any winners - Page 10 - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

PaceAdvantage · 12-15-2005, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triple Trio

The full context of your post is that Benter won money because he had an easy time against stupid opposition, and that anyone here at PA can churn out more advanced software half asleep. Your envy has prevented you from acknowledging what the guy has achieved. Benter might have a lot of things going for him, it doesn't diminsh his outstanding achievements. He and his partner were real trailblazers. Let's give them credit where it's due.

GT, I normally admire your writing. I only jump in because I think you displayed small-mindedness and arrogance towards Benter.

Triple Trio, where are you getting this from? Stop injecting your own words and off-the-mark conclusions into another member's post! I couldn't agree LESS with what you just posted. Man are you out in left field with this one....please step back from the keyboard and reassess the situation before you post another word.

Triple Trio · 12-16-2005, 12:19 AM

PA,

So GT and I have disagreements. I might be right; or I might be wrong. The exchange may be a bit heated. What's so unusual about this situation in an open forum like this? You are also free to think I am an idiot, but please spare me the sermon. Thank you.

PaceAdvantage · 12-16-2005, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triple Trio

PA,

So GT and I have disagreements. I might be right; or I might be wrong. The exchange may be a bit heated. What's so unusual about this situation in an open forum like this? You are also free to think I am an idiot, but please spare me the sermon. Thank you.

I enjoy certain privileges around here. One of them is to comment on anything I damn well please. (Not unlike yourself towards Game Theory)

Basically what I am saying to you is cut the bullshit....you're way out of line and you badly misinterpreted GameTheory's post. I'm also starting to think you're doing this on purpose to get some sort of flame war going, but I'll hold that opinion in check for now....

There, happy?

GameTheory · 12-16-2005, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triple Trio

So GT and I have disagreements. I might be right; or I might be wrong. The exchange may be a bit heated. What's so unusual about this situation in an open forum like this? You are also free to think I am an idiot, but please spare me the sermon. Thank you.

I take it you are Asian yourself and were offended by the phrase "dumb money" as if I were calling the HK people stupid? (Cause that ain't what it means.) I thought we were all horse-players here and knew what these phrases meant. Either that or maybe you are a white guy in HK now trying to crack the HK pools and finding it quite difficult and therefore the suggestion that Benter had an easy time of it (not saying he did) annoys you because it might imply you are not so smart? Either one close?

Let me rephrase -- Benter found that certain cultural biases existed in Hong Kong whereby a large portion of the public found it "unsavory" (for lack of a better term) to use computers and statistics to predict the running of races of live animals. Benter, having a Western cultural bias of own that favors things like computers and stats and tends to ignore the fact that horses are not in fact machines, nevertheless found that his bias helped in this particular situation as he was able to use a computer-based method to arrive at reasonably accurate probabilities for the various equine entrants. (Another reason he was able to do this so well is because of the closed circuit -- only 1400 or so horses to keep track of unlike the thousands in North America. Does the fact that he operated on a closed circuit insult anyone?) And since he was the only one (or one of very few anyway) using these methods in gigantic pools dominated by the public money, his probabilities were naturally not all that correlated with the public's. In other words, he found inefficiencies he was able to take advantage of, and make huge bets without adversely affecting his odds. All of which equals big money for Benter. Good for him.

How these simple statements are small-minded or arrogant regarding Benter or the residents of Hong Kong I can't fathom...

Triple Trio · 12-16-2005, 01:00 AM

[QUOTE=PaceAdvantage]I'm also starting to think you're doing this on purpose to get some sort of flame war going, but I'll hold that opinion in check for now....QUOTE]

I have been on this board for a while (my join date is May 2002). I don't post often because I don't think I am as knowledgeable as other members here.

Now why would I want to start a flame war now??? As I've said, I admire GT's writings in general. It's just that based on my reading of his post, he didn't think much of Benter (who happens to be one of my heroes). Now you can say I was wrong, or that I over-reacted. But to infer from this I want to start a flame war on purpose...

