Seriously? $150 horse?

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm not that easily discouraged...lol

I prefer to experience the suffering myself to prove it to me.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

PA,

Seriously? $150 horse?


Your system never ceases to amaze me.

how many horses were played to win in that race?

[vegasone]

Realistically, according to common thinking......you should take out any outliers.....Not sure how true it is......I think it would depend on what kind of odds you were looking at to begin with.....


I think I would take it out(I do) because those kinds of horses are not something I can count on consistently.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

how many horses were played to win in that race?

1

And that's why I only win 11-12% of races

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

1

And that's why I only win 11-12% of races

very nice.

[FakeNameChanged]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I'm not that easily discouraged...lol

I prefer to experience the suffering myself to prove it to me.

Anyone who posts winning consecutive 500-pick selections before a race is not easily discouraged. You maintain your confidence during losing streaks, which probably everyone on here knows is damn hard to do. Are you from Pittsburgh?

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by vegasone

Realistically, according to common thinking......you should take out any outliers.....Not sure how true it is......I think it would depend on what kind of odds you were looking at to begin with.....


I think I would take it out(I do) because those kinds of horses are not something I can count on consistently.

It's probably the price that can't be counted on, whatever angle is involved is probably ok.



Price is very fluid when it come to longshots.

[PaceAdvantage]

Full disclosure...ran into a brick wall as of late...time for some more woodshed

[vegasone]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

It's probably the price that can't be counted on, whatever angle is involved is probably ok.



Price is very fluid when it come to longshots.

The price isn't the problem.....it is if you think you have a profitable system but it relies on one or two long shots....it may be an issue. If they play all year and don't hit those horses till the end of the year how many people will keep playing till the end of the year? It is very frustrating. Like a pick six player....how many can last thru the downturns till they hit a big one. Why people get into syndicates.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by vegasone

The price isn't the problem.....it is if you think you have a profitable system but it relies on one or two long shots....it may be an issue. If they play all year and don't hit those horses till the end of the year how many people will keep playing till the end of the year? It is very frustrating. Like a pick six player....how many can last thru the downturns till they hit a big one. Why people get into syndicates.

If you have a system that only gives you longshots, like the one we're talking about here, there's not much of a chance of avoiding this issue. I guess you could break it down where you only count those between 10-1 and 30-1, but you'd need a pretty big sample before it really mattered. Besides, it's the $150 horse that makes the system anyway. So, rock and a hard place.

[thaskalos]

This also illustrates how inadequate one's ROI is when assessing the true power of his handicapping methods. I've always thought that a handicapping method's true worth is determined by how long it takes to double the bankroll that the method is attached to. A method that garners a 10% ROI while winning at a 12% rate will ultimately prove inferior than the method that generates a 7% ROI while winning at a 30% rate, when the number of bets are equal...simply because the latter method will require a much smaller bankroll, which will increase at a much higher pace than the former, more "profitable" method.

Of course...this only applies to the players who increase their bets as their bankroll escalates. If the bettor bets the same amount every time, then the higher ROI longshot method would be preferable...provided that he has the stomach for it.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

This also illustrates how inadequate one's ROI is when assessing the true power of his handicapping methods. I've always thought that a handicapping method's true worth is determined by how long it takes to double the bankroll that the method is attached to. A method that garners a 10% ROI while winning at a 12% rate will ultimately prove inferior than the method that generates a 7% ROI while winning at a 30% rate, when the number of bets are equal...simply because the latter method will require a much smaller bankroll, which will increase at a much higher pace than the former, more "profitable" method.

Of course...this only applies to the players who increase their bets as their bankroll escalates. If the bettor bets the same amount every time, then the higher ROI longshot method would be preferable...provided that he has the stomach for it.

I agree.

However, the components also include the frequency of plays as well as the total amount you CAN wager.

Had a client years back who had an honest-to-goodness winning spreadsheet approach for beating exactas at TX tracks. He and his 2 partners decided they had to go above $20 3-horse boxes and found it would not scale because they were winning with longshots.

The whole thing just died after that.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I agree.

However, the components also include the frequency of plays as well as the total amount you CAN wager.

Had a client years back who had an honest-to-goodness winning spreadsheet approach for beating exactas at TX tracks. He and his 2 partners decided they had to go above $20 3-horse boxes and found it would not scale because they were winning with longshots.

The whole thing just died after that.

Sure...that why I specified "when the numbers of bets are equal" in my prior post. The more bets the winning method finds...the better.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Betting longshots in the range of 30-1+ will result to so long loosing streaks that will deprive even the largest bankrolls. I have a profitable model with an expected ROI of 1.06 which shows 20+ consecutive loses with a strike rating of over 20% and odds between 3-1 and 5-1. Imagine what would be the equivalent streak for a model that is targeting very highly priced bets.

Right, but that's if you only bet horses 30-1 or over.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by vegasone

Realistically, according to common thinking......you should take out any outliers.....Not sure how true it is......I think it would depend on what kind of odds you were looking at to begin with.....


I think I would take it out(I do) because those kinds of horses are not something I can count on consistently.

There's no reason at all to take out the "outliers" as there really are none. If he's playing a system, or testing an angle, he can expect all sorts of prices as the result of what the rest of the field looks like. There is a good chance he will catch another $80, $90, or even $100+ plus horse in the next 250 races if the system points to another horse that the betting crowd is totally oblivious to. He didn't bet the horse because it was 75/1, he bet it because it fit on handicapping criteria. He sticks to it, another one will get away from the crowd.