Is a Positive ROI Attainable and Sustainable- How Would You Know?

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

......I'm sure you've heard the name Maury Wolff, maybe the biggest of the whales. He allegedly bets $1.5 billion a year at a 4-10% rebate. Not many can bet that sort of money. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/26/s...t-rewards.html Some of the whales would actually lose money without the rebate. An 8% loser with a 10% rebate makes 2%. Wolff would still make $25 million a year.

I know Maury and he certainly doesn't bet $1.5 billion a year. Now or ever.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

1. Would you agree that the "best handicappers around" are most likely the whales?

2. Would you agree that the percentage of pool wagered by the whales goes up at the higher rebate tracks?

If you can agree with both of these statements, then you this statement would be exactly backwards.



The "better" handicappers would (technically) be at the smaller tracks and the bigger tracks would be easier to beat.

This has been exactly my experience.


Dave

For the most part, the whales are making their money on the rebate, and in order to make a living they have to bet a lot of money. The best handicappers around are not necessarily the whales, but the whales certainly bet big when they bet.

I'm sure you've heard the name Maury Wolff, maybe the biggest of the whales. He allegedly bets $1.5 billion a year at a 4-10% rebate. Not many can bet that sort of money. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/26/s...t-rewards.html Some of the whales would actually lose money without the rebate. An 8% loser with a 10% rebate makes 2%. Wolff would still make $25 million a year.

I'd say that if any good handicapper with a decent bankroll was able to get a 10% rebate, he'd have a good chance of making money. So I would agree that the percentage of the pool wagered by whales goes up at higher rebate tracks/ADWs. Obviously a track handling $200,000 a day would hardly be worth the effort for them.

There is only a small percentage of horseplayers who can finish ahead without a rebate, and that includes the good handicappers. Even those who make money may not make enough to live well. There may be good handicappers at small tracks, but they aren't making the kind of money whales make at the larger tracks.

One other thing. A lot of the whales have computer programs that can generate high percentage bets at a multitude of tracks. That isn't handicapping in my book.

[acorn54]

horse racing is a money sport. to make money it takes money and to make alot of money it takes alot of money. this is not news.

[Wizard of Odds]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

1. screening = 'race selection'
2. fundamental analysis = 'handicapping'
3. valuation = 'getting a good price'

Thank you

[green80]

If you look around, rebates are now available the the average or small bettor. Most handicappers overlook the power of the rebate but even a player that loses 2-4 % can be a winner overall with rebates.


Whale money is not always bad for the average player, the whales (rebate players) are not on the winner every time.

[ultracapper]

If I had any complaint with the whales playing into the pools I play into, it is that, and I would guess it is their participation that is responsible for this, is the "correcting" of the market in the last minutes of betting. However, at the same time, I have benefited from this just recently. In the last week I had a winner go from 2/1 to 3/1 in the last minutes, and another go from 5/2 to 4/1. If they're wrong in a particular race, and you're right, they can be a blessing in disguise.

[vegasone]

I have been betting races the same way for nearly 20 years and have 70k races in the results table and I don't really know what to expect in the months and years ahead.

If a whale was trying to make a single digit return and he hit a sour streak I don't know how he could know whether the downturn was temporary or permanent.[/QUOTE]



70k races is indeed a very small number to try and forecast what will happen with great certainty.



Since whales bet a larger volume of races they should have more of an idea where things are going. Even then, when gambling it is going to be hard to see when it is time to quit (or change strategy) because things have changed so much, as it has with racing.

Look at online poker. People have gotten very smart at what it takes to win and strategy keeps changing to be able to win. A lot of study.

[ultracapper]

Poker changes because the players change the way they play. A handicapper should be very careful when reacting to the way other gamblers bet. More importantly to a handicapper is the way connections handle their horses rather than how other gamblers handle their action.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

One other thing. A lot of the whales have computer programs that can generate high percentage bets at a multitude of tracks. That isn't handicapping in my book.

They ALL have computer programs. LOL

Nobody bets $100,000,000 a year or more without one.

I am shocked that anyone can possibly believe the stuff I am reading in this thread.

"Handicapping" is precisely what they do. And the greater the percentage of money that they bet at a given track, the more difficult that track will be to beat.

[green80]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

They ALL have computer programs. LOL

Nobody bets $100,000,000 a year or more without one.

I am shocked that anyone can possibly believe the stuff I am reading in this thread.

"Handicapping" is precisely what they do. And the greater the percentage of money that they bet at a given track, the more difficult that track will be to beat.

That is assuming that they (or their software) are better than you are.

[vegasone]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

Poker changes because the players change the way they play. A handicapper should be very careful when reacting to the way other gamblers bet. More importantly to a handicapper is the way connections handle their horses rather than how other gamblers handle their action.

How so not true. Years ago early speed was a good way to make money. Nowadays with all the info out there betting early speed is not an "easy" money maker. So you should not pay attention to how the mob bets?

[Buckeye]

None of us can live long enough to test anything and I guess Dave said that already.

It's a math problem, so in the words of Aaron Rodgers just relax.

I for one thought Cody Parkey might miss it!

[MONEY]

Originally Posted by green80

[/U]




That is assuming that they (or their software) are better than you are.

Not true, all they have to do is be just as good.

Last year, I hit a trifecta with a $100.00 dollar horse on top in a ten horse field,
it paid $300.00 for a buck. I remember hitting one with similar odds in all three
spots, before computer betting, and I got $4000.00 for my dollar.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

"Handicapping" is precisely what they do.

Well you certainly know more about Whales than I do, and perhaps others.
Can you tell us Dave:
How many races would a whale handicap on an average racing day?

(I seem to remember that a few years ago you said on this board that you were working towards trying to become a whale and it didn't take you very long to handicap a race.)

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Well you certainly know more about Whales than I do, and perhaps others.
Can you tell us Dave:
How many races would a whale handicap on an average racing day?

(I seem to remember that a few years ago you said on this board that you were working towards trying to become a whale and it didn't take you very long to handicap a race.)

Rule of thumb:

Play 85%+ of all tracks
Play 85%+ of all races at those tracks
Play 85%+ of all pools in all races at those tracks

This is an "educated guess" I made years ago from seeing actual betting records for a single day for one group.

So, 72% of every race in North America every day.

Times have changed since then. My guess is more tracks, races, and pools today because their models are stronger.

Originally Posted by green80

[/U]
That is assuming that they (or their software) are better than you are.

I'd say that is a reasonable assumption for most of us.