Making A Living betting Horses (My Opinion Of What It May Involve And Imply)

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by riskman

A good gambler /risk taker is one who takes advantage of an opportunity to achieve an end and can make money many ways in life. He or she can also avoid a lot of problems in life by being able to assess a situation and know whether the risks offset the possible reward. That is true of many situations, not just betting on horses.

Once the handicapping is finished, decisions have to be made, on the wagering of money. IMHO the most important part of making money on horses is learning how to gamble. How you wager your money, in what amounts and on what type of bets is a challenge and at times can be complicated and demanding, at least for me. It is a contest of wits, skill, and courage. You are competing against others with varying intelligence, experience, determination, and information. IMHO,the number one skill that any professional horse player cannot succeed without developing, is the gambling skill. While his or her handicapping skill may be competent, the gambling skill has to be first-rate. Any acquired edge in wagering talent with a minimum outlay of time, energy, or both can be a contributing factor to overcome the track take which is the # 1 goal in this difficult game.

Excellent post Riskman.I couldn't agree more.Going through the motions of handicapping is routine.I put my notes in the form,I have an idea of who I like.When the windows open up,then the work starts.You have to be not only sharp but fast.A buddy called me Saturday and we spoke for about 2 minutes.I half a$sed a big score by the delay.Betting decisions are what separates .500 from being a winner.I think in many ways it is like being a MLB hitter.All the adjustments you go through to hit .300 is a success,yet you fail 7 times out of 10.But it doesn't matter,as long as those other 3 times you are fearless and bet accordingly!

[oexplayer68]

Well I do this full-time, professionally, or whatever you want to call it, and I do none of what the original poster recommends; i.e. straight wagering or use of computer software. Not saying you can't do it that way, but the tracks I play and the way I bet are not conducive to making large wps bets, as well as the inevitable odds drop on the final click.

Rebates are the real key in my estimation. I am a volume player and have a flat roi, but when you factor in rebates on monthly wagering in the 250K area you are talking about a very large income. Even better, the ADW's love this type of consistent play, so you will be able to command even higher rebates. I play almost exclusively vertical wagers as that is my expertise. To me, this is where both the public and even astute players have the most trouble.



I am relatively young, but I still don't see how anyone with their computer software can outperform what I see with my eye. I am sure there are some pretty sophisticated programs out there, but I am 100% sure I can outperform them the way I play. To each his own though, as certainly Benter's stuff works for him.



One thing that helped me a lot was learning to focus on just a few circuits/tracks. My year is always planned out ahead of time as far as what I will be playing. Of course, wherever I get the best real rebate is where I usually play.



The real key at least for me is wager structuring. I still need to improve in this area, but have made some big strides in the past year. Playing too many combinations has always been my downfall. Tightening it up has led to an increase of a few ROI points.



It always intrigues me when this subject appears. I know most think beating the ponies year in and year out can't be done, but those are probably the same folks who say you can't time the stock market.



The game is very tough right now. There is just little to no dumb money any more, so you are competing against a lot of sharpies. I think the whole key for anyone is to just find their niche and stick to it. Of course, rebates are mandatory, as otherwise you stand little chance of being able to make a decent income.

[Bruddah]

Originally Posted by oexplayer68

Well I do this full-time, professionally, or whatever you want to call it, and I do none of what the original poster recommends; i.e. straight wagering or use of computer software. Not saying you can't do it that way, but the tracks I play and the way I bet are not conducive to making large wps bets, as well as the inevitable odds drop on the final click.

Rebates are the real key in my estimation. I am a volume player and have a flat roi, but when you factor in rebates on monthly wagering in the 250K area you are talking about a very large income. Even better, the ADW's love this type of consistent play, so you will be able to command even higher rebates. I play almost exclusively vertical wagers as that is my expertise. To me, this is where both the public and even astute players have the most trouble.

I am relatively young, but I still don't see how anyone with their computer software can outperform what I see with my eye. I am sure there are some pretty sophisticated programs out there, but I am 100% sure I can outperform them the way I play. To each his own though, as certainly Benter's stuff works for him.



