To all those who say you can't win using speed & pace figures only...

[DeltaLover]

Passing too many races is certainly a bad advice as it might improve your ROI but a high ROI is by no means the objective of a bettor.

Setting aside some races where the available information is not enough to create the potential for market anomalies (for example maiden races with a lot of first time starters), we need to have as many bets as possible if we want to maintain a valid expectation to show some significant profit.

The professional bettor who is willing to pass entire cards until he finds the spot, is one of the most misleading myths in the game. A serious bettor must try to discover as many bets as possible as he needs to increase the total amounts of his bets per time to maximize his profits during a specific period of time (profit is measured in $$ and not in ROI of course something that consists another major myth that is believed by many).

[pandy]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Passing too many races is certainly a bad advice as it might improve your ROI but a high ROI is by no means the objective of a bettor.

Setting aside some races where the available information is not enough to create the potential for market anomalies (for example maiden races with a lot of first time starters), we need to have as many bets as possible if we want to maintain a valid expectation to show some significant profit.

The professional bettor who is willing to pass entire cards until he finds the spot, is one of the most misleading myths in the game. A serious bettor must try to discover as many bets as possible as he needs to increase the total amounts of his bets per time to maximize his profits during a specific period of time (profit is measured in $$ and not in ROI of course something that consists another major myth that is believed by many).

I tend to agree with this. The problem with the theory of extreme selectivity, the only way you can make any serious money is if you bet thousands of dollars on each play, and even if you have the bankroll for that, your plays would have to be limited to races and tracks that have a robust handle.

It's different with sports betting. A professional sports bettor can make a handful of bets a year and still earn a living because the size of the bet doesn't reduce the payout.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Passing too many races is certainly a bad advice as it might improve your ROI but a high ROI is by no means the objective of a bettor.

Setting aside some races where the available information is not enough to create the potential for market anomalies (for example maiden races with a lot of first time starters), we need to have as many bets as possible if we want to maintain a valid expectation to show some significant profit.

The professional bettor who is willing to pass entire cards until he finds the spot, is one of the most misleading myths in the game. A serious bettor must try to discover as many bets as possible as he needs to increase the total amounts of his bets per time to maximize his profits during a specific period of time (profit is measured in $$ and not in ROI of course something that consists another major myth that is believed by many).

You are taking out one myth and inventing another myth. Passing races for me doesn't at all involve any of the extreme behavior above. I'm not taking extreme odds like 1-5 nor am I splitting hairs on 2 horses sub 2-1. I bet nearly every other race than this and bet a lot of races. These subsets are futile and more=boring. Their only worth is if the desire is to bet and not think, which I know is a big goal if automaton betting!

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

You are taking out one myth and inventing another myth. Passing races for me doesn't at all involve any of the extreme behavior above. I'm not taking extreme odds like 1-5 nor am I splitting hairs on 2 horses sub 2-1. I bet nearly every other race than this and bet a lot of races. These subsets are futile and more=boring. Their only worth is if the desire is to bet and not think, which I know is a big goal if automaton betting!

I can not see the myth I am inventing! What I am saying is that in order to maintain some realistic expectations to make a significant profit you cannot follow a passive approach with a lot of passes but try to bet as much as possible. Even if you have a positive EV this will be so tiny that you need many bets to materialize it to significant profits plus on top of this you need to consider the fact that since you are betting in mutual market the magnitude of your EV is very limited by default.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

I can not see the myth I am inventing! What I am saying is that in order to maintain some realistic expectations to make a significant profit you cannot follow a passive approach with a lot of passes but try to bet as much as possible. Even if you have a positive EV this will be so tiny that you need many bets to materialize it to significant profits plus on top of this you need to consider the fact that since you are betting in mutual market the magnitude of your EV is very limited by default.

I hear you! I have definitely come to appreciate that more really is more. I find that a 100 race betting cycle covers all the ups and downs and want as many of those as possible during the year. The worst experience I have had in this game covering 20 years is when I went specialist. Not only did I rob myself of my total skillset but the misery of few bets and diminished profitability was too much to bear. But while I broke out of that I do see the futility of certain odds ranges and cut those off. My number of bets a day is tote dependent. And my loss days are chalk triumph days. I'm fine with that. Not really at either extreme Delta. I will bet as many races as possible.

[LemonSoupKid]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Even if you have a positive EV this will be so tiny that you need many bets to materialize it to significant profits plus on top of this you need to consider the fact that since you are betting in mutual market the magnitude of your EV is very limited by default.

You're point is inherently contradictory, though I know what you are trying to say. The problem is that the question will never be resolved. Either you can beat the races, be selective, and raise your ROI or you can't. I think what you're really saying is that there's only a sweet spot range you can get to in EV, so therefore you should increase the betting part of it to overcome that stumbling block/fixture. Of course, you should state that.

---
As an aside, how many tracks do typical pro bettors bet at, and how many times per day or week? Give me any breakdown, # of races, # of days, cards, etc.

Thanks.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Passing too many races is certainly a bad advice as it might improve your ROI but a high ROI is by no means the objective of a bettor.

Setting aside some races where the available information is not enough to create the potential for market anomalies (for example maiden races with a lot of first time starters), we need to have as many bets as possible if we want to maintain a valid expectation to show some significant profit.

