Learning

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Being able to handicap many hours using paper and video, and being able to properly invest money to take advantage of your opinions is another huge factor. When you have all that stuff together and you have your 10,000 'chunks' you're ready for the final piece of the puzzle which is probably the hardest part....that is determining which races to bet and which races to skip.

Being able to skip a race after saying to yourself "i think i have a small edge here, i feel i know enough about this race that my play would be a long run winning bet, but only by a little bit, this is not one of my primo plays, its just a play that i THINK is slightly above the Mendoza line".

Personally, i've found that i'm better off skipping the 'small edge' races and just concenrating larger bets on the races i really like.

I really like that idea, but possibly not for the reason most would think. I like it because you emphasize self-reliance in your decision making. That is, what you think is (as it should be) more important than any other factor. The downside is that you have no one to blame if you lose. The upside is that when you win, you get the money AND all the glory.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I might be mistaken...but I didn't see anything in the above article which confirms your assertion that it only takes about 3 weeks for a dedicated bettor to acquire the winning habit in our game. If anything...the article suggests that 10,000 hours may be too LITTLE...

You have compared this game to "warfare"...and I agree. But you lose me when you suggest that the "serious" player prove to himself that he can win, BEFORE he starts betting in this game.

A "warrior" can only prove his worth when he steps on the battlefield; it's easy to be brave in the comfort of our own homes.

No disrespect is intended, but I think we have had this discussion before, concerning "losing one's bankroll." While a string of losses--regardless of how serious the bettor is--is always disappointing, for most it is not really critical. The betting funds are simply replenished from other resources. Regardless of the size of the wagers, that is not fundamentally different than wagering on paper--nothing is really "lost" that cannot be readily replaced.

When you have a finite amount of money with no hope of replenishing it other than through successful wagering--that is when the rubber meets the road.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

When you have all that stuff together and you have your 10,000 'chunks' you're ready for the final piece of the puzzle which is probably the hardest part....that is determining which races to bet and which races to skip.

Being able to skip a race after saying to yourself "i think i have a small edge here, i feel i know enough about this race that my play would be a long run winning bet, but only by a little bit, this is not one of my primo plays, its just a play that i THINK is slightly above the Mendoza line".

What I personally find particularly helpful in handicapping is quantitative data that gives me something more substantive, precise, consistent, and reliable on which to base assessments of horses' winning chances and play/pass decisions, as compared with the use of subjective opinion or qualitative analysis.

[LottaKash]

Originally Posted by traynor

When you have a finite amount of money with no hope of replenishing it other than through successful wagering--that is when the rubber meets the road.

When I retired, that is what I had become....A "rubber road guy"...It's working tho...Not getting rich, but black ink mostly all the time now...

It's funny what can happen to a player when he has to poop or get off the pot...haha!...Reality-Check, ya gotta love it...

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by traynor

No disrespect is intended, but I think we have had this discussion before, concerning "losing one's bankroll." While a string of losses--regardless of how serious the bettor is--is always disappointing, for most it is not really critical. The betting funds are simply replenished from other resources. Regardless of the size of the wagers, that is not fundamentally different than wagering on paper--nothing is really "lost" that cannot be readily replaced.

No, I don't remember ever participating in a discussion about losing one's bankroll. But, since you brought it up...I would like to say that I am not as "cavalier" about losing my bankroll as you seem to be. If bankrolls could be readily replaced, as you say...then there would be no need for proper money management in gambling.

And your comment that..."Regardless of the size of the wagers, that is not fundamentaly different than wagering on paper--nothing is really lost that cannot be readily replaced"...might be the most ludicrous comment I have ever read on the handicapping pages of this site.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by LottaKash

When I retired, that is what I had become....A "rubber road guy"...It's working tho...Not getting rich, but black ink mostly all the time now...

It's funny what can happen to a player when he has to poop or get off the pot...haha!...Reality-Check, ya gotta love it...