One thing that helped me a lot was learning to focus on just a few circuits/tracks. My year is always planned out ahead of time as far as what I will be playing. Of course, wherever I get the best real rebate is where I usually play.



The real key at least for me is wager structuring. I still need to improve in this area, but have made some big strides in the past year. Playing too many combinations has always been my downfall. Tightening it up has led to an increase of a few ROI points.



It always intrigues me when this subject appears. I know most think beating the ponies year in and year out can't be done, but those are probably the same folks who say you can't time the stock market.



The game is very tough right now. There is just little to no dumb money any more, so you are competing against a lot of sharpies. I think the whole key for anyone is to just find their niche and stick to it. Of course, rebates are mandatory, as otherwise you stand little chance of being able to make a decent income.

The young man has it right in my opinion. Playing one track or circuit with a disciplined/ structured approach to vertical wagering is a must. I have followed this approach since 1992 and have been profitable all but two years. One of those years, last year, I could not play because of health issues.

I am a Hobbyist and have been since 1965. However, being a Hobbyist, doesn't preclude one from doing the same things that professionals do. There are thousands of non professional golfers trying to emulate the Pros everyday and many of those play very competitively on their home courses/ circuits.

[Tom Barrister]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

Tom,

I wasn't trying to slam you at all.But at 12.5 hours avg a week and being indifferent to the results of full time gambling it's hard to take serious on a thread regarding playing for a living!!!But please invite me out for cocktails when I'm in the vicinity

Perhaps I was ambiguous. 500-600 hours a year is spent on what I do for a living. I could easily spend 4,000 hours a year (80 hours a week) on this, if I saw fit to. I don't want to be chained to my "job". 200 hours a month, three separated months a year, is enough.

Pardon me while I pontificate for a while.

If I put in a "regular" 2,000 hours a year doing my "day job", my income wouldn't be much more or less than it is now; likewise, if all I did was play horses/etc. (and this didn't change my results-per-hour), I would have about the same amount of money. The three months that I work earn me enough to pay about 80% of my real life bills (and would pay all of them if I wanted to live more cheaply than I do). The money I make from horses/greyhounds/poker is literally money in the bank.

All of this isn't meant for me to blow my trumpet; it's pertinent to this thread. To gamble successfully for a living, one needs a large enough bankroll and a separate fund for living expenses----enough to not feel pressure to produce. Along with that, the "professional" also needs the ability to win, a willingness to work as hard as needed to achieve athe goal of winning, self-confidence, discipline, patience, preparedness, the willingness to pounce when the "golden opportunity" arises, total self-honesty with oneself, the ability to adapt when the game changes, the ability to self-criticize and take criticism (and improve based on the critique), and countless other things. If I could no longer make money betting, I would probably work more hours at the "day job". As it is, those years are past, and I'm semi-retired from betting, as greyhounds (and some live poker) don't take as much of my time as horses did. In other words, I have something to fall back on if the income from horses/greyhounds/poker dries up.

For me, having a regular, steady, reliable income takes the pressure off of me to produce by gambling. It eliminates the need to take living expenses out of my bankroll. Instead, I put the extra money in the bank/investments/etc. This is what works for me. Somebody else might be willing to live more on the edge, and they might do well that way, and it might even be needed to keep them focused.

Everybody has different wants and needs. What works for one person won't work for another. There's no one "right" way to do things, no one-size-fits-all.

[DeanT]

Something I see from time to time is that when players play exotics, especially supers and long sequence horizontal wagers, the stress and pressure is immense. If you have three or four tracks going and are really hitting the exotics deep, you can really get burned out with that.

Second, with win betting only, I guess it depends what you are doing. If you live in the UK and play at betfair, for example, the win pool is more than enough for you. You can bet $4000 to win on a horse at fixed odds at 5-2, who ends up paying $5.90. Why fiddle with exotics when you have a good edge and can bet that much without hurting your price, and you know what price you are getting? Some folks there are 1.10 ROI with better prices, fixed odds and no rebate, and they would not think of branching out to high stress exotics.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by DeanT

Something I see from time to time is that when players play exotics, especially supers and long sequence horizontal wagers, the stress and pressure is immense. If you have three or four tracks going and are really hitting the exotics deep, you can really get burned out with that.

