Whales: A Little Back Story (blog post)

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Absolutely right.


Also, because the whales - by far our biggest competition - are completely scientific/mathematical as opposed to artful, the artful player is competing in a somewhat different arena.



I think that the AGE OF THE ARTFUL HANDICAPPER is making a comeback.

I agree, Dave. But since I don't subscibe to computationalism, there are some of us who never left.

I'm not buying the stories about apparently massive edge percentages, such as your interlocutor here when Zeljko Ranogajec, among others, is most always described as critically interested in benefitting from rebates...

https://www.smh.com.au/national/meet...15-p4zfhi.html

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by headhawg

This post is a perfect example of why I only believe posts from about 4 or 5 members here. Recently you posted a mediocre exacta idea, asked for a bad post button here instead of on the HTR forum where Ken can see it, and had some other amateurish handicapping posts. And yet we are to believe that you are some kind of insider who can hit and $80K payoff? Color me skeptical.

Perhaps you were a contestant on the To Tell The Truth game show back in the 60s. "Will the real Teddy please stand up."

A few years ago, Teddy, after a long absence, returned to this board and told us that he struck it rich by selling cheap Chinese merchandise online, out of his mother's basement. And I believe him. Teddy is a rich man...but his fortune has come from outside of this game.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I agree, Dave. But since I don't subscibe to computationalism, there are some of us who never left.

I'm not buying the stories about apparently massive edge percentages, such as your interlocutor here when Zeljko Ranogajec, among others, is most always described as critically interested in benefitting from rebates...

https://www.smh.com.au/national/meet...15-p4zfhi.html

It isn't that bettors like Zeljko don't have a massive edge on this game...they obviously do. But their astronomical bet sizes can't help but obliterate whatever edge they might have. These super-bettors have obviously realized that the rebates that they receive due to their monster-betting add up to a larger profit than what their "edge" on the game would come to if their wagers were kept within certain limits.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I agree, Dave. But since I don't subscibe to computationalism, there are some of us who never left.

I'm not buying the stories about apparently massive edge percentages, such as your interlocutor here when Zeljko Ranogajec, among others, is most always described as critically interested in benefitting from rebates...

https://www.smh.com.au/national/meet...15-p4zfhi.html

Didn't read the article.

His "massive edge" does include those rebates.

Are you saying that you don't believe the whales actually exist?

Note: My definition of a "whale" is someone who wagers $100m per year.

[teddy]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Didn't read the article.

His "massive edge" does include those rebates.

Are you saying that you don't believe the whales actually exist?

Note: My definition of a "whale" is someone who wagers $100m per year.

Yep I'm the king of e-cigs!! I made the tote board dude rich too. We caught lightning. Lol rags to riches. I also have degrees in nuclear medicine so... But I actually know the wells personally was there to actually see it. Anybody that makes 100,000 a year is a whale. I bet there's not 10 on here that make that.

[teddy]

[QUOTE=headhawg;2766342]This post is a perfect example of why I only believe posts from about 4 or 5 members here. Recently you posted a mediocre exacta idea, asked for a bad post button here instead of on the HTR forum where Ken can see it, and had some other amateurish handicapping posts. And yet we are to believe that you are some kind of insider who can hit and $80K payoff? Color me skeptical.

Perhaps you were a contestant on the To Tell The Truth game show back in the 60s. "Will the real Teddy please stand up."[/QUOTE

Really you think it's hard to hit an $80,000 pick 5 if you have a $65 horse and you have it I think I had it three times. I'm sorry but that's called luck hahaha. I've had multiple $50,000 pick-sixes that doesn't make me a good handicapper and just means I've been doing it a long time. Oh yes I like to look at different things but it says a hobby level. I won't say how much I make a year but this is a hobby for me boys this isn't my bread and butter good Lord. If it was I would be I really skinny dude and I'm not

[teddy]

If you want to get rich find the next iPhone the next electronic cigarette or something that people have to have. Otherwise forget about making it handicapping unless you come up with some incredibly genius ideal like my boys did. Handicapping as a hobby is pretty enjoyable as long as you don't lose your ass. Everybody wants to think they're smarter than the next guy. My boys came up with a way to define an inside or outside by us every day and a front or rear bias everyday and then they have knowledge that nobody else had and they destroyed everybody. You're going to need to come up with a novel idea if you're going to get rich

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Didn't read the article.

His "massive edge" does include those rebates.

Are you saying that you don't believe the whales actually exist?

Note: My definition of a "whale" is someone who wagers $100m per year.

No, that's not what I said. "I'm not buying the stories about apparently massive edge percentages, such as your interlocutor here"...versus the gains made by rebates. Ranogajec as much as stated that in the article.

