3-2-1 Betting System by RPM

[soflant]

Does anyone have or knows of someone who has the 3-2-1 Betting System? We can do a trade. Thanks in advance.

[zerosky]

Cain't Say I do, but it sounds like the countdown of your bankroll when using it. 3, 2, 1, pfft it's gone

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by soflant

Does anyone have or knows of someone who has the 3-2-1 Betting System? We can do a trade. Thanks in advance.

I'm curious why you ask for these systems from the past. None of them work, none of them win, they're all scams for suckers.

[soflant]

Castaway01----As we all know the only way a person can win consistently is inside information from a reliable stable such as a jockey, trainer or jockey agent etc. Let's face it the two things that really determine which horse wins is how the horse feels that day and how the jockey rides the horse. For that matter there is no method or system which will pick consistent winners. You might have a method to pick winners and I wish you the best but if you do, then you are a rare horse player.

[soflant]

Castaway01-I look at these methods for purely educational purposes. For my entertainment I play on paper for some fun so I am not playing with real money.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by soflant

Castaway01----As we all know the only way a person can win consistently is inside information from a reliable stable such as a jockey, trainer or jockey agent etc. Let's face it the two things that really determine which horse wins is how the horse feels that day and how the jockey rides the horse. For that matter there is no method or system which will pick consistent winners. You might have a method to pick winners and I wish you the best but if you do, then you are a rare horse player.

This belief will destroy anyone's chances.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

This belief will destroy anyone's chances.

Well, the approach of using "inside information" is one thing. If it was truly the only way to win at the races it would certainly cut into the business of anyone selling other methods.

The post does point out a couple of variables that are far more difficult to model or quantify:

1. How the horse "feels" - as in does the bowed tendon hold up today, or did Mr. Ed get his "go juice" along with his oats this morning?

2. Intent - aka, the "trainer's window" - one of the great pitfalls of handicapping is the assumption that every horse is expending maximum effort to win in every race. This is simply untrue with the exception of the Kentucky Derby and Breeder's Cup.

Each horse has only so many efforts where they can be drained by a big effort. Some are more sturdy than others, but the clock is always ticking - from their first gallop around a track until their final race, the connections can only go to the well so many times.

I've found "inside information" to be useful from some sources, and not so much from others. The negative tip (the horse will not try) is usually the more accurate info.

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by soflant

Castaway01----As we all know the only way a person can win consistently is inside information from a reliable stable such as a jockey, trainer or jockey agent etc. Let's face it the two things that really determine which horse wins is how the horse feels that day and how the jockey rides the horse. For that matter there is no method or system which will pick consistent winners. You might have a method to pick winners and I wish you the best but if you do, then you are a rare horse player.

There are still some professional handicappers. Not a very large percentage, but some. They pay their bills with racetrack winnings. And, they don't rely on inside information, at least not to any significant extent or consistently if any at all. They do it with hard work and sound wagering.

A decent handicapper should be able to select 4 contenders and hit at least 73% winners, minimum. So, it is just a matter of narrowing down to the right horses.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by ranchwest

A decent handicapper should be able to select 4 contenders and hit at least 73% winners, minimum. So, it is just a matter of narrowing down to the right horses.

Reducing the race down to 4 contenders is easy. It's what comes afterwards that gets complicated, IMO.

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Reducing the race down to 4 contenders is easy. It's what comes afterwards that gets complicated, IMO.

And that is why less than 1% of horseplayers make a profit. It takes a lot of homework, ability and knowledge. But we clearly have the winners at our fingertips.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

Well, the approach of using "inside information" is one thing. If it was truly the only way to win at the races it would certainly cut into the business of anyone selling other methods.

The post does point out a couple of variables that are far more difficult to model or quantify:

1. How the horse "feels" - as in does the bowed tendon hold up today, or did Mr. Ed get his "go juice" along with his oats this morning?

2. Intent - aka, the "trainer's window" - one of the great pitfalls of handicapping is the assumption that every horse is expending maximum effort to win in every race. This is simply untrue with the exception of the Kentucky Derby and Breeder's Cup.

Each horse has only so many efforts where they can be drained by a big effort. Some are more sturdy than others, but the clock is always ticking - from their first gallop around a track until their final race, the connections can only go to the well so many times.

I've found "inside information" to be useful from some sources, and not so much from others. The negative tip (the horse will not try) is usually the more accurate info.

I've always liked the way you think.
Clear and concise.


It is difficult for me to see anything but data, simply because of how my mind works - or doesn't - LOL.

Trainer intent is a gigantic issue, especially in the lower classes. I've spent a lot of time on that, from a data perspective and it is very real.

Performance-based trainer stats are also very powerful.

That's really the challenge for me - applying concepts/angles without data to show how well those angles really work.

[GaryG]

Dave, concerning trainer angles:

The best way for me, back when I was a serious player, was to follow just one circuit and get to know the trainers. Discover how they prepare winners and know when a class dropper is carrying a for sale sign. In the 80s and early 90s my favorite trainer was Bill Spawr. When he claimed a horse, freshened it and raised it in class it was money in the bank. Gary Jones was another, although he had better horses.

Raleigh Burroughs was the editor of Turf & Sport Digest. His magazine published systems, but they were usually fact based. He once said "It is possible that we may publish a system that will win consistently and make you a lot of money, but not if I see it first."

[Dave Schwartz]

When I play, I average betting about 5.5 races per hour.

Playing only one track would be way too much work for way too little action.

But I do appreciate your point: trainer stats or angles are just very hard to manage and apply.


Years ago, I interviewed a one-track guy, John Barile (Tampa Bay).

John is a professional player, and really worth listening to.

He is completely angle-based.

[Speed Figure]

Sounds like a great system!

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by soflant

As we all know the only way a person can win consistently is inside information from a reliable stable such as a jockey, trainer or jockey agent etc. Let's face it the two things that really determine which horse wins is how the horse feels that day and how the jockey rides the horse. For that matter there is no method or system which will pick consistent winners. You might have a method to pick winners and I wish you the best but if you do, then you are a rare horse player.

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

This belief will destroy anyone's chances.

Dave, why don’t you try making this statement to someone like Bill Benter?
I doubt his response would be any different from what he documented in the past.
Of course, there will always be naysayers like yourself, but who is actually offering the sound advice?

Originally written by Bill Benter
The complexity of predicting horse performance makes the specification of an elegant handicapping model quite difficult. Ideally, each independent variable would capture a unique aspect of the influences effecting horse performance. In my experience, the trial and error method of adding independent variables to increase the model's goodness-of-fit, results in the model tending to become a hodgepodge of highly correlated variables whose individual significance's are difficult to determine and often counter-intuitive.

Additionally, there will always be a significant amount of 'inside information' in horse racing that cannot be readily included in a statistical model. Trainer's and jockey's intentions, secret workouts, whether the horse ate its breakfast, and the like, will be available to certain parties who will no doubt take advantage of it. Their betting will be reflected in the odds. This presents an obstacle to the model developer with access to published information only. For a statistical model to compete in this environment, it must make full use of the advantages of computer modeling, namely, the ability to make complex calculations on large data sets.

The odds set by the public betting yield a sophisticated estimate of the horses' win probabilities.