The Handicapper's Cafe

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by how cliche

You bring up a good point, which then begs a follow up question. How do you transform your mindset to the point where it's as if you've risked nothing?

raybo brings up a good point that a lot of players believe that they do better when they are not risking money. That may be true. On the other hand it might only be "a belief" that they do better. It may just seem that way, as they are not likely keeping track with the thickness of their wallets.

A related facet to gambling at the track is the fact that people's perception of the value of money changes when they are gambling.
In general, for average bettors, the perception of the value of money depreciates while they are gambling.
For example, the frugal guy who won't buy a $15 ball cap in a store because he thinks that it costs too much might be the same guy who thinks nothing of losing $60 at the ponies, as he sees it as part of the game.

My observation is that slot machine players are even worse.
Drop into a Vegas casino and you will see hundreds of people pouring money through the machines like there was no tomorrow.
The sad thing is that many of these people may be gambling money that they can't afford to lose. So after the play is over, if they have lost, guilt regarding their gambling behavior sets in , far away from the slots. In effect, back in the "real world" the perception of the value of money changes - it's worth increases .

I don't think that one should ever play with the mind-set that they've risked "nothing," which is the question you are asking how to do.
The fact is you are risking something in almost everything that you do in life, whether you get out of bed in the morning or not.

But most people give little thought to the probabilities of various outcomes for the risks they are taking and the probabilities of various rewards (or lack of rewards) associated with them.

That is where the handicapper who has put good time in honing his methodolgy has a foot up on the majority of players who take up the game.
He has a reasonable idea of what he is risking and a reasonable idea of the probable outcomes. He knows that if he misses a wave to surf, there will always be another big roller coming. But it is doubtful that he/she ever thinks that he is spending money on bets as if he is risking nothing.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by how cliche

You bring up a good point, which then begs a follow up question. How do you transform your mindset to the point where it's as if you've risked nothing?

That's not the meaning that I intended. One must always be aware that they are risking real money, however, one must not allow the fact that they are risking real money affect their mental/emotional performance.

If you lose a couple of bets in a row, or your horse gets "taken down" after a hard fought win, or any of the other myriad of reasons for consternation and it's resulting stress, you must develop the ability to put all that behind you and continue, without letting those past defeats color your future play.

It's the same in all sports/activities, the true professionals overcome losses, bad plays, bad luck, etc., most of the others don't.

It's a fine line between regarding money as "nothing" and regarding it as a "tool". Successful players realize that, while they are wagering real money, it is only a tool, a tool that is necessary to make a profit.

Some players may be born with that ability, some may be able to condition their conscious brains to "think" that way, and others just aren't able to reach that level of play.

I can't tell you how to develop it, that is a mental/emotional battle you must fight for yourself.

Something you might consider is, after you have handicapped a race for someone, reflect on your thought process while you were doing it. Was it different than the thought process you have when wagering real money? Do you come up with the same horses, in both processes, but wager differently? Do you have doubts in the latter, but not in the former?

If you answer yes to any of those, then you at least have answered your original question. Then you can begin working on a solution.

[how cliche]

Thanks for the interesting and thoughtful reply, Greyfox. I don't disagree with anything you wrote. Not one. I reckon I'd not do well attempting to quick cap on the fly and then plunge. It's not who I am. I'm a preparation/game plan guy to the end. It's why I've passed every single one of these heats. However, I don't think it's nonsensical to occasionally take a flyer in a contest where an entrant really jumps out at you. I came inches away from one Saturday, but stopped myself. I was at the machine, voucher in hand. I just thought it was a crazy way to play, looking at a race with 4 mtp and betting after giving all 12 horses 20 seconds apiece perusal. Even though the runner prevailed, I'd pass it again. I play tight. It's who I am.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by how cliche

I was at the machine, voucher in hand. I just thought it was a crazy way to play, looking at a race with 4 mtp and betting after giving all 12 horses 20 seconds apiece perusal. Even though the runner prevailed, I'd pass it again. I play tight. It's who I am.

Too bad. Often times first impulses are the best (see Malcom Gladwell's Blink).
Talking ourselves out of them raises "wudda, cudda, shudda."

[Dave Schwartz]

I play tight. It's who I am.

PMFJI, but "playing tight" is relative to your perceived definition of "tightness."

Since this is based upon your experience, a new and improved experience will result in a different (possibly greatly expanded) definition.

In other words, an old dog CAN learn new tricks.