Second, with win betting only, I guess it depends what you are doing. If you live in the UK and play at betfair, for example, the win pool is more than enough for you. You can bet $4000 to win on a horse at fixed odds at 5-2, who ends up paying $5.90. Why fiddle with exotics when you have a good edge and can bet that much without hurting your price, and you know what price you are getting? Some folks there are 1.10 ROI with better prices, fixed odds and no rebate, and they would not think of branching out to high stress exotics.

Along the same lines sort of, one bet I like to make is a parlay. Since you have to pick winners at a price to make money whether it's to win or with exotics it's important to carry the handicapping process to a point where you have to pick the one Horse in a race that you like best. Sometimes with exotics like tri's or supers it's easy to be lazy and use three on top instead of committing to one.

Take a 3 Horse Parlay(I've done it up to 5 Horses). When you do it with 5 Horses the win parlay of all Horses gets nuts and is almost impossible to hit not to mention the insane amount of money going to win on the 5th Horse. I would call it a Round Robin of sorts. You would pick your three best bets of the day of all the Tracks you handicap. I'm sure I probably made an error in here somewhere so forgive me if I did in advance!


$100 bet increments and $1100 investment!

Parlay from Horse A to win to Horse B to win.
Parlay from Horse A to win to Horse B to place.
Parlay from Horse A to place to Horse B to win

Parlay from Horse A to win to Horse C to win.
Parlay from Horse A to win to Horse C to place.
Parlay from Horse A to place to Horse C to win

Parlay from Horse B to win to Horse C to win.
Parlay from Horse B to win to Horse C to place.
Parlay from Horse B to place to Horse C to win

Parlay from Horse A to win to Horse B to win to Horse C to win
Parlay from Horse A to place to Horse B to place to Horse C to place



For arguments sake let say they all go off at 5 to 1

All pay $12 to win and $6 to place

How much do you win if they all win?

How much do you win if 2 out of three win and the third runs out?

How much do you win if 1 wins and 2 run second?

How much do you win if 2 out of three win and 1 runs second?

[badcompany]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

And yes,we all know we can say what we want,when we want,and where we want.My whole point is that the losers clog up threads like this so players that are actually winning or trying to win have to sift through a wave of "No" and "It's not possible" posts.That to me is BS.Let the winners speak.Losers have no business in this thread.

If you can't handle the harsh reality of what goes into being a professional gambler, then, maybe it's not for you.

It's easy to sit there and fantasize about spending your days at the track where you don't have a boss and you can't be fired. It's another box of twinkies to deal with an extended losing streak when you have bills to pay.

Say what you want about a day job, but, I've been at my current one for eight years and have yet to have a negative paycheck.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by badcompany

If you can't handle the harsh reality of what goes into being a professional gambler, then, maybe it's not for you.

It's easy to sit there and fantasize about spending your days at the track where you don't have a boss and you can't be fired. It's another box of twinkies to deal with an extended losing streak when you have bills to pay.

Say what you want about a day job, but, I've been at my current one for eight years and have yet to have a negative paycheck.

You're quoting a post that was aimed at the fact we can all say what we want,when we want,where we want.It's the internet.

The guy who I was responding too is financially aloof from any damage he can make by betting.

There have been times in my existence as a horseplayer where I have made a living at this.Short periods sure,but success nonetheless.My entire input in this thread was geared to hearing from players who do it now or have done it.Not to hear the reprimands of those who fail and cannot do it and throw that failure in the face of who are actually making the attempt of winning.

[markgoldie]

Originally Posted by oexplayer68

Well I do this full-time, professionally, or whatever you want to call it, and I do none of what the original poster recommends; i.e. straight wagering or use of computer software. Not saying you can't do it that way, but the tracks I play and the way I bet are not conducive to making large wps bets, as well as the inevitable odds drop on the final click.

Rebates are the real key in my estimation. I am a volume player and have a flat roi, but when you factor in rebates on monthly wagering in the 250K area you are talking about a very large income. Even better, the ADW's love this type of consistent play, so you will be able to command even higher rebates. I play almost exclusively vertical wagers as that is my expertise. To me, this is where both the public and even astute players have the most trouble.



