HANDICAPPING IS RANDOM

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by Some_One

Well P&L doesn't reflect randomness, but efficiency of markets which is a whole other discussion.

Yes it does. To make things simple, think of a game with constant take out, like roulette for example, which levels all any available betting "system" to the 1/37 loss. Same thing can be claimed for horses, although as we know very well, this is not the case.

[Some_One]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Yes it does. To make things simple, think of a game with constant take out, like roulette for example, which levels all any available betting "system" to the 1/37 loss. Same thing can be claimed for horses, although as we know very well, this is not the case.

Roulette I would argue is perfectly efficient, any number on the field has the same ROI. Horses is only somewhat efficient, otherwise the ROI on favs would be the same as longshots and that is not true (especially in the show pools)

[green80]

Originally Posted by Flysofree

What has remained constant throughout is that Favorites win about 33% of all races... (Ok 31 to 35%) if that make you feel better. If you have a big enough bankroll and can bet at the very last flash of the toteboard And you are on one of those sites that give you high rebates... you can make money.

Hugh Bankroll + Favorite + Rebates = Profit.

Excluding rebates, a $2 dollar bettor can have the same roi as a big bettor. There are some places now that give decent rebates to the small bettor.

But I agree with favorites winning 33% of the races. If the average field is more that 3 it is anything but random.

[Light]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Wouldn't someone get a positive effect of randomness as well? Someone predicting the outcome of a coin flip will not change the probability of the outcome. The results in the short run may not mirror the probability of the outcome resulting in either more wins or less wins than expected. To say that randomness is always negative is incorrect.

Then go play roulette and tell me how that works out for you.

[Light]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

When you say that "horse racing is random", or that "you cannot overcome the negative effect of 'randomness' on the outcome"...aren't you implying that the game is unbeatable through methodical, systematic means?

Yes.

[Light]

Originally Posted by raybo

If "horse racing is random", then why do better players hit more winners than lesser players? How is it that a good handicapper can have the winner in his top 4 ranked horses over 80% of the time?

I already said the negative effect of randomness can be minimized. And what you posted is what "good" players" can do and that is to minimize the affect of randomness. But they are most likely not overcoming it.

[Light]

What may be lost in the translation here is that although they are related, "percentages" and "randomness" are two different entities. I can pick 75% winners just using the top four chalk every race. That is a hard cold stat. Which one will win depends on "randomness". And when one of the other 25% (5th choice and up) will win is also subject to randomness.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Light

Then go play roulette and tell me how that works out for you.

In the long run I would lose the house advantage. In the short run I might win more or lose more than the house advantage.

Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.

Based on the above definition roulette would qualify as a random game but horse racing certainly wouldn't.

[Light]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Based on the above definition roulette would qualify as a random game but horse racing certainly wouldn't.

Then you should be able to pick the winner in every race.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Wouldn't someone get a positive effect of randomness as well? Someone predicting the outcome of a coin flip will not change the probability of the outcome. The results in the short run may not mirror the probability of the outcome resulting in either more wins or less wins than expected. To say that randomness is always negative is incorrect.

Randomness can produce short-term positive results, but those positive results are the result of pure chance rather than of skill, or of any other factor that the player can control, predict, or reliably replicate.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Overlay

Randomness can produce short-term positive results, but those positive results are the result of pure chance rather than of skill, or of any other factor that the player can control, predict, or reliably replicate.

How did you figure that out? It seems (to say the least) a "less than popular" point-of-view/opinion/whatever. I am surprised that it is stated so, considering the "discourse community."

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by Overlay

Randomness can produce short-term positive results, but those positive results are the result of pure chance rather than of skill, or of any other factor that the player can control, predict, or reliably replicate.

Just to clarify, I was commenting within the specific context of AndyC's coin-flip example/statement.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

It only stays just a theory unless you know how to apply them.

What a great understanding of the difference between theoetical science and applied science which is one of the major conundrums that I frequently see on this Forum which many posters don't make and that is the difference between the science theory and the application of the science.

To me, no post was ever more conspicuous during my 11 year tenure on this Forum than the one which stated "we are talking about reality, not math"; math is the science that documents man's reality; Archimedes must have threw a hissy fit from his grave.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Cratos

What a great understanding of the difference between theoetical science and applied science which is one of the major conundrums that I frequently see on this Forum which many posters don't make and that is the difference between the science theory and the application of the science.

To me, no post was ever more conspicuous during my 11 year tenure on this Forum than the one which stated "we are talking about reality, not math"; math is the science that documents man's reality; Archimedes must have threw a hissy fit from his grave.

The problem that I see in the world today Cratos, in using math, scientists and engineers sometimes care more about their own "understanding", than searching for real-world applications.....

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by PIC6SIX

I have come to the conclusion that picking winners is random. There are too many NW-2/3 LT, ST BREDS, MCs, MSW, Cheap Claimers and racing variables that work against the handicapper. You can read all the books on handicapping and know trainer angles, body language, pace and speed figures but all is just theory. If picking winners is an art and science that can be mastered then why did BEL have a pick-6 carryover of $321,000 C/O today, why don't the same cappers always win the daily online contests and why do they falter even when they play multiple entries, and why don't hcp software developers win consistently and YADDAYADDAYADDA???? Any takers for this thread and I don/t need to hear "You have to pick your spots".

You're missing the obvious: you're not good enough.

Pretty simple choice. Improve your game or walk away.