Wrong approach?

[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?

[Turkoman]

No doubt that there are very sharp horseplayers all over the place, but the takeout in this game is too high. That's why so many end up losing in the long run.

[Dave Schwartz]

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

Since 98% (or more) of all players lose consistently, it stands to reason that what most people do does not work.

[Tom]

Since 98% (or more) of all players lose consistently

And we appreciate it very much!

[Overlay]

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.

As you note, selectivity is the key, which implies value assessment. Also, some means of forming an "opinion" -- which I put in quotation marks, because (to me) the word implies subjective judgment, while one's particular handicapping process may or may not involve such judgment -- are more valid/consistent than others on a race-to-race basis. Finally, I think that a major flaw of "traditional" handicapping is the normal approach of narrowing a race field down to the one most likely winner or combination through a process of elimination, rather than considering the chances of each horse in the field.

[lamboguy]

this is very simple.

standard handicapping approach deals with history. when you read pace numbers, sheet number's, racing forms, or watch replay's, it all goes back to the same losing strategy HISTORY. everyone knows HISTORY. some people interpret it differently.

i prefer to try to predict the future with tools that have different history than what everyone else looks at. those tools are not for sale like racing forms. and not everyone would know how to use those tools even if they had them.

[therussmeister]

Originally Posted by speculus

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 was not aware that all the winning players were trying to give credible proof of their long term profits. Silly me! I assumed that they all just get on with the business of making money.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

this is very simple.

standard handicapping approach deals with history. when you read pace numbers, sheet number's, racing forms, or watch replay's, it all goes back to the same losing strategy HISTORY. everyone knows HISTORY. some people interpret it differently.

i prefer to try to predict the future with tools that have different history than what everyone else looks at. those tools are not for sale like racing forms. and not everyone would know how to use those tools even if they had them.

It's good that you are using an approach that is unique to you for competing at this game. If it works, use it.

I personally don't feel that HISTORY is a losing strategy and doesn't deserve the hard knock that you are giving it.
(I note that in the next breath you say that you are working with tools that have a different history than what everyone else looks at. That's a bit puzzling. First you knock it, then your tools have it??)

Past Performances are usually reasonably good predictors of FUTURE performances.
The fact is not everyone, as you say, knows HISTORY.
Secondly, a large number of players who have access to HISTORY, are befuddled about what to do with the information that they have.
That's not HISTORY'S fault.
That's the players inadequacy in interpreting it.
For most races, virtually ALL OF THE INFORMATION that you need is right there in the PAST PERFORMANCE lines.
Certainly reviewing race replays (that's HISTORY) and observing the paddock and Post Parade can add to a handicapper's arsenal as well.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by speculus

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

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?

Because they don't see that handicapping is their main problem. They prefer to blame their bad results on more "exotic" factors, like poor money management or lack of discipline.

We have invested too much time and effort in our handicapping methods, and they have become part of our identity. To declare that our methods are worthless is to admit that we have wasted decades in this game...and we need to start all over again.

It's a painful admission to make...but it often has to be done.

Another reason why we fail to see our handicapping weaknesses is psychological in nature:

All regular horseplayers have experienced many "near misses" in their horse-playing careers -- including some "life-changing" ones -- and this reinforces the belief that they have been victimized by bad luck...which is sure to "even-out in the long run".

It's hard to fault your handicapping when a photo finish separates you from a six-digit pick-6 payoff.

It's also hard to fathom that this scenario will never occur again in your entire horse-playing life.

It won't...

IMPROPER TEMPERAMENT WHILE GAMBLING -- The vast majority of those who blame money management for their losses at the track have misidentified their problem. Their money management problems are discipline and self-control problems in disguise.

Having a winning handicapping approach is one thing; having the temperament to put this approach to proper use in the stressful environment this game creates is something entirely different.

In my opinion...you have to be FLAWLESS in order to be a sizable winner in this game.

The good doctor, the good lawyer, the good brick layer, even the good poker player...they can all make good -- or even great -- livings in this world.

The good horseplayer starves...

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by speculus

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.

disagree, although it is rare

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by speculus

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

sure, a lot of players do not understand the wagering system or the details of the sport.

the money is generally concentrated into smarter wagers

[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.

[jk3521]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Since 98% (or more) of all players lose consistently, it stands to reason that what most people do does not work.

I know that I lose about 98% of the time.

[pondman]

Originally Posted by speculus

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.

Not sure who you are trying to convince.

My wife and I are off to bet two singles today at $300 a pop. The geezer betting the high beyers box won't see em coming. It's got nothing to do with brilliance. It's all about creating the right approach that works. Notice the word create--as in creativity.

[MONEY]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

those tools are not for sale like racing forms. and not everyone would know how to use those tools even if they had them.

So I guess that I should give up just like many others have, since I never had a chance.