I am relatively young, but I still don't see how anyone with their computer software can outperform what I see with my eye. I am sure there are some pretty sophisticated programs out there, but I am 100% sure I can outperform them the way I play. To each his own though, as certainly Benter's stuff works for him.



One thing that helped me a lot was learning to focus on just a few circuits/tracks. My year is always planned out ahead of time as far as what I will be playing. Of course, wherever I get the best real rebate is where I usually play.



The real key at least for me is wager structuring. I still need to improve in this area, but have made some big strides in the past year. Playing too many combinations has always been my downfall. Tightening it up has led to an increase of a few ROI points.



It always intrigues me when this subject appears. I know most think beating the ponies year in and year out can't be done, but those are probably the same folks who say you can't time the stock market.



The game is very tough right now. There is just little to no dumb money any more, so you are competing against a lot of sharpies. I think the whole key for anyone is to just find their niche and stick to it. Of course, rebates are mandatory, as otherwise you stand little chance of being able to make a decent income.

Reading this post was nearly unbelievable for me since it almost exactly describes myself. I can't remember having heard from this poster before even though he's been a member since 2005. I've been here only since May and I guess I like to post a whole lot more since most of my methodology has been put out on the forum in the past.

I play verticals almost exclusively. Sometimes horizontals especially with carryovers. Seems like we bet about the same amount (3m annually). Maybe I get a better rebate because he focuses on tracks where he gets a better kickback. I don't because my provider takes the exact same 10% of the track takeout and rebates the rest no matter what or where I play. So playing into a high-takeout pool is no issue because I get that much more of a rebate. I average about a 13.5% rebate on all bets and I have a consistently negative ROI. My best years are roughly -2%. I'm sure I could get a better ROI on straight bets but what he says is true. Bet size destroys the price and the gimmicks offer much better rebates because the track takeout is so much higher.

He's young. I'm old (63). Even though I am not automated (like him), we have an apparent philosophical difference about the possibilities of automation. He says it can never match what he sees with his eyes. I say that the brain makes decisions based on mathematical probabilities, which even if we don't realize it, can be quantified by numbers. In fact, numerical quantification is far more accurate over the long haul. Such quantification can be done with targeted data mining. Kasparov is a genius who said exactly the same thing as the poster until a computer destroyed him once and for all in chess. He'd said that a computer would never beat him because at his level, the game was more art than science. In defeat, Kasparov explained what he'd learned. He said he dominated other human players because they made mistakes in judgements now and then. But the computer was relentlessly accurate. Same with handicapping. We make hundreds of shaded decisions which are never applied equally. Those shades of decision could be researched for accuracy and then applied relentlessly through automation. I am very interested in doing this someday.

Other small differences. I don't play specific circuits. I am much more interested in field size (larger the better) and bet layout, by which I mean either (1) the degree of contention (higher the better) or (2) vulnerability of the favorite. Most of my best scores are made with the favorite off the ticket. As I've said before, the biggest overlays in the sport are in large-combination gimmicks on non-favorite types. Playing a specific circuit or two would cut my opportunities way down. Another drawback to playing a specific circuit is that you develop mental biases about it. These mindsets make it difficult to be properly flexible because you actually know too much, or think you do.

Wager structuring. Agree with the poster that this is critical. I have written about this before on the forum. In most races, weak E and E/P types are the best eliminations. S and P types are the best inclusions for underneath positions. They are often great value at huge prices because the public errs in consistently playing as if a 20-1 S-type to win is 20-1 not to make the ticket all together. How do I know this? The prices tell me it's true. As far as ticket width, it's not a problem for me. I play wide but that's a function of the type of race I play. If I can't play wide, I'd rather skip the event. I very rarely use a "key" horse because of the uncertainty principle that any horse will perform in a given race. Exceptions are price horses that I really like in the given scenario. Also, (and this could be important to the poster and others who play complex verticals) try dual key horses in certain situations to reduce bet size.

