What are appropriate Expectations for Handicappers

[Ian Meyers]

Originally Posted by 2low

My guess is that relatively high IQ and PROPER organizational structure go hand-in-hand.

The old saying goes "guys that consistently make money betting horses could have made much more money doing something else."

Most of the guys I know that are successful either were traders at one time (like Cary Fotias) or have the IQ and decision-making skills to have been if they wanted to (like Ernie Dahlman).

[Robert Goren]

Unless you have an innate ability to pick winning horses, it is going to take a lot of hard work. I think the thing that gets overlooked by people who want to use a computer to pick horses is the horse itself. If you know what you are looking at when you look at a horse, you will save yourself a lot of money. Horses are not a deck of cards or a pair of dice. Most bettors (including me) would be a lot better off learning about judging show horses rather buying another computer program . I think there is so much money bet on what computers spit out today that the edge they use give their users is pretty much gone. Since almost nobody bets horses on how they look any more, that is where the real edge is.

[funnsss1]

The people these days making money at the track have inside information.With the blatent fixing by jockeys and betting companies its imposible to play a decent number of races per day in north america and show a decent profit.I have been handicapping since the 70s and was playing up to 100 races a day and making money but since 2005 have cut back to an average of 10 races a day and show a lose of about 2000 per year.Ive had days where ive had 7 winners from 10 bets and profitted about 2 percent because of the takeout and betting company skimming.At the alarming rate of handle decline I can see most tracks closing in 10 years.

[WPL]

A good friend of mine for many years has made a lot of 'effing' money playing blackjack. That's all he does. I wanted to learn how to do what he did and he was extremely generous with his time, both in study and practice and at the tables teaching me what he did. You can read about some of the methods in books, but the trial is by always by fire.
He can work for long hours at the tables. I found that I could not.
He bets with the balls of a bank robber when the conditions are right.
I don't have that knack at the tables. I found what my limit was.
It was a great education for me learning the level of talent, discipline and dedication required to make such a quantum jump from hobbyist to professional level play in blackjack.
I don't think playing the horses measurably profitable and consistent is all that different. There are some very important dissimilarities which I won't weigh in on.
Most people really do expect something for nothing in 'gambling' more often than not. Everybody has expectations - so what is 'appropriate' is different from one to the next. Just like how much bet size you are willing to make without choking is an individual thing.

B

[rubicon55]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

Unless you have an innate ability to pick winning horses, it is going to take a lot of hard work. I think the thing that gets overlooked by people who want to use a computer to pick horses is the horse itself. If you know what you are looking at when you look at a horse, you will save yourself a lot of money. Horses are not a deck of cards or a pair of dice. Most bettors (including me) would be a lot better off learning about judging show horses rather buying another computer program . I think there is so much money bet on what computers spit out today that the edge they use give their users is pretty much gone. Since almost nobody bets horses on how they look any more, that is where the real edge is.

Agreed, Joe Takach is probably someone who looks at handicapping in similar way. IMO I like to look all the variables and rank them and weigh them in order of importance and not just the numbers. Number crunching and robots have their place and limits only as tools. I use tools like that which is a very crucial component to weeding out the non-contenders - saving us all tons of time. Physical appearance and attitude of a horse can speak volumes about what the horse is doing today and sometimes nothing at all. However, it is much better confirmation in my opinion than soley relying n what looks good on paper - especially when contenders appear equal on paper. I use my eyes to confirm what I already knew before the tote board lights up. I have saved lots of money on horses by not betting on ones who are acting up or not physically up for a game effort. Lastyl its too bad some tracks do not have a better video feed system for the paddock and post parades to help with this effort. The industry could do better with helping off track bettors in this way. Thanks Robert for the different take.

[raybo]

There are great posts in this thread! These are the kinds of threads that can really make the difference in whether a player gets satisfaction from his participation in the game, or not.

Many here know my story. I "joined" the game in 1978, after a co-worker introduced me to it. He offered some "experience gained" knowledge to me at the very beginning and that "pre" knowledge made all the difference for me.

First, he told me that this game will "chew you up and spit you out", if you let it.

Second, he told me that the game was, indeed, beatable.