The spice of life, when wagering HAS to be right. I think that most bettors would agree that an amount equal to a week's income--whatever that might be--is a serious wager. An amount equal to a month's income, and one had best be really certain what one is doing. (That is individual wagers, not spread shotgun over 20-30 bets.) It is the proportion in relation to income or assets that determines whether it is a "serious" bet or not, rather than the amount.

It might seem tough, but until someone has actually done it, he or she has no idea what kind of motivation it provides. It goes way beyond the playing stage.

[thaskalos]

A day's income seems like a pretty serious wager to me....

[traynor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

No, I don't remember ever participating in a discussion about losing one's bankroll. But, since you brought it up...I would like to say that I am not as "cavalier" about losing my bankroll as you seem to be. If bankrolls could be readily replaced, as you say...then there would be no need for proper money management in gambling.

And your comment that..."Regardless of the size of the wagers, that is not fundamentaly different than wagering on paper--nothing is really lost that cannot be readily replaced"...might be the most ludicrous comment I have ever read on the handicapping pages of this site.

Only in your view. As I said the last time we had this discussion, unless wagering "matters" it is all pretty much playing. Specifically, when "losing your bankroll" means standing alongside the road, cold and hungry, with a sign that says, "Will handicap races for food," it is a bit more than mildly annoying. Losing a bankroll that can be replaced with a simple transfer of funds from other sources doesn't mean much.

Dabbling with amounts of money that represent no more than mild annoyance if lost, and provide no consequences beyond that same annoyance, is not really "risking" much at all. The amounts are irrelevant. It is the significance of those amounts in the overall assets of the individual that matters.

[Dave Schwartz]

Traynor,

PMFJI, but if I understand what you are saying in this thread, it would be that people do not become successful players because of playing a long time.

They become successful because of a concerted effort to LEARN HOW TO WIN.

While there may be a time component to this process (i.e. you can't learn something worthwhile from scratch in two weeks), often the saying, "It took me 20 years to become an overnight success" is accurate.

How am I doing so far?


Dave

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by traynor

Only in your view. As I said the last time we had this discussion, unless wagering "matters" it is all pretty much playing. Specifically, when "losing your bankroll" means standing alongside the road, cold and hungry, with a sign that says, "Will handicap races for food," it is a bit more than mildly annoying. Losing a bankroll that can be replaced with a simple transfer of funds from other sources doesn't mean much.

Dabbling with amounts of money that represent no more than mild annoyance if lost, and provide no consequences beyond that same annoyance, is not really "risking" much at all. The amounts are irrelevant. It is the significance of those amounts in the overall assets of the individual that matters.

Does a wager only matter if it represents a week's or a month's salary of the bettor? Where did you ever get such a definition for the term "serious wager"?

If I am not mistaken...you are primarily a harness bettor who specializes in betting at the minor harness tracks. How many of these "serious" types of wagers do you usually make in the "warfare" that you engage in?

You said that any wager -- regardless of size -- was fundamentaly the same as a mind bet...if this wager could be replaced when lost. Is this comment meant to be taken seriously?

Why do we even bother with money management, if losing our bankroll is just a "minor annoyance"?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Traynor,

PMFJI, but if I understand what you are saying in this thread, it would be that people do not become successful players because of playing a long time.

They become successful because of a concerted effort to LEARN HOW TO WIN.

While there may be a time component to this process (i.e. you can't learn something worthwhile from scratch in two weeks), often the saying, "It took me 20 years to become an overnight success" is accurate.

How am I doing so far?


Dave

I do not remember ever seeing anybody claim that the mere fact that we have vast experience in a gambling game would, in and of itself, transform us into winning players. OF COURSE it takes a concentrated effort to LEARN.

But, in "serious" gambling...knowledge about the games we play is not enough! There has to be a large degree of SELF-KNOWLEDGE as well. In fact, one could say that self-knowledge dwarfs all other types of knowledge in the world of gambling. Are we naive enough to believe that all these losing players really lose because they don't know how to play this game properly? Because they all use outdated and obsolete handicapping methods?

