[Dave Schwartz]

Formulating a bet at home and then changing it at the track, with respect to horse, size of bet, or type of bet.

I would say just the opposite; that formulating a bet at home is a terrible way to play because value is based upon what the prevailing odds are.

Different strokes for different folks.

Typically this mistake is made when one sees the tote board. When the odds are too low or too high, the bettor wavers.

I see the above as EXACTLY the required action to be profitable.

I believe the bettor needs to make a decision BASED upon the odds being too low or high.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I would say just the opposite; that formulating a bet at home is a terrible way to play because value is based upon what the prevailing odds are.

Different strokes for different folks.



I see the above as EXACTLY the required action to be profitable.

I believe the bettor needs to make a decision BASED upon the odds being too low or high.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Yes and my guess is that you are making many many bets a day across several tracks and are being rewarded for the value in them.
You are not the typical Joe who is playing one track and just a few very well thought out bets each day.

[jerry-g]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Here are two more mistakes, for which I have paid a heavy price over the years:

1.) Don't allow some "hot" horse on the board to change your mind about your own wager in a race. Our selective memory tells us that these horses win "most of the time..."

They DON'T!

2.) Never lend "serious" money at the track...even to your friends.

It seems that many people don't consider money lent at the track to be a legitimate debt.

Maybe they feel that this money was won at the windows...so it should be freely shared.

I've had "friends" tell me that they will pay me back the next time they "hit"...

Don't lend the money in the first place...and save yourself the aggravation.

I have to say that one time a little ole lady approached me and said
she had lost her grocery money and her husband was going to beat
her when she got home. I gave her $20 and she walked right in front
of me to the windows and placed a bet. I said to myself, education
in this business is very expensive. It costs a lot to save your petunias.

[bettheoverlay]

I wouldn't presume to pass judgement on the mistakes of "most bettors" but I do know my own, and there have been alot in 40 years of playing the horses. At first, in my young and innocent days, I played systems that constantly bombarded my mailbox. Then I read all the handicapping books, took them too seriously, became frustrated when I couldn't duplicate the author's results. I've tried the shotgun approach many times of playing the value off the toteboard from my odds line, it seemed like throwing darts after awhile, unskillfully at that, you have to really love gambling and have an endless supply of Red Bull close at hand to endure, I began dreaming of blowing up the toteboard, I got so sick of looking at it, although I am fond of the approach in theory.

It took me too long to trust my own instincts, and learn to go my own way. Which is to find really strong plays that have the potential for value. Even here my mistake was in a reluctance to use exotics to maximize profits off these strong plays. Now I only glance at the tote board with a couple minutes left to see if I want to make a win bet as well. I can endure this approach, and it's so much easier with computer software. But, alas, I still make mistakes.

[PICSIX]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

2.) Never lend "serious" money at the track...even to your friends.

I can help you out with this one courtesy of Gene Deroin (my former trainer & current friend). His reply to would be borrowers; "I made an agreement with my banker a long time ago, he wouldn't train horses and I wouldn't lend money."

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by traynor

Looking at a small number of races and believing that those races can be used to predict what will happen in a larger number of races.

Selectively isolating a small number of races with one or two unusually high mutuels and believing that those aberrant mutuel payoffs will be evenly distributed throughout a larger number of races.

"Accentuating the positive" in the sense of only studying races that were won and totally ignoring races that were lost.

Disagree. Often, a horse can tell me all I need to know about whether he is an underlay or overlay based upon the better or worse of his last two races. Also, a horse can be a clear underlay if he benefits in his debut from, say, a rail trip on the turn, and is now potentially very wide today.

[Dave Schwartz]

You are not the typical Joe who is playing one track and just a few very well thought out bets each day.

That is certainly true.

Although I would be very surprised if the pick-the-night-before system produces very many winning players in this age. Not saying it can't be done but I would guess that very few are successful that way.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

That is certainly true.

Although I would be very surprised if the pick-the-night-before system produces very many winning players in this age. Not saying it can't be done but I would guess that very few are successful that way.

And I'd be surprised if you were making horizontal wagers.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Disagree. Often, a horse can tell me all I need to know about whether he is an underlay or overlay based upon the better or worse of his last two races. Also, a horse can be a clear underlay if he benefits in his debut from, say, a rail trip on the turn, and is now potentially very wide today.

Disagree with your disagreement. I was not referring to past performances, but rather to the criteria developed to interpret those past performances. In short, the knowledge of whether one or both of the last two races are better or worse is based on considerably more than the information presented. Without prior (and fairly extensive, generalized) knowledge, there would be no ability to make that determination.

I was referring specifically to handicappers believing that the results of 10 or 20 (or even 100-150) races are all "evenly distributed" so that any patterns believed to exist in that small sample can be extrapolated to exist in the same distribution in a larger sample.

Sorry for the confusion. I probably should have been more specific about what I meant in my original post.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

That is certainly true.

Although I would be very surprised if the pick-the-night-before system produces very many winning players in this age. Not saying it can't be done but I would guess that very few are successful that way.

You are probably right. That makes it nice for me. Less competition.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by traynor

Disagree with your disagreement. I was not referring to past performances, but rather to the criteria developed to interpret those past performances. In short, the knowledge of whether one or both of the last two races are better or worse is based on considerably more than the information presented. Without prior (and fairly extensive, generalized) knowledge, there would be no ability to make that determination.

I was referring specifically to handicappers believing that the results of 10 or 20 (or even 100-150) races are all "evenly distributed" so that any patterns believed to exist in that small sample can be extrapolated to exist in the same distribution in a larger sample.

Sorry for the confusion. I probably should have been more specific about what I meant in my original post.

You were clear, Traynor. I stretched your comment needlessly to make an off topic observation.
On the other hand, it didn't take many particular races (situations) for me to realize a cornerstone truth of trip handicapping that Beyer brought to my attention ("My 50k Year...) through his friend "Charlie". There are red flags everywhere when a favorite is being bet due to an impressive performance(s) achieved with the benefit of the rail on the turns, and who is likely to be significantly wider next out.