Hasn't accessing data (my fiduciary just ran a Monte Carlo last month to display my potential gains versus my previous financial institution) become commonplace and data been crunched to death?. Do the whales possess that many proprietary random factors? From the recipe analogies I assumed "No".

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by teddy

If you want to get rich find the next iPhone the next electronic cigarette or something that people have to have. Otherwise forget about making it handicapping unless you come up with some incredibly genius ideal like my boys did. Handicapping as a hobby is pretty enjoyable as long as you don't lose your ass. Everybody wants to think they're smarter than the next guy. My boys came up with a way to define an inside or outside by us every day and a front or rear bias everyday and then they have knowledge that nobody else had and they destroyed everybody. You're going to need to come up with a novel idea if you're going to get rich

And so hypothetically they approach today with this knowledge, but can't be sure of "today's" bias since a bias apparently occurs "everyday". How long did they wait for confirmation? How many races before figuring today's bias in order to bet?

[teddy]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

And so hypothetically they approach today with this knowledge, but can't be sure of "today's" bias since a bias apparently occurs "everyday". How long did they wait for confirmation? How many races before figuring today's bias in order to bet?

Very tight-lipped with their secret. All I know was the outside inside front back bias numbers they used. They would take two or three horses and they would will those with 45 horses and throw out horses that had no chance. That way they got to even and they got the people all of the rebate. They were flat bet winners anyway before the rebate. I used to brag about that I remember that

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

No, that's not what I said. "I'm not buying the stories about apparently massive edge percentages, such as your interlocutor here"...versus the gains made by rebates. Ranogajec as much as stated that in the article.

Hasn't accessing data (my fiduciary just ran a Monte Carlo last month to display my potential gains versus my previous financial institution) become commonplace and data been crunched to death?. Do the whales possess that many proprietary random factors? From the recipe analogies I assumed "No".

Not sure what you mean by proprietary.
Sure, I know the meaning of the word - which has to do with ownership - but not sure what you mean.

If it means combining factors that are readily available to others with well-massed weighting, then yes, they have many.

I know an approximate amount used by two of the whales but not sure what that has to do with this.

Guess I am not following the conversation here.

LOL
I really should read the whole post first.

"... such as your interlocutor here" meant Teddy. LOL

[teddy]

[QUOTE=Dave Schwartz;2766369]Not sure what you mean by proprietary.
Sure, I know the meaning of the word - which has to do with ownership - but not sure what you mean.

If it means combining factors that are readily available to others with well-massed weighting, then yes, they have many.

I know an approximate amount used by two of the whales but not sure what that has to do with this.

Guess I am not following the conversation here.

LOL
I really should read the whole post first.

"... such as your interlocutor here" meant Teddy. LOL[/QUOTE

Patterson's The smartest handicapper I've ever met in my lifetime. Genius. I wonder if he even makes a hundred grand a year

[Speed Figure]

I've seen guys use the word "proprietary" to try and make it look like there software program is really doing something special! when in reality it's doing nothing, but adding this with this to create an illusion like this rating is exclusive!

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Speed Figure

I've seen guys use the word "proprietary" to try and make it look like there software program is really doing something special! when in reality it's doing nothing, but adding this with this to create an illusion like this rating is exclusive!

My intended use of the word was the common way in which speculative investors (horseplayers. etc.) use the word, such as the first link when searching "proprietary factors"...

https://www.institutionalinvestor.co...r-Factor-Funds

That is, factors not shared by the many. Returning then, to the context of my post, I don't believe whales possess that many proprietary factors which would produce a "massive" edge, above and beyond rebates. Again, as one of the biggest players in the world admits in the article I cited. I didn't think this was difficult.

The more important part of my reply to Dave is that I agree with him, in that qualitative, speculative, creative decisions exist vs. the Whales, his "art". I can like a horse due to speculative, creative judgements in the analogous way I subjectively like something because of taste, smell, touch, etc. A machine famously cannot capture subjective "qualia"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

[Speed Figure]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

My intended use of the word was the common way in which speculative investors (horseplayers. etc.) use the word, such as the first link when searching "proprietary factors"...

https://www.institutionalinvestor.co...r-Factor-Funds

That is, factors not shared by the many. Returning then, to the context of my post, I don't believe whales possess that many proprietary factors which would produce a "massive" edge, above and beyond rebates. Again, as one of the biggest players in the world admits in the article I cited. I didn't think this was difficult.

The more important part of my reply to Dave is that I agree with him, in that qualitative, speculative, creative decisions exist vs. the Whales, his "art". I can like a horse due to speculative, creative judgements in the analogous way I subjectively like something because of taste, smell, touch, etc. A machine famously cannot capture subjective "qualia"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

I wasn’t in any means talking about your post! I was just talking about the word proprietary.