Wrong approach?

[speculus]

Originally Posted by speculus

All over the world some of the best brains of all generations have been attracted to this game, and their standard approach to beat this game has always been to study the form of each and every horse in each and every race, form opinions about their relative abilities (strengths & weaknesses), and then decide the betting action.

This elaborate process that consumes so much time and involves so much decision-making stress, could THAT actually be responsible for most people losing money over long term?

Because human mind is such that once it gets invested, it genuinely starts believing it has a profitable opinion about the race, and it's not wise to skip it—so a bet is in order. That may perhaps be the tragedy of some of the most brilliant handicappers around because despite having great knowledge they end up making too many bets for their own good.

Why put in the donkey's labour if you are anyway going to lose money at the end of it all?

A point that is worth noting is despite sophisticated technology, including computers, to help manage data and devise newer and finer methods, NOT ONE PUNTER IN THE WORLD has been able to give credible proof that he has a method or a system that has given him consistent profits over the long term.

Could something be radically wrong with the standard handicapping approach everyone brings to this game?

I started this thread exactly a year ago.

The reason to start this thread was because at the time I was contracted to conduct a novel--and perhaps unique--experiment by a leading racing website in my country, Indiarace.com, and I wanted to discuss the idea with this board which I hold in very high regard. Later, however, I got too busy to visit PA, resulting in this thread becoming dead.

Well, the experiment, which was titled My Stable, was conducted over a period of one race season (Bangalore summer meet, 2012), and it addressed precisely the points raised by me in the opening post of this thread.

In the hope that some here would be interested in the findings of the experiment, I am listing the following links:

Announcement of the experiment
Introducing the concept
The FAQ
The conclusion

Regards,
Speculus

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Since he bumped a year old thread, I thought for sure Speculus was coming back with a story of riches. But no, his bankroll plunged like the Dow in the fall of 2008, or as he puts it, "How I turned gold into lead". Glad to see you brought the data and results to the experiment.

I tip my hat to you Spec for your humility.

I believe your approach has some merit. Even though your win wagers crushed your bankroll, your place/show bets held up fine. I know that my own "horses to watch" list does okay, and I often ignore the competition when playing those ponies if the price is right.

However, I'm less sure that your "stable" selections are a unique method. It seems more of a variation of any other spot-play or restricted play approach to the game. Playing to strengths, and focusing on a rigorous method.

As for the hypothesis that the vast majority of horseplayers lose due to analyzing all horses in all races, and then coming up with a bet regardless of whether or not an edge exists, that's probably true. But simply coming up with a method that focuses on fewer races isn't the road to riches. As Dave Schwartz pointed out, the key is to identify the profitable horse, and determine the optimum amount to wager.

Or, lacking that, come up with more accurate speed and pace pars for the Bangalore Turf Club.....

[PICSIX]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

They won't bet it anyway.I am far from a legendary handicapper but my greatest profit is from speed on the turf.Nobody will ever follow me down that road and it pays!

Great post.

What, speed can't win on turf, are you out of your mind

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by teddy

The only handicapping systems I have seen work are ones that take advantage of the publics mistakes or inability to spread out. Handicapping the public works IF you can find that edge and have the funds to take advantage of it.

I think this is right. I see a lot of money bet on horses that have no chance everyday. As a small bettor, finding a no shot 6/5 horse isn't enough. I still have to find the winner out of the remaining 6 or 7 horses. A larger bettor has the ability and the weapons to jump all over this when it happens. The question then becomes, does the large bettor lose the ability to find these no shot horses when he is trying to maneuver all weapons at his disposal? I think it is clear that more tracks you play at the same time, the more ability to spot bad bets you give up.

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

In my opinion...these are the reasons why players have such a difficult time in this game:

INFERIOR HANDICAPPING - Why do serious players use the same handicapping methods over and over, even when they have been losing for many years?

In many cases, they worked for many years. But that doesn't mean they will work going forward. I know there's horses I caught that paid $22 in 1990 where if the same circumstances were presented now, the horse would probably pay $11. The game certainly isn't getting easier. Doesn't mean its unbeatable, but it getting more difficult to find edges.

[RXB]

Originally Posted by Valuist

In many cases, they worked for many years. But that doesn't mean they will work going forward. I know there's horses I caught that paid $22 in 1990 where if the same circumstances were presented now, the horse would probably pay $11. The game certainly isn't getting easier. Doesn't mean its unbeatable, but it getting more difficult to find edges.

Easiest example is the parimutuel advantage for anyone with an accurate handle on handicapping early speed horses (not early pace horses); that advantage has dried up in the past dozen years or so on both dirt and grass. Not in the order of average payouts dropping from $22 - $11; more like $11 - $9. That's still a huge hit.

Game is different now, for sure. Pace handicapping and speed figures not nearly so useful anymore from a parimutuel perspective.

[cnollfan]

But because it is a zero-sum game minus the takeout, when one type of horse becomes overbet, by definition another type becomes underbet.

For instance (not redboarding because I didn't have a dime on the winner) I'll Have Another was 15-1 in the Kentucky Derby after winning the Santa Anita Derby, while Daddy Nose Best was 14-1 after winning the Sunland Derby. There is no way that Days of Yore bettors would have given more credit to the latter, but he had a big Beyer and I'll Have Another didn't.

[RXB]

But it's actually a minus-20% sum game. So horses can be significantly underbet and still be unprofitable as a group.

When a sizeable proportion of players become somewhat educated/informed in a game with a 20% takeout, the chances for profits really tighten up. There used to be a couple of relatively simple ways to get to the break-even point without even having to be particularly restrictive on the number of bets made; now the only simple way is never to bet.

