Change Your Game Forever

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I do what I can...

In the 1960's I once met a man with a similar name, in person, except it had an additional "i" in it....he founded Transcendental Meditation...
I'm sure....om....that he had good intentions....but to learn his techniques....
I just omed my way out of his "om" ideas.
Om...by the way works....just as well as any other mantras...in fact any round sounding incantation will do the same thing. I did not buy his...om....offering
But Thask...from the Godfather to Ramana M....what gives????

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

In the 1960's I once met a man with a similar name, in person, except it had an additional "i" in it....he founded Transcendental Meditation...
I'm sure....om....that he had good intentions....but to learn his techniques....
I just omed my way out of his "om" ideas.
Om...by the way works....just as well as any other mantras...in fact any round sounding incantation will do the same thing. I did not buy his...om....offering
But Thask...from the Godfather to Ramana M....what gives????

You must be thinking of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi...

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

But Thask...from the Godfather to Ramana M....what gives????

I guess the Religious thread had a bigger effect on me than I thought...

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I guess the Religious thread had a bigger effect on me than I thought...

Or your stance previously stated about William L. Scott perhaps?? as I look deeper.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Or your stance previously stated about William L. Scott perhaps?? as I look deeper.

Who knows...?

[thaskalos]

I'd like to apologize to Dave Schwartz for helping lead this thread astray...and I promise to refrain from any further distractions.

[Dave Schwartz]

LOL - It has been most interesting, my guru.

"What is the sound of one hand clapping?"


Say, do you think there is a video in this?

[dnlgfnk]

Perhaps a compromise could be achieved by addressing "How to Change Your Game Forever" in terms of cow races.

[erikeepper]

I have mixed thoughts about this product after watching it once, doing the exercises and thinking them through. Others? Reviews?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by erikeepper

I have mixed thoughts about this product after watching it once

Which you are not going to share?

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by erikeepper

I have mixed thoughts about this product after watching it once, doing the exercises and thinking them through. Others? Reviews?

A little more detail would be nice - "mixed thoughts" is not very specific. Some pros and cons maybe?

I've gone through the first two lessons, and Dave's approach for his products is very consistent. I attended the Basics of Winning, and have his Vulnerable Favorites and Longshot Contenders products. All of the products are laid out logically, but do require some effort to "think like Dave" to gain the most insight. To simplify complex methods takes some effort. They are not like reading a book where a single sentence or paragraph can instantly be transformed into an angle or method, though there are a few of those in there.

ChangeYourGameForever is clearly described as a "non-handicapping" product, so going in I've been prepared to attempt to "think like Dave" to an even higher degree. The first two lessons on personal handicapping style and the self-discovery on how effective it is I can see are clearly laying the groundwork for further insight. The mental aspect of the game is often mentioned, but rarely dealt with in detail by authors and pros, since the "road to confidence" is traveled in so many ways. So I'm looking forward to the rest of the course (seminar), and I'm anticipating that this product will show me one path, and provide me the building blocks to follow my own - assuming I'm capable.

I'll post more comments once I've completed the remaining lessons.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

I've gone through the first two lessons, and Dave's approach for his products is very consistent.



I'll post more comments once I've completed the remaining lessons.

I have also gone through the first two lessons. I realized from the coaching that there were a couple of things in my handicapping methodology that need attention. As suggested in Lesson 2, I intend to make the needed changes, analyze the results, and start over again with Lesson 1. I figure that will take a couple of weeks at a minimum.

The program was released less than 48 hours ago. I find it difficult to imagine that anyone could have completed the entire program effectively in such a short time.

[Dave Schwartz]

Guys, I have to tell you just how encouraging it is to hear that you guys are "getting it."

Thank you.

I am sure that some people will not grasp what I was aiming for here. Hopefully, those people will give it a second listen before giving up.

Remember that this advice actually did not originate with me. Instead, it is my re-telling of the lessons I received from someone else.