And this applies to all forms of gambling out there!

How many proficient blackjack counters are out there...and how many of them can actually win serious money at the tables?

How many poker players are out there, who know EXACTLY how to play every hand under every circumstance...but who behave like raving lunatics when the "heat" is on?

How many horseplayers carefully craft their gameplan at home, but then lose all control when they actually start betting at the track...and come home having lost MUCH more than they should have.

It isn't the knowledge of the GAME that's time consuming...it's the knowledge of the SELF!

It isn't teaching ourselves the GAME that's difficult; it's teaching ourselves to play the game the best way we know how.

If all of us stood in front of the mirror and asked ourselves the question..."Am I playing this game as well as I know how to play it?"...how many of us would answer in the affirmative?

That's what takes years...and most don't ever make it...no matter how many years they try.

Successful gambling goes against human nature...and you don't overcome human nature in a "matter of weeks".

Bring me a three week neophyte, and I'll book his action all day long, for as long as he wants. It's the only sure thing in gambling...IMO.

[SmarterSig]

The most important ingredient to your learning curve is the company you keep. If you mix with serious thinking successful punters your game will improve. Its a question of how long during your early betting life you spend with the guy/s who have not got a clue but introduced you to the game. You should also totally avoid the popular media. These channels are infested with journalists as opposed to successful punters and yet once again most newbies spend years hanging on their every word.

Its all about the price !

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by traynor

I think one of the big problems with horse racing is that many (most?) of the current crop of handicappers have spent years betting using essentially outdated, obsolete approachs that may have worked 20-30 years ago, but are now so well known that they are not profitable. It is not that horse racing cannot be profitable--it is that using the same approach everyone else is using cannot be profitable.

And because they have so much time and money "invested" in those outdated, obsolete approachs they seem to think that anyone who does anything different "doesn't deserve to win because they have not paid their dues." Apparently that means being a consistent loser for many years. The only thing that losing does is give one a lot of practice and experience at losing. Most rational people would say, "If you can't win, don't bet. If you want to bet, learn how to win. Unless you have really deep pockets and like to lose." Pretty simple stuff.

I believe that this always was the case. When today's outdated stuff was new, the old timers back then probably were saying that one had to inspect the horse in the paddock that the numbers in the racing form wouldn't do it.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Traynor,

PMFJI, but if I understand what you are saying in this thread, it would be that people do not become successful players because of playing a long time.

They become successful because of a concerted effort to LEARN HOW TO WIN.

While there may be a time component to this process (i.e. you can't learn something worthwhile from scratch in two weeks), often the saying, "It took me 20 years to become an overnight success" is accurate.

How am I doing so far?


Dave

As usual, right on the money. With the emphasis on the "concerted effort." It is that component that is essential to both initial and continued success. My basic premise is that successful "serious" wagering (and the serious handicapping from which it is derived) is more easily achieved by viewing wagering as a business endeavor, rather than as entertainment. That does not mean it should not be entertaining or enjoyable--it means that successful wagering is easier to accomplish when the "entertainment" aspect is minimized, and the profit motive maximized.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Does a wager only matter if it represents a week's or a month's salary of the bettor? Where did you ever get such a definition for the term "serious wager"?

If I am not mistaken...you are primarily a harness bettor who specializes in betting at the minor harness tracks. How many of these "serious" types of wagers do you usually make in the "warfare" that you engage in?

You said that any wager -- regardless of size -- was fundamentaly the same as a mind bet...if this wager could be replaced when lost. Is this comment meant to be taken seriously?

Why do we even bother with money management, if losing our bankroll is just a "minor annoyance"?

You are seriously mistaken in your assumption of what I do, and how I do it.

My comment was that the significance of a wager is directly related to its relationship to the overall income or assets of the bettor, rather than to the amount. It is that relationship that determines whether a wager is significant or frivolous--not the amount of the wager. Of course, that is only my personal, subjective opinion.

For many, "money management" is a process that enables them to continue indulging in wagering for recreation or amusement. Or "excitement."