PaceAdvantage · 12-16-2005, 01:05 AM

You're right TT. I take back that last comment. It was out of line.

It's just that I respect GameTheory a whole lot as a member of this board, and don't think it was right of you to go off on him like that....In addition, I didn't agree at all with your take on his post.

NoDayJob · 12-16-2005, 01:38 AM

But it's delivery!

classhandicapper · 12-16-2005, 10:46 AM

oexplayer68,

How many different tracks do you play per day?

I've been under the impression that it was extremely difficult to earn a high ROI playing many different circuits because the incremental information required to pump up the ROI takes a lot of extra time and energy.

It seemed to me that there were two common approaches among the winners I know.

1. Playing many circuits daily with a very narrow edge and most of the profits coming via rebates plus or minus a little.

2. Playing 1 or 2 circuits intensely with a wider edge and larger bets and rebates just piling on top of that.

sjk · 12-16-2005, 01:32 PM

The questions wasw not addressed to me (and I am not $168k ahead this year) so perhaps I should not answer it but here goes.

I play many tracks and since I use a computer to do all of the work I don't believe it affects my ROI in a negative way or creates an undue amount of work. Not sure how high your standards are but I consider myself as having greater than a narrow edge.

Fastracehorse · 12-17-2005, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj

Exactly...think about this, you bet 100 races a day, $20 per race, that is $2,000. You get a 7% rebate, you are ahead $140 before you even start. If you are good enough to break even betting, and you play 20 days a month, that is $2800 profit per month. Multiply that by 12...anyway, you all can do the math, but there are a lot of pluses to this approach.

Not trying to be a smart a$$ but with a 7% rebate you'd be up $140 with one $2000 bet too......no??

fffastt

GameTheory · 12-17-2005, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fastracehorse@DRF

Not trying to be a smart a$$ but with a 7% rebate you'd be up $140 with one $2000 bet too......no??

No, unless you can find a wager that pays off the same as a cancel (gives you your money back) and still gives you the rebate. You'd either lose the bet and be down $140 - $2000 = -1860 or be up $140 + ($2000 x payoff odds)...

Fastracehorse · 12-17-2005, 08:15 PM

If some of the '200 races a day' players would give us an example of a selection process.

I'm not skeptical that it can be successful.

From my perspective: The '200 races a day' approach would kill some nice p-4 tickets for example.

'Digging deep' while handicapping does have it's merits.

It would be interesting if we did have comparative examples of 'prime playing' versus 'volume playing.'

fffastt

GameTheory · 12-17-2005, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fastracehorse@DRF

If some of the '200 races a day' players would give us an example of a selection process.

I'm not skeptical that it can be successful.

From my perspective: The '200 races a day' approach would kill some nice p-4 tickets for example.

'Digging deep' while handicapping does have it's merits.

It would be interesting if we did have comparative examples of 'prime playing' versus 'volume playing.'

I for one never said that # of wagers = # of races played. You might have 10 wagers in a single race on a variety of horses in different pools.

The best way to go is to play both ways. Do a bunch of quickie volume stuff, and then pile the prime bets on top of that. Bet on anything where you have an advantage, bottom-line...

Fastracehorse · 12-17-2005, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GameTheory

No, unless you can find a wager that pays off the same as a cancel (gives you your money back) and still gives you the rebate. You'd either lose the bet and be down $140 - $2000 = -1860 or be up $140 + ($2000 x payoff odds)...

Either way you are going to get the $140 rebate correct??

Thanx,

fffastt

Fastracehorse · 12-17-2005, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GameTheory

I for one never said that # of wagers = # of races played. You might have 10 wagers in a single race on a variety of horses in different pools.

The best way to go is to play both ways. Do a bunch of quickie volume stuff, and then pile the prime bets on top of that. Bet on anything where you have an advantage, bottom-line...

Do you have an example of a factor you use for volume playing?? - I remember once you mentioned blinkers on in a post to me.

fffastt