In retrospect, I think that Lesson 4 should have come before lesson 3. IMHO, Lesson 4 is worth the price of admission several times over.


Thanks again for the feedback.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Guys, I have to tell you just how encouraging it is to hear that you guys are "getting it."

Thank you.

I am sure that some people will not grasp what I was aiming for here. Hopefully, those people will give it a second listen before giving up.

Remember that this advice actually did not originate with me. Instead, it is my re-telling of the lessons I received from someone else.

In retrospect, I think that Lesson 4 should have come before lesson 3. IMHO, Lesson 4 is worth the price of admission several times over.


Thanks again for the feedback.

I have a question about lesson 4, Dave...and I will be careful with my remarks because a more thorough discussion might reveal what this product is about -- and that would be unfair to you.

Why were you using the morning line rather than the actual line in your handicapping and value estimations in lesson 4? Even in the example that you presented...the winner of the race (the #3 horse) was regarded as a 10-1 choice in your pre-race analysis...even though it ended up paying only $12 when it won. What is the advantage in using the morning line instead of the opening line?

My next question has to do with your admission in the video that you -- before you were given this coaching -- would often make wagers on horses that really had no realistic chance of ever winning the race. Why were you making bets on these horses in the first place?

[Dave Schwartz]

Why were you using the morning line rather than the actual line in your handicapping and value estimations in lesson 4? Even in the example that you presented...the winner of the race (the #3 horse) was regarded as a 10-1 choice in your pre-race analysis...even though it ended up paying only $12 when it won. What is the advantage in using the morning line instead of the opening line?

Almost a year ago I came to the conclusion that value handicapping using the tote board is, essentially, dead. There is just too much movement. At high rebate tracks around 75% of all winners are bet down from the time the horses enter the gate. The losers go up and the winners go down. It is as simple as that.

I concluded at that time that I had to re-calibrate my handicapping against an adjusted morning line. That re-calibration has worked. A significant percentage of the time the winning horse is still bet down, but I am no longer caught in the trap of "Well, he was a good bet when I bet him."

The bottom line is that it is clearly working for me, as it is for many of my software users.

Just to be clear, we use an adjusted morning line. Adjusted for scratches as well as conformation to a reasonable number of "booking points" at this track (which is determined by the takeout but easily computed ONCE for each track).

BTW, using this approach, I find a remarkable number of races where I wager multiple horses in a dutch against (my version of) the morning line, and the largest bet I make actually pays double digits. That is why I live with the races where I get back less than expected: there are just so many of the other kind that they make my day.

My most profitable races are not the $70 winners because I usually have small wagers on them. It comes from the $11 winner that I loaded on, in a race that called for a large wager and he was (say) only 3/1, thereby gathering the largest wager.

My next question has to do with your admission in the video that you -- before you were given this coaching -- would often make wagers on horses that really had no realistic chance of ever winning the race. Why were you making bets on these horses in the first place?

What I actually meant by that could be best described as "betting pure value."

Imagine that you have a race with 4 contenders. They are, in your perceived order of value:

8/1
12/1
6/1
2/5

I don't care how bad I think that 2/5 horse is, he is still going to win half the races or more.

But with that horse being one of my contenders, his hit rate is probably more like 65% minimum.

This means that however I bet the other 3 others, at best I am winning 35% of the races, and probably no more than 25-30% of the time (split between all 3 horses).

That is an example of a race where you either bet the 2/5, pass the race or wager a relatively small amount of money on the other 3 horses.

If you pick one... say the 12/1 horse. Just follow the math here. Let's say that you figure your edge on 12/1 horses is about 20%. That means your expectation in 100 such wagers would be a return of about $240. Since that horse will pay $26, he is going to win about 9% of the time. ($240 / $26 = 9.2%)

The point is that betting pure value sometimes puts one in a spot where they are going to lose most of the time. 9-times-out-of-10 should cause one to re-think how they play.