Finally, I agree that the game has gotten tougher. The casual money is drying up, probably due to the recession. Also, out-of-work computer programmers are taking up the game. These guys get good fast and are not gambling for recreation. As for self-control, this is an issue which could demand an entire book. The short version is never, ever vary your bet-size structure. You can vary bet size but only depending on a pre-determined basis based on opportunity of the individual wager.

[badcompany]

Originally Posted by markgoldie

Finally, I agree that the game has gotten tougher. The casual money is drying up, probably due to the recession.

Mostly because horse racing hasn't replaced its aging fan base.

[Dave Schwartz]

Mark & Cincy,

Awesome posts. I can identify almost precisely with both of you in different parts of your post.

Because of my experience as a stand-alone, completely-support-myself player (many years ago) I can identify with just how difficult that route is unless you are have and are wagering massive amounts of money.

Because of my more recent experiences with rebating I can identify with that very hi-tech side that Mark speaks of.

Both of you are dead on. Enough so that anything I might add at this point would be just to hear myself talk.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[46zilzal]

I have met, usually up in the press box, a few big bettors who are ahead of the game all the time. They RARELY bet win only, have large enough bankrolls to survive long streaks and make big killings in exotics.

[Hank]

Originally Posted by markgoldie

Reading this post was nearly unbelievable for me since it almost exactly describes myself. I can't remember having heard from this poster before even though he's been a member since 2005. I've been here only since May and I guess I like to post a whole lot more since most of my methodology has been put out on the forum in the past.

I play verticals almost exclusively. Sometimes horizontals especially with carryovers. Seems like we bet about the same amount (3m annually). Maybe I get a better rebate because he focuses on tracks where he gets a better kickback. I don't because my provider takes the exact same 10% of the track takeout and rebates the rest no matter what or where I play. So playing into a high-takeout pool is no issue because I get that much more of a rebate. I average about a 13.5% rebate on all bets and I have a consistently negative ROI. My best years are roughly -2%. I'm sure I could get a better ROI on straight bets but what he says is true. Bet size destroys the price and the gimmicks offer much better rebates because the track takeout is so much higher.

He's young. I'm old (63). Even though I am not automated (like him), we have an apparent philosophical difference about the possibilities of automation. He says it can never match what he sees with his eyes. I say that the brain makes decisions based on mathematical probabilities, which even if we don't realize it, can be quantified by numbers. In fact, numerical quantification is far more accurate over the long haul. Such quantification can be done with targeted data mining. Kasparov is a genius who said exactly the same thing as the poster until a computer destroyed him once and for all in chess. He'd said that a computer would never beat him because at his level, the game was more art than science. In defeat, Kasparov explained what he'd learned. He said he dominated other human players because they made mistakes in judgements now and then. But the computer was relentlessly accurate. Same with handicapping. We make hundreds of shaded decisions which are never applied equally. Those shades of decision could be researched for accuracy and then applied relentlessly through automation. I am very interested in doing this someday.

Other small differences. I don't play specific circuits. I am much more interested in field size (larger the better) and bet layout, by which I mean either (1) the degree of contention (higher the better) or (2) vulnerability of the favorite. Most of my best scores are made with the favorite off the ticket. As I've said before, the biggest overlays in the sport are in large-combination gimmicks on non-favorite types. Playing a specific circuit or two would cut my opportunities way down. Another drawback to playing a specific circuit is that you develop mental biases about it. These mindsets make it difficult to be properly flexible because you actually know too much, or think you do.

Wager structuring. Agree with the poster that this is critical. I have written about this before on the forum. In most races, weak E and E/P types are the best eliminations. S and P types are the best inclusions for underneath positions. They are often great value at huge prices because the public errs in consistently playing as if a 20-1 S-type to win is 20-1 not to make the ticket all together. How do I know this? The prices tell me it's true. As far as ticket width, it's not a problem for me. I play wide but that's a function of the type of race I play. If I can't play wide, I'd rather skip the event. I very rarely use a "key" horse because of the uncertainty principle that any horse will perform in a given race. Exceptions are price horses that I really like in the given scenario. Also, (and this could be important to the poster and others who play complex verticals) try dual key horses in certain situations to reduce bet size.