Third, he told me that, if your goal is to beat the game, prepare yourself, and your skills, before you start. I took this to heart, playing only 1 or 2 race cards, with real money, for the first 20+ years.

I decided, early on, that I didn't want to waste my effort (which I already knew would have to be huge to succeed), without "knowing" that, at some point in the future, I could guarantee success.

Well, it took me 20+ years of study and hard work, to reach that point. Thank God for computers and data files and Excel!! I never would have made it without all 3 of them.

My short answer for the OP? One's realistic expectations, should correspond with the player's patience level, displine level, and consistency. There is a direct relationship, also, between success as a player and "inherent" intelligence. I'm not talking about racing knowledge, or formal education,etc..

Relate it to "street smarts", if you don't know how to "gamble", you can probably forget about ever being successful in this game. You have to know the proper wagering vehicle, for you, when, where, and how much to wager, and when to pass. And, when you pass, you must have the mental toughness to not regret it, ever, regardless of the outcome of that particular race. When you wager, and lose, you must be able to forget it and move on like it never happened, it was just another loss, among a high percentage of losses.

As Pittsburgh Phil once said, a smart bet is a smart bet, regardless of the outcome (or something to that affect).

I started with the goal of playing full time, making my living as a professional handicapper. Well, that pursuit lasted almost a year. I found out that, although I made a good profit during that time, it wasn't worth the stress I encountered, knowing I "had to win" to live. It takes a very special person to play, with playing as your only income source, for an extended period of time.

That year taught me some valuable lessons. The most important one is that the stress of "having to" will affect the way you "gamble", negatively, and will make you question what you already know is true. Second guessing, in this game, will kill you.

In short, if you're in it for the money, it almost has to be treated as a business, in every sense of the word. If you can't do that, then you probably should lower your expectations, for the sake of your mental and emotional health, among other things.

Those players who really enjoy this game are to be envied, regardless of their level of success or lack thereof! I, personally, enjoy the data manipulation involved, more than the playing. I could walk away from the playing and wagering, tomorrow, with no regrets, but the data manipulation is another story, I'm hooked for life!

[raybo]

Originally Posted by funnsss1

The people these days making money at the track have inside information.With the blatent fixing by jockeys and betting companies its imposible to play a decent number of races per day in north america and show a decent profit.I have been handicapping since the 70s and was playing up to 100 races a day and making money but since 2005 have cut back to an average of 10 races a day and show a lose of about 2000 per year.Ive had days where ive had 7 winners from 10 bets and profitted about 2 percent because of the takeout and betting company skimming.At the alarming rate of handle decline I can see most tracks closing in 10 years.

If your method is directly tied to the tote odds, profiting is indeed extremely difficult, for the best of players.

Using a wagering platform that is tied to odds rankings and odds spread, rather than actual odds, makes the game much more beatable, regardless of the takeout.

[Black Ruby]

I'm enjoying this thread and the general tone of civility, which doesn't always appear on the board.

I'm a part time player, who'd like to be able to play more. As to my expectations, they are that increased play will help me to be better at recognizing when I'm at my best in reading and analyzing the data to determine how the race should unfold, and to improve my money management and discipline so that I more consistently save my prime bets for the times when I'm at my best.

[pondman]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

Since almost nobody bets horses on how they look any more, that is where the real edge is.

On any given day at a competitive track a large number of horses are running injured or are not 100% fit. Learning to spot these injuries and avoiding those bets will save you money. It's also important to understand a number of concepts, such as when a trainer ships into a grass race, he or she is doing it because the race is easier on the horse than on the dirt. So you'll find awful looking horses winning turf races at a different venue. You either have to say, "I'll bet all of these during a season," or pass on this type of race completely. Because they'll burn you if you play some of the time.

Part of the mindset must focus on the intent of the owner and trainer. This is difficult for a brainmaker style decision. This is where you'll cash the big tickets-- when a trainer is sending the horse. A computer will never recognize this. Only through observations will you learn to spot this.

[superfecta]

Originally Posted by raybo

If your method is directly tied to the tote odds, profiting is indeed extremely difficult, for the best of players.