In fact, that is the primary requirement for improvement: the ability (and willingness) to change.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[how cliche]

Originally Posted by raybo

Something you might consider is, after you have handicapped a race for someone, reflect on your thought process while you were doing it. Was it different than the thought process you have when wagering real money? Do you come up with the same horses, in both processes, but wager differently? Do you have doubts in the latter, but not in the former?

If you answer yes to any of those, then you at least have answered your original question. Then you can begin working on a solution.

I thought about this and thank you for posing it, Raybo. The thought process is the same just abreviated and not well researched. I doesn't even feature a 2nd look to verify anything. Greyfox suggested a book called Blink which is about instincts and 1st reactions. I'll look into that.

[how cliche]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

PMFJI, but "playing tight" is relative to your perceived definition of "tightness."

Since this is based upon your experience, a new and improved experience will result in a different (possibly greatly expanded) definition.

In other words, an old dog CAN learn new tricks.

In fact, that is the primary requirement for improvement: the ability (and willingness) to change.

You're correct, Dave. I changed drastically from a loose passive player into a tight aggressive player almost 2 years after I began keeping records of my wagers. A recurring -EV trend revealed itself quickly, but I didn't want to give up on it, even though it proved self-defeating. The improvement occured once I was willing to stop the gigantic leaks, which all revolved around action betting and having that all day long drug-like gambling experience that only a loser plays for. I'm still thinking of ways to improve but currently I'm most concerned with what opportunities give me the best chance to win. I have a long way to go, I'm aware.

[Kevroc]

Originally Posted by how cliche

Greyfox suggested a book called Blink which is about instincts and 1st reactions. I'll look into that.

I would just like to add my opinion here, that is a wonderful book.

It's on my shelf of favorites, right next to "Fooled by Randomness" by Taleb.

If you use a nook or kindle, load em up and check them out when you have time. You will enjoy.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by how cliche

I thought about this and thank you for posing it, Raybo. The thought process is the same just abreviated and not well researched. I doesn't even feature a 2nd look to verify anything. Greyfox suggested a book called Blink which is about instincts and 1st reactions. I'll look into that.

Have you ever considered that you may be one of those rare individuals that doesn't need verification? There are individuals that, upon looking at a race, readily see the "big picture" immediately, how the race will likely be run. In these rare cases, verification only tends to "cloud" the issue, making subsequent decision making error filled.

I suggest losing the verification process for a while, and playing "on paper" during that period. Track your plays and results, and, reasons for selecting the horses you selected. After a good test period, go back and see if your reasons for selections panned out more than not. If they did, then you might have a recipe for success. Try the same process, wagering small stakes, and compare the results.

It won't hurt you monetarily, and may prove to be the key you've been looking for.

[how cliche]

Originally Posted by raybo

Have you ever considered that you may be one of those rare individuals that doesn't need verification? There are individuals that, upon looking at a race, readily see the "big picture" immediately, how the race will likely be run. In these rare cases, verification only tends to "cloud" the issue, making subsequent decision making error filled.

I suggest losing the verification process for a while, and playing "on paper" during that period. Track your plays and results, and, reasons for selecting the horses you selected. After a good test period, go back and see if your reasons for selections panned out more than not. If they did, then you might have a recipe for success. Try the same process, wagering small stakes, and compare the results.

It won't hurt you monetarily, and may prove to be the key you've been looking for.

I never have, Raybo. I'm taking everything you suggest and testing to see if it's effective. I very much appreciate the encouragement, because I doubt I would've thought to do so on my own. I'm expecting to be positively surprised by what I find. Thanks.

[Greyfox]

Thaskalos -

Have you closed the Cafe and Handicapper's Corner for renovations?

I'm raising this question because your initial energy here showed some good stuff. I hope that you haven't lost enthusiasm for the project.

I just read Teach's full card analysis of Belmont today at:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=94125

Then I thought of you and was wondering if you wouldn't consider at least doing one or two races (not full cards) a week in a style similar to Teach's?
We can learn from you here.

Greyfox

[jdhanover]

Agree 100% And use the power PA gave you to shut out anyone who isn't positively contributing!

[stuball]

Has this idea died or just sent to H_** by some inconsiderate posters...
I was looking forward to learning from this..........but sigh!!!!

Stuballl

[Robert Goren]

He probably found how much time it takes to keep a thread going.

[iceknight]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

He probably found how much time it takes to keep a thread going.

Give him a couple of days guys. He has other commitments as he mentioned before and also it was Derby week and now it is Preakness week so that would keep him busy too!