[cnollfan]

Originally Posted by RXB

But it's actually a minus-20% sum game. So horses can be significantly underbet and still be unprofitable as a group.

Right. Perhaps the true zero-takeout odds should have been 16-1 on I'll Have Another and 45-1 on Daddy Nose Best.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by speculus

This elaborate process that consumes so much time and involves so much decision-making stress, could THAT actually be responsible for most people losing money over long term?

No. The prime reasons why most people losing over long term should be attributed to the take out and the gambler's ruin concept.

Originally Posted by speculus

Because human mind is such that once it gets invested, it genuinely starts believing it has a profitable opinion about the race, and it's not wise to skip it—so a bet is in order. That may perhaps be the tragedy of some of the most brilliant handicappers around because despite having great knowledge they end up making too many bets for their own good

.

The sad true is that for most of us, regardless of how often we are visiting the betting windows our chances remain the same. The whole concept of spot betting is overvalued and to a large extend it presents a myth rather than a reality.

[pondman]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

. The whole concept of spot betting is overvalued and to a large extend it presents a myth rather than a reality.

There isn't any difference between spot betting and betting every race, except some people look for the opportunities that they isolate as exceptionally profitable. It's not all that hard to spot play against a crowd of people who all play the same method. If a horse had the fastest time in it's last, the geezers bet it at 7-5. It's not hard for anyone who has spent any time playing to beat that method. But that's how the average player bets. It doesn't take much for a player to go from being a big loser to at least breaking even, if they just take a few notes and pay attention. But the overwhelming majority of players don't do anything but buy the drf and play high speed numbers. If that's they're game they can go for it. But there are people who will sit and wait and walk away with their money.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by pondman

There isn't any difference between spot betting and betting every race, except some people look for the opportunities that they isolate as exceptionally profitable. It's not all that hard to spot play against a crowd of people who all play the same method. If a horse had the fastest time in it's last, the geezers bet it at 7-5. It's not hard for anyone who has spent any time playing to beat that method. But that's how the average player bets. It doesn't take much for a player to go from being a big loser to at least breaking even, if they just take a few notes and pay attention. But the overwhelming majority of players don't do anything but buy the drf and play high speed numbers. If that's they're game they can go for it. But there are people who will sit and wait and walk away with their money.

You are being too hard on the crowd...IMO; it takes much more than the "fastest time in its last" for the horse to go off at 7-5...at least on a continuous basis.

The majority of the bettors may not be sophisticated...but the majority of the money surely is. Those "geezers", who blindly bet on the best last-race Beyers, do not account for as much of the betting volume as you seem to think.

[speculus]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

Since he bumped a year old thread, I thought for sure Speculus was coming back with a story of riches. .......

I could have easily come back with a story of riches [in which a 10k starting bet from a bankroll of 100,000 on the 236 recommended bets (from about 720 races held) at Mumbai in two race seasons (2011-12 & 2012-13) could have turned into a record-breaking five million plus), but the purpose of starting this thread and reviving it after a year was not personal glorification, but just to point out that simple, easy, and common-sense handicapping methods as opposed to rigorous, complicated & sophisticated ones also have the potential to put you ahead in this game.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by speculus

I could have easily come back with a story of riches [in which a 10k starting bet from a bankroll of 100,000 on the 236 recommended bets (from about 720 races held) at Mumbai in two race seasons (2011-12 & 2012-13) could have turned into a record-breaking five million plus), but the purpose of starting this thread and reviving it after a year was not personal glorification, but just to point out that simple, easy, and common-sense handicapping methods as opposed to rigorous, complicated & sophisticated ones also have the potential to put you ahead in this game.

While I agree that a simple and "common sense" method can be productive, I don't know if you'd ever find it to be easy.

A friend of mine in the late 1980s, and one of the few winning horseplayers I've ever known, used a method similar to the one described in your experiment. He would calculate basic speed figures, take trip notes, and keep tabs on trainer methods, one of the few edges still available at the time. His selections were restricted to a "working list", or stable if you will, of horses that came out of very fast races, had experienced troubled trips, or were falling into a trainer's "go" pattern. He typically added or subtracted several horses per week when betting the Chicago tracks during the day, and Fairmount Park at night. He only made a couple of bets per week and only handicapped the races in which one of these horses was running, but when he did bet, he unloaded his wallet.

Though he made a living from it for a couple of years, the daily grind of his relatively simple approach wore him down over time, and he went back to working for a living.

I don't think it's ever easy....

[speculus]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

While I agree that a simple and "common sense" method can be productive, I don't know if you'd ever find it to be easy.

Believe me, it's easy as breathing. I actually got my life back after I changed my approach. Now I bet on maximum six racetracks in a week, but my action is decided in about 15 minutes on the morning of the race day.

But yes, I do spend about an hour every day, watching videos of the previous day's races to shortlist horses that could be my possible future bets under certain circumstances.

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

....He only made a couple of bets per week and only handicapped the races in which one of these horses was running, but when he did bet, he unloaded his wallet.....

My current average is about a bet or two on a card, and I make only WIN or SHOW bets if I feel the odds are generous as compared to the chances. However, I don't believe in creating odds line for reasons explained in this thread , but do have an intuitive feel about mis-priced situations, and I go by that.

As to the bet size, I now strictly follow the money management formula displayed in the "story of riches" link above which I finally devised in April last year, and which seems to be working exceedingly well.

The formula is based on my weird logic which I explained in this thread and it creatively combines that logic with three things:
1) the odds offered on the horse (I bet with bookmakers, so I know the odds)
2) a superb trick used by Robert Lichello (on whose formula Dave Shwartz's HMI is based), and
3) the BB+SR method.