The professional bettor who is willing to pass entire cards until he finds the spot, is one of the most misleading myths in the game. A serious bettor must try to discover as many bets as possible as he needs to increase the total amounts of his bets per time to maximize his profits during a specific period of time (profit is measured in $$ and not in ROI of course something that consists another major myth that is believed by many).

Intuitively, I AGREE with the above 100%

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by LemonSoupKid

You're point is inherently contradictory, though I know what you are trying to say. The problem is that the question will never be resolved. Either you can beat the races, be selective, and raise your ROI or you can't. I think what you're really saying is that there's only a sweet spot range you can get to in EV, so therefore you should increase the betting part of it to overcome that stumbling block/fixture. Of course, you should state that.

---
As an aside, how many tracks do typical pro bettors bet at, and how many times per day or week? Give me any breakdown, # of races, # of days, cards, etc.

Thanks.

"Selectivity" must be on the loose side rather than the tight. You should pass way less races than those who you will bet.

[classhandicapper]

The problem with the "more bets" equal "more profit" theory is that reality sometimes doesn't match the theory.

For arguments sake, let's say I had a positive 10% ROI over many years being very selective. Some might argue that I could make a lot more money if I just loosened up a little and was willing to accept a positive 5% ROI making a lot more plays and dramatically increasing my handle.

That's perfectly logical.

But if the reality is that I'm breaking even (or even worse losing) on all those extra plays, I'm not really adding anything to the bottom line even though my handle would be way higher.

Most people already bet whenever they think they have a clear edge. Despite that, it's a struggle to win because sometimes we are working with imperfect information and understanding. When we start cutting it even closer, a lot of the time we think we are playing small overlays we are actually playing small underlays. The net could be disappointing to the point where we are just running in place on all those extra bets or even worse losing on them - even if we are still netting positive on everything because of the original standard plays.

Before you start adding bets, I think you have to insist that the standards for the new ones are similar to the standards for ones that are already doing well. That's easier said than done.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

That's perfectly logical.

But if the reality is that I'm breaking even (or even worse losing) on all those extra plays, I'm not really adding anything to the bottom line even though my handle would be way higher.

If what you are saying here is the reality then you need to improve your selection process. Other than this your statement does not oppose what I am stating above; it is simply referring to the obvious.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

If what you are saying here is the reality then you need to improve your selection process. Other than this your statement does not oppose what I am stating above; it is simply referring to the obvious.

I am saying I think it's not a good idea for most people to play more races to increase their handle because most are in a struggle to stay in the black to begin with.

Added plays will generally be of lower quality than the original more selective group or you would have made them to begin with. So they probably add very little to the bottom line and potentially even turn a small winner into a loser.

Now,for example, if you are highly selective and have a ROI of +20%, you can probably find more plays that are profitable, up your handle, and net more money. But if you are at +5%, I wouldn't mess around trying to find horses with a positive expectation between +1% and +5%. You'll probably wind up with a group at -1% or -2% and cost yourself money.

Other than that, everyone knows the more bets you can find the better.

[traynor]

Like much else in life, "it depends." I cannot imagine anyone other than the proverbial one-trick pony applying the same betting strategy to every race. Different factor sets call for different strategies/tactics. In plain English, some strategies require high-volume wagers, some require reasonable selectivity, and some require a high degree of selectivity.

I see no problem whatsoever in mixing those strategies, and I think more than a few other bettors are doing the same--combining high-volume/modest return (as in win bets/dutching/whatever) with low-volume/high return wagers (tris,supers.pickhowevermany). Decreasing the number of high-volume wagers is costly--so is increasing the number of low-volume wagers to chase rainbows or get more "action."

I agree completely that the goal should be $$$ (in the pocket, in the bank, invested, or spent-and-thoroughly-enjoyed) rather than "ROI" that seems to exist mainly on paper and in the imagination. I do NOT agree that a dichotomy exists between high-volume/low-volume wagering (or needs to exist). There is a place for both in a comprehensive wagering approach.

[jimmyb]

All this talk got me wondering how the old timers did it without benefit of simulcasting, ADW's, exactas, tri's pic 3's 4's 5's 6's, super duper high fives, and rainbow ripoffs etc.

[traynor]

I think it is unfortunate that DeltaLover sometimes tends to underemphasize points that are more important/significant than the casual reader might believe. An example is emphasizing actual return over "ROI" (two VERY different concepts that many seem to equate).

The ROI on a specific set of races is overfit to that specific set of races. There is ZERO guarantee (or even indication) that the specific set of races used represents a normal distribution over a larger set of races. Using ROI as a criteria leads one to chase rainbows and lose money. That is not a trivial matter, nor is it a spurious statement made for the sake of provoking argumentation. It matters not at all what the "ROI" of a given set of races was or was not. It only matters how much money you gained or lost by wagering on that particular set of races.

[traynor]

Consider--if the additional 100 race sample had included an outlier (a larger than normal mutuel) it might have tipped the ROI of the entire set to increase, rather than decrease. Would that have "proven" anything beyond the results of that specific strategy in that specific set of races? Not really. Would an additional 100 race set indicate continued decline in ROI, or reverse the "trend" and show an overall increase? And would either event "prove" anything beyond the results of that specific strategy in that specific set of races? I don't think so.

Again, that is not a casual observation or spurious opinion. The app I use generates dozens of "positive ROI wagering strategies" routinely. Most are worthless--which can readily be determined by applying those strategies to different sets of races. Believing that strategies developed by study of a specific group of races can be universally applied to other races with identical result can be VERY costly.