Finally, I agree that the game has gotten tougher. The casual money is drying up, probably due to the recession. Also, out-of-work computer programmers are taking up the game. These guys get good fast and are not gambling for recreation. As for self-control, this is an issue which could demand an entire book. The short version is never, ever vary your bet-size structure. You can vary bet size but only depending on a pre-determined basis based on opportunity of the individual wager.

Great post Mark.I must say however that I don't think your chess analogy(all variations known)is valid with respect to horse racing, many subtle unknowns.

[Grits]

Originally Posted by markgoldie

As far as ticket width, it's not a problem for me. I play wide but that's a function of the type of race I play. If I can't play wide, I'd rather skip the event. I very rarely use a "key" horse because of the uncertainty principle that any horse will perform in a given race. Exceptions are price horses that I really like in the given scenario. Also, (and this could be important to the poster and others who play complex verticals) try dual key horses in certain situations to reduce bet size.

I've known, in business for over twenty years, it has taken money, to make money. It still does. But this same mindset has not transferred well to gambling/recreational horseplaying. At least, not for me. I need to rethink, not so much my handicapping, as my conservatism. Spreading in, or taking on other exotic wagers (beyond an exacta or an occasional pic 3) has been indicative of my lack of willingness to invest more. Too, I've felt to spead indicates my inability to narrow the wager, hence, a weakness. Trying to key a horse, has proved useless, the majority of the time in any trifecta.

I've probably lost, by not trying, more than I've won, due to these beliefs. Choosing races, carefully and periodically, may be the key.

This is getting away from the point of the thread, but still, thank you, MarkG, for your post, from one who doesn't depend on wagering--not for a living.

[markgoldie]

Originally Posted by Grits

I've known, in business for over twenty years, it has taken money, to make money. It still does. But this same mindset has not transferred well to gambling/recreational horseplaying. At least, not for me. I need to rethink, not so much my handicapping, as my conservatism. Spreading in, or taking on other exotic wagers (beyond an exacta or an occasional pic 3) has been indicative of my lack of willingness to invest more. Too, I've felt to spead indicates my inability to narrow the wager, hence, a weakness. Trying to key a horse, has proved useless, the majority of the time in any trifecta.

I've probably lost, by not trying, more than I've won, due to these beliefs. Choosing races, carefully and periodically, may be the key.

This is getting away from the point of the thread, but still, thank you, MarkG, for your post, from one who doesn't depend on wagering--not for a living.

Grits: First off, stay within your comfort zone and betting means. This is more important than anything else. In complex gimmicks,you need a larger bankroll backup because to do it correctly, the effort is windfall-driven. There are streaks and you must be prepared to lose lots of races in a row.

Just playing wide will not lead to to grind-out profits. For example, let's say that by playing wide you are able to approach a 60% strike rate. To do this, you would have to use lots of favorites in all positions. So in some races, you will hit and lose money. When you combine the races in which you hit and lost with the races where you failed to cash, it's nearly impossible to grind a profit. In fact, playing wide and using favorites is a prescription for disaster because you are playing into a very bad underlay situation.

My methodology of playing into chaos and eliminating favorites especially in upper positions provides a much lower strike rate. I don't keep statistics on it but I'd be very surprised if it was even 40%. With such a strike rate, all hope of grinding is out the window. You make some "nice" hits, but the year is really made by the number of blockbusters you get. In a good year, you'll get a handful. In a bad year, only a few.

I just didn't want you to think that playing gimmicks and spreading the action is a cure-all for anything. Trust me, the grass always looks greener on the other side. There are times when I'm suffering a bad streak when I start to envy the win bettors. Wouldn't it be nice, I think, to play some win system with a 50% strike rate and a flat ROI (where I could just scoop the rebate). A bad day would be when I had a .80 ROI and a good day when I had a 1.2. What kind of pressure is that? None. Like a vacation in the Bahamas. But then I realize that these guys have bad losing streaks as well. It's just a matter of definition and expectation. They lose 6 or 8 in a row and you have to hide the sharp objects.

GL Mark