Using a wagering platform that is tied to odds rankings and odds spread, rather than actual odds, makes the game much more beatable, regardless of the takeout.

Best answer ,but the takeouters don't get it.

[pondman]

Originally Posted by Ian Meyers

Most of the guys I know that are successful either were traders at one time (like Cary Fotias) or have the IQ and decision-making skills to have been if they wanted to (like Ernie Dahlman).

And if they are honest they'll tell you they make or lose money on 2 or 3 big moves (depending on their position), which happen every 5 years. These are always the result of unpredictable events, such as a jet flying into the World Trade Center. They make their money tauting a product, not predicting a jet flying into a building.

They margins are so large on horse racing compared to other forms of gambling, that it's easy to find a dozen big play per season. This doesn't require a big brain or years at a University. In fact I'd say a University education may be a hamper and narrow critical thinking, creativity, and observational skills. It not hard to see a big play coming in horse racing if you look outside conventions.

[pandy]

As mentioned by several people on this thread, there's a lot of work involved. I know two professional harness bettors and both of them put in long hours watching video and keeping track of things like track bias, wind direction, etc. Neither one of them has a job and if they did they wouldn't have the time to do all of the work.

Both of them bet exotics mostly and they rarely bet favorites. They watch the board and bet overlays and longshots in exotics.

[lansdale]

Originally Posted by pondman

And if they are honest they'll tell you they make or lose money on 2 or 3 big moves (depending on their position), which happen every 5 years. These are always the result of unpredictable events, such as a jet flying into the World Trade Center. They make their money tauting a product, not predicting a jet flying into a building.

They margins are so large on horse racing compared to other forms of gambling, that it's easy to find a dozen big play per season. This doesn't require a big brain or years at a University. In fact I'd say a University education may be a hamper and narrow critical thinking, creativity, and observational skills. It not hard to see a big play coming in horse racing if you look outside conventions.

Hi pondman,

This absolutely true both of the 'Street' and handicapping - most of your profits are going to come from a few big moves every year. You seem to have a grudge against math guys, but you probably have heard of Dick Mitchell, - he taught math at L.A. City College - whose research confirmed this notion. Most of one's handicapping profit comes from a few big races. This contradicts the very common idea that one can 'grind out' a profit. More importantly, it points up the big difference between working for a living, in which money is made gradually, and investing or handicapping, where profit is much more volatile.

You seem hung up on the idea that handicapping is a unique skill, almost an idiot savant ability, that isn't correlated with general intelligence. You talk about experience, but handicappers with decades of unprofitable 'experience' are the norm in this game. Anyone who can turn their experience into profitable play is the exception. What do you think explains the difference?

Cheers,

lansdale

[Dave Schwartz]

This contradicts the very common idea that one can 'grind out' a profit.

I suggest to you that this is precisely possible. In fact, it is my own personal approach to the game.

I find that every 400-500 races my "profit catches up with me."

I have never been an advocate of Kelly. Before. Now that I find I am able to make a really strong line on a race I can bet according to my advantage and probability of hitting. This has completely changed my play.

However, I must admit that inevitably, it boils down to the larger bets driving the profit. The higher the bet, the higher the expected return. The smaller wagers produce less profit as should be the case.

I guess one could say that I agree with you in the sense that it IS the large hits - but large is a relative term. Not "large" as in 8 wins per year are all it takes. More like a handful of good hits each day.


I recall a good friend of mine from many years ago, Ron Cox. One time we were having dinner together (me, Ron, Greg Lawlor and someone else, whose name escapes me at the moment).

Ron had just completed 5 consecutive winning years where he had declared $200k or more on his income tax from gambling. (Greg had advised him years before to do this; to make himself "legitimate." It allowed him to purchase a house with a conventional mortgage.)

Anyway, Ron said that at the end of every year he could trace the profit back to 8 big days. I said this would make me crazy. It would be like making your living selling Christmas trees but not knowing what month Christmas was in this year.

To each his own approach. I assure you that there are grind it out players who are successful at the races in a big way. I know several personally.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[pandy]

I never met a successful "grinder", although I read about people who claim to do it on this board. Every player I've ever met or known that has a long term profit gets it from a several scores a year.